ML20076H648

Response & Comment on IE SNM Inventory Insp Repts 50-142/83-02 & 70-0223/83-01.NRC Inventory Does Not Provide ASLB W/Sufficient Factual Basis to Establish Actual SNM Onsite.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20076H648
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	08/30/1983
From:	Bay J GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT, NUCLEAR LAW CENTER
To:
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8309060104
Download: ML20076H648 (7)

Text

._

4 DOCKETED USNRC 1 JOHN H. BAY DOROTHY THOMPSON .

2 NUCLEAR LAW CENTER 83 SEP -2 N0:41 3 sA CA b48 RCE OF SECiiETAh

Telephone: (415) 393-9234 $0CKETmG & SERVICi 4

(213) 653-3973 BRANCH 5 Attorneys for Intervenor "

(Contention XX) 6 COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP 7

8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9

DEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 10 In the Matter of )

11 )

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ) Doc. No. 50-142 OL 12 OF CALIFORNIA )

) Proposed Renewal of 13 (UCLA Research Reactor) ) Facility License No.

) R-71 14 )

15 INTERVENOR COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP'S 16 RESPONSE AND COMMENT ON NRC STAFF SNM INVENTORY INSPECTION REPORT 50.-142/83-02, 70-223/83-01 18 On May 11, 1983 the Licencing Board (" Board") ordered the NRC Staff to physically inventory the SNM on hand at the Nuclear Energy Laboratory at UCLA and report its findings to the Board and parties. On July 28, 1983 the counsel for NRC Staff forwarded the resulting inventory, Inspection Report 50-142/83-02, 23 70-233/83-01 to the parties. Committee to Bridge the Gap ("CBG")

has reviewed the Staff inventory, determined that it does not 25 provide the Board with a sufficient factual basis to establish

///

28 kok O4 e30830 hjK05000242 ^

G l

i

! l I

the actual SNM on site at Applicant's facility, and hereby submits 2

the following response to the Staff inventory.1/

3 A. Summary Disposition Standard Must Be Applied.

4 At the outset we must note the underlying procedural 5

context in which the SNM inventory issue arises. Staff supported 6

by Applicant has moved for summary disposition of Contention XX.

7 In order to meet their burden and prevail, they must demonstrate 8

the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, Adickes v.

9 Kress & Co. , 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970); 10 C.F.R. S 2.732, viewing 10 the record in the light most favorable to CBG. Poller v.

11 Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 467 (1962).

12 Thus, in order for the Board to determine, without an evidenciary 13 hearing, that the less stringent standards of 10 C.F.R. S 73.67 14 should be applicable to Applicant's facility, there must be no 15 issue or question that there is less than 5,000 grams SNM on 16 site. The Staff SNM inventory does not resolve the issues and 17 questions as to the SNM on site. Thus, Applicant's and Staff's 18 burden has not been met.

19 B. SNM Inventory Discrepancies.

20 The three-page inspection report raises as many dis-21 crepancies and questions as it resolves. Unless and until these 22 discrepancies are adequately resolved, it will be impossible for 23 this Board to determine the actual amount of SNM on site. The 24 I 25

• The issue before the Board on these pages is establishing Applicant's SNM inventory. However, even if it is determined that Applicant has less than a 26 f rnula quantity of SNM, that fact is not determinative of the adequacy of Applicant's secority. At such time as the inventory issue is resolved and/or 27 the Board so directs, CBG will brief the remaining factual issues.

28

I I most significant of these discrepancies are set forth below:

2 1. (a). The Staff inspectors counted the stored 3 fresh fuel by a piece count and comparison to the fuel fabrica-4 tors' data. This method resulted in an inventory of 9 assemblies 5 containing 1389.96 grams of U-235. There are 11 plates in an 6 assembly; thus, the average plate contains 14.04 grams of U-235 7 (1389.96 divided by 99 = 14.04).

8 (b). Applicant's counsel has represented on 9 the record in these proceedings that the reactor core is fully 4

10 loaded, i.e., there are 264 plates in the core.

11 (c). Over the 23 years that this facility has 12 operated there would have been a fuel burn-up of no more than 23 13 grams. Therefore, if the core plates have the same average U-235 14 content as the fresh plates, and one adjusts for burn-up, one 15 finds the core inventory to be 3683.56 grams. (264 plates X 16 14.04 grams / plate = 3706.56 grams; 3706.56 - 23.00 grams burn-up 17 = 3683.56). This is 152.39 grams more U-235 than the 3531.17 18 grams reported in the inventory. (3683.56 - 3531.17 = 152.39..)

19 Taking the larger value for the core inventory and adding the

20 fresh fuel inside results in an SNM inventory for Applicant of 21 5,073.52 grams (3689.56 + 1389.96 =.5073.52), or a formula 22 quantity. There is no explanation given for this discrepancy.and 23 without such one must assume that a formula quantity does exis,t. "

24 2. On March 29, 1983 Staff counsel forwarded to 25 the Board copies of certain SNM accounting records of UCLA.

