ML030210149
| ML030210149 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saxton File:GPU Nuclear icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/22/2003 |
| From: | Alexander Adams NRC/NRR/DRIP/RORP |
| To: | Kuehn G GPU Nuclear |
| ADAMs A, NRC/N RR/DRIP/Rorp, 415-1127 | |
| References | |
| TAC MB5029 | |
| Download: ML030210149 (12) | |
Text
January 22, 2003 Mr. G. A. Kuehn, Jr.
Vice President SNEC and Program Director SNEC Facility GPU Nuclear, Inc.
Route 441 South P.O. Box 480 Middletown, PA 17057-0480
SUBJECT:
SAXTON NUCLEAR EXPERIMENTAL FACILITY - NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT (TAC NO. MB5029)
Dear Mr. Kuehn:
Enclosed for your information is a copy of a "Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for Hearing" related to your April 22, 2002, as supplemented, request for amendment to Amended Facility License No. DPR-4 for the Saxton Nuclear Experimental Facility (SNEF). The proposed amendment would allow the removal of the containment vessel upper dome and decommissioning support facility.
The notice was forwarded to the Office of the Federal Register for publication and appeared in the Federal Register on January 7, 2003. However, a typographical error appeared in the table that was published. The total offsite dose in the notice was given in error as 2.70e+05 mrem.
The correct dose is 3.23e-04 mrem. The notice will be republished with the correct value for the total dose.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-1127.
Sincerely,
/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
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encl.: 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
January 22, 2003 Mr. G. A. Kuehn, Jr.
Vice President SNEC and Program Director SNEC Facility GPU Nuclear, Inc.
Route 441 South P.O. Box 480 Middletown, PA 17057-0480
SUBJECT:
SAXTON NUCLEAR EXPERIMENTAL FACILITY - NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT (TAC NO. MB5029)
Dear Mr. Kuehn:
Enclosed for your information is a copy of a "Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for Hearing" related to your April 22, 2002, as supplemented, request for amendment to Amended Facility License No. DPR-4 for the Saxton Nuclear Experimental Facility (SNEF). The proposed amendment would allow the removal of the containment vessel upper dome and decommissioning support facility.
The notice was forwarded to the Office of the Federal Register for publication and appeared in the Federal Register on January 7, 2003. However, a typographical error appeared in the table that was published. The total offsite dose in the notice was given in error as 2.70e+05 mrem.
The correct dose is 3.23e-04 mrem. The notice will be republished with the correct value for the total dose.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-1127.
Sincerely,
/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
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encl.: Please see next page DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC RORP\\R&TR r/f TDragoun MMendonca AAdams WBeckner OGC EHylton FGillespie DMatthews SHolmes CBassett WEresian PIsaac PDoyle PMadden DHughes LBerg GHill (2) (T5-C3)
ADAMS ACCESSION NO.: ML030210149 TEMPLATE #: NRR-106 OFFICE RORP:LA RORP:PM RORP:SC NAME EHylton:rdr AAdams PMadden DATE 01/ 21 /03 01/ 21 /03 01/ 21 /03 C = COVER E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
December 10, 2002 MEMORANDUM TO:
Biweekly Notice Coordinator FROM:
Alexander Adams, Jr., Senior Project Manager
/RA/
Research and Test Reactors Section Operating Reactor Improvements Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION IN BIWEEKLY FR NOTICE -
NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY LICENSE, PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION, AND OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING (TAC NO. MB5029)
GPU Nuclear Corporation and Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corporation (SNEC), Docket No.
50-146, Saxton Nuclear Experimental Facility (SNEF), Bedford County, Pennsylvania Date of amendment request: April 22, 2002, as supplemented on December 5, 2002.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would allow removal of the upper half of the SNEF containment vessel and make a change to the organization to add the position of Vice-President GPU Nuclear Oversight to reflect the merger of GPU Inc. and FirstEnergy Corp.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensees have provided their analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
GPU Nuclear has determined that Technical Specification Change Request No. 62 involves no significant hazard consideration as defined in 10 CFR 50.92.
1.
The proposed changes to the SNEC Technical Specifications do not involve a significant increase in the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously analyzed in the safety analysis report.
As described in the change to delete Technical Specification 1.1.2, radiation levels inside the Containment Vessel will be below that necessary to maintain the Containment Vessel as an Exclusion Area. Further as required by modified Technical Specification 2.1.1 ventilation controls will be established to monitor and control any potential releases of airborne radioactivity during activities involving removal of the upper dome. Finally an analysis has been performed to determine the dose to a maximally exposed individual due to an accidental release while cutting the Containment Vessel. In developing a source term for the event it was assumed that following the concrete removal process the interior surfaces of the upper Containment Vessel dome was homogeneously coated with concrete dust. NUREG 1507 Minimum Detectable Concentrations with Typical Radiation Survey Instruments for Various Contaminants and Field Conditions describes an experiment to determine the attenuation effects due to dusty conditions. The maximum dust loading presented was 9.99 mg/cm2 for soil. This value was converted to concrete dust by comparing the relative densities of the material (1.5 g/cm3 for soil and 2.3 g/cm3 for concrete) or 15.3 mg/cm2. This amount of dust coating the internal surfaces of the Containment Vessel dome (9.05E6 cm2) results in 299 pounds of dust being left in the Containment Vessel.
Table 1 provides the mix of isotopes remaining at the SNEC Facility based on the most recent survey results and isotope decay. During the removal operation a resuspension factor of 1.9E-2/m (as described in NUREG/CR 0130 Technology, Safety and Costs of
Decommissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station, Volume 2, page J-27) was selected to represent the amount of concrete dust going airborne. This parameter is about one order of magnitude larger than that used in any other accident analyses described in the NUREG. This entire volume of dust was assumed to be released, unfiltered, directly to the environment.
