ML23151A563

PRM-050-048 - 53FR06159 - University of Missouri: Filing of Petition for Rulemaking

ML23151A563
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/01/1988
From:	NRC/SECY
To:
References
PRM-050-048, 53FR06159
Download: ML23151A563 (1)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:DOCUMENT DATE: TITLE: CASE

REFERENCE:

KEYWORD: ADAMS Template: SECY-067 03/01/1988 PRM-050-048 - 53FR06159 - UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI: FILING OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING PRM-050-048 53FR06159 RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

PAGE 1 OF 2 STATUS OF RULEMAKING RECORD 1 OF PROPOSED RULE: PRM-050-048 RULE NAME: UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI: FILING OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE: 53FR06159 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 03/01/88 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 05/02/88 NUMBER OF COMMENTS: EXTENSION DATE: I I 15 1 FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE: 54FR17962 ,, r' *

• *.'..~

FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 04/26/89 NOTES ON: PETITION CONCERNED WITH THE DEFINITIONS OF RESEARCH REACTOR AND TE TATUS

STING FACILITY.

PETITION DENIED BY EDO ON 4/5/89. F RULE: FILE LOCATED ON P-1. PRESS PAGE DOWN OR ENTER TO SEE RULE HISTORY OR STAFF CONTACT PRESS ESC TO SEE ADDITIONAL RULES, (E) TO EDIT OR (S) TO STOP DISPLAY PAGE 2 OF 2 HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PRM-050-048 RULE TITLE: UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI: FILING OF PETITION FOR .....,;,,.,,,,.._, RULEM2\\:KING DATE PROPOSED RULE ROPOSED RULE ECY PAPER: PROPOSED RULE SRM DATE: I I SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 02/25/88 FINAL RULE SECY PAPER: FINAL RULE SRM DATE: DATE FINAL RULE PAGE 1 OF 2 STATUS OF RULEMAKING RECORD 1 OF PROPOSED RULE: PRM-050-048 RULE NAME: UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI: FILING OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING ' 1

DOCKET NO. PRM-050-048 (53FR06159} In the Matter of UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI: FILING OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 11/25/87 11/19/87 REQUEST FOR PETITION FOR RULEMAKING FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI 02/23/88 11/19/87 COMMENT OF OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY (SUSAN L. HIATT} (

1) 02/29/88 02/25/88 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - PETITION FOR RULEMAKING 03/24/88 03/21/88 COMMENT OF AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY STANDARDS WRITE (WADE J. RICHARDS) (

2) 03/29/88 03/21/88 COMMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE (WADE J. RICHARDS) (

3) 04/07/88 04/04/88 COMMENT OF UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-ROLLA (M. STRAKA) (

4} 04/07/88 04/04/88 COMMENT OF UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-ROLLA REACTOR (ALBERT E. BOLON, REACTOR DIRECTOR} ( 5} 04/07/88 04/04/88 COMMENT OF COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP (STEVEN AFTERGOOD} ( 6} 04/15/88 04/08/88 COMMENT OF TRTR (A.G. JOHNSON} ( 7} 04/15/88 04/08/88 COMMENT OF OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY (BRIAN DODD) (

8) 04/25/88 04/19/88 COMMENT OF AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETIES STAND. GROUP (WADE J. RICHARDS) (

9} 04/26/88 04/22/88 COMMENT OF NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS (ROBERTS. CARTER) ( 10} 05/02/88 04/28/88 COMMENT OF GENERAL ATOMICS (KEITH E. ASMUSSEN, PH.D.) (

11) 05/04/88 04/29/88 COMMENT OF PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY (MARCUS H. VOTH) (

12)

DOCKET NO. PRM-050-048 (53FR06159) DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 05/06/88 05/01/88 COMMENT OF COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP {STEVEN AFTERGOOD) (

13) 05/06/88 04/27/88 COMMENT OF DR. ROBERT C. NELSON (

14) 05/11/89 04/05/89 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE PUBLISHED 4/26/89 05/14/89 03/18/88 COMMENT OF UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA (ROBT. U. MULDER & T.G.WILLIAMSON) (

15)

DOCKET NUMBER J?.ETIJION RULE PRM sQ-r ~ Lb '3 { R_ { / S 1 UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA Df.PARTM£.NT Of NUCLE.AR E.NGINE.ERJNG AND ENGINEERING PHYSICS NUCLE.A.R RE.ACTOR FACIUTY Secretary SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901 March 18, 1988 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 2p:5ij 804-924-i 156

Subject:

Comments py University of Virginia Management on a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the University of Missouri, for changes to 10 CFR, regarding a new definition for *research reactor* and a re-definition of the term "testing facility" {Docket No. PRM-so*-48}. Gentlemen: General Comments on Regulation of Research Reactors We are in agreement with the University of Missouri's position that excessive and unnecessary regulation of research reactors is contrary to the intent o/-congr,IJ. when it established the Atomic Energy Act. It is indeed rem1r~~ble and re-vealing that, notwithstanding the great number of NRC ~g~l~tions and __ definitions in existence, there has until now not been a di1lni tion fo~*iesearch reactor*! This is perhaps symptomatic of a lack of appreciation of the nature of the community being regulated. The proposed addition to 10 CFR of a definition for *research reactor" consistent with that used by the American Nuclear Society, and modification of the present definition of *testing facility* (in 10 CFR parts 50. 2 and 170.3), might appear to satisfy the intent of Congress. Unfortunately, while we support the Missouri petition with some minor changes, we believe that this rulemaking does not go far enough to relieve the research reactor community from excessive and unnecessary regulation. Current regulations contain mostly requirements developed for power reactors. This poses compliance problems for research reactors. For example, small reactor staffs have a difficult time keeping track of t he many regulations and changes thereto, and have to make a special effort to distinguish between those that apply to their reactors and those applying to power plants. Power reactor regulations may be applied to research reactors, even when that was not the original intent at the time the regulation was adopted, and, in some instances, when there is no valid basis for the regulation t~ apply to research reactors. True to their background and 8803310273 8 80318 PDR PRH PDR ,o-4a MAY 2 5 1989

V ~*'-,- ta !e ~,:. 1 )-.J-j r, 1.1 r;,,_, i.1 t,,,,,_ '1J*sf-<H",.. *,.,,i...,

• 1

~ies P.ecs;,ed ____ _}_ ____ Md' I Copie, ?i!ptoduced J --------- ...... Dist~ Pd;? R f-J QS ~

l experience, NRC inspectors at research reactors are inclined to review research reactor operatio~s in light of their experience at power plants. Clearly, power reactors are operated for commercial reasons. It is accepted, as a matter of fact, that the cost of regulatory compliance associated with the hiring of specialized personnel and the payment of fines imposed by the NRC is to be passed on to'the stock holders or the power consumers. More staff can always be hired, if needed, and the job of providing

• electricity gets done, albeit at greater expense.

While fines applied by the NRC are probably conducive to improved power plant operations, they are applied with such frequency that there is now little shock value or public stigma. Worthy of note, when necessary, power reactors can avail themselves of numerous trade organizations and lobbies to balance the regulatory power.

Finally, there is an appreciatio*n by a significant fraction of the public and Congress that nuclear power is needed.

On the other hand, the few existing research reactors are operated by and for scientists. No political power is held or ~xercised. No direct commercial product is produced. Few public personalities champion their cause. Furthermore, research reactor operation is not an end unto itself, but is the first of many requirements for the conductance of research. And research is demanding of personnel-time and funding resources. Staffs are typically very small, varying between two and a dozen or so personnel. Salaries come from university and/or service income sources, and are usually below the levels found in the commercial sector. At research reactors, increased costs associated with regulatory compliance cannot be passed on. Instead, they are absorbed by not replacing obsolete equipment as needed. Not surprisingly, a small research reactor staff limited in size can not reasonably be expected keep up with an ever greater number of regulations, inspections, record keeping requirements, etc.** without a decrease in research productivity. Unfortunately, the excellent operating history of research reactors during the last two decades has not deterred recent increases in regulatory oversight of research reactors. For example, the inspection frequency of research reactors is somewhat capricious since it is based on an apparently arbitrary power level. Two !Nth and higher power reactors are inspected more frequently than say, one !Nth reactors. Surely there is no great difference between one and two to warrant this! Emergency planning is another example of potential regulatory excess. In the past several years, research reactors have been asked to develop and maintain detailed emergency plans and implementing procedures. As part of the emergency plan, entire city and county police, fire and rescue squad departments have to receive on-site training at the research reactor facilities. Since only a small fraction of the public forces can be made available at any one time for this, the orientation sessions have to be repeated many times, which is a logistical nightmare. Emergency training is a constant effort for the staff, since periodic retraining is required. While some contingency plan for emergencies is certainly called for, the degree of detail can be questioned in light of there not having been a prior evaluation of the research reactor source term. Certainly, the individual operators of research reactors bear some responsibility for the plan specifics, but many requirements are imposed by the NRC as a result of its review prior to approval. Unfortunately, the plans are reviewed against the power reactor model and experience.

Universitie1 are responding to this situation by shutting down their reactors, becauae they have become too expensive to operate, and are a potential 1ource of embarrassment when public regulatory enforcement actions are taken. The reduction in the number of operating U.S. research reactors is the unfolding of a natlo:lal tragedy. This can not be explained by "survival of the fittest* nor by their supposed obsolescence. Rather, fundamental action at the regulatory level b urgently needed.

• NRC personnel cite existinc reculations to explain the increased attention

&iven to research reactors. In our opinion, reasonable and non-excessive regulation of research reactors by the NRC will depend on an early development of regulations specific to research reactors. Hopefully, this need is slowly becoming understood by the research reactor community and its regulatory agency. An abbreviated and down-scaled code of regulations specific to research reactors would do much to establish reasonable regulation where both the survival of research reactors and the health and safety of the public could be assured. These regulations should be tailored to both safety and the requirements of research reactor operations, which demand flexibility. A different approach to enforcement action should be also be found, as monetary fines are not called for in a non-commercial environment. Concurrent with this, the NRC should establish one centralized office for research reactor regulation, staffed by individuals who understand the operation and mission of research reactor facilities. Members of the research reactor community have on past occasions inquired into NRC receptiveness to a petition for rulemaking specific to research reactors. So far the response has not been encouraging, but it is hoped that the NRC will reevaluate and change its position. Comments on the Missouri Petition As regards the new definition for research reactor Missouri, we agree that the power of a research reactor consideration for its categorization than its purpose. the proposed new definition, which states that: proposed by the U. of should be a lesser In general, we support "Research reactor" means a nucl ear reactor which is of a type described in &50.2l(c) of this part and for which an application has been filed for a license authorizing operation for research, developmental, educational, training, or experimental purposes, and which may have provisions for the production of non-fissile radioisotopes. However, we would suggest that the word non-fissile, to describe the type of radioisotopes that would be allowed to be produced in a research reactor, be dropped from the definition. There are some situations, such as with the irradiation of ore material, in which minute amounts of a fissile isotope could be produced. For instance, Pu-239 could be produced on irradiating a soil sample containing U-238. It should not be forgotten' that the use of low-enriched uranium fuel leads to the production of Pu-239 within the reactor fuel. The word non-fissile is not really needed in the definition. We also agree that a qualifying phrase should be added to the present definition for *testing facility". The U. of Missouri proposes adding the underlined phrase:

"Testing reactor* means a nuclear reactor which is of a type described in &50. 2l(c) of this chapter to be used for testing reactor components and desiws at reduced or uncertain safety margins, We are not sure what is meant by a reactor design as related to testing it in a testing reactor, and believe that the definition would be clearer and lose no significance were the words" and designs" to be dropped. Although not mentioned in the Missouri petition, we strongly suggest !hat the NRC avail itself of the opportunity to consider a revision to the clause (2)(iii) of the present definition of a "testing reactor*, which currently states : Testing facility means a nuclear reactor..... *...... at : ( 1)..*....., (2) A thermal power level in excess of 1 megawatt, if the reactor is to contain: ( i)..... ; or (ii).... ; or (iii) An experimental facility in the core in excess of 16 square inches in cross-section. We are not aware that a basis exists for limiting an in-core research reactor experimental facility to 16 square inches in cross-section. It would seem more reasonable to consider a limit on the reactivity worth of such facilities. The use of the term "in the core* could also pose a problem of interpretation, since a position on a reactor core grid plate, against an external reactor face, could be considered to be an in-core position, as opposed to a "central core position* which is a position surrounded by fuel elements. If a reasonable basis for this clause is not available, we suggest that it be dropped entirely. If a reasonable basis is available, we would be interested in hearing of it. Siar~~ Robert U. Mulder, Director U. Va. Reactor Facility ~~ c;. 'R:N\\*~ '1>- Thomas G. Williamson, Chairman Department of Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics, University of Virginia

Copy to Secy- --..., Original sent to the~ Office of the Federal Register for publication NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 [Docket No. PRM-50-48] University of Missouri; Denial of Petition for Rulema ki AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Co111T1ission (NRC) is denying a petition for rulemaking (PRM-50-48) filed by Mr. William F. Reilly, Manager, Reactor Upgrade Project, and endorsed by Dr. Don M. Alger, Associate Director, Research Reactor Facility of University of Missouri. The petition is being denied because: (1) the existing regulations are adequate to ensure protection to public health and safety in licensing test reactors and testing facilities; (2) the proposed amendments would not sufficiently protect the public health and safety; and (3) the need for the clarifications proposed is not otherwise demonstrated by the documentation provided by the petitioner. The petition requested that NRC amend its regulation to add a new definition for the term "research reactor" and redefine the terms "testing facility" and "testing reactor" based on the function of the fadlity and its power level. The petitioner stated that the current definition of "testing facility" results in excessive and unnecessary regulatory requirements being applied to research reactors which are contrary to Congressional intent in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition for rulemaking, the public corrments received, and the NRC's letter to the petitioner are available for public inspection or copying in the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC. f).JJ J1s;eJ J ~ f fx b 1' '-j-J/,-~r 1 a~ Syf/ )? 'i£J

ti, 5. NUCLEAR 'REGULATORY COMMI 551 DOCK£TINO & ~f;R.\\'ICE seer ION FFICE OF THE 5£CRETARY 0~ Tilt COtM.\\l5SION D,cumcr,t S,.,\\L;tics AID )

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Markt. Au, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ColIITiission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone (301) 492-3749 *. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. The Petition II. Basis for Request III. Public Comments on the Petition IV. Analysis of Public Conments V. Reasons for Denial The Petition In a l~tter dated November 19, 1987, Dr. Don M. Alger, Associate Director, Research Reactor Facility, University of Missouri, filed with NRC a petition for rulemaking (PRM-50-48). The petitioner requested that NRC amend its regulations to add a new definition for the term *research reactor" and redefine the term "testing facility" based on the function of the facility and its power level. The proposed petitJon was published in the Federal Register on March 1, 1988 {53 FR 6159). The 60-day public coR111ent period ended May 2, 1988. Basis for Request The p~titioncr bases the petition on the fact that the current definition of "testing facility" in 10 CFR Part 50 results in excessive and unnecessary routine regulatory requirements being applied to research reactors which is contrary to Congressional intent in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The petitioner also proposes to add a definition in 10 CFR Part 50 for uresearch reactor 11 to be consistent with the definition used by the American Nuclear 2

Society (ANS) and American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The petitioner currently operates a research reactor at a maximum power level of 10 MW(t), and p.lans are being developed to upgrade the power to approximately 30 MW(t}. This power upgrade would result in the change of the "research reactor" designation to that of a "testing facility." The petitioner contends that such a designation would place unnecessary and burdensome regulatory requirements on research reactors similar to those required of power reactors. The petitioner believes the petition establishes a balanced regulatory program for the University of Missouri and future research reactors to ensure the public health and safety without inhibiting the conduct of vital research in the areas of medical research, radioisotope production, material research, neutron activation analysis, radiation effects, and others. The petitioner further believes that test facilities were intended by Congress to be encompassed in Section 104c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (construction application of testing facility}. Although this section of the Act does not mention nor define "testing facility," the Commission could issue licenses to persons applying for utilization and production facilities useful in the conduct of research and development activities. Public Coirments on the Petition A notice of receipt of petition for rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on March 1, 1988 (53 FR 6159). Interested persons were invited to submit written corrments concerning the petition during the 60-day public comment period which ended May _2, 1988. Fifteen letters were received conunenting on the petition. These letters came from universities, government agencies, industry, public interest groups, and an individual. Eleven comments favored the petition and four opposed the petition. The significant comments supporting the petition are surrmarized below:

1.

Clarifications are necessary to specify which regulations apply to research reactors. These clarifications would eliminate the confusion associated with commingled power reactor regulations. 3

2.

A clear distinction among the terms "research reactor." "testing faci 11ty" and "testing reactor" should be estab 1i shed.

3.

The arbitr:ary designation for testing facility based on power level threshold that has little. if any. technical basis, should be eliminated; thereby allowing certain vital research to be performed in a more expeditious manner. The significant comments opposing the petition are sulllllarized below:

1.

It is not prudent to ignore power level in the classification of research reactors used for research pur~'.nses from that of power reactors and testing facilities.

2.

Protection of public health and safety should be the foremost consideration wher, amending the regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I.

3.

Recourse to seek exemption from regulation should be on a case-by-case basis.

4.

The proposed definition implies that testing would be done only at "research reactors" and prevents use of a "testing facility" for other types of work for which it may be suited.

5.

Research can be conducted adequately at present or lower power levels. Analysis of Public Corrments Two convnenters made the cormnent that the proposed rule would clarify in the regulations where research reactor regulations apply and would eliminate confusion with power reactor regulations. In response, the NRC staff recognizes that the regulatory requirements for test and research reactors appear throughout Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. However, upon review of any particular part or section of the regulations, it is clear what reactor types are being addressed. This petition would change the definitions for "testing faci 1ity 11 , "testing reactor", and "research reactor." Where these definitions appear or do not appear in the regulations would not change. Therefore, the clarity of the regulations would not be affected by the petition for rulemaking. 4

One connnenter stated that the petition would establish clear distinction between terms "research reactor 11 and "testing facility. 11 In response, these terms are clearly and specifically defined in the existing Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. To date. there have not been any instances where uncertainty about a facility has occurred. The petition, if implemented, would replace the existing definitions with no significant improvement in clarity. Seven corrmenters stated that adopting this proposal would eliminate the arbitrary designation for testing facility based on a 10 MW thermal power threshold that holds little, if any, techn.fcal basis. In response, when the current definition of testing facility was proposed in 1959, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) adopted a definition based on the type of facility that would involve a significant hazards consideration. The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) reviewed and agreed on this definition. These definitions are still valid and conservative when considered in light of current technology. One corrmenter indicated that the petition would allow vital research to be performed in a more expeditious manner. In response, it is true that a higher power research reactor has a higher neutron flux and the ability to conduct research that would be difficult or very time consuming at a lower power level. However, a licensee can apply to operate a research reactor with a power level greater than 10 MW(t) if it follows the current licensing process for a testing facility. Because the existing regulations for testing facilities and testing reactors are of greater complexity than those for research reactors, it may require a longer time to complete a testing reactor licensing action. Nevertheless, ensuring the health and safety of the public takes precedence over arbitrarily relaxing licensing requirements for operation. 5

I Two co1J1J1enters stated that it is not prudent to ignore power lev~l in the classification of reactors used for research purposes. In response, the regulatory process used in any licensing action must be of sufficient detail to ensure protection of the health and safety of the public. The proposed changes 1n the definitions would change the existing regulatory process for reactors with power levels above 10 MW(t). The NRC staff considers the power level of the facility and postulated accidents to be important safety considerations when evaluating licensing actions on research reactors and testing facilities. The present regulatory options available to the staff for research reactors (such as referring an application to the ACRS) wfll continu~ to exist and will be used by the staff *:c warranted. Reasons for Denial The decision to deny the petition was based on: (1) NRC considering the contents of the petition, (2) the public c011111ents received, and (3) the current regulatory structure affecting the licensing of research reactors, testing reactors. and testing facilities. The discussion that follows addresses the significant points in the petitioner's proposal and NRC's response to these points. Th~ petitioner proposed that the Co1T1T11ssion adopt a regulation that would add a new definition for the term "research reactor" and redefine the terms "testing facility" and "testing reactor" based on the function of the facility and its power level. 0 Proposed New Definition:

• Research reactor" means a nuclear reactor licensed by the Comnission under the authority of subsection 104c of the Act and pursuant to the provisions of §50.21(c) of this chapter for research, developmental, educational, training. or experimental purposes, and which may have provision for production of non-fissile radioisotopes.

6

0 Proposed New Def1nfi1on: "Testing facility 11 means a nuclear reactor of a type described in § 50.21{c) to be used for testing reactor components and designs at reduced or uncertain safety n~rgins, and for which an application has been filed for a license authorizing operation at: (h) A thermal power level in excess of 10 megawatts; or (b) A thermal power l~vel fn excess of 1 megawatt, if the reactor is to contain: {i) A circulating loop through the core in which the applicant proposes to conduct fuel experiments; or (11) A liquid fuel loading; or (iii) An experimental facility in the core in excess of 16 square inches in cross-section. The definition of research reactor appears in the existing regulations in § 170.3(h). If a non-power reactor 1s not a test reactor or test facility. it is a research reactor; therefore, a need for clarification does not exist. Because of power levels and postulated accident considerations, the existing regulatory process for testing facilities and testing, reactors is intended to be more comprehensive than that for research reactors. The petitioner suggests adding to the definition for testing reactor and testing facility the function of the reactor by including the testing of I reactor components ar,d designs at reduced or uncertain safety margins. The petitioner does not provide justification as to what levels of reduction in safety margin is acceptable. The petitioner's proposal does not demonstrate why the existing regulatory process is not sufficient to protect the health and safety of the public and the environ111ent. In the petitioner's proposed definition, 1t is not clear where a research reactor (the type of reactor described in 10 CFR 170.3{h) or 10 CFR 50.21(c)),. that operates at a thermal power level of 10 megawatts or less, or that does not operate at a thermal power level in excess of 1 megawatt with a circulating loop, liquid fuel loading, or an experimental facility in the core fn excess of 16 square inches in cross-section that would be used for testing 7

reactor components and designs at reduced or uncertain safety margins, would be considered under the proposed r~gulations. The petitioner-proposed definitions of testing facility and testing reactor involve both reactor function and power level. This is an area of uncertainty that has not been addressed by the petitioner in any of the documentation submitted. The changes in the definition that the petitioner has proposed would result in facilities being regulated as research reactors at thermal power l~vels above 10 megawatts if the facility did not engage in testing reactor components and designs at reduced or uncertain safety margins. Facilities 4t with thermal power levels above 10 megawatts are currently regulated as testing facilities. Thus. this represents a decrease in the scope of the regulatory requir~ments. The p~titioner has not stated if a reactor thermal power level exists where the scope of the regulatory process should be increastd. Th~ petitioner has not provided any justification to show that reactor power level is independent of the potential hazard to the health and safety of the public and environment. Also, the petitioner does not justify the decrease in the scope of the regulatory process except to state that the current definitions are arbitrary. In addition to reviewing the petition and comments from the public, the petition was also examined against the existing regulatory requirements affecting test reactors. These regulations are briefly listed as follows:

1.

10 CFR 50.2 defines "testing facility* as a nuclear reactor which is of a type described iri 10 CFR 50.21(c) and for which an application has been filed for a license authorizing operation at: (a) A thermal power level in excess of 10 megawatts; or (b) A thermal power level in excess of 1 megawatt, ff the reactor is to contain: (1) A circulating loop through the core in which the applicant proposes to conduct fuel experiments; or {ii) A liquid fuel loading; or (iii) An experimental facility in the core 1n excess of 16 square inches in cross-section. 8

2.

10 CFR 50.21(c) describes a requirement for a production or utilization facility for conducting research and development activities of the types ~p~cified in Section 31 of the Act, and which is not a facility of the type specified in paragrdph (b) of this section or in 10 CFR 50.22.

3.

10 CFR 50.30(f) requires an environmental report to be submitted with application for testing facility construction permit or operating license.

4.

10 CFR 50.58 requires ACRS review and report for testing facility construction permit or operating license.

5.