26 These reports indicated that on July 21, 1982 Applicant shipped 27 three sets of fuel plates, 55 plates each, offsite. Those 28 reports gave the U-235 content of these sets of fuel plates as

1 778 grams, 781 grams and 796 grams, respectively. Thus, the 2 average fuel plate U-235 content was reported to be:

3 778 divided by 55 = 14.14 grams / plate 4 781 divided by 55 = 14.20 grams / plate S 796 divided by 55 = 14.47 grams / plate 6 These values are each greater than the 14.04 grams / plate estab-7 lished by the current Staff inventory and tend to confirm the 8

conclusion reached in B.1 above that the inventory erroneously 9

underestimates the U-235 content of the core and that Applicant 10 continues to possess a formula quantity of SNM.

11 In sum, serious discrepancies exist in the Staff inven-12 tory, and it fails to resolve the issue of the actual SNM inven-13 tory at Applicant's facility. A genuine issue of material fact 14 exists as to the actual quantity of SNM possessed by Applicant.

15 Given the inadequacy and discrepancies raised by the Staff 16 inventory, the Board does not have before it adequate information 17 with which to determine that Applicant has less than a formula 18 quantity of SNM on site.

19 C. PuBe Sources.

20 It must be noted that it is unnecessary to include the 21 PuBe start-up sources in Applicant's SNM inventory in order to 22 establish a formula quantity on site in the manner suggested in 23 Section B above. However, as CBG has agrued throughout these 24 proceedings, and as the Board ruled on May 11, 1983, the PUBe 25 sources must be counted in determining the applicability of the 26 provisions of 10 C.F.R. 73.60. The PuBe exemption issue is the 27 subject of further briefing by the parties and will not be dealt 28

0 1 with at length here, but this inventory brings light to and under-2 scores the significance of CBG's position.

3 The inspection report inventories three PuBe sources.

4 Each of these sources has approximately 32 grams PU or the nom-5 inal equivalent of 80 grams U-235. The provisions of 10 C.F.R. 6 73.60 requires the inclusion of all SNM at a site or contiguous 7 sites under the control of the licensee. Thus, if PuBe sources 8 are included for the purposes of 10 C.F.R. 73.60, all three sources 9 must be counted, and Applicant's three sources will account for 10 240 grams U-235 equivalent. Thus, we are not arguing over a 11 possibility of a mere 5001.13 grams, but rather 5241.13 grams or 12 more of SNM.

13 - D. Conclusion.

14 For over two years now Applicant has been engaging in a 15 cat and mouse game of trying to kaep as much SNM on site as they 16 possibly can. They have attempted to stretch the fuel self-17 protection exemptions to this end, as well as arguing a technical 18 view of the PuBe exemption and shaving the fuel inventory as 19 close as possible. It is time to end this game. Unfortunately, 20 the Staff inventory is not adequate for this purpose. Therefore, 21 CBG respectfully submits that the motion for summary disposition 22 of Contention XX be denied and all parties move forward toward an 23 evidenciary hearing to resolve this matter.

24 Respectfully submitted, 25 JOHN H. BAY DOROTHYnTHOMPSON 26 NUCLEAR LAW EN R 27 By f' 9' Attorneys f6r Iptervenor 28 (Cont 6ntion XX)

Committee to Bridge the Gap

O 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 )

OF CALIFORNIA ) (Proposed Renewal of Facility (UCLA Research Reactor) ) License)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the attached INTERVENOR COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP'S RESPONSE AND COMMENT ON NRC STAFF SNM INVENTORY INSPECTION REPORT 50-142/83-02, 70-223/83-01 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 30, 1983 John H. Frye, III, Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board

• EXPRESS MAIL U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke

• EXPRESS MAIL Administrative Judge Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Glen O. Bright Administrative Judge

• EXPRESS MAIL Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Chief, Docketing & Service Section (3)

Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Ms. Colleen P. Woodhead William H. Cormier Of fice of Administrative Vice Chancellor University of California 405 Hilgard Avenue Los Angeles, California 90024

i

~

Christine Helwick Glenn R. Woods i l

Office of General Counsel 590 University Hall 2200 University Avenue Berkeley, CA 94720 Lin Naliboff Deputy City Attorney Office of the City Attorney City Hall 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Committee to Bridge the Gap 1637 Butler Avenue, Suite 203 Los Angeles, California 90025 Daniel Hirsch P.O. Box 1186 Ben Lomond, CA 95005 Dorothy Thompson Nuclear Law Center 6300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Carale F. Kagan, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 I),

'l

/ l l S-TOHN BAY Counsell for "y

Intervenor COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP