ML20054L308
| ML20054L308 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1982 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-PL, NUDOCS 8207070374 | |
| Download: ML20054L308 (83) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _
t I
f 1
NC'"*?U. RIaw ATORT COM!C55"*0N O!j a w Y t
~AJAlnn; L Oj i
I l
.= _.a.w =n.: ef:
)
The Regents of the University of California )
} DOCKET No, 50-142 PL (UCLA Research Reactor). )
. )
Lw. June 30, 1982 padgg. 713 - 793 A7: Los sneeles. rsttem ,, r .
l
[g61 REPORTLTG.
o 400 71 ,'-da Avs., S.*E ALDERMY' 'L
~4==*d g-- ,.D. C. 20024 Tal.aph==a : (201 554-23'45 8207070374 820630 PDR ADOCK 05000142 T PDR
t 713 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD O 4 - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -x 5 In the matter of: :
6 Tl!F. REGENTS OF Tile UNIVERSITY OF : Docket Number:
CALIFORNIA : 50-142 PL 7 (UCLA Research Reactor) .
8 ---- - -
_--------x 9 Wednesday, June 30, 1982 Customs Courtroom, 8th Floor 10 The Federal Building 300 North Los Angeles Street 11 Los Angeles , . California
-and- -
12 Room 2000, Math Sciences Addition UCLA
() 13 Los Angeles , California 14 Prehearing conference in the above-entitled 15 matter convened, pursuant to recess, at 9:30 a.m.
16 BEFORE:
17 JOHN H. FRYE, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 18 DR. EMMETH A. LUEBKE, Member 19 DR. OSCAR H. PARIS, Member 20 21 APPEARANCES:
22 On behalf of the Applicant:
((}
23 WILLIAM CORMIER, Esq.
Of fice of Administrative Vice Chancellor 24 UCLA 405 Hilgard, Los Angeles, California 90024
(]}
25 --
____________.___m . _ _ _ _ m
_. . _ _ - _ _ _ = . . - -
714 1
APPEARANCES (CONT'D) 2 On behalf of the Intervenor:
3 DOROTHY THOliPSON, Esq.
Nuclear Law Center O 4 DANIEL HIRSCH, President, SHELDON C. PLOTKIN 5 Committee to Bridge the Gap JOHN BAY, Esq.
6 3755 Divisadero, Suite 203 San Francisco, California 94123 On behalf of the Regulatory Staf f:
COLLEEN WOODHEAD, Esq.
9 Of fice of the Executive Legal Director Nuclear Regulatory Commission .
10 Washington, D.C. 20006 l
11 On behalf of the City of Santa Monica:
12 SARAH SHIRLEY, Esq.
Deputy City Attorney
() 13 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, California 90401 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 C:',
23 f3 24 V
25
-- --m
... __ _- _ __ =_ -____ . _.- __ - _____ .. - - _. . . . _ . .- .. .
l l
715
- . O i tanza 2 WITNESSES: Pages .
3 (None.)
4 5 Invitation from U.C.L.A. Student Government 716-720 6
7 8 EXHIBITS:
i 9 (None.)
10 11 12 e i i
1 O 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ,
23 O u 25 0
716 SECTICN THREE
() 1 JUDGE FRYE: On the record. We will start.
2 I suppose it will be the third section of the 3 transcript of today's session, which will be disclosed to
. {]) 4 the public.
5 Yes?
6 MR. WANG: Your Honor, may I approach the bench?
7 JUDGE FRYE: Surely.
8 MR. WANG: My name is Arthur Wang. I am from the 9 Student Government at U.C.L.A.
10 JUDGE FRYE: I see. And you wanted to make a Il presentation this morning?
12 MR. WANG: Perhaps an invitation.
13 JUDGE FRYE: I see. l
( 14 l
MR. WANG:
And to ask some questions, if I might.
15 JUDGE FRYE: Fine.
16 MR. WANG: A few minutes? Where should I --
17 JUDGE FRYE: Why do you not just stand out front 18 and --
19 (Laughter.)'
20 Fine.
21 MR. WANG: My name is Arthur Wang. I am a student 22 at U.C.L.A., and I am here today for the Student Government 23 at U.C.L.A. to present an invitation to your court to hold 24 your upcoming evidentiary hearings at U.C.L.A. in the 25 building facilities owned by the Associated Students at O
717 1 U.C.L.A. but on the U.C.L.A. campus.
2 It is our understanding that it is the standard O $
nac vroceaure to nota heeriase es o1o e to the reector 1a 4
question as possible, although you want to avoid the appear-5 ance of a conflict of interest, which perhaps would come 6
about if the hearings were held on facilities owned by the 7 University of California Regents.
8 The facilities that the Associated Students hold 9
are on campus, but are again, owned by the students.
10 It is our feeling'that the issues at hand are very II important, and the campus has been very concerned and in-12 terested about this issue and would certainly appreciate --
13 even feel it is indeed our right to attend these hearings, 14 a right which is impaired by distance, especially for stu-15 dents and for those attending classes, those who do not have 16 the means to reach other locations.
17' JUDGE FRYE: Fine, well, we appreciate your invi-18 tation very much, and we will certainly take it into account I'
when we are considering hearing space when we come up to the 20 evidentiary hearings.
21 MR. WANG: Right. Are there any questions?
22 JUDGE FRYE: I do not think at this point there 23 are because that is still somewhat in the future. But if we O 24 should have questions, I take it I can get in touch with 25 you at the address indicated here in the letter?
A V
718 1 MR. WANG: Certainly.
2 JUDGE FRYE: Good.
3 MR. WANG: Thank you very much.
4 JUDGE FRYE: Thank you.
5 We will put the letter into the public record of 6 the proceeding, and we thank you very much for your invi-7 tation.
8 MR. WANG: Thank you.
9 JUDGE PARIS: Thank you, Mr. Wang.
10 JUDGE FRYE: This is a fairly brief letter. Let Il me just read it into the record. It is from the Associated 12 Students of U.C.L.A., dated June 28, 1982, addressed to 13 Judge John H. Frye, III, Chairman, Planning Safety and 14 Licensing Board, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
15 "
Dear Judge Frye:
16 As the U.C.L.A. Student Body President, 17 I would like to extend an invitation to 18 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 19 to hold its upcoming evidentiary hearings 20 on the U.C.L.A. reactor at facilities 21 owned by the Associated Students on the 22 U.C.L.A. campus. It is our understanding 23 that it is the procedure of the Nuclear 24 Regulatory Commission to hold hearings 25 as close as possible to the reactor in O
719-720 1 question. We commend this policy. There 2 has been considerable interest and concern Q 3 among the campus community about the 4 issues now pending before your Board, and 5 it is our feeling that it is the right 6 of the campus community, the most 7 affected by the reactor, to be able to 8 attend the hearings, a right potentially 9 impaired by distance. So as to avoid the 10 appearance of a conflict of interest, 11 I would like to note that the Associated 12 Students own'several buildings on campus 13 independent of the University of California 14 Regents, the. reactor licensee. We look 15 forward to your reply so that we may 16 make appropriate arrangements.
17 Cordially, 18 Bobby Gray, Student Body President" 19 We will ask that this be placed in the -- can we 20 bind this in the transcript?
21 REPORTER: Yes.
22 JUDGE FRYE: Fine. We will have it bound into 23 the transcript.
) 24 (The letter of invitation from Bobby Gray 25 delivered by Mr. Wang follows:)
C>
ufpce of the President Undergr:Juate Students Associ: tion 308 Westwood Pla:a los Angeles. Cahfornia 90024 Telephone: (213) 825-7068 Essociated students ucla M June 28, 1982 Judge John !!. Frye III Chairman, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Dear Judge Frye:
As the UCLA Student Body President, I would like to extend an invitation to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to hold its upcoming evidentiary hearings on the UCLA Reactor in facilities owned by the Associated Students on the UCLA campus.
It is our understanding that it is the procedure of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to hold hearings as close as possible to the reactor in question.
We commend this policy. There has been considerable interest and concern among the campus community about the issues now pending before your board and it is our feeling that it is the right of the campus community, the most affected by the reactor, to be able to attend the hearings, a right potentially impaired by distance, m
L' So as to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, I would like to note that the Associated Students owns several buildings on campus, independent of the University of California Regents, the reactor licensee.
We look forward to your reply so we may make the appropriate arrangements.
Co dially,
/ '
l l Bobby G ce Student Body President l
l BG/aw l
,r3 V
l l
l
. 721
() 1 JUDGE PARIS: Mr. Hirsch, does CGB have any rela-2 tionship with the Associated Students?
3 MR. HIRSCH:
(]) No, we are an independent organization 4 at U.C.L.A. But up until about five years ago, we were a 5 project of the Community Services Commission of the Student 6 Government, but that relationship ended five years ago.
7 The University has two kinds of organizations. One 8 is an independent organization; the other one is' affiliated.
9 To be connected with Student Government you have to be 10 affiliated, and our status is an independent organization.
, 11 JUDGE PARIS: Thank you.
12 JUDGE FRYE: Now, we have been through the photo-13 graphs, or at least partially through the photographs.
14 We have got a number of matters to take up, one of 15 which was any discovery controversies between Staff and CGB, 16 and scheduling, and I see that we have also been furnished 17 with some modifications to the contentions to reflect recent 18 application amendments as well as some changes to the pro-19 tective order which the Board prepared with regard to the 20 photographs which U.C.L.A. did not have specific objection 21 but rather had a general objection.
22 I think that perhaps the changes in the protective 23 order -- I locked at it very quickly -- are fairly easy to l
24 deal with, and perhaps we can take them up first. -
25 As I read it, Mr. Hirsch, you have simply added O
722 O i some 1eneueee ee the boetom oc geraereph two end e1eo et the 2 bottom of paragraph three which made an exception in the Q 3 event that photographs had been placed in the local Public 4 Document Room. Are those the only two?
5 MS. THOMPSON: That and we just emphasize the 6 need for immediately obtaining photographs, and so we in-7 serted the word "immediately" in paragraph one.
8 JUDGE FRYE: In paragraph one.
9 Does anyone have any objections to'these changes?
10 MR. CORMIER: There is a problem. It would seem, 11 if I am reading correctly, CBG is imposing upon.us the obli-12 gation to provide the chairperson copies of all photographs 13 within 10 days. If we are to do that, then we need the nega-14 tives to make prints of those -- .
15 JUDGE FRYE: Oh, I see. It is a practical problem.
16 MR. CORMIER: Practical problem.
17
( MR. HIRSCH: Within 10 days --
18 MR. CORMIER: Problem two, these are CBG's photo-19 graphs. If we are giving them the negatives, I think the 20 preferred route is we can give them the photographs -- that 21 is, the negatives -- for the non-controversial photographs 22 immediately. But then with them in possession of the nega-23 tives, it ought to be their responsibility to provide the 24 Board with copies of those photographs. Then as to the 25 other photographs, the 20 that we were discussing this
l l
723 1 morning --
2 JUDGE FRYE: Will not be covered in this at all.
O 3 MR. CORMIER: Will not be covered in this.
4 JUDGE FRYE: Is that your position, then? Or 5 that they would?
6 MR. CORMIER: Well, it may be modified -- let me 7 think that through, as to what we worked out in the break.
8 MR. HIRSCH: My hope is that by 12:30 everything 9 was covered in that category.
10 JUDGE FRYE: Including the 20 that you have been II working on?
12 MR. HIRSCH: Or replaced.
13 MS. THOMPSON: The only distinction that I think 14 we have going at the moment is that the University will keep 15 the negatives for the 20 contended photographs as opposed 16 to the others where we will also recieve negatives.
17 MR. CORMIER: They will be getting prints. As 18 to those negatives we keep, of course, we will be able to 19 make a set of those photographs for the Board as well as 20 ourselves.
