ML20024F224
| ML20024F224 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 08/29/1983 |
| From: | Woodhead C NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8309090084 | |
| Download: ML20024F224 (11) | |
Text
..
7_
to August 29, 1983 s
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
.BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD N
In the Matter of,
)
'.:THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF Docket No. 50-142
~
- CAL'IFORNI A (Proposed Renewal of Facility
,(UCL'tResearchReactor)
License) f
' a p
x NRC STAFF MOTION TO STRIKE
. CERTAIN PORTIONS OF CBG PROPOSED i
a TESTIMONY AND PROPOSED EXHIBITS
- 1 I.
MOTION The NRC Staff hereby moves to strike portions of the CBG proposed written testimony and exhibits which are not relevant to the proceeding.
TheSta(f-requeststhatitheAtomicSafetyandLicensingBoardexclude the following portions:of _the proposed CBG testimony and all but five CBG proposed exhibits in$icated from the evidentiary record.
A.
Panel Introduc, tion: ~11 5-9, 12 B.
Panel I: 11 4-10, 12-18, 42-43, 50-54, the first sentences of 55 and 56, 62-70,84-101, 109-110, 118-119, 130-135, 144-147 C.
Panel.II:
i5 9, 11, 19-27, 31-36, 39, 60-67, 77 D.
Panel III:', 55 3-11, 13-19 E.
Panel IV: -51,1, 3-5, IL-14, 20-21, 23-27, 31-57, 59-60 t,
F.'
All'CBG exhibits except C-I-14, C-II-1, C-II-2, C-II-6, and C-IV-2.
- x
. '5 s
/
31' r.
/
EU5IC?:LTD GEICla
, choghh 1:!y)_hD ]_ _
DO PDR K ;,;
,),
I I
c q.--c
..-4 g
e
,,,4.,
v-,
7-
_g_-
II.
BACKGROUy0 u
On June 15, 1983 all parties to this proceeding filed written testimony to oe presented at the hearing which began July 19, 1983, to consider,tbe inherent safety of the Argonaut-UTR and maximum credible accidents.
CBG, at start of hearing on July 19, 1983, moved to strike portions of the University's and Staff's prefiled testimony and exhibits. To avoid a repetition of the delay attendant to such a late-filed motion, the Board requested the University and Staff to file their motions to strike by August 29, 1983 prior to the next round of hearings scheduled.
for October 11, 1983 so that CBG would have an opportunity to respond in writing and the Board would have opportunity to rule on the motions before hearing. Tr. 2495.
In accordance with the Board's request, the NRC Staff submits its motion to strike the portions of the CBG proposed testimony described above and all except 5. exhibits because they are irrelevant, immaterial and address issues'beyond the scope of the proceeding.
,III.
DISCUSSION The CBG written testimony consists of a collection of professional
. qualifications of eleven persons whose names are grouped into five lists for appearance as panels, and five documents marked with a panel number.
- Thus, the several persons proposed as witnesses in connection with each document marked with a panel number are identified separately so that the panel testimony as written has no author or sponsor. The written panel testimony consis$s of diverse technical subjects discussed as generalizations and, in?large part, addresses administrative matters previously established 4
~ by the Board as beyond the scope of the present hearings which are limited to consideration of the inherent safety of the Argonaut-VTR. The Staff objects to admission of all irrelevant, immaterial and repetitious evidence 1/ proposed by CBG and has set out below the specific portions of the CBG panel testimony to which the Staff objects and the basis for the objections.
In addition, the Staff explains its objection to the majority of proposed CBG exhibits.
A.
CBG Proposed Panel Testimony Panel 1:
55 5-9 and 12 compare the TRIGA and ARGONAUT reactors.
The TRIGA reactor is not an issue in this proceeding nor is the comparison between the two reactors relevant to the issues. These paragraphs are inadmissible because they are irrelevant and not material to the issues within the scope of the proceeding.
Panel I Testimony 55 4-9 are general discussions of the SL-1 accident which is not an issue in this proceeding, nor is any nexus made between the l
Argonaut and SL-1.
These paragraphs are inadmissible because they are l
not relevant to any issue.
510 is a discussion of the TRIGA reactor, which is not at issue in l
l this proceeding and thus is irrelevant and inadmissible.
l l
51 12-18 are general discussions of the BORAX and SPERT reactors which are not at issue in this proceeding nor is any nexus made
~1/
Only relevant, material and reliable evidence which is not unduly repetitious will be admitted.
Immaterial or irrelevant portions of otherwise admissible evidence should be excluded.
10 CFR s2.743(c).
4'
~
between these reactors and the Argonaut. These paragraphs are irrelevant and thus inadmissible.
SS 42-43 contain general discussions of low-enriched fuel which is not an issue in this proceeding. These paragraphs are irrelevant and thus inadmissible.
It 50-54 also are discussions of the TRIGA and are irrelevant and inadmissible.
11 55 and 56 contain discussions of the TRIGA in the first sentence
' of each paragraph. These two sentences are irrelevant and inadmissible.
T 62 compares the safety of the Argonaut with the TRIGA, SPERT, and 1
BORAX reactors and thus is irrelevant and inadmissible, SS 63-65 are discussions of the original 1960 Hazards Analysis Report (HAR) for UCLA when first licensed at 10kW. This HAR is not part of
.the present application. UCLA did not produce it, does not sponsor it and has not relied upon it in its present application for license renewal.
Thus the 1960 HAR is not relevant to this proceeding to consider license renewal at 100kW. These paragraphs are irrelevant and inadmissible.
51 66-68 are discussions of the UCLA administrative history and the 1960 HAR. Both subjects are irrelevant and outside the scope of the is, sues to be considered in the presently scheduled hearing sessions and, consequently, are inadmissible.
51 69-70 are repetitions nf 11 19 & 20 and should be excluded for that reason.
10 CFR $ 2.743(c).
15 84-88 discuss the 1960 HAR which has no bearing on the instant proceeding.- These paragraphs are irrelevant and inadmissible.
11 89-100 contain a comparison of the 1960 HAR (for 10kW), which is not part of the application, and the 1980 HAR (for 100kW). This comparison
r e
~ is irrelevant to the issues of this proceeding. These paragraphs are inadmissible.
SS 109-110 contain a comparison of the 1960 HAR with the "Battelle Study" and ATL, GNEC, and JASON and general discussions of the characteristics of reactors not at issue in this proceeding. These paragraphs are irrelevant and inadmissible.
5118 is an irrelevant discussion of the 1960 HAR for 10KW.
1119 contains a general discussion of SL-1 and SPERT 1-D which are
' not at issue in the proceeding, nor is any nexus made to the Argonaut-UTR.
This paragraph is irrelevant.
51 130-135 are vague and unsupported speculations of unexplained events, based on discussions of the UCLA administrative history, and general dis-cussions of the SL-1 accident, SPERT, BORAX and the 1960 HAR, none of which are relevant to the proceeding. These paragraphs are inadmissible.
1 144 consists of mere speculation about UCLA administrative controls which are beyond the scope of issues to be considered in the presently schedule hearing sessions.
15 145-146 are vague speculations about unlikely events for which no factual basis or foundation is provided. These paragraphs attempt to _
raise new issues without bases or justification and are objectionable for that reason.
1 147 discusses administrative controls which are beyond the scope of issues to be considered in the presently scheduled hearing sessions.
Panel II Testimony 5 9 is a discussion of the UCLA 1960 HAR and is irrelevant.
111 is an irrelevant general discussion of the Windscale accident,-not at issue, and no nexus is made to the Argonaut.
- 1 19 is a speculative discussion of plutonium combustion, which is not at issue in this proceeding and is not relevant to any issue in this proceeding.
11 20-27 contains an irrelevant discussion of hypothetical fire department responses to a hypothetical reactor fire.
Proper fire department action is beyond the scope of the issues to be addressed in the presently. scheduled hearing session since it is not relevant to inherent safety of the Argonaut reactor and has not been relied on with regard to inherent safety.
139 again contains a general discussion of the Windscale reactor, not an issue in the proceeding, and no nexus is made with the Argonaut.
11 60-61 discuss UCLA administrative controls which are beyond the scope of the issues to be addressed at the presently scheduled hearing sessions.
11 62-66 contain irrelevant, general discussions of metal chemistry without any showing of a nexus of such generalized discussion to the issues in this proceeding.
1 67 again discusses the 1960 HAR and is irrelevant.
1 74 consists of an irrelevant discussion of speculative responses to fires at the facility. Proper fire responses are beyond the scope of the issue of inherent reactor safety which is to be addressed in the presently scheduled hearing sessions.
-Panel III Testimony 1 3 discusses UCLA administrative controls and speculates on future such administrative matters. This subject is beyond the scope of the issues to be addressed in the scheduled hearing sessions and the paragraph is inadmissible.
O
~ 15 11-19 are vague and unfounded speculations and discussions of the UCLA administrative history which is outside the scope of the issues to be considered in the presently scheduled hearing session and are inadmissible.
