ML20004D422
| ML20004D422 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 05/28/1981 |
| From: | Woods G CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106090379 | |
| Download: ML20004D422 (22) | |
Text
t
[L g-U:1 0 3 1981 "
-/ [
coeve.
0 6
1 u. s w*'.9 ""
\\*
l w>>
1 2,l M
i 19@
- I.
g 0:f.: :,..... ;.
j
.l
-v.
3 l
D:M,.
)
.c l
!j 4
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 5
NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION I
6 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I
7 8
9 In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-142 10 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
)
(Proposed Renewal of Facility -
OF CALIFORNIA
)
License Number R-71) 11
)
(UCLA Research Reactor
)
May 28, 1981 12
)
13 14 APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER 15 16 17 18 DONALD L.
REIDEAAR 19 GLENN R. WOODS CHRISTINE HELWICK 20 590 University Hall 2200 University Avenue i
21 Berkeley, California 94720 Ieiephone:
(415) 642-2822 I
22 Attorneys for Applicant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY 24 0F CALIFORNIA 25 !
oi 28 9v\\
27 0
8106090 3%
i
M S'T
.o,b I
I i
2 I. THE MOTION s
3 l
l 4!
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S2.740 of the Commission's rules l!
5; of practice, Applicant, THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF 6
CALIFORNIA, moves the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) 7 for an order protecting from the scope and manner of discovery 8
proposed by Intervenor, Cammittee to Bridge the Gap, in Intervenor's 9
Second Set of Interrogatories by sustaining Applicant's. objections 10 made t'o certain of the questions in the " Answers of Applicant to Intervenor's Second Set of Interrogatories", dated May 20, f
11 12 1981.
The particular form of the order requested appears as e
13 an attachment' hereto.
14 l
1 15 II. INTRODUCTION I
16 17 This contested'research reactor relicensing proceeding 18 began in May 1980 with the submission of a petition to intervene 19 lby the Committee to Bridge the Gap (CBG).
A special prehearing
' conference was held September 25, 1980 and CBG was granted 20 21 intervenor status upon the admission by the Board of four of CBds Iwenty-three proposed contentions.
Although the effect
' of the September 25 Order of the Board was to open discovery f
4 with respect to the four ar*mitted contentions, Intervenor chose 25 ' to pursue discovery with respect to only one of the admitted 0
contentions (Contention II, " Wrong Class of License").
27 28 i
__Id,an Order issued March IO, 1981, subsequent to the I
l
.t i
I 1,second special prehearing' conference held on February 4-5,1981, l
2 l the Board admitted sixteen additional contentions and established 3] a discovery schedule for the parties.
According to the schedule i
4r each party was to serve its interrogatories by April 20 and l
5 Irespond to interrogatories served by May 20.
Applicant I
r 6
requested by telephone, and did receive, a one-day extension of i
7 the time in which to respond to Intervenor's interrogatories.
8 1
9 Applicant did not receive "Intervenor's Interrogatories 10 to Applicant, The Regents of the University of California" until 11 ' April 28.
Applicant has no explanation for this delay in service '
12 of'these interrogatories but has determined that no part of the 13 delay was caused by Applicant's mail system.
Applicant refers to 1
141 these interrogatories as the "second set" to distinguish them from, i
15 the set received in October 1980, which were wholly related to 16 Contention II.
17 18 Intervenor's second set of interrogatorie's contained 19 over 2,280 separate questions, subparts of questions and other 20 requests for information.
The document itself was nearly 300 pages i
21 long.
Neither the questions nor the pages were numbered consecu-i 22 [ tively.
This second cet^ bears the mark of work by several differ--
ll 23 ent hands, the work being uneven from section
- .o section with i
i 24 various question styles used.'
l 25 i
26 The staggering effect of this second set of i
27 interrogatories'has been to impose upon Applicant's staff an f
28 ' extz'eme,1y annoying, oppressive, expensive and otherwise
/
.2-
l l
1 burdensome work effort.
As a demonstration of its good faith 3
li l
21 Applicant undertcok this massive work ef fort to provide i
3 Intervenor with its responses in the time allotted so as not to g
11 1
4' delay the proceedings.
