ML19351D375
| ML19351D375 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1980 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8010100041 | |
| Download: ML19351D375 (77) | |
Text
-
mtc 1 1
i UNITED STATES OF A!1 ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COWiISSION O,
q 2
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3
In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 5G-142
~
)
4
)
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY )
(Proposed Renewal of e
5 OF CALIFORNIA
)
Facility License)
)
d 6
(UCLA Research Reactor)
)
(Pre-Hearing Conference) 1 E
7
,~
Room 324 5
8 Federal Courthouse
^
[j 300 N. Spring St.
1 d
9 Los Angeles, Cal.
p Thursday, September 25, 1980 6
10 E
5 11 Met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m.
d 12 BEFORE:
ELIZABETH S. BOWERS, Esq., Chairman
's d
13 EM21ETH D.
- LUEBKE, Ph.D., Member k'-)
S OSCAR H.
PARIS, Member
~
E 14 APPEARANCES:
E 15 l
s FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF:
16 JOSEPH R.
GRAY, Esq.
g W
JESSICA LAVEPTY, Esq.
p 17 l HAROLD BERNARO N
l 18 I FOR THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA:
CHRISTINE HELWICK, Esq.
E 19.
GLENN R. WOODS, Esq.
A WILLIAM H. CORMIER, Esq.
20 FOR THE COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP:
21 DAN HIRSCH JOHN BAY 22 JOE BRADLEY, Esq.
()
f MARK POLLOCK, Esq.
'23 1
24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
e
ato 2 2
I PROCEEDINGS 2
MRS. BOWERS:
If I may have you-attention, please.
3 My name is Elizabeth Bowers.
I am a lawyer, a member of the
()
4 Bar of the State of Kansas.
I am in my twenty-ninth ySar of 5
g participating in federal hearings, the first 15 years as
?
5 0
Government trial counsel and the last 14-plus as presiding officer R
'E 7
for several different departments.
R 8,
8 Maay years ago, I was in this building conducting d
]".
hearings for FAA, and little did I dream then that I would be 9
o h
10 back now for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I have been a member now, and a full-time member of the Nuclear Regulatory d
12 z
Commission Panel, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel,
=
(~N d
13
(_)
g for the last eight years.
E 14 g
And on my right is Dr. Oscar Paris.
He is the
- C 15 h
environmental scientist, undergraduate and master's degree from
=
j 16 his home state of North Carolina, his doctorate from the w
.h I7 University of California, Berkeley.
He returned to North
=
18 Carolina for a few years and then came back to Berkeley for
_?"
19 8
some years, associate professor of zoology.
And he left in '71 l
20 to become professor of zoology and head, department of zoology, 21 at the University of Uyoming.
During the time that he was at
/~l Berkeley, he was also acting director of the Bodega Bay Marine (s
23 !
Laboratory.
He is also a full-time member of the Atomic Safety 24
(~S and Licensing Panel.
\\_/
25 '
And on my left is Dr. Emeth Luebke.
He is a physicist.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
@te 3 3
1 He has a distinguished career in private industry as an expert O'
2 on nuclear reactors.
He also is a full-time member of the 3
Atomic Safety and Licensing Panel, and has been for the last
(/h 4
ten years.
And Dr. Paris joined us in 1976 as a full-time member.
s e
5 g
Now, the reason I am saying " full-time member" is, a
3 6
you see, our panel consists of 53 people and about 14 or 15 of E
7 those are full time.
And the other people on the panel are at n
8 8
universities or the national laboratories, and they serve on an
,o 6
9 z-ad hoc basis, and they are either nuclear engineers or physicists oF 10 or environmental scientists.
Some are lawyers and economists,
=
5 11 j
because in our responsibility we not only have health and safety J
12 E
and environmental considerations, but we also, since 1970, have
=
=
13 rs) j been involved in antitrust hearings.
(,_
E 14 y
Let me call, before we get into the matter today, for 9
15 appearances of the parties.
If the Applicant is here, for the 16
~
Regents?
p 17 l
MS. HELWICK:
Yes, we are.
We are represented by gc w
18
=
Christine Helwick and Glenn R. Naxis, who will be joining me 19 shortly.
And to my right is Mr. William Cormier from the UCLA g
g 20 campus.
21 MRS. BOWERS:
And the NRC staff?
()
MR. GRAY:
I am Joseph Gray, counsel for the NRC staff.
23 I am accompanied today by Jessica Laverty, lead counsel for the i
24
()
.NRC staff is this UCLA Research Reactor operating license j
25 f renewal proceeding, and by Mr. Harold Bernard, who is the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
sta 4 4
I NRC staff's project manager for the UCLA Research Reactor.
()
2 MRS. BOWERS:
And is the Committee to Breach the Gap 3
present?
({}
4 MR. HIRSCH:
Yes, we are.
I'm Dan Hirsch.
I'm the 5
j president of the Committee to Breach the Gap.
To my right is 9
3 6
John Bay, to his right Joe Bradley, to his right Mark Pollock.
e ES 7
MRS. BONERS:
I would like to speak for just a minute 3
2 8
M to all of you.
We can't have a committee participating.
There d
}".
needs to be lead from each of the participants, rather than 9
08 10 g
everybody participating.
=
f II Briefly, I will run down through the history.
On g
12 Friday, April the 25th, 1980, the Commission issued in 45 Federal ca
()
j Register 28029 a notice of the application for the renewal of E
14 d
the operating license at the UCLA reactor; and in that notice N
i 5
said that if eidum: the Applicant or another person whose interest 16 g
might be affected desired a hearing, that a petition should be d" 17 '
submitted no later than May the 27th.
5m 18 A petition dated May the 22nd, received in the Office s"
19 8
of the Secretary on May the 27th, was received from the n
20 Committee to Breach the Gap.
At this time, the Chairman, the Administrative Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (J
Panel was asked to appoint a Liccasing Board for the purpose of 3
x
3 9
petition review to determine if the petition met the criteria
-24 i
{)
l in 10 CFR 2.714, and - f in the Licensing Board's opinion it does 25-meet these criteria, then a hearing would. follow.
If the l
ALDEF. 3N REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
ht3 5 5
1 Licensing Board thinks-it does not, then there would be no hearing,
()
but there'would be a right of appeal.
3 So anyway, on Monday, June the 16th, in the Federal
/~N 4
(_/
Register, 45 Fed. Reg. 40747, this Board was appointed.
- Now, c
5 g
there were some service problems in the beginning.
The Committee a
3 6
to Breach the Gap did not have full information on the service, En 7
I'm sure, at that time, and a copy of their petition was not sent n
8 8
to the Regents.
And so, anyway, the Regents got the copy of the o6 9
.j petition late and they asked for an additional 20 days, up to oH 10 July 7th, to respond.
They actually received a copy of the
=
E 11 g
petition from the staff on June the 16th.
d 12 E
On June the 18th this Board issued an order granting 3
(])
l the time extension.
Now, the staff responded to the petition E
14 on June the llth.
They responded earlier, before they were aware k9 15 2
of the Board.
But on June the lith the staff served the Board x
J 16 y
and the other parties copies of their response to the petition --
6 17 w
no, that was served -- the response was dated June the lith and
=
5 18
=
it was served on the Board on June the 24th.
5 19 g
The Regents responded to the petition.
Now, on July 20 the 21st we issued an order scheduling a prehearing conference 21 on September 18th, 45 Federal Reg. 49729. Friday, July the 25th,
)
the Committee to bridge the gap requested that we change the k'._'/
23
'date to September 25, and so we issued an order on August the lith 24
~N rescheduling to September 25 at Federal Reg., 45 Federal Reg.
(G.
25 54915, Monday, August the 18th.
- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
Bto 6 6
I In that order, we also said that if the Committee to-
)
2
~ Breach the Gap wishes to supplement its prior petition, that that 3
supplement should be filed no later than August the 25th, the
(])
Regents? response by September 9 and the staff's response by 4
3 September 17.
9 3
6 e
Now, the Petitioners did respond by August the 25th R
4 7
i with an errata, September 15th the Regents' response, September 9, s
b from the staff's response of September 16th.
G d
9 Now, there are a couple of little housekeeping matters g
oH 10 j
that we would sort of like to clear up before we get into the --
=
M 11 g
I will request opening statements, but Mr. Hirsch, on your errata d
12 z
there were a couple of things that I could not find.
Did you a
I '
pick up --
(])
E 14 g
MR. HIRSCH :
That was an incorrect errata.
9 15 Q
MRS. BOWERS:
Yes.
Look on page 2.
=
MR. HIRSCH:
I will have to pull that.
One minute.
C 17 d
MR. GRAY:
Madam Chairwoman, the staff did not
=
5 18 receive the errata as of the date that we left for this prehearing C
j conference, and I request that Mr. Hirsch provide us with an 20 extra copy if he has it.
21 MRS. BOWERS:
You are shown on the service list.
MR. GRAY:
As of yesterday, we had not yet received
{}
23,
,it.
I 24 '
MR. HIRSCH :
I apologize.
I don't believe that we
.[ }
25 '
have a copy with us of it.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
at3 7 7
I MRS. BOWERS:
Well, this is something that you can
()
2
.take care of afterwards.
But on page 2, under Roman numeral VIII 3
DR. PARIS:
Mr. Gray, do you want to look at my copy for
()
4 a while?
5 g
MR. GRAY:
'2 hank you.
9
~
6 MRS. BOWERS:
On page 4, you.say after, quote, t
8 S
7 "splusis added," -- I could not pick that up on page 4, so E[
8 perhaps -- and said, "by the percentage," line 21. I could not d
d Y
z.
find what you were talking about, and so this is something --
Og 10 MR. HIRSCH :
It is on the previous page.
There is the t
E II one "unreviewed" which is underlined as part of the same B
N I2 quotation."
5
[ }
g" 13 MRS. BOWERS:
All right.
And you want then to show z
E I4 the emphasis added.
2 15 MR. HIRSCH :
That underline was not in the original
=
y 16 text.
M I7 j MRS. BOWERS:
And then by the "five percent," line 21; I
I0 is that on page 47 P
19 g
MR. HIRSCH:
We don't have the errata before us and n
20 we don't know which page it is.
1 2I MRS. BOWERS:
Well, here is a copy.
Please give it 22 r,
back, and go to.page 2 of the errata.
And then Roman VIII,
(_)
23 point 4.
Now, you have explained that --
I l
24 l MR. HIRSCH:
Line 24.
l
()
I 25 l 1RS. BOWERS :
-- that the emphasis should follow the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
2ts 8 8
I quote that begins on page 3.
But now what is this business of
()
2' "by the five percent," line 21?
3 MR. HIRSCH:
Line 21, it says, "Furthermore, the only O
4 vare of the inventory affected by five percene restriction.-
g 5
It simply is a grammatical; "by the five percent restriction."
0 MRS. BOWERS:
You are talking about VIII-4, page --
R
- 5 7
MR. HIRSCH:
Yes, page 4, line 21, our page 4, begins, Ml 8
"Furthermore, the only part of the inventory affected by the d
}".
five percent restriction."
9 o
h 10 MRS. BOWERS:
All right.
And by the way, the top line
=
5 II on that page 2, where you correct with the spelling of " borax,"
2" 12 instead o# line 7 that should be line 1.
And then, over on
=
13
({}
page 3 you are going along in sequence and you have got 10, 11, m
5 I4 12, and then you jump to 15 and 17.
2 15 Now, below 17 you show Roman numeral XIII and you
=
E Ib give nome instr'Ictions there.
And I checked both XIII and XVIII
- ^
i h
I7 and could not locate that.
I'm sure that ic XVIII.
P" 19 8
MRS. BOWERS:
But look at XVIII.
I could not see it n
20 there, either.
2I MR. HIRSCH :
XVIII, and it should be -- I apologize.
I cannot see the comment that is missing on XVIII, either.
{)
23 '
MRS. BOWERS:
I also tried XIII and I could not find 24 any information.
25 MR. HIRSCH:
I apologize.
It was simply grammatical i
f ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i i
Eta 9 9
1 changes anyway, but I don't know.
MRS. BOWERS :
Now, I have a couple of questions, 3
Ms. Laverty, for the staff.
In looking at your filing of
('
4 September 16th, 1980, which is in response to the supplemental e
5 g
petition from the Committee to Breach the Gap, go to page 18 --
N 3
6 well, on page 12 you list all of the sub-items under 18, and --
E" let's see.
It is Contention V.
And then on page 18 -- oh, on N
8 8
page 12 you say, "In the staff's opinion 18" -- and on the top d6 9
g of page 13, "In the staff's opinion, 18-M is not acceptable."
c6 10 But when we get back to page 18, you stop explaining why certain
=
E 11 g
sub-items were not acceptable before and you leave out 18-M.
So d
12 p
we don't have an explanation from the staff as to why 18-M is
() E 13 y
not acceptable.
E 14 y
Now, it doesn't have to be done right now.
But I want
_0 15 g
to bring it to your attention.
T 16 Then on page 25 of the staff's filing, in reading the d
17 staff position beginning at the top of the page, it appears to ax 18
=
us that there is a typo in line 1.
C 19 g
MS. LAVERTY:
That is correct.
20 MRS. BOWERS:
And it should be 3 instead of 2.
21 MS. LAVERTY:
That is exactly right.
MRS. BOWERS:
And on page 27, in the last line of the
()
23 '
staff decision, the 3 at the last one should be a 4; is that 24.
correct?
25 MS. LAVERTY:
That is correct.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
Ets 10 10 1
Maybe I should say now that there are a couple of other
()
2 typos or small mistakes that I thought that I would bring to your 3
attention at the time that we were addressing each specific
()
4 contention, unless you want to do it right now.
g 5
MRS. BOWERS:
Why. don't you go ahead now, so that the 6 +I people -- unless the people need to think about it.
R b
7 MS. LAVERTY:
On our response to Contention I, which sl 8
is on page 7 of my response -- excuse me, page 8 -- the last d
q 9
sentence in that partial paragraph at the top of the page says:
zo G
10 "Thus, no basis is provided for cantention I.l.D."
That should 11 be "A."
B N
12 MRS. BOWERS:
I.l.A?
5 r^]s j-13 i MS. LAVERTY:
A.
\\_
=
m 5
14 On Contention IV -- excuse me, Contention VI.4, which
.j 15 sould be on page 18, CBG's statement of Contention VI.4 includes x
~
16 W
various regs and they include there Part 100, which I objected W
f I7 to, in another contention as a challenge to the regulation.
So x
18 we would support this contention as rewritten to delete 100, P"
19 g
Part 100.
n 20 MRS. BOWERS:
Anything else?
2I MS. LAVERTY:
Yes.
The next one would refer to 22
(-)
Contention IX, which I believe is on page 20 of ry response.
v 23 And CBG's Contention IX refers to maintenance and callibration.
24 And I opposed admission of IX on the ground that it restated 25 l Contention V.18(a).
Well, upon rereading V.18(a), that discusses l
l 7'
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
Its 11 11 1
only callibration.
However, maintenance is covered in
/T' 2
k/
Contention XV.
3 MRS. BOWERS:
That was Roman numeral XV?
,]%
4 MS. LAVERTY:
Richt, XV.
e 5
g MRS. BOWERS:
So you are deleting and adding?
8 6
MS. LAVERTY:
No, I would be adding an additional n
8 7
basis for rejecting this contention, and that additional basis N
8 8
can be found in CBG's Contention XV.
6 9
i MRS. BOWERS:
Anything else?
o h
10 E
MS. LAVERTY:
I think that is all.
=
E 11 MRS. BOWERS:
As a matter of interest, Ms. Helwick, d
12 could you tell us the date of the original license to operate 3
(,s) 13 5
and' the time period that it covers and when that ends?
E 14 MS. HELWICK:
I believe that the original license was x
2 15 g
issued in 1960; is that correct?
16 MR. CORMIER:
Yes.
Ms. Bowers, if we could bring one d
17,
y of our technical people up to the desk, it might just facilitate cw 18 the discusssion.
E 19 A
MS. HELWICK:
I believe it was issued in 1960 and it 20 was a 20-year period.
21 MRS. BOWERS:
Is it operating today?
()
MS. HELWICK:
Yes.
23,
MR. CORMIER:
It is operating.
l
(])
24l MRS. BOWERS:
When does the 20 years run out?
25 i' MS. HELWICK:
My understanding of your procedure is ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
2to 12 12 1
that once we have made a reapplication, until a determination fi 2
xd has been made on that, we are permitted under the old license 3
I to continue operation.
And that is the basis under which we are continuing operation.
I don't know the exact date that the m
5 g
20-year period runs out, whether we've reached that or not.
But a
3 6
e; in any case, it is our understanding of your regulations that we n
R 7
n are permitted to operate until a determination is made on our y
8 8
reapplication.
a d=
9 MR. GRAY:
Madam Chairwoman, I refer you to 10 CFR g
oH 10 5
Section 2.109, which indicates that if at least 30 days prior
=
2 11 g
to the expiration of an existing license authorizing any activity d
12 g
of a continuing nature a licensee files an application for a
() E 13 s
renewal or for a new license for the activity so authorized, the E
14 y
existing license will not be deemed to have expired until the 5
15 g
application has been finally determined.
16 In this instance, the application for renewal was 6
17 l filed at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the w=
5 18
=
existing license.
w I
19 g
MRS. BOWERS:
Fine.
Now, the first -- well, let me 20 check and see if we have opening statements.
It was our idea 21 to begin by talking about interest. the interect of the I
()
Petitioner to participate in this proceeding; and then to get 23 l into certain of the contentions.
24
^'s We. don't feel that we have a clear position from the (J
25 l:
Regents as to the interest of the Petitioners.
What is the I
i-ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
Ito 13 13 I
Regents' position?
(
2 Let me check.
Do you want to make opening statements?
3 Ms. Helwick?
(])
4 MS. HELWICK:
With respect to interest, I don't think h
that we have a serious contention *, hat there is not an interest 9
3 6
1 here, an appropriate interest.
However, I think that is related u4 7
g to the question of contentions.
And as indicated in our response, N9 8
n we take issue with many of the contentions as they are presented.
O
]"-
But certainly, among them we would concede that there is an 9
c h
appropriate interest presented.
=
f MRS. BOWERS:
Actually, they are two separate things, and there have been proceedings where interest was not established,
S 13
(]) j but' contentions were good; and then there is another proceeding E
14 y
where interest was good and there were no contentions.
So we
=
9 15 G
do look at them separately and then together.
x
~
16 g
MS. HELWICK:
I understand that, p
17 MRS. BOWERS:
Well, we weren't clear from your filings x=
M 18 as to whether you had a. definite position on that.
=
C MS. HELWICK:
We did not seriously contest the j
20 Interest question.
21 MRS. BOWERS:
And the staff has already gone un
(}
record that they support the interest.
The Board accepts that 23 l>
the Petitioner's interest is acceptable.
24 Now, we also had in mind -- there is no way today, and
[}
25-!
l it would take a couple of weeks to go down through each and ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
pto 14 14 I
every sub-contention.
And what we had in mind -- I was picking im
(_)
2 out those conter 'ons where the staff wholly supported the 3
admission of the c ntention, to give the Regents an opportunity
/~N 4
here todav respond to that support, to that support now.
(_)
5 y
A part of the situation here, of course, is the staff n
6 in their filing, which was the most recent, has set forth a lot R
7
's
~
of information on criteria for what is acceptable and what is 2
8 M
not acceptable, and the Petitioners did not have that available d
c 9
at the time that they were supplementing the petition, nor did j
oH 10 y
the Regents.
=
II And so we feel today that we can get more information f
I2 from the Regents on those contentions that are not a multiple
=a 13
(])
j position on the part of the sbaff.
So many of the contentions, x
g 14 the staff supports some subparts and opposes other subparts, and P
15 g
asks for more information, for clarification and that sort of x
k I0 thing.
m 17 And we thought by focusing in on the six contentions --
5 0
and Ms. Laverty, you may have somehow changed that with the C
I' 8
information you gave us this morning -- that we would be in a n
20 position to make a decision today as to whether the Petitioners 21 should be admitted as intervenors or not.
So if you will take a look at any objection to those 23 '
proceedings.
MR. BAY:
Mar I get clarification on that.
You are
)
25 '
saying that we should take the six contentions that the NRC i
i i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
Its 15 15 1
_ staff has supported for admission and just see if there is any g
2 problems with those, and then move onto the others if we have 3
time?
4 MRS. BOWERS:
We will get to that.
Actually, we're 5
[
going to ask the parties to meet after this prehearing if we e'
6 determine that the contentions are acceptable.
Then, with those R
7 that have multi-facets and some, for reasons stated, are not a
j 8
acceptable, and other parts are acceptable, we will ask the c.J o;
9 parties to muet.
zo 10 So what we would like first to do, though, is to get E
II into those.
We have pulled out six contentions that, before B
g 12 we started today here, the staff fully supported.
And go ahead.
5 13 MS. HELWICK:
I have just one procedural point to make b
I4 before we begin an individual inquiry, and that is that I think 15 you are referring to page 3 of the staff's response, wherein they j
16 set out criteria when a contention must be rejected.
And I have us h
I7 no dispute with what they need to put out there, but I wonder if
{
18 it should not be added to this list the question of adequacy of P"
g 19 !
application.
n 20 And as you will note in our response, that covered 21 quite a number of the contentions, at least in part.
And our 22 concern in that area is simply that, t] the extent that an 23 '
application is deemed inadequate, from my understanding of the 24
{
regulations, that appears to be a matter between us and the 23!
staff or us and the NRC Board, not a matter to be adjudicated ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
1 Oto 16 16 I
in a proceeding such as this.
()
2 We have indicated in our response that, to the extent 3
that our application is deemed remiss in any way, we are prepared q(_/
4 and willing to amend it.
So there are several contentions which 5
g we feel should be rejected on that ground, which was not one of n
6 the general criteria mentioned by the staff.
R
- S 7
MRS. BOWERS :
Well, our purpose here today is to take s
j 8
a look at the contentions and see if they have enough specificity 0
9 so that the other parties are put on notice as to where the
~
2o h
10 disagreement lies.
The biggest problem in considering for a
=
II petition review board is to keep everybody out of the merits.
g 12 Everybody-wants to argue the merits and we have seen that in a
J
(])
g 13 filings from the Petitioner, as'well as the Regents, going beyond 14 that limited consideration and getting into the merits.
=
15 This is not a simple situation right now, because of
=
I0 some recent appeal board decisions, the most recent North Anna, h.
I7 which I think the staff cited, on trying to consider what is
{
18 l
=
necessary for a centention to meet the criteria of 2.714.
The P"
19 g
Commissioners have,sked the General Counsel's Office, which is n
20 completely separate Trom the staff Office of Executive Legal 2I Director, to see if they can, in talking with everybody involved 22
{}
in these hearings, including our panel members, the Appeal Board 23 panel members and other participants, somehow sharpen the language i
24 i in that 714 to give people a clearer idea of criteria for
{}
l 25 admissibility or non-admissibility of a contention.
e i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
Eto 17 17 I
MS. HELWICK:
My concern is simply this:
that to *.he l
()
2 extent an application may, for any particular reason, be deemed 3
inadequate, I don't think that should bear on whether a license
(])
4 should be re-issued, especially when an applicant has indicated g
.5 a willingness te make any amendment that is requested.
And I e
6l am referring to the NRC Commission staff practice and procedure ES 7
digest, Roman numeral I, Arabic 5.1, where they indicate 3
8 specifically that the determination of whether an application d
9 is sufficiently complete is one to be made by the staff.
And c
h 10 it is my understanding of the ongoing process that we are
=!
II engaged in right now that there have been communications both s
y 12 oral and written between the campus and the staff with respect
=3
(]) g 13 to aspects of the application that has been made.
m E
I4 But to bring into an adjudicatory proceeding the
.{
15 question of whether or not the application is complete or
=
y 16 complete enough as a basis for rejecting a license reapplication m
f I7 appears to us to be something that is inappropriate for an E
IO Intervenor to raise.
And I think that does cover a number of k
P" 19 g
contentions --
n 20 MR. GRAY:
Madam Chairwoman, maybe I can help clarify 2I things here.
The reference Ms. Helwick made to the NRC Practice 22
/~T and Procedure Digest in fact was to a case in which I believe V
23 an Appeal Board held that the matter of the acceptability of an 24 application for docketing is a matter to be determined by the 25 staff.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1 ate 18 18 1
The staff has already determined that the application
()
2 is acceptable for docketing, because in fact that determination 3
has to be made before there is a notice for opportunity for
(])
4 hearing,.which got us right here in the first place.
So that y
5 is the thrust of the case that Ms. Helwick did cite.
And the 8
6 staff, as I say, has already made that determination, has docketed e
Rg 7
the application, and has issued the notice of opportunity for j
8 hearing, which in fact resulted in the petition to intervene, d
d 9
The staff reads the contentions of CBG insofar as they i
h 10 allege inadequacy in the application to go beyond the more staff E
5 11 review of acceptability for docketing, and in fact to the d
12 allegations that the information and evaluations submitted in 3=d 13 support of the application do not allow-one the NRC, to find g-)T S
(_
E 14 that the operating license should be renewed.
a b!
15 That goes beyond merely whether the application is 5
J 16 acceptable for docketing, but once acceptable for docketing, has G
d 17 the Licensee shown that in fact the license should be renewed.
5 M
18 That is how the staff read those contentions.
5 5
19 MS. HELWICK:
The difficulty that have with that A
20 is, however this particular provision might be read -- I suppose 21 it could be construed several ways.
But going beyond the lan-22 guage here, it's sort or a commonsense argument, and that is (s
23,
that, if we have indicated a willingness to amend whatever is i
24 deemed remiss by the staff and there are ongoing communications 25 g between the staff and the campus wherein more information has i
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
ato 19 19 1
been solicited and is being provided, what is the point of
(])
2 rejecting a license renewal application on the basis that the 3
initial application is somehow inadequate, if there is a willing-()
4 ness on the part of the applicant to provide whatever is deemed e
5 not there that should be there.
I don't think that should be M
N 6
a basis of an adjudicatory proceeding whereby we were determining R
7 whether or not the license should be reissued.
N I
.c j 8
I mean, after all, this should not be a contest to d
d 9
seek and submit the best paperwork.
i 10 MR. BAY:
May I comment on that?
E 5
11 Petitioner recognizes that in the licensing or B
d 12 licensing renewal process, there is a great deal of interchange z=
l E
13 expected between the NRC staff and the applicant, to submit Oa=
E 14 further information.
In fact, the NRC staff has already sub-d 15 mitted some 15 questions to UCLA to get further information in x=
J 16 support of the application.