21 JUDGE FRYE: Well, it looks to me like that really 22 the only objections, the only problems with this, at this 23 point are practical ones. So why do you not all work it 24 out and execute it and send it in?
25 MR. CORMIER: With one understanding, then. As O
s a
N
'^
724 o
-t O
i to the 19s gheeoereeh thee we moua.d be re1eeeine, we ws.11
~
2 I give/imrediately the nega'tives to those photographs, retain
~
3 the prints that we made so we know, and then'it will be the 4 respc,nsibility of CGB to provide the Board,with prints of 5 those photographs. .._
~
6 MS.. THOMPSON: Your,Hunor, if I might -- I do not 7 thinkitisfairtoimpoheuponCGBtheburdenofjheexpense 8 of the photographs.if the. University, who hab~ waived Elf ,- -
a- ..
9 the objections to the photographs t. hat h&ve necessitated"the a . .
10 need for the Board to, be supplied with ' additional copics. '
/
t ,
II (Pause.) ,
- 12' ' JUDGE-FRYE: I frankly do not see any need for 13' the Board at this stage to havt these photographs except 14 to facilitate any objections uhat' U.C.L. A. might make with 15 respect to CBG's use of-the photographs. So with that under-16 standing, you know, you may b nhib_.to work out some alter-
' ~~~
17 nate procedure. m ,
a
,- ,, , ,".f-I8 MR. CORMIER: We_think we canfworkT- ,-and bothjof-- --
19 us apologize to trouble the Board with such;a minor problem. -
20 We can work it out. ];
y
'~
II JUDGE FRYE: Goed. c_
22 Okay, so then, you will work t$at out and then 23 come up with an agreement and submit it? -
24 MR. CORMIER: Yes. There isIone other question 25 about the redrafted protective order. Perhaps CBG an .s c ,
0 2, .
/
\
Y
- - . - c ,e __ - se
725 I clarify the intent of the last clause inserted under para-i 2 graphs two and three. i O 3 JUDGE FRYE: Unless the photographs that have been 4 placed in the local Public Document Room or otherwise have 5 been placed in the public domain?
6 MR. CORMIER: Otherwise been placed in public 7 domain -- I do not know what is contemplated by that.
8 MS. THOMPSON: That was Your Honor's line that we 9 used yesterday in referring to the --
10 JUDGE FRYE: Mmm-hmm. (Affirmative response.)
II MS. THOMPSON: -- placement of the doctanents.
12 JUDGE FRYE: I think what I was saying basically 13 is that if they are in the Public Ddcument Ro'om, they are
, 14 in the public domain at that point.
15 I do not think you have got a difference on that.
.a ~16 I think you can work --
17 MR. CORMIER: Very good.
18 All right. So now we are next on JUDQF FRYE:
19 Staff /CBG discovery disputes -- would that be appropriate to 20 take up at this point?
21 Yes, that is fine.
MS. WOODHEAD: I will describe 22 my view very --
II JUDGE FRYE: Well, first of all, you ought to out-i
- 24 line what the dispute is for us because we are not familiar 25 with it. .
O
726 1 MS. WOODHEAD: All right. In my opinion there is 2 no real dispute. We met last November and made an agreement O $ es to interro9etories seert wou1a enever, enose enet were 4 withdrawn, and the Staff submitted all responses agreed.
5 The last one was May 10.
6 After the last response was sent to CBG at 7 Mr. Hirsch's selection, we had an informal conversation over 8 the phone in which he asked for a few additional items of 9 information, which I obtained for him. And it was my under-10 standing that we were com'plete in the agreement of last Il November.
12 The items he brought up to me yesterday were ask-13 ing for additional information beyond the responses that he 14 has in hand now, which is rather difficult for me to propose 15 since they deal with our consultants. They are aimed at 16 consultants through the NRC, and as you know, it is a con-17 tractual matter, and I think maybe it would be less efficient I8 for Mr. Hirsch to write a motion to compel and outline these 19 items that they are not terribly long, and perhaps he could 20 show the Board why they are necessary to a decision, which II I fail to see, myself.
22 MR. HIRSCH: There are only a few questions, then.
23 It is my understanding that is one of the agenda items for O 24 today. We have had several conversations and have been un-25 able to reach agreement. We are not requesting any additional O -
727
() I information. We feel the information that was requested was 2 not provided.
(} 3 Several questions Staff has objected to answering 4 completely, and we think those objections are unreasonable.
5 I think we can resolve the matter here quickly, and I think 6 that is the only way to expedite the matter so that we can 7 get to hearing.
8 JUDGE FRYE: You are not in a position to go ahead 9 and resolve it because of the fact that consultants are in-10 volved? Is that the -- you are not in a position really to 11 address it, I should say, because consultants are involved.
12 Do I understand that correctly?
13 MS. WOODHEAD: That is correct. I have provided O 14 Mr. Hirsch with all the information I agreed to provide him 15 last November.
16 JUDGE FREY: Mmm-hmm. (Affirmative response. )
17 MS. WOODHEAD: There are a few questions he has 18 raised about the responses that he has not had which he be-19 lieves to be incomplete or which he wants clarified. I 20 thought we had resolved this the first part of June over the 21 telephone insofar as it was of any substantive matter.
12 He has one question about a series of nuclear 23 engineering textbooks. He would like the page number of 14 equilibrium products, and he wants it on the record that these 25 textbooks cover decay heat principles, etceteras. And this
728 O i was ree11v devond the scoge oe our eereemene in the firee 2 place.
3 We agreed that we would not try to get into an 4 educational sort of dissertation in this discovery matter 5 but would simply refer them to technical libraries, or some-6 thing along those lines where it is standard engineering 7 matters.
8 Beyond that, the questions he would like answered 9
are follow-up to academic credentials of our -- rather employ-10 ment aspect of two of our consultants who authored the 11 Batelle Study, and the only questions that were in dispute 12 in San Francisco, and still remain in dispute, go into very.
~
13 personal matters related to a professor at the University of O 14 Washington who co-authored the Batelle Study, and I simply 15 objected to those on the ground of relevancy since Professor 16 Robkin.'s credentials have been submitted to CBG as an expert, 17 and the personal character of these questions I considered 18 to be improper for this proceeding.
19 Those are the only questions where I was ever aware 20 there was a dispute. And Mr. Hirsch has waited until now 21 to raise them in a formal objection. I assumed that he was 22 going to withdraw them or let them pass. I have not had 23 any formal document from him informing me or the Board that 24 he wants the motion to compel.
25 MR. HIRSCH: Judge --
O
729 1
MS. WOODHEAD: So I thought this would be easier, 2 to just write these things down, explain why he needs the O $ iatormatioa, eaa verne9 1ee ene soera aeoiae enet-4 MR. HIRSCH: I most vigorously object. First of 5 all:, there is a characterization of the disputes as non-6 disputes, and a notice question. I think that you need to 7 see the questions to see that the merits arguments that have 8 been raised by Staff do not describe the issues at all.
9 The questions th'at the Staff has objected to answer-10 ing are questions about apparent conflicts of interest on II the part of the witnesses that they are putting forward.
12 If I may be more specific, the people who wrote the Battelle 13 Study appear to have direct relations with the Argonaut 14 licensee at the University of Washington, which could lead 15 to very serious questions of bias in terms of the presenta-16 tion.
17 Staff has declined to answer some of those ques-18 being on the pay-tions regarding those direct relations:
I9 roll of the licensee and relations with the Argonaut staff; 20 in particular, Professor Robkin's personal use of the 21 Argonaut reactor at the University of Washington; whether 22 his own activities would be severely curtailed if this 23 study came out differently than it did. We think these O 24 questions are extremely relevant and essential to the case.
25 The question --
730 O
' I JUDGE FRYE: Excuse me. Are these people going to 2
be witnesses?
() 3 MS. WOODHEAD: No, sir.
4 JUDGE FRYE: They will not?
5 MR. HIRSCH: If I -- excuse me. The disputes that 6
we have are regarding Hawley, Kathren, Robkin and Bernard.
7 Hawley and Bernard they have noticed -- will come as wit-8 nesses. They are attempting to put in as evidence the study that was written by Hawley, Robkin and Kathren. In fact, 10 the Applicant has now replaced its entire safety analysis, II or most of its analysis, by reference with this study which 12 appears to us to be so severely flawed by the conflict of r's I3 interest. And we think that is absolutely essential to this
\_)
I4 matter.
15 The two studies that are being relied upon by both 16 Staff and Applicant in this case are both written by people 17 on the payroll of licensees at Argonaut reactors. And Staff 18 is declining to provide additional information about other 19 conflicts that appear. To determine the probative nature --
20 JUDGE FRYE: What are the questions? What 21 specific questions?
22 MR. HIRSCE: May I just provide them for the Board 3
so that we have them in front of us?
() 24 the easiest way.
I think that will be 25 JUDGE FRYE: All right.
O
l 731
() 1 The parties have this, I take it?
2 MR. HIRSCH: Yes.
() 3 (Document proffered.)
4 JUDGE FRYE: You have given us --
5 MR. HIRSCH: I just gave you the cover sheet so 6 you would know what it was. In fact, the questions that are 7 in dispute --
8 JUDGE FRYE: Oh, I see.
9 MR. HIRSCH: -- if you will hold a' minute.
10 MS. WOODHEAD: Could you tell me which -- oh, I Il get a copy?
12 MR. HIRSCH: You want --
13 MS. WOODHEAD: Could you just read me the numbers O 14 so I am sure what you are --
15 MR. HIRSCH: The interrogatories as to this health 16 study, and we are focusing on page 11 on question A-1, 17 question B-3, B-4 and A-4.
II Now, if I can explain the way these work, we asked 19 15 questions, and we wished each of the three authors of 20 the Battelle Study to answer the same questions. When 21 Mr. Hawley answered, it was supposed to be A-1, A-2; when 22 Mr. Kathren answered, it was supposed to be B-1, B-2, and 23 so forth; and when Mr. Robkin was supposed to answer, it
() 24 was supposed to be C-1, C-2. In addition, on page 12, we 25 added several additional questions to Professor Robkin, which O
732
() I are C-16 to C-26, because we noticed that Professor Robkin 2 is a professor in the Department of Nuclear Energy of Future 3 Engineering at the University of Washington, one of the five
(])
4 licensees of Argonaut reactors, and that this was a generic 5 study of Argonaut reactors that was being done by Professor 6 Robkin.
7 Perhaps on page 12 it will be clearer to see what 8 the disputes are. C-17 asks Professor Robkin if he teaches 9 any courses which utilize the University of Washington 10 Argonaut. If so, please specify which classes, what use the 11 reactor is put to, and how many hours per year roughly of 12 reactor time he has so used. The obvious question being that 13 if his study came out differently and Argonauts were deter-O 14 mined not to be safe, would some of his teaching activity 15 be affected?
16 C-18 is similar in terms of past use of the reactor 17 for teaching. C-19 is, do you now, or have you in the past, 18 used the University of Washington reactor for research, 19 neutron activation or other non-teaching activities. And 20 then to give us some idea of the extent of that activity.
21 We have an understanding, which is not in evidentiary form 22 now that he does indeed use that University of Washington 23 reactor for personal research. So tne extent of that per-( 24 sonal research and the degree to which his research could be 25 affected had the conclusions of the Battelle Study come out O
733 O i different1r seems suite germene.
2 C-20 has to do with personal knowledge of the 3 staff of the University of Washington. C-21 is Hawley's 4 using the reactor for teaching or other research purposes.
5 It might be very difficult for someone who is closely in-6 volved with people who are quite dependent, perhaps, for 7 their job on the University of Washington Argonaut reactor 8 to come to a study of the safety of Argonaut reactors with 9 quite the free mind that would be necessary.
10 Twenty-two was key: "Do you know or have you in 11 the past sat on any supervisorial committee for the Univer-
~12 sity of Washington reactor? If so, please detail that in-13 volvement in a three- or four-word phrase."
