Text

Memorandum Re Addl Discovery Matters Per ASLB 820416 Memorandum & Order.Certificate of Svc Encl
	ML20052F246
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	05/03/1982
From:	Cormier W; CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA
To:	;
References
	NUDOCS 8205120275
	Download: ML20052F246 (12)
	v • d • e

v -

f. .

egem 1

' 2

.g gci 10 C' S 3

4 s Al / ic

\' '/

i 5 [ .g ss 6

N -

9~

AV2) -12 7 824

/

8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ' 4 g

9 w 10 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I 11 12 In the Matter of )

i ) Docket No. 50-142 !

) 13 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY) (Proposed Renewal of Facility OF CALIFORNIA ) License Number R-71)

"Y '

(UCLA RESEARCH REACTOR)

15 i

16 MEMORANDUM CONCERNING ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY MATTERS l

i, 18 19 l

20 DONALD L. REIDHAAR j GLENN R. WOODS 4

21 CHRISTINE HELWICK 590 University Hall 22 2200 University Avenue Berkeley, California 94720 23 Telephone: (415) 642-2822 24 Attorneys for Applicant I 25 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY I OF CALIFORNIA l 2G .

27 9 503 3 l

28 ,

jj B205120g75 gyggg3

{DRADOCK 05000142 PDR

r l

I i

1 ! In its memorandum and order of April 16, 1982, the I

2 IBoard requested that the parties advise the Board of any I

3 additional discovery matters not mentioned in the Board's 4 memorandum. In response, THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF i

I 5 CALIFORNI A (University) advises the Board and Parties as follows.

6 7 A. Additional Matter Related to Contention XX 8 The position of the University with respect to 9 Contention XX has been that no factual basis exists for CBG's 10 ' security contention and the contention should be dismissed 11 ' summarily without the need to pursuo discovery of security 12 information. University previously objected to responding to 13 any questions relating to security matters. In addition, in its 14 interrogatories University declined to submit any questions to 15 lCBG relating to the allegations contained in CBG's security I

16 'conten tion.

17 18 The Board haa indicated that it intends to authorize 19 discovery of security information provided that CBG complies with 20 lthe requirements for the discovery of security information 21 esthblished in the Diablo Canyon proceeding. Accordingly, l ,

22 University requests that the Board set a date for University to 23 submit its interrogatories related solely to CBG's security I

24 'ontention.

c 25 26 3. Additional Matter Related to supplementation of CBG Responses l

27 l; 1. University submits that CBG has not fulfilled its li 28Hobligations with respect to University's previously submitted

. . I

. s l

1 discovery requests. CBG has not supplemented any of its responses i

2 to University'a interrogatories although certain of its responses 3 's ugge s ted that supplementation would be forthcoming. University 4 l: requests that the Board direct CBG to supplement its responses at 5 this time or state that it has no supplementary information i

G ' relevant 'o University's interrogatories. Specific items are 7 discussed below.

l 8 l l

9 '

2. University has served two sets of interrogatories l

10 on CBG in documents dated April 20th and September 22nd, 1981.

11 lCertain of these questions sought clarifications of various CBG 12 ' con ten tions . The remaining questions sought to identify the l

13 factual and documentary bases supporting its allegations. Mos t of 14 University's second set of questions were mero restatements of 1

15 'several of its first set of questions accompanied with an instruc .

t f lG ition requesting that CBG update its earlier responses with after-0

. 17 %cquired information. CBG responded to University's interrogatories l

18 in documents dated May 20th and November 9th, 1981, but has 19 lp rovided no supplementation of its responses.

20 ;h l

21 3. In numerous instances CBG's responses have been 22 nsatisfactory in failing to identify the factual and documentary 23 support for its contentions. In general, in the two years that h

24 have passed since CBG first presented its claims, CBG has not ll 25l identified one study, report, analysis, survey, calculation or O

2G' statement of opinion by any qualified expert or consultant.

l h 27 hniversity recognizes that CBG need not proceed with its case on b

28 the basis of affirmative evidence. However, CBG has made several l !

l

!. I I

I I

1 istatements that it does intend to present such affirmative 2l' evidence and that is has engaged a number of " experts" for this 3 jpurpose. As an example, on page 13 of its November 9th responses 4 CBG states:

5l, "What Intervonor is in the process of attempting to I

do -- and it should be reiterated that it remains G Intervonor's position that it is Applicant's burden t, conduct such a thorough analysis, not Intervenor's --

7 is to determine a number of credible serious accident scenarios for this facility, and attempt to determine 8 l the range of fission produce (sic) release possible, from there consequential doses to the public in 9l! unrestricted areas.

10;I * *

l I

11 l ". . . Intervenor . . . does not intend to focus on

! only one major accident, because its current analysis 12 indicates roughly a dozen accident or hazard scenarios, each of which would produce unacceptable consequences 13 and each of which is credible."

14 University is entitled to be informed at this time concerning the 15 ' contents of any such analyses that have been conducted and the l

10 , identity and qualifications of the individuals responsible for 17 the analysis.

18 i

19' 4. As another example, on page 14 of the November 9th b

20 "respons es , CBG states:

21 "Intervenor suspects it will call Dr. Plotkin as a witness in the UCLA proceeding, but has made no 22 determination as to which contention (s) nor made a firm decision on the matter. For his part, Dr. Plotkin 23 has indicated tentative agreement to testify, pending determination of date of hearing and certain other un-24 certainties not yet resolved. When a firm decision is i made, this answer vill be supplemented as per 10 CFR 25 2. 740 (e) (1) . "

2G j ll 27 ] Evidently, CBG has not been entirely candid in its 28 response.

Dr. Plotkin gave sworn testimony on September 21, 1981, i

i l

I

$ 1 1 :in the San Onofre proceeding that he had done a study at UCLA that:'

21 ". . . calculated the effects of an earthquake on UCLA's

! nuclear reactor and the crumbling of the building, what kind of an earthquake is required to cause the UCLA's 3fl j Boelter Hall, the section above the reactor, to fail, 4q and then what effect that would have on the reactor itself and then, of course, the surrounding community."

S i (See excerpts noted on transcript pages, Attachment "A" hereof. )

Gi lDr. Plotkin also testified that Mr. Hirsch had seen the study.

7 i lThe " conclusions" of that study were apparently tentative, but 8 j

nine months have passed since that testimony was given.

9 Dr. Plotkin was under oath so University assumes his statements 10d ere truthful; yet, in its November 9th responses, and to date, 11

CBG has never indicated that any such study had been performed 12 1 Moreover, University notes that Dr. Plotkin 13 !or was in progress.

'has accompanied Mr. Hirsch on each tour and inspection of the 14 l

UCLA facility which University has provided and certainly appears 15 i i

jto be involved in the presentation of CBG's case. In question 16 9

[ number 27ofUniversity's follow-up interrogatories dated 17' September 22, 1981, University requested the identification of 18

!allexpertsandconsultants, including the substance of the 193 testimony to be offered. University is entitled to know the

. substance of any earthquake analysis conducted by Dr. Plotkin.

t i 22

5. In requesting that CBG be directed to supplement its previously submitted responses, University is only asking that 24j t

iCBG be open and candid about the documentary support it intends i

251 l

i

.to submit of its case. If CBG intends to introduce technical 26 !

studies or evaluation relevant to any of the issues contested in f 27

!this proceeding it ought to be required to submit that information 28

/

W f I "[,C **% O#

r _a.m.~m.w - - s r . a n - . . . .n.

s - ~~

l 1 r

n 1ljat this time for the consideration of the other parties. In the 2hl event that CBG seeks to introduce such information for the first 3l time in response to motions for summary disposition. or at any i

4 l hearing, the parties will be forced to request additional time 5 to consider and reply to the new information, thereby delaying i

6 :the proceedings unnecessarily.

