ML20058E162
| ML20058E162 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 07/26/1982 |
| From: | Frye J, Luebke E, Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8207280080 | |
| Download: ML20058E162 (10) | |
Text
-
e i-00CKETED USNRc UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAP, REGULATORY COMMISSION M. 27 P12:09 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
$$hf[gTCy:]fi; John H Frye, III, Chairman ORANCH Or. Emmeth A. Luebke Dr. Oscar H. Paris
... SERVED JUL 2'71982 In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-142-0L
)
(Proposed Renewal of THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY Facility License) 0F CALIFORNIA (UCLA Research Reactor)
)
July 26, 1982 PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER On June 29 and 30, 1982, this Board held a prehearing conference in Los Angeles, California, with regard to UCLA's application for a renewal of its operating license for its Argonaut research reactor.
The matters addressed at the conference included the following:
1.
Scope of Santa Monica's participation under 10 CFR f 2.715(c).
Santa Monica had indicated to the parties and the Board, pursuant to the Order granting its participation, that it intended to participate on all the admitted contentions of CBG. At the prehearing conference, Santa Monica agreed to further advise the Board and parties with respect to its participation.
This advice should indicate the degree to which Santa Monica is interested in each contention and whether it expects to offer an affirmative case. This advice should be furnished by August 16, 1982.
60 >
8207280080 820726 PDR ADOCK 05000142 l
G PDR
. 2.
Disposition of MRC Staff Motion for Revocation of Board Orders Suspending Consideration of Staff's Motion for Summary Dis-position of Contention XX.
On April 13, 1981, Staff filed a Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention XX relating to security. On April 30, 1981, we ruled this Motion premature under the schedule which had been adopted for the pro-ceeding, and reconsidered and reaffirmed that ruling on June 9, 1981.
Staff now seeks to have that ruling revoked on the grounds that discovery is nearing completion and CBG hence does not have a heavy burden in this regard, and that a favorable ruling could reduce or foreclose the need
)
to discover and hear sensitive security information.
CBG opposes principally on the ground that it cannot adequately respond to the Motion for Summary Disposition without access to sensitive security information, a'ccess which so far has been denied because the ground rules for discovery on this point have not yet been established.
Staff takes the position that the Motion for Summary Disposition raises only legal points, principally the applicability of specific provisions of the regulations, and that consequently discovery of security information is unnecessary.
Because the Staff's Motion for Sumary Disposition does raise, in part, the proposition that 10 CFR 5 73.60 is inapplicable to this l
l facility as asserted by the Contention, we heard argument on this matter.
An early ruling on the question of the applicability of this regulation would substantially influence the course of future proceedings on this Contention.
I A key question in determining applicability of 10 CFR 5 73.60 is the radiation dose rate of the irradiated fuel. This regulation is
. not applicable if, among other things, irradiated fuel emits more than 100 rems per hour at a distance of three feet without intervening shielding.
CBG asserts the need for discovery on this point.
We agree with CBG that it needs discovery on this point before it can respond to this much of Staff's Motion for Summary Disposition. We i
also note that, as brought out at the Conference, this discovery does not involve sensitive security information.
CoIsequently, the parties agreed that CBG was to file its discovery requests on this point by July 20, 1982, and UCLA is to respond by August 9, 1982. Armed with this informa-tion, CBG is to respond to the proposition asserted in the Staff's Motion for Summary Disposition that 10 CFR E 73.60 is inapplicable to this reactor by September 7, 1982.
During the discussion of this point, CBG informed us that Staff's Motion also took the position that UCLA was not required to take measures against possible sabotage, as asserted in the Contention.
CBG indicated that it does not need discovery to reply to this point. Therefore, CBG is to respond to this portion of the Staff's Motion for Sumrary Dis-position on September 7, 1982.
3.
Protective Order and Nondisclosure Agreement Generating Discovery on Contention XX At the conference, the parties discussed the position of CBG that I
any Protective Order and Nondisclosure Agreements required of it should be equally applicable to UCLA and Staff.
Because the Board had deferred the schedule for filing comments on CBG's proposed Protective Order and Nondisclosure Agreement, only very brief discussion was had on CBG's pro-l posals. Rather, a schedule was reestablished for commenting on CBG's
4-proposal and submitting alternative proposed orders and agreements by July 12. Comments on alternative proposals were to be filed within five days of receipt. The Board will impose conditions for discovery on this Contention after receipt of all comments and proposals.
4.
Discovery a) Protective Order Governing Use of Photographs Taken by CBG at the Nuclear Energy Laboratory (NEL).
In order to resolve the dispute between UCLA and CBG concerning the photographs referenced above, the Board prepared a Protective Order and transmitted it to the parties for comment. At the prehearing con-ference, that Protective Order was clarified and amended to reflect the clarification.
It has been signed by UCLA and CBG and executed by the Board.
b) Dispute Regarding 20 Photographs as to which UCLA Has Specific Security Objections.
In addition to objecting to the release of a large number of photographs of the facility on the ground that they constitute a
" photographic map," UCLA had specific objections to 20 photographs which depict security devices.
In an attempt to resolve this dispute, UCLA retook these photographs. While this attempt was unsuccessful, it developed in an M camera session that UCLA's objections could be satisfied by a different course of action. That course was followed and these photographs and the retakes are now governed by the terms of the Protective Order discussed in Para. 3.a) above, together with the photographs which constitute the " photographic map."
The transcript of the i_n camera session is, of course, not subject n
to public disclosure. The Board has some question whether this is
. necessary. UCLA and CBG are to review this transcript to determine whether such protection is in fact necessary and advise the Board by August 16, 1982.
c) CBG's Motion to Compel with Respect to the Inspection of the NEL.
CBG filed a Motion to Compel with respect to its inspection of the NEL.
Because we could not readily identify those items which CBG claimed it had not been allowed to inspect, or inspect adequately, we directed CBG to specify its complaints. CBG did so.
Many of CBG's complaints were satisfied during the tour of the NEL taken by the Board and parties in connection with the Conference. The remainder (concerning potential effluent pathways) were in essence abandoned by CBG on the understanding that if necessary, the Board will view these areas during the evidentiary hearings. CBG's motion is denied as moot.
d) Disputes between CBG and Staff.
CBG is concerned about the. professional associations of the authors of the so-called Battelle Study (Analysis of Credible Accidents for ArgonautReactors,NUREG/CR-2079PNL-3691). This study was prepared m
by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory operated by Battelle Memorial Institute. The authors are S.C. Hawley and R.L. Kathren of Pacific Northwest Laboratory, and M.A. Robkin of the University of Washington.
CBG seeks information concerning the relationships which the authors may have to organizations operating Argonaut Reactors and their own use of Argonaut Reactors. CBG's need for this informatian was summed up by its representative as follows:
2
. Mr. Hirsch:
The questions that the Staff has objected to answering are questions about apparent conflicts of interest on the part of the witnesses that they are putting forward.
If I may be more specific, the people who wrote the Battelle Study appear to have direct relations with the Argonaut licensee at the University of Washington, which could lead to very serious questions of bias in terms of the presentation.
Staff has declined to answer some of those questions regarding those direct relations:
being on the payroll of the licensee [ University of Washington] and relations with the Argonaut staff; in particular, Professor Robkin's personal use of the Argonaut reactor at the University of Washington; whether his own activities would be severely curtailed if this study came out differently than it did.
We think these questions are extremely relevant and essential to the case.
The disputes that we have are regarding Hawley, Kathren, Robkin and Bernard. Hawley and Bernard they have noticed --
will come as witnesses. They are attempting to put in as evidence the study that was written by Hawley, Robkin and Kathren.
In fact, the Applicant has not replaced its entire safety analysis, or most of its analysis, by reference with this study which appears to us to be so severely flawed by the conflict of interest. And we think is absolutely essential to this matter.
The two' studies that are being relied upon by both Staff and Applicant in this case are both written by peopl on the payroll of licensees [of] Argonaut reactor. And Staff is declining to provide additional information about other conflicts that appear.... (Tr. 729-30.)
j There is no aliegation that these authors have any relationship with UCLA, the present applicant.
Nor is there any allegation that they have a financial interest in writing a favorable report.
These allegations focus on the proposition that the professional activities of the authors might be curtailed by an unfavorable report.
By implication, the position taken by CBG would require, if conflicts
are te ba avoided, that the report be prepared by individuals 'without any association with the type of reactor in question.
w We are unwilling to carry conflict of interest considerations this far. We will not assume that a scientist's or engineer's mere pro-fessional association with or use of a particular device so biases his or her professional judgment as to render that judgment cuspect. We conclude that the interrogatories in question are not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Consequently we see no need for Staff to furnish any additional information to CBG with respect to this matter.
Another dispute existed between CBG and Staff with respect to the professional qualifications and experience of Mr. Bernard, the Staff's Project Manager. These questions were fully answered by Mr. Bernard at the Conference and no further response is necessary.
e) Disputes between CBG ar.d UCLA.
At this point, there are no disputes between CBG and UCLA (Tr.624).
5.
Modification of Contentions to Reflect Amendments to the Application.
At the Conference, it was agreed that CBG would file any amendments to its Contentions based upon amendments to the application by July 12.
CBG has done so. As agreed at the Conference, the other parties may respond to CBG's amendments by July 22, 1982.
6.
Schedule for Further Proceedings At the Conference it was agreed that the following schedule will, govern motions for summary disposition:
I
,. Final date for filing:
Motions September 1, 1982 Answers in Support September 20, 1982 of Motions Answers in Opposition October 15, 1982 to Motions On August 16, 1982, the parties are to advise the Board precisely which Contentions will be the subject of motions for summary disposition.
Following this advice, the Board will initiate a conference call to dis-cuss a schedule for hearing those that are not. We contemplate that that schedule would provide for the filing of prepared direct testimony, a brief period to depose witnesses, and the commencement of the hearing.
Because UCLA has the burdeil of proof, its witnesses will be heard first, followed by.CBG's and Santa Monica's witnesses. Staff's case will be presented last. UCLA will be afforded an opportunity to rebut affirmative cases mounted against it. To the extent convenient, the filing of prepared testimony may also follow this scheme.
The parties advise that all Contentions are ready for hearing with the exception of Contention XX (Security) and XXI'(Emergency Planning);
Discovery is closed as to those Contentions ready forl hearing (with the understanding that the Board may permit a brief period for depositions once witnesses are identified and/or prepared testimony' filed).
1
. meg s
'N 9
~
L
"% e N
i
.. ORDER 1.
By August 16, 1982, Santa Monica is to advise the Board and parties of the degree of its interest in and whether it intends to offer an affirmative case on each contention.
2.
By September 7, 1982, CBG is to respond to so much of Staff's Motion for Summary Disposition on Contention XX that asserts that 10 CFR s 73.60 is inapplicable to this reactor and that UCLA is not re-quired to take measures against possible sabotage. UCLA is to respond to CBG discovery requests on the former point, filed July 20, 1982, by August 9, 1982.
3.
Within five days of receipt, comments may be filed on UCLA's and Santa Monica's proposed protective orders and nondisclosure agreements.
4.
By August 16, 1982, UCLA and CBG are to advise the Board whether, in each one's view, the transcript of the ijl camera portion of the Conference contains sensitive security information and therefore needs to be withheld from public disclosure.
5.
CBG's Motion to Compel with respect to its inspection of the NEL is denied as moot without prejudice to CBG's moving to hold a portion of the evidentiary hearing at the NEL.
6.
The following schedule will govern motions for summary dis-position:
Final date for filing:
Motions September 1, 1982 Answers in Support September 20, 1982 of Motions Answers in Opposition October 15, 1982 to Motions
.. 7.
By August 16, 1982,*the parties are to advise the Board of the Contentions on which they will seek summary disposition.
Discovery is closed as to all Contentions except Contentions 8.
XX and XXI.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD n
c h. '
Y%
Enneth A. Luebke ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE M
(IX\\J Oscar H. Paris ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE s
/Jo p Frye, III, Chairman f ADM NIST TIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland July 26, 1982