ML20052F249
| ML20052F249 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1982 |
| From: | Cormier W CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205120281 | |
| Download: ML20052F249 (27) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:F e g. s a 0[t"ETED 1
~'
2 y> p , j ?, c) 3 cp 4 4 4 43 D 5 5 *%y4
%2d 6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1982A ~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g /
-7 ,
. 4 54 8 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 9
10 In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-142
) (Proposed Renewal of Facility 11 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ) License Number R-71)
OF CALIFORNIA ) 12 ) May 3, 1982 (UCLA Research Reactor) ) l 13 ) 14 15 16 MEMORANDUM CONERNING DISPOSITION OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS 17 18 19 , 20 DONALD L. REIDHAAR GLENN R. WOODS 21 CHRISTINE HELWICK 590 University Hall 22 2200 University Avenue Berkeley, California 94720 23 Telephone: (415) 642-2822 24 Attorneys for Applicant 25 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY , OF CALIFORNIA 26 27 r 28
/ [
5120281 820503 g ADOCK 05000142 PDR
r 1 In response to the Board's memorandum and order of 2 April 16, 1982, THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA I 3j(University) advises the Board and Parties as follows. l 4 5 A. The Irrelevant Photograph Gl As directed by the Board, University has enclosed 7 herewith to the Board and CBG a print of the only photograph l 8 which University objected to releasing as irrelevant to the l 9 proceeding. The photograph shows a car bumper sticker which had 10 been affixed to the rear of a metal cabinet within the reactor 11 l control room by an unknown person. Release of the photograph is I i 12 , objected to on the grounds that it does not contain information 13 ljrelevant to any of the matters in dispute in this proceeding I 14 Lnor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of ll 151' admissible evidence. 16 I
. 17 B. The Twenty (20) Photographs Depicting Security System Features 18 With respect to the twenty (20) photographs to which the 10 University has objected on security grounds, at the Board's l
l 20 suggestion University will retake each of those photographs to l l 21 . depict the same scene while excluding physical security system l 22 features. Release of the retaken photographs can be considered 23! together with the release of the 194 photographs, which are the Y 24 [lsubject of the stipulation discussed below. I 25" ll Il 26 C. The 194 Remaining Photographs b 27' l Univorcity and CBG reached oral agreement on the condi-28 tions that were to govern the release of the 194 of the photographs b 1 l
! I; l'
~
r D l
. . il II , l h
1]takenduringtheNovember17, 1981, inspection at the parties' I meeting of February 9, 1982. However, CBG's representative has 2[I I 3 since been unwilling to sign the written stipulation which records 4 that agreement. Instead, CBG now seeks to impose entirely differ-5 ent conditions on the University. This dispute exemplifies the 6 l type of problem the University has repeatedly had in its dealings 7 with CBG's representative. The background to the dispute and the . I B o current position of the parties is discussed below. II 9 I i, 10 1. In September, 19d1, CBG made two (2) requests for b ' 11 inspection, testing and photographing under 10 C.F.R. Sec.2.741. I 12, University objected to the requests in responsive pleadings but I 13 agreed to provide CBG with an opportunity to clarify its requests 1 14 a 'nd thereby avoid having to take the matter to the Board. After i 15 receiving some clarification of the CBG request at the parties' i 16: meeting of October 22, 1981, University agreed to an inspection 17 f its facility. University also agreed that CBG could take an h 18hnlimited number of photographs during the inspection provided ti 19 that CBG agreed to accept procedures for ensuring that the photo-l l 20 hraphs were not publicly disclosed. University was concerned i 21 that the existence of a large number of photographs of the facility 22 wl ould constitute a " photographic map" of the premises. Permitting l! 23l a broader circulation of this set of photographs than required in 24.this proceeding would unnecessarily compromise security. Because h 25 the release of certain individual photographs could expose specific d 26 l catures of the security system, University also reserved the 27 ight to object to the release of particular photographs. 28I ' , 1 I I
I 1 CBG agreed to those conditions for the release of the 2; photographs at the October 22nd meeting, as evidenced by the 3 following statement of Mr. Hirsch taken from the tape recording 4,I h,ofthatmeeting:
"Mr. Hirsch: We would be willing to stipulate that 5[i those photographs would not be released in any setting G' aside from -- we have problems with something served to the public document room -- at hearing and in legal 7 filings . . . but . . . we could establish a separate appendix for photographs to be submitted in legal 8 filings in the normal proprietary fashion . . ."
