ML20069F119

Motion for Expedited Ruling on Committee to Bridge the Gap 820907 Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Contention XIII & for Setting May 1983 Hearing Date for Remaining Portions of Contention Xiii.Declaration of Svc Encl

ML20069F119
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	03/15/1983
From:	Hirsch D COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20069E846	List: ML20069E843 ML20069E858 ML20069F119
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8303220325
Download: ML20069F119 (10)

Text

-.. - -

. FED COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP March 15, 1983 1637 Butler Avenue, Suite 203 '8]

Los Angeles, CA 90025 gN 16 gI 23

, (213)478-0829 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD in the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-142 OL THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY )

0F CALIFORNI A )

) (Proposed Renewal of Facility (UCLA Research Reactor) ) License No. R-71)

)

CBG MOTION FOR EXPEDITED RULING ON ITS SEPTEMBER 7,1982, MOTION FOR PARTI AL

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION Xill, AND THE SETTING OF A MAY HEARING DATE FOR ANY REMAINING. lSSUES AS TO CONTENTION Xill I. Introduction On September 7,1982, the Committee to Bridge the Gap (CBG) moved the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for summary disposition or, l

I in the alternative, partial summary disposition.of Contention Xill.

That contention asserts that the amount and enrichment of Special Nuclear Material (SNM) applied for by UCLA are excessive. The contention also alleges that the information contained in the application regarding cri ticall ty accident protection, mi tigation, moni toring and response is insufficient to meet the requi rements of 10 CFR Part 70. Affixed to the motion,- as requi red, was a short, concise statement of material facts asserted by CBG to not be in dispute, i

[

By letter dated October 29, 1982, the Staff informed the Board that it did not dispute CBG facts 2-10, 12-14, and 17-22 Thereaf ter the Staff supplied citations to support its assertion that genuine disputes do exist as to facts I, 11, 15, and 16.

8303220325 830315 gDRADOCK 05000142

, PDR

~

By letter dated January 7,1983, the Applicant provided its identification of the facts it disputed and the citations on which it based its assertion that genuine disputes do exist. For Contention Xill, Applicant disputed facts,1,11, and 15, relying on virtually identical citations as those of Staff. Like Staff, the Applicant did not dispute the remaining facts although, unlike Staff, the Applicant also did not dispute fact 16 In its Memorandum and Order of February 8,1983, the Board ruled on certain parts of the motions for summary disposition by Staff, Applicant and CBG. At page 36-37, the Board addressed three asserted facts as to Contention Xill: Staff #1 and CBG #11 and 15. The Board did j so in the context of its consideration of inherent safety issues, leaving aside other portions of the contention viewed as dealing with matters such as proliferation risks.

One week af ter the Board issued its Order, Staff transmitted to the Board and parties a February 7 letter f rom J.E. Matos of the RERTR program (Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors), Argocoa National Labs, to Dr. K.L. Mattern, USDOE, on the subject of potential convertibility of the UCLA reactor f rom HEU (93%) to LEU ((20%) fuel . The letter indicated no technical barriers to converting the UCLA reactor f rom HEU to LEU and appears to confirm CBG's assertions that TRIGA-type LEU fuel is currently available for use in the UCLA reactor, that advanced high-density fuels will be available shortly (the letter indicates by the end of the year), and that even without the high-density fuel and with maintaining the excess reactivity a of the UCLA reactor (whl'ch CBG has contended should be reduced), flux j reduction would be insignificant (~15%). Use of the higher density fuel, t

or reduction in the available excess reactivity, would mean no reduction whatsoeve r.

In view of this new development, i t appears that no genuine n.., . --

_3 disputes remain as to Contention Xlli except as to the criticality protection information matter and perhaps the Plutonium source matter.

CBG therefore respectfully requests an immediate ruling on its Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Xill, and a prompt scheduling for hearing of whatever matters remain in dispute thereon.

Because the Applicant has indicated that it would not comply with a License condition requiring conversion to LEU fuel, and would instead withdraw its Application, this matter should be resolved promptly as it may be dispositive of the Application, and make additional hearings unnecessary.

II. DISCUSSION On August 17, 1982, the Commission issued a Policy Statement on the use of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) in research reactors.

47 FR 37007. This PoIIcy Statement committed the agency to use its licensing authority to reduce, "to the maximum extent possible," the use of HEU in domestic and foreign research reactors. The Commission noted that to date U.S. research reactor operators "have shown little interest in converting to lower enrichment fuel," and concluded that it would take steps to encourage such conversion by U.S. research reactor operators.

I No party disputes the fact that it is official U.S. policy to reduce the enrichment of research reactor fuels (CBG fact 10),nor that other Argonaut reactors have operated on LEU (CBG facts 12-14).

The only asserted disputes on the HEU matter relate to the availability of LEU replacement fuel. Staff and Applicant both disputed CBG facts 11 and 15, at least until the recent Argonne letter described above.

.- y,,_ ,, . , . . , .

. -4 l

Those facts are as follows:  !

CBG FACT 11. Reduced enrichment fuels are currently available on which the UCLA reactor can run.

