ML20099A058
| ML20099A058 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 09/07/1984 |
| From: | Cormier W CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA |
| To: | Bright G, Frye J, Luebke E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8409130128 | |
| Download: ML20099A058 (6) | |
Text
F.
I. %.
. RELATED CCRR25,00NDENCE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES UCLA l
m m%r# iQ.
...mm. mn con mmu. m n. -.uu. u,s mm..imsino. m nina,.
.m
.a
'84 SEP 12 A10:53 OFFICE OF TIIE CIIANCELIDR LOS ANCELES, CALIFORNIA 90024 Septe'mbsr'7,1984 John H. Frye, III, Chairman Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Administrative Judge
- Administrative Judge Atomic. Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Glenn 0. Bright Administrative Judge
. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 In the Matter of THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (UCLA Research Reactor)
Docket No. 50-142 O/_
(Proposed Renewal of Facility License)
Dear Administrative Judges:
Enclosed for your information are copies of a recent exchange of correspondence between CBG representative Steven Aftergood and UCLA School of Engineering Dean George Turin. Mr. Aftergood wrote requesting a meeting relating to the decommissioning of the reactor. Dean Turin wrote in response declining -the invitation to meet.
Sincerely, lXIW#
William H. Cormier Representing UCLA Enclosures cc:
Service lisi 8409130128 840907 gDRADOCK05000
@]Q]
COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE G'APh acmcq
~'
1637 BUTLER AVENUE #203 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 (213) 478-0829 0
August 29, 1984 g
Dean George Turin
'g g$e-O.- M0 :53 School of Engineering and Applied Sciences University of California 405 Hilgard Avenue
,gh:Jj.
Los Angeies, CA 90024
' " ' G.. !;;.
Dear Dean Turin:
m W
We request an opportuni ty to discuss with you, at your earliest convenience but before September 7, certain matters necessary to put the UCLA reactor controversy finally to rest and to avoid many more years of li tigation, of no usefulness to ei ther party.
The June 14 announcement by Chancellor Young on your behalf that the UCLA reactor relicensing application was being withdrawn and that the reactor would be dismantled and disposed of would, if adhered to, end five years of public controversy and litigation.
However, recent actions by other UCLA personnel raise questions as to whether the June 14 decisions by you and the Chancellor remain in force. We request in-person clarification from you as to which position pertains:
o The June 14 requests to the NRC, and announcement to the Regents, that the renewal application be wi thdrawn, the proceeding terminated, and the facili ty dismantled, decontaminated and disposed of, g Subsequent actions by UCLA counsel requesting long-o term deferral of th.? wi thdrawal of the application, until decommissioning is completed, coupled with Dr. Wegst's request that decommissioning completion be indefinitely deferred, explicitly in fact retaining the option of never completing decommissioning.
Obviously, if the application is withdrawn and the facili ty is decommissioned, as announced by you and Chancellor Young on June 14, then the case is over, it is equally obvious that if withdrawal of the application is deferred until the completion of decommissioning, and if decommissioning completion is indefini telv deferred, wi th no binding commi tment to even complete it at all, then the issue remains a live one.
I am sure you will understand that as long as the application is not effectively withdrawn, we will i'isist on the evidentiary hearings and related proceedings on that application continuing.
~
a -
Equally troubling.is the status of the reactor's license and weapons-grade fuel. _ The June.14 decision to wi thdraw the renewal application would automatically terminate the facility's license, which expi red in 1980 and remained in force only by virtue of the renewal application you now wish to wi thd raw. However, Dr. Wegst has asked the NRC to perpetuate Indefinitely '(nany, many years) the facility license. This amounts to an attempt to obtain.through application wi thdrawal what the Universi ty could not obtain f rom the application i tself--
-long-term extension of' the expi red license.
Likewise with regards UCLA's binding commi tment to remove the weapons grade uranium from campus "as soon as reasonably p racti cab le."
