|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20247Q7371989-07-28028 July 1989 Order Authorizing Dismantling of Facility & Disposition of Component Parts ML20211Q3021986-07-14014 July 1986 Order Authorizing Dismantling of Facility & Disposition of Components in Accordance W/Phase I of Dismantling Plan & NRC Rules & Regulations,Per 851029 Application ML20205G6071985-11-0808 November 1985 Order Terminating Proceeding Since Committee to Bridge the Gap Withdrew Petition for Leave to Intervene.No Other Petitions Remain.Served on 851112 ML20205G6551985-11-0808 November 1985 Memorandum & Order Approving Parties 851010 Stipulation to Dismantle & Dispose of All Reactor Components & Equipment Except for Biological Shield & Components Described in Stipulation.Served on 851112 ML20133Q2781985-10-30030 October 1985 Response to ASLB 851016 Memorandum & Order Re Settlement Agreement & Proposed Order on Matters in Dispute Concerning Proposed License Renewal & Dismantlement Proceedings. Paragraph 6 of Proposed Order Should Be Revised ML20133Q2941985-10-30030 October 1985 Affidavit of Dj Kasun Re Question 3 in ASLB 851016 Memorandum & Order Concerning Effect of Release of UCLA Security Plan to Public on Security of Other Nonpower Reactors W/Similar Plans.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133J0691985-10-16016 October 1985 Memorandum & Order Requesting Parties to Respond by 851030 to Listed Questions Re 851010 Settlement Agreement & Proposed Order Terminating Proceeding.Served on 851017 ML20108A9601984-11-13013 November 1984 Answer Opposing Committee to Bridge the Gap 841024 Petition for Hearing & Leave to Intervene.Petition Fails to Satisfy Requirements & No Good Cause Exists for Deferment of Ruling on Petition.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20094A4741984-10-24024 October 1984 Petition of Committee to Bridge the Gap for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing Re Proposed Issuance of Orders Authorizing Disposition of Component Parts & Termination of License R-71.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20097A1271984-09-0707 September 1984 Response to ASLB 840806 Order Part B.Prompt Shipment of SNM, Removal of Metallic Core Components & Prompt Dissolution of Protective Order Required by Order,Regulations & Public Policy.Declaration of Svc Encl ML20097A0181984-09-0707 September 1984 Reply to Committee to Bridge the Gap 840801 Response Re Request to Withdraw Application.Aslb Should Approve Withdrawal of Application & Terminate Adjudicatory Proceedings.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20096G8791984-09-0707 September 1984 Response to ASLB 840806 Order Re Other Parties Responses to UCLA Motion for Withdrawal of Renewal Application. Clarification of Ambiguities in Proposals Progressing.W/Svc List ML20094C1371984-08-0101 August 1984 Response Opposing Staff Proposed Conditions for UCLA Withdrawal of License Renewal Application.Aslb Should Follow Required Practice Consistent W/Nrc Case Law.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20093H9281984-07-20020 July 1984 Reply Opposing Committee to Bridge the Gap (Cbg) 840703 Response to Univ Request to Withdraw Application.Cbg Not Established as Participant in License Termination Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20093G1541984-07-20020 July 1984 Withdrawal of 840622 Emergency Petition for off-shipment of Reactor Fuel Prior to Arrival of Olympic Athletes.Petition Moot.Declaration of Svc Encl ML20090C7851984-07-11011 July 1984 Response Opposing Committee to Bridge the Gap 840622 Petition for Commission Order to Remove SNM Prior to Olympics.Motion Lacks Factual Basis & Does Not Conform to Procedure.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20092P2431984-07-0303 July 1984 Response Supporting Univ 840614 Request to Withdraw Application for License Renewal.Proposed ASLB Order Accepting Withdrawal Request Encl.W/Certificate of Svc ML20151J9891984-06-25025 June 1984 Memorandum Explaining Reason Underlying 840622 Telegraphic Memorandum & Order Suspending All Further Proceeding. Licensee Has Shown No Desire to Retain Fuel Longer than Necessary.Served on 840626 ML20092G2821984-06-22022 June 1984 Emergency Petition for off-shipment of SNM from Site Before Olympics,Due to Withdrawal of Renewal Application & Security Risk Associated W/Olympics.Declaration of Svc Encl ML20140C6651984-06-18018 June 1984 Order Canceling Contention Xx Evidentiary Hearings Due to Licensee 840614 Request to Withdraw License Renewal Application & to Decommission Reactor.Served on 840619 ML20197H3831984-06-14014 June 1984 Request to Withdraw License Renewal Application on Condition That Application Be Made to Decommission ML20197H4051984-06-14014 June 1984 Motion to Suspend Proceedings Pending ASLB Action on Request to Withdraw Application.Hearing on Security Contention Should Be Canceled Immediately to Avoid Unnecessary Expense.