|
---|
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 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 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 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 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 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 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
-.. - -
. FED COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP March 15, 1983 1637 Butler Avenue, Suite 203 '8]
Los Angeles, CA 90025 gN 16 gI 23
, (213)478-0829 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD in the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-142 OL THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY )
0F CALIFORNI A )
) (Proposed Renewal of Facility (UCLA Research Reactor) ) License No. R-71)
)
CBG MOTION FOR EXPEDITED RULING ON ITS SEPTEMBER 7,1982, MOTION FOR PARTI AL
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION Xill, AND THE SETTING OF A MAY HEARING DATE FOR ANY REMAINING. lSSUES AS TO CONTENTION Xill I. Introduction On September 7,1982, the Committee to Bridge the Gap (CBG) moved the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for summary disposition or, l
I in the alternative, partial summary disposition.of Contention Xill.
That contention asserts that the amount and enrichment of Special Nuclear Material (SNM) applied for by UCLA are excessive. The contention also alleges that the information contained in the application regarding cri ticall ty accident protection, mi tigation, moni toring and response is insufficient to meet the requi rements of 10 CFR Part 70. Affixed to the motion,- as requi red, was a short, concise statement of material facts asserted by CBG to not be in dispute, i
[
By letter dated October 29, 1982, the Staff informed the Board that it did not dispute CBG facts 2-10, 12-14, and 17-22 Thereaf ter the Staff supplied citations to support its assertion that genuine disputes do exist as to facts I, 11, 15, and 16.
8303220325 830315 gDRADOCK 05000142
, PDR
~
By letter dated January 7,1983, the Applicant provided its identification of the facts it disputed and the citations on which it based its assertion that genuine disputes do exist. For Contention Xill, Applicant disputed facts,1,11, and 15, relying on virtually identical citations as those of Staff. Like Staff, the Applicant did not dispute the remaining facts although, unlike Staff, the Applicant also did not dispute fact 16 In its Memorandum and Order of February 8,1983, the Board ruled on certain parts of the motions for summary disposition by Staff, Applicant and CBG. At page 36-37, the Board addressed three asserted facts as to Contention Xill: Staff #1 and CBG #11 and 15. The Board did j so in the context of its consideration of inherent safety issues, leaving aside other portions of the contention viewed as dealing with matters such as proliferation risks.
One week af ter the Board issued its Order, Staff transmitted to the Board and parties a February 7 letter f rom J.E. Matos of the RERTR program (Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors), Argocoa National Labs, to Dr. K.L. Mattern, USDOE, on the subject of potential convertibility of the UCLA reactor f rom HEU (93%) to LEU ((20%) fuel . The letter indicated no technical barriers to converting the UCLA reactor f rom HEU to LEU and appears to confirm CBG's assertions that TRIGA-type LEU fuel is currently available for use in the UCLA reactor, that advanced high-density fuels will be available shortly (the letter indicates by the end of the year), and that even without the high-density fuel and with maintaining the excess reactivity a of the UCLA reactor (whl'ch CBG has contended should be reduced), flux j reduction would be insignificant (~15%). Use of the higher density fuel, t
or reduction in the available excess reactivity, would mean no reduction whatsoeve r.
In view of this new development, i t appears that no genuine n.., . --
_3 disputes remain as to Contention Xlli except as to the criticality protection information matter and perhaps the Plutonium source matter.
CBG therefore respectfully requests an immediate ruling on its Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Xill, and a prompt scheduling for hearing of whatever matters remain in dispute thereon.
Because the Applicant has indicated that it would not comply with a License condition requiring conversion to LEU fuel, and would instead withdraw its Application, this matter should be resolved promptly as it may be dispositive of the Application, and make additional hearings unnecessary.
II. DISCUSSION On August 17, 1982, the Commission issued a Policy Statement on the use of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) in research reactors.
47 FR 37007. This PoIIcy Statement committed the agency to use its licensing authority to reduce, "to the maximum extent possible," the use of HEU in domestic and foreign research reactors. The Commission noted that to date U.S. research reactor operators "have shown little interest in converting to lower enrichment fuel," and concluded that it would take steps to encourage such conversion by U.S. research reactor operators.
I No party disputes the fact that it is official U.S. policy to reduce the enrichment of research reactor fuels (CBG fact 10),nor that other Argonaut reactors have operated on LEU (CBG facts 12-14).
The only asserted disputes on the HEU matter relate to the availability of LEU replacement fuel. Staff and Applicant both disputed CBG facts 11 and 15, at least until the recent Argonne letter described above.
.- y,,_ ,, . , . . , .
. -4 l
Those facts are as follows: !
CBG FACT 11. Reduced enrichment fuels are currently available on which the UCLA reactor can run.
CBG FACT 15. Advar.ced reduced enrichment fuels of higher Uranium loading will soon be available on which all but the highest power research reactors can run.