10 CFR 50.92(a) requires a construction permit for a material alteration to a licensed facility and public notice according to 10 CFR 2.105 (30 days* notice and opportunity for hearing where an amendment to a license involves a significant hazard consideration).

6.

10 CFR i40.3(k) defines 11testing reactor" as a nuclear reactor of a type described in 10 CFR 50.21(c) of this chapter and for which an application has been filed for a license authorizing operation at: (a) A thermal power level in excess of 10 megawatts; or (b) A thermal power level in excess of 1 megawatt, if the reactor is to contain: (i) A circulating loop through the core in which the applicant proposes to conduct fuel experiments; or (ii) A liquid fuel loading; or (iii) An experimental facility in the core in excess of 16 square inches in cross-section.

7.

10 CFR 170.3(h) defines "research reactor" as a nuclear reactor licensed by the Coll111issiori under the authority of subsection 104c of the Act and pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 50.21(c) of this chapter for operation at a thermal power level of 10 megawatts or less, which is not a testing facility as defined by paragraph (m) of this section. 9

8.

10 CFR 170.3(m) defines 11tt::sting facility" as a nuclear reactor 11c~nsed by the Co11111iss1on under the:: authority of subsection 104c of the Act and pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 50.21(c} of this chapter for operation at: (a) A thermal power level fn excess of 10 megawatts; or (b) A thermal power level 1n excess of 1 megawatt, 1f the reactor is to contain: {i) A circulating loop through th~ core 1n which the applicant proposes to conduct fuel experiments; or (ii) A liquid fuel loading; or (111) An experimental facility in the core in excess of 16 square inches fn cross-section. All the distinctions between research and test reactors cited in the above regulations have been promulgated by NRC to ensure the protection of public health and safety and the environment. These distinctions reflect the importarice of reactor power level, postulated acc1dents 1 and facility function in NRC licensing decisions. The NRC, in light of this petition, has reexamined its regulations and determined that no additional action 1s required at this time. Accordingly, the CoJ1111ission determines that ru1emak1ng 1s not necessary at this t1me. Dated at Rockvill~, Maryland, CERT\\rlE.0 A iRUE COPY,\\.._ BY.----::-~~~~ D(/ nd Publications ser1ices 10 , 1989. For the Nuclear Regulatory CoJ1111ission. L-,,/ Victor Stello, Jr., Executive Director

DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM S-o-L-f? Secretary

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Washi ngton, D. c. 20555 Commission ( S-3 I='~ 4?1 ~~)

Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sirs:

2uo~ ?i1 1900 U'.)Nf,C "88 HAY -6 A 9 :02 Off!Ci: tJr 5;_ t,., t I Ar. 'J DOcKn 1NG t, 1:u1v rcr: I would like to take this opportunity to make a personal comment wiifill~ard to the University of Missouri ' s petition for rulemaking found in the Federal Register, Vol 53, No 40, Tuesday, March 1, 1988. I totally support the petition and believe that clearly defining research and test reactors versus power reactors is a positive step in eliminating the confusion that sometimes exists with arbitrary application of power r eactor regulations to research and test reactors. I feel, howeve~, that the real point of this petition is being overlooked. Research reactors gen~rally fall in a class that have traditionally shown a combination of physical parameters, event probabilities, design basis accidents, and credible source term propagations that show no threat or a negligible threat to the general public health and safety. These facts are adequately summarized in individual safety analysis summaries for these facil i ties. To miss these facts by codification of definitions that stand purely on functional grounds, although these new definitions satisfy the requirements of the petitione~, would seem to miss the opportunity to clearly set the majority of the facilities apart in a class which truly represents their collective risk to the general public. American National Standard 15.7, "Research Reactor Site Evaluation", although not formally endorsed by the commission is generally used to review suitability of research reactor s~tes and their associated boundaries. The limits set within this standard are significantly more restrictive than the limits established for large power systems under 10CFR100. The facts that research and test reactors are generally analyzed against more restrictive industry siting standards, show lower event probabilities, contain low fission product inventories, and are operated by highly educated and qualified technical staffs should place them in a lower risk category for review and licensing, not arbitrary power levels or descriptive physical facility definitions. A definition which adequately addresses meeting these conditions and therefore allowing the formal elimination of arbitrary application of restrictive power standards would seem more appropriate for this entire class of reactor systems. Sincerely yours, ~e:~ Dr. Robert c. Nelson 1912 Kriss Place NE Albuquerque, NM 87112 MAY 2 6 1988 Acknowledged by card ** ****n *"'***~-...........,

SO: QA -Y

• .I 1(,

,;, J a I * ',..1

• r f It NUCUAR. '1uGUtATO v.. COMMISS~

ooc m. *.G ~. se v1cE SECTIQN omq Cr THf SECREJ 1'RY Of TliE. CC,W ISSlON Dcc.,;,ic,.-1 S atistics ' u 1r i!rk Date If. p@ l.\\ 1-g/8 C:optf"S Rc-cr,:-..-:. J I AJ.j' I Cor;-i'3s Re '.Jr )rluced -~~ - - ---~ S;,ecial Disl ribJtion 9' l.P..l~ { ..., I l' .I "1!'

• • tr t
• r l
• l r '

'.,..,,. f1 ~)1 ',J. I 4f r~--,..... j "?c ci~' -t +"' "l ~ I,

• I

~

bOCKET NUMBER COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAB'ETITION RULE P~M So-,r1 1637 BUTLER AVENUE #203 ($"3 r:'~ l.,l.S,) N .3 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 ~ (213) 478-0829 May 1, 1988 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory cormnission Washington, D.C. 20555 RE: comments on Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-48

Dear Sir:

DOCKETED Enclosed please find a copy of an article from the Columbia Daily Tribune of April 25, 1988. It is of some relevance to the above-cited Petition for Rulemaking, filed by the University of Missouri, because it calls into question the University's claim that it is a "research facility." As noted in the article: --"The MU Research Reactor is under fire from UMC scientists who say its lucrative business dealings frustrate nuclear research." --A "UMC professor says reactor commercialism has prompted him to take experiments elsewhere." --The reactor is "becoming more of a commercial service center as opposed to a research laboratory." --Reactor staff members apparently used the reactor for their own personal profit~making ventures. The University wishes the reactor to be defined by its function rather independent of its power level. Judging from recent events described in the newspaper article, it must be inferred that the function of the MURR facility is to frustrate nuclear research, to drive experimenters to other facilities, and to defraud U.S. taxpayers by abusing the University's tax-free status to engage in commercial activities. In light of this information, we would urge an investigation of the MURR facility by N.R.C. headquarters to answer the following questions: (1) Have MURR personnel engaged in fraud or criminal activity? (2) Is the MURR primarily a commercial facility and therefore to be licensed as a Class 103 licensee, not a Class 104 licensee (10 CFR §50. 20)? (3) Why has N.R.C. Region III permitted the University to <listribute irradiated gems without a byproduct license, in apparent violation of the law? Since~ J steven Aftergood/J,/~ Executive Direc~o: / MAY 2 6 1888 AclUlowledged by card.******** ***----

I !'-UAR n K[T II'-'< ,XF ICf. c*i:

• ,,\\ t,>I"' s--2.-r 1 R..-.,.,.

I -n,~ *VI I S510,_J

ION

.Y

I 11.u,~1e1iJ '1lil{i 1~1,1tHli Hf!i 1ii} 1 1'IHi Hii!Prnunu !---- f,nn Jii!'ffi. 8 ~ ~ r s~t. f I ~ltt ~,rJ~f lli4s- [ ifff ~r.fis-1.. llJ~!,~t I ------v--__. ii?f8 ~fr ....i ~ ~~

o Q.. ;..

n !~111J!HUt!i1~i11t ;:nr:ii!UUiHiJ 8!f1!Ut nn1n~u1 1i ii1~ru1*n~ tog * ~ 1 t--t ~. !1f111'f1ffi~1Jl11l 1Ji11?~iiJr,ri~r ~il}llti 11Jbl* 11JI Ill Ji I{

t

!5 --i! : ~-. r'I=

• rlir '"'l~sL~ J~UJ s 1,! i If'!~ JI,u: ff :rtl 11,ftfr l!l w

~ ~. c fi'o l,,11. o ii. I ,. ~ l J!t Jf f,;

11, f i a.II* -

E irltO I I 9 &:* f., Jf II rw -<i. ~ II f,lnluu n:n 1.1 l,hl.1H hi,81 !;U n, 1fHh l,~11

• lhu h:f s-* 2::

r;rJ

t

!!rf!li!f !J;l~ill Pl1l! r i;t1"J:Jt!?f 1i!f ! tl1'1'1 1 tf ] ~ bl * §. - iln (&(9 i!- ll z r..;a

• A.

.frf ;II = ~ C .. er _ __ ff_ Ef_ ~... !!?.11>8"i 3t: flf 1* r Ii e 11-j ~fr,:\\ ~ -Hri! ;(JiHti hi!a:~ ~ ~ ~ CD 18'9!1.. ff&. __ ~IS1ii8:lr tf& se*!:IBS'i. ~ ~

J 1 - - - - - - - -

1

• *.1.1. J.L1 Ul. l~

RIL 25, 1988, COLUMBIA, MISSOURI 20 PAGES-PRICE 25¢ draws faculty wrath MU knew Alger invested . 111 pnvate topaz company DID AJ&er, aaoelate director of the 111'1 rulll." lltJ Relmdl Beador,._ lnftllted laa Mew aapenlw IIU'1 maJUmQJMn. oomp,1111 tbat bu kndilted topa for dollar t.opu pncram. NnPPrM taic1 at111e-1~ faclllty, a um-MU oftlclala did no& tell Alcel' to dtnlt l!p+.ma aid today.. bil ~ becaw tbey found be bad

• ~
• udltlac office II lnvee-

'flalated no aa1ven1tJ nlll Nii! r rJn Uaatial wby 'dDcumaa,,,... Alger added, "We are lfflninl tbe wblle Ii&- . bu Pim bM111 1llll:relted wblte topa aatim apln. tbroa(lb --,,,.,,,,,.. and cbaqed. ~ aid be' didn't lmow the . lie aal..., fa, INM'IIII ud cutoma -- of tbe company Aller bad lnftll-bllla. ed bl or tf be nmainl an lnftltGr. Umftl'li&J.. _.. 'Sob NMwND . Uamnlty policy..._: ID -aecor-llld lbll...... till& 11V offldaJ Jut c111nce with mte law,,._.... -, * .,ear enmJ_, '1donnatloa from a Phi-ftcer, t.cber' or....,,_ -0 mve a _..,. lawyer that Aller n tn-c11nct or Jndired fliwnclal 11qreat In . ftmd.Ja &bl &rllde,. perw1.....,.... of pappl* GI'-*- to tbe load tbat be~

lmiftldy.

Wbln w were nallled be wu an In-.' MU vice pnaldeat J* llcGW, who t --** COIDp8DJ...... tbe nactQr to....,...... tbe CIIITll&ntiew, clecllned lrradlatetlapa, we loolred lat.olt to Ill If .to MDrDe0t Clll wbet.ber ~ -reprdl 1111 ndel 111d been llrobn,".,,....,.n

• Alger'1 actlvtU. u a coamct of,._._

aid. \\'Butwe found no,_.. to beUete "I daa't have the fadl to dnw can-tbat Al.pr bid UlfJd bil.,.. to break cluliGal,.. be aid. \\ Reactor budget State - Service f *-<=,,,.,.,,,:,*1 5 (Millions) Grant c:::::J Total k4'ld ~: 4t------E..,_----1Jr--t ~ 3.-----&=f,t-; --t.'1*t----,.-. -U---1

• ~:

'* i: 2.,__ _ __.e~,;* --t 1,__ '85

,.t---ti*:

'86 '87 Source: UMC II tum uperimenta to other facilltiel be-lW reactor offlcia1a failed to accommo-lte them. He *JS the reactor bu fallen be-Ind ID tecbnoloCY to conduct aperimenta 1 baeJ*dk..utran acatterinl - a method f looldQI at tbe forces among at.ama or mol* eulel In IOlkll and liquids - and in ~ lrlled neutron apectrolcopy, the study of lie dynamic of OMlpetic roatertala. MU reactor service Income TbNe are two areu that are eztremely nportant," Werner UJI. "Every time I try

• punae tbla tldnp, 11et blank stares."

