ML20080B687

Response Objecting to Release of Certain Protected Info. Proposed Sanitized Portions of Security Plan Should Be Released Only to Qualified Witnesses.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20080B687
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	01/31/1984
From:	Cormier W CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8402070237
Download: ML20080B687 (6)

Text

- .

D00 METED UstmC

'84 FEB -6 NO :30 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7- y .-

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD . ~ > -

In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-142 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ) (Proposed Renewal of Facility 0F CALIFORNIA ) License Number R-71)

)

(UCLA Research Reactor) ) January 31, 1984

)

UNIVERSITY'S OBJECTIONS TO RELEASE OF CERTAIN PROTECTED INFORMATION DONALD L. REIDHAAR GLENN R. WOODS CHRISTINE HELWICK 590 University Hall 2200 University Avenue Berkeley, California 94720 5 Telephone: (415) 642-2822 Attorneys for Applicant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 8402070237 840131 PDR ADOCK 05000142 9 PDR -

<1 gtD D

I. INTRODUCTION In the parties' conference call of January 25, 1984, counsel for UCLA requested that the Board consider releasing to CBG's qualified witnesses only a

" sanitized" version of UCLA's security plan and other protected information.

The Board agreed to consider University's request and in its Order of January 27, 19841/ directed University to furnish the unexpurgated documents with the proposed deletions indicated. University's objections are discussed below.

II. DISCUSSION In the Diablo Canyon proceeding2_/ the Appeal Board established basic principles for the release of sensitive security information. Among the basic principles described by the Appeal Board are the following: only those portions of the security plan which are both relevant to and necessary for the litigation of the intervenor's contention need be released, and then only under protective order; as few of the " gory details" as possible are to be released; and only those portions of the plan which relate to the expert's area of expertise need be shown that expert. The Appeal Board also indicated that the applicant could l

release a " sanitized" version of the plan to intervenor which would indicate l the types of information omitted and the Licensing Board could resolve any disputes concerning whether deleted material is to be released to intervenor.5/ Two of the 1

1/" Memorandum and Order (Memorializing Conference Call of January 25,1984)" (" Order") .

2_/P acific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-410, 5 NRC 1398 (1977); ALAB-592,11 NRC 744 (1980); ALAB-600,12 NRC 3 (1980).

S/ Id

. , ALAB-410, 5 NRC 1398,1403-1406.

F Appeal Board members provided additional comments concerning the types of informa-tion that should be released in a " sanitized" version and the information (the

! " gory details") that should be withheld even under a suitable protective order.

Those Appeal Board members would exclude information in the security plan related ,

to specific vulnerability data, details of equipment installation, key design and combinations, specific deployment and route information of guard force,

response plans for specific threats and details of specific evaluations.S/ Although questions concerning the release of security information in documents other than the security plan, such as NRC inspection reports, were not raised in the Diablo Canyon proceeding, the same policy arguments would apply.

University has indicated in its security plan and inspection reports those specific items of information which are not necessary, in University's view, to the litigation of the security contention.5/ The items are identified by number so that they may be discussed with the Board and parties, although any detailed discussion must await the imposition of the Board's protective order procedures. The discussion of the deleted items below is necessarily brief.

With respect to the physical security plcn for the UCLA reactor facility the following items have been deleted:

(.1 ) Items 1, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 15 are certain of security details which are unrelated to any of CBG's specific allegations; S/ Id.

E/The security plan and inspection reports are being sent separately to the Board as protected information. Material to be deleted is enclosed in a box with numbers appearing in the margins for reference.

_ = _ ..- _ . - . . - -.- - - - . - - .-.-..-.- ._

I (2) Items 2, 3, 4, 7,10,11,12,14 are serial numbers or part numbers of specific pieces of equipment or are specific vendor names or model numbers not necessary for the litigation of the contention; (31 Item 13 is speci'fic police route information not' necessary to the resolution of the contention; i-t (4) Items 16,17, and 18 are diagrams of the location of security

equipment which are not necessary in view of the site tour which is to be provided; i

(5 ). Item 19 is an equipment list containing serial and part numbers and other vendor's data that is not necessary to the resolution of the contention;

(6) Items 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 are specific response procedures t

which are not necessary to the resolution of the contention.

(7) Item 26 is personal information (home phone numbers of j certain University officials) not necessary to the resolution of the contention.

l l

With respect to the inspection reports of the UCLA facility, University requests that the follawing items be deleted:

i i (1) Items 1, 3, 5, 6, 8,13,16, and 17 concern specific vulnerability 1 d

information which ought to be excluded. University, of course, will respond to f

.-y- . - - - _,,_.,.-.,--__,...y ,_,.w.,_-~., ..-..-r_, ,,,,...,%,,.,-,,,.-_ww,..-,_,m..y ,m,.,-,,y. ,,.%_,gy,,,,,_.-w..__-se,....-,-.

, , , ,g.,y_%e,,

_4 any questions raised by CBG or by the Board concerning these items. The Board may wish to discuss these matters during the site tour.

l (2) Items 2 and 18 concern the specific response force and response 4

time of UCLA's police department which is not necessary to the resolution of the contention.

(3) Items 4, 7, 9,12,14, and 15 are model or serial numbers of specific pieces of equipment which are not necessary to the resolution of the 1

contention.

I (4) Items 10 and 11 concern the details of a specific security i feature which is not relevant to matters raised by CBG's contention.

III. CONCLUSION University has proposed few deletions from its security plan, the response procedures (which are not actually part of the plan), and the inspection reports. University respectfully requests that the Board consider release of the proposed " sanitized" version of these materials only to CBG's qualified witnesses.

l l Dated: January 31, 1984.

DONALD L. REIDHAAR GLENN R. WOODS CHRISTINE HELWICK

./ ').A^^""

i By !r ff WILLIAM H. CORN!ER Representing UCLA

, , , _ _ ,7_,.-__r.__ _ . . , .,,_m,.,,,m.,,y.,

- _,, , - _ . _ _ . , _ , . . . , , _ . , _ . , _ . , , _,,.7

- ' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-142 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ) (Proposed Renewal of Facility OF CALIFORNIA ) License Number R-71)

)

(UCLA Research Reactor) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the attached: UNIVERSITY'S OBJECTION TO RELEASE OF CERTAIN PROTECTED INFORMA1AQn.

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: January 31, 1984 ,

• John H. Frye, III, Chairman *Mr. Daniel Hirsch Administrative Judge Cte. to Bridge the Gap ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 1637 Butler Avenue, #203 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Los Angeles, CA 90025 Washington, D.C. 20555

, *Mr. John H. Bay, Esq.

Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Chickering & Gregory Administrative Judge Three Embarcadero Center ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Suite 2300 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission San Francisco, CA 94111 Washington, D.C. 20555

, *Mr. Daniel Hirsch Mr. Glenn O. Bright Box 1186 Administrative Judge Ben Lomond, CA 95005 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Law Center Washington, D.C. 20555 c/o Dorothy Thompson a 6300 Wilshire Blvd., #1200 Counsel for the NRC Staft Los Angeles, CA 90048 OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Lynn G. Naliboff Washington, D.C. 20555 Deputy City Attorney Attn: Ms. Colleen P. Woodhead City Hall 1685 Main Street Chief, Docketing and Service Section (3) Santa Monica, CA 90401 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

-qa WILLIAM H. CORMIER Representing UCLA Express Mail THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

.-. .- . . . . - .