Responding to the second set questions b
i St required the concentrated efforts of Applicant's reactor i
Isupervisory personnel, health safety personnel and attorneys.
6 I
7 During the period the responses wete being prepared, Applicant's
'8 regular business activities were seriously curtailed and 9
Applicant's staff was unable to attend to their regular 10 responsibilities.
Indeed, during this period, Applican't's 11 reactor staff was unable to respond adequately to routine NRC 12 staff inquiries and to p;oceed with development of a new i
13 emergeacy response plan and the other amendments to its license i
14 application which Applicant ha:. agreed to undertake.
I 15 i
16 Applicant submits that the extraordinarily excessive 17 number of questione propounded by Intervenor has as its main 18 purpose the harassment of Applicant's staff.
19 20 III.
DISCUSSION
'1 l
21 The general provisions governing discovery in NRD j
i 1
22 proceedings are found in 10 C.F.R. 52.710.
The Commission rules 23 follow the form of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 10 t
24 h C.F.R.
52.740 has its analog in the federal Rule 26.
Pacific Gas 25 l;l &
l Electric Company,. 7 NRC 1038, 1040 (1978); Allied-General h
i 26 ! Nuclear Services et al., 5 NRC 489 (1977).
I 27 I
2B I
o
~,,
y
i
.I l
1 In general, under 10 C.F.R.
%2.740, the scope of l
fdiscoveryextendsto"anymatter,notprivileged,whichis 2
i 3, relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding" and in !
3 e
4 1 an operating license proceeding discovery "shall relate only to S Ithose matters in controversy which have been identified by the t
6 Commission or the presiding officer in the prehearing order 7
entered at the conclusion of that prehearing conference."
10 C.F.R. '
8 S2.740 (b).
9 10 In additich to the unqualified limitations on the scope 11 of discsvery (matter, not privileged and admitted in controversy 12 by a prehearing order), the Commission rules provide that the i
13 presiding officer may, upon the motion of a party and for. good 14 cause, "make any order which justice requires to protect a party 15 or person from annoyance,. embarrassment, oppression, or under 16 burden or expense."
10 C.F.R. S2.740(c).
17 18 The Commission rules state that the orders that may 19, issue include one or more of the following:
20 k
21 (1)
That the discovery not be had; m
23 (2)
That the discovery may be had only on specified 24-; terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or the I
25 jplace; 26 i
i 1
s 27 (3)
That the discovery may be had only by a method of i
i 28 ' discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery; I
I 1
1 (4)
That certain matters not be inquired into, or that 2
the scope of discovery be limited to certain matters; 3
4" (5)
That discovery be conducted with no one present 5
except persons designated by the presiding officer; 6
l l
7 (6)
That, subject to the provisions of 552.744 and l
8 2.790, a trade secret or other confidential research, development,i 9
or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only inj 10 a designated way; and 11 12 (7)
That studies and e"aluations not be prepared.
10 13 C.F.R. 2. 74 0 (.c).
14 15 A.
General objections 16 Applicant objects to the excessive number of questions 17 propounded and the extremely broad scope of inquiry being 18 proposed by Intervenor.
Applicant objects to the highly 19 speculative nature of many of the questions, the vagueness of 20 questions, incoherencies and questions which in the scientific, 21 engineering and technical judgment of Applicant's professional staff _are simply nonsensical or unintellicible.
Applicant objects!
22 to Intervenor's attempts to broaden the inquiry into areas not l
23 I
24 contemplated by the Board in its prehearing orders relating to 25 admitted contentions.. Applicant submits that in their cumulative effect Intervenor's second set of interrogatories 26 i
I represents an abuse of the discovery process and indicates that l
0'Intervenor is unable to shape its participation in this T
.I 1lproceedingsothatitismeaningful.
Applicant respectfully
- 2) requests that the Board take into account this cumulative effect i
3 when considering any of Applicant's specific objections.
4 I
5 In response to the very many questions of Intervenor 6
which asked for detailed data relating to a multitude of t
7 activities, events or occurrences for all years of operation on 8
back to 1960, the year of initial operations, Applicant has i
I 9
offered an extensive compilation of its business and operating 10 records and documents.
