ML19340D197
| ML19340D197 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 12/22/1980 |
| From: | Bowers E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8012290284 | |
| Download: ML19340D197 (5) | |
Text
Ic n
/w;bc, b\\
u UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g g-g 3 ',$$Q ? %)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g;
g.n r--j
,ni.... ja g/
d'p4 y
L'Tc ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
n
/.,
ia ;3 \\
Before Administrative Judges:
Elizabeth S. Bowers, Chairman t
Dr. Oscar H. Paris sgD Dr. Emmeth Luebke Eo OEc g, NO f
In the Matter of:
)
Docket No. 50-142 OL THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
)
(Pr p sed Renewal of OF CALIFORNIA
)
racility License)
(UCLA Research Reactor)
)
December 22, 1980 GPSER (INTERVENOR'S MOTION TO COMPEL)
Intervenor Bridge the Gap's first set of Interrogatories to Applicant relative to Contention II is undated and was not served on the Board until after Applicant's Response of November 14, 1980 was received.
10 CFR 2.740b requires full service of interrogatories.
When the document was finally received by the Board there was no service listing attathed, so the Board has no information concerning service.
On November 28, 1980, Intervenors filed a Motion to Compel further Answers to Interrogatories 4, 5, 6 and 9.
The motion was filed beyond the time requirement of 10 CFR 2.740(f) but not in the extreme.
It also did not have an attached service list.
However, we note that D5c}
Intervenor's filings of November 28 concerning a prehearing 5
/0 9 9 g b,a 1 8 'd C r
. conference and position on contentions did have a service list attached so it appears the problem is resolved.
The interrogatories are based on Intervenors Contention II, which was adnitted by the Board as follows:
"The Applicant has applied for the wrong class of license.
Applicant has applied for a Class 104 license (espite the fact that in the p ast, more than fif* y percent of reactor funding and more than fifty pcreent of the hours of reactor usage have been devoted to the sale of services, rather than research or education.
Given this history, and without any indication that Applicant intends to change reactor usage, Applicant under 10 CFR S 50.21(b) and 10 CFR S 50.22 should have applied for a Class 103 license.
Specifically.:
Applicant should apply for a Class 103 license because (a)
Applicant 's financial statements indicate that more than half of the reactor funding comes from sources other than the UCLA School of Engineering and Applied Sciences,
and (b) the application indicates more than half of the reactor operating time is spent on commercial, non-educational proj ects."
The principles behind the discovery rules were succinctly articulated by the Supreme Court of the United States in the landmark case of Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S.
495, 91 L. Ed. 451 (1947) in the following language:
~_ -_..
4 "We agree, of course, that the deposition-discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treat-ment.
No longer can the time-honored cry of ' fishing expedition' serve to preclude a party from inquiring into the facts underlying his opponent's case.1/
Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation.
To that end, either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession.
The deposition-discovery procedure simply advances the stage at which the disclosure can be compelled frcm the time of trial to the period preceding it, thus reducing the possibility of surprise.
But discovery, like all matters of procedure, has ultimate and necessary boundaries.
As indicated by Rules 30 (b) and (d) and 31 (d), limitations inevitably arise when it can be shown that the examination is being conducted in bad faith or in such a manner as to annoy, embarrass or oppress the person subj ect to the inquiry.
And as Rule 26 provides, further limitations come into existence when the inquiry touches upon the irrelevant or encroaches upon the recognized domains of privilege.
(329 U.S. at pages 507-409) lI One of the chief arguments against the ' fishing expedition' objection is the idea that discovery is mutual--that while a party may have to disclose his case, he can at the same time tie his opponent down to a definite position.
Pike and Willis,
' Federal Discovery in Operation,' 7 U of Chicago L Rev 297, 303."
The interrogatorier are without doubt relevant to the admitted contention.
All relate to I-~arvenor's contention that more than half of the reactor operating time is commercial and more than half of the funding is from sources other than UCLA.
While it might be true that everything concerned with y
--g<
y 4~-r-y u
g
-4 y
,,g y,,
,,-e,,.,.-
c
,,-s4 y,e,,.-,,gm-
the operation of the reactor or the University is " educational",
we do not think this si=ple answer is responsive to the infor-mation being sought.
Applicant has informed the Intervenors that there is no separate account for the reactor since all monies are pooled within the NEL and information is not avail-able in the categories selected by the Intervenors.
The fact that monies are eventually pooled or commingled does not establish the non-existence of preliminary records.
We find it difficul: to believe a sophisticated university does not have in its accounting records the information being sought.
Intervenors breakout categories may no: track UCLA's accounting system, but relevant information must be available in some form in UCLA records.
We do not ask Applicant to fabricate information from the i
past or engage in an effort to reshape its records to the Intervenor's categories, but simply to be open and candid as to the details of all existing records.
This may well have already been done but it appears Applicants response to a is lim'ted to Intervenor's choice of " categories."
great extent Intervenors should promptly pursue all records offered to date or records of fered in the future.
i I '
3_
The motion to compel is, this 22nd day of December 1980 GRANTED and the Applicant and the Intervenors are directed to take action consistent with the determination of the Board as stated above.
FOR THE ATOMIC S M ETY AND LICENSING BOARD JWM
' AD'[INISTRATIVE JUDGE i
1 l
l l
l i
i i
1
~