ML16210A305

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Chapters 4, 13, and 19 of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report and Environmental Review
ML16210A305
Person / Time
Site: Northwest Medical Isotopes
Issue date: 07/18/2016
From: Haass C
Northwest Medical Isotopes
To: Michael Balazik
Document Control Desk, Division of Policy and Rulemaking
References
NWMI-LTR-2016-007
Download: ML16210A305 (21)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:.:..-.;*.. NWMI ..... * ** *.*=*

  • ~ ~~.~~:. tlOllTHWEST MEDICAl ISOTOPES U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission A TIN: Document Control Desk 11555 Rockville Pike Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Michael Balazik Research and Test Reactors Branch A Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation July 18, 2016 NWMI-LTR-2016-007 RE:

Docket No. 50-609, Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC Responses to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Request for Additional information - Letter dated June 16, 2016

References:

1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission letter to Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, dated June 16, 2016, Docket No. 50-609 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16176Al 14), Request for Additional Information forthe Environmental Review of the Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC Construction Permit Application (TAC Nos. MF6134 and MF 6135)
2. Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC Letter NWMI-LTR-20 15-006 to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated July 20, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16056Al22), NRC Project No.

0803-Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Submittal Part 2 Construction Permit Application for a Radioisotope Production Facility

3. Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated February 5, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14349A501) and Associated Part One Submittal, Environmental Report ADAMS Accession Nos. ML15210Al23, ML15210Al28, ML15210Al29, and ML15210A131)

Dear Mr. Balazik:

Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC (NWMI) is providing the attached response (Attachment 1) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission request for additional information dated June 16, 2016. NWMI is submitting this response to the NRC in accordance with IO CFR 50.30(b), "Oath or Affirmation," and 10 CFR 50.4, 'Written Communications." I solemnly declare and affirm that the foregoing information is true and correct under the penalty of pel]ury. Executed on July 18, 2016. Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC I 815 NW 9th Ave, Suite 256 J Corvallis, OR 97330

Mr. Michael Balazik Page2 If you have questions, I can be reached at (509) 430-6921 or carolyn.haass@nwmedicalisotopes.com. Sincerely,

~-

C~C:-"~ Carolyn C. Haass Chief Operating Officer

Enclosures:

Attachment 1 cc: Mr. Alexander Adams Research and Test Reactors Branch A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Mr. David Drucker Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

.-.~~- NWMI ..... * ** *:-=* . *. ~~-~!;. rlORTHWfSTMEDICALISOTOFES ATTACHMENT 1 Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC Response to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Request for Additional Information Regarding Chapters 4, 13, and 19 of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report and Environmental Review of the Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC Construction Permit Application Docket No. 50-609

"ii) **** 0 <> * * *

  • e 0

0 0

  • 0 e ***
  • 0 00 ~*o*~*.o 0

NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES Response to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Request for Additional Information Regarding Chapters 4, 13, and 19 of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report and Environmental Review of the Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC Construction Permit Application Docket No. 50-609 Prepared by: NWMl-2016-RAl-003, Rev. 0 July 2016 Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC 815 NW gth Ave, Suite 256 Corvallis, OR 97330

This page intentionally left blank.

NWMl-2016-RAl-003, Rev. 0 Response to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Request for Additional Information Regarding Chapters 4, 13, and 19 of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report and Environmental Review of the Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC Construction Permit Application Docket No. 50-609 NWMl-2016-RAl-003, Rev. 0 Date Published: July 15, 2016 Document Number. NWM 1-2016-RAl-003 I Revision Number. 0

Title:

Response to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Request for Additional Information Regarding Chapters 4, 13, and 19 of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report and Environmental Review of the Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC Construction Permit Application Docket No. 50-609 .......................................... --**--**11a*************-************************ Approved by: Carolyn Haass Signature: c~~~/~

NWMl-2016-RAl-003, Rev. 0 REVISION HISTORY Rev Date Reason for Revision Revised By 0 7115/2016 Issued for Submittal to the NRC N/A

TERMS Acronyms and Abbreviations 41Ar 99Mo 23su CFR CSE Discovery Ridge DOE ER FHWA HVAC IROFS IRU ISG LEU MHA MU MURR NRC NWMI OSTR osu PSAR RAI RPF TNM TRI GA U.S. UM Units dBA ft ft2 ha hr kg km m mCi mi mrem rem Sv argon-41 molybdenum-99 uranium-235 Code of Federal Regulations criticality safety evaluation Discovery Ridge Research Park U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Review Federal Highway Administration heating, ventilation, and air conditioning items relied on for safety iodine retention unit Interim Staff Guidance low-enriched uranium maximum hypothetical accident University of Missouri University of Missouri Research Reactor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC Oregon State University TRIGA Reactor Oregon State University preliminary safety analysis report request for additional information Radioisotope Production Facility traffic noise model Training, Research, Isotopes, General Atomics United States University of Missouri A-weighted decibel feet square feet hectare hour kilogram kilometer meter millicurie mile millirem roentgen equivalent in man sievert NWMl-2016-RAl-003, Rev. 0

NWMl-2016-RAl-003, Rev. 0 This page intentionally left blank. ii

NWMl-2016-RAl-003, Rev. 0 No. Req1,1est for Additional lnfofmation c-=~><:':~_ :"**'.. d.~--~~-~ '... '>t>.*:_:;.. :.. *~~*-*. ::: :. ~:-'.~':-.',, .:~' : ~**:.. ' ' ' n

  • _*~::4
  • .* :AIRJ:..~.* ::TheJSG augmenting NUREQ-1537, Part 1, Section 19.4.2, Air*Quality.and Noise" states tliat the ;
  • eilvironmental report (ER) sh01Jld provide a description of gaseous effluents fi.e., type, q~t/ntity,. ' :
  • .:and origin),* a description of gaseous effluent control systems; arid detailed desc~iptions *of the, * * '.

_. _.. :,. _}!11.od:/s a_nd ~sumpti?_ns_0e¥ ~o (fet~rn_i~n_e n_onn_ali~ed_ c?~-~~l'Jff_ati_on_ _ ~-" *

  • A-tR3~1t\\ De;tiz/ii~EDF~3Ti4~odi4iid;;p;6~i~di~-the*~:e;po11~~~i6wi1Ri~3 (4b'AMSilo.

-. "ML16053A221) to supportthe information provided in Table'J9~59 oftheNWMI ER.. Table'J9.. 59:*-.

  • ', p~ovides the pollutantconcen*tratiorifor tJ:ie nearest resident di 375 m (1,230 ft) from./he,

. *rqdioisotope production facility (JU!F). However, (hesuppor(in_gcp(citlqtion; EDF-3124~001.4,J. j;. > '.,ptoyides:.the,/Jollulanfr~*otzcentrat!<Jn. to;the.rieares:t *rt;sident,qi4_30_ m .. *Confirm. the_.distqnc~*,ro: (~f v /:;: '\\'.neqrest.feside'nt distance used to.caleu/Cltethepol/utaritcoifgentratjon:provided in. Ta'&ZeJ(/-59,ofJ/

;clifze ER cmd reconcile. ihe d(/jer¢~<
    • e tn the~n?~rest resident distanc~ between.what is ]Jrovtdedt~ << *. *.

. *.;**>Tablel9-59andEDF-3124;,{)014:. -,"' *,.. *.,.. '!. ',. c ,_,, ~ --T>-' .,,._:.;,_ :..,_*,_. ;.:*.:._~_ ! The correct distance to the nearest resident is 430 m. Revision 1 of design file EDF-3124-0014, Emission Modeling for Construction Activities Using AERSCREEN, uses 430 m (the original EDF used a more conservative distance of 375 m). The distance and values in Table 19-59 of the ER (NWMl-2013-021, Construction Permit Application for Radioisotope Production Facility) will be updated to reflect the results using 430 mas the distance to the nearest resident.

