ML20031A898
| ML20031A898 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 09/18/1981 |
| From: | Woods G CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109280368 | |
| Download: ML20031A898 (11) | |
Text
......
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA p
I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'I 4
.s BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR F
SEP211981 *' Qi N
pt-re' seSerdt1 e ga3rvet L2C In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-142 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY )
(Proposed Renewal of Facility OF CALIFORNIA
)
License Number R-71)
)
(UCLA Research Reactor)
)
September 18, 1981
)
,, '.W e>
u s
g f
e f9p, 'd'\\
g'O; h.h, APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO SET ONE,C
(%s *9)} r,._,[
t>, ' g
- f FOLLOW-UP INTERROGATORIES o
j
.n'.
/
-e;
\\'pf k k [/
\\/ q 'l*$ Y[p /
DONALD L. REIDHAAR GLENN R.
WOODS CHRISTINE HELWICK 590 University Hall 2200 University Avenue Berkeley, California 94720 Telephone:
(415) 642-2822 Attorneys for Applicant TIIE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-I)So3 5
/ /
0109280365 810918 PDR ADOCK 05000142 O
PDR I
\\
.In the Order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(" Board") of August 24, 1981
(" Order Relative to Scheduling.and Other Open Matters"), the Board re' solved.certain scheduling natters related to future discovery. in this proceeding.
According to that order, Applicant, Tile REGENTS OF TiiE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNI A, ~ was directed to respond to "Intervenor's Follow-Up Interrogatories ~as to, Applicant's Further Answers to Interrogatory Set One," dated July 1, 1981, within twenty (20) days of the Board's Order.
Including the five (5) days allowed for service by mail, Applicant was required to serve its rosponse by or on September 18, 1981.
Applicant responds to Intervenor's follow-up questions to Interrogatory Set One as follows.
Follow-Up No.
1.
" An experiment"- is. defined by Applicant in its Technical Specification 1.13.
By that definition the sample analysis in question is clearly " experimental."
Follow-Up No.
2.
a.
Yes.
i
~
4 i
a 1
i
[
k' eg;
l
- J.
e A " researcher" as the term -is used by the NEL b.
i h is to undergo refers to anyone who brings any kind of a sample wh c sample analysis in the reactor.'
See response above.
c.
sample analyses done Applicant makes no claim that d.
for Dr. Kalil constitutes " basic nuclear research."
is not is not " nuclear" research, but Applicant e.
It in terms of " basic" versus in a position to evaluate the end use
" applied" research.
f.
- Yes, it falls.within the g.
It is "research" because the definition' of category of activity defined as research by the NEL, It is research appearing on page 5 of Applicant's Further Answers.
I i
f an " experiment" as that p
is characterist c o
" experimental" because it t
h i l Specification 1.13.-
y.
.ord.is defined i,n Applicant's Tec n ca.
i w
Follow-Up No.
3_.
It is possible that Both statements are correct.
~
a.
in the future who are not there could be "other extramural users" 2
O
engaged in commercial activities.
For example, in the recent past the NEL has done some contract work for the Electric Power Research Institute, which is a non-profit association.
Although that contract work did not require the use of the reactor, if it had it would be classified as use by an " extramural" user.
The only signifigant
" extramural" use that has occurred since 1970 occurred in the years 1978-1980 and that use has been " commercial" as Intervenor uses the term.
b.
Since 1975 all " extramural users" have been engaged, to the best of Applicant's knowledge, in "for-profit" activities, c.
Applicant's categories of use are based on affiliation not on type of activity the user is engaged in.
d.
If Applicant adds categories to its chart for each new type of affiliation or new type of activity engaged in then direct comparisons of charted results between different years would be
. difficult.
Follow-Up No.
4.
Applicant has no knowledge of what activities are engaged in by students working at any nuclear reactor currently operating under a commercial license.
3
Follow-Up No.
S.
Providing academic credit is one way the University uses to measure the " education" that results and also is one way the University uses to demonstrate that it takes place.
Follow-Up No.
6.
Ordinarily not; the achievement of a degree is usually based on the completion of a specified set of formal
~
~
courses and, in certain cases, thesis work.
In a general sense, the knowledge or experience gained from assisting Dr. Kalil in sample analyses or data interpretation may help a student do better in a course than he/she otherwise would, but this would be an indirect, intangible effect.
Follow-Up No.
7.
Applicant has never " devoted" any portion of the cost of owning and operating its reactor to the sale of services.
Applicant has operated its reactor facility on a
" steady-state" budget (adjusted annually for the automatic range and merit increases made by the State for the University as a whole) for many years prior to the time there was any " sale of services" activity.
An examination of the University's ledgers for past years confirms this.
Follow-Up No.
8.
Yes.
" Follow-Up No.
9.
The income was not " devoted" to any purpose.
As with any University unit that generates income under the 4
l University's accounting system, the income serves simply to reduce the basic fixed cost of the unit to the University and the taxpayer.
Follow-Up No. 10.
Intervenor's questions refer to " income" being " devoted to" whereas 10 C.F.R. 50.22 refers to percentage of " costs" being " devoted to."
Follow-Up No. 11.
a.
Yes.
Applicant did not know what the irradiations would be and assisted the client-user in the discovery of new fac's, b.
Unknown; Applicant does not make such a claim.
However, mineral exploration is generally uncertain in outcome and using a reactor in the sample analyses is considered part of the research effects of the mining companies.
c.
Unknown; Applicant does not make such a claim.
d.
Applicant is saying that the sample analyses (" ore assaying") conducted.by Dr. Kalil is '"research" by virtue of Applicant's use of that term (as statea on page 13 of its Further l
Answers of June 11) to refer " additionally to any use of the reactor I
to analyze samples or conduct experiments not directly related to maintenance or classroom instruction."
S
=
Follow-Up No. 12.
No.
Follow-Up No. 13.
a.
The fee charget was an equitable one applied to all users.
There was no intent to recover total costs in imposing the fee.
Applicant cannot establish an equitable cost-derived fee because of the very large fixed cost of owning, staffing, maintaining and operating the reactor facility compared to the small variable costs of running the reactor for experimental users, b.
No.
c.
The fee is not in any way related to cost of operating the reactor; no calculations were involved in deriving the fee.
The fee is simply the NEL manager's assessment of what reactor users, intramural and extramural, would be willing to pay to one the reactor.
Follou-Up No. 14.
a.
Yes b.
The dollar amounts represent figures provided by Applicant and are " correct"; however, it should be noted that although Applicant has not performed the analysis the actual total operating 6
.~
=
I cost (including both direct and indirect costs and a portion ~of the overh'ead) for the' reactor is known' to be much higher than the-$167,000 I
figure', which figure was stated in the' application to be estimate and -
i was assumed to be sufficient forjthe purposes of the application and is.now two years old.
The 60% of:the port _ hours, is incorrect-and there can be no " correct" figure.
Arbitrarily, each classroom instruction and maintenance " operating hour"1was recorded as a single
" port-hour" of usage.
In_ fact, howeVer, when the reactor is used for f
a single operating hour of classroom instruction (or for maintenance)-
all four ports are being used, that is, there are'no ports available i
for use by any other "research" users.
As a result, the classroom instruction and maintenance " port-hours" cannot be compared with j
"research" port. hours.
Applicant's arbitrary recording of " port-hour" for classroom instruction and maintenance'is clearly'noted'on usage the original " Reactor Usage" Table which was prepared in response to the NRC in April, 1980 (it;appeacs as " Exhibit B" in Applicant's June 11 Further Answers).
8 I
.c.
,See response above.
,r.
m.
3 Follow-Up No. 15.
If there?were no " commercial" users.thei.
,0 t
cost of' owning and operating the react,or would not be reduced by any significant amount and any reduction, it it could be' identified,-would be considerably less - tluut the income that results from such usecs.
i i
I
[
O.
]
I f
e
Follow-Up No. 16.
Unknown.
Applicant does not profens to know what education is gained by students working part-time as accountants or bookkeepers.
In any case, Applicant cannot compare the experience gained by its engineering students working on-campus in a laboratory setting with the experience gained by an accounting student working off-campus in a firm.
a.
Applicant has not used the term " educational" to "show compliance with its education and research reactor license."
Applicant does not know to what Intervenor is referring.
