ML20041G150
| ML20041G150 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 03/08/1982 |
| From: | Hirsch D COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP |
| To: | Frye J, Luebke E, Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203190331 | |
| Download: ML20041G150 (6) | |
Text
f, M maRn2xazw:
9 COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP 1637 BUTLER AVENUE : 203 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 (213) 478-0829 cnp l 9 g? )' Ng %)
Judge John H. Frye, III Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Chairman Administrative Judge Z
4
,,N J 3 g 2h.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensi - o
,.is ch' tm U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C 4
~'"[$$@
Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
/
A [i[
Dr. Oscar H. Paris AF Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
'82 MM 11 A11 :02 In the Matter of b
The Regents of the University of California" '
V (UCLA Research Reactor)
Docket No. 50-142 (Proposed Reneual of Facility License)
RE: REPCRT CN PRCCRESS TCWARDS RESCLVING DISCCVERY DISPUTES
Dear Administrative Judges:
This memorandum constitutes Intervenor's progress report as to the resolution of certain discovery disputes among the parties.
Staff-Intervenor Fatters Cn July 31, 1981, Intervenor submitted to the Staff and its consultants interrogatories as to the Safety Evaluation Report (SER), the Environmental Impact Appraisal, and tuo studies performed by Staff by consultants (NUREC/CP-2079 and NUREC/CR-2198).
By letter dated August 19, 1981, Counsel for Staff declined to answer any of said interrogatories.
Intervenor, thereaf ter moved the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to require the Staff to answer the interrogatories in question.
3y Crder of Cetober 13, 1981, the Board deferred its ruling on CBC's motion until the parties met and conferred as to the discovery disputes between them, l
l Cn November 24, 1981, Staff and Intervenor met and conferred as to j
the discovery disputes then extant, primarily the interrogatories mentioned above. Certain other natters were discussed in an attempt to reach resolution without necessity of motions to the Board. These included mechanisms for l
dealing with the security contention, and problems related to lack of service l
of Staff-Applicant correspondence and lack of notice of Staff-Applicant l
meetings. Some progress was made on all of these issues.
3 g)S6 e
l
/
D l
8203190331 820308 PDR ADOCK 05000142 O
r 3
.,1 e
4 At the November 24 meeting, certain agreements were reached (later memorialized in an exchange of letters) regarding the interrogatories in question.
CBG agreed to withdraw a large number of the interrogatories.
Of the remaining interrogatories, Staff agreed to answer certain specified interrogatories. Others-for which Staff either had no information independent of that which is contained in the Application, facility annual reports, I & E inspection reports, Applicant's two sets of answers to NRC Staff questions, or NUREC/CR-2198 and CR-2079--needed not to be answered provided that the lack of independent information was indicated. A mechanism for so doing was set up which would not necessitate repetitive statements indicating lack of independent information.
In addition, certain questions as to the two Staff studies were withdrawn on the representation of Staff that they were outside the scope of said studies, with the condition that Staff so indicate in writing and that CBG not be deemed to be assenting to Staff's claims with regards scope.
Agreement could not be reached on one set of questions (C16-26 of the interrogatories as to NUREG/CR-2079) which attempt to determine the degree to which one of Staff's consultants responsible for the generic study of Argonaut credible accidents might have a conflict of intersst due to possible dependence upon the University of Washington Argonaut reactor.
(The individual in question, M. A. Robkin, is associated with the Department of Nuclear Engineering at the University of Washington, one of five licensees of Argonaut reactors in the country. )
Staff declined to permit answering of said questions.
Because Staff did agree to answer certain other somewhat related questions, Staff and Intervenor agreed that Intervenor would await those answers before moving the Board to direct Staff to answer the disputed questions in hopes that some of the requested information in the disputed questions might be provided in the answers Staff was willing to promulgate.
By letter dated February 8,1982, Staff notified the Board that NUREC/CR-2198) y Staff and its consultant at the I4s Alamos Lab (regarding the responses b were "near completion" and that the remaining interrogatories (those addressed to the Battelle study, NUREG/CR-2079) would be complete by mid-March. As of this date, Intervenor has not received the interrogatory responses by Staff or Los Alamos, nor Battelle.
Upon receipt of the answers by Staff and its consultants, Intervenor will review said answers to determine if the discovery agreements are reflected in the answers, if the questions as to M.A. Rotkin which Staff has declined to answer are answered in response to other interrogatories, and if any answers appear to Intervenor to be inadequate.
If any dispute exists as to any of these matters, Intervenor will first contact Staff in an effort to resolve the dispute without resort to motions to the Boards if it appears not possible to resolve all the material disputes informally, Intervenor will at that time move the Board for relief.
The Board should thus be on notice that submission of ~ interrogatory answers by staff may not necessarily be the end of the_ process, although we hope it will be.
c'.
i e
s r Also at the November 24, 1981, meeting tetween Intervenor and Staff, sene tentative agreenents were reached with regards service on Intervenor of Staff-Applicant correspondence, a goed deal of which had not been served on Intervenor.
Staff agreed to take measures to rectify the situation, including providing Intervenor a set of all Staff-Applicant correspondence that it should have previously been served, as well as certsin phetegraphs.
Intervenor hasinot yet received any said materials, nor has it since the November meeting received any new Staff-generated correspondence with Applicant.
In addition, certain ambiguities remain as to Staff's position with regards both Staff-Applicant correspondence and notico of-Staff-Applicant meetings.
Intervenor will attempt to resolve these matters once tere with Staff before taking them '.o the Board. -
Staff indicated at the November 26 meeting that it intends, once discovery is complete and the time for sun. mary disposition arrives, to move fer cummary disposition on all contentions. As there are a great many contentions, Staff agreed to an extension in the time for Intervenor to respond to those summary disposition motions as well.
Intervenor will move the Board for such an extension af ter consultation with the Applicant as to the extent of its anticipated summary disposition motion =.
Additionally, Staff has recently servi Board and parties analysis of rapid insertion of excess rear at the UCLA reactor performed by Brookhaven National Iaboratory or the Commission. As the analysis is quite sketchy in places as to assumptions and sources, Intervenor is contemplating requesting the Board to modify its July 1,1981, Order (which opened discovery on thewecently-released SER and EIA and two supporting stydies done by consultants) to include the newly-released Brookhaven analysis.
Prior to any such motion, Intervenor will consult with Staff and Applicant as to possible objections.
If discovery is requested as to the new staff document, Intervenor contemplates suggesting a procedure whereby the proceeding is not delayed while discovery is pursued on the matter.
Intervenor-Applit3nt Matterg Numerous discovery conferences have 3aken place between Intervenor and Applicant attempting to resolve the custanding disputes. The final such meeting occurred a few weeks ago. At that meeting a temporary resolution was reached as to the disposition-of certain photographs taken by Intervenor on a site visit in November, a resolution which will, when the stipulation is put in place, permit use of the photographs under certain temporary conditions until pernanent conditions are determined by the Board. Thus, the Board should be receiving shortly (as soon as Intervencr and Applicant make final agreement on language and signatures are in place) a temporary stipulation to regulate disposition of certain of the photos taken by Intervenor, temporary until the 3 card makes a final determination of what conditions, if any, should be placed on Intervenor's use of the photographs. The Board will receive motions on the issue of' permanent conditions regarding the photos shortly after the tenporary stipulation is completed.
he -
_ _ _ = _
l
. Certain photographs taken by Intervenor were objected to release to Intervonor under any conditions by Applicant on asserted security grounds (ani one or more on asserted relevancy grounds). [fntervenor'sundeveloped film was required by Applicant, as a condition of permitting the site visit, to be turned over to Applicant for later discussion as to release, with the understanding that if agreenent could not be reached, the Board would be requested to resolve the disputed These 21 or 22 disputed photographs will, thus, be subject of other motions to the Board, an Applicant indicated at the last discovery conference it would not even identify the photos in question, let alone discuss conditions for their release to Intervenor.
The dispute as to taese 21 or 22 photographs probably cannot be resolved until affidavits of nondisclosure are signed and protective orders in place regarding security matters in the proceeding. Intervenor obviously cannot argue whether the asserted grounds for Applicant's objections are valid without knowing those grounds or the photographs to which they are asserted to apply. And apparently this cannot happen until the in., camera mechanisms '
are established, the details of which Intervenor has unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate with Applicant. Thus, motions to the Board to establish appropriate g camera procedures will be made shortly by Intervenor.
Discovery on the cecurity contention had been suspended by Board Order while such procedures were to be worked out. Intervenor repeatedly put on the agenda of discovery conferences with Applicant the issue of finding a mutually-agreeable procedure for litigating the security contention without either unnecessarily limiting Intervenor's ability to present its security concerns or unnecesserily disclosing details of Applicant's security plan.
Staff expressed interest in working out some arrangement, but when Applicant and Storvenor discussed the matter, Applicant indicated no such resolution was possible and that Intervenor should go ahead and make motions to the Board to resume discovery and put in place appropriate protective orders.
