ML20073J072
| ML20073J072 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 04/14/1983 |
| From: | Hirsch D COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8304190168 | |
| Download: ML20073J072 (7) | |
Text
l e
COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP 4/14/83 1637 Butler Avenue, Suite 203 Los Angeles, CA 90025 octNF (408) 336=5381 60 UNITED STATES OS., in \\S go
%MERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY 'AND LICENSING BOARD.
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-142 THE REGENTS OF THE
)
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
)
(Proposed Renewal of (UCLA Research Reactor)
Facility License)
)
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN HEARING SCHEDULING MATTERS CONTAINED IN THE BOARD'S ORDER OF April 7,1983 I.
Introduction On April 7,1983, CBG submitted a pleading which,
-inter alia, objected to certain preliminary views expressed by the Board in its March 23 Order regarding the Board's asserted lack of authority to set a date for prefiling of Staff testimony.
CBG also informed the Board that it appeared, if the Board continued to intend CBG to present its case after that of Staff and Applicant (a matter subject to certain objections), current witness availability indicated a July 25 starting date for hearing would be necessary, and requested that the Board, before final determination of starting date, notify CBG and provide an opportunity for update regarding witness availability.
~s s
8304190168 830414 PDR ADOCK 05000142 O
d',
Unfortunately, CBG's pleading crossed in the mail with the Board's Order of the same date which, inter alia, set a July 18 starting date for hearing and made final its preliminary determination that it lacked the authority to set dates for prefiling of testimony.
CBG hereby respectfully requests; reconsideration i
of the latter determination and indicates that it will contact its witnesses to determine if their schedules can be rearranged
'to fit preser.tation of their case with a July 18 starting date and the assumption of CBG going after Applicant and Staff.
CBG indicates it will notify the Board whether such rearrangement is possible when it submits its witness list April 20 and if such rearrangement is not possible, that it will request the i
starting date be set as July 25 II.
Discussion I
l CBG, through misuse of summary disposition procedures by Staff and Applicant, was forced to file what amounts to its prefiled testimony on January 12, 1983, over six months before the start of the inherent safety evidentiary hearings.
Both UCLA and Staff have indicated they are revising their case to attempt to rebut the material included in CBG's January i
12 declarations.
In fact, after initial indication that early a May or/ June hearing was OK, Staff insisted it must be granted 3
an extension to have more time to prepare its response to CBG's I
case.
Despite strenuous objections by CBG, the hearing was therefore postponed from May to late July, to accomodate Staff desire for additional time to prepare what amounts to j
rebuttal to CBG 's case.
(The Board has indicated such rebuttal I-
must be included in the Staff and Applicant direct testimony.)
In addition to requesting, and receiving, additional time to respond to CBG's case, Staff requested that it not have to prefile its testimony until a few weeks before the hearing.
CBG strongly objected, indicating this would severely damage its ability to cross-examine and rebut and substantially reduce the evidentiary record upon which the Board must make its decision.
CBG noted that the Staff's proposed schedule would permit the Staff over five months (January 12 to June 15) to prepare its rebuttal to CBG's testimony whereas CBG would have only a few weeks to prepare rebuttal (and cross-examination) of Staff's testimony.1! The Board submitted the following comments, prior to receipt of the Staff and UCLA responses to CBG's motion for an earlier date for prefiling:
First, we are in general agreement with CBG and Santa Monica that they should have ample time to evaluate Staff's and UCLA 's testimony in advance of hearing.
However, insofar as the filing of Staff's testimony is concerned, wehave only a limited ability to set deadlines.
See Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Power Plants),
ALAB-489, 8 NRC 194 (1978).
1/ Staff, in its April 4 pleading, asserts that it needs eight weeks to prepare its response to CBG 's case.
- Yet, as indicated above, it will have had twenty-two weeks to do so.
Furthermore, as shown in the attachment to the CBG pleading of April 7 Staff had already begun work with its consultants in preparing that rebuttal within a few weeks of CBG's Jan.12 declarations.
There is no escaping the fact that Staff wants 22 weeks for itself but only about 4 for CBG.
