ML20137R201

Forwards Co Thomas to Ae Profio at Univ of California,Santa Barbara,Believed to Have Been Sent in Error to City of Santa Clara Rather than City of Santa Barbara

ML20137R201
Person / Time
Site:	05000433
Issue date:	11/26/1985
From:	Abeels N SANTA CLARA, CA
To:	Thomas C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8512050448
Download: ML20137R201 (1)

Text

. .

THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA l

._.1.

~

CALIFORNIA ,_==_

~=::::-

November 26, 1985 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Cecil O. Thomas, Chief Standardization and Special Projects Branch Division of Licensing Gentlemen:

Enclosed you will find a copy of your letter to Dr. A. E.

Profio at the University of California, Santa Barbara sent, we believe, in error to the City of Santa Clara rather than the City of Santa Barbara.

Would you please check your records to verify this information?

Thank you.

Sincerely, ,

Nancy R. Abeels Administrative Secretary

/nra Encl.

P boy I* h 8512050448 851126 L PDR ADOCK 05000433 p PDR

/ #

UNITED STATES 8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%,,,,,,/ lovember 15, 1985 Docket No. 50-433 .

I Dr. A. E. Profio Nuclear Reactor Director Department of Chemical and Nuclear Engineering University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, California 93106

Dear Dr. Profio:

i

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, U.C.S.B. L-77 RESEARCH

' REACTOR DEC0PetISSIONING PLAN i -

We are continuing our review of the Decommissioning Plan that has been i submitted in support of your application for authorization to decommission

!- your L-77 research reactor. Since our first request for additional information, the Region V Office has submitted several questions for which

. we require answers. You are requested to provide written responses to the enclosed questions no later than December 9, 1985. Following receipt of this information, we will continue our evaluation of your plans for decommissioning. If you have any questions, please contact Harold Bernard, i our Project Manager for your facility, at (301) 492-9799.

Sincerely, (5

O- me f

i Cecil 0. Thomas, Chief -

t-Standardization and Special Projects Branch

! Division of Licensing l

cc: See next page I

l v

b0-El 2 Yj

University of California at Docket No. 50-433 Santa Barbara cc: California Department of Health ATTN: Chief, Environmental Radiation Control Unit Radiologic Health Section 714 P Street, Room 498 Sacramento, California 95814 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Office ATTN: EIS COOPDINATOR 215 Freemont Street

._ San Francisco, California 94111 Chief, Energy Systems l' Analyses Branch (AW-459)

Office of Radiation Programs

.~ U. S. Environmental Protection Agency -

,{ Room 645, East Tower i 401 M Street, S.W.

Washington, D. C. 20460 Mayor City of Santa Barbara

-1500-Warburton-Avenue- wre"f 4 OrcJ .'

Santa Barbara, California 95050 Director i Energy Facilities Siting Division Energy Resources Conservation l

and Development Commission "'e 3

1516 - 9th Street

^! Sacramento, California 95814 -

if Attorney General 555 Capitol Mall Sacramento, California 95814 4

e

.- l Additional Questions to U. C. Santa Barbara Regarding The Decomissioning Plan of the L-77 Research Reactor

1. Whowillconducttheanalysisoftheshie}dingwaterandwhatanalytical method will be used? Will analysis for H be included?

2. Throughout the plan statements are made that certain records (e.g.,

calibration records, training records) will be kept by the ,

contractor. UCSB management has the responsibility for compliance i I

with all requirements and comitments. Will copies of all records necessary to demonstrate compliance with regulatory requirements and .

commitments made in the Decomissioning Plan be available at the UCSB facility?

I. 3. Section 2.1, Radiation Protection Program, states that the radiation

> protection program to be used for this decomissioning project is an l extension of the program used by the contractor. Will the UCSB 4

management review this program to assure compliance and consistency l~ with UCSB's license? Will the' extent and conclusions of this review

be documented? Will the records documenting the implementation of the-1 radiation protection program be maintained at the UCSB facility?

~ 4. The residual surface contamination criteria presented in Section 7.0, Technical and Environmental Specifications, is not fully consistent l with the guidance provided in Regulatory Guide 1.86. Provide the basis for this proposed deviation, or include Table I of Regulatory Guide 1.86 in Section 7 of.the Decomissioning Plan. The reference to

,i the residual ambient radiation does not specify a distance. This l should read 5 pr/hr above background at one meter from any surface.

,i l 5. The sodium iodide scintillator's response is very dependent on the energy of the incoming radiation. It is therefore not possible to

. detemine the ambient radiation exposure rate using this instrument.

Specify the instrument (s) and methodology that will be used when l

detennining compliance with the 5 pr/hr residual gamma exposure rate at-

!> one meter.

The NRC staff will use Reuter-Stokes PIC's to verify the residual gama exposure rates at one meter during our Tenr,ination Radiation Survey. These detectors will be used to determine compliance with your Decomissioning Plan, 2

l

6. Your method of surveying Im from every 9m2 in your proposed Termination Radiation Survey Plan may not be adequate. During the NRC's Termination Radiation Survey, different areas than those yoyanalyzedmightbesurveyed. Also, more than one area within any 9m area might be surveyed. Please revise your Termination Radiation Survey Plan to accomodate these considerations.

O i