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20091Q6071984-06-11011 June 1984 Objection to ASLB 840606 Notice of Evidentiary Hearing Specifying That Portions of Contention Xx Evidentiary Hearing Will Be Closed to Public.Only Portions Dealing W/Protected Info Should Be Closed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20197G7651984-06-11011 June 1984 Motion to Compel Further Written Response of B Ramberg or for Alternative Relief & Costs.Committee to Bridge the Gap Has Not Revealed Documents Per Interrogatory Requests. W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20091M8351984-06-0707 June 1984 Motion to Compel Committee to Bridge the Gap to Provide Further Written Answers to Questions 6 & 7 of Univ 840525 Interrogatories Re Security Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20091G8411984-05-30030 May 1984 Notice of T Taylor & D Hafemeister Depositions on 840604 & 05,respectively.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20091B3371984-05-25025 May 1984 Interrogatories Re Security Contention.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20090J6721984-05-0909 May 1984 Response to Applicant Request for Reversal of ASLB 840413 Finding of Matl False Statements.Requests Hearing in Which Questions Unanswered by Two UCLA Responses Can Be Thoroughly Explored.Declaration of Svc Encl ML20084H1991984-05-0404 May 1984 Notice of Disposition of Plotkin & Gt Cornwall on 840510 Re Physical Security & Request for Production of Documents. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20084F1641984-05-0101 May 1984 Response to ASLB 840413 Order Directing Univ to Indicate Whether Any Representatives Had Reviewed Cormier 830825 Statements.No Representative of Regents Reviewed Statements Before or After Submittal ML20084F1971984-05-0101 May 1984 Declaration of Wh Cormier in Response to ASLB 840413 Memorandum & Order Re Questions About Apparent Misrepresentations Made by Univ & NRC ML20084F7061984-05-0101 May 1984 Estimate of Level of Threat Facing UCLA Reactor in Response to ASLB 840420 pre-hearing Conference Order.Facility Attractive Theft & Sabotage Target.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20084E7271984-04-27027 April 1984 Notice of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20084F1881984-04-27027 April 1984 Declaration of Nc Ostrander Re Review of Cormier 830825 Statements.No Member of Staff Requested to Review Documents Before or After Submittal ML20084D0711984-04-25025 April 1984 Motion for Reconsideration & Clarification of Portions of ASLB 840420 Prehearing Conference Order Re Contention Xx. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20084C4001984-04-24024 April 1984 Reply Opposing Applicant Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 840322 Order & Further Suppl to Rebuttal.Source Term Issue Under Investigation Should Not Be Litigated in Individual License Proceeding ML20084C4151984-04-23023 April 1984 Response to Committee to Bridge the Gap (Cbg) 840406 Motions for Reconsideration of ASLB 840322 Memorandum & Order Ruling on Cbg Objections to Rebuttal Testimony.Motions Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20088A6911984-04-0606 April 1984 Petition Per Reconsideration of ASLB Order Ruling on Committee to Bridge the Gap Objections to Rebuttal Testimony.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20088A2011984-04-0606 April 1984 Response to Applicant 840330 Rept Re Reactor Shutdown, Repair & Testing Schedule.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20088A1611984-04-0606 April 1984 Motion for Reconsideration of Certain Portions of ASLB 840322 Order.Only Penalty for Violation of ASLB Orders Is Further Delay & Continued License Possession,Precisely What Licensee Desires.Declaration of Svc Encl ML20088A0551984-04-0606 April 1984 Motion to Reconsider Portions of ASLB 840322 Memorandum & Order,Overruling Objections to Untimely Filed Rebuttal Testimony.Aslb Has Placed Interest in Complete Record Above Statutory Interests of Proceedings.W/Certificate of Svc ML20087D7111984-03-0909 March 1984 Response to ASLB 840224 Order Indicating Concerns on Security Plan & Security Insp Repts Re Sabotage Matters Raised by Contention Xx & Directing Univ & Staff to Respond by 840309.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20235Z3661984-03-0606 March 1984 Affidavit of MD Schuster in Response to Question Raised by Aslp in UCLA Proceeding in Aslp 840224 Order Re Physical Security Insp Repts to UCLA & Every Licensee Inspected ML20080N2431984-02-16016 February 1984 Motion Denying Committee to Bridge the Gap 740109 Motion for Reactor Curtailment.No Factual or Legal Basis Exists to Support Extreme Remedy Sought.W/Certificate of Svc ML20080B7491984-02-0101 February 1984 Response Objecting to Applicant/Nrc Proposed Witnesses & Proposed Mod to Protected Order.Witnesses Do Not Qualify as Experts.Declaration of Svc Encl ML20080B6871984-01-31031 January 1984 Response Objecting to Release of Certain Protected Info. Proposed Sanitized Portions of Security Plan Should Be Released Only to Qualified Witnesses.