O 14 In the statement of qualifications given for 15 Professor Robkin, it is indicated that he served on the 16 University of Radiation Safety Committee. We cannot know 17 until this question is answered whether the University of ,
I8 Radiation Safety Committee is the committee with supervisori-19 al functions for the University of Washington Argonaut 20 reactor and if indeed there might, then, be a conflict if 21 this new study indicating that the reactor was unsafe when 22 he for several years has sat on the committee that deter-23 mined it to be safe.
24 And 23 is as to whether they have close relations 25 with any members of those supervisorial committees. And'24 O
734 1 is, quite simply, whether if his study came out differently 2 and the University of Washington reactor had to be shut down, C 3 would any of his research or teaching activities have to be 4 modified or curtailed and please detail how those activities 5 would be altered. Staff has declined to answer those ques-6 tions at all, and we think they are very relevant, particular--
7 ly since they will not be calling Professor Robkin as a wit-8 ness but will be introducing his work as evidence. So we 9 cannot ask him the questions on the stand because he will not 10 be here. But they are attempting to rely on his conclusions 11 without our having an opportunity to challenge him or 12 determine the bias and background.
( 13 JUDGE FRYE: Do you want to respo$ld, Ms. Woodhead?
14 Can you respond?
15 MS. WOODHEAD: Would you like to see the responses 16 from the Battelle Study authors? If you understand that 17 there is a very full set of responses from the three authors I8 of the study related to the study itself, I think that might 19 put it in perspective. I am sure you have it in your files 20 back in the office, but I will provide you with one.
II (Document proffered.)
l 22 JUDGE FRYE: Thank you.
23 MS. WOODHEAD: Mmm-hmm. (Affirmative response.)
l
. 24 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. I take it, this gets to the 25 point, as we say, to the point where it is submitted. We O
735 1
We do not need anymore argument from you.
2 MR. HIRSCH: On these particular questions, I O 3 should add one other thing. We had directly requested to 4 see these from Professor Robkin, curriculum vitae, and 5 Staff has declined to provide that.
6 But on Professor Robkin, that is all we nave to 7 say. We do have additional things regarding Professor 8 Hawley. (Pause.)
9 JUDGE FRYE: Those are different?
10 MR. HIRSCH: They are the same. Maybe I should II specify more. I outlined for you questions C-17 through 12 C-24. In addition, there is a dispute about questions A-1, 13 where we requested a CV for Professor Robkin and did not 14 receive it; a dispute on question B-3, where we asked 15 Mr. Kathren whether he is currently on the payroll of any 16 Argonaut reactor licensee. The answer was, "See above,"
- 17 where it indicates that he teaches courses or has an academic 18 appointment to the University of Washington, but we would II like an explicit answer. Staff says that that is implicit, 1
20 and perhaps they can simply say now that yes, indeed, 21 Mr. Kathren as well as on the payroll of the University of 22 Washington.
23 Third are questions B-4 and A-4, where Mr. Hawley 24 and Mr. Kathren gave what we viewed as evasive answers to 25 the question, "Do you have personal acquaintances with any O
736 1 of the current or past staff of the current licensee?"
2 Both indicated that they did, but would not answer Q 3 in detail unless we provided them with specific lists of 4 staff people of the University of Washington, in which case 5 they would detail each of their associations. And we then 6 asked Staff, "Well, we would like to pick up that invitation, 7
provide them then with that list and have them identify them 8 since they were not able or willing to directly on our 9 q uestion. "
10 And Staff has declined to permit us to follow up 11 on the invitation to identify the University of Washington 12 staff people.
13 JUDGE PRYE: Does that cover it?
14 MR. HIRSCH: That covers the disputes as to the 15 Battelle Study.
16 JUDGE PARIS: In light of Robkin's statement C-4 17 in his affidavit with respect to the question that you raised ,
I8 C-20 and C-21, I find it a little hard to see what you were 19 driving at given that answer.
20 MR. HIRSCH: I agree. C-20 you are quite right, 21 duplicates the answer to C-4. Let me explain, by the way, 22 why we took so long. We decided not to move to compel 23 Staff, and Bridge the Gap agreed to waive it until we got lO 24 the answers to the questions that Staff was willing to pro-25 vide. You are quite right that C-21 will duplicate the
.O
737 1
answer that we have already to C-4. Excuse me, no, C-20.
2 I do not see that for C-21, where we asked for' people who 3 use the reactor for teaching or research or other activity.
4 JUDGE PARIS: Oh, okay. But you consider C-20 5 satisfied?
6 MR. HIRSCH: C-20 is satisfied. You will note that 7 I have also not raised the question C-25, C-26 and C-17, 8 which Staff declined -- excuse me, C-16 -- which Staff de-9 clined to answer but which we are not pressing because we 10 feel we have gotten that answer in other ways.
11 So let me be specific. C-20 is not in dispute.
12 The dispute for Professor Robkin are C-17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 13 23 and 24.
14 JUDGE FRYE: Any response, Ms. Woodhead? Other 15 than what you have already given us?
16 MS. WOODHEAD: No, as the Board is aware, the 17 threshold for discovery against the Staff is much more 18 limited than other parties. CBG has never filed a motion 19 before the Board showing why these 573 interrogatories 20 originally filed are necessary to the sound decision in this 21 case or not available elsewhere. At the direction of the 22 Board, we met in San Francisco, and agreed on approximately 23 150 responses which the Staff provided. And frankly, this O 24 one series of questions for Professor Robkin, who will not 25 be a witness but who simply is a co-author of a scientific O
738 1 analysis contracted by the Commission, I find rather in-2 sulting. And certainly, not necessary or useful to any O $ i==ue reisea ia this cese, a r vertiaeat to the scieatiric 4 expertise of Professor Robkin.
5 MR. HIRSCH: Just as a procedural question, there 6 is a motion, of course, before the Board, which in its Order 7 of October 13, 1981, the Board deferred ruling on until the 8 parties had a chance to meet and agree, and if we could not 9 agree, then the Board s&id it would take the matters up, 10 which is exactly why we are doing this now.
11 JUDGE FRYE: Have we covered all of the matters 12 at this point?
13 MR. HIRSCH: No, those are the matters going to V( 3 14 the Battelle Study. Two or three others are very similar.
15 Would you like us to put that before you?
16 JUDGE FRYE: What I would like to do at this point 17 is to get all of it argued to the extent that we can.
18 MR. HIRSCH: Mmm-hmm. (Affirmative response.)
19 JUDGE FRYE: As I am assuming that you are prepared 20 to do that, okay. So we will have it in the transcript, 21 and we will be able to make a decision on it. So why do 22 you not --
23 MR. HIRSCH: So you want us to provide the others 24 as well.
25 They all relate to this question of conflict of O
- 739 1 interest. Essentially, the two studies that have been done 2 by Staff which are not incorporated by reference as the
,] 3 bulk of the safety analysis for University were done by 4 people who are on the payroll or closely associated with 5 Argonaut licensees. We find that to raise very, very serious 6 questions, particularly looking at the scientific content 7 of those studies, which seems to us so poor.
8 As to whether or not their relationship to licen-9 sees and personal results of their study coming out different--
10 ly, affecting them personally, raises very serious questions 11 about the probative nature of the evidence Staff and Appli-12 cant intend to put forward in the hearing.
13 Let me give you the disputes that we have, which 14 are also short, on the two other matters. (Pause.)
15 JUDGE FRYE: The parties have these as well?
16 MR. HIRSCH: Yes.
17 (Document proffered.)
18 MS. WOODHEAD: I am not sure what you are talking 19 about.
21 MS. WOODHEAD: About the SER?
22 MR. HIRSCH: Right, two questions. (Pause.)
23 I call your attention in the interrogatories as s 24 to the Safety Evaluation Report. First, to page 36, questidn 25 355, raises in our view a very serious question about
I l
740 O i gresudement of the issues beine reised here by NRC Steff 2 prior to its SER and therefore the question of whether the 3
SER has been prepared in a scientific manner or in respruse 4 to a bias pre-existing.
5 The question reads as follows: " Prior to the SER 6
being released, the following statement was recorded in the I
minutes of the Campus Radiation Safety Committee at U.C.L.A.
8 on December 15, 1980." To put that in perspective, the SER 9
did not issue until Spring of 1981.
10
" Reactor License Renewal and Bridge the Gap.
II There will be a public hearing precedent 12 for teaching reactor on the nuclear I3 reactor. State Board - "
O 14 I assume they meant the Safety Boar.d.
15
"-- will tell the parties what points will 16 be heard at a hearing sometime in the 17 Spring. At that point, NRC will shift 18 from neutral to support of U.C.L.A."
I9 It adds, 20
" Bridge the Gap has 23 items of issue, 21 some of which will help us to do 22 better."
23 l
The question was to please indicate the nature of any
'
- communications between NRC Staff and the staff of the licen-25 see that may have resulted in the licensee's belief that O
741 O i et e certein egecified time, which indeed turne out to be 2 the time when Staff, eight months later, came out in support 3 of the application. Please indicate any communications that 4 could have led the University to that belief. Please indi-5 cate the date of all such conversations or communications and
'6 who the individuals were who were involved in said communica- I 7 tions, d The response, as you see, from Staff is: " Staff /
9 Applicant correspondence is included."
10 This has been a long dispute we have had because 11 we have not been served with Staff / Applicant correspondence 12 as required, and that is why this matter has to be raised '
13 before you.
O 14 The answer, of course, does not address any of IT the oral communications between Staff and Applicant that 16 might have led the Applicant to the understanding or belief 17 that the NRC Staff knew prior to having done its SER, prior to the Los Alamos Studies were completed, prior to the 19 '
Battelle Study being completed, what its result is going to 20 be.
21 One additional item is that we requested a complete 22 biography of Mr. Bernard, who is to be a witness for Staff, !
23 and apparently the principal author of the SER, including 24 all information about potential conflicts of interest with 25 other Argonaut licensees, and there is a period of eight O
l 742 1
years missing from Mr. Bernard's biography. You will note 2 that it goes to 1972 and then starts again in 1980 when Q 3 he joined the Commission Staff, and we would like to know 4 what happened to those most recent eight years, and in addi-5 tion, whether there are any conflicts of interest with 6 licensee Staff.
7 JUDGE FRYE: Ms. Woodhead?
8 MS. WOODHEAD: Just Frye, yesterday Mr. Hirsch 9 told me that the disputes that we had between us, of which 10 I was unaware until I came to Los Angeles, were the follow-II ing: A-1 and 4, A-3 and 4, and C-16 through 26.
- 12 In November, when we were in San Francisco, ,
13 Mr. Bernard and I were both there. We spent the entire day O 14 going item-by-item through the 573 interrogatories before we 15 finally came to an agreement.
16 This question in No. 355 as to this report in the 17 U.C.L.A. log of whatever it says there was discussed at 18 length there. It is on tape. Mr. Hirsch taped our conver-19 sation of November 20-whatever. We said we had no idea why 20 that was written there, no knowledge about it whatsoever.
21 In our telephone conversations between Mr. Hirsch 22 and myself I reminded him once again when he asked me about 23 this question that we had previously discussed it at length l Ov. 24 and said we had no idea why U.C.L.A. thought what they thought and wrote that in their Radiation Safety Committee O
l
743 I meetings. We had absolutely no knowledge about it.
2 I will repeat again today: we have no knowledge Q 3 why that is written in there. There is no collusion between 4 the Staff and Applicant. It is simply something that exists 5 that we do not have any explanation for whatsoever.
6 And I did not know that this was still an item of 7 dispute. This is new to me this morning, at this minute, 8 that this is a dispute according to Mr. Hirsch.
9 JUDGE PARIS: Mr. Hirsch, it seems to me you are 10 asking the wrong person.
II MR. HIRSCH: Who should we be asking?
