ML20055A232
| ML20055A232 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000687 |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1982 |
| From: | Mcgovern J UNION CARBIDE CORP. |
| To: | Rouse L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| 26898, NUDOCS 8207150608 | |
| Download: ML20055A232 (4) | |
Text
,
i.
h0h-
]Q-b$f 3 % '53 9
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION o o oox aa4. Tuxtoo. New vonx 40007 McDicat enODUCTS DIVISION T ELEmoNE NUMUCM Wi4)3Si 2131 April 27, 1982
'4 f
RECENgg L J ul s :19.&
Q.
w W-
^
t&
t W
U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission q,
Advanced Fuel & Spent Fuel Licensing Branch
'le
__ t Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety V.6'.Li/ h Washington, DC 20555 Atto:
Mr. Leland C. Rouse, Branch Chief Mg 1
6,g 7
[2 I(3 JIj[gOI982y Ref:
Draf t NRC Letter - W. Ting:fLb - DISC I BL-6 7;
m.
m?y'i Subj: Docket.70-687, License SNM-639 Renewal.
+
t f.,.
!Crw
\\
Dear Sir:
/
9
~
Thank you for the opportunity to review the referenced documen.
ocerns about the division of licensing responsiollities have been addressed in Ref.
(a); however, in an effort to avoid duplication of regulatory oversight, responsibility and work we ofrer comments, request clarification and propose a reasonable approach to this problem as follows:
1.
Comments on Ref: (a):
(a) Sec. (2), PP. 2 & 3 10 CFR 20.l(b) begins with the statement, "The use of radioactive material or other sources of radiation not licensed by the Commission is not subject to the regulations in this part".
This statement, in conjunction with the provision for licensing byproduct material under the Agreement State Program, is an explicit exemption from Part 20 for the Sterling Forest Facility regarding control of byproduct material. Furthermore, we believe that since the New York Code Rule 38 incorporates those same limits of 10 CFR Part 20 for any radiation source and not just State licensed material, any operations with byproduct material under the New York State license should satisfy NRC concerns about ultimate compliance with Part 20.
As long as Code Rule 38 remains unchanged it is clearly implied that all operations with SNM and t'iproduct material will be in accordance with Part 20 limitations.
MhN
,h
[ [A
['
8207150608 820427 J
PDR ADOCK 07000687 a
C pog
- =
MQ
U.S.N.R.C. April 27, 1982 Another general consideration concerning Sec.(2) of Ref. (a) is whether it is appropriate to cite 10 CFR Part 20 as the basis for identifying or assigning licensing authority. NRC concerns about whether or not occupational or puolic exposures are within 10 CFR Part 20 limits can be and have been achieved historically through referencing Part 20 in specific licenses that are written pursuant to other Parts of the regulations.
(i.e. licenses pursuant to Part 50.)
(b) Sec.(3), P.4 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act is being enforced at the Sterling Forest site through our SPDES permit which is issued by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation and which has adopted 10 7R Part 20 limits for radionuclides in water effluent from the site.
An environmental review under Part 70 seems redundant. FutheImore, Sec.(4), last para., P. 6, seems to contradict this section (3) where it is stated, " effluent byproduct material is clearly separated.
Since its regulation by a state agency would not affect the safe handling of the special nuclear material, it is considered for the purpose of NRC evaluation primarily state regulated material". Considering this position, does NRC intend to include byproduct effluents in an environmental review of StN under Part 70?
(c) Sec.(4), PP. 4 & 5 Although the total possession limit of the SNM-639 license exceeds 350 grams U-235, it is significant to note that whenever StN is combined with accessable Dyproduct material the quantity in any single batch is always limited to less than 350 grams under the I
conditions of the SrN license. Since it is generally accepted that any amount of S?N less than 350 grams is not capable of forming a critical mass (with a large safety margin ), and that the New York Code Rule 38 provides for regulation of StN in quantities less than 350 gms, a reasonable argument can be made for exemption under Part 150 for StN combined with byproduct material.
It is also important to comment that the exposure hazard associated with the byproduct material is much greater than the hazard from the SNM that is mixed with it.
The byproduct material has historically been regulated under New York Code Rule 38 while the SNM-639 license has been limited to the regulation of SPN only.
This arrangement has worked satisfactorily to date.
~
U.S.N.R.C. April 27, 1982 (d) Sec.(5), P. 6 The basis for the regulation of byproduct material under the NRC reactor license comes from the fact that it is licensed as a utilization facility under Part 50.
Inis is required explicitly in Part 150.15(a)(1). During the most recent major license amendment of the R-81 license, we agreed to a similar environmental impact assessment which included both reactor and hot laboratory operations at the Sterling Forest facility.
This assessment proceeded from early January 1978 through July 1979.
It culminated in an approved set cf technical specifications for the reactor which included limits for effluents governing the reactor and the hot laboratory operation.
Although the NRC stated its satisfaction with these limits, they were declared to be provisional because the New York Department of Environmental Conservation refused to accept them on the grounds that they considered our meteoroligical data to be incomplete.
2.
Proposed Solution of the Problem We propose that the limits established in the reactor technical specifications, which addressed effluents from both the reactor and hot laboratory operations, be applied to the environmental impact assessment for this license renewal.
These effluent limits have Deen reviewed and approved by the NRC within the past three years.
Past concerns on the part of the NYDEC should oe satisfied by our constructing and commencing the operation of a meteorological data collection system in 1981.
The limits in the reactor technical specifications are based on measured dispersion factors derived from our environmental monitoring program which has been in existence for 24 years.
Considering all of these factors we believe that the effluent limits in the reactor Technical Specifications are realistic, reasonaole and in conformance with ALARA principles.
It would be satisfactory to us to have written concurrence of the New York Departmant of Labor, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with the current effluent limits.
We also propose that, in the forthcoming safety analysis that will be in support of this license renewal, postulated accident conditions include the combined SNM and byproduct material to prove the efficacy of the plant and equipment to mitigate the consequences of serious accidents. Routine operations with combined SNii and byproduct material should remain the separate responsibilities of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the New York
U.S.N.R.C. April 27, 1982 Department of Labor respectively otnerwise the regulation of routine operations and the noITnal administration of and practice under these licenses will become very cumbersome.
Since both authorities require adherence to a cormion standard for limiting exposure, health and safety concerns of both agencies should be satisfied.
This arrangement has apparently been effective over the past 22 years and it should continue.
Thank you for your favorable consideration of this propcsal.
We believe that, if it is adopted, the regulation of the Sterling Forest facility will continue most efficiently without compromising the health and general welfare of the laboratory personnel and the community.
Very truly yours, H
tsQ damesJ.
Govern' Business Manager Radiochemicals JJ4cG:Js cc:
Mr. C. J. Konnerth Mr. M. H. Voth l
<