BW Yelm, who beedl the reactor's neu-ron ICatterinC pnicram, uya, "It's fair to ay oar fadlW. ue not the same ltandard I other react.on In tbe country. But be allo uys: "It's euy for any one of II to uy, 'Gee, I w1ab we bad.... But when rou loot at tbe acale of our programs with ltber unlvenltJ readon, we are doing ez. remely nil.... Tbeae are all lmportent areu, and pven the rilbt penoanel and igbl Jnel of fllndlna, n eauld meke a sis* dftcant Impact. We are trying to make tbe llllt dedllona ~ can with the resources n've got." David Worceter, ID aaoclate profeaor D blolO(IY, II the only faculty member who Im came to UIIC In the put three years a* 111'11111 to won at the reactor. The gem trade II "olmowdy very lucra* ~e and could mean more Important tblnp Ion the niad," be *YI* "But lf the re-lNleh diel out from It *.* you loae people, ,ou lole projeca and equipment - I think tlae'I I CWlltr it mitbt happen." To lddrw "OO'lpl*tota from Werner and other UIIC ICimtlCI, CoDece of Arts and Sdence dun MU&on Glick uaembled a com-mbtee lut IIIIJIIIW. Be uked it to SUUeat waya to enaare Jqb,quallty lntenction IDMJIII UIIC facalty, ltuden&I and ructor lteff. On tbii N1DD>tttee were UMC prof* IOl'I Werner, Beary White, David Troutner, Jolin McCclrmick and Worceater and niac-tar ltaff lcltntllu Fred Roa, Ron Berliner end Yelon. Caaunlttee IM!Dben reached no conaa-1111 oa wbld!ier the reactor abould be taken $1.55 million 1.,__ ___ ________,._ ______ --1 away from central 11dmtolltntlon'1 control and placed within UMC'I JqrlldlcUon. One

• member wrote that tllt*bUlblOI a reactor policy review rommlttee that included UMC faculty could solve the problem.

Comm1Uee memben taued position papers. Berliner, a reactor lmlor' reeeucb scleaUst, wrote that the reactor ii "ilola~ ed" from the academlc ~QDlty, &ul-tratinl "common p)anninl and collabora* tlve efforts at the campul1ride lnel." Be allo wrote that tbe rNc:tol' "bas an or-pmaUaa that ls more lndUltrial than aca* clemlc In nature" and that ** loal* or lbGrt-range plans an formulated In consul-tation wttb scientific uaen and ltaff." Troutner, a chemistry profelaor, wrote that tbe reactor bad abandoned lta orqlnal plan to operate wttb I 1keJeton ltaff and leeve naearcb up to UMC faculty. Werner upporta Plactnl the reactor under UMC admlnlltnUon to lncreue fac-ulty Input. The reactor II "becomlna more of a commercial lel"flce center u oppoeed to a NIIUCb laboratory," be uya. "It's a matter ~ belance more than anything elle. 'lbere needs to be more balance ill meklng it I flnt-rate lcleatiflc laboratm'y and ltill mamtata and enblnc1e time cammerctal aenlce ventune." BerUner wrote that the reaetGI' bu lnveat- .. "laqe amount, of mcmey... to proYide tbe ability to rapidly proclll Irradiated topu." In tbeput,-r, en,lr,Nnmvemo-dlfled the reactor to trndiate....... wol* ame of topa. Aaocla&e dlrectar AJcet says It would be dlftlcult to dltlnDIDe. dollar emoaat DlndGr Braaer UJI a DIIDmd trtpUnc of tbe reactor' power, funded ID part from tbe Inda, wtll ba..a& l'tllU'Cb. "Put of r..,.,._ II buUcUIII _.. apace. Wt'n._ o nD.n'n11111'111 oa& of ...., and wbln,. do Iba&,,.... ecm-Cll"III tbat ao&...,......... wbat.., wan&."

DOCKET NUMBER ( S3 I=-~ (e \\St!\\) PENN STATE ~ PETITION RULE PRM.S7) -~ DOCK[,r*, (8 14) 865-635 1 U:,Nf~C Apr i l 29, 1988 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 College of Engineering Penn State Breazeale Reactor Attention: Docketing and Service Branch The Pennsylvania State University Universilleark,tffl'y' ~4 A 9 :38

Subject:

University of Missouri, Petition for Rulemaking, Docket No. PRM-50-48. Gent l emen: I am writing in support of the University of Missouri Petition for Rulemaking wherein the terms "research reactor" and "testing facility" are more clearly defined. The American Nuclear Society, ANS-15 Cormnittee, has deliberated carefully, as has the American National Standards Institute, in developing ANSI/ANS Standard 15.16-1982. The definitions contained in the standard are appropriately based on function whereas the current regulations are based strictly on power level. For the sake of consistency, accuracy, and completeness, I encourage the Commission to make the requested changes to the regulations. swruajt Marcus H. Voth Associate Professor and Director Penn State Breazeale Reactor MHV/skr An Equal Opportunity University

_ 1 A J. 5 NUCLEf,R R(GUlA 10RY COMMI 5S10' DOCKEriNG & SERVICE SECTION Ofrl( E OF Tri:: SEG ETARY OF THE ( OMMIS~ION (Hi mllrk ()71 t 5-.2. - '9 f (;1,f,;~, S::eco1 vecl I Add' I Copi~ F.: 2.., Sp cial Distribution ~LI>.) J Me.:,er, t'\\

+ GENERAL ATOMICS Secretacy DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM So-"-{"g ( 53 F~ (o IS~) April 28, 1988 GEN-1226

u. s. ~clear Regulatory camnission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing am Service Branch

&lbject: Docket No. PRM-50-48; Camnents on the University of Missouri's Petition for Rulemaking Gentlemen: DOLK[TEC' USNPC '88 t1AY -2 P 5 :49 General Atanics (GA) is responding to the subject petition for rulemaking filed by the university of Missouri en November 19, 1987, am µiblished as a Federal Register notice on March 1, 1988 (53 FR 6159). The petitiaier has requested that the u. s. ~clear Regulatory c.cmnissicn. amend its regulaticn.s by redefining the terms "research reactor" and "testing facility" in 10 CFR 50, 140 and 170 based on facility function rather than reactor power level. GA o:woses these redefinitions as proposed by the petitiooer. While we believe that a definitiai of "research reactor" should be included in 10 CFR 50.2, the definiticn.s as proposed are contrary to regulatory precedent arxl philosoiilY, are self-serving for the University of Missouri's Research Reactor (MURR), arxl would further limit the effective use of existing am future reactors classified as "testing facilities" or "testing reactors." Specific Comnents on Petitioner's Proposal

1. Definition of "research reactor" in 10 CFR 50.2 and redef initioo.

of the same in 10 CFR 170.3 (h)

• While we support the inclusion of a definitioo of "research reactor* in 10 CPR 50.2, we maintain that the proposed change which reads, ". *
• and which may have provisiais for the production of non-fissile radioisotopes," is unnecessary in the definition of such a facility.

The use of research reactors to produce radioisotopes for the p.irpose of research and devel.opoent., training, and educatim is one of many well accepted uses of such reactors worldwide. It is, therefore, unnecessacy arxl limiting to include such wording in the definitioo. In additiai, the proposed definition of "research reactors" does not place any limit on the power level for research reactors; arxl MAY 2 6 1988 Acknowledged by card.*** -.,,...... __._.,* 10955 JOHN JAY HOPKINS DRIVE, SAN DIEGO, CA 92121-1194 P.O. BOX 85608, SAN DIEGO, CA 92138-5608 (619) 455-3000

f U. S. NUCLEAR r,~r 111: - D ft I

2 - while the petitimer admits plans to upgrade its research reactor to 30 M-1, it is conceivable that the petitimer or others may chose to further upgrade their facilities to even higher power levels. A review of the Atanic Energy camnission <ABC) reports on facility license cases reveals that while there was no -well accepted distinction between a testing facility and a research reactor, the camnission attempted to fomulate the original definiticns on the basis of those facilities which might involve signif !cant hazards consideratim. 1dvice f ran the Mvisory Ccmnittee m Reactor safeguards was sought, and they agreed with the definitim limiting research reactors to a power level of 10 K-1. Indeed, -we subnit that the increased fission product inventories, locatim of reactors on university campuses near urban areas, and operator training camnensurate with low and intermediate power research reactors, were all factors considered by the ACRS in limiting "research reactors* to a power level less than or EqUal to 10 K\\f(t).

2. Redefinition of *testing facility" in 10 CFR 50.2, 10 CFR 140.3 (k) and 10 CFR 170,3 (m)

• The petitioner, in requesting that *testing facility" be redefined, has petitioned for a test reactor to be limited to *testing reactor canponents and designs at reduced or uncertain safety margins." This proposal for such a limit m the use of test reactors, based on what is perceived to be congres-simal intent m the use of such facilities, llllst be an oversight on the part of the petitioner.

By restricting *test facilities* to the testing of reactor caoponents and designs, the petitimer leaves no roan for ell¥ other type of testing, such as radiation hardness testing on electronic systems, neutron radiography, or ell¥ other fom of industrial testing to be performed at such facilities. This iq;>lies that such testing be done mly at

• research reactors* and prevents the use of a *test facility* for other types of work for which it may be better suited than a
• research reactor*.

FUrther, by canbining, in the definiticn, the piysical fom of the facility (e.g. in-core experimental facility with greater than 16 square inch cross section) with the functicn of the facility (i.e., testing reactor canponents and designs), the petiticner has further confused the issue. For example, a reactor with power level in excess of 1 K\\' and which has an in-core experimental facility of the type described above (such as the Annular Core PUl.se Reactor) JlllSt: be now classified as a *research reactor* or

• test facility* depending on its use at the time.

we subnit that a test facility need not be limited to the type of testing that the prqx>sed definitim l:imits it to; rather, a test facility can and should be able to perform many of the functions of a research reactor, and is adeguately described in the present existing definitions.

• 3. The petitioner' s statement that the upgrade of MURR to 30 MW is essential to the conduct of scientific research.

In many areas, this assertion aR)ears flawed am self-serving. N.Jmerous research reactors, both in the United states am abroad, are conducting vital research in the areas of boron cancer theraP.{, neutron depth profiling, radiation hardness, neutron radiography am pranpt neutron activation analysis. '!be ~er level of these reactors is less than 5 K-1, am in many cases less than or equal to 1 or 2 K-1. 'lberefore, we sul:mit that the petitioner am other research reactor facilities can continue to conduct their programs in an effective wa:x at their present or even lower power levels, particularly if these programs are for research, developnent, education, training am experimental purposes (the petitioner's stated p.irpose of research reactors) *

4.

The petitioner believes that the redefinition of a research reactor based cm function instead of power level is necessary to implement the intent of congress. This ccmtentiai is ccmtrary to camion sense am Callldssion precedent. While the camdssion is directed to impose the minimum amount of regulation on research facilities consistent with its responsibilities for the health am safety of the p.Jblic, the camnission's regulatiais arx:1 statements issued since enactment of the Atanic Energy Act do not iooicate that the camnission recognizes degrees of regulation based upon the use or flD'lctiai of facilities. Rather, the camnissiai bases its regulatory program on hazards consideraticms, which are indeed related to power level. '.ftlis well established philOSOPJY is, of course, consistent with the original definitions of *research reactor* and *testing facility." Finally, we subnit that the proposed redefinitions am the petitioner's plans to upgrade their facility have all of the aR)earances of posturing for more effective am unfair ccmnercial. caupetitiai with privately supported research reactors. Facili-ties such as those of the petitioner operate under fuel grants fran the u. s. Department of Fnergy am are excempt £ran all NRC licensing am inspecticm fees. such grants am fee exemptiais are extended specifically to nooprofit educatiaial institutions whose facilities are used for teaching, training or medical p.irposes (except human use), incltding the cooduct of research am developnent activities. It is patently unfair for such goverment subsidized facilities to caupete ccmnercial.ly with privately supported research reactors which mst bear the full cost of their operation. 'I.be proposed redefinitiais aR)ear aimed at facilitating such unfair ccmnercial. caupetitiai. For the reasons given above, General Atanics 0RX)ses the proposed petiticm for rulemaking by the university of Missouri.

