ML20126K801
| ML20126K801 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/12/1981 |
| From: | Cotter B Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20037D081 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8105210457 | |
| Download: ML20126K801 (9) | |
Text
t q
'l.. '
/p* "8 C g'c;
..g.
UNITED STATES
!w,, igg;' j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- 'C.5 n. f ~
f ATOMIO SAFETY AND LICENSINo BOARD PANEL D,e[
WASHIN CTON. o.o. 20555 May 12, 19El MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Hendrie Comissioner Gilinsky Comissioner Bradford Comissioner Ahearne k%
l
'FROM:
B. Paul Cotter, Jr.p Chief Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel SUSJECT:
PANEL RESPONSE TO PROPOSAL TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF INTERROGATORIES' FILED IN A PROCEEDING The Licensing Panel favors the control and management of discovery.
Attached is a sumary of the Panel Members' views on the original proposal te limit the numbsr of intstr ge.torias filad in.ny precasding. Tha data also. includes five staff members' views.
( Also attached is an estimate of time from the SSER to the initial decision.)
The members' conclusions vary.
Divergences seem traceable to views of lawyers versus scientists and full time versus part time memoers.
Of-26 members polled, 15 do not oppose a limitation.
Eleven members do copose a limitation. All but one of those eleven nonetheless answered some or all of questions 2 through 11.
Five permanent lawyer members and two permanent technical members cpposed any limitation on interrogatories.
Two permanent lawye s and three perma-nent technical members did not oppose a limitation.
I see three possible courses of action:
(1) limit the number of inter-ro atories in the entire proceeding by rule, subject to Board discovery; (2
state the limitation as a guideline in Section 0 of the Policy THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS POOR QUAUTY PAGES 8105210 M
Statement; or (3) limit the number of interrogatories af ter the SSER sub-ject to Soard discretion.
In the case of a rule change, I prefer the last because of the problems I anticipate with the firs Limiting the number of interrogatories in the entire proceeding may well have the following consecuences:
(1) it could bias discovery in favor of those parties that can afford to use depositions in place of interroga-tories;(2) additional staff time will be required to respond to an addi-tional round of motions for additional interrogatories; (3) Board rulings will vary from strict to. liberal; and (4) fewer interrogatories more
- carefully drawn could require staff work in answering comparable to that for more, less carefully phrased interrogatories.
Time frames become important after the SSER.
Prevention of discovery abuse -
prior to the SSER is also important, but it becomes urgent thereaf ter'.
Consecuently, if the Commission wishe's to limit one aspect of discovery, I f avor a limitation of 50 interrogatories after the SSER, subject to Board discretion.
Of course, my preference is specific guidance in the policy statement rather than by a new requirement in the rules of procedure. The former course better recognizes the diversity in size, c0molexity, and needs among licensing proceedings.
Attach:: mms.._......
W 9
)
i
--p g $ g - 7
+ * - - - - - +
p w--
w-e-+-
r,we-*
- r-
AGREE WITH IDE!. OF A LIMITATION (20)
DISAGREE (11)
OUESTION NO. 1
( al (b)
No Limitation Who should 1.imits on. interrogatories apply to: 22 7
(a)
Limit interrogatories filed on the staff.
(b)
Limit interrogatories filed on all parties.
Recommendation:.(b)
Comments
"(a)" is appropriate only if limitations are also placed on depositions; if not,
"(b)" 'is appropriate.
Number of pages of' interrogatories should also be limited.
OUESTION NO. 2
( a) -(b)
(c) Nc Limitaticn To which proceedings should rule apply?
20 2
1 (a)
All oroceedings.
(b)
CP, OL, and license enendment proceedings.
(c)
OLs, C?s (excluding Antitrust).
Recommend ation:
(a)
Comments Apply limitation to all proceedings except Antitrust.
Apply to OLs and amendments; explore idea of applying to cps.
(Attachment 1)
Page 1 of 5 pages.
.- ~........ -...
. - _.. - -. _ - ~,. -.. _. -....... -. _.... _.. _. _ _. _ _... _. _ _. _ _. _
t.tmia snuusu ur A numver ut - usurrug escr in i
e filGd:
( a)' b' y a. party en another party.
(b) by a party on' another party per each contention.
Recommendation: (a)
Coments
"(b)" should be adopted.with the additional limitation that discovery should be permitted only between-parties adverse to each other on a given contention.
OUESTION NO. 4 (a)
(b)
(c)
No Limitation Number-of interrogatories. permitted should Ei 3
2 5
cover:
( a).the entire proceeding.
(b) each SER, EIS or supplement thereto.
(c) Permit X number on safety issues and X number on environmental issues.
