ML20073R216

Response to ASLB 830414 Order Detailing Licensee Legal Position Re Committee to Bridge the Gap Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Xvii.Summary Disposition Should Not Be Granted.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20073R216
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	04/29/1983
From:	Cormier W CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA
To:
References
NUDOCS 8305030568
Download: ML20073R216 (11)

Text

.

1 F

l D0QET,ED c.. .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 33 CY -2 fi[1:53 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 29, 1983 (UCLA Research Reactor) )

)

UNIVERSITY' S RESPONSE TO THE BOARD' S APRIL 14, 1983 ORDER CONCERNING CONTENTION XVII 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 CALIFORNIA 8305030568 830429 PDR ADOCK 05000142 O PDR bd)

I. INTRODUCTION In its April 14. 1983 Memorandum and Order (Concerning Contention XVII) (the " Order") the Board directed UCLA "to explain in detail its legal position with respect to the CBG motion; particular attention should be given to UCLA's legal objections to a grant of the motion." The motion in question is CBG's motion for summary disposition of Contention XVII (the

" Motion").1/ The Board's Order was prompted by University's 3

responses [ to CBG's March 15th response / for an immediate ruling on Contention XVII. In its response University opposed the granting of (partial) summary disposition in favor of CBG's Contention XVII, but agreed to stipulate to CBG's proposed statement of facts on two conditions.A/ The Board viewed one of University's conditions as inconsistent with the stipulation.

~

1/ Filed together on September 7, 1982 with CBG's Motion for Summary Disposition on Contention XIII.

S!" University's Response to CBG's Request for Partial Summary Disposition of Contention XVII," dated March 30, 1983 (the

" Response").

2! CBG's " Request for Immediate Ruling" was made in its March 15, 1983 letter to the Board (the " Request").

A!University opposed the granting of summary disposition as untimely. As explained herein, University imposed its two conditions solely on account of certain language contained in CBG's Request which purported to declare the effect to be given to the parties' stipulation.

L

i However, as University will demonstrate, its position on this matter is consistent. University's counsel had remarked on this matter at the last prehearing conference (Tr. 955), and had thought its r',sition was understood because the remark went unquestioned and uncha,llenged. Accordingly, in its Response, University remarked only briefly on the reasons for placing conditions on its stipulation. University recognizes now that it could have avoided the present confusion by providing a fuller explanation in its Response. That explanation is provided

herein.

i I

i j II. DISCUSSION In its March 15 Request reporting agreement with Univer-i sity on the language of the Statements of fact to which the parties 3

had agreed to stipulate, CBG stated:

i "Thus, none of the material facts affixed to CBG's motion as to Contention XVII on the seismic matter are now di.sputed by any party. The seismicity of the site, the ability of a major earthquake to damage the reactor fuel and release fission

products to the environment, and ensuing consequences of at least 10 Rem to the

! thyroid to members of the public are admitted by all parties. The only remaining i

dispute for hearing on this matter is how much greater than 10 Rem to the thyroid those doses might be."

(Emphasis in the last sentence has been added.)

The effect of the stipulation being asserted by CBG in .the last_

sentence above is unwarranted and is specifically rejected by University. CBG's logic is flawed; its concl,usion is.a trick ~as University reveals below.

,,-e. e m '

v

CBG's " statement of material facts" which it would have the parties stipulate to contains seven statements (numbers 10, i 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 as they appear in the attachment to CBG's Request) that assert events that could possibly occur. In the order intended the events are: A " major earthquake" could collapse the reactor building, which could crush the reactor core or, alternatively, earthquake induced " lateral accelerations" could

crush the reactor core, which could result in mechanical damage to the fuel, which could result in the escape of fission products, which could be accompanied by flooding of the reactor room as the result of an earthquake-induced dam failure, which could result 4

in fission product releases in the flood water, which could result in doses in unrestricted areas of at least 10 Rem to the thyroid.

From that string of meaningless speculations, CBG t

purports to extract from University an admission that the only issue for hearing is how much greater than 10 Rem to the thyroid the seismic accident doses will be. That is pure sophistry. CBG's statements are not assertions about what events are to be considered credible, but simply what events are deemed possible. As a result they cannot be strung together to fashion predictions about dose estimates and risk to the public.