Applicant has made this offer of its 11 records and documents pursuant to the " business records" option 12 provided'in Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In 13 those questions where records and documents were offered, 1
14 Applicant's staff either lacked personal knowledge or were unable 15 to arrive at a clear recollection of the data or information i
16 requested.
Applicant's staff could'not possibly undertake the 17 data retrieval and processing required to answer Ilitervenor's l
i 18 questions without delaying the proceedings indefinitely and 19 seriously interfering with operational responsibilities.
20 Intervenor is in the best position to search for that information,
I 21 which it finds interesting.
The extensive list of the records and 12 documents offered covers virtually all aspects of the UCLA 23 Research Reactor operations and activities from 1960 through 24 December 31, 1980.
(See " Exhibit A" of " Answers of the Applicant 25'l to Intervenor's Second Set of Interroagories).
Applicant requests 26 that the Board issue an order sustaining Applicant's responses l
27 I wilerein records and documents were offered and,further, limiting 28 the scope and number of documents to be produced by Applicant in I
- r. -
I 1
1
t i
1 l this proceeding to the " Exhibit A" list.
i i
2 3 g In response to a great number of questions requesting i
40 in~ormation, many of which questions concerned highly speculative 1
5, matters, that could only be derived by conducting extensis
.tnd 3
6 often highly complex studies and evaluations, Applicant has l
l 7
objected.
Applicant's staff have estimated that the requested 8 L studies and evaluations and other analyses and calculations 9
requested, considered together, would require several p.erson-10 years of effort and resources and staffing beyond the capabilities:
f 11 of Applicant's present'small reactor staff.
Moreover, in,the l
l 12 professional scientific and engineering judgment of Applicant's I
13 staff not one of the studies or evaluations being requested by 14 Intervenor would yield results necessary for the resolution of 15 any material isaue in this proceeding.
Applicant requests that i
16 the Board issue an order sustaining all of Applicant's objections l l
'17 to questions requiring studies, evaluations, analyses or complex l
IO calculations.
19 t
20 In response to c small number of questions among a 21 total of questions which requested.information that could not
~
32 i
'readily be traced to any specific records or documents and, i
23-. because of the problems of retrieval, would require a massive i
24fandexpensiveworkeffortonthepar.: of Applicant's staff, 25lrApplicant has objected on the grounds that each such question 26'!
in annoying, oppressive and burdensome.
In all such cases 27 Intervenor's, request for information is overbroad and not at 28 i
l
7
)
N c.!
I
- 1. all calculated to focus on the specific matters that Intervenor i:
2[ has a$11eged are in controversy in this proceeding.
Applicant I
3( submits that such questions have been proposed to overwhelm l
j J
4 Applicant's staff.
Applicant requests that the Board sustain l
i 5
Applicant's objections to questions that are oppressive and 6
burdensome.
7 8
In response to various questions, Applicant has i
9 objected to the question on the grounds that it is vague, 10 ambiguous and uncertain.
Many of these questions relate to l
L 11 technical or engineering matters and in the judgment of Applicant's 12
. staff are' simply nonsensical or otherwise cor. fused or 13 unanswerable.in their existing form.
In many cases, the
[
14 question calls for a calculation or a conclusion to be drawn i
i 15 but the quest.on fails to specify all the parameters or provide
[
16 a complete description such as would be needed to derive the' l
17 result.
There are other questions of this sort seeking precise i
18 answers or admissions but which are framed in very general or t
19 vague terms.
Applicant requests that the Board sustain 20 Applicant's objections to questions that are vague, ambiguous-21 or uncertain.
,l 22 23 In response to some questions Applicant has objected 24 on the grounds that the information requested is not relevant nor '
i
. material to issues: admitted in controversy in this proceeding l
25 and which is not otherwise reasonably calculated to lead to the 26 f
27 ' discovery of admissible evidence.
The typical question here i
28 relates to an issue that the Board specifically rejected frem
\\ I 1.
ti l
I fconsiderationinthisproceedinginitsprehearingorders.
1 2
Applicant requests that the Board issue an order sustaining 3, Applicant's objections to questions that are not relevant.
