|
---|
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 ML20084E7271984-04-27027 April 1984 Notice of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl 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 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 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 ML20088A2011984-04-0606 April 1984 Response to Applicant 840330 Rept Re Reactor Shutdown, Repair & Testing Schedule.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 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
(
0 t'
Docteg $
9 usun UNITED STATES OF AMERICA !g 2 71983 >
NUCLEAR REDULATORT CDMMISSION o.f -
% ' [5N,' #E BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETI AllD LICDiSING B0 In the Matterc of ) N
) Docket No. 50-lu THE RiiDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITI )
0F CALIFBRNIA ) (Pmposed Renewal of
) ', Facility License)
(UCLA Research Reactor) )
RESPONSE BY THE COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMART DISPOSITION BY THE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT
COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP 1637 Butler Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90025 (213) 478-0829 L
D 0301180274 830112 PDR ADOCK 05000142 C PDR
e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEN RE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LIC13SDIG BOARD In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-142 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY )
0F CALIMRNIA ) (Proposed Renewal of
) Facility License)
(UCLA Research Reactor) )
RESPONSE BY THE COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP TO MOTIONS mR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION BY THE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT I. INTRODUCTION On September 1 and September 3 respective 4, the NRC Staff and the Applicant submitted motions in the above-captioned proceeding for sn=ey disposition of ouentially all contantions and subparts thereto. Both parties asserted that not a single material fact was in dispute as to any of the nearly twenty cententions and that no hearing should be pomitted on any of the issues raised by the Intervenor.
CBG objected to the all-encompassing scope of the motions, particularly in light of comments by the Board at the June, 1982, prehearing conference that CBG took as direction not to submit extensive summary disposition motions, or " shotgun" it as one of the members of the Board put it, but to only move for summary disposition in those few areas where a material dicpute genuinely does not exist and the matter can be resolved without a hearing on it. On the bulk of the issues in the case--which the Board indicated were complex and detailed--questions were likely to arise, and because "you can't ask questions of affidavits" a l
l l
2-hearing where witness were.2vai1=hle for -==4 nation would provide the fullest, most adequate record for the Board: to base its decisions.
CBG particularly objected to the delay occasioned by the Staff and Applicant motions, pointing out that this came is unique in that the action for which the license is requested can continne until the license request is acted upon, thus creating a powerful incentive to keep the matters as long as possible from reaching the Board for final disaision.
CBG vieugd, and continues to view, the motions as frivolous, harrassing, and a delaying tactic. Furthermore, CBG, as an Interrenor of limited financial and other resources, found the all-emoonpassing scope of the i motions and the short time provided for response unduly and impossibly burdensome.' It requested relief from the Board.
The Board extended the time for response to January 7 (and with agreement by all parties, later granted until January 12 to make the filiv because of dolays in Christmas mails and the power outages caused by the heavy stems). The Board further divided the res,onse process into two segments. The first segment involved responses focused on detemining whether genuine disputos regarding material facts do exist. At this stage.
the parties were directed to avoid discussion of the relevancev materiality, or legal conclusions that would stem from facts about which no: material 1
1 dispute exists. Those matters would be addressed later.
What follows is CBG's response, given the time permitted,to the facts asserted by Staff and Applicant to not be in dispute. It should be made clear, due to the bifurcation established by the Board, that by CBG not disputing a particular asserted fact does not mean that CBG views the supposed fact as relevant or material, or based upon admissable evidence,
_3
. or sufficient to meet the high legal burden a movant for stammary disposition must meet in order to prevail as a matter of law. All of these matters, as to any facts determined to not be disputed, will await.the second phase.
CBG thus waives no rights to object to the admissability, materiality.or relevance of any of the supposed facts or their cited basis, either in the second phase, if any, of the smmey disposition process, or at hear 1ng.
In addition, CBG must make clear that in responding to asserted facts not in dispute, it has not attempted, nor would the burden be appropriate on either it or the Boarti, to emine all of the vast multitude of facts in opposition. CBG's responsibility was merely to present sufficient counter-information to demonstrate that a material dispute exists, and its presentation of, for example, violations with safety significance is not intended to be an exhaustive listing, merely a sufficient showing to demonstrate that Applicant's and Staff's assertion as material facts that no violations of safety significance have ever occcrred is disputed.
CBG, for the record, reiterates its objections to the delays occasioned by what it views as substantial misuse of summary ~ disposition procedures by Applicant and Staff and hopes such maneuvers do not further defer the time for hearing.