More specifically, with respect to CBG's statement No. 10, University does not dispute that "a major earthquake" could collapse t

0 i

- - ~ - - a

the building and crush the reactor core; that is, that there is some major earthquake, say a Richter Scale 12 earthquake, that we might all agree would cause the damage described. But such an earthquake is not a credible occurrence for the UCLA area.

University has no idea what " major earthquake" CBG had in mind, but University could not reasonably dispute the assertion, and hence did not, because CBG could always describe some major earthquake that could cause the damage.

With reference to this string of statements, and particularly No. 10, the Board stated in its Order:

"These facts all concern the possible effect of a major earthquake on the building housing the reactor and on the reactor itself. They do not specifically incorporate references to other facts (which UCLA does not dispute) which set out the capability of faults in the ficinity and the i probability of the occurrence of an earthquake on those faults. The capabilities range from 6.7 to 7.5, which are clearly major earthquakes."

(Order at 2.) .

University respectfully submits that the Board has missed Univer-sity's point. The question is not whether a magnitude 6.7 to 7.5 (Richter Scale) earthquake is " major." CBG specifically did not describe a "6.7 to 7.5" earthquake as the assumed initiating event.

CBG did not assert that an earthquake deemed credible for the UCLA site would cause the exact chain of events required to produce its '

hypothetical 10 Rem to the thyroid dose to the public. Had CBG made any such assertion it would have been vigorously disputed by the University.

I l .

The issue is not primarily whether the building can

! be damaged. Rather, it is what manner of nearly total and l instantaneous building collapse would be required to crush the i

reactor, which is basically a twelve-foot cube of graphite and reinforced concreto. University has never conceded that such an event was credible, notwithstanding that the Staff study

, assumed such an event for the purpose of performing a seismic analysis and both University and Staff intend to rely on that analysis to demonstrate that further seismic studies of the

UCLA facility are not warranted.b!

i s

1 The fact that University intends to rely on the Staff analysis to demonstrate that the reactor is safe from seismic

+

events carries no implication that University regards the assumed conditions of the analysis as credible for UCLA's facility.

Indeed, it is because certain of the assumed conditions are non-credible that the analysis is considered so highly conservative.

University reserves the right to support the conservatism of the analysis by demonstrating that certain of its assumptions are non-credible. CBG's string of statements concern a chain of events that are non-credible; University gives away nothing by conceding E!University's position as stated in Section 8 of Appendix III of the Application; in particular, at page III/8-4: -" when considering the credibility of any core crushing scenario, it should be recognized that the reactor is a dense concrete and graphite structure. The thick short spans of reinforced concrete blocks have enormous compressive strength relative to any conventional building structure. It is.by no means certain that the reactor core would-be crushed in the event of the collapse of the, reactor building."

F

that each of the non-specific statements correctly states a mere possibility. As CBG has drafted these statements they are immaterial to its Contention XVII and any other issue to be considered in this proceeding. itoreover, they are not logically related to CBG's other statements of facts submitted with CBG's Motion, which are properly concerned with events deemed credible. CBG cannot establish that the scismicity of the region will lead to endangerment of the public

as a consequence of earthquake-induced fission product releases i

at the UCLA facility because CBG has not asserted, much less demonstrated, the credibility of the specific chain of events required to produce such releases. The assertion in CBG's Request, set out at the beginning of this section, that CBG had establisned just that, should be specifically rejected by the Board.

1 It remains for University to explain the apparent inconsistency pointed out in the Board's Order in its statement:

"The second condition seems to say that UCLA will stipulate that the building could fall down in a major earthquake, but it won,'t."

Order at 3. Modified slightly, the " inconsistency" disappears:

"UCLA will stipulate that the building could fall down in some major earthquake, but no earthquake deemed credible for the UCLA site will collapse the building with such force that the reactor core is crushed in.such a manner that significant fission products ,

are released at such time as floodwaters inundate the facility with such a capacity that the public is endangered." In short, while possible, the proposed chain of events is non-credible. There is nothing inconsistent about University's position.

~a

i Finally, consider the relevant portion of CBG's Contention XVII: ,

3

"The UCLA reactor should not be licensed because the physical location and site  !

characteristics of this reactor unacceptably endanger.the public health  :

and safety . . . Specifically:

1 1. The reactor is located on one of  !

ll the most seismically active regions of the country.

j 3. The reactor sustained significant ,

damage in the 1971 earthquake.