I 41 l
5 In response to a special set of questions Applicant has '
I 6 ' objected on the grounds that the information sought is privileged.
l 7
In most of these instances the privileged material relates to I
8 confidential physical security information;.in a few cases it j
l 9
relates to personal information of students which Applicant can i
10 not provide without violating the privacy rights of the students. '
11 12 Respecting the physical security information, Applicant 13 also objects'on the grounds that this information is not relevant 14 to the proceeding.
Applicant requests that the Board defer t
15 consideration of any discovery related to the physical security 16 of Applicant's facility until the NRC Staff' Motion for Summary l
17 Disposition of the physical security contention is decided by i
18' the Board.
Applicant fully supports the Staff motion and 19 concurs with the Staff analysis that this contention can be 20 disposed of without requiring further evidentiary proceedings.
i 21 Applicant requests that the Board issue an order sustaining
~22 Applicant's objections to privileged matter and deferring, 23ll specifically, all questions related to physical security mattars 24, until such time as a decision is reached on the Staff motion.
h 25ll Applicant submits that prudent management of this proceeding I
l 26 requires that this matter be deferred in order to avoid a long, 27 l protracted d;i.scovery proceeding that would be entirely j
l 28 ' u n n e c e s s a r y,'.
l
U l
'l, I
1 I:
B.
Specific Objections 2
3l!ll bjections which appear in Applicant's answers to t As an aid to the Board's review of Applicant's specific i
l 42; o I
5,I tories there follows below a listing of the objections, l identified by the contention (following Intervenor's organization 6
7 of its questions) and the page number where Applicant's response 8
appears in Applicant's answers.
Where Applicant has deemed it j
l 9
helpful, there is added a brief remark indicating the nature of l
10 ;the objection and the reason for it.
Otherwise, the Board is i
i' 11 referred to Intervenor's questions and Applicant's answers.
i 12 13 (CONTENTION I) 14 15 Interrogatory No. 18 (page 10) : privileged and also l
16 irrelevant.
17 Interrocatory No. 19 (b) (page 10) : vague and confusing.
18 Interrogatory No. 28 (h) (page 14): a major study 19 would be requ. red to analyze the old SPERT and BORAX tests and c
f:
20' relate them to Applicant's reactor as question requests.
~
21 I
I I
(CONTENTION II) j N
i 23 pi 24 Interrocatories Nos. 54 and 55 (page 25) :
privileged; 25 li question amounts to an invasion of the privacy rights of I
l 26 j, students.
3 l
i 27;i Interrogatory No. 60 (page 27) :
oppressive and l
l 28 burdenseg.e;-,, Applicant possesses no' current compilation of the j
I data requested and would have to undertake a considerable work 2 ; effort to produce it.
3 4
(CONTENTION III)
I 5
1 i
6 Interrogatory No. 3 (page 28) :
burdensome.
i i
7 Interrogatory No. 43 (page 35) :
not relevant.
I I
8 Interrogatories Nos. 51 and 52 (page 37) :
vague; the 9
cited sections do not exist.
l.
10 Interrogatory No. 58 (page 40) :
burdensome.
11 l
l 12 (CONTENTION IV) l l
t i
13 14 Interrogatory Ne. 20 (page 48) :
not relevant; the 15 incident related to the shipment of fuel was not admitted as an 16 issue.
l 17 Interrogatory No. 25 (page 49) :
not relevant; Applicant's I 18 compliance is a matter of NRC record and how Applicant or 19, anyone else wishes to describe that record is not relevant.
20 21 (CONTENTION V) e I
42 23 Interrogatory No. 11 (page 54) :
study required; i
24 tj moreover, the question does not contain enough information to I
25 j derive the answer.-
26 Interrogatories Nos. 39, 43, 45, 47, 48, and 50 (pages 27 60-64):
a very complex and extensive study amounting to a new f
" Hazards Ana1ysis" would be required to answer these questions.
[
28
. E
I l
i e
i Interrogatory No. 51 (page 65):
vague and uncertain.
1 n
2ll
'l 3 l (CONTENTION VI) 4 5
Interrogatories Nos. 53 through 61 (pages 82-84) :
l 61 not relevant; the Board specifically rejected consideration of l
7 l this fuel ship:nent i.ncident in this proceeding (February 4-5 8
prehearing conference and March 10 Order).
