ML20035H737
| ML20035H737 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000824, 07001201 |
| Issue date: | 04/28/1993 |
| From: | Lamastra M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Adensam E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9305060371 | |
| Download: ML20035H737 (3) | |
Text
e ncy 8
j9 UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- .... /
APR 2 81993 Dockets 70-1201 70-824 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Elinor G. Adensam, Acting Chief,
Licensing Branch
/
Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS THRU:
Michael Tokar, Section Leader Licensing Section 2 Licensing Branch j
Division of Fuel Cycle Safety g
and Safeguards, NHSS FROM:
Michael A. Lamastra Licensing Section 2 Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT TO B&W FUEL COMPANY, COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR FUEL PLANT (CNFP), AND BABC0CK & WILCOX, LYNCHBURG TECHNOLOGY CENTER (LTC)
On April 13, 1993, I visited the CNFP, which is located approximately 4 miles from Lynchburg, Virginia.
In the morning, I met with C. W. Carr, Plant Manager, and K. S. Knapp, Manager, Safety and Licensing, for an overview of current and future plant activities. After the overview, Mr. Carr and Ms.
Knapp provided a plant tour.
In the afternoon, I met with Ms. Knapp to discuss current licensing issues, including:
(1) CNFP's proposed revisions to its emergency plan and our request for additional information; (2) CNFP's response to the four Branch Technical Positions (BTP) published in the Federal Reaister on March 21, 1989; (3) CNFP's decommissioning funding plan; and (4) other future licensing activities. During the plant tour and discussions with Mr. Carr and Ms. Knapp, I made the following observations / conclusions:
1.
CNFP's license activities are extremely limited in scope. They include assembling fuel pellets into fuel assemblies and performing some minor decontamination and repairing of equipment, it appears that the current license does not accurately reflect the current use of licensed material.
For example, the licensee is not currently using uranium oxide powder and does not plan to use this material in the future. Mr. Carr indicated that a license amendment request to remove this material would be forthcoming. He also stated that they plan to review the current license authorization and request other appropriate changes.
fh 050nn 9305060371 930428 PDR ADOCK0700082%
C PDR
[
'~
APR 2 81993 Elinor G. Adensam 2
2.
During the plant tour, the licensee discussed plans to reduce or eliminate UF storage authorization from the license.
6 3.
Because the licensee is not using uranium oxide powder and associated chemical processes, the plant's potential for major accidents and major releases of radioactive material is significantly reduced. The only realistic accidents are minor criticality accidents and major. fires. Almost all potential accidents would not result in major offsite releases of radioactive material.
I recommended to the licensee that they review the current emergency plan and provide a revision in its entirety to reflect current plant activities and radioactive materials and chemicals stored onsite. The licensee.
representative agreed to this recommendation. 'However, CNFP did indicate that it would request' a schedular exemption from the current license requirement to conduct annual emergency drill exercises.
4.
During my discussions with Ms. Knapp,-I was given a copy of a letter dated March 23, 1993, whereby CNFP agrees to perform a safety analysis by March 31, 1995. The safety analysis is addressed in one of the four BTPs published in the Federal Reaister on March 21, 1989.
I am now fully appraised of B&W's responses to the BTP's, and I can therefore, start my review.
On April 14, 1993, I visited the LTC and met with Mr. Charlie C. Boyd, Jr,
Licensing and Compliance Officer. Mr. Boyd provided a complete site tour and discussed the current licensing issues including:
(1) proposed Revisions 3 and 4 to the Radiological Contingency Plan; (2) the Decommissioning Funding Plan; (3) the. renewal application; (4) the recent amendment request dated March 31,1993; and (5) future licensing activities. During the plant tour and discussions, I made the following observations / conclusions 3 1.
LTC is basically a research facility with numerous small laboratories'and three hot cells.
LTC appears to be in transition and is evolving into a research/ support service organization.
During the renewal review process, an effort needs to be made to assure that the license material authorization reflects the current activities.
t Elinor G. Adensam 3
[
2.
Mr. Boyd informed me that' Revision 3 to the Radiological 1
Contingency Plan will be superseded by the Emergency Plan, Revision 0.
The new Emergency Plan will be part of the renewal application. Revision 4 to the Radiological Contingency Plan should be processed as an amendment to the current license.
'i W 4 841S @ 8d %
Michael A. Lamastra
'i Licensing Section 2 Licensing Branch Division-of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS 1
i l
l l
Distribution:
Docket 70-1201 PDR-NRC File' Center:
FCLB R/F 70-824' FCSS R/F Region II DKasnicki, RII NMSS R/F JGreeves Madams ETenEyck l
Beveridge Cornell 1-23
[G:\\MLTR':'RP]
5 FCLW h 0FC FCLB /
NAME MLam"d(Ira Ytkar'pe DATE 4/Z2/93 4/4\\/93 C = COVER E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY l
P i
.