ML16231A219

From kanterella
Revision as of 05:39, 19 May 2018 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Follow-up Questions Related to Entergy Request for 20.2002 Disposal of Contaminated Water
ML16231A219
Person / Time
Site: Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date: 07/28/2016
From: Parrott J D
Reactor Decommissioning Branch
To: Silko T
Entergy Corp
PARROTT J, 415-6634, T-8E47
References
Download: ML16231A219 (2)


Text

From: Parrott, Jack Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 2:12 PM To: Tom Silko (tsilko@entergy.com) <tsilko@entergy.com>

Subject:

some follow up questions on the 20.2002 request Tom, My technical person working on the 20.2002 disposal request had a couple of follow-up questions (see attached) from the Entergy RAI response. If you like we could have a call or you could respond by e-mail. Thanks, Jack Jack D. Parrott Senior Project Manager US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-6634 From: Pinkston, Karen Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 2:29 PM To: Parrott, Jack <Jack.Parrott@nrc.gov>

Subject:

questions for VY Here are my two follow-up questions. 1. There are several radionuclides included in the revised calculation that were not included in the first evaluation and were not reported in the sample results provided to the NRC (Co-58, Fe-55, Ni-63, Tc-99, and U-238). How were the activities of these radionuclides assumed in the dose assessment derived? If they were derived from a newer part 61 analysis, could we receive a copy of the results from that? 2. The activity assumed for Co-60 was 6.9 pCi/g, which is approximately equal to the activity measured on 5/12/16. Previous measurements of Co-60 were higher. Have any samples been measured since May 12th that provide additional justification for the assumed Co-60 activity and/or are there any additional samples planned before the water is shipped? Although it seems reasonable that the Co-60 activity would decrease with time as the water is circulated through the water treatment system, it is not clear from the data provided that the system has reached steady state and that the assumed Co-60 bounds the potential activity in the water.