Having exhausted the possibility of resolution without resort to motions to the Board, Intervenor intends to begin the process with a motion to the Board within a couple of weeks.
It thus appears likely that the security matter will have to be separated off from the other contentions, not just because of the necessity of g camera proceedings, but because discovery on it has been suspended while discovery on the other matters has gone ahead.
A related problem exists with regards to the contention on Emergency Planning. Staff had requested Applicant provide a revised Emergency Plan by September 1981. At the last Applicant-Intervenor discovery conference, Applicant indicated it hoped to submit the revised plan, along with a number of other amendments to its Application, by the end of February 1982.
Intervenor has received no such amendments as of this date. Certain of Intervenor's discovery requests as to the Emergency Planning Contention were responded to by Applicant by indicating it couldn't answer until its revised plan was finished. Staff indicates ~ in its SER that the matter of Emergency planning is an "cutstanding item" which will necessitate a supplement to the SER. Thus, it appears possible that the emergency planning matter may likewise have to be separated off from the other contentions because of the delay in its revision and analysis by Staff.
r O When Applicant responded to Intervenor's requests for inspection of tha reac, tor facility Applicant indicated that it would provide an inspection that would deal with some of Tntarvenor's requests and not others and succested that the Intervenor inspect those itens offered and that the parties would thereaf ter discuss resolution of any outstanding items.
At the last discovery conference, Intervenor brought up the fact that it still wished to see certain of the items it had requested and which were not produced during the site visit, as agreed'previously. Applicant succosted Intervenor nake that request in writing, and Applicant would respond.
It had previcusly been agreed that should any of the photographs Intervenor took on the site visit not turn out, Intervenor could request to return and take it again.
Rather than make two requests to return to the facility to inspect those items not permitted the first time and to correct any photos not properly developed, Intervonor may await transferral of the photos for its reviou and make a single request. Thus, minor portions of Intervenor's past requests for inspection remain out standing.
Applicant has within the past few days filed some supplementation of answers provided to Intervenor's interrogatories of June 10, 1981, and Cetoter 5,1981.
Extensive discussions have taken place between Intervenor and Applicant regarding the adequacy of the previous set of answers to those interrogatories, durin6 which time Ections to Compel have been set aside in attempt to resolve the disputes without recourse to such Kotions. The discussions, unfortunately, left many matters unresolved.
Intervenor awaits Applicant's requests for protective order, if any, prior to making any motions of its own. Discussions between the parties as to Intervenor's interrogatories have been exhausted.
Intervenor's document requests have been' filed months ago.
Disputes as to those requests have been discussed between the parties:
many have been resolved. A few disputes remain and will necessitate Board action.
Intervenor will, as in the case of the interrogatcries mentioned above, inquire with Applicant as to whether it intends to request a protective order with re6ards those documents to which it objects to productions any motions by CBC will follow.
I apologize for the length of this report, but the process of attempting to resolv e these discovery disputes has been lengthy, and with the appointment of a new Board Chairman, a detailed rundown of the status of the proceeding scens useful. We have been bogged doun in discovery disputes for many, many months.
Intervonor's discovery requests were made a lon6 time agos the last unths have been a long effort at obtaining mutually satisfactory respenses.
It appears uo are near the end of the distudery phase, with the exception of the security and energency planning natters. Staff interrogatory answers should be served soon, says Staff, although the possibility that motions to the Board nay be necessary to compel further answers cannot be ruled out.
Apnlictnt interrogatory answers have all been served and sone recently supplemented motions to compel and for protective orders may socn follow, for resolutions possible through party conf erences have been exhausted. Transfer of the photos taken by Intervenor on its site visit should take place as econ as a temporary stipulation is in place motions will follow regarding what, if any, permanent conditions should apply. Supplenentary site visit to observe those items not pernitted in the previous visit will shortly be requested. Some motions to the Board may soon be made regarding portions of docunents withheld.
Request for Applicant to copy certain documents previously produced renains outstanding, but no new requests for production.
Motions will soon te made to
]
. begin the security phase. Summary disposition, stipulated to begin at the end of discovery, should be able to c<;mmence shortly.
However, prior to that time, the Board is likely to be asked to rule on a number of motions about the remaining discovery disputes that have not been able to be resolved during the months of discovery conferences among the parties.
Red tfully submitted,
~
2 anie Hirsc President Committee to Bridge the Gap Intervenor cc service list l
l I
l
-- -.-~-
-, ~ -
_