  • AIR321f37i.6~siifi FiI~-£iJF~3!24~oqT4:;;,<<;;~o'";nd~Ji'n. th~ ;~~J;o~~e 1~1U.1A.JR.2~3 (AbiUVfs'.i.i;;.:.

i * * '. '*~*

ML'l6053A22l}tosupp6rttl
z.ft~fo,rmati6nprovidedii1TableJ9*:59.oftheNWMIER. Page,p.of :*,;'

';23* of design file EDP-3/ 24700 J'if 'contafns _m'Odel i1Jputsforprdcess boilers, however, the design/ :, . /file EDF-31,2.4~00 ! 4 is foVcpr;_#nJ.dioil pctivities not_ operation activities.. Explainwhy the desigr( :; . :'fize.:contains theseprocess.boiJertnpli.ts. * .-;---->*.~ --i-;--~-*.---- ---~-- --.-**~*--:o NWMI acknowledges that EDF-3124-0014 contains infonnation for the process boilers during operations. However, the process boiler information in EDF-3124-0014 was not used in the AIR2-2C response. The process boiler information was included in EDF-3124-0014 as the modeler opted to capture his process boiler AERSCREEN modeling runs in this document.

  • ,*AiR~~1c "<z)~;iWifi1~.Ebi-3i24~ooJ.2-~-V7i; 'p"toYii~din *the ;~sp~~;e iJ'iifuA.1R2~3-'(AbiMsN-d.--.. --~--.,- _---,._
  • ..*. !MLJ6053A221) to.supporNnformationprovidedinTClbl<t,I9~62ofihe NWMI ER. 'fhe'.destin.fil~-,:

,, '. ' 'EDF-31:?4-0012 USef a distance of37_5 m io' the nearesfre;iden~e. why was adistance'oFrN:.m;.': , -*.. z/sed r,ather than the 430 m-distancf! listed in Table 19-9 ofthe:Af.W!vf!ER?.

  • .'-c****~'""""~.*c.*

,~***.~*.

  • "**~-..,_,

,-L, '****"!/"'*r_,,_,, .*.,:**i*-~

c.

~,-.,.,_,.. ',.""'"*"'-~'****~

  • .~.. *-~*"r*

NWMI clarified that the correct distance to the nearest residence is 430 m, as listed in Table 19-9 of 'NWMI-2013-021. The design file EDF-3124-0012, EmissionModelingfor Process and HVAC Boilers Using AERSCREEN (and Table 19-62), used 375 m, which is more conservative. However, the EDF will be updated using the 430 m distance, and Table 19-62 ofNWMI-2013-021 will be updated to reflect the results. No. Request for additional information 8:,,

., AL"f3~1*,(fh~~iSG au~~ntil1gNURil6:35f7, Part j' Section j 93 "'Azti;;"atf{;es,~' stdtes*that.Ek;ihbittJ :.,.

t:*,': <*~~-~... :;;~,Uo'!J,~'!rize.. t~e, -~is~~?,'Jl~l}J?{e~8, ~~1~l~f i~~r~:7l~~:t~~'~'Ji1.l;J;f,:.~lt~~~U.~;~;.: ;,,~,;: ~- *:<.;;', 1,~;~~,;.:*;I} ' Ai:-,T3:.1fX : ;;The f'.esp~nse to, RAJ A£,F2 (ADA,MSNo'. 'Jl4Ll5328,AOJO)pr,oyided, an' Alternative Stte.£vqluaiiort:.

-. *.,. '". :'.Page 9 of the* e\\ia/uattonstates that a direct cormection to* the existing reactor maj; tequtre below~_;

.... 1ground constritction. However, RAJ response to ALT2..:3A "(ivflloOSJA221) states thatthere willb¢; '. * **a need for construction of a below-grade connection to the Ul]iver~ity 'of Missouri Research*. * '

Reactor (MURR). *

.:~-._..., ___ _,_ *-<l..---*:*--~-~----~*--.,,, *-----~. __ ;,. -

~---

-~ *'---..~--.:~--~~---- -.---- -***--- ___ _._.,_,, --~--- _'.,....:... --~ -~-- --~..... --.. ----** ~, ____ ,...:;_~.-J.~--i 1 Of 12

... ;.*.:*.. NWMI .*;.**ea.*.

  • ', ?.~!:
  • r1m;,raw£sr it.rotCAt 1~roP£s NWMl-2016-RAl-003, Rev. 0 Re uest for additional information
~A(T3:1A.f~~cd.nli';;i/id!71J;~1~-;~i~iid;~*z;;,;e~tio;,*~1o]JfjRff~ili be ;J~?ed.-;,({fz;MfJRJfdii;-;;;-;,ti~;~i'i~::~=:~~;
  • ~ *.: *.** -.,-*-:****.;::~,

1, __ --***' -***_:;,*~*-"*"

  • -*--~*-.-,-**-~- ***.***-*****

_* *";'"' **; --.********~r ~**:-.-*-::---*. * ,,,.,.,,.~*~:.::, If the Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC (NWMI) Radioisotope Production Facility (RPF) was constructed at the University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR) site, a below-grade corridor

between the RPF and MURR would be constructed for transport of irradiated low-enriched uranium
(LEU) targets.
  • *J\\L.r3~1A:i*.:wo~1"d*c~~~i-,;citon- ~o~k~;s b,e'~~;;;~d -;;~ddi~acti~; ;;i~ri~I ~~,'dt~Ji;:~~i~~Ji~tio-:i-do*;~"Ji~ri;;i.
    • .* :;constn1ctionofa below grade_ connection to"MURR? Woulddonstrnciidn wot~ers be considere.d-

. *

  • occiJpationalworkers? Idef!tify measures that would be used to erisure that cpnstruction worltirs
1.

_.;;.,,~;;~.L;d°cs_~-~~~{~.~~*~.~~~{a,in.~~*~ff~1-~:~,0C,{~,~:~~~;:?.:limits."

  • There would be no measureable exposure to radioactive materials or direct radiation dose from the planned below-grade corridor. The corridor was envisioned to enter the MURR basement near the current; MURR service corridor. MURR would move any potential sources from the construction area.

. Construction workers would have been occupational workers with appropriate radiation safety training. NWMI would have followed the MURR radiation safety program and controls to safely perform this

work.
"'
At_ ;:;~1-~*-)%~ ;~~p;;;~**10 li4.T.4ir~2x"P;~;;d;d~ii!i;~;dv~[iii2i~di~~ti;n. Pdi~Vo ;J/iz; ;;;~1~tid,;r ";

"provides d preliminary RP F layout at the MlJJm altemafive§ite. The layout doeii not identity ~:.:. ;; .facility suppQrf bl!ildings*{ 4t~sel generator*building, :admini~trqtipn building;. external wast~:.** ... _. ____.,.*_.-. <'managementbuilding) that wei;e identified to*be-constructed;dttheDiscovery_f idge site. *. * .,.ALf~2~~~*.t.:*~d~kfii:;~J;~f:~fhG.*~~f pb~f-*~~l~~Ei~-~~~?~~f:*c~~:~~~~~~~~~~RJ::.. ~f.!ff3i0~;~;i*~~:.* ___ *-.*_-_***"*-.,;:,_........ NWMI stated that for the MURR alternative site, the facility support buildings would be integrated within the existing infrastructure at the MURR facility. The diesel generator building and external waste

management building would be located on the MURR alternative site but were not delineated on the
preliminary RPF layout. In addition, the administration building for NWMI at the MURR alternative site could be located in an existing building across the street from MURR (e.g., University of Missouri [MU]

Life Science Incubator Building). The fucubator Facility includes 33,000 ft:2 of conference room space,

  • private offices, wet laboratory facilities, shared laboratory facilities, and open office and conference rooms.

An updated figure is not available. -*~-*;.~.*--*----"---"'--,*-* -- --"-~ -

~*--'-*-"--.c:-:.;....*~----~.....:...~-*--**-*-*, __,_,~--*:..* _

.,*:.... --..:.--~-------* . AL T3'.'.1,:B;3. ;Clarify lfhether. the* distcn:z'r:e~from radiological/cflemical rei?ase point$ io. the nearest szfe ~,

  • _,
  • ~-.. :boundary (rJfarest location vrh~re a membef ofthe Public couldpotentially be exft~sed to the' *.

