ML18276A081
| ML18276A081 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Erwin |
| Issue date: | 09/21/2018 |
| From: | Freudenberger R Nuclear Fuel Services |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| References | |
| 21G-18-0101, ACF-18-0191, EPID L-2018-DRI-0000, GOV-01-55 | |
| Download: ML18276A081 (13) | |
Text
...
Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 21 G-18-0101 GOV-01-55 ACF-18-0191 September 21, 2018
Subject:
Reply to Request for Additional Information concerning Final Status Survey Report (Enterprise Project Identifier L-2018-DFl-OOOO)
References:
- 1) Docket No. 70-143: SNMLicense 124.
Gentlemen:
- 2) Letter from NFS to NRC, "Final Report for the Former Blended Low Emiched Uranium (BLED) Facility at NFS", dated April 23, 2018 (210 0050).
- 3) Letter from NRC to NFS, "Request for Additional Information Concerning Final Status Survey Report (Enterprise Project Identifier L-2018-DFl-OOOO)",
dated August 13, 2018.
Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS), hereby submits responses to the subject Request for Additional Information issued in Reference 3 related to the Final Status Survey Report for the Land Area of the Former Blended Low Emiched Uranium (BLED) Facility at the NFS Site. Per the telephone conversation between NFS and NRC on September 11, 2018, the NRC verbally authorized an extension of the due date to September 21, 2018.
While NFS does not intend to request a site release for the land area that the Former BLED Facility occupied at this time, NFS requests confirmation that the Former BLED Facility is suitable for umestricted release in accordance with 10 CFR 20.1402, to remove the financial assurance requirements in place for the Former BLEU Facility.
1205 Banner Hill Rd. Erwin, TN 37650 t: +1.423.743.9141 f: +1.423.743.0140 www.nuclearfuelservices.com People Strong INNOVATION DRIVEN >
2 lG-18-0101 GOV-01-55 ACF-18-0191 Page 2 of 13 If you or your staff have any questions, require additional information, or wish to discuss this matter further, please contact me at (423) 743-1705, or Mr. Tim Knowles, Licensing Manager, at (423) 735-5061. Please reference our unique document identification number (21G-18-0101) in any correspondence concerning this letter.
RKR/lah Sincerely, NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES, INC.
7U-f J4-Ur-Richard J. Freudenberger, Director Safety and Safeguards
Attachment:
NFS Reply to a Request for Additional Information (Enterprise Project Identifier L-2018-DF 1-0000)
Copy: Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II 245 Peachtree Center Avenue NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30303-1257 Mr. Leonard Pitts Senior Fuel Facility Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 245 Peachtree Center Avenue, NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30303-1257 Mr. Omar Lopez-Santiago Chief, Project Branch I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II 245 Peachtree Center A venue, NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30303-1257 Mr. Kevin Ramsey Senior Project Manager, Fuel Manufacturing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle Safety, Safeguards, and Environmental Review Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Two White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-273 8 Ms. Leira Cuadrado Project Manager, Fuel Manufacturing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle Safety, Safeguards, and Environmental Review Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Two White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Mr. Peter Newby Vice President, Sales & Marketing - North America Fuel Commercial & Customer Center AREVA, Inc.
3315 Old Forest Road; OF-11 Lynchburg, VA 24501 Mr. Larry Harris NRC Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 21 G-18-0101 GOV-01-55 ACF-18-0191 Page 3 of 13
Attachment NFS Reply to a Request for Additional Information Enterprise Project Identifier L-2018-DFJ-OOOO (9 pages to follow) 21 G-18-0101 GOV-01-55 ACF-18-0191 Page 4 of 13
21 G-18-0101 GOV-01-55 ACF-18-0191 Page 5 of 13
- 1. Clarify the process for confirming that scans for U-238 can detect concentrations at and below the default screening value of 14 pCi/g in order to comply with the radiological criteria for unrestricted use in 10 CFR 20.1402. If alternative methods are used to demonstrate scan measurement capability for U-238 at or below the default screening concentration, provide additional information and a basis for the alternate method.
