ML20072T563
| ML20072T563 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1983 |
| From: | Cormier W CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8304080200 | |
| Download: ML20072T563 (7) | |
Text
,
DOCKETED UMi?C
'83 RPR -7 pg :05
' SE W i.
- d'
-Q[jE24'1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-142 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
)
(Proposed Renewal of Facility OF CALIFORNIA
)
License Number R-71)
)
April 1, 1983 (UCLA Research Reactor)
)
)
UNIVERSITY'S RESPONSE TO CBG'S REQUEST FOR AN EXPEDITED RULING ON CONTENTION XIII DONALD L. REIDHAAR GLENN R. WOODS CHRISTINE HELWICK' 590 University Hall 2200 University Avenue Berkeley', California 94720 Telephone:
(415) 642-2822 Attorneys for Applicant' THE REGENTS _OF THE-UNIVERSITY:
OF CALIFORNIAE 8304000200 8'0401 3
PDR ADOCK 05000142 9
PDR c
I.
INTRODUCTION In its March 23, 1983 Memorandum and Order (" Order")
the Board directed that responses to CBG's motion for expedited ruling on Contention XIII be filed within the time specified'in the Rules of Practice.
University requested an extension of time to respond.
An extension was granted and University was directed to respond by April 4, 1983.
CBG requests an immediate ruling on its Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention XIII, and a prompt scheduling for hearing of.whatever matters remain in dispute thereon.
University objects to the relief requested by CBG on the grounds that University has not been given an opportunity to fully respond to CBG's motion for summary disposition and because the specific relief requested is beyond the scope of that which 4
can be granted in this proceeding.
l II.
DISCUSSION In accordance with the procedures established by the Board, University has not'had an opportunity to present'its arguments that the matters raised in CBG's motion for summary disposition are not material-to its Contention XIII.
- Moreover, the Board has yet to decide University's and' Staff's motions-for S
summary disposition.of Contention XIII; indeed, CBG has not completed its responses to these motions.
The motions for summary disposition should be fully briefed and the Board should render its decision on the material facts that are genuinely disputed before matters are set for hearing.
University does note that CBG's motion for summary disposition of Contention XIII and its instant motion for an expedited ruling are generally concerned with the " availability" of an alternative low-enrichment uranium fuel (LEU) for use at-UCLA's Argonaut reactor facility.
In effect, CBG is requesting a determination by the Board that UCLA's license application be rejected forthwith because it proposes the continued use of high-enrichment uranium fuel when the Commission's policy, as interpreted by CBG, is to require facilities such as UCLA to convert to low-enrichment fuel.- Presumably, the determination that CBG seeks would be equally applicable to all other research reactor facilities that use high-enrichment fuel.
University is requesting a renewal of.its license to continue to use the high-enrichment uranium fuel-(HEU) it currently possesses, Although the Board can refuse to grant the license request if it determines that use of.the fuel requested poses an unacceptable risk to the public safety, the University respectfully submits that it is outside the Board's authority to require the licensee to apply for a license it does.not seek.
University is
1 entitl'ed to an oppGrtunity to demonstrate that the use of HEU at its facility does not pose an unacceptable risk to public health and safety.
i University wants to correct the mischaracterization of its position that has been made by CBG.
University does not j
" refuse" to switch to LEU.
It is unable to convert to LEU for practical reasons.
Before the high-density LEU. developed.by
)
Argonne National Laboratory or, for that matter, the TRIGA LEU fuel (in a " rodded-geometry") could be considered "available" for use in UCLA's Argonaut reactor, it would have to be tested (in such a reactor) and then specifically approved for licensing by the NRC.
Furthermore, UCLA would have to re-do the safety analyses upon which its current license application is based.
(Surely, CBG could not be suggesting that.any conversion be undertaken with a thorough re-analysis of the effect the changed-fuel geometry or other fuel characteristic would-have on the basic safety analysis for the reactor.
In any case,. University 4
would not consider a conversion until all the safety matters were re-examined.)
Furthermore, absent some contrary determination by.the Commission, the change from HEU to LEU would constitute a.
i significant change in the application.
University would be expected to essentially withdraw its current application and resubmit a new one supported by newly-conducted safety i
a analyses.
.It is likely that the intervention and hearing procedure 1would have to be re-instituted-to account for the~ changed circumstances.
The. costs of conversion are not simply the costs of procuring the alternative fuel -(discussed in the "Matos.
letter" cited by -CBG).
The costs would include the costs-of procurement, costs of reprocessing the spent fuel, ' costs of-transportation, costs of re-doing the safety analyses, costs of a newly-instituted hearing procedure, and the intangible-costs occasioned by the severe interruption to University's educati'nal and research programs.
As a practical: matter,.
o University could not prudently spend its funds to support such 1
a conversion.
i Finally, University understands that the Commission does not intend to implement its general-policy.on HEU and LEU ~
fuels by requiring existing research reactor.HEU-users tx) convert to LEU.
Since-the Commission's-regulations.do-not' require conversion to LEU in-the case of HEU-users /like UCLA, generic questions would.be~ raised by any licensing boardIdeter--
mination that such a conversion was required solely-on!the.basias
~
of the Commission's general-policy statement.,
_--._--_-.a
l 9
III.
CONCLUSION For the reasons above, Universir.y respectfully requests that the specific relief requested by CBG in its motion for an expedited ruling on Contention XIII be denied.
Dated:
April 1, 1983 DONALD L. REIDHAAR GLENN R. WOODS CHRISTINE HELWICK By: f
)L Williahn H. Cormier Representing UCLA-,
^ ^ '
1 1
j' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-142 l
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
)
(Proposed Renewal of Facility-l OF CALIFORNIA
-)
License Number R-71)
)
(UCLA Research Reactor)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the attached:
UNIVERSITY'S RESPONSE TO CBG'S REQUEST FOR AN EXPEDITED RULING ON CONTENTION XIII.
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:
April 4, 1983 John H. Frye, III, Chairman
- Mr. Daniel Hirsch Administrative Judge Cte. to Bridge the Gap ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 1637 Butler Avenue,-$203 i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Los' Angeles, CA 90025 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. John Bay, Esq.
Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke*
3755-Divisadero #203 Administrative Judge San Francisco, CA 94123 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Daniel Hirsch-Washington, D.C. 20555
-Box 1186
~
j' Ben Lomond,;CA 95005.
Dr. Oscar H. Paris l
Administrative Judge
' Nuclear' Law' Center ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD c/o Dorothy Thompson l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6300_Wilshire Blvd., #1200' Washington, D.C.
20555 Los Angeles,'CA 90048'
{
j Counsel for the NRC Staff
.Ms. Lynn G. Naliboff OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR-Deputy City Attorney,
^
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission City Hall Washington, D.C.
20555 1685 Main--Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Chief, Docketing and Service Section OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 h
i-
' WILLIAM H. CORMIER, l
UCLA Representative
- Express mail April 3,11983.
THE REGENTS:OFfTHE UNIVERSITY 4
OF: CALIFORNIA-
..J
~ ~ ~
'. ~
-