ML20005C044
| ML20005C044 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/13/1981 |
| From: | Grossman H, Paris O, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | BIER, MILLS, CHRISTA-MARIA, ET AL, CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8111180316 | |
| Download: ML20005C044 (4) | |
Text
'
d UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MNRc ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 81 NOV 13 P3:11 Before Administrative Judges:
Herbert Grossman, Chairman
, S E C R E TA R '.'
Dr. Oscar H. Paris J U3 & SERVICE Frederick J. Shon UANCH SERVED NOV131981
)
In the Matter of:
)
Docket No. 50-155-0LA
)
(S t F' Pool CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant)
November 13, M
~
/2)
(Vp
}P f,Cb
,~y bblLj f i
[
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Directing Parties to Confer on the (f;
NOV171981 b
Status of Interrogatories)
, ' 5 yggm:n ;-
MEMORANDUM
,A X
/f>
On August 9,1981, Intervenors Christa-Maria, et al., scrvedN rD Interrt ;atories on Ccn 2ers Power Co. (Set III). On August 31, Licensee filed Motion of Ccnsumers Power Co. For a Protective Order and Objections to Interrogatories of Christa-Maria, et al., (Set III).
On September 18, Christa-Maria, et al., filed a Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Response to Licensee's Motion for a Protective Order.
In' Intervenors' Motion to Compel, they note that, of the group of interrogatories at issue, eleven (Nos. 10, 15, 16, 19, 25, 31, 35, 43, 53 and 54) would be withdrawn. We consider the issue settled with respect to those interrogatories. Another ten interrogatories relate solely to proposed contentions which we lave not yet ruled upon, and we will therefore defer ruling on their relevance. Our order reintes only to the remaining twenty-six disputed interrogatories.
V f0 9
8111180316 811113
$$k PDR ADOCK 05000.t55 G
PDR.
4 2_
In its " Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings" released May 20, 1981, the Comnission said that it was " concerned that the number of interrogatories served in some cases may place an undue burden on the parties... and may, as a consequence, delay the start of the hearing without reduc '- the scope of length of the hearing."
The Commission went on to instruct the Boards as follows:
Accordingly, the boards s: auld manage and supervise all discovery, including not only the initial discovery following admission of cor,tentions, but also any discovery conducted thereafter. The Commission endorses the policy of voluntary discovery, and encourages the boards, in consultation with the parties, to establish time frames for the completion of both voluntary and involuntary discovery.
Each individual board shall determine the method by which it supervises the discovery process.
In considering the conflict over the disputed interrogatories we have examined the Intervenors' interrogatories (Set III), the Licensee *s notion for a protective order, and the Intervenors' Motion to Compel.
We have also studied some of the documents cited by the Licensee as already providing answers to certain of 'the interrogatories.
Our analysis leads us to conclude that the respective motions for a protective order and to compdl answers) are not yet ripe for Board action.
Intervenors and the Licensee need to engage in more good-faith negotiating before asking this Board to settle their dispute. We stand ready to decide questions of genuine differences of opinion over substantive issues which good-faith negotiating cannot resolve, but we do not have the time or the inclination to referee legal gares.
s.'
. Therefore, we are directing the Intervenors and Licensee to return to the conference table and resume voluntary discovery efforts.
ORDER For all of the foregoing reasons and based upon a consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is, this 13th day of November 1981 URDERED THAT:
(1)
Intervenors' Interrogatories (Set III) "os. 10, 15, 16, 19, 25, 31, 35, 43, 45, 53, and 54 need not be answereo by Licensee.
(2) Our ruling on Interrogatories 4, 8, 32, 33, 44, 50, 51, 52 (two so numbered), and 61 is deferred pending our future ruling on admissibility of the contentions to which they relate.
(3)
Intervenors and Licensee shall meet at a mutually agreed upon time and place or times and places, but the first such meeting shall take place no later than Noverc:ber 30, 1981. At that meeting or these teetings the two parties shall endeavor to reach agreement with regard to which interrogatories shall be dropped because they are either irrelevant to any admiuted contention cr because they have already been answei ad.
The two parties shall also endeavor to agree on which interrogatories shall be answered by the Licensee. Our study of the filings suggests that some of the interrogatories are, in fact, not.rclevant and should be dropped, while others are relevant and call for information tha-cannot reasonably be obtained from any source except the Licensee. Additionally, in some instances where Licensee claims to have already provided answers, it has not done so.
Therefore, we expect significant concessions by both parties.
(4) A joint report of the results of such meeting (s) shall be submitted to us by Intervenors and Licensee no later than December 30, 1981.
(5)
If a controversy still exists following these negotiations, the Intervenors may file another motion lo compel answers within 10 days of the filing of the report called for in (4).
Such a motion must include, for each interrogatory in controversy, a reference to the contention to which the interrogatory is relevant and a detailed explanation of why it is relevant.
If documents (other than ASLB, ASLAB, or Commission issuances, or Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations) are cited in support of the
,5 Intervenors' arguments, copies of the page or pages cited shall be attached to the filing; if more thar.
two pages are referenced in any given citation, then the relevant parts of those pages shall be underscored.
(6) If Intervenors file another motion to compel, Licensee may file its response within 10 days of receipt of Intervenors' motion to compel.
In its motion, Licerisee shall fully explain why it is not necessary to answer.
If any documents are cited in support of Lice.see's arguments, then copies of the relevant pages of such documents shall be provided with the motion in the manner set forth for the Intervenors in (5)
FOR THE ATO!11C SAFETY AND LICENSli!G BOARD MS MA m Herbert Grossman, Chairman ADt11NISTRATIVE JUDGE ccw,dcwo r
Dr. Oscar H. Paris ADhlfliSTRATIVE JUDGE j'0 1
!I
/
e bD'( I?.lh{V.', b /ksj Frederic' Jj. S orP '/
(
ADMINISTRtTIVE JUDGE t
/
L/
9 y n
--.