On June 14, Mr. Cormier, in addition to requesting application withdrawal, requested that the security hearings scheduled for the'following week be suspended on grounds that the decision to withdraw the application and decommission the facility mooted the controversy over security. The Board granted the request,
.on condition that the weapons grade fuel, subject of the security controversy, be removed "as soon as possible, before the Olympics -
if possible," to which Mr. Cormier formally stipulated on behalf of the Universi ty (see Board Order of June 18). The University declined to abide by the stipulation and the Board subsequently modified the Order to remove the reference to the Olympics, but affi rmed the Order to remove the fuel as soon as reasonably p racti cable.- In a June 25 letter to Assemblyman Gray Davis (who has had, ~as you are aware, a significant _ concern about the presence of weapons-grade material on campus), Vice. Chancellor Schaefer
-pledged that the University would " expeditiously" carry out the Board's Order regarding prompt removal of the fuel, although the off-shipment assertedly could not be done until shortly after the Olympics.
.~
However, cus July 20, Mr. Cormier told the Board that UCLA would not commit to removing the highly enriched uranium even by next year and opposed setting any date by which fuel removal must be completed.
i.-
As long as weapons-grade uranium remains on campus, wi th the security problems that raises, and as long-as the University refuses to commit to off-shipping by any reasonable date, we will feel compelled to take legal action,1 and action in other forums, to get that fuel removed and to improve security in-the interim.
(in particular, if the fuel is to remain on campus for any significant period af ter the Olympics we would have to insist that the security l measures that had been put in place at the insistence of Assemblymen Davis and Roos,'such as barricadas and guards, be kept in place as long as the fuel remains on site.)
l
L.,
t-4
.. v if your_ June.14 decisions and acticns still pertain, then we can all. get on to other pursuits.
If the subsequent actions by.
-Messrs. Cormier and Wegst pertain, and withdrawal of the application is indefinitely deferred, then the proceeding and-public controversy remain as before, and we all have ahead of us many more years 1 of '
needless litigation and public concern.
We believe continued litigation and controversy can be avoided simply by adherence to the decisions and actions you and Chancellor Young undertook on June 14 in _your announcements to the
. Regents and the NRC, and that this can best be reso.ved quietly, wi thout fanfare, in di rect discussions between ourselves and you.
Discussions between attorneys.have proven f rui tless.
If the matter
~
is lef t to attorneys alone, we think many more years of controversy lie ahead and no one will benefi t.
.it would be regrettable if-this opportunity to put the matter to rest, once and for all, is lost. We look forward _ to hearing from you-at your earliest convenience to set up an opportunity to resolve these matters. We believe it important that this meeting t'
occur prior to September 7, when the Board has directed additional pleadings be ~ filed as to the proposed withdrawal of the application, and the subsequent proposal to indefinitely defer withdrawal of the application. Af ter September 7, positions may well be set in stone 1
Land resolution may requi re that the UCLA reactor remain. a matter of controversy in the-NRC, the courts, the Legislature, and the press.
Let us meet _ soon and attempt to resolve the matter simply.
I suggest we consider asking a thi rd party-to help facilitate the discussions-- perhaps Assemblysen Davis, Regent Sheinbaum, or the Reverend Fink, Chair of the University Religicus Conference, I look forward to yo' r early response.
u f
l, Yours sincerely, f
1.
h Steven Aftergood
[
Executive Di rector l
Commi ttee to Bridge the Gap
~
Chancellor Young cc:
L Vice Chancellor Schaefer
.Vice Chancellor Hobson President Gardner Office of General Counsel
~aWi lliam Cormier Regent-Wada Regent Sheinbaum Assemblyman Davis
(~
Rev. H. Mike Fink L.
3 SI REUJED COna2570MDENCE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES UCLA cern f e m.mdw.r ppg h um.....n.muun n n,,n. n, n.,,,,u. m, u... o,4
.n usin,.. m nm..o.
M
'84 StP 12 E J_J OFFICE OF Tile DEAN e ' illOOr.OF ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCE
[ gjj i ; 1.A,(ANGELES, CAI.IFultNI A 90024 BRANCH G
g September 4,1984 sq o
Mr. Steven Aftergood s
'1, Comittee to Bridge the Gap 1637 Butler Ave., #203 53 Los Angeles, Calif. 90025
- =
Dear Mr. Af tergood:
U I am responding to your August 29, 1984 letter requesting a meeting seeking clarification from me concerning UCLA's plans to decommission its research reactor. Apparently, you claim some inconsistency in UCLA's position based on certain statements made to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission during the course of the proceedings.
However, your letter misrepresents our statements to the NRC. There is no inconsistency in the UCLA position and, consequently, I do not believe that my meeting with you would be useful.
As Chancellor Young announced in his June 14, 1984 letter to the NRC, we are withdrawing our application to renew the license of the UCLA research reactor and have initiated steps to decomission the reactor. The reactor has been rendered permanently inoperable and is being dismantled. UCLA has comitted to shipping its nuclear fuel as soon as reasonably practicable consistent with applicable regulations and with it:, security, public health and safety obligations. For your information, UCLA has already returned its unirradiated fuel to the Department of Energy.
Plans are being made to return the irradiated
~
fuel to the DOE. Because of the complexities involved in shipping irradiated fuel, including the required approvals of several government agencies and the detailed arrangements that must be made to obtain and
. use a suitable shipping cask, UCLA objected to shipping its fuel by January 1,1985, which is the date CBG sought to have the Licensing Board impose as a condition of withdrawal.
UCLA is not in a position to determine when the remaining fuel can be shipped. However, I assure you we have no desire to retain the fuel longer than is necessary.
Once the fuel and the metallic components of the reactor core have been removed, the UCLA staff will conduct a detailed radiation survey to identify sources of residual radiation. The survey will.be
'used to evaluate options related to further dismantlement of the facility.
In accordance with NRC regulations and practice, the "decomissioning" will be completed at that time in the future when the NRC issues a termination order based on its determination that any residual radiation has decayed to such low levels that the facility can be returned to unrestricted use. Dr. Walter Wegst, Director of the Office of Research and Occupational Safety at UCLA, described our
-e r
m.
Mr. Steven Aftergood -
September 4,1984
'decomissioning plans in his July 26, 1984 letter to the Comission.
That letter also constituted our application to terminate the UCLA reactor operating license. Nothing in Dr. Wegst's letter to the Comission suggests that UCLA is considering "never completing decomissioning." The actions that are being taken by the UCLA staff
-conform to the procedures prescribed by the NRC for the termination of licenses.
Your assertion that UCLA counsel requested "long-term deferral of'the withdrawal of the application" also misrepresents the facts. On June 14, 1984, UCLA formally requested that the Licensing Board approve the _ withdrawal of the license renewal application.
In responding to our request, the NRC Staff advised that the Licensing Board should conditionally grant the request for withdrawal of the license renewal application, requiring that UCLA should apply to terminate its license and comply with the termination procedures, the withdrawal becoming effective at the time the termination order issues. The NRC Staff explained that UCLA must retain a valid license until the completion of the termination process.
In reply the University's attorneys indicated concurrence with the NRC Staff's analysis of the applicable requirements. On no occasion has the University requested long-term deferral of the withdrawal of the application.
The University would prefer that the withdrawal be made effective immediately; however, the relevant NRC procedures provide otherwise. The fact that a license (but not an operating license) inust remain in effect until a termination order is issued is a matter of little conrequence.
CBG is well aware of the representations made in the University's letters and pleadings and I am surprised that you have so misconstrued our position in this matter. Be advised that Dr. Wegst is the UCLA official designated to represent UCLA to the NRC in matters pertaining to the reactor. Moreover, so long as the University is involved in proceedings before the Comission's adjudicatory boards the legal position of the University will be presented by the University's attorneys.
I trust that I have provided any additional clarification of our position as may be needed.
In any event, no purpose can be served by a meeting at this ^.ime.
In view of our application to terminate the license, we regard all substantive issues as moot and fully expect that the licensing board will soon terminate the adjudicatory proceedings.
Sin erely,
>$Lh George L. Turin Dean cc:
president David P. Gardner Chancellor Charles E. Young
-Regent Yori Wada Regent Stanley K. Sheinbaum Assemblyman Gray Davis -
Reverend H. Mike Fink
--