Although a discussion of legal standards for grant of sumary disposition would appear to await the second phase of this process, as established by the Board, CBG does wish to keep clear the basic standards for smnmey disposition-that the burden is on the moving party, who must affimatively demonstrate tha absence of a material dispute; that the responses must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party responding to the motions and that the decision to be made is not which party is deemed the more correct in a dispute, but whether a material dispute exists to begin with. If so, the matter should go to hearing, where an adequate decisional record can be obtained and preserved.
. p_
One further point should be made. Intervenors historically have been pemitted to make their cases defensively (e.g., through cross-examination of opposing parties' witnesses). This is particularly true under the Commission's mies because the burden of proof rests upon the Applicant in such cases. Summary disposition must not be
., permitted to become a clever way of shifting the burden of proof.
That burden remains on the Applicant, and it has a heavy burden in summary disposition to demonstrate, for example, that it should be, as it has requested, granted the applied-for license without its j vitnesses or evidence being subject to scrutiny or cross-examination as would happen at hearing.
Because of the nature of summary disposition,CBG, which had intended to present much of its case defensively at hearing, was forced, in a very short time, to put together what amounts to a comprehensive affimative case of the sort not normally required of Intervenors.
The decision to be made at this stage is not whether CBG's
,- position on these disputes should ultimately prevail--although we think we have made a very good showing on that score--but rather whether Staff and Applicant have demonstrated adequately the lack of existence of genuine disputes. We think the answer will be readily apparent from an examination of what follows and comparison with the showing made in the Staff and Applicant pleadings and affidavits. Most of their " facts" l
l rest on single-sentence unsupported conclusionary statements, insufficient to meet their burden of demonstrating lack of material dispute. But a detailed discussion of whether the moving parties have met their burden will avait a further stage.
- . - _ = _ - - - _ - . . ... -- ,
.. . - _ __ . - _ .__ _ = . _ _ _ _ . - - . . . . . . . . -- _. , ___ --
1
_5_
1 Because the Board's procedure directed the focus at this
- stage be on the statements of material fact put forth by the parties, t
! CBG has not responded in this pleading to the arguments put forth by i
Staff and Applicant in the body of their legal argument. Silence at this stage should, of course, not be taken as assent.
I l
DISCUSSION i
The central issues in this proceeding cover a wide range of disputes.
l In what follows, CBG will put forth its showing that:
- The use of weapons-grade uranium in kilogram or greater quantities poses a significant and unnecessary proliferation threat, one that runs counter to national and NRC policy to reduce wherever possible HEU available.
- Low Enriched Uranium fuels are currently available. The ASLB l thus has the current option of carrying out the NRC policy of.
using its licensing power to reduce the availability of material
- that, if stolen or diverted, could be used to make a nuclear weapon.
l
- Substantial safety benefits-particularly in protection against destructive power excursions--would result from such conversion as well as the non-proliferation benefit.
- Very serious accidents are credible at this reactor facility, with consequences vastly higher than those predicted by UCLA or the Staff for the accidents they have deemed the maximum credible.
Because of major errors in analysis, these accident scenarios have been inadequately assessed.
- The reactor--composed of graphite, uranium metal, and magnesium-can burn, as in the Windscale accider.t. This would provide a powerful driving force which could result in a very large fraction of the fission product inventory being released.
- The reactor can suffer a severe power excursion--in which the power rises uncontrollably many orders of magnitude in milliseconds--
resulting in fuel melting and explosive disassembly of the core, j as in the SL-1 accident case and as demonstrated at BORAI and SFERT.
- The storage of Wigner energy--stored energy in graphite induced by irradiation at relatively low temperatures--has been severely underassessed at the facility. The true energy storage level, given the calculational methodology employed by the Staff consulting group but using numerical inputs more accurate for the UCLA case, indicates that a tenperature rise of only 120 C could be sufficient to release enough Wigner energy to bring temperature to the melting or ignition temperature.
- A number of other credible accidents of far larger consequences than those examined by Staff or Applicant to date exist. But even the Staff's mavimum credible accident--involving release of .189%
of the assumed core inventory of radioiodine and essentially nothing else--produce unacceptable doses to the public, in excess of 9000 rem to the thyroid.
- A more realistic release fraction--25% of the radioiodines, the level indicated by the industry standard for site evaluation for reaearch reactors--produces doses in excess of permissible levels for tens of kilometers from the facility and doses as high as a million rem to the thyroid at the facility boundary.
- The particular site characteristics at UCLA--lack of exclusion zone whatsoever, dense population immediately around the facility and out a great distance beyond, no containment structure or other engineered features to reduce quantit'ies of fission products that would be released in an accident--greatly exacerbates the consequences of a potential accident at the facility.
