ML19320B055

Response to Committee to Bridge the Gap June 1980 Petition to Intervene.Petitioner Relied on Case Law Not Wholly Applicable to Instant Action.Allegations Re Aspects Are Not Specified W/Clarity & Detail.W/Certificate of Svc

ML19320B055
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	07/03/1980
From:	Helwick C, Reidhaar D CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8007090197
Download: ML19320B055 (13)

Text

~

/,

j -

0 2 $N 5

$ gggtfi UNITED STATES OF AMERICA s

~)Db c-

{Y* 9 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL In Re: ) Docket No. 50-142

)

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ) (Proposed Renewal of CALIFORNIA ) Facility License (UCLA Research Reactor) ) Number R-71)

UNIVERSITY'S RESPONSE TO PETITION TO INTERVENE OF THE COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP DONALD L. REIDHAAR GLENN R. WOODS CHRISTINE HELWICK 590 University Hall 2200 University Avenue Berkeley, California 94720 Telephone: (415) 642-2822 Attorneys for THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 800709087 4

k AL FUC!IAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

\ DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.

OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Pos! mark Dato 7 90

'Cepics Received 27 l

' Add'l Copi.:s b;:redad _g,,,ggj_ l Special Dntr,behon .

_ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . ~

9

r _ _ - . .

!. 4 a 1

2 3 ~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

~ '

[:

4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 :BEhbR'E'TSE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 6

. 7 ,

- . v

. l ,l.

.8i 's- ,;.-

<t e

?

9 In Re: ) Docket No. 50-142

~

)

-10 .THE REGENTSi OF!THE UNIVERSITY ) (Proposed Renewal of CALIFORNIA -) Facility License 11 ~ (UCLA Research Reactor) ) Number R-71)

)

12' 13-14 ' UNIVERSITY'S RESPONSE TO PETITION TO INTERVENE OF THE COMMITTEE'TO BRIDGE THE GAP 15 16 17 18 19-20 DONALD L. REIDHAAR 21' GLENN'R. UOODS CHRISTINE HELWICK 22 590 University Hall 2200' University Avenue 23 Berkeley, California 94720 Telephone: (415) 642-2822 24 Attorneys for THE REGENTS OF THE

- 25 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 26:

y y ,

- ~

1 TABLE OF C NTENTS i

9; Page

~3-

=4- I. -INTRODUCTION .- . . . . -. l~

~

'5'- ,

II.. DISCUSSION. , ' . . . . . -. 2 6

~

~

.' A . , Intervention In NRC Licensing l ., 7 ' Proceedings ~ . . - 2 8-  ; B '. Standing of Petitioner . . . '3 9 'C. Relevant Aspects . . . . 4 10 III. ' CONCLUSION . . . . . . 6 11-1

. .'12

- 13 l

' l 14 15-16-17 --  !

1

- 1

- 18 .

l 19

< 20 -

e i

21 ,

(

~

22 _

.i .

.v s

-23 ,

s i

, ,. i y, y' ~{. w- gl b

- , ,9 . + > r

-r ,

t 5- , i e.-) '

" ,, g ,, ,

1

,; ~

c. . ..

25

_, , .- a , -

, $ s S'

'~

9' f

, - - - 4 n y e

- y, ,

< < i ,

s s ..: c .- s 4

4 1- '. TABLE OF AUTIIORITIES 2~

'-Page 3:

4: '10 Code'of. Federal Regulations Section 2.701(b).

~

5 l-

=Section~2.714

~

2 6 :Section 2.714(a) 2, 4 7

8 9

10

11 12 13 14 15

.16

.17

'18

.19, -

,,,.,._+..

s 20 ,

,i

- 21 -<

4, r

( >%.

_22 - 1_,-

t J .

4 e. f +

.J

?"', . , . c., .

A*

. +ge ;24 .

(.J o ,7 '

. . Nm( -'-

-)

- 25 ':

v,j ' ', /v ,

s-s r, ,- ,

261 d. ' - ' W 'f ' .' l 4

?