2 6
17 That is not the thrust of our contentions.
They are N=
18 more closely to what Mr. Gray has said, that it is our feeling 5
{
19,
that the ultimate decision on the adequacy of an application, M
20 whether it has the information to support a Board decision for l
21 relicensing, the ultimate decision is theBoard's.
And we can l
1 22 only stop the document at one point, which is at the point that m
23 it has been submitted now, and say, these are the inadequacies 24 with the document, these are the problems, this is where the
)
25 '
University has not met its burden.
I i
l i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
to 20 20 I
If at such time they change that, then they can make 2
the appropriate motions at that time, to say that we no longer 3
have a contention.
4 MRS. BOWERS:
Ms. Helwick, we, in discussing some of 5
y the filings that have come in, we are aware that the Regents' 9
6 time after time after time in their response to the supplemental R
- E 7
petition have said, it is the staff, it is the staff, it is the j
8 staff.
The Commissioners have decided that the docket, just U
9
}6 Gray said, was ia such shape that it should be noticed as Mr.
h 10 for hearing, that it was acceptable as far as it needed to be
=
5 II at that time, and they made the decision that it should be it:
I noticed.
=
13
(]
Now, once the Commissioners decide that a Licensing m
14 Board should be appointed to review the petitions, then this z
{
15 I
Board has the responsibility to see whether the staff and the x
if 16 Regents and the Petitioners are fulfilling their responsibilities.
u$
l
.h I7 !
And if wa do go into a hearing, this Board will then have the
=
b IO responsibility to look at the adequacy of the application.
A" 19 g
MS. HELWICK:
Well, I certainly accept your ruling, n
0 But I want to make it clear, then, to this Board that we stand 2I ready to amend our application at any point in time that we are 1
22 Q
directed by this Board, or the staff, for that matter, with 23 '
an indication that some particular area is somehow inadequate.
24 And we want to make that intent on the part of the Applicant 25 i
i. very clear at the outset of the hearing, so that there is no ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
sto 21 21 I
confusion in making a ruling of what our position would be with g()
2 respect to amendment questions.
3 DR. PARIS:
That often is the outcome of our
()
4 proceedings, Ms. Helwick.
5 g
MS. HELWICK:
Fine.
9 6
DR. LUEBKE:
I would like to ask the staff, after all R
7l o
of these negotiations, did you plan to write a safety evsluation S
N j
8 report on this case?
d y
9 MR. GRAY:
Yes, we do, Dr. Luebke.
2o 10 DR. LUEBKE:
Then all these matters that we are z:
11 discussing here and the accommodations to UCLA will make -- will s
y 12 appear in that, in the safety evaluation report?
5 13 MR. GRAY:
Insofar as, for example, amendment of the
(]}
l 14 application to provide additional information and that sort of
{
15 thing.
=
y 16 DR. LUEBKE:
So all of those positions will be on W
d 17 i paper?
5
{
18 MR. GRAY:
Yes, they will.
P 19 MS. HELWICK:
One problem, Dr. Luebke, is that we have n
20 the question raised in so many forums.
Our ccmmunications with 21 the staff are responsive to what they have raised, which may or 22 may not be the same as what the Committee here has raised.
23 DR. LUEBKE:
But we will not go to final hearing i
I 24 until the SER is out?
(O-)
25{
MS. HELWICK:
That is right.
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
ato 22 22 1
l DR. LUEBKE:
And in the meantime, in this interim --
O*
2 MS. HELNICK:
So we should have resolved between us 3
I just want to point out and the staff what the problems are.
/~T 4
(/
I there may be some other things, and our intention remains the e
5 y
same.
6 MR. GRAY:
You may have resolved between you and the E
7 staff -- if in fact you don't, cannot provide the information N
8 8
or evaluations, the staff would be forced to take a position that u
d 9
g may be adverse to yours.
ch 10 E
MS. HELWICK:
Certainly.
2 11 l
MRS. BOWERS:
Which has happened.
d 12 MR. POLLOCK:
I want to request a procedural ruling
()
5 13 5
from the Chair at this point.
The staff apparently has made A
14 y
some minor changes in their report issued to this body.
I would 9
15 j
point out that the Committee has also made some changes and alterations in their contentions.
And prior to proceeding with 6
17 g
the hearing,. at this point I would like to determine whether l
18 g
those changes and alterations will be waived if they are rat 19 brought up at this time and presented at this time, or if they 20 i
can be presented at a later time, after the hearing has j
21 l
proceeded on the six contentions.
j
()
MRS. BOWERS:
Well, our idea was to proceed with the 23,
l six, and then instruct the parties, if we accept any, to meet 24
('i and to work.together to try to resolve some differences, which 4
%.)
i 25l' would include, of course, the possibility of rewording, because ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
Eto 23 23 I
the staff has mentioned with several of the contentions that
(
2 they feel that there is a confusion.
They don't really know what 3
the Committco is saying.
()
4 MR. POLLOCK:
Well if we are clear on the record that 5
3 we will have a right to amend contentions after the hearing on 9
3 6
the six contentions today, I don't believe there will be any e
R b
7 problem.
A2 8
M MRS. BOWERS :
Let us start down through the six and d
]".
see if any of these f all within the ones that yor. have in mind, 9
cH 10 j
that you want to amend.
=
1 II MR. GRAY:
Madam Chairwoman, just to make it clear, k
d 12 z
as far as the amending, further amending of the contentions is 13
()
m concerned certainly the procedure t' hat the Board appears to m
h contemplate -- that is, that we today determine if there is at k
C 15 h
least one good contention such that intervention should be
=
d Ib permitted, and then have the parties get'together, negotiate on w
F 17 d
rewording of previously offered contentions and arrive at an W
i 5
18 I
agreement on the wording of contentions and the admissibi.lity
=
I9 8
of contentions, the staff certainly thinks;that is the appro-n 20 priate thing to do.
21 But if in fact CBG would intend to add additional
(])
contentions, not merely rewording of some contentions already 23 '
submitted, but to add 2dditional contentions, raise new matters i
1 24 l
\\)
}
that go beyond what has already been raised, the staff would i
/~N 1
25 !
think that there would be some need to have a showing of cause ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
ptn 24 24 I
for doing that at this point.
()
2 MR. BAY:
Any changes that we made -- the staf f has 3
recommended a number of deletions due to repetitiveness.
In
()
4 large part they were correct and we deleted what we felt was 5
g inappropriate sections, sections which was not necessarily what H
6 the staff felt was the appropriate section.
And we've also R
- E 7
made some other minor language changes for clarification purposes.
sl 8
I don't think that we have added'anything in substance.
d" 9
~.
MR. GRAY:
Fine.
zo h
10 MRS. BOWERS:
Let us go back to where we were a few
=
IIl minutes ago.
Our thought was to take six contentions where, p
12 prior to beginning today, the staff wholly supported the admis-E
(]'f13
)
sion of the contentions.
But we wanted to give the Regents m
14 an opportunity if they had further comment beyond their written y
Ej 15 filing.
=
s-1 g
16 And the first one we will look at is Contention II.
s g"
17 The staff has gone on record that it fully supports admission x
10 of this contention on the grounds that it satisfies the speci-I9 8
ficity and basis requirement of 10 CFR 2.714 and raises an n
20 issue which is appropriate for consideration in this proceeding.
2I Ms. Helwick?
2 MS. HELWICK:
In our response to that beyond what
()
I 23 we have in our written papers, I would ask your indulgence in
{s allowing my cohort, Mr. Cormier, to speak to that particular 3
25l
)
one.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
Etc 25 25 I
MRS. BOWERS :
I am looking on your filing on page 5, r
k_3 2
/
is where you speak to the contention.
MS. HELWICK:
Yes.
This is one of the ones that we
()
felt falls in the category of inadequacy of application.
If you 5
3 wish something more specific and beyond what we have stated there, 9
0 Mr. Cormier is prepared to respond.
E y
MRS. BOWERS:
Ne have read the filing, so we don't need n
E 8
M to repeat what you have said there.
But if you have anything 0"
9
~
E-additional?
E 10 j
MR. CORMIER:
Yes.
Since you have made reference to
=
E 11 g
the staff's response, we ask the Board's indulgence in perhaps d
12 3
explaining a little bit further the standards that should be met c
(])
here.
As we understand it, the contention must also trail with m!
it a sufficient basis to be admitted at this stage of the u
9 15 i
g proceeding.
And we believe that the application is clear, the T
16 M
Regents' application for license renewal is clear in two respects, m
d 17 that would make this contention irrelevant.
w=
5 18' In the one case -- and perhaps the staff can help
=
19 j
clarify this section of the code -- we have had a Class 104 license as our initial license granted in 1960, and I believe 21 one straightforward reading of the Code, Section 50.21, indicates 22 (J
that we are grandfathered in, in effect, to apply as a Class 104
~T 23 licensee at this stage, also.
24 That is one question I raise both with the staff and (v~T 25 the Board, and we seek some clarification on that to start with.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
Eta 26 26 I
MRS. BOWERS :
Ms. Laverty?
/~T 2
l
(_)
MS. LAVERTY:
Yes.
I view your response as going to the 3
merits of that contention.
As I understand our requirement, CBG
/~'
4
(_)
has to state a concern and a reason for that concern, and 5
j if it states it in a reasonably specific fashion, so we all under-4 3
6 stand what it is that has been presented as a contention, then R
- 5 7
it is admissible.
And that is what my -- I thought they had met
~
j 8
that standard and that is what my response indicates.
d d
9
}.
You -- in your response, you indicated that you felt 6H 10 g
that they had misread the regulation and that they had misinter-
=
5 II preted the data that you had submitted in your application.
And a
d 12 E
I believe that that is going to the merits, the correctness of 3
13 (3
5 that contention, which should be dealt with at a later time in
%)
=
the proceeding.
x 2
15 MR. CORMIER:
That may be the case, and I understand x
16 the very broad interpretation at this stage that the staff has h
I7 taken in their response throughout.
However, I do ask for
=
f 18 guidance from the Board on the standards the Board is going to l
8 I9 l apply for both the contention and the basis that is supposed to n
0 support that contention.
2I Because I think what you read into it and be prepared 22
(-)
to argue is that there is not a basis for that contention, as we 23 l v
i understand the threshold test that the Board should apply at this 24 stage.
Now, if the judgment is that that goes to the merits, then 25 t we rake.the same argument.
It would seem that that is a straight-t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
sto 27 27 I
forward argument that can be discussed now and handled; it would (3
2 sJ expedite the proceedings.
3 If it is in fact the case that a straightforward reading s-)
4 of 10 CFR 50.21 and a straightforward reading of our application 5
j shows that th: Petitioners do not have the bases at all to 9
Support this contention, then the Regents would argue that it R
- E 7
ought to be discarded at this time.
S 8
M MR. BAY:
If I may, I think I can clarity something G
d 9
].
here.
The thrust of the contention is that, while they have o6 10 applied for license under Section 50.21, Section 50.22 says that o
=
5 II for a Class 103 licensee -- for a Class 104 license, where the:
E d
12 z
facility actually is involved in a substantial commercial 3
()
j I
activity, that those licensees must obtain a Class 103 license, m
h I4 And the way that the standard is worded in Section 50.22 is a x
9 15 g
little ambiguous to me.
But a little clarification an come from - ~
=
k I0 I have looked 3 to the legislative history a little bit.
That m
h' 17 m
has somewhat more clear language which would clarify the issues
=
M 18 so that they --
8 MRS. BOWERS:
You are getting into the merits.
The n
20 staff is only saying that these two groups have a different 21 position as to what the regulations require.
Therefore, we can
[}' _
22 see a basis for litigating this difference.
Isn't that correct, 23 l Ms. Laverty?
24
/~}
MS. LAVERTY:
Right.
You started off your statement
(/
25 I by saying that you did not -- that UCLA did not see the basis.
I l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
sto 28 28 1
To quote your filing, the basis is CBG's misinterpretation of
('
k-2 your financial data.
That would be your statement of what the 3
basis is.
(o) 4 Their basis is that as they read the financial data e
5 g
submitted in the application, that this is an inappropriate 3
6 i
license.
E 7
MR. CORMIER:
Well, there is no reason to prolong this.
n 8
8 We can certainly deal with it at a later stage.
However, I think d6 9
g the Regents have taken a very commonsense notion of bases as oH 10 you would apply in most evidentiary proceedings, that there must
=
E 11 g
be some allegation, not'of a claim, but also of a factual situa-
'4 12 3
tion that supports that contention.
And we don't see the
=
C)' dg al' legation or factual situation that is reasonable.
In other 13 E
14 g
words, our application shows clearly that both the financial x
9 15 g
test of 50.22 is not applicable as well as the grandfathering T
16 y
section of 50.21 is applicable; and both result in a Class 104 I
t' 17 being appropriate.
wx 18
=
However, if we should discuss it at the later stage, 19 j
we are perfectly willing to do that.
20 MR. GRAY:
Madam Chairwoman, I would suggest that, 21 among other things, it sounds like this contention involves some
(])
interpretation of the regulations.
It involves an application 23 of some facts as to where the support funds for UCLA's research
(])
reactor operation comes from.
And it does involve an examination 25 '
of some facts.-
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
Gto 29 29 I
It appears to me that that does actually get into the
(~)s 2
(_
merits, and at this point it is inappropriate to get into.
In 3
the same vein, I can understand UCLA's concern that we may well
(})
4 end up litigating something which can be disposed of in fairly 5
g short order, and they would desire to dispose of that now.
