ML20080B749

Response Objecting to Applicant/Nrc Proposed Witnesses & Proposed Mod to Protected Order.Witnesses Do Not Qualify as Experts.Declaration of Svc Encl

ML20080B749
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	02/01/1984
From:	Hirsch D COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8402070256
Download: ML20080B749 (6)

Text

r-t >

a 00CMETED US w' ~

COMMIliEE TO EBIDGE TEE GAF 2/1/E4 1637 Butler Avenue, Suite 203 Los Angeles, California 90025

'84 FEB -6 P2:01 (213) 478-0829 LC Ni" "f ")f United States of America Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ocferc the Atomic ':afott ar.d Licensing Ecard In the Iat

)

THE PEGENTS OF 1. . 'ERSITY Docket No. 50-142 7 CAIIFCRNIA (Froposed Reneual of Facility License)

(UCIA Research Beactor)

)

1 l

CBG OBJECTIONS ID FROFCSED WITNESSES OF AFFLICANT Ap STAFF AND FRCFOSED MCDIFICATION OF FPOTECTED OFDER Anplicant's Proposed " Authorized Persons" Applicant proposes as expert uitnesses on the security contention-- j and therefore to have access to CPG's protected information--Charles Ashtaugh, Walter Wegst, and Neil10 strander. Further, UCLA asserts the right to add others at other tlnes as it sees fit. CBG objects to both matters.

i None of the three individuals proposed by Applicant are exrerts in the field of security. In particular, neither Mr. Ostrander nor Dr. Wegst have any security expertise whatsoever: Er. Ashbaugh's sole experience is soley that, in addition to serving primarily at NEL as a Beactor Operator i

and instructor, he also is said to wear the lab security hat.

Er. Wegst is a health physicist, hr. Ost:nnder a chemical engince .

Neither have physical security expertise. Neither have published in the field of nuclear safegi ards.

8402070256 840201 PDR ADOCK 05000142 Q PDR 1/ Cn January 30 CBG filed a handwritten version of this response (due to Er. Hirsch being in Washington without access to a typewriterj. ahortly after filing the respense, C3G was notified that Staff had requested an extension and @

that if CBC wished to nodify the hand-written vercion it could do so. '

_2 Dr. Wegst's sole security affiliatien is said to be that he has had conversations with FBI officials regarding the Olympics. While the F3I officials may well have been qualified potential witnesses. Er. Wegst certainly is not qualified by virtue of conversations with them. They would be qualified; he is net in the security field. Just as he reached far outside his health physics expertise to attempt to testify on the chemistry of combustion, he now reaches even further to testify on security mtters about which he has no expertise.

If the role of Mr. Ostrander and Dr. Wegst is to be limited to the narrow areas where their expertise tray be relevant, those areas have not 4 been identified. If their role is to assist someone who does have the physical security and nuclear saf eguards expertise they lack, tlat : tight te another ra tter. But UCIA puts forward no o one with such credentials.

Kr. Ashbaugh is a former UCLA student who stayed on at hTL as staff s his primary duties being reactor operation and class instruction.

His tangential security duties amount to little more than being the contact person at hTL for NBC and police officials. He has no pricr experience, no publications, ad no training to speak of in the security and nuclear safeguards field.

In short, the three proposed witnesses are neither individu:_lly nor collectively qualified as experts in the physical security / nuclear safeguads field, and thus not qualified to be authorized access to protected infornation (i.e., generated by others in the course of this proceeding).

Counsel for Applicant asserts that he reserves the right at any time to add others to the list of authorized persons. C3G respectfully disagrees.

One of the reasons this proceedirig has to t yet been resolved, four years af ter expiration of the license, is the pattern of delay by l

4 e

Applicant, who has continually failed to obey the rules and put forth, as required, its affirmative case on direct. liere again Applicant wishes to withhold its direct case.

The Board has directed witnesses be now identified. UCLA is on notice what the issues are--ade; uacy of the facility security to protect agairst sabotage and thef t. Should the details of thecontention be r.edifie4 l later, UCLA would have the ability to show cause that its witness list likewise be modified in those regards. But Applicant has an affirmative duty to demonstrate adequate security, given the envirionment in which the reactor exists. Unlike Intervenors, Applicants cannot merely build their cases defensively--an 4ffirnative showing is required. Applicart here asserts none will be provided by it.

Applicant is on notice about those aspects of the contention reganiing the material from public sources--yet it proposes no witnesces regarding these. Iocks and doors are alleged to te inadequate, for example, yet no locksmith orsimilar experts are put forward. The slympics color the entire issue, yet no witnesses on the environment in which tne reactor is founr! are put forward. Barriers are asserted to be readily penetrated and poorly isolated, yet no security experts in these areas are provided.

