ML20058J797
| ML20058J797 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1982 |
| From: | Hirsch D COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8208110212 | |
| Download: ML20058J797 (16) | |
Text
a l
COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE CAP August 6,p 1982 l 1637 Butler Avenue, Suite 203 .. ./,: (
- Los Angeles, Califomia 90025 00CHETED USNRC (213)478-0829 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .
-9 AM :52 NUCIEAR REGULA7ORY COMMISSION BEFORE THS A'IDMIC SAFETY AND LTCENSING BOARD US;XUn OncE od t URANCH I[~ ' ' '
In the Matter of . g:
Docket No. 50-142 OL n THE REGENTS OF 'IHE UNIVERSITY - -
0F CALIFORNIA (Proposed Renewal of Facility. ,,,
License No. R-71)
(UCLA Research Reactor)
CBC RESPONSE TO CONTENTION MODIFICATION CONCERNS PUT FORTH BY STAFF AND APPLICANT I. Introduction Shortly before the most recent prehearing conference, Applicant submitted extensive proposed amendments to its Application. With the leave of the parties and the Board , CBG cn July 12, 1982, submitted language modifications to its contentions reflecting the propcsed application amendments. The modifications focused primarily on certain references within the basis portions of the contentions which needed to be altered in light of the proposed amendments.
Applicant,'in its letter to the Board of July 26, has raised no objections to the CBG modifications, aside from a question as to whether the revised Contention VIII insis rafers to the 1960 Hazards Analysis or the 4-30-82 amended Safety Analysis Report. CBG herein makes clear that it is the former.
If Although dated "4-30-82", CBG did not receive a copy of said proposed amendments until two months later. (i.e. the day before the June 28 prehearing).
The Board was provided a copy on August 2.
2]TR629-633:637-639:750-757; Board Order of July 26, p. 7 8208110212 820806 PDR ADOCK 05000142 O PDR
- a
I 4
Staff, in its pleading of July 22, 1982, has raised a number of objections. While not appearing to object to the substance of the language chmrga Staff primarily asserts that the proposed application acendments do not alter the matters addressed in the contention modifications.
CBG herein demonstrates the erroneous nature of said assertion by identifying in detail the application alterations that necessitated the contention larguage modifications.
Staff further argues that CBG should make language modifications to its contentions in addition to those CBG has proposed asserting that because Applicant proposes to remove portions of the 1960 Hazards Aralysis, which are essentially admissions against interest, from its 1982 amended application, that CBG should no longer rely on the 1960 Hazards Analysis as part of its basis for certain contentions. CBG herein demoratrates the fallaciousness of that argument by ir.licating essentially that a fact does not cease to be a fact simply because one party which is embarrassed by that decides to nn longer mention it. The eminrrassing analysis in question-which demonstrates that the fuel can melt in a destructive power excursion and that extraordinarily high radiation doses to the public uculd result-was attested to under oath by Applicant for twenty-two years and approved as i accurate by Staff for the same period. While understanding why both Applicant l
l and Staff would wish the facts and conclusions of that analysis--which run counter to their litigative positions--would disappear, wishing then away does not make them go away. Troublesome facts must be disproven; they cannot merely be eraned. These catters will be discussed in detail, infra.
]/ In fact, Staff indicates at least once in its pleading that a proposed modification merely rephrases the previous language without changing its meaning, but objects anyway.
4/CBCnotesthatthematterofmodificationstoCEG'scontentionsteyend those proposed by C3G is not a matter before the Scard at this time.
t l
l
- j
4 II. Diccussion A. Applicant's Concern Applicant states at page 2 of its July 26, 1982, letter regarding the contention nodifications, "Most of the modifications are editorial in nature and unexceptionable." Indeed, Applicant takes no exception to any of the modifications, asides from Contention VIII, to which it requests some clarification.
The concern of the contention, then and now, is that the consecuences of a serious accident at the reactor, in terms of radiation doses to the public, are unacceptably high. As basis for that concern, CBG cited a certain section of Applicant's own Hazards Analysis, an analysis prepared in 1960 and which Applicant had simply xeroxed and included in its 1980 Application for license renewal (attesting, by the way, under oath to its accuracy). That analysis concluded accident consequences of 1800 Rem thyroid to the public, even with a number of assumptions identified by CBG as being non-conservative (e.g. assumption of 10 kw operation when the reactor is now licensed at 100 ku).
Applicant proposes to remove that analysis from its 1982 amended application and replace it with an analysis far more favorable to the University's interests in this proceeding. (The 1960 Hazards Analysis, of course, does not cease to exist by reference to it being recoved from the 1982 amended applications all that ceases to exist are the application's referencestoit.) The new analysis is referred to by both C3G and the University as the 1982 Safety Analysis Report, to distinguish it from the 1960 Hazards Analysis and the 1980 safety Analysis Report which had repeated the 1960 analysis, s
Applicant states tt:at it is concerned that the re-writing of Contention VIII is " confusing certain assumptions allegedly made in that 696J0 Analysis with what is or may be contained in the 1980 Safety Analysis Report, presumably,asrecentlyamended."(emphasisadded). It is in that presumption that Applicant is in error, and CBG clarifies as follows:
Part 1, and subparts a through a thereto, of the basis to Contention VIII refer exclusively to the 1960 Hazards Analysis and the 1980 Safety Analysis Report prior M the SAR being amended M 1982. It would appear that there should be no confusion regarding this as all parties appear to be using the same language with regards the various documents: (a)the 1960 Hazards Analysis, (b) the 1980 Safety Analysis Report, which duplicated the 1960 Hazards Analysis section in question, and (c) the 1982 Safety Analysis Report, which replaced the section in question with an amended analysis.
Part 1 of Contention VIII does not deal with the 1982 SAR at all.
In sum, the contention addresses consequences of a major accident; as basis for CBG's concern, a document is cited which supports CIC's assertion despite a number of non-conservative assumptions.
Whilo Applicant is free to attempt to introduce in evidence its 1982 analysis to try to demonstrate that the contention-that doses in case of accident are unacceptably high-is not correct (and CBG free to challenge the probative value of the new analysis), the tasis cited in Contention VIII is unrelated to the 1982 SAR.
g CBG notes that in many of these contentions, the subparts represent the bases presented by CBG prior to adnission of the cortention in order to meet the threshhold basis requirement; it has generally been references to pa6e citations and the like in the bases that have necessitated modifications.
Thus, in contention VIII, the general concern is over high radiation doses in case of accident; the threshhold basis, which ray be part of evidence introduced at hearing, is the analysis in the 1960 Hazards Analysis.
< s
-5 B. Staff's Objections Staff's concerns focus on the mistaken belief that the proposed application amendments do not alter the matters addressed in the contention language modifications. In most cases, it appears Staff simply hasn't read the proposed application amendments closely enough. We will take Staff's objections neriatim.
M Staff here asserts that the proposed modification merely rephrases the previoue language without changing the meaning. Nonetheless, Staff objects.
However, there has been a change, one necessitated by the new application submission by Applicant. We now essentially have two applications--the 1980 application, and the 1982 amended application. CBG assert that there are material and inaccurate statements in both submissions (which would run counter to both the Atomic Energy Act and the NRC regulations). In the subparts, we identify which statements form the basis for that assertion and in which application the statement is found. The only way to make that modification is to change the word " application" in the original contention to " applications" and to rearrange to word order so as to lead into the subparts.
Thus, the change is from single to plural, and necessitated by the fact that there are now two application submissions to refer to.