12 JUDGE PARIS: Somebody at U.C.L.A.
I3 MR. HIRSCH: No, we need to -- the allegation is O I4 that there are two parts to that conversation, that some-15 how the NRC Staff told them, " Hey, listen, don't worry.
16 We'll be on your side come hearing."
17 JUDGE PARIS: Well, that is one interpretation, 18 but they, it seems to me, also could have been saying to 19 each other, "Our case is going to be so good, the NRC will 20 support us."
21 So what you need to do is to ask whoever wrote 22 that what he meant.
23 It is pretty cryptic.
24 MR. HIRSCH: Well, if I may say one thing on that.
25 Staff agreed to answer that question. We removed 80 per cent O
744 O I of our interro9atories- Staff a9 reed to answer about 20 per 2 cent, and this was one of them.
3 Staff has not answered the question. The character-4 ization that Staff gives of the phone conversations that we 5 had is quite contrary to what I was told by Ms. Woodhead.
6 She told me that Staff has always historically supported 7 applications, has never opposed an application, and that that 8 was probably the basis for whatever implication Staff had 9 given.
10 That is why'we needed a writing: because in order II for there to be any evidentiary base, the phone conversation 12 between Ms. Woodhead and myself is going to do no good.
I3 JUDGE PARIS: Well, if Ms. Woodhead told you that O 14 the Staff has never opposed an application, she either is 15 misleading you or is uninformed.
16 MR. HIRSCH: That is why I would like it in writing 17 And to at least voir dire from Mr. Bernard, we would like to 18 know what happened to those eight years that are missing.
19 MS. WOODHEAD: Let me defend myself. I do not 20 like being accused of saying something which I did not say.
21 l What I said, to be very exact, to Mr. Hirsch, over 22 the telephone, is that before we go to hearing on any license ,
23 the Staff must settle its disputes on a technical basis with V 24 the Applicant, and therefore, prior to the hearing, the 25 Staff usually is supporting the application. Otherwise, we O
745 I would not go to hearing because we will not support or be 2 ready for hearing unless the Applicant has resolved its O $
inedeauecies in its technice1 metters.
4 JUDGE FRYE: Or perhaps to put it more to the 5 point, that typically applicants are unwilling to go to 6 hearing with a dispute outstanding with the Staff.
7 MS. WOODHEAD: That is quite true also.
8 JUDGE PARIS: I just got back from a hearing where 9 the Staff was opposing the Applicant, and the Applicant told to us over the phone, "Okay, we'll fight you in the trial," and II the Applicant caved the night before. So Staff does oppose 12 sometimes.
II JUDGE FRYE: Do you want to respond with respect 14 to the missing-what, eight years?
15 MS. WOODHEAD: Secondly, the question in the 16 interrogatory simply asks for professional qualifications 17 from all the proposed witnesses of Staff, which I provided.
18 I think you will note that the Staff already knows who its 19 witnesses will be, and CBG has a complete list of witnesses 20 and professional qualifications noted by contention except 21 for one which is still in question, which is certainly 22 quite helpful to them.
23 He objected to Mr. Bernard's professional quali-O 24 fications because eight years are not accounted for since 25 the beginning of Mr. Bernard's professional education. I
l 746 l
1 explained to Mr. Hirsch what Mr. Bernard was doing. It was 2 not anything secret or subversive. He ran a consulting O '
buetae== cor ea eaviroameate1 -- verhees 1 nea detter 1et 4 Mr. Bernard tell you exactly what he was dcing, but he was 5 running his own business, and because it was not in a 6 governmental capacity, he simply left it out.
7 I told Mr. Hirsch this over the phone. Why he 8 wants this in writing is beyond me. This has become a ridi-9 culous debate about silly things which have nothing to do 10 with this hearing. And if he wants Mr. Bernard to document II on the record eight years of his life, I am sure Mr. Bernard 12 would be happy to do this. But to carry this to such a 13 point of nonsense is becoming improper and more than 14 frivolous.
15 JUDGE PARIS: Well, I do not think it is frivolous 16 for Mr. Hirsch to ask about seven or eight years missing I7 from a resume in the professional life of a prospective wit-18 ness.
39 MS. WOODHEAD: Judge Paris, I am sure that 20 Mr. Bernard would be happy to put this on the record at 21 the moment.
22 JUDGE PARIS: The question is whether he has to do 23 that.
O 24 JUDGE FRYE: I do not think we want to get into an 25 And certainly, you are evidentiary session at this point.
O
747
() I going to get voir dire when we get to hearing.
2 I am not quite certain in my own mind why you need 3
{]) -- I mean, if you have got the information that is going to 4 equip you to conduct voir dire.
5 MR. HIRSCH: If I may answer that -- by phone, 6 Ms. Woodhead said that he ran a consulting firm for the 7 years, but she did not know which firm or what it did, was 8 unaware of exactly what Mr. Bernard had done during those eight 9 years aside from that he ran or was involved with some kind 10 of a consulting firm.
11 We asked a question on page 35, question 353, 12 that Staff agreed to answer, and we are asserting did not.
13 It is not identified in response to a previous question which O 14 asked for the technical ,ualifications:
15 " Provide the past employment unrelated 16 to technical qualifications but which 17 may be related to potential past asso-18 ciations with licensees in question."
19 In order to be prepared for voir dire, we need to 20 know the name of the company. We need to know what type of 21 work was done, what location, was it in the Los Angeles area, 22 were there relations with U.C.L.A.?
23 To find out on the stand, we need to be able to I () 24 do a little bit of research beforehand, and that is exactly 25 what discovery is for.
O
748 I (Pause.)
2 JUDGE FRYE: Do you have any objection to answering 3 that question right now?
4 MR, BERNARD: Absolutely none.
5 JUDGE FRYE: Why do you not do so?
6 MR. BERNARD: Are we on the record now?
7 JUDGE FRYE: On the record, yes.
8 MR. BERNARD: I left an environme'ntal protection 9 agency in 1972 and went with an environmental consulting and 10 engineering firm and was involved in municipal and industrial II pollution control. It had absolutely nothing to do with any 12 of the areas involved in nuclear power or radiation protec-13 tion.
O 14 In about 1978, I became involved with a non-profit 15 public organization called the Hazardous Material Control I6 Research Institute as their Executive Director, involved in 17 the control of hazardous materials. Mainly, the organization 18 was the Hazardous Material Control Research Institute, and I9 was involved in a public arena as an environmentalist in the 20 control of hazardous materials in the environment.
l l
21 Then in February of '81, came with NRC, So those l
i 22 are the eight years.
23 JUDGE FRYE: Did these materials have anything to l
O 24 do with radiee1on, .
25 MR. BERNARD: Absolutely none. It was all chemical, O
l
I 749
() 1 JUDGE FRYE: All chemical.
2 MR. HIRSCH: Where did all of this activity take 3 place?
[]}
4 MR. BERNARD: In the Washington Area. Some of 5 the industries could be anyplace and in other countries, 6 but no, we were not involved with U.C.L.A. or any nuclear 7 power reactor.
8 JUDGE FRYE: Or a research reactor?
9 MR. BERNARD: Or a research reactor. Nothing to 10 do with the nuclear arena.
11 JUDGE FRYE: I think that puts it to rest.
12 MR. HIRSCH: Might we have the name of the firm?
13 MR. BERNARD: Environmental Quality Systems, Inc.
14 MR. HIRSCH: Thank you.
15 JUDGE FRYE: Thank you.
16 MR. HIRSCH: That is the information we requested.
17 MR. BERNARD: And the reason it was left out was l
l 18 it did not have anything, I felt, to do with this case.
l 19 JUDGE FRYE: Anything further?
l 20 MR. HIRSCH: Just one very quick one which we 21 failed to resolve yesterday, and I would like to just have l 22 that resolved now in the record.
{
(
23 As I understand it, Ms. Woodhead is indicating l
l 24 that the answers which she supplied me on June 7, 1982, in 25 a letter regarding the source of the fission product O
750 I inventory heat output and per cent of heat output after 2 shutdown used by Mr. Court (ph.) in his Los Alamos Study on O 3 the Argonaut reactors that the information provided was for 4 questions 17, 18 and 19, not merely question 17 as indicated 5 in the letter from Ms. Woodhead. Is that correct?
6 MS. WOODHEAD: I would say that is correct, yes.
7 JUDGE FRYE: Okay, we are through with that topic.
8 We have a question of the modification of the con-N 9 tentions. Does anybody -- or let me rephrase that. Have 10 the parties had an opportunity to look at that?
II (Pause.)
12 MR. CORMIER: Judge Frye, as for the University, 13 we have looked at it part-way through, and we.are not pre-14 pared to say that it is entirely accurate from an editorial 15 sense. I mean, that would be the question. I do not think 16 it raises any particular issues.
17 JUDGE FRYE: Substantive issues, you mean?
18 fir. CORMIER: Substantive issues. If I under-19 stand correctly, using those plus symbols as different items,
'20 Items 3 and 4 are not changes of anything. , We were just II noting that there was an amendment to the Application. The 22 pages are the same.
23 MR. HIRSCH: Items 3 and 4 --
24 JUDGE PARIS: Are we channeling down with the first 25 plus?
O I
l
)
\
751
\
1 MR. CORMIER: Oh, I see what you are saying.
.2 JUDGE PARIS: Being the one?
3 MR. CORMIER: Yes. One, two, three, four.
]. It is 4' not numbered.
5 MR. HIRSCH: Correct. In order to reduce the 6
amount of changes.to that contention, we simply indicated 7
the page refers to an'Jitem that was in the original Applica-8 tion and is still in after you have amended it versus whether
)
9 it was just in the, original application.
, It has now been 10 amended out. And in case of the last item, you have slightly II modified the statement and changed its page number.
12 Does an- have a copy of the contentions so --
13 as there is -- -
O 14 (Document proffered.) .
15 Okay.
16 JUDGE PARIS: I would like a copy --
17 JUDGE FRYE: Let me -- I was about to say 7- I ,
18 spoke too quickly on that. We have got.a copy, or I have I9 got a copy which was submitted by CBG some time ago, about 20 a year ago. .
21 (Document prof fered. )
22 So we all knou that we are dealing'\ with '
the same 23 t thing, I request you give these to the other parties as well.
24 (Documents proffered.)
25 s JUDGE FRYE: If there are any objections to this O
r i
+
l - _. . . _-
f s
752 1
statement of the contentions wbich Mr. Hirsch has just passed 2 out, or to the niodi fications to' the contentions which he Q 3 passed out earlier this morning -- modifications made in
~
4 response to licer.se application' aniendments -- I would suggest 5 . hat you all inform us.
6 I am not sure you..have had an opportunity to really 7 focus on it.
8 MR. CORMIER: Judge Frye, yes, I think we need to 9 check this. I recall the Staff in its September 2 submittal 10 to the Board under dirnction by the Board, supposedly pro-11 duced a definitive copy --
12 JUDGE FRYE: About which there was some objection.
13 And then there was a Board Order, which"came out last 14 January which ruled on those objections.
15 Now, this particular copy, I think, predates that 16 Board Order.
17 fir. HIRSCH: We have made a couple of changes. As 18 I understand it, that Board Order agrees that our copy was 19 correct.
20 JUDGE FRYE: Okay, well, just so that we are all 21 l sure that we are working on the right thing, you know.
22 MR. HIRSCH: There is one change by hand in this 23 one, which is a typo had gotten in based on the Board's O
v 24 Order after the second pre-hearing conference, Contention XX.
25 We keep referring to the rule as 73.76 when it is in fact 67.
.O
= ._ _
753 O i JUDGE FRYE: Six/seven. !
2 MR. HIRSCH: And also on Contention XIX, it is
(' 3 always maximum " credible" accident, not " creditable."
