ML20063A106
| ML20063A106 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute |
| Issue date: | 08/17/1982 |
| From: | Brittigan R ARMED FORCES RADIOBIOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8208240194 | |
| Download: ML20063A106 (10) | |
Text
P5
~. ..
r
> 'l s,.
00CKETED .
USHFC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
???,?.5?C%Tmt
^
O /,CE BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ARMED FORCES RADIOBIOLOGY Docket No. 50-170 RESEARCH INSTITUTE (Renewal of Facility (TRIGA-Type Research Reactor) License No. R-84)
LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FURTHER SUPPLEMENT RESPONSES AND.
INTERVENOR CNRS'S SUPPLEMENTARY RESPONSE TO LICENSEE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES On July 12, 1982 this Board entered an Order directing the Intervenor, Citizens for Nuclear Reactor Safety, Inc. (CNRS), to provide to the Licensee full and complete answers to specified interrogatories not later than 20 days from the date of the Order. On August 2, 1982, l the Intervenor filed its supplementary response to the Licensee's First Set of Interrogatories and a Motion for Leave to Further Supplement Interrogatory- Responses.
Review of the supplementary response discloses that the Intervenor has failed to comply with the July 12, 1982 Order. As will be discussed below, the answers 820 8 ze U (9t{ h O'O
i to several interrogatories remain incomplete, evasive, or both. The Motion for Leave to Further Supplement Interrogatory Responses contains only a general reference
- S to " good faith efforts in the coming weeks" and appears to be an attempt to continue the first round of discovery indefinitely. CNRS intervened in this license renewal process on December 9, 1980. Now, nearly two years later, we have not proceeded beyond the first round ,
of discovery. The Licensee, while it has been permitted to continue operation under the terms and conditions of Facility License No. R-84, has not been able to perform vital experiments which are dependent upon amendments sought in this renewal proceeding. Accordingly, it is essential that the Intervenor be required to expeditiously complete its response to the Licensee's First Set of Interrogatories.
THE INTERVENOR'S RESPONSE TO THE LICENSEE'S FIRST-SET OF INTERROGATORIES, AS SUPPLEMENTED,
~
IS INCOMPLETE, EVASIVE, OR BOTH The, Licensee accepts the Intervenor's original and supplemental response, taken collectively, for the following interrogatories: 6, 7b, 7c, 8b, 10a, 15a, 16c, 16d, 16e, 17a, 17b, 18b, 19b, 19d, 19e, 20c, 21b, i
2 .
l l
~
-~_
/
W 21c, 21d, 22c, 23b, 249, 25a, 25b, 26a, 27d, 27h, 28a, 32c, 35f, 35h. Licensee's acceptance of these responses does not, of course, indicate the Licenseg agr_ees with the responses. Rather, the acceptance reflects only Licensee's determination that these interrogatories have been answered adequately.
The Intervenor refused to answer interrogatories 12a, 12c, 12d, 13a, 13b, 13c, 13d, 13e, 14a, 14b, 14c, i 15b, 15c, 16a, 16b, 16f, 17c, 17d, 18a, 18c, 18d, 19a, 19c, 19f, 20a, 20b, 20d, 21a, 2ie, 22a, 22d, 22e, 26g, 261, claiming that sufficient information is not available to answer these interrogatories. The Licensee submits that sufficient information is available in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Public Document Room or has been provided directly to the Interveno'r by the Licensee.
In many of these interrcgatories, the Licensee is simply asking for the Intervenor's feelings, perceptions, theories, and hypotheses. If the Intervenor's contentions have any underlying bases, the Intervenor should, at this point,-be ab'le to articulate such bases. The Intervenor's several references to its second round of discovery are particularly troublesome. It appears that the CNRS wants to delay answering the Licensee's First Set of Interrogatories until the second round of discovery 3
_ - _ - ._________________________-__-___a
is complete, thereby depriving the Licensee of the opportu-nity to ask further questions based upon the responses.
The Intervenor must not be permitted to so subvert the discovery process.
Although the Interve. tor provided a response to interrogatories 7d, 7e(l) , 7e (2) , 7e(4), 8c, 12b, 15b, 15c, 15d, 22b, 23c, 239 , 23h, 231, 24a, 24c, 24h, 241, 25c, 28b, 28c, 28e, 28f, 28g, 28h, 281, 28j, 28k, 29a, 29b, 29c, 29d, 29e, 29f, 30a, 30b, 30c, 30d, 31b, 31c, 35g, 351, 36a(2), 36a(3), 36a(4), 36c, 36d, 36g, the response did not answer or address the interrogatory as stated. Moreover, in its response to interrogatories 7d, 7e (1) , 7e(2), 7e(4), 7j, 7n, 23a, 23c, 23d, 239, 23h, 231, 24a, 24c, 24h, 28b, 28c, 28d, 28e, 28f, 28g, 28h, 281, 28j, 28k, 29a, 29b, 29c, 29d, 29e, 29f, 30a, 30b, 30c, 30d, 31b, 31c, 35e, 36a (2) , 36a(3), 36a(4),
36c, 36d, 369, the Intervenor further confused the issues by referring to voluminous materials previously filed without clearly specifying those portions of such materials applicable to the interrogatory. Absent clarification j
by the Intervenor, the Licensee cannot determine which portion or portions, if any, of the referenced materials are intended by CNRS to be the response to a particular -
interrogatory.
