ML20003F797

Request That Contentions Listed in App B of 810401 Stipulation Be Rejected for Failure to Meet 10CFR2.714(b) Requirements.App a Contentions Should Be Deferred Until Remaining Contentions Resolved.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20003F797
Person / Time
Site:	Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute
Issue date:	04/13/1981
From:	Brittigan R ARMED FORCES RADIOBIOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8104230608
Download: ML20003F797 (17)

Text

4

. CCCXm3 \1 7

APR 1 G 1981

• q 13 April 1981

\ "),

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o j BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-170

)

ARMED FORCES RADI0 BIOLOGY RESEARCH )

INSTITUTE ) (Renewal License No.of R-847\\

Facilit [7gl y v g /o; (TRIGA - Type Research Reactor) l ns J -

LICENSEE'S STATEMENT OF POSITION ~~.' . ## -11

\?j '

T'h

• • #*T h INTRODUCTION fy';

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Staff (Staff), the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI or Licensee), and the Citizens for Nuclear Reactor Safety, Inc. (CNRS or Petitioner),

stipulated to the admissibility of six specific contentions, many containing sub-parts, on March 31, 1981. The contentions upon which agreement could be reached were recorded in Appendix A to the stipula-tion which was filed on April 1, 1981. Although AFRRI stipulated to the admissibility of Petitioner's two contentions regarding the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), it is AFRRI's position that consideration of the NEPA contentions, if they survive summary disposi-tion, should be deferred until the hearings are completed and the remaining contentions raised by Petitioner are resolved.

Appendix B to the stipulation filed on April 1, 1981 lists seven contentions, many of which also contain sub-parts, upon which the parties could not reach agreement. The position of the Licensee regarding those contentions listed in Appendix B is that each and every 81042sofoo?

G

one of seven contentions fails to fulfill the requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(b) as applied and interpreted in applicable Nuclear Regulatory Commission case law. 10 CFR 2.714(b) provides that the supplement to the petition to intervene "must include a list of the contentions which Petitioner seeks to have litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity."

The reasonable specificity requirement has been clarified and explained in Philadelphia Electric Company (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 1 and 2) Docket Nos. 50-277, 50-278, CLI-73-10, March 30, 1973, which established that a contention must be rejected where it is nothing more than a general statement regarding the intervener's views concerning desirable policies. In Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) Docket No. 50-271, ALAB 057, June 20, 1972, the Board held that where a contention constitutes an l attack upon the existing regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission it is not admissible. It is clear from the usual meaning of the words

)

" reasonable specificity" that where'a contention seeks to raise an issue which is either irrelevant or immaterial to the proceeding or f

facility in question, or where it seeks to raise an issue which is not concrete or litigable, the requisite regulatory requirements have not been met. Examination of the proffered contentions discloses that i three constitute attacks upon the existing regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and that the bases set forth by the Petitioner regarding the remainder are either not stated with reasonable specificity i

l i.

2

. - -- -,, ,- , - , . ,. , . - . , - - . en-- . - -., ,, --- - - . , . _ , , w- -

~r .. , ,~-- -

or, if a specific basis is offered by the Petitioner, that basis is either contrary to the established laws of physics or irrelevant to the proceedings being conducted herein. Therefore, for the reasons set forth below with respect to each unstipulated contention, the Licensee requests that the Board enter a finding that the require-

, ments of 10 CFR 2.714(b) have not been met and that the Petitioner's intervention petition be denied as to these issues. The captions correspond to those employed in Attachment B to the stipulation filed on April 1, 1981. ,

1. ACCIDENTS I In this proffered contention, the Petitioner asserts that the analysis of the loss of coolant accident (LOCA) and the two design basis accidents (DBAs) within AFRRI's Hazard Summary Report (HSR) is defective in two particulars. First, Petitioner contends that "in the event of a rapid loss of coolant while the reactor core is in the pulse mode, there could be a sudden temperature elevation sufficient to cause multiple cladding failures and fission product releases in excess of the limits provided in 10 CFR Part 20." This contention depends upon a hypothesis which cannot be reconciled with the known l

l laws of physics. The TRIGA reactor at AFRRI is cooled by approximately l

15,000 gallons of water. Since the duration of a pulse ranges from 100 to 200 milliseconds, 10 milliseconds (FWHM), it would be impossible l