9 Prior to the inspection, then, the parties had agreed that the i 10 / photographs would not be released to the public, but that they i 11 ould be used only at hearing and in legal filings with procedures 12 'to be worked out for handling photographs to be submitted in i 13 support of pleadings. On the basin of that agreement University 14 withdrew any further objection it had to the photographing aspect 15 cof CBG's 10 C.F.R. Sec. 2. 741 requests and permitted the inspections! l 16 'to take place with CBG free to take as many photographs as it 17.lneeded but , with the further agreement that the photographs would 18 remain in the University's possession until appropriate procedures l 10 could be worked out. 20m 21 2. During the inspection, which lasted five (5) hours, l! 22 ICBG took 215 photographs in and about the facility. On 0 23 November 19, 1981, University wrote CBG inviting a meeting to O j 24 discuss, among other things, the release of the photographs. On ll 25 February 9, 1982, the parties met and agreed on the procedures J l 26 that were to govern release of 194 of the photographs. University b 27:li stated its objections to releasing any of the remaining (21) 28 hho tog r.aph s . CBG was to have unimpeded use of the photographs h i I I
o ,
; . I d
b 1hinthepreparationandpresentationofitscase, but for all other 2 purposes the photographs were to be treated as " proprietary" with 3hlall manner of public disclosure precluded. CBG reserved the r I-4 (lright to seek to have the Board modify or remove any of the 1 5 ? conditions or otherwise seek the unconditional release of any of 6'the photographs. A written stipulation was to be prepared whien, 7 once executed, was to be filed with the Board to bring the parties' . 8 ! resolution of the matter to the Board's attention. 9 . 10 . 3. University produced a written draft of the stipula- l
! l 11 ! tion which was sent to CBG with a letter dated February 18, 1982 1
12 ( Attachment "A", hereof) . University received CBG's response i 13 in the form of a re-drafted stipulation on March 24, 1982 (which 1 14 xplains why it was not mentioned in University's protective order 15Sequest of March 23, 1982). Under the guise of what CBG called l 16 " minor language modifications", CBG inserted in the stipulation 17 hn entirely dif ferent condition which would have had the ef fect 18 of requiring University to apply to the Board for a protective 19 ol rder to prevent unconditional release of the photographs to CBG. l 20 CBG's revision treats the photographs as if they were ordinary ll 21 evidence already in existence at the outset of this proceeding. l 22 In fact, the photographs were produced solely as a result of the l 23 prior understandings of the parties as to the scope of the b 24 : inspection University was to permit. b 25' 26 The Board is directed to our letter and re-drafted 27 'utipulation of April 8, 1982 (Attachment "B", hereof) , which I' 28' quotes .the conversation that took place at the February 9 meeting l t _4_
j i 1 ' attended by several representatives of CBG, including Mr. Hirsch I 2 and Ms. Thompson, CBG atto'rney. The following exchange has been 3 excerpted from University's tapes of that meeting: 4 "Ms. Thompson: We are prepared to accept your conditions with the following provisos: that we 2 5 have them in writing so that it is clearly understood between everybody as to exactly what those conditions 1 6l are; and, secondly, that we reserve the right to go to the Board with an objection regarding the conditions and 7 and appropriate application to the Board to remove the ' l conditions and if the Board rules in our favor as to 8j any of the conditions then we would abide by whatever q i the Board says. D 10
- 11 "Ms. Helwick
- Then you will abide by the conditions 12P unless and until the Board rules otherwise.
I' "Ms. Thompson: Absolutely." 13l I' 14 As the April 8th letter makes plain, University was willing to 15 a l ccept a number of CBG's proposed language changes;however, O 16 the requirement that the University obtain a protective order was l
, 17 completely contrary to the partics' agreement and University was i 11 l
18junwilling to accept that requirement. l 19 i l 20 4. On April 22nd, Mr. Hirsch called Ms. Helwick to l 21 inform the University that CEG was unwilling to sign our April.8th 22 s ltipulation and that the matter would have to be resolved by the I , 23 Board. l l l 24 l 25 5. University submits that prior to the November I l l 26 inspection CBG represented that it was willing to accept restricted. h 27 se of the photographs in return for which the University agreed l 28'to permit the inspection and photographing. At the February 9th l I i i i f l .