P
_4 CBG, in its April 7 pleading, expressed concern about the Board expressing preliminary views on the subject, indicating that the Offshore Power case cited in no way restricts licensing board's powers to set deadlines for submission of prefiled testimony (powers given under 10 CFR 2 718 and 2 711), but in fact deals only with Boards' authority to set deadlines for filing of Staff environmental statements, and that, in fact, the Appeal Board had ruled that Boards had even that authority under certain circumstances.
CBG also indicated that several of its witnesses would be unavailable to prepare rebuttal testimony during the month prior to hearing.
However, on the same day, the Board issued an Order finalizing its preliminary views, stating, "While we also believe that this date /for prefiling testimoni7 should be as early as possible, we lack the authority to require the Staff to meet an earlier date."
The Board cited once again Offshore Power.
As the Board's Order and CBG's objection to the same argument contained in the preliminary comments in the prior Order crossed in the mail, the' Board was unable to consider CBG's comments in reaching that decision.
CBG respectfully requests the Board reconsider its decision, in light of CBG's discussion of what Offshore Power's precedent implies regarding basic scheduling such as testimony filing after SERs and environmental statements have been served, and the other comments contained in CBG's April 7 pleading.
. CBG also wishes to record for the record its objection to the Board issuing the preliminary statement that it did on the matter prior to receiving the responses to the motion.
The Board put its' elf in the position of advancing for the Staff an objection the Staff itself had not yet advanced, and of indicating its agreement with that position should Staff indeed advance it thereafter.
- Staff, of course, took the suggestion.
CBG has indicated in previous pleadings its concern that such actions go beyond ruling on objections raised by parties to suggesting for parties arguments or motions not put forth by the parties themselves, Hearing Starting Date It had been CBG's understanding that the starting date for hearing was dependent upon determination of order of presentation, because, at least for CBG 's witnesses, they were not available for the entire three-week period.
It had been CBG's understanding that parties should keep the Board informed of availability changes in a timely fashion, and that the Board would notify the parties prior to making the final determination of when to start the hearing so that last-minute input could be provided.
CBG 's request for such a procedure, at least, crossed in the mails with the Board's Order.
.. As indicated in the introduction, CBG will check with its witnesses in the next few days and see if their schedules can be rearranged to permit, on the assumption that the Board's determination of CBG last continues to hold true, the July 18 starting date.
CBG will notify the Board 4
on the 20th when it provides witness lists.
If the schedules cannot be rearranged, the 25th as starting date may be necessary.
CBG will notify the Board as soon as possible, in its April 20 witnass list at the latest.
Conclusion CBG respectfully requests reconsideration of the July 15 prefiling deadline, according to the argument put forth in CBG's April 7 pleading.
Should May 15 not be 5
granted as that deadline, CBG requests. opportunity to request other relief that may in some part alleviate some of the major problems created by such short review time.
CBG will notify the Board shortly, after consultati6n with its witnesses, whether consideration of the July 25 starting date, as indicated in CBG's pleading of April 7, will be necessary.
f Re pectfully/) submitted,
/
/? /-
wkY <WWc k aniel Hirsch dated at Ben Lomond, CA this 14th day of April,1983
,-~
F UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4 e-In the Matter of Docket No. 50-142 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVEIEITY g NO $0 (Proposed Ifulneb of 0F CALIFORNIA Facility License)
(UCLA Research Reactor) y'jg, p E-H DECIARATION OF SERVICE I hereby declare that copies of the attached: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN HEARING SCHEDULING MATTERS and MOTION TO STRIKE 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: April 14, 1983 John H. Frye, III, Chairman Christine Helwick Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Glenn R. Woods U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel 590 University Hall Dr. Emmoth A. Imebke 2200 University Avenne Admindstrative Judge Berkeley, CA 94720 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Re6ulatory Commisa' ion Mr. John Bay Washington, D.C. 20555 3755 Livisadero #203 San Francisco, CA 94123 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Administrative Judge Avna-Naliboff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Deputy City Ittorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission City Hall l
Washin6 tat. D.C. 20555 1685 Main Street Chief, Docketing and Service Sec. tion Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washin6 ton, D.C. 20555 l
Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission c
eo Washington, D.C. 20555 t
g g Board Fanel attention Ms. Colleen Woodhead US NRC
'ilashingtonDC 20555 william H. Cormier Office of Administ::ative Vice Chancellor University of California 405 Hilgard Avenue
/ 4
.g Los Angeles, California 90024 y
g President CCMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP f07 y
.