Panel IV Testimony 1 1 discusses an ANSI /ANS document not relevant to any regulation 2
or regulatory guide and not relevant to the proceeding.
13 discusses a regulatory guide for power reactors, not relevant
.to the proceeding.
5 4 discusses the same irrelevant ANSI /ANS document in 5 1 and should be stricken for that reason.
15 discusses a regulatory guide for power reactors, irrelevant to this proceeding.
110 discusses regulatory guides for power reactors and the dispersion factor in the University of Florida application for relicensing of its reactor, neither of which is relevant to this proceeding.
55 13-14 discuss irrelevant regulatory guides for power reactors.
121 discusses the 1960 HAR and a regulatory guide for power reactors. Both of_these do:uments are irrelevant to this proceeding.
55 21, 23-26, 31 discusstheANSI/ANS(51) document,Universityof Florida dispersion factor, and regulatory guides for power reactors, all of_which are irrelevant to this proceeding.
51 32-36 are irrelevant, general discussions of meteorology in-California, without any nexus to the issues _in the proceeding.
55 37-40 contain an irrelevant discussion of the past construction around the UCLA reactor facility, without any nexus to the issue of inherent safety in this proceeding.
h
e
- TT 41-43 contain vague speculations about unspecified dispersions without relation to the issues in the proceeding, and thus are irrelevant.
55 44-48 are a discur'en of a plutonium fire and dispersion from such a fire, which are not related to the issues established for hearing.
B.
CBG Proposed Exhibits The Staff submits that even a cursory review of the titles and contents of the proposed CBG exhibits demonstrates their inadmissibility
~ since they deal with TRIGA reactors, the administrative history at UCLA, nuclear non-proliferation, BORAX and SPERT destructive tests, excerpts from the 1960 HAR for UCLA and the 1958 HAR for the University of Florida, an article from the UCLA student newspaper, testimony of Mr. Hirsh at a
~ tate agency about a spent fuel shipment, an irrelevant ANSI /ANS document, s
the Los Angeles Fire Department Emergency Response Plan for NEL and an article discussing an explosion at a test reactor. These documents are either irrelevant and without nexus to the issues concerning inherent safety or address issues outside the scope of the presently scheduled hearing. The Staff request,s that all CBG exhibits be denied admission to the evidentiary record of this proceeding except Exhibits marked C-I-14,..
C-II-1, C-II-2, C-II-6 and C-IV-2 which do, in fact, appear to be directed to issues which are the subject of the presently scheduled hearing.
IV.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, the Staff respectfully requests the Board to grant the Staff's motion to strike and to rule that the proposed CBG
' testimony described above, and all but the five exhibits indicated are inadmissible for the presently scheduled hearing.
Respectfully submi ted, J
db Colleen P. Woodhead Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 29th day of August, 1983 l
i e
b
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter cf Docket No. 50-142 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (Proposed Renewal of Facility
)
License)
(UCLAResearchReactor)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN PORTIONS OF CBG PROPOSED TESTIMONY AND PROPOSED EXHIBITS" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, or, as indicated by double asterisks, by express mail, this 29th day of August, 1983:
- John H. Frye, III, Chairman William H. Cormier, Esq.
Administrative Judge Office of Administrative Vice Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Chancellor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission University of California at Washington, DC 20555 Los Angeles 405 Hilgard Avenue
- Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Los Angeles, CA 90024 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Christine Helwick, Esq.
i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Glenn R. Woods, Esq.
(
Washington, DC 20555 Office of General Counsel l
2200 University Avenue l
- Glenn 0. Bright 590 University Hall Administrative Judge Berkeley, CA 94720 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Roger Holt, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555 Office of City Attorney l
200 North Main Street L
Committee to Bridge the Gap City Hall East, Room 1700 1637 Butler Avenue, #203 Los Angeles, CA 90012 l
l~
Los Angeles, CA 90025
- Daniel Hirsch l
John Bay, Esq.
Box 1186 3755 Divisadero #203 Ben Lomond, CA 95005 San Francisco, CA 94123 l
l l
L
Nuclear Law Center
- Atomic Safety and Licensing c/o Dorothy Thompson Board Panel 6300 Wilshire #1200 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Los Angeles, CA 90048 Washington, DC 20555 Robert M. Meyers
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal City Attorney Board Panel Lynn Naliboff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Deputy City Attorney Washington, DC 20555 1685 Main Street, Room 310 Santa Monica, CA 90401
- Docketing & Service Section
- Carole F. Kagan, Esq.
Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 e.>
Colleen P. Woodhead Counsel for NRC Staff 1
l e
i
.....-