ML20080G751

Memorandum as to Committee to Bridge the Gap Witness Panel Composition,Per ASLB 830902 Memorandum & Order.Declaration of Svc Encl

ML20080G751
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	09/14/1983
From:	Hirsch D COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP
To:
Shared Package
ML20080G740	List: ML20080G737 ML20080G751
References
NUDOCS 8309200348
Download: ML20080G751 (7)

Text

.. .

00CMETED USNRC

'C0FXITTEE TO BRIDGE TEE GAP 1637 Butler Avenue, Suite 203 gemg g, gg8j9 Los Angeles, California 90025 (213) 478-0829 0FFICE OF SECRETARM 00CKETitiG & SERVICL BRANCH UNITED STATES & AMERICA NUCIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket No. 50-142 OL THE REGENTS OF TEE UNIVERSITY

& CALIFORNIA (Proposed Renewal of

• I '"**

(UCLAResearch' Reactor)

MEMORANDUM AS TO CBG WITNESS PANEL COMPOSITION I. Introduction Ch June 14, 1983, CBG filed its direct testimony for the inherent safety hearings. The Board, in its Memorandum and Order of September 2,1983, asked CBG to furnish information on the composition of each panel and the principal contributions of each witness to the testimony, which is contained herein.

CBG notes at the outset that its panel testimony is indeed testinony by panel, where contributions have been collaborative in nature and where answers to questions regarding that testimony will in general also be collaborative.

The matters being litigated in these inherent safety hearings are complex technical issues requiring a variety of expertise. For this reason, witness panels are often utilized in NRC hearings, recognized in such a procedure that no one member of the panel will possess the variety of skills and experience necessary to permit him to endorse and explain the entire testimony.

Consumers Power Co_. (Fidland Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-379, 5 NRC 565, 569 (1977),

i .'~

0309200348 830914 PDT. ADOCK 05000142 l G PDR

The C3G testimony represents essentially a Safety Analysis Report or Safety Evaluation Report--in four. chapters with an introduction--prepared by a team of experts brought together by the Committee to Bridge the Gap, with the assistance of the Southern California Federation of Scientists, to review a series of safety questions related to the UCLA reactor. As the issues analyzed are complex and cross the lines of numerous disciplines, the experts were selected from a variety of professional disciplines. They worked in a collegial fashion on these analyses.

This is not dissimilar to the Staff arranging for a national laboratory to conduct a complex analysis, 'with the assumption that the lab would draw -on a team of people with different expertise. While no one expert may have the range of expertise necessary to have prepared the full analysis alone, they do so collectively. And while none could have written the full testimony without the contributions of the others--indeed, there would be no need to have obtained the services of'other experts-- the analysis represents their collective conclusions.

And, much like a decision by an Atomic Safety ard Licensing Board represents the collective conclusions of the three members of the Board, each with different expertise, separating out who is solely responsible for each sentence is essentially impossible. Areas of primary contribution, however, can be identified, ard are so in what follows. It should be clearly understood, however, that when it is indicated that, for example, the pricary contribution of a particular reactor physicist was in a particular power excursian matter, that does not mean he drew his conclusions alone. Quite the contrevy. The conclusions were molded 1

[ The problems occasicned by Staff putting forth only the most junior of the three people responsible for the httelle study are not duplicated here, as CBG

is putting forth the whole panel.

i

and modified by input and review by others from their area of expertise--

input from a theoretical physicist, for example, on neutron behavior, and from people familiar with site specific characteristics of this particular reactor. Conclusions about reactor fire potential rested on chemists familiar with the combustibility of caterials, physicists familiar with radiation effects on graphite, mechanical engineers familiar with airflow analysis, and so on. Each contributed in their area of expertise, and each received input from others in their areas of expertise.

II. The Witnesses and Their Primary Responsibilities Boyd Norton Mr. Norton uss formerly the Group Leader of the Nuclear Test Section of SPERT and the Section Chief, Experiment and Analysis Section, of the Power Burst Facility at the National Reactor Testing Station, in charge of the Safety Analysis Report for PEF.