Recommencation:
( a) coments None.
b (Attachment 1)
Page 2 of 5 pages.
...... ~ ~. ~ " ~ ~
" ' " ~
'""~"*~~1G.
.::ua.w. ::i..::::
..a.....a.
.......r::~ ~
- r
...- n
~. -
.......:w Z.'-.E. "~.'.'$:'b:."'
-..n.......-....
':.NN YN:555* !5'?
..m
??'~.~
. m -.
u::=
^~
"=
=;a::!"":-
' " ~.. ~. '....
.:a.;,:r.
,,j.
m
- :2.
3_.,.
ff.
- c......
.r.i..
4
~:,.usi;'..-..
.:;gy
.. :r
. ;.;;,,,.;,;,;.;.;.g;.;;;.;,;;;;g,7gg.,.
- n; :
- vanw.y- --.....
. ;. ;....;;;.g 3.;g7;.j;,.;,3..;.,. 3,.,.,...,,.jg g.;g;,,;;.,g.gg.
. 3;.,. _..
...= n..;3...
,;;g,g..g.3;.).,3; g
3
... -. ps :
..,.._.,m.~.
_ -,, _, _. _,. _...,. ~ _,. _.. ~. _ _,... _ - -. _.. _. _.,
6-JA A
4. *-
5P d6
+84 i
M4 4
2--
4-e-4--
44 a-4 4 83-*46a+-
4
-am.
OVESTION NO.-5 (a)
(b)
(c) No limitation What isLthe number lthat will be permitted 4
-11 5
7 absent leave for the Board 'to file additional interrogatories?
(a); 25.
(b)' 50
- (c) 75 Recommendation:
50 or 75.
Commenti Limit:to'50 or'75:
3.
' Limit'to 30i 1.
- 00ESTION NO. 6 (a)
(c)
No Limitation What cons-itutes. an interrogatory?
4 22
- 4
~
(a) Leach subpart of a question counts as an interrogatory.
(b)
Each subpart. counts as an' interrogatory except that requests for supporting reasoning or documents relied upon or j
the name of a witness who will testify as to a matter covered by an interrogatory response will not be counted separate
-from the interrogatory response.
t Recommendation:
(b)
Comger.t s No response:
1.
i (Attachment 1)
Page 3 of 5 pages.
t' 5
3 e r -o
. g v-- w.,- a y g a-e n w a w. y.,, p v -,-..,,m,-rgg*,.~.,-,e,we,,-w-,v->--e wae-,,--,v,->wne,vne-e+-.vmo,,v--n,w...r-m--.,,a.----e e,-,,wew,-
e v
, - ~.,e-+=
-, ~.-
e
QUESTION NO. 7 (a)
(b)
No Limitation The standard the Scard should apoly in granting la 5
3 a recuest to pose additional interrogatories should be:
(a) A response is essential for the party to adequately prepare its case and the information is not available from another source (similar to present rule applied to staff).
(b)
Standard (a) plus other more restrictive criteria.
[ANY IDEAS?]
Recommendation: (b)
[ANY IDEAS?]
Comments Board should have' authority to restate or consolidate interrogatories and to change the method cf ootaining information.
No response:
2 Adopt as standard that interrogatories are reasonably necessary to prepare for tr i al.
In applying standard, consider the adequacy, candor, and forthrightness of previous answers.
Acopt as standard:
"a response is essential for the party to adecuately prepare its case."
Ac0ct as standard:
" good cause shown."
OUESTION 8.
(a}
(b)
No Limitation 3
De se apply revised rule to present proceedings?
25 (a) Yes, but acoly presoectively to interrogatories no; yet filed.
(b) Yes, but apply retroactively.
Recommendation:
(a).
Comments No response:
2.
(Attacnment 1)
Page 4 of 5 pages.
m
,m#
,. +.:
u..
a m
4.wm
____m 1
OUESTION NO. 9 (a)
(b)
No Limitation Do we permit motions to compel?
26 2
1 4-(a)
Yes.
(b) No.
,a)
(
Recommend ation:
Comments No response:
2 y
OUESTION NO. 10 (a)
(b)
No Limitation Do we permit written responses to motions to 14 13 1
compel?
( a) Yes.
(b)
No.
Recommendation:
(b)
Comments No response:
2.
Should be at discretion of the Board.
OUESTION 11 (a)
(b)
No Limitation Do we reduce time provided for service of 26 3
1 documents by permitting Board at its discretion 1
to re:uire service by air express mail?
Recommendation:
(a)
Comments
- No response:
1 r
(Attachment 1) e c Page 5 of 5 pages.