il BL University respectfully requests that the Board direct I

9,.CBG to supplement its responses at this time by identifying any b

10" studies or analyses of experts or consultants it intends to use ,

i 11 in the proceedings, or otherwise state that it does not intend to 12 of fer any such studies or analyses.

l 13 ;

14 lI Dated: May 3, 1982 15 t h

li 16 ' DONALD L. REIDHAAR f

GLENN R. WOODS 17 CHRISTINE HELWICK 18 19 i By ! 0; #

h Silliam li. Cormier 20 4 UCLA Representative 21 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY

, OF CALIFORNI A i 224 l'

23 24 lq i 25 g fl 2G ,

0 27 L b

28 . '

'i h

4

ATTACHMENT A 9395

() y UNITED STATES OF MiERICA y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i,

3 4 ----------------------X

'5 In the Matter of:. :

6 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, et al. : Docket Nos.

50-361 OL y (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, : 50-362 OL g Units 2 and 3) . :

, q :

- - -x 10 Orange County Ballroom 2 Marriott Hotel gg 700 W. Convention Way Anaheim, California

' Monday, g3 September 21, 1981 O' 34 Evidenflary hearing in the above-entitled 15 matter was resumed, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:08 a.m.

16 BEFORE:

17 JAMES L. KELLEY, Chhirman " ,

. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board -

18 .

DR. CADET H. HAND, JR., Member .

I 19 MRS. . ELIZABETH B. JOHNSON, Member 20 21 22 23 24 ,

25

. O .

h

9397 1 CONTENTS VOIR C'

2 WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS DIRE 3 Sheldon Plotkin By Ms. Gallagher 9431 9554 !

4 By Mr. Pigott -

9488 9475, 948; By Mr. Hoefling 9546 5

, Irving Lyon

6 By Ms. Gallagher 9568 7 ~

EXHIBITS 8

Intervenor's IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE 9 D 2 9418 ' '

10 3 9419 9477 11 4 9418 12 5 9419 .

6. 3 9419 14 7 9419 9483 15 8 9419 ,

9485 16 -

9 . 9420 . -

~

17 -

j 10 9569 18 ~

11 -

9570 19 .

20 t

21 22 23 24 -

25 -

l :)

L

9529 2 A i Not precisely. But it is of ele order of seve.ral 2 miles.

3 Q Several miles from Pacoima Dam? ,.

4 A No. I think the section of freeway that -- I 5 think these high accelerations almost had to be near the ,

6 center of the earthquake. I didn't relate things in that 7 way. I'm just trying to.-- I checked enough and have done 8 0.nough earthquake work to know that what we did was reasonabl e.

9 Q What eaUthquake work have you'done?

10 A 9alculated the effects of an earthnuake' on UCLA's jg _ nuclear teactoy and_the_ crumbling of__the buildina, what kind 12 of an earthquake is reguired to cause the UCLA's Boelter Hall ,

13 the section above the reactor, to fail,_and_then what_effect

([) 14 that would have onsthe reactor itself and th'en, of course, 15 the surrounding __ community. !

16 Q Anything other than that particular study?

17 There may have been other work in the past. ,

- - : ( _

18 That's all 'I remember at the moment.

19 :Q ,

What was it that was damaged in the' San Fernando 20 earthquake that you make reference to?

21 A The freeway was dest'royed at one section.

12 O The flat freeway or was it an overpass or what?

13 Do you know?

24 A A little of both, as I recall. Well, that's 25 not the only thing, come to think of it. There's the O .

)

. l 9542 1 O {,ou_ men _tioned you.have done a, study at UCLA_with Q 1 kl _

2 resoect to effects of earthcuake. Who did that study?

3 A I did.

4 Q What was the purpose of the study?

. . 5 A It is going to be used eventually -- be refined 6 considerably between what it is now and the NRC_hearinns on -

l 7 g relicensing of__UCLA's_ nucle _ar_r_eactor..

