ML20058B906
| ML20058B906 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 07/22/1982 |
| From: | Woodhead C NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8207260192 | |
| Download: ML20058B906 (6) | |
Text
DESIGNATED OR1GDIAI) g (drtNIed By_ MOP 4 y
DS9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-142 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
)
)
(Proposed Renewal of Facility
)
License)
(UCLAResearchReactor)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR'S PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO CONTENTIONS I. INTRODUCTION On July 12, 1982, Conmittee to Bridge the Gap (CBG or Intervenor) filed its proposed modifications to the language of the contentions.
The Staff has reviewed the proposed modifications to ascertain if they accomplish the stated purpose of reflecting the recent application amendments. Below are set forth the Staff's determinations as to which of the modifications accomplish such purpose and should be approved and those modifications which do not accomplish such purpose and should be rejected.
In addition, the Staff identifies certain contentions for which modification to their language appears appropriate but for which CGB has not proposed any modification.
II. BACKGROUND The Regents of the University of California submitted an application for renewal of the operating license for the research reactor at UCLA in February, 1980. The Intervenor, Committee to Bridge the Gap, submitted many conte,ntions, twenty of which were admitted to the proceeding in March, 1981. On June 23, 1982, UCLA submitted major amendments to its pending application, the most significant of which were the withdrawal and 8207260192 820722 PDR ADOCK 05000142 O
replacement of the original 1960 Hazards Analysis in Appendix III; withdrawal of Appendix IV (to be replaced with the recently submitted emergency plan under review by Staff); and withdrawal and replacement of Appendix V Technical Specifications. Because these amendments were significant and material to the CBG contentions, both Staff and Applicant proposed to theBoardattherecentprehearingconferenceE that CBG be allowed to modify its contentions, where necessary, to reflect the recent application amend-ments. The Board established July 12, 1982 as the date for submission of these modifications with the other parties permitted 10 days in which to file responses. Tr. 754-55 III. DISCUSSION The Staff does not object to CBG's proposed modifications to Contentions I.2.c.; I.3.a,b,c,d,e,f,& g; I.3.c.(V); II.b.; V.6, 8 & 9.
The following proposed modifications are unrelated to the application amendments and should not be approved:
I.3. (The proposed change is merely a rephrasing of the previous language without change in meaning)
I.3.c.(i) (The application amendments did not alter the fact that a change from 2.3% Ak/k to $3.54 was made in the technical specifications.)
I.3.c.(ii) (This subpart is unaffected by the amendments.)
V.3. (The addition of the word " currently" is obviously gratuitous.)
V.4. (The addition of "value for the" has no relation to the amendments.)
1/
Tr. 629-633; 637-639; 750-757.
. a V.5.& V.II (The proposed deletion of the numbers 2.3 and 3.54 are unrelated to the amendments. This numerical change still exists.)
235 XIII (The change from U to SNM is arbitrary and unrelated to the amendments.)
XIV (Addition of the word " adequately" is obviously gratuitous and unrelated to the amendment.)
In the course of the Staff's review of the proposed modification, we have noted that CBG has failed to correct those contentions, Contention 1.2.a. and Contention V.3, referencing the withdrawn and replaced 1960 Hazards Analysis in Appendix III of the application. The withdrawn Hazards Analysis is now irrelevant to the pending license renewal proceeding. Thus, CBG should correct these contentions to refer to the present application, or withdraw the contentions. The modifica-tion proposed for Contention VIII continues to reference the withdrawn Hazards Analysis and makes no substantive change from the present Contention VIII. As currently stated, these contentions do not apply to the amended application and, therefore, do not appear to be relevant to this proceeding, since they do not raise any issue concerning the pending application.
In summary, Staff opposes the modifications proposed by CBG to Contentions I.3; I.3.c.(i) & (ii); V.3., 5. & 11; VIII; XIII and XIV because the changes are unrelated to the application's amendments and beyond the scope of necessary corrections.
Staff further points out that Contentions I.2.a.; V.3; and VIII continue to reference the withdrawn material not now before the Commission for consideration. Therefore, unless CBG modifies these Contentions to address the amended application, they will be subject to motions for dismissal.
IV. CONCLUSION The Board should reject the proposed modifications to Contentions I.3.; I.3.c.(i); I.3.c.(ii); V.3.; V.5.; V.11; VIII; XIII and XIV. The
'r Board should grant the modifications to Contentions I.2.c.;
I.3.a,b,c,d,e,f & g; I.3.c.(V); II.b.; V.6, 8 & 9.
Respectfully submitte,
Colleen P. Woodhead Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 22nd day of July l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE AT0!ilC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-142 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
)
Proposed Renewal of Facility
)
License)
(UCLA Research Reactor)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR'S PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO CONTENTIONS," 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, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 22nd day of July,1982.
John H. Frye, III, Chairman Mr. John Bay Administrative Judge 3755 Divisadero #203 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board San Francisco',.CA (94123 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Christine Helwick, Esq.
Glenn R. Woods, Esq.
Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke*
Office of General Counsel Administrative Judge 2200 University Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 590 University Hall U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Berkeley, CA 94720 Washington, DC 20555 Roger Holt Esq.
Dr. Oscar H. Paris
- Office of City Attorney Administrative Judge 200 North Main Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board City Hall East, Room 1700 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Los Angeles, CA 90012 Washington, DC 20555 Daniel Hirsch Box 1186 Committee to Bridge the Gap Ben Lomond, CA 95005 1637 Butler Avenue, #203 Nuclear Law Center Los Angeles, CA 90025 c/o Dorothy Thompson 6300 Wilshire #1200 William H. Cormier, Esq.
Office of Administrative Vice Los Angeles, CA 90048 Chancellor University:of California at Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Los Angeles Panel
- 405 Hilgard Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Los Angeles, CA 90024 Washington, DC 20555
1 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Robert M. Meyers Panel (5)*
City Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Sarah J. Shirley Washington, DC 20555 Deputy City Attorney 1685 Main Street, Docketing and Service Section ( )*
Room 310 Office of the Secretary Santa Monica, CA 90401 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555
-N_ i_ s.
Colleen P. Woodhead Counsel for NRC Staff 1
l l
~
_ - - - _ -