I.3.c.(1) Staff here asserts that the application amendments did not alter the fact that a change from 2.3% Ak/k to $3 54 was made in the technical specifications. Staff simply hasn't read the proposed amendments to the technical specifications, which amend the $3 54 and replace it with $3.00 (and by inplication sim N rly alters the limit in 6 k/k. ) To reflect that l change, C3G removed the specific figures and kept the units, because it is I
the conversion from one unit to another that is the concern of the contention.
t l
l
~
5 Staff's assertion that the figures haven't changed is surprising in light of the fact that UCIA made the amendment at the direction of Staff after Staff had reduced the $3 54 limitation to $3.00 in the Staff version of the Technical Specifications published with the SER and which form the insis for Applicant's amended Tech Specs. ('Ihe amended value of $3.00, downfromtheprevious$3.54,isfoundatpagev/3-1ofthe4-30-82 amendments.)
I_.3.c.(ii) Staff likewise erroneously asserts that this subpart has been unaffected try the amendments. However, the 14 month " definition" for " annual" included in the original application has now been amended to 15 months, with some new averaging provisions as well (see 4-30-82 amendments, p. V/4-1). Once again, this change was at the direction of Staff itself, which proposed the change in its own version of the Technical Specifications included in the SER.
6] Please note that the rewriting of portions of I.3.c. was necessitated in part by the dual nature of this part of the contention. 'Ihe concerns raised ares (1) whether the assertion that changes hadn't been made in the Tech Specs was accurate, and (2) whether those changes are material, i.e.
could have a negative effect on public health and safety.
CBG had originally proposed two contentions regarding these Tech Specs provisions. The Board ruled (V. 13, Farch 20.1981 order) that proposed Contention XXII was entirely duplicative of admitted Contention I, i.e.
that the tech spec changes would not be material and inaccurate unless there were some public health and safety implication and thus CBG's public health ani safety concerns were fully raised in admitted Contention I.
c ,
T I
l l
- 1 M Staff asserts here that the addition of the word " currently" is gratuitous. On the contrary. The original language made no attempt to distinguish between the amount of excess reactivity permitted under the current license and that which would be permitted under the proposed license becausetheywereexactlythesame--2.3%dk/k. The amendments have altered that, reducing slightly the new proposed licensed limit, perhaps in recognition of the dangers CBG has cited with the 2.3% figure. In any case, the limit that the 1960 Hasards Analysis indicated was in the darger zone is 2 3%,
and that is the currently licensed limit, not the amended proposed limit, why is why the word " currently" was added. (Note that reference to the current limit is intended merely to provide a touchstone, a point of reference, as to where melting clearly could occur; other parts of the contention indicate that the level needs to be reduced considerably below that reference level in order to provide, as the contention says, an adequate margin of safety.)
V. 4 Staff asserts that the addition of "value for the" in the contention language has no relation to the amendments. Once again Staff missed a change in the amended application, although this one is easier to see how it could be overlooked. On Inge III/6-3 of the amended application, UCLA has once again altered the quoted value for the void coefficient, from -0.164 x 10-2%4k/kto-0.20hk/k. Besides the apparent typographical errors regardir4 percents, UCLA has now amended the void coefficient value, although other contradictory values rerain. CBG has.no way of knowing if these contradictcry values are because of changes in the characteristic of the reactor over time, as suggested in the 1980 Application, or because UCIA has cerely altered the value it attributes to the veld coefficient. To te accurate, then, in light of the new amended values, the language is altered to indicate that the value given for the void coefficient has changed, without J
-e-prejudging whether the values are correct statements of reactor characteristics.
Given the neu information in the application, it is not now possible to determine, as suggested by the 1980 Application, that the characteristic itself has charged.
V. 5 & V.11 Staff claims that the numbers 2.3 ani 3.54 still exist in the Application with regards the excess reactivity limits. As shown above, this simply isn't the case. One of the principal amendments proposed by UCLA is te lower those limits slightly. CIC still thinks the slightly reduced levels are dargerous, thus the arenied contention language. Please note for V.11 that the limit on combined experiments has become far more c eplicated than the previous numerical limitation (essentially now a product of individual experiment limits ani the number of irradiation locations), which is why it is simpler to simply refer to the proposed limits rather than repeat the detailed formula as to what they are. The proposed limits are clearly spelled out in the Application ani need not be extcnsively repeated in the contention.
