ML20042C563

Response Opposing Committee to Bridge the Gap Motion for Disqualification of Commissioner Roberts.Motion Completely Contrary to Commission Rules of Practice & Totally W/O Merit.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20042C563
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	03/23/1982
From:	Cormier W CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8203310527
Download: ML20042C563 (5)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

4 .

l ,., ,-.--

I[DONALDL. REIDHAAR f h GLENN R. WOODS 2'ICHRISTINE HELWICK 590 University Hall '82 ICP 29 #0:21 3 2200 University Avenue W A Berkeley, California 94720 4] Telephone: (415) 642-2822 .

p  %,

5! Attorneys for Applicant IVlC2il/2D 9

!n #-

~

6"! THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY - -

! OF CALIFORNIA '( UQg 'M/iR 8 01982* T 7

8f UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

• N g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION 10 f

3)

In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-142 12 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ) (Proposed Renewal of Facility 1 i OF CALIFORNIA ) License Number R-71) 13 )

' (UCLA Research Reactor) ) March 23, 1982 14 hl I!

15F i

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR'S MOTION 17 i FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF COMMISSIONER ROBERTS 18 The submission by Intervenor of its motion seeking the disqualification of Commissioner Roberts is completely contrary 20

!to the Commission's rules of practice and the motion itself is 21 totally without merit.

22 23l At best, the disqualification motion is premature. The h

24 Commission has not taken jurisdiction over any part of the above-25 l captioned proceeding, nor has Commissioner Roberts been 26 designated presiding officer for any matter at issue in this 27 license renewal action. In fact, it would be highly unusual if 28 the Commission or any of its Commissioners became involved at 82033105 7 820323 PDR ADOCK 05000142 h #

0 PDR .

y

i f

i g 1panytimeinanyoftheevidentiaryaspectsofthislicensing

+

2 proceeding. By implying that Commissioner Roberts may or will 3' have occasion to decide any disputed factual matter in this 4

proceeding, Intervenor's motion is entirely speculative and does 5

warrant consideration by the Commission.

69 7

Though speculative and underserving of Commission 8

consideration, Applicant must also point out that Intervenor's 9

disqualification motion is totally without merit. The motion 10 fails to address the Commission's disqualification provisions and 11 i the case law relating to disqualification. The motion misapplies 12 ' the Commission's ex parte rules. The motion confuses the public 13' policy responsibilities of Commissioners with the purely 14 iadjudicatory responsibilities of Presiding Officers and Board i

15 iMembers. And, most unseemly because of its suggestions of 16

' impropriety, the motion contains a wholly fictitious account of 17 what transpired during the Commissioner's routine tour of 18 Applicant's facility.

19  !

20 At all times during the Commissioner's visit to UCLA 21 and tour of the research reactor facility, the ex parte rules of 22 the Commission were strictly observed by Applicant's staff, the 23

! Commissioner and his staff. A private greeting for the )

24 Commissioner was held by Applicant in the office of the Dean of 25 the School of Engineering as a simple courtesy and as a way of 26 avoiding the " media event" that was being staged at the facility 27 by Intervenor. At no time during the greeting or the tour did 28 l there occur any discussion of matters substantive to the 1

1 I

h,1 1 t 1

[

h 1[ licensing proceedings.

However, as conceded by Intervenor in its 2 motion. Intervenor's representatives and attorney did make 3 J attempts during the tour to discuss with the Commissioner the 4 substance of various of the contentions it had introduced to the t

5 proceedings. Applicant's attorney and the Commissioner's legal 6 l. assistant were forced to intervene at several points to ensure L

7 that the ex parte rules were not compromised. Intervenor had 8 hoped, no doubt, to be able to debate its claims with the b

9 h Commissioner in the presence of the numerous network and other 4

10h media representatives that Intervenor has specially summoned to 4

11 Applicant's facility for the occasion.

i 12-Because it fully expects that the Commission will dispose of this matter summarily, Applicant declines here to In

15. fcommentfurtheronthedeficienciesofIntervenor'smotion.

h the event that the Commission requests our submissions, Applicant 16u h will introduce affidavits disproving all material factual 17 h

! allegations made by Intervenor in its motion. Applicant submits if h that Intervenor's motion for disqualification of Commissioner 19 g

, improper, insubstantial and without merit.

20

.i 21 0 Dated: March 23, 1982.

i DONALD L. REIDHAAR 23[ GLENN R. WOODS CHRISTINE HELWICK 24 h 25 By i William H. Cormier 26 UCLA Representative THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 28.

e

I 1 UNITE') STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEM( REGULATORY COMMISSION 2

BEFORE THE COMMISSION 3

In the Matter of )

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

)

6 (UCLA Research Reactor) )

)

7 8 CETTIFICATE OF SERVICE 9

I hereby certify that copies of the attached: APPLICANT'S 10 RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF COMMISSIONER 11 ROBERTS 12 in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following 13 bydepositintheUngted'Statesmail, first cidss, postage prepaid, 14 addressed'as indicated, on this date: thrda 2403, 1982 .

15 C mmissi n r.Nunzi '

16 Palladino John H. Frye, III, Chairman Chairman - -

Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING 17 20555 J

Washington, D.C. BOARD l 18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner John Ahearne Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 205E' 79 washington, D.C. 20555 20 Commissioner Peter Bradford Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative Judge 21 Washington, D.C. 20555 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Commissioner Victor Gilinsky U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 23 U.S. Nu lear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 24 Commissioner Thomas Roberts . Dr. Oscar H. Paris U'8* Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative Judge 25 .

Washington, D.C. 20555 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING 26 . BOARD General Council Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l

r N -

] Counsel for the NRC Staff Mr. Daniel llirsch Ctc. to Bridge the Gap OFFICE OF Ti!E EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR 1637 Butler Avenue, #203 2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Los Angeles, Calfiornia Washington, D.C. 20555 90025 3

Chief, Docketing and Service Section Mr. John Bay, Esq.

4 OFFICE OF Tile SECREATARY 2261 Columbia Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Palo Alto, California 94306 5 Washington, D.C. 20555 6 Ms. Jessica Laverty Legal Assistant to Commissioner Roberts 7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 8

0" 9

/' "

10 WILLI AY 11. CORMIER UCLA Representative 11 Tile REGENTS OF TIIE UNIVERSITY 12 OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 3

15 16 17 ,

18 19 . .

20 21 22 23

- 24 25 26

$