He is primarily responsible, along with Dr. Kaku, for the power excursion analysis which constitutes Panel I, as well as those aspects of the other panels which relate to power excursion natters. In addition, he made contributions to the other panels in areas where hands-on reactor experience was useful, and, in cooperation with Dr. Kaku, provided a framework for the over-all safety review.

Dr. Fichio Kaku Dr. Kaku is Associate Professor of Theoretical Physics at the City University of New York, with expertise in reactivity calculations, neutron transport theory, metal-water reactions, and the history of non-power reactor accidents.

Along with Fr. Norton, Dr. Kaku provided overall framework and technical supervision for the safety review. He and Mr. Norton are primarily responsible for the power excursion analysis in Panel I. He is primarily responsible for the theoretical physics aspects of the Wigner energy analysis and the review of the modelling of fuel-crushing effects on the nolecular level, and in cooperation with other panelists, fisst on product release fraction estimates.

Dr. Roland Finston Chief of Radiation Protection at Stanford University, Dr. Finston's primary area of contribution was in dose assessment and related radiation matters and aspects of health physics practice detailed in Panel IV.

Dr. Iowell Wayne A chemist and environmental scientist with expertise in chemistry, industrial hygience, and behavior of pollutants in the Ics An6eles Air Basin.

Dr. Wayne is primarily responsible, with the assistance of Er.

Aftergood, for the dipsersion part of Panel IV, and with the assistance of Pt. duPont, the chemistry aspects of Panel II (as opposed to the hysics aspects, which were largely provided by Drs. Kaku and Kohn .

David duPont A chemist colleague of Dr. Wayne's at the Southern California Federation of Scientists, Mr. duPont assisted primarily in the s area of Wigner energy.

Steven Aftergood Staff engineer at CBG, Pt. Aftergood performed the calculations of dose and dispersion found in Panel IV, under the review and direction of Drs. Finston and Wayne. He also acted as Assistant Project Manager, helping coordinate the day-to-day activities of the panels and as research assistant to the panels, conducting literature searches on their behalf and review of site-specific documentation.

1 Daniel Hirsch Visiting lecturer at the University of California on energy matters; Project Fanager for CBG of the UCIA reactor safety review. With the assistance of Mr. Aftergood, coordinated the day-to-day work of the experts, reporting to }&. Norton and Dr. Kaku for overall supervision. Primary area of contribution auide from coordination and research assistance in the form of literature review was provision of site-specific information regarding Argonauts and maintenance of supporting documentation.

Dr. Roger Kohn Physicist and systems analyst. Review of the Battelle modelling assumptions on Wigner energy and skin depth and exposed i surface area in crushed fuel in light of available empirical data were the primary areas of centribution.

Miguel Pulido. Eechanical engineer with EcCaughey & Smith Energy Concultante, specializing in heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems, air leakage through structures, and airflow matters generally.

Mr. Pulido's primary area of contribution was in review of interaction of the HVAC systems in terms of dispersion and fire, air leakage pathways in the reactor structure and the NEL facility, and review, 4th the assistance of..Dr. Plotkin, of HVAC and related drawings as well as personal inspection of piping and airflow pathways at the facility.

g. Plotkin Safety engineer with S.C. Plotkin & Associates consulting engineering firm. Inspected (with Pulido, Aftergood, Hirsch, and duPont)

SL; responsible for the photographs (although others were present at time taken); helped coordinate the work of the SCFS experts; and assisted in review of the drawings. Primary area of contribution:

physical site characteristics. Secondary contributions assisted in the fire and fuel crushing review with inputs from safety engineering experiences fundamental principles of conservative safety analysis.

Louis Foster Fornerly involved in radiation nonitoring, particularly regarding iodino behavior, at nuclear facilities for SAI. Contributed to the iodine dose and dispersion analysis in Panel IV and review of the potentials for radiation exposure throu6h dneting, based on }t. Pulido's finiings from the HVAC drawings.

