ML20004F650

Motion for Order Compelling Intervenor to Provide Further Written Answers to Interrogatories in Applicant 810420 First Set of Interrogatories Directed to Committee to Bridge the Gap.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20004F650
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	06/12/1981
From:	Woods G CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20004F648	List: ML20004F647 ML20004F650
References
NUDOCS 8106190332
Download: ML20004F650 (6)

Text

.,

.i \\9111 o cw 4

$, f **

~

2 f-JUN 151981 > %.$

omes at the sec.

3 N g a s,. S 4 -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA N -:

CLEAR REGUWORY COMISSION 5

6 7

8 9

In the Matter of )

10

) Docket No. 50-142 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ) (Proposed Renewal of Facility II OF CALIFORNIA ) License Number R-71)

)

12 (UCLA Research Reactor) ) June 12, 1981 13 14 APPLICANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS 16 ..

17 18 19

. DONALD L. REIDHAAR 20 l GLENN R. WOODS CHRISTINE HELWICK 2, 590 University Hall 2200 University Avenue Berkeley, California 94720 i ,

22l Telephone: (415) 642-2822 l 23l l

Attorneys for Applicant 24l l THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY  ;

gg' OF CALIFORNIA 26 27 28 l

'B 10 6 l'9 0 3 3 2.

ee y p. +- e e-. -

i i

l i

9 1 I. THE MOTION 2

3 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.740 of the Commission's rules

-4 of practice, Applicant, THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF S CALIFORNIA, moves the Atomic Safety and' Licensing Board (the 6 Board) for an order compelling Intervenor to provide further 7 written answers to certain questions contained in " Applicant's 8 First Set of Interrogatories to Intervenor Committee to Bridge 9 the Gap", dated April 20, 1981.

10 11 II. INTRODUCTION 12 13 Applicant propounded " Applicant's First Set of 14 Interrogatories to Intervenor Committee to Bridge the Gap" on 15 April 20, 1981. Intervenor's " Answers of the Committee to 16 Bridge the Gap to Applicant's First Set of Interrogatories" were 17 received by Applicant on May 27, 1981. Applicant's motion 18 to compel was due to be filed June 7, 1981. By telephone 19 agreement, Intervenor requested of Applicant and Applicant 20 requested of Intervenor an extension to June 12, 1981, of the 21 time to file motions related to the other party's interrogatories.

22 23 Applicant's sixty-nine questions were stated clearly 24 and concisely in a standarized format and were designed to 25 elicit the precise nature of and support for Intervenor's claims.

26 Applicant submits that many of Intervenor's answers are evasive 27 and unresponsive. Applicant cannot adequately meet its burden -

28 in this proceeding without knowing the specific facts, support 1

( p .. - . .

. - m

I for those facts and the general position of the Intervenor with 2 respect to matters Intervenor has put in controversy in this 3 proceeding. In particular, Applicant will have difficulty 4 complying with any summary disposition deadline that is set 5 unless it knows at this time the substance and detail of 6 Intervenor's case.

7 8 III. DISCUSSION 9

10 A. Evasive Answers 11 12 Respecting many of Applicant's interrogatories, 13 Intervenor's response was evasive in not specifying the facts 14 underlying its allegation or, in words of similar effect, stating 15 that it had no "no information one way or the other" or no 16 information "at this time". Applicant has interpreted all such 17 responses as indicating that Intervenor knows of no facts which 18 support its allegation and that Intervenor intends to rely on ,

19 future discovery to disclose such facts.

20 21; Applicant cannot proceed to move for dismissal of I

22 certain allegations or prepare to meet its ultimate burden of 23l proof at hearing unless and until it knows with particularity 24 the. facts upon which Intervenor's claims are based. Applicant 25 requests that the Board direct Intervenor to both specify at l

26 this time any and all facts, and support for such facts, on which 27 Intervenor intends to rely or to state that it has no knowledge  !

