ML20053E610
| ML20053E610 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 06/04/1982 |
| From: | Frye J, Luebke E, Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | SANTA MONICA, CA |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, LBP-82-44, NUDOCS 8206090069 | |
| Download: ML20053E610 (5) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'*
P.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD p
?3 57 Before Administrative Judges:
John H Frye, III, Chairman Dr. Emmeth A. Lue'oke Dr. Oscar H. Paris SERVED JUN 71982 0
)
In the Matter of Docket No. 50-142 OL (Proposed Renewal of THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
)
Facility License) 0F CALIFORNIA
)
(UCLA Research Reactor)
)
June 4, 1982 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Admitting the City of Santa Monica Under 10 CFR R 2.715(c))
On May 6, 1982, the City of Santa Monica filed a " Notice of Intent to Participate as an Interested Municipality" in tMs proceeding.
No party opposes Santa Monica's participation under the provisions of 10 CFR 5 2.715(c); however, dispute does exist regarding the scope of Santa Monica's participation.
Both UCLA and Staff take the position that participants under 12.715(c) are not entitled to discovery. This position is based on the wording of that section:
(c) The presiding officer will afford representatives of an interested State, county, municipality, and/or agencies hy thereof, a reasonable opportunity to participate and to introduce evidence, interrogate witnesses, and advise the Commission without requiring the rep-resentative to take a position with respect to the issue. Such participants may also file proposed findings and ex-ceptions pursuant to 55 ?.754 and 2.762
)
8206090069 820604 PDR ADOCK 05000142 O
. and petitions for review by the Commission pursuant to i 2.786. The presiding officer may require such representative to indicate with reasonable specificity, in advance of the hearing, the subject matters on which he desires to participate.
4 Because discovery is not specifically mentioned in i 2.715(c),
UCLA and Staff argue that Santa Monica is not entitled to discovery.
CBG takes sharp issue with this position, and Santa Monica has asked to be afforded an opportunity to respond should we consider the argument.
UCLA and Staff ignore a long history of affording full procedural
^
rights to interested state and local governments who choose to partici-i pate under 5 2.715(c). This provision has consistently been regarded 0
as relieving these governments from-the burdens of 5 2.714, but at the same time permitting them to participate as if they-were admitted under the latter provision if they so choose.
Section 274(1) of the Atomic Energy Act (42 USC 2021(1)) requires i
that the Commission afford an opportunity to the state which will be the situs of the licensed activity to "... offer evidence, in-terrogate witnesses, and advise the Commission as to the application...."
In i 2.715(c), the Commission has extended this opportunity to in-terested local governments as well.
In contrast, i 189 of the Atomic Energy Act (42 USC 2239) l requires that the Commission grant a hearing upon request of an interested person with respect to certain applications.
Section 2.714 implements this directive.
. It seems to us anomalous that the Staff should urge that the specific directive of f 274(1) that states be permitted to " offer evidence, in-terrogate witnesses and advise the Commission" somehow offers fewer pro-cedural rights than i 189. / Rather, we believe Congress clearly in-tended to insure that certain minimal procedural rights were afforded states, rights which it did not specifically enumerate in i 189.
Consequently we read these sections of the Act and the Regulations as placing fewer pro-cedural burdens on interested state and local governments while at the same time permitting full procedural rights.
Congress simply did not intend that states taking advantage of f 274(1) of the Act should some-how be less favored than their citizens participating under i 189.
This interpretation is consistent with Commission precedent. The Commission has stated:
the participation of an interested sovereign state in our licensing process, as a full party or otherwise, is always desirable...." The Appeal Board, prior to the amendment of 12.715(c) expressly granting the right to appeal, has read 5 274(1) as affording a state a right to appeal an adverse initial decision in the face of an applicant's challenge (Gulf States Utilities Company, [ River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2] ALAB-317, 3 NRC 175 [1976]). We hold that
-*/ Members of this Board are sitting on other cases in which interested states are engaging in discovery without objection from Staff Counsel.
i
.-z-
_ -.~,
. the
... right to offer evidence, interrogate witnesses, and advise i
the Commission..." afforded by 1 274(1) encompasses the right to conduct discovery in adjudicatory proceedings.
Because the Commission has ex?. ended these rights to interested local governments in f 2.715(c),
Santa Monica may take advantage of them.
Nonetheless, Santa lionica must take the proceeding as it finds it.
It will not be permitted to go over ground already covered by the extensive discovery which has already taken place in this proceeding.
Further, in accord with Gulf States Utilities Company, (River Bend Station, Units 1 i
and 2) ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760, 768-9 (1977) and s 2.715(c), Santa Monica will be required to specify the issues on which it intends to participate.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is this 4th day of June,
~-
- 1982, ORDERED 1.
Santa Monica is admitted to this proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR 5 2.715(c);
2.
Objections to Santa Monica's participation in future discovery are overruled; 3.
Santa Monica may not, absent a substantial showing of good cause, engage in discovery with respect to subjects on which that process is completed; and i
,_.m
5-4.
Within ten days of the date of service of this ORDER, Santa Monica is to state with specificitf the subjects on which it intends to participate.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD bl.. '
Y pg Emeth A. Luebke ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE W
W\\
Oscar H. Paris ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
~
^
J H
rye, III f
AD ATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland f
June 4, 1982 i
,,,