An accident dispersion factor (/Q) of 3.41E-3 sec/m3, was also selected as it is the highest, thus most conservative, value used in the SNEC Facility Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). Additionally composite dose conversion factors were selected from Table 5-1 of EPA 400-R-92-001 Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Guides for Nuclear Incidents (US EPA, May 1992).
Based on the above a calculated dose of 3.23E-4 mrem to the maximally exposed individual represents a conservative estimate for an accidental release. For comparison Section 3.1 of the SNEC Facility USAR estimated the dose from an unfiltered release due to a material handling event of 1.5 mrem to the maximally exposed individual.
Thus this proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously analyzed in the SNEC Facility USAR.
For the portions of the amendment that would make a change to the organization to add the position of Vice-President GPU Nuclear Oversight to reflect the merger of GPU Inc.
and FirstEnergy Corp, these changes are administrative in nature. As such they have
no effect on the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety.
2.
The proposed changes to the SNEC Technical Specifications will not create the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the safety analysis report.
As described in the response to item 1 above, the limiting accidental release during segmentation of the Containment Vessel dome involves the direct release of radioactive material to the environment. This event is similar to both a material handling event as described in Section 3.1 of the SNEC Facility USAR, and loss of engineering controls during segmentation as described in Section 3.4 of the SNEC Facility USAR. Thus the possibility of a new accident is not created.
For the portions of the amendment that would make a change to the organization to add the position of Vice-President GPU Nuclear Oversight to reflect the merger of GPU Inc.
and FirstEnergy Corp, these changes are administrative in nature. As such they have no effect on the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a different type.
3.
The changes will not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification for SNEC. The SNEC Facility Technical Specifications do not contain a defined margin of safety. However the implied margin of safety is to protect members of the public from exposure to radioactive material.
At the point in time that these Technical Specifications would take affect general radiation levels in the SNEC Facility Containment Vessel would be such that the Containment Vessel could be opened for unrestricted use as defined in 10 CFR 20.1301. Additionally the dose to a maximally exposed individual from an accidental release during removal of the Containment Vessel dome is several orders of magnitude below that from the limiting accidents defined in the SNEC Facility USAR.
Thus the margin of safety is not reduced.
For the portions of the amendment that would make a change to the organization to add the position of Vice-President GPU Nuclear Oversight to reflect the merger of GPU Inc.
and FirstEnergy Corp, these changes are administrative in nature. As such they have no effect on the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification for SNEC.
The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis of the licensees and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for the Licensee: Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037 NRC Program Director: William D. Beckner
Table 1 Maximum Exposed Individual Dose from Cutting the CV Isotope CV Concrete Activity (Ci) per Table 4.13 SNEC Char. Report Fraction Remaining as Dust (uCi) 1 CV Wall Area Concentrati on (uCi/m2 CV Air Concentrati on (uCi/m3 Instantaneou s Release Rate (uCi/sec) 4 Concentrati on (uCi/cm3 DCF 7 Offsite Dose (mrem)
Am-241 8.24e-05 4.68e-03 5.17e-06 9.83e-08 2.93e-04 9.99e-13 1.47e+05 1.47e-04 Co-60 4.60e-02 2.61e+00 2.89e-03 5.49e-05 1.63e-01 5.57e-10 7.50e+01 4.18e-05 Cs-137 2.38e-01 1.35e+01 1.49e-02 2.84e-04 8.46e-01 2.88e-09 1.14e+01 3.28e-05 C-14 5.74e-03 3.26e-01 3.60e-04 6.84e-06 2.04e-02 6.96e-11 6.94e-01 4.83e-08 Eu-152 1.42e-03 8.07e-02 8.91e-05 1.69e-06 5.05e-03 1.72e-11 7.50e+01 1.29e-06 H-3 1.29e-01 7.33e+00 8.10e-03 1.54e-04 4.58e-01 1.56e-09 2.14e-02 3.34e-08 Ni-63 3.93e-02 2.23e+00 2.47e-03 4.69e-05 1.40e-01 4.76e-10 2.11e+00 1.01e-06 Pu-239 5.24e-05 2.98e-03 3.29e-06 6.25e-08 1.86e-04 6.35e-13 1.44e+05 9.17e-05 Pu-241 1.84e-04 1.05e-02 1.15e-05 2.19e-07 6.54e-04 2.23e-12 2.75e+03 6.13e-06 Sr-90 1.59e-04 9.03e-03 9.98e-06 1.90e-07 5.65e-04 1.93e-12 4.44e+02 8.56e-07 Total 4.60e-01 2.61e+01 1.63e+00 3.23e-04 Footnotes:
- 1. Fraction remaining determined by: (299 lbs dust/5.26E6 lbs total concrete in CV) x 1E6 uCi/Ci x CV concrete activity.
- 2. Area concentration determined by dividing dust fraction remaining by 9.05E2 m2(surface of CV shell being removed).
- 3. Air concentration determined by multiplying CV wall area activity by 1.9E-2/m (NUREG 0130 resuspension factor for dust sweeping)
- 4. Calculated by multiplying CV air specific activity by CV volume (2.98E3 m3 ) instantaneously released in one second.
- 5. Maximum atmospheric dispersion factor (X/Q) is 3.41E-3 sec/m3 at the site boundary (200 meters) and in Sector N per SNEC ODCM Revision 5.
- 6. Calculated by multiplying X/Q x activity released in uCi/sec x 1e-6 m3/cm3.
- 7. Per EPA 400-R-92-001, Table 5-1