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079H8501984-01-20020 January 1984 Reply Opposing Applicant 840117 Request for 24-day Extension to Respond to Committee to Bridge the Gap 840109 Motion for Curtailment.Reasonable Extension Not Opposed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079H4011984-01-17017 January 1984 Application for Extension of Time Until 840216 to Respond to Committee to Bridge the Gap 840109 Motion for Curtailment III (Irreparable Injury Associated W/Any Further Delay). Extension Will Not Delay Matters.W/Certificate of Svc ML20079H3751984-01-17017 January 1984 Response to Committee to Bridge the Gap Memorandum Clarifying Contention Xx,Paragraphs 1,2 & 3.Committee Should Be Made to Respond to NRC Motion Re 10CFR73.67. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079J1881984-01-16016 January 1984 Review of UCLA Analysis of Facility Shutdown Mechanism. Postulated Power Excursion Will Not self-terminate as Assumed by Expulsion of Water Out Top of Fuel Box Region Through Surrounding Brick Walls 1989-07-28
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20133Q2781985-10-30030 October 1985 Response to ASLB 851016 Memorandum & Order Re Settlement Agreement & Proposed Order on Matters in Dispute Concerning Proposed License Renewal & Dismantlement Proceedings. Paragraph 6 of Proposed Order Should Be Revised ML20097A0181984-09-0707 September 1984 Reply to Committee to Bridge the Gap 840801 Response Re Request to Withdraw Application.Aslb Should Approve Withdrawal of Application & Terminate Adjudicatory Proceedings.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20094C1371984-08-0101 August 1984 Response Opposing Staff Proposed Conditions for UCLA Withdrawal of License Renewal Application.Aslb Should Follow Required Practice Consistent W/Nrc Case Law.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20093H9281984-07-20020 July 1984 Reply Opposing Committee to Bridge the Gap (Cbg) 840703 Response to Univ Request to Withdraw Application.Cbg Not Established as Participant in License Termination Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20090C7851984-07-11011 July 1984 Response Opposing Committee to Bridge the Gap 840622 Petition for Commission Order to Remove SNM Prior to Olympics.Motion Lacks Factual Basis & Does Not Conform to Procedure.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20092P2431984-07-0303 July 1984 Response Supporting Univ 840614 Request to Withdraw Application for License Renewal.Proposed ASLB Order Accepting Withdrawal Request Encl.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092G2821984-06-22022 June 1984 Emergency Petition for off-shipment of SNM from Site Before Olympics,Due to Withdrawal of Renewal Application & Security Risk Associated W/Olympics.Declaration of Svc Encl ML20197H4051984-06-14014 June 1984 Motion to Suspend Proceedings Pending ASLB Action on Request to Withdraw Application.Hearing on Security Contention Should Be Canceled Immediately to Avoid Unnecessary Expense.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20197G7651984-06-11011 June 1984 Motion to Compel Further Written Response of B Ramberg or for Alternative Relief & Costs.Committee to Bridge the Gap Has Not Revealed Documents Per Interrogatory Requests. W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20090J6721984-05-0909 May 1984 Response to Applicant Request for Reversal of ASLB 840413 Finding of Matl False Statements.Requests Hearing in Which Questions Unanswered by Two UCLA Responses Can Be Thoroughly Explored.Declaration of Svc Encl ML20087D7111984-03-0909 March 1984 Response to ASLB 840224 Order Indicating Concerns on Security Plan & Security Insp Repts Re Sabotage Matters Raised by Contention Xx & Directing Univ & Staff to Respond by 840309.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080N2431984-02-16016 February 1984 Motion Denying Committee to Bridge the Gap 740109 Motion for Reactor Curtailment.No Factual or Legal Basis Exists to Support Extreme Remedy Sought.W/Certificate of Svc ML20080B7491984-02-0101 February 1984 Response Objecting to Applicant/Nrc Proposed Witnesses & Proposed Mod to Protected Order.Witnesses Do Not Qualify as Experts.Declaration of Svc Encl ML20080B6871984-01-31031 January 1984 Response Objecting to Release of Certain Protected Info. Proposed Sanitized Portions of Security Plan Should Be Released Only to Qualified Witnesses.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079H8501984-01-20020 January 1984 Reply Opposing Applicant 840117 Request for 24-day Extension to Respond to Committee to Bridge the Gap 840109 Motion for Curtailment.Reasonable Extension Not Opposed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079H4011984-01-17017 January 1984 Application for Extension of Time Until 840216 to Respond to Committee to Bridge the Gap 840109 Motion for Curtailment III (Irreparable Injury Associated W/Any Further Delay). Extension Will Not Delay Matters.W/Certificate of Svc ML20079H3751984-01-17017 January 1984 Response to Committee to Bridge the Gap Memorandum Clarifying Contention Xx,Paragraphs 1,2 & 3.Committee Should Be Made to Respond to NRC Motion Re 10CFR73.67. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079H9711984-01-16016 January 1984 Reply to NRC & Applicant 831230 Pleadings Re Contention Ii.Ucla Ceased Using Reactor in Fashion for Which License Granted & Therefore,Should Not Be Permitted to Receive License.Declaration of Svc Encl ML20079E4461984-01-11011 January 1984 Response to Committee to Bridge the Gap 831227 Second Motion to Curtail Activities.Motion Deficient in Form,Based on Factual Misrepresentations & Lacks Merit & Therefore Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20083H3291984-01-0909 January 1984 Motion for Curtailment of Reactor Operation Pending Final Determination of Safety Concern.Irreparable Injury Associated W/Any Further Delay of Proceeding.Declaration of Svc Encl ML20083J4331983-12-30030 December 1983 Response to ASLB 831130 Memorandum & Order Requesting Further Views on Whether Use of Reactor Disposative of Contention Ii.Renewal of Class 104 License Respectfully Requested.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20083J3831983-12-30030 December 1983 Response Opposing Citizens to Bridge the Gap Motion for Curtailment of Activities.Motion Premature & Based on Misrepresentation of Factual Record.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20083J3541983-12-30030 December 1983 Response to ASLB 831130 Memorandum & Order Directing Parties to Address Question Re Whether Sale of Irradiation Svcs by UCLA to U West Constitutes Research Activities.Sale Constitutes Commercial Activity.W/Declaration Svc ML20083F5921983-12-27027 December 1983 Corrected Version of 831214 Motion for Curtailment of Activities Re Sabotage Protection Plan ML20083F5861983-12-27027 December 1983 Motion Requesting Evidentiary Hearings Be Scheduled No Later than 840215 Re Issue of Adequacy of Reactor Security So That Issue Can Be Resolved Well in Advance of 1984 Olympic Games. Declaration of Svc Encl ML20083A6201983-12-14014 December 1983 Motion for Curtailment of Activities Due to Lack of Plan for Adequate Protection Against Sabotage (Contention Xx). Facility No Longer Has Authority to Possess or Utilize SNM W/O Plan.Declaration of Svc Encl ML20082M3011983-12-0202 December 1983 Response Requesting That ASLB Overrule Committee to Bridge the Gap 831117 Objections to Rebuttal Testimony.Committee, Not Univ,Delaying Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20082D6671983-11-16016 November 1983 Motion to Strike Proposed Rebuttal Testimony by Util & Nrc. Only Small Portion of Proposed Testimony Qualifies as Genuine,Legitimate Rebuttal.Declaration of Svc Encl ML20078B8551983-09-21021 September 1983 Answer to NRC Petition for Reconsideration of ASLB Rulings on Contention 11 Re Commercial Use of Reactor.Aslb Should Uphold Rule That Bars Commercial Use of Reactors Covered by Class 104 Licenses.Declaration of Svc Encl ML20077Q3111983-09-13013 September 1983 Consolidated Response Opposing UCLA & NRC 830829 Motion to Strike & Objections to Committee to Bridge the Gap Testimony & Exhibits.Objections Lack Merit.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20077Q3181983-09-12012 September 1983 Response Opposing NRC 830815 Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 830511 Denial of NRC Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Xx Re Radiological Sabotage.Pu/Be Sources Not Exempt from SNM Count.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024F2681983-09-0606 September 1983 Exceptions to Alternate ASLB Member Ja Laurenson Recommended Decision Re Contention Ii.Reactor Primary Use Is No Longer Research & Educ.Licensee Cannot Be Entrusted W/Class 104 License.W/Declaration of Svc ML20077S6391983-09-0606 September 1983 Response Supporting NRC 830502 Petition for Reconsideration of ASLB 830422 Order Denying Licensee & NRC Motions for Summary Disposition of Contention Ii.Aslb Misinterpreted 10CFR50.22.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20077S4201983-09-0606 September 1983 Response Opposing Alternate ASLB Member 830712 Recommended Decision That Class 104 License Be Granted Upon Condition That Less than 50% of Use of Reactor Be Dedicated to Commercial Purposes.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080D2021983-08-26026 August 1983 Motion to Strike H Pearlman Testimony Re 15 C Graphite Temp Due to Wigner Release.New Conclusion Inserted Into Evidence W/O Supporting Basis.Declaration of Svc Encl ML20080D3121983-08-25025 August 1983 Response Supporting NRC 830815 Petition for Reconsideration of ASLB 830511 Memorandum & Order.Aslb Should Reverse Ruling Denying NRC Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Xx. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20076G8951983-08-20020 August 1983 Motion Opposing Admission of Portions of Committee to Bridge the Gap Testimony.Testimony Is Beyond Scope of Matters ASLB Directed to Be Considered or Otherwise Inadmissible.