ML20003H251
| ML20003H251 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute |
| Issue date: | 05/01/1981 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105050417 | |
| Download: ML20003H251 (82) | |
Text
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULAIORY COMMISSION 2
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND L'ICENSING BOARD 3
SPECIAL PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE 4
x 5
In the Matter of 6
l ARMED FORCES RADIOBIOLOGY a
DOCKET NO. 50-170 i
7 RESEARCH INSTITUTE (Application to Benew a
Facility License No. R-84) 8 (TRIGA-Type Beactor) 4 9---------
x to Fifth Floor Hearing Room 4350 East ' dest Highway 11 Bethesda, Maryland 12 The Special Pre-Hearing Conference met at 9:37 a.m.,
13 F rida y, May 1,
1981, pursuant to notice, Louis J. Carter, 14 Administrative Law Judge, presiding.
15 PRESENT s ERNEST E. HILL, Administrative Law Judge 16 DAVID R. SCHINK, 17 Administrative Law Judge 18 ALSO PRESENT:
19 FOR APPLICANT:
David C. Rickord, Deputy General Counsel l
20 Major Ronald Smoker Lt. Cdr. Paul Durphy 21 Defense Nuclear Agency 22 FOR PETITIONERSs Elirabeth 3.
Entwisle, Esq.
Dr. Irving S tillm an,
23 Intervenors 24 25 ALDERSON AEPCRTlhG COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINtA AVE S.W WASHINGTCN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2 1
2 F0B NRC STAFFa Bichard G. Bachmann, Esq.,
FRC Staff Counsel 3
Stuart A. Treby, Esq.,
Assistant Chief Hearing 4
Counsel 5
Harold' Bernard, NRC Project 6
7 8
/
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 j
l l
22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. : 0024 (202) 554-2345
3 1
PF0 C E_.IJ I NGS 2
9:37 a.m.
3 JUDGE CARTER:
This special pre-hearing conference is 4 called to order.
This is Docket Nunber 50-170, the Armed 5 Forces Radiobiology Research Institute proceeding.
6 Pursuant to delegation by the Nuclear Regulatory 7 Commission dated December 29, 1972, and published in the 8 Federal Register an Atomic Safety Licensing Board was 9 established to rule on petitions for leave to intervene 10 and/or requests for hearing and to preside over the 11 proceeding in the event tha t a hearing is ordered.
12 My name is Louis J. Carter.
I am an attornty and 13 chairman of the Boa rd.
i 14 To my right is David R. Schink of the Department 15 of Oceanography of Texas ACM University.
Dr. Schink is a 16 graduate of Pomona College, California, and has his haster's 17 degree in oceanography and chemistry and a Ph.D. in 18 oceanography from the University of California.
He has been 19 Associate Professor of Chemical Cceanography at Texas ACM 20 and si"ce 197a has been a member of the Atomic Safety and l
l 21 Licensing Board Panel.
And he is a member of the National 22 Science Foundation Advisory Panel on Physical Chemical 23 Oceanography and Marine Geology and Geophysics.
l 24 To my left is Ernest E. Hill of the l
25 Lawrence-Livermore Laborateries.
Mr. Hill has his Master's ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
a 1 degree in nuclear engiaeering from the University of 2 California-Berkeley, formerly was chief of the Reactor 3 Safety Branch of.the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, and, 4 until 1974 was tr.a group leader of the Systen Analysis 5 Group, Reactor Safety and Quality Assurance, and since then 6 has been a member of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 7 panel.
8 An order was issued by us on April 15 setting this 9 conference.
No limited appearances will be accepted at the to conference.
We will concern ourselves here today with a 11 consideration of the Contentions that,have been made.
There 12 will be no dicisions made f rom the. bench.
We will issue an 13 opinion subsequently.
14 I will ask the attorneys to enter their 15 appearances, starting first with the staff.
16 ER. BACHMANN:
Hy name is Richard G. Eachmann.
I i
17 as the staff attorney for the NRC staff.
To my right is i
l 18 Stuart A. Treby, Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel, the NRC l
10 staff, and to my left is Harold Bernard, who is the Project 20 Hanager for the AFERI f acility.
21 MS. ENTWISLE4 My name is Elizabeth B. Entwisle.
22 I am general counsel for the Citizens for Nuclear Eeactor
{
l l
23 Saf ety Incorporated.
To my right is Dr. Irving Stillman, t
24 who is our expert.
25 JUDGE CARTER 4 I am sorry.
'J o uld you repeat his I
ALOERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
5 1 name?
2 MS. ENTWISLE:
Dr. Irving Stillman, who is our 3 expert consultant in this proceeding.
4 JUDGE CARTEE:
Thank you.
5 MR. RICKORD:
Good morning.
My name is David 6 Rickord.
I am Deputy General Counsel for the Defense 7 Nuclear Agency, which is the Armed Forces Radiobiology 8 Institute's parent.
9 To my laft la Major Ronald Smoker.
To my right is to Lieutenant Commander Paul Durphy.
These two gentlemen are 11 here to translate physics f or ne if the need should arise.
12 JUDGE CAETIE:
Thank you, 13 I will ask now that the parties sake any opening 14 sta tements that they may desire to make in a preliminary 15 f ashion.
16 If there are no opening statements, we vill then 17 proceed to a consideration of the Contentions.
Does any 18 counsel want to sake any preliminary statement?
19 MS. ENTWISLE:
I would just like to say on thing 20 and that is that my understanding of the purpose of the 21 proceeding here today it to consider solely the 22 admissibility of the Contentions here before us, and I would 23 urge the panel or the Board not to let any of the parties 24 g et into the merits of any of the arguments.
25 JUDGE CARTER:
That is our goal.
That is our ALCERSoN REPCRTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024(2021 554 2345
6 1 mission, and that is the rule that we expect to ap;1y.
2 MR. BACHMANN:
Judge Carter, if I might?
3 JUDGE CARTEB Mr. Bachmann.
4 MR. 3ACHMANN:
I would like to briefly run down 5 the actions that have already occurred prior to l
6 consideration of the Contentions in that the Petitioner has l
7 filed a petition for leave to intervene, an amended 8 petition, and responses have been filed by the Licensee and 9 the staff.
10 At this point, we, on the 25th of January, insofar 11 as the standing aspect was concerned, the staff felt at that 12 point, based on their amended petition that the Petitioner 13 had satisfied the standing and aspect requirements of a 14 petition.
15 Subsequent to that, on March 30, 1981, we had met l
16 previously the Licensee, the Petitioner, and the staff, and 17 had stipulated to six contentions.
I realize you said you l
l 18 would not rule from the bench.
However, we feel at this i
19 point that sin ce a t least there are six stipulated 20 contentions, that the Petitioner could be c.sidered at this 21 point an intervenor and accorded to the proceeding.
22 JUDGE CARTER:
Does the Applicant have any 23 statemen t on tnat question with regard to standing?
l 24
- 33. RICKORD:
Insofar as the standing issue is 25 concerned, we concur with the NRC staff.
'J e h a u previously I
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
[
{
I 7
1 indicated our sgreement that the Petitioners have stated at
~
2 least six contentions with sufficient specificity and detail 3 so as to make it clear that they are appropriately a pa rty 4 to the proceeding.
5 I would hope, and I think this might be what 3r.
6 Bachmann was aiming at, that we could perhaps move on and 7 look at simply the contentions in dispute, should that be 8 the pleasure of the Board.
9 JUDGE CARTER:
Yes.
We believe that the precise 10 issues to be considered today are the unstipulated 11 contentions which are Attachment 3 to the Stipulation, and I 12 succest th a t we follow this proced'ure to have Miss Entwisle 13 speak in support of her Contention and then we will have a 14 response f rom the staff and then by the Applicant.
15 We vill take each of the Contentions l
l 16 individually.
I realize, and we are appreciative of the 17 extensive work tha t the staff and the Applicant have done in 18 responding to the Contentions and explaining their 19 positions.
However, there may be questions from the Board 20 with regard to these issues, and we propose to have that l
21 opportunity by following this procedure.
22 So I think, Miss Entwisle, the first matter would 23 be, and you need not read it entirely, but give us your oral 24 statement in support of unstipulated Contention I, which is 25 entitled " Accidents I."
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 1
8 1
MS. INTWIS12.
This Contention deals with a loss 2 of coolant accident that the AFERI applicant has put forth 3 as part of his license application.
We maintain that, 4 contrary to AFRRI's position --
5 JUDGE CARTERS Excuse me, Miss En twisle.
Could 6 you hold the microphone a little closer to your mouth so it 7 vill be a little louder?
~
8 MS. ENTWIS1Es We maintain that in the event of a 9 loss of coolant accident, such as that described in the to Applicant's loss of coolant accident scenario, air 11 convection alone will not be sufficient to ecol the reactor 12 down to a lo w criticality'..
13 We maintain that.in the event of a rapid loss of 14 coolant in the reactor, in an actively operating core there 15 could be a sudden temperature elevation to 900 degrees 16 centigrade or higher and this could result in significant 17 cladding f ailure and fission particle releases in excess of 18 the NRC's 10 CFR Part 20 limits.
19 I would like to further point out that the 20 arguments that both the Applicant and the staff get into in 21 their position papers get into questions of evidence and the 22 sole question before us today is the admissibility of this 23 Contention.
24 I would like to cite for the Board the recent 25 ruling in the Regents of the University of California ALCERSoN REPCRTING COMP ANY, INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
9 1' reactor on Ma~rch 20, 1981, in cupport of our position that 2 due to the proximity of this reactor to the public, the 3 Board is compelled to consider such a possible accident 4 scenario.
5 JUDGE CARTER:
Mr. Bachmann?
6 MR. BACHMANN:
Yec, sir.
t 7
I would like to just briefly mention the 8 requirements for the admissibility of the Contention.
That 9 is, the basis must be teasonably specific.
And, as we noted 10 in our statement of position, there are certain guidelines 11 and one of them, of course, is tha t the parties must be put 12 on notice as to what they must defend against or oppose.
l 13 Others, of course, are the challenge to the regulations.
14 On that basis, looking at the wording of the
(
15 Contention as it is set out, the Pe titioner has stated that 16 rapid loss of coolant while the reactor is in a pulse mode, 17 this is the wording of the Contention that we are 18 add ressing, it is the staff 's position that this does lack l
l 19 basis and really f ails to alert the parties as to what they I
20 Rust -- wha t matters are so ught to be litigated.
21 The reactor cannot be pulsed unless it is 22 critical.
The reactor cannet be critical without the water 23 moderator.
Therefore, where there was no water, it could 24 not be pulsed.
25 Whil< the Petitioner has indicated this may go to ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
400 vtRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON 0.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
10 1 the evidence, it is the staff's position that basis must 2 have some foundation in f act and to sa y tha t a reactor could 3 be pulsed, lacking water, is a physical impossibility.
For 4 that reason, we feel that they have not given us sufficient 5 basis.
6 Staff's second position is that in stipulated 7 Contention II, Section 4, we have stipulated the potential 8 f or the results of a multi-cladding failure due to a loss of 9 cooling accident, so this not only -- the staff 's position 10 is not only is this Contention physically impossible the way 11 it. is now worded, were it reworded it would be duplicative 12 of stipulated Contention II.
13 JUDGE CARTER:
3r. Bachmann, would you help,me 14 find that portion in the stipulated attachment?
What page 15 is that?
16 MR. BACHMANN:
That is on page 3 of Attachment A 17 in the stipulation.
18 JUDGE CARTER:
And what language do ycu say covers 19 the situation?
20
- 53. BACHMANN:
Depending on what the Pe titioner 21 indeed wishes to litigate, if they intend to litigate what 22 would be th e results of a loss of coolant accident, we have 23 accepted a stipulation to a contention chat postulates a 24 multiple fuel cladding failure, in Section 4, and Section 25 4 (c ) indicates a loss of coolant accident.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2344
i 11 1
Now that appears to be the worst case accident 2 that could happen to loss of coolant accidents, and so --
3 JUDGE CARTER:
Excuse me, Mr. Bachmann.
At page 42, what line do you say covers this?
5 MR. BACHMANN:
This is page 3 of Attachment A of 6 the Stipulation, th'e last ites, item number 4 at the bottom l
7 of the page.
There is refers to multiple fuel cladding a failure accidents have no been considered in the hazard 9 summary reports.
Such accidents could result from, and if 10 you go to the next page -- Part C on page 4 -- a 10CA, or 11 loss of coolant arcident.