.,...._.mm .. .. , - . . , , _ . . , _ . , , .,.r___
_ _ . . , - . _ _ _ . _ , _ _ , . , _ _ _ ,.__,,,__._m,m-___ . _ , _ , _ _ _ . . ,
l I meeting, the parties agreed to specific conditions for the release i i 2 of the photographs. Those conditions were to be fully effective t l 3 upon the execution of a written stipulation, although a party 1 4 could subsequently seek to modify or rescind any of the terms. , 5 6 CBG appears now to be claiming the right to unconditional: 7 use of the photographs and would require that University move the i~ 8 Board at this time for a protective order to make permanent those j 9 conditions agreed upon by the parties that are to govern release 10 and use of the photographs. In sum, CBG unilaterally dishonors 11 ,all of its previous agreements on this subject. 12' l
- 6. Quite aside from the fact that CBG's position is 13l 14 grounded on an inexcusable evasion of an agreement fairly made l
15 w' ith University, there exists no compelling interest supporting the l 16 / unconditional release of the photographs as proposed by CBG. 17 University submits that there is nothing in its proposed conditions- ] r t 18 that would in any way inhibit CBG in the preparation and presenta- ! 19 tion of its case to the Board. Indeed, CBG has never advanced such 20 la n argument. According to its April 26th memorandum to the Board, 21 the sole support CBG finds for its position is its allegation that l l 22 lthe University's policies with respect to photographing at the 23 lracility have been applied selectively, to the disadvantage of CBG. 24 More specifically, CBG argues that University has " routinely . . . 0 25 permitted unrestricted photographing at the facility" by the media Il 26 ^and , presumably, the set of photographs taken by CBG are no 0 27 pif ferent than those which the media have been permitted to take. b 28 CBG's allegation is baseless. l 4
i 1' Until recently, University's general policy was to-2 ll accommodate all reasonable' requests of the media and others for li 3 photographs (or film) of the facility. The photographing was
; 4.always supervised by an NEL staff member who made sure that f
5 ,certain features of the facility were not captured on film. For i
. 6 ' obvious reasons the staff member did not identify in advance all 7 of the facility features that were not to be photographed. But I ; 8 because the news media invariably sought photographs of general I ! 9 ' viewer interest, usually the rather standard views of the reactor 10 and the control console, the matter seldom needed to be discussed.
i 11 lSo long as the photographer did not attempt to take pictures of I
; 12 ' roscribed p features or equipment, or attempt a detailed photo-13 l graphic tour of the facility, he was permitted to photograph 14 what he needed.
! 15-16 In August, 1981, University put into effect a more 1
, 17 estrictive policy on photographing in the facility. The policy I
, 18 was adopted partly in response to the large number of such I
19 'reques ts that were being received and partly due to the adversarial ! 20 nl ature of the proceedings. l 21 22 7. The 194 photographs (214, including the photographs { 23 to be retaken) taken by CBG during the November inspection repre-24'l s ents a situation altogether different from any filming or l 25 Shotographing done by the news media. During the inspection h 26 University submitted to a thoroughly detailed and extensive O 27 ' photographic probing, unlike anything that had been attempted N 28 previously. On those 214 photographs is captured every area in i
r t I
! I ii i
1 land around the facility; nearly every entrance or exit door; every 2 ; route or pathway through the f acility; and many critical conduits, d 3 electronic devices and equipment -- essentially a " photographic map" of the facility. University recognizes that there are 4 ! kl! 51 individuals and groups, some of whom can be expected to be G sympathetic to CBG's cause, who regard university campuses as I 7 : appropriate settings for experiments in civil disobedience. For . I 8 lsuchpeople these 194 photographs represent blueprints for 9 l mischief. If these photographs are released to the public domain 10 l'the security of the facility would be irreparably compromised. I 11 j l 12 { University is particularly concerned about CBG's efforts I 13 to achieve a broader circulation of this set of photographs than 14 /is required for these proceedings, because in the past CBG 0 15 representatives have not hesitated to discuss security-sensitive l 16 natters openly with the press. As just one example, CBG repre-l 17 sentatives have been quoted repeatedly in the press and have i 18 aublished letters claiming that there is " bomb-grade uranium" at 19 the facility and that that uranium is highly vulnerable to theft. 20dNotwithstanding that such statements are patently falso, in a i h media area as large as Los Angeles, repeating such inflammatory l 21 {d 22[ statements of ten enough and loud enough might eventually tempt il l 23 Mome individual or group to commit some criminal act. Moreover, ! H 24'because of the subject matter involved, University cannot adequately b 25 hespond in the press to this kind of allegation. O 2G L U 27 h 8. Before a broader circulation of the photographs in li 28'disputo is permitted, University submits that CBG should be ! !I f l . l
i
\-
b 1[requiredtomakeashowingwithgoodcausewhyit is necessary or i! 2 ; appropriate . a n proposed in University's April 8th The conditio's 3i, stipulation are reasonable in view of University's legitimate i 4 security concerns. The only argument for broader circulation of I I SE the photographs put forth by CBG suggests that its real interest 0 G .is in creating additional publicity for its cause. However, 7 peither University nor Board can be required to provide assistance 1 8 if CBG prefers to promote its cause before the news media rather d Olthan presenting its case to the Board. 10 Il University respectfully requests that the Board adopt l 12
,as permanent the conditions of University's April 8th stipulation.
