ML20037D388
| ML20037D388 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 06/29/1981 |
| From: | Helwick C, Reidhaar D, Woods G CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107100175 | |
| Download: ML20037D388 (30) | |
Text
,
~
Q
'I occymo 3\\
1 USNac
)
0E
.lUL1 6 1981 *
~4 2
(
\\
Clx: of tbc h&y "i.55....N. '
- g 3
9' 8
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4
y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENS NG
/b p ((( q % ~D,C
~
,N 7
V l-
_g
~
JUL 0 01981 w A W u s.rsgga a,eguon
'}.'
9 In the Matter of
)
N
-Q
)
Docket No. 50-1 %
10 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
)
(Proposed'k$newqtlj Pacility OF CALIFORNIA
)
License Numbe
-71) 11
)
(UCLA Research Reactor)
)
June 29, 1981 12
)
13 14 APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR'S MOTION TO 15 COMPEL AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 16 17 18 DONALD L.
REIDHAAR GLENN R.
WOODS 19 CHRISTINE HELWlCK 590 University Hall 20 2200 University Avenue Berkeley, California 94720 21 Telephone:
(415) 642-2822 22 Attorneys for Applicant 23 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 24 25 26 v
}$O ',
6tkO 27 28 8107100175 810629 PDR ADOCK 05000142 G
1 Applicant, THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, 2
responds to Intervenor, Committee to Bridge the Gap's, " Motion 3
to Compel Further Answers from Applicant to Intervenor's Second 4
Set of Interrogatories; and Response to Applicant's Motion for 5
a Protective Order," dated June 12, 1981, and responds also to 6
Intervenor's " Request for Production of Documents," dated May 26, 7
1981, as follows:
8 0
I.
INTRODUCTION 10 11 Intervenor's " Motion to Compel" and " Request for 12 Production," considered together, raise four questions about 13 Applicant's discovery responses:
Intervenor questions the 14 sufficiency of certain of Applicant's " Answers" (" Answers of tae 15 Applicant to Intervenor's Second Set of Interrogatories," dated 16 May 20, 1981) to Intervenor's "Second Set Questions" (Inte rvenor 's 17 (Second Set) Interrogatories to Applicant," dated April 20, 1981);
18 Intervenor questions the reasonableness of certain objections made l
19 by Applicant in its Answers to certain of the Second Set Questions; 20 the reasonableness of Applicant's request (made in " Applicant's 21 Motion for a Protective Order," dated May 28, 1981) for a general 22 limitation on the number of documents to be produced during 23 discovery; and the reasonableness of Applicant's request (also 24 in its " motion for a Protective Order") that a limitation be 25 placed on the number of follow-up questions.
26 27 In general, Applicant stands by its responses to 28 Intervenor's questions.
Applicant also maintains that the
1 objections raised to.Intervenor's questions are reasonntble and 2
that there is ample justification for issuing 'the protective order 3
requested by Applicant.
4 5
Moreover, there is new, additional support for the 6
issuance of such a protective order.
The NRC staff has just 7
released its Safety Evaluation Report and Environmental Impact 8
Assessment together with two commissioned studies, NUREG/CR-2079 9
(" Analysis of Credible Accidents for Argonant Reactors") and 10 NUREG/CR-2198 ("Argonant Design Basis Accident Evaluation").
11 Applicant intends to rely on these NRC reports and studies 12 extensively in demonstrating that the renewal of Applicant's 13 operating license raises no significant public health and safety 14 considerations.
In particular, Applicant has no further intention 15 of " defending" its 1960 Hazards Analysis, which was based on 16 very conservative and totally unrealistic postulates nor does 17 Applicant intend to conduct any of the studies, perform any of 18 the calculations or derive any of the data which Intervenor has 19 requested and has assumed, incorrectly, would be necessary to 20 support the license application.
As a result of the publication 21 of these studies a significant number of Intervenor's Second Set 22 Questions are rendered irrelevant and immaterial and many of 23 Intervenor's specific arguments to compel further answers are 24 made moot.
25 26 Nevertheless, Applicant acknowledges that a small 27 number of its responses to Intervenor were inadequate.
Under 28 the severe time constraint of having to respond to the over.
1 2,280 Second Set Questions within twenty-two days, Applicant 2
made mistakes.
A few of Applicant's answers were simply omitted, 3
inadvertently, in the final typing of the 220 pages of answers.
41 A few of the answers which would otherwise have been easily 5
understood by technical'.y-trained individuals were not made 6
sufficiently clear, as Applicant now recognizes, for the non-7 technically-trained.
To remedy these oversights Applicant has 8
prepared an " Attachment"
(" Applicant's Supplemental Responses to 9
Intervenor's Second Set Questions") to this memorandum, which 10 contains the omitted answers, additional explanations to pre-11 viously provided answers and answers to certain questions which 12 Applicant had stated in its May 20 Answers that it would respond 13 to at a future date when it had time to prepare the information 14 requested.
15 16 Applicant acknowledges further that its protective order.
17 request that document production be limited to the " Exhibit A" 18 list of documents (attached to Applicant's May 20 Answers) could 19 be interpreted as putting an end to discovery in this proceeding.
does not seek to curtail all future discovery.l 20 Applicant, however, 21 Applicant seeks only to protect itself from the type of request 22 regularly used by Intervenor that calls for "all records and 23 documents in any wa; related to some general subject matter."
