ML19340D286
| ML19340D286 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 12/12/1980 |
| From: | Helwick C, Reidhaar D, Woods G CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, BERKELEY, CA |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012300105 | |
| Download: ML19340D286 (10) | |
Text
'
.,v;f. ;.,._ x*;.?5i'%k'a 4 y
,q.,
Y
(-
- ft.C I
1
\\
Il 2
/
4 to 3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 6
7 8
9 In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-142 10
)
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY )
(Proposed Renewal of 11 OF CALIFORNIA
)
Facility License
)
Number R-710 12 (UCLA) Research Reactor
)
)
13 14 15 16 MEMORANDUf! Iti OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWER TO INTERROGATORIES 17 l
18
,i 19 i
2b
{
DONALD L.
REIDHAAR g
GLENN R. UOODS
[ j'j l
CHRISTINE HELUICK 2I 7
590 University Hall 2I
~
2200 University Avenue 3
Berkeley, California 94720 23 Telephone:
(415) 642-2822 o
h$
24 Dated:
December 12, 1980
,e 25 26 801 2300
1 I.
INTRODUCTION 2
3 Applicant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF 4
CALIFORNIA did not receive Intervenor's Notice of !!otion to 5
Compel Further Answers to Interrogatories until Oecember 1, 6
1980, long after expiration of the ten day period following 7
service of Applicant's Answers to the Interrogatories, 8
during which such a motion may be properly filed.
Inasmuch 9
as the motion did not have attached any proof of service, 10 the running of the time in which this opposition is to be 11 filed is uncertain.
Furthermore, Applicant understands that 12 the NRC staff was not served with the motion at all, which 13 makes the status of the motion even less certain.
14 Nevertheless, Applicant submits the following reasons for 15 its Answers to the four interrogatories in dispute.
16 17 II.
ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE 18 j
19 As a preliminary matter, Applicant notes that 20 Intervenor complains about Applicant's purported assertion 21 of the attorney-client and the attorney-work product l
22 privileges in connection with its Answers.
23 24 Those objections were raised by Applicant, not as 25 a bar to providing full answers to the Interrogatories which.
26 followed, but as a response to the broad introductory
I I
language in the interrogatories themselves, which called for 2
information not merely within your own personal 3
knowledge, but obtainable on your behalf, such as by your 4
attorneys Obviously, in providing Answers to the 5
interrogatories, Applicant did not want to waive any 6
applicable privilege with respect to information in the 7
possession of its attorneys.
Thus the objection was phrased 8
"to the extent that [the interrogatories] appear (by 9
introductory language) to call for (privileged]
10 information.
11 12 Applicant submits that to the extent that 13 intervenor intended to include information protected by 14 these privileges within the broad sweep of its introductory 15 language, these objections were appropriate and well taken.
16 17 III.
SPECIFIC INTERROGATORIES 18 19 A.
Interrogatory No. 4 20 21 Intervenor's Interrogatory No. 4 refers back to 22 Interrogatory Nos.
1, 2 and 3, and calls ~ for Applicant's 23 definition of certain categorical words used in those i
24 interrogatories.
The problem in answering Interrogatory No.
l f
25 4 is that Applicant's answers to the earlier interrogatories l
l 26 3
l l
I explained that its costs (which the earlier interrogatories 2
had requested) are not broken down into tne categories 3
mentioned in those interrogatories.
In
- sum, then, 4
Interrogatory No.
4 ends up calling for Applicant's 5
definition of certain terms that Applicant does not use in 6
the allocation of its costs.
To answer the interrogatory 7
with specific definitions under those circumstances would be 8
impossible, or at the very least, hypothetical and thus, 9
irrelevant.
10 11 Therefore, Appliant did its best to answer the 12 question posed by Interrogatory No.
4, by explaining that 13 the only " function" of its reactor is education, which it 14 defines in the broad sense to include both research and 15 training (each separate categorical words for which 16 definition was sought in the interrogatory).
17 18 To the extent any further answer to this 19 interrogatory might be required, the only improvement 20 Applicant could make would be to refer Intervenor to the 21 common definitions of the categorical words for which l
l 22 definition is sought, which can be found in any dictionary.
23 Certainly Applicant has nc unique " definition" of the word 24
" education" as it 'is used in connection with its Reactor, 25 beyond what could be found in that source.
26 4
I B.
Interrogatory Nunber 5 2
3 Intervenor's Interrogatory No. 5 calls for the 4
percentage of income derived from the UCLA Reactor which was 5
" devoted to" certain specific categories cet up by 6
Intervenor in that interrogatory.
Applicant was confused by 7
what exactly Intervonor meant in seeking the percentage of 8
income " devoted to" anything, and thus raised the objections 9
that the interrogatory as stated was vague, ambiguous and 10 unintelligible.
11 12 Nevertheless, in an attempt to provide some 13 information in answer to the interrogatory, Applicant 14 assumed that Intervenor must have meant to inquire what' 15 percentage of income from the Reactor was allocated to the i
16 cost of the various categories suggested in the 17 interrogatory.
Applicant answered the interrogatory on that t
18 basis, explaining that Reactor income is not allocated at 19 a) 1, but rather is pooled for the Nuclear Energy 20 Laboratories as a whole.
21 22 Intervenor now suggests in its motion that indeed 23 what it meant by the interrogatory was to inquire as to the 24 percentage of income
" derived" from the categories 25 indicated.
Applicant submits that whatever-is meant by this 26 new term, it really does not make a lot of difference.
The 5
f i
1 answer still remains that Applicant cannot determine where 2
specific Reactor income is allocated, derived, segregated, 3
separated, or whatever other word Intervenor may choose, 4
because that income is commingled into a single account for 5
the Nuclear Energy Laboratories as a whole, and cannot be 6
traced back to the categories set forth in Interrogatory No.
7 5.
In short, no matter what particular term is used, 8
Applicant cannot provide any better answer to this 9
interrogatory, because it does not keep its books organized 10 in the fashion assumed by Intervenor.
11 12 C.
Interrogatory Number 6' 13 14 Intervenor's Interrogatory No.
6, in essence, 15 seeks the same type of information solicited in 16 Interrogatory No.
5--i.e.,
the derivation of reactor income 17 over the past 20 years.
This interrogatory, then, presents 18 the same problem as presented in connection with l
l 19 Interrogatory No.
5.
Applicant simply does not keep its 20 books organized along the lines of Intervenor's request.
21 The information requested cannot, therefore, be traced by 22 Applicant, and thus no further information, beyond what was 23 provided, is responsive to the interrogatory.
24 25 In its argument in the Memorandum, Intervenor 26 suggests that Applicant somewhere indicated that " income 6
R:
~
(
1 i
figures" for the Reactor are unavailable.
That is not so.
1 2
Applicant has simply explained that Reactor income is 3
pooled, and thus is not available in the categories set up 4
by Intervenor.
5 6
D.
Interrogatory Number 9 7
8 Intervenor's Interrogatory No.
9 asks for a 9
breakdown of Reactor operating time, again, into certain 10 categories set up by Intervenor.
Applicant, again, simply 11 does not maintain its records along the lines of the 12 categories suggested.
Thus, Applicant was forced to respond 13 to the interrogatory by indicating that the requested 14 information is not available.
15 16 Uhat Applicant did do, however, was provide 17 information to Intervenor concerning its breakdown of 18 Reactor time, and further, offer Intervenor an opportunity 19 to inspect that information.
Applicant cannot do more.
It 20 should be noted that Intervenor has not even exercised that 21 option before bringing this motion.
22 23 Despite Intervenor's argument that Applicant is in 24 the "best position" to locate and extract the information 25 requested by Intervenor, it should be abundantly obvious 26 that Applicant _ cannot fabricate information from the past 7
I for classifications and categories it has never.used, nor 2
should it be required to do so in this proceeding.
3 Dated:
December 12, 1980 4
DONALD L. REIDHAAR 5
GLENN R. WOODS CHRISTINE IIELWICK 6
By 8
Christine fielwick 9
10 11 12 13 14 1
15 16 17 18 19 i
20 21 22 23 24 i
25 j-26 8
l
m 1
DCCLARATION OF SERVIC1: BY MAIL (CODC CIV. PPOC. SS1013a & 2015.5) 2 I,
the undersigned, say:
I am a citizen of the United 3
States, over 18 years of age, employed in Alameda County, 4
California, in which county the within-mentioned mailino occurred-5 and not a party to the subject cause.
My business address is 6
590 University Hall, 2200 University Avenue, Berkeley, California 94720.
I served the attached:
7 g
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWER TO INTERROGATORIES 9
10 33 by placing a copy thereof in a separate envelope for each addressee named hereaf ter, addressed to each such addressec 12 13 respectively as follows:
14 15 SEE ATTACHED 16 17 Each envelope was then sealed and with the postage thereon 18 fully prepaid deposited in the United States mail by me at December 12, 1980 19 Berkeley, California, on 20 There is delivery service by U.S. mail at each place so 21 addressed or regular communication by U.S. mail between the place 22 of mailing and each place so addressed.
23 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoino is true 24 and correct.
25 Executed on December 12, 1980
__ at Berkeley, California.
26 i/m Mm
[
Yvonne Costalupe/
1 El.izabeth Bowers, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2
Atomic Safety & Licensing Bcard Washington, DC 20555 3
Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke 4
U.S. Nuclear Prgulatory Commission Atomic Safety i Licensing Board 5
Washington, DC 20555 6
Dr. Oscar H. Paris U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
7 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 Counsel for NRC Staff 9
Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 Maryland National Bank Building 7735 Old Georgetown Road il { Nethesda, Maryland 20015 12 Daniel Hirsch Committee to Bridge the Gap 13 1637 Butler Avenue, #230 Los Angeles, CA 90025 14 Mr. Mark Pollock 15 Mr. John Bay 1633 Franklin Street 16
' Santa Monica, CA 90404 17 Chief, Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary 18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4
I t
o 3
,. y -
,-m.
,r-y e.