9 Interrogatory No. 66 (page 85) :
not relevant; relates 10 to stu' dies of UC Berkeley's Triga-type reactor.
11
.~
2 (CONTENTION VII) 13 l4 Interrogatories Nos. 3, 4,
8 (c) and 15 (pages 85-87, 90):
15 vague; questions relate to a set of ambiguous and internally 16 inconsistent terms which Intervenor proposes Applicant use to I7, describe Applicant's activities, but Applicant is unable to IO classify or otherwise convert its operating experience into 19 *Intervenor's categories.
20 I
~
(CONTENTION VIII)
I 22' l
23 l Interrogatory No. 8 (page 92) :
vague; notwithstanding 24 l that objection, Applicant has provided an answer.
j 25 :
Interrogatories Nos. 22 (e), 23 (c) and (d), and 24 26 (pages 96-98) :
an extensive study is required to answer these I
27 questions.
28
l I
Interrogatory No. 28 (page 98) :
vague in that the li 2 linformation requested seems to be basic engineering principles; 3
notwithstanding that objection, Applicant has provided an answer.
4!
Interrogatory No. 35 (page 100) :
question is very 5
ambiguous but in any case it would require a study.
l 6
Interrogatory No. 36 (pace 101) :
study required, but 7
in addition the question is too uncertain in not specifying the 8
precise factors to be considered.
9 Interrogatory No. 37 (page 101) :
vague; nothwithstanding 10 that objection, Applicant has provided a response.
Interrogatory No. 40 (page 102) :
question asks for i
I 12 dose calculations for various accident scenarios none of which l
13 i
are adequately described and all of which would require study.
i 14 Interrogatories Nos. 41, 43, 45, 46, and 48 (pages l
15 l
103-104):
for each a major study would be required; moreover, 16 the question is vague and uncertain in not a'dequately specifying 17 l
the study parameters.
18 Interrogatory No. 50 (page 105) :
vague and uncertain 19 use of term; notwithstanding that objection, Applicant has 20 ! provided a response.
21 42 (CONTENTION IX) 23, 24 l'l Interrogatories Nos.
3, 4 and 5 (page 106-107) :
25 ll! burdensome; Applicant could not possibly undertake the work 26 1
effort suggested but has indicated such of its records that 27-contain much of the information requested.
28 i
..__s.
. e
c-t
.I I
I ll 5
I l Interrogatories Nos. 25 (g) and (h) and 26 (h) and (i) i 2
f
! (pages 111-112):
not relevant.
3 Interrogatory No. 38 (page 117) :
major study required. ;
a 4"
Interrogatories Nos. 39 and 40 (pages 117-118):
S burdensome; notwithstanding that objection, Applicant has offered ;
6* to provide what records it has related to the information requested.
7 0
(CONTENTION XII) 9 IO Interrogatory No. 39 (page 129) :
privileged; the I l quantity of Applicant's fuel going in,or out and the time and 12 manner of its shipment are confidential matters.
Applicant 13 did ' answer th'e sub;. arts of the question.
14 Interrogatory No. 56(c), (d) and (e) (page 134) :
15 vague in its use of the expression " lowest burning temperature,"
i 16 but in any case Intervenor can find what information it needs in I
17 a Handbook of Chemis*q and Physics.
I 18 l
q
' IO (CONTENTION XIII) 20 21
'l Interrogatory No. 14 (page 137) :
not relevant and if i
Appl'icint possessed the precise information requested it would 3
[be privileged.
~
24 25!;
f j
(CONTENTION XVI) 26ll i
27 '
j Interrogatory No. 6 (page 148) :
not relevant and 28 t
ihighly speculative besides.
i lh (CONTENTION XVII) fl 2l!
1 t
\\
3 Interrogatory No. 7 (page 151) :
vague in that the d expression " maximum earthquake" is uncertain.
5 Interrogatories Nos. 9 and 10(d) (pages 152-153):
6 a complex ard time-consuming evaluation would be required to 7
answer the question.
8 Interrogatory No. 13 (page) :
the information requested 9
!.s not relevant and, in any case, an extensive evaluation would t
10 I
be required to provide the information.
j II Interrogatory No. 14 (t) (page 155) :
core entry and 12 dismantling procedures are privileged.
