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

; s_ . . _ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ .... . ..

.'

! 4/4/83

,

UNITED STATES,OF AMERICA1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION!!

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

!

j In the Matter of

))l!i TiiE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF Cocket No. 50-142- *i d

CALIFORNIA i

f- 'l (Proposed Renewal of Facility

; (UCLAResearchReactor) || License);i| NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO MOTIONS BY CO M ITTEE TO

BRIDGE THE GAP AND BY SANTA MONICA CONCERNINGi LICENSING BOARD RULINGS AND SCHEDULING AND TO THE| PREHEARING CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF MARCH 23, 1983,

! !I. INTRODUCTION -

,

i On March 15, 1983 Comittee to Bridge the Gap (CBG), the Intervenor,

filed three separate motionsE asking for rulings by the Atomic Safetyt

and Licensing Board (Board) on certain pending motions for sumaryt

j disposition, for establishment of hearing schedules for some conten-.

{ tions not encompassed in the hearing originally scheduled for mid-July|

| or August 1,1983 and for modifications to the present schedule.

| On the same date, the City of Santa Monica (Santa Monica) filed a letter4

|. containing some of the same requests. On March 23, 1983 the Licensing'

i Board issued a Prehearing Conference Memorandum and Order ruling oni

!;

| jf (1) CBG Memorandum and Motion Regarding Hearing Scheduling Matters q1 (Memorandum); (2) CBG Motion for Expedited Ruling on its Q$O ri September 7,1982 Motion for Partial Sumary Disposition ofj Contention XIII; and the Setting of a May Hearing Date for Any

!RemainingIssuesastoContentionXIII(MotiononXIII);(3) Agreement Reached on CBG Motion for Summary Disposition of

; Seismic Contention; Request for Imediate Ruling. (Requestfor| Ruling).|

| unntIATth pHIG1 pit! S304050273 830404 ' 'E .Cortincu b \ ND' b Y

*

PDR ADOCK 05000142 -- ^ \m - - ' F A- -, "O PDR N- K,

y

~m _ . __ _ -_ _ . -_ _ . _ _ _ _m _ . . . , _ . _ . ._,_.-.. .._ ._..._ _ _ , _ __..,_ _ _ ...._.-,__.. ,-__~,..,...,__. _,._..._,_.,__ . . . . . . . . . _

.. - . _

|

I'

l ', -2-4

:

some of the matters in the CBG motions and the Santa Monica letter, andi! requesting responses to others. The NRC Staff's response to the CBG

motions and the Santa Monica reevasts not ruled upon by the Licensing

{ Board are set forth below.

i

!j II. DISCUSSION

! In its Memorandum, CBG asks (1) for a change in the filing date for|

| written testimony to one sixty days prior to hearing, rather than the

! scheduled June 15, 1983 date; (2) that hearing begin July 15 or 25, 1983;!

! (3) that Staff and Applicant include in their written testimony, rebuttal

to the CBG affidavits filed in response to susanary disposition motions;: .

'

(4) that the Board rule on the portion of the summary " disposition motions

on Contention XIII presently held in abeyance _/; (5) that any issues not2

i

j disposed of in the remainder of Contention XIII be set for hearing in!

l early May along with Contention II; (6) that the Board schedule a thirdIi hearing in the fall for Contention VI and that part of Contention XV not!

] included in tha sunsner hearings; and (7) that portions of Contention I be

j included in the sumer hearings. Memorandum, 6-9. In its Motion oni

j XIII CBG provides explanation for its request for an imediate ruling and

hearing on the part of Contention XIII now held in abeyance, by asserting|

| that it is necessary to settle the question of the conversion of the UCLA

f reactor to low enriched fuel (i.EU) before hearing on safety issues, in.

;

{ light of the University's stated objection to such conversion. Motion.

|

| 2f In a Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motions for SumaryDisposition) dated February 8, 1983 the Board denied summary;

( disposition of six contentions concerning postulated accidents and

useofhighenricheduranium(partofContentionXIII(concerningdenied sumary disposition ofi

HEU) fuel).!

I

i .

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

,. . . ;. :. . . .. . . . - -- -

-

:...--- -

. _ - -

.

4

-3-,,

| at 6-9. Finally, in its Request forytuling, CBG asks that the Board rule

on the CBG motion for partial sumary disposition of Contention XVII in

light of Staff's and Applicant's stipulation to the statements of:

material facts attached to the CBG motion (concerning the seismicity of,

theLosAngelesarea.) Request for Ruling, 1-2. Santa Monica requests|

(1) a May 15, 1983 dateforfilingwrittentestimony,(2) identification,

of witnesses,3/ (3) an explanation of the burden of proof and the pro-

priety of reliance by UCLA on generic analyses of Argonaut-UTRs by three

National Laboratories, (4) clarification of the Board's intention to

defer or to dismiss the issue of sabotage from Contention XIX which deals

with postulated accidents, and (5) an imediate ruling on Contentions II>

and XVIII without the legal arguments requested from C' G by the Board asB

completion of the two-step response to summary disposition motions. I;

Santa Monica also objects to a recent request from the Board for infoma-

tion from UCLA and Staff regarding the amount of SNM at UCLA in response

to a new allegation by CBG.5_/

3/ Santa Monica did not participate in one of the conference calls and'-

thus is unaware that Staff has identified its witnesses.

4/ The Board established a " bifurcated procedure" for CBG response to--

sumary disposition motions filed September 1,1982 whereby CBGfiled only documents disputing Staff's and Applicant's statementsof material facts, with provision for later submission of legalarguments upon notice from the Board. See: Memorandum and Order, !

October 22, 1982. '

5/ The Board allowed CBG to file a supplementary response to Staff's-

motion for sumary disposition of Contention XX so that CBG couldattempt to prove that the Comission's regulation,10 CFR I 73.60applies to UCLA. This response alleged that UCLA has more than5kg. SNM on site contrary to UCLA's respresentation.

!

.

i \

t |

-. . -. - - .. _ . _ _ - - .. _ .

".

-4-'.

;

I

The Board's Prahearing Conference Order, at pp. 23-24, ruled on |,

i>

many of the CBG and Santa Monica requests by (1) noting the Board's {,

!

limited ability to set deadlines for filing of Staff's testimony, i

!,

(2) directing the filing of final witness lists by April 20, 1983, .!

t (3) establishing July 18 or 25 as dates nossible for beginning hearing.

