ML19347A391
| ML19347A391 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1981 |
| From: | Woods G CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA |
| To: | AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106190206 | |
| Download: ML19347A391 (22) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _
eh
- l l
g po, r i 1
- Um/ \
j W o
~N ?c
's l
I
.,N U-2 M ac"ff/'i'4 .:- To 3
- 1 m ,,5 & f i f I r f )
e$.
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h'?#
- 8
/
5 BEFOR2., THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA is- f- [:
6 7
8 9
In the Matter cf )
10 ) Docket No. 50-142 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ) (Proposed Renewal of Facility 11 OF CALIFORNIA ). License Number R-71)
)
12 (UCLA Research Reactor) ) June 11, 1981
)
13 14 APPLICANT'S FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERVENOR 15 IN RESPONSE TO THE BOARD'S ORDER OF MAY 29, 1981 10 ..
17 18 19 DONALD L. REIDHAAR
. GLENN R. WOODS 20 CHRISTINE HELWICK Q
" 590 University Hall 21 2200 University Avenue g g Berkeley, California 94720 22 ,
m ac Telephone: (415) 642-2822 23 (
JUN 151981 > }1 Attorneys for Applicant 24 office of th k- THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
- l$8 s ' ** M OF CALIFORNIA 25 g ,,
to 26 27 Q S0$ I \
28 !
(
810 tl 1o oQOfo l
1
.. i I
.. 1 1
1 Applicant, THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, 2 makes its further answers to Intervenor's First Set of 3 Interrogatories pursuant to'the Order of the Atomic Safety and 4 Licensing Board dated May 29, 1981 (received by Applicant June 1, 5 1981) as follcws:
6 7 I. INTRODUCTION 8 Applicant has in good faith attempted to respond to 9 Intervenor's questions and the Board's orders. Applicant found 10 Intervenor's questions to be ambiguous and offered its financial 11 and accounting records and its operating logs and related reports 12 and records so that Intervenor could derive for itself the 13 information requested.
14 15 Intervenor has not as yet taken advantage of all the 16, records offered by Applicant. In particular, Intervenor has not l
17 requested any of the financial or accounting records for years 18 prior to 1975 which Applicant offered to make available in its 19 "Further Answers" document of January 22, 1981; nor has Intervenor 20 requested any of the summary data extracted from the operating logs i
21 which Applicant offered to make available in its initial response 22 to Interrogstory No. 9 of November 14, 1980. Applicant is 23 disadvantaged in not knowing what argument or. specific claim 24 Intervenor is proposing under its " wrong class of license" 25 , contention. As a result, Applicant is unable to guide Intervenor 26: to the information which Intervenor deems relevant to its claim.
- 27. Applicant is eager to provide this assistance since Applicanc is l I 28 prepared to submit that there are no material facts at issue
. 1 l
_ l
l I 1 respecting Contention II and such material facts as do exist 2 support the summary dismissal of the contention.
3 4
Applicant has understood the previous orders of the Board 5 to order Applicant to make available to Intervenor the records and 6 documnnts relevant to Intervenor's questions. Applicant 7 interpreted the Board's orders as accepting Applicant's offer of
- 8 its records as a. response. When the Board issued its March 10 9 Order Applicant understood the Board to be admonishing Applicant 10 for not producing a document it should have produced. Applicant 11 did not understand that order to command "further answers," but now 12 understands that it was the Board's intention to require such.
13 14 Notwi.thstanding its misinterpretation, Applicant's 15 intent has been, and is now, to comply fully with the Board's '
l 16 order. Applicant is in a quandary, however, concerning how to 17 frame its responses to Intervenor's questions 4, 5, 6 and 9 of 18 Intervenor's First Set of Interrogatories. Applicant has argued !
