ML18081B341
| ML18081B341 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/13/1979 |
| From: | Nehemias J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Spitalny B NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18081B342 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-79-246 NUDOCS 7908030479 | |
| Download: ML18081B341 (6) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Attachment B MEMOR~IWUM FOR:
Brett S. Spitalny Fuel Processing and Fabrication 3ranch Division of Fu~l Cycle and ~'taterial Safety, NMSS FROM:
John V. Nehemias, Acting Leac!er
SUBJECT:
RESPONSES TO NRDC DISCOVERY.REQUEST O~ MAY 31, 1979 Enclosed are* r.iy responses to the subject Discovery Request.
The testimon.Y of Dr. John V.
- '~ehernias \\'las prepared by the the affiant after discussion with Edward D. Ketchen, Jr., and \\'
- as reviewed by Thomas D. Murphy, Chief, Radiological Assessment Branch.
I
\\
f
- \\
I I
-- *.\\ ~L -.. __ l
- t........_ !-~*~*--.-..:,.,
<----John V. Nehemias, Acting Leader Radiation Protection Section, RAB Division of Site Safety and Environ~ental Analysis
Enclosure:
Responses to Discovery Request cc:
E. Ketchen T. Murphy
DRAFT
- 1.
We understand that re-racking the present spent fuel pool at Oconee would provide only enough additional fuel storage capacity to accommodate about two years' supply of spent fuel.
Source:
Duke Power application for re-racking of Oconee 1, 2 fuel pool, Feb. 2, 1919. Attachment 2.
- 2.
Experience with prior one-time fuel pool.modifications of this kind indicates that such re-racking operations have caused an average of about 5 man-rems '*to the workers involved.
The highest cumulative occupational dose from such operations has been 20 man-rems, which was incurred during the modification of the spent fuel pool at Haddam Neck.
See attached Table 1.
Source:
Table I, prepared by staff based on telephone conversation with licensee pe_sonnel.
- 3.
No public exposure should result.
Source:
Affiant judgment.
- 4.
We believe conservatively./
Based on experience with similar modifications at other plants, we would expect that actual doses may.be somewhat lower I It seems reasonable to assume that the likely occupational radiation exposure from the re-racking r operation at Oconee would be in the range of 20 to 30 man-rems.
Source:
Table I.
- 5.
The radiation doses to the public resulting from the trans-shipment to McGuire are estimated in the Environmental Impact Appraisal to be 0.1 man-rem./ The principal radiation dose resulting from this transshipment, however, would be delivered to workers, and is estimated at 16 man-rems to drivers for 300 shipments.
Source:
Battelle ca.lculations.
2
- 6.
On addition, occupational dose which ~~uld not be eliminated by construction of a new spent fuel pool at Oconee, results from activities related to transfer of the spent fuel into a shipping cask, movement of the cask from the spent fuel pool to the new location, and transfer from the shipping cask to the new storage facility.
Source:
Affiant judgment.
- 7.
It seems reasonable to assume that the likely o~cupational radiation exposure from transshipment to McGuire would be in the range of 20 to 30 man-rems.
Source:
Affiant judgment.
- 8.
When the new spent fuel pool has been constructed, as in the case of transshipment to McGuire, fuel transfer yould still be required.
The spent fuel would have to be transferred, one fuel assembly at a time, from the existing spent fuel pool into a shipping cask, moved in the cask from the spent fuel pool to the new location, and transferred from the shipping cask to the new storage facility.
Source:
Affiant judgment~
- 9.
It seems reasonable to assume that such doses will also be in the range of 20 to 30 man-rems.
Source:
Affiant judgment.
- 10. The total man-rem doses projected to result from the three actions being considered ar.e estimated to be in the same general dose range.
Therefore, there would be no basis for concluding that
- any of the three is clearly to be preferred from the point of view of radiation risk, nor that any significant dose saving would be expected to result from the selection of any one of the three.
3 Source:
Affiant judgment.
- 11. We conclude that the exposures likely to result from the transshipment of Oconee spent fuel to McGuire, as described by the appl ican.t,would be ALARA~
Source:
Affiant*s subsequent testimony.
- 12. These considerations have been applied in our review of the applicant!s proposals reg~rding spent fuel transfer and storage at Oconee and McGuire.
Source:
Regulatory Guides 8.8 and 8.10, and Affiant's judgment.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC &
GAS COMPANY (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1)
)
)
Docket No. 50-272
)
Proposed Issuance of Amendment
)
to Facility Operating License
)
No. DPR-70.
)
).
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS COLEMANS' SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL OF COLEMANS' CONTENTION NUMBER THIRTEEN, in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as *indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 19th day of November, 1979.
Gary L. Milhollin, Esq., Chairman*
1815 Jefferson Street Madison, Wisconsin 53711 Mr. Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Washington, D.C.
-20555 Dr. James C. Lamb, III 313 Woodhaven Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Richard Fryling, Jr;_, Esq.
Assistant General Solicitor Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, New Jersey 07101 Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.
Conner, Moore & Corber 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1050 Washington, D.C.
20006 Cltl Valor~, Jr., Esq.
535.Tilton Road Northfield~ N. J. 08225 Lower Alloways Creek Township c/o Mary. o.* Henders{T)n Municipal Building Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 08038
-_....1
Mr. Alfred C. Coleman, Jr.
Mrs. Eleanor G. Coleman.,
35 11 K 11 Drive.;:;
,_;,, vc Pennsville, New Jersey 08070
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Atomic Safety and Licensing *,,
Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear ~egulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Dale Bridenbaugh M.H.B. Technical Associates
- 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite K San Jose, California 95125 Richard M. Hluchan, Esq.
Rebecca fields, Esq *...
Deputy Attorney General State of New Jersey 36 West State Street Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Keith A. Onsdorff, Esq.
Assistant Deputy Public Advocate Department of the Public Advocate 520.. East State Street Trenton, New Jersey 08625 June D. MacArtor, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General Tatnall Building P.O. Box 1401 Dover, Delaware 19901 Janice E. Moore Counsel for NRC Staff.