(4) noting the Board's intent to grant CBG's motion for partial summaryj

disposition of Contention XVIIN (E) providing ior responses to the~

Board's view that 10 CFR Part 73 prohibits litigation of the sabotage fissue in Contention XIX, (6) directn.g legal arguments from CBG and .f,

Santa Monica in response to pending motions for summary disposition of

Contentions II and XVIII; (7) deferring ruling on summary disposition ;

i :~

motion: on Contention VI, concerning nonnal emissions (and thus also

deferring the same issue of normal emissions in Contention XV); .

; (8) providing for motions by CBG and Santa Monica regarding their

concerns about reliance by UCLA on generic studies of Argonaut-UTR's, ;3

(9) asking responses to the CBG motion concerning Contention XIII, and

I (10) dismissing the Santa Monica objection to information provided ;

concerning the amount of SNM at UCLA. The Staff hereby responds to those

[ matters in the CBG and Santa Monica submissions not disposed of by the !

| Board's Order.

:

!!

|

j !; }

| 6f The Board stated it would rule that CBG's e tion for partial! summary disposition of Contention XVII was granted by stipulation

of UCLA and Staff unless objections were received by March 30,1983. Staff has no objection to this ruling.;

; '

!

! !

|

i f

[E-

! !, . _ . . _,...... . . ._

_.._ . ,~___-.,__._.___,.__.2 ,_ ____..~_.__._ -,..~..._ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ . . ~ , , _ . . . . - ,-

. - .. . . .- ~,

, ,

-5-

1. RemainingCBGRequests/ r ri I

(a) Rebuttal Testimony

CBG's request that Staff and Applicant be required to include in,

i

j their prefiled testimony " rebuttal" testimony to CBG affidavits in*

.

response to sumary disposition motions is apparently based on a dis-

cussion during the March 9 and 11, 1983 conference calls among the Board,

and parties during which the Board suggested additional hearing dates

for rebuttal testimony. It was then suggested that written rebuttal

testimony be hand-carried to the hearing by the parties. The discussion

concerned rebuttal testimony to the written, direct testimony to be filed!

on June 15, 1983 by the parties and not rebuttal to CBG's sumary disposi-

tion affidavits. The Staff intends to address in its direct testimony,

the issues raised by CBG affiants in their responses to sumary disposition!

j motions. CBG's request for " rebuttal" testimony simply reflects a mis-

understanding by CBG as to the rebuttal testimony discussed during thei

conference calls. That request is unnecessary and should be denied.,

(b) Immediate Ruling on Contention XIII

; The Staff supports the CBG motion for a ruling by the Board on the

] remainderofContentionXIII.8./ Howen r. the CBG assertion that no

1

7f CBG's request for an earlier date for filing written testimony isi discussed in answer to the same request by Santa Monica infra.

~ 8/ The Board's February 8,1983 Order su >ra, ruling on some of thesumary disposition rotions, stated 7iaT, since the CBG affiantshad raised an issue of the safety of operation with high enricheduranium (HEU), this issue would be adjudicated at hearing. Theremaining issues in Contention XIII were not ruled on. These issuesare (1) compliance with 10 CFR Part 70, and (2) non-proliferation,discussed, infra.

.

::'

--_ - . . - . . _ - . . , . =: - .- -,. . --. . z , . . . - - . - . - . . . . . - . ~ . - - - -

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

.

t :

-6-S

i material issues exist on the availabi.11ty of low enriched fuel (LEU)

| for ArgonautsU and that it should be innediately decided whether!

|or not the Board will require fuel conversion raises n' question of

| jurisdiction noted, in part, by the recent Prehearing Conference

Order. The Staff believes this is a significant threshold question

f which should be addressed prior to adjudication of the safety of reactorij cperation with HEU and prior to a ruling on the other issues in

Contention XIII.!-| Staff believes it would be useful to carefully examine the issues.

! raised by Contention XIII which states:!

! The information which Applicant has provided regarding the special! nuclear materials license is inadequate to meet the requirements ofj 10 CFR 5 70.22(a)(7) and (a)(8) and 70.24(a)(1)(2), and (3).j Furthermore,tgI5 enrichment level requested and the quantityj requested of U are excessive and thus pose an unnecessary threat; to public health and safety.10/i

i CBG's affidavits filed in response to sunnary disposition motionsi

j allege that use of HEU is a threat to the public due to (1) operational

iij 9/ CBG references a February 7, 1983 letter to the U.S. Department ofi Energy from J. E. Matos at Argonne National Laboratory, providedi to the Board and parties by Staff counsel, on February 15, 1983 to; support CBG's allegation that LEU fuel is presently available forj Argonaut-UTRs. This letter plainly states that MTR LEU fuel plates

will not be available until late 1983 at which time they will-

: require licensing review, and that use of TRIGA LEU fuel rods would: require modification of the reactor. CBG ignores the question of} the high cost of replacement LEU fuel noted in the letter ($250,000i for MTR plates and $350,000 for TRIGA rods plus modification costs).

i 10/ UCLA requests renewal of its license for 4.92kg. U-235, 93% ,

j enriched and a 32gm Pu-Be neutron source.|

3

.

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

- --- -- . . .. .

. _ . . . _ . . .. a....._

.

!-

-7- !

!:

characteristics of HEU and (2) possible theft of HEU by terrorists, and j

that UCLA must be required to replace 'its fuel with LEU.E f, ,

The Board's Order Ruling on Motions for Sunnary Disposition dated {iFebruary 8, 1983, supra, states that the CBG affiant (Professor Kaku) i

!alleged that characteristics of LEU provide a greater safety margin then !

HEU and that, therefore, this "effect" was to be addressed at hearing.~

IHowever, the Board also noted that a dispute exists among the parties as j

to the present availability of LEU fuel for Argonauts and that if LEU !.

fuel is unavailable, this would pose a barrier to the alleged safety

advantage.}2/ Nevertheless, the Board did not direct that this matter;

be resolved before hearing. The Staff believes that not only the f: i.,

question of availability of LEU fuel for Argonauts but, more importantly, I

the question of the Board's authority to order conversion from HEU to

LEU fuel should be resolved prior to litigation on the safety cf

different types of fuel. j

Although it is clearly appropriate to inquire into the safety of fi

reactor operation with HEU, in Staff's opinion, the possible remedies for !1

an adverse safety finding do not include conversion to LEU as proposed by it

!

|

!.i

!,

: W See: CBG Responses to Sunmary Disposition Motions, January 12, 1983, |Affidavits by Scoville, Taylor and Kaku. |

'J2/ Prehearing Conference Order at 36. In accord with the bifurcated I

' procedure established by the Board which allowed CBG to submit only '-,

documents regarding factual disputes in response to Staff and; Applicant's summary disposition motions, CBG has provided no legal :

) arguments explaining the relevancy of its factual assertions '

regarding Contention XIII to the Connission's regulations.|

'i

e

h

:

__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ , . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _. .. . . _ _ _

-- .. .. ..~ _ m . . _ _ -s m e --

?