XIII. Staff claims the change from U 235 to SNM is arbitrary and unrelated to the amendments. Neither is the case. For one thing, SNM is far clearer 2
than U235 in the centext in question, because, of course, U2 cannot be enriched; if one is to be strict about language, SNM is enriched in the g235 isotope, for example. But the reason for proposing the clarification is because the amen 1ments to the application for the first time include an analysis of fire as an accident scenario ani provides estimates of radiological consequences, based on certain assertions regarding fuel not likely being in the core when the shield blocks are off. No analysis of fire whatsoever was contained in the 1980 Application. The new fire analysis ignores the radiologicalconsequencesofthe2CiPlutonium/Seryliumneutronsource
1 being involved in the fire, uhich could have awesome radiological consequences. This ignoring of the Pa/Be source may be because UCLA has merely requested such a source in its license but currently uses a Ba/Besource. Thus, the requested Plutonium is also unnecessary and a public health risk; UCIA should either demonstrate that the Plutonium is not a fire hazard or withdraw its application for the Plutonium.
The new fire analysis contained in the amendments leads CBG to conclude that the Plutonium source is an unnecessary and serious public health threat in case of fire, because even if the fuel were removed from the core while the shield blocks were off, making the core more vulnerable to fire, UCLA asserts, there is no mention of requiring removal of the Pu/Besourceaswell. In shart, the change from U-235 to SNM is in order because the new amendments now place at issue the consequences in a fire of having the Plutonium source, and because SNM is a more accurate way of describing enrichment level of uranium.
XIV Staff asserts that inserting the word " adequately" with regards UCLA's analysis of problems common to similar reactors is gratuitous and unrelated to tne atuenimnts. Not so. The 1980 Application contained no analysis uhatsoever of problems common to similar reactors. The amendments have now included some analysis of accident scenarios that might be faced by similar reactors (although it continues to neglect analysis of problems that have already occurred elsewhere). CBG's review of what analysis is included in the amendments shows it to be grossly inadequate. The concern of our original contention-that problems faced by similar reactors be thoroughly analyzed-is in no way met by an inadequate analysis or a partial analysis. Thus, to express our concern in light of the proposed amendments, the adequacy as well as existence of such an analysis is placed at issue.
s
Staff's succested Additional !'edifications Staff, at page 3 of its pleading, suggests CBG alter three contentions it has not chosen to. All three reference the 1960 Hazards Analysis, an item which Staff implies no longer exists now that UCIA has removed reference to it in its anerdnents. This is sophistry.
For twenty-two years the Applicant has quite litorally sworn by the accuracy of the 1960 Hazards Analysis. Indeed, instead of performing a new analysis when it submitted its Application for relicensing in 1980, it simply xeroxed portions of that Hazards Analysis ard included them without alteration in the application.
And for twenty-two years the NRC Staff has deemed that Analysis to be correct, accurate, and true.
And then along cones an Intervenor, who reads the analysis and says, in effect, "This analysis, flawed though it is in the non-conservative direction, determines that melting can occur of UCIA's reactor fuel in an excursion with precisely the amount of excess reactivity they are currently licensed to have, and that if even a small percentage of the vohtiles were released in an hecident, huge doses to the public would result."
Ohe can understand the quandry for Applicant and Staff. This t isn't an Intervenor coming in with calculations on the back of en envelope; 1
this is an Intervenor who says, quite rightly, that your own analysis says 1
the reactor is too dangerous to operate. And worse, neither Applicant nor Staff had read the document carefully enough to catch the damaging information.
For twenty-two years the reactor had been permitted, by Applicant and Staff, to operate when the official hazards analysis, if ever read carefully, l
i a
indicated it shouldn't.
So, what to do? As it stood, the analycis amounted to a very damaging admission. Yet to undo the damage would necessitate. careful, scientific, meticulous disproving of one's own analysis, which certainly would call into question any subsequent analysis. Furthermore, much of the analysis would appear to be immune from criticism.