What 9
6 I would suggest is that there is a provision in our regulations, R
- S 7
10 CFR Section 2.749, which provides for summary disposition of M
j 8
matters where appropriate.
That certainly could be appropriate d
7 in the case of a contention like this and may well alleviate the z
os o
j need to get into full-fledged evidentiary hc.aring litigation of
=
II this particular issue.
E f
I2 But in any event, it appears to the staff that what ca
(])
g 13 has been raised here really goes to the merits of this contention, m
5 I4 and it is not appropriate for this decision as to whether it is 2
15 admissible.
=
E I0 MR. CORMIER:
Madam Chairperson, we accept that.
We A
h I7 l are aware of summary disposition provisions of the Code and we
=
18 intend to avail ourselves of '. hat.
I guess we can accept counsel' s
I9 8
suggestion and go along with that.
n 0
MRS. BOWERS:
And if you read the recent Appeal Board 2I decision in Allen's Creek -- and I don' t know whether you've 22
)
had that opportunity or not -- one of the technical members 23 i thought that the contention was -- it was totally ridiculous, 24 because he had the expertise to evaluate it, and so he wrote a 25 i
dissent.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
Lts 30 30 1
But the majority of the Board said that the purpose is
-(s-)
2 to determine whether there is enough there that can be litigated, 3
argued.
And they also referred several times to motions for I'/
T 4
s-summarf disposition, and I think that that is where we are now 5
eg on some of these things.
3 6
But we would like to go on to the next one, Contention E
7 III.
Let me check back with the Regents.
Dr. Paris has raised n
8 8
an interesting question.
Has the Regents' position changed on do 9
.j the acceptability of Contention II?
o6 10 S
MS. HELWICK:
I don't think our position has changed.
=
E 11 j
But we are willing to accept what is the apparent ruling, d
12 MRS. BOWERS :
The Board has had an opportunity to, of g
d 13 C_s)@
course, review all of the documents and also to' discuss some of E
14 y
these things at length, and we do accept Contention II as x
C 15 g
appropriate in this proceeding.
That means that you are now s'
16 j'
Intervenors instead of Petitioners.
17 d"
But since we are all here, let us go on to a few more 5
m 18
=
of these.
What about Contention III?
Now, this is also one 19
]
that the staff fully supports.
20 MS. HELWICK:
Madam Chairwoman, I don't think we have 21 anything to add to what is in our written response.
- However,
()
looking toward the next proceeding that we may be involved in 23 with respect to many of these contentions, this is one which 24
(]}
we feel creates some administrative housekeeping problems, and 25I we seek some direction on where we can get that sort of thing I-ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
Ito 31 31 I
straightened out.
()
2 In particular, we feel that an examination of a number 3
of these contentions which involve basically looking at the
(])
4 history of the oparation of the reactor has to have some 5
g limitations.
It makes no sense to go back over a 20-year history, 6l especially when there have been some significant changes, n
d 7
including amendments to the license, with the consent of the NRC sl 8
staff, which has sometimes changed standards, resolved problems d
0; 9
that had occurred during the ongoing license pericd.
z Og 10 And while I have nothing to add, I believe, to what we E
11 have written here, I think it is important to bring up at this M
N 12 time our dilemma in terms of facing any litigation of a general 3
(~)
y 13 issue such as this, and that is the question of time limitations.
V
=
l 14 MRS. BOWERS:
Do you want to respond?
IS MS. LAVERTY:
I would respond to what was in the
=
j 16 response.
In your response you suggested a two-year time frame, w
h I7 '
and at least no later -- not going back any further than 1975.
=
{
18 As far as the two-year time frame is concerned, you gave no P"
19 3
reason for uhat limitation.
So that appeared arbitrary.
n 20 As far as going back to '75, you did present a reason 21 for that, a reorganization.
22 The only additional thing that I c>n say is that j
23 ;
licensing is often predictive, so that it would seem admissible 24lIand~ acceptable to us to look at a time period as to how the
(~JS
~
25 l reactor has behaved in the past.
l ALDERSON REPOR~
' 3 COMPANY, INC.
Ito 32 32 1
MS. HELWICK:
The two-year time period is just simply D
(J 2
suggested as a reasonable period.
It is an arbitrary figure, I s
3 agree with you.
But it is simply an effort to come up with
()
4 something that makes some sense in terms of current operations, e
5 g
current management, and something that gives us a long enough N
3 6
pattern to make some judgments.
e Ea 7
The five years, as you indicated, is triggered primarily n
R 8
i by the Amendment 10 to the license, which did, I believe, resolve d
I 9
g some difficulties that had occurred up until that point in time.
oH 10 MRS. BOWERS:
Let us hear from the Intervenors.
5 11 g
MR. BAY:
Yes.
It sounds to me like the University d
12 3
is not pushing the remoteness in terms of the acceptability or
="
13
(])
j the basis of these contentions.
Petitioner really feels that E
14 d
15 years -- well, first off, you have to remember that we are e
9 1 *c g
coming into this proceeding with no discovery rights, working 16 i
)
off of documentation that we have been able tc obtain from the d
17 i University from time to time and from the NEC, which means that wM G
18 it is quite unfair to put a burden on us to work off things that 19 j
we have no ability to see.
20 We have recounted 15 years of operating history, which 21 is a significant period of time, and it presents patterns,
(])
historical patterns.
The regulations set out fairly clearly 23 l the burden.
The ultimate burden in this process will be on the j
{])
licensee to demonstrate that they can operate in conformance 25 '
with the regulations and in such a way as not to endanger the
}
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
Eto 33 33 1
public health and safety.
()
(_/
2 What we are saying here is that we have got a pattern.
3 We have got enough of a basis to raise not a legal presumption, (G
4 but to raise some sort of presumption that the University must
_j g
5 present some evidence to show that things have changed.
We 9
6 won't argue with them in demonstrating that things are better R
7 there.
We would love to see it.
But that is a factual deter-M{
8 mination to be worked out later in this process.
Od 9
MS. HELWICK:
Well, that is, in essence, what I am i
C 10 seeking, is some direction from where that can be worked out E
11 before we walk into an adjudicative proceeding, not knowing what
@S j
12 the limitations are.
I think my colleague Mr. Cormier has an 5
13 additional comment on this contention.
{}
x 14 MR. CORMIER:
I think that the Regents have made their 5
9_
15 position clear, that we don't contest the relevancy of the z
g 16 historical data.
And I think at the appropriate stage we can a
d 17 i show
-- indeed, the showing is to show that there have been E
5 18 no incidents, that the Intervenor now can recite in the imme-
~
e*
d 19 diatel,y preceding five-year period, since '75, in other words, n
20 that the data, the incidents, for the most part that bridge the
~
21 gap which it is to focus on are pre-1975 incidents.
There are v'
22 matters that are reports, and they are public records, and they r^J I
(
23 l are part of the file of the NRC staff on Licensing and Inspection.
24 And at the appropriate stage of the proceeding, we would again 25 ;
recommend the five-year as probably a reasonable period to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
sto 34 34 1
consider.
And we would certainly welcome discussion of that l')
2
(/
immediately preceding the five-year period.
3 MRS. BOWERS :
Again, we want to stay away from the
()
merits.
We do feel the entire license period is relevant, and e
5 g
we are talking about 20 years, which is not a great deal of time.
G 6
i Now, getting into the merits, eventually we may find that problems E
7 in the past have been resolved, and the last five years was very 8
8
~
different from prior years.
O6 9
g But coming up for renewal, we think the entire license 5
10 S
period should be looked at.
E 11 MS. LAVERTY:
Madam Chairwoman, I think that, as I d
12 understand what your concern is, it would be that CBG would keep 3
(]) !
raising incidents'which you would just have to turn around and E
14 y
factually rebut.
But this has been satisfied, and so you see
_9 15 j
this never-ending process of incidents.
~
16 h
I think it would be helpful if CBG in discovery would f
17 g
raise all of those incidents which it intends to rely on, and let 18 g
that be the limit of it.
And I think that would answer your E
19 A
concern.
20 MR. CORMIER:
We suspect that the pattern will show 21 that the incidents which they are able to reveal are ones that 22
(~}
are already in the record and that for the most part are pre
'75.
'~
23 '
I think that in itself will be demonstrative evidence that the 24 k','J)
University would want to bring forward that things have changed i
25 fsince1975.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
I ste-35 35 '
I 1
MR. HIRSCH:
May I respond for just a.cninute?
We are
[\\
2 N/
very grateful that we received a package from the Commission just 3
a few weeks ago, giving us some documents that Dr. Luebke had O
4 requested.
And in those was the most recent inspection for two e
5 3
outstanding violations that we had not seen before.
So that we a
3 6
of course would like to be able to have those discovery rights, u
S 7
to be able to see what the full record is, n
8 8
Our impression is that it would not show any change.
d 0
9 g
But that should be discussed at the merits stage.
oH 10 MRS. BOWERS:
Well, Contention III is accepted.
=
E 11 g
Now, IV.
The staff supported admission of the d
12 3
contention.
c d
13 s
) @
MR. CORMIER:
Madam Chairperson,*Ihis seems to be the
(
E 14 y
same contention.
Whether this should go to Contention III or x
9 15 j
not, I don't think we need to discuss it at this time.
T 16 MRS. BOWERS:
Does the staff have anything further?
d 17 i w
MS. LAVERTY:
No.
=
18
=
MRS. BOWERS:
Then the Board will accept IV, 19
-y Contention IV.
20 And the next one I have is VI.
Now, Ms. Laverty, 21 you may want some changes with some of these things.
This is 22
(])
on page_18 of the staff's filing, yes.
Now, here is one where 23 you did make some changes.
So let us just drop that for today.
24
_({}
In looking at the staff's filing on page 18, earlier i
25,
in this proceeding Ms. Laverty_ said that the staff wanted to
}
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
Ito 36 36 1
make adjustment to subpart 4 and to delete the reference to w*
2 Part 100.
Now, do you want to further explain that?
Is there 3
anything?
If that is deleted, then you would support the
(~/)
4 admission of IV; is that correct?
5 e
E MS. LAVERTY:
That is correct.
The basis doesn't 3
6i l
change.
It would be that in another contention, Contention VIII --
Ea 7
Contention VIII alleges the failure of the UCLA reactor to meet N
8 8
the 10 CFR 100 siting criteria.
And I opposed admission of that d
6 9
g on the basis that under Part 100 they are not -- a research ch 10 E
reactor is not presently required to meet Part 100 criteria,
=
E 11 j
and thus that would be a challenge to the reg, if CBG is alleging d
12 y
that the research reactor -- that the regulation should have to O, @3 13 cover more than i presently covers.
E 14 y
MRS. BONERS:
Do the Intervenors have a position on
=
C 15 j
this proposed modification to Part 4?
16 j.
MR. B AY :
Two things:
One, I also have an addition d
17 y
to make to subpart 4, which I think the restatement left out, E
18
=
that our Contention VI in several and. numerous places talks 19 about the application of the ALARA concept to the University's 20 reactor.
I would prefer to put in, just to keep the statement 21 of the contention concise, just add "10 CFR Section 20.1(c)"
()
to the section, which is the ALARA section.
That may be some-thing that we will need to work out.
24l
(])
As far as the Part 100, if it was a choice of having 25 '
the contention accepted here, as the other three have been so ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
ato 37 1
37 1
far, we would-be willing to drop that from this portion.
If we
('>D 2
are going to -- if it is a contention that we will have to argue s
3 about further, then we will leave it there for the time being.
/"N 4
(_)
DR. PARIS:
So basically your position is that you are e
5 g
willing to drop the reference to Part 100 if you can keep the 3
6' reference to Part 20 in there?
Ea 7
MR. BAY:
20.l(c).
And if you buy the whole thing n
5 8
right now, we will drop 100.
If we have to have further discussior dd 9
g we will further discuss it.
ch 10 E
The University hasn't come up with a position.
So i
=
E 11 i
j we will see what --
d 12 l
MRS. BOWERS :
For the record, that is "As Low As 3
(]) !
Reasonably Achievable."-
E 14 y
Does the staff have a point?
E 15 MS. LAVERTY.
They want to drop 100, and I believe this T
16 y
applies to all reactors.
So we will not oppose that.
They will 6
17 g
add 20.1(c).
cw 18
=
MR. BAY:
No, there is one other.
20.106(c) was also 19 left out.
I would want to add that.
20 DR. PARIS:
So you all' want in there 20.106 (d) (1),
21 20.106(c), and 20.l(c); is that correct?
22
(]}
MR. BAY:
It should read 20.1(c), 20.106(b) -- that is 23 :
one and two as the staff picked up -- and 20.106(c), Parts 20, 24 !
(~}
Appendix B, and Part 100.
And we will remove that if --
25 I
MRS.-BOWERS:
Let us check with the Regents.
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
Eto 38 38 1
MS. HELWICK:
I'm not sure where we are.
MR. CORMIER:
I don't think that we are going to be 3
able to trace to the codes.
We have got them here.
We do think that most of our discussion would probably go to the merits on m
5 g
them.
We wish to comment at this time, there is a question about 3
6 the applicability of the ALARA standard, or at least how the Ea 7
data, the standards set to interpret the ALARA standards apply n
8 8
to research reactors, as distinguished from power reactors.
But 6
9 g
I assume that that is an appropriate matter for discussion later oH 10 E
on and not here, when reviewing the admission of this contention.
E 11 j
So having made that comment, I guess the Regents have d
12 j
no objection to admitting the contention at this stage, and E
13
()'
s reserve our comments to the merits stage.
E 14 y
MRS. BOWERS:
Well, Contention VI is acceptable as
=
9 15 revised.
I 16 MS. HELWICK:
What is the revision, Madam Chairman, d
17 1 just for clarification?
zx 18 MR. BAY:
For everyone's opinion, I have prepared 19 plenty of copies
'r everybody, a consolidation of the staff's 20 restatement of the contentions without any argument.
And again, 21 any changes that we have made are -- or would want to make, this 22 being one of them.
I can give everyone copies of that, and that 23 ;
change is there written down.
I could just point to it.
It
(}
might be much clearer if you would like me to do that.
25 '
MRS. BOWERS :
That was the sort of thing that we thought ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
Bto 39 39 1
you people would be discussing when you met together.
And you
(~)
~#
see, we did not realize today that the VI would change here.
3 MR. BAY:
If not, I could just have the University to
(>3 4
examine what it is, m
5 MR. CORMIER: ' Madam Chairperson, there is another g
3 6
question raised by Contention VI, and it has to do with the 8n 7
citation as mentioned there.
And I would defer to the staff.
n 8
8 The concern is with reference to Section 50.36(a), whether or not O
o 9
i that is relevant as applicable only to power reactors.
ob 10 E
MRS. BOWERS:
We are going to reverse ourselves on E
11 j
the acceptability of this contention.
We think that there are d
12 E
enough matters here that the parties should be meeting and a
d 13
/~}
(_-
considering and discussing, and so it is one that we will defer.
E 14 y
We want to make sure that everybody is communicating on exactly 5
15 j
what is being proposed by each party.
j i
16 MR. CORMIER:
We appreciate that.
d 17 w
MRS. BOWERS:
Number VII.
The staff bulletin fully z
5 18
=
supported the admission of this contention.
9 E
19 s
MS. HELWICK:
We have nothing further to add except 20 what has already been stated there.
21 MRS. BOWERS:
Keeping away from the merits, what is
()
your position as to whether this is a matter that you do or do 23,
not recognize as something that should be litigated?
24 '
()
f MS. HELWICK:
Well, based on the determination that I 25';
have understood for the first time this morning about what is ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
Etc 40 40 1
the merits, I suppose we have no objection to it as an appro-fs
\\-)
priate contention.
But we certainly have some objections that go 3
to the merits, some of which are fairly surface.
MRS. BOWERS:
And I'm sure the staff will make this e
5 g
clear in meeting with the parties, even though the staff or the 3
6 i
Board support the admission of a contention, that does not mean E"
necessarily that the staff believes that the merits are n
S 8
M acceptable, the alleged merits.
And that is true with the Board Gd 9
also.
joS 10 y
Well, that is VII.
Well, Contention VII is accepted.
=
E 11 g
Now, the last one that we noted where there was a d
12 E
mixed reaction on the part of the staff was XX, and that is C
13 (s,7 g on page 32 of the staff's filing.
E 14 y
MS. LAVERTY:
Madam Chairperson, this may --
=
I 9
15 E
MRS. BOWERS:
Please call me Mrs. Bowers.
I should have
=
T 16 y
announced that at the beginning.
p 17 !'
MS. LAVERTY:
Mrs. Bowers, I'm not sure that this will w
5m 18 affect whether or not this is accepted or not.
It is really, I
=
19 j
think, minor.
I would like to state CBG's Contention XX as --
20 in addition to the broad statement, I would like to add to it 21 specifically, and then take from their submission each of these
(~')
particular examples that they gave as the reasons for why the s-I 23 :
emergency response plan is deficient.
24 I
(]}
}
DR. PARIS:
I don't understand what you are asking us 25 '
to do.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
Etc 41 41 I
MS. LAVERTY:
Whenever I stated the CBG contentions, it
()
2 would sometimes -- it is difficult to understand what'the conten-3 tion was and what the basis was.
I tried to take their broad
(])
4 statement, their paragraph at the beginning, and then I tried to 5
j say specifically and lift out the specific complaints that they
?
6 have.
R
- S 7
I failed to do that when I did XX.
And now that I have Z
j 8
reread my submission, I think that it would be a more precise d"
9
~.
statement of what their contention is to include the points that z
OH 10 g
they listed.
Is that any clearer?
=
k II MRS. BOWERS :
We will defer on this one, since the staff g
12 has asked to modify its position on XX.
5a (w'/) 5 13 MR. BAY:
This may be a good point to ask a question I4 that we need some sort of indication on before we can meet with l
{
15 the other parties.
As Ms. Laverty has stated, the contentions
=
d I0 tend to have -~ or to begin with a broad sta tement of the w
C 17
)
contention, and to be followed up with specific areas.
We
=
18 organized that way at the behest of the staff, as probably the I9 8
best way to organize it and for clarity, n
20 Our question is -- and it becomes rather relevant on 2I XX -- whether we stick with the broader, or have it broadened and 22 the specifics.
What is the import of the broad contentions and 23 the specific contentions for our further participation in this 24 process?
-(q/
25 '
At discovery, are we limited quite narrowly to the I
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
ete 42 42 I
specifics, or are we admitted to the general area because we have
()
2 shown a great deal of support-for it?
We need some sort of 3
reading on that in order to know how to proceed in negotiating
(])
4 with the other parties on further contentions, 5
g MRS. BOWERS:
Does the staff have a position?
?
6 MS. LAVERTY:
Yes.
The reason that I included -- I l
R
- S 7
will say specifically, and then I will push the point in -- is Ml 8
so everyone would understand exactly what it was that was your 4o 9
z, concern.
I believe that most of the broad statements would not o
h 10 or could not be upheld as a specific statement of the contention.
=
f II it doesn' t specifically apprise people of what it is that g
12 concerns you, what it is that liscovery would be directed at.
5a
/'
13
's)T ~5 MR. BAY:
Which almost answers the question, but not m
14 '
quite.
IS 5
FR. GRAY:
Possibly can help.
Ou discovery is
=
j 16 fairly liberal, and if we reaa the regulation; which set out the w
17 '
g scope of discovery, 10 CFR Section 2.740 and ;ome following 2
3 18 regulations, those regulations indicate that a matter is E
I9 g
discoverable -- any matter is discoverable whic1. isn' t privileged n
20 and is relevant to the subject matter of the proceeding on any 2I matter in controversy, such that if a contention such as the 22
(~y emergency planning contention is admitted, I don't believe that
%j 23 '
you would be limited in discovery to the precise words of the 24 contention on discovery and those alone.
But the discovery
(-)s 25 could be somewhat broader, providing it is calculated, h
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
eto 43 43 1
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence or something n
of that nature.
3 At least the staff, for its part, would not c5 ject to p) k-discovery that strayed reasonably from the exact statement of the 5
mg contention.
However, I believe our discovery process is fairly a
3 6
liberal _ in that regard.
I don't know if that answers your E
7 question.
n 8
8 MR. BAY:
Tha' answers my question, d
d 9
y; MRS. BOWERS :
The Regents, do you have any comment in oH 10 E
the area of discovery?
=
E 11 g
MS. HELWICK:
We have concerns.
I don't know that d
12 j
we have any comment.
I think enough has been said.
E '13
(_m)@
MR.'CORMIER:
As 'we understand it, Ms. Laverty wants E
14
{
to reconstruct this contention the way she has constructed some 9
15 g
of the others in going through, and then be a little bit more 16 3
precise about what she, in her opinion, the staff's opinion, d
17 I wish to admit or not admit.
And then we can do that after this wx 5
18
=
proceeding or whatever.
And the Regents accept that if it will 19 g
help clarify it for us as well as the staff.
20 i
MR. WOODS:
I did not introduce myself.
I'm Glenn 21 Woods, an associate here.
And the discovery is always a little
()
broader than the issues comprising the matters, anyway.
But 23 when you get down to the hearing on the matter, I assume that l
i i
24
()
we would be focusing in on the specifics.
25 l l
MRS. BOWERS:
Well, perhaps before you came Mr. Woods, i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
eto 44 44 1
there was some discussion on the appropriateness of motions for m
k.)
summary disposition.
And of course, discovery is always kind of 3
a Catch-22 sort of thing.
Until you get going, you don't know
()
what you are missing.
And until you -- often one thing leads to e
5 g
another, and so it is difficult to know before you get into a
3 6
discovery exactly what you need to know.
a E
7 n;
But we will defer on XX, though, since there will be N2 8
more work done on it.
a d
9 g
Now, there were two --
o P
10 j
MS. HELWICK:
Mrs. Bowers, may I raise something at
=
5 11 g
this point?
Out of the confusion revolving around XX, am I to d
12 Z
understand that the previous acceptance of contentions, the four
="
3
(])
5 which you have accepted, are accepted on the basis of the way S
14 g
they are set forth by the staff in terms of the specifics that x
C 15 G
are there ?
=
l 16 MRS. BONERS:
Let us check with the Intervenors.
p 17 MR. BAY:
We have gone through all of the staff's w
Ew 18
=
restatements, and if we have a problem with them we will so state.
9" 19 i j
So in other words, the staff's restatements of the contentions 20 have been accepted.
So far, it is perfectly better than ours 21 was; so we will take it.
22 f]
MRS. BOWERS:
That goes to II, III, IV, and VII.
We
(-
23 l deferred on VI and we are deferring on XX.
I 24 i
}
l Now, there were two contentions that the staff in its 25 :
i response asked us to defer, XIX dealing with security and I
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i l
i
Eto 45 45 I
XXI dealing with safeguards.
And we will accept the request to O
2 defer on those two.
3 Now, we do -- we want you to meet and we do want a O
4 status regore from the steff every o devs on whee is hegeenine.
5 g
And if we don't see the kind of progress that we think is.
a j
6 real.'stic, we will reconvene, if it takes weeks, and go down n'*"
7 through each sub-item.
3 O
e MR. BAY:
A couple of things.
First, on Contentions d
9
~
XIX and XXI, I have a more general question that you just raised zo h
10 for me.
I think you will find, in reading our supplemental II contentions, that we also somewhere in there requested that the B
f I2 Board defer ruling on those, because there is no way at this 3
I5 (u].- 5 stage that we can see the documents.
It is my understanding,,
5 I4 again, that by being official Intervenors now, with the Board D_j 15 deferring on those two contentions, that we have the requisite y
16 standing to go through the process to see those documents if we us h
I7 so wish.
Otherwise the deferral doesn't do us much good.
.r.
I think what the staff suggested -- and V
I9 g
I should let you speak for yourself.
e.
MS. LAVERTY:
What we indicated was that, unless you 21 get information on Contentions XIX and XXI -- it is proprietary.
2 Some of it might even be classified.
And there is a whole 23 procedure which you would have to go through in order to be able 24 to see those documents.
That is why we wish to talk to you 25 first about our regulations and what our regulations require ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
Eto 46 46 1
in order to determine if you still had any outstanding concerns I'T 2
('
after we had talked to you about that.
3 MR. BAY:
Yes.
My question then is, if we do have
/~h 4
(_/
outstanding concerns, have we gone far enough today that we can e
5
=
exercise those concerns ?
4 3
6 MR. GRAY:
Pardon?
R S
7 MR. BAY:
If we do have concerns after sittf.ng down n
E 8
5 and your explaining to us the nature of the process, do we --
do 9
.j have we achieved the requisite standing or interest at this oF 10 5
point to go further, if we have unresolved questions that we want
=
E 11 l
g to pursue?
d 12 E
MR. GRAY:
As a rule, discovery is generally bounded.
c 13
(])
j It is not unbounded totally.
It is generally bounded by the scope E
14 l g
if the issues in the proceeding.
If there were no issues admitted 9
15 2
or no contentions admitted regarding security matters, then there m
T 16 g
would be no discovery on security matters.
d 17 What we would propose to do would be to talk with w
Ew 18
=
CBG, UCLA, in an attempt to determine what concerns CBG has D
19.
g with regard to security.
In the event that CBG can express its concerns and can generate a contention on security matters, the 21 staff would propose, along with this negotiation process which
(]}
the Board is setting up today, to have such a contention sub-23 mitted with the other revised and further specified contentions, l
l 24f and would then take a position subsequently on the admissibility
[}
25,
of that contention.
And depending upon the Board's ruling as j
i i
?
hs e ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
ato 47 47 1
to whether such a contention is admissible or not, if it is 2
(_)J admitted, then discovery could proceed on those sort of security 3
contentions.
()
4 MR. BAY:
In the interest of expeditious proceedings, 5
3 we would vastly prefer that we enter into an arrangement and 3
6 g
stipulation or whatever, where the contentions are entered into E
f with the understanding that at some point that the Board sets, n
8 8
orattheprehearingconferencefollowikgdiscovery, that the a
d 6
9
_g burden be on us at that point to come through with the very o9 10 g
specific contention.
=
E 11 g
If we have to defer until af ter we -- defer discovery 6
12 3
until after we sit down with the staff and negotiate with the i
c" 13 fl 5
University, we are talking about delays in the proceeding, which u) h we are very interested in this whole process to move along as e
9 15 9-2 G
smoothly and as efficiently as possible.
=
T 16 g
MRS. BOWERS :
Let us take this up with the staff.
d 17 First, meet with the staff and the Regents.
Then if you feel w
5w 18 you still want to pursue contentions, at that point, of course,
=
C 19 l
j you get involved with the contention order before you would be 20 allowed to pursue any discovery. And any hearing that we would 21 have on security or other matterc under, what is it, 789(b),
22
' r~}
would be in camera, would not be open hearings to the public.
