ML20090L212

Forwards Errata in Form of Replacement Pages Correcting Typographical Editorial Errors in 840509 Submission

ML20090L212
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	05/18/1984
From:	Hirsch D COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP
To:	Bright G, Frye J, Luebke E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8405250246
Download: ML20090L212 (5)

Text

h lb[3

+

COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP 1637 BUTLER AVENUE #203 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 00CKETED USNRC (213) 478 0829 hav 16 1964 84 HAY 2b am M3 John H. Frye, III, Chairman e'r : n.

Administrat1ye Judge CC'cid I.hf,,l"pr Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 5;M!C!i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Glenn 0. Bright Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingb n. D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 In the htter of The Regents of the University of California (UCIA Research Reactor)

Docket No. 50-142 (Proposed Renewal of Facility License)

Dear Administrative Judges:

Please find enclosed errata, in the form of replacement pages, correcting typographical and editorial errors in CBG's by 9 submission.

Res /e trully submitted,

' g, '

&c _

Daniel Hirsch President ccw/ enclosures: service list i

8405250246 840518 A PDR ADOCK 05000142 /

,S- PDR

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

4 Introduction In its Memorandum and Order of February 24, 1984, the Atomic Safety and Licensin6 Boant raised concerns that the St.tff and Applicant i

counsel had made substantial misrepresentations before the Boani.

Staff and Applicant were directed to respord by krch 9 why action should not be taken against counsel and why the license should not be revoked, suspended, or modified for material false statements.  !

Responses were submitted on krch 9, and on April 13 the Board issued an Order concluding, inter alia, that material falso i

~

statements had indeed been made by Applicant and that its attorney William H. Cormier should be formally reprimanded. 1he Board miso concluded that information it had in its February 24 Order directed be provided had not, in fact, been provided, and gave the Applicant an additional opportunity to provide the recluired information.

On May 1, the University responded to the April 13 Onier, requesting, _ inter alia, that the Board overturn its holding therein, and that a hearing be held should the Boant not reverse its ruling.

CBG, the party injured by the representations the Bonztl has determined to be materially false, files in opposition to the request for rever-sal of the finding of material falso statements.

Furthermore, because of the. seriousness of the questions that remain unanswered in the Applicant's responses, and the clotal that thus hangs over the entire record in this case, CBG joins in the requesit for a hearing, should the Board not adhere to its April 13 determination.

1/ Memorandum and Order of Petruary 24, 1964, at pp.7-8 2 / ' Memorandum and Order of April 13,1984, at 29 j g. at 30

security plan could not occur if CBG failed to qualify an export wiiness, and asserted he might attempt to certify any ruling qualifying any CBG security witness in order to prevent " unnecessary" disclosure of the plan. Mr. Cormier was reminded that Intervenors could build their cases defensively and thus, whether any expert witnesses were approved or not, the security plan and inspection reports must be turned over to CBG's attorneys. ,

Mr. Cormier then indicated that he m16 ht expurgate portions of the security plan and innpoetion reports if required to disclose them, which produced considerable debate. Mr. Hirsch--who had reason to believe that the documents might indeed contain sections dealing with sabotage, despite Mr. Cormier's representations to the contrary--

insisted that the unexpurgated versions be Ani the Board oniered that this U be done. / provided at least to It was thus that the unexpurgated security plan and security inspection reports finally reached the board, over three years into the proceeding.

What the Boani Saw When the Security Plan and Inspection Reports Vere Finally Revealed What the Board found, when it was finally provided the unexpurgated materials, was (1) that the plan did contain, both as its design objective and in specific provisions to carry out that objective, sabotage protection measuress (2) that tat the Staff '

had approved ani ordered UCLA to comply with was a plan with sabotage provisions: and (3) that the security inspection reports indicated UCLA had been routinely inspected for sabotage protection by Staff.

D/ Memorandum and Order of January 27.1984, at 2-3

The Assertion that the Cormier Statement Meant Son.ethirg other Than It Says his Orwellian argument runs through both pleadirms in a multitudinous variety of contradictory forms. Essentially Mr. Cormier now asserts that his '

August 1983 statement--that the UCIA security plan "Is nct designed to provide protection against sabotage"--does not mean what it says but rathur one of a dozen or so tortured explanations given at various times since. At one point, for example, he claims (Explanation A) he meant the statement merely "in the sense" that the plan is not designed to be able to protect against all conceivable acts of sabotage. At another point (Explanation B) he says it was meant merely  !

"in the sense" that the plan was not designed with a specific design kais threat in mind. At other points he argues that he meant it (Explanation C) "in the sonne" merely that UCIA does not have certain specific sabotage measures required of t power reactors, or (Explanation D) "in the sense" that it wasn't UCLA's intent (as apart from its practice) to protect against sabotage, or (Explanation E)

"in the sense" that detection is different than protection, or (Explanation F)

"in the sense" that thern are no full time armed guants or mandatory personnel entry searches, or (Explanation C) "l'n the sense" that the sabotage protection i measures in the plan are not wholly separate from the thef t protection measures, or (Explanation }i) that " radiological sabotage" is meant "in a more general way" f to include the Part 73 definition plus non-radiological sabotage protections j and on and on. Perhaps the most intriguing explanation is that the statement was meant "in the sense" of a general statement that doesn't imply anything in particular about any specific component of the plan--intriguing because the normal definition of a generalization is a statement which accu ately characterives the specific subparts.

Applicant has advanced at one time or another in defence of its original statement each of the above explanations. he problem is that UCLA did not say any of the above, arri none of the above would have made any sense in the context of the rest of the pleading (which argued that _ the Boani erred in holding that 73 40 required some reasures to protect against sabotage, measuren to be debated by the parties.) UCLA clearly was arguiry; that its plan was not designed to provide any sabotage protection, aral ti.at the Boani was thus wrong in assertin6 that some protection was required.

%e Applicant stated very clearly that the plan is

e revocation or suspension for the Regents. Fhterial f abo ntates::ents, as well as mterial omissions, have been inste, gmvely putting at risk the integrity of the proceeding, its evidentiary reconi, and its ability to timely resolve-- safely-- rutters of significant public health and safety and common defense and security isoport. Continued license possession in the face of these material falsehoods and needless delsys, ani failure once again to impose sanctions it has itself identified can l' only result in the Board's ' duties'to timely rule tasot on a truthful recoztl to be compromised, as the Board pressged threo ycsrs ago, by

" gamesmanship."

Should the Board not take 2.733 action against Mr. Cormier i and 50.100 action against the licensee, both of whom are responsible, in their own way, for these material falso statements arsi years-long delays, CDC respectfully requests, as the party injuret by the mis-representations and delays, a hearing in which the questions unan-swered by the two UCIA responses (and the failure to ronponi by no many of its representatives and staff) can be thoroughly examined.

l

' Respectfully submittoC, 1

/ /

, ,),&, ihlk-Y%

Daniel Hirsch '

President i CBG Executed at Ben Lomond, CA on this 9th day of thy,19m i

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .