ML022200692
| ML022200692 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saxton File:GPU Nuclear icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/16/2002 |
| From: | Alexander Adams NRC/NRR/DRIP/RORP |
| To: | NRC/NRR/DRIP/RORP |
| ADAMs A, NRC/N RR/DRIP/Rorp, 415-1127 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML022200692 (7) | |
Text
August 16, 2002 LICENSEES: Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corporation (SNEC) and GPU Nuclear, Inc. (GPU)
FACILITY:
Saxton Nuclear Experimental Facility (SNEF)
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING BETWEEN THE SNEC, GPU AND NRC STAFFS On June 21, 2002, representatives of the NRC staff met at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, Maryland, with representatives of the SNEC and GPU, the licensees for the SNEF. Attachment one is a list of meeting attendees. Attachment two are the slides used by the licensees during the meeting. Attachment three is a calculation from the licensees concerning the SNEC radionuclide list that was given to the NRC staff during the meeting.
The plant was operated between 1962 and 1972, and it was shut down in May 1972. In February 1975, the plant was placed in SAFSTOR until 1986, when phased dismantlement began with the removal of the support buildings, contaminated soil, and some materials in the containment. The licensees decommissioning plan became the Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report. The resubmitted License Termination Plan (LTP) was accepted for detailed technical review in March 2000.
Technical review of the LTP has generated requests for additional information (RAI). This meeting was scheduled to discuss (1) follow up on issues raised during the May 22, 2002, meeting with the licensees about health physics issues, (2) the process for changing pages in the LTP based on the results of discussions from meetings, (3) NRC staff review of information that the licensees presented to the NRC in their response to RAI1 (RAI dated August 18, 2000, from the NRC), and (4) issues from continuing NRC staff review of the LTP. Discussion topics for the meeting were forwarded to the licensees in a letter from the NRC dated June 14, 2002 (ADAMS accession no. ML021620587). The discussions with the licensees technical staff and consultants provided clarification and a better understanding of the site specific technical data and related information.
Issues related to the Environmental Assessment were discussed. The Environmental Assessment requires consultations with appropriate State agencies to evaluate any potential environmental impacts of the proposed action. In 2000 and 2001, SNEC requested a Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) screening for the proposed action. PNDI is a site specific information system that identifies significant natural resources of Pennsylvania.
The results of the PNDI are valid for only one year.
For the 2000 and 2001 results, no impact on plants or natural communities was anticipated. In 2002, the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) contacted SNEC and stated that the decision of "no anticipated impacts" to potential species in the 2000 and 2001 reviews were incorrect. Additionally, DCNR requested a survey for species of concern to be conducted by a qualified botanist for the 2002 review. In response, SNEC contacted DCNR and submitted photos of the project site, requested reevaluation of the impact to the species of concern, and explained the decommissioning process. On June 17, 2002, the DCNR revised their decision and responded that they no longer anticipate an impact to the species of concern. As discussed, formal documentation summarizing the consultation process will be submitted to NRC by the licensees.
Several health physics issues were discussed. The first was an update of health physics discussion issues from the May 22, 2002, meeting with the licensees.
The licensees reiterated that the LTP would be revised to reflect the health physics issues resolved with staff at the May 22, 2002, public meeting. The licensees indicated that they would include in the LTP an appropriate license condition listing those changes to the LTP that would require a license amendment from NRC prior to being changed. Regarding the use of Two Stage or Double Sampling in final status surveys, the NRC staff stated that the LTP needs to indicate those survey units where this method may be used to show release criteria compliance.
The licensees explained that the off-site laboratory results for the containment vessel (CV) saddle area had been received and were now being reviewed. When the review is completed, the licensees will provide the lab results to the NRC staff.
The NRC staff suggested that all groundwater data (e.g., radionuclide analysis and water level measurements) for approved monitoring wells be provided as an appendix to the LTP. The format of this appendix was briefly discussed.
The NRC staff indicated that the LTP need only summarize the subsurface soil and water sample data used to classify the region under the CV as non-impacted since the data indicates no presence of residual contamination. Also, the licensees agreed to provide separately for NRC staff review, the analytical results for the more than 900 samples taken to support the non-impacted classification. The NRC staff explained that the LTP needs to include figures that clearly indicate the boundary of the non-impacted region under the CV and locations of the CV tie down anchors, grout curtain, CV angle well, and surrounding wells (i.e., annulus and bedrock). The depth of these structures should also be provided.
At the May 22 meeting, the licensees provided a table of transuranic/hard to detect nuclide data for solid and liquid samples that covered the period from 1994 to 2002. The licensees also explained that data missing for 1996 to 1999 was previously provided to the NRC in a separate report. Subsequently, the licensees asked that the NRC staff provide guidance at the next public meeting on how the previous data is to be included in the table. The NRC staff has now provided such guidance; the pertinent sample data from the report should be summarized with appropriate footnotes and included in the table.
The second health physics issue discussed was recommended changes to LTP Chapters 2, 3, and 5. In the NRC letter Discussion Topics for June 21, 2002 Meeting, dated June 14, 2002, the staff suggested changes to specific sections in Chapters 2, 3, and 5. In general, the licensees agreed to make the changes as suggested. Regarding Section 2.5, QA Procedures, page 2-18, the NRC staff clarified that the intent of this question was to revise the LTP to discuss how survey data from prior remediation projects involving soil and the removed support buildings was considered when developing the data quality objectives for the current decommissioning. For Section 5.2.3.2.4, Gross Activity DCGLs, page 5-8, the licensees indicated that showing compliance for smooth surfaces (e.g., concrete) that had been aggressively scabbled to remove contamination would likely involve a combination of surface and volumetric DCGLs as opposed to the some other modeling approach (e.g., MicroShield).
Concerning Section 5.2.7.6, SNEC Facility Sample Analysis, page 5-19, the licensees indicated that professional judgement is used to select additional samples for analysis of transuranic/hard to detect nuclides, in addition to the systematic transuranic/hard to detect nuclide analysis done for every twentieth sample analyzed. For Section 5.5.3.6, Hard-To-Detect Radionuclides, pages 5-38 and 39, the licensees explained that use of the EPRI report is no longer an issue since site specific radionuclides of concern will be identified.
Finally in the area of health physics, the licensees response to question 22/RAI1 Resurvey, was discussed. The licensees agreed to make the changes as suggested by the NRC staff in the NRC letter Discussion Topics for June 21, 2002, Meeting, dated June 14, 2002.
There was a brief discussion about dose modeling. The licensees provided documentation (attachment three) regarding the de-selection of radionuclides. The licensees will follow-up with their off-site analytical laboratory to assess the adequacy of the gamma spectroscopy routine used to identify specific radionuclides.
Future public meetings will be held to discuss the remaining issues on pathway analysis and submission of the revised LTP.
/RA/
Alexander Adams, Jr., Senior Project Manager Research and Test Reactors Section Operating Reactor Improvements Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-146 Attachments: As stated cc w/attachments: Please see next page
Saxton Nuclear Docket No. 50-146 Experimental Corporation cc:
Mr. Michael P. Murphy Bureau of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Protection 13th Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Building P.O. Box 8469 Harrisburg, PA 17105-8469 Mr. Jim Tydeman 1402 Wall Street Saxton, PA 16678 Mr. James H. Elder, Chairman Concerned Citizens for SNEC Safety Wall Street Ext.
Saxton, PA 16678 Mr. Ernest Fuller 1427 Kearney Hill Road Six Mile Run, PA 16679 Saxton Borough Council ATTN: Judy Burket 707 9th Street Saxton, PA 16678 Mr. David J. Thompson, Chair Bedford County Commissioners County Court House 203 South Juliana Street Bedford, PA 15522 Mrs. Alexa Cook, Chairman Huntingdon County Commissioners County Court House Huntingdon, PA 16652 Saxton Community Library P.O. Box 34 Saxton, PA 16678 Carbon Township Supervisors ATTN: Penny Brode, Secretary R. D. #1, Box 222-C Saxton, PA 16678 Hopewell Township - Huntingdon County Supervisors ATTN: Reba Fouse, Secretary RR 1 Box 95 James Creek, PA 16657-9512 Mr. D. Bud McIntyre, Chairman Broad Top Township Supervisors Broad Top Municipal Building Defiance, PA 16633 Mr. Don Weaver, Chairman Liberty Township Supervisors R. D. #1 Saxton, PA 16678 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District ATTN: S. Snarski/P. Juhle P.O. Box 1715 Baltimore, MD 21203 The Honorable Robert C. Jubelirer President Pro-Temp Senate of Pennsylvania 30th District State Capitol Harrisburg, PA 17120 Mr. James J. Byrne Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station P.O. Box 480 Middletown, PA 17057 Mr. Robert F. Saunders First Energy Corp.