'

4

|

-8- !

iCBG, and apparently under consideratipn by the Board. Operational safety ;

i

concerns over the use of HEU fuel might be remedied by restricting reactor i

operation by technical specifications, or by addition of protective com- |!

ponents to the reactor as a condition of license renewal, or, ultimately,

by a denial of the license renewal application. An order for UCLA to ji

convert to LEU fuel would go beyond the present application and require|

,

UCLA to submit a radically different application. i!

The Board's jurisdiction was established and limited by the ;i

Comission's notice of opportunity for hearing in this proceeding. jComonwealth Edison Company (Carroll County Site) ALAB-601,12 NRC 18, !

24(1980).E This notice stated that renewal of the UCLA license

R-71wasbeingconsidered.E The present license (R-71) authorizes f;1 :

possession and use of HEU. The application for renewal requests a license !)

for HEU. Thus, conversion te LEU is not a matter within the scope of this !i

proceeding. Consequently, underlying the issues of the present unavail-

ability of MTR LEU fuel plates, and the high cost of the fuel and i

;

conversion to TRIGA fuel, a more fundamental question exists regarding i

CBG's proposed fuel conversion. f4

:

CBG asserts that the Comission's policy to reduce use of HEU, as |implenentation of the Non-Proliferation Act of 1978, provides authority I

|;-

t

Ii

13/ See also Public Service Company of New Hampshire et al. (Seabrook t

Efation, Units 1 and 2), CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503, 529 W 1977) wherethe Conunission states that licensing boards have no authority torequire application for a facility at a different location, but ;

p must rule on the application tendered. t

14/ 45 Fed. Reg. 28020. April 25, 1980.

.

.

$

.

- - - . -----.r, . . - . _ , , ,,-.m.,...%, _ _ , , . ----,,-,.,_.,y,, .-,,,,.v.. ,, _ - r-.-%,.-, - _ , . . - ,, _ - , , ., ~ . ..-,

. ...:..-. . = . --.--......:-

,

|

.

!

! -9-,

:

| to-this Licensing Board to require c6nversion to LEU in effectuation of

| . the Commission's general policy.E However, no specific decisic:is as;

to regulations or directives have been fonnulated by the Connission in

j implementation of the policy. Without Connission directive, individual

LicensingBoardshavenoauthoritytorequirefuelconversion.Nii The Connission's regulations authorize application for use of HEU infi 10 CFR Part 70 according to the conditions therein. Therefore, becausei

j the issues raised in Contention XIII, concerning use and possession of;

! HEU by UCLA, must be limited to the scope of the proceeding which the

Board is authorized to decide, the Staff submits that conversion to LEU

| may not be considered. Consequently, the Staff believes that the only

matters a'. issue in Contention XIII are (1) UCLA's com'pliance with the

sections of 10 CFR Part 70 cited in the contention, (2) whether or not -

the amount and enrichment level of SNM possessed by UCLA (less than 5kg),

'

is authorized by regulations and (3) whether or not the reactor can

!

.

I ---15/ CBG references the Commission's General Policy Statement "Use of| High-Enriched Uranium (HEU) in Research Reactors " August 24, 1982| (47 Fed. Re . 37007). The policy statement clearly states: "As~j soon as a t e necessary tests are completed, the Commission is

arepared to act expeditiously to review the use of the new fueli under development in DOE's RERTR program at Argonne National

Laboratory] in domestic research and test reactors licensed byi

icourse of actio_R_eg. 37008. A footnote indicates that no specificNRC." 47 Fed.

n has been detennined by NRC. I_dd;

| 16f The attached OPE position paper (Policy to Reduce Enrichment at| Domestic Research and Test Reactors, March 1, 1983, Memorandum to

Connissioner Ahearne from J.E. Zerbe) demonstrates the developmental-

; status of this matter and indicates the rulemaking posture of thispolicy.

4

i *

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

.- . . - - - - - - . .-- .. _ _ _ _ _ a . - ... .-

.

- 10 -; -;

continue to be operated safely in light of the physical properties of theI

HEU fuel in use at UCLA. Staff believes it is necessary for the Board to

clarify this matter prior to hearing and that it would be appropriate to,

do so along with a ruling on the issues remaining concerning Contention

XIII. Thus, Staff fully supports CBG's motion for an early ruling on the ;

remaining issues by the Board. However, the Staff believes that if any i

issues are not disposed of by sununary disposition, they should be addressed '

after the July hearing since they are not relevant to issues set for the

July hearings, and need not be decided prior to the hearings. Staff,,

therefore, opposes the CBG request for a May hearing on Contention XIII.!

(c) The Inclusion of Part of Contention I in the' July hearingsi !

The CBG request that part of Contention I be included in the July, !

1983 hearing, which is limited to issues concerning maximum credible,

accidents, is inappropriate. Contention I alleges that the 1980 UCLA

application for license renewal is " deficient" for various reasons.,

The allegations in Contention I are unrelated to the safety issues set

for hearing in July and, for that reason, Staff opposes inclusion of

Contention I in the matters to be litigated in the July hearing.

i 2. Remaining Santa Monica Requests

(a) Shifting of the Burden of Proof by Use of Generic Scientific'

Studies by UCLA

iSanta Monica states its concern that the burden of proof will be

borne by Staff, rather than UCLA, if UCLA is allowed to rely on generic

studies of Argonaut-UTRs performed for the Staff by three National

.

.

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

. .....-.__.,_m--._....- q

|,= |

! i'- 11 -

: -

Laboratories.E Santa Monica letterr, paragraph (3). Both Santa Monicae

| and CBG have expressed concerns about a change in the burden of proof

regarding the proposal that Staff witnesses be presented firstE and;

! references to the generic studies made by the UCLA application..i

i These concerns are baseless, since neither the order of witness

Ipresentation nor UCLA's reliance on scientific documents prepared for

the Staff affects the burden of proof which rests on the Applicant.

10 CFR I 2.732. E

Reliance by UCLA on scientific analyses produced by Fational

Laboratories is no different from the reliance by CBG on various

scientific documents referenced in its summary disposition responses.

f More importantly, Staff has notified the Board and parties that the~

! authors of the generic studies will testify at hearing concerning their; <

j analyses so that CBG and Santa Monica may inquire into the bases andi

j conclusions of the studies. Generic studies are performed by both com-

f merical and government sponsored laboratories and are connonly used toi1

1,

}| 17/ The three analyses are " Analysis of Credible Accidents for Argonaut

Reactors," Pacific Northwest Laboratories (Battelle) (NUREG/i CR-2079); Fuel Temperatures in an Argonaut Reactor Core Followingi a Hypothetical Design Basis Accident (DBA), Los Alamos National

Laboratory (NUREG/CR-2198); Transient Analysis of the UCLA Argonaut,Brookhaven National Laboratory, December,1981.

