ML20092M596
| ML20092M596 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Neely Research Reactor |
| Issue date: | 09/22/1995 |
| From: | Darrell Dunn, Guilday P Neely Research Reactor, ATLANTA, GA, GEORGIA, STATE OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#495-17133 95-710-01-REN, 95-710-1-REN, REN, NUDOCS 9510030087 | |
| Download: ML20092M596 (14) | |
Text
e (9 -
00CKETED USHRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '95 SEP 22 P4 :43 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 0FFK:E OF SECRETARY Before Administrative Judges: 00CKETlHG & SERVICE BRANCH Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman-Dr. Jerry R. Kline Dr. Peter S. Lam
)
In the Matter of )
)
GEORGIA INSTITUTE )
OF TECHNOLOGY ) Docket No. 50-160-Ren
) ASLBP NO. 95-710-01-Ren Atlanta, Georgia )
)
Georgia Tech Research )
R' actor )
)
Renewal of License No. R-97 ) l GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY'S RESPONSE TO BOARD'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 7. 1995 Licensee Georgia Institute of Technology (" Georgia Tech")
responds to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order issued September 7, 1995.
i The issue before the Board at present is whether GANE's Contention no. 5, concerning security during the 1996 Olympics, has been rendered moot by Georgia Tech's agreement to remove the nuclear fuel from its research reactor prior to the Games 1
and to postpone replacing the fuel until after the Games are 1 over. ]
The Board's Memorandum interprets this "mootness issue" as raising the question as to whether there is a valid contention "concerning material that was not included in the Applicant's b
9510030087 950922 PDR ADOCK 05000160 0 PDR
x -
3
- a offer to remove material from the site but nonetheless was .
among the materials for which GANE in its initial contention sought relief during the 1996 Olympic Games." (Memorandum and Order, p. 1.) The Board follows that statement of the issue by observing, "In Paragraph 3 of CLI-95-10, the Commission had inquired whether the security of such residual material might constitute a valid contention." Georgia Tech must respectfully question the accuracy of both_of these statements.
The undersigned counsel for Georgia Tech has carefully reviewed GANE's Contention number 5 as included in its " Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene in Consideration of Application for Renewal of Facility License," dated December 30, 1994.
(Copy of Contention 5 attached as Exhibit 1.) The undersigned sees no reference in this Contention to any concern except the research reactor.
The undersigned has also carefully reviewed the 1
Commission's Memorandum and Order, CLI-95-10, including the l third paragraph of the Order. The undersigned sees no l l
reference to an inquiry as to "whether the security of such l residual material might constitute a valid contention" in paragraph 3 or elsewhere in the Memorandum and order. It is, of course, possible that counsel has misread this Order, as well as GANE's Contention no. 5 but careful study does not reveal the references cited in the Board's Memorandum and Order.
As argued in Georgia Tech's " Statement as to Issue of .j Mootness of Contention 5," filed August'28, 1995, it is Georgia i a, ,
+
Tech's position that this Board is' without jurisdiction to consider the issue of storage of cobalt on the Georgia Tech's-campus'. This matter is before the Board-and the Commission on Georgia Tech's application for renewal of its reactor license.
The legal authorities supporting, Georgia-Tech's position have-been' briefed in its earlier Statement and in the Staff's
" Response to the Request _for Hearing on the Conversion Order filed by GANE," '(Response filed in Docket No. 50-160-OM on
' July'26, 1995) and will not be repeated here.
Georgia Tech would respond to the factual assumptions ,
i underlying GANE's attempt to raise the cobalt issue in this license renewal proceeding by attaching correspondence from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, to Georgia Tech concerning the cobalt in question. These letters document ongoing inspection of the Georgia Tech facility in full compliance with state and federal l law. (Correspondence dated May 14, 1990, October 21, 1993, and November 3, 1993, attached as Exhibits 2-4.)
Wherefore, Georgia Tech respectfully requests this Board to reverse its Order with respect to Contention 5 and to determine that such contention is now moot. l Respectfully submitted, ;
)
MICHAEL J. BOWERS 174567 i Attorney General ;
(Signatures continued on next page.) !
