ML20202G107
| ML20202G107 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000824 |
| Issue date: | 06/23/1986 |
| From: | Olsen A BABCOCK & WILCOX CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202G111 | List: |
| References | |
| 27153, NUDOCS 8607150304 | |
| Download: ML20202G107 (5) | |
Text
- -
76-8d?f RETURN TO 396-SS ev i
Babcock & Wilcox
"*%*ul[n.*/.T c"n'"c'."n'iEF" "
yn
) N a McDermott company P. O. Box 11165 Lynchburg, Virginia 24506-1165 (80 o 522 6000 June 23, 1986 E
y e
q Uranium Process Licensing Sectic.i
/8 g@ yG Uranium Fuel Licensing Branch (l
dN g19%6 Y Division of Fuel Cycle and g
i Material Safety, NMSS
. ' ' gs, getMOM U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ss #
(%
Washington, DC 20555 S
License: SNM-778, Docket 70-824 4
3
Subject:
Revised Environmental Report Gentlemen:
This is in response to your letter dated April 10, 1986.
Attached to this letter are the responses to your questions as they were agreed to during our meeting at the Lynchburg Research Center on March 13, 1986. One of the most frequent comments that came out of that meeting was that many of the figures in the report were reduced to the point that interpretation was difficult.
In response, I have in-cluded larger drawings whenever they were available.
There were a large number of changes and because of this I have had the entire report republished. Changes are indicated in the right hand margin by a vertical line opposite the line where a change appears.
The report has been dated June,1986, in its entirety.
If you have any questions regarding this, please call me.
Very truly yours, BABC0CK & WILC0X Lynchburg Research Center M
Arne F. Olsen Senior License Administrator,( hgQ h'
jhc gh t,,
Attachment a
Dv pc: Director, Region II PS Ayres e
RL Bennett D%D l
T Grochowski
- 880 9
JUL AL Herman N6k@r-3 GS Hoovler C
SW Schilthelm 9
wa[3gnog 00Wrctr
((b 8607150304 860623 4
PDR ADOCK 07000824-co to C
PDR J
RESPONSES TO NRC QUESTIONS Ouestion 1:
Provide a plot plan of the LRC facility showing buildings, radioactive waste dis-posal facility, liquid _ waste disposal fa:ility, and topography.
Response
1.
Figure 2-3 has been replaced with one that can be easily interpreted.
2.
Figure 2-6 has been added, showing the LRC buildings layout.
3.
Section 2.1 has been revised by adding the last paragraph.
Question 2:
Provide a map showing locations of vegetation, silt, gross alpha, surface water, and air sampling stations. Are these nonitoring programs (listed in Tables 2.2 -
2.6) conducted by LRC in addition to the programs performed by the Naval Nuclear Fuel Divi ~sion (NNFD) and Conmercial Nuclear Fuel Plant (CNFP)? Please explain.
Reshonse:
1.
Figure 2-3 (now Figure 2-5) has been reproduced in better quality. Figure 2-6 was added to show onsite sample locations.
2.
Section 2.8 was changed to refer to Figure 2-5 for samp.le locations along the James River, and Figure 2-6 for onsite sample locations.
3.
Section 2.8 was changed to indicate that environmental-sampling is performed by the LRC, independently from the NNFD and CNFP.
Question 3:
Explain the results in Table 2.2 - 2.6 in relation to the LLD's listed by des-cribing nethods of sampling.
Response
1.
Tables 2.2 through 2.6 have been changed to add notes regarding the LLD's.
Tables 2.2 through 2.4 have been changed to iridicate that samples are dry.
2.
Table 2.5 was changed to include the + values associated with the data pre-sented.
3.
Note 3 was added to Table 2.6 v
1
l Ouestion 4:
l Explain the method for collecting air samples and their relation to the results in Table 2.6.
Explain why an isotopic analysis has/has not been performed and what were the results (in particular, what radionuclides and their concentra-I tions.
Response
2 1.
Note 3 was added to Table 2.6.
i Question 5:
Describe the nethods used in sampling and analysis of the radionuclides released 1
to NNFD. Explain how NNFD measures the concentrations of radionuclides that are discharged after treatment to the James River.