NFS Response:
Please refer to the following references in response to this question:
- 1) Letter from NFS to NRC, "Submittal of North Site Decommissioning Plan, Revision 3",
dated May 2, 2006 (210-06-0049); and, Letter from NRC to NFS, "Acknowledgement and Acceptance of Revision 3 to North Site Decommissioning Plan (TAC 131949)",
dated May 18, 2006
- 2) Letter frnm NFS to NRC, "Revision to NFS' North Site Decommissioning Plan-Proposed Criteria", dated February 24, 1999 (210-99-0033); and, Letter from NRC to NFS, "North Site Decommissioning Plan Final Release Criteria Proposed by NFS (TAC L3103 3 )",
dated December 15, 1999
- 3) Letter from NRC to NFS, "Amendment 27 (TAC No. 131033)-to Approve North Site Decommissioning Plan", dated June 19, 2001.
- 4) Letter from NFS to NRC, "Additional Information Supporting NFS' Decommissioning Plan", dated October 19, 2000 (210-00-0166)
- 5) Letter from NFS to TDEC, "Revised Groundwater Flow and Solute~ Transport Modeling Report", dated March 10, 2010 (21G-10-004 7)
- 6) Letter from NFS to NRC, "Final Status Survey Final Report for Survey Unit RBG-1",
dated December 15, 2003 (210-03-0282)
- 7) Letter from NFS to NRC, "Final Report for the Former Blended Low Enriched Uranium (BLEU) Facility at NFS", dated April 23, 2018 (210-18-0050)
NFS has reviewed the NRC request for clarification of the process used to confirm that scan surveys for U-238 could detect concentrations at and below the default screening value (DSV) of 14 pCi/g.
NFS has determined that an alternate approach is necessary and appropriate to demonstrate that scan survey measurement capability for U-238 was sufficient to meet the radiological release criteria for unrestricted use in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20.1402.
21G-18-0101 GOV-01-55 ACF-18-0191 Page 6 of 13 As an alternative to the application of the DSVs, NFS will apply the NFS North Site derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs) that meet 25 mrem/yr (Reference 1) as the comparators to support unrestricted release of the Former BLEU Facility. These values are used for the NRC-approved decommissioning activities conducted at the NFS North Site. The DCGLs were derived using the RESRAD pathway analysis model and were approved by the NRC (References 1 and 2). This alternative approach is appropriate for the following reasons:
- 1. The exposure pathways assessed by the North Site RESRAD model are also applicable for the Former BLEU Facility due to similar physical, chemical, and groundwater characteristics that make it unsuitable for use as a source of drinking water (References 2, 3 and 4). Furthermore, prior to construction of the BLEU Facility, background soil comparisons for the NFS North Site came from the Former BLEU Facility location because both locations have similar soil types resulting from weathering of the same underlying bedrock of the Cambrian Rome Formation (References 5 and 6). Refer also to Figure 2-1 attached (Reference 5).
- 2. The area of contaminated zone parameter in the North Site RESRAD model is 55,000 square meters (References 1 and 2). The area of the Former BLEU Facility is approximately 20,882 square meters (Reference 7) and is therefore bounded by the parameter value used in the North Site RESRAD model.
- 3. The thickness of contaminated zone parameter in the North Site RESRAD model is one (1) meter (References 1 and 2). The contamination in soil at the Former BLEU Facility was confined to the location of a small spill that occurred when the process feed line was disconnected. The areal extent of the spill within Survey Unit C was approximately one (1) square meter and extended to a depth of less than one (1) meter (Reference 7), and therefore, this parameter is bounded by the value used in the North Site RESRAD model.
- 4. The cover depth parameter in the North Site RESRAD model is zero (0) meters (Reference 2). The surface of the Former BLEU Facility was covered with clean fill, which ensures that this parameter is bounded by the value used in the North Site RESRAD model.
- 5. The radionuclides encountered at the Former BLEU Facility (Reference 7) are encompassed by the radionuclides assessed for release of the North Site (Reference 1).
U-232 was not assessed for release of the North Site, however, for the BLEU Facility, the scan sensitivity was adequate and was present at only 3 percent of the total activity.