19 in its pleadings and responses that Intervenor's questions are 20 unclear or ambiguous. Intervenor's pleadings and certain of its 21 "Second Set" questions (Intervenor's Second Set of Interrogatories ;
22' dated April 20, 1981) have served to clarify Intervenor's meaning I 1
l 23 in certain respects but not entirely. In particular, questions 4 '
! 24 land S remain very uncertain. Although applicant has explained its 26l reasoning at some length, the Board has not commented on l
26LApplicant's arguments nor otherwise explained its position 27 respecting the clarity of Intervenor's questions. Applicant must 28 now assume that,the Board regards these quer tions as completely :
. 2
.=
! l
.\
l I certain and must attempt its further answers still unsure about 2 what information it is being asked to provide.
3 4 Applicant submits that the only way out of its dilemma 5 is for Applicant to provide first an explanation of its reactor 6 activities and to accompany the explanation with a-comprehensive 7 chart detailing the sources of Nuclear Enercy Laboratory income 8 and, specifically, reactor income for the immediately preceding 9 six-year period. Based on the explanation and the chart, Applicant.
10 will provide its further answers, which answers should thereby be 11 more responsive to Intervenor's questions than otherwise they 12 would have been. Morecever, the explanation should enable 13 Intervenor to ask more focused questions seeking information 14 relevant to its claim. In the time permitted for this response 15 Applicant could not reasonably attempt to complete the chart for 16 the years 1960 to 1975. *-
17 18 Further, the explanation and chart should resolve any ,
19 continuing, uncertainty of Intervenor as to the use made by i 20 Applicant of certain terms and categories used in its records.
21 As for any other terms, Applicant requests simply that Intervenor 22 provide Applicant with the context in which the term appears and 23 Applicant will explain the use. It would seem to be readily 24 apparent to anyone inspecting the data contained in the application
- 25. who also understood the relevant terms used there, concerni.ng 26 which terms Intervenor has made no inquiry, that there is no 27 validity to any claim made under 10 C.F.R. 550.22 that Applicant i 28 has applied for a wrong class of license.
3 6 -- a n- , .- - - - , ,
1 II. DISCUSSION 2
3 A. NEL Operations 4
5 The Nuclear Energy Laboratory at UCLA (NEL) is the unit 6 of the School of Engineering and Applied Science at UCLA (SEAS) 7 that supports the Nuclear Energy Program of the SEAS. The purpose 8 of the NEL'is to support education, the education and training of 9 senior undergraduate and graduate students of the SEAS, and to 10 facilitate, generally, the conduct of research at the Los Angeles 11 campus.
12 13 The principal piece of equipment of the NEL is its -
14 Argonaut-type research and training reactor. The research reactor;
}
15 is used generally to train engineering students in nuclear reactor '
16 operations. The training which students receive in reactor 17 operations is an integral part of the nuclear engineering i
18 educational program of the SEAS. It is an important adjunct to the 19 more formal theoretical instruction which occurs in the classroom: -
l~
l 20 students learn research and experimental skills that cannot be 21 taught in the classroom; they learn how to use sophisticated 22 nuclear engineering equipment and instruments; they learn the 23 importance of the health safety considerations applicable to the ,
l 24 nuclear engineering field; they learn how to apply theoretical 26 . knowledge to specific technical situations; they learn how 26 technology is used to solve specific industrial problems; and they i
27 learn what it is like to work in a nuclear reactor setting. This 28 l learning is as much a part of the University's educational program 4
+
j l
1 for its engineering students as is any formal course in nuclear !
2 physics theory. Practical'1aboratories are the critical elements 3 in any engineering program.
4 5 'In addition to its use to train engineering students in 6 reactor operations, the reactor is designed to carry out basic 7 nuclear research and experimentation, particularly activator 8 analysis and delayed-neutron counting. The use of the reactor to l l
9 conduct experiments can occur at the same time as student reactor-10 operator trainees are getting experience in reactor operations.
t a
11 Part of the reactor operator training is to learn how the reactor 12 can be used to facilitate the research of others.
13 2 14 In its experimental use, various uesearchers bring 15 mineral and ore samples or other unique succtances which they wish 16 l analyzed. Reactor operators perform the required reactor operations 17 lunderthedirectionofthereactorsupervisor. Sometimes the data T'
18 analysis related to the sample is dcne within the NEL; at other 19 times the researcher does his own data analysis upon'the return of l
20;his sample. Students may assist in the sample preparation and 21;, handling and in the data interpretation and analysis for the !