12 JUDGE CARTEE:
How do you say that differs from 13 the Contention?
Aren't you admitting that the 10CA problem 14 is to be covered in the testimony?
l l
15 MR. BACHMANN4 What I am saying, sir, is tha t we 16 h a ve -- to the extent that the Applicant is concerned about 17 the results of a loss of coolant accident, if that is the 18 thrust of their Contention, that we already have a i
19 stipulated Con tention bef ore th e Board to the extent th a t l
20 they are saying that we could have a loss of coolant 21 accident followed by the reactor going to a pulse mode.
22 It is the staff's position this is physically 23 impossible.
From what Petitioners said, they did not 24 explain the pulse mode with loss of water, and therefore 25 staff is now assuming that they are merely looking for the ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
12 1 results of a loss of coolant accident, which has already 2 been stipulated.
3 ER. RICKCRD:
Sir, this first contention that we 4 are dealing with is somewhat similar to several others in 5 kind of a generic sense.
Our reaction on this Contention is 6 that we have difficult stipulating to something that we I
l 7 believe to be a physical impossibility and suspect on our 8 part tha t maybe we don't understand what the Contention 9 means and have difficulty, for that reason, stipulating to a 10 con tention that we don 't understand.
11 And if we haven't got the specificity there to 12 counter the inexplicable physical impossibility scenario, 13 then we are at a loss to know what we are to defend against, 14 if you will.
15 JUDGE CARTER.
Miss Entwisle, is it ycur position 18 that you will present testimony that indicates that it can 17 be critica'l in a pulse mode without the presence of the 18 water?
19
- 55. ENTWIS1Es Yes, sir.
It is our intention and 20 we are prepared to do that.
21 JUDGE CARTER.
I can't hear you.
22 MS. ENTWISLE:
That is our position and we are 23 p re pa red to defeni tha t at the hearing on the merits.
f 24 JUDGE CARTER:
Ycu are prepared to present l
25 testimony?
I i
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
13 1
M$. ENTWISLE:
We are prepared to prwsent excuse me one second.
2 testimony showing that 3
(Pause.)
4 MS. ENTWISLE:
Showing that the reactor can oo 5 into pulss mode in the absense of the water.
6 JUDGE CARTER:
Is there anything further on this 7 point?
8 MS. ENTWISLE:
I am a little bit at a loss to know 9 how much evidence to offer at this point.
j 10 JUDGE CARTER:
I am not asking you to offer any 11 evidence.
I am merely asking you whether you have evidence 12 on this subject that you wish to present at an evidentiary 13 hearing to support the fact which is contrary to what your 14 f riends have said, tha t it cannot be critical without the 15 coolant.
16 MS. ENIWISLE:
Yes, we have evidence to support 17 this.
18 JUDGE CARTER:
If there's nothing further on 19 this.
M r. Hill ha s a question.
20 Judoe Hill?
21 JUDGE HILLS We addressed the Part I of the 22 Con tention.
I would like to hear a little bit about Part 23 II, which has to do with the erroneous radiation doses to 24 humans resulting from the submersion exposure.
Can we hear 25 your comments on that?
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. o.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
14 1
MS. ENTWISLE:
Insof ar as this amounts to a 2 challenge to the regulations, we feel that the special 3 circumstances of this case warrant the Board to consider not 4 only the submersion doses that would be received from the 5 gases but the doses that would be received as a result of 6 internal emissions.
1 7
ER. BACHEANN:
As we stated in our statement 8 position, we oppose the admission of this Contention on the l
9 grounds it lacks adequate basis and constitutes an indirect 10 challenge to the Commission's regulations as it is written.
11 The Petitioner when they filed their statement of l
12 position included an affida vit tha t we had not seen prior to i
13 this, at the tine we were filing our statement of our 14 position.
However, it is still the staff's position that 15 the affidavit filed, apparently pursuant to 10 CF3 2.758 16 outlining special circumstances, does not provide special 17 circumstances to allow the Board to disrega rd 10 CRF, Part 18 20, which is essentially what is happening here.
l l
19 As we stated in our statement of position, th e i
l 20 noble cases and the concentrations permitted in unrestricted 21 areas in 10 C P. F, Part 20, those concentrations are based i
22 upon submersion and, as the Petitioner has admitted, this is 23 not only an indirect but a direct challenge to the i
l 24 Commission 's regulation.
l 25 For the Board to accept this, according to the i
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 i
1 j
15 1 provsions of 2.758, the Board must find that the Petitioner 2 has made a prima f acie case showing special circur. stances, 3 and then immediately certify the question directly to the 4 Commission.
5 The Petition that has been filed in support of 6 this and also in support of another Contention merely states 7 population and population density, so there is nothing in 8 that petition that indicates in any scientific way why the I
9 submersion basis used f or the concentrations in Part 20 10 should be ignored in this proceeding.
11 Therefore, the staff does oppose the admission of 12 this Contention.
13 JUDGE CARTER:
Where is that affidavit?
I don't 14 believe the Board has it.
15
.iS. ENTWISLE:
Yes.
It is attached to cur 16 statement of position that was filed several weeks ago.
It 17 is the last two pages.
18 JUDGE CARTER:
What is the date of that?
19 MS. ENTWISLE:
14th of April, 1991. It is the very 20 last page of Petitioner's statam(nt of positions.
21 JUDGE FARTER:
What is the title of the dccument?
22 MS. ENTWISlEs The title is " Position of 1
23 Petitioner on Unstipulated Contentions."
24 JUDGE CARTER:
We have never received that.
Do 25 you have additional copies?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 ViRGINI A AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
i 16 1
MS. ENTWISLE:
Yes, we do have an additional 2 copy.
I served a copy on staff, on NRC staff counsel.
It 3 was my understanding that was sufficient.
4 JUDGE CARTER 4 Suppose we take a short recess 5 now.
I have three minutes after ten.
We vill take a recess 6 until 10:15.
7 (A brief recess was taken.)
8 JUDGE CARTER We are back in order again, 9 please.
We have received copies of the p'osition of to Petitioner on unstipulated contentions.
The copy we have, 11 Miss Entwisle, is dated in Washington the 14th of April, 12 1981, and are we to understand tha t the affidavit which you 13 signed at the back of that position paper is also to be 14 dated the 14th of April?
15 MS. ENTWISlE4 That is correct.
16 JUDGE CARTER:
And would you please see that 17 copies of this are filed with the Secretary?
18 MS. ENTWISlE Yes, sir.
19 JUDGE CARTER:
So it may be part of the file 20 itself.
21 MS. ENTWISlEs I apologize for any inconvenience 22 it has caused the Board.
It was a micunderstanding of 23 counsel and my own lack of f an111arity with the NRC 24 procedures.
25 JUDGE CARTER:
We snderstand.
i i
ALCERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGiNtA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTCN. 3 C. 20004 (202) 554-2345
17 1
MS. ENTWISLE:
There is a signed affidavit which I 2 believe Mr. Bachmann has.
Is that correct?
3 JUDGE CARTER 4 If you will orovide the signed 4 affidavit for the Secretary, perhaps you can exchange the 5 documents.
6 MS. ENTWISLE:
Thank.you.
7 JUDGE CARTER 4 We are back again.
We are still on 8 the unstipulated Contention and we will retarn just for a 9 moment.
I think Judge Hill has a question with regard to 10 Part I of Accidents I, with regard to the criticality issue.
11 JUDGE HILL 4 Again, without gettino into the 12 merits of the case, I would like to hear more about the 13 nature of the testimony that you have that would prove that 14 the reactor -- that this reactor -- could be pulsed in the 15 absence of water.
16 MS. ENTWISLE:
We are prepared to offer evidence 17 that a pulse could take place inadvertently in a situation 18 where the water is already gone and not known to the 19 operator.
We contend tha t this is possible in that such 20 malfunctions of the water level sensing mechanisms have 21 occurred in AFREI as recently at 1979 and you thus have a 22 situation of no water without the knowledge of the operator, 23 and the reactor could then go into pulse mode without the 24 cooling water.
25 JUDGE HI1L:
Again, the difficulty is that the ALDERSON AEPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 vlAGINIA AVE S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
18 1 vater is necessary, required, as a roderator to pulse the 2 reactor, and so you are contending a situation which is 3 physically impossible.
4 MS. ENTWISLE s But the water being used as a 5 moderator is competing also with its use as a ecolant, and 6 so what we have here are two competing physical processes.
7 We are contending that under certain conditions 8 the heating process would happen more quickly than the 9 non-thermalizing process of the water.
And again I am not 10 f amiliar with procedure here. I'would defer the scientific 11 questions to my scientific adviser here, Dr. Stillman, so 12 there is not the risk tha t I misstate a very technical issue.
13
. JUDGE HILLS could I hear --
14 JUDGE CAETERs Well, in fact we are asking for an 15 off er of proof rather than the proof itself.
Do you have a l
l l
16 study, one treatise, to which reference is made and then 17 there is some evidence that you expect from general atomics 18 experimental data ?
Those are two types of evidences that 19 you would propose to present, is that right?
20 MS. ENTWISLEs We have data from general atomics 21 experiments and we have testimony from a nuclear physicist 22 th a t we are prepared to offer.
23 JUDGE SCHINK4 And it is your plan to show, then, 24 that this reactor will work in the absence of a water 25 moderator?
l ALCERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
19 1
.55. ENTWISLEs It is our intent to show that it 2 can go into critical pulse mode in the absence of the water 3 and reach the critical temperature where the harm and the 4 cladding failure is done before the water cooling effect can 5 take over.
6 Would it be appropriate for Dr. Stillman to say 7 something at this point?
8 JUDGE HILLS Yes, please.
Because I as still not 9 satisfied that what you are claiming you are going to do you 10 are going to be able to do.
11 5R. STIllMANs You know, it is difficult.
11: is 12 a very fine attorney, but she's not a scientist an'd.
13 sometimes maybe gats the wo rdin g maybe a little bit not 14 particularly correct.
15 What we are really trying to demonstrate is that, 18 first of all, a loss of water coolant is a finite process.
17 It is not instantaneous, although, theoretically that is what 18 they are saying.
We maintain that it is a finite process 19 and in the loss of that water, while that process is coing 20 o n, that there are competing reactions between the 21 thermalization of the fast neutrons occurring in that water 22 and also the heating up of the fuel element moderator aid 23 the cladding.
And that we can demonstrate that the rates at 24 which those occur will intersect at such a point that a 25 power excurs_on is possible to produce the kinds of effects ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, iNC, 400 VIAGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTCN. D.C. 20024(202) 554 2345
l 20 1
1 ve are concerned about.
2 In other words, what we are postulacing is not 3 that there is a total absence of water.
What we are 4 postulating is that the rates at which these occur is 5 critical in permitting a power excursion of the type that we 6 are concerned about.
I don't know if I made that any 7 clearer.
8 JUDGE CARTER:
I am a lawyer, but I think I 9 understood what you are raying.
I am sorry about that.
to JUDGE HILL:
I would like to hear from your 11 physicist.
12 MR. RICKORD:
Your Honor, I think I will 13 anticipate what counsel is going to say.
We' are maybe 14 getting a little further into it than we should.
If you 15 would like a motion for summary judgment as to this one, we 16 would be prepared to offer you a motion for summary judgment 17 on it.
18 I still don't understand.
19 JUDGE CARTER:
We are dealino with the problem of 20 where s contention is made which appears prima f acie to be I
21 farfetched, unusual,.not in accordance with the general 22 design and general experience of people.
Is that a factual 23 and a specific rontention?
And sometimes we have to go a 24 little farther into the nature of the contention, though it 25 does sound like evidence, in order to f ully understand how ALCERSoN REPORTING CoMPAN),INC, l
400 V'".IINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. 0.C. ;0024 (202) 554 2345 I
21 1 it would operate.
2 Do you have a response?
Do you want to make a 3 response?
4 HR. RICKORD:
Major Smoker would be able to speak 5 physics a little better than I -- quite a lot better.
6 MAJ. SHOKER:
I would just like to bring a couple l
7 of things out and I think they were already answered in our
'8 response back to the Petitioner or our resp'onse to that 9 specific Contention.
10 Even more so than a mode'rator, a reflector is 11 required to be there as a reflector, the water is.
And it 12 is physically impossible to go critics 1.
When I say 13 physically impossible, it is physically impossible to go 14 critical without the water.
15 DR. SIILLMAN:
We are not contending that.
What 1 6 w e a r e s'a y i n g is that the rate'at which the water is lost 17 represents a competing phenomenon and that it is a matter of 18 com paring the rates of the two processes and we claim that f
19 there is sufficient time during the loss of that water so 20 that you reach a point where you reach elevated temperatures 21 and a very high power excursion, which is what we claim is 22 the basis for the accident.
23 JUDGE CARTERS I think we have re ceived sufficient l
24 on that.
It won't go any f urther.
25 We would like next, however, to go into the second i
i ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 4C0 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 j
1 l
~
22 1 part relating to the issue raised as to the radiation doses 2 to humans that would result f rom submersion exposure to the 3 noble gasec released.
There I have read the Contention 4 verbatim and in your petition, Eiss Entwisle, you have 5 attempted to get the benefit of 10 CFE Section 2.758 by 6 presenting special circumstances by which you would be 7 permitted to question the wisdom of the regulation.
8 Now I as personally having some difficulty in 9 seeing how that affidavit presents special circumstances in to the way special circumstances are defined in the rules.
The 11 special circumstance to which that affidavit should apply 12 would indicate that the "applica tion of the rule...would not 13 serve the purposes for which the rule or regulation was 14 ado pted. "
And my reading of your affidavit is that you are 15 saying that the rule is a good rule, but it is more so when 16 there are more so in the area.
17 "S.
ENTWISLEs
- y reading of the rule is that it 18 was draf ted to protect the public health and safety.
We 19 traced it back to the Atomic Energy Act itself.
The Act 20 states that the Commission 's procedures and regulations 21 shall be set up in such a way to protect the public health 22 and saf ety.
23 But the essence of what we are saying here on all 24 of our contentions that we are saying warrant special 25 consideration is that because the reactor is sited in a t
ALDERSoN REPORTING CCMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
23 1 highly populated area in close proximity to the public the 2 standards that are set forth on Part 20 are inadecuate to 3 protect the public health and safety.
They are simply 4 inadequa te.
5 JUDGE CARTER:
That is what I said.
You are 6 saying that there are more people and therefore there is a 7 special circumstance.
8 MS. ENTWISLE:
That's right.
9 JUDGE CARTER:
It seems to me tha t doesn ' t follow.
10 MS. ENTWISLE:
There is a greater health hazard 11 presented to the public because of the reactor's location in 12 the middle of Bethesda, Ma ryl and, and we are saying that it 13 is in such a densely populated area, in such close proximity 14 to hospitals and elementary schools or people.
15 JUDGE CARTER:
The biologic effect on human tissue 16 doesn ' t result from the number of humans, but is a function 17 of the actual effect on the tissue, isn't it?
18 MS. ENTWISLE:
The population nexus is going to be j
19 higher when you have a more dense population.
20 Second, when we are talking more generally about 21 public health and safety, that the Act speaks itself about 22 not specific doses, not individual doses, but the more 23 basic, f undamental issre of protecting the public health and 24 saf ety.
We are sayi o Nia the Commission is required, is l
25 compelled, to ir;s e P her standards on reactors that are l
ALDERSCN REPOpr'NG COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHING 774, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 i
24 1 sited in close proximity to large numbers of people.
2 JUDGE CARTER:
Again, I say that the rule is a 3 preper rule, but it is only more so when there are more 4 people, 5
What you are saying is that the table in Pa rt 20 6 will be different, depending on whether the reactor'is near 7 a heavily populated area or a less populated area, when, in 8 point of fact, that is not the purpose of the table.
9 MS. ENTWISlEs. May I ask what the purpose of the 10 table is?
11 JUDGE CARTER:
I'll take the easy way out and say 12 that the purpose is that which is stated in the regulations, 13 but the individual dosages are not related to the number of 14 people who would be affected, as I read it.
15 Now the floor is open if anyone can say that 16 Appendix 3 to Part 20 has another function where there 17 should be a multiplier depending on the number of people in 13 the area.
19 MS. ENTWISLE:
My second point he re is --
20 JUDGE CARTER:
Well, I am not trying to argue out t
l 21 of it.
I just wanted to be sure that if there is s special 22 circumstance.
At first I thought it was because you were 23 saying that it affected people who were ill in hospitals, 24 but that is not what you said.
25 MS. ENTWISLE:
But it is.
If you look at our I
ALCERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,;NC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
25 1 affidavit, I talk specifically about the proximity of the 2 reactor to elementary schools where you have children who 3 are particularly sensitive to radioactivity.
I fail to also 4 state there --
5 JUDGE CARTER:
But, with all due respect, that is 6 not what you said, Miss Entwisle.
You merely said there a re 7 more people in the area.
You did not say that there are 8 special circumstances which, by the nature of their physical 9 condition had different reactions.
You merely said that 10 there were more people.
11 MS. ENTWISLE:
I admit the affidavit is inartfully 12 phrased.
What I was attempting to say is exactly what you 13 are saying here, that you have individuals who are 14 particularly sensitive to radia tion, and I believe I tried 15 to state that in the case of elementary school children.
I 16 f ailed to also explicitly state that when I stated that the 17 Leactor, because it is near two hospitals -- the Naval 18 Hospital and the National Institutes of Health -- warrants 19 special circumstance consideration.
20 But the same reasoning follows in that.
Sick 21 people are also particularly susceptible to the harards of 22 radiation.
23 MR. BACHMANN:
Judge Carter, may I interject 24 something?
25 JUDGE CARTER:
Judge Sachmann --- or, e xcu se m e,
ALCERSON REPORTING CCMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGICN. D.C. h0024 (202) 554-234S
26 1 Dr. Schink had something.
2 JUDGE SCHINKs Afterwards.
3 ER. BACHMANN.
The actual contention itself refers 4 to noble gases and inhalation rather than submersion.
There 5 is a Contention further on that just refers to Part 20 6 limits a nd I feel that we might be getting a little bit 7 afield in discussing that at this point.
8 Our position, or, I should say, the Contention 9 essentially states that the basis for determining the 10 allowable concentrations of noble gas effluents at the 11 boundary of the restricted are is based on submersion and 12 they are contending that they should take inhalation into 13 account.
And I see nothing in this petition that addresses 14 that point.
15 JUDGE CARTER:
Are you ref erring to V and VI?
16 The y don 't mention gases specifically, but is that your 17 point?
18 MR. BACHMANN:
The actual ' Contention says tha t 19 Petitioner contends that if such accidents were to occur 20 individuals would receive additional exposure due to l
l 21 internal emissions of the noble gas, sustaining injuries far 22 greater than is predicted in the Harards Summary Report.
23 That is the Contention.
The footnote to it 24 excuse me, to Table 2 of Appendix 3 of Part 20 indicates 25 that noble gases concentrations are based in emersion as ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W.. WASHtNGToN. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
27 1 semi-infinite hemispheric clad.
later on, there is a 2 Contention that nerely states Part 20 limits are too high --
3 Contention VI.
4 In this case, though, we are merely addressing 5 whether internal or ingested or inhaled reactions to noble 6 gases should be considered rather than the basis for that 7 particular table, and I see nothing in this affidavit that 8 addresses that particular point.
9 JUDGE CARTER:
" ell, I think Miss Entwisle was 10 trying to say that if a sick person ingests the quantity 11 that the average person ingests under Appendix 3 that the 12 result is dif ferent.
Therefore, that is a special 13 circustance which doesn' t have application and, therefore, 14 she should be allowed to use that issue.
15 Dr. Schink?
16 JUDGE SCHINKs I was wondering if you have any 17 evidence to present directly treating the issue of whether
[
18 sick people would be more susceptible to internal emissions.
19
- 55. ENTWISlEs I will defer to Dr. Stillaan.
l 20 D3. STIlLEAN:
Yes.
What we are saying here is 21 that there have been several reports which show that l
l 22 patients who are ill have a nuch lover tolerante to the i
23 eff ects of radiation and we are prepared to subsit studies 24 that were done by reputable scientists that clain just that.
25 JUDGE CARTEE Is there anything further on this l
l
{
[
l i
ALOE.RSCN REPORT:hG COMPANY. !NC.
400 M AGINIA Av1L SJ# W ASMNGTCN. 3.C. 200:4 C 554-2345
2 fi 1 issue?
2
- 55. ENTWISlE:
One further thing.
If you will 3 note the phrasing of the Contention, I merely state i wofar-4 as it amounts to a challenge to the regulations we are 5 stating that it falls within the special circumstances.
We 6 are not conceding that it is a matter of challenge of the 7 regulations, because we are not saying that this or that 8 limit is necessarily too high.
9 We are simply saying that there is a void here.
10 There is a regulatory void where you don't have doses set 11 forth from emersions.
It is bas'ed merely on submersion.
I 12 misstated that.
There is a void in that Part 20 does not 13 address doses received f rom internal emissions.
It only 14 addresses the submersion doses.
15 And so in that sense we are not asking that the 16 Commission waive application of part 20 in these 17 proceedings.
We are sayir.g that in the absence of any 18 standards the Board must consider the specific facts of this 19 case and we contend that the specific facts in this case 20 warrant that you consider the doses from internal emissions 21 due to the proximity of the sick and the young pecple.
22 JUDGE CARTER:
Would college people be considered 23 a young person?
24
- 55. ENIWISLE:
No.
I am speaking specifically of 25 the elementary school, pre-school especially.
ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTCN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
29 1
MR. BACHMANN:
Judge Carter?
2 JUDGE CARTERS Yes.
3 MR. BACHXANNs This may getting toward the 4 evidence, but the basis for Part 20, as far as the noble 5 gases are concerned, is tha t every study that any of us have 6 ever seen has always indicated that the submersion effects 7 of radiation as far as noble cases are concerned are many, 8 many times greater than that from inhalation or ingestion.
9 And that was the reason and the basis for using that in Part to 20.
11 Everyone -- all the thing that we have ever been 12 able to find out say that the inhalation or ingestion 13 dosages is negligible compared to the submersion deseage, 14 and for that reason that is used in Part 20.
15 JUDGE CARTER:
I think we've heard enough on that.
16 Let us move on now to the second Contention, 17 Arabic number 2, Accidents II.
Miss Entwisle, would you 18 like to speak in support of that Contention?
First give a 19 general summary of it so that the public will know the 20 na ture.
21 MS. ENT'4 ISLE :
Yes, sir.
The gist of Contention
'n II is that we, the Petitioner, are alleging that accidents 23 can occur which the Applicant has not considered, that such 24 accidents, being of a greater severity and of a different 25 kind that those considered in the Applicant 's application ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 vtRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
l 30 1 for license renewal.
2 JUDGE CARTER:
And you have identified one type?
3 MS. ENTWISLE:
Pardon?
Yes, we have identified 4 several s enarios.
Addressing our first scenario, the 5 failure of the M-16 fuser systsm.
At the time the 6 Contention was drafted we did not have at our disposal some 7 critical information which the NRC counsel has since 8 supplied to us.
In light of that information we are 9 withdrawing that Contention on the N-16 diffuser.
10 JUDGE CASTER:
All right, then.
For the record, 11 that would be subparagraph (1), is withdrawn.
12 MS. ENTWISLE:
That is correct.
13 Our second contention is that there are two 14 maxiumus credible accidents which are beyond design saf ety 15 features of the AFRRI reactor that could occur and result in 16 significant releases of radiation in excess of regulatory 17 limits.
18 These are included:
power excursion accident, 19 resulting in a multiple cladding failure; and a loss of 20 coolant accident, also resulting in a multiple cladding 21 failure.
And we are prepared at the time of the hearing on 22 the merits to offer evidence to show that such accidents can 23 happen and also to show that significant releases of 24 radiation could result from such accidents.
25 JUDGE CAPTER :
Mr. Bachmann?
I t
ALCERSCN REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINtA ave., S.W, WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
31 1
MR. BACHEANN:
The staff opposes the a'dmission of 2 this Contention as was stated, in that it lacks an adequate 3 basis and raises an issue which is neither concrete nor 4 political.
5 First of all, we are not certain on what the 6 thrust of this Contention is.
At first it appears that what 7 they are mainly concerned about is the circonium steam 8 interaction, the zirconium air interaction.
This was not 9 mentioned by Miss Entwisle, and I am not really quite sure 10 if that is what they are looking at in the Contention.