.. :"::, :. **> :}adiJlogical/01: /:hemica(rii~aseJfo~ the MOR1J altemativ¢.:iue.woiildbe thi!/ame as those fo1~,tM'.*

..* :(j--'.,- i' :*phcoyery Ridge slt~/apprbfiiliat~lyJdffijo~'~adiplog~c~[r~leaiesfro'm the'l~ctlity stack," and?,',*i:

. : _,... *".!r/pproximat~zy 24 m for nonradio!oiicat rele"dses:during a che'ftzi"'¢al acci,dent/cis.staied in ifze}!RJ/;

or whether these distances would.be different. If the distance differs, identifj; this distance and r

'.;state whether 'that difference in distance would be Significant enough to chcinge ihe radiological* ' . '-* ::dosesand/orc:hemical,effectsto-ain:e!nb.er~fiheJJ1:lblic.:, i.<--*..

ro **.*'-

'~~**~._;.*.,.*,,~ *,

r**~_,...
-*~*:2*r*-'.;;'t,,,-,.;,.,,,

-'--:****** *"-*.:.-.,.:;.. _._,,,,.. ~ * '<*":"!....,*.--.. *,\\; \\~.:~~*,.*.- ... *';*-***-'* 0 *.-- .The identification of the release points for an RPF at the MURR reactor site was not part of the

alternative process. However, considering the MURR boundary and the planned location of the RPF on the MURR site, the distance to site boundary would be similar to the distance for the Discovery Ridge Research Park (Discovery Ridge) site boundary.

~ 2of12

NWMl-2016-RAl-003, Rev. 0 Re aest for additional information ,*_:~-~ 1 t.:?~~-*~1?JJ+/-:1t::=:£~/f;J1!:t~-~t:i;~t~k~t~Wl:6~~;~rt;J/t:ifi:i;J~~ 1 j~~l;fj~:t~;i:....... _, , ". ::, *; !ifpc~ted di~'J(:t[yto: the§OUth lJf (ht: 'extstingr~dctor building on a par~afJY.paVe,d pdr/cingfij(.:.. c/m(*'.~ !~':::;~~i'[l~ 1l~l~f I~~~iili/til1fzilt~! The 3.0 ha (7.5-acre) lot refers to the entire MURR facility complex, and the RPF would be built within the complex. The RPF was originally planned to be constructed in the area south of the reactor on the partially paved parking lot, which is less than 1 ha (2.5 acre). An error was found in Section 19.5.2.3.1 'for the size of the MURR alternative site; the size of the site is 7.5 acres, not 7.4 acres, which is still '.approximately 3.0 ha. 7ALr3~1 o ::*'ffh~-:,;~;;~~;;1~*Ri411rf

~i;ra7~;*1k~t:1ft; ij;;?~~~s,µ1;*u~hl;;;t;(osuJ ~TiiiGl ~~J~!~7,'fosiiiL

. ' '.. " :site *has)he' ;ninimuin drhow:zt. of space required to -~~nsiruct ~f!d operate*the proppsedfVWM/.. ',; )..* *.*:ifac.iliti.lhe..fR:#tates;'Jor(j)STR;.th~t;ihe;<'.site-is iil;i'1i~diatel>:edst,oftlf¢,.11n1vwiityreactorqn:afi.;:

  • .~.:_:*.**:;.:_:_.. *_;*'*,_'.*.r_ *.* _
  • ...*..*. "::*.*~:-*:j.'****.'._.. ~.*.'.*****,*.;.~1!£.h:**~-**.i.!.. Pn_[~,~-a-~-~-~ty*_*_i&_2**_*.~~-i_ *. ~.3-"i:_*~.c.:_r.?;_v.~s.:_*_~~~,*~-:~~*a./_}*~,J_~-~~--~.-.t_J~.*~.-.*~.. 1**_*.*.*.:.. _;_::*******.*_*.a**.l_.*h*;*****~

... t_**.*.,~.* .. ~.:.c .. ".*.**.. ~t~~~~~M,\\~.l '._>~-- *. ~--- r J~ u ~ -~_: -~.:-~-*.:~'}~~~::*~~:\\::;;.,.,.,.. i~-~~~:},/,_*~:,:~:-..-.:~;::->. .i,_';(,

Tue potential proposed site at the Oregon State University (OSU) TRIGA Reactor (OSTR) is northeast of
the Radiation Center Building and immediately east of the Nuclear Reactor Building. The potential site available for the RPF is approximately 3 acres and does not include the Radiation Center Building or Nuclear Reactor Building.

Reqaesnor additional information F~r~#~~~~~~ 1:~~.~i~=f~~~~~!S*:!~ 1*cq~N~~'1~_*i;IJ:,ert!.:Spqnse, to~RA1/lQN!!f-~,(:A°"A:fldSNo/lJ1L/5328APlO)_t@ntifi<flth,rjtsoliq;l;vf!ste:iet{Z.,:*.. *-~** :; i~~/;*t*f~'tfi~~~J~i~;ttl!4~~~!JJ~,~~?ti,l&~~~\\;1i~~~ The waste generated at MURR, OSTR, and the third reactor would be of small volume and would be Class A waste. The radioactivity of the waste generated is expected to be minimal, if any at all. !~~~i1)fi(f f liilf itili~tig,z11~t~i None of the modifications and refurbishment activities at MURR, OSTR, or the hypothetical third reactor; ,will change the types or quantities of effluents that may be released nor will these activities result in an increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure. The reason for this is because none of the facility modifications or refurbishment activities will change the quantities or .radioisotopes produced nor will they affect their effluent discharge rate. When completed, the

modifications and refurbishments are projected to assist in the handling of the targets at each facility but
are not related to the generation or release of radioactive material.

~*_, ~ N ~ ¥* 3of12

.:;.-.;*.. NWMI

  • a*e**e".:*
  • ". ~~-~~:
  • NORIHWtST f.:[D"!CAL ISOTOP!S NWMl-2016-RAl-003, Rev. 0 Re uest for additional information

, -*cofuN3:1c. *,r(,~ r~sp-/;hse' ili'"RA.icoiiii~i(ADAlvis f.i~7vfil 53 28A.oioTl~ntift~s i~c:it 41A.i: "Wouidno;ii/aily - ~ _ ~ *.. ..:b'e measured and emitted.from the research reactor and that gaseous releasesfroin the operation.

of the hypothetical third reactor may change depending onh(Jw the facility ts operated. Expl9in *:

'Whether.any tn~rease, in doff to public (fro111 direct r.adiatiorz; or any other squrces other them *, :** ;*

  • " '. _: *_. :.;i!JCreasecf./1 At;etfluerits) w9u./Cibe _expecte?f froirl:.irrafiiaffiift,*s~ryic(fS. at theJ1yp'oth'<!ticpl third/<. ;.
i.*-*;_: -*.. ;::*:::;!fr~a~to~~1J.Cf.:pfo~~9~-~b1ii~f<?:r}h~~-~t~"!;~1j~~~'!*:. '. __ *_'.:* _::~E: _, ___ *,~..* :... :.~.~:.~.;-~ >* *_ ;~;::*::_*Le;:*:*-~

NWMI expects no increases in dose to the public (from direct radiation, or any other sources other than increased 41Ar effluents) at the hypothetical third reactor. The basis is that before irradiation, the dose rates are too low and are measurable except (maybe) at contact. After irradiation, the loading of the targets is performed with shielded transfer casks. The anticipated dose rate on the surface of the transfer

cask is estimated to be <100 mrem/hr on contact. Given the distance, short time duration, and intervening!
shielding presented by equipment and walls, the dose to the general public is unlikely to increase as a result of this activity.