4
r--
+
4 L ~
A'h DENNIS R. DUNN-
~~
= -
234098 Senior Assistant Attorney General hsZtisEd) hAAAM PATRICIA GUILDAY U 315113 >
Assistant Attorney General i
PLEASE ADDRESS ALL COMMUNICATIONS TO:
PATRICIA GUILDAY Assistant Attorney General Georgia Department of Law 40 Capitol Square, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334-1300 l
l l
l I
l I
1 l
l l
i
[.
l 00CKETED L"
USNRC-
- i. ' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '95 SEP 22 P4 :43' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD-0FFICE OF SECRETARY.
Before Administrative Judges: 00CKETggERVICE.
Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Dr. Jerry R. Kline EDr. Peter.S. Lam ,
l '
L )
In the Matter of. )
) l l - GEORGIA INSTITUTE ) '
OF TECHNOLOGY ) Docket No. 50-160-Ren
- j. ) ASLBP NO. 95-704-01-Ren :
Atlanta, Georgia ) !
)
Georgia Tech Research )
Reactor )
)
Renewal of License No. R-97 )
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Georgia- ;
Institute of Technology's Response to Board's Memorandum and Order of September 7, 1995 have been served upon the following persons by U.S. Mail, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirement of 10 C.F.R. Sec. 2.712:
Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Peter S. Lam Board' Panel Atomic Safety And Licensing Mail Stop: _T-3 F23 j
- Board U.'S. Nuclear Regulatory l l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
. Washington, D.C. 20555 9
I -
H
- . . .s
i l?
l l
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge
- Jerry R. Kline' Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman L
Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety 1and Licensing Board' Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington,- D.C. 20555 Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. Randy A. Nordin, Esq.
Susan S. Chidakel, Esq. E. Gail Gunnels, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel Georgia Institute of
. Technology L U.S Nuclear Regulatory -
Commission 400 10th Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Atlanta, Georgia 30332 Glenn Carroll Office of the Secretary. (2)
Georgians Against Nuclear Attn: Docketing and Service Energy Mail'Stop: OWFN-16 G15 Post Office Box 8574 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atlanta Georgia 30306 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i
Adjudicatory File (2)
-Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l l
Washington, D.C. 20555 This g day of J %' , 1995.
Ifsh>*Ia) > h&
U
\
PhTRICIA GUILDAY {
1 Assistant Attorney General 1
I i
h .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD arctmo
- ^
Before Achinistrative Judges: $E M
Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Dr. Jerry R. Kline r
, Dr. Peter S. Lam l
l Docket No. 50-160-Ren In the Matter of ,
ASLBP No. 95-704-01-Ren GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH REACTOR Atlanta, Georgia Facility License No. R-97 crnacTANs anxTNst Nnctrxn turncy AMENDED PETTTTON FOR LEAVE TO TNTERVFNF IN EONRTBTRATTON OF APPLTEATTON POR RENTWAL OF PAETLTTY LTFTMCE Georgians Against Nuclear Energy (GANE) respectfully petitions the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for intervenor status in the consideration of Georgia Institute of Technology's request to renew Facility License No. R-97 to operate the Georgia Tech Research Reactor on Georgia Tech campus in downtown Atlanta. Ne request that a public hearing be held concerning the license renewal. (Docket No. 50-160 License Renewal Application dated April 19, 1994, Federal Register Notice September 26, 1994, page 49088.)
GANE feels that the Georgia Tech Research Reactor on Georgia Tech campus has a history of poor management and lack of utility. The reactor is located in the heart of an extremely densely populated area. The reactor is at the heart of Georgia Tech campus which has a population of 13,000 students and 5,000 faculty and staff. Nithin a one-mile radius, Georgia Tech acknowledges a residential and business population of. 30,000 (Safety Analysis Report for the SMN Georgia Tech Research Reactor, April 1994, p. 2) although actual 1990 census figures are 60,000. The City of Atlanta population is 394,000
~
E %HlBlT I
- 4. CAME centends that the reactor site in unsafe because it suffern frnm unst able omninale cand4+4ana- The stability of the foundation of the reactor building is in question because of an' underground water flume directly below the reactor (City of Atlanta Sewer Map, CH2MHill, 1988). Witnesses remember a sinkhole swallowing a man adjacent to the reactor building 20 years ago. The fact that Georgia Tech has no m documentation of this event is negligent.