4
The Intervenor failed to provide complete answers to interrogatories 7j, 7n, 8c, 239 , 23h, 231, 24c, 28j, 30a, 30b, 30c, 35g, 351, 36a(3), 36a(4), 36d because it did not provide justification or cite supporting documentation as required by the interrogatories.
The most blatent failure exists with respect to interrogatories 9a, 10h, 27a, 27b, 27c, 27e, 27f, 279, 32b, 34a, 34b, 34c, 34d, 34e, 34f. The Intervenor, in clear violation of the July 12, 1982 Order, failed to even attempt to answer these interrogatories.
CONCLUSION The interrogatories here at issue were filed on September 30, 1981 and responses were originally due on October 30, 1981. Ten months later, the interrogatories have not yet been fully answered. Under the circumstances, it is clear that granting the Intervenor's open ended motion for leave to further supplement will not advance the course of these proceedings.
I The Licensee submits that this Board should deny the.Intervenor's motion, establish a date certain upon which the Intervenor will be required to provide full and complete answers to the interrogatories listed above, and rule that the contentions to which any interrogatories relate which are not fully and completely answered by that date will be dismissed. Although this sanction may seem extreme, 5
, the Intervenor has already failed to comply with the Order issued in response to the Licensee's Motion to Compel. Failure to assert control over the course of these proceedings will further delay the Licensee's ability to perform needed research. The Intervenor must be required to come forward with its case, if any.
A form of Order consistent with the relief requested is submitted herewith.
SNf %_
ROBERT L. BRITTIGAN Counsel for Licensee I
l
\
6 i
i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ARMED FORCES RADIOBIOLOGY Docket No. 50-170 RESEARCH INSTITUTE (Renewal of Facility (TRIGA-Type Research Reactor) License No. R-84) '
ORDER Upon consideration of the Licensee's Response to Intervenor's Motion for Leave to Further Supplement Responses and Intervenor CNRS's Supplementary Response to Licensee's First Set of Interrogatories, the opposition i
thereto, and the entire record herein, the Board finds, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.740 (f), that Intervenor CNRS' Responses to Licensee's First Set of Interrogatories, as supplemented by Intervenor CNRS's Supplementary Response to Licensee's First Set of Interrogatories, are incomplete, evasive, or both, with respect to interrogatories numbered 7d , 7e (l) , 7e(2), 7e(4), 7j, 7n, 8c, 9a, 10h, 12a, 12b, 12c, 12d, 13a, 13b, 13c, 13d, 13e, 14a, 14b, 14c, 15b, 15c, 15d, 16a, 16b, 16f, 17c, 17d, 18a, 18c, 18d, 19a, 19c, 19f, 20a, 20b, 20d, 21a, 21e, 22a, 22b, 22d, 22e, 23a, 23c, 23d, 23g, 23h, 23i, 24a, 24c, 24h, 241, 25c,
-w --- c- - -~m-- - - - _, , _ . .
- - y - - __ __ -,
269, 261, 27a, 27b, 27c, 27e, 27f, 27 9, 28b, 28c, 28d, 28e, 28f, 28g, 28h, 281, 28j, 28k, 29a, 29b, 29c, 29d, 29e, 29f, 30a, 30b, 30c, 30d, 31b, 31c, 32b, 34a, 34b, 34c, 34d, 34e, 34f, 35e, 35g, 351, 36a (2) , 36a (3) , 36a(4),
36c, 36d, 36g and that the citizens for Nuclear Reactor Safety, Inc. has therefore failed to respond to the cited interrogatories and failed to comply with the .
Order issued on July 12, 1982.
- Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Intervenor Citizens for Nuclear Reactor Safety, Inc. provide to the Licensee full and complete answers.to the interrogatories listed above not later than 30 days from the date of this Order and it is further ORDERED that the contentions to which any of the interrogatories listed above relate will be dismissed unless the interrogatories are fully and completely answered not later than 30 days from the date of this Order.
e a
2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
, ARMED FORCES RADIOBIOLOGY Docket No. 50-170 ~
RESEARCH INSTITUTE (Renewal of Facility (TRIGA-Type Research Reactor) License No. R-84)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF DUPLICATE SIGNED -
COPIES OF 17 AUGUST 1982 FILING I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the foregoing " LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FURTHER SUPPLEMENT RESPONSES AND INTERVENOR 4
CNRS'S SUPPLEMENTARY RESPONSE TO LICENSEE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES" and " ORDER" were mailed this 17th day of August, 1982, by United Stat 6s Mail, First Class, to the following:
Mrs. Helen Hoyt, Chairman Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Ernest E. Hill Administrative Judge Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.
University of California P.O. Box 808, L-123 Livermore, CA 94550 Dr. David R. Schink Administrativ'e Judge Department of Oceanography Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77840 I
9
. - ,w - . - . _ _ -. . _ r -
- . _ - - .. . _ _ - _ - =__ .. --. ._ _ .- -
I Mr. Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.
Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Elizabeth B. Entwisle, Esq.
8118 Hartford Avenue Silver Spring, MD 20910 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel ;
1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (5)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Secretary (21)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ~
ATTN: Chief, Docketing and Service Section Washington, D.C. 20555 ROBERT L. BRITTIGAN Counsel for Licensee 1
s
+
f 2
-_ _ - - - - - - ._- .-