' CONN~fo-*/rii~-j~;-p~;z;;(~ iuic6Nij~T~d coNf.i~5;~Jii~h -r~q~~;tia*;;p~~iid r~di6[ol,i~~l tmpa~i;jfJ;,-,. .. *,, *.. ';'trcmspofia{iqn dueioiheshtpffients to.anafo1n"the' resear_ch"i~qctprs,_refersi9section19:~.10.... . Tofthe'ER. 'Stati'wheth~r tlz~ ~;9,3E~0.6:Svdose to a mCtxiinallyexpos~d indifiduC[lfrom highway

trcinspoi
tcrtiqri ofrddioactiwf'matei'ials "(in Secttqn 19. 4,:10.2:*2 of the ER) tsper'year.:

). - > -* *-~--.-----*. '. ***- -'-' *v*:c*.. ',.*.. -* - _. -~.* - ~.--*- ~~-.*:**. -*~ ** ;.,,_,, -~---~,_*.*,. - " -~-*. _.... "-** *-.-. *--.- ~;- **--c:-'-' The maximally exposed individual dose from highway transportation of radioactive materials was provided on an annual basis in Section 19.4.10.2.2 ofNWMI-2013-021. Request for addifional inforr:nation Eco3-:1

  • in~isfi~iii/ne~ii~iNf]Rii:J)537;*Pa;D,'~sectiJ~-i9:X.5:P;£c~zog;ddzR.e;~~r~~?;*~(qi~8~ifiir*~;.
  • *.,,.**:.the applicm;zt'sJ:wuld proviife,.a descnpti,ono1 th_e types of yegetatjve commimztiesfound wi_tliin ihet

..,.. _.~:;::;*,.,.*)~~~e~ti~~f~.;eJte~t~~-~!~~:.;:;,,;r.;;;..,,, *..* :<;j~;,"c:;"_":-.. ~,, _'._:~;:*2)~::;;;;/"~*:.:. ;_,_,:.ii;,~'i.;L,:'~-:.:.*;.~.. ~~:>~;;~.~j .Eco3..:1A * :The vegetdtioiz assess1nel1t.~bm'itted with', the respons,e fo RAIEC0-1 (ADAlvJSNo.' ., *,,- *\\.. * '. '* ..,.,.. 'Ml,15328AOJO}identifies t~e mo~t com1non'vegetative species~s Indian gr_dss{Sorghast;-uflJ: -*.. _ 1 _.* ~nutans). Tfie'vegetation as,~essment also states'. that plantspecies'encounteredduring_the -'*:> . '!quantitatiy_eassessment"consisted mostly. of non"native plant~ tjpicallyf01ind in:disturbed {li-eqs. :'

  • .. isuph asp(Jstw;es.cmd rtght:Ofeways. "lndtcin.grqss, howeveY.;~is a 11ativigrqs§species'-in Mi:/sr/w;i **

1thai grow~,;$:(9 5ft t~ll, _dnd:fs represe11tqtfy~ 'ofthk, tallgrC1ss)pratrie*qimmuii(ry.... Confi~m 'that';!** '.! .*i!f!dtro'!.w:c1Jtis_t~-~-~o~rec_i~p~~t~s-tf1en~fi~~*!11:/~~.su~~;,;s:~:;, __ <:, -*~ :.* *.. -, * * >.* 'Indian Grass (Sorghatrum nutans) is a native grass of Missouri tallgrass prairie communities. The NWMI: 'site (Lot 15) at Discovery Ridge is considered as part of a historical tallgrass prairie. Indian grass is

  • considered to be weedy or invasive is some regions or habitats and may displace desirable vegetation

'(Owsley, 2011). Based on the current use of the property (pastureland), Indian grass can be considered a 'weedy species because it is not the most desirable for that location. RAI EC0-1 should classify Indian grass as weedy instead of non-native. Based on the photos taken while on site and plant identification reference books, the majority of the grass observed at the site is identified as Indian grass. Note that at the time ofNWMI's vegetation assessment, all grasses had been heavily grazed, and therefore, appeared '.to be short. In addition, horsenettle and horseweed are listed on the UM Weed ID guide (UM, 2016).

These species are considered native; however, based on the listing, these species are undesirable. RAI EC0-1 should classify Indian grass as weedy instead of non-native.

~

    • k 4 of12

NWMl-2016-RAl-003, Rev. 0 Request for additional information

See response to EC03-1A.

No. Request for additional information I:~.

GE0~*~1.* ;
fhe JSG aug/henting.NUREG-153'7, Part 1; [;ectio~ 19. 3. 3,.Geoloi;c En.vironm~nt, " ;tates.that the.*
'*app/tcant shqul(lidenti.fY the geqlogtcal, sd~ologi<
al,. qnd ge:Otechnical characiel:jstic;s of the Sit~*. r.:
  • '. ::, :'a1;d sui/oupding area: ISG to M/RE<t* 15371 *~wi1, ~ect;o'1Jf~. 4,* "W ~ter '.z?.es~11rces.,,; furihe'( ***:!.

, : states that the applicant should describe site"specific and.regional da.ta on the physical and,... ** ** ~hydrologicalcharacteristics a/surface water dnd groundwater, 'etc: . ::The respons~. io :RAJ GE0-1 (ADAMS No. ML].5i28AO 1 OJ states. that NWMJ. anticipates cond~dting..

  • **a sitfl-speCijic geotechnical and hydro logic study starting January 20 I6. Has a site~specific

.. *.... '.:,.. ;fgeot<Jc,l11:1tcql,:qn,d.hyd,-ologic.sttjdy.been co17du,e(f!d? Jf ~o,,Plea~eprqyide. this. §llfdy:, **'..

--.,*~.**~.'

--*~*"*** -~*~- '.'" 7!"'- -*"-"'***.:*.***- '~-~-

  • ~ *;..--4'.*-,.. ~ ".*,

-*.~:-"' --**--" t*."***.,***

  • -~... '**-:.,. _____,,. ~-

~--., _ _,., * - -****:.*. '>'--<'~*--~-~... --" :* /. The study has not be conducted to date. No. Req1:1est for additional information ~Y>~t'*...,';~~-.,--~~~*~~~*.~:*'.::.*:*..... > .::::-~<.*..,,,.....,,.:':~::J

  • HH3-R-1 ;,The ISG augmenting NUREG:.1537, Part 1, S,ection 19.4.10, "Hul!l,an Health," states th{Jt the El]..,

.. '-should discuss the public health 'impacts.frqm radioactive matenal and include dose rates.

  • **:..fhe r~f!ponse'to'RAI HH2~R~~(ADAMs No~ MLJ 60S3A221) p;o~ided th~ do;~: to dmember bf ihe

.* * ** public on the.i1.'<JUrid when 'aplane used to}rcinsport f9Mo is qtacrµising altitude o/20, OOOJL.*.., .** *. :;rctarifj; wh'ether~9Mowill.be transported on ai~craf{cdrryingfh:~in!iers oftiut:ftu.blic, and if so,>..... *

'proyidethepubi!c doses (totalp~rson-rempe/year~ and annriafdose to maxiinptly.exposed*

.. : ;'.individual) from this transport; or justify. why the. dOse to memb¢rs pf the public)m theplane is ':negligible.,. ~

  • - -~ _____

,__:._~------'--..i--~------"---..,,.,;. _______________ _, ~---*-.. _.p,....,,..._ ____ - -*--------"---..:.....:........:.-~---- *--~----~-~___...~------~~-. --~'---*- ~----- -~---................ -... -~ - NWMI planning basis is that no commercial passenger airliners would be used to transport molybdenum-99 (99Mo) product. r ,.-----:-,*~:~-**~~~:1-*o*~-.,--.-*.--.. -<!"",---*-~;c~*~-~~-:r"'"-----:----.. *- ---.*~'."~-~--~--,,.... -....,---:-*-:""* -----.~--~.-;"'J"~--~--~~7*--":'"--~""--*--*":*- -:-*:***;......,~,~-.--~-*.,.-~*-,*-~- -'J".""'"~-;:"".,-~~-'.*--::- 7 --*~-~ :*-**-.;:****-** -- ~:**-."~~-::::-:':"?'* , HH3~R;;2*. i'The ISG aug111entingNU~G~J537, Part), Sfctidn 193.8, :~'l:lunian flealth;/'tstales.that the ER *';'. :. .*.':c::~ 1should pr'oVide,effluent release points and expected radioactive effluent releasefCmdexposures from;: , '.)'constructton, operational, and,decommissionifig activipes. *, *