I 22'lresearch-user. .
23 24 "Research", as the term is used within the NEL as a category of activity (for example, in charts reporting data to the 25]!!
26 NRC), refers broadly to any uses of the reactor whereby reactor 1
0
- 27. operators (regular NEL staff or student-trainees) operate the i
28' reactor to conduct experimental sample analyses. The " researchers" S
- - - ~c- _ _ _ __._ _ _ _ _ , _ - - _ _ _ . _ ._ __. _ -_. _
l F
1 .may be NEL staff employees, UCLA academic employees from other 2 departments, academic employees from other colleges and 3 universities or other extramural users (which are generally, but 4 not necessarily users engaged in commercial activities).
5 6 Besides the basic research which is conducted and the 7 student operator training which occurs, the NEL facilities are 8 used on occasion to demonstrate basic nuclear processes to groups 9 of high school science students and other civic groups. Whether an 10 actual operating demonstration is performed or whether a tour of 11 the facility is conducted wher the reactor is not operating, the 12 NEL considers these demonstrectons to be carried out in the public ,
13 interest. In the case of the high school science students, the NEL' I
14 assures that the experience contributes to the general education of 15 the students.
16 ..
17 B. NEL Records of Op'. rating Activities 18 19 It is useful to distinguish between NEL operating records 20 Jand NEL financial records.
21 22 Since initial operation of the facility, the basic record:
23 of all reactor activities has been the operating log. All data ,
O 24, relating to reactor operations, both normal operations as well as II I 25,any abnormal occurrences, is recorded in the operating logs. Withj .
!I i I 26 minor exceptions, all related to NRC reporting requirements, none of )
l I 27 '
this recorded data is cumulated or aggregated into statistical I
28 categories.
. 6
u 1 Coincident with the adoption of Amendment 9 to the 2 reactor license in 1971 and continuing to the present, the NEL has 3 reported reactor usage (in hours) to the NRC in three categories:
4 classroom instruction (the reactor used in direct support of a 5 formal engineering class); maintenance; and research (all uses of 6 the reactor to perform sample analyses for research users and all 7 demonstrations, hence all reactor usage other than classroom 8 instruction and maintenance). The data form for these reports is 9 extracted from the logs by the reactor supervisor using a worksheet 10 which can be described as the NRC data summary worksheet. These 11 summaries were offered to the Intervenor in Applicant's November 12 Answers and remain available for Intervenor's examination. A 13 sample worksheet is attached hereto as " Exhibit A." The worksheet '
14 extracts certain data contained in the operating logs and 15 summarizes it in columnar form and in the same chronological order 16 as appears in the operating logs. The.worksheet classifies the 17 activities of individual reactor users into the three categories of.
18 use: classroom instruction (coded 2); maintenance (coded 3); and 19 research (coded 1). The "research" category is not broken down anyl -
20 lfurther.
21 22' , The reactor has four experimental " ports" which can 23: accommodate different samples of .n ind .idual researcher or 4
24 lseveral researchers at the sameAlltime. non-NEL research users 25!lare charged by the " port-hour" for their use of the reactor. The h l l 26: standard charge has been $65/ port-hour since mid-1976. There is an.
l 27l{ additional ?l0 charge for special sample handling which any l
28l researcher may require.The port-hours of usage for each 1
c c,
1
.l l
l 1
individual user is extracted from the operating logs, the amounc 2 of the charge to the user is noted on the summary worksheets, a
. 3 billing sheet is given to the secretaries in the NEL who prepare 4 th - accounting form which is sent to the central accounting
-5 Oftl'* - ene campus for billing. The port-hours of usage are 6 totaled at the end of.the calendar year and reported to the NRC:
7 the total income received during the fiscal year (July to June) 8 appears as a total on the general ledgers. With these exceptions, 9 none of the data in the operating lags relating to port-hours of 10 usage and income is collected, categorized, or organized in reports 11 or any kind of summary statements that would permit a more detailed 12 picture of Applicant's reactor operations and the revenue generated 13 thereby.
