ML19351E468
| ML19351E468 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1980 |
| From: | Cormier W, Laverty J, Pollock M CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA, COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP, NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19351E463 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012100171 | |
| Download: ML19351E468 (22) | |
Text
_
12/01/80 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-142 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
)
)
(Proposed Renewal of Facility
)
License)
(UCLA Research Reactor)
)
STIPULATION The NRC Staff (Staff), the Regents of the University of California ( Appli-cant), and the Committee to' Bridge the Gap (Intervenors), by their respective attorneys or authorized representatives, hereby stipulate and agree as follows :
1.
A hearing having been granted with respect to the above application and Intervenors having been admitted as parties to the proceeding by the Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order dated October 2,1980, Intervenors agree that the sole contentions they are asserting in this proceeding
- are those set forth in Attachment A (Stipulated Contentions) and Attach-ments B and C (Unstipulated Contentions), subject to the reservation set forth in paragraph 6 below.
The renumbering and wording of the g h iL contentions set forth in Attachments A, B and C supercede that set g forth in Ir.tervenor's Supplement to the Petition to Intervene dated 5 Ygh i
August 25, 1980.
E b
ro.
g.
8012100lh
- 2.
Except as sec forth in Attachments A, B and C, the Ir,tervenors hereby withdraw all other contentions submitted by them in all of their previous petitions and filings.
3.
The parties to this Stipulation agree that the contentions set forth in Attachment A meet the requirements of 10 CFR 5 2.714 as to specificity and basis, raise appropriate issues for determination in this proceeding, and thus constitute admissible contentions herein.
4.
The Intervenors assert that the unstipulated contentions set forth in Attachments B and C are also proper contentions which should be admitted as matters in controversy and will file by November 28, 1980, or such other date as is set by the Licenring Board, such statement of position as they deem necessary and appropriate with respect to these contentions.
5.
The Staff and/or the Applicant do not agree that the contentions set forth in Attachments B and C are proper contentions to be admitted as matters in controversy. The Staff and/or the Applicant will file statenents of position with respect to these contentions by November 28, 1980, or such other date as is set by the Licensing Board.
6.
Nothing in this Stipulation shall be deemed to prevent the Intervenors from filing new or amended contentions upon a showing of good cause as required by $ 2.714 of the Commission's regulations.
3-t 7.
Nothing contained in this Stipulation:
i (a) shall be deemed an admission by the-Staff or the Applicant of l
the merits of any contention or the validity of any allegation of fact or law stated in any contention; nor, (b) shall be construed as a waiver by any party to this Stipu-lation of any rights with respect to the admissibility of evidence pursuant to 10 CFR 6 2.743 of the Commission's regula tions.
8.
Each party to this Stipulation expressly reserves any right to move for summary disposition pursuant to 10 CFR 9 2.749 of the Commission's regulations in regard to any contention advanced by Intervenors and admitted by the Licensing Board.
l-
~ ^ '
( D'a te)
Mark Pollock Counsel for Committee to Bridge the Gap
/
O ; :,,_ L,
t 'j.
, :.. 1-l
! c. Ne{. q cf &
j (DateJ Jessica H. Laverty C dleer, P. Woodhead Counsel for NRC Staff Counsel for NRC Staff 2U
+ W 'M }9f0
/f (Date)
Wil11am tonnier Representative for Applicant 1
1 w-v
,=v w
-=v m,
g n
wst
- y s
,.ev-m *
-w r, -v w w w
-www
-we~,--
4-we v
,v wc-
,evv - r ve r v,
4 ATTACHMENT A*
Stipulated Contentions I.
The application, together with its supporting appendices, is deficient in failing to meet the minimum standards for such applications.
Speci-fically:
2.
The application subnitted by UCLA was not " original" in all respects as shown by a.
its submission of a 1980 Safety Analysis Report (5AR) which repeats virtually verbatim its 1960 Hazards Analysis, and b.
its submission of an environmental impact appraisal which repeats virtually verbatim the language of a 1974 AEC memorandum on " Environmental Considerations Regard-ing the Licensing of Research Reactors and Critical Facilities."
3.
The application contains the following material ard inaccurate s tatements :
a.
"The reactor and its supporting laboratories will be used for the education of senior undergraduate and graduate students in nuclear engineering and related sciences.
In addition to formal courses anc demonstra-tions, the reactor will be used to support research at 1
the M.S. and Ph.D levels." page 5.
b.
"No structural weaknesses (earthquake vulnerability) have ever been identified." page 7.
c.
"No attempt has been made to alter the content and provisions of the technical specifications other than the four changes noted in -the forward to the technical s peci fica tions. " page V/1. This statement is inaccurate because The Staff, Applicant, and Intervenor stipulate to the admission of the contentions set-forth in Attachme.nt A.
It should be noted that the contentions of Attachment A are comprised of contentions set forth in Intervenor's Supplement to the Petition to Intervene dated August 25, 1980, which have been reworded pursuant to a meeting between the Staff, Applicant, and Intervenor held on September 25, 1980 and to subsequent telephone conversations between the parties on October 2,1980, Octo-ber 22, 1980, November 10, 1980, and November 13, 1980.
m m
. Attachment A 4
(i) the excess reactivity limits have been changed from 2.3% a k/k to $3.54; (ii) the definition of ' annual' for the purpose of instrument calibration requirements has been changed from 12 months to 14 months; (iii) the requirement to do heat balance instrumentation calibrations has been removed; (iv) the requirement that ALARA be met has been removed; and (v) the specification regarding exhause stack height, flow rate out of the exhaust stack, and access restrictions to the roof area have been removed.
d.
"flo deep wells have been drilled on the campus of UCLA or in the vicinity of the campus." page III/3-1.
e.
" Accidents ranging from failure of experiments to the largest core damage and fission product release consi-dered possible result in doses of only a small fraction of 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines and are considered negli-gible with respect to the environment." page 11/3-1.
f.
"There are no suitable or more economical alternatives which can accomplish both the educational and the research objectives of the facility." page 11/5-1.
g.
"SPERT and BCRAX tests showed that plate type fuel elements survived step radioactivity insertions of
~
$3.54."
page V/3-6.
II. The Applicant has applied for the wrong class of license.
Applicant has applied for a Class 104 license despite the fact that in the past, more than fif ty percent of reactor funding and more than fif ty percent of the hours of reactor usage have been devoted to the sale of services, rather than research or education. Given this. history, and without any indication that Applicant intends to change reactor usage, Applicant under 10 CFR 9 50.21(b) and 10 CFR 6 50.22 should have applied for a Class 103 license.
Specifically:
Applicant should apply for a Class 103 license because a.
Applicant's financial statements indicate. that more than half of the. reactor funding comes from sources other than-the UCLA School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and
. Attachment A b.
the application indicates more than half of the reactor operating time is spent on commercial, non-educational projects.
III. Applicant has failed to demonstrate adequate managerial and administra-
.'I _
tive controls in the application, as required by 10 CFR 9 50.34(b)(6)(ii),
and further, has demonstrated throughout its operating history grossly inadequate controls. These inadequacies make it impossible to find that Applicant's managerial and administrative controls are adequate to responsibly protect the. public health and safety.
Specifically:
1.
Applicant failed to provide the infonnation required in 10 CFR 5 50.34(b)(6)(ii).
2.
Applicant failed to get prior approval from the Reactor Use Committe2 or the Reactor Director for changes in reactor systems and for non-standard experiments.
3.
Applicant failed to get prior Commission approval for facility changes.
4.
The Lab Director and/or Assistant Director were absent for extensive periods of time and provided inadequate supervision.
5.
Unlicensed visitors to the reactor facility w(tre invited to oper-ate the reactor controls in violation of 10 CFR ll 50.54j, k,1; 55.2; 55.3a and b; 55.d and f; and 55.9a and b.
6.
Applicant kept inadequate records and lost a maintenance log, and 7.
Applicant failed to hold administrative meetings and conduct reviews required by the Technical Specifications.
IV. Applicant has been consistently cited for violations of NRC regulations as well as violations of the provisions of its own Technical Specifi-ca tions. This consistent pattern of regulatory non-compliance and the lack'of assurances that the pattern will not continue in the future indicates thu; the Applicant cannot adequately demonstrate that futu're operation of-tl.e facility will comply satisfactorily with the regu-lations to protect the public health and safety.
V.
The amount of excess reactivity which is pennitted by the Technical Specifications to be installed in this reactor is too great in that it does not provide a sufficient safety margin and thus could lead to a serious power excursion which could bring about melting of the fuel cladding-and significant release of fission products, seriously endanger-ing the public health and safety.
Specifically:
= __
. Attachcent A 1.
The amount of excess reactivity permitted at this facility under its license should be limited to less than that needed for prompt c ri tical i ty.
2.
The reactor has lost several significant self-limiting features in that a.
the level of excess reactivity has been changed so that it is now higher than that needed for p ompt criticality, b.
a deflector plate which prevented repeated excursions has been removed, c.
the assumption that there is a large negati' tempe ratu re coefficient appears to be wrong in light '
.ifoma tion regarding a positive graphite temperatur oefficient, and d.
the reactor's power level has been increased from 10 Kw to 100 Kw.
4 The reactor's void coefficient has changed since the initial calculations were done.
5.
Through the conversion of 2.3% A k/k as the excess reactivity limitation in the current Technical Specifications to $3.54 in the proposed Technical Specifications and the use of a 6 different from that used in the Hazards Analysis, the Applicant may have chcnged the limitation from 2.3% to 2.62%, thus presenting the potential for a serious excursion and melting of the cladding.
6.
The assumption that Borax I test results can be extrapolated to the UCLA reactor is questionable, particularly in the absence of error bars for the Borax I data.
8.
The analysis of excess reactivity characteristics of this reactor submitted in the application fails to include a current review of the nuclear safety literature relating to the relationship between excess reactivity and destructive power excursions.
9.-
Applicant's Hazards Analysis regarding excess reactivity is based on unverified and unidentified assumptions which can be used merely to estimate a range of excess reactivity additions and their possible hazard and is thus inadequate to support present J-licensed limits.
Additionally, Applicant has not provided error pl f{#
bars for its computations and analyses, f
JL! U
- 10. Tiie reactor has a pneumatic " rabbit" system that allows rapid b
insertion of excess _ reactivity.
This system did not exist
/
when the reactor was built and has experienced frequent t, operating problems since installation.
f.
t, b
i
/
6 k e
6 s
. Attachment A
- 12.. Removal of a beam tube could cause insertion of excess reactivity into the reactor because neutron absorption would be removed and reflection savings would be increased.
V
- 13. Applicant has violated excess reactivity limits suggesting it is impossible to prevent possible excursions.
(,Jf '
- 14. Applicant failed to analyze the possibility of euctetic melting.
VI.
Applicant has in the past and is at present emitting excessive radiation, violating radiation standards, and conducting in6dequate monitoring.
Applicant has failed to demonstrate in its application or in its recent perfonaance any evidence that these conditions can reasonably be expected to improve in the future, in the absence of which denonstration grant of an operating and SNM license cannot be made without edue threat to public health and safety.
Specifically:
2.
Several conditions which cause present emissions to be in excess of applicable standards have not been changed; therefore, emissions which are in excess of applicable standards can be expected in the fu tu re.
3.
Applicant has not in the past nor in the present application been able to reasonably demonstrate that exposure in unrestricted areas is not.in excess of applicable standards because it lacks an ade-quste radiation monitoring system.
4.
Applicant has not complied in the past and presently does not comply with the radiation standards in 10 CFR 95 20.1c, 20.106(b)(1) and (2), 20.106(c), and Part 20, Appendix B.
5.
. Applicant does not now, has not in the past, nor can it reasonably assure that it will in the future meet the requirements of section V.d of its current technical specifications which states that
"[t]he release. of radioactivity from the reactor facility shall be kept to as low a level as practicable."
VII. The reactor has in the past experienced a persistent pattern of numerous unscheduled shutdowns, abnoraal occurren es, and accidents. These occurrences are so pervasive that tney evince a pattern of unreliability which makes it impossible for Applicant to reasonably assure that the reactor. can be operated in a manner which does not endanger the public health and safety.
1
..,-.-,,.n
.n.
l
. Attachment A VIII. The analysis of an accident and the calculations regarding the resultant radiation exposure to the public contained in the Applicant's Safety Analysis Report is based on unrealistic assumptions which tend to minimize the expected public exposure. However, despite the minimi-zation of the hazard the conclusion of the analysis postulates an unacceptably high public radiation dosage of 1800 rems thyroid.
1.
The safety analysis is flawed because a.
Applicant assumes a release limited to only 10% of the volatile fission products and none of the non-volatile
- products, b.
Applicant assumes the reactor has been operated at 10 Kw long enough to have attained equilibrium concentrations of relatively short-lived fission products, c.
Applicant assumes the reactor is in a two-story building with possible exposure to the public occurring outside the building, d.
Applicant assumes a building leakage rate of 20% of the reactor room volume per hour for a 30 mile per hour wind, assumed to be directly proportional to wind.
velocity, and e.
Applicant has not adequately tested the assumptions upon which the analysis is based and failed to include a current review of nuclear safety literature regarding dose and dispersion models.
XVI. The UCLA reactor and the principal component pieces of reactor equipment y
are so old that relicensing the reactor, particularly for a twenty-year V'
period poses an unacceptable hazard.
Because of the age of the reactor it is very difficult to obtain spare parts and key safety features g) qc required of nemr facilities--specifically, an emergency core cooling tr"
/ ~,. F system and a containment structure--are lacking in this facility.
In addition, the following. items of equipment are unreliable, difficult to
/
gI' repair and/or replace:
reactor instrumentation and console instrumenta-tion.
Vi ( y:
l-1.
The reactor was built in 1959 by a company which is no longer in the reactor business.
IX. The Applicant in the past has not adequately maintained its equipment nor calibrated its instruments properly, thereby increasing the chances of equipment failures and erroneous instrument reading.
Due to this I
l
\\a
7-Attachment A failure, the NRC cannot conclude that the issuance of a license for this facility will not be inimical to the public health and safety.
Specifically:
1.
Applicant has failed to calibrate instruments at the required' intervals.
2.
Applicant's personnel are not familiar with the calibration requirements of their own technical specifications.
3.
Applicant has failed to maintain, or has lost, calibration records, making accurate calibrations and data interpretation impossible.
4.
Applicant has significantly underestimated radioactive emmissions for extensive periods of time due to errors in its calibration ne thods.
L5.
Applicant has had continuing problems with heat balance cali-bra tions.
6.
Applicant has not devoted adequate time to maintenance and calibration.
e
ATTACHMENT B*
Unstipulated Contentions I.
The application, together with its supporting appendices, is deficient in failing to meet the minimal standards for such applications.
Speci-fically:
1.
The application omits essential infomation with regard to experi-mental vibration of the reactor.
V.
The amount of excess reactivity which is pemitted by the Technical Specifications to be installed in this reactor is too great in that it does not provide a sufficient safety margin and thus could lead to a serious power excursion which could bring about melting of the fuel cladding and significant release of fission products, seriously endang-ering the public health and safety.
Specifically:
3.
The licensed amount of excess reactivity (2.3% a k/k) could cause melting of the fuel cladding according to the 1960 Hazards Analysis.
11.
The proposed licensed limit on combined experiments (
$3.54) or the current licensed limit ( 2.3% k/k) could cause melting of the fuel cladding.
X.
The relicensing of the UCLA nuclear reactor is a major Federal action which will significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared by the NRC. There are suitable alternatives to the operation of this reactor which would not involve a significant impact on the environment.
The Staff and/or the Applicant believe that the contentions set forth in Attachment B are not proper issues for this proceeding and, as such, oppose-admission of these contentions as issues in controversy.
Speci-j fically, the Applicant opposes admission of contentions I.1, V.3, V.11, p
X, XI, XII, XV, XVII, XVIII, and XXI.
Of these, the taff believes con-lM'A tentions V.3, V.11, X, XII, XV, XVII, and XVIIIona hould be admitted U
- j.,'; Nly as issues in controversy but opposes admission of contentions I I and
/
The Staff, Applicant, and Intervenor stipulate, however, to the language of these contentions as set forth in Attachment B in the event that these 1
.p contentions are found to be admissible by the Board.
I i
l I
. Attachment B The benefits preided society by the reactor do not outweigh the costs of operating the reactor.
Specifically:
1.
The relicensing constitutes a major Federal action because a.
Radiation doses to the public during normal operation of this reactor are greater than the numerical guides which apply to light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors in order to meet the "as low as is reasonably achievable" require-ments of 10 CFR 50.34a and 50.36a. Because an EIS is pre-pared by the NRC when a power reactor is licensed and because this reactor's emissions exceed the ALARA guides for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors, this proposed relicensing action constitutes a major Federal action.
b.
Radiation doses to the public in the event of a design basis accident are considerably higher than the doses established for stationary power and testing reactors at 10 CFR i 100.11(a).
Because an EIS is prepared by the NRC when a power reactor or a testing facility is licensed and because this reactor's emissions in the event of a design basis accident exceed 4
those pemitted by 10 CFR 9100.11(a), this proposed relicensing action constitutes a major Federal action.
2.
The relicensing of the UCLA research reactor will significantly affect the quality of the human environment because t
a.
A design basis accident at the reactor is likely, and would expose great numbers of people to dangerous radiation dosages.
b.
The reactor is located on a densely populated campus with classroom and office facilities enveloping the reactor build-ing on three sides and above the building.
c.
The reactor lacks inherent and engineered safety features, inclMing the lack of a containment structure, d.
A design basis accident is likely because of the reactor's use-as a training facility and because of the history of lax administrative controls, abnomal occurrences, unscheduled shutdowns and minor accidents.
i e.
The facility is sited in a seismically active area and suf-fered significant damage in the 1971 earthquake.
f.
The facility utilizes highly enriched (93%) fuel and is vulnerable to criticality accidents.
l l
- Attachment B g.
A design basis accident would result in fission product releases in amounts that would endanger the public healt.,
and safety.
3.
Therefore, the NRC must prepare an EIS which considers the fol-lowing alternatives:
a.
Training, research and education could all be accomplished at other existing facilities located in southern California.
b.
The reactor could be used as a simulator without fuel for the training of reactor operator 3.
c.
Commercial users of the reactor could rent reactor time at other facilities in southern California.
4.
The benefits provided society by the reactor do not outweigh the costs of operating the reactor because a.
Only a very small p( ccentage of the reactor operating time is devoted to traint,19 operators and educating students, b.
Most of the important and significant research done at UCLA which utilizes nuclear reactors 'is accomplished at other facilities.
c.
The research that is done at this facility could be accom-plished at other facilities in southern California.
d.
A major percentage of the reactor operating time is devoted to commercial projects for paying customers.
f.
Over the proposed twenty year license period the beneficial uses of the reactor are likely to decline while the risks and costs associated with its operation are likely to increase.
XI. The environmental information contained i. tne application is insuffi-cient to support a finding by the doard of no significant impact.
1.
-The applicatior, lacks an original environmental impact appraisal for the UCLA reactor.
2.
The analysis of the environmental effects of facility. operation is inadequate.
3.
The analysis of the environmental effects of accidents is inadequate.
4.
The application does not contain a discussion, analysis, or descrip-tion of alternatives to the reactor's operation.
] Attachment B 5.
The application's discussion of the reactor's long-term effects is conclusory and inadequate.
=
6.
The application's discussion of the reactor's costs and benefits is inadequate and conclusory.
XII. The safety features of the UCLA reactor are inadequate to protect the public health and safety. Certain engineered safety features are lacking; particularly lacking are features that are redundant and independent. Specifically:
1.
The reactor is surrounded by a housing rather than by an adequate containment structure.
2.
The high level radiation monitor system is inadequate.
3.
The reactor does not have an adequate boron-injection system, a radioactivity removal system, emergency liquid and gaseous emissions holding tanks, HEPA filters, an emergency core cooling system, or spare control blade motors.
4.
The reactor lacks adequate shielding and access restrictions in areas where the public might be exposed to radiation.
5.
The reactSr has inadequate or non-existent interlock systems.
6.
The reactor lacks missile shields, particularly for control blade drives.
7.
Graphite used in reactors undergoes physical changes and thus poses a hazard.
8.
The reactor has a history of fuel failures, particularly tie bolt failures.-
9.
The reactor's :ontrol blades are inadequate.
XV. The operating-license for this facility should not be renewed because the adverse consequences which flow from its location and siting are too great.
The following circumstances-have exacerbated 'the adverse conse-quences of a facility accident and of normal operation.
Specifically:
-1.
The density of the population in the unrestricted area immediately surrounding. the reactor and within a ten mile radius of the reactor makes the probable consequences. of an accident at the facility unacceptably great. This population-density has increased greatly over the past twenty years.
l l
. Attachment B J'
2.
The reactor building which was originally separated from any other structures is now enveloped on three sides and above by cle sroom and office buildings. These buildings house a large population during working hours in close proximity to the reactor.
3.
The heating, air-conditioning, and air-flow systems of the new buildings enveloping the reactor building interface directly and indirectly with those systems at the reactor facility.
XVII. The UCLA reactor should not be licensed because the physical loca-tion and site characteristics of this reactor unacceptably endanger the public health and safety.
Furthermore, the license application does not contain information and analysis concerning the site related safety problems sufficient to support the issuance of a license.
Specifically:
1.
The reactor is located on one of the most seismically active regions of the country.
3.
The reactor sustained significant damage in the 1971 earthquake.
4.
The existence of three floors of classrooms and offices, supported on columns, directly above the reactor structure creates a signifi-cant danger of collapse through the reactor building roof and onto the reactor itself in the event of an earthquake.
5.
The application does not contain the information on siting required by 10 CFR 50.34(b)(1).
XVIII. The Applicant does not possess and cannot give reasonable assurance of obtaining funds sufficient to cover the costs of operating the facili ty.
Given this lack of assurance, Applicant fails to qualify financially for an operating license.
Specifically:
1.
Applicant has deferred maintenance in the past due to lack of funds.
2.
Applicant, as a public institution and subject to yearly funding, cannot reasonably assure that it will obtain sufficient funding for operation of the reactor from year-to year.
3.
If Applicant, as contended by Intervenor, is operating.a facility described in 10 CFR 50.21(b) or'50.22, Applicant has not met the requirement of.10 CFR 50.33(f) that: Applicant po w s or have reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds necess?re to cover the estimated cost of operation for the license. period, plus the i
estimated cost of permanently shutting down the facility and maintaining it in a safe condition.
t
t
- Attachment B XXI. Applicant's Emergency Response. Plan is insufficient to demonstrate that the plan.prevides reasonable assurance that appropriate measures can ar19 will be taken in the event cf an emergency to protect public health and safety and prevent damage to property.
1.
The prohibition against notifying non-university individuals until instructions to do so come from the Campus police unnec-essarily delays emergency response.
2.
The requirement that the evacuation of Boelter Hall and the Math-Sciences addition be cleared through the Vice Chancellor's office entails unnecessary delay.
3.
The plan does not adequately provide for alternative personnel with evacuation authority.
4.
The plan does not provide for alternative personnel with the authority to carry out the role of Health Physicist, as general director and supervisor of emergency response.
5.
Applicant does not have adequate radiation measuring devices to accurately detennine the extent and. seriousness of an accident which would make the University initiate its emergency response plan.
6.
There is no indication that a viable plan for evacuating the entire campus exists.
7.
The plan does not provide for any emergency centers other than the UCLA Medical Center, despite the fact that it might be shut down in the event of a major accident.
8.
The plan fails to indicate which equipment and what quantities v it are available at each equipment location listed in the plan.
9.
The training exercises and drill specified in the plan are not carried out on a regular basis and therefore the plan will be ineffective in the event of an actual emergency.
e
~
-.g
r ATTACHMENT C*
Unstipulated Contentions VI.
1.
PRst and present emissions are excessive, endangering the public health and safety.
6.
The emissions from this reactor are in excess of the iumerical guidelines for the ALARA principle as applied to power reactors, of 5 millirems annual external dosage, set forth in 10 CFR Part 50 App. I.
These numerical guidelines are employed here by Petitioner by analogy only because of the lack of specific ALARA guidelines for all research reactors, because the University has chosen to discuss ALARA in their application in tems consistent with 10 CFR Part 50, because the guidelines are reasonable in the context of this reactor, and finally because the Licensing Board to date has not detemined site-specific numerical guidelines to be applied in the context of this licensing proceeding. This contention requests a Licensing Board interpretation, in the context of this licensing proceeding, of the ALARA principle in tems of numerical guidelines, similar to the fashion in which the numerical guidelines of 10 CFR Part 50 App. I are set forth, so as to give all parties to this proceeding adequate notice of the ALARA standards to be applied.
VIII. 3.
Applicant in its license application dated February 29,1980 in arguing that the environmental effects of the largest accident considered possible would not produce an unacceptable risk to the public health and safety, has defined the acceptable level by analogy to 10 CFR 100 limits. That is a reasonable site-specific definition for this particular facility and the Applicant does not meet it.
X.
4.
The benefits provided society by the reactor do not outweigh the costs of operating the reactor because e.
The reactor costs the University over $150,000 per year to operate and would cost over $750,000 to decommission in 1980.
The Staff and the Applicant believe that the contentions set forth
-in Attachment C are not proper issues for this proceeding and, as such, oppose admission of these contentions as issues in controversy.
More-over, the Staff, Applicant, and Intervenor have not reached agreement as to the language and proper fom of these contentions in Attachment C in the event that contentions of this nature are found to be admissible by the Board.
c
. Attachment C XIII. The infomation which Applicant has provided regarding the special nuclear materials license is inadequate to meet the requirements of 10 CFA70.22(a)(7) and (a)(8) and 70.24(a)(1), (2), and (3).
FurtheE35 more, the enrichment. level requested and the quantity requested of U are excessive and thus pose an unnecessary threat to public health and sa fe ty.
XIV. Applicant in its Safety Analysis Report has failed to analyze inherent problems faced by Argonaut type reactors.
In the absence of such an analysis, Applicant cannot reasonably assure that the operation of the reactor will not endanger the public health and safety.
XVI. 2.
The age of the reactor makes instrumentation unreliable, difficult to repair, and difficult to replace.
3.
The reactor equipment is old and outdated and deteriorating. The Applicant has not devoted the money to properly update or maintain the equipment in the past and without a change in Applicant's practices the equipment will continue to deteriorate with age.
4.
Given the age, design, and condition of this reactor the proposed twenty year license period should be reduced to a maximum of fivt:
years.
5.
Age has severly reduced the reactor's usefulness.
XVII. 2.
The application does not contain an adequate review of the potential for major damage from seismic activity including current infomation on fault activity in the immediate vicinity, current information on the ability of code complying structures to withstand seismic activity, and current infomation on the seismic vulnerability of the-actual buildings surrounding the reactor.
XIX. The application's Safety Analysis is flawed because the following hazard scenarios for this facility have not been considered:
1.
Sabotage, such as explosives being thrown at or placed on the reactor itself, causing major damage and broken fuel plates.
2.
Airplane crash such as a DC-10 or Boeing 747 s'..ieduleu 'o arrive at LAX or Burbank airports crashing into the r tactor rov', or into the void area above the reactor, causing the bi :lding or s'rtions thereof to collapse breaking apart fuel assemblies and eleasing radiation.
i
}
f
- Attachment C 3.
Design basis accident--worst possible series of events.
4.
Operator error which leads to design basis accident.
XX.
Applicant has in the past and is at present taking inadequate fixed site physical security precautions to protect against radiological sabotage as well as protection against theft and diversion of the special. nuclear materials it possesses, thus indicating that the Appli-cant's ph, ical security plan is inadequate and its implementation of said plan is inadequate. Applicant has failed to demonstrate in its recent performance any evidence th&t its physical security measures can reasonably be expected to improve in the future, in the absence of which demonstration grant of an operating license and a SNM license cannot be made without undue threat to public health and safety.
1.
Applicant has at its facilities areas containing vital equipment and special nuclear materials, areas which should be adequately protected against possible acts of radiological sabotage or attempts at thef t or diversion of Std, and to which access should be adequately contro' led.
Specifically:
j a.
the reactor room, b.
the control roca, c.
the third floor equipment room, d.
the fresh fuel storage area, and e.
the " restricted area"'immediately surrounding the reactor stack and exhaust fan on the eighth floor of Boelter Hall.
2, There exist areas adjacent to the above-mentioned vital and material access areas which should be sufficiently isolated and secured to prevent them from being used as penetration points or staging areas for penetration of the vital and material access areas.
Specifically:
a.
The " access court" used for truck loading and unloading, located between the reactor building and the Engineering Building to its west, b.
the Tokamak lab adjacent to the reactor room, c.
-the main entrance (reception lobby) to NEL,
-- l
_=,
. Attachment C d.
the cresently unrestricted roof areas of Boelter and i
Math Sciences adjacent to the " restricted area" around the reactor stack, e.
the Ithin Math Sciences whose windows open to the "re:
area" around the reactor stack, and f.
th6
' for the single locked door to the " restricted area e the reactor stack.
3.
Applicant's physical security measures for its vital and material access areas and the areas adjacent to them have been in the past and are at present inadequate to properly protect, isolate, and control access to those areas in that a.
presence by guards and watchmen is too infrequent; b.
methods for detecting concealed guns, explosives, or incendiary devices that could be carried by people enter-ing these areas, and SNM that could be carried by people leaving these areas, are inadequate;
- i. Applicant lacks mechanical devices to detect firearms, explosives, incendiary devices, or SNM and
- 11. Applicant fails to routinely search visitors and staff for fireanns, explosives, incendiary devices, or SNM c.
physical barriers to penetration are inadequate;
- i. fences and walls are too short, lack barbed wire at the top, and otherwise fail to fully enclose the area to be protected
- 11. windows and doors in walls that are to act as physical barriers are made of construction and fastening of insufficient strength such that the integrity of the wall is lessened by the openina provided by the windows and doors 111. dual or redundant barriers are lacking; penetration of these areas can be made by breaching a single ba rrier d.
security measures with regard to keys and locks are inadequate; and
- 1. doors that should be kept locked have been left open
~,,, - _ _ _,
1
. Attachment C
- 11. locks are of insufficient construction and strength to prevent tampering and penetration
=
111. too many keys to areas that are supposed to be locked have been given out iv. control of those keys is inadequate in that copies can be made, keys can be lent to unauthorized person-nel, and keys that are signed out are not required to be returned when not in use c.
procedures to control access are inadequate.
- i. groups that are too large for adequate supervision are given tours of the facility by one or two staff people alone
- 11. these tours include visits to vital and material access areas iii. NEL personnel unassociatel with the reactor have ready access to vital and material access areas through egresses connectir.g their parts of the NEL complex with the parts of the complex utilized by the reactor.
XXII. The technical specifications contained in the application include provisions which reduce safety standards to an unacceptable level and pose a threat to the public health and safety.
1.
The definition of " annual" for the purposes of instrument calibra-tion requirements has been changed from 12 menths to 14 months.
2.
The requirement to do heat-balance instrument calibrations has been removed.
~
3.
The requirement that ALARA be met has been removed.
4.
The specifications regarding exhaust stack height, flow rate out of the exhaust stack, and access restrictions to the roof area have been removed.
XXIII. Applicant, in its license application has improperly dealt with intended changes to its faility.
Specifically:
1.
Applicant improperly relies on an intended future action--
L installation of decay tanks--~in defense of its ALARA performance.
1 I
l l
f:~
. Attachment C a.
Present and past observance of ALARA or other radiation standards cannot be deferded by an action not yet taken, w
b.
Promise of intention to reduce the emissions in the future if relevant at all to the issue of license renewal, cannot be based on an action applicant asserts it intends to undertake in the future but has not yet proposed as an amendment to its license.
2.
Applicant makes statments in its application regarding intended future actions that are contradicted by the facts and by each other.
a.
On page V/3-11 of the application Applicant incorrectly states that an Amendment will be prepared and suomitted prior to September 1,1980, to authorize the installation of hold-up/ decay tanks.
No such Amendment was subnitted prior to September 1,1980.
b.
The statement on page V/3-11 is further contradicted by a statement on page V/7-1, indicating the preparation of such a license amendment will " commence upon receipt of information confinning the acceptability of the present applica tion. "
-3.
If Applicant is pennitted to rely on future intended actions in defense of a claim that relic,ensing will not likely lead to emissions unduly harmful to the public health and safety, then all intended future actions linked to the decay tanks should be included, not merely those future actions which might tend to reduce emissions.
a.
The intention to increase the reactor use factor which Applicant has communicated to the Commission and public as being tied into the installation of decay tanks, and which would tend to increase emissions.
b.
The intention -to increase reactors maxinum pennitted power, which Applicant has publicly stated its intention to do and which would likewise increase emissions.
XXIV. Precautions taken by Applicant for transfer and shipment of special nuclear materials are not adequate to protect the material against sabotage, -thef t, or diversion, nor the public from radiation expcsure.
In the absence of adequate precautions, grant of' the requested license cannot be made without undue threat to public health and safety.
Specifically, in preparations taken for a June 1980 transfer and shipment i
of special nuclear materials, Applicant
I 4
-7.-
Attachment C-1.
failed to provide adequate guard and watchman surveillance of Ifeas where transfer to the truck took place, 2.
failed to adequately monitor the truck for radiation, 3.
failed to make the transfer of SNM in a secure, controlled access
- location, 4.
failed to keep the time and existence of the. transfer and shipment
- secret, 5.
failed to notify responsible authorities in the locality where the transfer was to take place, 6.
failed to follow the recommendation in Inspection Report 50-142/79-01 to make arrangements for an inspector to be on site during the transfer of the fuel bundles, and 7.
failed to make the arrangements required at the time by 10 CFR 73.37 of licensees who deliver to a carrier for transport irradiated reactor fuel exempt from 10 CFR 73.20, 73.25, 73.26, and 73.27 under 10 CFR 73.6.
I i
l
4
('
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA li NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOM.C SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-142 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
).
CALIFORNIY
)
(Proposed Renewal -of Facility
)
License)
(UCLA Research Reactor)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of. "NRC STAFF POSITION ON UNSTIPULATED CON-TENTIONS" and " STIPULATION" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 1st day of December, 1980:
~
Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq., Chairman
- Christine Helwick, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Glenn R. Woods, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel Wa:hington, DC 20555 2200 University Avenue 590 University Hall Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke, Member
- Berkeley, CA 94720 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Steven R. Tekosky Washington, DC 20555 Environmental Section 200 North Main Street Dr. Oscar H. Paris, Member
- City Hall East, Room 215 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Los Angeles, CA 90012 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Mark Pollack 1724 No. La Brea Avenue Mr. Daniel Hirsch Hollywood, CA 90046 Committee'to Bridge the Gap 1637 Butler Avenue, #203 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Los Angeles, CA 90025 Panel
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission William H. Cornier, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555 0ffice of Administrative Vice Chancellor Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal University of filifornia at Panel (5)*
Los' Angeles U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission' 405 Hilgard Avenue Washington, DC 2t'555 Los Angeles, CA 90024 5 %
,.t
.y d...
" " Docketing and Service Section (7)*
Mr. John Bay Office nf the Secretary 1633 Franklin Streetyd4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Santa Monica, CA 90t U U.
2 2d kiMashington, DC 20555 1N ;23v M M Diniv; Colleen P. WoT)dhead Counsel for NRC Staff
.-