ML20009F858

Requests Clarification Re Wh Cormier Power of Atty, Designation of Ucla Representative & Powers & Authority of Such Designation

ML20009F858
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	07/20/1981
From:	Pollock M COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP, POLLOCK, M.
To:	Bowers E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8108030107
Download: ML20009F858 (5)

Text

-

a the nuclear law centers 1724 NORTH LA 00fA AWNUE e LOS ANG D'

CAufor+tA9p046 l r' s  %

213/851-9201

)

hf f 'k f f 'f JU -11 5 )ly'gl'% d 1 UBf w~

N July 20, 1981 g\ .;,

ms

Jott Elizabeth S. 3owers, Esq., Chair f5 Adninistrative Judge W

' 4/ /Q\' fp  %.

Atomic 3afety and Licensing 3 card U.3. Nuclear Feculatory Consission 'y 'L Washirgton, D.C. 20555 0

@ jul 291981 > 9 In the Patter of p d be EC'tUl D The Regents of the University of California ogm t, SE8 9 (UCIA Research Reactor) 9 Ed Decket No.30-142 g (Protosed Pereumi of Facilitv Licerse) N m/

Ocar Judge 3ouers:

Recarding certain pending matters before the 3 card, and a related ratter:

July 1 IoM Ner Relative to Discoven as to Contertien XX (Securitv)

Cn July 1 the Ioard granted, as to Intervenor's discover / requests relative to Contention XX, a te porar/ protective order "until the guidelines provided by the Appeal 3 card on June 9, 1977 have been met." The 3oard elsewhere in that Crder identified the necessary steps for Intervenor to take in that regard.

Intervenot 1. pleased with this direction, as Intervenor shares the desire to protect sensitive security information while ensuring thorough consideration of security concerns at hearing. Intervenor will shortly report to the 3 card l as to when it proposes to qualify as uitness.

l As the procedures in ALA3-410 and ALA3-492 are cceplex and lengthy, Intervenor wishes to rake clear its understanding cf the tenporarf grant of protective crder with regards discovery as to Contention XX. Intervenor understands the crder to te pomrily suspend discover / thereto, pending meeting l the provisions of AIA3-410 and ALA3-592, at uhich point, under an appropriale protective order ensuring non-disclosure, discovery will be opened.

Therefore, Inteiwenor will not nake further discover / requests as to Contention XX until such tine as a proper Protective Order, modeled after the Appeal 3 card guidelines, is in place, but delays that discovery without prejudice to said discovery rights at the time those guidelines are met.

If Intervenor's above understanding is incorrect, it requests that it y he so notified. /

8108030107 810720 l

l PDR ADOCK 05000142 G

$ 6i I

O PDR

Slizabeth 3. 30usrs

• rage 2 July 20, 1981 July 1< Ecard Ctde'-

The 3 card Order of July 15 (received by Intervenor July 20) directs Applicant to " inform C3G of its current effort to furnish further infor.?ation and when it expects to be able to furnish same." The 3oard also directed Intervenor to update its Potion to Compel as to its Second Set of Interrogatories, insed in part on Applicant's report. A report from C3G is to be served "not later than twenty (20) days af ter receipt of this order." L*o date was given as to when Applicant snould serve its status report to CEG as to the furnishing of further infernation. As Intervenor is to be in receipt of Applicant's report before raking its own report to the Board, Intervenor wishes to make clear that it will be difficult to serve its response by August ,

10, as requested, if Intervenor is not in receirt of Applicant's report by August 5 at the latest.

July 16 Letter by Willinn H. Cornier as to Qualifications of Daniel Hirsch Intervenor is most confused by it. Cormier's recent letter (July 16) and under what authority it was sent (see final item below.)

Cn June 12, Mr. Cormier, asserting himself to te the "UCIA Representative,"

informed the Board, "We have no objection to having Mr. Hirsch interrogate our expert witnesses under the direct supervision of Mr. Pollock." Fr Cormier, however, requested that he be informed whether his understanding of It. Hirsch's forral education was correct. The Board thereafter requested additional inferration as to said education as well as the nature of the energy courses Mr. Hirsch teaches at UCLA. Intervenor complied on June 30.

In It. Cormier's most recent letter, certain of It. Hirsch's June 30 statements are criticized. However, Mr. Ccraier does not make clear whether the Applicant's previous decision not to object to Mr. Hirsch's interrogation of its expert witnesses has been altered; nor does he directly object at this juncture. He does, however, claim certain se tences in Intervenor's lengthy June 30 filing are " vague and insufficient." p'Ihese comments of Mr. Cormier's are perplexing to Intervenor and cause Intervenor to inquire whether Mr. Cormier has the legal authority to rake said statements on behalf of Applicant.

Mr. Cormier claims, for example, that Mr. Hirsch's description of his '

current energy course at UCLA is vague and insufficient. However, Mr. Firsch's statement included the official course description from the UCLA course catalogue, as well as a detailed 10 page syllabus. We don't quite understand how, and in what capacity, Mr. Cormier calls into question the official course description and course syllabus approved by a faculty committee of the UCLA Academic Senateand approved by the appropriate administrative authorities at UCLA.

Er. Cormier claims that Mr. Hirsch's June 30 statement suggests very limited technical and scientific training and experience, yet Er. Hirsch rade very clear in the statement that he was not addressing himself to his experience but merely to the matters requested by the Board dealing with his

2 Elizabeth S. 3owers page 3 July 20, 1981 education and current teaching, and that he would be willing to provide information as to hl cxperience if requested. Aside from the statement by the Los Angeles Federatien of Scientists, the June 30 C3G filing did not deal with Mr. Hirsch's exterience. And as Intervenor has twice previously made clear, the claim of sufficient technical and scientific understanding to assist counsel in interrogation of witnesses is made on the insis of Mr. Hirsch's knowledge gained from experience, not his formal education.

