ML20082M248

Opposes Continued Reactor Operation While Safety Unproven

ML20082M248
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	11/29/1983
From:	Davidson J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	NRC
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8312060068
Download: ML20082M248 (2)

Text

~

r

'?::l T. G.Q.....cl.Q..,2... 0 L N o v e m b e r 2 9 ) O.fl 9.8 3

' ~~---

Your Honor:

~83 DEC -5 A10 :41 I thought you should see the' enclosed arN: g}gRANCH,if{g.

f today's UCLA Daily Bruin.

,, g aq, If, as UCLA's Cormier says, the staff of the N.R.C.

does not fully understand the technical issues in the UCLA reactor case, this is indeed cause for concern.

It reminds me of lines I read somewhere long ago:

If a fire starts in water Who will put out this fire?

If fear comes from the Protector Who will protect us from this fear?

If the regulatory agency doesn't understand the technology it is to regulate, where is the concerned but confused ordinary citizen to turn?

O For my part, I tend to agree with CBG's Aftergood who is quoted as saying that it is " imprudent to allow the UCLA reactor to continue to operate" while its safety is unproven.

Sincerely yours,

/1 l/

,C Jdrome Davidson 8322060068 831129 DR ADOCK 05000142 PDR

'DSD3

f Bo:lter relicensing Reactor Reactor hearings to face delays Cononued f,o m page 1 preser.ted when UCLA originally submitted testimony last By Robina Luther, Staff Writer summer.

Aftergood said the NRC judges were " furious" with UCLA because of the magnitude of the material submitted as rebuttal resolb that the UCLA nuclear reactor controversv would be Ho soon were dashed last week when tfie Nuclear testimony. He said it would take CBC two to three weeks to cross examine all of UCLA's rebuttal.

Regulatory Commission's Licensing Board decided to delay the relicensing hearings which had been scheduled to resume today. ( Chuck Ashbaugh, a research engineer at UCLA,s nuclear, Committee to Bridge the Gap, the anti-nuclear group which f energy lab, defended the amount of testimony submitted, and has been fighting UCLA's reactor relicensing effort for the last said UCLA was forced to present a large quantity of rebuttal three years, will submit a motion in early December requesting tectimony because during the hearings the judges allegedly that the Boelter Hall reactor be shut down until the NRC boarg accepted testimony from CBC which demonstrated "their rules whether it is " inherently safe" - that it cannot overheat misunderstanding of the laws of nature,, and UCLA had to and release harmful radioactive materials into the atmosphere, (counter all the alleged inaccurate testimony in its rebuttal.

"UCLA does not want to lose the UCLA reactor reheensm, g a CBG spokesman said.

case, which will set a precedent (for other university research The board had earlier said it would entertain a motion curtailing the reactor's operation if the question of its safety reactors around the country), on some statement that is not were not resolved by Dec.10. CBG believes the board will shu't true, Ashbaugh said, explainmg why each CGB asrettion down the reactor because "it is imprudent to allow the reactor Continued on Page S to continue to operate while these safety questions remain unsnswered," CBG spokesman Steve Aftergood said.

UCLA lawyer Bill Cormier said the' NRC board does not have the authority to order a reactor shut-down because the board can only curtail operations for proven safety reasons. He i, added that the Dec.10 deadline for completion of the inherent Reactor safety phase of the hearings was "some sort of incentive to keep UCLA from delaying the hearings.

Continued from Page 6 Cormier said UCLA was ready to resume the hearings today UCLA disagrees with must be rnd blamed postponement of the hearings on CBG because, he addressed in the rebuttal said, the group was not prepared to continue its case.

J testimony.

L Aftergood said the judges delayed the hearings because CBC Aftergood said another presented the board with 50 pages of objections to UCLA's cause for the delay was that rebuttal testimony, claiming that UCLA's 140 pages of rebuttal "UCLA didn't answer the testimony is "inappropriati because it goes beyond the scope of main questicJi the board Th

~i hearings N INube UC ths h:arings and introduces material that should have been wanted UCLA to answer -

Contmued on Page 6

'How does the reactor shut supplemental analysis of thE itself down in the event of a reactor's water release process,

,TW

.j power excursion (a dan h,

R

{

amount of excess power).gerous a response from UCLA oa CBG's objections to UCLA*g Ashbaugh clanned diagrams rebuttal testimony, a response

=

,,. 9 !

included in the written test 2-to the antici ated CBG mo<

mony UCLA submitted earher tion to shut fown the reactos g

explain how the reactor shuts until the hearings conclude, e T

9{ j i itself off automatically bY response from CBG om releasing the pressurized UCLA's supplemental analvc water, which stops the activi-sis, and finally, CBG's cro'ss e.,.

ty in the reactor.

m,.

of UCLA's re-We produced a detailed,, examination y

q' ; g F j.g buttal testimony.

thorough nuclear engineering The three licensing board

,s y

analysis which was understood judges will then decida L

• j g

.g f

g.

by otl er nuclear engineers, whether UCLA's reactor k 7

g but wasn't completely un-

" inherently safe'" and, barc E

derstood by,

licensing ring any other action fros the

.Y 4{

7 y,

board, Cormier said, defen-CBG, a decision could be s

t

.Wm

' ding the university s earher reached early next year.

, ' ^

4-an attorney, not an engineer, s

L 2,:

9 I testimony. Cormier noted that i

~

! the NRC board chairman is i

.,A and said, "I'm not surprised ich C

~

45 that he does not understand.

We will try to make the j

g "1-9. Q*' I'mpM~

Presentation simpler."

,,1 g

5 y["

_ _ " %sm Chuck Ashbaugh bA lk b b

/'.,, ) i

?<2?