ML20008G242

Statement of Position Supporting Admission of Unstipulated Contentions 1 & 2 Re Accidents,Contention 3 Re Testing Facility,Contention 4 Re Siting,Contention 5 Re Routine Emissions & Contention 6 Re Security

ML20008G242
Person / Time
Site:	Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute
Issue date:	04/14/1981
From:	Entwisle E CITIZENS FOR NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY, INC., ENTWISLE, E.B.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20008G241	List: ML20008G240 ML20008G242
References
NUDOCS 8107020519
Download: ML20008G242 (6)

Text

y h o G lie

+

g Do m UNITED STATES OF AMERICA N NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN --

MAY '7.1981. > $-

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD h orne,.eg ;3,3, 7,5yf7 0::h&g&Seaica c, Sud In the Matter of ) g ARMED FORCES RADI0 BIOLOGY ) Docket No. 50-170 4'I u RESEARCH INSTITUTE ) (Aoplication to Renew Facility License

) No. R-84)

(TRIGA - Type Reactor) )

~

POSITION OF PETITIONER ON UNSTIPUL/TED CONTENTIONS Pursuant to an agreement among the parties, signed on March 31,1Edl, and forwarded by Staff Counsel to the Board, a stipulation on some contentic 1s has been reached.

The unstipulated contentions are contained in Attachment B. The Petitioners hereby submits its statement of position on those contentions not included in the stipulation.

Unsticulated Contentions in Attachment A

1. Accidents I

1) This contention should be admitted because it raises a significant cdestion concerning the public health and safety. In support of its admissibility, Pet i tioner cites the Board's recent ruling in The Regents of the University cf Caiifornia (UCLA Reactor), No. 50-142 OL, March 20, 1951, thac in the context cf a small research reactor based in the heart of a large university campus" it was "comocllac to consicer pcssible ha:ard scenarios," including multiole failure modes (such as

. hose descriced in this contention).

In the event of a rapid loss of coolant in the AFRRIreactor (e.g., core tnan ?50 gallons of water per minute) in an actively operating core ('.e., in a recurrent pulsing mode), there could be a sudden temperature elevation (equal to or greater than 9000 C) resulting in significant fuel element cladding failures. Such _

cladding failures have been demonstrated elsewhere en several occasions. (See 8107020 Sl%

H. H. Hausner and J. F. Schumar in Nuclear Fuel Elements, p. 84). Even using Gulf General Atomic's experimental data for release estimates, the approximate 5% of the fuel inventory predicted to escape at temperatares at and above 9000 C would exceed 10 C.F.R. Part 20 limits.

2) Insofar as this contention amounts to a challenge to the adequacy of NRC regulations (i.e.,10 C.F.R. Part 20, Appendix S concentration limits) by asserting that the health impacts of internal emissions should be considered, this case presents "special circumstances" warranting such a challenge pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.758. (See the accompanying Affidavit for the facts that support this challenge.)

2. Accidents II

1) Having since examined information not available to it at the time the Stipulations were signed, Petitioner withdraws this contention.

2) Petitioner calls-the Board's attention to the ruling in the UCLA reactor case, cited above, in support of its position that contentions 2) a) and 2) b) are acmissible. As in that case, the Soard is compeliec to consider the possible

- hazard scenarios for tne multiple failure. modes these two maximum credible accidents represent.

Petitioner cites the work of Professor Earl A. Galbransen for its position that the chemical reactions between zirconium hycride and air and zirconium hydride anc water are violently exothermic.

3. Testinc Facility e

The relevant criterion in 10 C.F.R. S 50.2 (r) designates as a testing facility one tnat is licensed to operate at a power level in excess of 10 Mwt. The issue nere is whether the determir.it; mode of operation for theAFRRI reactor is, or

~

snould be, its steady state mode or its pulsing moce. If it is the latter, the

a 3-tne AFRRI poser-level exceeds 10 M vt and the reactor falls,'within the definition of a testing reactor.

Petitioner alleges that the determining mode -for the AFRRI license is its pulsing mode because this mode presents the greater radiological hazard. Petitioner cites in support of its position the case of Trustees of Columbia University (Docket No. 50-208, ALAB-3, Kay 26, 1970), where the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (ALAB) was asked on a certified ",destion from the Licensing Board whether

'~

the Columbia University TRIGA reactor was a testing facility within the meaning of 10 C.F.R. f 50.2(r).

The ALAB concluded that the reactor's steady state mode presented the greater radiclogical hazard (i.e., higher fission product inventory) and was thus the determining mode (which, at 250 kw thermal, put the reactor below the 10 Mwt threshold for a testing facility). .

E In so deciding, ALAB relied heavily on the premise that the negative temperature coefficient would inherently limit the height and duration of the pulsing phase.

Since all parties have stipulated that the " built-in" safety of the negative temperature coefficient in accident situations is at issue (Attachment A, Stip.

Contentions, 2. Accidents II (2), last. par.), the testing facility contention is also at issue and is thus admissible.

The case before this Board is also factually distinct from the Columbia case; e.g., the AF'RI reactor is approximately four times larger than the Columbia one and has a higher ccre reactivity, making its safety concerns more significant.

The Petitioner is prepared to brief this issue fully at the time of the hearing on the merits.

, a ., - , -

,. - - - - - ~

g - -

_a.

4 Siting As a testing facility, the AFRRI facility is bound by the siting criteria set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 100. (SeeScope,$100.2(a).)

To rule on siting, the Board need not even consider whether AFRRI is a testing facility, however. The Staff has used Part 100 for accident dose limits of research reactors, and neither the Staff nor Applicant offers any impelling logic to explain why Part 100 may be used for this purpose but not for siting criteria.

5. Routine Emissions I

1) As a result of an amendment to Part 20 of the NRC's regulations on March 25, 1981 (46 Fed. Reg. 18525,10 C.F.R. JJ 6620.105, 20.106, 20.405), nuclear power plants are bound by the EPA release levels set forth at 40 C.F.R. Part 190.

The spirit of the amendment, i.e., to minimize the' threat to the public health and safety of radiation, applies with equal force to power, , testing, and research reactors.

2) Correction: The Inspection Report was from the year 1965, not 1975-1376 _..

as the contention states.

Insofar as Applicant's current operating license permits incineration of solid radioactive waste, Petitioner asks the Ecard to ccndition the license renewal, if granted, on the prohibition of this practice in tne future.

3) Neither Staff nor 'pplicant has provided sufficient information to con-

. clude that, given the continuous day-in, day-out proximity to the reactor of many residents, hospital patients and staff, school children, the highest average annual exposure rate to these offsite areas nas not resulted in, and continues to result in, doses to the public in excess of 0.5 rem /yr.

~~~

The Applicant's Environmental Impact Appraisal coes not provide the reader with

enough information with which to determine whether the figures cited are actual release measurements or mathematical constants used to derive postulated releases.

4) Neither Staff nor Applicant has provided a firm basis from which to conclude that the emissions cited in Applicant's Environmental Release Report (ERR) came from a source not within the purview of License R-084. Control measurements were not taken after the Maxitron X-Ray facility was decommissioned, so it is not known if the Maxitron contributed to the releases in any significant amount. The cover letter to the ERR, from AFRRI's Director to the AEC Director of Reactor Licensing, states that environmental release data are herewith submitted for License R-084.

6. Securi ty inis question shoulc be admitted because it raises important questions concerning' the public safety. Petitioner notes that the Licensing Board has recently admitted the security contention of the Petitioner in tne UCLA reactor license renewal case, cited above.

Tne ease with wnich unauthorized persons can enter anc exit the AFRRI facility, as shown by Applicant's history of security viciations anc and lax security anc management procedures, demcnstrates that the first barrier between the cu:lic and controlled access areas is extremely weak. Easy access into tne AFARI facility significantly increases the pessibility that unauthorized, undetected persons can gain access to tne controllec access areas.

Neitner Staff nor Applicant has provided adequate information en the amount of special nuclear material Applicant possesses to concluce that security require:ents for tnis facili ty are limited to tnose set fertn at 10 C.F.R.

j{73.6 7. '

. - - - -g--w-

. r -- - * -- y

. e.

6-Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner asserts that the Unstipulated Contentions should be admitted.

Respectfully submitted, 4 /_2/9 .

hdr57 El z beth B. Entwisle Counsel for Petitioner 1

i Dated at Washington, D.C. this -

14th day of April,1981.

i-i i

i 9

e

-g -

T% imw1%hy -w e W.c-M-Tsp = $ p va-e-*r-F w  % g 9=--rwbg g-Mb ypp ---My -ygg& 7M+ ywg egmy <*q s yp--E y+7,_m

• g. gregweg et- + wig 9- y p*'ggw'T