Mr. Cornier claims that Mr Hirsch's statements are " insufficient in demonstrating that Mr. Hirsch is qualified to function as an expert respecting any single contention in this proceeding and certainly not all twenty contentions that have been admitted." And yet Intervenor has merely requested I'r. Hirsch's assistance in interrogation of expert witnesses on technical matters beyond counsel's understanding and competence; no request has been rade regarding Mr. Hirsch serving as an expert witness as to any contention.

Furthermore, due to Intervencr's sensitivity as to unresolved questions involved i_n_ camera proceedings for Contentiort XX, no request for interrogator, status was rade thereto.

Finally, Mr. Cormier claims that I'r. Hirsch has not been explicit about his scientific and engineering formal education, whereas Mr. Hirsch rakes very clear that his educational tackground has been in public policy, and that like rany public policy specialists he has had to acquire, after the ending of his formal education, knowledge of the technical and scientific aspects of the policy issues he addresses (energy, with a focus on nuclear).

A resolution from the Los Angeles Federation of Scientists appended to his statenent attested that that knowledge is creditable and asserted that the quality of the evidentiary aspects of the licensing proceedings "will be greatly enhanced by his expert participation."

Intervenor can only assume that it is precisely because of Mr. Hirsch's abilities that Mr. Cormier raises his questions; that Mr. Cormiar believes that Mr. Hirsch's technical knowledge and familiarity with this particular reactor may be a significant asset to Intervenor's counsel and thus put Applicant at some sort of disadvantage. Intervenor is sensitive to the situation Applicant would be placed in were university employees, testifying on behalf of the Applicant, to be cross-exanined by another employee, a lecturer in energy issues, assisting an opposing party in this case. 3ut the crucial issue is how to present a full evidentiary record for the Board, and Intervenor respectfully submits that record would be enhanced by Mr. Hirsch assisting counsel in interrogation.

Counsel for Intervenor must reiterate what he said in his June 30 Declaration: I have no background in technical aspects of nuclear reactors, have relied heavily on IIr. Hirsch in these technical matters, and would be unable, without Mr. Hirsch's assistance, to competently represent Intervenor's interests before the 3oard.

Elizabeth S. 3ouers June 20, 1982 page 4 Counsel also reiterates uhat was said in Intervenor's initial motions that Intervenor at that time anticipated no objections (and indeed, Applicant thereaf ter stated for the record it had no objactions), and therefore a detailed statement of Fr. Hirsch's experience was not provided. As br. Hirsch said in his June 30 statement, additional detail and support will be provided if so requested. It also must be pointed out, however, that Intervenor % s already been forced to delay plans for depositions because of the unavailability to date of MI. Hirsch to assist in said depositions.

In sun, Intervencr believes the request for It. Hirsch's assistance to Intervenor's counsel in interrogation of uitnesses is a modest one and one for which he is uell qualified; should not w.ough information te available for the 3 card to make that judgment at this time, Intervenor would be pleased to provide additional information.

Authority of It, Cor-ier to Maka Leral Reeresentations for the UC Recents Intervenor had intended to ignore this last matter, as we understood the licensing proceedings to be somewhat informal and wished to in no way restrict other parties' participation in said proceedings. But recent events cause Intervenor to feel obliged to raise the follouing concern.

We note that throughcut the proceedings Mr. Woods ard Fs. Heluick have acted as the attorneys of record for the Regents. We were under the impression that Mr. Cormier was an administrative representative for UCLA (one of the nine canpuses operated b/ the UC Regents) and was involved in these proceedings as a staffperson to Vice Chancellor Hobson, the particular responsible administrator as the particular campus for which the Regents have requested the license in question.

Fr. Cornier, although an attorney, was, we understood, not appearing as counsel for the Regents but as an adninistrative representative. We note that although Mr. Reidhaar, It. Woods, and Ms. Helwick have been identified on the legal filings in this proceedings as attorneys for the Regents, as well as being listed on the stationery of the Regent's Counsel, Mr. Cormier has not and is not.

Ve have seen no rotice of appearance of counsel for Mr. Cornier in this proceeding. We note that while Reidhaar, Woods, acd Heluick have always been identified in the pleadings as " Attorneys for the Applicant, the Regents of the University of California," Mr. Cormier has not so identified himself, instead identifying himself as the "UCIA Representative." We do not know what is meant bf that term, nor what authority it provides to represent the Regents, as opposed to the UCLA administration, in NRC proceedings.

We note that until recently, pleadings in this case were filed by Er.

Woodc or Ms. Heluick, but that zacently certain pleadings have been filed bf t.I Cornier, as "UCIA Representative." It is our understanding that reactor license R-71 is held df the Regents ard that it is the Regents who have requested the renewal of said license. It therefore seems useful to clarify precisely who are the attorneys of record in this proceeding.

o

_o t

Ve therefore respectfully suggest that clarification is in order as to the following matters: 1) Does Fr. Cormier have power of attorney for the UC Regents in this proceeding before the Board, 2) Is I:r. Cornier an attorney of record for the Regents in this proceeding, and 3) Precisely uhat is meant by the term "UCI.A Representative" and what powers and authority does the term grant? '4hile we trust that Fr. Cormier has had the authority to take the actions he has to date on behalf of the Regents, clarification of these natters would be most useful.

Respectful'y submitted, Fark Pollock Xttorney for Intervenor CCFl:ITTES TO 3 RIDGE T:E GAF cci service list e=

ju g.- - _ - - , , - - - .m__. 7- _.-_ m.-,... m. m-, -,9 . . , . - - , ,