        • .*:The respon;;e toRAIHH2-R-2 (LWAMS,No. ML16053A221) dbe~notin~ludeiditiu~ in the.~tack

.. "'release sourqe term input ~o,t,fud;OMP LY, computer. modeling, c9d<J:, The NWMJ.1fR (p. i 9:.2 J3/...*. . >>* *:.:,.:Cstqt~s,. thqt7~~qactiwr trmum,, ¢rXul<<.be p~es~nt:in.the afr~o~e eJP11ent ~x,hqils/ *f?tscu,ss;why, /~itiu1riJ

  • ..... * *:). ~>was. not inr;Zuded in the COWtl;f calculation (ind if tritiiim ti r~leased, provi(fe't~?, d!noun*t. / ::**'(' ':':

'**-- _..:..~.,;_,.,,;;.;,, '...;, __,_.,. - __._.....,:;_,_. -----~-~

  • _

__, _ __;,_,, __ :.:,. _ _: __ ' - --~* -.~:.. ___ :.__. ~-----... -- ---- --'___,,_,....*. ~:--=.. ~--*-*~.'.~..:...-... -- ___ ;..,.,,~---~~:_;:.~__,......... ~.* ***-* '" *~-~ "',;._;_ ~--:.:.-~'_ *..:;.."_'":..... '"~'":._.,,...,_;...,,....,.:.,:..~.~-- *. ! - The tritium release value is proprietary. Tritium release rate would be a small fraction of the noble gas rates provided in Table 11-2 ofNWMI-2013-021 (several orders of magnitude less). The dose contribution from tritium would be a small fraction of the dose contributions, and the total public dose 'from all routine gaseous releases including tritium would remain well below 10 CFR 20 limits. Tritium was not included in the original COMPLY calculation, which were based on the top 100 radionuclides

generated during target irradiation and used in the mass balance calculations.

5of12

.c;.-.;*.. NWMI .~:.**.-..*.

  • ** ~~.~~:
  • r10.=mrsrsr flffifCAltSOJOPCS NWMl-2016-RAl-003, Rev. 0 Request for additiqnal informqtion

.Ii:."_.' *_*.. _'.,_':1_. *:.. ~-*' /I~-**_=.*.-._**... '*_.-,.. *. ~'r:r::

  • ... : -.--~.0.~*.:. *'"***;*.~*..* -:.*..
  • .. *-:..,;***** *1

~-~~~-~~~--*-~:*._~<;~_::..,, ___ ._.*_~-~*--~-* -~~ .. ~*:,,_**-~-~-~--~-

    • -<c:~*:.

-~'" .1_ ...... c--

    • ~-.

-:*--~ -.-;-* --:-~- ... *---~--- **--- --

~------*- --***

~-- .-* NOl3-:1 * .Jhe ISG au"gmenting NUREG-:1537, Partl,.Section, 19.3.2, :'A1r Quality andNo.ise, "states that* *: . ; ; -. *- )he ER should pr,aV,ide ci des~rlption of any CU/:tent or past noise: studies and ~alyses condueted"at': .. :. * "the proposed site or.within*cin audibl~ range of the si~e. and predicted noise levels fo/ing th<? dBA ~ ...,. * '-.-'. * **:weightedscaie'"and major-spurce~ of nois~;-fnCluding all model.S,* assumptions; and input' data. '- * *'\\

_.*-~O'i3:1*A:'~Jj~*r~l;J~~~***;~-RAINQI2~'ZYA.viMS}:/;:*tir16o53A.221)~st4fJ;ti;~t ;~dkh~'dffi;:2'o°/J~(;'*(~a;r;s;f-~

. *..facility impacts included an increase oft oo*v~hicles traveling on u_.s. Highwayc63 'and were 9 [8 irz :

  • ' ',,the southbourid Zan~ and l; 1 Q2 in the northbound lane. Clarify if the model nin:was conducted with:
-. ';. / : the peak traffic count both tnihe southbound cind n_orthboimdla'ne simultaneously?'.*.

~~ _.. ::F"*:;:. '-:",.~!,~.t: _ _,_. * ~ *-..

  • 0

~- 0' !-'._**, O *.-~~'""'"-<' :~'..:.,-~ _'.. * -*~ -,--, ' - * -~: -: ~., "' '"~,-*_:_ ~,..,.,_,___ ~-,,,,, _ _.,_, * ~ <0*~ * "-:::*"* ', O -~ f.._.. :.,_._ -- 0....

__,,.*., * -~ '*.--.,,_'<-,;.._
-~-' * :-";:-',.... -~ "* ' " ~ "- F:.,..::.::.-"~~-J' "---:--.~' --

"'-"'~--

The predicted change in noise levels resulting from increased workforce traffic have been modeled using :

the Federal Highway Administration's Traffic Noise Model (TNM) 2.5. Peak traffic counts were used to assess baseline noise conditions at the nearest residence. Noise levels resulting from the addition of 100 vehicles traveling 70 mi/hr on Highway 63 during peak traffic times (both ways simultaneously) -were modeled to determine the potential increase over baseline conditions. Based on modeled results, an .increase of less than 1 dBA (A-weighted decibel) is anticipated due to the increase in traffic from the workforce. This information will be added to Section 19.3.2.3.1 ofNWMI-2013-021.

    • No13~~ s. /The :;~i]id~s~ !6 if,4iN-01f!:f(iiSAitsN"o:.i!j,16053i22 iY~!~t~~:thcit th~;;:Sr~~t-;;;iJi;;Fdi~to/ic;e
    • , Jo-the pr9posedRPFis. 792.5'.m (2,600/t).Howiwer;- the °ER {dentijies the nearest residelitof > * --,
  • *: 0. 43 km (0.27 mi;- 430 m). Recorzcile the difference in the neal:est resident distance betWeen that.,. '.

... '.~1~<1.!~t~~,~~iJ~_"!,?_~eJ '!!1..¥.tf!:~ :c!!~fl!rzC.~.~11/!;~JJ/!~~. __ ;__

  • ,,,, 0

"'"-~*,; ** *.:,_ The noise levels provided in NWMl-2013-021 were calculated using noise level estimates from Table 1 'of the Federal Highway Administration's (FHW A) traffic noise model (TNM) 2.5 lookup tables. The noise values assume hard ground and no noise barrier, and were used to assess existing noise levels at the ; proposed RPF site. Current guidance (November 2015) from the FHWA states the TNM 2.5 lookup 'tables should not be used to estimate noise levels. To incorporate the FHW A's current guidance, noise modeling for the nearest resident has been performed using the TNM 2.5 model. This information .indicates the change in existing noise levels will be less than 1 dBA. This information will be added to Section 19.3.2.3.1 ofNWMI-2013-021. No. Request for additional information [.*-.

~*°':;.::*~.* -*.*_:?,* _*7:*,,~.--..*. <*.*_:>~~~~, * *-*:!r.:'.,X~... *.-
-f:*::rt~~~DO

. PA3-1--:ihe-JSGaug,;z~ii:ti~gNuREG-:1537, P~rFl, s~~ti~~ i9.2, "Prop;;edAction,,,*;tat~sifzdt"ti1e}iR : --~c*:-.

