The University of California, Davis, will petition the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco for a rehearing of the issues that led to the court's invalidation last week of the campus's Long-Range Development Plan (LRDP) because the plan did not include an environmental assessment of a laboratory that had conducted long-term studies of low-level radiation. The appeals court decision had reversed an Alameda County Superior Court ruling that the plan and its accompanying environmental impact report were properly prepared. "We believe there were misunderstandings of fact that need to be brought to the court's attention," said UC Davis Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Larry Vanderhoef. "But most troubling is the growing evidence that the environmental review process is being misused through this suit to stop growth on this campus." The appeals court ruling, in a suit by Davis residents Larry Bidinian and Bruce Maeda of the West Davis Community Association, invalidated the LRDP for lack of an environmental assessment of the Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research (LEHR) and requires the University to prepare a new environmental study addressing clean-up and re-use of the LEHR site. (The laboratory was a federally funded facility where for more than 30 years scientists studied the health effects of exposure to low levels of radiation. The University and the U.S. Department of Energy are currently evaluating the environmental impact of chemical and low-level radioactive materials at the lab and in the surrounding environment, and treating, containing or removing these materials. Also on the LEHR site are an inactive campus landfill used from the 1940s till it was closed in 1966 and several low-level radioactive waste burial sites where the campus and LEHR deposited wastes, according to regulations, until 1974. DOE and the campus are currently investigating the groundwater and soil in these areas for environmental contamination.) "We take very seriously our responsibility to identify and remedy the environmental problems created at the LEHR site," Vanderhoef said. "We are vigorously pursuing the site's clean-up and have complied precisely and absolutely correctly with both the spirit and the letter of the California Environmental Quality Act. And we strongly agree with the earlier Superior Court judgment that the environmental conditions and required clean-up at LEHR are best addressed through a separate EIR. "Using this single issue to invalidate the campus's entire Long-Range Development Plan can only be interpreted as an attempt to block all growth, all progress in acquiring or improving urgently needed campus facilities." The appeals court ruling possibly could delay such projects as the life sciences expansion of Briggs Hall, the west campus waste water connection, primate center modular buildings to support AIDS research, and replacement of the Primero residence hall complex. It also "complicates considerably" the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs' deliberation over Davis and Sacramento as a possible site for a new veterans hospital to replace its Martinez facility, Vanderhoef said. Jerry Hallee, executive assistant to Vanderhoef, said that continuing to pursue this issue in the courts "adds to already mounting legal costs -- costs that come at the expense of our academic programs. And absolutely no public benefit has been served by this lawsuit because we are already actively pursuing clean-up at the LEHR site." If the appeals court ruling stands, it will go back to Superior Court where a judge will detail specific actions required of the University after hearing arguments from both sides in the dispute. "We certainly would argue vociferously that it is unreasonable to halt construction projects," Hallee said. In September 1990, the Superior Court denied Bidinian's and Maeda's amended challenge to the LRDP. Their original suit, filed in August 1989, challenged such projects as a new football stadium west of Highway 113 and the University's plan for addressing increased traffic and preserving air quality. That suit was amended in April 1990, substituting LEHR as the sole issue of contention. "The University and DOE have been very forthcoming about the environmental assessment at LEHR, regularly updating the community as we have learned more from the ongoing study," Hallee said. "In fact, we have issued some 14 news releases and conducted several community meetings since the assessment began in the fall of 1987." Environmental planner Sid England said the LEHR clean-up will be analyzed in at least two environmental reviews -- the first to consider rehabilitation of several structures (with public review early next year) and the second to address soil and groundwater remediation.