d 13 !; li 14 Dated: May 3, 1982 t 15 16 h DONALD L. REIDHAAR
! GLENN R. WOODS 17 9l CHRISTINE HELWICK O
180 19 " By ! ^ William H. Cormier 20l UCLA Representative 21 l! THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
! OF CALIFORNIA 22{l i 23L 24 .,i fi 25F 0
26 n 27 . ll 28: , l
!',. a
r l '
. ATTACHMENT A I
, TIIE REGENTS OF THE . UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Donald L Reidhaar GENERAL cot;h5EL James E. Holst AS$1STANT COL lN$EL CHI A%S CIA Philip E. Spiekerman 5E sE l: ; f c ,A$S EL C ^ E A nB ag r pg','. Chnstine Hetwwk
- y. Milton H. Gordon Susan Amateau
~
George L Marchand lawrence B. Garcia ASSOCIATE COUNSEL Claudia Cate i Romulus B. Portwood Martha M. Chase Of flCE OF Tif E GENERAL COUNSEL Karl E. Droese. Jr. Painck K. Moore 590 Unisersity IIall $ 7 M D ,' " S san No* mas 2200 Unisersity Asenue
- Mary E. MacDonald John E Lundberg Berkeley. Cahfornia 94720 (415) 642 2822 gyr n fdIa d opt >k Jr Stephen P. Morrell
, Melvin W. Beal , February 18, 1982 f Dorothy Thompson t Attorney at Law Greenwald & Greenwald . 6300 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90048 Re: UCLA Nuclear Enercy Laboratory
Dear Dorothy:
Enclosed please find the original and one copy of the signed Stipulation As To Release Of Photographs discussed at our meeting of February 9, 1982. Please sign where indicated and pass on to Mr. Hirsch for signature. By copy of this letter I am requesting Mr. Hirsch to return the Stipulation to me, so that I can arrange to have it filed in this proceeding, and then to have the negatives released to you. If you have any questions, you may contact me at the above number, or you may call Bill Cormier directly at the UCLA campus. Sincerely, .
/ g 2 EG Christine Helwick am p eO e--- c~
Enc. - - E:
<.o :e ;
cc: D. Hirsch, w/ enc. ' g '#' h W. Cormier, w/ enc.
]'
're ;' ~
<.o e,'
1
. l 1
2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 6 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 8 9 In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-142
) (Proposed Renewal of 10 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ) Facility License OF CALIFORNIA ) Number R-71) 11 )
(UCLA Research Reactor) ) February 18, 1982 12 ) 13 14 15 STIPULATION AS TO RELEASE OF PHOTOGRAPHS 16 On November 17, 1981, during a testing and 17 ~ inspection tour of the UCLA Nuclear Energy Laboratory (NEL) 18 facility by the Committee to Bridge the Gap (CBG), the 19 University, in accordance with its prior agreement with CBG, 20 permitted CBG representatives to take approximately 215 l l 21 photographs of the laboratory facility and its equipment. i 22 Because of the University's concern that the release of a 23 large number of photographs of the NEL facility would risk I 24 compromising the security of the facility, the University l 25 permitted the photographing to occur only on condition that 26 the University would take custody of the undeveloped film at 1
. _ _ _ , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ _ . . . . _ _ . _ . . ~ . _ , _ - . _
i . i l 1 the conclusion of the inspection and that the matter of 2 release of any or all of the developed photographs would be
~
3 the subject of further discussions of the parties. As a 4 result of discussions which occurred principally on 5 February 9, 1982, CBG and the University have agreed to , 6 stipulate as follows: 7 8 1. The University agrees to release to CBG the ! 9 color negatives for all but twenty-one (21) of the 215 10 photographs taken by CBG on November 17, 1981. The University 11 objects to release of the twenty-one (21) photographs on 12 security and relevancy grounds and those twenty-one (21) 13 photographs are in no way part of-the subject matter of this 14 stipulation. 15 16 2. CBG agrees that the negatives of the 194 17 ' photographs which the University agrees to release and any 18 prints made from those negatives, or any duplicates, 19 reproductions, or copies of the prints or negatives 20 (hereinafter, the " photographs") will be used only by CBG, its 21 officers and technice.1 consultants, in the preparation of 22 evidence for the her. ring in the above-captioned proceeding, or 23 in any motions or pleadings incident thereto, and that CBG 24 will exercise control qver each and every one of the . 25 photographs sufficient to insure that the photographs are not 26 viewed, examined, copied in any way, possessed nor otherwise 2
r ,
- l J
i I used by any governmental agency other than the NRC, any 2 representatives of any of the various news media, or any other 3 persons not a party to this proceeding. CBG acknowledges that 4 all right, title, and interest in the photographs rests in the 5 University at all times and that the University has granted 6 CBG conditional use of the photographs for the sole purpose of 7 enabling CBG to fully present its case before the Atomic l 8 Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") in the pending proceeding I 9 and CBG's sole purpose in acquiring the photographs is to be 10 able to fully present its case before the ASLB. 11 12 3. CBG agrees to return to the University each and 13 every such photograph (which incitides all negatives, prints, l 14 duplicates and reproductions) in its possession or control 15 within seven (7) days after the conclusion of the hearing in 16 this matter or within seven (7) days after receiving the ! 17 determination of the ASLB that the entire proceedings be 18 dismissed, notwithstanding that, at the conclusion of the i 19 hearing or upon the determination that the proceedings be 20 dismissed matters may still be pending, decisions may not yet 21 be final, or appeals may be taken. Upon the return of the 1 22 photographs to the University, the University agrees to 23 safeguard the photographs and, subject to reasonable l 24 conditions, to again make them available to CBG,in the event 25 they are required for any evidentiary proceedings that occur l 26 subsequent to the initial hearing in this matter.
- 3 I
I,
r L
. i.
1 4. CBG agrees that in the event that it uses any 2 or all of the photographs in support of any of its written 3 pleadings or testimony in this proceeding, none of the 4 photographs to be so used will be submitted as part of such 5 written pleadings or testimony but instead all such 6 photographs will be submitted in a separately captioned 7 document denominated " Photographic Exhibits submitted in 8 Support of . . . (title of pleading)", or some equivalent 9 description, which document will be referred to as the 10 " exhibits document." Each " exhibits document" will be served 11 together with the pleading to which it pertains only on the 12 parties to the proceeding and the ASLB; as to all other 13 persons or entities, CBG agrees to exercise the control over 14 the photographs contained in each such " exhibits document" 15 required by paragraph 2, above, until the University has had 16 at least thirty (30) days to determine whether to apply to 17 exclude those photographs from public disclosure. The thirty 18 (30) day waiting period shall also apply to service of any 19 " exhibits document" on the Chief of the Docketing and Service 20 Section of the NRC. In the event the University does make 21 application to exclude from public disclosure photographs 22 contained in an " exhibits document" within the thirty (30) day 23 period, CBG will continue to exercise the control required by 24 paragraph 2, above, until such application is finally 25 determined by the NRC or the ASLB and CBG agrees to exercise 26 , 4 e
1 l I the same. control thereafter consistent with the determination 2 of the NRC or the ASLB. 3
~
4 5. University agrees that in executing this 5 stipulation CBG has not waived any rights it may have to apply 6 to the ASLB to have any or all of the conditions of this 7 stipulation removed or to argue for public disclosure in the 8 event that the University seeks an exemption or order which 9 would prevent public disclosure of any or all of the 10 photographs. CDG agrees to abide by each of the terms of this 11 stipulation unless and until the ASLB modifies or rescinds the 12 term, in which case CBG will continue to abide by all 13 remaining terms and will abide by~the modified or rescinded 14 term as modified or rescinded. 15 // 16 // 17 // 18 19 20 i 21 22 23 24 ,. 25 26 5
I
.