14 15 In May 1980, in response to an NRC question asking the 16 NEL to identify the types of research conducted and the types of 17 " customers" using the reactor, the NEL staff prepared the Reactor tg. Port-hour Usage Chart (attached here as " Exhibit B"). The NEL l -
19 Manager and the Reactor Supervisor prepared the chart by reviewing 20ithe operating logs and summary worksheets and attempting to recall
. l 21 lthe association of each of the listed individual users, whether 22 UCLA user, cther College and University user, or other Extramural 23 '(labelled " Commercial" on the May 1980 chart) user. Preparation ofl' 24jthe chart for the 1976-79 period was a relatively straightforward, ,
N 25 though time-consuming exercise since for that recent period the l
- 26. names of the individual users and their associations were readily !;
il i
27 known to the current NEL staff and what was needed was simply to l
28 page through the logs to extract the data. What resulted in the ,
8
. l-t !
1 May 1980 chart was a classification of port-hours of usage which 2 further broke down the category "research", as that category was 3 routinely reported to the NRC, into the five sub-categories: NEL 4 Experiments, UCLA Users, Colleges and Universities, Demonstrations 5 and Commercial.
6 7 The University's financial and accounting records are 8 designed to accommodate the " fund accounting" system the University 9 uses to keep track of the considerable support funds received from 10 federal agencies in the form of federal agency contracts and grants;.
1 11 The system is entirely centralized and data is reported on a July 12 to June fiscal year basis as distinguished from the NEL's 13 operating data which is reported to the NRC generally on a calendar 14 year basis.
15 i
16 Since nearly all University departments, including the i 17 *NEL, operate on a " steady state" budget provided by the state, the 18; budgeting process is very informal and nearly automatic. That is, 19 the state funds portion of the budget is automatically adjusted 203 upwards each year by the amount of the " range adjustment" voted by 21 the state legislature representing, more or less, an inflation-22 indexed augmentation to salaries and supplies. As long as 23 career staffing is not increased or decreased or other major 24 staffing reorganizations occur, units like the NEL have a t
25llrelatively simple budgeting process. The base budget is set d
26f and remains constant from year to year (except for the automatic ;
27 N
' state adjustments applicable to all University units). The NEL 28 staff needs only to budget for any anticipated extraordinary 9
~ ii l
l 1 expenditures and any estimated income from income-producing j- 2 activities. The SEAS appropriation (the projected budget 3 expenditures of the NEL reduced by the estimated income), all 4 expenditure transactions, and all income transactions appear on 5 the general ledgers prepared by the accounting c.ffice and issued 6 monthly. At the end of the fiscal year the " deficit", which for 7 accounting reasons is programmed to result by over-estimating 8 income, is automatically offset by the general funds of the 9 SEAS so that in closing the SEAS appropriation, as adjusted, 10 and all income amounts exactly offset all expenditures.
11 Except for the general -ledgers, no financial reports 12 are prepared specially to record or report NEL financial 13 activity. There would be no financial management purpose in 14 providing such reports.
15 16 C. Other NEL Income Activitieg ..
17 18l In addition to receiving income for the reactor sample ,
I I~
19l analysis services, the NEL receives " income" for activities y -
20j' unrelated to tne operation of the reactor. This income, which 21 is described as "Other Income" in Applicant's chart of funding 22 support appearing on page I/1-1 of the license application, l
23'l;comes from charges made to federal (and state) contracts and l
\ l\
24[ grants awarded to various of the engineering faculty. The chargesl l 25smadeli to these contracts and grants by the NEL are for technical !
d l 26 hand administrative assistance provided by the NEL staff in support l 27 of the particular contract or grant. The NEL staff may pcrform l
28 ': studies, provide secretarial assistance or provide surveillance l 10
i' t
. i !
1 I services-for projecta being carried out in the adjoining ,
2 laboratory. For whatever services provided, NEL " recharges" 3 the contract or grant. The effect of these transactions is
, 41 simply to transfer funds between various accounts of units within 5 the SEAS.