11 If, indeed, the thrust of this Contention and what 12 they are concerned about is the supposedly explosive 13 zirconium interaction with steam or air, the staff submits 14 that it is a scientific fact that the circonium hydride 15 contained in this f uel, which is the fuel, excuse me, with 16 uranium mixed in, is stable and simply does not have an 17 explosive reaction with either steam or air.
18 Petitioners have supplied me with their references 19 as to the basis for this, and the ref erences do not in any 20 way support that there could be a reaction of circonium 21 hydride fuel with either steam or air.
22 If they are not pursuing this explosive reaction 23 and merely looking it a m ultiple cladding failure accident 24 produced by either a power excursion or a loss of coolant 25 acciden t, then this is exactly identical to stipula ted t
i ALDERSCN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTCN. C.C. 20C24 (202) 554-2345 L
32 1 Contention II-4 that we were discussing prior -- Contention 2 II, Part 4, where we stipulated to litigating a multiple 3 fuel element cladding f ailure based on both a LOCA and a 4 power excursion.
5 So the staff's position is, if they are looking l
6 for the explosive zirconium interactions, it is physically 7 not possible and they provide no basis to show it.
If they 8 are not looking at that and only multiple claddino failure, 9 we already have that as a stipulated Contention.
10 MS. INTWISLE:
I --
11 JUDGE CARTER:
Excuse me.
Let's hear from the 12 Applicant and then you can reply.
13 MR. RICKORD:
Just following Mr. Eachmann's thread 14 a little bit further, assuming that we are not dealing with 15 a Conten tion that postulates an explosive interaction 16 between uranium zirconium hydride and air or water or steam, 17 perhaps I don't understand what the Contention is aimed at.
18 Perhaps it is aimed, as Mr. Bachman suggested, multiple 19 cladding failure-type scenarios, which I agree we have 20 already addressed in stipulated contentions.
21 Or perhaps it is aimed at something else and I 22 sim ply don ' t understand.
23 MS. ENTWISLE We are in fact concerned about 24 explosive zirconium reactions and we are prepared to offer 25 evidence to support this -- that such a scenario is ALDERSCN REPCATING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIAGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
33 1 credible.
We have given to staff counsel, at least, 2 information of the work of Dr. Earl A. Gulbransen and also 3 offered to staff were several letters that Gulbransen 4 exchanged with other people, which the staff did not ask for 5 at that time, and we are willing and prepared to give them 6 those letters.
7 In one of these letters Dr. Gulbransen addresses 8 the circonium interaction with steam and air in a trigger 9 reactor specifically, and concludes that such an explosive to interaction is possible. And this is what we are basing our 11 scenarios on.
12 MR. BACHMANN:
Judge Carter, we have informally 13 been discussing with the Petitioner the basis for this 14 Contention in an af fort to understand it.
We did a computer 15 run of our technical laboratory under Professor Gulbransen, 16 which is the only basis they give.
We discovered nothing as 17 f ar as published works.
18 The Petitioner gave me some cites and we were able 19 to determine two letters to the editor.
One was from the 20 Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, and one was the Chemical and 21 Engineering News.
I have copies of those here, if the Board 22 would care to look at them.
23 Neither letter auuressed a trigger reactor.
24 Neither letter addressed uranium circonium hydride.
Both 25 letters ref er to the 10-zirconium alloy, circoloid, which is ALCERSoN REPORTING CCMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 1
\\
34 1 used as f.ual cladding in power reactors.
We are dealing
/
2 with a reactor here that has the fuel itself is uranium 3 zirconium hydride, and has aluminum cladding.
So we feel 4 that from what they have given us we still find it -- we S still feel there is absolutely no basis, no scientific 6 basis, for alleging something that simply cannot ha ppen.
7 All of 'the work that we are aware of, as far as 8 tests of the uranium circonium hydride, indicate this is an 9 extremely stable and non-reactive substance.
10 JUDGE CARTER:
Mr. Bachmann, we need not concern 11 ourselves today whether they can prove their point.
A 12 Con tention merely must be a factual and specific kind of 13 contention.
If you evidence file was their evidence, then 14 the matter-will be easily disposed of later on.
If they 15 cannot srb. nit relevant affidavits or other form of evidence, 16 then you will win the point.
17 But at this point in our discussion we are merely 18 concerned with whether or not it is a factual, specific 19 contention.
20 MR. BACEMANN:
Sir, may I sa y that again we are in l
21 a situation where they are alleging what we consider an 22 impossibility according to the laws of physics.
23 JUDGE CARTER:
I understand.
24 MR. BACHMANN:
We have endeavored to discover any 25 possible ba sis for saying that this particular chemical i
l l
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
7GINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
35 1 combination could react explosively.
2 JUDGE CARTER:
The laws of physics are sometimes 3 amended.
I suppose that's the answer.
4 (Laughter.)
5 JUDGE CARTER:
I have a physics book from 1906 6 which contains no reference to nuclear material or nuclear 7 reactors or neutrons.
8 JUDGE SCFINK:
May I interrupt as a chemist to 9 suggest that what we seem to be arguing over at this point j
to are the laws of chemistry.
11 (Laughter.)
12 MS. ENTWISLE:
I just would concur with the 13 Board 's conclusion that we are getting into evidentiary 14 matters here.
These are properly deferred to the hearing on 15 the merits.
16 JUDGE CARTER:
Miss Entwisle, can you conceive of 37 a situation where a Contention would be made that might be 18 so f a r f ro m
-c ality that there is insuf ficient weight for 19 consider ation.
In determining what is truth and what is 20 f ac t we draw on a general knowledge of the universe and our l
l 21 experience, so sometimes new and unusual Contentions do 22 bring about this reaction.
23 That places somewhat of a heavier burden on the 24 Contender to support that in a way that is understood by l
25 those who hear it.
l ALCERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2245
36 1
MS. ENTWISLE:
Yes, I agree that some contentions 2 may put some question upon the conventional wisdom and my 3 understanding, from what you stated before, is that it is 4 sufficient at this time to offer the name of an authority on 5 which we base our position.
6 But I understand what you are saying.
We have to 7 go a little deeper in these kinds of situations.
8 JUDGE CARTER:
In situations where the the 9 Contention appears to be at first blush far different from 10 the world, as some of us might know it, the only available 11 next step is to say is there any serious study which can 12 support your position and are you p.repared to go forward 13 with that?
14 Of course, we are always open for any suggestion 15 as to how to find the truth and find out what is in fact 16 relevant and f actual.
And when you say that there are 17 studies in a certain area which indicate a certain result if
!8 certain elements are present, I would say generally that 19 indicates to me there is some f actual base of some 20 specificity, although I might not later be convinced on the 21 point.
22 But that is the way I am moving toward getting an 23 answer to what should be a contention.
24 MS. ENT*J IS LE :
Yes, I understand.
I think Dr.
25 Stillman would like to say something.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHING *CN. O.C. 20024(202) 554 2345 L
37 1
DR. STILLMANs Let me just clarify this so it 2 doesn't sound absurd.
We actually have letters which we 3 offered to Mr. Eschmann which he did not ask for, which are 4 definite letters dealing specifically with rirconium hydrice 5 fuel in trigger fuel elements by Earl Gulbransen, who is 6 professor of metalurgy and a known expert quoted in some of 7 their own documents as an expert in metalurgy, who says that 8 in f act the zirconium hydride interaction with water or 9 steam or with air is extremely exothermic and quite 10 explosive.
11 And we have thosa documents right here for your 12 own perusal and we are prepared to. bring Dr. Gulbransen to 13 our hearing to testify in person as to his opinion about the 14 chemical reactions that we are talking about.
So this is 15 not based on just -- in f act, we did eliminate the N-16
(
l 18 dif f user argument, once I learned the facts in the case.
17 And I have established to try to get those facts so tha t we 18 could argue on grounds that are strictly scientific and not 19 out of the realm of possibility.
20 JUDGE CARTERS I hope you take no implication from i
21 anything I or any of the other judges have said with regard 22 to your integrity and honesty and willingness to work toward 23 a resolution of this problem, but for the record perhaps you 24 should give Dr. or Mr. Gulbransen's f ull name and where he l
25 is f rom, so that we know the individual to whom reference i ALDERSoN REPCATING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
38 1 made.
2 DH. STILIMANs Yes.
It is Professor Earl A.
3 Gulbransen -- G-u-1-b-r-a-n-s-e-n.
He is a Ph.D. and a 4 sechanical engineer He is a research professor at the 5 Department of Hetalurgical and Materials Engineering at the 6 University of Pittaburgh.
I 7
JUDGE CARTER:
Thank you.
8 JUDGE SCHINK4 Xiss Entwisle, could you clarify 9 for me the elements of your non-stipulated contention, 10 Accidents II, that are not contained with the stipulated 11 contentions?
What is missing from the Attachment A that 12 isn 't in Attachment B that you feel you need to add to this 13 case in order to have your arguments fully treated?
14 MS. ENTWISLE:
Well, we feel that the two maximum i
15 credible accidents.
I don't know if I am answering your l
16 question, but the power excursion accident resulting in 17 multiple cladding f ailure elevated temperature, with a 1
18 reduction in the thermaliring effect of hydrogen, followed 19 by an exothermic reaction between circonium and steam, and 20 the same type of scenario -- the loss of coolant accident, 21 resulting in multiple cladding f ailures, also elevated 22 tem peratures, followed by an explosive zirconium-air 23 interaction.
24 These were not considered in this applica tion f or 25 ren ewal.
ALCERSoN REPCRTING COMP ANY. !NC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W WASHINGTCN. 3.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
39 1
JUDGE CARTER:
We will move on now to the next 2 unstipulated Contention.
Before we do, let me say that we 3 are hopeful, in terms of our schedule, to conclude this 4 pre-hearing conference before the luncheon recess,'though I 5 don 't want to pressure anyone time-wise.
6 Our plan is thereafter to visit the facility 7 merely to get some familiarity with the location of the 8 various parts of the f acility.
We will not be taking any 9 testimony or any substantive explanations with regard to the to reactor at that time.
And the visit or viewing will be done 11 by the attorneys.
I am sure it would be permissible for Dr.
12 Stillman to be present.
That is our plan for this morning.
13 MS. ENTWISLE:. Excuse me just one minute.
I just 14 wan t to state here that I personally will not be going into 15 the reactor.
I have some misgivings about going inside 16 because I understand there is an accident ongoing in the 17 cobalt f acility at the AFRRI f acility.
18 For that reason, another attorney for us, Mr.
l l
19 James Dougherty, will be attending in my place and Dr.
1 20 Sr.illman will be there also.
21 JUDGE CARTER:
All right.
22 The next unstipulated Contention is number III,
[
l 23 Testing Facility.
It is short and I will read it.
24 " Petitioner contends that the AFERI facility is a testing 25 f acility within the meaning of Section 31.8(3) and Section l
l l
ALDERSoN REPCRTING CCMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
40 1 (4) of the Atomic Enercy Act of 1954, as amended, and 2 Section 50.21(c) and Section 50.2(r) of 10 CFB Part 50.
3 Affidavit will be submitted at the time of filing statements 4 of position."
5 Now are we to have an additional affidavit?
6 MS. ENTWISLE Your Honor, af ter typing chis I 7 considered this with staff counsel and at that time we 8 concluded that this does not amount to a challenge of the 9 regulations.
It was not a credible subject for an 10 affidavit.
I did not feel it was necessary.
If I am 11 aistaken on that I will be glad to file an affidavit.
12 JUDGE CARTER:
It appears to me that assuming 13 there' is agreement on the facts, the issue is ultimately a 14 legal issue as to how it is to be considered under the l
15 regulations.
16 Mr. Eachmann?
17 MR. BACHMANNs Yes, Your Honor.
We did discuss 18 t hi s.
We do consider it to be a legal issue.
The only NRC 19 case law tha t is available is cited in the statement of i
20 position of the Trustees of Columbia University -- very 21 similar f acts, with the exception that the Columbia 22 University reactor was 250 kilowatts instead of one 23 megawatt.
And in following the NRC precedent, we are 24 maintaining this is a research reactor and that it is not a l
25 testing facility.
I ALDERSoN REPORTING CcMPANY,INC, l
Re Am s
.As-ercN. ac. a.mm>
...u..
41 1
JUDGE CARTER:
Mr. Rickord?
2 ER. RICKORD:
Our brief, I think, fairly well sets 3 forth our position.
It is not big enough to be a testing 4 facilities.
It does not have the internal capability of 5 normal testing f acilities and therefore it is not anything 6 other than a research reactor.
7 JUDGE CARTER:
All right.
Do you have anything to 8 add, Miss Entwisle?
9 5S. ENTWISLE:
fes.
We feel it is a testing to f acility and we cite the Columbia University case in support 11 of our position here. And We feel that the Board's reasoning 12 in that case -- this was the Appeal. Board, it went up on a 13 certified question -- we feel that their reasoning in that 14 case compel us to conclude that the determining mode of 15 operation here for deciding whether the reactor is a testing 16 reactor should be in pulse mode ra ther than the steady state 17 mod e.
If that is the case, pulse mode clearly exceeds the 18 ten megawatt limit callad for in the testing f acility 19 definition of 10 CFR Section 50.2(r).
20 And we are prepared to go into that in greater 21 detail if you wish.
22 JUDGE CARTER:
If nothing further we will move on 23 to unstipula ted Contention IV, Siting.
24 Hiss Entwisle, are you coing to speak in support 25 of tha t Contention?
ALDER $oN REPcRTJ 7 CCMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTcN. O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
42 1
MS. ENTWISLE:
Yes.
Here, again, we maintain that 2 because the reactor is a testing f acility. that 10 CFR, Part 3 100, when it is applied.
If the Board should find that this 4 is a research reactor rather than a testing facility we 5 agsin refer them to our affidavits stating the special 6 circumstances that warrant the Board to go beyond the scope.
7 Well, let me back up.
We have a situation here 8 where we have another void'or non-existence of regulations 9 pertaining to the siting of research reactors.
We are to saying that in such a case the rea;;rsble, the common sense 11 thing to do is t'o apply the existing regulations of far 12 larger reactors with potentially greater radiological 13 hazards, such as power and testing reactors.
14 These standards are set forth at Part 100 and we l
15 urge the Board to use the Part 100 standards for this 16 reactor, regardless of whether it determines it to be a 17 testing or a research facility.
18 JUDGE CARTER:
Mr. Bachmann?
l 19 MR. BACHMANN:
As we stated in our statement of 20 position, we do oppose the admission of this Contention on 21 grounds that it seeks to raise an issue which does not apply 22 to the f acility and is beyond the scope of this proceeding.
23 Of course, if the Board were to find tha t this was 24 a testing f acility, then Part 100 would apply.
- However, 25 since we have maintained tha t this is a research reactor, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
u3 1 not a test facility. We refer the Roard to 10 CFR 100.2(a),
2 which is the scope of Part 100 -- this applies to 3 applications filed under Section 50 of this chapter for 4 stationary power and testing reactors.
We simply feel it 5 does not fall under the criteria in Part 100.
6 The Petitioners has shown no reason why we could 7 determine why, if indeed this not a testing facility, as 8 maintain, and a research reactor, why Part 100 should apply.
9 JUDGE CARTER:
Mr. Rickord?
10 MB. RICKORDs Sir, obviously our position is not 11 going to change between one Contention and the other.
This 12 is a research reactor, not a testing facility.
Therefore, 13 the siting requirements don 't apply, following en Miss 14 Entwisle's additional approach, and that is, we borrowed 15 those criteria from Part 100.
We should also borrow siting 16 criteria f rom 100, or perhaps we should apply some special 17 circumstances to bring us within the ambit of 100.
18 Our position is, and frankly it relates back to I
19 Accidents I, part 2, which dealt with the noble gases and 20 emissions, our position is that as to the special
~
21 circumstances they have not really demonstrated tha t special 1
22 circumstances exist in their af fidavit.
23 Moreover, a literal reading of the 2.758 -- 10 CFR 24 1.758 -- speaks to the special circumstances exception as 25 a pplying during initial proceedincs -- initial licensing i
ALDERSCN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W.. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
44 1 proceedings.
And I think that point is most critical when 2 one deals with siting, because in a renewal situation we 3 really don't have quite the degree of choices as one has in 4 an initial licensing proceeding in which we are deciding do 5 ve put it in the middle of Bethesda or do we put it in the 6 siddle of nowhere.
7 And while I understand that there has been a 8 tendency in Atomi: Safety and Licensing Boa rd practice in 9 the past to treat a license renewal as basically, let's say, 10 begin at the beginning and make sure this is a safe and 11 secure facility, the public policy that favors that, and I 12 quite agree with it, is beginning to get a little bit 13 stretched when one gets to the point of saying that because 14 the city built up around it there should be no license 15 renewed to the reactor.
16 MS. ENTWISLE:
May I address Mr. Rickord's t'7 sta temen t?
18 JUDGE CARTES:
Proceed.
The word " initial" is in 19 the section.
20 MS. ENTWISLE:
I an aware of that.
It brings up a 21 point that really c,oncerns me about this wh ole case.
And 22 tha t is tha t there is a very large void of regulations for a 23 license renewal for a research or a testing reactor.
24 Research, if the Board determines it tc be a 25 research reactor, and I ask the Board that rather than ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
45 1 relying on -- rather than m aking judgments ab initio for 2 this case that common sense would indicate that one goes 3 back to regulations that have been carefull3 ronsidered in 4 public hearings, carefully drafted by the staff, reviewed by 5 the Commission, and adopted for testing and power reactors 6 and for intial licensing proceedings.
7 We have really an anomolous situation here where 8 there are no t always regulations that apply to the specific 9 proceeding.
And I frankly had a hard time knowing what to 10 look to because of that.
And I am saying that when you have 11 a void here we are not challenging the Commission 's 12 regulations so much as we are sayin.g there simply are no 13 regulations here.
And for purposes of this licensing, f
14 common sense and prudence would require that you consider 15 the regulations that have been adopted for other types of i
16 reactors and other types of licensing procedures.
17 JUDGE CARTES:
This Board has great knowledge, 18 experience, and training and we shall pray the good Lord 19 gives us common sense as well.
And I said that with a smile.
l t
20 Anything further on siting?
21 ER. BACHEANN:
Yes, sir.
I night just -- more or.
22 less to answer the Petitioner's consents, is that as the 23 Board is well aware, licensing boards are not supposed to l
24 indulge in rulemaking and that we do have the section 25 starting with 10 CFR 2.800 and following, which sets forth l
l ALDERSCN AEPoATING COMPANY. INC.
i 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTCN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
46 1 all of the myriad ways that one goes about petitioning for 2 rulemaking.
And this, I believe, is what the Petitioner is 3 really l'ooking at.
4 MS. ENTWIS1Es Nonetheless, we have a licensing 5 decision before us immediately, and I am simply saying that 6 rather than applying standards developed ab initio in the 7 hea ring now, it is more prudent to adopt and use the 8 regulations tha t were established for reactors that perhaps 9 present greater radiological harards, and then you would 10 know you would be safe.
11 JUDGE CARTER :
Only experience can tell as to 12 whe ther or not we will get a more favorable verdict by 13 adopting a special type of approach to research reactors 14 than to power reactors.
The odds might be that research 15 reactors are safer than power reactors based on some of the 16 news stories that we read.
17 In any. event, again, that is just an off-hand i
18 reaction.
I was just philosophiring for a moment.
Getting 19 back down to earth again, we will go into number V, Routine 20 Emissions I.
Miss Entwisle, would you describe that?
I l
21 3S. ENTWISLE:
Yes.
22 We maintain that the EPA standards that were 23 adopted by the NRC for reactors on March 25, 1981 -- this i
24 was in 46 Federal Register 18525, 10 CFE, Sections 20.105, l
25 20.106, 20.405.
We are maintaining that these standards ALCERSON AEPCRTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE, S/N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20C24 (202) 554 2345
47 1 apply to the reactor in question here.
2 JUDGE CARTER:
I will ask you to repeat that 3 citation, because I do not see it in the documentation.
4 ER. RICKORD:
Your Honor, I believe it is cited at 5'the bottom of page 11 of AFERI's stated position.
8 MS. ENTWISLE:
It is also at the bottom of page 7 four of staff's position.
8 JUDGE CARTER:
I did not see it in your filing.
9 MS. ENTWISLE:
I don't believe it is in mine.
10 JUDGE CARTER:
Anything further you want to add to 11 that, Miss Entwisle?
If not --
12 MS. ENTWISLE:
Well, the.same logic that has been 13 applied to our earlier arguments, and that is when the Board 14 reads the EPA standards that have been adopted by the NRC it 15 will note that it refers to power reactors.
16 Again, we are saying that the EPA has not 17 promulgated any standards, nor has the NRC adopted any of 18 t he EPA standards for, research or testing reactors.
We are 19 saying that in a regulatory void such as this it is 20 incumbent upon the Board to well-considered standards 1
21 presented in this arch 25 adoption of the rule.
l 22 JUDGE CARTER:
Mr. Bachmann:
23 ER. 3ACHUANN:
Yes, sir.
Just for the record I 24 might point out we are on part one of four parts in 25 Con tention V.
The s'sff does oppose the admission of this ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
48 1 sim ply because it is an attack on regulation.
2 When we adopted the amendments to Part 20, they 3 adopted it by merely referring to 40 CFR, Part 190.
In 4 other words, we adopted it wholesale.
The applicability of 5 Part 190 sta tes tha t it applies to radioactive materials 6 produced as a result of operations which are part of the 7 nuclear fuel cycle.
la 190.02 they define nuclear fuel 8 cycle.
It means the operations defined associated with the 9 production of electrical power for --
10 JUDGE CARTER:
Mr. Bachsann, I think the reporter 11 may have a little trouble.
12 MR. BACHMANN:
I was trying to get through it.
13 In the definitions it applies to operations in the 14 fuel cycle.
10 CFR 190.02 defines nuclear fuel cycle as the 15 operations defined to be associated with production of' 16 electrical power f or public use.
This, as the Petitioner 17 has indicated, applies to power reactors and it simply would 18 not apply to a research reactor.
19 JUDGE CARTER 4 Is the staff preparing any form of l
20 environmental appraisal in connection with this f acility?
21 3R. BACHMANN:
Yes, sir.
As a matter of fact, 22 once we finish with the unstipulated contentions we would 23 lik e to take a brief moment and discuss two of the 24 stipulated contentions, which have to do with environmental 25 impacts.
ALCERSoN REPcRTING COMPANY.1NC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S/# WASHINGTCN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
49 1
JUDGE CARTER:
Mr. Rickord?
2 MR. RICKORD:
Right.
Addressing whether or not to 3 apply the new standard that EPA has published, our position 4 is, obviously, that we have a research reactor.
This does 5 not apply to research reactors and, therefore, the l
6 Contention which, if it is based on the theory that the nev l
l 7 standard applies to research reactors, why, then, it is 8 erroneous, and furthermore that it should not be -- this 9 proceeding should not become a rulemaking proceeding in to which we decide whether or not to apply it to research 11 reactors.
12 JUDGE CARTER:
Miss Entwi.sle, anything further on 13 that?
14 MS. ENTWISlE:
I would just reiterate that we are 15 not asking for a rulemaking.
We already know the rules in i
16 existence.
We are asking the Board to apply them to this 17 proceeding.
18 JUDGE CARTER:
The second pa rt of Number V, l
19 Routine Emissions, reads as follows:
" Applicants must be as i
l 20 incineration at NXMC at 160 boxes of contaminated solid l
21 waste cited in NRC inspection reports for 1975-1976, Docket 22 Number 50-170, resulted in the release of radioactive gases 23 and particulates in excess of the limits set forth in 10 l
l 24 CFR, Part 20, Appendix C."
l 25 MS. ENTWISLE:
Y9s, sir.
I should like to make a ALDERSoN R2 PORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
50 1 couple of corrections.
Tha t should read " Appendix B."
That 2 is my own error.
3 Secondly, the inspection report referred to was 4 from the year 1965 rather than 1975 and 1976.
5 JUDGE CARTER:
So it should be reports for 1965 -?
8
- 35. ENTWISLE:
Just 1965.
7 JUDGE CARTER:
Just
'65.
Is there any objection 8 to that amendment at this point?
9 Anything further you wish to add?
10 3J. ENTWISLE:
Just also the amendment of the very 11 last words there -- that is should read " Appendix 3" ra ther 12 t h s n "C ".
13 We are asking the Board that if the Applicant's 14 ope rating license includes a condition which permits 15 incineration of solid wastes and this basically amounts to 16 incinerating radiated animal carcasses we are asking the 17 Board to eliminate that condition from sny license renewal 18 tha t it may grant.
19 JUDGE CARTER:
Eliminate the condition?