5-
...-,,,..,w,,~,...-e-,,,,.y,
.,y-.,,%_
,, -.,, _,.,,., +..,.,,
,w-,..,,w,ew,m,,-,,--
.-y.....w...
...,,,,-,-.-,,--,-,--ry,,,,--e e-,
~
l e,ce t
i s.e. ~ f F.'.- J V w:....n:
,.., :.m 9.....
- u. -.:.
s c e r.:..
r e:s
- 3. #. -....=.'..n '...c.c:.
-'. a. s
- a...
?. '.
'.. s. a.v a.. y e n.e. $. '. #.
- e....... a.m.. a. e.. '.
r e l a.y s...c
,r. a.,.x. g. i n -
.c."..a... i m.n.s.
t New c:ntentions 'sased en new informa-icn ir 55 ?. filec.
z 7 ga.sa..teggI 2.,....,., t. a. g,,. g.,., g.q s.., y 4..,. i. e.,
e
.y...
- , e.s.. a. g. g ev
..i.
a.......:....
- n... a.
. i. ~ n s '.
- 1 e " a s n *.*. a. s s a.v.
2-FHC to censider dav 12 filines. Scard haars cral responses of
~
3:af f-anc rul es c. rally.
M::icns for.re:cr.s.ideration made crally and s
Dr.er su:se:uen iy recu:sc c writ,.n; an-ci s pes e. c: erally.
served.
i,...
e.,:: i..
- e.. i.. i..., 3
- a.......... n.,. <.,. 5 < <. ;,. c e e e., z. -.
- ... i.,...
n t
........i..,.., s i,1,. c.
- n..., e...,.......... g,. 5 s.v,..
,..i. ns..
...4.,.i d,.,,..
- ....i...s
....i..s........
....,.,r.....
- i. e.., v..y
, s. <....
- s. i..,. a..
e.
.,.i..
....,e. ee.
ive.c i i....
n 1,-
r.e:Ord Cl0ses.
- t. e n. i. p.
s 1,. :
- r.,. i..... i c.
. r... $ 3. s.
i.....
r...
t r
?... a..u..... s.e
..... s,. a.
- t. i. o e i... g.
- 0..
.C., 4. # ' e..... g,.
- . i r,.d i. n c. e.
.. i a...s.,...,
t.
A'n.,.
..i 3
..r.-
. i.. <,1.. ; s i.
- e...
(A::acnmen 2)
Page 1 of 2 ee w
V
1'r' it at T
TPw' V
q e T1 fr gw Tw--
dyM y w-g a
w-p M-e m y
-t+t-eW Wg'y-r-+%--
wW r
.--N wwwe*
ym+-g-g-e e--
w wa7-t-Wv."'="WN* * *-e-
.. ~.-..
The above time-line is designed :: maximize the perio: of time between
+
the ; rehearing =cnferenes (when rulings are made en ne,cly file: ::ntentiens' a a.." r a.. ". *. s '. s '. a r.= " " '.. ' a. a.a i i r.' a... - :.=... '. a. c ',
>r.."
.' =.
.e*> r*.
.5.e-he>. dinc.
Thus this time-line ene passes 35 cays between the prehearing conference and the star: cf the hearing, whereas ne 03 -EL: Alt =rnative Schedule en: mpasses only 45 days.
Prevf ding for this 1:nger period sh:uld increase the likeliheed that prehearing pro:ecures will not delay the start of the hea ring.
The time-line assumes that dis::very be ween a:plicant and intervencr will be :: pleted by 30 days after the SSER.
Conse:uently the time-line f::Usses en procedures engaged in be ween Staff and interven:r.
..,. <.... *e i n e e n.,..,-.
.-eyo..,.
- e. -.... e. e...,
- e. v-.. 3,.....=. ". v
- d. 'i.e a s i. i e n e
a s.
.w p.
- ..A.s.. '. m. a ~..'. g. g. *. w. e s l a *e e-s *..*. 8
- .. i.t a
- ** * - *
- i.v.h. a... a. r.^ n
.0 m
nearing than :: seek :: remcve an issue by this pr::ecure.
The fa:: tha the j
present rule re:;uires these motions :: be filed at leas: 45 cays prier ::
hearin; means that, if the hearing is :: s a r: en day 105, ::icns f:r sum-cary dis: siti n must be filed by day 53, prior :: :he :cmple:icn cf
- is::very.
Rem: val of the 45-day lini a-ion woul: make these me:icns m:re i
usefui.
f 4
4 (A::acnmen-2) 1 Pac.e 2 of 2
. l
.~a l
_......,. _. _...... _.., _. _.. _.. _. _.. _, - ~ _ _. _. _. _... -..... _.. _
. -