23 So the first -- take the first step, and then --
24 l MR. BAY:
That brings me to my general question, if I j
25 !l may.
I got the sense from your earlier comments that, now that ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
Eto 48 48 I
we have gone through the six contentions, you would like us to O(;
2 meet and see what we can work out on the rest of them.
There 3
is an implication there that we would not be coming back to the
(~J 4
Board for those matters that we were not able to resolve at any s.
5 y
early point in time.
Is that a misunderstanding on my part?
9 3
6 j
MRS. BOWERS:
As I said, we! would like a status report G
- S 7
from the staff in 30 days as to the progress.
And if you are 32 8
5 making progress, we sit still for perhaps another 30 days.
But d
9 we won't let it go on indefinitely 6
g 10 DR. PARIS:
In other words, to the extent that you
=
5 II can reach an agreement in meetings like wi have been able to reach M
f I2 here today, we would easily accept contentions.
But if you are
( ) f 13 unable to reach an agreement, then eventually we would have to I4 decide.
=C 15 h
MR. BAY:
Once again, we object strongly to that kind
=
k I6 of a proceeding on the basis that we are automatically into a z
h I7 30-day delay and then we will go into a lengthy discovery period.
E 3
I8 And with a relicensing, the reactor is allowed to -- under the P"
19 8
regulations, is allowed to continue to run until there is a final n
20 decision.
2I And because of that, we are terribly interested in 22
' )'
expeditious proceedings and would request that the Board consider
/~
\\
23 some more expeditious way to get through the contentions so that i
24 i
(~)5 l
the entire discovery isn't delayed.
25,
MRS. BOWERS :
The staff, particularly in its response I
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1 J
Eta 49 49 I
to your supplemental petition, I think gave you a great deal of
()
2 information, and of course did pick up some of the contentions 3
that were repetitive, or a basis in one place and a contention N
4
)
someplace else.
5 Now, we do think it is appropriate, since all of this d
6 e;
review and hard work has been performed in the informal setting En 7
of just the parties meeting, that you do meet and let us know N
F 8
M in 30 days what.happens.
We will count o n the staf f.
do 9
MR. HIRSCH:
Mrs. Bowers, may I make a statement?
We j
oH 10 g
thought that many of the suggestions which were very carefully
=!
II hinted at in the staff's response were very, very useful.
And s
12 2
we spent a great deal of time looking at both the Regents'
=a 13
(]}
response and the staff's -esponse and feel over lunch we could x
14 g
resolve 95 orcent of the issues.
And we have a very real
_9 15 s
concern about the health of our members and of ourselves, and x
7 16 y
would like to expedite the proceeding as much as possible.
d 17 I I would think that over lunch we could resolve most l
w*
18
=
of the things and.come back this afternoon and argue the few that 19 j
are in disagreement.
20 MR. GRAY:
Mrs. Bowers, let me indicate the staff is 21 conducting some evaluations and studies relativ e to the license 22 renewal application, which involves in part work by consultants.
23 Because of the extent of the evaluations, the staff safety 24 3
evaluation report will in all likelihood not be issued -- or s/
25 '
it will not be possible to issue it until the first part of 1981, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l tma 50 50 I
as a matter of fact.
A reasonable target date for the issuance O) 2 g of that document is April 1, 1981.
That being the case, I do x_
3 believe we have some time that could profitably be used to
({)
4 do just what the Board is suggesting, and that is to sit down 5
g with the Licensee and with the Intervenors and to discuss conten-N d"'
0I tions and arrive at agremble contentions.
And I don't -- I i
!T 7
really don't believe that we could produce the best set of n
2 8
acceptable contentions by taking two hours over lunchtime today a
0" 9
~.
to talk about the set of contentions that have been submitted cH 10 g
already.
=!
II l There is a lot of material there.
There is a lot of M
repetition.
It may be that CBG has gone through and attempted s
13
(~)
to address at least the concerns the staff has raised.
But ss m
5 I4 without having some time to study and work this out, we wcald 0
15 b
be reluctant to rush head-in, head-long into this over lunchtime
=
16 and try to come back this afternoon and have everything resolved.
h MR. HIRSCH:
Mrs. Bowers.
5 MRS. BOWERS:
Yes.
H 1
19 i
j MR. HIRSCH:
The staff made a proposal in its 20 admission regarding our contentions.
It seems to me that there 21 is a position which is acceptable to the staff already.
And it
{)
seems to me that the assumption that it would take a long time 23 to resolve it implies that there would be disagreement on the 24 'l staff's position.
And I must say, we have waited a year to come r-L.)S l
25 to this point.
I teach in that building and I just would like ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
I ato 51 51 I
as much as possible to expedite this proceeding.
For us to wait
()
2 for another six months or something to even begin discussing 3
what the contentions are seems to me a very inappropriate I^D 4
delay.
V g
5 MRS. BOWERS:
There is another route that the 0
y 6
Intervenors might consider, and that is filing for show cause under e7 7
206.
A j
8 MR. HIRSCH:
We did a year ago and that is why we are d
q 9
here.
zoH 10 g
MR. WOODS:
Mrs. Bowers, I didn't understand the staff
=
II to say that they were going to wait six months to begin these u
5 I2 negotiations -- on the contention that they were going to do that 5"
5 13 rb'%
right away.
=
x 5
I4 MR. GRAY:
I did not intend to imply that at all.
What
{
15 I did intend to -- wanted to point out is that the staff has a
=
y 16 considerable amount of review and evaluation for its ownjpart i
I7 to carry out.
It is going to take some time to do that with
}
18 regard to the technical adequacy of what is being requested here.
i A
19 g
In the meantime, we believe that there is some time starting n
20 today and stretching over the next several weeks in which we can 21 do precisely what the licensing board is suggesting we do, and 22 that g) that would be an efficient way to generate acceptable
(
23 ; contentions and it would not result in any undue delay.
24 M... POLLOCK:
Mrs. Bowers, I believe that since the
()
7J ! Board has allowed four of the six contentions, and the fact that ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l Et6 52 52 1
this body here, the Committee, is very concerned that this reactor
()
2 is in fact operating in a heavily populated section of Los Angeles, 3
that-this Board should therefore take judicial notice of that
()
4 fact, of the fact that the contentions that have been allowed g
5 raise in and of themselves questions as to the safety of this E
6, facility.
R CS 7
It would be appropriate for this Board to put a R
j 8
reasonable time limitation on the meet and confer order, and d
c; 9
therefore the 30 days might be appropriate, make the report back z
C h
10 to this Board, and if we are unable to resolve it at that tire
=
Il to reconvene.
B N
I2 MS. HELWICK:
That is what I consider this order to be.
5
(]}
g" 13 MS. LAVERTY:
De~pending on what we hear in 20 days, 14 we might need time.
We might need more time for these paragraphs.
u h
15 We too are interested in moving these matters along.
We will
=
y 16 find out how efficient you are in the first 30 days:
W h
I7 MR. BAY:
Which only leaves us one last question -- and
=
{
18 I'm sorry.
As we have four contentions that are accepted, and I -thin P"
19 g
that there will be another four or five that are fairly rapid n
20 agreement, and we'll see what happens after that.
Does the 2I entire discovery process wait until the final resolution of all 22 g-issues, or can we start as we go, so to speak?
(s 23 l MRS. BOWERS :
The normal procedure is, as soon as 24 contentions have been accepted, you can begin discovery on those g s) w.
25 contentions.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
l' Eta 53 53 1
MS. HELWICK:
Mrs. Bowers, we have concern in that (s) 2 regard, and this is sort of in the general category of things 3
that we raised at the end of our papers.
If discovery is to go
("/T 4
forward, I think we need some direction from this Board as to how s-e 5
g it is to go forward.
We are dealing here with a group, as I 3
6 understand it, that do not have an attorney representing them, Ea 7
I believe.
n 5
8 MR. POLLOCK:
That is incorrect.
Myself, Mark Pollock, d
n 9
i and Joseph Bradley are representing the Committee.
Ob 10 E
MS. HELWICK:
Fine.
Then if there is matters to be
=
2 11 g
conducted where there is an attorney involved, we have no problem.
d 12 E
But we did have some concerns about where the discovery was going ad 13 C)-
to be generated.
So perhaps if we can exchange' cards, that E
14 y
eliminates that concern.
m 9
15 j
The other sort of housekeeping --
J 16 g
MRS. BOWERS:
Before we leave that, there should be 6
17 l lead counsel.
w Ew 18
=
MR. POLLOCK:
I believe that it is inherent at this N
19 point to explain - our situation involvement with past counsel.
20 Due to the f act that we are not a funded organization like UCLA, 21 the fact that we have very little funding available, we have had
(])
to divide up the task of presenting this before the Board.
l Therefore, Mr. Hirsch is very cognizant of the technical 24
('/)
material necessary to be presented here, which I am not.
x_
25 I Admittedly, I have never appeared before an Atomic Licensing ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l Eto.54 54 I l Board before; Mr. Bradley as well.
)
2 Mr. Bay has done extensive research, as evidenced by j
3 his presentation today, on this CFR and the code sections 1
('>T applicable.
And therefore we would like to divide up our 4
)
s m
5 g
presentation accordingly.
Mr. Bradley and I will deal with 9
3 6
procedural matters and these two gentlemen will deal with the e
Ea 7
tecnnical and the reg 21ations.
m 8
8 MS. HELWICE:
That is a sort of a situation I have d
6 9
g real difficulty with.
We are in the same position.
Mr. Woods and eH 10 Mr. Cormier and myself are all attorneys, but we are not technical
=
E 11 g
people either.
And if we are going to start breaking down
'i 12 z
discovery in terms of areas of expertise, rather than coordinating
()
E 13 g
it in a general fashion, I think we have a real problem.
E 14 MR. POLLOCK:
Mrs. Bowers, I am not alleging as to N
\\
r 15 G
the breakdown of discovery.
I was speaking only of as to the z
16 g
presentation at a hearing before the Board.
As far as discovery d
17 w
goes, I see no problem in managing it in the usual f ashion
=
18
=
between attorneys.
9 E
19 g
MS. HELWICK:
Then I think we have no problem for the 20 time being.
21 MRS. BOWERS:
We have no problem, when we get into an
(}
evidentiary hearing, of different ones handling some parts.
But 23 we don't want double-teaming on the same issue.
24 (J'T MS. HELWICK:
We have one other housekeeping matter 25 along the same line, and that is simply a question of service ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
sto 55 55 1
of documents.
Our service list has become interminably long, I\\
2 kJ plus it is my understanding of the regulations that every time 3
something is filed we have to file 20 copies in Washington, D.C.
rm k-)
And there has been some confusion.
Some of the documents that ie 5
g go to representatives of UCLA or the Regents in general go to G
6 1
people who are inappropriate.
None of us are on the list, and En.
7 so on.
n S
8 I think we need to kind of straighten that out so that 6
9 i
we know where things should be going, and to tailor it as much
=b 10 E
as possible so that we are not generating paper all over the E
11 j
- world, d
12 y
MRS. BOWERS:
Well, in other proceedings the s caff 13
(-)
has taken it upon itself to review the service list, to check s_j E
14 with parties and see a minimum.
Now, you have brought up z
9 15 j
something that I had in my notations.
Earlier this summer the 16 Commission -- and of course by that I mean the five Commissioners 6
17 g
set forth a policy on a one-year trial basis, a pilot policy.
18
=
When Intervenors request financial aid -- I just sent a copy of 19 it to the Petitioners.
20 MR. GRAY:
At this point I don't believe that we have 21 it.
I do have a copy with me today and I can attempt to get a
()
copy of that made and give it to them.
23 '
MRS. BOWERS:
There are three things.
This one-year
()
trial basis, you can ask for and receive without cost copies 25 of the transcript at the same time the staff gets a copy of the i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
Eta 56 56 I
transcript.
Also at the time that you file your prepared
()
2 testimony, you can ask that the Commission service that to 3
everybody, and that eliminates a lot of reproduction costs.
('",)s 4
At the time of the proposed findings, you can -- the 5
g Commission will service those to everybody, which eliminates
?
3 6
a lot of reproduction.
Now, when it comes to other matters, o
E" 7
though--I am recalling this from memory, but those are the three n
b 0
areas, aren't they, Mr. Gray?
d 9
~
MR. GRAY:
Yes.
zo 10 MRS. BOWERS:
Where this kind of support help can be II given to groups, and the staff can talk to you more.about f
I2 that.
In many proceedings, at the beginning there are problems Q"
I3-(]}) j' with service.
But I think at this point we can settle it down.
E 14 g
Now, also you mentioned the 20 copies.
The Office of
'=
1 C
15 b
the Secretary tells us--and-this may be spoken to-- the same x
g?
thing, original and two to the Office of the Secretary, and then 16 of' course the Board members and the parties. And the staff will x
M 18 work with all of you on paring down that service list.
But they s"
19 8
have to make a reproduction run anyway.
So your 20 copies doesn't n
20 go very far, so the original and two.
2I In addition -- and I want to make this clear -- in 22 addition to the original and two to the Secretary, you still r
23 :
service the Board and the other parties.
24 MS. HELWICK:
And we are to work out among ourselves
}
25 j who the representative or representatives of the various parties ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1 Eto 57 57 1
are.
That is fine.
( )j e
2 MR. GRAY:
As to the service of 20 copies, the pilot 3
program does include in fact an indication that all parties,
(])
4 including Applicants, need file with the Commission only an s
5 original and two copies.
The ori 1nal will go to the docket 3
R.