- 1 1 6. Both CBG and the University understand that in 2 the event that any term of this stipulation is breached by one
~
3 of the parties, application may be made by the other party to 4 the-ASLB fdr appropriate orders or sanctions. 5 6 ACKNOWLEDGED AND ACCEPTED: 7 8 COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFOPSIA 9' 10 Daniel Hirsch, President [b Christine Helwick, Attorney 11 FE&ei1Ana IA . 19s a 12 Date Uate 13 - 14 . Dorothy Thompson, Attorney 15
. Date 16 17 18 j 19 20 21 I -
( 22 l 23 ,- 24 ,, l . l 25 l 26 ' l l l 6 r
i , A
^ ~
ATTACHMENT B L TIIE REGENTS OF THE I l UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Donata t neiahaar assistant COcNstL ctNE RAL COUN5EL Phihp E. Spickerman James E.11o15: A. Jan Behrsin i CHIEF ASSOCIATE Allen B. Wagner
/ .. i CocNstL Christine Helwick 1 ! t e *'. SENIOR ASSOCIATE Susan Amateau j COUNSEL Lawrence H. Garcia j Claudia Cate M *t /y / Mdton 11. Gordon George L Marchand (',nha ;cg se e
AS$OCIATF. COUNSEL Fred Takemn a OFFICE OF Tile GENERAL COUNSEL Romulus B Portutxad Susan M. Thomas 590 Unnersity Itall Karl E. Droese. Jr. Mary E. MacDonald 22CD Universitv Avenue David A. Donnson Marcia J. Cannmg flerkelev. Cali6>rnia 94720 Glenn R. Woods Eduard M. Opton. Jr J hn E Lundberg Stephen P. Morrell (415) 642-2822 Gary Mornson Eric K_ Behrens James N. Odle McInn W. Beal p File No. , J
.=
April 8, 1982 g ,. o . 5 C ,? , i , , ., n
'3 Mr. Daniel Hirsch Committee to Bridge the Gap ;::
~~
.h~
1637 Butler Avenue, Room 203 . Los Angeles, California 90028
."w G)
Re: Stipulation as to Release of Photograohs i
Dear Mr. Hirsch:
I was surprised on March 24 to receive your letter 1 dated March 12 (postmarked March 20), enclosing a complete revision of the stipulation regarding the release of photographs in this matter under the guise of "some minor language modifications." Contrary to your statement that these " modifications" bring the stipulation closer to the actual agreement reached between the parties, what they do, in fact, is gut that agreement and replace it with something entirely different. Specifically, it was agreed before the photographs were taken, and confirmed again at the conference you and I attended on February 9, that the photographs were to be released only upon the condition that you would limit their use and dissemination unless and until such time as you were successful in persuading the Board that the limitations imposed by the University were inappropriate. There was never any discussion along the lines of your redraft, that the conditions under which the photographs were to be released to you were temporary and subject to the University's obtaining a protective order to make them permanent.
/
e Mr. Daniel Hirsch April 8, 1982 Page 2 2 Specifically, I would call to your attention the following exchange which I had with your attorney, Dorothy Thompson, at the February 9 meeting concerning the release of photographs, which I have excerpted from our tapes of that meeting:
"Ms. Thompson: We are prepared to accept your conditions with the following provisos: that we have them in writing so that it is c1carly understood between everybody as to exactly what those conditions are; and, secondly, that we reserve the right to go to the Board with an objection regarding the conditions and an appropriate application to the Board to remove the conditions and if the Board rules in our favor as to any of the conditions then we would abide by whatever the Board says.
"Ms. Helwick: Then you will abide by the conditions unless and until the Board rules otherwise.
, "Ms. Thompson: Absolutely." To place the burden on the University at this late
, date to go to the Board with respect to the terms and conditions governing the release of photographs taken during your inspection is contrary to the discovery rules governing this procedure and all agreements that we had with you regarding the taking of those photographs in the first place. Accordingly, we cannot sign your redraft of the stipulation in this matter.