- The history of regulatory noncompliance, inadequate managerial controls, insufficient attention to maintenance, the age and unreliability of the reactor and its supporting equipment, and a series of calibration errors greatly increase the probability of and consequences from an accident at the facility.
l
- During normal operation, however, doses far in excess of safe levels are indicated in several areas containing large numbers of people.
Argon kl concentrations many times the 10 CFR 20 Appendix B limits are indicated in unrestricted areas, even when operating time is factored in. And because of inadequate shielding, gamma and neutron
" shine" above the reactor may be exposing members of the public to very substantial doses, given the available data fran radiation surveys. Because the reactor and reactor facility were built for a 10 kw rea-tor with no construction above, the current 100 kw reactor poses a serious potential for hazard to those people now above it.
- The reactor is not used for the purposes for which it was licensed or the purposes which it claims. By far the majority of reactor use now is commercial activity, in violation of the license. The facility has almost no instructicnal and research utility; whatever such uses may have existed have long since ceased.
- The true environmental impacts of the proposed action, and serious alternatives thereto, have not been examined adequately.
The impacts are potentially very severe, and the alternatives very attractive.
- The University has not been forthcoming with the Board about its current financial situation. The University, and the State, its primary funding source, face the gravest fiscal crisis since the Great Depression. The University system faces cuts the equivalent, says the University President, of closing 2 of the 9 campuses in the system, or shutting all 24 professional schools in engineering, business, agriculture, lau, public health, nursing and education.
Furthermore, the Applicant has not been forthcoming in alerting the Board to the identification of the reactor program as a low-enrollment, low-cost-effective item that is recommended for consolidation with one of the several other reactor programs within the UC system.
- Lastly, the Applicant has failed to be forthcoming in its application.
That application contains numerous misleading and materially false statements; furthemore, the University has copied, without independent verification, and often without so identifying it, material from other sourcea irrelevant or of unproven validity for the UCLA case.
This failure, after 22 years, to conduct a safety review of its own for the facility, or a confimatory review of the analyses it has relied upon, has led to reproduction of major errors in these analyses which have pemitted operating conditions that pose substantial risks to the public. The failure to conduct an adequate independent analysis of its own facility and its purported inability to do so raise serious questions about the ability of the Applicant to understand the reactor for which the license is requested and to propprly assess the safety implications of proposed facility changes, new experiments, instrumentation alterations, relaxing of previous safety limits, and the like.
l l
t
To demonstrate the existence of these disputes with the quite different view of the facts held by Applicant and Staff, CBG has relied upon the following experts whose declarations are attached:
Dr. Herbert Scoville President of the Ams Control Association; former Assistant Director, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Association; fomer Deputy Director (scientific) Central Intelligence Agency; former Technical Director, D0D Special Weapons Project Dr. Theodore Taylor internationally recognized expert in the nuclear safeguards field; former nuclear weapons designer at Los Alamos; one of the designers (with Teller and Dyson) of the TRIGA reactor; member of the Kemeny Commission on the Tl!I accident Boyd Norton Group Leader of the Nuclear Test Section of SPERT; in charge of operation of both the SPERT I and III reactors; the man who " blew up" SPERT I in the final destruct test Professor James Varf Professor of Chemistry at USC; former Group Leader of the Analytic Section and the Inorganic Section of the Manhattan Project Professor Jackson Davis Professor of Biology and Environmental Studies at the University of California at Santa Cmz Professor Michio Kaku nuclear physicist, City University of New York (CCNY campus)
Dr. Ira Monosson formerly the Chief }(edical Officer of CAL-OSEA; now in private practice in occupational and environmental l health l
Dr. Jan Beyea a leading expert on dispersion modelling and accident consequence assessment for nuclear facility accidents Louis Foster formerly with the Nuclear Environmental Services Division of SAI, implementing radiation monitoring systems at numerota nuclear power plants around the country Dr. Ed Cooperman Professor of Physicc and Chairman of the Radiation Safety l Coraittee at California State University at Fullerton l
i
- - -- -- , _ - .w- - - - - - - .
-9_
Additionally, declarations by the following members of the Southern California Federation of Scientists are included: Dr. Sheldon Plotkin, a safety and systems engineer; Miguel Pulido, a mechanical engineer; David Dupont, a chemist; Dr. Irving Lyon, an environmental consultant; Steven Aftergood, an environmental researcher on the CBG staff; and Daniel Hirsch, CBG President. In addition, declarations are provided by Neal Donovan-Gantz, an environmental intern formerly with CBG, and Leo Baefsky, s certified public accountant.