, 4. The existence of three floors of L classrooms and offices, supported l

on columns, directly above the i i

reactor structure creates a

significant danger of collapse ,

through the reactor building roof l

i. and onto the reactor itself in the event of an earthquake . . .

1 (Emphasis added.)

I i 4 i

' t The contention is concerned with the risk of harm to 1 i

, the public. That implies a consideration not only of the  !

consequences of some event but also the probability or likelihood i-that that particular event, or any causally related chain of l

events, will occur. The consequences and likelihood *are the two necessary (material) matters that must lxn addressed, and i satisfactorily, if CBG is to prevail on its motion. University notes that although it' has the burden of proof at hearing, CBG i has the burden of proof on its motion. Moreover, CBG must '

l

j. . demonstrate ~the absence of any genuine issue of material fact l' - and the record is viewed in'the. light most favorableito University.

i 4

- 7-l.

4 9

-,,,a'- -, ,. , -- e,+<-p , e , , - ,, -

• y-e m , - y

CBG's Motion describes what it calls the " maximum credible earthquake possible (sic) at the site." Motion at 1.

However, CBG fails to relate that earthquake, whatever its magnitude, to the chain of events that is supposed to result in the fission product release. Most of CBG's asserted

" material facts not in dispute" are taken from Staff and University safety analyses. CBG has taken the conservative i

assessments and conclusions in.these analyses and attemoted to transform them into Staff and University admissions of the minimum consequences to be expected from credible events. CBG has done this to avoid having to make its own demonstration that credible seismic events could result in fission product releases.

A demonstration it could not make. CBG has not met its burden.

4 CBG's Contention XVII contains no litigable claim or allegation that can be summarily disposed on the basis of the statement of facts to which the parties are willing to stipulate.

~

Moreover, CBG does not argue for partial summary disposition on any specific allegation. Subpart 1 of the Contention is a general

~

statement of common fact that is readily conceded by all the parties and does not present a claim litigable in this proceeding. Sub-part 2 was not addressed in CBG's statement of material facts.

Subpart 3, with its assertion of a situation creating a significant danger of collapse, implies a consideration of risk, which is nowhere addressed in CBG's assertions of mere possibilities.

Accordingly, CBG's Motion must be denied.

S m y w ~ v -n- e i

l .

l l

l l III. CONCLUSION I

For the reasons above, University respectfully requests that the Board deny both CBG's Request and its Motion. University respectfully submits that the Board should not grant a (partial) summary disposition the effect of which is only to result in a l stipulation of facts among the parties and not the disposition of any actual, litigable claim or allegation. University remains prepared to stipulate to the statement of facts appended to CBG's March 15 Request on the conditions specified in University's.

Response of March 30, as further explained herein above.

Alternatively, University will agree to stipulate without conditions provided the Board explicitly rejects CBG's baseless assertion that "the only remaining dispute for hearing on this matter is how much greater than 10 Rom to the thyroid those doses might be." Finally, University submits that no further pleadings on this particular matter are necessary.

4 Dated: April 29, 1983.

j DONALD L. REIDHAAR l

GLENN R. WOODS CHRISTINE HELWICK By William H. Cormier Representative UCLA

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

l ) Docket No. 50-142 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ) (Proposed Renewal of Facility OF CALIFORNIA ) License Number R-71)

)

(UCLA Research Reactor) )

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the attached: UNIVERSITY'S RESPONSE TO THE BOARD'S APRIL 14, 1983 ORDE3 CONCERNING CONTENTION XVII 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 29, 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 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 S4123 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Daniel Hirsch Washington, D.C. 20555 Box 1186 Ben Lomond, CA 95005 Mr. Glenn O. Bright * .

Administrative Judge Nuclear Law Center ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD c/o Dorothy Thompson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6300 Wilshire Blvd., #1200 Washington, D.C. 20555 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Ms. Carole F. Kagan, Esq.* Ms. Lynn G. Naliboff ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Deputy City Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission City Hall Washington, D.C. 20555 1685 Main Street Counsel for the NRC Staff

• OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR Chief, Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

• Express mailed April 29, 1983 WV WILLIAM H. CORMI-ER UCLA Representative l THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY l

i

- OF CALIFORNIA

.