  • . * * : should describe the r.adioisotope production system: Provide a non-proprietmy discussion of * *
,,;.c'...'*~~c~?.'!.4;~.:?I;l;,?fJ~e,.f~J!Ji; *~.\\ : *--.*. _:
Off-specification uranium can be generated in the target fabrication system. The general approach to deal
with off-specification uranium is for the material to be recycled and processed into fresh LEU target material. The off-specification uranium is anticipated to be generated intermittently. Since target fabrication will be completed in discrete batches, if any off-specification uranium is encountered in a
batch, the entire batch will require recycle and processing into fresh LEU target material. The exception

,is if the uranium is not suitable for LEU target material production (e.g., the enrichment is too low). Any LEU material with low enrichment will be stabilized, packaged for secured storage, and then returned to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) per the Uranium Lease!fake-Back contract. For the preliminary design, the uranium recycle system was sized to accommodate off-specification uranium equivalent to 25 percent of the total throughput. An allowance has been made in the mass balance for the generation of * . off-specification uranium. 6of12

NWMl-2016-RAl-003, Rev. 0 No. Request for' additional information f:_.**.*_,'._:_, *:... "~.' .**.* ~fEill~

""':'--* -:--: *<:*]

.*'.-"---~~,.,..,--~,,,_,,,,,.*,,,;*~*=

    • .*,***"-.-~~.....,--...

P0SA3~1 The'regulations at 10 CFR 70.6], *.;'Pe1for,;;;/fzc~ R~quirements, "req~{f~-th~tthe nsk ofhtgh~~~d .,intermediate consequence accident events be limited, either byregucing the c9nsequencf!S or the *

  • *.:likeiihood of those events. T71e JSG augmenting NUREG-1537, 'Part 1, Section 13b}, "Analyses 'hf

';"Accidepts.withHciiardous Chemicals,,; 'stcites that.the application should '~Identify contr<jlsfor* :,. ;,

those aceidents containing a chemical systerfi oi; process failure that coul~ ultimately lead tO'.

. radiological consequerzces that exceed the performance requirements. The appli<:ant should. '.demonstrate,'lhat the cpnseq~ences of each credible °event will be reduced after the implementa~OJ1: of coritrols,1 *so that 'the con:;equences ofihe event will be low,,: *~ Agqitionally; the JSG augmentj1;ig ** *. rNUREG"-l5J7; Part 2, Section** 19.4. i 1,.'.'Postulated AcCidenil,~'states that'ihe eiiviron111entar>. ~

  • .. : }impact stdtemf!fzf sh~uld .desd~ibe measures t~ mitigate ac&e~se impacts: .:S~tfton'.19.4: 1i.I8 ~f' I
    • the ERstatd thptfort~e hazardous chemtcatrelease, "releases above the:PA9-:21EPRG-21imit*.*.

will be evaluated,* and additionalcontrols will be develope& *~ The.PSAR; Chapter:J3, Acciderit * *. .. * :4nalysis; *~ diseusses poten(ial chemical accidents, and ideritjfies measures*t~at would prevent,**;_ ; : mitigate the consequences of, and/or reduce the (ikelihood of chemical accidents. ) POSA3~1.~.:(;[ariff whither,the mitigation,ineq8ures'dis.C1J~S~d in the PSAR w'ould,.:for any chemical release ,. '. ;'.accident 'witfz'high consequences for work~rs, ~members.ofthe'public; and/or the enVironm~nt'ras

determ(nedby the criteria *iri 10 CFR W 61), either reduce the likelihood of.the chemical relea_se
  • accidertt such that it would be highly unlikely; or, reduce the a~cident consequences such that_it

-*"---~~:~:.>~.?1!J!! ___ b!_,~1!,f~':!?!!!_d!:!t::_'!!:~lfl._w,.~?.'3!:.<J1:!!_13.E3:~*--------. -- -~-~-~-*"-* -*, ______ ---~-*., NWMI is continuing to evaluate chemical release accidents and will establish preventative or mitigative controls for chemical release accidents with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-licensed material or for accidents that affect licensed radioactive material with high consequences for the worker, members of the public, and/or the environment (as determined by the criteria in 10 CFR 70.61, "Performance Requirements"). These controls will either reduce the accident likelihood to highly

  • unlikely or reduce the accident consequences to be intermediate or low consequences.
':PosA~ti(CiZi'i:ifY-:W"'"&theFT&'",;iiiig;fih~,;;;;'di;~~~i}J1:0Udi:ii~:(j,7f psXi({[,'biiIJ,];F~y!~hiizi-;;'dT'hil~ii.ii:7
~
c;:

.*. ' ' :.accident lfltf! in'tert,nedia(e consequences foi-1.Vo~kefs, members of the j)ublic,andlor the, :* ; :.; '. ' environment (as determined by the criteria in 10 CFR 7().61)," either reduce the likelihood ofthe 'chemical re!ease accident such that it wqulil be unlikely; or, reduce the ~onsequences such that it' .... *- ----~"-.. _;~'!.~J.~,qe_~I~~~!!ji~eP!:.:'E::~~~... : __,,..,. ~-. ----'~-:... :....... __.... c.c;,_... ~~~*-~.:-~------L-*:.. ~-.*. *.-~........... ~.......:.. :~:.:._... " NWMI is continuing to evaluate chemical release accidents and will establish preventative or mitigative controls for chemical release accidents with NRC-licensed material, or for accidents that affect licensed radioactive material with intermediate consequences for the worker, members of the public, and/or the environment (as determined by the criteria in 10 CFR 70.61). These controls will either reduce the likelihood to unlikely or reduce the accident consequences such to be low consequences. ,--~ost\\~;.2{Tf,~-;~;;zqti,d~~~-10 CFRl'/rl6f~'."p;;j6;~~h~R-;q~trehJl!fit;:~;~q~t;~*.thqietl1i.-;;;J;~pfigh~~'J; .,.~ )interrhediate:cof!Seq-µence' acct dent events bej{mited,. eUFu;r 6y reducing the COrl[fequences ordhe'. :

  • . ;:likelihood of those events. The !SG augmehting NURE,G-1537; 'Partl, Section)$b.3, "Analyses. of Accidents with RadiologicalConsequences, ":states thqt the applications should "[ljdentifylRQFS
  • : and their f-µnction as preventfve, mitigative,* or. bpth. . Section J9. 4.11.1. l of th,e'eR identifies *:: ;..:

' ::controls that ;would mitigate the consequenq¢s: of ihemco,;lmum. hjpotheficalacCident and in"Czlid~s

  • .. :;;use ofhotcel/s'Cll'ldshielding,tnprocess,:a.r~~.: radiation m.orittorihg,: 'desigr{dfthe fadl~tY-.... *. *:

. ; ventilattonzysteni and dissolution ojfgcis treatment system,' ani;l sizing of the ({lrget dissolution,... + . *. system. the' PSAR,' Chapter 13, "Accident Analysis, "*discusses potential radiological accidents,*.. ;

  • and also identifies additional controls ihat wo_uld prevent, mitigate.the consequences of; or redu9e *

... *' **-* ":_, __,c__ ;_**tJ2e: 1.i~:!!~'!.~.if..?[1.'.g~i'!{?_f?.f~~!;~<:_~~f!.e__1!!~:.. _ --~-,~ -*-. -~-.. ~..c-~-*_;.,_:~.-- -"* ___ ~.:. *. --........ *c*. ***--'---*-- - 7of12

NWMl-2016-RAl-003, Rev. 0 Re uest for additional inforemation.

