ML20024A075

Response Opposing Ucla 830602 Motion,Requesting Leave to Introduce Testimony on Seismic Matters at Safety Hearings, Deferred by ASLB in 830513 Memorandum & Order Re Contention Xvii.Declaration of Svc Encl

ML20024A075
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	06/09/1983
From:	Hirsch D COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8306150382
Download: ML20024A075 (9)

Text

-. - . . . . .. - . _ . .

.I'

+

• • COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE CAP June 9,198hCKETED 1637 Butler Avenue, Suite 203 if.1g Los Angeles, California 90025 (213) 478-0829 i '83 JUN 13 I!11 :22 UNITED STATES & AMERICA NUCIEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE A'lVMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket No.'50-142 THE REGENTS OF ' DIE UNIVERSITY (Proposed Renewal of FOMA FacilityLicense)

(UCLA Research Reactor)

CBG'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR

___" CLARIFICATION" 0F BOARD'S MAY 13, 1983, MEMORANDUM _ AND ORDER I. Introduction Applicant, in a Motion dated June 2,1983, seeks permission to introduce at the July inherent safety hearings testimony on the seismic matters deferred by the Board in its May 13, 1983. Memorandum and order Concerning Contention XVII. In that Memorandum and Order, the Board deferred ruling on the motions for sumnary disposition of that contention, and consideration of evidence on any matters not summarily resolved, pending the outcome of the inherent safety hearings. 'Ihe Board specifically indicated that the issue of " credibility" (i.e., degree of probability) that the core would be damaged by various earthquakes possible at the site would not be heard during the inherent safety hearings, that what is at issue in the inherent safety hearings is the assertion by Staff, supported by Applicant, that no adverse consequences would result from an earthquake 8306150382 830609 DR ADOCK 05000142 PDR T903

,3 induced accident which crushed the core of the reactor. As the Board put it regarding its decision to defer ruling on the summary disposition motions on the seismic matters:

Accordingly, we will continue to &for ruling on those actions pending the outcome of the inherent safety hearings. Those hearings will examine Staff's accident analysis, which is here in question. 'Ihey will not go into UCM's position stated in 5 3.4 of the Application that no substantial damage to the building housing the reactor would result from any credible accident.

Memorardum and Order, p. 4 (emphasisadded)

Applicant, in the guise of a " request for clarification" and with the disingenuous assertion that " University does not seek to disturb the Board's ruling deferring Contention XVII," requests precisely that relief, reversal of the Board's ruling. CBG files in opposition.

II. BLCKGROUND I

l Contention XVII deals with the seismicity of the reactor site and the vulnerability of the reactor core and reactor building to seismically induced damage 'Ihe Staff in its SER sets as the design basis accident for the UCLA reactor core-crushing induced by an earthquakes based on studies performed for the Staff, the Staff asserts that such an accident would result in doses of 30 - 43 Rem to the thyroid. The University relies upon the Staff analyses, and has included the Staff studies by reference in its own Application.

1/ Fart of the contention asserts that the application does not contain the current information on siting required by 10 CFR 50 34(b)(1), particularly regarding seismicity of the site. UCLA has argued that it need not perform a detailed seismic review of the site because the reactor, due to inherent self-limiting features, cannot cause doses to the public in excess of 10 CFR 20 limits were the core crushed in an earthquake. It is that assertion which the Board has set for the inherent safety hearings.

l l

l

• o

_3 At the June 30, 1982, prehearing conference, UCLA attempted to prevent CBG from obtaining use of photographs it had taken of the reactor structure and related facilities, in part as support for CBC's contention that the building could fall down and crush the reactor core in an earthquake.

Judge Frye inquired, during those discussions, whether it was necessary to have the photographs to resolve that argument...

4 JUDGE FRYE: I am assuming the University will stipulate to the fact that the --

MR. CORMIER: We are going to concede that the building is going to collapse and crush the reactor. There is a generic study already done at Los Alamos that assumes that, and we are not going to say that the building is not going to collapse. ,, j TR 696u(emphasis added)

In part because of the above assertion, numerous of the photographs CBG had t

taken were clipped or replaced altogether.

On September 7,1982, CBG moved for partial summary disposition of Contention XVII. %e Staff opposed none of the material facts asserted by CBG to not be in dispute UCIA disputed only four of the facts (all relating to capability and location of specific earthquake faults), citing only CBG's exhibits in opposition. None of the other fourteen facts were disputed at all.

No counterfacts were put forth in response to CBG's motion; the only opposing fact put forth by UCLA's motion for summary disposition of the same contention was an inherent safety assertion, that decay heat build up in a crushed core would not be sufficient, because of 100 kw power limitation, to cause N fuel melting.

The Board, perceiving that UCLA's disputing of the four CBG facts appeared to be over minor semantic reasons, directed UCLA and CBG to confer and attempt to resolve the disputes on the facts. We parties did so, and by CBG agreeing to modify the language of the facts, UCLA withdrew its objections.

2]Shortlythereafterinthesameprehearingconference,counselforUCLA appeared to contradict himself on this same matter, a tendency which has been a source of repeated frustration in this proceeding.

1 t.

• . _4 In light of the lack of any dispute by Staff of Applicant to CBG's statement of 18 material facts, CBG requested the Board grant the requested partial summar y disposition. In its March 23, 1983 Memorandum and Order, the Board granted the request, absent objection, viewing the facts as a stipulation among parties.

UCLA objected, attempting to draw a distinction between having stipulated that the reactor core could be crushed in an earthquake, resulting in fission product release to the environment and doses of at least 10 rem thyroid, and whether the reactor core would be crushed. The Board, on April 14, directed UCLA to explain itself, saying that UCLA seems to say that UCLA will d.ipulate that the building could fall down in a major earthquake, but it won't. That is an inconsistent statement.

Order, p. 3 In its response, UCIA, apparently ignoring its statement at the prehearing conference cited above, argued that it "has never conceded" that such core-crushing was " credible." (p. 5, April 29 Response). Applicant further referred to a portion of its Application (not cited, as required, in opposition to CBG's facts or as basis for any counterfacts during the factual response portion of the Board's bifurcated procedure) which asserts, not that it is not possible nor even that it is not credible that l

the " reactor core would be crushed in the event of the collapse of the reactor l

j building," but rather that it is "by no means certain" that such would be the result.

]/ During the discussions between UCLA and CBG ordered by the Eoard to attempt to work out disagreements about the language of the Contention XVII facts, UCLA never raised this semantic hairsplit.

Y Note that the cited Application section asserts, not that no cubctantial damage to'tx building housing the reactor would occur from an earthquake (as implied in the Israphrase at p. 3 of the Fay 13 Crder), but that it is "by no means certain" that were tie building to collapse onto the reactor core, the core would be dama6ed.

Based on this respnse, the Board decided to continue to defer its ruling on the pending motions for summary disposition, and to not include in the inherent safety hearings the Appl icant's new assertion that although the core could be crushed in an earthquake, the prokbilities were too low to be considered " credible." he Board reiterated its position that the inherent safety hearings were to determine if the reactor was inherently safe (i.e., if it was protected by automatic self-limiting features working by the laws of physics). Only after that determination was made would it be relevant, if at all, to determine the protability of specific events occuring or the effectiveness of engineered safety features 4

such as shield blocks and supports. %e first determination was whether Staff and Applicant are right in their assertion that, based on inherent self-limiting characteristics of the reactor, no endangerment of the public could occur if the core were crushed in an earthquake. It is this decision which Applicant wishes reversed.

III. Discussion UCLA's request at the last minute to include the deferred seismic matters would make it impossible for CBG to present its case on that matter.

Profiled testimony is due 5 days from today. There is no way CBG can i

prepare its presentation in that time on matters that have been deferred by the Board's Order, or put aside because of the Applicant's stipulation (now apparently being attemptai to be wriggled out of) of the facts not in dispute on the seismic contention. To grant UCLA's request would be to deny CBG the opportunity to effectively present its case on the matter.

Furtherr. ore, the Board has yet to rule on the motions for summary disposition. Without such a ruling, as Applicant has itself indicated several times in the past, hearings are premature. Considerable unnecessary matters m- ,,+w -

w- ,-w< w-- --. -+mm---- -,--e, -- ww- - m-m-e w - - , , - - ~ --

-w-- -w s- -

v h

~

'l t.

4 I i

-e 4

would have to be heard that might otherwise be summarily dismissed.'

Under the Board's procedures, a ruling on the summary disposition motions is necessary before setting the matter for hearing. Given the fact that no

party disputes CBG's statement of eighteen material facts CBG is entitled to a ruling on its motion prior to remaining matters, if any, 'being set for hearing. To do otherwise would be to permit UCIA to ignore stipulated-to facts , ,-

4 f and its own previous statements and litigate matters that could b recolved summarily. ,

Iastly, UCIA's proposal is massively unwieldy. To, deal at hearing.

with UCIA's new contention that the building and/or reactor has a specific probability of withstanding the maximum credible earthquake (whatever; that is determined to be) at the site will obviously require opdentiary~ consideration of the following issues: the location-ofaallvnearby earthqur.ke faults, the magnitude of the largest earthquake credible along those faults, the soil conditions in the area ard beneath the reactor structure (t$ assess' liquefaction potential, etc.), the maximum ground displacement ard acceleration possible s

/

at the site, the probable shape of the acceleration spectra, the response

,=- ,.

4 spectra for the buildings and for the reactor, the strength of supporting columns, etc. Out of this must come a probabilistic rf sk asstaarant of t J

l- the likelihood (presumably quantitative probability) that x earthquake on y

'/ ,

l fault will produce s acceleration spectra and'thus U damage to the building l, s i

j and C degree of crushing of the reactor core. , ,e  !

-  ?

There will be difficulty concluding all inherent safety matters  !

during the time set aside for the inherent refety hes. rings. Litigating the

.I

~

deferred seismic matters at the sans time is impossible.

5 I

l f/ 'Ihe statement of facts supposedly stipulatedito refers to only some of l the potential faults in the area, saying rerely f that they come to aj least l within x distance of the reactor and have at,least y capacity, and thus could l cause core crushing. If the University'aidistinction between could and would is allowed to stand, it will be necessary to litigate location of other faults, j

l as well as how much closer to the site and how nuch larger magnitude the identified

_ ._f.ault_s may obtain, as well as the, complimte_ d acceleration

. _ _ -.__ ani, _ -, liquefaction

_ _ _ _ _ _ratters.

i' ,;

/

I c

IV. Conclusion l

_ _ CBG objects to UCIA's request that the deferred seismic matters be included at this late date in the inherent safety hearings. There is no time for CLG to prepare its testimony on those matters, the Board has yet

,to rule on' the pending motions for suamary disposition, and omsideration of the credibility of various seismic events at this time would make impossible hearing of the inherent safety matters alrep.dy set.

Staff and Applicant have asserted that the reactor is inherently

~ safe. De Board has set hearings to assess that aseertion. To start at this stage to argue that v.he reactor may not be inherently protected against

- nJversa consequences of earthquakes but instead that the probability of specific magnitude earthquakes on specific faults producing specific ground i notiore responses and specific building responses is numerically low enough to be somehow " acceptable" would unacceptably broaden the scope of the

[ Jnherent safety hearings. The seismic questions for the inherent safety hearings are whether, as the Staff asserts, the reactor is inherently protected by the nature of the fuel and the size of its inventory from adverse effects l of seismically-induced core-crushing. To start arguing protabilities rather i

than inherent protection would unravel the entire purpose of the inherent safety hearings as defined in the Board's Farch 23 order. Otherwise the i deferred matters of history of violations, inadequate managerial controls, j' frequency of maintenance problems, etc., would all have to come in during the upcoming hearings for they form the basis for any determination of the j probability of specific accident sequences. he inherent safety hearings are to determine whether the reactor, by virtue of inherent self-limiting l

l } features which " kick in" automatically by the laws of physics, is, as argued l l l

by Staff and Applicant, protected by these inherent features against the I  % '

! possibility of serious accident.

,~ , 4 .' - y.,.. - ..., , -,. . . _ . . _ _ , . , . . , , , , . , , _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ . _ . , . _ _ - . _ , . .

If the Applicant wants to concede now that it cannot meet its burden to demonstrate inherent safety, then there is no need for the upcoming hearing.

But if it wants to argue that the reactor does indeed meet the inherent safety standard, then it cannot rest that case on assertions about engineered safety features and probabilities, which have been deferred by the Board and are thus outside the scope of the inherent safety proceedings.

For the above reasons, CBG respectfully opposes UCLA's request.

CBG further records its strenuous objections to UCIA's continuing behavior in the seismic satter: the initial concessions, in an effort to get CBG to agree to cut up its own pictorial evidence, that the reactor would be crushed in an earthquake, pledging not to argue otherwise in the future, pledges quickly reversed and now even denied getting CBG to alter language in its statements of fact on the seismic matter in exchange for withdrawing opposition to the statement of facts, then after the fact raising new, hairsplitting objections to the stipulated facts: and now requesting clarification of the Board's deferral Order, with the assertion that it did not seek to reverse l

the Board's Order, when that was indeed its request, the result of which would permit UCIA, a few days before the deadline for prefiling of testimony, to present evidence on a deferred matter while making it essentially impossible for other parties to do likewise. Such behavior, if tolerated, will unravel l

l all the Board's efforts to structure the proceedings, and would unacceptably broaden the scope of the upcoming hearings fron whether the reactor is inherently protected against accidents to whether engineered safety features are adequate and protabilities low enou6h.

Respectfull sub.itted, f

., L aniel Hirsch President

! dated at Ben Lomond, CA CCEMITTEE TL BRIDGE ThI GAF l this 9th day of June, 19 0 L

t.

UNITED STATES OF APERICA NUCIRAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFEFY AND LICENSINC BOARD In the htter of Docket No. 50-142 THE RECENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY

& CALIFORNIA (Proposed Renewal of Facility License)

(UCIA Research Reactor)

DECIARATION OF SERVICE I hereby declare that copies of the attached: CBG'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR "CIARIFICATION" 0F BOARD'S FAY 13. 1953. MEMGRANDUM AND ORDER in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as indicated, on this dates June 9,1983 .

o John H. Frye, III, Chairman Christine Helwick Atomic Safety & Licensing Bosrd Glenn R. Voods U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel 390 University Hall e Dr. Emmoth A. Imebke 2200 University Avenne Administrative Judge Berkeley, CA 94720 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board

, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. John hy Washington, D.C. 20555 3755 Divisadero #203 <

San Francisco, CA 94123 o Dr. Glenn 0. Bright Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ms. W Naliboff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Deputy City Attorney City Hall Washington, D.C. 20555 1685 Main Street Chief, Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Dorothy Thompson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Iau Center .

Washington, D.C. 20555 6300 Wilshire Blvd., #1200 Ios Angeles, CA 90048

• Counsel for NRC Staff ingto D ac ty a I nsing Board Panel attentions Ms. Colleen Woodhead U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 o William H. Cormier Ms. Carole Kagan, Esq.

Office of Administintive Vice Osancellor Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel University of California U.S.f Nuclear Regulatory Commission i 405 Hilgard Avenue Washington, D.C. 20555

/

Los Angeles, Slifornia 90024

• by express mail L w '2 ~ c t Daniel Hirsch' Fresident CCMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP

- --