CONCLUSION CBG respectfully submits that its responses to the Staff and j Applicant motions thoroughly demonstrate the existence of genuine disputes as to materiaJ. facto put forth and that a full evidentiary hearing on %ese matters should be expeditiously undertaken.
Respectfully sybmitted, e '
lQ /
Daniel Hirsch C'
President COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP Dated at Los Angeles, CA this 12th day of January,1983
UNITED STATES OF AVERICA NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSICN BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BCARD In the Matter of Docket No. 50-142 THE RECE!rFS OF THE UNIVERSITY .
OF CALIFORNIA (Proposed Renewal of (UCIA Research Reactor)
DECIARATION OF SERVICE I hereby declare that copies of the attached: CEG R2SPCNSE TO
' TAFF S AND APPLICANT sIOTIONS FOR SUICIAR1 ulos voluvo in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the followir4 by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as indicated, on this date: January 12. 19o, 3 .
John H. Frye, III, Chairman Christine Helwick Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Clenn R. Woods U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Ceneral Counsel 590 University Hall Dr. Emmoth' A. Imebke 2200 University Avenue Adminis trative Judge Berkeley,-CA 94720 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. John Bay Washington, D.C. 20555 3755 Divisadero #203 San Francisco, CA 94123 Dr. Oscar H. Paria Administrative Judge Sarah Shirley Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Deputy City Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission City Hall Washington, D.C. 20555 1685 Pain Street Chief, Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 e attention Ms. Colleen Woodhead William H. Cormier Office of Administ2a tive Vice Chancellor /
University of California / \ O 405 Hilgard Ave ue Los Angeles, California 90024 jO
/ '-
,k ~_
{
President CCMMITTEE TO 3 RIDGE THE GAP
l
, .- r CONTENTION I S [.g g RESPONSE TO STAFF'S ASSERTED MATERIAL F4 Jg I 7 I C 1983, T o.v.
- 1. NOT DISPUTED y ,f/'gg. p
- 2. NOT DISPUTED g ,,
ra 3 DISPUTED (Davis declaration, 120,22-23; " Simulation of Earthquake-Induced Vibrations in a UCLA Reactor Fuel Bundle," unpublished ms. by Richard Lee Rudman, 1968, excerpt attached; Norton declaration for V, 259; Kaku declaration for III, I.69)
- 4. DISPUTED (same citations as in 3 above; plus 1968 inspection report;
- plus Davis declaration at 121) 5 DISPUTED. (i.e., the accident analysis in the amended application was performed, not by UCLA staff, but by the NRC staff consultants; see Cort and Hawley studies, amended application which includes them by reference, and Davis declaration at E16-17)
- 6. DISPUTED (Davis I 18,35; Aftergood and Beyea declarations for III;)
- 7. LEGAL CONCLUSION
- 8. LEGAL CONCLUSION
- 9. DISPUTED ( Aftergood declaration for I, entire doc. plus attachments, key passages I 10-14)
! 10. DISPUTED (Davis, E19-20,23; Plotkin for I,E 6;Norton for V,E59; 1976 Annual Report, internal, quoted in Davis E19; primary coolant leak
! reported to AEC as reportable occurrence shortly after earthquake)
- 11. DISPUTED (Plotkin for I, 17-8)
, 12. DISPUTED (Kaku for III, E 85) i
- 13. DISPUTED (Kaku E85; Davis E10-13 l 14. DISPUTED (Aftergood and Beyea dec1( ~itions entire, for III; Kaku for III l
at 183-4,86;Norton, E76)
- 15. DISPUTED (Davis 129-33; Cooperman E6-9;Baersky for IVIII,E9-10; l Report of the Universitywide Program Review Committee on Engineering, section attached to Baefsky XVIII declaration)
- 16. DISPUTED (Norton for V, E12-14,15-16; Melted fuel from Spert ?3.50 excursion, photo attached to Norton declaration; Kaku for III, E44-54)
- 17. LEGAL CONCLUSION.
I-l RESP 03SE TO UCLA'S ASSERTED MATERIAL FACTS
- 1. DISPUTED. (The two sets of questions submitted by Staff requesting additional information; for example, to break the "research' category of reactor use into categories cuch as commercial),
- 2. DISPUTED. (Davis I4,9-14,19-23; Ashbaugh memorandum on wells, following Davis declaration; Donovan-Gantz I2-5; Aftergood for I, I2 and following; Plotkin for I, I 5-9)
- 3. DISPUTED. (Plotkin for I, I7,9;Pulido 133; Monosson for IV, I21)
.