6 7 D. NEL Income and Reactor Port-hour Usage Chart 8
9 In order to supplement its further answers which 10 appear below, Applicant has prepared a chart showing NEL income 11 and port-hour usage during the preceding six-year period (1975-12 1980). The chart appears as " Exhibit C."
13 14 The chart was derived from the operating logs and the 15 time sheets used to recharge NEL staff time to other federal I 16 contracts and grants. The data was not derived from the 17 revenue and expenditure statements (general ledgers) of the 18j University's accounting system sinca both sources of income are 19 lumped together in those statements. Accordingly, the income 20, amounts show reve.nue that should have been received based on the l
21 number of port-hours of usage,and standard charge for such use 22, per hour ($65). If all billings which resulted from the log 23! entries were made and made properly and if all bills were paid 249 by the user in the period in which the charges were incurred, then t
25ll the revenue amounts shown on the general ledgers will exactly i
l 26 agree with the income indicated on the chart, although the chart 27l would have to be adjusted to reflect the University's July to 28 June fiscal year.
11 i
s" m .
, o-I i
i 1 Essentially, the chart shows that three categories of 2 research users ("Other UCLA Users", "Other College and Univ rsity 3 Users", and "Other Extramural Users") produce income to NEL at 4 the rate of $65/ port-hour of-usage (although there may be added 5, to these users bill a $10 sample handling charge) . The amount 6 of reactor income produced over the period of the chart varies 7 considerably but has not exceeded $32,000 in any single year and 8 only $23,000 of that was income from extramural (that is, 9 " commercial" users).
10 11 The "Other Income" '.s comprised of accounting " recharges l' 12 to other UCLA, essentially engineering, accounts and represents 13 the accounting adjustment made to distribute the contract and 14 grant funding to the unit where the costs were incurred. Applicant 15 is required to so distribute such costs with respect to all of 16 its federal centracts and grants in a,c,cordance with federal -
17 costing principles and this is done routinely with all departments' 18 of the University. The chart describes the contract or grant 19 and indicates the awarding agency and the recharges made to each 20 contract or grant for each of the years.
21 ,
22 III. FURTHER ANSWERS 23 24 With the explanation above and the chart as background, 25 l Applicant provides the following further answers to Intervenor's 26l guestions 4, S ', 6 and 9 of Intervenor's First Set of Interroga-27i tories, dated October 9, 1980.
28 12 r-,
I i
1 Further Answer to Interrogatory No. 4 I l
2 3 a. "Research" is the investigation or experimentation 4 aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of 5 accepted theories or-law s in the light of new facts, or practical 6 application of such new or revised theories or laws. As used 7 as a category to report port-hours of reactor usage, "research" 8 refers additionally to any use of the reactor to analyze samples 9 or conduct experiments not directly related to maintenance or 10 classroom instruction.
11 12 b. " Education" is the process engaged in by the 13 University to impart knowledge to, and to assist in the training 14 and development of, students, in the case of the NEL, nuclear 15 eng!meering students principally.
16, ..
17 c. "Trainine" is the act, process or method of 18 teaching students to be fit, skilled, qualified and proficient 19 in an activity. With respect to the training of students at 20 NEL, that training is aimed at developing proficient reactor ,
21 ' operators . -
22 i 23 d. Applicant does not know what " sold services" are.
24 Applicant does charge various users for using the reactor as 25 explained above to conduct certain experiments or to perform t
26: sample analyses.
27 28 13 ms !-
i i l !
I Further Answer to Interrogatory No. 5 2
3 a. For all years,0 percent of the ircome derived
'4
~
from operating the reactor was devoted to the sale of services.
5 6 b. For all years,0 percent of the income derive'd 7 from operating the reactor was devoted to education.
8 9 For all years,0 percent of the income derived
- c. .
10 from operating the reactor was devoted to the sale of services.
11 12 Applicant's answers are based on Applicant's understand-13 ing of the questions, Intervenor's failure to explain its 14 meaning which to Arplicant is a confusion based on a misreading 15 of 10 C.F.R. 550.22, and Intervenor's statement made in its 16 first motion to compel with respect tb this question that 17 " Applicant should answer the~ questions as propounded by Intervenor."
18 Presumably, Intervenor will be able to derive whatever ratios ,
IS it needs (rom the data provided in the chart.
20
' l Further Answer to Interrocatory No. 6 22 23' Various users pay at a rate which is currently $65/ hour i I
24 for'each port-hour of reactor usage needed to conduct their l 25!
experiments or to perform sample analyses. The amounts of 26'! income received for each year, 1975-1980, is given on the chart l
27 attached hereto as " Exhibit C,". In the time permitted for this i response Applicant has been unable to derive the data for the
. 14 i
I earlier years of reactor operations. Applicant will continue 2 to pursue this matter and will supplement its answer accordingly.
3 4 a. To Applicant's knowledge all income derived from 5 the operation of the reactor for all years of operation was 6 generated by reactor _ operation.
7 8 b. To Applicant's knowledge for all years reactor 9 usage was provided on an as-requested basis. There were no 10 formal contracts, usera simply agreed to pay the reactor use 11 charge. The services rendered by the NEL were sample 12 preparation and handling, activation analysis and delayed neutron 13 counting of samples, and perhaps a few materials testing 14 experiments and others special studies in the earlier years.
15 In all cases the reactor was operated by NEL reactor operators.
16 Specific information for the earlier y, ears can only be found in 17 the operating logs.
18 19 further Answer to Interrogatorv No. 9 20 21 Applicant only began classifying its reactor operating ,
22' time by function in 1971 when three categories were used:
I 23 i classroom instruction, maintenance and research. Classroom 24 instruction hours were reactor hours used in direct support of 25 a specific course and class of the University. Maintenance 26l l hours were hours spent in servicing, testing and calibrating the i t 27 :
reactor and its instrumentation and in inspection. Research 28 hours3.240741e-4 days <br />0.00778 hours <br />4.62963e-5 weeks <br />1.0654e-5 months <br /> were as defined in response to Interrogatory 4a, above; *
~
15
r l
l 4
1 that is, it was all uses of the reactor other than classroom 2 instruction and maintenance.
3 4 In May 1980 Applicant prepared a chart (" Exhibit B")
5 which further broke down the category research into five sub-6 categories which were based on the identification of the user as 7 described in the notes to the May 1980 chart. Expressly for the 8 purpose of making a complete response here, Applicant has refined 9 and expanded the May 1980 chart with a new chart appearing as 10 " Exhibit C" hereof. The description of the categories remains the 11 same as that which appears in the notes to the May 1980 chart, 12 individual uses are classified according to the affiliation of the, i
13- user. Currently all " extramural" users are " commercial" users in 14 the sense that to the knowledge of the Applicant, the user is 15' engaged in a "for-profit" business activity. The change of the 16 description of this category to " extramural" reflects only that 17 there may be other governmental or "not-for-profit" users who 18 would be included in this category since none of the other cate-19 gories would be appropriate. For the purposes of resolving 20 Contention II, Applicant is prepared to stipulate that all 21 currently recorded " extramural" uses of the reactor are, to the 22l understanding of the Applicant, uses by those who are engaged in 23! " commercial" activity.
24 .
I 25' Dated: June 11, 1981 DONALD L. REIDHAAR 1
! GLENN R. WOODS 26' CHRISTINE HELWICK By ,
28 Glenn R. Woods 16 l
. 5 a s )s .
g .
n , z n i ,. / i l , -
l ,
ks t
~
i B , -
- z ); 1, u. e z
n
'T y ,a e
" _ n t
n ec u e
,. ~
i'7s'c' g -
s p
/
I 1,,4 e -
lh ~ 2 pt mr ~ ~ 2 ~
A S l ao SW N N - '
l C
3
- 3 7 l
i W - O% c K l'~ c S l M ' .
l' - j i l
e v
e 4 v l' l
a l<
t Jt l
m L t b l>
K / Lc i
A l
K * ,
r C ' : C *s e t e t c e P
w o /t /
"* k.
l j t/
t l
l
/a i
T e
m
"* 9 l
j A
b 3
/
/
T.
7 l
q g
j
+ j
/'
0
~~
s s . -
l a
A' 2 '
l -
?
l ,
C A' 7 2 y 'l e ~P .
ll g h I
s 4 n o - O F /'
f I F A i
' l. ' Mu c
/
N <
4wN u "
t
' g f S
C 5
c s f s 't n :i A.
(* lS
' i S / - I i
m r
e i.
n A h e
lh c f
, (c l
wEi
,, I G
e p
x
" 1,. 5
/
6 p
c
~/a ;<
&A r e t, w
R E
/ 0' p ll '
- / a
/. /d c < O k
r c
s l'
fO/
l' N
y l
h I-s
[/' 4
/,
l(x h l*
f lG )t < a l0 ,R f"
h A l #'
7 I
y f j. l
/ , jc . 0 f< [
_ ', n N #
~
- e. 'l t
'l / ;
a t 0 W b A
b I,
{
- h b {
/ :-, ld >
P I 0 W: M' ht G o s
'Q y,. r, A
)/
8 7
7 7 p n
?
I ,
5, q e "
e t
n e.
z e 1 e, 2'
" y -
s a
D R u i 3'
m -
p K 2-2, 3
3 1, 3
A' m y s s
2 c A 5 7- 1 ~
l C / , y 2 A y
Question d. 4-it-cu EXHIBIT F, Tabie iIi/I-3 ptovides hours /ycat af aeactor opcnation fa.t rescatch, class insttuction, and ma.intenance. Class insttaction accounts for 6.0 only 81 of the total hours af aperation. PLcese ptovide a brcak.down in hours /yent of 6.e types of research p1ogra:rs conducted ar.d the types of customers for whom this se,1vice aus perfortncd.
Table III/1-3 will be retitled REACTOR USAGE and will be replaced with the table and explanations which follow here Detailed figures for years prior to 1976 are not available.
REACTOR USAGE ACTIVITY HOURS PER YEAR 1976 1977 1978 1979 AVG.
Engineering Classes 17 83 52 31 46 .
NEL Experiments 4 31 9 1 11 Faintenance 23 14 34 1 18 UCLA' Users 109 106 105 91 103 Colleges & Universities 45 47 37 53 46 Demonstrations 10 6 7 5 7 (s Commercial 1 5 95 264 91 Total Port-Hours
- 208 290 340 446 321 Actual Run Time 184 238 271 3/2 278 Equiv. Full Power Hours '131 159 203 294 1 97
- Port-Hours are a measure of user denand, two concurrent users for one hour contritute two port hours. Instructional and maintenance hours are counted as one port-hour per hour.
Engineering Classes include both graduate and undergraduate laboratory work which includes basic counting, activation analysis, reactor parameter determinations and operator training and requalificatior..
NEL Experiments are conducted by the reactor staff and include seed irradiations, gem coloring experiments, activation analysis, tracer studies, isotope production using the N-P reaction. l UCLA Users include the Chemistry, Geology, Geophysics, Meterology, and Nuclear Medicine Departments. The types cf experiments include activation analysis, tracer studies, delayed .ieutron counting.
\s P00R ORIGINAL
EXHIBIT B Colleges and Universities include California Polytechnic Institute.
California Institute of Technology, California 5 tate University -
Los Angeles, California State University - Northridge, Harvey Mudd College, Mt. San Ar.tonio College, Pierce College, University of California - Santa g Barbara and University of California - San Diego. The types of experiments performed are activation analysis, fission track counting, tracer studies, reactor parameter determinations, reactor optrating characteristics, reactor operations, shielding studies and health physics training.
Demonstrations were actual reactor runs in which the reactor was taken critical to demonstrate reactor parameters, characteristics or operation. Yours in which the reactor was shut down are not included.
High schools, Pierce College, the press, Southern California Edison Co.
and the University of California Extension were recipients of reactor demons tra tio ns . -
Commericial Users include geochemists, gem dealers and engineering fi rms. Mineral assay through activation analysis and delayed neutron counting, gem color alterations, and radiation shielding studies typify the types of experiments performed.
NOTE: Total Port-Hours, Actual Run Time and Ecuiv. Full Power Hours are included in this table. Deviations between the reported port-hours and the Total Port-Hours are due to round off errors.
c f
e P90R ORIGINAL \
,; REACTOR USAGE, RF CTOR REVENUE, AND OTilER RECHARCES, 1975-1980 REACTOR OPERATIONS 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1986 Port Port Port Port Port 3
Port _,.
9~ 9 3 9
- Use Category llrs llrs llrs lirs Hrs Hrs i ' ~
! Classroom Instruction 39 -- 17 --
83 --
52 -- 31 -- 46.2 --
( 20 23 14 --
34 -- 1 --
37.7 --
Nintenance -- --
Rectarch NEL Staff Users 11 --
4 --
31 --
9 -- 1 --
27.0 --
Other UCLA Users 139
- 7817 109 7594 106 7097 105 7030 91 5915 100.6 6539 College and University Users 27
- 694 45 2720 47 3147 37 2477 53 3445 19.3 1254
. Other Extramural Users 1 *- 64 1 64 5 335 95 6361 264 17160 359.9 23393 Demonstrations -- 10 --
6 -- 7 --
5 -, 2.2 --
Reactor Revenue NEl. RECilARGES Contracts and Granta ,
9 9 9 9 Sigported "Tokanak" Fusion' Program DOE 7977 23773 20330 21058 22048 16951 Technical Assistance Grant NRC 1317 5965 10947 6261 --
1.1<luid Hetal Fast Breeder NRC 1066 1739 2832 1470 1262 Reactor Safety Suppression Pool Dynamics NRC , l94 7480 4208 1508 --
Fission Fusion Safety EPRI* = 103 Zirealoy Tubes EPRI*
- 15194 20457 5319 Raleigh-Taylor Instabilities NSF 998 2136 Thermally Driven Flows NSF 228 422 Risk Benefit Study NSF 184 Enhanced Tubes CALIF '566 4217 Various Other UCLA 723 803 1063 T" cal Recharges 7977 27673 36604 54239 53536 31370 NOTES:
- In 1975 Users were billed in whole hours for any fractional hour of use, so that billed hours will be greater than Q actual hours of use. g
- Electric Power Research Institute Q
.] 8 n
1 UNITED SUdE5 OF M' ERICA NIX 1 EAR REGLT.AICRY CElICSSICN 2
BEIVRE 'IHE 7dCfCC SAFEI"I MID LICENSING BCARD .
3 4 In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-142 5 'mE REGE:TPS CF 'mE UNIVERSITY ) (Proposed Penewal of Facility a' CTJ.IJOR: IIA ) Lice.w Nu:rber R-71) 6 )
(UCIA Pacearch Peactor) )
7 ) .
8 uacmCATE CF SEWICE 9 I hereby certify that copies of the attached: APPLICANT"S FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERVENOR IN RESPONSE TO THE BOARD"S ORDER OF 21AY 29, 1981 in the above-capt.:.cned L.roceeding have been served en t :e follcwing by depos2.t 11 in the United States rail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as in-dicated, on this date: June 11, 1981 .
13 Elizabeth amers, Esq. Counsel for NPC Staff U.S. Nuclear Pegulatorf Ccrrission Office of the Executiva Iagal Direc*wr 14 Atcmic Safetf & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Carlssicn Washington, DC 2:555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. E:meth A. Trphke Daniel Hirsch 16 U.S. Nuclear Pegulatorf Carlssion Ccr:rittee to Bridge the Gap Atcraic Safer / & Licensing Beard 1637 Butler Avenue, #230 17 Washington, DC 20555 Ics Angeles, CA 90025 18 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Mr. F* ark Pollcck U.S. Nuclear Pagulatory Car.ission Mr. Jchn Bay -
19 Atenic Safety & Licensing Board 1633 Franklin Street Washington, Dt 20555 Santa obnica, CA 90404 Chief, Ibcketing and Servico Section (3) 21 office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Tagulatory Carlssion 22 Washingtcn, DC 20555 23 24 1
/
25 William'H. Cormler UCLA Representative 26 27 28 D