6 file, one copy directly to the public document room, and the
- S 7
other copy will be used for reproduction.
So that is apart from nl 8
the copies to be filed with the Licensing Board members and the d
q 9
other parties to the proceeding.
2o 10 MS. HELWICK:
I have one other inquiry on service.
I 3) 11 notice that a number of the Washington, D.C.,
addresses are not B
j 12 street addressas, which sometimes makes express mail or special
=
A
<^s 5
13 handling difficult.
Are there street addresses for yourselves U
=
m 5
14 and the staff persons, for example?
b 15 MRS. BOWERS :
Yes, we do.
And the staff does this also.
=
16 j
That 2055 is really a post office box number.
You see, the w
h I7 Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the only one that has that zip
.=
g 18 code, and so it does expedite getting mail to us.
~s" 19 g
Now, we do have offices and --
n 20 MS. HELWICK:
The problem is with the Post Office.
21 They won' t accept things with post boxes, without street addresses, 22
-~3 where expedited delivery is not accepted.
k_J 23 MRS. BOWERS 4 The Board is located at 4350 East-West 24 l Highway, fourth floor.
And the staff --
()
25 DR. LUEBKE:
Let us finish that.
That is in Bethesda, t
il i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
Eta 58 58 1I Mary 1&nd, and the zip there is 20014.
And so that is quite
(~\\
2 s,/
different from the official government.
3 MS. HELWICK:
I think that is what we need to accommodate
/~h 4
(/
swift agreement.
m 5
g DR. LUEBKE:
To be more specific, you are also talking a
3 6
1 about Room No. 450 at that address.
i n
7 MR. GRAY:
The staff, if you need a street address, n9 8
is Maryland National Bank Building, 7735 Old Georgetown Road, o
9 j
Bethesda, 20015, I believe.
k 10 E
MR. HIRSCH:
May I ask another location question?
Has
=
E 11 g
a public reading room been established in this case as yet, and if d
12 so, where?
i c
13
() l MR. GRAY:
I can speak to that,,if you would like.
14 g
MR. HIRSCH:
We would very much like to see some of 9
15 E
the documents.
=
f 16 y
MR. GRAY:
Our problem is that as a rule the public d
17 document rooms for research reactor facilities are not normally w
j
=
18
=
maintained.
There are a lot of these facilities throughout the s"
19 l
country and they do cost.
It does cost some money for the NRC 20 to maintain them.
They are opened up and maintained when there j
21 is a hearing cn will be a hearing.
22
(])
However, the staff has in this instance anticipated 23 and has arranged with our public document room branch to open l
24 j
[}
up a public document room, and as of September 15th documents 25 '
were being assembled and sent to that place.
And the place is t
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
ato 59 59 I
the Los Angeles Public Library, 630 West Fifth Street, Los Angeles, n.
2 90071.
' _)
(
3 MR. HIRSCH:
May I ask a question?
I spoke to Mr. Miller
()
4 at some point about this and he said that there were two locations i
g 5
being thought of, that normally it is close to the reat: tor as Na 6
possible.
That would either be the nearest public library to the E
I 71 facility or the UCLA Engineering Library itself, which is a j
s
]
8 federal depository.
Can I ask why it is so far from us and the dd 9
reactor?
i O
10 MR. GRAY:
I cannot tell you why it is there.
We have
_?
~
Q 11 to make arrangements with libraries that will accept documents 3
Y I2 and will maintain them and will, on a sometimes daily basis, be 5"
13 willing to receive documents and file them and what-not.
And
'A 5
14 this -- the arrangements here were made with the Los Angeles
{
15 Public Library, which was willing to do that.
I am not aware of x
j 16 whether other repositories were not willing to do it or not.
A 6
17 l MR. HIRSCH:
Mrs. Bowers, is there a remedy regarding s
{
18 this?
It would seem to me that there are a number of libraries a
19 g
at UCLA:
the Public Affairs Library, which routinely receives M
20 government documents; the Engineering Library is routinely a 21 federal depository for technical documents.
It is a considerable 22 burden to us, because it isn't located near the reactor, to have
{sx_]
23 to find the documents here, especially if they are coming in 24l daily.
h.
i 25 i
MRS. BOWERS:
Will you check this out, Mr. Gray?
It ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
Ltc 60 60 I
might be that it has been refused by the University.
But anyway, 2
let everybody know.
3 MR. HIRSCH:
Well, the library near us would be --
()
4 DR. LUEBKE:
Were there three alternatives that you 5
[-
mentioned?
9 6
MR. HIRSCH:
The Public Affairs Documents and the R
- S 7
University Research Library, Public Affairs Reading Room, excuse w
O me, of the University Research Library; the Engineering Library, d"
9
~.
also at UCLA; and lastly, the L.A.
Public Library on Santa Monica zo h
10 Boulevard near Butler.
=
5 II MRS. BOWERS :
I'd like to interrupt for a moment.
B N
I2 MR. BAY:
Related to the documents, a moment ago on 5
13
()
the record I made the request to you -- and I want to repeat it.
mf I4 We would appreciate it -- and the University probably would also
=
{
15 if they had the same problem as I had -- if volumes 7 through 10
=
E I0 of the NRC issuances could be put in that document room.
It W
h I7 appears that no library in Los Angeles has the volumes 1 through
=
5 18 6, and they take up again at 11.
And it makes the legal research h
I9 8
a little tough.
n 0
biR. HIRSCH:
Now, also, on these document questions, 21 now that we are a party will we see all correspondence that 22h
/~'s goes on?
We understood from staff that we would see the
%.)
23 University's response to the staff's questions.
We have not seen I
24
{])
them and the University has refused to provide them to us.
And 25 '
l it would seem very important that we be able to receive both k
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY, INC.
l
ata 61 61 I
the documents sent by the staff and the responses back by the 2
University.
MS. HELWICK:
As I understand what we have discovered
(_)
this morning, that appears to be a separate proceeding.
That is not something that Bridge the Gap is necessarily a party to at 3
6 i
this point.
E h
MRS. BOWERS :
Does the staff have a position on that?
N2 8
5 MR. GRAY:
The staff makes available and sends copies dm 9
g to the Board and all other parties all of its communications with O
10 the Licensee or Applicant, once it is determined there is going
=
E 11 g
tobbe a hearing.
In turn -- and you may have to give me a little d
12 3
bit of time to check this -- I believe that as a matter of O
r~
13 i) j policy we also ask that Licensee communications with the staff E
14 g
be sent to, copied to the Board and parties also, except those z9 15 g
communications which have no relationship to the proceeding or
?
16 g
which are proprietary or protectible for some reason.
d 17 MS. HELWICK:
So those inquiries are actually a part w=
18
=
of this proceeding.
s E
19 g
MR. GRAY:
They certainly are.
20 MS. HELWICK:
All right.
21 MR. GRAY:
Specifically the staff questions.
I think
(])
that those are the inquiries that you are referring to.
They 23 i
are obviously relevant to this proceeding, and now that we do 24
('T have Intervenors and there will be a hearing, I think it is
\\_/
25 '!
appropriate that they be sent to the Board and parties also for ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
ato 62 62 I
inf orrnation.
2 DR. PARIS:
The Board, Ms. Helwick, looks at those and 3
occasionally will raise a question concerning one of them if we Q
4 see it. In other words, the Board may raise a question.
g 5
MS. HELWICK:
I have no question of that.
I was just 0
6!
under the understanding that you were not interested in the R
5 7
ongoing amendment process that was under way.
But if that is 8
8 part of the proceeding, then that creates no problem.
- However, d
d 9
z.
I would inquire as to any proprietary information that may be
~
o h
10 contained in the responses as to how that is to be handled.
=
II MR. GRAY:
Under our rules, 2.790, the Applican' "ill f
I2 request proprietary classification from the staff and a deter-o Qg 13 mination will be made as to whether the proprietary participation
{
14
-- classification is appropriate.before such proprietary -- or Sij 15 for material for which proprietary classification is requested.
x 16 That would be sent to the staff alone initially.
h I7 MRS. BOWERS:
One other matter in this same area --
=
}
18 '
and this happened to me on ene other proceeding, and then we were P"
I9 g
on other matters with other people -- but we would request that n
20 the staff and the Applicant let the Intervenors know if you plan 2I a meeting.
But we have taken the position that we are without 22
/'N authority if you, for instance, plan to meet in Bethesda rather V
l than in Los Angeles.
We cannot direct you to relocate that 24 q
meeting.
L 25 i
But we would urge you, whenever nossible, to schedule ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
Eta 63 63 I
meetings you have where the Intervenors could also be presc.t.
P 2
x/
MS. HELWICK:
I assume that applies the other way as 3
well, and in terms of meetings with the staff and the Committee,
()
4 that we -- but the concern that I have in that regard again goes 5
g to this question of spokespersons.
Are we to deal with the 9
E' 6
Committee attorneys with respect to such meetings and expect R
=
7 y
reciprocal consideration towards attorneys representing-the s
S 8
M University?
d It is a little awkward here, where we have got a party o
B 10 which is a Committee.
e MR. HIRSCH :
I can clarify that.
There is an office d
12 z
for our organization and all communications will simply go to our
=
13
()
headquarters.
Then you don't have to wcrry about who --
m h
MS. HELWICK:
I'm not talking about communications at k
9 15 g
this point.
I'm talking about meetings.
16 g
MR. HIRSCH:
The same way; any meeting which you will hI be having with the staff, if you want to notify us, the only one z
5 18 place that you have to deal with is to send the notice to our 19 8
office.
n 20 MR. POLLOCK:
Well, Mr. Hirsch, since you are the 21 president, can everything be addressed to you?
f' MR. HIRSCH:
Yes, and I will get it to the attorneys.
V) 23 :
MRS. BOWERS :
Well, Ms. Helwick doesn't want 20 people showing up.
25l MR. HIRSCH-I understand that is the kind of thing ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
ato 64 64 I
that can be discussed with the other parties as to what reasonable
()
2 restrictions on numbers and the like.
3 I atk for clarification on the question of the
(])
4 correspondence.
Whose responsibility would it be in the future y
for our party to receive the communications that exist between n
j 6
the other parties?
i R*S 7
MR. GRAY:
The staff will distribute its own corres-a!
O pondence to -- say for example, correspondence with the Licensee.
O
]".
It will also copy and distribute copies to CBG and the Licensing 9
o 10 Board members.
We have to ask that the Licensee in turn make the E
5 II same kind of distribution in his correspondence to us.
3 I
MRS. BOWERS :
So the party who originates --
s I
() j MR. HIRSCH:
So that both parties who originate will 14 indeed send copies to us as well.
C 15 h
One last question --
x d
Ib MR. GRAY:
Also, I guess we would request that w
.h I7 correspondence between CBG and the Licensee or CBG and the staff
=
18 be distributed, so that everyone has a copy of everything.
H" 19 8
MR. HIRSCH:
One last question.
We received a package n
0 of materials that Dr. Luebke had requested from the staff, which 91 were very helpful to us.
And I understood that there would be
(]}
several more additions.
23 I j
MS. LAVERTY:
It turns out that Dr. Luebke's secretary 1
24
(~)
called us and said that they wanted several documents.
I sent
%/
25 I out several documents and called Dr. Luebke back, and it turned I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
@to 65 65 I
out that he wanted the application.
So he has not reques ted any r~S
(_/
2 additional documents.
So that is what happened.
3 MR. HIRSCH:
May we request those documents which are
()
4 in the docket now simply through the staff 2 5
g MS. LAVERTY:
You will get that through the public 9
6 document room.
R*S 7
MRS. BOWERS:
Some time later, we would like to schedule 32 8
s a site visit.
And of course, as usual everyone would be included d*
9
}.
in the site visit.
c h
10 I would like to talk now, since it is obvious that we
=
II are going to finish here, we are not going to have a break or a 12 E
lunch break at any time -- if you have no objection, we will just
=
13
(])
keep going, m
I4 We would like to talk also about the future time for N
g 15 and place of other prehearings, other hearings.
Now, we did
=
E I0 some ground work to see if we could get hearing, suitable hearing l
M C
17 l space in the federal building on Wilshire.
And when they built
=
I0 that building they had some nice large hearings rooms, which 9"
I9 j
they have chopped up now.
They are now all offices, so there 20 was no space there.
21 But we can, of course, for some space here.
The i
22 i
{])
Committee suggested a place on campus.
I don't know what is 23 available on canpus.
The Regents didn't think that was a very 24 i
{)
l good idea.
25 !
MS. HELWICK:
We did not, for the reasons we stated i
f
{,
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
Eta 66 66 I
both in our earlier response and reiterated, a number of the nV 2
following concerns:
security, location, ongoing campus activities 3
police officers, and so on.
We feel it is a burden that would be 4
very difficult for us to entertain a hearing on campus.
5 y
MR. BAY:
If I may respond briefly to that, we are 6,
a little bit mystified by the security problems raised by holding R*
7
~
the proceeding on campus.
I'm not sure what there is to security, N2 8
5 particularly in a public hearing, where the public is to be d*
9
}.
admitted, anyway.
O 10 MS. HELWICK:
I can make that clear.
There is a f
II gentleman in every federal building who checks materials, for I
example, that are coming into a building.
We do not have people c
Oi' taet can be e==isaea to euca e ex= et oce^-
I4 MR. BAY:
But is that something that is even normal 15 for public hearings, that this -- that we have to date not been j
16 in a highly charged atmosphere, and I don't think that the as demeanor of any of the parties is suggesting anything like that.