24 Applicant is prepared to stipulate that if its protective order 25 is granted by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) it 26 will continue to produce other documents requested by Intervenor i
27 i provided that the request is for specifically described records 28 and/or documents which are. elated to specific tactual matters in dispute.
-e 1
Applicant submits that its answers to Intervenor's i
2 Second Set Questions, as supplemented by the Attachment document 3
contained herein, are fully responsive.
Without further modifying 4
its answers, Applicant states that it also intends to rely on the 5
recently released NRC Staff reports and studies in all places 6
these documents are applicable.
Applicant submits further that 7
its protective order request is reasonable and not founded, as 8
Intervenor suggests, on any unwillingness to disclose relevant 9
and material information.
The request rests instead on practical 10 considerations:
that there are virtually no material factual 11 matters in dispute in this proceeding; that Applicant is relying 12 completely on the NRC studies and not any of Applicant's own 13 st'udies or calculations respecting accident analyses and safety-14 related issues; and that Applicant cannot undertake the extremely 15 burdensome work effort required to respond to all of Intervenor's 16 discovery requests.
17 18 II.
DISCUSSION
~
19 20 A.
Discovery Standards 21 There is no need for Applicant to review the discovery 22 standards applicable to this proceeding.
The Commission's dis-23 covery rules follow generally the federal rulec with the im-24 portant modification that in operating license proceedings the 25 discovery of "all relevant information" is limited to those matters 26 in controversy (contentions) admitted by the Board at the end of 27 the Special Prehearing Conference.
10 C. F. R. S2. 740 (b) (1).
28 Except with respect to the several matters discussed below, l
1 Applicant does not take exception to Intervenor's citati]n of 2
authority.
At issue are not the common discovery standards buu 3
how those legal standards are applied to the particular matters 4
in dispute in the instant proceeding.
5 6
Intervenor purports to use, and uses incorrectly, 7
several common discovery standards ih support of its argument 8
that Applicant's Answers are inadequate.
The Hickman-Taylor 9
principle that the discovery procedures are designed to avoid 10 surprise and to merely advance the stage in the proceeding when 11 the disclosure of information is made is inapplicable in the 12 instant case.
Intervenor has assumed that the studies and 13 calculations Applicant has stated it cannot conduct or perform 14 will have to be conducted or performed at some later stage if l
15 Applicant is to meet its burden in the proceeding.
Intervenor's 16 assumption is incorrect.
Applicant does not intend to conduct 17 any new studies or perform any new special calculations in sup-18 Port of its license application.
Applicant is prepared to 19 meet its burden in this proceeding without having to generate 20 any of the information which Intervenor apparently believes is 21 necessary for its own case.
It is simply not correct to suggest, 22 as Intervenor does, that Applicant will have to " gather :uch 23 information before trial in any event."
24 25 Moreover, respecting Applicant's offer of its business 26 records and documents in lieu of an answer, which is specifically 27 ~ permitted by the federal rules, Intervenor misconstrues the clear 28 intent of that rule which is "to place the burden of research on.
I the party who seeks the information."
Rule 33(c), Federal Rules 2
of Civil Procedure and Notes of Advisory Committae on 1970 3
Amendments to Rules.
In all cases where Applicant offered its 4
documents in response, Applicant specified precisely where the 5
information could be found where Applicant's staff knew where 6
the information was located.
In the vast majority of cases 7
Applicant's staff did not know the dates or even approximate 8
dates of events in which Intervenor was interested.
In many cases 9
Intervenor wanted to know of "all instances" of some type of 10 event (for example, "all scrams") that had occurred at any time 11 during Applicant's operating history.
Such instances are re-12 ported repeatedly in Applicant's records, principully the 13 operating log records, and Applicant referred Intervenor to the 14 appropriate documents.
For most of these questions of Intervenor 15 the information requested can only be retrieved by paging through 16 the operating logs and reports which requires no particular 17 f amiliarity with those records.
Intervenor is clearly wrong to 18 state " Rule 33(c) cannot be used to shif t the obligation of 19 ascertaining information from one party to another."
In fact, 20 the very purpose of the rule is to place the burden of research 21 on the requesting party.
22 23 Finally, Intervenor seeks to use NRC case law to 24 establish that its 2,280 questions are clearly not an excessive 25 number of questions.
Intervenor states that in the Pennsylvania 26 Power case the " Appeals Board, ruling on remarkably similar cir-27 cumstances held that 2700 interrogatories were not objectionable l
28 circumstances."
In fact, that case held nothing of the kind.
The 1
Appeals Board pointed out that the "2700" figure was an erroneous 2
computation made by the objecting party of the number of questions 3
Proponded.
The Appeals Board found that "the basic questionnaire 4
had about 150 questions and parts there of. "
And, the holding 5
of the Board was not that those 150 questions were flawless, and 6
otherwise acceptable, but instead that the objecting party could 7
not simply refuse to answer any and all of those questions with-8 out filing specific objections.
Pennsylvania Power and Light 9
Company, ASLAB Decision, 12 NRC 317 (1980).
10 11 Applicant also notes that Intervenor objects to 12 Applicant's counting of parts of questions in addition to the 13 quertions themselves, notwithstanding that thi's is precisely the 14 method used by the Appeals Board in the Pennsylvaniu Power case 15 and by the Commission in its proposed rulemaking to limit the 16 number of interrogatories which a party could file.