.. 11 l

, j

' <. 1 4

=y

~

, . . . ;;- , v. .

+

, 3; , ,

.2

's t

• ' ~

s c r- &

7 m- ,;

4, q'

? . _'

r.

il s 2' <

, _ . y.-. _,

. m.. _ . _ w , i-T. '

'~ + ' H' , UNITED STATES OF AMERICA c t .

.4 'v'

_ NUCLEAR: REGULATORY' COMMISSION -

Nem , D

[ . ,

5: BEFORE.THE. ATOMIC SAFETY'AND LICENSING BOARD. PANEL 6 ,,-.

17e :

' *s T.,s ." P , , ? i C

.L; i,.

' M ^d

ll ,

_7 ,

8' 9 . In Re: y n ..;_ ) Docket No. 50-142-e . ,. ; ,, - 4 q <3 '<=,s-

)

110 - 'THE REGENTS OF: THE -UNIVERSITY ) (Proposed Renewal of CALIFORNIA _..

_ _) Facility' License 11 -(UCLA ResearchnReactor) '

-) Number R-71)

) '

.x 13 UNIVERSITY'S RESPONSE TOL PETITION TO INTERVENE-OF THE COMMITTEEzTO BRIDGE Tile GAP 14-15 16 I.- INTRODUCTION'

, ~17 18 On June 6, 1980, a copy of a Petition-for Leave to b

19 Intervene: 'in ' this proceedin', g apparently (filed. by The -

20. . Committee . to Bridge the ' Gap, was received'from:the Nuclear -

E21 . Regulatory. Commission on - the Los Angeles ~ campus of the 22? University?of California. Because of certaih-defects in the

'232 is'ervice- of L that Petition upon The Regents-of the University-off. California (hereinafter " University").(see-10 C.F.R.: S

'25;

~

. ,--2.'701(b)),_-and in:orderjthat the University:have an. adequate 26 3

J F 5 3

4 ,

5.

I time to evaluate the .11egations of the Petition, the 2 University applied for an extension of time to July 8, 1980, 3 to answer the Petition for Leave to Intervene. This 4 applic.ation . for an extension of time was approved by 5 Elizabeth S.' Bowers, Chairman of the Atomic Safety and 6, Licensinh Board in an order dated June 18, 1980.

'7 8 Pursuant to that order, the University now submits 9 'its respon'se to the' Petition to Intervene.

10 11 II. DISCUSSION 12 A. Intervention In NRC Licensing 13 Proceedings 14 According to the provisions of 10 Code of Federal 15 Regulations section 2.714, any person whose interest may be affected by a proceeding and who desires to participate as a party in a NRC licensing proceeding shall file a written petition for leave to intervene. The petition must set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in l the proceeding, how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, and the special aspect or aspects of the subject. matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. (10 C.F.R. S 2. 714 ( a) . )

. 25 26 2

In determining whether a petitioner should be 1

2 admitted as a ~ party to an NRC proceeding, the Commission 3 applies contemporaneous judicial concepts of standing, which 4 require the ' petitioner to demonstrate that the proposed

~5 licensing action could result in " injury-in-fact" to an

+

.6' 'Jinterest " arguably with$n^the zone of interest" protected by 7 the statute.

8 to. establishing its right to 9 In addition 10 intervene, petitioner must identify, with specificity, those 11 " aspects" of the proceeding as to which intervention is 12 sought.

13 14 B. Standing of Petitioner 15 16 The NRC Staff response to the Petition to Intervene has thoroughly briefed the standing issue. The 17 18 University does not contest any of the authority cited by 19 the NRC staff, but notes that both petitioner and the NRC 20 Staff have relied on a series of power reactor case holdings 21 which are not wholly applicabia to the instant action 22 involving the application for license renewal of a 23 research reactor.

24 25 26 0 I l

3 1

39, j . -

Ei g f , "{

t -

_g w- __.. . ' ,; ,

1

~ ^ '

Ci ; Relevant' Aspects ~

+

. t

.. ; 7

?. - s

.3' . Petitioner has~ set.forth a number of allegations

.4 ' pertain ng itoj the operation of the UCLA research : reactor.