What the students working for Dr. Kalil do or not do, whether it is educational or not, is not naterial to Applicant's. license renewal application.
Applicant has never described the activities of the Dr. Kalil's
" students" to the NRC in support of its licence renewal, nor does it have any intention to do so.
b.
See response above, t
Follow-Up No. 17.
See response to Pollou-Up No.
7, above.
Follow-Up No. 18.
a.
No.
8
b.
Mr Cormier is not quoted in the article in his remarks were paraphrased by the writer of the article.
question; In any case, Mr. Cormier's remarks were not intended to suggest that in the kind of use thether the extramural user it made any difference The comment about the was formerly associated with UCLA or not.
extramural user being a former student was simply intended as background for what was a longer and more substantive discussion with the writer than is reflected in the article as written.
Dated:
September 18, 1981.
DONALD L.
REIDHAAR GLENN R. WOODS CHRISTINE HELMICK 1
No O sa ~-
sy A% n Glenn R. Woods 9
a I
ltil'11D STA'I".;,m. I' 115:RICA C
1,,,L. I.3:r...,.t. wnuu..f
..r,..
CL.A 7, o.I O.,
e.. a 2
IEEDIE 01?E Iu~IEIC Sil'I;I! T;D LICF2:3II:G IC'JO 3
/.
In the IOtter of
)
)
Dschet No. 50-142 5
'nE rer;rc Hi GF 'nE C' IVEFSITI
)
(Prqxecd Par.:.wal of Fa-ility OF CAL 11GICTfA
)
License N=ler R-71) 6
)
(LCIA Fercarch Pcactor)
)
7
)
8 u.,r d.a r Ice..-.,.C.:
.c.:...,7 r :'
..a 9
I herehv certify tMt conics of the attach-d: APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO SET ONE FOLLOW-UP INTERROGATORIES 10 i
.C _.~_n e,,-.?,;
C.4
- I n ya.u
...L,..,.
.f.r_
e_,a...r,._..:.1.,,...
+,,.,c
- 3
. o l. m,... ~... ~
.; ~,
._. y..s..
v..
A s-m.
c.
.u
._ u.y m 3
1I in the Ur.itcd States ~ ail, first class postage prepaid, addresrca as =-
clicated, ca this date:
September 18, 1981 12 13 I-1 4..,, s.x o, n., w e, v.e,
Cc a,,,,
_c _...ac. o _e.r c
co m
... s, 4.,..... o m.
e
_-..,,_..,_m.,
.u._
.r
. m...
,. c y...
-.m C.
.e c ; C <., o. u _.
e
~u
-. u -.
e
.u,.
v 2
1 u _
~-s ' _ m<. ~_.W. _.. - =,~.. m U.o. "..^a'.~- r.c ~~__l.'. '..' ~. ; C<r..'-.e. c. #...
14 l e s. o,. J e.e e, u,.
4 c
r m,
m;
, Washint za, DC 20555 Washingtca, DC 20555 15 Dr. Frreth A. 7 "'M-n Daniel IErsch 1G i U.S. Nuclear F::guirc: y Cctrdssion Carai ttc2 to Bridge the Ccp i
1. 4. a-.:.
.c a.r._, ~
T 4,
.4..,
_e.-
4 r,.3 7 ts. : cm. c.,,,..,. -._,
)3 3 r
v,,
, e.
m 2
m.
17 l Wa;hinn.en, [C 20555
~
Ica Jr.reles, c; 90025 i
18
%c..
O.~~ w. i.:.. _ :s
.v. s... n. a m, c, s-m.,
- p.. c;. s,.. -- 7 c,
r.._,,-m,.,,. e37,
. o i v.,r..
w
,,,, n.,..
,e
._c.,
u...
l9 :,1.ta'ic Safaty & Licensing F;,ar i 1724 n. La 1rea Acenua m.
l Washington, DC 20555
'Ios ;,ageles, CA '90046 20 Chief, D x etir.g and Service Section.(3)
-21 Office of the Secretarv U.S. Nuclear Frgelatory Ccranission 22 U;shingtca, D' 20535 23 f
> <l
./
rs 2 ~.
? p, u d. -
_y 25 Wil l. i am it. Cormier UCLA Representative 2G
~
27 28 I
I l
i 6