76 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308 Ms. Mary E. OReilly First Energy Legal Department 76 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308
Mr. Manuel Delgado 2799 Battlefield Road Fishers Hill, VA 22626 Mr. Eric Blocher 216 Logan Avenue Wyomissing, PA 19610 Mr. David Sokolsky 1000 King Salmon Avenue Eureka, CA 95503 Mr. Gene Baker 501 16th Street Saxton, PA 16678 Mr. Dick Spargo 1004 Main Street Saxton, PA 16678 Mr. Mark E. Warner AmerGen Energy Co., LLC P.O. Box 480 Middletown, PA 17057 Mr. G. A. Kuehn, Jr.
Vice President SNEC and Program Director SNEC Facility GPU Nuclear, Inc.
P.O. Box 480 Middletown, PA 17057-0480 James Fockler, Chairman Saxton Citizens Task Force 1505 Liberty Street Saxton, PA 16678 Dr. Rodger W. Granlund Saxton Independent Inspector Radiation Science and Engineering Center The Pennsylvania State University Breazeale Nuclear Reactor University Park, PA 16802-2301 Mr. Gareth McGrath Altoona Mirror 301 Cayuga Avenue Altoona, PA 16603 Dr. William Vernetson Director of Nuclear Facilities Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences University of Florida 202 Nuclear Sciences Center Gainesville, FL 32611 Mrs. Bunny Barker Box 143, RR 1 James Creek, PA 16657 Mr. William Kanda
First Energy Operating Corp.
10 Center Road Perry, OH 44081
MEETING BETWEEN THE NRC STAFF AND THE SAXTON EXPERIMENTAL CORPORATION June 21, 2002 NAME TITLE ORGANIZATION Alexander Adams, Jr.
Sr. PM USNRC Pat Donnachie Health Physic Consultant GPU Nuclear Stewart Schneider Sr. HP USNRC Greg Twachtman Editor McGraw-Hill Concerned Citizens Ernest Fuller Citizen for SNEC Safety Rodger Granlund Independent Inspector Penn State Univ.
Sam Nalluswami Project Manger, NMSS USNRC Art Paynter RSO FSS, Mgr.
GPU/FENOC SNEC Mark Thaggard Sr. Systems Performance Analyst NRC/NMSS Melanie Wong Env. Project Mgr.
NRC/NMSS/EPAB Claudia Craig Section Chief NRC/NMSS/DCB Daniel Hughes Project Manager NRC/NRC/DRIP August 16. 2002 Concerning Section 5.2.7.6, SNEC Facility Sample Analysis, page 5-19, the licensees indicated that professional judgement is used to select additional samples for analysis of transuranic/hard to detect nuclides, in addition to the systematic transuranic/hard to detect nuclide analysis done for every twentieth sample analyzed. For Section 5.5.3.6, Hard-To-Detect Radionuclides, pages 5-38 and 39, the licensees explained that use of the EPRI report is no longer an issue since site specific radionuclides of concern will be identified.
Finally in the area of health physics, the licensees response to question 22/RAI1 Resurvey, was discussed. The licensees agreed to make the changes as suggested by the NRC staff in the NRC letter Discussion Topics for June 21, 2002, Meeting, dated June 14, 2002.
There was a brief discussion about dose modeling. The licensees provided documentation (attachment three) regarding the de-selection of radionuclides. The licensees will follow-up with their off-site analytical laboratory to assess the adequacy of the gamma spectroscopy routine used to identify specific radionuclides.
Future public meetings will be held to discuss the remaining issues on pathway analysis and submission of the revised LTP.
/RA/
Alexander Adams, Jr., Senior Project Manager Research and Test Reactors Section Operating Reactor Improvements Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-146 Attachments: As stated cc w/attachments: Please see next page DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC RORP/R&TR r/f PDoyle FGillespie TDragoun MMendonca AAdams WBeckner OGC EHylton SHolmes CBassett DMatthews WEresian PIsaac JPeckenpaugh (NMSS)
SNalluswami (NMSS)
PMadden GHill (2) (T5-C3)
SSchneider (NMSS)
CCraig (NMSS)
MThaggard (NMSS)
ADAMS ACCESSION NO: ML022200692 TEMPLATE #: NRR-001 OFFICE RORP:LA RORP:PM NMSS RORP:SC NAME EHylton:rdr AAdams SNalluswami PMadden DATE 08/ 09 /2002 08/ 13 /2002 08/ 14 /2002 08/ 15 /2002 C = COVER E = COVER AND ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY