ML20009B820
| ML20009B820 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 07/09/1981 |
| From: | Cormier W CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009B819 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107170202 | |
| Download: ML20009B820 (10) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- ________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM H. CORMIER 2 3 I, William H. Cormier, being duly sworn state as follows: 4 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the 5 State of California. I am on the staff of the Administrative 6 Vice Chancellor at UCLA and have been designated the UCLA Repre-7 sentative in this licensing proceeding. 8 9 2. In the two weeks following the issuance of the 10 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's order of May 29, 1981 (" Order 11 Relative to Intervenor's Third Motion to Compel") , the University 12 received a number of telephone calls from various media repre-13 sentatives inquiring about the order. These calls were referred 14 to my office. Several of these reporters mentioned that they 15 had learned of the Board's May 29th ruling from Mr. Hirsch. I 16 responded to each of these inquiries by stating that the Univer-17 sity's attorneys had simply misunderstood a previous order of the 18 Board with the result that our subsequent actions, which we 19 thought were in strict compliance with the Board's order, were 20 actually hot in compliance with the Board's order and that the 21 Board had, misinterpreted this non-compliance as deliberate. I 22 stated further that the University's attorneys were in the midst 23 of preparing a formal response to the order (the June 11 re-24 sponse to the Board's order to "show cause") which would contain 25 a fuller explanation of the matter and that I would make this 26 formal response available to anyone who wished to see it af ter it 27 was submitted. Several of .the reporters did call again on June l 28 11 to discuss the formal response of the University and one , G107170202 810709 PDR ADOCK 05000142 O PDR H
I reporter asked for, and was given, copies of all the relevant 2 pleadings . 3 4 3. My telephone records indicate that on June 11, 1981 5 I took a call from a Mr. Eliot Marshall, who identified himself 6 as a member of the staff of Science magazine. Mr. Marshall's 7 call had been referred to my office by another office of the 8 campus. Mr. Marshall said he had been informed of the pro-O ceedings by Mr. Hirsch and that he wanted to know the University's 10l position on certain matters. Our conversation lasted approxi-
- 11 mately thirty-five minutes.
12 13 4. Most of the information contained in the article 14 was obtained apparently from Mr. Hirsch. Although I was unaware 15 of what Mr. Hirsch had actually communicated to Mr. Marshall and 16 the emphasis of my conversation with Mr. Marshall was on more 17 substantive and technical matters than are reported in the 18 article, most of the rematks which Mr. Marshall chose to excerpt 19 from our conversation were reported fairly. However, in exer-20 cising his editorial license, Mr. Marshall has quoted certain of 21 my remarks out of their proper contexts and he has attributed 22 to me certain statements that I did not make. In addition, in 23 several places he has paraphrased or summarized what he thought 24 I said and positioned my remarks opposite remarks of Mr. Hirsch 25 so that it would appear that I was responding directly to Mr. 26 Hirsch's statements when, in fact, all I knew of Mr. Hirsch's 27 opinions was what I read in the CBG pleadings. The article 28 actually quotes only eleven words spoken by me and. except for l
. . - - , - -- -~ -
A 1 one phrase quoted intact, each of the words is used singly and 2 in a context created, seemingly, to add a certain " flavor" to the 3 article by insinuating a bluntness and terseness to my candid 4 personal comments that is not an accurate characterization of 5 the conversation. These inaccuracies are explained paragraph by 6 paragraph below: 7 8 Paragraph 1. In explaining several of the con-9 tentions to Mr. Marshall I stated that many of CBG's 10 claims were dependent on the credibility for our 11 facility of the power excursion to core melt-down to 12 reactor explosion accident scenario. At several points 13 I stated that in the collective scientific and tech-14 nical opinion of the University's staff it was " absurd" 15 and " ridiculous" to consider such a scenario for the 16 University's 100 kw research reactor. The " unfairness" 17 referred to in the first paragraph had to do with the 18 circumstances surrounding the Board's May 29th order 19 and was not mentioned as a criticism of the CBG " case". 20 .Ncne of the quoted remarks was my assessment of "the 21 , case." The remarks were apparently juxtaposed to 22 create an interesting opening sentence. My estimates 23 of the " costs" to the taxpayers of this licensing 24 action is reported accurately. 25 26 Paragraph 4. My description of our reaction to 27 receiving the Board's May 29th ruling is reported , 28 accurately. I explained that we were taken aback not
1 only by the language of the order which u.nounted to a 2 public reprimand of University's counsel (Mr. Hirsch 3 certain did all he could to give the Board's rebuke 4 the widest possible publicity) but also that the repri-5 mand had been issued before the University had been 6 given time to file a written response and without the 7 prior hearing opportunity which I have understood is 8 regttired by the Commission's own rules. I did not 9 quote the language of the order nor did I mention the 10 names of the Board members. Mr. Marshall either ob-11 tained a copy of the order on his own or got the infor-12 mation from Mr. Hirsch. 13 14 Paragraph 5. The paragraph distorts this part 15 of the conversation. I described the discovery questions 16 permitted by the Board (that is, CBG's interrogatories) 17 as " sloppy," meaning that in my opinion Intervenor's 18 questions were draf ted carelessly and that the vagueness 19 of CBG's questions was the source of the dispute. I 20 ' did not describe the Board's procedural order as a 21 ." judgment," which would be a mistake in usage obvious 22 to an attorney, and I didn't state that any " judgment" 23 or " order" was " sloppy." I did state that the Board's 24 order resulted from our misunderstanding of the Board's 25 previous order as we had just explained (in our June 11 26 memorandum) to the Board. I discussed the contents of 27 our June 11 memorandum and in particular our argument l t 28 , that the Board's March 10, 1981 order was simply i l
1 unclear. I did not state that the University had 2 "given up the required data," which would have implied, 3 incorrectly, that we had refused to disclose any 4 information. I did state that sven though there was 5 no requirement to do so we had apologized to the Board 6 because we felt that the circumstances warranted an 7 apology. I did explain that we believed that our in-8 - terpretation of the Board's previous order was reasonable, 9 that our mistake was unknowing and that the Board's 10 reprimand in our opinion was unfair. I then tried to 11 explain in layman's terms the discovery option provided 12 us by Rule 33(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-13 cedures and that our response offering our records was 14 legally proper according to that rule. I did not say, 15 since it is not true, that the University " simply dumped. 16 30,000 pages of logs and a pile of financial data in 17 CBG's lap." I assume that that remark is properly 18 attributable to Mr. Hirsch. 19 20 - Paragraph 6. Mr. Marshall has paraphrased my 21 , remarks here and has done so with several inaccuracies. 22 My statement was "we do not dispute that 60 percent of 23 last year's reactor port-hours of usage were logged to 24 extramural users of the facility. The rest of the para-25 graph is essentially correct, although I did not use , i 26
, the words " commercial" and " business" in describing the j 27 research reactor operations.
f, 28 _ . _ - - _ _ _ . _ _ - _ , - , , , - __ ._- . . _ . _ _ _ _ - . _ _ . _ _. . _ . _ _ ~ _
1 Paragraph 7. The paragraph is essentially 2 accurate, although I do not know where Mr. Marshall got 3 the data he includes in the parentheses. My remark was 4 that UCLA's technicians were " hysterical with laughter," 5 which was my exaggerated description of the levity 6 created when the UCLA staff considered CBG's hypotheti-7 cal and preposterous series of events, described in 8 its interrogatories, that supposedly would result in a 9 serious accident. 10 11 5. The Board should be aware of the considerable 12 publicity that has attended these proceedings. (I have attached 13 a copy of the most recent newspaper article which is typical. ) 14 Not only does Mr. Hirsch repeatedly seek to alarm the community 15 with his suggestion, which we regard as irresponsible, that a 16 TMI-type event or other " serious accident" could occur at the 17 facility but he has also gone to the press with each of the 18 Board's wholly procedural discovery orders where " news" of our 19 procedural disputes could be expected to embarrass the University 20 cither directly or by innuendo. The University's representatives 21 have not sought to debate any of the issues in this proceeding 22 in the public arena nor draw media attention to procedural matters 23 which we regard as singularly unnewsworthy. On the contrary, 24 our general position has been that since CBG has " intervened" in 25 this licensing action we would abide by its choice of the legal l 26 forum and we would not seek to " litigate" the complex procedural 27 .and substantive issues of the proceeding in the daily newspapers. 28 However, when the language of the Board's May 29, 1981 order was {
1 made available to the press the University could not avoid re-2 sponding. Because of the actions of CBG in suggesting a greater 3 significance to the procedural dispute than that matter deserved, 4 I was placed in the position of having to respond without ad-5 vance notice to a number of inquiries from various reporters. I 6 was open and candid in my responses although I knew that the 7 risk of being misinterpreted when discussing such complex matters 8 was great. 9 10 I attest that the foregoing affidavit is true and 11 correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 12 13 Dated: July 9, 1981. 14 15 , William H. Cormier 16 17 18 Subscribed and sworn to before me E 19 thi day of July, 1981. 20 - -
- / 5 WN
{' A %Kr. J ~ %, oFVICIAL SCL, f ):. { , Ssstxwmwwm 21 Notary ublic ' VIRG!NIA SAVOIE p 2c 54 NOTARY FUBUC.C;ufcRNg4 22 My co ission expires: t03 Anctus ccum Q([k'y Commissicn Enpires Sept.12.1982 23 *"N :s 24 25 1 d 26 i 27 28 l l 1, i
. - - . . . . - . , - . , - . - - - _ . - . . - - --. . . . - ., - . - - .-,..-. . - , ~
! Cantmwd Frsm Prge A-l health haard'* and criticises the NHt'
, for changmg regulations rather than
. University of Cahfornia employees enforcing them.
{a7 aw v' p steg em,;p Re-licensina aa
~ - -r ~m --d-U J,, . . .,,!, gs ,,
- + _ a '. gg W,e c. g_ .y ' ' ,e7.
it d 4 W.m~ e . ( M. /
,could occur because several thargs
" **a Ri,., aiso asse,,s the ,e.m. In completely unnecessary ttireat '
Ar[rrg er becauw I, ' [ i 4: .
- g ,, ,. h, IL ,m. e
, .[ it is used pnmanly k can v.w, g' .i y a Chall0n90Cl s m-w sr.
- e, *% ..* b ' a m.~- ' I. 4 i o merciai eurposes. rather ih>n re-
.a.,um,ms. n,ee..me isiand couid search and education as reqmred by
'not have occurred
- g. ;. 4.Ls.1 iDD $
us beense g{
" *' l '. ~W * . l
. f'M , . .su a r Independent mvestigations by the The reactor could not meet tr.c
'l' IPC ah. ;* b% , .), ; [y ] b,I r lNRC's insrect on and eiforcement J ' , +
.' ['r ' . h, , ;
#gr" as . y 4
division support the NRC staff's con- stricter requirements of a com-85 NEl.l.lE ItENIERSON
..m +- q g( q,) he j
' .fkqsh,j lclusions. mercial hcense, he aided 5."**g y 7 .M w~ a *,j I:vemag thsilook Staff Wrlier 1 ,. *# y, .) ) g3 *3 e An operations inspection conducted Indeed 60 percent of the reactor 4
%TSTWOOD - Although many g JL. a : $ g, {,. , k '. pg -* 'just last week found "no operational operation hours in 1T9 were spert m Westside residents may be unaware of g .. ; l,"i,J g i h t * "
I p J p.g '
. items m non-comphance," said in- commercial use, accordirt to a letter
'spector Tolbert Young sent by Walter Wegst. UCLA Director the nuclear reactor in their backyard, interested partws across the country p j '. y . :';. ' M ~ ,- ,--.
r* "
- 5 c,.;
u
- J, n, , , ,
, "We wiii write a good report.,, of Research and occupationai safe-are precedent-settmg clowly watcharg thebemg 5N protracted ' ' "g,i b , b** 4 "'
,M P) g' ' ,ff,g4rh ;b ' .d [ Young said, addmg that past vio-
*lations have been corrected and some tys. to the NRC m May of 1990 Reactor rental to genchemnts.
and battle ,, gg - p% ,.,-@, -4
*mmor security violations remain gem desters and eng'neermg firms waged over the UCLA reactor's re- d ] iI '~@ ! ' "y. .
