ML20088A691

Petition Per Reconsideration of ASLB Order Ruling on Committee to Bridge the Gap Objections to Rebuttal Testimony.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20088A691
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	04/06/1984
From:	Cormier W CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA
To:
References
NUDOCS 8404120414
Download: ML20088A691 (8)

Text

+11 .

T[8cED

'84 APR 12 All :13

= 35.:s.: ,

T , ; 4 s E u, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . E09 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket No. 50-142 THE REGEflTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ) (Proposed Renewal of Facility 0F CALIFORNIA ) License Number R-71)

(UCLA Research Reactor) April 6, 1984 UNIVERSITY'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF BOARD'S ORDER RULING ON CBG'S OBJECTIONS TO UCLA'S REBUTTAL TESTIMONY DONALD L. REIDHAAR GLENfl 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 e404120414 840406 DR ADOCK 05000 DSO3-

4 i

I. INTRODUCTION In its Memorandum and Order of March 22, 1984, the Board ruled j on each of CBG's objections to the prepared rebuttal testimony submitted by UCLA and Staff on November 7,1983. The Board sustained objections to certain portions of UCLA's testimony as set forth in 11 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the Board's Order (pp. 29-31). As to certain of the objections which the Board was prepared to sustain, namely, the objections to l testimony identified in 11 6 a), and 7 c), d), aad f) of the Order, the Board provided that UCLA could cure the defect in the testimony by supplying additional information. As discussed below, University requests reconsideration of 116 a), and 7 c) and f) of the Board's  !

{ Order on the basis of the additional information supplied herewith and

} of 115 b) and 7 e) on other grounds.

)

4 II. DISCUSSION i ,

i The Board sustained CBG's objection to answer 8 of UCLA's

" Rebuttal on Credibility of a Graphite Fire at the UCLA Reactor".

fl i However, the Board permitted UCLA an opportunity to cure the defect by I

providing CBG with an identification of the "many studies" to which reference is made in the answer. Order, at 30 (16 a)). The Board also

] sustained CBG's objection to the first paragraph on page 7 (answer 2) of UCLA's " Rebuttal on Credibility of CBG's Fission Product Release Model",

l

! provided, however, that UCLA could cure this defect by identifying the empirical evidence en which this paragraph relies. Order, at 30 (

) (17c)). In a separate document submitted herewith University 1 ,

t i I

j

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

supplements its rebuttal testimony by identifying the studies referred to in the graphite fire testimony and the empirical evidence referred to in the fission product releases testimony described above. With the provision of this additional information the Board should overrule the objections discussed in 11 6 a) and 7 c) of its Order.

The Board sustained CBG's objection to answer 8 of UCLA's

" Rebuttal on Credibility of CBG's Fission Product Release Model",

provided, however, that UCLA could cure the defect by providing CBG with the full text of Gerard L. Hofman's research report. Order, at 30 (1 7 f)). The information reported in that answer 8 (including the photo-micrographic exhibits supplied with the testimony) is based on unpublished research by Mr. Hofman conducted at Argonne National Laboratory on plate-type metal fuel. Professor Olander, who is an expert on the subject of metal nuclear fuels, consulted with Mr. Hofman on the specific topic addressed in the rebuttal testimony and, in particular, the photo-micrographs described in answer 8, which Mr.

Hofman provided. The information exchanged between Professor Olander and Mr. Hofman is the type of information which experts in Professor Olander's field reasonably rely upon. As such, the information falls within the standard experts' exception to hearsay evidence. Professor Olander is well qualified to sponsor this testimony. However, to avoid questions concerning the reliability of this information Mr. Hofman has agreed to appear as an expert witness with UCLA's panel of witnesses on this subject. Mr. Hofman is currently out of the country; University will submit a statement of his professional qualifications as soon as possible. l l

l l I

-4 The Board sustained, in part, CBG's objection to UCLA's testimony responding to CBG's rebuttal answer 9 (" Answer 2", pages 7-10 of UCLA's " Rebuttal to CBG's Wigner Energy Testimony"). The Board overruled the objection with respect to the last paragraph on page 8 and l all of page 10 of that answer. Order, at 30 (15 b)). As grounds for its ruling the Board states that the " comments are argumentative and to a large extent repetitious of matters already in the record." Order, at 18. However, subsection "3)" of that section of Answer 2 (the bottom I

paragraph on page 9) contains factual information not otherwise in the record which directly responds to assertions contained in CBG's rebuttal

! answer 9 (pages 12-14). Specifically, the testimony describes differences in the water-moderating conditions in the Hanford reactor and in the UCLA Argonaut reactor. This paragraph should also be

) accepted as appropriate rebuttal testimony.