; 18f This order of witnesses was discussed during the March conference1 calls and established by the March 23, 1983 Prehearing Conferencei Order, at 22. The reason for this arrangement is the reliance byf UCLA on the generic analyses sponsored by the Staff.!

i 19/ See: Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-315,; 3NRC101,105(1976).;

!i

) -

i-_. . _ . . __ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ __ , . _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ , . , _

_. .

.

- 12 -

support license applications. No question of the burden of proof is

raised by reference to analyses perfomed by one other than the applicant,

but rather, only a question of the sufficiency of evidence presented by

; applicant arises. There is no merit to the assertion that the burden of

proof is affected by reference to scientific studies performed by persons

other than the Applicant. In any event, the Licensing Board has provided

both Santa Monica and CEG the opportunity to articulate their concerns

over UCLA's reliance on Staff analyses and to seek relief in motions to.

be filed by April 6,1983. The Staff will respond fully to any such

motions in accordance with the Rules of Practice, as the Licensing Board

has directed.'

.

(b) Exclusion of Sabotage from Consideration in Contention XIXb'

During the February 23, 1983 prehearing conference and subsequent

conference calls, the Board stated its concern that 10 CFR l 73

prohibits litigation of possible consequences of sabotage at the UCLA ,

reactor, since Part 73 sets out the Comission's regulations for safe-.

guards against sabotage according to the particular facility involved.'

The Prehearing Conference Order, at 10, explains the Board's view of

this matter. There, the Board notes its duty to abide by Comission

regulations, and that 10 CFR I 2.758 prohibits challenges to NRC

regulations during licensing proceedings. The Board states its view

gf Contention XIX (1) states that analysis should be perfomed ofmaximum credible accidents including " Sabotage, such as explosivesbeing thrown at or placed on the reactor itself, causing majordamage and broken fuel plates."

,

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

.. - . . . _ . - - . .. . _ _ - - .

;

.i

:

- 13 - I!'

.

that litigation of the effect of sabgtage (along with various postulated ;

!accidentscontainedinContentionXIX)wouldconstituteanimpermissible

{ challenge to Part 73 which defines the only safeguards measures which ;

!

are required of licensees, and that, therefore, regardless of con-|

,

sequences from sabotage scenarios proposed by CBG, no additional safe- ft

guards could be required.!

: Staff fully supports the Board's view that Part 73 establishes the

only sabotage protection which the Board could enforce and that litiga-,

I

tion of various sabotage consequences would be pointless in light of f

this limitation. Additionally, Contention XX raises safeguards issues,

including sabotage, so that inclusion of sabotage issues in Contentioni

XIX is redundant. Contention XX is the subject of a p'ending Staff

motion for sumary dispos'ition, filed April,1981, wherein Part 73 regula-

I tions applicable to research reactors with less than formuls quantities

of SNM, such as UCLA, are discussed at length. As noted previously, CBG,

hasfiledtworesponsestoStaff'smotion.E The applicable safeguards ,f

j regulations are fully briefed by the parties in regard to Contention XX,I

and speculative consideration of sabotage consequences within Contention '

XIX would indeed be pointless. The Staff believes sabotage should not be

considered as a postulated accident in Contention XIX and that section 1.6of the contention should be dismissed because it is an impemissible j

' challenge to the regulations.t

i

i

i

1

2_1) Tuiiimary Disposition as to the Applicability of 10 CFR l 73.60 and. jSee: Intervenor's Supplemental Response to NRC Staff's Motion for<

the Need to Protect Against Sabotage, dated February 8, 1983

'

:

., . - -. -. . .. .. .

-- _ _ . . , = .

.

- 14 -.

(c) Santa Monica's letter, section (1)

Although the Board indicated the partias may respond to matters 1.

raised in two sections of Santa Monica's letter, regarding requests for !

(1) an earlier date for filing written testimony and (2) identification

of witnesses, these matters appear to be resolved by th? Board's Order.

Prehearing Conference Order, supra, at 24-25. In any event, as previously

indicated, Staff has already identified its witnesses and will provide

written identification of final Staff witnesses by April 20, 1983 in,

accordance with the Board's prehearing conference order. However, in

answer to the CBG and Santa Monica charge of unfair delay by Staff in

preparing testimony for hearing Staff notes that the numerous affidavits

filed January 12, 1983 by CBG in response to Staff's s'ummary disposition

motions came as a complete surprise, since CBG responses to discovery in

1981-82 gave no information about the basic issues of nuclear physics

raised in the affidavits nor of the many proposed witnesses. Thus, because

the affidavits challenge the basic scientific bases of Staff's and Applicant's

safety analyses, it is necessary to revise the Staff summary disposition

affidavits originally intended to serve as testimony, in order to provide

explanations of more basic principles. It is estimated that eight Staff

weeks will be required to produce the necessary Staff testimony. As a

result, the CBG and Santa Monica allegations are themselves unfair when

they assert that Staff has had the CBG proposed testimony (affidavits)

for " months," and Staff should be ready for hearing in May,1983. CBG

and Santa Honica have had the substance of Staff's testimony since the

laboratory studies and SER issued in 1981 and summary disposition motions

were filed September 1,1982. CBG filed extensive discovery against -

.

w -- - , , _ . . - - _ , . - e ,, -,+7 e,-,-,es%_<,.c , ,.

.. ; - __ _ _ _ . ._ -- _ . __ _; , _ _, ,_ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _-

1

[.1

], - 15 -|

Staff, its consultants and UCLA. Th'us, the assertion by CBG and Santa

| Monica, that they require two months to assess Staff's testimony, (which-

!

{ will consist only of explanations and justification for conclusions;

j reached in the generic analyses SER and surunary disposition motions) isi

| hardly persuasive. The present schedule requires the filing of testimonyi

| at least one full month before the start of hearing in contrast to the

Rules of Practice which require only 15 days advance filing. 10 CFR

| 52.743(b). Thus, CBG and Santa Monica will have at least 30 days to

! evaluate the written testimony and prepare for cross-examination. ThisiJ is more than ample and twice the time period contemplated in the regula-3' tions. The motions for an earlier date for filing written testimony

should be denied.!