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20024C3621983-07-0606 July 1983 Reply Opposing Util 830630 Motion to Reopen Contention II Proceedings.Motion Untimely,W/O Proper Foundation & Unnecessary.Proferred Matter Irrelevant.Declaration of Svc Encl ML20072K7851983-06-30030 June 1983 Motion to Reopen Special Proceedings on Contention Ii,To Take Official Notice of Commission Licensing Records Re Ga Technologies,Inc License Class ML20024A0751983-06-0909 June 1983 Response Opposing Ucla 830602 Motion,Requesting Leave to Introduce Testimony on Seismic Matters at Safety Hearings, Deferred by ASLB in 830513 Memorandum & Order Re Contention Xvii.Declaration of Svc Encl ML20071P3151983-06-0202 June 1983 Requests for Clarification of ASLB 830513 Order Scope of Upcoming Hearing.Ucla Must Be Allowed to Present Testimony on Seismic Questions to Answer Issue of Worst Case Accident. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20023C0001983-05-0404 May 1983 Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 830422 Memorandum & Order to Clarify Scope of Contention II Proceedings.Certificate of Svc Encl.Accounting Based on Actual Use of Reactor Demonstrates That Costs Attributed to Noncommercial Use ML20073R2241983-04-29029 April 1983 Response to Committee to Bridge the Gap (Cbg) 830414 Motion to Strike Portions of UCLA Response to Cbg Request for Expedited Ruling on Contention Xiii.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20073R1571983-04-29029 April 1983 Response to Committee to Bridge the Gap 830414 Motion Opposing Scheduling Earlier Date for Filing of Written Testimony.Ucla Wishes to Reserve Right to Modify Witness List If New Date Set for Hearing.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20073G0131983-04-15015 April 1983 Final Supplemental Response in Opposition to Applicant 830316 & NRC 830323 Responses to Issue of Quantity of SNM Currently Possessed by Applicant.No Reliance Can Be Placed on Applicant & NRC Estimates ML20073J1521983-04-14014 April 1983 Motion to Strike Portions of NRC & Util 830404 Responses to Committee to Bridge the Gap 830315 Request for Expedited Ruling on Contention Xiii.Responses Not Responsive to Motion Before ASLB & Are Motions in Incorrect Format ML20073J0721983-04-14014 April 1983 Motion for Reconsideration of Certain Hearing Scheduling Matters in ASLB 830407 Order.Deadline of 830715 to Prefile Testimony Should Be Reset to 830515.Declaration of Svc Encl ML20073G8231983-04-12012 April 1983 Reply Opposing Committee to Bridge the Gap 830404 Response to ASLB 830322 Memorandum & Order,Taking Exception to ASLB Stated Concerns on Potential Sabotage as Part of Accident Analysis.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20072T5771983-04-0101 April 1983 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 ML20072R5751983-03-30030 March 1983 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 1985-10-30
[Table view] |
Text
-. - . . . . .. - . _ . .
.I'
+
- COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE CAP June 9,198hCKETED 1637 Butler Avenue, Suite 203 if.1g Los Angeles, California 90025 (213) 478-0829 i '83 JUN 13 I!11 :22 UNITED STATES & AMERICA NUCIEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE A'lVMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket No.'50-142 THE REGENTS OF ' DIE UNIVERSITY (Proposed Renewal of FOMA FacilityLicense)
(UCLA Research Reactor)
CBG'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR
___" CLARIFICATION" 0F BOARD'S MAY 13, 1983, MEMORANDUM _ AND ORDER I. Introduction Applicant, in a Motion dated June 2,1983, seeks permission to introduce at the July inherent safety hearings testimony on the seismic matters deferred by the Board in its May 13, 1983. Memorandum and order Concerning Contention XVII. In that Memorandum and Order, the Board deferred ruling on the motions for sumnary disposition of that contention, and consideration of evidence on any matters not summarily resolved, pending the outcome of the inherent safety hearings. 'Ihe Board specifically indicated that the issue of " credibility" (i.e., degree of probability) that the core would be damaged by various earthquakes possible at the site would not be heard during the inherent safety hearings, that what is at issue in the inherent safety hearings is the assertion by Staff, supported by Applicant, that no adverse consequences would result from an earthquake 8306150382 830609 DR ADOCK 05000142 PDR T903
,3 induced accident which crushed the core of the reactor. As the Board put it regarding its decision to defer ruling on the summary disposition motions on the seismic matters:
Accordingly, we will continue to &for ruling on those actions pending the outcome of the inherent safety hearings. Those hearings will examine Staff's accident analysis, which is here in question. 'Ihey will not go into UCM's position stated in 5 3.4 of the Application that no substantial damage to the building housing the reactor would result from any credible accident.