In June 1993 a major, 100-year-old Atlanta sewer line that runs under Georgia Tech campus 1/4-mile from the reactor building suffered a catastrophic collapse, swallowing two people to their death along with two automobiles. This Orme Street Line has persistently caused flooding of many structures on Georgia Tech campus. There is an aging, 6' pipe tunnel directly under the reactor (SAR, map, p.30) . The 1993 incident made national headlines and prompted the Commission to ,
request a long-overdue sewer line study (alternatives, 9/93). This is the same study previously cited which is under question now by the NRC.
The reactor is sited atop the Wahoo Creek Formation, a slabby, viscous and muddy medium-grained muscovite plagioclase gneiss which tends to break across oblique planes (Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin
- 96). This is not the solid bedrock formation that the reactor's management assumes (Alternatives, 9/93).
A very large ersck caused by water damage is visible in the viewing room to the reactor room. The reactor, a few yards from the damaged wall suffers the same structural stresses from foundation shifting due to underground hydrologic activity (Glenn Carroll, eyewitness) .
The credibility of Georgia Tech is again called into question by
~
their treatment of this area in the SAR. The SAR gives a general description of the geology of the Atlanta region and the southeastern United States but largely ignox is the specific site (SAR, p.21-23) .
The SAR does provide some information which should inspire caution but seems to be unappreciated by Georgia Tech. The water table is as close as 11 feet under the surface in some places (SAR, p. 23) and the parking lot and reactor building lie in a low area which is a natural drainage path (SAR, map, p.30) . This low-lying area experiences regular flooding and tends to be damp and saturated.
.$. CANE contends that CTRR 4e unnafe t o the oubl 4 e because of i n a de cru n t e securitv avne.me. Reactor security is grossly inadequate.
The reactor building may be accessed directly from the outside, no personnel are assigned to the building outside of normal business 4
Ot
hours. Essentially, the entire security system consists of a chain-line fence with some barbed wire on top. Wire-cutters would be sufficient to breach the fence (Glenn Carroll, eyewitness).
The presence of the Olympics in Atlanta in 1996 creates a specific situation which has historically attracted terrorist activity and s
threats. The reactor uses highly enriched uranium as fuel. During refueling this bomb-grade uranium fuel is a tempting target for terrorists. The presence of fissionable and highly radioactive fission byproducts at the reactor, make the reactor not only a tempting target for theft of bomb-grade or hazardous materials, but a target for a World Trade Center-type bombing which would not only injure residents and visitors to Atlanta, but create an international diplomatic disaster for the United States.
The roof which is nothing but 7/16" thick steel sheet-metal (SAR, p.44, rig. 4-8) and would easily be breached by a rocket-launcher or hand-thrown grenade.
- 6. GAME centends that the nTRR in unnnfo to the oublic because it han net been and in net new beino monitored adeountelv. Georgia's EPD it charged with monitoring the f acility (Georgia Radiation Control Act of 1976). In the Act EPD is given responsibility for monitoring air, water and sediments. The EPD reports are inadequate in several respects. No air monitoring has'been performed around the facility.
Some isotopes are monitored for erilu.r.t discharge to city sewers and deposition around the site. Many isotopes are unmonitored altogether.
Off-site monitoring has never been done Over the years EPD has shown a consiste'nt pattern of diminishing oversight, dropping whole categories from monitoring. The weak mor..woring and reporting effort culminates in EPD's not even publishing the annual reports since 1989. Water monitoring was discontinued in 1980. Further, a TLD error was detected in 1985, so that all data from 1979-1984 had to be corrected (Georgia DNR-EPD Radiation Surveillance Report) . We have no confidence that we really know what is going on at the Tech reactor.
From discussion with certain personnel from EPD Environmental Radiation Division it appears that regulatory authority may not be clear to the regulators,thamselves. This regulatory void places the public in serious harm.