l to suffer a significant loss of coolant during a pulse. Even if the

! bottom of the pool somehow dropped out, it would take longer than the t

3

maximum time available to completely uncover the core. The physical principle of inertia alone will keep the cooling water in contact with the core for a sufficient period of time to significantly reduce the available thermal energy. Moreover, even if it were possible to pulse the reactor in the absence of any water (which it is not because of the fact that an adequate pool watar level is essential for the reactor to achieve and maintain criticality) the heat available in the ,

core would still not be sufficient to cause a cladding failure. The hypothesis upon which the Petitioner relies, therefore, is contrary to both the principle of inertia and the laws of nuclear physics. Such a hypothesis is physically impossible. It should be noted that AFRRI is not, at this stage of the proceedings, addressing the merits of Petitioner's contention, It would be improper for the Board to address i

the merits of the contention when determining the admissibility of the proposed contention. Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542 (April 22, 1980) Rather, AFRRI is noting tha't the basis stated by Petitioner relies entirely upon a physically impossible hypothesis and therefore constitutes no basis at all. Inasr:uch as the proffered contention is j utterly without basis, it should not be admitted.

I The second element of " Accidents I" deals with the design basis accident analyses contained it the license application. Petitioner

] asserts that AFRRI has ignored possibic radiation doses which could result to individuals "due to internal emissions of the noble gases."

1 4

The Commission's regulations (10 CFR 20) contain tables indicating permissible doses and activity levels. Noble gases are addressed in those tables (see 10 CFR 20.101(a) and 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B).

These tables set upper limits as to the permissible dosage and activity levels in restricted (occupational) and unrestricted areas, and were the standards employed by AFRRI in discussing the design basis accidents.

Although Petitioner characterizes this proffered contention as an attack upon an inadequacy of the analysis of the DBAs, Petitioner is in reality attempting to contend that the cited tables fail to consider potential increased risk of harm from noble gases because of their l.

absorption by the human body. The implication is that the standards established by the Commission should be changed to take into account this alleged increated risk. In effect, Petitioner is asking this Board to revise the NRC rules by accepting the unsupported assertion that noble gases absorbed in human body tissue make a significant contribution to total radiation dose and to determine to reduce the limits of permissible exposure. Pe'titioner is inviting this Board to engage in rule making during a relicensing proceeding. Inasmuch as a contention which challentes the NRC's regulations must be rejected, Petitioner's invitation must be declined. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, supra.

2. ACCIDENTS II In " Accidents II", Petitioner postulates three potential accidents of a different kind and greater severity than those described in the 5

HSR. First, Petitioner asserts that failure of the N-16 diffuser system would result in the production and release of radioactive N-16 and insulation of the fuel elements from the water coolant causing a rapid temperature elevation and possible multiple cladding failures. The stated basis for this. proffered contention, failure of the N-16 diffuser system, is in no way relevant to the concerns expressed by Petitioner. The radioactive half life of Nitrogen 16 is 7.13 seconds. Considering the time required for the N-16 to get to the surface of the reactor pool coupled with the time delay entailed in entering the atmosphere after arrival at the top of the pool, the potential additional occupational radiation exposure resulting from release of the N-16 would be insignificant in comparison to natural background radioactivity. Moreover, the N-16 diffuser system has no insulation effect upon the fuel elements and is not intended to do so.

Indeed, AFRRI is not required to operate the N-16 diffuser system while the TRIGA reactor is in operation and usually does not do so. In sum, this proposed contention demonstrat'es a profound misunderstanding on

(

the part of the Petitioner as to the nature, purpose, and effects of the N-16 diffuser system. Since failure of the system could not give rise to either of the results abcut which Petitioner expresses concern, the stated basis for the proffered contention is totally inadequate.

In the second numbered paragraph under " Accidents II" the Petitioner once again asks the Board to engage in highly speculative and imaginative thinking without specifying any real basis therefor. Petitioner postulates l

l

for the Board two supposedly maximum credible accidents that are in fact incredible. In Petitioner's first scenario, a " power excursion accident (PEA) resulting in multiple cladding failures at an elevated temperature with reduction in the thermalizing effect of hydrogen, followed by an explosive zirconium-steam interaction," the multiple cladding failures hypothesized could not occur. While the Petitioner correctly assumes that the thermalizing effect of hydrogen is reduced at elevated temperature, this effect increases rather than decreases the negative temperature coefficient of the fuel. ,A reduction in the thermalizing effect of the hydrogen is the primary negative reactivity contributor to a shutdown in this type of fuel. Thus the temperature of the fuel and in turn the cladding could not achieve a sufficiently high level to give rise to a multiple cladding failure. Moreover, uranium-zirconium-hydride fuel is stable and does not react explosively with steam or water.

