ML20005B024
| ML20005B024 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 07/01/1981 |
| From: | Bowers E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8107060233 | |
| Download: ML20005B024 (7) | |
Text
_
t' r-co 9
9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC
-Q
~
NUCLEtR REGblATORY COMMISSION T
JUU 2198t:
- ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD NkN)[$h Cmck q
Before Administrative Judges:
4' Elizabeth S. Bowers, Chairman Dr. Emmeth A.. Luebke Dr. Oscar H. Paris
$fRygg f
In the Matter of Docket No. 50-142 OL (Proposed Renewal of THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY Facility License) 0F CALIFORNIA-
)
)-
(UCLA Research Reactor)-
)
July 1, 1981 0RDER RELATIVE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER, OTHER REQUESTS AND AN ADJUSTED DISCOVERY SCHEDULE On May 28, 1981, the Applicant (UCLA) filed a motion for a protective order for certain of the Intervenor's - (Committee to Bridge the Gap,- (CBG)) -
interrogatories.
CBG responded on June 12, 1981, to the motion for a pro-tective order. The CBG response is selective and does not challenge the UCLA position on a number of interrogatories.
The filing also set forth a motion to compel further answers to CBG's second set of interrogatories for which a protective order was not requeste.d but this order does not address that issuo since we do not yet have the response of UCLA to the CBG motion.
The Board has made the following determinations on each interrogatory for which a protective order was requested:
8107060233 81070
~
gDRADOCK 050001 3=.
m.
, _ CONTENTION I No. 18. The Request for a protective order is denied. We see no reason why a student's participation in reactor time should be privileged.
No. 19. Grant protective order.
Not in dispute.
4 No. 28(h). Deny protective order as modified. Has any analysis been performed at UCLA on the SPERT and BORAX tests? What is the basis for the statement in the application? Was UC,LA data furnished to Pacific Northwest Laboratory (Battelle) on SPERT and BORAX tests for NUREG/CR-2079, PNL-3691?
. CONTENTION II Nos. 54 and 55.
Deny protective order.
Inforcation on students participating in a legitimate research of the university is not privileged and certainly not an invasion of privacy.
No. 60. Deny protective order as modified but UCLA does not have to chart or tabulate the data.
Information should be released if it exists in its present form.
CONTENTION III No. 3 Grant protective order.
Not in dispute.
l l
No. 43 Deny protective order.
Clearly relevant.
i Nos. 51 and 52. Grant protective order. Not in dispute.
i No. 58. Grant protective order as modified. We have determined that it is unduly burdensome to cover the period 1950 to date but have de-termined that data should be furnished from 1975 to date.
r-3-
CONTENTION IV No. 20. Grant protective order.
Shipment of fuel was not admitted as a contention.
No. 25. Grant protective order. Not in dispute.
CONTENTION V Contention 11. Deny protective order as modified.
UCLA need not compile'a study but should furnish relevant information if it exists.
Nos. 39, 43, 45, 47, 48 and 50.
Deny protective order as modified.
UCLA need not create a complex and extensive study but should furnish existing information.
Uader 10 C.F.R. f 2.740(e)
UCLT should supplement its response if it develops additional infor-mation prior to the hearing.
No. 51. Grant protective order. Not in dispute.
CONTENTION VI Nos. 53-61. Grant protective order.
Not relevant to admitted contentions.
a No. 66. Grant protective order. Not relevant to the UCLA reactor.
_ CONTENTION VII Nos. 3, 4, 8(c) and 15.
Deny protective order. What language does UCLA use to describe the occurences which would be reported under this contention? 8(c) and 15 should be answered.
--+,wp-s w-
-e r--
.-r qy-wr.
-r--
g
-w--ra-r-- - -, -
--w- - -
,s.--.
,-nw
+
.-we-+,--,
CONTENTION VIII No. 8.
Deny protective order. UCLA should state what operation t ider the license or technical specifications is permitted under "a" through "j".
Nos. 22(e), 23(c) and (d), and 24.
Deny. protective order. UCLA is neither expected nor required to perform any additional studies in order to
- respond to these interrogatories, but it may now have some existing informa-tion which would be responsive to some degree to tha information be'ing sought.
If so, it should be furnished.
If not, UCLA should, so state.
No. 28. Deny protective order.
If UCLA has other information, it should be provided.
No. 35. Grant protective order.
CONTENTION XX Nos. 3-37, 4C, 44-62, 65 and 66.
Grant protective order temporarily until the guidelines provided by the Appeal Board on June 9,1977 have been met.$/ 'The first step is for the Intervenors to fully identify who they pro-pose to qualify as a witness possessing the necessary technical competence with regard to the security system for the evaluation of the other parties and the Board.
If the first step is achieved, the next step is the accept-ance of a proper Protective Order modeled after the Appeal Board guidelines in ALAB-592.2/
If these matters are resolved to the satisfaction of the Licensing Board, then discovery will be opened to the depth of the guidelines in ALAB-410 as appropriate to this research reactor.
1/ Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-410, 5 NRC 1398 (1977).
2/ Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-592,11 NRC 744, 746, 757 (1980).
- m. m m
F
. -th3s. 38 and 39. Grant protective order.
Nos. 41, 42 and 43. Grant protective order.
No. 63.
Grant protective order.
No. 64.
Deny protective order. A simple answer should suffice.
CONTENTION XXI No. 33.
Grant protective order. Not relevant.
OTHER REQUESTS RELATIVE TO DISCOVERY UCLA requested that-documents to be furnished be limited to the " Exhibit A" list attached to its response of May 20, 1981.
CBG objects on the basis that discovery would be curtailed and states that it presently has discovery requests pending that are outside the listing in " Exhibit A."
While the Board recognizes that the list includes many areas, we deny the request as an unjustified limitation on discovery.
UCLA is well aware of the recourse available to it if it believes a discovery request is improper.
UCLA requests protection from performing studies, evaluations or other analyses and calculations. We have stated,from the onset of the disputes arising under discovery that no party has the obligation to perform the type of new work effort UCLA describes.
See Board orders of December 22, 1980 and March 10, 1981. The request is granted, and we repeat, no party is required to develop a new work effort, studies, evaluations or other analyses and calculations.
UCLA also requests deferral of discovery on Contention XX (Security) until the Board rules on the Staff motion for summary disposition. CBG states in opposition that granting this request could eliminate all discovery f
re, y-
,.n r
-a--
p
,-, - - - - -, -, ~.
,, since all contentions could be the subject of motions fcr summary dis-positions. We ruled, in considering Contention XX above, that under the Appeal Board guidelines, discovery is appropriate. The request is denied.
UCLA requests a limitation of fifty (50) follow-up questions by CBG for any interrogatories for which a protective order was not granted to UCLA. While we are aware that discovery requests have been extensivc in this proceedirg, we have detettnined that there is no basis to set a numerical limit on follow-up questiens, but we urge the parties to care-fully consider the necessity for any follow-up questions.
SCHEDULE ADJUSTMENT On May 29, 1981, the Board's order stated, in response to an inquiry from CGB, that adjustments have to be made in a " tight" discovery schedule when disputes arise and various motions are filed. On June 12, 1981, CBG requested that the schedule be adjusted but did not suggest a new schedule. On June 19, 1981, UCLA requested an adjustment in the dis-covery schedule and made several suggestions to adjust the schedule.
On June 30, 1981, the Board requested a secretary in our office to contact all parties and inform them that the present schedule was sus-i pended and that an adjustment will be made in the discovery schedule in a forthcoming Board order. The message also reminded the parties that this would not affect the time for filing a response to a motion.
CBG i
stated that o e to a delay they had just received the UCLA filing of
(
June 19 and intend to respond immediately since they were not in agree-l l
ment. The Staff stated it did not intend to respond but mentioned any l
l
,e
. adjustment should consider an appropriate time for filing motions for summary disposition. We will defer our ruling on a new schedule until we receive the response from CBG. We will expect the CBG response to be filed not later than ten (10) days from the date of this order.
At the prehearing conference on February 4,1981, the Staff stated that it expected to issue the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and the Environmental ' Impact Appraisal (EIA) in April,1981. Tr. 121. Thesa documents together with " Analysis of Credible Accidents for Argonaut Reactors, NUREG/CR-2079, PNL-369'1" and " Summary of Computer Model and Selected Results from Argonaut Design Basis Accident Evaluation, NUREG/CR-2198" were not issued until June 19, 1981.
Because of the late release datg they are outside the discovery schedule stipulated by the
-parties and adopted by the Board in its March 20, 1981 order. Discovery requests based on these documents may be submitted nc later than thirty
-(30) days from the date of this order.
Responses to any discovery re-quests must be served no later than sixty (60) days from the date of this order.
IT IS S0 ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETV AND LICENSING BOARD l
uM.f%
El iza th S. Bowers, Chairman ADMIN STRATIVE JUDGE i
Bethesda, Maryland July 1, 1981
-. ~. -