ML20052G798

Response Supporting Committee to Bridge the Gap 820423 Motion Re Protection of Security Info.Conditions Concerning Nondisclosure of Sensitive Info & Authorized Personnel Identification Should Apply to All Parties

ML20052G798
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	05/14/1982
From:	Shirley S SANTA MONICA, CA
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8205190004
Download: ML20052G798 (7)

Text

-

l t

ROBERT M. MYERS City Attorney SARAH J. SHIRLEY  ;.

Deputy City Attorney 1685 Main Street Room 310 Santa Monica,-CA 90401 (213) 393-9975 ext. 321 Attorneys-for CITY OF SANTA MONICA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-142

)

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ) (Proposed Renewal of OF CALIFORNIA ) License No. R-71)

)

(UCLA Research Reactor) )

)

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA TO THE COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP MOTION OF APRIL _ 23,-1982

^

The City of Santa Monica (hereinafter " City"), an Interested Municipality in this proceeding, hereby responds to the Motion of the Committee to Bridge the Gap (herein-after "CBG") dated April 23, 1982, regarding the protection of security information pertaining to the UCLA nuclear reactor.

I.

By Memorandum and Order dated April 16, 1982, the Director of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board directed CBG, an Intervenor herein, to file with the Board and serve Ap

~~

8205190004 820514 PDR ADOCK 05000142 y

upon all parties its proposed protective order and affidavit

-of nondisclosure regarding information relative to Applicant's physical security plan. CBG was also ordered to identify the witnesses, counsel and representatives it wished to have access to the security information. In response thereto, CBG moved the Board to suspend compliance with the Order until certain matters had been resolved, which matters included:

a) whether all parties to the proceeding should be required to identify proposed " authorized persons"; b) whether identifi-cation of such persons should await determination of the conditions of the protective order and of the affidavit of nondisclosura; and c) whether, as a courtesy to the City of Santa Monica, consideration of the matter should be deferred to allow the City an opportunity to have input on the pro-posed procedures for handling the security issue.

The City, having duly considered these and other issues, files in support of the CBG Motion for the reasons set forth hereinafter.

II.

DISCUSSION The City respectfully submits that, as a matter of equity and in order to. insure the adequate safeguarding of sensitive information relevant to the UCLA reactor regardless of its source, the conditions concerning nondisclosure of sensitive. i information and identification of " authorized persons" should i

apply equally to all parties to this proceeding, and all parties should be required.to comply therewith. While Staff l

and Applicant may already be subject to certain regulations governing disclosure of security information, the delinieation of the specific information covered by such regulations is subject to varying interpretation. Given the de minimus interpretation of security requirements for the UCLA facility by Staff and Applicant (an issue in this proceeding), the City submits that it is reasonable to detail in a protective order precisely what information must be safeguarded in this proceeding, and to require all parties to abide by any re-strictions contained therein. Inasmuch as CBG has alleged disclosure upon occasion by Staff and/or Applicant which arguably should have been protected, the need for a clear Order applicable to all participants herein seems evident.

(The CBG allegations concerning disclosure are serious, and perhaps should be considered at the prehearing conference prior to a determination of the security issue.)

Moreover, it appears from a summary reading of CBG's protective order and affidavit of nondisclosure that the re-strictive provisions therein are more stringent than those normally applicable to Staff and Applicant. If CBG and the City must meet these higher standards, it is only equitable that Staff and UCLA be required to do likewi se.

The information for which protection is necessary is not merely that generated by UCLA or' Staff and obtained by CBG and/or the City. The specific information sought by CBG and/or the City may indicate, for example, the existence l

of heretofore unknown weaknesses in'the UCLA reactor physical l

l

4 -

security system. Furthermore, the City would be extremely reluctant to reveal, even in camera, certain information independently obtained if Staff and Applicant were not re-quired to adhere to the same conditions imposed on CBG and the City respecting disclosure. Information generated by each and every party must be protected, and in order to insure such protection all parties should be required to comply with the terms of the protective order and to execute appropriate affidavits to that effect.

In the interest of fairness and of insuring the adequate protection of sensitive information, the foregoing issues must be fully debated prior to any decision with respect thereto.

The City will, in all likelihood, be required to identify its proposed " authorized persons" and comply with the condi-tions of the protective order and affidavit. The City agrees with CBG that identification of witnesses at this time is premature, inasmuch as potential witnesses and others cannot realistically commit themselves to participate in these pro-a ceedings without first knowing under what conditions they must work. The City respectfully requests an opportunity to brief and argue its position regarding the proposed affidavit .

and protective order, and therefore urges the Board to defer identification of wintesses and other authorized persons until argument has been heard and a decision made with respect to the terms and conditions to which those persons would be i

subjected.

The city has been informed by CBG that UCLA has filed a response to the CBG Motion that appears to contain an

_4

4 affirmative counter-proposal. To date, the City has not been served with said response. -The City suggests that it would be appropriate to allow time for all parties to reply to such counter-proposal prior to any decision on the security issue.

III.

CONCLUSION The City agrees with CBG and supports its Motion that

- the identification and qualifications of proposed " authorized persons" should be required of all parties simultaneously, and should occur only after determination of the protective order and affidavit of nondisclosure to which the parties will be subject. Given the apparent existence of-the UCLA counter-proposal, and the seriousness of the issues raised by the CBG Motion, in terms of equity and protection of sen-sitive information the City urges that the entire matter be deferred until the prehearing conference in June, where oral argument on the complex issues involved herein can be heard.

At a minimum, the City supports the CGB request that the City be provided an opportunity, whether orally or in ,

writing, to respond to the proposed protective order and i

affidavit-prior to any Board order requiring the identifica-tion of proposed " authorized persons" and setting the condi-tions for nondisclosure.

DATED: C/ '!

Respectfully-submitted,

, ROBERT M. MYERS 1

City Attorney By: 6A 'A k SARAH SHIRLEY 3 Deputy City Attorney Attorneys for City of Santa Monica

i l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFOR 'E ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-142 .

)

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ) (Proposed ~ Renewal of

, OF CALIFORNIA ) License-No. R-71)

)

(UCLA Research Reactor) )

I i

l DECLARATION OF SERVICE I hereby declare that copies of the attached:

RESPONSE OF THE CITY'OF SANTA MONICA TO THE COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE-THE GAP MOTION OF APRIL 23, 1982-in the above-captioned proceeding have been served upon

- the service list attached hereto as Exhibit A by deposit' i in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as Lindicated, on this tMe 14th day of May,1982.

i' i $

i SARAH SHIRLEY ,

i Deputy LCity Attorney

(

l' i .

een, - - , , - - , - - - - c.r-- -, n q~-- e -- w - +~ - ~ ,

f EXHIBIT "A" SERVICE LIST John H. Frye, III, Chairman Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety % Licensing Board Wcshington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,-

Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Chief, Docketing and Service Section Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555  ;

Washington, D.C. 20555 Counsel for NRC Staff William H. Cormier U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administrative Vice i Washington, D.C. 20555 Chancellor Attn: Ms. Colleen Woodhead University of California 405 Hilgard Avenue Los Angeles, Chlifornia 90024 Christine Helwick Mr. John Bay Glenn R. Woods 3755 Divisadero #203 Office of General Counsel San Francisco, CA 94123 590 University Hall 2200 University Avenue ,

Barkeley, CA 94720 ,

COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP Daniel Hirsch 1637 Butler Avenue #203 Box 1186 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Ben Lomond, CA 95005 Nuclear Law Center c/o Dorothy Thompson 6300 Wilshire #1200 Los Angeles, CA 90048 ,

t l

l l

! ,.