ML20072T577

Response to Committee to Bridge the Gap & City of Santa Monica 830315 Filings Re Scheduling.Opposes Change to 830615 Filing Date for Testimony.Dates Should Not Be Set for Hearings on Contentions I,Ii,Vi or Xv.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20072T577
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	04/01/1983
From:	Cormier W CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8304080207
Download: ML20072T577 (6)

Text

.

v-'

COLKETED.

USHRC

)

'83 APR ~7 P2:05 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR-REGULATORY COMMISSION dh..'];;fh/y{j[.y:

BRht;CH -

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD t

In the Matter of

)

)

Docket No. 50-142 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY

)

(Proposed Renewal of Facility OF CALIFORNIA

)

License Number R-71)

)

April.1, 1983 4

(UCLA Research Reactor)

)

l I

i j

4 UNIVERSITY'S RESPONSE TO CBG'S AND CITY'S j

REQUESTS CONCERNING SCHEDULING MATTERS

'l i

i l

1 i,

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'THEl UNIVERSITY i

OF. CALIFORNIA 8304080207 830401 PDR ADOCK 05000142 O

PDR njSDb

a D

I.

INTRODUCTION-In its March 23, 1983 Memorandum and Order (" Order") the Board directed that responses to CBG's motion of March'15, 1983 regarding hearing scheduling matters be filed within the time specified in the Rules of Practice.

The Board also directed that responses to the concerns of the City.of Santa Monica

(" City") on scheduling and identification of witnesses as expressed in City's letter to the Board of March 15, 1983, should be filed within the same time period.

CBG's motion and City's letter raise the same concerns.

Because University understood that the schedule for hearing the " inherent safety" issue had been essentially set at the end of the Board's March 11 conference call, University did not intend to respond to CBG's and City's concerns.

With the Board's Order indicating that University's response was expected, University requested an extension of the time to respond.

An extension was granted and University was directed to respond by April 4, 1983.

University is opposed to any change in the June 15,;-1983 date for filing direct testimony for the July hearing.

University-is also opposed to setting dates for hearings'on Contentions I,. II,

VI and XV since summaryfdisposition,of those-contentions is still under consideration by the Board.

CBG's request with respect to Contention XIII is discussed in a separate response.

F~

l i

II.

DISCUSSION As a result of the March 9 and 11 conference calls University understood the Board to have " set" June 15, 1983 as the date for the filing of direct testimony for the July hearing.

UCLA's staff, who have other on-going job responsibilities,-have arranged their schedules around that date.

UCLA's lead attorney will be involved in two unrelated legal proceedings of uncertain duration during April and the first part of May.

As a result, University cannot now commit to the submission of its direct testimony prior to June 15.

University has been very flexible with respect to scheduling matters in this proceeding.

The Board's scheduling decisions have been made largely for the convenience of CBG.

University is unable to be flexible with respect to the date for filing direct testimony.

University wishes to note that if any party is dis-advantaged by this schedule it is University.

University's case, based on its application, the safety analyses contained therein, the now superseded 1960 Hazards Analysis,.and the NRC-conducted generic analyses as incorporated into University's application, has been available for at least two years now.

In contrast,-.CBG's

" case", based as it purportsito be on the declarations;of eighteen so-called " experts", was not revealed to the Board and parties-until February of this year. ~

c-q

.9 Moreover, University was-recently challenged by the Board to take its safety analyses a step further and " teach" the

-Board (and parties) the fundamental principles of' nuclear physics (also thermodynamics, hydraulics, mechanics and chemical engineering), which will answer the questions raised in CBG's declarations.

Yet, University has had only a month.to review the statements of CBG's declarants and to consider what detailed engineering explanations need be incorporated in its-direct testimony.

The Board is-reminded that at CBG's request-the time for filing summary disposition motions was delayed'over a year and, at CBG's request, the time for responding to such motions once filed was extended to five months.

As it now stands, University possesses-only " half" of the response to which it is entitled on its motion.

CBG's complaints about witness availability are based on false statements, misrepresentations and calumnious remarks that do not deserve specific comment here.

UniversityLnotes only that in its November 9, 1981 " Follow-up Responses to Intervenor's Set Three and Set Four (Final). Follow-up-Interrogatories" (Response to Follow-up No. VI-32, -p.

ll5) University: made -it clear that it did not intend to consider-the need for experts:until after its motion for summary disposition (which University was then anxious to file) - had been fully considered by. the' Board' and 'it had been determined that indeed a hearing was'neededLon certain issues.

As'to the number of University's witnesses both CBG.and City are -

m

~

. 4

F'l reminded that'the University never stated that its witnesses would be limited to only Mr. Ostrander, or Mr. Ostrander and Dr. Wegst..

(See, for example, the discussion that occurred at the prehearing conference; Tr. 910-911.)

As of this time University has not determined what areas of the analysis it is in the process of preparing it wishes to support with additional expert testimony.

Consequently, University has not yet made arrangements for any other witnesses to appear on its behalf.

With respect to the other relief CBG seems to be requesting, University notes simply that is would be inappropriate to consider evidentiary hearings on Contentions I, II, VI and XV until CBG.had completed its responses to University's and Staff's summary disposition motions and the Board-has rendered its decision.

j In particular, University submits that neither Contention I nor.II presents any genuine and material factual dispute that requires an evidentiary hearing.

III.

CONCLUSION i

For the reasons discussed above, University' respectfully requests that the Board deny the specific relief being requested by CBG.

1 Dated:

April 1, 1983.

DONALD L.

REIDHAAR GLENN R.: WOODS CHRISTINE HELWICK By:

r M

. William L.

Cormier

Representing UCLA

_4_

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-

.l 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 AND CITY'S REQUESTS CONCERNING SCHEDULING MATTERS 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 4, 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 i

. Ben Lomond, CA-95005' Dr. Oscar H. Paris, i

Administrative Judge Nuclear Law Center.

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD c/o Dorothy Thompson-j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. Commission 6300 Wilshire: Blvd., #1200' Washington, D.C.

20555 Los Angeles, CA_90048 Counsel for the NRC Staff

'Ms.1Lynn G. Naliboff

{

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR.

Deputy City Attorney

~

l 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 d

I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.:20555 l'

p'h

. WILLI)W H'.

CORMIER-UCLA Representative-

• Expressed mailedLApril.3, 1983.

THE REGENTS OF~THE UNIVERSITY-

'OF. CALIFORNIA

-