We-are, however, willing to accept some language changes you have proposed from the original stipulation, which we have incorporated in the new stipulation enclosed. Specifically, the enclosed stipulation contains the following changes from the earlier version'sent to you on February 18: Page Line Change 2 21 Add the word " attorneys" after the word
" officers." .
- 3 10 Change "before the ASLB" to "as intervenor in the above-captioned proceeding."
Mr. Daniel liirsch April 8, 1982 Page 3 4 11 Eliminate "together with the pleading to which it portains". 4 16 Add "from the date of service of such docu-ment" after the word " days." 5 6 Add "the NRC or a court of competent juris-diction" after "ASLB." 5 10 Add "and University" after "CBG"; and change " agrees" to " agree." 5 11 Add "the NRC or a court of competent juris-diction" after "ASLB." 5 12 Add "and University" after "CBG." 6 1 Add a new item 6 as follows: " Subject to the conditions contained herein, University agrees to release the photographs to CBG within seven calendar days of the c::ccution of this stipulation."; change the number of existing item 6 to 7. Again, I am enclosing a signed original stipula-tion and am hopeful that you will execute and return the same promptly, so that we can get on with the release of the . photographs without further ado. Sincerely, (A46$Y LOR
- Christine Helwick Enc.
cc: Dorothy Thompson
- t. William Cormier
/
. l 1
2 3 UMITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COTE 11SSION 4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 6 In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-142
) (Proposed Renewal of 7 Tile REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ) Facility License OF CALIFORNIA ) Number R-71) ,
8 ) l (UCLA Research Reactor) ) February 18, 1982 , 9 ) 10 STIPULATION AS TO RELEASE OF PHOTOGRAPHS 11 12 On November 17, 1981, during a testing and 13 inspection tour of the UCLA Nuclear Energy Laboratory (NEL) facility by the Committee to Bridge the Gap (CBG), the University, in accordance with its prior agreement with CBG, permitted CBG representatives to take approximately 215 photographs of the laboratory facility and its equipment. Because of the University's concern that the release of a large number of photographs of the NEL facility would risk compromising the security of the facility, the University permitted the photographing to occur only on condition that 22 the University would take custody of the undeveloped film at the conclusion of the inspection and that the matter of release of any or all of the undeveloped photographs would be 25 the subject of further discussions of the parties. As a resu'lt of discussions which occ'irred principally on
1 February 9, 1982, CBG and the University have agreed to 2 stipulate as follows: 3 4 1. The University agrees to release to CBG the 5 color negatives for all but twenty-one (21) of the 215 6 photographs taken by CBG on November 17, 1981. The University 7 objects to release of the twenty-one (21) photographs on 8 security and relevancy grounds and those twenty-one (21) 9 photographs are in no way part of the subject matter of this 10 stipulation. 11 12 2. CBG agrees that the negatives of the 194 13 photographs which the University agrees to release and any 14 prints made from those negatives, or any duplicates, 15 reproductions, or copies of the prints or negatives (herein-16 after, the " photographs") will be used only by CBG, its 17 officers, attorneys, and technical consultants, in the 18 preparation of evidence for the hearing in the above-captioned 19 proceeding, or in any motions or pleadings incident thereto, 20 and that CBG will exercise control over each and every one of 21 the photographs sufficient to insure that the photographs are 22 not viewed, examined, copied in any way, possessed or 23 otherwise used by any governmental agency other than the NRC, 24 any representatives of any of the various news, media, or any 25 other persons not a party to this proceeding. CBG 26 acknowledges that all right, title, and interest in the 2 l
I
. l 1 photographs rests in the University at all times and that the 2 University has granted CBG conditional use of the photographs 3 for the sole purpose of enabling CBG to fully present its case 4 before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") in the 5 pending proceeding and CBG's sole purpose in acquiring the .
6 photographs is to be able to fully present its case as 7 intervenor in the above-captioned proceeding. 8 l 9 3. CBG agrees to return to the University each and 10 every such photograph (which includes all negatives, prints, 11 duplicates and reproductions) in its possession or control 12 within seven (7) days after the conclusion of the hearing in 13 this matter or within seven (7) days after receiving the 14 determination of the ASLB that the entire proceedings be 15 dismissed, notwithstanding that, at the conclusion of the 16 hearing or upon the determination that the proceedings be 17 dismissed matters may still be pending, decisions may not yet 18 be final, or appeals may be taken. Upon the return of the 19 photographs to the University, the University agrees to
- 20 safeguard the photographs and, subject to reasonable 21 conditions, to again make them available to CBG in the event 22 they are required for any evidentiary proceedings that occur I 23 subsequent to he initial hearing in this matter.