The second scenario postulated by the Petitioner, a "LOCA resulting in multiple cladding failures at an elevated temperature, followed by explosive zirconium-air interaction," is similarly unsound. A loss of cooling accident would by definition result in loss of the moderator l

(H2 O) which would in turn cause a shutdown of the reactor. The maximum l temperature after such a shutdown, assuming a complete loss of coolant i

(approximately 15,000 gallons in a matter of milliseconds), would result in a fuel temperature of 550 to 700 degrees centigrade which would not l

' be sufficient to cause a cladding failure. The type of fuel rods employed l

I I

7

within the AFRRI TRIGA reactor have been proven to retain their integrity to temperatures of at least 1,000 degrees centigrade. Again, of course, uranium-zirconium-hydride fuel is stable and does not react explosively with steam or air. Like the assumptions made by Petitioner in " Accidents I" diccussed above, the two alleged maximum credible accidents cannot occur consistent with the known laws of physics.

Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to state a basis for these conten-tions. With respect to the failure of the N-16 diffuser system, the stated basis has no relevance to the effects postulated by Petitioner.

. In either case it is clear that Petitioner has failed to meet the reasonable specificity requirement set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(b).

f

3. TESTING FACILITY Petitioner contends "that the AFRRI facility is a testing facility within the meaning of g 31.a(3) and g 104(c) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 9 50.21(c) and g 50.2(r) of 10 CFR Part 50."

The Petitioner recognizes that this would constitute a rule making proceeding and as a result has offered to file an affidavit at the time of filing of statements of position for the purpose of establishing special conditions under the provisions of 30 CFR Section 2.758. The AFRRI TRIGA reactor is not a testing facility within the meaning of 10 CFR 50.2(r). This reactor is used to conduct research activities as described in 10 CFR 50.21(c). It currently holds a class 104 license. Moreover, the AFRRI TRIGA reactor is not capable of sustained 8

thermal power in excess of 10 megawatts; nor does it contain a circulating loop through the core in which fuel experiments can be conducted, or a liquid fuel loading, or an experimental facility in

the core in excess of 16 square inches in cross-section. Inasmuch as the AFRRI reactor is so clearly a research reactor, it is submitted that the contention labeled " Testing Facility" should be dismissed.

Inasmuch as the Petitioner's affidavit has not yet been filed, AFRRI l

reserves the right to provide additional argument upon the filing of 1

the affidavit to show that the special circumstances requirement of 10 CFR 2.758 is not met. There is, however, a more fundamental reason i

why the testing facility contention must be rejected regardless of the i- content of any affidavit which Petitioner may file in support thereof.

The TRIGA reactor operated by AFRRI is almost identical to the TRIGA reactor involved in Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, Docket No. 50-208, ALAB 003, 4AEC 349 (1970). In that case the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board specifically considered the question ot whether the TRIGA react'or there involved was a testing facility under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.2(r) and concluded that it was not. Inasmuch as this Board is required to follow the decisions of the Atomic Safety Licensing Appeal Board, the testing facility contention does not warrant further consideration. Consumers Power-l _ Company (Palisades Plant), Docket No. 50-255, ALAB 014, September 25, 1970.

9

.. ._ . . + - - .~=

l

! I i

4. SITING Petitioner contends that the AFRRI reactor must meet the siting criteria set forth at 10 CFR Part 100. This contention is based upon alternative theories. First, Petitioner asserts that the AFRRI reactor is a test facility. For the reasons stated in the preceding section this assertion is utterly without merit and cannot afford a basis for the siting contention. In the alternative, Petitioner contends that research reactors, such as the TRIGA reactor at AFRRI, should be made subject to the siting criteria set forth in 10 CFR Part 100 for test facilities. This is clearly an attempt to engage in rule making in the course of a relicensing proceeding and should be rejected by the Board. In this connection, it is noted that Petitioner apparently does not intend to file an affidavit in an attempt to meet the special

circumstances requirement with respect to this contention. Inasmuch l

as the first basis asserted by Petitioner has been foreclosed by the decision of the Appeals Board in the Columbia University case and the second basis asserted by Petitioner' constitutes a challenge to existing l

NRC regulations, neither basis supports the proffered contention and the contention should be dismissed at this point.