• If you have questions regarding our camnents, please contact me at (619) 45S-2823.

KF.A/JR/mk Very truly yours, Keith E. Asmussen, Ph.D. Manager, Licensing, Safety am NUclear Conplianoe

,_.,.~¥,TO,C'C!i,. ~ ""!ti '+,_ i \\ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ~ National Bureau of Standards \\., l Gaithersburg, Maryland 20B99

1. i--41110'..+

(301) 975-6210 Di\\Kt~U: DOCKET NUMBER FTS 879-6210 N l April 22, 1988 PETITION RULE PRM J9 o-1 r l5'3 "fl b 151) Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch ll8 APR 26 P6 :32 The National Bureau of Standards (NBS) supports the petition for rulemaking by the University of Missouri published in the Federal Register, Vol. 5}. No. 40 dated March 1, 1988. NBS also concurs with the need and supporting arguments presented by the University of Missouri. Historically, when it was determined that noR-power reactors operating at powers of 10 MW or more would be classified as testing reactors, most proposed reactors were associated with the development of nuclear power in one way or another. Thus, it was anticipated that reactors of sufficient power (10 MW or more) would be used to test reactor concepts, new fuels, and nuclear materials. Because such reactors might contain sizeable loops for materials testing or fuel development, it was thought that more extensive regulatory surveillance would be desirable and the class of "Test Reactor" was established. In fact, it turned out that much larger reactors are required for this type of work and now there remains only one reactor licensed as a test reactor, the NBS research reactor, and it was never intended to be used as a materials or fuel testing reactor. It is strictly a research reactor, used for neutron beam research, activation analysis, and limited isotope production and has no sizeable loops for fuel and materials testing. Therefore, we recommend that the arbitrary 10 MW criteria for establishing the "Test Reactor" category be eliminated and the definition of "Research Reactor" used in the ANSI American National Standards be adopted by NRc (See the University of Missouri petition). The official NRC definition could then be

modified, as suggested by the University of Missouri, to include only those reactors that are truly intended to t est reactor materials and concepts and contain the necessary loops. etc. to do so.

We believe that the current regulations for research reactors of less than 10 MW when applied to true research reactors (as defined in the American National Stanards) of greater power will continue to provide the necessary assurance that the health and safety of the public is well protected. Sincerely, Robert S. Carter Chief, Reactor Radiation Division

F'".. na~ so!dOJ a1qQ ,Jl?WjSOd JJ. 5. NUC1..EI-R RFC.' !1 A1ORY COMMISSION DOCKfi l, !G & SERVI CE SECT ION OFFICE OF 1HE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date Copies Rec'"i vcJ ---------- Add' I Copies Reproduced P,PNial.,Distribution

B

• f:'.l0CKET -NUMBER '

~ETtTION' RUWE rRRM. AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY (5) Fil 6l51) STANDARDS COMMITTEE OGCKt it f U'JNHC "88 APR 25 PS :33 Reply to: Headquarter*: 555 North Ken1ln9ton Avenue LaGran1e Park, llllnol1 60525 USA OFFIC:: ur ~r.l,.. I 1Att, Wade J. R i chardsOOCKETINti 'i EHVlr:f SM-ALC/MANR BRA NC~ Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Si rs,

McClel Ian AFB CA 95652 (916) 643-4274 19 Apr 88 The American Nuclear Societies standards writing group for research reactors (ANS-15), strongly supports the University of Missouri's pet it ion for rulemaklng, Docket No. PRM-60-48, pubi ished In the Federal Register, 63FR6169, March 1, 1988. This act ion wit I ass ist the research reactor standards effort to clearly def ine the areas where research reactor regulat lons app ly and el lmlnate the confus ion with power reactor regu lat ions. The arbitrary designat ion for "test ing fac l l ity " has been an area of repeated confus ion for both NRC Inspectors and fac ll lty operators. Clearly the NRC establ lshment of a 10 MW threshold ho lds I ittle i f any technical basis and subjects a segment of the research reactor conmun lty to arb itrary and unnecessary add it ion regulatory requirements. The clar ificat ion being sought by the l'.ln ivers i ty of Missouri wi ll great ly assist the standards wr iting effort in clear and proper use of the standards be ing generated for the research reactor corrmunity. S incerely, ~l}J~t?d ~ ADE J R~ ARDS Chai r n, ANS 15 cc: Or D. Alger Mar i I yn Weber MAY 2 6 1988 AcknowleeSgetl by tatd.... r. ****~*-*

• • -*. ~

--~.. ~,,.v.. 1 1..UMMISSION OO(l<fl ING & SERVJCE S£C:J.<<)M" ,, 6(ncr-'oF THE ;'SECRETA'Rvl 'OF lHE) COMMl$-510M" l I Document Statistics 'ostmark O,te

'.opio~ Rccoi vcd

._'cfi I Copies Rcprodu~;d 2.. Special Oistr.ibutioi, J'l,~ 1$,/ f1£--J £r:;

Oregon DOCKET NUMBER.. _ PE.TITtON RULE PRM (~J f'fl_llf1 0OlKEfE[: USNRL Radiation Center U~tate. n 1vers1ty Corvallis, Oregon 97331 (503) 754-2341 *as APR 15 Al 1 :44 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch April 8, 1988 uff!CE 'F S[LFt! A"~ OOCKEi ING & '..iF iiVICf. BR.A NCI-!

Subject:

University of Missouri, Petition for Rulemaking, Docket No. PRM-50-48 Gentlemen: Oregon State University welcomes the opportunity to support the Univer-sity of Missouri's Petition for Rulemaking which was published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, March 1, 1988 under Docket No. PRM-50-48. We have carefully reviewed the petitioner's request regarding a new defini-tion for the term "research reactor" and a redefinition of the term "testing facility." We have further reviewed the arguments in favor of the action submitted by the petitioner, and wish to go on record as supporting both the Petition for Rulemaking and the supplemental information provided. A positive NRC ruling on this petition, followed by an appropriate NRC rulemaking, will provide a valuable opportunity to revise the Commis-sion's regulations dealing with the definitions of research and test re-actors. Such a revision to the Commission's regulations will be beneficial because it will result in the incorporation of terminology currently in use by other nationally recognized technical organizations. In particular, the American Nuclear Society (ANS) and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) adopted the petitioner's proposed definition for research reactor in their standard ANSI/ANS 15.16-1982. Of particular significance in this case is the fact that this standard is currently endorsed by the USNRC in their Regulatory Guide 2.6, Emergency Plann.ing for Research and Test Reactors. Because of this, we believe there is a demonstrated prece-dent for adding the proposed definition to the NRC's regulations, and therefore urge the Commission to proceed with a proposed rulemaking on this matter. Oregon State University Is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer MAY 2 6 1988 Acknowledged by card..............,:." ** *, __.

o. S. NUC'.t...

J ......,.._u,Y1M1~)IQ DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE S(CRETARY OF THE COMMISSION o.,cvmcnt S1a11:;1 ics 'f /11 Ir-r I SpecicJI Oblribution ~CA- =::..L.----------- We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments to the Commis-sion in support of the University of Missouri 1s petition. We look forward to a favorable response by the Commission on this matter, and will be pleased to submit any additional information which may be needed regarding our comments. Sincerely, f~~ */4~* Brian Dodd Reactor Administrator AGJ/ef /9-011 cc: R. M. Brugger, University of Missouri Don Alger, University of Missouri Regional Administrator, Region V, USNRC, Walnut Creek, CA Director, Oregon Department of Energy

Secretary TRTR DOCKET NUMBE~RM fO-'f/' PE.TlT\\ON RULE ___ _ NATIONAL O"G!ANIZATION OF TEST,. (;3 FrL 'l5'f) / RESEARCH AND TRAINING REACTOR~ '88 AP! 15 A11 :44 OFFIC::: G DOChE i I B

r.

. : f: F. Chairman: Arthur G. Johnson Oregon State University Chairman Elect: Marcus H. Voth Penn State University U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cormnission Washington, DC 20555 April 8, 1988 (i) Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Gentlemen: University of Missouri, Petition for Rulemaking, Docket No. PRM-50-48. As chairman of the National Organization of Test, Research and Training Reactors, I am writing to express the support of our group for the Petition for Rulemaking filed by the University of Missouri which deals with the definition of the term 11research reactor 11 and a redefinition of the term "testing facility. 11 A detailed review of the petition confirms that the petitioner has carefully researched the subject, and has assembled a very convincing set of facts to support their request. In particular, we believe it is of major significance that the suggested changes do not in any way reduce the authority or the responsibility of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ensure the health and safety of the public. As a further justification for the requested rulemaking, TRTR believes it is very important to recognize that the definition of research reactor suggested by the petitioner is entirely consistent with the definition now being used by the American Nuclear Society (ANS) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). For example, such a definition presently appears in ANSI/ANS Standard 15.16-1982, which is specifically endorsed by the USNRC in Regulatory Guide 2.6, Emergency Planning for Research and Test Reactors, as being generally acceptable to the NRC staff for compliance purposes. Clarifications to the standard detailed in Regulatory Guide 2.6 contain no references whatsoever to the definition of research reactor, and therefore we conclude that such a definition is acceptable to the NRC. Considering the drawbacks associated with a failure to adopt new definitions, and the inherent advantages in doing so, TRTR would like to urge the Cormnission to proceed with a rulemaking on this matter, and to pattern the rulemaking after the petetioner's request. RADIATION CENTER OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY CORVALLIS, OREGON 97331 503-754-2344 A.cknowledged by card MAY 2 6 1988

IJ, S. NUC.Ll:AR l{tGU!.Al 0R'!' COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date ~L/.J.Ll.. };'-'r..___ ___ _ Copies Received / Add' I Copies Reproduced __._.J.__~-:-r-- - t,*cial Distribution l,1.YJf /'f/ f!.,Uv-J It.Ar./ 7 I J i--=""""-*--------------- TRTR appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the subject Petition for Rulemaking. Should you have any questions regarding our position on the petition, or should you need additional information, I will be happy to respond on behalf of the organization. AGJ/ef/9-010 cc: R. M. Brugger, University of Missouri D. M. Alger, Executive Committee, TRTR A. F. DiMeglio, 11 11 11 D. E. Feltz, 11 11 11 M. Moore, 11 11 11 T. M. Raby, 11 11 11 M. H. Voth, 11 11 11

KET NUMBER*~ PET1ns~ UL,E PRM. *.-:..s o-~Y COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP [5 },=-i. ~ 15'f) 1637 BUTLER AVENUE #203 DOCKETED LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 USNRC (213) 478-0829 April 4, 1988 -as APR -7 P2 :45 Attention: oocketing and service Branch Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission Washington, n.c. 20555 OFFICE OF ::cuir T kk I DOCKE TING,., :,[ilV/Cf BRA NCI-: RE: corronents on PRM-50-48

Dear Sir:

The committee to Bridge the Gap (CBG) submits herewith its comments on the petition for rulemaking PRM-50-48 filed by the University of Missouri and noticed in the Federal Register of March 1, 1988 (53 FR 6159). The Petition requests that the Commission redefine the terms "research reactor," "testing facility," and "testing reactor" so that they are based on the function of the facility regardless of its power level. The reactor at the University of Missouri is currently licensed to operate at 10 Megawatts, as a research reactor. If the University were to increase reactor power to 30 Megawatts, as desired, the reactor would be considered as a "testing facility," and would be subject to increased regulation. Summary of corranents The University's petition is an attempt to evade the regulatory consequences of its intended increase in power level by making power level largely irrelevant to regulatory requirements for research reactors. BUt reactor power level is an appropriate criterion for defining regulatory requirements since core inventory, and therefore the associated risk, is proportional to power level. Other things being equal, higher power reactors should be regulated more strictly than those that operate at a lower power level. we therefore oppose the Petitioner's request. In order to eliminate ambiguity, the terms "testing facility" and "testing reactor" could be replaced by "testing facility or high power research reactor" and "testing reactor or high power research reactor." More important, the existing definition of "testing facility" and "testing reactor" should be amended to include reactors that engage in frivolous yet hazardous activities such as the irradiation of gems for commercial purposes. More detailed comments follow. (i) Acknowledged by card MAY 2 6 1988

u. So, NIJCLEAR REGULA10~Y COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date Copies Received

/ Add' I Copies Reproduced 2..... Special Distribution i'l":!--:--:--:---:---- I.A-4T'J!.../

Power Level Should Determine Regulatory Requirements Research reactors are much smaller than commercial power reactors, but the risks they present to the public are not correspondingly small. This is because, unlike power reactors with their large exclusion zones, research reactors are typically sited in the midst of densely populated urban centers such as universities. While there is less radioactive material potentially available for release in the event of a serious accident at a research reactor, there are many more people in the immediate vicinity of such reactors. The amount of radioactive material in the core is a function of reactor power level. In general, the risks to the public from research reactors can be assumed to increase, like core inventory, with power level. This basic principle is inherently recognized by the Code of Federal Regulations, when the definition of "testing facility" equates routine operation at a higher power (e.g., in excess of 10 Megawatts) with more unusual and risky operation at a lower power (e.g., in excess of 1 Megawatt). It is therefore important to restrict research reactor power level in consideration of the reactor's location, and to give somewhat greater scrutiny to higher power research reactors. The action proposed by the University would move in the opposite direction, removing the increased regulation required by a power increase above 10 Megawatts. The University of Missouri already operates the highest power university research reactor, and in our opinion should not be permitted to increase power further at its present location without some compelling reason of which we are unaware. Its current high power level already makes the University of Missouri reactor exceptional. Regulatory scrutiny should be increased accordingly, not diminished. The Proposed Redefinition of "Testing Facility" is Unacceptable The petition requests redefinition of "testing facility" and "testing reactor" to refer to reactors "used for testing reactor components and designs at reduced or uncertain safety margins." We strongly oppose this. No NRC-licensed reactor, and certainly no urban-sited reactor, should ever be permitted to operate at "uncertain safety margins." (The proposed redefinition, as far as we know, would apply to no existing, proposed, or anticipated NRC-licensed reactor. It therefore amounts to a proposed repeal of the "testing facility" and "testing reactor" category. ) There is some semantic justification for the petitioner's complaint in that not every non-power reactor larger than 10 Megawatts would necessarily be engaged in "testing." But as stated above, the regulation reasonably implies that routine operation of~ "research reactor" at~ high power is the equivalent for regulatory purposes of~ "testing reactor" operating at~ 2

lower power. A solution to the semantic problem might be to rename the categories "testing facility or high power research reactor" and "testing reactor or high power research reactor." The Definition of "Testing Facility" Should Be Expanded to Include Gem Irradiation Nuclear reactor operation, including research reactor operation, is inherently risky. Society has so far accepted a certain degree of risk, in order to obtain the benefits in terms of scientific research, education, etc., that research reactor operation can offer. Some research reactors, however, engage in frivolous activities that produce no substantial benefit to offset the risk. The leading example of such an activity is irradiation of gemstones for commercial purposes. The particular risk associated with this activity was dramatically demonstrated last year when a contamination incident occurred in the process of gem irradiation at the Georgia Institute of Technology research reactor facility. This incident led to the permanent shutdown of the reactor. In view of the demonstrated dangers of this practice, the absence of any real benefit to justify its risks, and its essential frivolity, the Nuclear Regulatory commission should regulate it accordingly. At the least, any use of a reactor for gem irradiation should be sufficient to define the reactor as a "testing facility." Specific Responses to Proposed Action Following are our specific responses to the petitioner's proposal as itemized in the Petition and the Federal Register notice:

1.

The definition of "research reactor" should not be altered from the existing definition in 10 CFR §170. 3(h).

2.

The proposed emendation to the definition of a "testing facility" in 10 CFR §50.2 should be rejected. A new sub-section 2(iv) should be added to expand the definition to include a reactor that is to contain "gemstones to be irradiated for commercial purposes."

3.

The proposed emendation to the definition of a "testing reactor" in 10 CFR §140.3(k) should be rejected. A new sub-section 2(iv) should be added to expand the definition to include a reactor that is to contain "gemstones to be irradiated for commercial purposes."

4.

See response to 1. above.

5.

See response to 2. above. 3

Please contact me if you have any questions about our comments. very truly yours, ~ ~ w-1 Steven Aftergood Executive Director 4

r..

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-ROLLA Secretary OOCK[TED U5~RC

• aa APR -7 P2 :45 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 DOCKET NUMBER... § D->f f" PETITION RULE PRJ (_,J Pfl. 6I S/} Apr i 1 4, 1 988 Nuclear Reactor Facility Nuclear Reactor Rolla. Missouri 65401-0249 Telephone: (314) 341-4236 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch (Docket No. PRM-50-48)

Dear Sirs:

We of the staff of the University of Missouri-Rolla Reactor (License No. R-79) wish to support the petition for rulemaking that has been submitted by the University of Missouri Research Reactor (License No. R-103)). We feel as the petitioners do that the definitions of "research reactors" and "testing facilities" based on their licensed peak power, rather than their function, was arbitrarily done in the early 1950's. If they are allowed to increase the power of the Research Reactor from the present 10MWth limit to approximately 30MWth, they will be able to perform certain vital research in even a more ex-peditious manner. AEB/lp Sincerely, @Jcbcd(.((~ Albert E. Bolon Reactor Director an equal opportunity institution MAY 2 6 1988 ~cknowledged by card..........-w *.... _

J. ~- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSlm~ DOCKETING & SERVICE SECT[ON OFF!CE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date 7 I) lrY Copies Rocei ved / Add' I Copies Reproduced 2. -----,---- S pe ci a I Distribution }f.I.!,Ji /VJ.-'.. ~,S { / ~ J

' DOCKET NUMBER

.r:.

PETITION RULE PRM 5" 0 -L/ y' DOLKE:TED ( 6 J F Tl 6 I~ o/) USNRC Nuclear Reactor Faci lity UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-ROLLA '88 APR -7 P 2 :43 Nuclear Reactor Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Rol la. Missouri 6540 1-0249 Telephone: (3 14) 341 -4 236 Apr i i~~~f 1rJcat.J,rt.r/v1~l G) BRANC~ '.q} Attention: Docketing and Service Branch RE: University of Missouri; Fi 1 ing of Petition for Ru lemak ing, (Docket No. PRM-50-48)

Dear Sir:

I support the above-mentioned Petition for Rulemaking for the following reasons:

1.

The power level of 10 MW set to distinguish between 11research 11 and "test 11 reactors seems to be rather arbitrary; indeed, in my opinion, no rationale can be found for this 1 imi t.

2.

It is unreasonable and inappropriate to maintain a power limit as a means to differentiate between 11research " and "test " reactors. Rather the function and purpose of the respective facility needs to be considered. There are a number of reactors worldwide, for example in France, Japan, and Germany, which operate at powers above 10 MW for re-search purposes and are classified by the resp,ective country authorities as '"research " reactors. Sincerely, M. Straka Senior Operator and Reactor Manager an equal opportunity institution MAY 2 6 1988

• cknowledged by card............._..._..,...

J. ~- NUUlAR KLGLJlAl'.JIO CQMMISSIOt, DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Slatist ics Postmark Dale ~ L~~-~_f-____ _ Copies Received / Add' I Copies Reproduced --~---- Special Distribution llL o 5. & ve.,...(' r

REPLY TO OOCK[T NUMBER ~ r:,. TiCi': RULE PRM $0-4-R' ~ DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE {_53 F£- C,Jt;C/) HEAoauARTERs sAcRAMENTo AIR Loo1sT1cs CENTER (AFLC> cul t\\l r Er* McCLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA 95852-5149 U1NRC "88 HAR 29 P 3 :27 ATTN OF; SM-ALC/MA 21 Mar 88

SUBJECT:

Definition of "Test Ing Reactor" TO; Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission Washington D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

1.

This letter is written in support of the University of Missouri's petition for rulemaking in the Federal Register, Vol 53, No. 40, Tuesday, March 1, 1988.

2.

The U.S. Air Force has an interest in establishing a clear distinction between the terms "research reactor" and "testing reactor". The lack of technical basis for the present definition for "testing reactor" could very wel I have an economic impact on future Air Force programs. Efforts to clarify and strengthen the technical basis for these definitions wil I benefit our Air Force programs and regulatory position. FOR THE COMMANDER

Chief, and Operations

rs:cq ~ &l, S. NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & $!~VICE SECTION OFFICE or-iW SECl'<F.T ARY OF Tl-IE COMMISSION Doc1ir.1er.l Postmark 01110 Copies p,._.... : * ** alz_~-- l._ Add'! r ,. ;*; ~ *-J~-:ed ,~* ~ill ~->i

• z=-.....

'--~ 1* 1t*

• A-

..) ~

DOCKET NUMBER II PETITION RULE PRM ~d -4¥ Ci) ( 5,g r-,,e_ ~!5°"9) - OOCK[i L(* AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY LhNi c Headquartero: 555 North Ken1ln9ton Avenue LaGrange Park, llllnol1 60525 USA Secretary STANDARDS COMMIITEE U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission Washington DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Si rs,

"88 HAR 24 PS :47 Reply to: OfF"ICE. vt St.L-1t tA1* *-1 DOCKE'i 1NG & :,(iWICf Wade J. Richards BRANG~ SM-ALC/MANR McClel Ian AFB CA 95652 (916) 643-4274 21 Mar 88 The American Nuclear Societies standards writing group for research reactors (ANS-15), strongly supports the University of Missouri's petition for rulemaking found in the Federal Register, Vol 53, No. 40, Tuesday, March 1, 1988. This action wi I I assist the research reactor standards effort to clearly define the areas where research reactor regulations apply and el lminate the confusion with power reactor regulations. The arbitrary designation for "testing facll ity" has been an area of repeated confusion for both NRC inspectors and facility operators. Clearly the NRC establishment of a 10 MW threshold holds I ittle if any, technical basis and subjects a segment of the research reactor corrmunity to arbitrary and unnecessary addition regulatory requirements. The clarification being sought by the University of Missouri wil I greatly assist the standards writing effort in clear and proper use of the standards being generated for the research reactor corrmunity. Sincerely, IA)_ cl_Qi/,0* /J WADE JJR~ Chairman, ANS 15 cc: Dr D. Alger Mar i I yn Weber MAR 2 9 1988 Acknowledged by card.*.,..............._.._,......

U. s. I I II p,** * , * *. )I,**( ('),'/Ml SSION "r. *:~er ION ?..Y . ~

March 15, 1988 DOC!(ET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM 5tJ-4J7 ( 5":3 F£ t-1:;-V <f)

JC(KtiLf*

U:) kC' COMMENTS OF OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY, INC. <uOCRE* ) ON PRM-50-48 < 53 f"EO. REG. 6159, MARCH 1, 1988) "88 HAR 21 p) :55 The University or Missouri has filed a petition for r. ~ l~roak~og,. OtF*~~ ::a ~-

J *~r, r PRH-50-48, requ sHng that the commission Odd a def'i 11J0t'ft~NG*.t;~ri,v1cr.

the term

• research reactor*

and redefine the t rm BR~t facility*, The purpose of the request is that the University Plans to increase the power of its research r e actor such that it would come under the definition of

• testing facility*,

as pr sently d fined, thereby placing a regulatory burden on the p titian r. The r quested change is claimed to be n cessory so as not to inhibit vital scientific research. OCRE is appreciative of th fact that re eorch reactors hov an important role in scientific research. Howev r, OCRE beli_v s thot prot ction of the public health and safe~y should be paramount. While it may seem unFair, as the petitioner points out, to consider a 10.1 MW reactor as a testing Facility, while a 10 MW reactor escapes this classification, the petitioner ' s solution would apparently allow any power level reactor to _scape this classification as long as it i not us d for testing reactor components or designs at reduced or uncertain safety margin, or does not use liquid fuel or is not used to conduct Fuel or in-core experiments. Since research reactors are typically located in densely populated urban areas and do not have containment vessels, it is simply not prudent to ignore power level in their classification, The line must be drawn somewhere. If 10 MW is unreasonable, then perhaps 30 MW is reasonable. or maybe 20 MW or 40 MW. But a 300 MW research reactor with few more protective f e atures than a 10 MW reactor is clearly not reasonable. OCRE urges that the petition be denied, or modified to include a r osonoble power level os a threshold for clossiricotion os o test:in9 focilitY. Should the petition bed ni d, petitioners are not l rt without recourse. They may se k an xempt:ion from th r gulat:ion. Ind ed, the cos -by-case consid ration of r actor classification provided bY the ex mption process may be the most prudent way to resolv the petitioner's problem. Rep ctrully submitted, Susan L. Hiat:t OCRE Representative 8275 Munson Rood M ntor, OH 44060 (216) 255-3158

IJ. s. NLICI f, '

• WI I

-~ (' ~y COMMISSIOS DC,. : ~:-* :--:~ ~r-CTION \\.'-,. ' .... r.i: :, *,~Y Postmar1< :: " Copies !" Adel'!,

• .. *,,.:::.. :oN 3;'/6

. l r 2..