Strontium-90 and cesium-137, two isotopes with a high uptake profile are unmonitored as previously noted (SAR, p.204, Table C.1) .
There are some areas which hint of conflict of interest. The Georgia EPD is a big customer of the Tech reactor. What little air monitoring
- 3-
't
GATECH IP AC PAGE L" 03/16/1995 ID 17 404E5?S305 g RADIOLOGICAL H E ALTH SECTION - ROOM 600 cmes G. Ltdbetter, Ph.D./ Corem'ssioner OFF4CE OF AEGULATORY $ERVICES s78 PEACHTREE STREET,N.E. / ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30309 s
N May 14, 1990 Dr. John P. Crecine Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0325 Dear Dr. Crecine This letter refers to the inspection conducted by Ms. Elizabeth Drinnon and other staff of this office during April 1990, of the activities authorized by Georgia Radioactive Materials License Numbers GA. 147-1 and CA. 21-2 (SMN) and to the discussion of our findings held by Ms. Drfnnon with Dr. Gary Poehlein, Dr. Ratib Karam and Dr. Betty Revsin on May 14, 1990. i l
The inspection was an examination of the activities conducted under the l licenses as they relate to radiation safety and to compliance with Georgia Department of Human Resources " Rules and Regulations for Radioactive Materials," Chapter 290-5-23, and the conditions of the licenses. The inspection consisted of selective examinations of procwures and representative records e interviews of personnel, independent measurements and observations by the inspector.
No items of noncompliance with Department of Human Resources requirements were found during the inspection.
If you should have any questions or require assistance concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to call on us. >
Sincerely,
- g. .
l Thomas E. Hill, Acting Director )
Radiological Health Section '
Office of Regulatory Services TEHiedy l cc Dr. Gary Poehlein Dr.BettyRevsin[
i a uoan o**onrumrv twtova &M d (B \ T 2.
09/10/1995 13:17 4048533325 GATECH t#RC PAGE 05
- 3- Georgia Department of Natural Resources 205 Butler Street, S.E., East Floyd Tower, Atlanta, Georgia 30334
+
'/..
"'t,'an.,rs=
cae.un.nw h.i..i..n ow.n l:
r
- ' October 21,1993 RECEIVED
. GEORGIA INSTITUTE L OF TECHNOLOGY-Dr. John P. Crecine OCT 251993 i President l Georgia Institute of Technology NUCLEAR RESEARCH CENTER Atlanta, Ocorgia 30332
Dear Dr. Crecine:
l Dis letter refers to the inspection conducted by Cornelius Maryland and Ralph McCoy of this office i on October 12 thru 15,1993. At the conclusion of the inspection of activities authorized by Georgia
- Radioactive Material License No. GA.147-1, a discussion of our findings was held by Comellus j Maryland and Ralph McCoy with Dr. Ratib Karam, Dr. Ron Ice, Jerry Taylor , and Edgar Jabweh,
- The inspection was an examination of the activities conducted under the license as they relate to i radiation safety and to compliance with Georgia Department of Natural Resources " Rules and
- Regulations for Radioactive Materials," Chapter 391-3-17. and the conditions of the license. De
] g inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews of T personnel,-independent measurements and observation: by the inspector.
! Based on the results of this inspection, it appears that one of your activities was not conducted in full compliance with requirements, as set forth in the Notice of Violation.
De purpose of this letter is to afford you an opportunity to fumish a statement or explanation in writing regarding: (1) conective steps which have been taken by you and the results achieved; (2) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further items of noncompliance; and (3) the date full compliance will be achieved. Your reply should be sent to the Radioactive Materials Program within thirty (30) days of this letter to assure that it will receive proper attention and allow further evaluation of this matter.
If you should have any questions or require assistance concerning this' matter, please do not hesitate to call on us.