Memorardum and Order, p. 4 (emphasisadded)
Applicant, in the guise of a " request for clarification" and with the disingenuous assertion that " University does not seek to disturb the Board's ruling deferring Contention XVII," requests precisely that relief, reversal of the Board's ruling. CBG files in opposition.
II. BLCKGROUND I
l Contention XVII deals with the seismicity of the reactor site and the vulnerability of the reactor core and reactor building to seismically induced damage 'Ihe Staff in its SER sets as the design basis accident for the UCLA reactor core-crushing induced by an earthquakes based on studies performed for the Staff, the Staff asserts that such an accident would result in doses of 30 - 43 Rem to the thyroid. The University relies upon the Staff analyses, and has included the Staff studies by reference in its own Application.
1/ Fart of the contention asserts that the application does not contain the current information on siting required by 10 CFR 50 34(b)(1), particularly regarding seismicity of the site. UCLA has argued that it need not perform a detailed seismic review of the site because the reactor, due to inherent self-limiting features, cannot cause doses to the public in excess of 10 CFR 20 limits were the core crushed in an earthquake. It is that assertion which the Board has set for the inherent safety hearings.
l l
l
_3 At the June 30, 1982, prehearing conference, UCLA attempted to prevent CBG from obtaining use of photographs it had taken of the reactor structure and related facilities, in part as support for CBC's contention that the building could fall down and crush the reactor core in an earthquake.
Judge Frye inquired, during those discussions, whether it was necessary to have the photographs to resolve that argument...
4 JUDGE FRYE: I am assuming the University will stipulate to the fact that the --
MR. CORMIER: We are going to concede that the building is going to collapse and crush the reactor. There is a generic study already done at Los Alamos that assumes that, and we are not going to say that the building is not going to collapse. ,, j TR 696u(emphasis added)
In part because of the above assertion, numerous of the photographs CBG had t
taken were clipped or replaced altogether.
On September 7,1982, CBG moved for partial summary disposition of Contention XVII. %e Staff opposed none of the material facts asserted by CBG to not be in dispute UCIA disputed only four of the facts (all relating to capability and location of specific earthquake faults), citing only CBG's exhibits in opposition. None of the other fourteen facts were disputed at all.
No counterfacts were put forth in response to CBG's motion; the only opposing fact put forth by UCLA's motion for summary disposition of the same contention was an inherent safety assertion, that decay heat build up in a crushed core would not be sufficient, because of 100 kw power limitation, to cause N fuel melting.
The Board, perceiving that UCLA's disputing of the four CBG facts appeared to be over minor semantic reasons, directed UCLA and CBG to confer and attempt to resolve the disputes on the facts. We parties did so, and by CBG agreeing to modify the language of the facts, UCLA withdrew its objections.
2]Shortlythereafterinthesameprehearingconference,counselforUCLA appeared to contradict himself on this same matter, a tendency which has been a source of repeated frustration in this proceeding.
1 t.
- . _4 In light of the lack of any dispute by Staff of Applicant to CBG's statement of 18 material facts, CBG requested the Board grant the requested partial summar y disposition. In its March 23, 1983 Memorandum and Order, the Board granted the request, absent objection, viewing the facts as a stipulation among parties.
UCLA objected, attempting to draw a distinction between having stipulated that the reactor core could be crushed in an earthquake, resulting in fission product release to the environment and doses of at least 10 rem thyroid, and whether the reactor core would be crushed. The Board, on April 14, directed UCLA to explain itself, saying that UCLA seems to say that UCLA will d.ipulate that the building could fall down in a major earthquake, but it won't. That is an inconsistent statement.
Order, p. 3 In its response, UCIA, apparently ignoring its statement at the prehearing conference cited above, argued that it "has never conceded" that such core-crushing was " credible." (p. 5, April 29 Response). Applicant further referred to a portion of its Application (not cited, as required, in opposition to CBG's facts or as basis for any counterfacts during the factual response portion of the Board's bifurcated procedure) which asserts, not that it is not possible nor even that it is not credible that l
the " reactor core would be crushed in the event of the collapse of the reactor l
j building," but rather that it is "by no means certain" that such would be the result.