Applicant is, of course, free to not put forward qualified experts on this contention. But it is not free to ignore the Board's Order to identify such witnesses by a date certain. *41thholding such identification =- -

given the time-consuming qualification procedure and information-access procedures, can only cause significant delays in a proceeding where an;r delay can cost lives civen the rapidly approaching Olympics.

For the above reasons, CFC respectfully opposes the 3 individuals identified as proposed experts on the grounds of lack of requisite qualifications, and requests that a showing of good cause be required for any attempt to

a modify UCLA's witness list af ter the deadline imposed by the Board.

t UCLA Non-Witness " Authorized Persons" UCLA identifies H individuals it wishes to be permitted access to CEG's protected information, plus an unidentified numter of others identified generally as "UCIA Facilities personnel (engineers, technicians, craftsment)", "UCLA Police Officers and dispatchers,". We are not given the names, let alone numbe2.s of these irdividuals.

No showing is made whatsoever of a need for the score of individuals other than the three asserted expert witnesses and Mr. Cormier and his clerical assistance. CBC opposes all others on lack of any showing that they require access or have an understanding of the obligation to protect the information.

C3G further opposes the classes of individuals for which no specific individuals are named--the facilities personnel, dispatchers, and the like. The Board requested they be identified specifically and that all proposed people be shown to have a need for access to this information. CEG res actfully suggests no such showing has been made--for a21 but hr. Ashlaugh, Wegst, and Ostrander, no statements of qualifications or need to know is even included.

Staff Proposed Witnesses C3G objects to both Staff proposed witnesses. Ir. 2ernard has no qualifications whatsoever in the field of security. Fr. Carlson is currently a

subject to an investigation by the Office of Inspector ard Auditor as to whether he has made mterial false statements to this Licensing Board.

2/ Ir. to his office av Eay wascounsel an lead out of the country on this contention, last week, he only returninkneludsion has directed of

}gd3D; objections in addition to those to Applicant's.

~5-UCIA Froposed Modification to Frotective Order CBG objects to the proposed modification as unnecessary and as contrary to the fundamental purpose of the protective order. The Board has already provided a provision whereby, in emergency situations uheres notification of security officials is necessary in the course of their normal security functions (i.e., protection of the facility, not participation in the 2icensing proceeding), access to said information is possible by local law enforcement personnel and similar individuals. There is no need for any further provisions: the modifications proposed amount merely to an attempt by UCIA to be able to show anyone, anytime, anything, without prior approval and without obeying the Board deadline for identification of uitnesses who need access to protected information. It is unnecessary and will defeat the purpose of the protective order.

P.e'pecpully' s Submitted.

ASuu/

Daniel Hirsch AssocG .

l l

dated Februsry 1,1984 l at 3en Lomond, CA i

l r

i

.,-. - .--m -__-----____,---_,_,-,-__m__m --__ _ _ , - , - . , , - .,

i

\

e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BCARD In the Matter of }

) Docket No. 50-142 THE RECWrS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (Proposed Renewal of Facility License)

(UCLA Research Reactor)

DECIARATION OF SERVICE I hereby declare that copies of the attached:

cre nMon+4 nne % tw,pn=nd V1 +nanson of ApaU cnnt nr.d :itaff med

% mp-4 %d4#4en+4na # P,-ntanti ye Ord m-in the above-captioned proceeding Lwe been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as indicated, on this date: Feb. 1. 1984 .

John H. Frye, III, Chairman Christine Helwick Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Glenn R. Woods U.S. Nuclear Regula*ory Commission Office of General Counsel 590 University Hall Dr. Emmoth A. Iatebke 2200 University Avenue Administrative Judge Berkeley, CA 94720 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coaunission Mr. John Bay Washington, D.C. 20555 3755 Divisadero #203 San Francisco, CA 94123 Glenn O. Bright hi31nistrative Judge Ignn Naliboff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Deputy City Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission City Hall Washingtcrt, D.C. 20555 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Chief, Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Dorothy Thompson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Iau Center Washington, D.C. 20555 6300 Wilshire Blvd., #1200 Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Carole Kagan, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Ecard Fanel attention: Ms. Colleen Woodhead U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 William H. Cormier

~

Office of Administ2ative Vice Chancellor '

University of California .

405 Hilgard Avenue ,/ g, u . / kJ A Los Angeles, California 90024 Daniel Hirsch President COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP

. _ _ _ __. . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . . - - , __ _ _ _ _. . _ _ _ _