Sincerely,
. Domas E. Hill, Manager Radioactive Materials Program
~
~
'*^= -
O **:
' Redlanetin hinterials Program. 4244 international Parkway, Suite 114, Atlanta,' Georgia 30354 (404) 362 2675 b HIE (T 3
~. - -
GATECH t#SC Fa3E 05 l 09/10/1955 13:17 4048539325 l' '.. Georgia institute of Technology G - NEELY NUCLEAR RESEARCH C: ENTER c
- 900 ATLANTIC ORIVE h ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30332 0425 (4o4)894 3500 November 3, 1993 Mr. Thomas E. Hill, Manager Radioactive Materials Program Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources 205 Butler Street, S.E.
East Floyd Tower
. Atlanta, GA 30334 Dear Mr. Hill q
I am responding to your letter of Oct. 21, 1993 to Dr. John P.
Crecine concerning the inspection conducted by Mr. Cornelius ;
j Maryland and Mr. Ralph McCoy on Oct. 12 through 15, 1993 of
- activities authorized under license No. GA-147-1SNM.
O Violation: License condition 19 requires that the radioactive v material be lack tested at six months intervals. Contrary to this requirement, three Ki'8 sources used by Principal Investigator No.
111 wer's last leak tested on January 13, 1992. This exceeds the 1eak test requirement.
Roolv
- 1. Admission or denial of the violation:
The Georgia Institute of Technology agrees with the violation as stated.
1
- 2. The reason for the violation:
A former employee forgot to log the three Ni'8 sources I into our computerised list of isotopes to be leak tested every six months. This failure was not detected until Mr. Maryland and Mr. McCoy performed their inspection.
- 3. corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved: '
The three Nisa sources were leak tested on October 14, 1993 and found to be non-leaking, i.e. integrity maintained.
EXHIBIT 4 E *'O
- 3.c .. .
- P.4E Oi-ics/ en9954
- 3: n. L40465353 5 .GATECH teFC n
~
E Mr. Thomas E..- Hill, Manager
. November 11~,'1993 Page 2 The.- ' three Miss . sources have been logged' on our computerised list of radioactive isotopes- to . be leak tested every six months.
- 4. Corrective steps which -will be taken to avoid. further-violations:
The'Neely Nuclear Research Center, through the office of the Manager of Office of Radiation Safety, will review our records to verify that all radioactive sealed sources are properly logged and that leak tests are performed on
-time. The review will be finished December 31, 1993.
Our procedure. will be revised such that when a radioactive source is first received at Neely Nuclear Research Center, one staff member will log. the source into. our computerised list and another staff member, different from the first, will verify that the
~
radioactive source has been properly logged. The
. procedure revision will assure that the action or inaction of .any one staff ~ member will be caught in a timely manner, i.e., before appropriate record on the source is filed away. The procedure revision will be accomplished December 31, 1993.
The Health Physics staff have collectively discussed the problemof the three Ni" sources and were made aware of the consequences of the clerical error committed by the
- former staff member.
- 5. Date of Full compliance:
. Full compliance will be accomplished Decamber 31, 1993.
L -
l Should you have any questions about our response, please let me know.
sincerely, i
- l. GB.a . w_ _
n R.A. Karam, Ph.D., Director Neely Nuclear Research Center
! RAK/c.cg ec: Dr.' John P. Crocine Dr. Mike Thomas-
- Dr. Gary Poohlein Dr. R.. Ice'
G; TECH t#FC F& _x. 0-einenss5 13:17 40425393;5
, *w, i
ia i
4 Notice of Violations
[
~
Georgia Institute of Technology Neely Nuclear Research Center 900 Atlantic Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30332 Lleense Ember CA.147-1 Based on the results of a Georgia Department of Natural Resources inspection conducted on October 12 thru 15,1993, it appears that one of your activities was not conducted in full compliance i ' with " Georgia Rules and Regulations for Radioactive Materials " Chapter 391-3 17 as indicted below:
A, Iieanne condition 19. requires that the radioactive material be leak tested at six months I
intervals.
i
- Contrary to this requirement, three nickel 63 sources used by Principal Investigator 111 were j last leak tested on January 13,1992. This exceeds the leak test requirement.
l 1
I
}
L
\
0 l .
,i d, . , , ,. , . _ - - -. .
'