ML20082K292

Reiterates Ultimatum That Committee to Bridge the Gap Representative Will Be at UCLA on 831201 to Receive Ostrander Calculation.Ucla Dilatory Practices Can No Longer Be Tolerated

ML20082K292
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	11/29/1983
From:	Hirsch D COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP
To:	Cormier W CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA
References
NUDOCS 8312050112
Download: ML20082K292 (4)

Text

_ ._,

1 COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP l 1637 BUTLER AVENUE c203 i LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 (213) 478 0829 00CHETED USHRC November 29, 1983 WI1Ilam H. Cormler, Csq. '83 050 -2 A11 :06 Office of the Administrative Vice Chancellor 0FnCE OF SEcrm University of California CCCKE ilNG A 3L8v!U Los Angeles, CA 900214 'M NCH re: UCLA nuclear reactor, docket no. 50-112 #

Dear Mr. Cormier,

On November 18, CBG wrote to you requesting that you make available certain drawings and other visuals related to the UCLA reactor, as well as the camplete calculation summarized in Mr.

Os trander's recent ly submi tted testimony on neut ron behavior.

The visual material was intended to follow up on the Board's request of April 25 for such material, a request CBG feels was incompletely complied with. The Ostrander calculation, as opposed to its summary, related to CCG's letter of October 25, which made clear that any calculations on which you intended to rely should be included in full.

CBG's November 18 letter included as enclosures five documents requested by UCLA in a prior conference call, and responded as well to UCtN s inqui ry about the BORAX video tape.- CBG Indicated its recollection that UCLA had reversed itself regarding the need for a copy because a transcript had been made, at UCLA's urging. But CBG indicated that if UCLA now wished a copy it should indicate so quickly because it would take some time to send the tape out for copying. CBG offered, in the meantime, to make available for UCLA's viewing CBG's copy.

(Several days later CBG learned that you had wri tten to Mr.

Bay on these matters. Since yce once again failed to serve the full service list-- a matter we have repeatedly complained about--

the CBG office in Los Angeles never received a copy of your letter.

However, the matter had already been addressed.)

CBG's November -18 letter and enclosures were hand-delivered to your of fice that day. Receipt of service by your office is enclosed.

On November 21, in a conference call with' the Board and parties, you denied you had roccived-our letter, but indicated you would-respond as soon as you did receive it.

However, you did not respond. The letter had requested that at least the Ostrander calculation be provided prior to the Thanks-giving holiday.- Not having heard f rom you, CBG lef t a message wi th 8312050112 831129 PDR ADOCK 05000142 O PDR 1

. t your office that we would pick up.the calculation at the NEL office at 1:30 P.M. on November 28, af ter the Thanksgiving recess.

The day we were to pick up the calculation,- however, we received a phone message from you refusing to provide the afore-mentioned material. You indicated you had written to us to that ef fect, a letter which we were to receive, you said, by today.

No such letter has arrived.

In addition, you have failed to return our phone calls to discuss this matter.

' We can only conclude that you have decided to continue your philosophy of "li tigation by delcy."

i The Board, in its April 25 'etter to you, wrote:

"The Board has determined that the information i t has received on the physical description of the Argonaut reactor at UCI.A

, is inadequate for consideration of the inherent safety of the system. The Board therefore requests the Applicant and Staff, to the extent that it has available such material, to submit further material, principally graphics, to aid the Board in understanding the spatial relationship of the various systems which will be under consideration. Of particular importance-are graphics of the cooling system. the core structure, the the shutdown system and any other graphics which will show their physical relationship."

The materials were to be provided by June 1 You essentially ignored the Board's request, providing almost none of the requested ma te ri a l . The Staff, in its response, provided drawings f rom the

Universi ty of Florida.

We noted in our-November 18 letter that you ,have in your possession far more detailed 'and accurate graphic material than l' has been provided to date;- particularly the "89" series of technical drawings,and photographs, in addition to those identified at the July hearing, i

You should have provided that material to the Board and parties .

l months ago. Now you continue to refuse to provide .those materials.

l One can only conclude that the Applicant is intentionally-withholding

! Information vital to the Board's determination of the matters et issue.

Likewise wi th the Ostrander calculation. That calculation

! should have been provided in June. You withheld ' it , then tried I

to sneak the conclusions in on voir di re and redirect, now again -

In " rebut tal ," while wi thholding the calculation itself from scrutiny.

One can only conclude that you fear thelr scrutiny.

Your phone message yesterday refusing 'to provide the materials said something to. the offect that you would not provide ^them unti1

, the BORAX tape matter was " resolved."l That matter has been resolved,.

cver since you received our response ten days ago saying that we

n would make available for your viewing the videotapa and that if l you wanted a copy you should let us know quickly so that arrangements i for its being sent out for copying could be made. Ten days have passed with no response from you, and now you refuse to provide material totally unrelated to the videotape, until the tape issue is " resolved."

You have managed to drag this proceeding out three years with i these kinds of harrassing delays. There comes a point where such behavior can no longer be ei ther tolerated nor rewarded, as it is when your facility continues to operate as long as your dilatory tactics succeed.

Mr. Af tergood will be at the NEL on Thursday December 1 at 1:00 P.M. to pick up the Ostrander calculation. He will be at NEL the following Wednesday, December 7, at 1:00 P.H. to review all drawings, photographs, and other visuals related to the Board's April 25 request, and to Indicate those of which we will want copies.

Furthermore, the xeroxed micrographs included in the back of your " rebuttal" testimony on CBG's fission product release model are illegible and worthless. Clear glossics of these micrographs shall be provided to CBG by December 7.

If you choose to continue to withhold these materials, let us know immediately and we will arrange for an immediate conference call with the Board to resolve this and related issues. Otherwise we will expect the materials to be provided on the dates identified above.

Sincerely, LW, u hf~ Daniel Hi rsch -

President CBG encl: receipt of service by Mr. Cormier's office of CBG's 11/18 ' material cc w/ encl: service list hand-delivered to Mr. Cormier 11/29/83 express mailed to Board and Staff 11/29/83 6

6

m o

Receipt of service of flovember 18, 1983, let ter to lir. William Cormler f rom the Corrani ttee to Bridge the Gap, with enclosures, for William Cormier

- ,btle- 'h ne ~ &rt c

• dated; flovembe r 18, 1983 j'a<&'ffb,~'e,aA [0esrnas l

l l

l l