4 MR. CORMIER: Did you get "eutectic" right?
5 MR. HIRSCH: Let us see if we got "eutectic" right 6 this time.
7 JUDGE FRYE. Well --
8 MR. HIRSCH: No, "eutectic" is wrong too.
9 JUDGE FRYE: Well, any corrections to these or 10 objections -- let us' know promptly. I would say within the 11 next -- what?
12 MR. HIRSCH: Ten days?
I3 JUDGE FRYE: Ten days. Or try to work it out, O 14 first of all, but if you cannot, let us know.
15 MS. WOODHEAD: Judge Frye, may I ask a clarifica-16 tion?
17 JUDGE FRYE: Surely.
I8 MS. WOODHEAD: Is this complete?
19 MR, HIRSCH: No. I should give a clarification.
20 We spoke last night with Counsel for Staff and Counsel for 21 Applicant indicating that we might be able to come in with 22 some preliminary modifications over the night, having had 23 one day to look at the Application.
t 24 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
25 MR. HIRSCH: With the understanding, as I O
754
() i understand it from the other parties, that this would be pre-2 liminary and that after additional review, after a short g period, that we might have to come in with some additional.
[}
4 We only had a few hours to look at the Application.
5 JUDGE FRYE: You are referring to this modification?
6 MR. HIRSCH: This is a preliminary modification.
7 JUDGE FRYE: Preliminary.
3 MR. HIRSCH: And as we read over further, we may 9 have to file something in addition. I would suggest that 10 10-15 days for both Bridge the Gap to come forward with any 13 additional modifications, if necessary, upon further reading 12 of the Application Amendment and for the Staff and Applicant 33 to respond to the modifications we have proposed this morn-O 14 ing.
15 JUDGE FRYE: All right. Ten days will take you 16 to --
17 MR. CORMIER: Friday.
18 JUDGE FRYE: The 12th, which I think is a Saturday, 19 I believe -- no, excuse me, the 10th, which is a Saturday.
20 MR. CORMIER: The 10th is a Friday, I believe.
21 JUDGE FRYE: Is the 10th a Friday?
12 MR. CORMIER: And Monday is the 13th.
23 JUDGE FRYE: No, the 10th is a Saturday. All
/~T kJ 24 right, so that would take it over to Monday, the 12th. So 25 you can serve any modifications that you might have by O
755
() 1 Monday, July 12. Then we would give -- what do you want?
2 Five days plus five days? For mail? It would get you, then, 3 over to the 22nd for any responses.
({} The 22nd'is a Thursday.
4 MR. HIRSCH: If we decide that we need no addi-5 tional modifications, we would then notify the parties and 6 the Board by phone, and then it --
7 JUDGE FRYE: Fine.
8 MR. HIRSCH: -- would seem that after that phone 9 call, there should be simply a five-day period to respond to 10 modifications that have already been presented. Would that 11 be reasonable?
12 JUDGE FRYE: Does anyone have any objections to 13 that?
O 14 MS. WHITEHEAD: That is fine.
15 JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
16 MR. CORMIER: It is fine with the Applicant with 17 the understanding on July 12th, we will be getting a complete 18 list of modifications?
19 JUDGE FRYE: Or notification that there are no more 20 MR. HIRSCH: What I did last night may be suffi-21 cient. I believe there is a good chance that it is.
12 MR. CORMIER: We will wait for the 12th, then, 23 before we --
) 24 JUDGE FRYE: Sure.
25 MR. CORMIER: -- compare this.
O
756 O i na. HraSCH: rf 1 mar edd e cougte of notes of 2 explanation?
3 JUDGE FRYE: Mrmn-hmm. (Affirmative response. )
4 MR. HIRSCH: Just as to what we attempted to do.
5 Contention I -- we simply added a part to reflect the fact 6
that the staff at the University has now added,by reference 7 two documents. So there is a new sub-part C of sub-part 2.
8 All of Item 3 was simply changed to make sure that when we 9 referred to the page' number, everyone knows the page number 10 of which document now that there are several floating around.
Il For Contention II-B, we have simply removed the 12 words "the Application indicates" because they have now '
13 changed that portion of the application. The information re-14 mains valid. They simply have done some editorial changes.
15 So that the source of it is not relevant.
16 For Contention V, we simply removed a few words 17 referring to the accessory activity limits that were in 18 the proposed technical specifications that have now been 19 modified. Because they made that modification, we simply 20 removed those references to them.
21 And lastly, Contention VIII -- since they have now 22 removed the analysis from the Application, we changed the 23 reference to it to make clear we are referring to the O
V 24 analysis contained in the 1980 SER which duplicutt'ed the 25 1960 Hazards Analysis.
O
757
( l The footnote at the bottom of page 1 was not in-2 tended to be part of the contentions. It was simply a note
() I to the parties and the Board that -- reminding the parties 4 and the Board that the contention dealing with the technical 5 specifications is not simply the question of whether or not 6 the language was changed, but whether the language changes 7 are significant. Now they have removed the statement that 8 we said was not correct. But they have not changed it. They 9 are keeping in the changes. If that is at all clear.
10 At any rate, the footnote ia not part of the con-Il tention change, but just an extra notion of it.
12 JUDGE FRYE: All right.
13 So that would bring us, then, to questions of 14 schedule.
15 Mr. Hirsch, you were going to try to take a look 16 at that with an eye towards which contentions would be ready 17 to go.
18 MR. HIRSCH: Surprise. We believe that the prior 19 matters except for Contention XX and the Emergency Plan are 20 ready for hearing.
We see no -- we see need for discovery l
2I on the amendments, but we -- since it took us a year to get 1
22 answers to most previously submitted interrogatories, in 23 order to expedite the proceeding, we would be willing to
( 24 -
not have discovery on those amendments and to just go 25 straight to hearing.
l
(}
i
f 758 1
On those matters except for Contention XX, which 2 we are still working out, and the Emergency Plan, which hope-O 3 fully will be finished, to have the supplement available 4 so we could combine that. If not, then we may have to 5 separate off Emergency Plan. But we think everything is 6 ready for hearing. ,
7 JUDGE FRYE: Except Security and Emergency.
8 MR. HIRSCH: Except Security and Emergency Plan, 9 and we hope Emergency Plan will be ready.
10 JUDGE FRYE: In light of that, what sort of a Il schedule do the parties have in mind?
12 MR. CORMIER: As far as the Applicant is concerned, I3 to take advaittage of the Commission's provision for filing 14 motions for summary disposition. I understand the Staff 15 does too. So that should be the first item to be considered 16 in scheduling.
17 Can I bring up a minor item before it splits?
I8 Yesterday you directed the University to respond 19 to the protective orders within 10 days. Could we specify 20 that we will respond by Monday, July 12th?
II JUDGE FRYE: Yes, I was going to come to that later 22 But I think that is a good time. And then that would --
23 MR. CORMIER: Everything is together.
24 JUDGE FRYE: Yes, why do we not follow the same 25 schedule with respect to that that we are going to follow O
759 1 with respect to the contentions -- modifications to the con-2 tentions.
) 3 We will issue a pre-hearing conference order when 4 we get back.
5 So, what sort of a schedule? Do you want to file 6 motions for summary disposition? When do you want to do 7 that?
8 liR. CORMIER: We formerly talked -- defer to 9 Staff. I think we would probably prefer two months to file.
10 Perhaps August 15.' Staff no doubt is much more ready to Il go than we are. We have been delayed on the supplementation 12 question. We have hopefully seen some more specific infor-13 mation from the Intervenors than we already have been able O 14 to obtain through discovery, so that we know how to bring 15 motions specifically as they relate to the basic acts and 16 analyses which are the core issues in this case. We have 17 not received that, and we are somewhat, I guess, confused 18 over how we ought to proceed on the motion for summary dis-I' position on the acts analysis, and we have delayed con-20 sideration of that until this time.
21 But if we are not going to get supolementation, if 22 we are not going to get where we state what the affirmative 23 case, if any, that is going to be presented, then we will O 24 go ahead. But it will take us until at least August 15 to 25 get those motions ready.
O
760 O i MS. WOODHEAD: Judee Frye, in order to evoid con-2 fusion of past scheduling, could I propose that we set 3 August 15 as the first date on which summary disposition 4 motions would be considered by the Board.
5 JUDGE FRYE: You mean filed?
6 MS. WOODHEAD: Correct, to be filed and to be 7 considered by the Board and parties. But that summary 8 disposition motions could be filed after that so that 2749 9 now is in effect and not circumscribed so that if parties 10 were to file motions on two or three issues," perhaps on 11 August 15, and motions at a later date up until time for 12 hearing, it would be --
m 13 JUDGE FRYE: Well, assuming that it does not U 14 infringe upon preparation for the hearing.
15 MS. WOODHEAD: Correct.
~
16 JUDGE FRYE: I think that is all right.
17 All r'ight. So we are thinking about this August 15.
18 We have the old problem that if you file a motion for summary 19 disposition, and 20 days later Mr. Cormier files a motion 20 supporting it, and then Mr. Hirsch files an opposition, and 21 then Mr. Hirsch has got to get another period of time in 22 order to respond to anything new that might be in 23 Mr. Cormier's motion. I would suggest that we see if we O 24 cannot shortcut that e 11ee1e bie.
25 MR. CORMIER: If we agree and we plot that over O
761
() 1 amongst ourselves, I do not know how much we can do. Part 2 of the problem is we certainly do not want to add any levels 3 of redundancy to this proceeding, but we will not see the
[}
3 4 Staff's summary disposition motions until they are filed, 5 presumably on the first date, let us say, August 15. Once 6 seen, we can decide whether we need to also file motions 7 on the same matter, whether instead we can get by with simply 8 supporting an argument but without introducing new evidence 9 that would trigger any additional response --
10 JUDGE FRYE: Let us just go by the rules, then. I 11 think that is probably the easiest way to do it.
12 MR. HIRSCH: I would like to respond to it if I 13 right. We have some problem with the procedure we understand O 14 Staff and Applicant have in mind. I would just like to put 15 that before you also.
16 JUDGE FRYE: Sure.
17 MR. HIRSCH: We have been informed by Staff that 18 they had intended to move on every contention for summary 19 disposition and that they' had intended up until yesterday --
20 and I suspect things may have changed as of yesterday, but i
21 I do not know -- to more or less file their pre-filed testi-22 mony as affidavits. And the University had indicated to us 23 that they did not intend to file -- or were not sure that
() 24 they would file summary disposition motions -- but were 25 more wanting to rely on the Staff and then be able to kind O
762 1
of come in. We have a real problem with that. Aside from 2
the question of burden of proof, it seems to us that parties O $
who neve nea moatas eaa moata eaa moata to 9 revere e11 4
this, that if they should be set when summary dispositions 5
are made and then we should have a set time to respond to 6 all of them. So that the Board has a set time to decide 7
them all, and then we can go to hearing.
8 I particularly do not understand why the University has to wait for Staff motions before he can file his own 10 motions for summary disposition. Its Application -- and 16' if the Staff is supposed to be coming in with the independent 12 analyses of the University's Application, not the other way 13 around.
14 I am also worried about the idea of three on 15 August 15, three on August 17, three on September 12. It 16 will be impossible to prepare, you know, pre-filed testimony 17 and exhibits and so forth with that constant influx, and the 18 Board will never have the time, then, to know, okay, we have I'
got the summary disposition motions finally in hand, we have 20 to decide them by such-and-such a time, we can go to hearing.
I It seems to me it is very difficult.
JUDGE FRYE: Yes, as a practical matter, yes, it 23 does present some difficulties. You are correct about that, 24 but as a practical matter, until you get a ruling from the 25 Board, you do not know what you are going to have to prepare O
763 1 for hearing on. Now the other side of that coin -- and it 2 is the same situation so far as the movement is concerned 3 -- is that I think, and this is the point I was trying to 4 make yesterday -- when you are moving for summary disposition 5 or opposing summary disposition, you basically have to pre-6 pare your affirmative c m for hearing. And for that reason, 7
it seems to me, that someta.mes it is better to go straight 8 to hearing on the matter rather than to have the Board sit ,
9 down and try to decide whether any facts are'in dispute and 10 then say ye or nay on that and go to hearing on the matters 11 which are in dispute.
12 MR. CORMIER: As I anticipate Bridge the Gap's
~
13 responses, ours would end up being rather voluminous in 14 terms of having to demonstrate the facts that are in dispute 15 from the documents that we have had available. It is going 16 to be a significant burden on us and a significant burden 17 on the Board, particularly if there are a large number of 18 motions filed. In terms of being able, then, for a -- to 19 issue -- so the parties know what issues are still in to 20 prepare for, that is difficult if there continues to be a 21 drivel of summary disposition motions.
22 Judge Frye?
23 JUDGE PARIS: Go ahead.
i O 24 MR. CORMIER: We have reliet? all along on 2.749, 25
- and we think that is a prudent provision and the only way i
O t
v - ..
764 O i thee it can be meneeed, end we are ervine, obvioue1 ,7to noe 2 duplicate the matter, which is one of the reasons why it 3
O w u d be usefu f r us t see what the Staff is moving on 4 in advance. There is no sense is us repeating cumulative 5 evidence on a point if that is not needed.
6 We understand the concern Mr. Hirsch has. But, 7
of course, there have been a lot of burdens in this proceedire 8
- so far, and I think we feel, perhaps justified, in saying 9 most of those have been on us since the beginning of this 10 proceeding.
Il The procedures are terribly clear that we are 12 allowed to file motions at time. We are not going to drivel 13 them on in. We may be able to get by with simply a state-14 ment of support. We just cannot anticipate that.
15 And we cannot be nailed down any further than I0 that at this time.
17 JUDGE FRYE: Let us confer for just a second.
18 (Pause.)
19 JUDGE PARIS: I would like to emphasize the point 20 raised by Judge Frye yesterday with regard to the filing of Il motions for summary disposition. The Board would urge you 22 not to do this in a shotgun, broadside fashion. Our problem 23 with motions for summary disposition is that we are unable 24
! to ask questions, and from our experience in dealing with 25 them in the past, frequently, questions will come up. So O
i 765 I unless you feel that you can carry the burden of proof on 2 an issue, let us let it go to trial rather than putting
] 3 4
all the parties and the Board through the problem of hashing with the motion for summary disposition.
5 I am not trying to discourage it. But I am trying 6 to save us all time and effort. Come forth with the ones 7 where you think you can really carry the point.
8 JUDGE FRYE: Part of that. revolves around the 9 schedule. I have just, you know, written down here a very 10 tentative schedule for this procedure which would have Il motions for summary disposition filed by September 1st. I 12 have responses in support of motion for summary disposition 13 filed by September 20th. I have responses in opposition O 14 to motions for summary disposition filed by October 5th, 15 which would lead us, then, into a hearing date sometime in 16 December or January.
17 MR. HIRSCH: One response from Intervenor is if 18 there are only a few -- if the parties -- and ourselves --
19 we intend to make one motion, I suspect that seems --
20 JUDGE FRYE: Yes, you are perfectly free to do so.
21 But if the other parties heed the MR. HIRSCH:
22 advice that has been given, I think that schedule can work.
23 But if not, it amounts to granting two months to prepare 24 summary disposition motions but roughly 20 days for us to 25 respond. Essentially, we have to wait for --
O
766 I JUDGE FRYE: Well, I have given you -- actually,
- 2 I have given you about 25 days. You get about 15 days with 3
] 4 respect to responses in support of the motion. So with respect to the motion 2.tself, it would be 35 days. Do you --
5 MR. HIRSCH: My problem with that is a procedural 6 one. If we are to get an affidavit from someone out of town 7 on a subject, it simply is not going to make sense to have 8 them to an affidavit in response to one party when the other 9 party is waiting 20 days to file theirs. And it just will 10 not work for us. We would have to wait until we got the II second motion, particularly if the Applicant does not intend 12 to file on a date certain but waits the 20 days.
II JUDGE FRYE: I am not sure I understand that, but O 14 in any event, you get a motion in -- say you get a whole 15 stack of motions in on September 1, you would have to start 16 to work with respect to preparing an opposition. And on the 17 20th you would get in probably a whole stack of supports I8 of those motions.
39 Now, any of these schedules, you know, can be 20 modified for good cause. There is no question about that.
21 Why do we not just -- why do we not say October 10 l
22 or October 15 as a date for oppositions to motions, and on 23 the understanding that if, you know, you are inundated, O
(,/ 24 obviously, we will have to make some adjustments. And I 25 think that would still make it possible for us to think l O i
~
l l
t _
- _. _-_. ._. --. - - .___._ . .. .--__--.____ , _. . ._.._a
)
- 767 i l
O 1 about a hearing in oecember or aanuary.
2 ///
i i
O ' '
4 i
(
- 5 6
7 !
8 9
10 11 12 la !
O 14 i
i 15 16 1
17 18 19
! 20 1
21 22 23 O u i
25 O .
703 1 JUDGE FRYE: Now, any motions for summary
() 2 disposition filed af ter September 1st, I would want to aave a 3 snowing of goad cause for doing it, because if we get to
() 4 doing it after September 1st, I think we are very muca likely 5 to put back the hearing date. And I alsa would contemplate 6 on this schedule that if a mation is filed an August 13, 7 the response would stiml not be due until September 20 and 8 October 15, respectively. Any problems with that?
9 MS. WOODHEAD: No prablems . I would just like 10 some explanation. At what paint does the Board consider 11 summary dispositions proper for filing? What paint in time?
12 Is it August 15 or nowl
(} 13 JUDGE FRYE: Oh, I see what you are saying.
14 With respect to all the contentions except security, whicn 15 we are going to come to in just a minuto, and emergency 16 planning, anytime up ta, from now up to September first.
17 MS. UOODHEAD: Beginning today?
18 JUDGE FRYE: Beginning today.
19 MS. UOODHEAD: The parties may file summary 1
20 disposition on any issues except emergency plans and af 21 course security.
22 JUDGE FRYE: decurity we are going to address in 23 minute.
3 24 MS. WOODHEAD: Carrect. Thank you.
J
( 25 JUDGE FRYE: Up to September 1st. Mr. Hirsch i
l
769 1 would' not -- and Mr. Cormier, if you file a motion tomorrow,
() 2 Mr. Cormier would not be obligated to respond in support of 3 it until September 20, and Mr. Hirsch would not be obligated
() 4 to respond in opposition until October 15th.
5 MS. UOODHEAD: Correct, so your September 1st 6 date is the --
7 JUDGE FRYE: Is a cutoff date, yes.
8 MS. WOODHEAD: final date for summary disposition 9 motions.
10 JUDGE FRYE: It is a final date, yes .
11 MS. WOODHEAD: Thank you.
12 JUDGE FRYE: Similarly, if you file tomorrow, 13 they could respond earlier if they so chose, but the cutoff (a~)
14 date would be September 20th and October 15th. ,
15 MS. WOODHEAD: Thank you. ,
16 JUDGE FRYE: Okay, with that taken care of, 17 then we had the question of the Staff's motion in effect to 18 take up the motion for summary disposition on contention 20, 19 which we heard argument on yesterday, and we will of course 20 include a rationale for ruling in our pre-hearing conf erence 21 order.
22 We have decided to deny that without prejudice 23 to reconsidering it, af ter certain discovery takes place, 24 and we would like that discovery to focus first on those 25 issues that have to do with the legal applicability of 73.60
770 1 of the regulations. Basically, ue would want you to take
() 2 up on discovery the matter that you referred to yesterday 3 regarding the radiation emitted from the irradiated fuel,
() 4 and any other matters that might have to do with applicability ,
5 and at that point, once you have gotten that, we would Aike 6 to have a response to the motion for summary disposition 7 insof ar as it alleges that 73.60 is not applicable to this 8 reactor.
9 Do I make myself clear on that?
10 MR. HIRSCH: I believe so. May I restate and see 11 if I have understood it?
12 JUDGE FRYE: Yes.
(]) 13 MR. HkRSCH: The response to the summary 14 disposition motion would I eed only to respond to the sole 15 assertion tnat 73.60 does act apply to this reactor, is 16 that correct? The other fa cts that are alleged, you know, 17 the statement of material f acts about the locks and the 18 alarm systems, and the amount tnat is present at this moment -.-
19 well, maybe that will relate. But the facts about whether 20 the key system is good will not be considered in that 21 response, merely the question of whether it is 73.60 cr 73.67 22 that applies.
23 JUDGE FRYE: Yeah. In other words, we want to 24 take the legal issue of applicability up f airly quickly, 25 before we get into -- if possible, before we get into other
771 1 discavery, you see. If we decide that 73.60 is not applicable ,
() 2 I think your discovery would be somewhat curtailed over what
~
3 it would be if we decided that 73.60 is applicable.
() 4 MR. HIRSCH: Okay. Are we asking also what --
5 when you say the legal argument, there may well, and in our 6 opinion are, other regulations which legally apply beyond 7 73.60. Is that to be addressed, or merely this question of ---
8 JUDGE FRYE: Well, I think just address the 9 arguments you have gotten from the Staff at this point. You 10 may have an 14 rgument that something applies that --
11 MR. HIRSCH: But let me be specific. Staff 12 asserts that tnere need be no protection against radiological sabotage. .That, and argues, unrelated to
(]) 13 .
14 73.60 or .67, but is related to other regulations.
15 MR. CORMIER: Judge Frye, I think both -- well, 16 speaking for a university, we need some further explanation 17 of that, and I don't understand that to be the case at all.
18 MR. HIRSCH: What is not the case?
19 MR. CORMIER: That the question about 20 protection against radiological sabotage is unrelated to 21 the distinction between 73.67 and the other regulations in
(~% 22 the section.
V 23 MR. HIRSCH: Very simply, 73.60 and .67 are r~s 24 for protection against theft. The radiological sabotage U
25 question is elsewhere in the regulations.
772 1 MR. CORMIER: Perhaps you will point that out to
() 2 us.
3 MR. HIRSCH: Well, that is my question, is are
() 4 we to do tnat, is that part of what you are asking us to 5 respond to in response to the summary disposition notion?
6 JUDGE PARIS: Does your motion raise that point?
7 MS. uoODHEAD: I believe the contention limits 8 their allegation to specifically 73.67, 73.60, isn't that 9 right there in the contention? -
10 MR. HIRSCH: Judge Frye, I beg to differ on 11 that.
12 JUDGE FRYE: Let us take about a five-minute
() 13 break, and we can focus on that for a moment, and we will 14 pick it up in five minutes. Off the record.
15 (Brief recess.)
16 JUDGE FRYE: Back on the record. I see that the 17 contention in paragraph I does refer to sabotage.
18 MR. HIRSCH: As does the summary disposition 19 motion against it.
20 JUDGE FRYE: Does it?
21 MR. HIRSCH: Yes. The assertion by Staff is 22 that they need not protect against either theft or sabotage.
23 JUDGE FRYE: Now, can you respond to that f 24 assertion af ter you have had discovery with respect to the
[e>s t
! 25 radiation emitted by the fuel?
, 773 1 MR. HIRSCH: No, because the radiation is
() 2 irrelevant to the question of sabotage. The radiation level 3 is relevant to the distinctions between 73.60 and .67 on
() 4 protection of material, but the projection of vital areas, 5 there is no threshold, so the discovery that is necessary 6 for that is to counter -- I guess -- the assertions tnat are 7 made by Staff are that the rooms that we have claimed are 3 vital are not vital and do not need to be protected. There 9 is an additional assertion that there is no requirement to 10 protect against sabotage. I guess that that latter assertion 11 we could make -- we could respond to without discovery, but 12 the other elements that say we are misapplying the legal
({} 13 standard as to what is a vital and not a vital area depends 14 precisely on what is in it and the vital nature of that 15 item, and that would require discovery.
