ML19290E846
| ML19290E846 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001113 |
| Issue date: | 12/26/1979 |
| From: | Decker T NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Crow W NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003170136 | |
| Download: ML19290E846 (2) | |
Text
'n
[g8 880 9'o 0
UNITED STATES a
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON Mc/'e/
fo
///3 A
g f
)
(
Q WASHINGTON, D C. 20555 DEC 2 6 1979 MEMORANDUM FOR:
W. T. Crow, Section Leader Uranium Process Licensing Section Uranium Fuel Licensing Branch FROM:
T. R. Decker Environmental Radiation and Emergency Support Section Uranium fuel Licensing Branch
SUBJECT:
TRIP TO GE-WILMINGTON TO DISCUSS 40 CFR 190 During the week of December 10, 1979, I traveled to the General Electric Fuel Fabrication Facility at Wilmington, North Carolina, to discuss changes in license conditions due to the implementation of 40 CFR 190.
GE staff in attendance at any of the various meetings were:
A. Kaplan, W. Smalley, E. Powers and W. Haverty.
On December 13, 1979, I first met A. Kaplan at the hotel and then proceeded to the plant where we planned the day's schedule.
After touring the fuel manufacturing operation in the morning, we met to discuss the dose assessment and license conditions.
The assessment methods and assumptions were made clear to the GE staff ir, attendance.
It was made clear that even in the event that calculational conservatisms could be reduced enough to lower the projected fenceline dose by more than a factor of two, the license conditions would not change.
On December 14, 1979, I returned to the plant to discuss comments by the involved GE staff after they had more of an opportunity to consider the proposed change in license conditions.
Preliminary comments on the proposed conditions, as on page three of the attachment, are as follows:
1.
The activity limit will be arbitrated.
In any case, an application for amendment is planned at the end of the sampling year.
2.
Agreed if release levels in 1 are acceptable.
3.
Agreed.
600317013 (
197 9 W. T. Crow 2
DEC 2 6 4.
Will comply.
5.
Want to verify analytical ability to meet 10-16 sensitivity.
6.
They don't believe they can measure particle size at the boundary and request that they be able to use particle distribution data measured at the stack from a previous study.
The feasibility of this will be explored.
They are further willing to agree to a condition to monitor the offsite area in the critical directions to notify us of encroachment.
A. Kaplan plans to be in Silver Spring on December 19, 1979, and will meet with you to discuss these issues.
?
T. R. Decker Environmental Radiation and Emergency Support Section Uranium Fuel Licensing Branch cc:
R. L. Stevenson