Response
'l i
1.
The last paragraph of Section 3.3.2.1 was changed in response to the question.
1 l
Question 6:
l Explain the method of deriving the quantities,of release in Table 3.4 and their relation to the LLD's listed.
Response
1.
Note 4 was added to Table 3.4.
Question 7:
For fissile and Pu - please report the wastes in Curies, with U-234 included; for source material - report the wastes in Curies, including daughter products.
Response
1 1.
Table 3.5 was changed to respond to the question.
)
Question 8:
1 l
In Section 3.2.2.1, give an estimate of the amount of hot cell solid waste tnat I
will be generated in the next 5 years. Explain the current plans for the interim and ultinate disposal of the waste.
Response
4 1.
Paragraph 3, Section 3.2.2.1 was rewritten, j
t-I 4
2
. _. _. - _ _ -. ~.. -
... _...... - - _ - _. _, _ -. _ _ _, _, _. _.... _. -.. _ _,... -. -..... - ~ _ _ _,
i Question 9:
In Section 3.3.2, describe the liquid waste retention tanks, including their location and the. monitoring program for leakage and leakage history. Al so describe the contaninated solid waste tubes, their location, and history of leakage.
Response
1.
The liquid waste retention tank system is addressed in Section 3.3.2.1.
That section has been expanded to respond.
2.
Section 3.2.2.1, paragraphs 4 and 5 describe the solid waste storage tubes.
Question 10:
In Section 3.3.2.2, describe the waste system, including the ultimate discharge of all types of waste.
Is there any radioactive material discharged into sani-tary waste?
Please explain.
Response
1.
In Section 3.3.2.2, the last sentence has been added to address that portion of the question regarding the discharge of radioactive material through the sanitary sewage systen.
2.
The text of Section 3.3.2.1 through 3.3.2.3 has been changed to address that portion regarding the ultimate discharge.
Question 11:
In Section 3.3.2.2, is the cooling water analyzed for radioactivity?
Is there need for a NPDES Permit for its discharge? Please explain answers to the above.
Response
1.
Section 3.3.2.3 has been revised to address the first part of the question.
2.
The need for a NPDES permit is presently under discussion with the Virginia State Water Control Board.
Question 12:
In Section 4.2.1.1, explain why the Kr release in 1984 is much higher. Give an estimate of the Kr release for the next 5 years.
Response
1.
Section 4.2.1.1 has been revised to respond to the question.
3
Question 13:
In Section 5.1.3, state the distance from LRC to the nearest resident and the values of DFp and DFf in the equation on page 5-5.
Response
1.
The question regarding the nearest resident is answered in Section 5.1.3.
2.
The values for DFp and DFf appear in the denominator of the equation on page 5-5 and are also given on page 5-6.
3.
The left side of the formula on page 5-5 was changed to a "D."
Question 14:
Explain method of collection and analysis of the vegetation samples. Are the results in Table 2.2 dry or wet weight?
1.
This question is responded to in the response. to question 3.
Question 15:
y.
Subnit Figure 3-3 in a legible' form.
M
Response
1.
Figure 3-3 in the original report appears as ~ Figure 3-8 and is more legible.
Question 16:
.; c w
In Section 5.1.5.3, please confirm thati10,Ci on the bottom of page 5-7 actually should be 10 uCi Pu.
t
Response
1.
The symbol for " micro" has been added.
In addition to the responses to the sixteen NRC questions, other changes were made in the report. Figures 1-1 and 1-2 were revised to reflect changes made in the organization since the original report was issued. Many of the drawings were changed from the 8.5 x 11 inch size to 11 x 17 inch size to ease interpretation.
These larger drawings made it impossible to place two drawing on one page and therefore new figure numbers had to be assigned. This has resulted in changes in the text portion of the report where figures are referenced.
4
DOCKET NO. - N CONTROL NO. cd 7/ 3.
DATE OF D00.O 4b DATE RCVD. O 27/fd..___
FCUF PDR ECAF.-
LPDR _
I& E REF. -
e
FCTC SAFEGUARDS _
OTHER.
DATE INITIAL !
l 1
l i
--