CBG has demonstrated that TRIGA LEU fuel is currently available for conversion of flat-plate HEU reactors such as UCLA's. (see Exhibi t U, CBG summary disposition motion for Contention Xill; and particularly the declaration by Mr. Af tergood for the same contention in CBG's summary i disposition response, and attachments A-E thereto) .
CBG has further demonstrated that advanced high-densi ty LEU fuels will soon be available. (see Hafemeister declaration and exhibits C-H, U, attached to CBG motion for summary disposi tion).
Neither Staff nor Applicant has directly disputed the current availabili ty of TRIGA LEU fuel . The dispute as to future availability of high-density LEU fuel seems to center on the issue of how soon is "soon."
That dispute now seems to be resolved in the recent admissions by Staff found in the February 7,1983 Matos letter, which indicates at page 2 that development and irradiation testing have been completed for small plate oxide fuel (the oxide fuel is indicated tc be the appropriate type for UCLA's reactor); that testing of full scale plate fuel should begin this month (March 1983); and "that sufficient data to support IIcensing requirements is expected to be available around the end of 1983." (emphasi s added) l The Matos letter also indicates: "The reactor could also use TRIGA LEU fuel in a rodded geometry." (emphasis added) . Matos gives cost estimates for this conversion.
l Thus, both of CBG asserted facts are now no longer in dispute--
l the UCLA reactor could now use TRIGA LEU, and by the end of the year l
1 , - - - - - - - - - . . - - ,
- . . . . _ , . . . , - - -, ..---,,-.,---n_--. ,_,,,., ,,-
-5 advanced density fuel appropriate for UCt.A will be available.
Furthermore, Matos gives data indicating that if the current excess reactivity level were to be maintained (and CBG has urged a major reduction) and if LEU not of high density were employed, the flux reduction would be minimal, on the order of 15%. This matter, put forth originally by Staff, now appears resolved.
Therefore, the three facts on Contention Xill related to HEU (CBG facts 11 and 15, Staff fact 1) as to current and future availability of LEU and flux level now seem resolved by the new information put forth by Staff. CBG's motion for partial summary disposition on these matters should now be granted.
Only two other asserted facts remain at issue as to Contention Xili.
One deals with whether the information provided in the application as to criticality accident control is adequate. Staff and Applicant cite portions of the Application which they maintain demonstrate sufficient information to meet the provisions of the regulations; CBG maintains these portions do not adequately meet those orovisions. This matter appears to be genuinely disputed and should be resolved at hearing. CBG respectfully suggests that this matter be resolved at the sununer hearing on inherent safety matters, since criticality accidents are among the accident scenarios being considered.
The only remaining fact supporting CBG motion for sununary disposition of Contention Xill is #16, which asserts that The UCLA reactor does not use a Plutonium-Beryllium neutron startup source.
Significantly, the Applicant, whose reactor this is, does not dispute this fact. Staff does, but provides no citation. Staff asserts instead
! that the source requested in the reactor license application is not for the reactor but for the subcritical assembly (which is not part of the license application, nor even federally licensed, being licensed by the state) .
CBG maintains that no dispute exists, but is prepaced to go to hearing l
~
on the matter should the Board rule otherwise.
CBG therefore respectfully requests that the ooard, in light of the recent admissions by Staff regarding the availability of LEU, grant CBG's motion for partial summary disposition of Contention Xill, at least in so far as it deals with HEU, and that it set an early hearing date for all matters determined to be still in dispute. CBG respectfully suggests that that hearing occur during the May period previously proposed by the Board for the onset of the inherent safety hearings, now apparently postponed until later in the summer (with the exception of the criticality matter, which should be included in the summer safety hearing) .
The University has aked for an early resolution of its motion for summary disposition as to class of license because of its intention to withdraw from the proceeding if faced with an adverse ruling on that matter. The Applicant has declared the same intention with regards Contention Xill. Surely rapid resolution of this matter is likewise called for. In fact, CBG would suggest that we go to hearing in May on Contention Xill and 11 (aside from those matters related to Contention Xill resolved through grant of CBG's motion for summary disposition thereof, and aside f rom the cri ticality matter) .
The University has argued that much of Contention Xill is moot because UCLA refuses to convert to LEU, even if such a conversion were a condition of its license being renewed. The University has said it would withdraw its application and shut down its reactor rather than comply with an order to convert to LEU, as contemplated in the Commission's Policy Statement on HEU of August 17, 1982.
Such a threat in no way makes moot the issue of whether UCLA should, as a condition of license renewal, be requi red to convert to non-weapons grade uranium because of either safety or proliferation concerns. Conversion is the policy of this government; grant of a
i
- license for weapons grade uranium when a safer alternative is available is unthinkable; and threatened refusal to use the alternative if found to be necessary is simply irrelevant to the Board's determination as to whether the alternative should be requi' red. UCLA's request for weapons-grade uranium must be viewed in light of the availability of appropriate alternatives involving far less risk.
