ML20072R575

Response in Opposition to Committee to Bridge the Gap 830315 Request for Partial Summary Disposition of Contention Xvii Re Site Seismicity.Univ Will Stipulate to Facts Appended to Gap Request.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20072R575
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	03/30/1983
From:	Cormier W CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8304060092
Download: ML20072R575 (6)

Text

_,

1

. i tjaLKETED jp4?r

'83 ffR -4 N0:04 UNITED STATES 'OF J AMERICA' 5'-t ,_

NUCLEAR REGULATORY-:COMMISSIO,Ng BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY ~ AND LICENSING : BOARD In the Matter of )

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

)

, (UCLA Research Reactor) ) March 30, 1983

)

UNIVERSITY'S RESPONSE TO CBG'S REQUEST FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION XVII DONALD L. REIDHAAR GLENN.R. WOODS-CHRISTINE HELWICK 590 University Hall 2200 University Avenue Berkeley, California 94720 Telephone: (415) 642-2822

. Attorneys for Applicant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY' OF CALIFORNIA C304060092 830330 PDR ADOCK 05000142 0 , . ,P,DR , ,_ c i

O

/

I. INTRODUCTION In its March 23, 1983 Prehearing Conference Memorandum and Order

(" Order") the Board considered CBG's March 15, 1983 request for an innediate ruling on CBG's motion for partial summary disposition of Contention XVII (seismicity of the site). (Order, p. 21.) CBG based its request on the fact that neither UCLA nor Staff disputed any of the facts which CBG asserted in support of its motion.1 The Board stated that in the absence of any objection it would grant CBG's motion, the effect of which would be "to accept the statement of facts attached to CBG's-letter of March 15 as if it were a stipulation among the parties."(Id.)

University does object to the granting of partial summary disposition with respect to any portion of Contention XVII. Notwithstand-ing that objection, University will agree to stipulate to the facts appended to CBG's March 15 request.

I University did dispute four of CBG's fact assertions each on the grounds that the precise statement being asserted was not supported by the evidence adduced in CBG'.s motion. Subsequent to the February 23, 1983:

Prehearing Conference where this matter was discussed (Tr. 951-957),CBG.

agreed to modify the four statements to remove the inconsistencies which were pointed out by University. CBG's March 15 request is based on the j d

statement as modified.

-l-l

i I

l II. DISCUSSION s

In its October 22,.1982 Memorandum and Order,- the Board estab-lished a bifurcated procedure for.considering the parties' summary disposi-tion motions. So far, only the first step of that procedure, identifica-tion of the facts being disputed, has been completed. Responding parties have not yet had an opportunity to present their legal arguments in oppo-sition to the motions. Specifically, with respect to Contention XVII, University has not had an opportunity to demonstrate that " evidence" offered by CBG is support of its motion is inadmissible and/or immaterial -y to matters properly put at issue by the contention. Because of the stan-dards established for deciding summary disposition motions as well as the requirements of the " bifurcated procedure" adopted by the Board it would be improper to grant CBG's request for partial summary disposition at this time. .

However, University is prepared to stipulate to CBG's statement of facts. University understands the Board's characterization of .the effect of its granting CBG's request as suggesting this remedy. A stipu-lation as to CBG's proposed seismic facts will avoid additional pleading and unnecessary proof on these matters and will provide CBG with the relief it is seeking.

.Accordingly, University does hereby stipulate to the statement of i facts appende'd to CBG's' March .15 request with the following two. understand -

ings:.

> 2-

.m

('T 'l i

1) that the facts not be considered " material facts"since that implies a legal conclusion that is not warranted at this time; and

2) that CBG's assertion, which appears gratuitously at the top of page ? of its request, that "Lt]he only remaining dispute for hearing on this matter is how much greater than 10 Rem to the tyroid those doses might be " is not accepted by the Board.

In explanation of this letter point, CBG apparently bases its assertion on the fact that University did not dispute CBG's fact 17, nor the related facts 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. CBG's reliance on the fact that these statements are not disputed is misplaced. As ' the University remarked at the prehearing conference (Tr. 955), the statements in question were not disputed because each asserted merely that some event was possi-ble; the statements contain no assertion that the event was in any way credible. Note, in particular, that CBG does not (and can not) relate the magnitude of the earthquakes deemed credible for the west Los Angeles area (described variously as magnitude 6.7 to 7.5 on the Richter scale with a probability of about 0.1%) to an event (a " major earthquake" of unspecified magnitude) that might possibly collapse the reactor building and crush -the core. University does not intend to dispute CBG's vague speculations about evants CBG claims are possible.

1

O^

III. CONCLUSION University is opposed:.to-the granting oftpartial summary disposi-tion on Contention XVII. However, with the understandings discussed above, University does agree to stipulate to the state:nent of facts appended to CBG's March 15 request.

Dated: March 30, 1983.

DONALD L. REIDHAAR GLENN R. WOODS CHRISTINE HELWICK By: I SY - =?=%^

William H. CormTEr Representing UCLA O

6 4

(.

(" l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

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

)

(UCLA Research Reactor) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the attached: UNIVERSITY'S RESPONSE TO CBG'S REOUEST FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION XVII in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following

~

by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as indicated, on}.this date: March 30, 1983 .

John H. Frye, III, Chairman Mr. Daniel Hirsch Administrative Judge Cte. to Bridge the Gap ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 1637 Butler Avenue, #203 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Los Angeles, CA 90025 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. John Bay, Esq.

Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke . 3755 Divisadero #203 Administrative Judge San Francisco, CA 94123 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Daniel Hirsch Washington, D.C. 20555 Box 1186 Ben Lomond, CA 95005 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Administrative Judge Nuclear Law Center ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD c/o Dorothy Thompson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6300 Wilshire Blvd., #1200 Washington, D.C. 20555 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Counsel for the NRC Staff Ms. Lynn G. Naliboff ,

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR Deputy City Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission City Hall Washington, D.C. 20555 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401-Chief, Docketing and Service Section OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 lf']

WILLIAM H. CORMIER UCLA Representative THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

- - g