ML20197D961
| ML20197D961 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Berkeley Research Reactor |
| Issue date: | 05/25/1988 |
| From: | Bright G, Carpenter J, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | BERKELEY, CA |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6427 88-574-07-OLA, 88-574-7-OLA, OLA, NUDOCS 8806080040 | |
| Download: ML20197D961 (4) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
R , & 111L FAC., $
a 00lMETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' W
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION
'88 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 25 P2:58 Before Administrative Judges: FICf i " O'# I#
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman 70CCf'*A ~ N #' "
2D'V'fq
Glenn 0. Bright James H. Ca' penter SERVED MAY 251988
) Docket Nos. 50-244-OLA In the Matter of ) (Research Reactor)
)
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ) ASLBP No. 88-574-07-OLA BERKELEY. )
) May 25, 1988
' MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (RE: Interest of City of Berkeley)
MEf10RANDUM
!. Background On March 10, 1988, the Commission published a Notice stating that it was considering issuance of orders to authorize the University of California, Berkeley (the Licensee) to dispose of the component parts of the research reactor in its possession, in accordance with the Licensee's application dated January 8, 1988 and terminating the Facility Operating License No. R-101. The Notice further stated that any person whose interest might be affected by this proceeding and who wished to participate as a party had to file a petition for leave to intervene by April 11, 1988. (53 Fed. Reg. 7823) j On April 12, 1988, the City of Berkeley (City) filed a "Petition To j Intervene In License Amendment Proceeding, Request For Hearings And i
8806080040 800525 PDR ADOCK 05000244 h .50V
+-
s
's Further Relief." On May 2, the NRC Staff filed its response stating that the Staff believed the City had shown how its interest might be affected by the outcome of the proceeding and had identified at least one aspect of the proposed amendment on which it wished to intervene.
In a letter dated May 13, 1988, the Licensee stated it did not oppose the petition and request.1 II. Discussion 2 The Staff's response stated its belief that the City's petition met the "interest" requirements of Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 52399(a), and of 10 C.F.R. 62.714. Citing Portland General Electric Company (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610 (1976), the Staff stated that it also 1
In a telephone call on May 12, the Chairman asked the Licensee's General Counsel whether an answer had been filed responding to the City's petition to intervene and request for hearing. Mr. Gordon replied that the Licensee had not responded because it had decided not to oppose the petition and request, particularly after reading the Staff's response of May 2. In order that the record be complete, the Chainnan suggested that he file a submission stating that the Licensee had no opposition.
2 Uncertain whether the City filed its petition under 10 C.F.R. 92.714 or under 10 C.F.R. 52.715(c), in a letter dated May 12, the Board inquired whether the City had intended to petition to be a party-intervenor or to be an interested municipality. In order to expedite this proceeding, the Board placed a conference call on May 18 -- participants were Joseph Rutberg, Esq., Counsel for Staff; Ms. Vicki Elmer, Assistant City Manager, and Ann Ginger, Esq.; and Milton Gordon, Esq., Licensee's General Counsel. After the Board clarified the distinction between proceeding under $2.714 and
$2.715(c), Ms. Elmer advised that the City had petitioned for leave to intervene as a party pursuant to $2.714. In light of this conversation, the Board stated that there was no need for the City to respond to the Board's letter of May 12.
5 believed that the City had met the "interest" requirements in meeting contemporaneous judicial concepts of standing. We agree. The petition states, inter alia, that "...the City of Berkeley's interest in this matter stems directly from its responsibility under law for the overall health and safety of its 108,000 residents and further from the Licensee's stated intention to depend on the City's emergency services in the event of any problems arising from the proposed decommissioning' and that "the reactor itself and all the activities attendant to the proposed decomissioning are located within the City gives the City the most concrete standing of any potential intervenor." The Staff also stated that it believed that the City had complied with the requirement of 62.714 that it specify at least one aspect of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which the petitioner wished to intervene. We agree. The petition asserts, among other aspects, that Licensee's proposed change of the facility license is deficient in that there is no emergency plan.
ORDER
- 1. The petitioner, the City of Berkeley, has established its interest / standing and has specified at least one aspect of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which it wishes to intervene.
- 2. Within 30 (thirty) days after the service of this Memorandum and Order, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.714(b), the City shall file a supplement to its petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which petitioner seeks to have litigated in this matter and I
l 6
the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity.3 i Within 20 (twenty) days after the service of the City's supplement, the Licensee and the Staff shall file their answers.
- 3. At a future date, the Board will issue an Order scheduling a 92.715a special prehearing conference.
- 4. Upon receipt of this Memorandum and Order, the persons appearing in a representative capacity for the Licensee and for the City shall file with the Commission written notices of appearance. See 92.713(b).
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
?>AA A M ft She' don J. lfe, Clairman ADMINIS1 RAT @IVEJUDGE A
Glenn O. Bright k h /3L/ @
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE HY phiesH.CarpenteV MDMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 25th day of May, 1988.
3 See Texas Utilities Electric Com3any (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Unit 1), ALAB-868, 25 N RC 912, 930-31 (1987); Philadelphia Electric Company (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 19-21 (1974).
___