24 25 4. CBG agrees that in the event that it uses any ! 26 or all of the photographs in support of any of its written 3
i l i 1 pleadings or testimony in this proceeding, none of the 2 photographs to be so used will be submitted as part of such 3 written pleadings or testimony but instead all such 4 photographs will be submitted in a separately captioned 5 document denominated " Photographic Exhibits Submitted in 6 Support of (titic of pleading)", or some equivalent 7 description, which document will be referred to as the 8 " exhibits document." Each " exhibits document" will be served 9 only on the parties to the proceeding and the ASLB; as to all 10 other persons or entities, CBG agrees to exercise the control 11 over the photographs contained in each such " exhibits 12 document" required by paragraph 2 above, until the University 13 has had at least thirty (30) days from the date of service of 14 such document to determine whether to apply to exclude those 15 photographs from public disclosure. The thirty (30) day 16 waiting period shall also apply to service of any " exhibits 17 document" on the Chief of the Docketing and Service Section of 18 the NRC. In the event the University does make application to 19 exclude from public disclosure photographs contained in an 20 " exhibits document" within the thirty (30) days period, CBG 21 will continue to exercise the control required by paragraph 2, 22 above, until such application is finally determined by the NRC 23 or the ASLB and CBG agrees to exercise the same control 24 thereafter consistent with the determination of the NRC or the 25 ASLB. 26
/
4 I
, i
. l 1 5. University agrees that in executing this 2 stipulation.CBG has not waived any rights it may have to apply 3- to the ASLB, the NRC or a court of competent jurisdiction, to 4 have any or all of the~ conditions of this stipulation removed 5 or to argue for public disclosure in the event that the ,
6 Unis . . sity seeks an exemption or order which would prevent 7 public disclosure of any or all of the photographs. CBG and 8 University agree to abide by each of the terms of this i 9 stipulat3on unless and until the ASLB, the NRC or a court of 10 competent jurisdiction modifies or rescinds the term, in which 11 case CBG and University will continue to abide by all 12 remaining terms and will abide by the modified or rescinded 13 term as modified or rescinded. 14 15 6. Subject to the conditions contained herein, 16 University agrees to release the photographs to CBG within 17 seven (7) calendar days of the execution of this stipulation. 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 "2 23 24 25 26 , 5
V .- -{ i 1
} l 7. Both CBG and the University understand that'in i 2 the event that any term of this stipulation is breached by one 1
3 of the parties, application may be made by the other party to 4 the ASLB for appropriate orders or sanctions. 5 i 6 ACKNOWLEDGED AND ACCEPTED: 7 8 COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE TIIE GAP THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-l 9 10 Daniel Hirsch, President
$ h&r Christine llelwick, Attorney YV 7.'
Mw 12 Date Dat/ 13 14 Dorothy Thompson, Attorney
, 15 i Date l 16 4 17 4
i 18 1 19 i ! 20 21 22 1 23 24 . 25 26 , 3 I 6 I
, o !,
. t l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 . BEFonE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3 In the Matter of ) 4 ) Docket No. 50-142 ,, THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ) (Proposed Renewal of Facility 5 OF~ CALIFORNIA ) License Number R-71)
-) ,
l 6- (UCLA Research Reactor) )
)
7
- O CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 9
I hereby certify that copies of the attached: 10 MEMORANDUM CONCERNING DISPOSITION OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS 11 in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on rhe following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, 12 ' postage prepaid, addressed as indicated, on this date: May 3, 1982 . 13 14 John H. Frye, III, Chairman Mr. Daniel Hirsch Administrative Judge Cte. to Bridge the Gap 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 -- Ben Lomond, CA 95005 20 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Administrative Judge 21 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Law Center 22 Washington, D.C. 20555 c/o Dorothy Thompson 6300 Wilshire Blvd. #1200 23 Counsel for the NRC Staff Los Angeles, CA 90048 OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR 24 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 25 Chief, Docketing and Service Section 26 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 27 Washington, D.C. 20555 28 ' WILLIAM H. CORMIER UCLA Representative THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ! OF CALIFORNIA
. . ~ _ .. _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ ___. .-}}