UCLA is free to refuse to comply with conditions of a license by declining a license so conditioned. But the Board is not f ree to refuse to impose conditions necessary for public safety and the common defense merely because an Applicant says it will not comply with those necessary conditions. If HEU poses significant proliferation risks, as has been determined by the Commission, and if conversion to LEU can reduce those risks substantially, a concept endorsed by the Commission, and if LEU conversion fuel is a tallable, . that issue must be reached by the Board if placed before it. UCLA is f ree to withdraw f rom the proceedings if it doesn't like the Board's ruling on the matter, but the Board's ruling must be based on the facts and the law, not any threatened response by an Applicant unhappy with an adverse ruling.
][UCLA's argument that it could not afford the costs of conversion f
' is dubious and i rrelevant. However if it wishes to advance that argument, the University should be requi red to put forth evidence indicating no assistance available f rom outside sources and a true estimate of the i actual costs. CBG is prepared to put forth evidence contradicting both assertions by UCLA as to lack of assistance and its estimate of $500,000 cost for converting (the Staff's Matos letter estimates half that cost).
- Furthermore, CBG finds it extraordinary that UCLA should argue on the one hand that it is financially qualified to safely operate this reactor, that should any safety problem develop it has the financial resources to respond appropriately, and yet to argue on the other hand that if faced
- with a $250,000 conversion cost determined by the NRC to be necessary for either safety or proliferation reasons, or both, it would be financially unable to take the requi red measures. UCLA cannot have its cake and eat i t too. Either it can afford to safely operate the reactor, and thus can make the necessary fuel modification if determined necessary, or it isn't financially capable of safely operating the reactor and must have its license denied on financial qualifications grounds._7 CBG has, throughout this proceeding, attempted to act responsibly in not blindly opposing UCLA's license request but rather advancing specific safety, envi ronmental, and common defense concerns and showing how those concerns could be resolved (e.g., raise the exhaust stack, move the roof air inlet, put in decay tanks, convert to LEU, etc.). This is the usual fashion in which ASLBs r3 solve concerns verified in the hearing process, through grant of license with certain specified conditions.
But the University appears to be trying to improperly influence
^
Board decisions by threatening to withdraw its application if such conditions are even considered.
Although these threats must remain irrelevant to the Board's actual decision, they do make it imperative that the SNM issue, like the Class of License issue, be resolved early. UCLA has requested a prompt resolution of the latter issue; to that request we add our request for prompt resolution of the former. Thus CBG respectfully requests a prompt decision on its motion for summary disposition of Contention Xill, and the setting of a i
May date for hearing on any remaining matters related thereto.
l l
111. Conclusion The recent letter forwarded by Staff f rom the RERTR program at Argonne Labs indicates there is no longer any genuine dispute as to the t
0 l current availability of TRIGA LEU, the near-term availability of advanced
~
~
high-density LEU, and the insignificant effects, if any, conversion would have on flux. In light of this new development, CBG respectfully requests immediate ruling by the Board on its motion for partial summary disposition of Contention XIII, and the setting of a May hearing date for any disputes remaining thereon, with the exception of the criticality matter, which should awai t the summer safety hearings. The Class of License issue can also be heard in May if the Applicant continues to desi re an early resolution of that matter.
Respectfully submitted, d n:
Daniel 'Hi rsch President W-Committee to Bridge the Gap dated this fif teenth day of March,1983 at Los Angeles, California l
J
i -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD in the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-142
)
) (Proposed Renewal of THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ) Facili ty License)
CALIFORNI A )
)
(UCLA Research Reactor) '
)
)
DECLARATION OF SERVICE I hereby declare that copies of the attached "CBG MEMORANDUM AND MOTION REGARDING HEARING SCHEDULING MATTERS" and "CBG MOTION FOR EXPEDITED RULING ON ITS SEPTEMBER 7,1982, MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION Xlli, AND THE SETTING OF A MAY HEARING DATE FOR ANY REMAINING ISSUES AS TO CONTENTION Xill" 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 date: March 15,1983. Where a single asteri sk (*) is marked , i t indicates service by express mail. Where a double as te ri sk (**) i s ma rked , I t indicates service by hand on March 16, 1983
- John H. F rye , I l l , Chai rman Chief, Docketing and Service Section Dr. Emmoth A. Luebke, Member Office of the Secretary E D r. Oscar H. Paris U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 1 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C. 20555 lq U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ig Washington, D.C. 20555 Christine Helwick Glenn R. Woods
- Colleen P. Woodhead Office of General Coupsel Counsel for NRC Staff 590 Universi:y Itall U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2200 University Avenue Washington, D.C. 20555 Berkeley, CA 94720
- Mr. Vi lliam Cormier Mr. John Bay Of fice of Administrative Vice Chancellor 3755 Divisadero #203 University of California San Francisco, CA 94123 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Ms. Dorothy Thompson
- Ms. Lynn Na li bof f 6300 wilshi re #1200 City Attorney's Office Los Angeles, CA 90048
-City of Santa Monica j j- City Hall /
1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 ,
~
,#']
d DanieI Hi rsch President L(i Committee to Bridge the Gap S
E-