Nonetheless 17 Applicant wishes to point out that Intervenor's Second Set 18 Questions contain 750 numbered questions (ignoring subparts, 19 which were as many as twenty in several instances) and Intervenor's l
~20 Third Set of follow-up questions contain 350 numbered questions 21 ignoring subparts.
These numbers of questions, which have not 22 served to focus discovery on factual matters in controversy, 23 are clearly excessive.
Applicant's request for a limitation on 24, the number of follow-up questions to be permitted is certainly i
25 ~ warranted.
26' 27 B.
Applicant's Response to Intervenor's Category "A"
Items 28 Intervenor divided its specific complaints in its 1
motion to compel into two categories:
items for which Applicant 2
has not requested a protective order (Category "A") ; and items 3
for which Applicant has requested a protective order (Category 4
"B").
Applicant's specific responses to the Category A and B 5
items follows.
The roman numeral in parentheses following 6
an interrogatory number refers to the relevant contention.
7 8
Interrogatory No. 24e (I).
Applicant stands by its 9
response.
Intervenor's question asks what was the original 10 purpose for including in the technical specifications require-11 ments for "a.
the exhaust stack height, b.
the flow rate out 12 of the exhause stack (as opposed to capability of exhaust fans),
13 and/or c. access restrictions to the roof area."
14 15 First of all, item c was never present in the technical 16 specifications.
But, in any case, the purpose for including any 17 of them as requirements is simply not known. Applicant's staff 18 cannot point to any rpecific health physics or other safety 19 concern.
It can be guessed that the exhaust stack height and 20 exhaust fan capability " requirements" were just meant to be 21 descrittions of hpplicant's facility as ccnstructed, but the 22 exhaust stack height was apparently described incorrectly.
23 24 Intervenor states Applicant has been unresponsive.
25 What Intervenor really means is that Intervenor just does not 26 believe Applicant's response.
27 28 Interrogatory No. 26d (I).
Applicant stands by its
_g_
1 response.
The statement in question was made by an NRC official 2
and was intended to be descriptive of all low power research 3
reactors.
Applicant included the statement in its application 4
because in the technical judgment of Applicant's staff the state-5 ment was applicable to Applicant's research reactor.
Applicant 6
had no specific values in mind when it included the statement 7
but balieves the correctness of its technical judgment is 8,
supported by NUREG/CR-2079, " Analysis of Credible Accidents for 9
Argonant Reactors."
10 11 Interrogatory No. 2Ce (I).
Applicant stands by its 12 response.
Applicant could have added that Applicant did not in-13 clude the statement in its application based on any specific 14 analysis and studies which Applicant performed or which Applicant 15 knew about except, in an indirect way, its own 1960 safety 16 analysis which was included in the application.
Again, Intervenorr 17 simply does not believe Applicant's response.
18 19 Interrogatory No. 27e (I).
Applicant stands by its 20 response.
Counter to Intervenor's statement, the referenced page 21 and paragraph are not the precise statement Intervenor asked the 22 question about.
In any case, pages II/5-1 and 5 of the applica-23 tion contain statements of the " educational and research ob-24 l jectives of the facility."
25 26 Interrogatory No. 28k (I).
Applicant stands by its 27 response.
The statement in question relates to the Applicant's 28 1960 Hazards Analysis which is repeated, in relevant part, in the.
1 Applicant's 1980 application.
Applicant stated that the state-2 ment was " supported by the discussion that appears in the 1980 3
Safety Analysis which appears in the Application."
Applicant 4
knows of no other supporting studies nor articles.
- Again, 5
Intervenor simply does not believe Applicant's response and, 6
moreover, apparently lacks the technical competence to recognize 7
that the statement in question is de'duced directly and readily 8
from the 1960 Hazards Analysis.
9 10 Interrogatory No. 4 and 4a (II).
Applicant explains 11 its response.
Applicant's simply response to 4 would have been 12 "yes"; then 4a, would have been "not applicable."
Applicant 13 explained that contract and grant activities are accounted for 14 separately, but all other NEL activities (most, bpt not all, of 15 which are related to reactor operations) are lumped in the NEL 16 account; that is, there is no more detailed cost accounting of 17 those non-contract and grant supplies and expenses, there being 18 no need for such detail.
19 20 Interrogatories Nos.
5, 6 and 8 (II).
Applicant scands 2i by its response.
These questions (and several others in Conten-22 tion II) repeat virtually verbatim certain questions contained 23 in Contention XVIII.
Applicant simply referred Intervenor to l
l 24 Applicant's responses to each of the identical questions as they 25 appeared in the Contention XVIII interrogatories.
i 26 l
27 Interrogatory No. 9a and b (II).
Applicant stands 28 by its response.
Intervenor is simply and totally incorrect in l l
l
1 saying "Not answered at all.
No response."
As with the 2
interrogatories discussed above, Applicant referred Intervenor 3
to Applicant's response to the same question appearing in the 4
Contention XVIII interrogatories.
5 6
Interrogatory No. 41 (II).
Applicant stands by its 7
response.
Intervenor quibbles over Applicant's use of the 8
phrase " extramural user" in place of the phase " commercial."