21G-l 8-0l O 1 GOV-01-55 ACF-18-0191 Page 7 of 13
- 6. An effective radioactive material control program was implemented by NFS over the duration of the operations at the Former BLEU Facility. As a result of that program, there were no recorded incidents of radiological spills or contamination external to the three (3) materials processing facilities during operations. Following remediation, Final Status Surveys (FSS) of the process buildings were conducted and the structures were shown to be well within the SNM-124 License limits for unrestricted release. Surveys of all paved site surfaces were also conducted and no contamination was identified outside the process buildings. Based on these findings, the only soil area which was considered to have potential uranium contamination was the feed line excavation, where a small spill was known to have occurred during disconnect after termination of processing. This area was considered MARSSIM Class 1. Surface soil from the rest of the site was considered unlikely to have become contaminated as a result of the BLEU Project activities, and a MARSSIM Class 1 was not justified for final surveys of that land. MARSSIM classifications of Class 2 and Class 3 were therefore assigned for the process buildings footprint and the remainder of the site, respectively (Reference 7).
The purpose of Table 1 in the previous report was to clearly cite the source of the default screening guide levels. In consideration that NFS proposes use of the previously approved North Site DCGLs, a revised Table 1 is provided below.
Revised Table 1. Concentration Limits of Uranium Isotopes in Surface Soil Concentration Uranium Isotope (pCi/g)
Source Document Document Table U-232 1.96 NUREG/CR-5 512 Table 6.91 U-233/234 642 Ref 1 1-1 U-235 74 Ref 1 1-1 U-238 306 Ref 1 1-1 Given the above justification, it is appropriate to derive a DCGLmad (U-235) that accounts for U-234 during scan surveys. The DCGLmad (U-235) is the U-235 DCGL that has been reduced proportionately to the relative contributions and respective DCGLs ofU-235 and U-234. This value is then used as the comparator to the scan sensitivity for U-235 concentration to ensure that non-gamma-emitting radionuclides are accounted for during the scan surveys. The DCGLmad (U-235) is derived as follows:
DCGLmod=l I [(l I 74) + ((0.5170 /.0650) I 642)] = 38 pCi/g (U-235)
Where:
74 = DCGL for U-235 (pCi/g) 0.5170 = U-233/234 fractional contribution in BLEU FSS samples 0.0650 = U-235 fractional contribution in BLED FSS samples 642 = U-233/234 DCGL (pCi/g)
21G-18-0101 GOV-01-55 ACF-18-0191 Page 8 of 13 The scan sensitivity for D-235 was established as 7.2 pCi/g in the Former BLED Facility Report. This established scan sensitivity is approximately one-fifth of the above derived DCGLmad (D-235) of 38 pCi/g, therefore, the above approach definitively meets the objectives of demonstrating that the scan surveys were sufficiently sensitive to detect concentrations at and below the DCGLmad. The above approach, with the supporting evidence provided in the Former BLED Facility Report (Reference 7), demonstrates that the residual radioactivity distinguishable from background radiation of the Former BLED Facility does not exceed 25 mrem per year and meets the radiological release criteria for umestricted use in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20.1402.
Similar calculations for D-232 and D-238, the other uranium isotopes that have gamma "signatures", are unnecessary since the scan sensitivities indicated they are also detectable by gamma scans at their respective DCGL concentrations. Note that the combined scanning sensitivity when considering all gamma-emitting radionuclides is even lower than that for each of the components alone.
It is also worthy of noting that based on the post FSS evaluation, the activity fractions for all three survey units were comparable and the radioactivity concentrations would result in less than 5% of the dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1402.
The laboratory results of the BLED FSS soil samples and the updated sum-of-fractions based on the North Site DCGL are provided in the revised Tables 11 through 13 included in this document.
