ML20009C087

Motion for Reconsideration of Certain Portions of ASLB 810701 Protective Order Re Second Set of Interrogatories, Contention Vi,In Particular 55a,b,c,57e,59 & 60.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20009C087
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	07/10/1981
From:	Pollock M COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP, NUCLEAR LAW CENTER
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8107200270
Download: ML20009C087 (7)

Text

,

REI.KGD. COB!WSEG5DE.*'CE NUCLEAR IAW CE';TE. 7/10/81 c/o 1724 North Ia Brea Avenue los Angeles, California 90046 (213)876-4700 Mj

/

Q' DY

'g(J-

) 's LL J f Attorneys for Intervenor -

J U L .,t 71931

• Q-C OMITTEE TO 3 RIDGE THE CAP g- ,._

~ m "XEm"* ip 0j'\ l UNITED STATE OP Al RI66 M7 -

NUCLEAR REUIATORf COMMISSI *' h' JUL!16j98{ >' j

~

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICE: SING 30ARD em c, r, e .....?. 8

'n' kkW:i505 UC:1 3efore Administrative Judges:

Elizabeth S. bowers, Chairman ce e Dr. Oscar H. Paris IN Dr. Enmeth Luebke In the Patter of Docket No. 50-142 THE REGENTS T TE (Proposed Renewal of UNIVERSITY 0? CALIFORNIA Facility License)

(UCLA Research Reactor) INTERVENnR'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF C1'.RTAIN PCRTIONS CF PROTECTIVE ORDER OF JULY 1, 1981, RELATIVE TO INTERROCATORIES VI. 55,a,b,c,57e,59,&60 I. THE K0" ION The Connittee to Bridge tia G2p, Intervenor in the above-captioned proceeding, hereby respectfully noves +he Atonic Safety and Licensing Board to reconsider one portion of its July 1, 1981, order Felative to Applicant,'s Motion for a Protective Order. That portion deals with Intervenor's Second Set Interrogatories as to Contention VI (radiation pro +.eetion), Nos. 53-61, in particular 55.a.b, c 57e, 59, and 60. .

8107200270 810710 I

{DRADOCK 05000142 PDR gb l ]

I II. INTRCD_UCTION On Farch 20, 1981, the Board issued its " Order Subsequent to Second Prehearing Conference" in which certain contentions submitt.ed by Intervenor were admitted and others denied admission as issues in the proceeding. In particular, conteritions regarding inadequate radiation protection and monitoring, violation of NRC rules, and inadequate managerial and administrative controls were admitted. Contention XXIV dealing with Applicant's ability to take proper precautions (primarily of a security nature) for transfer and shipment of SNM was denied.

On April 20, 1981, Intervenor submitted to Applicant Interrogatories as to the admitted contentions. Certain of these Interrogatories (IV.20 and VI.53-61) made reference to the June 1980 shipment incident which had formed the tasis for Intervenor's disallowed Contention XXIV.

On Pay 21, 1981, Applicant served answers to the Interrogatories.

Applicant answered two interrogatories related to Cotalt-60 contamination at NEL, but objected to the interrogatories that contained specific references l

to the Ju e 1980 shipment (which had been contaminated with Cotalt-60).

I On Pay 28, Applicant filed a motion for a protective order as to l

the objected interrogatories and certain other matters. On July 2, the l

1 Board served an On'er as to UCLA's reques ced Protective Order. The Order addressed many interrogatories and other matters contained in Applicant's Fay 28 request. In pertinent part, the Order granted Applicant protection fror' answering Interrogatories IV.20 av.d VI. 53-61. Of the 38 parts of those Interrogatories, Intervenor hereby respectin117 requests that the Board ,

reconsider its Protective Order as to 7 parts: VI. 55 a,b,c 57e 59, and 60

, III. DISCUSSION The Board gave as its reason for granting the protective order in question that " shipment of fuel was not admitted as a contention" (Interrogatory IV,20) and "not relevant to admitted contentions" (Interrogatory VI.53-61). July 1 Order, p. 3. The Order gave blanket protection to Interrogatories VI.53-61, whereas Intervenor herein argues that there is a distinction between certain of those interrogatories and others.

In particular, 55,a,b,c, 57e,59 and 60, Intervenor asserts, have clear relevance to issues of radiation protection and monitoring put at issue by Contention VI.

10 CPR 2.714 provides that contentions are r.ot to be admitted when the requisite basis has not been demonstrated. It was apparently on these grounds that the Board deied Contention XXIV. The Board summarized the issues related to Contention XXIV as follows:

i CBG contends that UCLA shipped special nuclear materials without adequate precautions and the grant of the application would be a threat to public health and safety. All parties apparently agree l

that the one and only shipment that UCLA has made to date was in

June 1980 CBG also confirms that UCIA contacted the Staff try j telephone prior to the shipment and apparently got explicit instructiers.

The regulations, all are agreed, changed two weeks later. The Staff

! takes the position that any problems that developed in that shipment

! are not before the Board but were an Inspection and Enforcement matter for the NRC. The Staff stated at the prehearing conferer.ce i that no I and E punitive action (i.e., report) was taken. CBG has i taken the position that because some problems developed in the June

, 1980 shipment, UCLA cannot be entrusted to operate the facility and consequently arrange for any possible future shipments.