9
" Extramural" user is the correct phrase as Applicant has pre-10 viously and clearly explained in its June 11 "Further Answers" 11 response to Intervenor's first set questions (page 16).
All 12 Applicant's categories are categories of user affiliation.
13
" Commercial" does not fit, although for Intervenor's Contention 14 II arguments Applicant will stipulate that its "extramura l" 15 users are " commercial" users as Intervenor defines the term.
16 17 Interrogatories Nos. 42 and 46 (II).
Applicant in-18 advertently omitted its responses to these questions in the final 19 typing.
These questions are answered in the Attachment.
20 21 Interrogatories Nos. 50a and b and Sla (II).
Applicant 22 stands by its response.
As Intervenor defines " commercial,"
23 Applicant's " extramural users" have been " commercial" but they l
lneed.notnecessarilybeso.
24 "Other Extramural Users" (see chart i
25 j in June 11 "Further Answers") is intended to include, for example, 26 f government users and other " nonprofit" or "not-tor-profit" 27 users.
28 1
Interrogatories Nos. 20 and 43d (III).
Applicant 2
inadvertently omitted its responses to these questions in the 3
final typing.
These questions are answered in the Attachment.
4 5
Interrogatory No. 38 (III).
Applicant inadvertently 6
omitted the date of the meeting.
Applicant's response is 7
supplemented in the Attachment.
8 9
Interrogatories Nos. 55, SG, 57, 59 62, and 63 (III).
10 Applicant stands by its responses.
Intervenor's questions all 11 ask for detailed information relating to demonstrations of the 12 reactor conducted for varicus visitor groups during, principally, 13 the year 1976.
During some of these visits, mainly for high 14 school science students, Applicant's reactor staff regularly 15 invited the visitors to manipulate certain controls as the 16 reactor operator directed.
Any information pertaining to who 17 the visitors were, how many there were, what controls were 18 manipulated, and who the supervisors.where, is contained in the 19 visitors log and the operating log.
Applicant has no more in-20 formation as to the particular log page number, the date or 21 other identifying features than Intervenor has already gotten 22 from the Annual Reports which were cited in Intervenor's' questions 23 and which in at least one instance includes the actual date of 24 the event.
Applicant's logs are chronological and since all the 25 questions asked relate to 1976 events it would present no special 26 problem for Intervenor to examine the v' ALors log for 1976 to 27 get the date of the visit in question and then turn to the page 28 in the operating log for the details.,
r 1
There is no dispute concerning the fact that reactor 2
facility regularly conducts visitor demonstrations and during 3
some of the demonstrations that were held visitors manipulated 4
reactor controls under the direction of the reactor operator as 5
part of the demonstration.
Applicant spent time examining its 6
operating logs to provide the response to Interrogatory No. 54.
7 The answers to No. 54 are typical of' the answers that would be 8
made for all of Intervenor's other questions which ask the same 9
sixteen subpart questions as No. 54 for other demonstrations.
10 If Intervenor wants to investigate these demonstration occurrences 11 further, Applicant has indicated the documents that ought ta be 12 examined.
Applicant ought not to be required to do Intervenor's 13 investigating.
14 15 Interrogatory No. 68 (III).
Applicant stands by its 16 answer.
Applicant does not rely on any " facts which support such 17 a contention."
Applicant simply does not interpret the Commission's 18 regulations, specifically 10 C.F.R.
S555.1-55.9, as prohibiting 19 the practice.
20 21 Interrogatory No. 9a (IV).
Applicant agrees that it 22 could have provided a " simple" response to Intervenor's " simple" 23 question and has done so in the Attachment.
Applicant believed 24 that the simple response would in fact mislead and confuse 25 Intervenor and wished to direct Intervenor to the inspection 26 report in question and particularly Applicant's response to that 27 report which contains the entire answer.
28.
Mi
I 1
The thrust of Intervenor's question was that there were 2
equipment malfunctions that were identified by the NRC that 3, needed correcting and should have been reported to the NRC.
4 In fact, the inspection report conclusions rested on a definition 5
of the term " unanticipated" and the resolution process required 6
that Applicant and NRC staff reach agreement on the definition 7
of the term.
Intervenor could only'be made to understand this 8
by reading the report and Applicant's response, which was what 9
Applicant suggested Intervenor do.
10 11 Interrogatories Nos. 13a-c, 15a-c, 17 and 17a, 18, 22 12 and 24a (IV).
Applicant stands by its response.
Intervenor's 13 questions all ask about events described in various NRC in-14 spection reports going back to the 1960's.
Although Applicant's i
15 current staff recall, generally, that such events occurred and 16 that, on occasion, notices of violation were issued by the NRC, 17 none of the current staff knows with any particularity the 18 details of those occurrences.
Moreover, with respect at least 19 to Interrogatories 22 and 24a, Intervenor asks Applicant the 20 : meaning of certain statements made by NRC staff of ficials in NRC 21 correspondence.
Surely such questions should be directed else-22 where.
Applicant's understanding of those statements is limited 23 to what is contained in the written reports and Applicant's 24 ; written responses, if any.
Since all the events in question are 1
25 d described thoroughly in the inspection reports, Applicant has l
26! referred Intervenor to those reports and the Applicant's re-t 27 sponses to the reports where responses were made.
28 1
In fact, Intervenor has in its possession, or at least 2
has read, all inspection reports concerning Applicant's facility 3
that the NRC has issued.
