ML19352A968
| ML19352A968 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1981 |
| From: | Pollock M COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP |
| To: | CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106020448 | |
| Download: ML19352A968 (33) | |
Text
e
~
) P00R ORIGINJ1
\
UII"'ED STA'IE3 CF AERICA I*UCLEAR ECULATOF.T C012:ISSIC'!
IEFORE TE ATCHIC SAFETY A"D LICENSE!G 30ARD In the Matter of Docket !!o. 50-142 TE imE;d & TE UI'IVERSITf CF CALIF 0EIA (Proposed Renewal of Facility License liumber R-71)
(UCIA Research Reactor)
Al*SWERS OF TE C0l*J:ITTEE TO 3 RIDGE TE GAP TO APPLICA!i'S FIRST S C CF_r .t e OCATORIES Dated: Yay 20,1981
' N TUCLEAR LAW CE!*TER
- f t' c/o 1724 !!crth La 3rea Avenue L An
/./f ,\ (os A 213) 876-4700 geleo California 90046 2 MAY 2 6198f . , --
Attorneys for Intervenor c' 3 -5 C013 T"EE TO 3RI GE TE GAP Q ,
u . , -"
., w W ' ~/ JJr9q, .
s g g -
gf d.i.)y mTIdg '
_. JUN 011981 m
- v. s. ross
, (9. -L.
l l h 1 810602 0 4 48 I/
I'T2CTCIC" I' On April 20, 1981, Applicant, the REGE:CS CF TF:E GIVER 3ITY CF CAI.IFC: CIA. submitted to Intervenor, THE CCE2T3E TO 3RIICE TdE CAP, sixty-nine interrogatorios and their subparts. These interrogatories are answered in the responses that follow, as per the discover-/
schedule stipulated to by the parties and ordered b/ the 3oard.
Discovery is proceeding on all the matters touched on in the Applicant's interrogatories. Q1e following answers are provided without prejudice to Intervenor's acility to introduce subsequently discovered .
naterial at a later date at hearirs or related proceeding.
Intervenor objects to Applicant's requests, on page 1 and 2 of the introduction to the interrogttories, for infernation regarding affiliation of all persons, identified in any way in answer to the interrogatories, with so-called " anti-nuclear groups." The objection is tased on constitutional grounds, as well as the burdensome, harrassing, vague and irrelevant nature of the questions. A protective order has been applied for by Intervenor on said grounds.
A ,.e j ~~m c
. arkT61.-
1ock Attorney for Intervenor Fay 20,1981 CCD27"EE TO 3 RIDGE THE CAP M
CC::"TP"ICN I
)
Interrogatory No. I l
Intervenor means by the term "the minimum standards for such applications,"
as used in Contention Is
- a. That the information provided in the application is about the facility for which the license is requested,
- b. That the information provided in the application is truthful, accurate, and not misleiding,
- c. That the application provides sufficient information for the Commission to determine that, if the license is granted, the Applicant will comply with the regulations, and that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered, as well as that the Applicant is technically and financially qualified to en6 age in the proposed activities, and thct the issuance of the proposed license will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Sources of said standards:
a.10 CFR So.34(b), 50.36, 50.40, 50.41+ 50.42 (depending upon soard decision regarding correct class of license), 50.57, 50 59, 50 Appendix D Section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. S 2236): . Virginia Electric & Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), AIAB-324, 3NRC347,(1976),
- b. Section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of l')54 (42 U.S.C. E 2236):
Virginia Electric & Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2),
AIAB-324, 3 NRC 347, (1976)
- c. 10 CFR 50.40 Interrogatory No. ?, l l
The language of this contention, as summarized by NRC Staff inits proposed language, was that "UCLA failed to submit an original application as shown by..." ,
Representatives of the Applicant, in conference calls designed to wcrk out l differences on language, proposed that language read "The application submitted I by UCLA was not ' original' in all respects as shown by..." Intervenor at the time understood Applicant's intet as to show that Intervenor was not contending that the entire application was not original, only that parts of it were not original, which is indeed Intervenor's contention.
Thus, Intervenor does not contend that applicant's license renewal application must be original in all respects, but rather that in some material respects where it should be original, it is not.
(a) Intervenor takes the expression " original in all respects" as used in Contention I.2 to mean that in some material aspects the application is not
/
- e -~, -- - - _ - . ~ ,, , - ~ - , - - , - _.------.m.
-- ,--,,-,---o,wem, , - , , <--e-----r- -
original where it should be originals i.e. the application language is written about other reactors rather than the reactor up for relicensing. {
As Intervenor stated in the Supplement (p. I.2): "An elementary requirement '
for an adequate application for facility license is that it be written about the facility for which the license is being applied."
The reactor as it was twenty years ago is not up for relicensins; the present zwactor is. All remarch reactors are not up for a generic relicensing this particular research reactor is.
- b. See answer to Interrogatory No.1.a., rhich is incorporated here by reference.
Interromatory No. 'I See Supplement, Page I.1, which is incorpented here V; reference (b) The contention at this time is not based on the knowledge of individuals, but on documents.
(c) " Vibration Testing and Earthquake Response of Nuclear Reactors" by Craig 3. Smith and R.3. Fatthiesen, Nuclear Energy kboratory and Earthquake Engineering and Structures k boratory, Los Angeles, iforia 90024, appearing in Nuclear Applications and Technology, Vol. 7 July,1969 Also AEC Inspection Report, pages 7-9, CO Report No. 50-142/68-2, of Inspection by V.E. Vetter on November 7-8, 1968. The custodian of both records is the App 1dcants copies are also in the custody of the Intervenor.
Interroratory No. 4 (a) Control blade insertion time increased and eventually one of the blades stuck in the "out" position, requirin's dismantling of the reactor core.
The control blade problem was attributed to the vibratian touts, thought to have caused reactor internals to have shift, binding the control blade shaft.
(b) a is based not on knowledge of individuals, but on documents.
(c) See 3(c) above. Specific language: "About 6 months after the vibration experiment routine tests indicated that one of the control blade insertion times had increased. A few months later safety binde No.1
( stuck in the'out' position during a routine prestart checkout of the l reactor control system. When the reactor was dismantled, we discovered l that lead shielding bricks under the control blade drive shaft had been displaced upward, causing the shaft to bind." (Smith and Katthiesen, page 24).
"On June 19, 1968, during a routine preoperational check of the reactor.
control blade No. I did not return to the full-down position. An investigation revealed that the blade was stuck in the 60 percent withdrawa position.
Further investigation indicated that the blade could be moved with application ,
of blade drive power but that the blade drive shaft was binding within i
- the biological shield'ac... it was noted that the lead bricks had shifted away from their original position such that several of them were resting on the No.1 safety blade drive shaft. Further investigation disclosed that a layer of lead shot under the control blade drive shaft !
had suffered considerable migration... According to the licensee, shifting of the lead shot was prohtbly caused by, or at least aggravated W, .annegneriment durin6 the. previous ypar to determine the affect of I
, - - - - -- .- , . , . - - - - ~ _ , , , , - , , ,_- ,n._-._,n--. . , - . . - , . . - - , . , . - , - . - - . - - , . , . - . , - - , . . - - , . - .
b.
l earthduakesonreactoroperations. During this experiment, the reactor superstructure and core were subjected to relatively severe shaking."
l (CoReportNo. 50-142/68-2,pg.7-8).
i I
Interrogatory No. 5 t
l Contention I, to which this interrogatory is directed, makes no mention
- of omitted inforation. h e contention does indicate that certain I information provided is misleading, not shown.to be relevant to the reactor in question as it is at this time, and inaccurate. By inference, misleading, irrelevant, or inaccurate statements can be seen as statements there correct, relevant, and accurats information has been omitted, but the contention as admitted does not deal with omissions.
The original proposed contentions contained in the Supplement did discuss "cmission of essential infcrmation," but that language was removed from the final language approved by the Board. (See Supplement, I.1 and 130 Staff proposed language on Contention I. ) ,
Interroratory Fo. 6 Intervenor was not pnvy to the instructions of 13C Staff with respect to the information to be provided in the license renewal application, ,
so Intervenor has no information at this time to provide in response to this question.
I Interrogatory No. ?
No, Intervenor has proponsi ho such contention. Intervenor at this time has seen only two requests for additional information with respect i to the license application coming from Staff,and has made no, formal judgment one way or another as to the adequacy of Applicant's answers.
Intervenor dLL not see Applicant's answers until recently, long after the deadline for submission of the original contentions. No new contentions on this mattisr are anticipated at this time.
Interroante.rv No. 8 i
Yes. 'Ihe statenents Intervsnor believes to be materially inaccurate are quoted in the contention as items I.3.a,b,c d, e,f, and g.
l i a) The I.3-6 pages hsis (top for)each contention
, which of inaccuracy is incorporated herein by is contained reference.inAdditional the Supplement, basis for contention I.3.a. is found on pages II.1-3 of the Supplement, ,
also incorporated herein by reference. Additionally, Intervenor's review l of Applicant's financial ledgers and billings, as well as operating logs and the Applicant's response to NRC Staff questions April 17, 1980, all additionally provide kais for Intervenor's contention that the proposed function !
of the facility stated in the application on page 5 is not an accurate !
representation of its true function.
b) The basis for each contention identified above is from documents, not l l c
d
l individuals with personal knowledge of the facts.
l c) The documents which support the above silegations ares the Application itself, Applicant's operating logs 1976-1980 (Intervenor has not yet been i
permitted to see other operatin6 106s), Applicant's financial ledgers i
and bil2ings shown to Intervenor by Applicant's custodian of records, the Annual (Specialized Activity) Report for 1965-68 and 1976 and 1977, l
as well as the Annual Reports for 1971-1979 (Intervenor has not yet seen i the Annual Report for 1980), the documents identified in response to Interro6atery No. 3(c) above, the current Technical Specificationn, l the 3crax test reports cited on page III/A-7 of the Application, and the i
well anP U-05-A3 for Hydrologic Area 16, U.S. Geologic Survey Hap, ,
available from the State of California Water Resources Department, as tell as individuni well records (cards for each well) available from the Los Angeles County nood Control District.
Interros: story No. 9 We have to date made'no such contention. Ve, at this time, neither affirm the acmaracy nor denytthe accuracy of statements made by Applicant to the NRC staff other than the false statements we have alleged appear in the Application. -
Interrogatory No. 10 Yes.
1 The answer to this question is found in the answer to Interresator'/8 abova, which is incorporated herein by reference. Intervenor's answers to NRC Staff Interro6atories 8, 10, 13, 14 and 15 are likewise herein incorporated herein by reference.
I d. The well map is identified in Sc above. . is. obtainable from Edward J. Lou, Associate Engineer, Planning 3 ranch, Acting Director,
- Department of Water Resources, The Resources Agency, State of California, l
849 South Broadway, Los Angeles, CA 90014, (213) 620-2516. Intervenor does not know for certain'the date of the map, except that it is the most current map available from the Department of Water Resources.
The map was made by the U.S. Geological Surveys the educations 1 background of the mapmakers is not known to Intervenor. The depth, date of drillin6e and whether each well is currently functional is not known to C3G at this time. Some 'of that information may be on the well cards provided by LA County Flood Control District, but Intervenor has to date not been able to correlate the well cards with the well map.
The wells identified on the well map that Intervenor at this time believes are in the vicinity of the campus are: 28-32,3,4sH1, 27-N1,2,33 29-G1: 32-31,n ,D2, P1, Q2, A1,2,3,4,5,H1r 33-D2,3,4,31,2,3,4,5 G1,K3,K2, J1,2,3, Q1,2,3,L1,N1,2,P1:
34C1,2,3,M1,N1,P1,2,3,4,5,6,7,Q1: 22N1: Intervenor at this time has no ;
information one way or another as to which of these wells are functional ;
(aside from two wells cluster on the border between square 32 and 33 known to be currently operational) and which are not. Nor does Intervenor at this time make a judgment that there are no wells besides those identified above which are potentially in the vicinity of campus. '
i
. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . , . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ , . . . . . _ . ~ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . , . . _ . _ _ , , _ . _ . . . . , . _ , . . _ , . _ _ _ . , . _ _ _ . _ . _ , , . . , _ _ . . . , _ , _ . _ _
Intervenor merely believes that sufficient basis has been shown that the assertion of D2 wells in the vicinity nade by Applicant may be falso that Applicant should p ovo its statement. Intervenor asserts that it is Applicant's "wrden to prove its statement; Intervenor has brought i to the attention nome basis that calls Applicant's statement into question. ;
1 l
Interroratory No. 11 Yes, a) Response by Intervenor to NRC Staff's Interrogator / #17 is included herein by reference. Intervenor at this time has no specific cost figures, but believes that the burden rests with the Applicant to prove its assertion that there are no more suitable or economical alternatives.
b) 21s belief by Intervenor is not based on his in the possession of
.an individual with personal knowledge of the facts but rather on documents and common sense. No expert witness has been arranged for at this time to give expert opinion about this belief.
c) evidence rosarding other research reactors in California which might be suitable alternatives to continued use of the NEL reactor can be found in NRC Facilities License Application Record (FIAR) 06-30-77.
Interrozatory No.12 Aside from the Contentions admitted into the proceedings by the Board on September 25, 1980 and on March 20, 1981, Intervenor at this time makes no formal contention regarding other " omissions, misleading statements, inaccuracies and inadequacies contained in the Application." This does not mean that Intervenor believes there are no other such problems with the Application, but merely at this time addresses 15 elf to those inadequacies idet tifiad in the Contentions currently before the Board.
l Contention II l
l Interreratory No. 13 Yes.
(a) "he facts upon which Intervenor bases its contention are included in the, Supplement, pages II.1-3, which are incorporated herein by reference.
Additional facts are that Applicant's May 13, 1980 chart of " Reactor Usage" indicates that 264 hours0.00306 days <br />0.0733 hours <br />4.365079e-4 weeks <br />1.00452e-4 months <br /> per year were commercial, while only 31 were for engineering classes and only 1 for NEL experiments in the year last reportedt that the number of hours identified as commercial have been steadily increasing year b/ year. KEL financial Indgers and billings and operating logs likewise indicate that educational and research functions of the facility are minimal and that most of the activity is activation analysis of mining samples for a commercial ore assayer, with some additional activity being the coloring of commercial jewelry.
(b) The above facts come from documents, not individuals'with personal knowledge of the. facts.
.. c
- -, , - - - - ,.. ,.. ..,. - ...-..-..~.. -, - - - - _.--.-... _ _.._.-. _...,.- .. - _,
- (c) !TL operating logs 1976-1980: l'E financial ledgers and billings provided Intervenor by Applicant: 1965-1958 and 1976 and 1977 Annual (Specialized Annual) Activity Reports: 1971-1979 Annual Reports: UCLA !
Fay 13, 1980 letter to NRC Staff regarding commercial and other reactor '
usage: Applicant's Application for license renewal.
Interroratorv "o. 14 Yes.
, (a) (b) and (c) are answered in Interrogs. tory 13a,b,c above, which are included herein by reference.
Intermtory No.15 Yes.
By " education" Intervenor at this time is of the opinion th2t the term
. means a learning experience or situation for which the learnee a) receives aesdemic credit from an accredited institution of learning, b) is evaluated and/or graded for the eiucational work he or she has done and that performance is judged a6ainst established academic criteria, c) receives at the end of the term a grade or other fornal evaluation that is entered onto his or her academic record, d) is under the instruction of a faculty member in a fozal course, worth academic units, and approved by the academic
- governing body'of the institution and given a course name and number, e) must produce some scholarly product (e.g. term paper, final, midterm, etc.)
in order to pass the course. While other activities may have an educational 4 component to them (as do nearly all human enterprises if approached with
, an attitude toward learning), the term " education" as used in 10 CFR 50.22-is, Intervenor bel $ eves, used more narrowly. Otherwise, any reactor, whether used primarily for commercial purposes or not, would be considered educational, because people working there are hopefully learning all the time. A central difference between a commercial facility and an educational one is that the worker at the commercial facility gets paid for his er her activity and the work at an educational facility mat pay for his or her educational experience, unless there is some form of scholarship.
By " commercial" Intervenor, at this time, is of the opinion that the term refers to activities which are primarily intended for the furthering of profit by sale of services or products.
i 3y "research" Intervenor, at the present time, is of the opinion that the term refers t6 scholarly endeavors designed to further human knowledge.
In a University setting, "research" has more specialized meanings implying peer review, stpproval by committees of scholars, and publication in scholarly journals.
1 s, ., - s . -- , _ _ , . , - m- ,----,--,..,-..mr----.+.-.w,ewew-ww.e-.w.,--.., _p.y,--vp.yya.
- ,y -y- gg w eve gm
3y " sale" Intervonor would include any transfer of money in exchange for a service or a products the term would thus include "zecharges."
By " services" Intervenor believes 10 CFR 50.22 means specialized services that can be provided by facilities with nuclear reactors, for example, neutron irradiation and activation analysis.
3y " development" Intervenor believes 10 CFR 50.22 means the term as it usually is used when referring to "R&D" 1.e. development is the next step after research.
By "trMMns" Intervonor is of the opinion that the term means "the education, instruction, or discipline of a person or thing that is being trained." '
Sy " industrial" Intervenor believes the term to mean "of, pertaining to, of the nature of, or resulting from industry", with industry referring to trade, manufacture, or other technically productive enterprises, i Industry is a division of commerce, in that what industry produces is produced for profit.
t Definitions for "tzsining". and " industrial" are from The Random House .
College Dictionary, 1975. Intervenor is the source of the remaining definitions, although the definition for " education" 10 strongly influenced by the University of California regulations'regarding approval of courses, granting of diplomas, and requirements for grades.
As discovery proceeds. Intervenor's opinion as to definitions may well alter.
Interrogatory No. 16 Yes.
(a) *a'e know of no other way, and Applicant to date has proposed no other way of which Intervenor is aware, of determining the percent of the annual cost of owning and operating the facility which is devoted to commercial or education and research purposes than by assessing the facility's use, which appears to Intervenor to be prinarily commercial.
(b) and (c) - (a)' above is not hsed on personal knowledge of any individuals the documents on which it is based are identified in 13 (c) which is included herein by reference.
The applicable regulations are 10 CFR 50.21 and .22.
Contention III Interrosaterv No.17 Yes.
(a) 50.9(b) is requird of "each application for a license to operate a facility." No exemption is given for research reactors or for license renewals. '"he souco of the requirement is the regulation itself.
(b) Intervenor's answer comes from a reading of the regulation and not from personal knowledge of any individual.
(c) 10 CFR 50.9(b) supports Intervenor's suegation and can be found in any current versien of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
n - -,,m___,_mm_m. . _ , m..c-mm.,, _ ,,,,.m r ,y, c. ._,,wy, , . . , _ , -,
l Interrogatory No.18 Yes.
(a) The facts upon which Intervenor hses this alle6ation are included in part III of the Supplement, pages 1-10, which are included herein by reference.
Where place, date, or time of each instance is not included in those pages, j Intervenor is not curren1Daware of said place, date, or time. That 1 information, however, is likely to be obtainable by Applicant in Applicant's l mintenance and operating logs, ahormal occurrence reports, and supervisorial i committee minutes, most of which have not yet been made available to Intervonor. . ,
Intervenor's answer to NRC Staff Question 26 is included herein by refert ca.
(b) The facts upon which Intervencr bases this allegation come from documents, and not from persocal knowledge of any individual.
(c) The documents which support Intervenor's allegation are identified in the Supplement section includM above by reference. Additional supporting documents are Applicknt's operating logs 1976-1980 Interrogatory No. lo i
Intervenor has m de no contention one way or other regarding whether harm to the public health and safety has resulted due to the instances of administrative ard unagerial inadequate controls identified above (with one exception, to be explained below). Intervonor's contention is that these inadequacies mke it impossible for the 3oard to find that Applicant's managerial and administrative controls are adequate to responsibly protect the public health and safety in the future, should the facility be relicensed.
People may have been harmed by these lax behaviors in the pasti people 1 my have been lucky and harm my have been minimal or non-existent.
Intervenor has made no contention one way or the other. 3y analogy, Intervenor's contention is similar to that regarding non-renewal of a driving license for someone who has repeatedly driven while intoxicated:
whether or not injuries have resulted from past behavior, there is insufficient evidence of responsibility to permit issuance of a license without undue risk that harm any N done in the future.
The one exception has to do with the administrative and managerial contrcls that permitted loss of the mintenance log & incorrect calibration resulting in many years of radioactive emissions far higher than Applicant was reporting.
(a) Exposure to radiation and radioactivity are clearly harmful the extent of harm has to do with nature of the radiation and radioactivity, the amount of both, the age of the person exposed, the radiosensitiyity of the or6anvinvolved, chance ani other factors. The nature of the resulting harm can range from reduction in immuns system response to cancers. leukemias. gen ~ tic defects, spontansous abortion, and acute radiation syndrome. Aside fr a acute radiation syndrome, none of the other medical l effects carry with them their etiology.
,n, -- ---- - --- __ , -,,,,.a ._,, . - - , ,.- y ,-., _,n.,,,-- - . . - . , - - - , , .,,,,,,-.,.,-_---,.,,..__.___,_n,n,a..,nn,,,,-, ,
~
(t) These answers are ksed on documents, not personal knowledge of individuals. Should expert witnesses on these matters be necessary at hearing, Applicant will be so informed at the appropriate time.
(c)DocumentsincludethevariousreportsoftheNationalAcademyof Sciences Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations the UNSCEAR 1972 report (UN Scientific Committee on %e Effects of Atomic Radiation); and EPA's 1977 Radiological Enlity of the Environment rap ort.
Interroratory No. 20-Yes.
(a) Intervenor contends that none of the adninistrative and managerial controls identified in response to Interrogatory No.18 havs improved and thus the current controls are as inadequate as the previos controls.
These controls includes adequste recordkeeping, assurance that only licensed cperatcas operate the controls active involvement of lab director; adequate supervision of students and employeest basic good housekeeping practicess failure to hold administrative meetings and conduct reviews.
l Whether administrative and managerial controls are adequate is obviously a subjective matter, difficult to quantify. The assertion of continued problems is hsed on the absence of facts which would indicate radically inproved administration and -agement. In fact, the facts are on the other sides radioactive emissions have increased in recent yes;1s, the facility continues to be cited far violations of !
NRC rules, f.nstances like the shipping incident of last June occur. l (b) 3ese fa-ts are based e. records of continued problems and lack l of records of improvements the facts do not come from personal knowledge of individuals.
(c) Documents includes U.S. Department of Transportation report of November 18, 1980, regarding the shipment incident; Inspection Report 80-02 ;
indicating recent non-compliance and continued log-keeping errors and :
failure of reactor supervisor to review Prestartup Checkoff Sheets; j Application and 1979 Annual Report regarding increased emissions. i i
l P
I I
I 9
. - . - _ , ~ - . . , . - - - - - , - - . - ~ . - , . , - - - . , , - , - - - - , - . -
CONTHITION IV l
Interrogatory No. 21 Yes, Intervonor contends that Applicant has consistently violated NRC regulations.
- b. For each item listed below, infomation came from inspection reports identi-fied, not from individuals with personal knowledge.
1.a. During Sept.1967, an employee received a radiaWn dose of 23.8 na to the hand ( in excess of 10 CFR 20 limits ) while perfoming a fuel element tie bolt examination. :
- b. CO Report No. 50-142/63-1 which refers to Section P. of 00 Report 50-142/67-1 2.a. "On at least two occasions, the secondary coolant fission product monitor scram circutry was bypassed to facilitate a beam port experiment. Operation in this manner is inconsistent with the provision of Amendment No.3 to the facility license which states that, "A secondary coolant effluent mnitor with a sen- h sitivity of...will be provided... to provide final assurance that no activity is released to the storm drain". .
b.00 Report No. 50-142/69-1 ,
3.a. Excessive core excess reactivity during the performance of experiments.
"Perfomance of the experiments in the ms.mer involved is in nonca=n14mnce with Amandment No.2 to the facility license which states, for the experiment in question, W "P+setivity effects will be negative upon lowering the per-mitted to exceed 0. 56k/k.
b.00 Report No. 50-142/69-1 4.a. Non-routine reactor operation and experiments (which necessitated byp-e-4ng of the fission product monitor scram circuitry) without prior approval by the ,
l Reactor Hasards Comittee or the Director, Engineering Nuclear Reactor,Section 4. '
of the Management Interview Sections of facility license.
- b. CD Report No. 50-142/69-1 :
1 5.a. Failure of b RadiaWn Use Committee to mut at least semiannuaHy, con-trary to the Technical Specification VIII H.3 requirement.
- b. 30 Inspection Report No. 050-0142/73-01 6.a. Failure of Radiation Use Committee to make an in-depth review of facility opera W ns at least unan=177, in violation of Technical Specification VIII H.3.
- b. RO Inspection Report No. 050-0142/73-01 7.a. A change in h reactor logia system had not been reviewed and approved by i the Reactor Use Corzittee, in violation of Teobnical Specification VIII H.1. I b.R0 Inspection Report No. 050-0142/73-01 8.a. Failure of Reactor Operations Committee to meet at 3 east quarterly, in violation of Technical Specification 6.2f.
- b. July 24, 1973 letter from AEC to UCLA, Docket No. 50-326 9 a. "... records were not maintained during the period May 1971 to 1973 showing m, r w w ,-,~~-,,---,-,,<..----e,,,- , n-- -.,,n.,..
, ,,,we - , , , , , _ - , ~ , , .--m-_-m,,, ,,,---n ,,---wme--w,,w.no w -
that h transient ad drive cylinders and the air supply system had been inspected and cleaned and, when necessary, lubricated." This is in violation ,
of Technical Specification 6.6e4, 1
- b. July 24, 1973 letter from AEC to UCLA, Docket No. 50-326 i 10.a. Record of maintenance activities prior to May 1974 was missing;. contrary to sootion VIII K.3 of the Technical Specifications.
b.80 Inspection Report No. 50-142/74-01 and Docket No. 50-142 Oct.15,1974 letter to UCLA 11.a. Acceleration nossle had been removed from the reactor exhaust stack, in violation of Section II B.3 of the technical specifications.
- b. 80 Inspootion Report No. 50-142/7Mi and Docket No. 50-142 Oct.15,1974 letter tc UCLA 12.a. "Tha 1. 7ensee had not calibrated the remotor room ama radiation monitors and the radiation monitors and the radioactive gasoons effluent monitor at the frequency required by the Technical Specifications" This was in vioistion of Section V.C. of the Technical Specifications,
- 13. a. "... air drawn from the remotor room was not being diluted to the specified flowrate and was not being avhanated at the specified height above ground level."
This was in violation of Section 11.B.3 of h Technical Specifications.
- b. Inspection Report No. 050-142/75-01 and Dooket No. 050-142 letter from W -
14.a. Faliure of Reactor Supervisor to apprete in writing changes to the
- operating pacedures. This was in violation of Technical Specification VIII.J.
- b. Inspection Report 50-142/77-01.-
. 15.a. " . . . on January 25,1980, during an uncontrolled reactivity change no emergency procedure existed which delineated operator action on a dropped rod resulting in the failure to report the abnomal occurrence and a retum to ful power operation before the cause of the occurrence had been verified."
This event resulted in .thE32 violations of the Technical Specifications:
VIII.J, VIII.L.3.b., and VIII.M.1
- b. Inspection Report 50-142/80-02 16.a."... neutron channels were not calibrated between Dec. 8,1978 and Jan. 9,1980, a period in excess of 13 months," This was a violation of Technical Specification i III.D.3
- b. Inspection Report 50-142/80-02 i
CONTE 21 TION IV
[
Interrogatory No. 22 l
Yes, Intervonor contends that Applicant has been consistently cited for violation of its own technical specifications. Specific instances of violation are noted in answer to Interrogatory No. 21, numbers 5 through 16. See answer to b also in Interrogatory No. 21 above.
l
-- _ u __ -.- . - . - - - - . . . ~ . - . - - . - - . . , _ - - . , - - - , -
Interrogatory No. 23.
Intervenor has ande no contention one way or another regartling harm to public safety and health that may have resulted from the violatione identified in answer to Interrogatories No. 21 and 22 above. Intervenor's contention goes to whether reasonable assurance can be given that
- -Applicant, should license be granted, will comply with the regulations in 10 CPR 20 and 50, as required by 10 CFR 50.40 before a license can be granted.
I (a)Intervenor m.macta harm may have occurred from two of the violations l at least, but DAE, MILE na contention to date regarding actual past harm. I Those two incidents were the violations resulting in excessive emissions !
l of Argen, and the shipment incident in which a contaminated truck was Perr.it,ted to leave UCIA ysrgy. Both situations may have resulted in I
actual harm to people, but as explained in answer to interrogatory ,
No. 20, cancers do not show their etiology.
(b) the infor a tion is not-from persons with knowledge of supporting facts.
(c) .the documents include those listed in response to 20c, included herein by reference.
Contention V Intawomatory No. 24 Yes.
(a) The facts and analysis and eslaulations a,e found in Supplement, pages V.1-21. See in particular page 5 showing the calculation using the calculational form employed in Application Appendix A of part III.
Supplement pages V.1-21 is included herein by reference.
Intervenor at this time has no formal opinion as to the stal credible accident scenario. This question asks for an or-=M==tional opinion not in the possession of the organization at this time, f Among the accident scenarios which Intervenor at thic time believes ,
are credible ares pneumatic tube insertion of large worth sample (negative)
]
and shooting of sample out without first putting control blades tack int similar insertion of large worth positive samples similar insertion of negative or positive sample through insertion in irradiation ports earthquake-induced pressure surge in pneumatic tube or earthquake-induced bursting of sample container, causing rapid loss of negative l
worth (1.e. rapid addition of reactivity): or eagthquake-induced jumping i
of sample out of c m area causing reactivity insertion. There may be .
other such scenarios Intervenor asserts in this contention that it is
' Applicant's burden to thoroughly analyse potential reactivity accidents -
are prove that none are credible or dangerous. ,
(b) The facts and analysis and calculations are lased on facts, analyses, and calculations contained in Application and Hazards Analysis, not from an individual with personal knowledge of these facts.
(c) The documents are the Application, Hasards Analysis, and 3crax referencescontainedinpageIII/A-7ofApplication. l l
CorIL'NTICU VI Interromatory No. 25 Yes. 3y "end.tting excessive radiation" Intervonor means that Applicant's reactor has been releasing into the environment radiation in levels greater '
than are proper.
4 (a) The facts upon which Intervenor'inses this contention are found in Supplement, pa6es VIl-10 and in "The UCIA Reactors Is it Safe?", submitted as r *t of the ori61nal Petition for Leave to Intervene, Kay 22, 1980, both of which are included herein by reference. In addition, the contention is based on the incidest involving the allegedly contaminated shipment of spent fuel, in which a shipment of spent fuel originating at UCIA was found days later to have been contaminated with high levels of radioactive cobalt. The period during which excessive radiation was emitted is, in Intervenor's view, the entire last twenty years, although there may have been intervals of weeks or months when the reactor was not ran when excessive emissions did not occur. The period during which the radiation from the truck incident occurred was June 20 to June 26, roughly:
, Intervenor is not at this time aware of precisely when the contamination occurred. nor precisely when the contamination was detected, however .
the truck was at UCLA around the 20th and arrived at GE at Valecito around the 26th, 1980 (b)Thefactsarebasedondocuments,notindividualswithpersonal knowledge.
(c) The documents are identified in the two items referenced in (a) abover in addition, see Department of Transportation study on contamination incident, November 18, 1980.
Interrogatory No. 26 I
Yes. Term means same as defined for No. 25 (a)Enissionshaveincreasedsince1975: occupancy factor on roof has likewise increased (or at least the occupancy Applicant has reported to the Commission). The emissions are excessive whenever facility runs at full power, although it is the cumulate emission that is most readily identified as excessive.
(b) he facts are based on records, not individuals with personal knowledge. ;
(c) The documents are identified in the reports referenced in 25a:
in addition,1979 annual report and the Application indicate increased emissions.
m **
Inter oratory No. 27 Yes. The standards are identified in Contention VI.4, which is included l herein by reference. l
! (a) The facts are included in the Supr,lement, pages VIl-10, included herein
.by reference, and the "UCu Reactor Is it Safe", submitted as } art af the wiginal Petition for Leave t > Intervene, Fay 22, 1980, likewise included herein by referenen. In addition, new information regarding Applicant's statements to ERC Staff (identified in part c beloe) regarding occupancy factor on roof reinface the previous allegations of violation of radiation standards. The shipment incident likewise demonstrates the violation of each standard identified in V1.4 ,
(b) The infamation comes from documents, not individuals with personal knowledge.
(c) The documents are identified in the two items referenced in (a) above in addition, see DOT study of contamination incident, November 18, 1980.
Also, sea October 23, 1979, letter from Neill Ostrander to Director, NRC Division of Operating Reactors, regarding increased roof occupancy;
- also, !E answers to NRC Staff questions on occupancy (@estion 1,8-22-80).
Interroaatory %. 28 Yes. The standards are identified in Contention VI.4, which is included herein by reference. ,
(a) see answer to interrogatory no . 26, included herein by reference.
(b) see (a) above (c) see (a) above.
(Interroestory ifo. 20 Yes. 3y inadequate monitoring Intervenor means systems and procedures for detecting radiation and radioactivity sufficient to demonstrably and responsibly protect the public from radiation and radioactivity exposurs. ,
(a) The facts and specific incidents are identified in the Supplement, pages VII-10 and "UCLA Reactor: Is It date", herein included W/
reference. In addition, the contaminatic4 incident regarding the spent fuel ' Sment is further imais for the contention regardirg inadequate A. -. toring, as 100,000 cpm of CC-60 was apparently missed.
(b) The facts are ksed on documents, not individuals with personal knowledge.
(c) The documents are identified in the material included by reference l 1 in part a abover further support is found in the Application reports on TLD and film badge use Applicant's answers to ERC questions regarding accuracy and method of calibration of radiation devices and letter of 20 November 1980 from Jack Horner of NEL to 3111 Drain in the l'ath Science Addition at UCM (one page letter, one page attachment). 8helastitems at *his time do not provide " facts" in support of contenti3n but rathar reiJa useful questions about the matter of the contentiona f
1 i
l
. l i
Interran= tory No. 30 i Yes., Term means the same as for To. 29.
(a) Intervonor contends that the monitoring systems employed by UEL thave in no way improved since the problems cited in answer to No. 29.
In fact, at least two methods of estimting radiation release, flawed i
though they were (TLD placement and SF6) are not even in use at present, further reducing monitoring. In addition, there is new basis showing failure of the existing monitoring systems independent samples taken by TEL .of effluent do not correspond to the readings of the stack l monitor. Either the acnitor is inaccurate (again) or the sampling method of its monitoring method are inaccurate, or all methods are inaccurate.
- The insdoquate monitoring is thus continuing, and on-goings not confined to a particular past period or particular current period.
I (b) Information comes from records, not individuals with personal knowledge.
- (c)Inspectionreport 50-142/80-03
- plus all the documents identified in 29c.
.. Contention VII ,
Interroaatory No. 31 i
Yes. " Unscheduled shutdowns" are occurrences when the reactor operation is, stopped in an unanticipated manner. "he term is used by Intervenor '
in w same manner in which Applicant uses it in page 2 of 1974 Annual Report.
(a) "he facts upon which this contention are based are included in Part 'vII on the Supplement, which is included herein by refer =nce.
The specific shutdowns of which Intervenor is currently aware are identified by date (though not time) in Applicant's Annual Reports, 1971-1979, of which Applicant has copies. The rate of unscheduled shutdowns in previous years is discussed in those years' inspection -
reports, cobies of which Applicant must have. Intervenor at this time has np information about unscheduled shutdowns other than that
, included in' the above-mentioned inspection reports and annual reports, and thus has no information not s1 ready in Applicant's possession.
(b) The information is from records, not individuals with personal knowledge.
(c) The documents are identified in Part VII of the Supp14ments in
- addition, Applicant's Annual Reports 1971-1979 and inspectice reports for the previous years.
Interroratory No. 32 An ataormal occurrence is a non-standard incident at the facility.
Ye do so contend. 1 (a) See Intervonor's answers to NRC Interrogatorfo. 47c.
-(b) The infomation is from records, not individuals with personal knowledge.
(c) See answer to a above, j ,-~ ,
t _
_m.------- - -*_+--*se
Interrostatorv No. 33 Yes. By " accident" Intervenor means an untoward incident such as a I radiation spill, pipe break, coolant laak. l (a) The facts upon which this contention are lased are contained in the Supplems.at, part VII. which is included herein by reference.
In addition, the shipment incident involving contaminaticn, and the i czsekstrabbit incident reported in Inspection Report 80-02 regarding !
January 25, 1980 l (b)The$tctsareTasedondocuments,notindividualswithpersonalknowledge.
(c) The documente are identified in the Supplerent, part VII, referenced abovet shipment incident detailed in DOT report; Inspect'.on Report 80-02.
Interroratory No. 34 . i Intervenor has made so such centention, one way or another, regarding past actual harm to public hcalth and safety. Intervenor's contention is merely that these occurrences are so pervasive that they evince a pattern of unreliability which makes it impossible for Applicant to reasonably assure that the reactor can be oprated, should it be relicensad, in a mnner which does not endanger the public health and safety.
4 Coh"IT' TION VIII Interroratory No. 38* ,
Intervenor contends that the analysis of an accident and the calculations regarding the resultant radiation exposure to the public contained in the Applicant's Safety Analysis Report are based on unrealistic assumptions.
Those assumptions are specified in VIII.1.a through d.
(a)ThefactsuponwhihIntervenor'asesitsallegationarefoundin the Supplement, part VIII, which is included herein by reference.
(b) Infor mtion is from documents, not individuals with personal knowledge.
(C) The documents are identified in (a) above. Intervenor at this. time has not done a review of the nuclear safety literature re6arding dose and dispersion models.,but contends that that burden is the Applicant's.
Intamm tary "o. M. CCI:'"T:TICN IX Yes. The contention goes to the issue of whether Applicant has adequately l devoted the necessary time, money, and competence to over-all naintenance.
Intervenor cannot at this time point to any piece of equipment that Applicant hm adequately mintained.
(a) The facts upon which Intervenor hses its allegation are contained in Supplement, in Part IX, included herein by reference. The primary fact upon which this contention is currently based is the record of mintenance hours involving reactor operation, which.Intemrenar'cantends is-too low to adequately maintain the facility. Spec:lic instrument maintenance records have not yet been provided Intervenor, so comment on specific instruments cannot be made until those records are reviewed.
4 h
_3- .y __-_ . . _ _ - _ _ - , .-. , -- _.m , - --,_,%_-..,,,-,-_.-m-.-.,---._,e..,.,_.,%.- --,.,,, , -,, - m,,,-,w
l (b) he facts come from records, not individuals with personal knowledge.
l (c) The documents are the Application and the list of maintenance hours !
involvin6 reactor use filed by Applicant with NRC Staff on Fay 13, 1980 Interrocatorv No. 37 Yes. The in5ments are identified in Supplement, Part IX. In addition, Intervenar at this time would include inadequate calibration of film '
bndgas and TLDs.
a) the facts are included in Supplemen'., Part IX. which is hereby
- incorporated by reference. In addition, failure of Applicant to choose s % uate controls for both TLDs and film badges, t6 make sure that placement is such that confidence in their readingr is assured and when questioned, redone, add to Intervenor's concern of inadequate calibration.
b) The facts come from records, not individuals with personal knowledge. ,
c) The documents are referenced in Supplement, Part IX, included in a) aboves also Annual Reports 1975-1977: TLD data from Radiation Detection i Company (PO 3ax 1414 Sunnyvale, CA 94088", 408 705-8700) 'sent to Jack Hornor at tail quarterly, Inspection Report 80-02, h
Interroaatorr No. 18
- Intervenor can af this time provide no infarantion, one way or the other, about current (i.e. today) familiarity with applicable calibration requiremen(s.
- Intervenor's contention goes to unfamiliarity evidenced in the past. T Intervenar has no information to suggest these defects have been corrected.
Interroaatory No. 39 Intervenor has made no ecntention one way or the other, about inadequately amintained equipment or improperly calibrated instruments causing any actual harm to the public health and safety. Intervenor's contention goes to the issue of whether, because of this past history, the l'RC can j conclude that the issuance of a license for this facility will not be i inimical to the public health and safety in the future, should it be relicensed.
Interroratorv No. 40 i i
Intervenor has no information about preceding year maintenance and calibration, having not seen the naintenance and calibration records as yet, and not having seen the 1980 Annual Report, if it has been published yet.
Thus Intervenor has made no such contention, one way or the other. Applicant is reminded that said contention in question (II) was written in the i middle of th.e previous year.
.c ,.-- -+ , - --w -, . - - - ,-ww-,e-, . , e.--w.e.,--m- - - --.i, -t--,~,,..-,--,,,.-----%.e--%,-, , - - - -,.r - . - - - - - - , .__.---am--.,-,y-, ,-r-,.w---,w--,wv.,.y.-,.-w
i i
l i
l Interrogatorr l'o.' 41 The quoted statemer& in this intarrogator/ is not a contention of Intervonor, but was part of the tasis for the contention provided in the Supplement.
- '"he items in the " correspondence bibliography" upon which the statement were based are:
Letter dated Aug.1E,1963 from AEC to UCLA, pg WLR-5 (3-Letter dated December 13, 1963 from ABC to UCLA Letter dew Dec.24,1963, from AEC to UCLA Lottar dated Jan.17,196' , 4from AEC to UCLA Letter dated Feb.11,' 19%, from ABC to UCLA O
h S
e P
e4 e
, e y ,w . ,, - - - , - - , ,, , ~ - - ---n~,, -
u -- - - - - - - - ~ g -
--e ,e -w-- e n- -y-,
t .
COICE TIO!* X i Interroaatorv No. 42 i
Intervenor catends that there is an unacceptable likelihood of an accident at the reactor which would acpose large numbers of people to
. danferous radiation. Intervenor has made no specific contention as
! to what specific form that accident would take, should it occur, although in Contention XIX sona scenarios are identified that Intervenor contends need to be reviewed in order to determine the marimum credible accident.
ce design basis accident.
Among the accidents of concern are the following, alone er in combinati excess reactivity insertion sufficient to cause melting of the fuel, or the chm 4ngs stema explosion: Wigner release; earthquake damage to corei damage to core initiated by plane crash or helicopter crash:
sabotage, including use of explosives to dissemble the cores irradiation of explosivesr stuck control blades and dump valve with damaged fuel still critical. A more complete list of possible accidents cannot be made until Applicant does a thorough safety analysis complete with review ..
of all possible hazard scenarios, as contended in Contention XIX.
(a) The basis for this contention is included in Supplesent Part X, included herein by reference. The hsis for the concern that such an accident is likely has to do with the fact that it is a reactor run hr students,sometimesoperatedbyunlicensedoperators,(hasaverylarge excess reactivity limit, has a pneumatic tube system which has had j problems) and irradiation ports, is open to thousands of visitors each year with minimal security, naking sabotage too possible, has a l history of violating NRC regulations and its own tech specs, calibration
- errors and poor maintenance, and inadequate managerial and admiMstrative !
controls. The hais for the concern about radiation doses is lack of containment and Applicant's own radiation estimates from Application.
(c) The information comes from documents, not individual's with personal knowledge.
(b) Intervence means by the term " design basis accidenh, as used in Contention X, the maximum accident that could occur at the facility, should the worst event or series of events credible occur.
(d) This contention, directed at Staff, is essentially a summary of !
all the other contentions directed at Applicant, arguing that because of the collective deficiencies, an EIS must be prepared. The documents !
on which it is based are thus those documents referenced in the Supplement j throughout. No specific documents besides those referred to on other '
- contentions was used in making this contention. ;
e
00f!Tii2TITON HI Interrogatory No. 43.
Yes. The safety features are identified in the Supplement, Part H.
incorporated herein by reference, and in parts 1 through 9 of Contention HI as admitted, incorporated likewise by reference herein.
a) The facts upon which the contention $s based are included in the Supplement, Part H , incorpora;ed by refOrence.
b) Intervenor has no knowledge of whether the safety systems are normally present at Argonaut-type research reactors, aside from graphite, which we understand is useds but we are not aware whether the otber Argonauts have procedu ss for reducing the danger from graphite of concern to Intervence about Applicant's facility.
c) Iack of adequate containment structure can result in fission product release to the environment should an accident occur. Should the high level radiation monitor system fail, the reactor can continue to operate when dangerous levels of radiation are presents it also is one more reduction in safety system designed to scram reactor in case of dangerous conditions. Should scram and dump valve systeme fail, lack of baron injection system would make it difficult or impossible to make the reactor go suberiticair if compounded by fuel failures (if, for example, failure of other scram systems due to rarthquake which also damaged Madd%g), safe shutdown cannot be achieved. In case of accident, lack of radioactivity removal systems, emergency liquid and gaseous emissions holding tanks and IEPA filters would mean far greater radioactivity exposure to the public than.should those devices be in place. Iack of an emergency core cooling system in case of power excursion or other heat-up of the core could increase fuel melting, damage, release of fission products, and chance of fire.
Spare control blade motors could make it impossible to shut down-reactar should dump valve fail and control blade motors fails with damaged fuel (say, all failures due to earthquake) reactor could not be, crought to safe shutdown. Iack of shielding and access restrictions increases likelihool oi harmful public radiation exposures. Iack of adequate interlock systems makes any accideht more likely. Iack cf missile" l
shields means hereased risk of serious damage 11 case of earthquake, sabotage, accidental explosion near reactor, plane crash, or other incident which involves potential for missiles. Graphite swelling can bind control blades and change core configuration and workings of other safety systemst Wigner energy, if unannealed, can add significantly to the effect of a power excursion, increasing the likelihood and effect of fuel melting. Fuel failures can cause reactivity changes and releases of fission products. Inadequate control blades can make it impossible to shutdown a reactor and can make reactivity insertions (for example, carthquake-induced jumping up or breaking off of control blades), which could cause significant fission product release.
d) These facts are from documents, not from an individual with personal knowledge, e) The Technolosty of Nuclear Reactor Safety by Thompson and Beckerley, Vol.1 and 23 A cuidebook to Nuclear Reactors, Anthony Hero, UC Press, 1979; documents cited in Supplement Part H
_ _ . . _ _ _ 2.
Interrogator.v No. h4 Intervenor's contention is that graphite used in reactors undergoes phyoical changes and thus poses a hazard to this facility. As basis for this contention, Hallam: 82 swelling and cracking IWe , neutron flux 1 were x 10 mentioned 13 thermal,in8the {>ypplement.
x 10 fast (flux in fuel):
Moderator (graphite) temperature-60000. Piqua includM hy mistake.
(a) The Hallam reactor was shrt down after only a year's operation. It was shut down beca tse of swelling and cracking of the moderator cans, i.e.
the graphite.
(b) "his information comes from documents, not individuals with personal information.
(c)Sw.'rces: AI-AEC-12709, Atomics International publication for the Atomic Energy Commission and Directcry of Nuclear Reactors of the International Atomic Energy A6ency.
.E f
O 1
yeav +w g- +_=-r g7-- gWe-aw<w.rw-
wwe-r
CGG"I'IGi XIII Interrogatorv No. h5 Intervenor contends that the information which Applicant has provided regarding the special nuclear m terials license is inadequate to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 70.22(a)(7) taxi (a)(8) ani 70.24(a)(1),(2) and (3).
a) The infor ation required by those sections cannot be found by Intervenor in Applicant's Application for a special nuclear mterials license.
( b) The infor ation comes from reading the Application and is not from l an individual with personal knowledge.
l l c) The document in question is the Appliation.
CorTETTION XIV Interrogatorv Ho, 46 Intervenor contends thst the Applicant has failed to provide an analysis of problems common to Argonaut-type reactors. Intervenor's contention is not that specific problems have been failed to be analyzed, but that no analysis whatsoever ha3 been performed. It is not Intervenor's burden i to do succi an analysis the contention precisely puts at issue the Applicant's I turden to do such an analysis.
(a) As insis for this contention, Intervenor provided three examples of problems which other Argonauts have faced. These examples are provided, along with their substantiation, in the Supplement, Part XIII. -
included heroin by reference.
(d) Intervanor at this time has no infor a tion, one way or the other, h at would indicate harm to public health and safety or the lack of said harm (c) The documents are identified in the Supplement, Part XIII, included herein by reference.
Note Question (b) appears to be a misprint from question 43(c),
already answered; Interrogatory No. 46 does not deal with safety systems but problems common to Argonaut-type reactors.
CQ1TETION XV Interroaatorv No. 47 (a) The lases of this contention are included as items 1,2, and 3 of the Contention, included herein by reference, and in Part XIV of the '
Supplement, likewise included herein by reference.
(b) The inforation comes fren records, not individuals with persoral knowledge.
(c) The documents are identified in the Supplement Part referenced in (a) above.
- _%g_9eyg- _ , , , .. ,,.,,.7_,,_- ,,,. _ _ , ,,.
, . , , _ , , , . _ - .,_,_.-__-_,9 9 ,.
(
Interraratorv lio. 48 Yes.
a) The adverse consequences fron normal operation involve the exposure of the public to radiation and radioactivity generated h/ the operation of the facility. The increased density of population increases the total population dose and thus increases the adverse consequences; the degree of density even without incroau are such as to make the adveree effects far greater than were the facility sited in an area of far less population density. The addition of buildings on top of and immed htely around the reactor create additional problems, by increasir g the immediate population nearby, and most specifically, h/ creating a new hazard-Argon uptake by the airvent on top of Fath Sciences. The interface of tho airsystems additionally crea,te adverse consequences because Argon taken in from one airvent, or released through the ."EL facility can readily migrate to other populated parts of these kiMings, b) the information comes from documents; not personal knowledge of an individual.
c) The documents are identified, Part XIV of Supplements also IGC Inspection Report 75-01.
Interrogatory n tio. 40 .
The increased population density assc. tion are 1:ased on figures provided byApplicantatpageIII/3-3ofApplication. Intervenor has no figures at this time regarding campus population increases however the contention deals with the unrestricted area immediately surroundir4 the reactor and that population has significantly increased, due simply to the addition of l4ath Science ani Boelter additions since reactor construction and other nearby builrlings not present when reactor was first built. See 13C Inspection Report 75-01.
CO'?rENTION IVI Interrogatory tio. 'io Applicant's paraphrase is not quite correct. Intervenor's contention is stated in XVI, which is referenced here in answer. Intervenor, however, does not take issue with the statement.
(a) Intervenor identified the equipment in the contentions reactor instrumentation anu console instrumentation. Until Applicant answers Intervenor's interrogatories in this matter, particularly with regazda what Dr. Catton meant when he made the statement in the 1976 Annual Repert regarding the problems described in the contention, and until Intervenor is provided access to what maintenance records have not been
- lost, Intervenor can add nothing to Supplement, Part XV, which is incorporated herein by reference, j (b) and (d) are answered in Supplement, Part XV, incorporated above.
(c) The facts are fron records, not individuals with personal knowledge. '
i t
e+ - - , -- -
,,,---a,--,,---,-.--.,-mr-- r-, -..n,---e
Interroaatory No. 51 Intervencr cannot answer this question affir a tively because at this time it has no knowledge whatsoever about whether applicant's currently employed reactor personnel " rad knowledge that a serious hazard to the public could result by such operation" (emphasis added). What reactor
. Personnel know and do not know is beyond the inforation Intervenor currently has, and could only be known through deposition or cross-examination at hearing.
Interrogatory No 52 Yes.
(a) Reactor stack not raised, exhaust fans not replaced, gaseous affluent monitor not replaced until mid-70s, console instrumentation and activation analysis lab not updated (as of 1977 at least). "he hazard from the first thrise involved excessive Argon emissions: console instrumentation involves
- . increased chance for accidents activation analysis lab involves increased chance of contamination by inadequately contained " hot" samples. Iack of decay tanks also increase radiation exposures to public.
(b) The facts come from documents, not individuals with personal knowledge.
(c)1976AnnualReport Response to Notice of Violation, by Thomas Hicks, March 13, 1975 CCMTENTIO" XVIII Interrogatory No. T3 Yes (a) Answer to Interrogatory 52 is incorporated herein by reference, as is Supplement, Part XVII. The harm that resulted, or my have resulted, is impossible to demonstrate, as radiation is invisible, and except for acute radiation syndrome, the effects take some time to be manifests the cancers and leukemias do not tell their etiology. The increased l radiation emissions from these' deferred maintenances have caused harms l the only question is how much harm, which Intervenor at this point cannot assess.
(b) Facts from documents, not individuals with personal knowledge.
(c) Documents listed in 52C above and Supplement, Part XVII.
Interrogaterv No. 8%
Intervenor has mde no contention one way or another as to whether Applicant's financial situation is different from other state-supported universities which operate research reacters. The fact of state support l alone could not support opposition to a license. But it is a factor to )
be taken into account, along with other specific financial characteristics of this institution, in determining whether reasonable financial assurances can be given. If Applicant has a means of compensating for the uncertainties posed by year-to-year state funding, the issue's im Applicant has shown other financial uncertainties, portance dims; if thethe issue's importance is
- - ,, - . - - - - -,-- - ,.-,..a.-. -w-- , . - . - - . -- . - ~ - ,,
CONTENTION III Interroaatorv No. M Intervenor's contention does not address itself to failure to comply with federal regulatory requirements but rather to a flaw in the Safety Analysis.
Intervenor does believe, however, that under 10 CFR 50.40, grant of license cannot be made in this case without an adequate analysis of hazard scenarios for the facility. Intervenor likewise interprets 10 CFR 50 34(b)(1) to indicate that certain inforation about siting must be provided so that the 3oard can uke a judgment about the adequacy of the siting characteristics that includes an adequate postulation of a mjor accident, " hypothesized for purposes of site analysis or Postulated from cans e yo e accidental events, that would result in potential om kny a ident considered credible. Such accidents have generally been assumed to result in substantial meltdown of the core with subsequent release of appreciable quantities of fission Products." Intervenor contends no such adequate consider of major accidents has been done by Applicant in Application. ,
(a) The facts are contained in Supplement, Part XVIII, included herein by reference.
(b) Information from records and documents, not individuals with personal knowledge.
(c)10CFR documents cited in Supplement referenced above, s
Interrogatory IN. 56 Interveur contends that an analysis of various sabotage scenarios should
' ne been done by AppMcant.
t In absence of such analysis adequately proving no such scenario is credible, Intervenor believes such scenarios mst be considered credible. Intervenor has made no contention as to which specific sabotage scenario ought to have been, contending instead it is the burden of the Applicant to produce an adequate analysis of such scenarios. As 1:ssis for its contention that such scenarios should have been considered, Intervenor gave the example of sabotage utilizing explosives near, on, or in the reactor, causir4 major damage to the core and breaking of fuel plates in a mjor way. Intervenor does not :
contend at this time that a specific sabotage scenario ought to have l been considered, but merely that no analysis of sabotage scenarios whatsoever
- has been included in assessing the mxim m or design basis accident. j l
Interrogatory No. 57 i As with No. 56, Intervenor has to date mde no contention regarding I which specific airplane accident scenario ought to have been considered.
l Intervenor merely has contended that such an analysis to determine if such an accident is credible should have been done by Applicant. As l l
basis for its contention that such an analysis should have been done, j l Intervenor has demonstrated in the basis to this Contention, provided i
Applicant and referenced here, that there are numerous nearby airports l and that there is reason to believe helicopters, light planes, and even I heavy commercial planes fly nearby. The contention goes to the issue of whether an analysis of such scenarios need be done, and cannot go to the adequacy, of such aa analysis until ard unless it is done.
.,1
Interromator'r No. 58 Yes, except Intervenor contends such scenariog (plural) should have been considered.
. (a)Intervenormeansbytheexpression"multiplefailuremodes" scenarios
- in which not merely one thing goes wrong,1st several which are interdependent.
Thus, TMI was not a single failure mode, but was aggravated by a series of failures, i.e. multiple failures. " Worst possible series of events" was a phrase added by URC Technical Staff in one of the stipulation conference calls as his way of defining " multiple failure modes". We take it to mean a series of events, the consequences of which are the worst possible. Intervenor intends that numerous scenarios should be considered to determine whether they are credible or not, and whether the gasults are among the most major possible. or not. Intervenor does not intend that only credible scenarios be initially considered, because there is no way of determ M ng whether the scenario is credible until the kind of analysis is done that Intervenor has contended should be done. Analysis is required to determine which scenarios are credible and which not. Intervenar wishes that analyses to be done and believes
-absent it, a favorable ruling on the licensing request is made very difficult.
(b) Intervenor.has not proposed a specific multiple failure mode for this reactor which should be considered, but contended instead that multiple failure modeg should be considered. The Rasmussen report, even with all its criticisms, spent considerably time employing fault-tree analysis considering multiple failure modes. . Common sense and reactor experience indicate that when things go wrong, it is not only one thing that goes wrong each time. Sonstimes more than one thing goes wrong.
See, fer example, Thompson and 3eckerley's descriptions of past accidents:
numerous failures constitutori many of the accidents. (Technologyof Reactor Safety, Vol.13 copies available at NEL).
Interroaatory 50 Yes, except Intervenor contends such scenariog (plural) shon1d be considered.
(a) Intervonor had suggested the term "= v4 mum credible accident" for this contentions in conference calls in stipulation on contention language, NRC technical staff said "=v4== credible accident" was no longer the
! current term and was asked to prcpose the current term for what Ic;tervenor intended. Intervenor means by the expression " design lasis accident" as used in this Centention the accident that would result in potential hazards not exceeded by those from any accident considered credible.
We intend that numerous scenarios be considered to determine which are credible and, of those, which would result in the maximum potential hazards.
(b) We have not described the " design basis accident" scenario inclied in Applicant's question and thus cannot attest to whether it is credible or not. Intervenor has merely contended that a design basic accf. dent should be included in Application based on detailed analysis of pos=1ble scenarios that could constitute the D3A.
'I mm
- ~ - -
CO'iE!."rIC:: XI
.Interroc: story No. 60 l l
Yes,'however Intervenor does not contend that 73.67 is the only code section applicable.
(a) "'he facts upon which Intervenor makes that contertion are included' in ths'insis to Contention XX, which has been provided Applicant by Intervenor, and which is included herein by reference.
In addition, Intervenor tases its allegations on the fact that 73.67 requires that !!EL's physical security protection system will minimize the possibilities for unauthorized removal of SNM consistant with the potential consequerces of such actions. Since the mterial is bomb-grade, the potential consequences are awesomer EEL's physical security system in no way keeps the possibilities of unauthorized removal of SEM to a miM==. 73.67 is applicable (at least a,b,c,d) to both formula quantities and materials of moderate and low strategic significance.
(b) The information comes from documents, not individuals with personal knowledge.
(c) 10 CFR 73.67.
I l
Interrogatorv No. 61 Yes.
a) 10 CFR 73.60 applies to facilities with 5000 grams or more of U-235 of 20% or greater enrichment. U-235 which is not readily separabla from other radioactive mterial and which has a total external radiation dose rate in excess of 100 rems per hour at a distance of three feet from any accessible surface t.ithnut intervering shielding does not count toward the 5000 grams.
UCLA's license request is for 4700 grams fresh U-235 and 4700 irradiated U-235, 3 ere is no requirement in the license roo*r;st, nor in the current license,of which Intervenor is currently .aare, that no more than 299 Grams of irradiaten fuel ev'sr be less than 103 rara per hour external dose rats at threc feet without shielding. Thus it is quite possible, under past license and proposed license, for UCLA to have 4700 grams
- cesh fuel and at least 300 grans irradiated fuel at less than 100 rems,
=Ang a total of 5000 grams or more and thus requiring the Meensee l to meet the requirements of '] CFR 73.60.
b) Wis informtion comes from a reading of the regulation and the Application and not from any individual with personal knowledge.
c) 10 CFR; Application.
I i
--..__w . . , . . , _ . . - ,-- ._ . ,.._,,m,,,.. , , , - - -, . _ _ _- - . . , , - --y,,_,,--.,+mm,y_r-_.-
Interroaatory I;o. 62 Yus.
('h), (b) and {c)The facts upon which this contention are nade are found in the document on basis for this contention provided Applicant tr/ Intervenor, which is incorporated herein by reference. The person (s) and documents supporting the contention are identified therein.
Interrogatory !?o. 63
'Yes.
(a). (b), and (c) The facts upon which this contention are nade are found in the document on basis for this contention provided Applicant by Intervenor, which is incorporated herein by reference. Theperson(s) and_ documents supporting the contention are identified therein.
'Interroastery Iso . 64 Yes.
(a), (b), and (c) The facts upon which this contention are made are found in the documents on basis for Contention XX and Contention XXIV, which are incorporated herein by reference. Intervenor has_previously provided Applicant with both. Theperson(s)anddocumentssupporting the contention are identified thereing additional support can be found in the DM report.
Interroratory I?o. 69 Yes.
(a). (b) and (c) The facts are found in the document on basis for Contention XXIV, incorporated herein by reference. The person (s) and documents supporting the contention'are identified thereing additional support can be found in the DOT report, Interroratorv 170. 66 Yes -
(a),(b)and(c) The facts facts are found in the documents on basis for Contentions IX and XXIV, incorporated herein by reference. The person (s) and documents supporting the contention are identified therein:
additional support can be found in the D0" report.
Interrogatorv tio. 67 XX.1 a throu6h e-10 CFR 73 2h,1,j XX.2.a throu6h f-10 CFR 73.2k XX.3 a and b--10 CFR 73.60 and .67
i H.3.c.-10 CFR 73 60 and .67 and 73.2(f) n.3.d.-10 CFR 73 60 and .67 and 73.2(f)(2) and 73.2(m)
' XX.3.e.-10 CPR 73 60 and .67 and 73.2(b)
In addition to the above, 73. hand 73.37 and D.1.
Interrogatory iro . 68 Yes. s (a)(b)and(c) The facts upon which.we 1mse this contention are included in the basis for the contention, included herein by reference.
No additional information is available at this time. ' The person (s) with knowledge of the facts and the documents which support those facts are identified in the document on basis for Contention XX.
Cd. m n C" XII
' Interroaatory No. 60 Yes
. (a) (b) and (c) The facts upon which the contention is based are found in subparts 1 through 9 of the Contention and the Supplement, pa_% XX, included herein by reference. The person (s) with knowledge of thosa facts and* the supporting documents are identified in that material. Fo additional information is in Applicant's possession at this time.
Respectfully Submitted,
, _. - m;_ _ _ - -
i ,
Fark Pollock Attorney for Intervenor CCDIITTEE TO 3 RIDGE Tr2 CAF Dated at Los Angeles, California this 20th day of Fay , 1981 l
I -
+ - . - , . ,w w-<-- ,----,enww-r=w,m-- w- w nw-,-e-r--,-a,-r-, ,wm-w-r-~-- ~~s,--- -
VERIFICATION l 4
I, DANIEL 0. HIRSCH, say
- 1. I am the Precident of the COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP, Intervonor in this action, and I have been authorized to sign this verification on its behalf.
2 All of the infamation provided in the attached ANSWERS OF THE Co}2IITTES TO BRIDGE THE GAP TO APPLICANT'S FIRST SE OF INTERROGATORIES represents the information currently possessed by the Intervenor relevant to those Interrogatories.
- 3. I have read all said ANSWERS and do believe them to be true and correct.
Signed on May.20,1981, at Los Angeles, California.
I hereby affirm that the foregoing is true and correct. , 7 ,
/
/
/
Daniel 0. Eirsch l
l l
1 l
UNITED STATES OF A:G.RICA NUCLEAR REDULATORY Cola!ISSION
- /
3EFORE THE ATOMIC SAFErY AND LICS!SEG 30A8D j In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-142 THE REGE!TS OF THE UNIVERSITY )
0F CM IFORNIA ) (Proposed Renewal of Facility '
) - License) -
(UCLA Research Reactor) )
)
, wnmCATE 0.F SERVICE I hetsby certify that copies of "ATSIGBS CF COP.MITTEE TO 3 RIDGE THE CAP TO APPiICAUT'S FIRST SET OF IN1ERROCATORIES" in the above-captioned proceedi,1g have been served on the following by deposit in the United States nail, first class, this 20th day of Fay,1981.
Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq., Chairman Counsel for NRC Staff .
Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Jaahington, D.C. 20555 ~
U.S. Nuclear Regu.tstory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Dr. Emeth A. Luebke U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative Judge Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rodger Holt, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of City Attcrney 200 North Main Street Dr. Oscar H. Paris City Hall East, acom 1700 Administrative Judge Los Angeles, CA 90012 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 William H. Cormier, Esq.
Office of WMatrative Vice Chancellor '
University of California 405 Hilgant Ave.
Los An? ales, CA 90024 Christine Helwick, Esq.
Glenn R. Woods, Esq.
Office of General Counsel 2200 University Avenue 590 University Hall ,-r Berkeley, CA 94720 1 /
! ],
~
Mark Pollock l Counsel for Intervenor l COIGIITTEE TO ddIDGE THE GAP I l
--. ,4 - m_.. . - - . * , , . _ , , -- o,,, -w. yam._ .ww y ,- e w. .--re-.m.m.~,-.,--,.,sm.,..,-- ,.,e..-