NFS concludes that the above alternate approach is appropriate to demonstrate that scan survey measurement capability for D-238 is sufficient to meet the radiological release criteria for umestricted use in accordance with 10 CFR 20.1402.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 lG-18-0101 GOV-01-55 ACF-18-0191 Page 9 of 13 Revised Table 11. Comparison of Uranium Concentrations in Soil from Survey Unit A U-232 U-233/234 U-235 U-238 (pCi/g)
SOF (pCi/g)
SOF (pCi/g)
SOF (pCi/g)
SOF Total SOF 0.05 0.03 0.71 0.08 0.10 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.11 0.06 0.03 1.46 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.96 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.64 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.93 0.00 0.10 0.00 1.04 0.00 0.03 0.14 0.07 1.72 0.00 0.24 0.00 a.so 0.00 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.89 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.03 1.17 0.00 0.30 0.00 1.25 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.03 1.26 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.94 0.00 0.04 0.10 0.05 1.62 0.00 0.21 0.00 1.15 0.00 0.06 0.05 0.03 1.77 0.00 0.20 0.00 1.18 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.03 1.19 0.00 0.14 0.00 1.01 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.02 1.66 0.00 0.36 0.00 1.43 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.79 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.03 0.09 0.05 1.13 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.78 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.03 1.24 0.00 0.07 0.00 1.10 0.00 0.03 0.10 0.05 0.70 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.03 1.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.43 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.03 1.11 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.03 1.33 0.00 0.22 0.00
.0.54 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.62 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.03 0.06 1.10 0.17 0.86 0.04 Mean 0.05 1.12 0.15 0.88 0.04 Median 0.14 1.77 0.36 1.43 0.11 Maximum 0.03 0.39 0.08 0.28 0.02 Std Dev 1.39 24.15 3.77 18.94 48.25 Act Sum 0.0288 0.5005 0.0781 0.3925 1.00 Fraction NOTE: Table 8 of the previous report correctly reported the U-233/234 value at location #13 as 0.79 +/- 0.23 pCi/gm. Table 11 of the previous report incorrectly listed the value as 0.77 pCi/gm. The correct value of 0.79 for location #13 is included in this revised table.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21G-18-0101 GOV-01-55 ACF-18-0191 Page 10 of 13 Revised Table 12. Comparison of Uranium Concentrations in Soil from Survey Unit B U-232 U-233/234 U-235 U-238 (pCi/g)
SOF (pCi/g)
SOF (pCi/g)
SOF (pCi/g)
SOF Total SOF 0.05 0.03 1.29 0.00 0.12 0.00 1.22 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.02 1.35 0.00 0.13 0.00 1.04 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.02 1.49 0.00 0.08 0.00 1.02 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.03 1.18 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.03 0.11 0.06 1.63 0.00 0.18 0.00 1.07 0.00 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.96 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.02 1.41 0.00 0.17 0.00 1.05 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.03 1.27 0.00 0.17 0.00 1.32 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.02 1.54 0.00 0.11 0.00 1.15 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.03 1.44 0.00 0.17 0.00 1.08 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.03 1.53 0.00 0.25 0.00 1.43 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.03 1.70 0.00 0.14 0.00 1.14 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.02 1.37 0.00 0.08 0.00 1.27 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.02 1.22 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.03 1.56 0.00 0.12 0.00 1.14 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.07 1.78 0.00 0.22 0.00 1.43 0.00 0.08 0.07 0.04 1.20 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.03 1.19 0.00 0.22 0.00 1.29 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.62 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.04 1.21 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.05 0.14 0.07 1.49 0.00 0.24 0.00 1.06 0.00 0.08 0.07 0.04 1.49 0.00 0.08 0.00 1.07 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.07 0.81 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.08 0.07 1.34 0.16 1.04 0.04 Mean 0.05 1.37 0.17 1.07 0.03 Median 0.14 1.78 0.27 1.43 0.08 Maximum 0.03 0.28 0.05 0.27 0.02 Std Dev 1.55 30.73 3.65 23.98 59.91 Act Sum 0.0259 0.5129 0.0609 0.4003 1.00 Fraction