In short, the power excursion analysis was primarily the work of Fr. Norton and Dr. Kaku. The chemical aspects of Panel II were primarily the responsibility of Dr. Wayne, with the assistance of Fr. duPont. The physics

. aspects of that Panel were provided by Drs. Kaku and Kohn. Dr. Finston was

. primarily responsible for the dose assessment aspects of Panel IV, with Dr. Wayne

. primarily responsible for the atmospheric dispersion aspects; both were assisted by Mr. Aftergood, who performed the actual calculations under their supervision.

Review of site characteristics, based on personal inspection and review of the drawings, was conducted primarily by engineers Pulido, Plotkin, and Aftergood.

Pulido was responsible for airflow analysis regaztling the reactor structure and facility, both regarding fire and dispersion. Er. Foster assisted Drs.

Finston and Wayne with the dose and dispersion analysis and the streaming

potentials through the ducting. Drs. Kohn and Kaku reviewed the Wigner and fuel ~ shattering issues from the physics vantagepoint--radiation effects on materials and propriety of modelling assumptions employed by Staff or Applicant in the absence of- empirical data. - Ft. Hirsch and Mr. Aftergood performed day-to-day cocrdination of the panels, reporting to Dr. Kaku and Er. Norton who provided the overall technical framework for the safety review; Fr. Hirsch and Mr. Aftergood also acted as research assistants, performing literature searches on behalf of the other witnesses and providing site-specific information about Argonaut characteristics. Input from hands-on reactor experience and research experience on fuel metallurgy was provided by FM. Norton.

It should lereiterated that the above description of prirary areas of responsibility does not, and indeed cannot, include all the secondary and > tertiary contributions made by each of the panelists, as the analysis process was. indeed collegial, but it does detail primary areas of responsibility.

III. Fanel Composition Panel i Kaku, Norton, Hirsch, Aftergood Panel I Kaku, Norton, Hirsch, Aftergood Panel II Wayne, Kaku, Kohn, Norton, Plotkin, Pulido, duPont, Hirsch, Aftergood Panel III Kaku, Kohn, Norton, Hirsch, Aftergood, Plotkin Panel E Vayne, Finston, Aftergood, Kaku, Foster, Pulido, Plotkin, Norton, Hirse:

Re ecthullysumited, dated this 14th day of September /

1983, at Een Lomond, CA Daniel Mrse f

I L

l l

t-r

. _ . . . _ . . _ _ - -. . . _ . . . . _ . . _ . . _ . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - ~ - . _

- ~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BCARD t

In the Matter of }

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

DECIARATION OF SERVICE I hereby declare that copies of the attached: EEMORANDUM AS TO CBC WITNESS PANEL COMPOSITICN E the above-captioned proceeding hase been served on the following by dt. a't in the United States mail, first class, postage Prepaid, addressed as . acated, on this dates sentember 14. 1981 .

f John H. Frye, III Chairman Christine Helwick Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Glenn R. Woods U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel 590 University Hall L Dr. Eameth A. Imobke 2200 University Avenne Adminiatrative Judge Berkeley, CA 94720 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. John Bay Washington, D.C. 20555 3755 Divisadero #203 i San Francisco, CA 94123 L Glenn O. Bright '

Ad2inistrative Judge -

Ignn Naliboff l

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Deputy City Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission City Hall Washingt m , D.C. 20555 1685 Main Street Chief, Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Dorothy Thompson U.S. Nuclear Re6ulatory Commission Nuclear law Center Washington, D.C. 20555 6300 Wilshire Blvd., #1200

/, Counsel for NRC Staff .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Carole Kagan, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel attention Ms. Colleen Woodhead U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission WashingtonfD.C. 20555 l Li William H. Cormier , .

g Office of Administmtive Vice Chancellor s University of California ' j W

/ '

405 Hilgard Avenue j ,$W1,o v' b .

Los Angeles, California 90024 Daniel Hirsch President COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE CAP

-c -s , -e --e--,-w- -,.,y,. m.e~,-r r- +.,v.,- --,,.-,,,,,--,,--+---------..+--.r-sen--.r.c-- +--,.e --,. .+.,,a. - - - , - , , , - - - , . - - , - - - --