ML20058J749

Objections to Portions of ASLB 820726 Prehearing Conference Order Denying Committee to Bridge the Gap Request That NRC Be Directed to Furnish Info to Assess Potential Conflict of Interest.Declaration of Svc Encl

ML20058J749
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	08/06/1982
From:	Hirsch D COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8208110195
Download: ML20058J749 (7)

Text

- - _ _ _ .

9

. ,l'[,

COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE CAP Aui; dst 6,1R* METED 1637 Butler Avenue, Suite 203 USNRC Los Angeles, California 90025 (213)478-0829 -- -

T2 AGO -9 All :52' GenCE OF SECRETARY'-

DGCXETit:G & EERygy' UNITED STATES & AMERICA BRANCH NUCIEAR REGULA'IORY CCMMISSION '

o BEFORE THE A'IOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

~

In the Matter of Docket No. 50-142 OL THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (Proposed Renewal of Facility Li':ense No. R-71)

(UCLA Research Reactor)

CBG OBJECTIONS TO CERTAIN PORTIONS OF JULY 26. 1982 PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER I. INTRODUCTION As per 10 CFR 2.752(c), the Committee to Bridge the Gap (CBG) hereby files objections to certain portions of the Prehearing Conference Order of July 26, 1982. CBG does so to preserve those objections for the record.

II. BACKGROUND In prq aration for its review of applications for license renewal for several Argonaut-type research reactors, the NRC Staff contracted to have two studies performed on accident scenarios for Argonaut reactors.

Both studies are central to the NRC Staff's case in the UCLA proceeding, and in fact, UCLA has itself removed its own analysis--which concludes fuel melting is possible and extraordinarily high radiation doses consequent j to the public-and replaced its own analysis with those perforned for Staff. (This in itself raises serious questions about shifting of burdens, Staff independence, and potential conflicts of interest between Staff and 8208110195 820806 PDR ADOCK 05000142 G PDR h hh

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i

o Applicant.)

The first study was performed for Staff b/ sotoone on the payroll of the University of California, Applicant in this case, ani submitted on University of California stationery. The second study was performed at Battelle Northwest Laboratories; however two of the three researchers are currently on the payroll of another Argonaut licensee which would be affected by the study ani the third has close ties to that licensee (in addition to being enrolledthere). The latter study in particular was intended to be a generic study of all five Argoraut reactors in the United States, including the University of Washington's and the University of California's, ani form the central basis for Staff determinations as to whether to relicense said reactors and/or permit continued operation.

(Similar apparent conflicts appear to exist in the Brookhaven analysis, contracted for by NRC Staff arri utilized by UCLA in its case).

Finally, certain comments appearing on the record of the Radiation Safety Committee at UCIA 6n December 15, 1980, implied advance knowledge of UCLA of the results of the two Staff studies and the Staff SER-knowledge in advance of the studies even being conducted.or the SER prepared.

The statement in question is as follows:

Point 7. Reacter license renewal and Bridge the Gap. There will be a public hearing (precedent for a teaching reactor) on the nuclear reactor. State Board 6resumably, Safety Board] will tell parties what points will be heard sometime in the spring. At that point NRC will shift from neutrol to surport of UCLA. Bridge the Gap has 23 item of issue, some of which will help us to do better.

(emphasis added)

The above-quoted statement was made some six months before the Staff studies were released along with the EIA ani SER in which Staff presented its position; this was considerably before the studies on which the Sat was based were concluded. Sure enough, six months later Staff issued those documents and the SER and EIA, and sure enough, Staff l position was as indicated it would

_3 be half a year earlier.

CBG promulgated interrogatories to NRC Staff in July of 1981.

It took roughly one year to obtain partial answers. Certain matters Staff objected to answering-particularly with regards potential conflicts of interests on the part of its consultants. Other information it agreed to provide, but didn't-in particular, what oral communications between Staff and Applicant may have led UCIA to the conclusions it reached in December 1980 of how Staff's not-yet-completed evaluation (barely begun) would turn out. Staff also agreed to provide a current curriculum vitae for Professor Robkin.

The Board has denied CBG's request that Staff be directed to furnish certain information that night be of use in assessirs potential conflicts of interest on the part of Staff's consultants. Board Order of July 26, 1982, at page 7. It did so not on the basis of the needed information failing to meet the higher standards for discovery against Staff, but on the tasis "that the interrogatories in question are not likely l to lead to the discover / of admissible evidence." CBG disagrees.

For example, Professor Robkin has admitted that he uses the University of Washington Argonaut reactor for teaching and research purposes.

The degree to which his professional activities, and perhaps even grant or salary income, might be curtailed if the U of W Argonaut reactor were shut down--a necessary outcome if his generic study on Argonaut reactor safety I concluded unacceptablo consequences or likelihood of serious accidents-l cannot be determined without the information requested. Furthermore, i

l Professor Robkin has indicated he is currently chairman of the Radiation Safety Committee at U of W; without answers to the unanswered interrogatories CBG and the Boari cannot assess what ramificatiors there might be for Professor Robkin if his conclusions in the Battelle aralysis indicated l that the reactor type was fundamentally unsafe, after several years of -

i

permitting it to operate as safe through his role on the Radiation Safety Committee. It would appear quite possible, in fact, that sono serious ramification, perhaps even financial, might result if it were determined that Professor Robkin had been derelict in his duty on the RSC in permitting to run a reactor later found to be fundamentally unsafe.