,.) .' ,. . - '

,, i, j

5

..s

' Wh,'ilei the" Uni'versity["ssbmits ~.,

that these allegations are not 6 supported by-the' facts, a straightforward reading of 10 Code

'7 ~

-of Federal , Regulations ~ section 2.714 suggests ithat the .

'8 University's'p_oint-by-point' refutation of these " contentions" l

9c at this time would not constitute an-appropriate response.

]

~

--10 Instead, -the University Junderstands that - such should 11 properly be the = subject; of ~ a later stage of the proceeding.

12: lIndeed, as-the NRC. Staff l response indicates, the statute and 13 ' the case law provides little guidance on the distinction.

14 - .that ~ is - to be'. observed between . the terms " aspect" and 15

~

^" contention" as' the terms- are used ~.in 10 Code of Federal 16 Regulations section'2.714.

~17 y -18f Moreover, .w hether petitioner's allegations are 19 properly termed " aspects" or " contentions," they-have not~

f- 20 been made in all' respects 'with the degree of clarity and-21'

~

detail that should-reasonably be required in order for~the 22 = University tot enter . an . informed and precise response. .

23' 24- Nevertheless, 10 Code of Federal Regulations

25 =

...- section-'2.714Ldoes notJ specify the manner or time in -which 1 '

26' th'e 1 University will be -permitted to respond in writing ' to

?, .

3 4

m--- \

,y ~

i .g ' .

^

,r .

.- _ m. . ; e. . ,

y

~

f

-1I p'et'itidner 's ] 51 aims .- Consequently, the University does

/v n 2 ' object! ; atithis, time. to - the- - scope of the investigation

.-:. ',; ; 7

~

3~ suggested bys petitioner an~d ._ requests that the Atomic Safety  ;

e.s 4 Licensi'ng<,-- Board' issue ~ at j the ' proper time an appropriate-

.2

.b4 4

( ; > i . ,. ,

y

~ - .

y .e 5  : protective, order restricting inappropriate, irrelevant, 1 6 duplicative, , or . repetitive evidence or ~ argument, and o Ji- '

i: . .

7- lotherwis'e limiting and controlling the scope of any hearing ,

8 in this matter.. " The ' University requests that~ it be 9 permitted _at some later time to make specific recom- l i

- 10 mendations as' to -the language of - any such order.

11

[12. In particular, the University notes that all of 13 petitioner's claims herein were already raised in a recent 14 attempts by 'it to shut down the UCLA researchl reactor in the

'15 Fall' of 1979'. - At that time, the Regional Director of the

' 16 Commission 's . ' Division of Reactor Operations ~ Inspections -

conducted L a - thorough investigat' ion of petitioner's claims

~

17 l

18 and -found ' noysubstantive ' basis for the issuance of an order ~l 19~

to shut down'the--reactor. Extensive factual information has

29 already.been! developed in the' various reports and findings 21 '

'of'the Commissionlon the'UCLA research reactor.at that time, 22 - and at the very 'least 'that factual'information ought,to?be 23 . conclusive with+regardfto:the petitioner's attempt to raise 24' the' same issues in this proceeding. The University submits i .

25-  : thats;the; findings of that earlier investigation should also 26 bei relevant . a'nd .~ admissible .in : any . hearing on this matter. -

c

, 5' A i

' ^ ~"~

(.; Ti~ __

m.m ._

.~, ~ _ _- , ,_

y

. .l k;. , - < '

• u +

I ~ '

$1 =-

.,r r , s

, m ,= .

s g =

, s -

V - . . .

L' ~

ly = Finally, ithe: University agrees with the NRC Staff.

