ML19352A833
| ML19352A833 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 05/29/1981 |
| From: | Bowers E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8106020194 | |
| Download: ML19352A833 (3) | |
Text
-
1 N
4 COCKETO Mg UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 6-L'* "' '
li 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MAY 2 91981
- I
$ s[ [,$ 3,$ 7
[,
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD y3\\0,1ggg\\"1,.g
......a r;
y f
Before Administrative Judges:
Q ij
--k El'zabeth S. Bowers, Chairman
<n G
\\#
Q.@fl4/
Dr. Oscar :-. Paris
'/
- N Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke SERVEi) MM ~y 1981
)
In the Matter of
)
)
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
)
Docket No. 50-142 OL OF CALIFORNIA
)
)
(UCLA Research Reactor)
)
May 29,1981
)
)
~
ORLER RELATIVE TO INTERVENORS THIRD MOTION TO COMPEL On May 13,1981, the Committee to Bridge the Gap (C3G) filed its third motion to compel answers from UCLA for interrogatories 4, 5, 6 and 9 rela-tive to Contention II. Normally, the Board would await the time for other parties to respond but since this motion simply repeats the second motion to compel, we see no reason to defer our rulirg. CBG also asked tnat a sanction be imposed on UCLA for costs incurred by CBG due to UCLA's failure j
to comply with Board orders.
Our order of March 10, 1981, relative to the supplemental motion to l
c:mpel told UCLA in paragraph after partgraph to furnish responsive answers to the interrogatories under Contention II.
It is unimportant that it didn't use the magic words "The motion is granted". UCLA was ORDERED to respond to the CBG interrogatories with a complete disclosure of all 8106020 t[j h
p$sh Cr i
., relevant information. UCLA's letter of May 1, '1981 is unacceptable and blatantly insulting from a great university to this Board.
Enough is enough. CBG's third motion to compel is GRANTED and responsive answers by UCLA must be made within ten (10) days from receipt of this order.
On page 13 of CBG's motion two requests for clarification were sub-mitted to the Board.
- 1) A party should respond to a Board order grar. ting a motion to compel as quickly as possible or if there is a time set by the Board, within that time.
- 2) A tight discovery schedule can remain in place without adj tment only if no dispiites develop between parties.
I' disputes arise and motions to compel are filed with response time permitted, then the schedule must be adjusted.
If a party does not get answers to inter-rogatories and is forced to file a motion to compel, there is no way that party can file follow up questions within a short time tchedule.
An adjustment will have to be made to the schedule to acco:nmodate each situation.
It is always the expectation of a Board that discovery requests will be answered in a timely and complete manner and disputes will not develop.
UCLA is directed by the Board to "show cause" why it is not appropriate under 10 CFR 52.707 to impose a sanction within ten (10) days of receipt of this order.
.. UCL/. is also directed to "show cause" why counsel for the Licensee should not be cited under 10 CFR 52.713 for refusal to comply with a Board direction within ten (10) days of receipt of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD fA Jasc 1 6 ~
Eli:pbeth S. Bowers, Chairman ~~
s ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 29th day of May,1981.
l l
._