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 PRl PR2 PR3 PR4 21G-18-0101 GOV-01-55 ACF-18-0191 Page 11 of 13 Revised Table 13. Comparison of Uranium Concentrations in Soil from Survey Unit C U-232 U-233/234 U-235 U-238 (pCi/g)
SOF (pCi/g)
SOF (pCi/g)
SOF (pCi/g)
SOF Total SOF 0.0475 0.02 2.60 0.00 0.29 0.00 1.68 0.01 0.04 0.0475 0.02 2.24 0.00 0.29 0.00 1.68 0.01 0.04 0.0475 0.02 1.20 0.00 0.17 0.00 1.01 0.00 0.03 0.0475 0.02 1.98 0.00 0.08 0.00 1.17 0.00 0.03 0.0475 0.02 1.10 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.96 0.00 0.03 0.0475 0.02 1.09 0.00 0.18 0.00 1.06 0.00 0.03 0.0475 0.02 0.96 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.03 0.0475 0.02 1.40 0.00 0.06 0.00 1.15 0.00 0.03 0.0475 0.02 1.54 0.00 0.09 0.00 1.03 0.00 0.03 0.0475 0.02 1.42 0.00 0.17 0.00 1.17 0.00 0.03 0.0475 0.02 1.47 0.00 0.01 0.00 1.12 0.00 0.03 0.0475 0.02 1.27 0.00 0.15 0.00 1.14 0.00 0.03 0.0475 0.02 1.28 0.00 0.12 0.00 1.37 0.00 0.03 0.0475 0.02 1.08 0.00 0.18 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.03 0.0475 0.02 0.84 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.03 0.0475 0.02 1.71 0.00 0.16 0.00 1.58 0.01 0.03 0.0475 0.02 1.50 0.00 0.12 0.00 1.10 0.00 0.03 0.0475 0.02 2.09 0.00 0.27 0.00 1.74 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.02 4.72 0.01 0.48 0.01 1.63 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.93 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.94 0.00 0.03 0.09 0.04 2.27 0.00 0.37 0.01 1.30 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.01 1.59 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.02 0.05 1.65 0.17 1.20 0.03 Mean 0.05 1.45 0.17 1.13 0.03 Median 0.09 4.72 0.48 1.74 0.06 Maximum 0.01 0.83 0.12 0.29 0.01 Std Dev 67.5 1.05 36.28 3.77 26.40 0
Act Sum 0.0155 0.5375 0.0559 0.3911 1.00 Fraction NOTE: U-232 average of Post Remediation samples #1 through #4 used as the values for #1 through #18 due to lack of laboratory analysis.
I I
i 1
~ ii
§§
~
0--
EXPLANATION
- l-f PRECAMBRIAN
( p C)
CAMBRIAN
( <: )
- o.
0 C Oeote GrO<Jp
~ hk Honel<et Dol<lmite l
S *
&ndtuck SIi*
~ r Rome FOl'llltlloo w
..
- i' S b Snowbird Formetlon
£ s Shady Oolomlle
£ e Etwln Formllllon 21 G-1 8-0101 GOV-01-55 ACF-18-0191 Page 12 of 13
., $c
£ h H8rnptOl1 Formation
~!r--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~£-u-;:::::IXilcol===F=O<mat==lon======================::::'..I
~ ~
NUClEAA ~~~,.:ICES. INC.
~:.
R!V1Sf0 GROUNDWA TI!R FLOW ANO
!8 SOLUTE-TAANSPORT MODELING REPORT i~
~~ u GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE ERWIN REGION I
FIGURE 2-1
!ij
~ARCADIS u~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
........ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-'
Note: The entire NFS site including the North Site and Former BLEU facility are within the area labeled NFS Erwin Facility in Figure 2-1 above.
21 G-18-0 101 GOV-01-55 ACF-18-0191 Page 13 of 13
- 2. The default screening values from NUREG-1757 and NUREG/CR-5512 in Table 1 are correct, however, the Document Table citations for the NUREG-1757 and NUREG/CR-5512 values are incorrect. Change the existing Document Table citations for each of the NUREG-1757 and NUREG/CR-5512 default screening values to Table H.2 and Table 6.91 respectively.
NFS Response:
NFS concurs that, due to an administrative error, the Document Table citations were incorrect.
A revised Table 1 is included within the response to question 1 of this request for additional information.