ML20088A066

Advises That No Separate Motion Re OL Suspension Will Be Filed Since License Suspension Is Precisely Relief Sought in Pending Motion for Curtailment,Per ASLB 840322 Memorandum & Order

ML20088A066
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	04/06/1984
From:	Bay J COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP
To:	Bright G, Frye J, Luebke E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8404100500
Download: ML20088A066 (2)

Text

h DOME'U Committee to Bridge the Gap 1637 Butler Avenue, Suite 203 Los Angeles, CA 90025 April 6, 1M4 APR 10 All:25 UO O$G IY#.>

BRA tiCH John H. Frye, III, Chairman Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Glenn O. Bright Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Liceneing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 In the Matter of THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (UCLA Research Reactor)

Docket No. 50-142 (Proposed Renewal of Facility License)

Dear Administrati'Je Judges:

In your March 22, 1984 Memorandum and Order you indicated that the Order did not fully respond to several issues raised by CBG's letter of March 14, 1984, and that CBG could file motions in regard to such issues and new develop-ments as it sees fit. One of these issues was CBG's assertion that now that the reactor is shut down, the law and con-siderations of public policy require that this proceeding become a restart proceeding with UCLA's license being sus-pended until such time as compliance with the regulatory standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.40 have been fully demon-strated. CBG finds no reason to file a separate motion in this regard for the reason that suspension of the license is precisely the relief being sought, on the same legal and policy bases, in CBG's pending Motion for Curtailment (III).

We should also point out that latest development related to the reactor shutdown, Mr. Cormier's letter of March 30, 1984, d es not mitigate CBG's concerns and, in fact, serves 8404100500 840406 PDR ADOCK 05000142 O PDR ,

}gh)

~

Messrs. Frye, Bright and Luebke Page Two April 6, 1984 to strengthen CBG's position that the license should be suspended until the University has met its burden. This relicensing proceeding has now continued for over four years with Applicant and Staff taking a " nonchalant" and " cavalier" attitude toward the proceedings. This Licensing Board in its March 22,1984 Order has bent over backwards to give Applicant and Staff additional opportunities to supplement the record, particularly with regard to the shutdown mechanism and Wigner energy.

Now, Applicant informs us that the shutdown of the reactor and subsequent opening of the core will not provide opportunities to gather significant information regarding shutdown and Wigner in this phase of the hearings because the core will not be opened for at least six months and possibly much longer. However, the University also tells us that if the Board moves forward and seeks to complete the record with Mr.

Ostrander's shutdown testimony and Dr. Pearlman's Wigner calculations, at such time as the core is opened, it will take actual Wigner measurements and will " redefine" the pathways for the water. Thus, the Applicant is setting up either another six to twelve months delay in the safety hearings or will later argue that any safety rulings are erroneous by virtue of new information. While CBG applauds efforts to gather reliable data on and improve the safety of this reactor, for the Board to allow Applicant to take this attitude and approach toward the instant evidentiary proceedings, while it still retains a license for possession and use of special nuclear material, is absolutely contrary to statute, regu-lation and public policy.

Very truly yours, f

/b d

l John H. Bay Attorney for Intervenor Committee to Bridge l the Gap JHB:bh cc: Service List