20
- 35. ENTWISLE:
Yes.
We are merely asking that if 21 there is a pernitted condition in the license to incinerate 22 the carcasses en-site, we want that condition out of any 23 future licenses that the Board might issue for this reactor.
24 JUDGE CARTER:
3r. Bachmann?
SAC *3 ANN:
Yes, sir.
We have opposed the d
25 33.
l ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, l
400 VIAGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
51 1 admission of this Contention because we really don't 2 understand what we are supposed to be litigating here.
3 I might point out, which is not in our statement 4 of position, that Section 10 CFR 20.305 clearly states that 5 no Licensee may dispose of radioactive material by 6 incineration without specific Commission approval.
At this 7 point there is no condition in the license or any other form 8 of approval that permits the licensee to incinerate.
9 Therefore, I do not see what we have here to litigate.
10 There is no condition that allows them to do it.
11 JUDGE CARTER:
Mr. Rickord?
12 MR. RICKORD4 AFRRI is not overly troubled by this 13 Contention.
Quite frankly, it ess+.tially, if you interpret 14 i t a t least one way, it essentially says thou shalt follow 15 the regulations when one operates af ter having had a license 16 issued to you.
And we fully intend to follow the 17 regulations if a license is issued to us.
18 So far as I have been able to discover, AFRRI does 19 not now incinerate radioactive contaminated solid waste, 20 even though the change in years from '75 to
'65.
21 Sensitivities have increased la the meantime, and the EPA l
22 has come into being, and we are not typically in the 23 business of violating regulations.
24 MS. ENT'4 ISLE s I agree that if the incineration of l
25 solid radioactive wastes is not a condition of the license i
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, o.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
52 1 we have no problem here.
2 JUDGE CARTER:
Number 3.
"Since Applicant's 3 environmental impact appraisal submitted in conjunction with 4 its license renewal application admits that the highest 5 a serage unrestricted area exposure rate from airborne 6 releases (set forth in the EIA) extends to residential 7 areas, it is highly probably that such expenditures have 8 resulted and continue to result in doses to the public in I
9 excess of 0.5 rem and, violate the principle that emissions
/
to from Applicant's operation be kept as low a s is reasonably
)
11 achieveable (the ALARA principle)."
12 MS. ENTWISLE:
Yes.
We are in a position here 13 sort of between a rock and a hard place because we are 14 trying to show that yielations have in the past occurred, 15 yet the data that we have at our disposal and that is 16 available to the public is inadequate to make a lot of hard i
17 and f ast conclusions.
18 This is a case in point.
We had a situation where 19 dose exposure rates were measured one tim e, if I as correct, 20 and the complaint that has been registered with me by staff 21 counsel is that how can you r<ersge -- how can you determine 22 wha t the average innual exposure rate is when measurements 23 were not made over a period of time so that there is no 24 duration f actor here ?
25 We are asking that if this facility were to be ALDER $oN AE*oRTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
53 1 relicensed that one of its conditions would that its 2 measuring and monitoring practices be very much improved and 3 this, in fact, is in one of our stipulated Contentions.
We 4 are specifically asking here that such monitoring be done
'5 not just with badges but with modified ioniration chambers 6 and in such as way that release rates can be measured over 7 time so that dose levels can be determined.
8 JUDGE CARTER:
Mr. Bachmann?
9 MR. 3ACHMANN:
I'm not sure we're talking about 10 the sam e Con ten tion.
This is Contention V, Part 3?
I 11 really -- what Petitioner just stated, I don't see that 12 bears at all on the Contention that I am reading here.
13 But going back to just the Contention itself, we 14 did oppose the admission of this Contention because it 15 f ailed to alert the parties as to what is to be litigated.
16 I simply do not understand what they are asking here or what 17 they want to litigate in this Contention.
18 JUDGE CARTER:
Do you understand, Mr. Rickord?
19 MR. RICKCRD:
No, sir.
20 JUDGE CARTER:
Try again.
21 MS. ENTWISLEs I have just been corrected by Dr.
22 Stillman that I am arguing Contention 4 rather than 3,
%3 becausa it is 4 that refers to doses over time.
So I 24 apolocire for putting it out of order.
25 JUDGE CARTER:
Well, now, let's try number 3.
ALDER ion REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGiNfA AVE S. v W ASHINGTCN. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
Su 1
MS. ENTWISLE:
I think I will let Dr. Stillman 2 answer this one.
3 DR. STILLMANs We have incomplete daca, that is 4 true.
That is not our f ault.
We have attempted to get more 5 complete data, but unsuccessfully.
We do have specific data 6 which demonstrates that the standards of a half a rem per 7 year, which is the accepted exposure limit in unrestricted 8 areas, has in fact been exceeded at least two years.
We 9 have hard data for that.
And we have the supposition that J
10 it probably has been exceeded other years, but wo do not 11 have -- we'll have to use discovery to get specific years 12 that we are worried about.
13
- 53. BACHMANN:
I would like to ask Dr. Stillman, 14 though, is he talking about data from the Environmental 15 Impact Appraisal that was submitted, or is this something l
16 else?
17 DR. STILLMAN:
I am talking about -- no, this is
+
18 data that we obtained from the inspection reports and the 19 yea rly environmental release reports and we have 20 specifically in 1962 and 1963 the maximum annual exposure I
21 was greater than 500 millirads and we have the specific 22 stations at which those occurred, namely the perimeter 23 station number 2C, and perimeter station 16A.
24 We also have other years where we gather from some 25 inf ormation we have that it probably was exceeded also, but i
1 ALDERSCN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
(
400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 I
55 1 we don't have sufficient data to prove the other years yet.
~
2 MR. BACHMANNs Judge Carter, I would suggest, if 3 this Contention is considered to be admitted, that perhaps 4 it needs rewording because the way it is worded now its 5 basis is the EIA submitted by the Applicant and I see 6 nothing in the EIA that indicates there was an excess of the 7 regulations.
8 You are not referring to the EIA any more?
Is 9 that correct?
10 DR. STILLMANs That is correct.
11 JUDGE CARTEas That is a generous off er.
I think 12 I would take it.
13 MS. ENTWISLEa Tell ne logistically how to de 14 this.
How do you reword a Contention at this point?
15 JUDGE CARTER:
You immediately nove to strike the 16 language.
You don't have to do it this second, but before 17 the meeting is over.
If you want to take advantage of that 18 off er right now I think we could do it'in time, i
19 MS. ENTWISLE:
We are prepared do it right now.
l.
20 We would like to strike the language in line 4 of Contention 21 V 22 JUDGE CARTERS We're on Contention III.
23 MS. ENTWISLEs Conten tion V, S ub-III.
The 24 language that is in the parenthesis " set forth in the EIA",
25 and put in its place " set forth in the AFERI Environmental l
l i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 V!RGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
56 1 Release data and perimeter monitoring reports with the 2 Docket Number 50-170."
3 JUDGE CARTER:
Vell, now, will you read the 4 Contention as you want it to read, from the beginning?
5 MS. ENTWISLEs "Since Applicant's environmental 6 release data and perimeter monitoring reports" 7
JUDGE CARTERS Do it slowly, please.
"Since 8 Applicant's env'ronmental" --
9
- 55. ENTWIS1E s
" Environmental release data and 10 perimeter monitoring reports, Docket Number 50-170, for the 11 dates including but not limited to 5/27/66" --
12 JUDGE CARTER:
I can see that you are going to 13 have to give this to us in writing.
14 MS. ENTWISLE4 Fine.
15 JUDGE CARTER:
And you will have to amend in 16 writing as well number 2 above that.
So if you could 17 provide th a t to us as soon as the proceeding is over, we i
l 18 will leave that open.
At time of revision it may very well l
19 be that the staff will not stipulate to that.
The Licensee 20 m ay not.
Try to do it as promptly as you can.
21 We may take another short recess.
Would this be 22 convenient time to take another short recess?
23 Are you proposing in connection with any other 24 Contentions to amend them now, so that you might be able to 25 do that over the break?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S/#.. WASHINGTCN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
57 1
MS. ENTWISLE Just one minute.
2 (Pause.)
3 JUDGE CARTER Why don't we recess now until 11:45 4 and any other items you think you can take care of by 5 stipulation or smendment, please do it right now.
6 (A brief recess was taken.)
7 JdDGE CARTER:
The meeting is called to order.
8 Miss Entwisle, have you been able to revise the 9 language of Contention V-2 and V-3 in a form agreeable to 10 other counsel?
11 MS. ENTWISLEs Yes, sir, we have.
We have amended 12 the language tc Contention V, Part.2, Part 3, and Part 4 13 JUDGE CARTERS Is there a stirulation as to those, 14 or is that still contested?
15 MS. ENTWISLEs They are still contested.
16 JUDGE CARTER:
Still contested?
17 MR. RICKORD:
On our parc because we haven't seen 18 them and for no other reason.
19 MR. BACHMANN:
And the same with the staff, sir.
20 JUDGE CARTERS I see.
I had given you a little 21 extra time.
I thought it would give you an opportunity.
22 Le t 's take a moment now.
23
-( P ause. )
24 JUDGE CARTER May we have a report on your 25 progress ?
ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINfA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTCN. O C. 200:4 (202) 554 2345
58 1
MS. ENTWISLE:
Yes.
The counsel have looked at 2 the amended language and it is my understanding that these 3 vill remain as unstipulated Contentions, as amended.
4 JUDGE CARTER:
All right.
And will you have them 5 retyped and refiled so that we have before us the precise 6 Contentions?
7 MS. ENTWISLE:
Yes, sir.
And when would you like 8 that?
9 JUDGE CARTE 3:
As soon as it can be done.
10 Now I believe we were on the fourth subdivision of Conten' ion V, Foutine Emissions.
11 t
12
- 35. ENTWISlE:
Yes.
13 JUDGE CARTER:
I will read that.for the members of 14 the public.
15
"(4)
Applicant's environmental release report, 16 issued 12/14/71, indicate that between 1/1/70 and 7/1/71 17 exposure ra tes in several unrestricted areas were as high as 18 1-5 m3 a d/h r, 1,000 rads per hour" -- millicads per hour, I am trying to help the reporter, and 19 excuse me -
"a t" 20 tha t 's why I am getting into trouble.
"At this rate, any l
l
- 2) person who lived or worked in these areas 500 hours0.00579 days <br />0.139 hours <br />8.267196e-4 weeks <br />1.9025e-4 months <br /> in a 22 year, or about ten hours a week would receive an annual t
23 whole body dose in excess of the NRC's limit of 0.5 red per 24 yea r.
Since 50-60 percent of the area within a one-mile 25 radius of the AFERI stac.t is residential, it is highly I
1 l
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
59 1 probable that the population dose limit was exceeded during 2 this period.
This is a violation of the ALARA p'rinciple."
3 I believe that is the end of the quote of the 4 Con tention.
Now what is your statement in support of that?
5 MS. ENTWISLEs Ye s.
We are amending that 6 statement by adding the language "because these measurements 7 are taken only a few times a year, it must be assumed, in 8 the absence of more complete da ta, that these dose rates 9 represent the average dose rates to unrestricted areas, 10 including residential areas, over long durations of time."
11 JUDGE CARTER:
All right.
You will also add tha t 12 to your revised list of Contentions.?
13 MS. ENTWISLE:
Yes.
The second point on that 14 Contention is that neither the staff nor Applicant has 15 provided a basis f rom which to conclude tha t the emissions 16 come from a source not within.the purview of license R-84 17 before us today.
18 Informal discussions with staff counsel have 19 indicated that the staff believes these emissions came from 20 the Maxitron X-Ray facility, rather than the R-84 license --
21 the reactor.
And we are saying that because no measurements 22 were taken af ter the Maxitron was decommissioned, it is 23 impossible to conclude that the measurement came from any 24 source other than the R-84 license, and it was incumbent on 25 the staf f to show that.
This is set forth in our written ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VW.CWtA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 s
60 1 statement of our positions.
2 JUDGE CARTER:
Mr. Bachmann?
3 MR. SACHMANN:
We oppose this Contention on the 4 fact that it lacks factual basis and the staff position is 5 that it ceases to raise a position beyond the scope of this 6 proceeding.
7 I would also say that I am not quite certain what 8 they are attempting to litigate, just as I still don't 9 understand what they are trying to litigate in Part (3).
~
10 The environmental release report that they cited as a basis 11 states very, very clearly that the five mE per hour came 12 f rom an x-ray f acility loca+s* in the building n'o t part of 13 the AFERI complex, unoccupied other than by AFERI personnel 14 using the x-ray machine at this facility.
It was 15 decommissioned as of 1 July 1971.
I 16 I don't see how the report could be any more clear 17 tha t this did not come from the,AFERI reactor.
Now, given 18 tha t, I just do not quite understand what is to be litigated 19 here.
They seem to give us a little less in our arithmetic, l
20 saying that if you -- 500 times 1 m3 per ' hour is 500 rems.
21 And we will accept that, but I just fail to see what is the 22 Contention.
23 JUDGE C ARTER :
Mr. Rickord?
l 24 MR. RICK 0EDs I'm going to take, on the advice of l
25 my physicist to the left, exception even to the arithmetic.
l Al.DERSoN REPORTING CCMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 I
51
~
1 I don ' t know why I am taking exception to it, but Major 2 Smoker assures me that there is something wrong with Mr.
3 Bachmann's arithmetic.
4 At one point in time I thought I didn't understand 5 this Contention, and that there must be something more 6 lurking here, because it was clear that the Maxitron -- the 7 medical-type x-ray unit -- was the source of the radiation 8 that got away and it was decommissioned ten years ago.
The 9 problem is solved and, you know, I felt that I must be 10 missing something.
But from what I have heard, at least as 11 to that part I was not missin; anything.
I wonder about its 12 relevance.
13 A's to the issue that has just recently been raised 14 about the monitoring aspects, I feel unable to stipulate to 15 that too, because I know it to be false.
16 JUDGE CARTER:
Miss Entwisle, do you have any 17 reply?
18 5S. ENTWISLE:
Yes, we feel this Contention is 19 material because we are alleging that it pertains to the 20 AFERI reactor, the license here at issue today, and in the 21 absence of more evidence we cannot conclude that the release 22 data ref ers to the Maxitron, and I refer the Board to the 23 cover letter that accompanied the environmental release 24 report which sets forth this data, which states in pertinent 25 par t, "In accordance with correspondence received, the ALCERSCN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 v1RGINIA AVE S.W WASHINGTCN. O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
62 1 attached environmental release data are submitted f or the 2 AFRRI trigger reartor A facility, License R-084."
'On its e
3 face, the data would, therefore, seem to refer to the 4 reactor and not the Maxitron.
5 JUDGE SCHINK Do we have that report?
6 MR. BACHMANN:
Yes, we do.
7 JUDGE SCHINK4 When did that come to us?
What 8 date do we have?
9 MR. BACHMANN:
I have copies.
10 JUDGE SCHINKs Well, if I already have it, I want 11 to know where to look in the stack of papers.
12 MS. ENTWISLEs The cover letter is dated the 14th 13 of December,1971.
14 JUDGE CARTER:
Would you see the Board gets copies
~
15 o f it ?
16 MR. BACHMANN:
Would you like to have that marked 17 as an Exhibit?
I can provide you copies.
18 DR. STILLMAN:
The cover letter is the important 19 part that refers specifically to license 084 20 MR. BACHNANN:
We could also have the cover letter 21 marked as an exhibit.
We could have copies made.
l l
22 JUDGE CARTEP I would rather not mark any l
23 exhibits at this time, and merely have it submitted as a 24 document that in the ordinary course should have been 25 provided.
We can identify it by number at some later time.
I l
ALCER$oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
63 1
MR. RICKORD:
Your Honor, I am no t sure I 2 understand why it should have been provided at this point.
3 Certainly if they are entitled to have the cover letter 4 admitted or considered by the Board we certainly should be 5 able to have the data itself, which will explain what the 6 cover letter says admitted.
And we are starting to get into 7 evidentiary proceeding.
8 JUDGE CARTER:
I think it would be well if we got 9 the cover letter and the report.
It is not admitted into 10 evidence, but it is merely submitted as an exhibit to the 11 Contention.
That's the way I would describe it.
12 MR. RICKORD:
Tha t is sat.isf actory to us.
13 JUDGE CARTER :
Within the pleading rather than an 14 evidentiary exhibit.
I will ask you to provide that to us 15 when you provide the revised Contentions.
16 All righ t.
Can we move on now to the fifth?
No, 17 we're through with V.
We'll go on to VI, Routine Emission 18 f ro m 2.
I will read that.
19 "10 CFR, Part 20, limited are inadequate to 20 protect the health and safety of the popula tion in the 21 vicinity of the AFRRI reactor.
This procedding presents 22 'special circurstances' within the meaning of 10 CFR, 23 Section 2.758 that warrant the Board's consideration of 24 whether the off-site air and waterborne release limits set 25 f orth in 10 CFR Part 20 and appendices 3 and C thereto are ALDERSoN AEPoATING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
64 1 adequate to protect the public health and safety."
2 Now, it then goes on to say that there will be an 3 affidavit sumitted.
Now is that the same affidavit that we 4 were provided with before?
5 MS. ENTWISLE:
Yes, it is.
6 JUDGE CARTERt That is, it is attached to the 7 document entitled " Position of Petitioner on Unstipulated 8 Contentions"?
9 MS. ENTWISLE:
That is correct, sii.
10 JUDGE CARTER:
Anything you wish to add to that?
11 MS. ENTWISIE:
We had discussed the l'ssues in 12 detail earlier.
The sly thing I would like to add is a 13 quote from Justice Douglas in the case of Morningside 14 Renewal Council Incorporated and Riverside Democrats 15 Incorporated vs. the 3.EC.
This was a case on appeal of the 16 Columbia reactor licensing proceeding.
17 Justice Douglas dissented from the denial of
{
18 certiorari in that case and stated that he would grant 19' certiorari to consider the issues, "to consider the 20 propriety of the Agency's practice of licensing trigger 21 reactors in the absence of rules establishing safety 22 sta ndards. "
23 I think the language is very naterial to the 1
24 proceeding we are in today.
25 JUDGE CARTER:
Would you provide us with a full ALDERSoN REPCATING CCMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
65 1 citation when you give us your Contentions?
2 MS. ENTWISLE4 Yes.
3 JUDGE CARTER:
Mr. Bachmann?
4 MR. BACHNANN:
We hsve essentially nothing further 5 to add.
Just to say again the f act that we are in a 6 licensing proceeding, not rulemaking.
There are rulemaking 7 proceedings in 10 CFR 2.8100'and the pages following, and it 8 is the staf f's position that they have not provided special 9 circumstances in their af fidavit within the meaning of 10 to CFR 2.758.
11 JUDGE CARTER:
Mr. Pickord?
12 MR. RICKORD4 I, having reviewed the Petitioner's 13 affidavit, find no special circumstances that wa rra n t 14 certification of this issue to the NRC and would ask that 15 you conclude likewise.
16 JUDGE CARTER:
Miss Entwisle, any reply?
17 MS. ENTWISLEs No reply.
18 '
JUDGE CARIEas All right.
N o w th e la st item 19 bef ore us will be the item involving security.
I'll read 20 this very quickly.
21
"(7)
Security.
Neither the physical security 22 plan for the f acility nor Applicant's history of se;urity 23 violations and substandard management and operating 24 procedures demonstrate that the controlled access areas can 25 be protected from sabotage or diversion of special nuclear ALDERSON REPcRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W WASHINGTCN. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
66 1 material according to the standards set forth at 10 CFR P' art 2 73.
3 "The draft audit report of the AFERI facility 4 prepared by the Defense Audit Service in 1979 cites frequent 5 instances of security and management violations, including:
6
"(1)
Eighteen activations of the f acility alarm 7 system during a 34-day period caused by personnel leaving 8 work after normal duty hours from unauthorired exits.
9 Auditors ware told by AFRRI security personnel and other 10 AFERI officials that investigations were not made of the 11 activations and that not enough security people were on duty 12 to investigate each time the alarm.went off.
13
"(2)
Unauthorired people entering the facility by 14 following employees in who used their magnetic cards to 15 unlock the door.
16
"(3)
Failure to escort visitors attending weekly 17 seminars and provide them with dosemeters.
18
"(4)
Failure of employees entering and exiting 19 the building after hours to sign a log showing their time of 20 arrival and departure.
21
"(5)
Violations of Applicant's accounting and 22 dispensing procedures for controlled substances such as 23 n arcotics. "
24 Miss Entwisle, do you have anything to add?
l l
25 F. S. INTVISLE:
Yes, Your Honor.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
67 1
1 cite to you the ruling of the licensing Board on 2 March 20, 1981, in the UCLA reactor relicensing proceeding, 3 in which the Board ruled that the security contentions 4 should be admitted.
The Board was very concerned in that 5 case with the fact that the reactor was lvcated, as it is 6 here, in the midst of a highly populated area and thus gave 7 the utmost consideration to possible hazards and safety 8 considerations.
9 JUDGE CARTER:
Er. Bachmann?
10 MR. BACHMANN:
Excuse me just for a second.
If I 11 sight have the citation from that order, please.
12 MS. ENTWISLEs Yes.
I'm,not sure I can give it to 13 You right this minute. I have got the docket number and the i
14 date.
It was the Regents of the University of California 15 ( UC LA reactor), number 50-142, OL, March 20, 1981.
And I 16 apologize.
I do not have a page number.
17 ER. BACHMANN:
Judge Carter, the staff opposes the 18 admission of this Contention because it lacks adequate bases 19 and also because it appears to raise issues which do not 20 apply to this f acility.
21 As we stated in our statement of position, when 22 you are dealing with a possessor of special nuclear material 23 of moderate strategic significance only 10 CFR 73.67 24 applies, and that is the case here, where they possess 5,000 25 or less grams of 20 percent enriched uranium.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
i 68 1
As I stated in the statement of position, to CFR 2 73.67(a)(2) states the requirements of what a physical 3 security setup must have and just to paraphrase what they 4 have, they must have early detection of someone getting 5 acress to rontrolled area, early detection of removal of the 6 material, proper placement to transfer custody of the 7 material, and be able to respond to unauthorired removal.
8 Ths.t, in a nutshell, is the total requirements of the 9 security plan for this type 'of f acility with the amount of 10 materisl that they have.
11 The instances that the Petitioner has cited, none 12 of these,. even going back to the original document that th e y 13 cited in the draf t report seems to indicate, at least to the 14 staff that -- of inadequacies in the requirements of 10 CFR 15 73.67.
16 Part 5, as far as dispensing. narcotics, is just 17 not applicable on its f ace, and the other four do not 18 indicate that t.here would be a failure of the facility to 19 detect unauthorired entry to the con trolled area.
And I 20 specify controlled area because that is the part just 21 directly around the teactor.
22 None of the derilections of duty have any 23 connection with that controlled area, nor do any of these l
24 indicate that someone would be able te penetrate th a t 25 controlled area and remove material and not have that ALDERSoN AEDoRTING COMPANY. INC.
400 vtAGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
69 1 detected.
So, while concern on the security plan certainly 2 could be a concern, none of these instances cited, in the 3 staff's view, form enough of a bases to be admissible as a 4 contention.
5 JUDGE CARTER :
Mr. Rickord?
6 HR. RICKCRDs Yes, sir.
Just to provide any 7 member of the Board who may be unfamiliar with the Defense 8 Audit Service, tha t is our internal DOD auditing agency.
9 They are around making sure we are managing our activities 10 both from an economic and a practical point of view in a 11 proper manner.
And the DAS fol,ks came through.
12 The shortcomings that they iden'tified her? were 13 brought to management's attention, of course.
They did not 14 relate, as Mr. Bachmann has pointed out, to the reactor.
15 They related to the f act that perhaps from office areas 18 typewriters could disappear, not so much nuclear material 17 could disappear from the reactor itself.
18 All of these instances cited rela te to something 19 tha t is not co-located, if you will, or identical to the 20 reactor f acility.
I find it interesting that FFC and 21 agencies that are more specifically interested in the safety 22 and security of the reactor facility are not cited for the 23 proposition that the security is really an issue.
24 I guess when you boil it all down what I am saying 25 is that we have s large number of specifics here.
It is not ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554 2245 l
l L
70 1 difficult to tell what is being litigated, but it is not 2 relevant.
Thank you.
3 JUDGE CARTER:
Miss Entwisle?
4 MS. ENTWISLE4 Yes.
We maintain that the items we 5 have set forth in the Contention are material to the 6 question of whether the reactor and special nuclear material 7 is safe from terrorism, sabotage, and before I go into a 8 specific quote here, I wanted to just state generally that 9 any breakdown in security in the AFRRI facility is the first i
10 breakdown of the barrier between the public and the 11 controlled access area.
12 Secondly, it is incumbent upon staff and 13 Applican t, and I don't believe they have done so to our 14 satisfaction at this point, to show that only section 73.67 15 applies to this proceeding, because it has not been 16 adequately shown that the material is of only moderate 17 strategic significance.
18 The third and final point on this, I would like to 19 read a quote from the f ormer director of the Oefense Nuclear 20 Agency, Admiral Robert Monroe, and former director of the 21 Armed Forcas Radiobiologic Research Institute, Colonel 22 Darryl MacAdo, and I quote:
"If a group of heavily-armed, 23 desperate men stormed into the building, there would be l
24 nothing out there to stop them."
25 And a quote from Colonel MacAdo, "The reactor is l
l ALCERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W.. WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
71 1 safe except from terrorists.
The reactor would not be the 2 prime targe t, but a room housing cobalt would be."
- Okay, 3 that's sufficient.
4 And we think that it is significant that although 5 the cobalt f acility --
6 JUDGE CARTER:
When were those statements made and 7 wha t is the source?
8 HS. ENTWISLE:
Yes, they are from the Washington 9 Post.
10 DR. STILLMANs The Washington Star, Tuesday, 11 August 14, 1979 and the Montgomery Journal, Sandy Golden, 12 Wed nesda y, June 27, 1979.
13 MS. ENTWISLE4 I'm sorry.
It wasn't the Post.
14 DR. STILLEAN:
The Washington Star and the 15 Hontgomery Journal.
16 3R. BACHMANN:
Judge Carter, I would like to make 17 a minor correction, which has already been discussed with 18 Petitioner's counsel, on our statement of position, where we 19 ref er to the material as special nuclear material of low 20 strategic significance.
It is moderate stragetic 21 significance.
1 1
22 However, 10 CFR 73.67 applies to both low and 23 moderate strategic significance, but just to straight the 24 record strai,gh t, it is mode ra te significance.
Low strategic 25 significance is up to 1 kilogram.
Moderate material is from ALOERSON REPcRTING COMP ANY. !NC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTCN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 L
72 1 1 to 5 kilograns.
2 I might also add that the Licensee is not licensed 3 to have more than 5 kilograms of this material and, 4 therefore, by definition, it has to be moderate strategic 5 significance.
6 And I would like to add one more thing.
73.67, by l
7 its very words, does not require at this particular type of 8 facility to protect against terrorism or sabotage.
It is 9 simply not part of our requirements.
At a power reactor it 10 is very clear that they have got.to have many, many 11 safeguards, but we just do not require that.
12 JUDGE CARTER:
Is there anything further on this 13 point?
14 MS. ENTWISLE:
We would just refer Mr. Eachmann to 15 Justice Douglas' quote questioning the propriety of 16 licensing a trigger reactor in the absence of safety 17 standards.
18 JUDGE CARTER:
Now that concludes the discussion 19 of the Contentions, but Mr. Bachmann you stated earlier that 20 there were some astters involving environmental reports that 21 you wanted to discuss.
22 MR. BACHMANN Yes, sir.
23 On the stipulated Contentions, numbers V and VI --
24
( Pause. )
25 MR. SACHMANNs We had all stipulated to these ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
73 1 Contentions based on the concept that we felt that an 2 environmental contention could indeed be viable.
- However, 3 we did it with the caveat that we would make certain remarks 4 on the record at the pre-tearing conference.
5 Number V, the EPA I Contention, the Petitioner is 6 requesting a f ull environmental impact statement.
As of the 7 time we stipulated it, and even as of today, the staff has 8 not yet issued any form of an environmental report on the 9 reactor.
10 We stipulated to this on the basis that the sta'f f
11 will do an environmental impact appraisal and at that point 12 decide whether or not to issue an e,nvironmental impact 13 statemen t.
We put both of these Contentions in because we 14 decided we would not object to them on the basis of 15 timeliness.
16 As far as the EIS Contention, we would request 17 tha t as actually is stated in the Contention, that this not 18 be ru' upon or considered as litigable in the proceedings r3 until the other Contentions are cleared, because it says 20 entered in view of the foregoing Contentions.
So if the sum 21 of the weight of the evidence at the time the hearing draws 22 to a close indicates the need f or or the non-need fcr an 23 environmental impact statement, we propose that tha t would 24 be the proper time to address whether that is required.
25 This was our understanding -- th a t the need for an ALDERSCN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE. S.vv WASHINGTCN. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
Tu 1 EIS would be determined after all the other Contentions 2 would be litigated, because at that point we would have 3 enough evidence to know when it would be required.
4 ES. ENTWISLE:
That was my understanding.
5 JUDGE CARTERS Excuse me.
What do you expect 6 would be the timing of that?
7 Suppose we were to go along with that and sometime 8 down the road were to agree with them, have an additional 9 delay, would you not, before the statement was completed and 10 then have to reopen hearings?
I'm not sure that the Board 11 is prepared to make that kind of a commitment, but we will 12 certainly consider any plan that co.unsel proposes that will 13 serve the convenience of all concerned.
14 MR. THEBYs If I may elaborate a little bit i
15 f urther on what we're trying to say here, Section 51.5(a) of 16 the Commission's regulations set out those instances which 17 require the preparation and issuance of an environmental 18 impact statement.
The canewal of a license for a resea rch 19 reactor is not one of those instances, so the reculations do 20 not require the issuance of an impact statement.
21 However, they do have in our regulations the 22 provision that any action which significantly affects the 23 quality of the human environmental course will require an 24 environmental impact statenent.
The staff is in the process 25 of preparing an environmental impact appraisal.
ALDERSGN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
75 1
As a result of that appraisal we will be able to 2 determine whether or not this renewal of the AFRRI's license 3 will significantly affect the human environment.
If we make 4 a finding in our impact appraisal that it significantly 5 affects the human environment, then the staff will go on to 6 prepare an environmental irpact statement.
7 However, if we find that it does not significantly 8 aff ect the human environment, then we will find that our 9 environmental impact appraisal was sufficient.
We would to claim then that that document indicates tha t the impacts are 11 such that they don't significantly affect the human 12 environment and therefore no environmen tal impact statement 13 was necessary.
14 JUDGE CARTER:
'Jhen will the appraisal be 15 completed?
16 MR. TREBY I believe it will be completed by the 17 end of August, but, as you notice, the following stipulated 18 Contention, Number VI, indicates that the impact relates to I
19 the appraisal and indicates that the impacts do 20 significantly impact the environment.
21 By indicating that we wish V to be deferred, what 22 we mean is that first we should litigate VI, determine 23 wh e th e r no t, if the staff 's document reaches the conclusion 24 that the human environment is not significantly affected l
25 and, therefore, an impact statement is not required, to the i
ALDERSoN REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. 0.C. 70024 (202) 554-2345
76 1 extent that there is any issues in controversy with regard 2 to those conclusions and those are litigated, that we 3 reserve until we have finished putting into evidence those 4 questions and then it would, I guess, be strictly a matter 5 of law as to whether or not an impact statement is necessary.
6 You will have litigated the f actual instances of 7 whether there is a significant effect on human environment 8 in considering Contention VI.
So, therefore, we don't think 9 there's going to be a delay and all we are really to acknowledging in the Contention V is the f act that the first 11 step in the process is to do the impact appraisal.
12 JUDGE CARTER:
I think Judge Hill had a question 13 about this.
14 JUDGE HILL:
My question really is directed, to the I
15 Applicant.
Is there an existing environmental impact on the 16 presume it would be either a statement or a report 17 f acility -- that is, one,that has been prepared by the 18 Department of Defense?
19
- 53. EICKORDa I am not certain as to the answer to 20 tha t.
As you may know, the National Naval Medical Center is 21 a Navy activity and I presume you are driving at the 22 installation, ordinary operations under the Council on 23 Environmental Cuality Guidelines thing?
24 JUDGE HILL:
Eight.
25 MR. RICKCED:
We would be pleased to provide th a t ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
77 1 information to you.
2 JUDGE CARTER:
Would you please?
3 ER. RICKORD:
Sure.
4 JUDGE CARTER All right.
Well, we will take this 5 into consideration.
6 Niss Entwisle ?
7 MS. ENTWISlEs I just wanted to point out that the 8 issue may become soot if the Eoard rules that this is a 9 testing f a cility.
If that is the case, under section to 51.5(a)(1), the Commission has no discretion but simply must 11 prepare an environmental impact statement.
And I would 12 again refer the Board to our written statement of position 13 in support of the Contention, that this is a testing 14 f acility because it is briefed at much greater length than 15 ve have the opportunity to do here today in oral argument.
l 16 JUDGE CARTER :
Is there anything further to come 17 before us?
18 If not, we will adjourn.
19 MR. BACHMANNs Judge Carter, we almost forgot.
I I
20 think it would be appropos at this point to suggest a 21 schedule for discovery and other matters that could possibly 22 he incorpersted in the order following the pre-hearing 23 conference.
24 And staff has some suggestions, if you care to 25 hea r them a t this point.
ALOERSCN REPORTING CCMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
78 1
JUDGE CARTER:
Have they been discussed with the 2 other attorneys?
If not, I will recommend, first, that you 3 do that with them.
Is that a very long document?
4 MR. BACHMANN:
Oh, it would take about two minutes.
5 JUDGE CARTER:
Well, go ahead and we will get 8 first reactions to it.
7 MR. BACHEANNs We would consider day one would be 8 when the order is issued following this conference.
Thirty 9 days af ter that the first round of discovery would be filed, to and thirty days af ter that the responses to the first round 11 would be due.
12 Twenty days after that th.e second round of 13 discovery would be filed and twenty days af ter that the 14 response to the second round would be due.
15 And thirty days af ter that all motions for summary 18 disposition would have to have been filed.
Of course, 17 summary disposition could be filed at any time, but that 18 would be final date for filing, and that is what we suggest 19 as a schedule.
20 JUDGE CARTER:
Is there any objection to that?
l 21 MR. RICK 0RDs I would prefer, assuming there is a 22 great deal that is going on, and two go-arounds of 23 discovery, I would prefer to see a little bit more time 24 there at the and to perhaps save the Board 's time in an 25 evidentiary hearing by allowing counsel to collate wha t they 4
l ALCERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
f 79 l
i 1 have learned and perhaps come up with a more reasoned 2 summary disposition.
3 JUDGE CARTER :
Specifically how would you change 4 it?
5 MR. RICKCRD:
I was looking at 45 days as the last 6 number?
7 JUDGE CARTER:
Miss Entwisle?
8 MS. ENTWISLE:
40 days -- filing last summary 9 disposition?
10 MR. RICKORD4 45.
11 MS. ENTWISLE:
I have no problem eith this.
I 12 would prefer to have it as the Applicant has stated, with 13 the greater time at the end.
14 MR. BACHMANN The staff has no problem wi th tha t.
15 JUDGE CARTER:
Fine.
We will be gathered by 16 tha t.
Is there anything further to come before us?
If not, 17 the attorneys will 18 MR. BACHMANN:
Excuse me, Judge Carter.
Just one 19 more thing on discovery.
20 10 CFR 7.20(h) has this'very difficult sort of way 21 of discovery against the staff whereby they -- the other 22 parties have to file it with the Board and the Ecard decides 23 whether we should answer it, and then you send us the 24 questions that you feel we need to answer.
25 The staff would be willing to put that aside, ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
80 i
1 without waiving that requirement, but put that aside ar.d 2 answer the interrogatories and the rest of the discovery 3 directly from the parties without having to go through those f
4 particular things.
5 However, we do reserve the right to reassert that 6 if any of the parties overdo it, shall we say.
7 JUDGE CARTER:
We'll have to meet tha t situation 8 when we come to it, I suppose.
Thank you, Mr. Bachmann.
9 If there 's nothing f urther, the hearing is to concluded.
11 (Whereupon, at 12:45 o' clock p.m.,
the hearing was 12 concluded.)
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
i
~
NUCLI:AR REGULATORY COMMISSION This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the
')
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the matter of: Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute Date of Proceeding:
May 1, 1981 (Application to Renew Facility Docket Number:
50-170 License N. R-84)
Place of Proceeding:
Bethesda, Maryland were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Coccission.
Alfred H. Ward Official Reporter (Typed)
Official Reporter (Signature)
.a*
P00R BRH K
.