ML20054F319

Response to ASLB 820604 Order Re Release of Photographs. Proposes Alternative to Order Wherein Univ Would Retake Photographs Excluding Objectionable Physical Security Sys Features.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20054F319
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	06/11/1982
From:	Cormier W CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA
To:
References
NUDOCS 8206160076
Download: ML20054F319 (5)

Text

_.-

_- 11

~

l 2 l 4

3I i . . n:

4 l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 6

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l

8 g In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-142

) (Proposed Renewal of Facility

- 10, Tile REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ) License Number R-71)

OF CALIFORNIA )

11 ) June 11, 1982

; (UCLA Research Reactor )

i 12 13 l UNIVERSITY'S RESPONSE TO BOARD'S JUNE 4th ORDER 1

14 l'

15 10 '

DONALD L. REIDHAAR

[-'

17 ll GLENN R. WOODS CHRISTINE HELWICK 18 l 590 University Hall 2200 University Avenue 19 j Berkeley, California 94720 1 Telephona: (415) 642-2822 20 I Attorneys for Applicant i

21 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY

}{ .__

22 OF CALIFORNIA f 23,

' - 24 l,

>- 25h I

h 26 q

d 27

'l r

28 5 8206160076 820611 (I l PDR ADOCK 05000142

• O PDR

I 1 In an order dated June 4, 1982, and served June 7, 1982 2 the Board directed University to comply with para. 1 c) of the 3 Board's Order of April 16, 1982, within' forty-eight (48) hours 4 of the receipt of its June 4th Order. The Board also directed 5 University to preserve the photographs which are the subject of 6 para. 1 c) until further Order of the Board. The Board's June 4, 7 1982, Order was received by the University the afternoon of 8 June 10, 1982.

9 In the Board's April 16th memorandum and Order, 10 University was directed to " respond to CBG's suggestions as to possible means to overcome UCLA's security objections to the releaseto CBG of 20 photographs taken of the facility by CBG."

(Order, at paragraph 1. c).) Elsewhere in its Memorandum with reference to the same matter the Board directed University "to 15 indicate whether these suggestions would obviate its objections to the release of any of these photographs or whether it would be possible to depict the same scene in a second photograph while 8

excluding features of the physical security system." (Memorandum,

• 19 at paragraph 4).)

l 21 On page 14 of its April 8th pleading ("Intervenor's 22 Response to Applicant's Motion for a Protective Order; and 23 Intervenor's Motion to Compel"), CBG suggested that University l

24

" (1) . . . provide CBG with the photographs 25 and negatives in question with the objectionable j

' item in the photograph blocked out or otherwise 26 removed . . . .

27 28 ,

1 I

I " (2) . . . permit CBG to take t e questionable photographs again, this time with the questionable item 2 covered or outside the camera angle.

~

3 " (3) . . . (keep) any photographs for which i solution (1) or (2) is not possible . . . pending .

4 appropriate affidavits of non-disclosure and protective order conditions being in place which would permit 5, counsel for or representative of Intervenor to review the photographs in question under non-disclosure 6 conditions and participate in in camera argument as to whether the photographs should Te released with the bulk 7 of the photographs or whether they are rightfully to be included in security information provided only under 8 the security contention protective order."

9 Respecting suggestion (1) , while it is technically possible to " block out" on the negatives the objectionable items in the photographs, this alternative would not satisfy University's Isecurity objection. The exact placement or location of the objectionable item would be obvious on any blocked-out photograph.

University objects to any permanent record being made which would indicate the location of its security-related devices.

16 17 Suggestion (2) is objected to for the same reason and 18 for the additional reason that it is simply not practical. .

19 Photographs depicting covered objects represent a fairly obvious 20 permanent record of the exact placement or location of the 21 objectionable items. In addition, as a practical matter, certain 22 of the items cannot be covered. Also, unless University itself 1

23 retakes the photographs, University would have no way of ensuring 24 that the objectionable item was actually "outside the camera i 25' angle."

26 Suggestion (3) is in general acceptable. However, 27 .

i 28, University notes that on the basis of its May 25, 1982, letter to i

, l I

[

i 1 ithe Board, CBG apparently intends to argue that protective orders 2 and affidavits of non-disclosure are no longer necessary. As a l

3 l result, University is unsure of the status of CBG's suggestion (3).

4 University submits that there is a simpler solution to 5

lthismatter. At the Board's suggestion University has proposed (in its May 3,1982, ' Memorandum Concerning Release of the i Photographs") that it retake the photographs excluding the 8 j objectionable physical security system features. If so instructed g

by the Board, University will retake the photographs and present both the originals and the retaken photographs to the Board for l its examination and comparison at the upcoming prehearing 12 i t

With respect to the majority of the photographs l conference.

lUniversityexpectstobeabletoeasilydemonstratethatessentially 14 j

all of the pictorial content of the original has been preserved.

15 As to the remainder of the retaken photographs, questions may arise concerning whether University has recaptured the essential elements of the originals. As to these photographs and any others g

where the Board has questions, University is prepared to permit CBG's representative to view these photographs and engage in an 20 g in camera discussion with the Board concerning whether these r taken photographs adequately reproduce the originals. With the 22 B ard's assistance this matter can be resolved quite simply and 23 24 with little expense of time at the upcoming conference.

5 Dated: June 11, 1982.

26 DONALD L. REIDHAAR GLENN R. WOODS 27 CHRISTINE HELWICK By_ _

W1 lam . Cormier UCLA Representative

_3_

6 _____ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

l 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i 2 i BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD  !

3 In the Matter of )

4 ) Docket No. 50-142 T!!E REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ) (Proposed Renewal of Facility 5 OF CALIFORNIA ) License Number R-71)

-)

,6~ (UCLA Research Reactor) ) ,

)

7 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 9

- I hereby certify that copies of.the attached: UNIVERSITY'S 10 RESPONSE TO BOARD'S.l JUNE 4th ORDER 11 in the above-captioned proceeding have been served og the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, 12 postage prepaid, addressed as indicated, on this date: June ll, 1982 .

13 14 John H. Frye, III, Chairman Mr. Daniel Hirsch Administrative Judge Cte. to Bridge the Gap 15 ATOMIQ SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 1637 Butler Avenue, #203 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Los Angeles, Calif, 90025 10 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. John Bay, Esq.

17 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke 3755 Divisadero #203 Administrative Judge San Francisco, CA 94123 18 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co}mmission Mr. Daniel Hirsch 20555 Box 1186 19 Washington, D.C. -

Ben Lomond, CA 95005 20 Dr. Oscar H. Paris "

Administrative Judge 21 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Law Center 22 hushington, D.C. 20555 c/o Dorothy Thompson 6300 Wilshire Blvd. #1200 23 Counsel for the NRC Staff Los Angeles, CA 90048 OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR 24 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sarah Shirley Washington, D.C. 20555 Deputy City Attorney 25 Cit; Hall Chief, Docketing and Service Section 1685 Main Street 26 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Santa Monica, CA 90401 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 27 Washington, D.C. 20555 28 WILLIRM-8. CORMIER UCLA Representative 3 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY

\ OF CALIFORNIA