DOCKET NUMBER. -,,, PETITION RULE PRM* fl--4? C5.5 P/£ &,Itri)

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 DOCKETED

[75~t]

• aa FEB 29 P 4 :06

. University of Missouri; filing of Petition for Rulemaking [Docket No. PRM-50-48] AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Conmission. ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for rulemaking.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Conmission is publishing for public conment this notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking. The petition, filed by the University of M1ssour1 and dated November 19, 1987, was docketed by the Conmiss1on on November 25, 1987, and assigned Docket No. PRM-50-48. The petitioner requests that the Conmiss1on adopt a regulation that would add a definition for the term 11research reactor* and redefine the ter111 "testing facility* based on the function of the facility instead of its power level. DATE: Submit convnents by May 2, 1988

• Co11111ents received after thh date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to connents received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. For a copy of the petition write: Divis1on of Rules and Records, Office of Administration and Resources Management, MNBB-4000, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission, Washington, DC 20555. Inspect and copy the petition or conwnents received on the petition at the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David L. Meyer, Chief, Rules and Procedures Branch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration and Resources Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conm1ssion, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone: (301) 492-7086 or Toll Free (800) 368-5642. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Grounds for the Petition The petitioner states that the current definition of *testing facility* in 10 CFR Part 50 results in excessive and unnecessary routine regulatory requirements being applied to research reactors which is contrary to the intent e of Congress in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The petitioner also proposes to add a new definition in 10 CFR Part 50 for uresearch reactor* to be consistent with the definition used by the American Nuclear Society and American National Standard Institute (ANSI). Pet1t1oner's Proposal

1.

Define "research reactor" in 10 CFR 50.2 as follows: "Research reactor" means a nuclear reactor which is of a type described in §50.21(c) of th1s part and for which an application has been filed for a license authorizing operation for research, developmental, educational, training, or experimental purposes, and which may have provisions for the production of non-fissile radioisotopes.

2.

Redefine "testing facility" 1n 10 CFR 50.2 as follows (proposed change underlined) "Testing facility" means a nuclear reactor which is of a type described in §S0.21(c) of this part to be used for testing reactor components and designs at reduced or uncertain safety margins, and for which an application has been filed for a license authorizing operation at: (1) A thermal power level in excess of 10 megawatts; or (2) A thermal power level 1n excess of 1 megawatt, if the reactor is to contain: (1) A circulating loop through the core in which the applicant proposes to conduct fuel experime~ts; or (11) A liquid fuel loading; or (iii) An experimental facility in the core in excess of 16 square inches in cross-section.

3.

Redefine *testing reactor* in 10 CFR 140.J(k) as follows (proposed change underlined):

• resting reactor* means a nuclear reactor which is of a type described in

§50.2l(c) of this chapter to be used for testing reactor components and designs at reduced or uncertain safety margins, and for which an application has been filed for a license authorizing operation at: (1) A thermal power level in excess of 10 megawatts; or (2) A thermal power level in excess of 1 megawatt, if the reactor is to contain: (1) A circulating loop through the core in which the applicant ~roposes to conduct fuel experiments; or (11) A liquid fuel loading; or (111) An experimental facility in the core in excess of 16 square inches 1n cross-section.

4.

Redefine "research reactor" in 10 CFR 170.3(h) as follows (proposed change underlined): "Research reactor* means a nuclear reactor licensed by the Co11111ission under the authority of subsection 104c of the Act and pursuant to the provisions of §50.2l(c} of this chapter for research, developmental, educational, training, or experimental purposes, and which *Y have provisions for the production of non-fissile radioisotopes.

5.

Redefine *testing facility* in 10 CFR 170.J(m) as follows (proposed changes underlined): "Testing facility* means a nuclear reactor licensed by the Corm,ission under the authority of subsection 104c of the Act and pursuant to the prov;sions of §50.21(c) of this chapter to be used for testing reactor components and designs at reduced or uncertain safety margins, and for operation at: (1) A thermal power level in excess of 10 megawatts; or (2) A thermal power level in excess of 1 megawatt, if the reactor is to contain: (1) A circulating loop through the core 1n which the applicant proposes to conduct fuel experiments; or (11) A liquid fuel loading; or (1;1) An experimental facility in the core 1n excess of 16 square inches in cross-section. Petitioner's Interest This petition is being submitted by the University of Missouri, holder of Facility License R-103 for operation of the University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR). MURR currently operates as a research reactor at a maximum power level of 10 MW. The petitioner states that plans are being developed to upgrade the power to approximately 30 MW and that the upgrade will make MURR an even more efficient and effective research tool, but it will not change the purpose of the facility. The petitioner is concerned that current Federal regulations would cause MURR to be designated as a testing facility instead of a research reactor as a result of the power level exceeding 10 MW. The petitioner states that this designation would place unnecessary and burdensome regulatory requirements (many of which have been developed for large power reactors) on MURR. The petitioner states that the purpose of this petition is to establish a balanced regulatory program for MURR and future large research reactors to ensure the public health and safety without inhibiting the conduct of vital research in the areas of medical research, radioisotope production, materials research, neutron activation analysis, radiation effects, and others. The petitioner points out that diagnosis and treatment of cancer and development of improved magnetic and superconductive materials are two examples of important areas of research that will be better served by more powerful research reactors. Statement in Support The petitioner asserts that the current definition of Ntesting fac1lity 0 is arbitrary as the current definition was issued as part of a rule change

n 1960 and the only explanation provided was that the definition was an implementation of the Atomic Energy Act, Sections 182b and 189a. The petitioner also asserts that the Cor1111ission ' s regulations, as well as Sections 182b and 189a of the Atomic Energy Act, provide no justification for the designation of a power level that distinguishes a research reactor (up to and including l0MW) from a test reactor (above 10 MW).

The petitioner states further that a review of the Corrm1ss1on's files (1954-1961) on Part 50 indicates the Atomic Energy Co1TJT11ssion (AEC) staff conferred with the Advisory Conmittee of Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) to develop the definition and that this definition was provided to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (JCAE). The petitioner asserts that no explanation was offered by the AEC or the JCAE for the 10 MW distinction between research and test reactors. The petitioner further asserts that there is no evidence of a rationale for what seems to be an arbitrary power level of 10 MW used to define "testing facility.a The pet1t1oner states the Congress, in using the term testing facility in the Atomic Energy Act, intended that reactors would be used to test concepts and components in the early development of nuclear power technology. The petitioner believes the term connotes a facility that is pushing the limits of reactor technology and that may be performing work with lower or not well-defined safety margins. The petitioner believes the definition has become anachronistic when e applied to reactors whose purpose 1s to produce neutrons for research and development, as distinguished from performing a testing function. The petitioner believes retention of the current definition may raise undue concerns by the public and imposes unnecessary burdens and costs in the regulation of research reactors. Conclusion The petitioner states that a research reactor that now is in the category of a *testing facility, 0 e.g. a 10. 1 MW research reactor, currently comes under many provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations that pertain to large conmercial power plants. The petitioner contends that by imposing these requirements on research and development facilities, the current Code of Federal Regulations is actually contrary to the intent of the Congress. The petitioner points out that Section 104c of the Atomic Energy Act stipulates the Conmission's obligation to impose only the minimum amount of regulation for research and development activities. The petitioner believes that to implement the intent of Congress, the redefinition of a research reactor based on function instead of power level and consequent relegation to a reasonable level of routine regulatory scrutiny is proper and appropriate. The petitioner states that this petition does not reduce the authority or responsibility of the Conmission to ensure the health and safety of the public. The petitioner believes that unique research reactors can still be subjected to the necessary degree of scrutiny as determined by the Comnission. Dated at Washington, DC this -tt day of February, 1988. For the Nuclear Regulatory Comission. Samuel J. Chil, Secretary of the Conmission.

r:.

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI Di rector DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM 5lJ-4p C5~ F,£ ~159) November 19, 1987 rl? /YJ-Sa-y_ J/4( 1J I ~ 7 DOCKETED f V5t I I ~ J ! t, I USNR I f '~esearch Reactor Facility "88 FEB 23 P J :36 Research Park Columbia, Missouri 65211 f ;IJD.-USHRt * ~ ' . Telephone (314) 882-421 1 RUL.. ~~i~F!~URES*BR "87 tllV 25 P 1 :55 Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission MNBB-4000 Washington, D. C. 20555 ATTENTION: Chief, Rules and Procedures Branch

SUBJECT:

Petition for Rule Making In accordance with 10 CFR 2.802, the attached petition to amend portions of 10 CFR is submitted for your consideration. Please address questions or requests for additional information to Bill Reilly at (314)-882-5245.

Attachment:

Petition for Rulemaking Endorsement: Reviewed and Approved: Respectfully submitted, &~~~~ William F. Reilly - - ~ Manager Reactor Upgrade Project I-:::,..,__~'\\...>>~ Don M. Alger \\ Associate Director Research Reactor Facility r:.!~*; ~".":':I~ IIOW:V F~EL": s*; ;:: GF P.:::s~c*i~1 COLUMBIA KANSAS CITY ROLLA ST. LOUIS an equal opportunity institution

PETITION FOR RULE MAKING GENERAL SOLUTION This petition is submitted under provisions of 10 CFR 2.802 to:

1. Define "research reactor" in 10 CFR 50. 2 as follows:

"Research reactor" means a nuclear reactor which 1s of a type described in § 50.21(c) of 'this part and for which an appl1cati,:nn has been filed for a license authorizing operation for research. developmental, educational, training, or experimental purposes, and which may have provisions for the production of non-fissile radioisotopes.

2.

Redefine "testing facility" in 10 CFR 50.2 as follows {proposed change underlined): MTesting facility" means a nuclear reactor which is of a type described in§ 50.21(c) of 'this part to be used for testing reactor components and designs at reduced or uncertain safety margins, and for which an application has been filed for a license authorizing operation at: (1} A thermal power level in excess of 10 megawatts; or (2} A thermal power level in excess of 1 megawatt, if the reactor is to contain: (1) A circulating loop through the core in which the applicant proposes to conduct fuel experiments; or (ii} A liquid fuel loading; or (iii) An experimental facility in the core in excess of 16 square inches in cross-section. ( (

3. Redefine *testing reactor" in 10 CFR 140.3 {k) as follows (proposed change underlined):

"Testing reactor" means a nuclear reactor which is of a type described in§ 50.2l(c) of this chapter to be used for testing reactor components and designs at reduced or uncertain safett margins. and for which an application has been filed for a license authorizing operation at: (1) A thermal power level in excess of 10 megawatts; or {2) A thermal power level in excess of 1 megawatt. if the reactor is to contain: (i) A circulating loop through the core in which the applicant proposes to conduct fuel experiments; or (ii) A liquid fuel loading; or (iii) An experimental facility in the core in excess of 16 square inches in cross-section.

4.

Redefine *research reactor* in 10 CFR 170!3(h} as follows (proposed change underlined):

• Research reactor" means a nuclear reactor 11 censed by the CollDission under the authority of subsection 104c of the Act and pursuant to the provisions of§ 50.21(c) of this chapter.f2.!:

research, developmental, educational, training. or experimental p,urposes, and which may have provisions for the production of non-fissile radioisotopes. ( (

5. Redefine "testing facility* in 10 CFR 170.J(m) as follows (proposed changes underlined):

GROUNDS "Testing facilityu means a nuclear reactor licensed by the Commission under the authority of subsection 104c of the Act and pursuant to the provisions of§ 50.2l(c) of this chapter to be used for testing reactor components and designs at reduced or uncertain safety margins, and for operation at: (1) A thermal power level in excess of 10 megawatts; or (2) A thermal power level in excess of 1 megawatt, if tie reactor is to contain: (1) A circulating loop through the core 1n which tt.e applicant proposes to conduct fuel experiments; or (11) A liquid fuel loading; or (iii) An experimental facility in the core in excess of 16 square inches in cross-section. The grounds for this petition are that the current definition of "testing facility* results in excessive and unnecessary routine regulatory requirements being applied to research reactors contrary to the intent of Congress in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Also, the proposed definition of "research reactor* is consistent with American Nuclear Society (ANS) and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standards, some of which are incorporated into Commission Regulatory Guides as industry consensus standards. Agreement on the definition of "research reactor" as proposed would eliminate inconsistency and confusion that now exist. ( ( INTEREST This petition is being submitted by the University of ~issouri, holder of Facility License R-103 for operation of the University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR). MURR currently operates as a research reactor at a maximum power level of 10 MW. Plans are being developed to upgrade the power to approximately 30 MW. The upgrade will make MURR an even more efficient and effective research tool, but ft will not change the purpose of the facility. Current federal regulations would cause MURR to be designated as a testing facility instead of a research reactor as a result of the power level exceeding 10 MW. Such a designation would place unnecessary and burdensome regulatory requirements (many of which have been developed for large power reactors) on MURR. The purpose of this petition is to establish a balanced regulatory program for MURR and future large research reactors to insure the public health and safety without inhibiting the conduct of vital research in the areas of medical research, radioisotope production, materials research, neutron activation analysis, radiation effects, and others. Diagnosis and treatment of cancer, and development of improved magnetic and superconductive materials are but two of the extremely important fields of human endeavor that will be better served by more powerful research reactors. STATEMENT OF SUPPORT Arbitrary Definition The definition of *testing facility* as it now reads in 10 CFR 50.2 was prepared as a rule change in 1959 (24 ~- Reg. 2449) and issued in 1960 {25 ~- Reg. 1072). The only explanation provided by the notice is that the proposed definition was an implementation of the Atomic Energy Act Sections 182b and 189a. A review of Section 182b. of the Act shows that the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) is required to review each application fer. a construc-tion permit or an operating license for a 11testing fac1lity 11 as we11 as any ap-plication spec1f1cally referred to it whether under Section 103 or 104 a., b., or c. Section 1~9a states that a hearing shall be held on any application under Section 104c for a construction permit for a testing facility as well as for Section 103 co111Dercial facilities. However, Section 104c of the Act does not mention testing facility, but merely describes 11facflities useful in the conduct of research and development activities *of the types specified in Section 31 11 Moreover, Section 31 does not miention "testing facility," nor is it defined in Section 11 of the Act { 11Definitions 11 ). A search of the remainder wf the Act also produces no definition of *testing facility". Since testing facilities were clearly intended by Congress to be encompassed by the description in Section 104c that section is set out below:

c. The Commission 1s authorized to issue licenses to persons applying therefor for utilization and production facilities useful in the conduct of research and development activities of the types specified in Section 31 and which are not facilities of the type specified in subsection 104b. T~

Commission is directed to impose only such minimum amount of regulation of the licensee as the Commission finds will 1ermit the Commission to fulfill its obligations under this Act to promote the common defense and security and to protect tte health and safety of the public and will permit the condltct of widespread and diverse research and development. i. (. Thus, nothing in the Atomic Energy Act or the Commission's regulations indicates the reasoning behind the designation of a power level which distin-guishes research reactors (up to and including 10 MW} from test reactors {above 10 MW). A lengthy and thorough search of the C011J11ission's files concerning 10 CFR Part 50, covering the years 1954-1961 identified the fact that the Staff con-ferred with the ACRS and devised the 10 CFR Section 50.2 definition, and that the definition was conveyed to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. No expla-nation of the 10 MW distinction between researcb and test reactors was found. Thus there is no evidence of a rationale for what seems to be an arbitrary power level of 10 MW that was used to define *testing facility 11 some six years after the term was mentioned inconsistently in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. It may be logically presumed that the Congress had in mind reactors that were truly used to test concepts and components in the early days of nuclear power technol-ogy, but the term has a connotation of a facility that is pushing the limits of reactor technology and that may be performing work with lower or not well defined safety margins. Through the years, this definition based OG power level has become anachronistic when applied to reactors whose purpose is to produce neutrons for research and development as distinguished frocn performing a testing function. Retention of the current definition can raise umdue concerns in the minds of the public and can impose unnecessary burdens and costs on the regulation of research reactors. Research reactors vhich now fall into the category of testing facilities, e.g. a 10.1 MW research reactor, currently come under many provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations that pertain to large commercial power plants (e.g., 10 CFR 2.lOl(a)(S), 10 CFR 2.104(a), 10 CFR 2.105(a)(4) and (8), 10 CFR 2.106(a)(2), 10 CFR 2 Appendix A Statement of General Policy, various sections of 10 CFR 50 and 10 CFR 51 samples of which are attached}. By imposing these requirements on research and development facilities, the current Code of Federal Regulations is actually contrary to the intent of the Congress (see Section 104c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 above, which stipulates the Commission's obligation to impose only the minimum amount of regulation for research and development activities). The intent of the Congress to Rinsure the continued conduct of research and development*, "permit the conduct of widespread independent research and develop-ment activities to the m~imum extent practicable", and *encourage research and development" is also evident in Sections 31.a, 53.f., and 81 of the Act. Because of this, redefinition of a research reactor based on function instead of power level, and consequent relegation to a reasonable level of routine regula-tory scrutiny are proper and appropriate. Nothing in this petition reduces the authority or responsibility of the Commission to insure the health and safety of the public. Unique research reactors can still be subjected to the necessary degree of scrutiny as determined by the Commission's technical judgment. (ANS)/American National Standards ANS/ANSI Standards are accepted for guidance by practically all the nuclear industry, and some are incorporated as consensus standards into NRC Regulatory Guides, which describe methods of implementing specific parts of the Commission's regulations that are acceptable to the NRC staff. ( (, Series 15 of ANS Standards pertains to research reactors, which were defined in the Standards into the latter part of the 1970's as reactors used for scientific, engineering, or training puryoses and which operate at power levels and conditions below those defined for testing facilities in 10 CFR 50.2. In the late 1970 1s, the ANS/ANSI Standards redefined a research reactor as: "a device designed to support a self-sustaining neutron chain reaction for research, developmental, educational, training, or experimental purposes, and which may have pro-visions for the production of non-fissile radioisotopes." No maximum power level or dimension has been included in the definition. Indeed, Table II of ANS 15.16, "Standard for Emergency Planning for Research Reactors" (which has been incorporated into Regulatory Guide 2.6), provides an alternate 111ethod of determining the size of an Emergency Planning Zone; and it groups research reactors into less than 2 MW, 2-10 MW, 10-20 MW, 20-50 MW, and greater than 50 MW categories. This has caused confusion and inconsistency that could be remedied by incor-porating the current ANS/ANSI definition in the Code of Federal Regulations. INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY (IAEA) STANDARDS The IAEA (of which the United States is a member} has published Safety Series No. 35, IAEA Safety Standards, Safe Operation of Research Reactors and Critical Assemblies, 1984 Edition, which defines a research reactor as: "A facility used mainly for the generation and utilization of neutron flux and ionizing radiations for research and other purposes.u No power limits are included in the definition. (, NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS REACTOR (NBSR) The only licensed testing facility currently operating in the United States is the NBSR in Gaithersburg, Maryland.* It runs at a mar:f!lllUm power level of 20 MW. The Chief, Radiation Division, NBS, supports this p-l:tition. He feels that it is unnecessary to have a separate regulatory class for a single reactor and that no safety aspects vould be compromised by the proposed ctange. He states that current regulatory requirements for testing facilities are appropriate for activities such as complex fuel tests at higher power le1els, but they are not appropriate for reactors involved in research. He feels that current licensing requirements for testing facilities unnecessarily restritt the exercise of judgment by the NRC staff in procedural matters such as Jublic notices, inter-action with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. and environmental matters.

• Other research and testing facilities operate above 10 ~w. but they are under the Department of Energy and are therefore not licensed by the NRC.

r ATTACHMENT Licensing and Environmental Requirements An examination of 10 CFR Parts 50 and 51 revealed the following requirements for testing facilities as distinct from research reactors. 10 CFR Section-Paragraph Requirement Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities 50.10(b}(4} Testing facilities are not exempt from an exception to the requirement for a construction permit that 1s . 50.lO(c} (3}

50. lO(e}

granted to research reactors for 11

• the construc-tion of buildings which will be used for activities other than the operation of a facility and which may also be used to house a facility.

(For example. the construction of a college laboratory building with space for installation of a training reactor is not affected by this paragraph.}" Testing facilities are not exempt from an exception to the requirement for a construction permit that may be granted to research reactors (which are not specifical-ly required to have an environmental impact statement under provisions of 10 CFR 51.20(b)). Some relief may be granted testing facilities for early construction activities pending issue of a construction permit only after a final environmental impact state-ment has been completed. The CFR is silent on research reactors. ATTACHMENT (cont'd) 10 CFR Section-Paragraph Requirement 50.30(f) An application for a construction permit for a testing facility whose construction or operation may have a significant impact on the.environment shall be accompanied by an Enviroirental Report. The CFR is silent on research reactors. 50.36b 50.58(a) 50.58(b) An application for an operating license for a testing facility may include conditions to protect the environ-ment which are derived from the environmental report and which identify required environmental records and monitoring requirements. The CFR is silent on research reactors. An application for a construction permit or an opera-ting license for a testing facility shall be referred to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) for review and report. An application for an amend-ment to a construction permit or an operating license may be referred to ACRS for review and report. Any report shall be made part of the record and available to the public. The CFR is silent on research reactors. A public hearing will be held on an application for a testing facility construction permit. A public hearing may be held on an application for a testing facility operating license or amendment to a construction permit or an operating license. Amendments to testing ( ATTACHMENT (cont'd) 10 CFR Section-Paragraph Requirement 50.58(b) (continued) facility operating licenses may be made imnedfately effective pending a hearing if the Commission determines no significant hazards exist ul'!der the standards of 10 CFR 50.92. The CFR is silent on research reactors. 50.9l(a) 50.9l{b) 50.92(c} An application for an amendment to a testing facility operating license rust include a hazards inalysfs under the standards of 10 CFR 50.92. Such proposals may be published in the Federal Register with a request for public co1T111ent, and public hearings may b! held. The CFR is silent on research reactors. An applicant for an amendment to a testing facility operating license must notify the State, and the NRC will consider any comments from the State. The CFR is silent on research reactors. The Commission may make a final determination pursuant to Section 50.91 that a proposed amendment to a -testing facility operating license involves no significant hazards under three conditions. The CFR is silent on research reactors. ( ATTACHMEXT (cont'd) 10 CFR Section-Paragraph Requirement Part 511 Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions 51.20(b)(l), (2), (4), and (5); 51.25; 51.50; 51.53(a) 51.105,51.106 Issuance of a testing facility limited work authorization, construction permit, operating license, provisional operating license conversion to a full term operating license, or license amendment authorizing deconvnissioning requires an environmental assessment or an applicant's environmental report and an NRC environmental impact statement. The CFR is silent on research reactors. Additional requirements are established for public hearings on testing facility construction permits and operating licenses. The CFR is silent on research reactors. To recapitulate, a testing facility designation places a reactor in a category with large coRrDercial power plants, and it means the following vis-a-vis a research reactor designation:

• A higher probability of the need for a construction permit (50.10(b)(4),

50.IO(c)(3)) which requires a public hearing (50.58(b)).

• A requirement for an environmental report and environmental impact statement (50.lO(e), 50.30(f), 50.36b, 51.20(b)(l), 51.20(b)(2), 51.20(b){4),

51.20(b)(5), 51.25, 51.50, 51.53(a)). ATTACHMENT (cont 1d)

• A higher probability of ACRS involvement with the attendant public hearings

{ 5 0. 58 (a))

• A higher probability of public hearings, additional requirements, and State involvement in operating license proceedings (50.58(b), 50.9l{a), 50.9l(b),

50.92(c), 51.105, 51.106). }}