ML20088A201

Response to Applicant 840330 Rept Re Reactor Shutdown, Repair & Testing Schedule.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20088A201
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	04/06/1984
From:	Hirsch D COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP
To:
References
NUDOCS 8404110199
Download: ML20088A201 (9)

Text

Y e, Le DOCKETED USNRC COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP April 6, 1984 1637 Butler Avenue, Suite 203 '84 APR 10 R2:34 Los Angeles, California 90025 (213) 478-0829 , ,

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

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY Docket No. 50-142 0F CALIFORNIA )

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

) _

CBG'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MARCH 30 REPORT AS TO REACTOR SHUT 00WN, REPAIR, AND TESTING SCHEDULE I. Introduction On February 2, the UCLA reactor was found to be in violation of its technical specifications because the control blade system, for some unknown prior period, was not functioning in the time frame required for rapid shutdown of the reactor.

Believing the problem may be radiolytic decomposition of lubricant, the facility was shut down until repairs could be made and compliance restored.

The next week, a prehearing conference occurred at the reactor, yet the Board and parties were not informed that the reactor had suffdred the malfunction and was shutdown and would remain shutdown for some period.

By letter dated March 2 and costmarked several days thereafter, counsel for UCLA informed the Board and parties of these developments that had occurred a month earlier.

On March 8 and 9, UCLf an ounced that it had acceded in part to demands of Assembl.ymen Gray Davis and Mike Roos to shut the reactor down during the upcoming Olympics and to 8404110199 840406 DR ADOCK 05000 ( _j .

4 put up a'few concrete vehicle barricades outside the reactor building and post.some_ guards during the Olympics. The University continued to refuse to shi,p, the fuel off-site during the Olympics, although Assemblyman Davis indicated that the cost of such shipment would be approximately one third that of the cost of the security measures involved. ' Davis continued to press for eventual off-shipment and conversion of the reactor to low enriched uranium.

By letter of March 14, counsel for CBG informed the Board and parties of the University's announcement of March 9, including the fact that, upon inquiry by reporters, the University admitted that the reactor was already shutdown for repairs and would remain shutdown through the Olympics. CBG expressed concern that UCLA failed to inform the Board and parties of these developments and the related February 2 malfunction and shutdown deveTopments.

During the same time period, the Board Chairman wrote to UCLA indicating that he had seen in the Washington Post of the weekend of March 10-11 an article indicating the reactor was to be shutdown during the'0lympics and directing that the Board be informed regarding whether what it had read in the paper was indeed the case.

By. letter dated March 14, but once again postmarked three days later, Counsel for UCLA informed the Board of the matters referred to in CBG's letter of the 14th.

In its March 14 letter, CBG suggested to the Board that the core opening would provide an opportunity to inspect the core configuruation to see whether the representations made by UCLA's Ostrander as to water escape pathwa;'s during a power. excursions, based as they were on memories of a decade ago, were accurate, and that certain other observations related to the graphite (spaces for airf. low during fire, lack of thermal contact between graphite logs, Wigner energy, and so on) could also occur. CBG also expressed-the view that the Board should have been timely informed of these matters as the matter before the Board was now whether-restart should.be permitted absent an affirmative safety finding, rather than whether it should be shut down.

.-g

In its March 22 Order, the Board responded to one of.the matters in the CBG letter, that of potential for observations related to the safety issues in the proceeding, directing UCLA to explain in detail the maintenance anticipated, the schedule for said maintenance and restart, and its views on the potential for observations of significance to

.the safety issues in the proceeding. Upon receipt of said UCLA nepo'rt, the other parties were to respond.

II. Discussion UCLA's letter of March 30 states as follows:

(a) there is no schedule for maintenance or restart, (b) such a schedule will not even be considered by the

~

University until after the Olympics in August, (c) observations related to the safety issue can.thus not, in UCLA's view, occur in this phase _of the proceedings, (d) UCLA desires that those observations not occur--and in fact no independent.

observers be present--when the core is opened sometime after August but rather some mon'ths thereafter after it has had an opportunity to " redefine" aspects of the core configuration, and (d) that UCLA intends to, in. addition to aforementioned

" redefinition" of aspects of its existing testimony on where the water goes in a power excursion, take measurements (" attempt to measure") of.Wigner energy stored.in graphite at core center.