All these reports were placed in the 4
public reading room by the NRC staff.
Indeed, Applicant was i
5 only able to complete its own file of inspection reports for all 6
years of reactor operation (Applicant's files were incomplete 7
for years prior to 1975) by requesting last fall that the NRC 8
staf f make available to Applicant the complete file of inspection 9
reports it had already made available to Intervenor.
10 11 '
The only possible purpose Intervenor could have for 12 asking for information which it already has in its possession is 13 the rather obvious attempt to get Applicant to deny the existence 14 of some report which does exist, or to deny the occurrence of 15 an event which did occur.
Applicant in its responses makes no 16 isuch denials, and even in cases where events could be interpreted 17 one way or the other or where Intervenor's description of the 18 event is incorrect, Applicant has, for the purposes of avoiding 19 argument on the matter, conceded the occurrence of events or 20 activities which, viewed correctly, need not be conceded.
The 21 point being that Applicant does not regard any of the particular 22 events or occurrences, nor any alleged " pattern" of such 23 occurrences during its operating history, as in any way 24, exceptional.
25 i
26 Applicant's operating history is a matter of NRC and 27 public record.
Intervenor's entire line of inquiry into enforce-28 ment actions and inspections already recorded in written NRC.
1 reports contributes nothing to the conduct of this proceeding and 2
the deliberations of the Board.
Notwithstanding that, Applicant 3
makes no objection to the inquiry but requests only Chat Inter-4 venor not depend on the labor of Applicant's staff in the con-5 duct of Intervenor's investigation.
6 7
Interrogatories Nos. 13-18' (V).
Applicant stands by 8
its responses; however, Applicant attempts here and again in 9
response to Interrogatory No. 11 (V), below, to explain the con-10 fusion in Intervenor's series of hypothetical questions.
Questions 11 13-17 have been answered by Applicant clearly, unambiguously and 12 concisely.
Intervenor has no basis at all to complain about 13 Applicant's responses to these questions.
14 15 Intervenor's questions about what levels of sample 16 worth (measured in reactivity levels!) it is " physically 17 impossible" to insert in the reactor indicate how technically 18 deficient Intervenor is in exploring this area and, as a 19 consequence, how extremely difficult it is fcr Applicant to try 20 to understand what Intervenor is "getting at" in its questions 21 and then to make adequate responses.
22 23 A nuclear engineer or technician would recognize that 24 samples possess no set, inherent reactivity level but that the 25 reactivity that results is due to the particular reactor; that 26 is, a sample exhibits reactivity only af ter it is inserted into 27 a particular place in a particular reactor.
But even if Applicant 28-understands Intervenor's questions to mean a " sample which when.
1 inserted into the reactor under conditions that would result in 2
the stated reactivity levels," the question is vague.
Intervenor 3' asks whether it is " physically impossible" "to fit (such a 4
sample) inside a pneumatic tube rabbit."
Applicant had to assume 5
Intervenor was referring to Applicant's currently-used rabbits 6
and not to a redesigned rabbit container or rabbits that may be 7
used by other facilities (the " rabbit" is a small, approximately 8
2 cu. in. plastic container with a cap).
Moreover, Applicant 9
had to assume, taking Intervenor's question as propounded, that 10 Intervenor was unconcerned with whether a sample, which could 11 possibly fit inside a rabbit, was of such a mass that it could 12 not be " lifted" through the pneumatic system.
An engineer 13 would recognize immediately that a pneumatic s'ystem may be 14 limited by the mass of the object which it is capable of "lif ting" 15 as much as by the size of the container, which usually can be 16 varied.
17 18 Interrogatory No. 44 07).
Applicant stands by its 19 response which is the response to NEL Director Catton.
20 l 21 Interrogatory No. 8c (VI).
Applicant has further 22 explained its response in the Attachment.
23 24 Interrogatory No. lla (VI).
Applicant stands by its l
25 0 response.
Applicant provides a further explanation of its 26 response in the Attachment explaining what scientists and 7
27 engineers mean when they speak of " valid" and " accurate" results.
28 1
Interrogatory No. 21a and b CVI).
Applicant stands by 2
its response.
The question was not skipped; Applicant indicated 3
it was studying the matter and would respond at a later time.
~
4 5
Interrogatory No. 25a CVI).
Applicant inadvertently 6
omitted the response to this question in the final typing.
7 The question is answered in the Attachment.
8 9
Interrogatory No. 36c OVI).
Assuming Intervenor is 10 concerned with the determination of " transit time" not " staff 11 time" as stated, Applicant provides in the Att:chment a more 12 precise description of the " transit time" calculation.
13 14 Interrogatory No. 40, a,
c and d (VI).
Applicant has 15 supplemented its response to these quc3tions in the Attachment.
16 17 Interrogatory No. 41b CVI).
Applicant has supplemented 18 its response to this question in the. Attachment.
19 20 Interrogatory No. 47a CVI).
Applicant has supplemented '
21 its response to this question in the Attachment.
22 23' Interrogatory No. 52a and b CVI).
Applicant stands 24 by i.ts response.
All corrosion and activation products that are 25 observed in the liquid effluents are reported yearly in the 26 annual reports.
Applicant has made the annual reports available 27 to Intervenor.
Cobalt-60 has been observed from time to time and.
28 is reported to the NRC as are all other observable isotopes in the effluents.
_ ll 1
Interrogatories No.
5, 6 and 7 (VII).
Applicant stands 2
by its responses to these questions.
As Applicant explained, the 3
only precise, formally defined terms used by Applicant are those 4
terms that are defined in the technical specifications of the 5
application.
Intervenor's question asks for definitions of 6
"all other terms utilized" to refer to " unusual episodes or 7
events."
As Applicant explained, Applicant has no special 8
glossary of terms to report events except for the special terms 9
defined in the technical specifications and terms of common 10 engineering parlance.
Unusual events are reported on a case by 11 case basis using, wherever possible, straightforward description.
12 13 Interrogatory No. 9c (VII).
Applicant inadvertently 14 omitted its response to this question in the final typing.
15 Applicant has responded to the question in the Attachment.
16 17 Interrogatory No. Sa (VIII).
Applicant stands by its 18 response.
There appears to be no basis for Intervenor's objection.
19 to the response since Applicant's response did not " refer to 20 previous answer which doesn't provide the information requested."
21 22 Interrogatory No. 7d, e,
f, g and h (VIII).
Applicant 23 has supplemented its respcnse to 7d in the attachment, but stands 24 by its other responses.
The intensive level of operations 25 hypothesized in Intervenor's questions are unrealistic for 26 Applicant's f acility and Applicant has never had occasion to 97 perform the requested calculations.
28 1
Interrogatories Nos. 11 and 12 (VIII).
Applicant stands 2
by its responses to these questions.
Intervenor's questions 3
relate to the 1960 Hazards Analysis. ' Applicant has no information 4
concerning how the assumptions made f.n that report were developed 5
but assumes that the analyst who wrote the report simply postu-6 lated the figures which were intended to be reasonably conserva-7 tive.
The recently released NRC Safety Analysis Report supersedes 8
ccmpletely the 1960 Hazards Analysis.
9 10 Interrogatory No. 14 (VIII).
Applicant has supplemented 11 its response in the attachment.
12 13 Interrogatory Nos, 18a to h and 19b 'and c (VIII).
14 Applicant has supplemented its response to 18a to h in the 15 Attachment but stands by its response to 19b and c, although the 16 supplemented response to 18 is also pertinent to 19.
Intervenor's 17 series of questions on specific inventories is confused apparently, 18 because Intervenor does not understand the difference between 19 power reactor operating cycles and research reactor operating 20 cycles.
The specific inventory is highly dependent on the reactor 21 operating cycle, which for Applicant's research reactor is quite 22 irregular.
23 24 Interrogatory 30 (VIII).
Applicant stands by its 25 response.
In preparing its license renewal applicant, Applicant 26 relied on the estimates of leak rate adopted by the analyst who 27 wrote the 1960 Hazards Analysis.
28 1
C.
Applicant's Responses to Intervenor's Category "B"
Items 2
Applicant's objections on stated grounds to.nswering 3
certain of Intervenor's Second Set Questions were made in 4
Applicant's Answers.
Applicant further explained each of its 5
specific objections in " Applicant's Motion for a Protective Order",
6 dated May 28, 1981.
The following remarks of Applicant to the 7
specific interrogatories discussed in Intervenor's " Motion to 8
Compel" in the Category "B"
discussion are intended to supplement 9
Applicant's previous explanations of the reasonableness of the 10 objections.
11 12 Interrogatory No. 18 (I).
Applicant continues to object 13 o that portion of this question which calls for the specific 14 identification of students and their projects.
However, in 15 response to several of Intervenor's questions relating to the 16 education use of the reactor, Applicant has prepared a report 17 titled " Class Use of the UCLA Reactor" which summarizes the class 18 use of the reactor for the 1980-81 academic year.
Applicant has 19 provided this report
(" Exhibit A" to the Attachment) in supple-20 mentation of its response.
21 22 Interrogatory No. 28h (I).
Applicant stands by its 23 response, objecting to the question because it requires that 24 Applicant conduct an extensive study.
Applicant has no special 25 information regarding the SPERT and BORAX reactors except that 26 which is contained in standard nuclear engineering texts.
Appli-27 cant has no information relating those reactors to UCLA's reactor.
28 In view of the safety evaluation recently released by the NRC 1
Staff, there will be no need, and Applicant does not intend, to 2
go beyond the NRC Staff in this matter.
3 4
Interrogatories Nos. 54 and 55 (II).
Applicant stands 5
by its responses, objecting to these questions requesting 6
specific information about certain students as irrelevant, 7
immaterial, and an unwarranted invasion of the privacy rights of 8
these students.
Applicant has not made, and does not intend to 9
make, any special claims regarding the educational benefits 10 received by these particular students and does not intend to 11 introduce any of these students as witnesses to the proceeding.
12 13 Interrog atory No. 60 (II).
Applican't stands by its 14 response, objecting to the question as requiring a new compilation 15 of data that would create an undue burden on Applicant's staff.
16 The requested data is immaterial to any issue in this proceeding.
17 No records have been kept of the information requested since 1968 18 and Applicant's staff estimates that it would require over 60 19 person-hours of effort to derive the data and produce the 20 compilation in report form.
The contribution such information 21 would make to the resolution of Contention II or any other issue 22 in this proceeding is negligible.
23 24 Interrogatory No. 43 (III).