]/ During the discussions between UCLA and CBG ordered by the Eoard to attempt to work out disagreements about the language of the Contention XVII facts, UCLA never raised this semantic hairsplit.
Y Note that the cited Application section asserts, not that no cubctantial damage to'tx building housing the reactor would occur from an earthquake (as implied in the Israphrase at p. 3 of the Fay 13 Crder), but that it is "by no means certain" that were tie building to collapse onto the reactor core, the core would be dama6ed.
Based on this respnse, the Board decided to continue to defer its ruling on the pending motions for summary disposition, and to not include in the inherent safety hearings the Appl icant's new assertion that although the core could be crushed in an earthquake, the prokbilities were too low to be considered " credible." he Board reiterated its position that the inherent safety hearings were to determine if the reactor was inherently safe (i.e., if it was protected by automatic self-limiting features working by the laws of physics). Only after that determination was made would it be relevant, if at all, to determine the protability of specific events occuring or the effectiveness of engineered safety features 4
such as shield blocks and supports. %e first determination was whether Staff and Applicant are right in their assertion that, based on inherent self-limiting characteristics of the reactor, no endangerment of the public could occur if the core were crushed in an earthquake. It is this decision which Applicant wishes reversed.
III. Discussion UCLA's request at the last minute to include the deferred seismic matters would make it impossible for CBG to present its case on that matter.
Profiled testimony is due 5 days from today. There is no way CBG can i
prepare its presentation in that time on matters that have been deferred by the Board's Order, or put aside because of the Applicant's stipulation (now apparently being attemptai to be wriggled out of) of the facts not in dispute on the seismic contention. To grant UCLA's request would be to deny CBG the opportunity to effectively present its case on the matter.
Furtherr. ore, the Board has yet to rule on the motions for summary disposition. Without such a ruling, as Applicant has itself indicated several times in the past, hearings are premature. Considerable unnecessary matters m- ,,+w -
w- ,-w< w-- --. -+mm---- -,--e, -- ww- - m-m-e w - - , , - - ~ --
-w-- -w s- -
v h
~
'l t.
4 I i
-e 4
would have to be heard that might otherwise be summarily dismissed.'
Under the Board's procedures, a ruling on the summary disposition motions is necessary before setting the matter for hearing. Given the fact that no
- party disputes CBG's statement of eighteen material facts CBG is entitled to a ruling on its motion prior to remaining matters, if any, 'being set for hearing. To do otherwise would be to permit UCIA to ignore stipulated-to facts , ,-
4 f and its own previous statements and litigate matters that could b recolved summarily. ,
Iastly, UCIA's proposal is massively unwieldy. To, deal at hearing.
with UCIA's new contention that the building and/or reactor has a specific probability of withstanding the maximum credible earthquake (whatever; that is determined to be) at the site will obviously require opdentiary~ consideration of the following issues: the location-ofaallvnearby earthqur.ke faults, the magnitude of the largest earthquake credible along those faults, the soil conditions in the area ard beneath the reactor structure (t$ assess' liquefaction potential, etc.), the maximum ground displacement ard acceleration possible s
/
at the site, the probable shape of the acceleration spectra, the response
,=- ,.
4 spectra for the buildings and for the reactor, the strength of supporting columns, etc. Out of this must come a probabilistic rf sk asstaarant of t J
l- the likelihood (presumably quantitative probability) that x earthquake on y
'/ ,
l fault will produce s acceleration spectra and'thus U damage to the building l, s i
j and C degree of crushing of the reactor core. , ,e !
- ?
There will be difficulty concluding all inherent safety matters !
during the time set aside for the inherent refety hes. rings. Litigating the
.I
~
deferred seismic matters at the sans time is impossible.
5 I
l f/ 'Ihe statement of facts supposedly stipulatedito refers to only some of l the potential faults in the area, saying rerely f that they come to aj least l within x distance of the reactor and have at,least y capacity, and thus could l cause core crushing. If the University'aidistinction between could and would is allowed to stand, it will be necessary to litigate location of other faults, j
l as well as how much closer to the site and how nuch larger magnitude the identified
_ ._f.ault_s may obtain, as well as the, complimte_ d acceleration
. _ _ -.__ ani, _ -, liquefaction
_ _ _ _ _ _ratters.
i' ,;
/
I c
IV. Conclusion l
_ _ CBG objects to UCIA's request that the deferred seismic matters be included at this late date in the inherent safety hearings. There is no time for CLG to prepare its testimony on those matters, the Board has yet
,to rule on' the pending motions for suamary disposition, and omsideration of the credibility of various seismic events at this time would make impossible hearing of the inherent safety matters alrep.dy set.