16 JUDGE FRYE: All right, so you can respond to the 17 point made about the inapplicability of 73.60 and without 18 discovery you can respond with respect to the applicability 19 of the regulations governing the protection against acts of l
20 sabotage?
21 MR. HIRSCH: Specifically, we can respond to 22 wnether or not 73.60 applies to this reactor, snd we can 23 respond to whether or not this reactor is required to 24 protect against radiological sabotage.
25 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. Let us do it on that basis,
I 774 1 then. When you get your answers -- well, I am getting anead
() 2 of things here. Are you going to file a response to the 3 motion, Mr. Cormier, on those points?
() 4 MR. CORMIER: Response to Staff's motion on 5 those points?
6 JUDGE FRYE: Staff's motion for summary 7 disposition?
8* MR. CORMIER: Probably not. It would seem to be 9 redundant. The Staf f '*s argument was very clear as to -- I 10 think the task at hand is to get to the f actual question 11 about the self-protecting capability of the fuel, which I 12 believe is wnat you have authorised to go ahead.
(} 13 JUDGE FRYE: Yes, that is -- yes.
14 MR. CORMIER: I don't think we need to respond 15 to the motion. We ought to be on record as supporting the 16 motion. That should be clear already. If we can do that on 17 the record here, as opposed to filing a statement in 18 support, that would be the only thing we would need to do.
19 I think the Applicant ought to be on record on how it comes 20 out on the issues, and that is clearly one of supporting tne 21 motion, but I don't think we need to add additional 22 information.
23 JUDGE FRYE: Okay, now with respect to the 73 24 radiation emitted by the fuel, how many questions have you O
25 got on that?
775 1 MR. HIRSCH: I think that in part involves
() 2 seeing that portion of the security plan which is supposed 3 to maintain the radiation level at that leve l . It will also
() 4 involve some interrogatories.
5 JUDGE FRYE: The security plan, it would seem to 6 me, doesn't maintain the radiation at that leve l . It is 7 the amount that the reactor is operating.
8 MR. HIRSCH: Well, that is right, but if I may 9 bring this up for a moment, this is a rather central issue.
10 A few weeks before our last pre-hearing conference, the 11 NRC Staf f issued a letter to the University, saying that we 12 have just done an inspection of your facility, and determined that you have to meet both 73.60 and 73.67.
(]) 13 That 14 letter was denied us until just a few weeks ago.
15 So, at the time they were arguing that only 16 7 3.67 applied, they had just a few weeks earlier sent a 17 letter saying you have to meet both 73.60 and .67. The 18 University responded about seven days before the prehearing, 19 saying we will ds an interim measure operate the reactor t
20 often enough to keep it at 100 rem to get below that 73.60 21 thresho ld , and will investigate other measures for other 22 temporary solutions .
23 The current technical specifications contain 24 nothing in then to maintain operating levels of every three i 25 days so that there is obviously no requirement in the visible
776 1 requirements for the reactor. I am assuming that there has O 2 beea aow some e=eaameae to the security e1aa ta e witt 3 require operations of certain length, power, and frequency Q 4 to maintain that irradiation level, and mechanisms for 5 dealing with times when you have to do maintenance and so 6 forth.
7' JUDGE FRYE: Is that part of the security plan?
8 MR. CORMIER: No, sir.
9 JUDGE FRYE: So it is not sensitive information?
10 MR. CORMIER: No. I assume what -- Judge Frye, 11 I assume what CBG is getting at really pertains to the 12 schedule of dperations, and what is the effect of those 13 operations, I mean, what is the nuclear physics of 14 operating at such and such whatever, the 100 rem at three 15 feet standard.
16 The letter that Mr. Hirsch is referring to was 17 given to him last year.
13 JUDGE FRYE': Well, the only reason I wanted to 19 get into this at all was to establish that the information 20 that he needs to find out is not security information.
21 MR. CORMIER: That is right, it is not security 22 information.
23 JUDGE FRYE: So we don't have to wait on a 24 protective order, nondisclosure agreement, or anything like 25 that?
777 1 MR. HIRSCH: Let us get that clarified, because
() 2 then things are much easier. Am I to understand then, there 3 is no requirement attached to the license, either public or
() 4 proprietary, regarding frequency of operation to maintain the 5 level at 100 rems, so there is no legal requirement on you 6 to do that?
7 MR. CORMIER: Of course there is a legal 8 requirement. The Board has directed us to do something in 9 a letter. We are complying with the Board's direction. The 10 Board did not tell us --
11 JUDGE FRYE: You mean the Staff.
12 MR. CORMIER: The Staff, I am sorry. Excuse me .
~
(]) 13 The Staff did not tell us to modify our technical 14 specifications or to modify any other document to this.
15 They told us to conform to a manner of operation which we 16 have been conforming to.
17 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. The point, Mr. Hirsch, is 18 that that --
19 MR. HIRSCH: We don't have to see the plan.
20 JUDGE FRYE: You don't get into sensitive 21 information on this point.
{) 22 MR. HIRSCH: But we get into information, but 23 we don't have to see the plan. The letter that you sent 24 back, or the commitments as to how you did it have not been 25 provided to us and are not in the docket room, so is the
773 1 commitment that you have made material that would be
() 2 sensitive, or can that be released publicly, all the 3 documents , correspondence, estimates of how to run it, to
() 4 get it to 100 rem, are those materials proprietary?
5 MR. CORMIER: I don't know what materials we are 6 talking about. It sounds like Mr. Hirsch has a series of 7 questions he wants to ask the University, and we will 3 respond and give him answers to those questions. It won't 9 involve documents in most cases, if in any cases.
10 MR. HIRSCH: To clarify then, we should prepare 11 some interrogatories and document requests. The University 12 will then indicate whether it will provide those to us with our without a security protective order.
(]) 13 When we get 14 whatever information we need -- ,
15 JUDGE FRYE: The point, yes, you are to prepare 16 the requests and get the answers, and I think the point here 17 is that the kind of information you need is not sensitive 13 information, and therefore it is not necessarily -- it is 19 not necessary to protect it under the protective order or 20 non-disclosure agreement.
21 MR. HIRSCH: Okay.
, 22 JUDGE FRYE: If it should turn out --
23 MR. HIRSCH: To be.
24 JUDGE FRYE: -- to be, then that is another 25 ballgame , but it would seem to me that the amount of time
1 779 1 and the manner of operation to acheive that particular
(). 2 level of radioactivity omitted from the fuel i's not a_ 3 necessarily sensitive information.
L >
( 4 So, once you have gotten that information, you 5 should be in a position to respond to that portion of your 6 motion for summary disposition, which says that 73.60 is not 7 applicable.
8 MR. HIRSCH: Readily.
l 9 JUDGE FRYE: And since you say that thel 10 portion that raises the question of whether they need to 11 protect against acts of sabotage is purely a legal matter, 12 yo'u can respond on that without discovery.
(]) 13 MR, HIRSCH: Whether any protection is required.
14 '
JUDGE FRYE: Okay.
15 MR. HIRSCH: Specific comments made by Staff 16 as to certain areas, whether they have to or not.
17 JUDGE FRYE: Well, well that is f actual showing, 18 that is understood.
19 MR. HIRSCH: All right.
20 JUDGE FRYE: So when can you get those 21 questions in?
22 MR. HIRSCH: I would say 20 days for the
[}
23 interrogatories and the production request. Is that 24 acceptable?
15 JUDGE FRYE: I should think that would be all
780 1 right. And then you should be able to respond within --
() 2 MR. CORMIER: We would hope to expedite this, 3 depending on how many again. The first set of 2,000 took us
() 4 a little while. We should be able to respond within the 5 time limits prescribed in the regulations.
6 JUDGE FRYE: Okay, why don't you respond within 7 the time limits prescribed, and let us see. Twenty days 8 would put you to what, July 20, which is a --
9 MR. HIRSCH: Judge Frye, the regulations provide 10 30 days for production requests, however.
11 Dan, could you do it within 20?
12 MR. CORMIER: I would try, depending, I would 13
(]) try to get back to you within 10 days.
14 MR. HIRSCH: Well, why don't we just say, then, 15 20 days, would that be --
16 JUDGE FRYE: All right, you are going to;.have 17 your requests in by July 20, okay, and he is going to have 18 his responses back to you, if at all possible, we will say 19 by July 31st? That is a Saturday. Why don't we say August 20 2nd.
21 MR. CORMIER: Okay, assuming we receive the 22 responses by July 20, and that they are manageable.
23 JUDGE FRYE: Well, I understhnd. You know, if 24 there is a problem with this, you have to let us know.
25 JUDGE PARIS: If he sends you another 2,000 l
l 781 l 1 questions.
q
(_/ 2 MR. HIRSCH: You are suggesting receipt by 3 July 20, or service by July 20?
() 4 MR. CORMIER: Well, if it is service by July 20, 5 I think we need the five days for mail service.
6 JUDGE FRYE: For mail service?
7 MR. CORMIER: Yes.
8 JUDGE FRYE: Where will this be coming from?
9 Not locally, I take it. -
10 MR. HIRSCH: Either San Francisco, or Santa 11 Cru z .
12 JUDGE FRYE: So it is mail. It has got to be
() 13 mailed.
14 MR. HIRSCH: Yes.
15 JUDGE FRYE: All right, let us add five days for 16 mail, then. This takes you up to the seventh. The seventh 17 being a Saturday, that will get you over to the tenth, or 18 the ninth, rather.
19 MR. CORMIER: August 9.
20 MS, WOCDHEAD: Judge Frye, I am just a little 21 confused.
22 JUDGE FRYE:
[]) Yes? .
23 MS. WOODHEAD: I am not quite sure what the 24 Board is directing here. As I understand it, you are
)
25 limiting discovery of CBG on contention XX to information
. 782 1 concerning the radiation in the core. After this discovery
() 2 is pursued and answered, then CBG is to file a response to 3 my summary disposition motion, in part or in whole?
() 4 JUDGE FRYE: In part. The only point -- there 5 are two points that he is going to address. The first point 6 is whether 73.60 is or is not applicable.
7 Ms. WooDHEAD: Yes?
8 JUDGE FRYE: The second point is whether UCLA 9 must take certain measures against possible acts of sabotage, 10 which he needs no discovery to answer. Okay. The other 11 matters which the contention raises, it seems to me if there 12 is going to be discovery on them, it is going to have to I
(]) 13 be covered by a protective order or nondisclosure agreement.
14 We wanted to take up these essentially legal issues first, 15 and dispose of them, since they would have an impact on any 16 further discovery that might be necessary. It might serve, 17 if we came out in favor of deposition, it would obviously 18 limit the amount of discovery.
19 MS. WOODHEAD: All right. So you are asking for 20 a response on concepts raised in contention XX, rather than 21 any part or subpart? That is what I am having trouble 22 dealing with. I am looking for some paragraph knat he is
{s_3 /
23 going to pursue discovery on, and some paragraph of my motion 24 he is going to respond to, and as I understand it, it is 25 simply the concepts of the applicability of 73.60 and the
i I
1 783 l 1
concept of the need to protect against sabotage at the
() 2 reactor?
3 JUDGE FRYE: Yes. Yes. Just those concepts at
() 4 this point.
5 MS. WOODHEAD: All right, thank you.
6 JUDGE FRYE: No, we have gotten as far as 7 August 9th for the responses to this. Why don't we say 8 what is a reasonable time? September 1st for your 9 response, Mr. Hirsch, on those two points to the motion 10 for summary disposition?
11 MR. HIRSCH: Because there will be affidavits 12 involved that will involve several times back and forth of
() 13 mail, at least the five days for mail. It is a legal 14 question. Let us say --
15 JUDGE FRYE: September 5th?
16 MR. HIRSCH: Yeah.
17 JUDGE FRYE: September 5th, that again is a 18 Sunday, and the 6th is Labor Day, so that gets you to the 19 7th. Fine. Are there any other points we need to take up?
20 Prior to our visit to the f acility?
21 We still have pending the motion to compel with 22 respect to the inspection, but we were deferring doing 23 anything about that until after the inspection tour. All 24 right, so there is nothing else at this point?
25 MR. HIRSCH: We have a couple of items.
v - - - - - - -
784 1 JUDGE FRYE: Oh, you do?
/"',
's ) 2 MR. HIRSCH: Yeah, I think they are short.
3 JUDGE FRYE: Okay,
() 4 MR. HIRSCH: One is just to discuss the 5 inspection, the scope of it, and the second is just briefly 6 to have on the record the requirements regarding service of 7 Staff-Applicant correspondence, and the open meeting policy 8 regarding Staff-Applicant meetings. We have had a long 9 series of disputes which I hope are mostly resolved, but it 10 would just be useful to us to have that commitment to serve 11 Staff-Applicant correspondence, and the commitment to notice 12 the Staff-Applicant meetings and be permitted to attend, here, 13 as it was at the previous prehearing.
(])
14 MS. WOODHEAD: I know nothing of this dispute.
15 JUDGE FRYE: I mean, I assume that they were 16 served with copies of the' correspondence, and notified of 17 the meetings.
18 MS. WOODHEAD: You have it in your office. We 19 collected the entire file on UCLA going back to the point of 20 their intervention. I have no knowledge of what he is 21 talking about.
22 r-)
\/
MR. HIRSCH: We had not been served for a year 23 and a half. When we raised that matter, Staff did then go 24 back and rectify the error and served us with the material 25 they had not served. There have been disputes as to exactly
785 1 what materials should be included or not, but just basically O 2 whee we wou1d 11ke now, thee the gese etees heve been 3 rectified, is simply to make clear here the responsibility O 4 of Stefe-^9911 cent correevondence to de served o=
5 Intervenor. There is no objection on either Staff or 6 Applicant for all Staff-Applicant correspondence to be
'7 served on us. That is simply what I am asking.
8 JUDGE PARIS: Are you claiming that you are not 9 getting copies of Staff --
10 MR. HIRSCH: We did not receive any Staff-11 Applicant correspondence until about three months ago, 12 when af ter our complaining about it several times, Staff
(] 13 searched the files, and rectified the failure, by giving us 14 a stack of what they had served previously, but not served on 15 us. I don't mean legal pleadings . I am talking about 16 Staff-Applicant technica1 correspondence.
17 MR. BERNARD: Our records indicate --
18 MR. HIRSCH: Excuse me?
19 MR. BERNARD: Our records indicate that you are 20 on the distribution list. If you would stop moving so much, 21 maybe --
22 MR. HIR5CH:
(3 Well, actually -- the letters where U
23 they say copies to, we were not. One member of our 24 organization at an old address was, but not the service list 25 and not the office, not myself . Perhaps you can check that
l 786 1 and put the service list on the CCs that go out. In addition ,
() 2 it was our understanding we were supposed to be getting 3 I and E correspondence. The University has had several
() 4 violations recently. We haven't seen the correspondences go 5 back in terms of response to violations. Not this most 6 recent one, same thing with Staff, there was a violation that 7 the University reported to the I and E. We saw no response 8 back from I and E.
9 My understanding of the procedure now is that I 10 and E and the emergency planning division is to serve all 11 correspondence with the University on the Counsel for Staf f 12 and she is to then serve it on us.
() 13 JUDGE FRYE: We are not familiar with how the 14 Staf f works out these internal procedures.
15 MR. HIRSCH: All I am saying is it has been a 16 problem, and I would like the commitments by the other 17 parties on the record.
18 MR. CORMIER: Judge Frye, it is insulting. It 19 is silly. We had a dispute that really wasn't a dispute 20 that I think we thought was well-resolved long ago, and it 21 was mostly an administrative one. The solution the 22 university decided to use is that all correspondence, Staff-23 Applicant correspondence, would come to me, and I would g- 24 personally forward it. I understand --
\-)g 25 JUDGE FRYE: Originated by the university?
787 1 MR. CORMIER: Originated by the University. We O(_j 2 put a qualification on that that seemed to be a bone of 3 contention a while. We said related to the relicensing
() 4 review of the facility by the NRC Staff. We have a lot of 5 correspondence with the NRC. We are the University of 6 Calif ornia, all nine campuses. There are two reactors at 7 two other f acilities that are unrelated. There is a lot of 8 correspondence between members of our f aculty who are ACRS 9 members that is unrelated. There is also some rulemaking 10 that is unrelated.
- 11 So, we said look, we are talking about the i
12 dacility and we thought we would resolve this. We committed
() 13 it to a writing, we sent the writing to Intervenor last year.
14 I don't know what we are doing -- ,
15 JUDGE FRYE: I don't quite understand either.
16 I gather there is no problem. It is being served. There 17 was a problem.
18 MR. HIRSCH: There was a commitment on the 19 record, there was a commitment from Staff and Applicant to 20 serve all UCLA reactor related correspondence to Intervenor 21 and to notice Intervenor of all NRC Staf f-Applicant meetings 22 and permit them to attend.
23 JUDGE FRYE: Which as I understand it is standard 24 Staf f practice in all cases .
)
25 MR. HIRSCH: There has been a number of f ailures
788 1 in the last year and a half, so that is resolved. Thank you.
() 2 MR. CORMIER: Judge Frye, I resent the abrupt 3 arrogant note at the end suggesting that there have been
() 4 violations, and leaving it that on the record. As the Board 1
5 understands, I am sure, the NRC Staff comes out on 1 6 unannounced inspections often. We don't notice those. We 7 can't; they are unannounced operations inspections.
8 Now, those meetings with the I and E section or 9 other sections of the NRC are routine. They are reported, 10 and the reports are sent to CBG, but we don't even have 11 advance notice of those, and if that is what we are talking 12 about, then that is an exception to the "all meetings" being 13 announced.
({}
14 MR. HIRSC:i: I am not referring to that. I am
~
15 referring to, for example, the fact that Gene Bates, the 16 person who is supposed to be reviewing the emergency plan 17 for the reactor, has met with the Staff of the University 18 without us being noticed of it and not being permitted to 19 attend. We find out af ter the f act without even being told l
20 that thes e meetings --
21 JUDGE FRYE: Well, let me just cut this short in
\
p~j 22 a sense. I don't see that we have any authority to order 23 the Staf f and the Applicant to include you in the meetings r'S 24 between two independent parties. That is purely up to them.
'%)
25 They do it, I think, and I think it is a good thing that they l
789 1 do it, as a matter of courtesy, and I think it is fine that 2 they do that, but --
3 MR. HIRSCH: If I may respond to that, the
() 4 Commission has published an open meeting policy that that 5 is the policy of the Commission, that all of these meetings 6 are to be noticed of Intervenor, and permitted -- and Judge 7 Bowers at the past meeting nade that request clear to the 8 other parties. As I understand it, an open meeting policy 9 is a policy of the Commission, and that therefore, we are 10 entitled to notice.
11 JUDGE FRYE: Well, you are getting it, basically, 12 aren't you?
() 13 MR. HIRSCH: We haven't been. I am just asking --
14 apparently -- are we going to? That is the only question.
15 I understand there is a commitment for us to be noticed.
16 That is all I am asking.
17 MR. CORMIER: The University will comply with the 18 law. The University will comply with Board directives and 19 the policy of the NRC and otherwise try to act civilly and 20 cooperatively with the Intervenors. I don't know what more we 21 can say.
22 JUDGE FRYE: I am sure Staf f will do the same.
23 Am I correct?
24 MS. WOODHEAD: That is correct.
ss 25 JUDGE FRYE: Any other matters?
790 1
MR. HIRSCH: Just the discussion of the
() 2 inspection site visit.
3 JUDGE FRYE: We don't need to do that on the
() 4 record, I don't think, do we?
5 MR. CORMIER: The University sees no need to do 6 that on the record.
7 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. Let us go off the record, 8
and then we will reconvene at the facility, later this 9 afternoon.
10 (Whereupon, at 12:54 p.m., the hearing in the 11 above-entitled matter was recessed, to reconvene at Room 12 2000, Math Sciences Addition, Boelter Hall, UCLA) 23 (15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 (2) 23 24 (2) 25
791 1 AFTERNOON SESS ION m
V 2 (5:01 p.m.)
3 JUDGE FRYE: We are back on the record at this i 1
(~)
As 4 point. We have just completed a tour of the Nuclear 5 Energy Laboratory at UCLA, and I would like for those persons 6 who were on the tour to please identify themselves for the 7 record as naving been present.
8 MS. THOMPSON: Dorothy Thompson from the 9 Nuclear Law Center, representing CBG.
10 MR. KOHN: Roger Kohn, substituting for John 11 Bay from CBG.
12 MR. OSTRANDER: Neill Ostrander, UCLA.
(]) 13 JUDGE PARIS: Oscar Paris, member of the Board.
14 JUDGE LUEBKE: Emmeth Luebke, member of the 15 Board.
~
16 MR. GIRTON: George Girton, court reporter.
17 MR. WOODS: Glenn Woods, representing UCLA.
18 MS. HELWICK: Christine Helwick, representing 19 UCLA.
20 MR. SIMONEAU: Bob Simoneau, Santa Monica 21 police Department, representing the City of Santa Monica.
22 MR. BERNARD:
{ Hal Bernard from the Nuclear 23 Regulatory Commission. 24 MS. WOODHEAD: Colleen Woodhead, NRC. [} 25 MR. CORMIER: Bill Cormier, UCLA.
792 1 MR. PLOTKIN: Shel Plotkin, Committee to Bridge (O _j 2 the Gap. 3 MR. HIRSCH: Dan Hirsch, Committee to Bridge the () 4 Gap. 5 MR. McLAUGHLIN: Jim McLaughlin, UCLA. 6 MR. ASHBAUGH: Chuck Ashbaugh, UCLA. 7 MR. OSTRANDER: I note that Mr. Zane, not
*8 present because he is copying, did attend part of the tour.
9 JUDGE $ RYE: Pardon, who was that? 10 MR. OSTRANDER: Mr. Anthony Zane, representing 11 UCLA. 12 JUDGE FRYE: Fine, I think that -- and I am 13 John Frye, Chairman of the ASLB. (]) I take it we have got no 14 other business to take up at this point? 15 MR. CORMIER: We assume the motion to compel, 16 then, is disposed of? 17 JUDGE FRYE: I assume that the motion to compel 18 at this point is largely moot. l 19 MR. HIRSCH: The question about seeing other 20 areas in terms of potential ef fluent pathways, we will simply l 21 assume that if the Board wants to hear specific !.nformation 22 about that at that time, we will come back.
)
23 JUDGE FRYE: During the evidentiary hearing? 24 MR. HIRSCH: Right. 25 JUDGE FRYE: Fine. So, the motion to compel, I
793 1 think, at this point, is moot. Any other business? O 2 <no resgo#se.) 3 JUDGE FRYE: Fine. This prehearing conference O 4 is edsourned. 5 (Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., the prehearing 6 conference was adjourned.) 7 8 9 10 11 12 O 14 15 16 l 17 l 18 19 I 20 21 22 0 23 24
- O 25
1 l NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.*d14ISSION This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD in the matter ef: Date of Proceeding: June 30, 1982 Docket !!umb er : 50-142-PL Place of Proceeding: Los Angeles, California were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Commission. George D. Girton Official Reporter (Typed) y W h/Vc/4f D
- Officb Reporter (Signature) l t
l O I l
, _._ _}}