PQSA3.
~A.:c;lari.fY whether the mitigation measures* discussed in Chapier*l 3 and 19 of the PSAR would, for *.
any accident with high radiological consequences for worker~. members of the public, and/01* the'. ;

'environment(as determined bythe criteria in 10 CFR 70.61), ei,ther 1~educe the accident likelihood* '.*'. **' * ',such that ti would be highly ~nlikely; or, i'educe the accident coniequences su..ch *that it would be, ' ! .f. _~,.~::_* ____.~:~-~l'!!~'!!1e.,1!C!,!~t9-r,,{~_'!'.:~9!!..~~9..1!.'!..~~i:.L~~L-*'~~-j::i,; ____.: ____,_~:::.-- *--~-"-0.:.~ "; __ ; ____ ~_:_ :~,~~i.:~... -*. NWMI is continuing to evaluate radiological release accidents and will establish preventative or mitigative

controls for radiological release accidents with high consequences for the worker, members of the public, and/or the environment (as determined by the criteria in 10 CFR 70.61). The set of controls identified in Chapter 13 ofNWMI-2013-021 will either reduce the accident likelihood to highly unlikely or reduce the
accident consequences to be intermediate or low consequences.

r;i>osl;,3~2~Ta-;;;v;;~Yi?iH~Y:1'hriittii'iiti7ff/i;z;asiirci]l~~Vfd_eii~-c~'iiptei:l3T~,-;,J197Jfth~-PsJm;~~ld.)br}~~*

  • .- *_ * *, --~.. :'any-accidenf withintermediite*radiolOgicalcdnsequencesforworkers, members.of the publfc,: *. ;;,

- * ;'and/or the~nvir01:zment (as determined by the.criteria in JO CFR 70.61), eitherieduce the.'* ; ..'accident lik,elihdod such that it would be unlikely; or, reducelhe accident consequences such that 1it would b~low-consequence.. ,:...- *"****-------**~-"~~*.,*"-~ - .. --*-*--------~~~--*--~-----*""'- --*-*'-----..,~~-~--,--- ~*..=.. ____,.....,, __ _,,, __... __ --*- -*-**-!----*------**...:.~.;....__----"-- --- _______.:_.. __.... ______ ~_.__,.....__::,_, ___...

NWMI is continuing to evaluate radiological accidents and will establish preventative or mitigative controls for :

radiological accidents with intermediate consequences for the worker, members of the public, and/or the environment (as determined by the criteria in 10 CFR 70.61). The set of controls identified in Chapter 13 of NWMI-2013-021 will either reduce the accident likelihood to unlikely or reduce the accident consequences to be low consequences. rJ>()sA~~-~-::Tiz~-ISG~gmeritl;zgiiUkFx;7J53i:P~rt I2s;;fiio~~3~2j~-~:4~~tdehTA~~lyser aµd-- -----~----: *.. ~-~:i, -- ' ' ;Detenninattori Consequel1~es,' "stat~s thdt'.the applicarit'sJi(j'u/adiseuss the' deg(ee of con_ser{;attsm;

'in the evaluation.

j'

.ER Seqtion 19.2.J, of the ER states the "/JP Fis being designed to have a nominal operational ;. :
  • ;proqe_ssing'capability of one batchper weekpf up to 12 targets frqmMURRfor up to 52 w,eeksper;

-:year and approximately 30iarget~_jrom*the0regon Staie Uiitv?rstiy (OSCJ) '[/flGAReaetqr:*.* -:;. ' ':(OSJR} br,9 third uniY,ersity reactor for ~igijtw,eeks per)leafrper.:" Response' to.RA/ PA~ 1 Bi states~i

  • ithat the'estimpted number of low-enriched uranium (LEU) targets that can 6idrradiatedat the)- ** '.

. :osm or hypotheticalthirdreactor is one batch per week with a*mw;;mum of 30 LEU *. - :'targets/batch and each reactor 'r:an irradidie':up*to eight batches per year jor a total of j 6 batches "

  • 'annually. ER Section 19.4~1],1.1 states that theniaximumhypot!zeticatacciqent(MHA)

-:, assumptions)rzclude. "f!stim.ating 12 MURR*largetsfor_ thejJrocess batch upsJrtJcon. of the IR:U.:' *, .* i;:system,. which is beyond theJ!rocess design C:'apadty of eightMURR. targets:'{ R~sponse toR/1/.

  • I

_ ::PA2-4 states that.' "Due to the potential fragility of the domestic molybdenum;.;99 f 9Mo) sitpply ;

        • 'chain, NWMlassumedMURR would irradiate additional targets each week to gen~rate a
~ * *

. ::bounding target processing capacity for the ER. These additt_onal targets, plus the planned ':operatiqn oj the second and)hird reactors.af!.d(scus!fed ab~v:e, equate to a ~otalofl, J 94.targets*. i

irradiatedw/dproces!fe4: The'actuql number of targets jjroc¢ssedeach year:\\vif1 be driyenby,tJie.. ',

_.*_*',us dema~ajo~* 99Mo:-~'.->l ::"_:<.* * * * '°::* ;;. *.. -...*.

,/~_*
. _

.. * *... : :}*_:*.. * :-: :.*r :

_ POSA3~A *Explain why the MHA is conservative if targets irradiated only from MURR (12 targets per week)*_ *

-. *: * *were accounted for in the MHA and irradiated targets that would be processed.from osm and ___... --".~~~---- ~)~.e_ '.~!'..~~:.'!E?l ~er_e_!}(_J_~~!!:,rl_~f~<!!.'!.~.~n_ 0.e_-Mf!1:_- ~ ------ ---~~--*--*----. -.. - ----- -- -* --*-~*-*- * ----* * -** -~~ * *-"--- The RPF bounding radiological source term is based on targets irradiated at the nearby research reactor

(MURR). Each irradiated MURR target has nominally four times the radioactivity of an irradiated OSTR (or the third reactor) target. Therefore, Section 19.4.11 of NWMI-2013-021 evaluates MURR target processing only to predict the maximum hypothetical accident (MHA) consequences.

8of12

... ;.*.:*.. NWMI

  • ** ~~.~~:, r:t!RIB'.'JtSTU£Dl.CAL ISOTOPf..S NWMl-2016-RAl-003, Rev. 0 Re uest for additional information C

0

  • '~'*'".l'"-,d**o 0

.'";,*:;*;:-.. --?.. * ,>;'0

  • ** *V

'"'*~.~-.**** 0--.,:-*

  • '-***<,:.**,***--~--

o0 ,,'""""<"""~O*':-"'**,**."': , POSA3-:3B '.Reconcile the *differences in target capacity dis,eussed in Section 19. 4.11.1.1 _of the ER (i.e.; . '.. :process design capacity of e"ight MURR ta1;gets) and Sectiohi9:2. l.of the ER.stating a processing *

capability of 12 targets.from 'MURR a week and clarify the target processing cepability of the * * *

. *'-~*~->~-~ '§!!': ____... ~~~-~--

  • '-- ---'~-~~c:~:c........... _ *. ~ _:.,~~:c'..~--*-**---:._* ~..:;~~--'~-* -'*---.. *~. *-'-"'"-'***~--*
  • See response to RAJ PA2-4A-E for additional information on overall RPF target processing capacity.
The RPF is primarily a batch operation, the equipment is being sized to process/dissolve 30 OSTR targets'

'in four batches and the MURR target in two or three batches (8 or 12 target respectively). The nominal

MURR number of targets expected to be processed per week is eight. However, shortfall in 99Mo production/availability could be addressed by processing 12 MURR targets per week. NWMI has used the 12 irradiated MURR targets to bound postulated radioactive release accidents.

No. Request for additional information L*

  • -~~~m:w.~
  • . :,:*~1

'.. WM3;;NR:1 :"I'hetsii~i,iie~ti~g NdiEG-15J7; P~rti,'.s~;tjon.J 9.2,. ?ProposedA~ti;~-~;*states that-th~ER.* *;, .. ;*shozildp':bvide ades~npt/rm*ofail (i.e., rio:n~adi<ractive, rqajdact6>e, mtxef:l, 'tiriitfiazardouswcisl~. .... ' /lnaterialsj:jn*oposed orcurrent.waste systeifzs; inclit,ding quantitjes," compqsiiion, artdfrequeney *

of waste generation.
    • WM3~~~.;1A':/able 19:1~,pf.;vided inf?.A/response.to W}1-NR-lidentiflessolid waste thatwiiz b~. *.. :,. *.....
  • * *encapsulated in cement. Section 19.2: 7.3.2:ofthe NWMI ER.states that solid radioactive waste ;..

