ML19341C451
| ML19341C451 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1981 |
| From: | Woodhead C NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103030509 | |
| Download: ML19341C451 (6) | |
Text
-.
4 02/27/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-142 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
)
(Proposed Renewal of Facility
)
License)
(UCLA Research Reactor)
)
NRC STAFF ANSWER IN SUPPORT OF INTERVEN0R'S MOTION TO COMPEL BACKGROUND A special prehearing conference pursuant to 10 CFR 9 2.751a was held in this proceeding on September 25, 1980.
During the conference, four contentions were admitted for litigation by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.1/ Subsequently, the Intervenor served the Applicant with interrog-atories concerning one of the admitted contentions,EI and the Applicant j
responded on November 14, 1980.
Thereafter, the Intervenor filed a docu-I ment postmarked November 26, 1980 stating that notice was being given to Applicant that Intervenor would move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to order the Applicant to provide further answers to four of the interrog-atoriesEl served previously on the basis that Applicant's responses 1/ The Intervenor, Committee to Bridge the Gap, had previously submitted sixteen contentions as a supplement to its petition to intervene.
The parties were instructed to explore possible agreement on the conten-tions remaining.
El Contrary to 10 CFR 5 2.740b the Staff was not provided a copy of the interrogatories by Intervenor.
El The answers deemed inadequate were those to interrogatories 4, 5, 6 and 9.
8103030 5 0 9
1 -
were incomplete, non-responsive and evasive.
The document set out in detail the reasons the Intervenor viewed the answers to interrogatorics to be inadequate. Although no motion to compel was made to the Board, the Applicant filed a " Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Answer to Interrogtories" on December 12, 1980, in which the Applicant stated in further answer to specific interrogatories, that it had responded to the best of its ability in its initial answers.
On December 22, 1980 the Board ordered the Applicant to provide relevant information concerning existing records. The Applicant provided further answers-on January 22, 1981 stating that its financial and accounting records relevant to the interrogatories would be made available for Intervenor's inspection and upon a request to produce specified documents, would produce other records.
THE PRESENT MOTION The Intervenor on February 7, 1981 served the Applicant a document giving notice that the Intervenor would move the Atomic Safety and Licens-ing Board for a " Supplemental" Order compelling the Applicant to further answer the interrogatories deemed by Intervenor as never fully answered by Applicant, as explained in the " Declaration of Mark S. Pollock".
In support of the Intervenor's assertion that the Applicant had failed to provide information as requested in the interrogatories, Intervenor provided a copy of a page of the University's general ledger and a letter from the University's Director of Research and Occupational Safety to the NRC Chief of Operating Reactors Branch 4.
These two attachments are offered as evidence of information requested by interrogatories 4, 5, 6 and 9 which l
l I
t l
l
l
! s was not provided by the Applicant.
In the Staff's view, the Intervenor has raised a question of a failure by Applicant to comply with the Commission's rule of practice 10 CfR S 2.740(b) requiring each interrogatory to be answered fully on cath or affirmation unless objected to, as well as the general discovery rules set forth in 10 CFR 5 2.740.d/ 10 CFR 9 2.707 i
provides authority to impose sanctions for failure to comply with any discovery order entered by the presiding officer pursuant to 9 2.740.
The admitted contention at which the interrogatories are aimed alleges that a Class 103 license is required for the UCLA reactor rather than a Class 104 license, as provided in 10 CFR Q 50.22.
As the Intervenor demon-strates, interrogatories 4, 5, 6 and 9 are inquiries into terms used by the University personnel to designate reactor uses so that records of reactor use, costs, and funding may be understood in relation to these records.
The Applicant has indicated in its answers that it has no records categorized into areas of Intervenor's inquiry but the letter to NRC Staff
~
provided by Intervenor shows the contrary, as to definition of tenns, and l
SI 10 CFR Q 2.740(b)(1) states that parties may obtain discovery regard-ing any matter not privileged which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding, including the existence and nature of documents.
4 records of specified uses.5/ Thus, it seems to Staff that there is merit to the Intervenor's assertion that the University has not fully answered
.i discovery requests for information.
CONCLUSION i
The NRC Staff supports the Intervenor's second motion to compel answers to interrogatories by the University of California.
Respectfully submi +
i Colleen P. Woodhead Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 27th day of February 1981 l
5/ Of particular significance to this situation is the Applicant's repeated answers to interrogatory 9 stating that reactor use has only been categor-ized by the University personnel as maintenance, classroom instruction and research whereas the University's letter to NRC Staff shows seven categories of use, one of which is commercial (Revised Table III/1-3),
The revised table describes port hours used for various purposes as well as total operating hours.
ee
.. ~ - -
t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BfFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD j
In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-142 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Proposed Renewal of Facility License)
(UCLA Research Reactor)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF ANSWER IN SUPPORT OF INTER-VENOR'S MOTION TO COMPEL" ~1 the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 27th day of February,1981:
Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq., Chairman
- Mr. John Bay Administrative Judge 1633 Franklin Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Santa Monica, CA 90404 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Christine Helwick, Esq.
Glenn R. Woods, Esq.
Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke*
Office of General Counsel Administrative Judge 2200 University Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 590 University Hall U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Berkeley, CA 94720 Washington, DC 20555 Roger Holt, Esq.
Dr. Oscar H. Paris
- Office of City Attorney Administrative Judge 200 North Main Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board City Hall East, Room 1700 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Los Angeles, CA 90012 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Mark Pollock Mr. Daniel Hirsch 1724 No. La Brea Avenue Committee to Bridge the Gap Hollywood, CA 90046 1637 Butler Avenue, #203 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- William H. Cormier, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administrative Vice Washington, DC 20555 Chancellor University of California at Los Angeles i
405 Hilgard Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90024
t Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (5)*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Con rission Washington, DC 20555 Docketing and Service Section (7)*
Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Colleen P. Woodhead i
Counsel for NRC Staff