The problem was complicated because the 1960 analysis was virtually identical to analyses submitted by several other Argonaut reactors and likewise approved by Staff in granting them licenses. A finding that the previous analyses by these licenses, approved by Staff, was correct could result in those licensees being shut down. (An extraordinary situation, no doubt, that if a long-held generic licensee / Staff analysis were correct, reactors would have to be shut downs normally the question is the reverse.)
The solution arrived at was that the NRC Staff would assume the Applicant's burden, and at federal taxpayers' expense, conduct a new generic analysis that would demonstrate that reactors of the Argonaut-type were not, as their current analyses indicate, dangerous. Three of the four consultants were on the payroll of the handful of Argonaut licensees in the country all four had close ties to such licenseest and one consultant in particular, by his chairmanship of the Radiation Safety Committee for one of the licensees in question, would apparently have had to admit he had failed in his duties in that post had his analysis come out differently than it did.
It is not surprising, perhaps, that the new generic analyses, as will be demonstrated at hearing, are badly flawed. Nonetheless, they conclude that a power excursion at an Argonaut reactor like UCLA's or the University of Washington's will get the fuel to within a hair's breadth of melting.
12 That was still more favorable to the Staff ard Applicant's position in this proceeding than the current analysis. So, at Staff's urging, UCIA has simply proposed that the embarrassir4 analysis be removed ani replaced with the one more favorable to its position. And now Staff argues that the previous analysis no longer even exists!
A licensing proceeding is not a games it is supposed to be a sober, scientific appraisal of all the available evidence to determine whether reasonable assurance can be given that the proposed activity can be undertaken without undue risk to public health and safety and the common defense.
The scientific method is predicated on matching hypothesis to data, not the other way around. If two scientific studies are done and one says "X" and the other "Y", it is not an appropriate response to burn the study that had conclusions against your personal interests and pretend it never existed.
In terms of NRC practice, that would amount to a material omission.
One of the central issues of this proceeding is which of two contradictory accident analysis is the more correct. One can understand the discomfort of both Staff and Applicant in the matter when one recalls that both parties have attested to the accuracy of both contradictory analyses at one time or another. Yet, if they feel their first analysis was in error l and the new one is correct, they (and in particular, the Applicant, who has the burden of proof and cannot be permitted to hide behind Staff's skirts when it comes to that burden) must rrove it. Deep-sixing unfavorable studies I went out with beek-burning.
l .
Essentially, CBG has contended that the reactor is unsafe and should not be relicensed without significant changes made C3G cites as evidence an analysis that UCIA itself has sworn to the accuracy of.
Rather than refute the damging admission in its own document, an admission against interest, Applicant proposes to remove the damaging analysis from its Application. The analysis, and the facts therein, do not cease to exist
1 simply by UCIA ceasire to mention them.
l A few specific responses to Staff's objections in this regard Staff claims (p. 3) that "The withdrawn Fasards Analysis is now irrelevant to the pending license renewal proceeding." That is nonsense. As indicated at length above, the fact tlat UCIA has now removed portions of the long-accepted 1960 Hazards Anal., sis from in 1982 amended application in no way makes j the facts and analyses contained therein irrelevant to the proceeding.
The proceeding is to determine whether this reactor is safe enough to be l relicensed. In making that determination, the Board will hear all kinds of evidence from many sources. Some will be put forward in the Application, some in the SER, some in consultant's studies, some in materials fzom the docket, some in expert's testimony. The fact that certain facts do not appear in the Application in no way determines whether those facts will be admissible at hearing. For example, Contention IV is based on !"dC inspection reports showing an extraordinary pattern of regulations violaticms.
The fact that those inspection reports do not appear in the Application, or even had there been reference to them which Applicant subsequently withdrew, in no way affects their admissibility. Likewise, Contention V is based on UCLA scram reports, for example, which likewise don't appear in the application. Whether mterial is or is not in an application is in no way relevant to whether the material will be found admissible as evidence.