8 0 What is the point of the study?

i 9 A The_ plint of_the study .is_.to show t_h_e reactor is _

10 very vulnerable to earthquake damage.

11 Q And what are the findings of your study to date?

12 A They haven't been concluded, but in general it i

13 shows that the radioactive material inside the reactor is

~

O i4 goine to be re1eatsed to ene surround 1ns goguietion.-

15 Q Eas anybody reviewed that study?

16 A Not yet.

17 - Q- Has it'been published? It has not been published ? q

~

18 -

A No, sir. ,

l 19 Q Has it been released to anybody? -

1 .

20 A No, sir.

l 21 Q I(as__ anybody _seen.[it other_thartyQ.1L?

22 A g.

23 0 Who?

l 24 A A few people. Mr. Dan Hirsch, Mr. Tom Emnias.

l 25 0 Are these people in your L.A. Federation of

\ .

1

O -

1

.)

l .

9543 k2 i Scientists?

O 2 A Yes, sir.

t l

3 Q Other than that study, have you done any study 4 in the area of earthquake damages?

5 A Not that I can recall at the moment.

6 Q I believe you mentioned spontaneous evacuation 7 as a factor to be considered. How did you consider that in I

8 coming to your conclusions? .

9 A I added that -- I took the number of people to

!)

10 be evacuated -- this 89,350, of which -- some of which are yy from Dana Point. But Dana Point is not going to be evacuated 12 on I-5, according to the plan that we thought was best.

13 People from Dana Point would be evacuated up Pacific Coast O Highway.

34 But on the other hand there will be people that 15 will be voluntarily evacuating that will go out on I-5, and 16 we thought that a reasonable -- just reasonable engineering 17 judgment would be that those numbers would be about the same, 18 so that in our 28 hour3.240741e-4 days 0.00778 hours 4.62963e-5 weeks 1.0654e-5 months .h and 14 hours1.62037e-4 days 0.00389 hours 2.314815e-5 weeks 5.327e-6 months , we considered a popula-

~

g9 tion evacuation - a number of people being evacuated as 20 being 9,350 Now, if that number is a little more or a little less than -- that will change the time proportionately. It 21 22 is a linear relationship 23 0 I guess I wasn't clear. In one of these exhibits, 24 the one -- your exhibit number 5, page seven, which, if you

! 25 recall, was put into testimony for the limited purpose of lO ,

,)

l .

I 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '

2 ,

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3

In the Matter of )

4 ) Docket No. 50-142 TIIE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ) (Proposed Renewal of Facility 5 OF CALIFORNIA ) License Number R-71) l

-)

6- (UCLA Research Reactor) ) .

) '

7 ,

8 .

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 9

I hereby certify that copies of the attached:

10 MENORANDUM CONCERNING ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY MATTERS 11 in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, May 3, 12 postage prepaid, addressed as indicated, on this date:

1982 .

13 14 John H. F r'i a , III, Chairman Mr.. Daniel Ilirsch Administrative Judge Cte. to Bridge the Gap l

15 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 1637 Butler Avenue,'#203 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Los Angeles, Calif. 90025 16 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. John Bay, Esq.

.17 Dr. Emmoth A. Luebke 3755 Divisadero #203 Administrative Judge San Francisco, CA 94123 18 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Daniel Hirsch -

19 Washington, D.C. 20555 Box 1186 -

Ten Lomond, CA 95005

20 Dr. Oscar II. Paris -

Administrative Judge ,

21 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l

l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Law Center 22 Washington, D.C. 20555 c/o Dorothy Thompson 6300 Wilchire Blvd. 81200 Los Angeles, CA 90048 23 Counsel for the NRC Staff OFFICE OF TIIE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR 24 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

Washington, D.C. 20555 Chief, Docketing and Service Section 20 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

27 Washington, D.C. 20555 28 WILLIAM-tr. CORMIER UCLA Representative

') 'THE RECENTS_OF,T!!E UNIVERSIT;Y

ML20052F246

Text

Navigation menu

Search