5. ROUTINE EMISSIONS I In " Routine Emissions I," the Petitioner expresses concern about whether the airborne and waterborne radioactive emissions from routine 1 operations and disposal of solid waste at AFRRI will be maintained l within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20. While such a contention is certainly a proper matter for consideration by the Board, Petitioner 10

has failed to state any sufficient and reasonably specific basis to support the contention. In its effort to meet this requirement, Petitioner cites four specific items. First, Petitioner alleges that emissions from 1962-1965, 1978 and 1979 resulted in average annual whole body doses to members of the public in excess of the Environmental Protection Agency's limit of 25 millirem. However, for purposes of the present question, i.e. whether the contention should be considered admissible, the stated basis is simply irrelevant. This is a proceeding before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the limits which apply are those set forth in 10'FRC Part 20. It is not the function of this Board to enforce limits which may have been stated by the Environmental i

Protection Agency unless those limits have also been adopted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Any attempt to litigate EPA limits in a proceeding before the NRC is in an inappropriate forum. - Moreover, AFRRI notes that the EPA limit of 25 millirem, by its express terms, applies to nuclear power reactors and not to research reactors.

Accordingly, this basis is irrelevaht. Petitioner further alleges that t

l AFRRI's incineration at the National Naval Medical Center of 160 boxes

' of contaminated solid waste during the period 1975-1976 resulted in the i

1. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission very recently adopted the EPA standard for certain licensees engaged in uranium fuel cycle operations. 46F.R.18525 (March 25, 1981). Even this change, however, did not extend EPA r*andards to research reactors.

i i

l 11 l

l l- -- -. - _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _

release of radioactive gases and particulates in excess of the limit set forth in 10 CFR Part 20 Appendix C. In addition to the fact that the inspection reports cited by Petitioner fail to substantiate the allegation, this allegation affords no basis for the " Routine Emissions I" contention. AFRRI does not now incinerate radioactive contaminated solid waste but rather disposes of it in accordance with 10 CFR 20.

Petitioner's third sub-contention is equally without merit and appears to represent a misunderstanding of the material presented in AFRRI's environmental impact appraisal data. The environmental data do address estimates of dose in unrestricted areas based upon the active release of Argon 41. These estimates reflect the dose for unrestricted areas on the order of .00003 rem--not a dose in excess of .5 rem. Finally, Petitioner cites excess exposure rates during the period between January 1, 1970 and July 1, 1971 as reflected in an environmental release report issued on

. December 14, 1971. If such excess exposures were in any way indicative of current and future operations, they might constitute a sufficient basis for the " Routine Emissions I" contention. The cited events, however, are essentially ancient history. The incidents referred to all predate the last issuance of a license to AFRRI and can hardly be considered relevant in the current proceeding. Moreover, review of the underlying document discloses that the exposures described therein were the results of a medical x-ray unit which was located in a facility separate from that of the reactor and which indeed was decommissioned in July of 1971.

Inasmuch as the data cited do not pertain to operation of the TRIGA 12

reactor, are unrelated to any currently existing facility, and reflect 1

.{

events which occurred some ten years in the past they fail to provide any basis for the Routine Emission I contention.

6. ROUTINE EMISSIONS II Petitioner contends that the 10 CFR Part 20 limits are inadequate to protect the health and safety of the population in the vicinity of the AFRRI reactor. In recognition of the fact that this constitutes an attempt to engage in rule making activity during the course of a relicensing proceeding, Petitioner has indicated that an affidavit will be submitted at the time of filing a statement of position. AFRRI reserves the right to separately address any matters which may be raised in the affidavit to demonstrate that they fail to establish the special conditions required under the terms of 10 CFR 2.758. Moreover, it is AERRI's posi-tion that contentions constituting an attack upon existing Commission regulations must be rejected, see Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, I supra.