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set Earth above the Staff concludes as follows:

j (1) CBG's request that prefiled testimony include rebuttal testimony is

unnecessary and should be denied, (2) an early decision should be made on

j issues remaining in the sumary disposition motions on Contention XIII1j but clarification should be made of the proposal to order conversion to

{4

) LEU as extra judicium, (3) no part of Contention I should be included in |}

j theJulyhearings,(4) applicant'sreferencetogenericstudiesdoesnot

; affecttheapplicant'sburdenofproof;(5)theissueofsabotageshouldt

j be excluded from Contention XIX, and (6) the schedule of April 20, 1983i:

i

!

|

'

.

.. .

A

w g - .,. -,,-ww .,,,, ,m,- .---,-.---w- ,.c - -,_,---,,-ww,,,,,p. wm,..- -,ea--ye--

_ __ _

.

:

- 16 -

;

for identification of witnesses and o,f June 15, 1983 for prefiled testi-

! mony should be retained.

Res ectfully submitted,i

\ JN4fsI Colleen P. Woodhcadi Counsel for NRC Staff

; Dated at Bethesda, Marylandthis 4th day of April, 1983:

i

|i

I

i.

1

!,

.|,

t

i

!

|>

i

!

!

!

! !

\ ||

\i

'

:

I

<

._, - _ _ _ . , - - _ _ _ , , , _ _ . , - . _ - , , , _ , ,e ,, -

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

. ;|

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

|- -- assg j.

. .,

UNITED STATES*'.

.

l -! NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION !-

& wAswiwcTow.n.c.seru , ,

Sp..C/4 || ,

! ... -e

March 1, 1983*

!,

MEMORANDUM F.0R: C i ioner Ahearne [-

FROM: n 'Zerbe !.

SUBJECT: POLICY TO REDUCE ENRICHMENT AT DOMESTIC RESEARCH AND TESTREACTORS ;.

!

Attached is a brief paper prepared at your request. It proposes several i

options for encouraging domestic research and test reactors to use low|

enriched uranium fuel. The NRC licensing staff has hed several opportimitie3.

to review this paper. The various options have also been discussed in !general terms with the National Organization of Test, Rcsearch and Training :Reactors whose representatives met with the staff and OPE earlier this month.In addition, the paper has been informally reviewed by the Departments of iState and Energy. !i

'- '

. iI recomend that the Comission pursue two of the option? that have been4

'

proposed: i,

. i(1) that no new research reactors be licensed for use of HEU fuel unless the '

applicant shows that the unique purpose of the project could not beachieved without using HEl' fuel. '

.

(2) that existing reactors inust replace burned up HEU fuel with LEU if E

technically feasible with existing fuel technology at the time of [refueling. '

Should the Comission wish to pursue these options, OPE is ready to work with !~ the staff to see that ~the policies are put into place. >_

:

Attachment: i

- As Stated !

Icc: Chairman PalladinoComissioner Gilinsky .

Comissioner RobertsComissioner Asselstine !'

* Herzel Plaine-Samuel J. Chilk !

William J. Dircks -

i:

. t

CONTACT:GeorgeEysymontt(OPE) .

634-3302 :

;

*. . !

.

, . _ . ,_. _- . - _ _ - _ . _ , , , , , , , _ _ - , . . _ , , , , . _,,.,._,.,,,% ., , _ , , , , ,-. . . , . . __ .m .,.

; - .. .. . . . ~ . . ._ n -~ n . .-, ,,

. .. ..- -.

,

.%..>.

|*''-

. .'

., ,,

'.r.. .,u;.

!.

..

. ,, POLICY TO REDUC,E ENRICHMENT AT RESEARCH AND TEST REACTORS;

{*' ' r, .

~

.. .

l For some time there has been concern about the ' proliferation risks associated.-

! with inver. tories of highly enriched uranium used in research and testI reactors abroad. In August,1982, tne Comission issued a policy statement

,

expressing its concern and indicating support fur the conversion of foreignreactors to low enriched uranium. In' conjunction with the issuance of this

,

| policy statement Comissioner Ahearne noted that the Comission had comitted'

j itself to get U.S. licensees to move to' lower enrichment fuel and requested

{ that the Office of Policy Evatuation develop a prograni plan outlining! appropriate steps to maintain the same level of pressure on U.S. licensees as '!

j the Comission intends to maintain on foreign users of U.S. fuel. This paper

j sumarizes the current situation in the United States and suggests somepolicy options which the Comission may wish to pursue in order to achieve.

1

j this objective.

!,

-

I

j Current Situation:

IIIn its annual report to the Congress, the Department of State sumarizedthe current situation with respect to highly enriched uranium as follows:

The United Stites is the principal exporter of highly enriched uraniumfor use as . fuel in research and test reactors. Forty-seven such reactorsabroad, with powers of 1 MW or more, currently use HEU of United States ;

2origin, as do 22 reactors / of that type and size in the United States.,

1'- Exports of HEU for use in the foreign reactors average about 600

kilograms annually; about 500 kilograms ~ are used domestgally. Since

. -

~ UReport u the Congres: pursuant to Section 601 of the NuclearNon-Proliferation Act of 1978.

l

2/ ncludes DOE reactors not licensed by NRC.I

I

l,..

I

e

e e

9

h--- -- - . . - - . , , - . - - , . .. , , _ --. - - - ,.m- -.----,,m--*:+e--e - ,

. o. .., .

..

;,. . ,

|' - '

- - - .., ,

-

;.

2 :..

!

r;

the duraticiof the fuel. cycles, from the export or domestic delivery of [-

>

fresh HEU to the return of spent fuel, averages about four years, j

approximately 4,400 kilograms of HEU of United States origin are in'

|circulation at any given time, for research reactor use alone, in the !

United States and abroed.

TI.ere are 28 NRC-licensed research and test reactor facilities of all~ sizes. |mostly university operated, which presently may use highly enriched uranium |[HEU). Only 16 of these facilities are currently authorired to possess a f.

formula quantity of HEU. Of these 16, seven are 1 W or less, and nine are (greater than 1 W. The total upacicy of NRC-licensed research and test jreactor facilities using HEU is approximately 50 W. In addition to these j

. facilities there are 15 Department of Energy research and test reactors jtots 111ng some 450 W and 1 U. S. power reactor (Ft.'St. Vrain) which also |utilize HEU. Table 1 and 2 attached indicate the location of each research ;

.

and test reactor licensed by NRC which may use HEU and show the authorized j-

level of fuel which the licensee may possess. -

i

Because the high cost of construction and operation and relatively low I

student enrollment in the nuclear' departments of universities, the staff does !not expect to receiv: any new license applications for research reactors in ' |

'the near-future. Followig the issuance of the present backlog of 20 license-

renewal' applications, there will be 1 to 4 renewals processed annually with- renewals issued typically for 20 years.3/ Most of the research reactors are !

fnot refueled often due M low usage and consequently low burn-up. At thesecurrent rates many licensees expect to use their present cores for the rest i

of this century. !'

!,

- .

3/The licensing backlog includes research and test reactors which use either

LEU or HEU. There_are 66 NRC-licee. sed research and test reactors.

.

.*

e

I

e

S

- - ._ . . . .. m._y._ _ . 7 ,. , ,,_.,,---..w. .__.--,3... , ,,-, . , , ,. ,,-.,- -

- -

.,. w

,

. .. . . _ .

,

~ -

,. , ,

!. ,

*'

.. ,,

{. 3

j. - *, -

,_, _

! Conversion to Low Enriched Uranium Fuels..

i3

{ ,

Research and Test Reactors (RERTF) program. The RERTR program is |

In 1978 the United States government established the Reduced Enrichment for,

|

; administered by the Department of Energy (DOE), with the bulk of the|technical responsibility centered at the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL).;

| The goal of this program is to substantially minimize the trase in HEU (HEU,

| containing greater than 20% U-235) by developing and demonstrating new high'

uranium density fuels to permit reactor conversions to the use of low'

; enricheduranium(LEU,containinglessthan20%U-235).

|

!'

In assessing the practical feasibility of utilizing low enriched uranium fuel-

in existing research reactors, the DOE RERTR P,rogram is using the followingcriteria: safety margins and fuel reliability should not be lower than for; ,

f the current design based on highly enriched uranium; major reactor' modifications should not be required; and the loss in overall reactor

,

! perforunce (1. e., flux per unit of power) as well as the increase in

i operation costs should be minimized.:1

Enrichment reduction by simple substitution of lower enriched uranium inexisting fuel de. signs has the immediate effect,of reducing core performance

~

!- and cannot ineet the above criteria. Enrichment reductions can be feasible,

I for most resear:.h and test reactor designs if the U-235 content in the fuel~

i element u increased while the enrichment is decreased. Irradiation

| performance, in terms of flux per unit of power, can remain comparable toj that attained with HEU fuel. The neutron poisoning effect of the U-2381

j contained in LEU-fuel must be compensated to maintain reactivity, fuel life -

and reactor performance.!

! For plate-type fuel the necessary increase in uranium content per fuelelement could be achieved by increasing the volume fraction of the fuel meat i

i ;

'. |1

-

;-,

*; !.

-.

__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ ._. _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . - . _

_ - - ....-__m.e._e... .., ,, ,

- -. . .

. .

|. . ..

.

..

.

4 '. -

.

5g|

and/or by increasipp the uranium concentratice in the fuel meat. Increasing-

,

; the volume fraction of the fuel meat can be accomplished by decreasing theplate clad thickness and increasing the meat thickness or by using a smaller'

number of thicker plates per element. Either route must avoid anyunnecessary decrease in coolant volume. Each approach has limitations whichumke it difficult to ed:Quately increase the fuel meat volume fraction inhigh-performance reactors that operate very close to their thermal-hydrauliclimit with their present HEU fuel.,

-

If the uranium concentration in the fuel meat could be adequately increased .I without changing the thickness, it would have negligible effects on the

thermal-hydraulics properties of the core. The implementation of this, approach is tied to the development and demonstration of fuel materialsoffering significantly higher uranium density using a~dvanced fuel fabricationtechnology. Development of new f0el material, appropriate fabricationtechniques and irradiation testing of the fuel is currently underway in the.

'

U. S. under the auspices of the RERTR program and in complementary programs -

of various foreign countries.

The Department of Energy program to achieve this goal is a two-phased ~ fueldevelopment, testing and demonstration effort. Phase I involves production

2~~ and testing of aluminide- and oxide-dispersio.n LEU-fuels with maximum

achievable uranium densities, using b2st available commercial technology for- fuel fabrication. These " current, technology" LEU-fuels are limited in

service to the lower power reactor applicatior.s. such as the on-going fuelcore demonstration of LEU fuel-in the 2MW Ford Nuclear Research Reactor atthe University of Michigan.

,,

To date. Phase II activities have included: selection of uranium silicide asa candidate material capeble of providing significant increase in uranium

,

density for the fuel meat; production and extensive irradiation of miniplates

.

S S

G

.

N , _ - - = - - . , F - "#.-e.+ e-w ,-e-e*,-ew-#, .-.,, c, w.--. - - - - ..-,.

. - - - . . . . -,

_

.' o

. .+.

-. . .

. .,- \. -

. .

5~

.

-- '

.,,,

).. . .

i (clad fuel specimens) of silicide-dispersion fue1' materials; production and !~

..;-

initiation of testing of full size prototype fuel assemblies' in selected test |

'reactors; and initiation of post irradiation examinations of miniplates.

irradiated to as high as 80% burnup of fissile content.

Future Phase II activities include: completion of post irradiation,

examinations on most of the irr'adiated LEU-fuel miniplates (and any otherspecimens which might be deemed necessary); and selectIion.of the preferreduranium silicide dispersion material for fabrication into LEU-fuel for a full 'core demonstration in a high performance reactor such as the Oak RidgeResearch Reactor. Such a commercial procurement and irradiation performance

'

- demonstration is planned during the period FYs 1985-88. At this time, theRERTR program has completed too few post irradiation evaluations to4

quantitatively assess the performance of the highest '-density silicide fuelU,

candidates.. .

lNRC must review the irradiation performance data generated in the LEU-fueltest programs of DOE and its partners abroad, as a basis for establishing

*'

'licensibility of the resulting LEU-fuels. Appropriate safety analysisreports must be completed for each specific reactor application before LEUreplacement cores could be licensed for use in the related research and test

~~

reactors. If approved, a license amendment could be-issued for the specific-

,

LEU-fuel application in accordance with normal licensing procedures.,

.

Policy Options -

;

i

The following discussion assumes.that a principal concern of U.S. policy with -

'-respect to HEU use abroad is the' threat of national diversion. Thus, thegoal of U.S. policy is to stop all international traffic of HEU and the

,

purpose of this paper 1s to discuss domestic policy options which comportwith this objective. To further this goal, it is important that the U.S.

.

.

.

.

S

-'., ,-~r , . _ Q*P Mv(i w, t . . _ . _ , . - . _ , . - +- +3 -.m.,- ,-,-m. -w.. , ,, ._,,,w ,......-.,m,_ .m..,,...,.w.

* * * *

w - w -- .- - - --

-

,

..