CBG FACT 15. Advar.ced reduced enrichment fuels of higher Uranium loading will soon be available on which all but the highest power research reactors can run.

CBG has demonstrated that TRIGA LEU fuel is currently available for conversion of flat-plate HEU reactors such as UCLA's. (see Exhibi t U, CBG summary disposition motion for Contention Xill; and particularly the declaration by Mr. Af tergood for the same contention in CBG's summary i disposition response, and attachments A-E thereto) .

CBG has further demonstrated that advanced high-densi ty LEU fuels will soon be available. (see Hafemeister declaration and exhibits C-H, U, attached to CBG motion for summary disposi tion).

Neither Staff nor Applicant has directly disputed the current availabili ty of TRIGA LEU fuel . The dispute as to future availability of high-density LEU fuel seems to center on the issue of how soon is "soon."

That dispute now seems to be resolved in the recent admissions by Staff found in the February 7,1983 Matos letter, which indicates at page 2 that development and irradiation testing have been completed for small plate oxide fuel (the oxide fuel is indicated tc be the appropriate type for UCLA's reactor); that testing of full scale plate fuel should begin this month (March 1983); and "that sufficient data to support IIcensing requirements is expected to be available around the end of 1983." (emphasi s added) l The Matos letter also indicates: "The reactor could also use TRIGA LEU fuel in a rodded geometry." (emphasis added) . Matos gives cost estimates for this conversion.

l Thus, both of CBG asserted facts are now no longer in dispute--

l the UCLA reactor could now use TRIGA LEU, and by the end of the year l

1 , - - - - - - - - - . . - - ,

- . . . . _ , . . . , - - -, ..---,,-.,---n_--. ,_,,,., ,,-

-5 advanced density fuel appropriate for UCt.A will be available.

Furthermore, Matos gives data indicating that if the current excess reactivity level were to be maintained (and CBG has urged a major reduction) and if LEU not of high density were employed, the flux reduction would be minimal, on the order of 15%. This matter, put forth originally by Staff, now appears resolved.

Therefore, the three facts on Contention Xill related to HEU (CBG facts 11 and 15, Staff fact 1) as to current and future availability of LEU and flux level now seem resolved by the new information put forth by Staff. CBG's motion for partial summary disposition on these matters should now be granted.

Only two other asserted facts remain at issue as to Contention Xili.

One deals with whether the information provided in the application as to criticality accident control is adequate. Staff and Applicant cite portions of the Application which they maintain demonstrate sufficient information to meet the provisions of the regulations; CBG maintains these portions do not adequately meet those orovisions. This matter appears to be genuinely disputed and should be resolved at hearing. CBG respectfully suggests that this matter be resolved at the sununer hearing on inherent safety matters, since criticality accidents are among the accident scenarios being considered.

The only remaining fact supporting CBG motion for sununary disposition of Contention Xill is #16, which asserts that The UCLA reactor does not use a Plutonium-Beryllium neutron startup source.

Significantly, the Applicant, whose reactor this is, does not dispute this fact. Staff does, but provides no citation. Staff asserts instead

! that the source requested in the reactor license application is not for the reactor but for the subcritical assembly (which is not part of the license application, nor even federally licensed, being licensed by the state) .

CBG maintains that no dispute exists, but is prepaced to go to hearing l

~

on the matter should the Board rule otherwise.

CBG therefore respectfully requests that the ooard, in light of the recent admissions by Staff regarding the availability of LEU, grant CBG's motion for partial summary disposition of Contention Xill, at least in so far as it deals with HEU, and that it set an early hearing date for all matters determined to be still in dispute. CBG respectfully suggests that that hearing occur during the May period previously proposed by the Board for the onset of the inherent safety hearings, now apparently postponed until later in the summer (with the exception of the criticality matter, which should be included in the summer safety hearing) .

The University has aked for an early resolution of its motion for summary disposition as to class of license because of its intention to withdraw from the proceeding if faced with an adverse ruling on that matter. The Applicant has declared the same intention with regards Contention Xill. Surely rapid resolution of this matter is likewise called for. In fact, CBG would suggest that we go to hearing in May on Contention Xill and 11 (aside from those matters related to Contention Xill resolved through grant of CBG's motion for summary disposition thereof, and aside f rom the cri ticality matter) .

The University has argued that much of Contention Xill is moot because UCLA refuses to convert to LEU, even if such a conversion were a condition of its license being renewed. The University has said it would withdraw its application and shut down its reactor rather than comply with an order to convert to LEU, as contemplated in the Commission's Policy Statement on HEU of August 17, 1982.

Such a threat in no way makes moot the issue of whether UCLA should, as a condition of license renewal, be requi red to convert to non-weapons grade uranium because of either safety or proliferation concerns. Conversion is the policy of this government; grant of a

i

• license for weapons grade uranium when a safer alternative is available is unthinkable; and threatened refusal to use the alternative if found to be necessary is simply irrelevant to the Board's determination as to whether the alternative should be requi' red. UCLA's request for weapons-grade uranium must be viewed in light of the availability of appropriate alternatives involving far less risk.