28 of such facts and to supplement its responses to Applicant's 2

- l l \

y 1 i 1 questions at such time as Intervenor discovers any new facts 2 on which it intends to rely. , l 4 B. Nonresponsive "nswers A

~

5 6 Intervenor failed to respond to a series of questions 7 asking as to each of Int'ervenor's alleged deficiencies, failings 8 or problems attributed to Applicant's operations whether 9 Intervenor was alleging also that these problems did result in 10 any actual harm to public health and safety. Intervenor's 11 typical response to each of these questions was "Intervenor has 12 made no contention one way or another regarding harm to public 13 safety and health that may have resulted. . . The responses 14 in question are to Applicant's Interrogatories Nos. 19, 23, 34 15 and 39.

16 ..

17 Applicant is entitled to know whether Intervenor 18 intends to claim that any harm has resulted from any of 19 Applicant's reactor operations. If not, Intervenor should so 20 state directly. In these questions and elsewhere, Applicant 21 framed its questions purposely different from the language used 22 in the admitted contention. 3pplicant is not required to 23 repeat the language of the admitted contentions in framing its 24; questions. Intervenor's response to the effect that "that is 25 not what the language of the admitted contention says" is no -

26 re.eponse at all. Applicant requests that the Board direct 27 Intervenor to answer Applicant's questions as propounded.

28 3

cz,

I \

f '- I

. I  !

I IV. CONCLUSION 2

3 Applicant re'spectfully requests that the Board direct

'4 Intervenor to d'isclose all facts, and support for such facts, on 5 which Intervenor intends-to rely. Applicant also requests that 0 -the Board direct Intervanor to supplement its written answers whenever it ancovers "new" facts on which it intends to re'ly 8

in any way in this proceeding. Further, Applicant requests 9

that Intervenor be directed to respond to the questions 10 propounded in Interrogatories No. 13, 23, 34 and 39.

11 12 Dated: June 12, 1981.

13 14

. DONALD L. REIDHAAR 15 GLENN R. WOODS a CHRISTINE HELWICK 16 .,

17 *-

By -

18 Glenn R. Woods 19 20 21

22 23 I

24 25 26 27 l 28

• *es

• eme . .g 8 .

1 CNTIED S'I"nTES CF RCPlCA NUCLEAR PEGLTidCEY CCMCSSICN 2

BE2CPE DE ICCMIC S1FLTI MID LICE; SING BCAPD 3 .

4 In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-142 5 DE RECETPS OF TE UNIVEPSITI ) (Proposed Penewal of Facility OF CALHCP;;IA ) License Number R-71) 6 )

(UCLA Pescarch Peactor) ) -

7 )

8 m m CATE CF SERVICE 9 I hereby certify that copies of the attached: APPLICANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS 10 in the above-capucned precc-Ming have been served en the follcwing by de;csEt 11 in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as in-dicated, on this date: June 12, 1981 .

13 Elizateth Berers, Esq. Cbunsel for NPC Staff U.S. Nuclear Pegulatorf Ccmnission Office of the Executive Iagal Direc'wr 14 Atcmic Safety & Licencing Board U.S. Nuclear Pegulatcrf Cczmissica Washington, CC 20555 Waslungen, DC 20555 Dr. Emeth A. Luehke Daniel.Eirsch 16 U.S. Nuclear Pegulator/ Ccmission Ccmittee to Bridge tPn Gap Atcmic Safety & Licensing Board 1637 Butler Avenue, #230 17 Washi.W n, DC 20555 Ics Angeles, CA 90025 18 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Mr. Mark Pollcck -

. U.S. Nuclear Pegulatorf Cmmission Mr. John Bay 19 Atcmic Safet? & Licensing Board 1633 Fran'<lin Street Washington, DC 20555 Santa 5tnica, CA 90404 Chief, Decketi:n and Servica Section (3) 21 Office of the Secretarf U.S. Nuclear Pegulatorf Cmmission 22 Washingten, DC 20555 23 24 w/ p,de 25 William H. Cormier UCLA Representative 26 27 28 e .