Certainly, the judgment of a nan who has already Ok'd an Argonaut as safe is predetermined when it comes to doing an analysis of the same design previously given an official stamp of approval.

Mr. Hawley and Mr. Kathren both indicated they uculti be willing to answer questions about their specific relationship to specific named individuals at the U of W Argonaut; their answer to the interro6atory about such associations was otherwise largely evasive. However, Staff refused to permit the questions that its consultants had invited. Kathren, like Robkin, is on the nuclear faculty for the University of Washington; Hawley is a former employee of a U of W Argonaut staffperson and is currently or was until recently a student of the licensee. These facts are known without the further informtion requested; further infcemation seems likely to lead to additional information necessary to assess whether conflicts exist.

It should be pointed out that the association of Hawley, Kathren, an1 Robkin with the University of Washington h_as bearing on whether a conflict of interest exists with regards the probative nature of the study they co-authorci and ihich is ao central in i

1 the UCLA case. The study was not of the UCLA reactor; it was a generic study of all five AEgonaut reactors and fozns the basis for Staff's evaluation i

of all five. If the study cane out differently, the University of Washington reactor could be shutdown, having significant impacts, it would appear, on l all three co-authors and raising serious questions about prejudgment or bias on the part of the authors.

I h

I 5

It should be pointed out in addition that because Staff intends not to call the more senior authors of the study (Kathren and Robkin) and hopes to admit the entire study through the appearance as a witness of a junior author responsible for only a small part of the report, certain of the information requested could not be gained in any other fashion than the interrogatories in question, because they will not be rade available for voir dire. In the case of a study so central to both Staff and Applicant's case, where the conclusiona of three researchers doin6 separate parts of the study will attempt to be introduced through a single author incapable of testifying to the # tole thing, the inability to inquire into pota tial conflicts of interest, bias, or prejudgment on the cart of the authors who will not be made available becomes especially serious, if the study is permitted to be admitted into evidence under such circunstances.

Finally, the information denied CBG in its interro6atories should be seen in light of a broad picture of a proceeding where other factors make especially strong the need to avoid even the appearance cf-conflict-of-interest. Staff's acquiescence in an attempt to shift the burden of proof from Applicant to Staff, with Staff conductin6 the research for, preparing the application analyses, and apparently providing much of the legal advice colors public perceptions of the supposed ladependence of IGC Staff. Add to that the peculiar circumstances of this case-where the Reactor

Director is also on the payroll of NRC as a consultant to ACES, where a former member of the Reactor's Radiation Use Committee is currently on the ACRS while still only a few doors down the hall from the reactor, where the man who until a few months ago was the reactor's health physicist (and alle6edly responsible for many of the NRC regulations violations being considered in this proceeding)has recently been hireci by NRC as an NRC inspector for Region V,-and the allegations of several ex rarte meetings between Applicant 1

and one of the NRC Commissioners--and the importance of preserving both l

l

, the appearance and reality of aniding potential biases and conflicts of interest is significant'~ 'mderscored. That appearance cannot be readily maintained without thorough scrutiny being permitted, and in CBG's view, the ability to engage in such scrutiny has been diminished by that portion of the recent Boazd Order which denied CBG answers to the interrogatories in question.

III. Conclusion CBC is cognizant of the difficulties faced by the Board in making rulings such as this one. In order to preserve its objections for the record, however, said objections are respectfully submitted.

Re ecdfully ubmitt ,

/ .

C4 Da Hirsch President dated at Ben Lomond, CA COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP August 6, 1982

UNITED STATES OF AVERICA NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BCARD In the Matter of Docket No. 50-142 THE RECENTS OF THE UNIVEESITY OF CALIFORNIA (Proposea Renewal of Facility License)

(UCLA Research Reactor) )

DECIARATION OF SERVICE I hereby declare that copies of the attached: CBC OBJECTIONS 'ID CERTAIN

- Pm'rTOUS N July 26. 1982 PDEHEARING CONFERENCE CRDER in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as indicated, on this date: August 6,1982 .

John H. Frye, III, Chairman Christine Helwick Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Glenn R. Woods U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel 590 University Hall Dr. Emmeth A. Imebke 2200 University Avenue Admindstrative Judge Berkeley -CA 94720 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr, John Bay Washington, D.C. 20555 3755 Divisadero #203 San Francisco, CA 94123 Dr. Oscar H. Paria Administrative Judge Sarah Shirley Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Deputy City Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission City Hall Washingtcm. D.C. 20555 1685 Main Street Chief, Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 attention: Ms. Colleen Woodhead William H. Cormier Office of Administ2a tive Vice Chancellor University of California 405 Hilgard Avenue Los Angeles, California 90024 Iiniel Hirsch President CCMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE CAP