!, The Board sustained CBG's objections to all of answers 5, 6, I

and 7 of UCLA's " Rebuttal on Credibility of CBG's Fission Product Release Model." Order, at 30 (1 7 e)). As grounds for its ruling the Board stated that these answers introduce an entirely new consideration in the proceeding -- the chemical form of the fission products and their interaction with other materials in the environment. Order, at 23. The Board further stated that to accept this testimony would greatly expand the scope of this issue and would involve the Board in an attempt to resolve a difficult scientific question which is currently the subject of Comission inquiry (citing 1 VII of the Proposed Commission Policy Statement on Severe Accidents and Related Views on Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 48 Fed. Req. 16013, April 13, 1983).

i l

e i

It is true that the issue of chemisorption or plateout, which is addressed in UCLA'a rebuttal answer 7 does introduce a new i

j consideration which is related to the subject of source terms for power 4

i reactor facilities, a topic addressed in the policy statement cited by the Board. However, answers 5 and 6 relate to the chemical form of the iodine within the aluminum matrix material and not what happens to .

fission products that escape to the environment external to the fuel.

Answers 5 and 6 convey information based on basic chemistry and i

thermodynamics principles as confirmed by empirical evidence. University i i

does not believe ti.at the information provided in its answers 5 and 6 concerns a difficult or controversial scientific question. In any event, the Commission's policy statement does not suggest that the Commission '

is considering source term regulations that would be applicable to i UCLA's research reactor facility. Moreover, it is University's understanding that the source term topic discussed in the policy statement is not currently the subject of a Commission rule-making i action. Consequently, there is no procedural reason to exclude t

4 consideration of this information in particular licensing proceeding i

assuming that the information is otherwise relevant and appropriate.

i

{ Answers 5 and 6, concerning the chemical form of the fission j products within the fuel, do not raise a new consideration in this 1 proceeding although they do provide new information. The issue being addressed is whether fission events in UCLA's plate-type fuel result in I

the creation of bubbles of gas (molecular iodine being the radioisotope of concern) which are available to escape in the event that the fuel is -

damaged. As part of UCLA's direct case presented in July, Professor

--. . - - , - - - - ~ , - - --r. ,,e.. ,--.,w-- n----.v-- -- , - , -v, ~v-.,. ~ ~ m,~,--.,--,,-,- .,vw.,m, ,-..,-.-,,,...,-w , -- - . - - ._ - . - ,, , . .- c-

O Olander testified at length concerning the form of the fission products in the matrix material. For example, in his written testimony it is stated that fission gas is not evolved from the fuel matrix until actual melting occurs. Page 9, following Tr.1877; see also, Tr. 1922-23, 1942-44, 1946. CBG has attempted to rebut that basic position with the testimony of its witnesses Dr. Anderson and Ms. Reid and their proposed model that assumes the existence of gas bubbles in the matrix material.

The " Anderson /Reid" model was presented for the first time in CBG's October testimony. It was precisely this unsupported assertion of CBG's witnesses about the chemical form of the fission products in the

fuel that was the subject of extensive cross-examination by University's expert interrogator during the October session of the hearing. Tr.

2983-90. The information in UCLA's rebuttal answers 5 and 6 is relevant to the form of the fission products as they exist in the fuel material and rebuts the assumption of C8G's witnesses. It is not intended to provide information on processes that occur in the environment external to the fuel plate, that is, chemisorption or plateout and fallout which occur in the reactor systems and containment building of power reactor facilities. The Board should accept answers 5 and 6 as relevant to matters already admitted to the record in this proceeding.

i 5

III. C0tlCLUSION l

For the reasons above, University respectfully requests that '

the Board modify its rulings on CBG's objections to University's rebuttal testimony by overruling the objections to the portions of testimony considered in 11 5 b), 6 a), and 7 c), e), and f) of the Board's Order.

Dated: April 6, 1984.

D0tlALD L REIDHAAR GLEfitt R. WOODS CHRISTIflE HELWICK By ITILLIAM H. CORMIER Representing UCLA

,, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I

l In the Matter of )

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

)

(UCLA Research Reactor) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the attached: UNIVERSITY'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF BOARD'S ORDER RULING ON CBG'S OBJECTIONS TO UCLA'S REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 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 6,1984 .

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 H. Bay, Esq.

Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Chickering & Gregory Administrative Judge Three Embarcadero Center ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Suite 2300 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission San Francisco, CA 94111 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Daniel Hirsch Mr. Glenn 0. Bright Box 1186 Administrative Judge Ben Lomond, CA 95005 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Law Center Washington, D.C. 20555 c/o Dorothy Thompson 6300 Wilshire Blvd., #1200

Counsel for the NRC Staff Los Angeles, CA 90048 OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Lynn G. Naliboff Washington, D.C. 20555 Deputy City Attorney Attn Ms. Colleen P. Woodhead City Hall 1685 Main Street Chief, Docketing and Service Section (3) Santa Monica, CA 90401 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

%O WILLIAM'TI. CORMIER Representing UCLA THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

- - .. .