. . , i.g< ,i9 ' g J e, hcensing
#' ~
..%,i 4 ' 4 a Although those problems "neser took 064 of the reactor s 446 hours that k _, *f if endangered the pubhe," Your.g said year. the let:cr says.
.l ' ;
The history of the confhet over + UCLVs Boetter Hall reactor is com- *' '
. U. he found an overall improvement in The beensmg board granted CN
' ' intervenor status. which allows the ples. The parties in~olved are ' ' ' . , .
- j s .IW ':.] % .) . :the admmistration of the reactor.
A health and physics inspection group to help the board gather m. numerous. The contenta ns debated M * #' :!c a i are highly techmcal And :he s'.akes of L.
/f g &.'*h I , ,M,'%s %
e,, i*
, %Q',Gp f l. ; conducted in November 194 aMo formation by submittirg "mter-
.found the reactor operating within rogatories." questions that UCLA the outcome are high.
UCLA's 24 year old te .etor is the M'. ; j
. *- e
.'NRC guidelines, inincontrast to must answer regarding all aspects of first research reactor to have its *' ". , , , .. g N
. .[/ .4 f # problems experienced the past.
In January of 1975 the NRC cited the reactor. UCLA s arplicatwn will rema.n in license renewal application :3 '
,, p
- 1 ,'* - - .'
j
;the reactor for mcorrect cahbration hmbo until the hcensmg board da
.d "]' ,#'
challenged The f ate of argimaut reac- f'
,,' }2 /
, s i
tors at five other umversities, and the j. '. q ,
,. , / \,
. , k; ' b. 5 N
If g g 3 -{ .;of effluent momfors, mhich led to cides it has recessed a!! pertment in-Ii iunderestimation of Artan 41 formation.
.__1 well beirg of UCLA's neighbors may t.h , '" .L depend on the outcome of this case.
Opposing the reheensmg is the 49' b,.,. '4' * ,
%' ' " N
% , ,j y?f p
,.. J 1
*emissior.s. said inspectcr Frank The board has granted three me-
'Wenslawski, who reported the tions to compel the un:versity to eV Committee to Bridge the Gap tCBG), 2,,,.; s ,h. ' proble m. answer the first set of CBGs m'er.
"a non profit, educational orgamza-tion based near UCLA," which 4e t h
- i g ~ '
ti/}.O 1
' Although the reactor was emitting togatories. which focus on the iswe of more radmactive gas than a!! owed by commercial use
'a beheves the reactor's constructmn .
g.? . , , . hRC hmits, an httC review found no *UCLA's let:er of May 1. IE is and operation endanger pubhc health geMfi, , ,;,' , " , , , i h? f g
. health ef fects as a result, and unacceptable and blatantly insulime and safety in a variety of ways Among other things, CBG alleges p ..,$ e , ; L'
^,',f*/"
'( ,.., ' ,O
.. J d*'
b d $emissions amended UCLA's to cor.tinue beense Wenslawski from a great umversity to ti.n to "anos board the borthe i sa d in its last order
; Q ; .' ' .. {'4 ,. f.; N on May ?9 Th irder also directed that ., p, M :said
- The reactor emits excessive and g *] ,7,, 9' - J .g ; b 'p . The NRC also cited the i. actor for UCLA to show cause why sancti ms harmf.al amounts of radioactive g Argon 41 mto the surroundmg area,
..f; g l
a, j v
,, (' , hy J
[ a
'.cahbration losing records a 1974 and mamtenance for emittm8 should not be irnposed log of responded quitkiv The umversity particularly classroom buildmgs next f' y.3, , i i
- the Argon 41 through a stack that but the board has issued no statement to Boe'Mr llall. h, t .
y[" Q 5-; ' la r cyd .. ' -
. violated height specifications on the adequacy of the response. ani
- rhe reactor could r.ot withstand 7, l However, Wenslawski said has imp *ed no sanctens an earthquake. 4; i . " unequivocally" that the prtb! cms Hirsch said the umversit:. <
- The potential for a serious acc dent, known as a ', power excursion,g
,,/ [j * ~ /, 7*t -
l : posed no danger to the pubhc and that response was "still pretty evame'
, / /'. . 3, 2
the umversity has "shown interest but said CBG would submit sever.nl could ureur due to teihmcal features e
.and imtiative" in correctirg the more sets of questions of the reacter's design. %. L l, 'g .
4 , , . roblems. "They brought athe vio-
', Miile allthese shenamgans go on.
- Security is inadequate for a 3 A , de, - J tions) to my attention," he added the damn thing is still runnmL" H.rsch said "ne operator could facihty that uses bomb-grade a. - -- ,
s-r '
, tv A J g CBG dasagrees. The group says the make a mistake tonarrow.
uram.im e o.a m emmissions stin p a potential
.although primarily concerned with UCLA's nuclear reactor located in Boelter Hallis up for re-licefising . * .
safeiv ssues. CBG also alleges that , a
, ~
t!.e rcactor is operated 60 percent of those fmdmgs will recommend the inta the matter this fall and will con- the Imdmgs of the staff should not be the tmie for commercial rather than reactor be re-heensed sider the arguments of the NRC staff, interpreted as those of the decision-research purposes, in violatmn of its Staff attorney Cothen P. Woodhead UCLA and CBG when it decides the makmg body. [ rescarch heense said the reports. completed June 19. matter However the legal and technical cever each of the safety issues raised CDG President Dan Ihrsch said the 8 MinW a conM d a staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Com. by CBG, and will support UCLA's stMf's fmdmgs were ** completely ex. I th i f misen P s just concluded a safety license renewal apphcation pected. no surprise " Ituwever, he based on ud a cond c ed b i evaluatim. and environmental impact The NRC s Atomic Safety and stressed that the staff and the board I appraisal of the reactor. and based on Licenskrig Board wiu hold hearmgs operate independently and therefore Turn le Page A.4 Column I ,y 6
l
} _(DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL (CODE CIV. PROC. SS1013a & 2013.5) 2 I, the undersigned, say: I am a citizen of the United States, 3 ver 18 years of age, employed in Alameda County, California, in a which county the within-mentioned mailing occurred, and not a party 5
to the subject cause. My business address is 590 University Hall, 6 2200 University Avenue, Berkeley, California 94720. I served 7 the attached: APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO THE BOARD'S UHutR RELATIVE TO THE ARTICLE IN SCIENCE l 8 j
, 9 i
10 11 by placing a copy thereof in a separate envelope for each addressee 12 named hereafter, addressed to each such addressee respectively 13 as follows: 14 See Attached List 15 16 17 18 Each envelope was then sealed and with the postage thereon 19 fully prepaid deposited in the United States mail by me at 20 Berkeley,'Califor.tia, on July 10, 1981 . i 21 There i- Je2crery service by U.S. mail at each place so 22 addressec or rcyt~ ar communication by U.S. mail between the place i i 23 of mailing and each place so addressed. l 24 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true 25 and correct. 26 Executed on July 10, 1981 j-g at Berkeley, California. b AY - l i AN MCDONALD l r
. . =
Elizabeth Bowers, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 i Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Oscar Paris U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 Chief Docketing and Service Section (3) Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 Washington, 'IX: 20555 i Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisson Washington, DC 20555 Daniel Hirsch Committee to Bridge the Gap 1637. Butler Avenue, #230 Los Angeles, CA 90025 i Mr. Mark Pollock Pollack & Willis i 1724 N. La Brea Avenue l Los Angeles, CA 90046 I l i l 1
.....--_n,.- .__.,n, . ~,.,..,,,,.-n-- - - , , , - - - -, ... , . n..}}