Applicant stands by its 25 response as supplemented in the Attachment.
26 27 Interrogatory No. 58 (III).
Applicant stands by its 28 response, objecting to the question as unduly burdensome.
For _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~
1 all years, 1960 to the present, Applicant would have to page 2
through the Visitors Log noting the visits of ~intecest and then 3
turn to the specific date in the operating log to ascertain the 4
circumstances of each visit.
Even then Applicant would not find 5
all the information requested oy the sixteen subparts to 6
Interrogatory No. 54.
This exercise would require over 30 7
person-hours of effort.
Intervenor could conduct the same search 8
with considerably less burden since Intervenor could Jean the 9
logs recording only that information it needed.
10 l '.
Interrogatory No. 20 (IV).
Applicant wir% draws its 12 objection to ' bis question since Applicant can respond simply 13 to the question.
Applicant's response is in the Attachment.
14 15 Interrogatory No. 11 (V).
Applicant stands by its 16 response, objecting to the question on the grounds that an 17 extensive study would have to be performed to provide the in-18 formation.
Morecever, Applicant noted that the hypothetical 19 problems are r.ot adequately described.
Apparently Intervenor 20 does not have the technical understanding to recognize that at 21 the least the following parameters need to be specified:
purity 22 of the ore sample, enrichment level of the ore sample; whether a 23 positive or negative reactivity is being introduced; where and 24 how the sample is being inserted in the reactor; the nature of 25 the diluent and the concentration.
Further, by focusing upon 26
" uranium ore", the question presupposes a dependence upon the 27 uranium content when, in fact, the resulting reactivity is more 28 likely to be dictated by the sample impurities.
~.
1 Interrogatories I:os. 39, 43, 45, 47, 48 and 50 O/).
2 Applicant stands by its responses, objecting to these questions 3
on the grounds that they, in effect, amount to requiring that the 4
Applicant redo the 1960 Hazards Analysis.
In view of the fact 5
that the NRC staff has produced a new safety evaluation, Appli-6 cant's reliance on the 1960 analysis has become unnecessary.
7 Intervenor states that if Applicant ' claims not to have the 8
resources to conduct certain studies Applicant ought not to be 9
allowed to introduce the information later at a hearing "without 10 a showing of good cause."
Applicant agrees.
Applicant does not a
11 now intend to introduce such information and would not do so 12 without a " good cause" demonstration or as otherwise directed by 13 the Commission, 14 15 Interrogatories Nos. 53-61 CVI).
Applicant stands by
'G its responses, objecting to these questions on the grounds that 17 they relate to matters not admitted in this proceeding.
The 18 Board specifically rejected consideration of this matter at the 19 February 4-5 prehearing conference and in its March 10, 1981 20 Order.
Intervenor has attempted to " transplant" the disallowed 21 contention into an admitted, but unrelated contention.
22 i
23 Interrogatory No. 66 CVI).
Applicant stands by its 24 response, objecting to the question on the grounds of its 25 irrelevancy.
Applicant's reactor operations at its Berkeley 26 campus are totally unrelated to reactor operations at its Los 27 Angeles campus, particularly so in light of the fact that the 28 campuses operate different reactors..
MM
1 Interrogatories Nos.
3, 4,
8 (c) and la
'VII).
Applicant 2
stands by its responses, objecting to the questions on the basis 3
that they are vague, ambiguous and uncertain.
Notwithstanding its objection, A plicant provided an extensive explanation of 4
t 5
the operating terms it used and pointed to those that are used 6
in a special, formal sense, that is, those terms that are defined 7
in the technical specifications.
Applicant explained further 8. that all other terms are used in their generally understood 9
nuclear engineering sense.
Applicant cannot provide Intervenor 10 with a nuclear engineering education in responding to interroga-11 tories.
12 13 Interrogatory No. 8 (VIII).
Applicant stands by its 14 response.
Applicant raised an objection but provided an answer 1
15 i anyway.
As to the uncertainties in the question, subparts c and 16' d do not state how many days and subparts e and f do not state i
17 h how many hours a day.
Moreover, whether a year means a specific i
t iB J calendar period or any consecutive 12-month period is uncertain.
l t
19 20 Interrogatories Nos. 22e, 23c and d and 24 (VIII).
i 21 l Applicant stands by its responses to these questions.
i Interroga-22 tory 22e draws the unlikely conclusion that maximum burn-up 23 coincides with 20 more years at 43.8 mwt-hours per year.
24 + Interrogatories 23c and 23d relate to iodine-131.
Applicant 25 finds the proposed schedulce incredible and undefined at to 26 which hours each day or days each week that the reactor is 27 !hypothesizedtooperate.
With the expenditure of much man-l 28 ! power, Applicant's staff could generate varinus answ;.
depending.
1 upon the assumed details.
Interrogatory 24 relates to Interroga-2 tories 18 and 19, for which a supplemental response tppears in 3
the Attachment.
Interrogatory 24 also predicates incredible, 4
but incompletely defined schedules and the preceding responses 5
to 23c and 23d are applicable.
Applicant submits that these 6
interrogatories are vaguely defined and are based upon incredible 7
premises suggesting that Intervenor's intent is to overburden 8
Applicant's staff with meaningless computations.
9 10 Interrogatory 28 (VIII).
Applicant stands by its 11 response to this question.
It is improper to speak of the fuel 12 and coolant as having " capabilities."
Applicant attempted to 13 be responsive by suggesting a starting point f'or Intervenor 14 into the large literature on the " properties" and " observed 16 phenomena" of fuel and coolant.
16 17 Interrogatory No. 35 (VIII).
Applicant stands by its 18 response.
The question refers to a " building" which might mean 19 either the reactor building or Boelter Hall.
In 1960, Boelter 20 Hall was configured differently than it is at present.
It is 21 meaningless to perform dose calculations for a building configura '
22 tion which no longer exists.
234 24 Interrogatories Nos. 1-66 (XX).
Applicant stands by 25 0 its response, objecting to certain of these questions on security l 26[ information grounds and objecting to all of the questions on the 27 ] grounds that the information requested is irrelevant and immate la'l 28 l to the contention.
As the NRC staff has demonstrated (in its -
1 Motion for Summary Disposition of this physical security con-2 tention).
Intervenor's contention is based on a mininterpretas n
3 of the Commission's regulations applicable to Applicant's facility.
4 There are no material facts at issue with respect to this con-5 tention.
The only matter at issue is what regulations are 6
applicable to Applicant's f acility.
7 8
D.
Applicant's Response to Intervenor's Request for Production 9
of Additional accuments 10 In a document dated May 26, 1981 Intervenor requested 11 that Applicant make available for examination certain of 12 Applicant's records and documents, including the " Exhibit A" list 13 of documents appended to Applicant's May 20 Answers.
On two days 14 during each of the preceding three weeks Applicant has permitted 15 ' Intervenor to examine its " Exhibit A" documents and to obtain 16 photocopies of any documents it requested.
Intervenor also made 17 an oral request at an examination session for all Engineering 18 Change Orders related to Applicant's reactor.
Although these 19 "ECO's" were not included in the " Exhibit A" list, Applicant 20 regarded this request as reasonable and has made these available 21 to Intervenor.
22 23 Applicant's responses to the other documents requested 24 is as follows:
25 Memo, Hicks to Likins, June 26, 1975.
Applicant will 26 make this available for examination.
27 All ventilation drawings,'b.
yrints and plans and all 28 "as built" architectural plans for the Boelter and Math Sciences i
-s
I 1
Buildings.
Applicant will make available for examination its 2
drawings and plans.
3 Design criteria for reactor
.lding.
Applicant will 4
make availabic
't. Project Planning Guide for the reactor 5
building which contain the design criteria.
6 Personnel dosimetry records.
Applicant objects to 7
providing these records on the groun'ds that they are previliged, 8
personal records of individuals.
9 Daily sales figures for various campus eating f acilities.
10 Applicant obj ? cts to providing these records on the grounds that 11 the records are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 12 of admissible evidence.
13 14 IV.
CONCLUSION 15 16 For the reasons stated above, and those contained in the 17 Answers and its Motion for Protective Order, Applicant respect-18 fully requests that Intervenor's " Motion to Comoel Further Answers' i
19 to Intervenor's Second Set of Interrogatories" be denied.
Appli-l i
20 ' cant requests further that its Motion for a Protective Order be 1
21 granted with the understanding that the granting of the motion is l
22 > not to preclude Applicant's responding to reasonably particularized 23; requests for information or documents.
24 Dated:
June 29, 1981 1
25l DONALD L.
REIDHAAR I
GLENN R.
WOODS 26 CHRISTINE HELWICK 27 28 By Glenn R.
Woods _-.
l
.s 1
UNITED STATES OF Al'EPlCA NUCIIAR IEGUIA7DIT CCIMISSICt!
2 BEEDIE DE JEfGC SAFETI A!D LICENSUG DOARD 3
4 In the Patter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-142 5
'DIL REGEES OF DE UNIVERSITI
)
(Proposed Pcnewal of Facility OF CALIIDF IIA
)
License IMrber R-71) 6
)
(UCIA Pescarch Pcactor)
)
7
)
8 uamr1CATE OF SERVICE 9
I hereby certify that copies of the attached:
APPLICR.T'S SUPPIEC.TAL RESIO"SES TO I'cEITEER'S SZJO"D SET OF I'TEPETORIES 10 in the above-captioned prcceeding have teen served cn the follcwing by deposit 11 in the United States rail, first class, postage prepaid,.,Mressed as in-dicated, on this date:
June 30,1981 13 Elizabeth P mars, Esq.
Counsel for NPC Staff U.S. Nuclear Pqalatorf Ccnnission Office of the Executive Ingal Director 14 Atanic Safety & Licansing Board U.S. Nuclear Pqalatory Ccrmissica Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. DTeth A. Luebke Ihniel Hirsch 16 U.S. Nuclear Fcgulatory Ccmission Ccrmittee to Bridge the G3p Atmic Safety & Licensing Board 1637 Butler Avenue, #230 17 Washingtcn, DC 20555 Ios Angeles, CA 90025 18 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Mr. Park Pollock U.S. Nuclear Fqalatorf Ccrmission Pollack & Nillis 19 Atanic Safety & Licensing Scard 1724 N. Ia Drea Avenue s
s, G 90046 20 Chief, Docketing and Service Section (3) 21 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Fegulatory Ccrmission 22 Washingtcn, DC 20555 23 24 25 williata H.
Cormier UCLA Representative 26 27 28 I