CBG's Response

. The UCLA letter is most unsatisfactory in providing details as requested by the Board. It does, however, make certain remarkable revelations. One, after the Board being forced to violate its own rules on permissible rebuttal and permit'in improper rebuttal because it was viewed as essential

~

.to a full record, the University now announces that the substantive-basis'of both pieces.of testimony-(Pearlman on Wigner, Ostrander on power excursion) will be altered--sometime after this phase of the-hearing. Pearlman's testimony essentially asserts that

c t CBG is wrong in its testimony when it asserts that actual measurements of stored energy at the UCLA reactor should be made. CBG presented calculations based on the Battelle methodology showing that the storage could be quite high; Pearlman finally presents calculations (which CBG_ believes are quite' wrong) that that methodology, with certain alterations, would indicate that the storage could be quite low, and that measurements are unnecessary.

However, it is the Pearlman testimony that is now unnecessary.

After years of refusing,.UCLA now agrees to permit measurements to be made. The entire issue of the Pearlman testimony is now moot, because it is there to assert no' measurements should be conducted. Measurements will be conducted, and it is measurements that will tell us how much Wigner energy is in the reactor graphite--if the measurements are conducted in a scientifically controlled and accurate, independent experiment.

Likewise with the Ostrander "where does the water go" testimony. The core will be opened uo, and we can see whether he i s ' right. Apparently fearing that, UCLA wishes no one present when,the core is opened until after it has had a chance to alter the evidence, and "redef'ine" both the substance and basis of ths 0 strander testimony. However, in both cases, UCLA wishes the Board to go ahead with this phase of the proceeding, although for some unexplained reason, actual evidence which will make moot UCLA's submissions in this phase will not be available until sometime

. after.this-phase.

CBG cannot understand--and UCLA does not explain--why if the maintenance is. lubricating bearings and replacing gaskets, that does not occur in the four months before the Olympics.

UCLA implies the reactor will sit idle until then; after the Olympics, they will begin to consider a schedule for repairs, which will take some months thereafter. And UCLA wishes to delay any

~ observations until - the end of that period, af ter it has altered the evidence and the reactor upon which the application is based.

'f -' '

i 4

CBG perceives the UCLA March 30 letter as proof positive of its concerns about the Board's March 22 Order. Permitting in late-filed m:terial, violating the Board's rules thereon, saying that we would start at the beginning again with regards the evidentiary heari ng , is a grant of carte-blande for any additional delaying late-filed new material. UCLA tells the Board, go ahead and have a hearing, but be on notice that we we will change our testimony again (" redefine" the escape pathways) and will come in with Wigner data, even after close of the record.

OCLA's assertions that it wishes no one present when the core is. opened is a blatant attempt at covering uo evidence until it can be altered. The excuse about health physics reasons is nonsense--the decay curves are such that there is very little difference after seven months than after ten. Furthermore, if it is safe for the core to be uncovered for many months, given the gamma shine to the people in offices above the reactor, and if it is safe enough for people to do maintenance work in the core itself and with the f.uel over a period of months, then a few mindtes or hours of observation at some distance must be permissible as well .

Lastly, that is a choice for the individuals to make, not the withholder of the evidence.

The second argument that it is more relevant to the issues involved in the case to examine the core af ter they have had a chance to alter the evidence is nonsense. The reactor must be safe for the full license period, which may (and probably will) entail several times of unstacking and rebuilding. In the past, before the last major maintenance, the core was opened and unstacked every year or two. There are no technical specification requirements about water escape pathways. It is relevant how it is now (the application applied for); it may also be relevant how they can try to alter it; but it also relevant how it may be re-altered in future openings. Observers should be present both when the core is opened and closed.

) -

As to the proposed Wigner measurements, these should be done under a' controlled experiment, with clear proof (requiring independent observers) of the locations wherethe graphite was taken, duplicate samples for duplicate, independent measurements, and a scientific protocol for the experiment that meets standards of acceptable control. UCLA proposes to measure graphite at core center, whereas it now admits the flux is higher near the boxes; the height of the locations where the samples are taken are also important because of varying temperatures and annealing rate's.

A sufficient number of samples must be taken from various locations, there must be duplicate samples; from each location independently measure'd, and the experiment should be done in normal double-blind scientific fashion. CBG is now arranging to conduct its own measurements independetly.

As to the schedule, it appears from UCLA's assertions that the reactor is to.be shu'tdown through the end of the year, if not longer. It should be noted that this in no way removes the risks of this facility, and that delay in resolving them only exacerbates the problems. Power excursions are more likely in shutdown reactors undergoing maintenance than even at other times, as-evidenced by the SL-1 and RA-1 disasters. Fire similarly (see Battelle study to that effect). Theft is more of a problem during shutdown because what little self-protection the fuel has decays, making it easier to steal. Arson is more of a problem; sabotage remains a substantial problem (the long-lived isotopes are.not going-to decay in a shutdown of a few months).

Th e re fo re , the relief requested in CBG's January 9 motion for license suspension until such time as the safety of the facility is resolved remains essential, perhaps even more so now. It would be no burden for the University, as the reactor'is to be shutdown anyway, they have no use for either the license nor the SNM during.this period. It will save them considerable money because the shipment cost is so much less than the cost of security, necessitated during the Olympics if the material is on site. .And since the Commission is preparing a rule that u

E. g,

1

• will require UCLA's conversion to LEU, UCLA is going to have to' ship the material off anyway. CBG believes that the arguments made in its January 9 motion that the violation of the timely application rule necessitate under law the revocation of the expired license are underscored by the March 30 UCLA letter, which tells the Board that additional measurements (in fact, the answer to the entire Wigner contention) and " redefinition" of the water escape pathways (resolution of the central matter of the central issue in the cas.e, as seen by the Board) will not be found in the original application, the revised application, the direct testimony, the rebuttal testimony, or the revised rebuttal testimony it has submitted, but that the Board must wait at'least-another year or so for that informatior, which should have been in the original application to begin with. Timely application requires expiration of license if timely application

.(and sufficient application, as made clear in the case law and APA) are not provided. UCLA's March 30 letter tells the Board that sufficient application to resolve even the preliminary inherent safety issues remains a year off, at least, let alone the remaining issues. Restart should not be permitted without Board approval, and license should be revoked in the interim, with the SNM shipped off because of lapse of possession authorization.

III. CONCLUSION

1. UCLA should be required to explain exactly what its intentions

'are--why is the reactor to remain shut for months.without maintenance

. efforts even being considered?

(

2. There should be an evidence preservation order--core should not be permitted to be opened without notifying the Board and

. parties in advance and permitting them to be present for independent observation.

l

3. A proposed experimental protocol for measuring the Wigner energy in the graphite should be submitted by UCLA and CBG (and Staff if it. wishes), and comments permitted by each on the other's proposal. ;The Board should then establish the acceptable

i protocol,fidentifying number of samples to be taken and location thereof, system for double-blinding, and one sample from each location should be provided to CBG and one to UCLA for independent measurement.

4. . The reactor thould not be permitted to restart without Board' approval and resolution of the outstanding safety issues.

5. CBG's motion for license suspension of January 9, which has not been acted upon, should be expeditious determined.

R sp ctfu mitted, Daniel Hirsc President

. dated at Santa Cruz, CA April 6, 1984-4 J

1 '

., l

\

1 l

[ UNITED STATES OF AVERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION  ;

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFEPY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket No. 50-142 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (Proposed Renewal of (UCLA Research Reactor)

DECIARATION OF SERVICE I hereby declare that copies of the attached: CBG'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MARCH 30 REPORT AS TO REACTOR 5HUlUUWN. REPAIR, ANU ltbilN6 dLHtDULt __

in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United as indicated, States on this date:mail,Aprilfirst class 6, 884 1 postage prepaid, addressed 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 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke 2200 University Avenue Administrative Judge Berkeley, CA 94720 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. John Bay Vashington, D.C. 20555 3755 Divisadero #203 San Francisco, CA 94123 Glenn O. Bright Administrative Judge Ignn Naliboff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Deputy City Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission City Hall Washingtcal, D.C. 20555 1685 Main Street Chief, Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Dorothy Tho.'::pson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear law Center Washington, D.C. 20555 6300 Wilshire Blvd., #1200

Counsel for NRC Staff *'

l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. . Y.ag Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic e icensing Board Panel

! attention: Ms. Colleen Woodhead U.S ucle ulato oraission l Washingtor, D.C. 20555

[ William H. Cormier p Office of Administ2ative Vice Chancellor f University of California /  %

405 Hilgard Avalue / '

ad---

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

.,, - , , - - e- - ., - y-- r. ,