13 Int'errogatory No. 15 (pagel56) :
although Applicant's 14 objection appears related only to'subpart (i), it actually applies
'S to the entire question which calls for an extensive nechanical 16 engineering analysis and evaluation of Appli' cant's building.
l Interrogatories Nos. 16 and 27 (pages 157,162) :
18 studies required.
.s
.j g
l 20 (CONTENTION XVIII) 21 6
~ ~ ~ ~
Interrogatory No. 3 (page 168):
academic reviews are treated as confidential by the Applicant; moreover, they do not 24 ! contain information relevant to this contention, the financial 25! qualifications of The Regents of the University of California.
26 Interrogatories Nos. 4, 6, and 7 (pages 169-170):
27
~
a massive work effort would be required to identify the information 28 i
I
I l
.I I
1 requested and, in any case, the information is not relevant to 2
the financial qualifications of the Applicant.
Notwithstanding l
3 that objection, Applicant provided an explanation of its 4' budgeting system and procedures a'nd directed Intervenor to the 5
basic documents.
l 1
L6 Interrogatory No. 8 (page 172) :
not relevant.
7 Inzerrogatory No. 10 (page 173):
not relevant and is 1'
8 highly speculative.
9 Interrogatory No. 12 (page 173):
not relevant since 10 Applicant has agreed to remove the' reference to decay tanks and 11 Intervenor's questions are entirely speculative.
i i
12 Interrogatories Nos. 13 and 14 (page 174) : vague and I
13 uncertain and highly speculative besides.
14 Interrogatory No. 26 (page 177) :
not relevant; the l
15 "other income" is income to NEL for technical analyses and l
i 16 studies done by the NEL staff that do not require the use of the
~
17 reactor.
Principally, this income is from federal co %racts and f 18 grants.
'19 Interrogatory No. 33 (page 178) :
not relevant to i
20 ' financial-qualifications of the Applicant.
i 21
.22 (CONTENTION XX) l l
l 23 l
24 All the questions p'ropounded in connection with this f
i 25 : contention (physical security) are not relevant to the contention l
26l admitted in this proceeding which is essentially based on a 27 i misinterpretation of Commission requirements applicable to 28
!l Applicant's facility.
Moreover, Interrogatories Nos. 3-37, 40,
' l
l t
1]44-62,and65-66requestinformationwhichisprivilegedin 2;il relating to Applicant's physical security system and protective li 31' methods.
b 4,
Interrocatories Nos. 38'and 39 (page 195) :
in effect 5 lrequestthatApplicantdivulgethelegaltheoriesitintendsto 6 l use in its pleadings and is improper.
4 Moreover, No. 38 is 7
vague in its use of the expression "only obligation."
i l
8 Interrogatories Nos. 41, 42, and 43 (page 196) :
not l
9 relevant; notwithstanding that objection, Applicant has, answered 10 the question.
f II Interrogatories Nos. 63 and 64 (page 204):
not relevant 12 to'the physical security system and, in any case, would require 13 study.
14 I,
i (CONTENTION XXI) l 15 16 l
17 Interrogatory'No 33 (page 210) :
Applicant's possible liabilities are not relevant to this proceeding.
18 19 l
20 i
IV. CONCLUSION 21 i
22 For the general and specific reasons discussed above 23 l and in consideration of the adverse cumulative effects of the 24'!
Iclearly excessive number of interrogatories Intervenor has i
25 !propoundedtoApplicant, Applicant respectfully requests that 26 the Board issue a protective order sustaining each of Applicant's 27ll objections to specific questions and limiting the scope of the 28
. - -,.. l I
i 1ll inquiry and the production of documents to the comprehensive l,
i 2r set of records and documents offered by the Applicant in its i
3l, answers as " Exhibit A"; moreover, Applicant requests that l
n 4] the number of follow-up questions permitted Intervenor be 5
limited appropriately.
Applicant's proposed form of order is I
i 6
attached hereto.
7 8
Dated:
May 28, 1981 9
10 DONALD L REIDHAAR GLENN R. Woo 3S 11'
.CHRISTIME HELWICK 12 13 By b k; OC bk Glenn R. Woods 14 15 16 17 18
~19 1
20 21
.22 l... -.
'i l
23 24 !
i!
I 25'i j
i 26j l
r 27:
l 23
l 1
2 UNITED STATES OF AliERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COIMISSION 3
I ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
5 Elizabeth S. Bcwers, Chairman Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke O
Dr. Oscar H. Paris 7
In th? Matter of
)
8
)
Docket No. 50-142 E
S OF THE WIERSIM
) Proposed Renewal of Fac h y 9
OF CALIFORNIA
)
License Number,R-71) 10 (UCLA Research Reactor 11
~
12 ORDER RELATIVE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR A PROECTIE OEER 13 I4 In response to Applicants request for a protective 15 order and in consideration of the arguments advanced in support 16
~
of Applicant's motilon, we grant Applicant's request.
l7 ORDERED this day of
- 1981, 18 That Applicant's objections to certain questions in l
19 Intervenor's second set of interrogatories contained in Applicant's
" Answers of the Applicant to Intervenor's Second Set of 21 Interrogatories" be sustained; specifically that Applicant not
-t I
.22 be~ required to answer ir' relevant, burdensome, vague, or privileged' questions or questions that require that studies or evaluations
~
be conducted; That the scope of inquiry and the production of 26 documents not exceed that which Applicant has offered as its I
27 ! " Exhibit A",and that examination of those documents be conducted
~
28
[
g 1,so as not to interfere with the conduct of Applicant's business; i
1 2 land l
1 3
That Intervenor limit its follow-up to a number not i
4.! to exceed 50 questions which questions Intervenor is to insure 5
do not suffer from the defects complained of in Applicant's 6
answers to the second set interrogatories and and in its motion 7
for a prctective order.
8 9
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND 10 LICENSING BOARD 11
.12 13 14 Elizabeth S. Bowers, Chairman A
DGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 l
2
..~. -.
23 24 25 26 i
27 28 e
we umLa->
- o. -
1 (DECLARI. TION OF SERVICE BY MAIL (CCDE CIV. PPMC. CC1013e
- f. __2 015. 5 )
2 I,
the undersigned, say:
I am a citi=cn of the United States.-
I 3
over 18 years of age, employed in Los Angeles County, California, in i 4
which county the within-mentioned mailing occurred, and not a party I
5 to the subject cause.
My business address is 2214 Murphy Hall, 6
405 Hilgard Avende, Los Angeles, California 90024.
I served 7
the attached:
APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER 8
9 10 l
11 by placing a copy thereof in a separate envelope for each addressee 12 named hereaf ter,' addressed to each such addressee respectively 13 as follows:
14 SERVICE LIST ATTACHED 15 16 17 18 Each enevlope was then sealed and with the pos tage thereen 19 fully prepaid deposited in the United States mail by me at 20 Los Angeles, California, on MAY 29, 1981-21
~ iheFe is delivery service by U.S. mail at cach place so 22 addressed er regular communication by U.S. mail between the place 23 of mailing and each place so addressed.
24-I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true 25 and correct.
26 Executed on May 29, 1981 at Los Angeles, California..
l iI' ;
1 i
ll NRC Docke:~bc.~53'142 l
II (UCLA Rcscarch Reactor) 1 Elizabeth Bowers, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiscion 2 l Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 3lI Dr. Emmeth A.'Luebke 4
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 5
Washington, DC 20555 6
Dr. Oscar H.
Paris U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 8
Counsel for NRC Staff 9
Office of the E::ecutive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission CD U) g 10 Washington, D.C.
20555 4N y,
s
\\
11 Daniel Hirsch E E"'3
/
Committee to Bridge the Gap 9-
- ~'
12 1637 Butler Avenue, #230 c:
JUN i s 8f. = j_+,
Los Angeles, CA 90025
(
Off:a ct u:: r----
0::2 q.
4..
13 f
Mr. Mark Pollock
' ' * ~ " '
/
14 Mr. John Bay 1633 Franklin Street Ed 15 Santa Monica, CA 90404 16 Chief, Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary 17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 19 20 21 2y
. ~. -.
23 24 25 26 27 28
. }
.