UCLA is free to refuse to comply with conditions of a license by declining a license so conditioned. But the Board is not f ree to refuse to impose conditions necessary for public safety and the common defense merely because an Applicant says it will not comply with those necessary conditions. If HEU poses significant proliferation risks, as has been determined by the Commission, and if conversion to LEU can reduce those risks substantially, a concept endorsed by the Commission, and if LEU conversion fuel is a tallable, . that issue must be reached by the Board if placed before it. UCLA is f ree to withdraw f rom the proceedings if it doesn't like the Board's ruling on the matter, but the Board's ruling must be based on the facts and the law, not any threatened response by an Applicant unhappy with an adverse ruling.

][UCLA's argument that it could not afford the costs of conversion f

' is dubious and i rrelevant. However if it wishes to advance that argument, the University should be requi red to put forth evidence indicating no assistance available f rom outside sources and a true estimate of the i actual costs. CBG is prepared to put forth evidence contradicting both assertions by UCLA as to lack of assistance and its estimate of $500,000 cost for converting (the Staff's Matos letter estimates half that cost).

Furthermore, CBG finds it extraordinary that UCLA should argue on the one hand that it is financially qualified to safely operate this reactor, that should any safety problem develop it has the financial resources to respond appropriately, and yet to argue on the other hand that if faced

- with a $250,000 conversion cost determined by the NRC to be necessary for either safety or proliferation reasons, or both, it would be financially unable to take the requi red measures. UCLA cannot have its cake and eat i t too. Either it can afford to safely operate the reactor, and thus can make the necessary fuel modification if determined necessary, or it isn't financially capable of safely operating the reactor and must have its license denied on financial qualifications grounds._7 CBG has, throughout this proceeding, attempted to act responsibly in not blindly opposing UCLA's license request but rather advancing specific safety, envi ronmental, and common defense concerns and showing how those concerns could be resolved (e.g., raise the exhaust stack, move the roof air inlet, put in decay tanks, convert to LEU, etc.). This is the usual fashion in which ASLBs r3 solve concerns verified in the hearing process, through grant of license with certain specified conditions.

But the University appears to be trying to improperly influence

^

Board decisions by threatening to withdraw its application if such conditions are even considered.

Although these threats must remain irrelevant to the Board's actual decision, they do make it imperative that the SNM issue, like the Class of License issue, be resolved early. UCLA has requested a prompt resolution of the latter issue; to that request we add our request for prompt resolution of the former. Thus CBG respectfully requests a prompt decision on its motion for summary disposition of Contention Xill, and the setting of a i

May date for hearing on any remaining matters related thereto.

l l

111. Conclusion The recent letter forwarded by Staff f rom the RERTR program at Argonne Labs indicates there is no longer any genuine dispute as to the t

0 l current availability of TRIGA LEU, the near-term availability of advanced

~

~

high-density LEU, and the insignificant effects, if any, conversion would have on flux. In light of this new development, CBG respectfully requests immediate ruling by the Board on its motion for partial summary disposition of Contention XIII, and the setting of a May hearing date for any disputes remaining thereon, with the exception of the criticality matter, which should awai t the summer safety hearings. The Class of License issue can also be heard in May if the Applicant continues to desi re an early resolution of that matter.

Respectfully submitted, d n:

Daniel 'Hi rsch President W-Committee to Bridge the Gap dated this fif teenth day of March,1983 at Los Angeles, California l

J

i -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD in the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-142

)

) (Proposed Renewal of THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ) Facili ty License)

CALIFORNI A )

)

(UCLA Research Reactor) '

)

)

DECLARATION OF SERVICE I hereby declare that copies of the attached "CBG MEMORANDUM AND MOTION REGARDING HEARING SCHEDULING MATTERS" and "CBG MOTION FOR EXPEDITED RULING ON ITS SEPTEMBER 7,1982, MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION Xlli, AND THE SETTING OF A MAY HEARING DATE FOR ANY REMAINING ISSUES AS TO CONTENTION Xill" 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: March 15,1983. Where a single asteri sk (*) is marked , i t indicates service by express mail. Where a double as te ri sk (**) i s ma rked , I t indicates service by hand on March 16, 1983

• John H. F rye , I l l , Chai rman Chief, Docketing and Service Section Dr. Emmoth A. Luebke, Member Office of the Secretary E D r. Oscar H. Paris U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 1 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C. 20555 lq U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ig Washington, D.C. 20555 Christine Helwick Glenn R. Woods

• Colleen P. Woodhead Office of General Coupsel Counsel for NRC Staff 590 Universi:y Itall U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2200 University Avenue Washington, D.C. 20555 Berkeley, CA 94720

• • Mr. Vi lliam Cormier Mr. John Bay Of fice of Administrative Vice Chancellor 3755 Divisadero #203 University of California San Francisco, CA 94123 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Ms. Dorothy Thompson

• • Ms. Lynn Na li bof f 6300 wilshi re #1200 City Attorney's Office Los Angeles, CA 90048

-City of Santa Monica j j- City Hall /

1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 ,

~

,#']

d DanieI Hi rsch President L(i Committee to Bridge the Gap S

E-