I0 The campus police are there if the University should wish to H"
19 8
utilize them.
r:
20 I have difficulty with that, that particular concept.
I MRS. BOWERS:
Let us ask as a practical question.
I 22
]
had some miserable experiences trying to use auditoriums in 23 schools when classes were going on, and bells were ringing and 4
people in and out.
Is there actually something on campus at 25 i
UCLA that would be suitable and you wouldn't have this kind of ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
etc 67 67 I
interruption?
()
2 MS. HELWICK:
Most of our facilities are commitrEd for 3
University purposes, and I am not aware of any f acility that could
(])
4 be opened up for any large group for any length of time.
e 5
DR. PARIS:
When we go to a hearing, we are going to 9
6, have to have a space that we can use every day for a period of R
7 j
several days.
7 j
8 MR. CORMIER:
The University is not in that position.
O" 9
~.
We don't know how long the hearing is going to last.
We don't xog 10 have the audio set up for this three-party communication.
In 1
z=
1 II all respects, we don't have the ideal setting for a hearing like a
N I2 this.
=3 5
13
/"_)
And I take it a step further:
We think the fair
( /
=
14 adjudication of a very highly technical matter can best proceed kj 15 in a setting such as this.
It is ideally suited.
x d
Ib MR. HIRSCH:
Mrs. Bowers, it seems to me that the W
h I7 purpose of public hearings is very clear:
that the public and
=
{
18 the parties who have an interest are able to attend, to be able P
h I9 to perceive what is occurring in those proceedings and be able n
\\
20 to participate in the sense of being represented.
If the 21 University is unwilling to provide hospitality on campus, we as 22
{}
a registered group have a right to reserve a room on campus, and 23 we will be pleased to do that for the Board if the University 24 (J^T is not willing.
25 i
That would be very difficult for the University, it i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
Gto 68 68 I
seems to me, to deny because we do have that right.
,m
(_)
2 I must say again that I would like clarification on the 3
security question, because if it is the security of the reactor
({)
4 they are worried about I would like that to be made very clear.
5 g
IF the ASLB holding of the hearing on campus could endanger the n]
6 reactor, if there is a feeling that we may endanger it, we will R
- E 7
be wherever the hearing is.
Who is it that they are worried about?
A j
8 The only people that they could be worried about are the students, d"
9
~.
or indeed the parties and the faculty and staff, who are indeed zc h
10 the people who have interests, and that is indeed who the public
=
II hearings are designed to accommodate.
B f
I2 MR. CORMIER:
Mrs. Bowers, I think we ought to talk o"
[]}
g I3 directly about this.
There is no question that this whole issue l
14 is an emotionally charged one.
We appreciate the opportunity to
$j 15 discuss these matters in a quiet setting, where the best thoughts x
y 16 of all parties can be put to bear on difficult issues.
I think w
h I7 there is no doubt in our minds that the value of that quiet, the
=
h IO quiet consideration of issues, is compromised on a University P"
19 8
campus.
n 20 Indeed, as a matter of general procedure the University 21 holds a whole series of these meetings, these business meet
-n,
/~}
off-campus,. just in general because it facilitates the disvut-c,n a
23 of the matter in a better setting.
And I know it happens to be 24 the case that UCLA feels that in regard to this issue, it thinks 25l it can be best discussed and handled in a federal courtroom.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
Eto 69 69 1
It is unfortunate the federal building on Wilshire is not
(])
2 available.
This is certainly a suitaale setting.
3 MRS. BOWERS:
This is part of our problem.
This room
(])
4 works all right for the prehearing conference with the three g
5 parties.
But when you've got also a panel of witnesses -- and 9
j 6
frankly, we don't have enough room up here, when you get into an R
7 evidentiary hearing.
We expected something different from what nl 8
we got.
And I won't clutter up the record with telling you what dd 9
was here and there.
But we finally got permissio.1 to relocate z,
o g
10 or we could not-have proceeded even here today.
E 11 So it is hard to get a big, suitable federal courtroom.
B I
12 DR. LUEBKE:
Do you know of any courthouses near the 3
13 University, or public buildings that would be amenable?
l 14 MS. HELWICK:
There is a courthouse in Santa Monica.
]r 15 There is one in Englewood.
=
y 16 MRS. BOWERS:
You ran consider these things among W
g 17 yourselves.
And as Dr. Paris, said, you can often get a room 18 for a one or two-day prehearing, but when the clerk of the court A
19 and the chief judge realize that you are talking about a long 5
20 period of time for a full evidentiary hearing, then it is very 21 difficult.
22 DR. PARIS:
The reporter handed me a note suggesting 23 the Tax Court Room at 300.
24 l MR. HIRSCH:
May I make another point in deciding, in fs
\\_)
~
25 that this particular building makes it very. difficult for the i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
Eta 70 70 I
media to be present.
So also to make it a public hearing, the
()
2 cameras are generally not permitted in this building, or tape 3
recorders.
It seems to me that if the University is insistent
()
4 that the students -- that there has to be some distance between g
5l the students, faculty, and the staff and the hearing, that at 6l least some other representatives of the public can be present so R
- E 7
that they can learn of the proceeding.
A 0
So as we look for a site as close to the people who are d
9 of interest in it, in as much as possible so it would be public 6
g 10 is our concern.
k II DR. PARIS:
I wonder, since there are courtrooms around 3
g 12 that are closer to the University than this one, if we could get c"
I3 s
some suggestions from some of the parties through this servicing.
(-s
~J
~
m 5
I4 We will check them out.
0 15 h
MRS. BOWERS:
And I think, until we have some sort of a
=
d I0 date and we know what we are talking about, it is kind of hard w
h I7 I
to proceed.
So why don't we drop this now?
=
f 18 There is one thing that we'd like to mention, now that ws l9 g
we know that we will have a proceeding.
My records don't show n
20 E-3 that we have had the formal notice of appearance from counsel.
I MR. POLLOCK:
I sent off a notice of appearance, 22 r3 registered again.
I assume this is the problem with registered V
23 '
mail, of getting to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I have 24 copy of that notice together with Mr. Bradley's statement, I 25 '
would like to present to the Board at this time once again.
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
}
mts 71 71 I
MRS. BOWERS :
But they will be waiting for us when they
<m(,)
2 get back; is that right?
MR. POLLOCK:
That is right.
()
MR. GRAY-Ms. Bowers, I also suggest that formal notices 5
j be sent.
3 6'
i MR. POLLOCK:
Copy to the staff and to the Universit~
E" MR. GRAY:
What I am thinking of is the Office of the N
E 8
M Secretary, because it generates a service list through notices d"
9
~.
of appearances, where they are sent, and --
oH 10 j
MR. POLLOCK:
I will send additional copies, then.
=
Thank you very much.
12 MS. HELWICK:
May I go back to one thing before we move a"
13
(}
[
on, Mrs. Bowers?
You mentioned quickly a site visit, and I know 14 g
that that was brought up in the past, and in fact there has been
=
C 15 g
one site visit by the staff, I guess, in. connection with this 16 g
proceedirg.
I don't know if we need to set ground rules here d
17 today, but we do have concerns in terms of reasonableness of a=
G 18 numbers of people to be accommodated on such a tour.
And I would
+"
19 j
just like to raise that at this point, so that when any such 20 tour is scheduled, if it is, that that be taken into consideration.
21 DR. LUEBKE:
Some types of site visits consist of just 22 one person from each party.
23 I MS. HELWICK:
The one that was preliminarily scheduled 24 i was described to me as being somewhat different, and that is what 25 l raised my concern..
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
2to 72 72 I
MRS. BOWERS:
We do have a problem if there is a crowd
()
2 and it gets too large.
For one thing, people cannot always hear 3
Let me check and see if there are other matters that we or see.
()
4 should consider today.
Ms. Helwick?
5 g
MS. HELWICK:
I think we have covered most of the 9
h 0
matters of concern to us at this point.
R b
7 MRS. BOWERS:
The staff?
Are there other matters?
A j
8 MR. GRAY:
Just one other minor housekeeping matter.
O c;
9 I think it would behhelpful if in the future filings, pleadings,
?
(
10 and the like in the case contain the date on the front of the L
II document.
It makes it a lot easier to locate and file the B
f I2 document.
I would just ask that that be done.
c" 13
(]}) j MS. HELWICK:
The date of the hearing or the date of 14 preparation?
=0 15 h
MR. GRAY:
The date of the document.
=
d Ib MRS. BOWERS:
On the face rather than on the last page.
W h
I7 Let me check with the Intervenors.
Is there anything
=
IO further?
19 8
MR. BAY:
Yes, I've got two.
I've got one very simple.
n 20 The court reporter handed us all a little sheet to get a copy 2I of the transcript.
You mentioned earlier that the NRC pays for 22
)
transcripts.
Is that of hearings or official proceedings in this 23l matter, if we so desire transcripts?
24 MRS. BOWERS:
This proceeding today would have been in 25 i
the program.
But you need to talk to the staff and get how to-ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
.1
73 sto 73 I
proceed, how to make the request.
2 MR. BAY:
My last question goes way back to discovery.
3 In the event that there is some questions that need to be liti-4 gated over the nature of discovery, such as protective orders i
y or those kinds of questions, what is the procedure?
Is it a 5'
ea 3
6 document submitted to the Board for the decision, or do you come
%^
2 7
out or are we supposed to go back to Bethesda?
How do those e
e'.
j 8,
things get resolved?
d y
9 MRS. BOWERS:
Sometimes in different ways.
Sometimes Z
10 two parties are able to work out an agreement and are satisfied II with protective orders, as the non-owner signs.
If they are not a
p 12 able to privately work out agreement, then the matter comes to 5
OiI the Board as a di-spute.
l 14 Do you have anything further on that?
might just say that basically discovery j
15 MR. GRAY:
1
=j' 16 in our proceedings are matters between one party and another.
- r5 17l The Board really does not generally get involved unt2.' there is x
{
18 a dispute.
So for example, the Intervenor may submit interro-T-"
8 gatories to the NRC staff.
In the event that the staff finds I9 n
20 none of them objectionable, it would simply prepare answers and 2I submit them to you.
22 In the event the staff does have a problem, it would 23 -
object and normal procedure would be then for CBG to seek an l
i 24 order from the Board compelling answers that the staff did not i
give.
The staff then could also seek a protective order.
25 i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
- n.
9to 74 74 I
But until there is a dispute and the dispute is 2
basically on paper, until there is a dispute, it is a matter 3
between the parties, which the Board doesn't get involved in as
()
~
4 a rule.
g 5
MR. BAY:
My question went to what happens when -- I 9
6 realize that, and my question is. if there is a dispute that the R
- S 7
parties have not been able to resolve.
I just wanted to get some 3
8 sense.
Is that a paper transaction before the Board, to make a J
^
9
}
decision, or are you going to be faced with coming out or are 0
10 g
we going to be faced with coming back there?
=!I DR. PARIS:
We will come out.
M j
12 MRS. BOWERS:
We will see, of course, what has n
13
(])
happened.
But until there is'a motion, until a motion to compel x
I4 l
is filed, we expect you to work things out among yourselves.
k I
9 15 g
MR. GR7.Y :
By and large they are paper disputes, in
=
d other words, which do not require oral argument and what-not.
A But I suppose that could occur also.
=
M 18 MRS. BOWERS :
This is a good time to ask all of you j
=S 19 j
to be as fair and working out, hopefully, possible differences.
20 And if you, for instance, feel the interrogatories improper, 21 to give your reasons for that, if I may use the word, basis, so 22
({}
j that there can be --there can be full communication and not a
~23 curtness or an abruptness.
And hopefully, you will be able to
('
work out many matters that need not then come to the Board, b
25f Is there anything further?
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
Eta 75 75 I
MR. CORMIER:
Mrs. Bowers, I'm a little bit unclear
(
2 about what the immediate task ahead of us is.
Are we all going 3
to convene now, after lunch, before lunch, in your absence, to
()
4 start working out our difficulties today on the contentions?
Or 5
g what is your wish?
O j
6 MRS. BOWERS :
What we will do as soon as we get back R
7 y
to our office next week is to get out an order subsequent to 6
j 8
this prehearing conference outlining what happened here today G
0; 9
and what contentions were accepted, and that the parties were z
Cg 10 directed to meet to try to work out other differences.
I don't 3
5 II think what you are talking about really involves us, and so
~s f
I2 actually what we should do is adjourn the prehearing conference.
=
(])f13 And if you people want to stay on, this room is, of course, m
5 I4 tied up for all day.
$j 15 MR. GRAY:
Rather than go on the record, I would just z
g 16 simply ask that we get together right after we adjourn here, we, M
C 17 the staff, the CBG, and the Applicant, and we can make arrange-e 18 ments from there as to what we should do.
P" 19 g
MRS. BOWERS:
The prehearing conference is adjourned, l
n 20 and you will get our order subsequent to the conference outlining 2I t.nat occurred today.
22
{)
(Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m.,
the prehearing conference 23 was adjourned.)
I 24 !
([)
25 l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
O nuctran arcutarOar cO.24rssrOn This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the O
in the matter o f:TIIE REGENTS OF TIIE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (UCLA Research Reactor Date of Proceeding:
senterber 25, 1 10 Docket flu =b er :
50-142 Place of ?roceeding: Los Angeles, California were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Commission.
I l
Jim IIiggins Official Reporter (Typed) l
- ^
fW f icial Reporter (Signature)
Q O'
Y00$IO@Qlk
--