Varch 20,1981 @r Subseauent to Second Prehearir2 Conference, p. 14-15

The Board then gave its decision:

We have determined that UCLA took the precaution of getting instructions from the Staff, and that any problems which might have been experienced by the shipper, and under its control, do not establish a pattern that UCLA is irresponsible in shipping nuclear materials. A basis has not been established and the contention is denied. Tr. 450 March 20 Order, p. 15 Intervenor respectfully asserts that while a contention can be denied admission by a Board, each and every aspect of the _ basis for that contention is not automatically rendered inadmissible as evidence regarding contentions which were admitted and for which such evidence ma: be relevant.

Furthermore, discovery in NRC proceedings is genern11y liberally construed.

Commonwealth Edison Co. ,(Zion Station, Units 1 & 2), AIAB-185, 6 AEC 240 (1974).

The test as to whether particular matters are discoverable is one of

" general relevancy." This test will be easily satisfied unless it is clear that the evidence sought can have no possible bearing on the issues.

Commonwealth L11 son Co. supra. Intervenor asserts that Interrogatories VI. 55,a,b,c, 57e, 69 and 60 m.ct that " general relevancy" test and that although CBG is constrained from raising at hearing matters exclusively i related to UCLA's competence to transfer and ship SNM, it is not constrained from raising matters related to radiation protection and monitoring as they relate to admitted Contention VI.

Contention VI states in pertinent part that " Applicant has in the past and is at psent emitting excessive radiation, violating radiation standards, and cmducting inadequate nonitoring." Intervenor asserts that evidence related to Applicant's apparent .*ailure to detect a high level of Cobalt-60 contamination--both within NEL and elsewhere--and possible causation of the contamination, resulting it possible excessive exposures I

in unrestricted areas, is clearly relevant to Contention VI, even though it alone may not have provided sufficient basis to win adnission of former Contention XXIV, which dealt primarily with security measures for tr nsfendng and shipping special nudear materials.

The allegedly inadequate monitoring and radiation control procedures that may have led to the release of a high level of radioactive contamination s

into unrestricted areas had nothing to do with either Applicant's compliance with 10 CPR 73.37 (the regulation which changed ahortly after the shipment took place) nor the matters for which Applicant requested Staff instruction regaztling shipment procedures. Nor does it appear that the problems that occurred relating to the contamination were problems experienced by the shipper, and under its control. The contamination and monitoring problem -

relate to problems experienced by Applicant, and under its control.

Thus it would appear to Interveror that the contamination and monitoring problems related to the shipment incident are not " forbidden territor/"

regarding admitted Contention VI on radiation contamination and monitoring problems.

The new information provided by Applicant in response to Interrogatory VI. 51 (stating that Applicant has twice had problems with leaking Cobalt-60 sources, storing both in the room where spent fuel is stored, and in one case actually storing it in a spent fuel storage holo) gives new impetus for inquirin6 further as to Applicant's monitoring efforts relative to Cobalt-60 There is reasonable assurance that such discovery would lead to evidence of failure to detect Cobalt-60 contamination within UEL for several years and the monitoring practices that failed to detect the contamination then and before the shipment left UCLA. Intervenor notes that the information in the documents to which Applicant directs C3G in

, , . - , . . .~~r - - .

renonse to Interrogatory VI.52 relative to cobalt-60 contaninants in effluents further indicates the presence of such contamination products en site and likewise provides reasonable assurance that vere discovery to proceed on the Interrogatories in question, evidence relevant to Applicant's ability to control release of radioactive material to unrestricted areas may be produced.

IV. CONCI.USION Intervenor respectfully requests that the Board reconsider its grant of protective order with regards Second Set Interrogatories 55,a,b,c,67e,59 and 60 as to contention VI. Intervenor respectfully asserts that the above-mentioned Interrogatories are likely, if fully answered, to lead to admissible evidence clearly relevant to Contention VI's concerns regarding excessive radiation emissions, inadequate radiation monitoring, and violation of radiation pu tection standards.

Respectfully submitted, i 'g_-

j; -V

!srk Follock

/ Attorney for Intervenor Dated: July 10,1981 C0!EITTEE TO 3 RIDGE THE CAP at Los Angelc#, CA yp w d:

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0HMISSION EEFORE THE ATCPIC SAFETY AND LICENSI' G BOARD In the Matter of Docket No. 50-142 m IA (Proposed Renewal of Facility License)

(UCIA Research Reactor) )

DECLARATION E SERVICE I hereby declare that copies of "INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CERTADT PORTIONS OF PROIECTIVE ORDER OF JULY 1,1981, REIATIVE TO INTERROGATORIES VI. 55,a,b,c,57e,59 AND 60" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served by me on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 13th day of July,1981.

Elizabeth S. Bowers Esq., Chairman Counsel for NRC Staff Adninistrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washingtor, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section (3)

Office of the Secretary Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administr tive Judge Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Roger Holt, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of City Attorney 200 N. Main St.

Dr. Oscar H. Paris City Hall East, Room 1700 Administrative Judge los Angeles, CA 90012 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 William H. Cormier, Esq.

! Office of Administrative Vice

( . Chancellor I

// /

,e l University of California '

' ~ /'

! 405 Hilgard Ave. -

~

Los Angeles, CA 90024 / 4 Q Ihniel Hirsch Christine Helwick, Esq. Representative for Intervenor Glenn R. Woods, Esq. COMMI'ITEE TO 3 RIDGE THE CAP Office of General Counsel 590 University Hall 2200 University Avenue 3erkeley, CA 94720 l

l

~ - - . --a v , e