Staff and Applicant have asserted that the reactor is inherently
~ safe. De Board has set hearings to assess that aseertion. To start at this stage to argue that v.he reactor may not be inherently protected against
- nJversa consequences of earthquakes but instead that the probability of specific magnitude earthquakes on specific faults producing specific ground i notiore responses and specific building responses is numerically low enough to be somehow " acceptable" would unacceptably broaden the scope of the
[ Jnherent safety hearings. The seismic questions for the inherent safety hearings are whether, as the Staff asserts, the reactor is inherently protected by the nature of the fuel and the size of its inventory from adverse effects l of seismically-induced core-crushing. To start arguing protabilities rather i
than inherent protection would unravel the entire purpose of the inherent safety hearings as defined in the Board's Farch 23 order. Otherwise the i deferred matters of history of violations, inadequate managerial controls, j' frequency of maintenance problems, etc., would all have to come in during the upcoming hearings for they form the basis for any determination of the j probability of specific accident sequences. he inherent safety hearings are to determine whether the reactor, by virtue of inherent self-limiting l
l } features which " kick in" automatically by the laws of physics, is, as argued l l l
by Staff and Applicant, protected by these inherent features against the I % '
! possibility of serious accident.
,~ , 4 .' - y.,.. - ..., , -,. . . _ . . _ _ , . , . . , , , , . , , _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ . _ . , . _ _ - . _ , . .
If the Applicant wants to concede now that it cannot meet its burden to demonstrate inherent safety, then there is no need for the upcoming hearing.
But if it wants to argue that the reactor does indeed meet the inherent safety standard, then it cannot rest that case on assertions about engineered safety features and probabilities, which have been deferred by the Board and are thus outside the scope of the inherent safety proceedings.
For the above reasons, CBG respectfully opposes UCLA's request.
CBG further records its strenuous objections to UCIA's continuing behavior in the seismic satter: the initial concessions, in an effort to get CBG to agree to cut up its own pictorial evidence, that the reactor would be crushed in an earthquake, pledging not to argue otherwise in the future, pledges quickly reversed and now even denied getting CBG to alter language in its statements of fact on the seismic matter in exchange for withdrawing opposition to the statement of facts, then after the fact raising new, hairsplitting objections to the stipulated facts: and now requesting clarification of the Board's deferral Order, with the assertion that it did not seek to reverse l
the Board's Order, when that was indeed its request, the result of which would permit UCIA, a few days before the deadline for prefiling of testimony, to present evidence on a deferred matter while making it essentially impossible for other parties to do likewise. Such behavior, if tolerated, will unravel l
l all the Board's efforts to structure the proceedings, and would unacceptably broaden the scope of the upcoming hearings fron whether the reactor is inherently protected against accidents to whether engineered safety features are adequate and protabilities low enou6h.
Respectfull sub.itted, f
., L aniel Hirsch President
! dated at Ben Lomond, CA CCEMITTEE TL BRIDGE ThI GAF l this 9th day of June, 19 0 L
t.
UNITED STATES OF APERICA NUCIRAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFEFY AND LICENSINC BOARD In the htter of Docket No. 50-142 THE RECENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
& CALIFORNIA (Proposed Renewal of Facility License)
(UCIA Research Reactor)
DECIARATION OF SERVICE I hereby declare that copies of the attached: CBG'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR "CIARIFICATION" 0F BOARD'S FAY 13. 1953. MEMGRANDUM AND ORDER 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 dates June 9,1983 .
o John H. Frye, III, Chairman Christine Helwick Atomic Safety & Licensing Bosrd Glenn R. Voods U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel 390 University Hall e Dr. Emmoth A. Imebke 2200 University Avenne Administrative Judge Berkeley, CA 94720 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board
, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. John hy Washington, D.C. 20555 3755 Divisadero #203 <
San Francisco, CA 94123 o Dr. Glenn 0. Bright Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ms. W Naliboff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Deputy City Attorney City Hall Washington, D.C. 20555 1685 Main Street Chief, Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Dorothy Thompson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Iau Center .
Washington, D.C. 20555 6300 Wilshire Blvd., #1200 Ios Angeles, CA 90048
- Counsel for NRC Staff ingto D ac ty a I nsing Board Panel attentions Ms. Colleen Woodhead U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 o William H. Cormier Ms. Carole Kagan, Esq.
Office of Administintive Vice Osancellor Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel University of California U.S.f Nuclear Regulatory Commission i 405 Hilgard Avenue Washington, D.C. 20555
/
Los Angeles, Slifornia 90024
- by express mail L w '2 ~ c t Daniel Hirsch' Fresident CCMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP
- --