. /:: :would be e_n~cipsulatedin cem;i~t w_hen pracftcpb le.. Clj,,rifY f[dfl f]Olid radioacfive lf.Clste. ~OUl~ '.. j

.. */ ** :.. ' :.. '.biencapsulC1ted in ceme11t.oi only when pra&ttcable as stc(e'd"irr Sectiqn 19,2:73. 2 of the. ER'. Jf.., ;

. *:'<.*, : not ail l¥asti~ill be encapsulated, what mds~ cind class of ;vaste will iiot be e~capsitlaied dnd. :*. ; 1

  • :willit'alsoqeshippedtoWasteConirolSpedalt{Jts.inAndrews,fexas?
    • -.. -....!...-.'*!.'.:.:. -~--~-.~.:.:._.!*-~ ~,..: ____

__ *..;_ __..-..::..~---- --~--,........--"""""""*--*-----*~---*-* -* *-*-* -----. ______, ___..._._._i__.._;: *....:,.._ ___ * *-----J-~-.!.-....... ~--- -* _,_........... -"'~-~~-.:.. NWMI clarified that there would be Class A waste that would not be encapsulated onsite at the proposed : .NWMJ facility and could include oflarge pieces of equipment (e.g., equipment that may fail) and for which encapsulating in cement onsite may be difficult. Class A waste that would not be encapsulated could also include other items (e.g., laboratory waste, used personal protective equipment) included in Table 19-13 of the RAJ response under Laboratory facilities, or under facility support, potentially contaminated waste. The volume and mass of any Class A waste that would not be encapsulated are included in the quantities listed in Table 19-13 of the RAJ response under Laboratory facilities, or under Facility support, potentially contaminated waste. The non-encapsulated waste would be collected and size-reduced at the proposed NWMJ facility and then shipped to Waste Control Specialist in Andrews, Texas, where it could be encapsulated. The volume of waste not encapsulated in cement onsite is not . expected to be substantial. ~w~3~N"R:-1,s ;:cr;;;ijy ifilie*~a;;p;~~Ikdiri.:r;;;y;T9-TJ'of ih;RAi~~§pJt:z#,to 'lfM:.ljJ{!i/(iiJ~No~:-~7:',::';: I,.

  • I'***

,,! '. '.I . >§ <;; :.,".,:~J532~f1:0l0) accounft/JoflJl'ixed waste "cihdplarify if tli~_'."I;qbbtdtory Ji'cu3iliti(ffwa~te,and~.'C:;.. <' i

  • .: j!Facility'Support waste provided in the Table'19-13*wilibe nqn:.radiologicai; rC{dioldgical waste,";

-*---*-**--~~~-~~-'.?~!!!!~ti lf~~~~*-~ __, ___ *-----~*----*-~--* -__,_ __ _,_:_~~~*.:._~c----~----*---*-~'-~-~ -** -- -*-*--~-*-***-**" '--*-*-* ~-'~-~----=-- .NWMJ clarified that mixed waste is accounted forin Table 19-13 ofNWMl-2013-021. The laboratory facility waste provided in Table 19-13 is radiological waste, a portion of which could be mixed waste and:

the remainder radiological non-hazardous waste. The Facility support, potentially contaminated waste

'provided in Table 19-13 is low-level, radiological non-hazardous waste. The Facility support, municipal waste provided in the Table 19-13 is nonradiological, non-hazardous waste. 9of12

.:;.*.;*.. NWMI

  • ~-
    ~~-~!":* flQlUHWESTMEDICALIS£1TOP£.S NWMl-2016-RAl-003, Rev. 0

...,.,..,.,,.,....,".*".i"*'*'*,*',,,,,,,,*,,,,....... ***.*;:

.VIJM3~N~~1*, 'iiThe JSG.il!f ~m~nting NJJR§<j~l ~3 7; Parf h~iictimf: 1,9.2, ;('ffopose_~rA~tidn;(','state~thatt~e ER,. i Re uest for additional information
shou/dJdentjfYthetype*()fhazardousmaterials
as§ocia(e{iw}~hthefacility. <"***. :* *. ::*

>"'~'.<'i ,. > *., ; 7}1e,respbnie to JUI WM-'!jR~'4/ADAMsNo:*MiJ532BAOIO)jdentifies thqt:le;sthan i,000 lifof' filsr~*iffB~!~~Jf~j~7.i~~m~~!~~fJ~i~~'B

NWMI clarified that the 1,000 kg of hazardous waste a month includes both radiological and
nonradiological waste. NWMI does not have an estimate for the hazardous nonradiological portion of
~aste gene~t,~?
..*...,,.....,,.......*. """"..,,,,......,,""""'

No. Request for additional information C=:zy,~*x3*"~:-, :,*.*, :*:;[i'f*,t:*\\;g/'. *..* ;-,}, '.-.~~~~~{';:,~;:y;;,,,~;,L!;\\~'~~.*

  • Zfx:::;e"~l':~i~~;¥,~,:/

r,~~1 1 f~~~I~~1m1]1~:1r~!f;:?&i3::r~~ .' * *_. * -:.. ', ~. *.!pl'_()pO~~dNWMifacilify dsjdentified'~n Tab1e J9::J4-{~ummary q/RadioqctiVeMateriqlSanq. :-::. :.' >. *. ' :,; '.,,,:,itwas.tes'R.e4uired or. Gene~a(ed at thbRadioJ~otopePrQdzictiori'Filciiuy for.Ongoing Oper'dii'lms),;

'i\\1~~it'jr;J2iJJtff!Jj~Z~~l!et~~":lr:J~~~r:t:f!/.df ~/l~iftl;,~%~~offi,tt~1[1

' ' ' ; ': : \\'; 1:::.:: ;:table 19.:i4~J the ERtc!e11ti)ies. spen~ LEUge]jerdl<fd frqn(<}pff~ti~h ofthepfriposeq f aqilt&Jtii'iiiJ

°'.. ; ****faflilt,.b~/fiipped.'f<'l the s.CrV.@Yia.h.RiyerSite>State.wl/arNWJtjl;cons.idirssp~izt[,]iUand,'disc1J~~\\A

!.. L:):i;:~~;;:... 11;~<fc'f ~R~2fIJ,~{[l'J!!~B~:~~C1/l~{~~:;~>>::: *~ :~.: Gi:£i"~~::~*._,.,,*~.:~:'i'.<~-t~z:E; i>:.L..,

_~;~,:;~;:~~,.~ *... '..i.';c.~:i;i~;i*ii:.~

NWMI clarified that spent LEU is uranium in which the uranium-235 (235U) isotopic ratio has decreased, and it is no longer economically feasible to use for 99Mo production. This uranium will be returned to DOE. Conditions for which NWMI will return LEU to DOE will be stipulated in the Uranium Lease contract between DOE and NWMI. 10of12

NWMl-2016-RAl-003, Rev. 0 REFERENCES 10 CFR20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation," Code of Federal Regu.lations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended. IO CFR 70.61, "Performance Requirements," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended. EDF-3124-0012, Emission Modeling/or Process andHVAC Boilers Using AERSCREEN, Rev. 1, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, February 4, 2015. EDF-3124-0014, Emission Modeling for Construction Activities Using AERSCREEN, Rev. 1, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, June 26, 2015. NUREG-1537, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors - Format and Content, Part 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C., February 1996. NUREG-1537, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria, Part 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C., February 1996. NWMI-2013-021, Construction Permit Application for Radioisotope Production Facility, Rev. 0, Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Corvallis, Oregon, June 29, 2015. Owsley, M., 2011. Plant fact sheet for lndiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans[ L.] Nash), USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Jimmy Carter PMC Americus, Georgia, February 2011. UM, 2016, Weed ID Guide, http://weedid.missouri.edu/, University of Missouri, Division of Plant Science, Columbia, Missouri, 2016. 11 of 12

NWMl-2016-RAl-003, Rev. 0 This page intentionally left blank. 12of12}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML16210A305&oldid=5166729"