.. . - . .,

|-

.

|. . 6I

b!

have a domestic p'olicy on HEU. reduction comparable to its overseas policy.-

Otherwise, it has been argued, foreign operators will be relucta'nt to convertj| to the use of LEU and could claim the U.S. was trying to gain an advantage in

nuclear technology and research.

There are a number of steps which the NRC could take to help achieve this )U.S. non-proliferation policy objective. There are also a number of other I

steps which could be taken by other agencies to encourage conversion of, non-power reactors to LEU. These are all discussed below with an indication

as to who might be affected and how the policy might be implemented. In the'

discussion below it is assumed that current U.S. physical protectionregulations are sufficient to counter domestic threats and that the primary

. purpose of the. initiative is to encourage conversion of foreign facilities.-

Option 1: No new research reactors would be licensed for the use of HEU fuel~

h unless the applicant showed that the unique puroose of the project could not'

be achieved without using HEU-fuel.

i The Comission could issue a policy statement which would state that the NRCwould no longer consider applications for a construction permit to build

,

i

non-power facilities utilizing HEU unless the applicant could show that the ~~

objective of the project could not be met using LEU fuel. This probably will-

not affect any one immediately since the staff.does not believe there are any- such applications contemplated at, present. It would send a message to users

of HEU that th'e U.S. is taking steps to limit the use of HEU. This optionhas been formulated to require- justification for HEU fuel use to take .intoaccrunt coments received during a recent meeting held by the staff and the

'

Office of Policy Evaluation with the National Organization of Test, Researchand Training Reactors. This group felt that a policy of absolute prohibitionof new research reactors using HEU could be damaging to U.S. research in

~

reactor and fuel technology. In addition, the State Department has informed

.

9 g 4

. *

.

* .*

;

MQ P _*___ _ _ _ _ _ .r_*_--___.g.__y . _ _ _

__ _ _ , . . , _ _.,

_

, . . . . _ . . .. ..,

,

,- - '* - -..;,, ,

'- - *

, ..,

;. . :...

,

7.,

- -

, ., . '* ~

. . . .

us after an informal review of this paper that in its formulation of the.-,

RERTR program, the U.S. has reserved the right to build new domestic research

,

reactors using HEU, if the. mission justifies it. Apparently, France, the'

j USSR, and the U.K. maintain the same option.

Option 2: Existing reactors must replace burned up HEU fuel with LEU, iftechnically feasible with exist'ing fuel technology at the time of refueling.

| The Commission could issue a rule prohibiting those research reactors stiichcould use LEU from refueling with HEU unless licensees demonstrated that itwould not be technically feasible to use LEU fuel in the reactor or, ;4,

alternatively, that the appropriate LEU fuel was unavailable from fuel'

fabricators. The basis for the prohibition would be that it is in accordwith U.S. policy with respect to exports of HEU to noh-power reactors abroad.The consequences of such an approach is far reaching but gradual. There are

' ' twenty-eightresearbandtestreactorspotentiallyconvertibletolow,

'

,

i enriched uranium fuel. This would immediately affect all five TRIGA-typereactors as well as three plate-type reactors (University of Michigan,- RhodeIsland NSC, University of Lowell [ Mass.)). As matters now stand General

i

Atomics is the' sole source fuel fabricator for TRIGA reactors and it nolonger fabricates HEU fuel for these reactors. Only LEU fuel is available, ;

i so TRIGA users no longer have any choice but to replace their HEU elements |

| gradually with LEU as their current fuel is burned up. Licensing is not a'

|

|- problem since the technical specifications for these facilities already ' l

. .~

permit operation using LEU. While these users have no choice but to convert,due to their low utilization rates it may take a long time.

> .

The situation with respect to the 3 plate-type reactors is that a full-core1LEU demonstration is on-going at the University of Michigan reactor using 1.7Igm/cc den:ity fuel. Although incomplett, this test i; hows promise for

complete success. The Rhode Island NSC and University of Lowell reactors'

.

e

0

4

9

*-- - - - - .-. 1 - w --y y - , + - y . .,,,w ~, ,--,_,,.--.,v. ww ~. e--,e yv-

,- -.

,,. _ _-.

,

-.

,

- .. . . ..

,

.

.

8..

.

S.

could convert to similar LEU fuel as their current.NEU fuel is burned up,*

assuming no safety problems arise in the course of NRC's licensing reviews.-The on-going. full core demonstration has indicated that mixed HEU-LEU cores

are both technically and economically feasible for such reactor applications..

If adopted, a rule prohibiting research reactors from being refueled with HEU,

if capable of using LEU would result in a gradual reduction in the HEUcontent of the cores of research reactors. Table I and II sumarize thecurrent fuel conversion situati$n with respect to research and test reactors.

for sizes greater than and less than one MW respectively. Most reactors itappears must await the successful development of silicide fuels which are notexpected to be available until the late 1980's. For reactors less than oneMW, based on current usage rates, existing cores will probably never have to.

be replaced during the life of the reactor. Conseque'ntly, this option wouldnot affect many small reactors which are owned by universities.

.

. Option 3: Imediate replacement of the cores of those existing reactors *

capable of using LEU. .

Under Option 2, the process of conversion of those reactors where conversion,is feasibit would be gradual due to the low rates of burn-up. An alternative'to this approach would need a more radical change in federal policy and inthe ava'ilcbility of federal funds. If the Commission believes that it is

. important to achieve domestic corpersions more rapidly than in the previous'

'

alternative, then additional steps need to be taken to assist in theconversicn of fuel inventories * oc fact the prospect that these reactors wouldbe shut down because operators could not comply due to lack of funds.

A more radical approach than the policy proposed .in Option 2 would be for theComission to push for imediate corversion of fuel irventories to LEU only.Of those reactors greater than 1 MW, this would affect five TRIGA reactors

-.

4 6

#

O

g e.. . .. .. .. - . . . ..

_ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _

.

,_ _ . _ ___ _ ___

~--> . , . .

.

|...''

.

'i, ...

.

9,. ..

<.. .

,

': .

-

..

! imediately and two plate-type reactors (Rhode Island and Lowell), given the.-

successful use of LEU fuel at the University of Michigan reactor. Michiganalready has a complete LEU. core. The other potentially convertible reactors

'

! must await the successful development of silicide fuels. Based on thecurrent RERTR schedule, high density'silicide fuel will not be available fora full core demonstration for another three to five years.

As for the fourteen reactors which are less than 1 MW 'in size, according to*

{ analyses done by Argonne National Laboratory, there are four which could be

i converted to oxide fuel and two to aluminide fuels with current technology(see Table II). Should the Comission decide to pursue this option.

I consideration should be given to excluding reactors possessing less than aj formula quantity of strategic special nuclear .from the requirement to

imediately replace their existing fuel inventories. This would mean fewerfunds would be needed to effect the necessary inventory exchange. While this

'

approach may be prac'tical from a domestic point of view, the State Department -

has indicated that this is not their approach with respect to exports of HEUto foreign reactors. They would like to see all comerce in HEU stop.

3

p

i

If the Comission believes that it is important to achieve complete fuel-

inventory conversion more rtpidly than in previous alternatives, thenadditional steps need to be taken to assist in that conversion. The

'

Dep'artment of Energy, the Office of Management and Budget, and appropriate.

| .Congressional Comittees would have to be convinced to provide funds at lea.st-

! to assist in the conversion, and to procure.the fabricated fuel cores. It '| should be noted that current U.S. policy does not propose immediate

conversion of facilities using U S.-supplied HEU abroad. Given the state of *

' -university finances and present enrollments in nuclear departments, immediateconversion without financial support from the government could well result in,

i closing of these facilities. Dould government funding not be available to

4

.

e

*r

, .

_ . , ,, , - . - . , , ,.,,,,,,e--- r,~-- _ . m , -

- ...-___ _ __. _ _ _ _ ., _ , , ,

-.

.. .. ..,

,

.-

! + .

10,- .*

l

! ,

'! .

| * private industry for complete. conversion, it is unclear what action they! .would take.

|-

At present all university-owned reactors receive their fuel from thej Departmeni; of Energy through the University Reactor Fuel Assistance Pregram j

| (URFA). The fuel is D.O.E. owned. . The transportation costs to the reactor

j is an important factor in the cost of the fuel, and URFA does not necessarily'

pay for it. DOE presently absorbs the cost of reprocessing this fuel, but

| . not out of the URFA budget which totalled $1.6 million in FY 82.I

! The cost of a new core is difficult to estimate since fabrication costs are afunction of the technology, basic fuel costs, and throughput of the

! . fabrication facility. However, for order of magnitude purposes, a

| fabrication cost of $25,000 per fuel element can be a'ssumed. Since a typical'

| (1 MW) research reactor has about 30 elements, it implies that it would cost.' about $750,000 for fuel to immediately replace an existing core. Added to'

this must be facility modifications (if any), shipping, storage and4

f reprocessing costs. Costs for a complete conversion are estimated to range

j from $1 to $1.5 million per reacter core. As a percent of the URFA budget,'

the cost of conversion would be large. As a percent of the DOE budget, the ,

j cost would be miniscule. !

j- .

| Option 4: Conversion of DOE facilities utilizing HEU to LEU.'

1-

| As pointed out earlier, the total capacity of DOE facilities using HEU

|exceeds that licensed by NRC by about a factor of 9. Because of a greater

! degree of reactor utilization by DOE as compared with NRC-licensed research'

and test reactors, the replacement of HEU reactor fuel with LEU fuel as it isburned up may be more rapidly implemented. On this point it should be notedthat of the 450 W operated by DOE, five reactors represent the bulk (440 MW)

i of the capacity. One of these reactors has a capacity of 250 MW and is

1

i~

i.

..

;-

-

. .

'-

.

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

>=,- :fa,, ,

..

, . ... '

-.

s ;-.. .

! 11

k --.

- .,.. -. _

currently being used for defense-related researih. Moreover, at least threei..

of these reactors totalling 410 MW could not be converted at present becausethey require successful development of silicide fuels. Therefore, while it )is possible that DOE facilities could be used for demonstrating the country's !i

4 1

i resolve to convert its facilities to LEU in support of international policies j1 1

|on non-proliferation, it does not appear that a significant portion of the '

j capacity operated by DOE could 'be rapidly converted given the nature of the

| facilities.s

i

i

3

\ .-:1

I'

|-

1

{' ,a

: -

I

J

!1

1

1

!~.

l -

-

:

i *

I .

-

4

:

.

:

i.

.

.

.

'

i ., _. . _ . . .- .. . - _ -- - -- .- . . . - . .

. . _ .. . _.. . _ .. _ . , _ . . _ . . _ .. _ . . . . . ...

_ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _

.

.

UNITED STATES,0F AMERICANUCLEAR REGULATORY Com ISSION !

!,

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

In the Matter ofDocket No. 50-142

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OFCALIFORNIA (Proposed Renewal of Facility

License)(UCLA Research Reactor) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO MOTIONS BYCOMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP AND BY SANTA MONICA CONCERNING LICENSINGBOARD RULINGS AND SCHEDULING AND TO THE PREHEARING CONFERENCE MEMORANDUMAND ORDER OF MARCH 23, 1983" in the above-captioned proceeding have beenserved on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class,or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear RegulatoryComission's internal mail system, this 4th day of April,1983:

* John H. Frye, III, Chaiman William H. Comier, Esq.Administrative Judge Office of Administrative ViceAtomic Safety and Licensing Board ChancellorU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission University of California atWashington, DC 20555 Los Angeles

405 Hilgard Avenue*Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Los Angeles, CA 90024Administrative JudgeAtomic Safety and Licensing Board Christine Helwick, Esq.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Glenn R. Woods, Esq.Washington, DC 20555 Office of General Counsel

2200 University Avenue*Dr. Oscar H. Paris 590 University HallAdministrative Judge Berkeley, CA 94720Atomic Safety and Licensing Board;

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Roger Holt, Esq.Washington, DC 20555 Office of City Attorney

200 North Main StreetComittee to Bridge the Gap City Hall East, Room 1700'

1637 Butler Avenue, #203 Les Angeles, CA 90012Los Angeles, CA 90025

Daniel HirschJohn Bay, Esq. Box 1186

;

| 3755 Divisadero #203 Ben Lomond, CA 95005San Francisco, CA G123 -

,.

,

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

._ __

4

,

l

Nuclear Law Center * Atomic Safety and Licensing !,''c/o Dorothy Thompson Board Patel 1

6300 Wilshire #1200 U.S. Nutlear Regulatory Comission !

Los Angeles, CA 90048 Washington, DC 20555

Robert M. Meyers * Atomic Safety and Licensing AppealCity Attorney Soard PanelLynn Na11 boff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionDeputy City Attorney Washington, DC 205551685 Main Street, Room 310Santa Monica, CA 90401

* Docketing & Service SectionOffice of the SecretaryU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555

.

.

;

E /Colleen P. WoodheadCounsel for NRC Staff

||l

I.

I

. _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ . . __ . . . . _ . . . . . . . _ . .. . . .,. g.

__ _ _ __ ,