7. SECURITY In its final unstipulated contention, Petitioner asserts that a history of violations demonstrates that the controlled access area surrounding the AFRRI TRIGA reactor cannot be protected from sabotage or f diversion of special nuclear material according to the standards set l forth in 10 CFR Part 73. While physical security in the controlled access area is truly a legitimate matter for inquiry, review of the five alleged past violations cited by Petitioner discloses that none involved 13

the controlled access area for the TRIGA reactor. Four of the matters cited by the Petitioner deal with control of ingress and egress to and from the buildings which constitute the Institute--not deficiencies in the controlled access area surrounding the AFRRI TRIGA reactor. The exit by employees from unauthorized exterior doors, access to the-building by following employees who use their magnetic cards to unlock exterior doors, failure to escort visitors attending weekly seminars, and failure of employees entering and exiting the. building after hours to sign a log all pertain.to the security of the buildings which make up the Institute complex. None are relevant to the physical security of the TRIGA reactor. The remaining citation, alleged violations of the counting and dispensing procedures for controlled substances such as aarcotics, is irrelevant on its face. Petitioner, therefore, has failed to state any basis for the security contention and that conten-tion should therefore be rejected.

CONCLUSION In summary, the Petitioner is asking this Board to proceed with a series of contentions which lack the relevance and requisite specificity necessary to assist in determining whether or not a license renewal shouli be granted. It is well established that before proposed conten-l tions may be found admissible they must fall within the scope of the issues set forth in the notice of hearing initiating the proceedings, and comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.714(b) and applicable i

1 l

l 14 L

Commission case law. Northern States Power Company (Prairie Island, i

Unit 1 and 2) ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188,194 (1973), Aff'd, BPI v. Atomic Energy Commission, 502 F.2d 424, 429 (D.C.Cir. 1974); Duquesne Light Company (Beaver Valley, Unit 1), ALAB-109, 6 AEC 243, 245 (1973). For the reasons stated, the contentions listed in Appendix B to the stipulation filed on April 1, 1981 fail to meet these requirements and must be rejected by the Board.

Respectfully submitted, 1

$N/ON- G ROBERT L. BRITTIGAN General Counsel' Counsel for Applicant Dated at HQ, Defense Nuclear Agency, 6801 Telegraph Rd. , Alex. , VA 22310 this 13th day of April, 1981 e

.l 15

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-170-ARMED FORCES RADI0 BIOLOGY )

RESEARCH INSTITUTE )

) (Renewal of Facility License (TRIGA-Type Research Reactor) ) No. R-84)

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney herewith enters an appearance in the captioned matter. In accordance with 32.713(b),

10 CFR Part 2, the following information is provided:

Name -

David C. Rickard Address - Headquarters Defense Nuclear Agency Washington, D.C. 20305 Telephone Number -

Area Code 202 - 325-7681 Admission -

Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania Name of Party - Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute Def'ense Nuclear Agency Washington, D.C. 20305

/

. u AVID C. RICKARD Deputy General' Counsel Dated at HQ, Defense Nuclear Agency, 6801 Telegraph Rd., Alex., VA 22310 this 13th day of Arpil, 1981

P UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-170 ARMED FORCES RADI0 BIOLOGY )

RESEARCH INSTITUTE )

) (Renewal of Facility License (TRIGA-Type Research Reactor) ) No. R-84)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF DUPLICATE SIGNED COPIES OF APRIL 13, 1981 FILING I hereby certify that true and correct copies of.the foregoing

" LICENSEE'S STATEMENT OF POSITION" and " NOTICE OF APPEARANCE" for David C. Rickard, were mailed this 13th day of April, 1981, by United States Mail, First Class, to the following:

Louis J. Carter, Esq., Chairman Elizabeth B. Entwisle, Esq.

Administrative Judge 8118 Hartford Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Silver Spring, MD 20910 23 Wiltshire Road Philadelphia, PA 19151 Atomic Safety and Licensing.

Board Panel.

Mr. Ernest E. Hill U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative Judge Washington, D.C. 20555 Lawrence Livermore Laboratory University of California Atomic Safety-and Licensing Appeal P.O. Box 808, L-123 '

Panel (5)

Livermore, CA 94550 EU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-Dr. David R. Schink Administrative Judge Docketing and Service Section (7)

Department of Oceanography Office of the Secretary Texas A&M University U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission College Station, TX 77840 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.

Counsel for NRC Staff U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 SYX W a-ROBERT L. BRITTIGAN Counsel for Applicant