~

, conclusion that' _th'ere .Lis'~ no? nexus J between -those matters

.3 Lalleged . in athe ' petit'i'on,1whicho reach.back'into the distant

.past, and.the proposed renewal of the facility license. The

'5- '. University submits that in addition'to it em (2) summarized

6. in - the" Staff . Response - ( Petition, . pp. 3-4, at least a.part 7 of item-(4)f(Petition,~pp. 5-6) falls within.this category 8 and'thus has'no place in'this proceeding. Certainly=neither 9 evidenceinor' claims 'as to ' reactor performance prior 'to 't-he

-- $ 0 ~- istablishmenti by -the Commission in- 1976 (in amendment 10 to

, 11- . thef 'licens$)) o'fl the maximum permissible concentration

( ..

12 standard; :should be permitted in any hearing .on this

. .; 13 mattez;. f i~

..,p 3 ,

ij h[l l'

~

.14[ l' i - - > '

l

, 15 III. CONCLUSION 16 .

17 -Thef University . understands the permissible' scope l

.18- of.its response to ;. thelPetition to Intervene to be limited- j 19' at : this . stage. ' The University, however, reserves and

]

-20 requests 1. the. ' opportunity to make a more - specific > .and _

s 21 l detailed written ; response, to petitioner's claims at a- later

^

, .22 time, fshould the: petition bel .grante'd.

~ 23 -

~ ~

24 - -

.In .that event, the Universityn will ' also look to

--.. 25 : the, Commis'sion properly to limit and control L any hearing in 26- ~ this matter,- and' requests- an - opportunity to participate , in m x 6

p 'JC

- . s : .. - -

1 that process. In that regard, the University now questions 2 and objects to petitioner's reasons for requesting that any 3 hearing in this matter take place on the UCLA campus and 4 during the school year. Without. doubt such would create 5 complex security problems for the campus, which would not be 6 present in nearby federal facilities. In addition, it is 7 submitted that locating the hearings on the UCLA campus 8 would unavoidably disrupt ordinary campus life and would 9 afford no particular counterbalancing advantage to either 10 the Board or to petitioner.

11 Dated: July 3, 1980 DONALD L. REIDHAAR 13 GLENN R. UOODS CHRISTINE HELWICK 14 By 16 "

Christine Helwick Attorneys for THE REGENTS OF 17 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 18 19 20 21 22^ >

l 23 24

< 25

., 4 -

' 26 . ., ,

+

7

Q l DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL (CODE CIV. PROC. SS1013a S 2015.5)

• 2 I, the undersigned, say: I am a citizen of the United States, 3 over 18 years of age, employed in Alameda County, California, in 4 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 the 7 attached: UNIVERSITY'S RESPONSE TO PETITION TO INTERVENE 8 _

OF THE COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP 9

10 11 by placing a copy thereof in a separate envelope for each addressee

• named hereafter, addressed to each such addressee respectively as 12 13 follows:

14 15 SEE ATTACHED 16 17 18 Each envelope was then sealed and with the postage thereon fully 19 prepaid deposited in the United States mail by me at Berkeley, 20 California, on July 3, 1980 .

l 21 There is delivery service by U.S. mail at each place so 22 addressed or regular communication by U.S. mail between the place 23 of mailing and each place so addressed.

24 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true 25 and correct.

26 Executed on July 3, 1980 at Berkeley, California.

o l ?) ; Y JYvonne Costalupes /

1 Elizabeth Bowers, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 3

Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke 4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic _ Safety & Licensing Board 5 Washington, DC 20555 6 Dr. Oscar II. Paris U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 8

Counsel for NRC Staff 9 Of fice of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 Washington, DC 20555 11 Mr. Jim Miller U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

. 12 Washington, DC 20555 13 Committee to Bridge the Gap 1637 Butler Avenue, #203 14 Los_ Angeles, CA 90025 15 Mr. John Bay 1633 Franklin Street 16 Santa Monica, CA 90404 17 Mr. D'On'Voelyke c/o University Religious Conference 18 900 'llilgard Avenue Los Angeles, CA.

90024 19 Chief ~-Docketing and Service Section 20 Office,of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 21 Washington, DC 20555 22 Atomic Safety snd Licens~ing Appeal Panel U.'S.: Nuclear Regulatory" Commission 23 Washington, DC 20555 24 25 26 i

l