Furthermore, Staff asserts that certain contentions do not apply directly to the application and therefore are not relevant to this proceeding, "since they do not raise any issue concerning the pending application."
Staff is just dead wrong there. Contention I deals with the adequacy of the application. Most of the rest of the contentions deal with whether the reactor meets the requirements for licensing-in terms of whether rcasonable assurance can be given that this Applicant will obey the regulations, conduct adequate monitoring, keep effluents low, prevent major accidents, etc.
If an analysis of this reactor is of evidentiary quality and relates to that ultirate decisicri before the Board and the matters placed at issue in the proceeding, then it is admissible as evidence whether it is currently in the application or not.
Staff raises questions in these regards as to Contentions I.2.a and V.3, as well as the rewritten VIII (which Staff says " continues to reference the withdrawn Hazards Analysis and makes no substantive change from the presentContentionVIII.") In the case of Contention VIII, our substantive concern is indeed unchanged by the amendments-we still believe the potential radiation doses in caso of accident are unacceptable. Nothing in the new analyses reassures us that this is not the case. And yes, we continue to reference the 1960 Hazards Analysis (which is only withdrawn as an appendix to the Application, not withdrawn as the analysis on which initial license was obtained and continued operation permitted), because that analysis continuen to exist.
As to I.2.a., please note that UCI.A has not withdInwn all of the 1960 Fasards Analysis from the application, and continues to repeat much of it verbatin (without so identifying its cource). And the replacement of one analysis, which was,not original, with another analysis, also rot origiral, as contended in new contention I.3.c., puts at issue how UCIA is to meet its burden of proving one or the other is correct when it had little to do with the preparation of either. Nothin6 further needs be said about V.3; the 1960 analysis still exists, whether UCIA has it in its application or not.
III. Conclusion CBC has irdicated that the incic for Centention VIII (i.e. cubpart 1) refers to the 1960 Fazards Analysis ard not to the 1982 amerded application, Applicant's solo cor.cern.
CBG has indicated that Staff's concerns that certain other modifications are unrelated to the anendmente are unfourded.
And althou6h further modifications to the cententiens are not before the Board, CBG has responded to said arguments.ty Staff. (CBC notes that the scle matter before the Board ic the proposed Lodifications by CBG, and that if any modification is denied, the contention remains as originally adnitted.)
[
Respe'ctfully submitt ,
4 od Daniel rsch President COPlGTTEE 'IO ERIDGE THE GAP dated at Ben Iomond, CA Au6ust 6, 1982 t
l l
l i
i
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket No. 50-142 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (Proposed Renewal of (UCIA Research Reactor)
DECIARATION OF SERVICE I hereby declare that copies of the attached: CBG RESPONSE 'IO CONTENTION
_ MODIFICATION CON E NS FUT FORTH BY STAFF AND AFFLICANT 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 date AUGUST 6, 1982 .
John & Frye, III, Chairman Christine Helwick Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Glenn R. Woods U.S. Nuclsar Regulatory Cosaission Office of General Counsel 590 University Hall Dr. Emmeth A. Imebke 2200 University Avenue Administrative Judge Berkeley, CA 94720 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. John Bay Vashington, D.C. 20555 3755 Divisadero #203 San Francisco, CA 94123 Dr. Oscar E Paria Administrative Judge Sarah Shirley Atomic Safety and Licensing M Deputy City Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission City Hall Washingtat, D.C. 20555 1685 Main Street I Santa Monica, CA 90401 l Chief, Docketing and Service Section 1
Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Re6ulatory rAmaission Washin6 ton, D.C. 20555 Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Re6ulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 attention: Ms. Colleen Woodhead William & Cormier /
Office of Administ2ative Vice Chancellor University of California 405 Hilgard Avenue Los Angeles, California 90024 -
g/ / g g
i President CCMMI'ITEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP
- - - _ - . _ . - - _ . - _ _