ML18282A535
| ML18282A535 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000036 |
| Issue date: | 07/23/2018 |
| From: | Evers W Westinghouse |
| To: | Gregory Chapman Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs |
| Chapman G | |
| References | |
| Download: ML18282A535 (5) | |
Text
From:
Evers, William C.
To:
Chapman, Gregory; Parks, Leah; Pallagi, Kenneth E.
Cc:
Smith, James
Subject:
[External_Sender] RE: RE: RE: Verification of Final Dose Tables Date:
Monday, July 23, 2018 11:24:57 AM
- Greg,
The Hematite server is back up a little earlier than expected, so I was able to perform my verification.
You did not have this one highlighted, but I noticed that for LSA 02-03, the EMC area was primarily due to U-234, there was very little Th-232 present. Maybe the U/Th is designating Th-234? Does not change the numbers at all, just a point of clarification.
For LSA 05-01, the 0.11 EMC, and 0.13 Wtd SOF are correct. Vol 3 Chap 16 Rev 1 (HEM-18-002) corrected these numbers, from the originally reported values. The originally reported EMC was a technical error, and the originally reported Wtd SOF appeared to be a typo (human error).
For LSA 08-12, the 0.14 EMC is correct. Vol 3 Chap 21 Rev 1 (HEM-18-006) corrected this number, from the originally reported value. The originally reported EMC value was a technical error.
For LSA 10-12, the 0.23 Wtd SOF is correct. Vol 3 Chap 4 Rev 2 (HEM-18-006) Appendix A spreadsheet contained a technical error regarding the number of samples used in the spreadsheet to calculate the 3-layer Wtd SOF. The value of 0.23 reported in Vol 3 Chap 4 Rev 2 and in the summary table of Vol 7 Chap 1 however is correct.
For BSA 01-02, the reported DCGL fraction of 0.05 was rounded up from 0.048. The Vol 4 Chap 7 report which contains BSA 01-02 does report the DCGL fraction as 0.041, with 0.007 added to account for the presence of the downspouts (PSA 03-02). However in the summary table we submitted for Volume 7 Chapter 1, we appear to have double counted for the PSA 03-02 dose, since the BSA 01-02 report incorporated the PSA 03-02 dose into the final BSA 01-02 DCGL fraction of 0.048. So this one appears to be a combination of a rounding error, and human error (double counting).
For BSA 02-02, the same issue as noted above for BSA 01-02, the PSA 03-02 dose was double counted as well.
For BSA 02-15, the value reported in the summary table for Vol 7 Chap 1 of 0.04 is a typo (human error), the correct value of 0.004 was reported in Vol 4 Chap 3 (HEM-17-059).
For BSA 03-02, the same issue as noted above for BSA 01-02 and BSA 02-02, the PSA 03-02 dose was double counted as well.
For BSA 03-04, the value reported in the summary table of Vol 7 Chap 1 of 1.0 was a typo (human error), the correct value of 0.01 was originally reported in Vol 4 Chap 8 (HEM-17-062).
For BSA 04-06, the final DCGL fraction reported in Vol 4 Chap 11(HEM-17-47) of 0.03 is correct.
However this value did not include the additional dose for PSA 03-02 which was also present on the exterior of BSA 04-06 (Building 115). So in the summary table of Vol 7 Chap 1, an additional 0.2 mrem/year was added to BSA 04-06, to account for the presence of PSA 03-02, taking the final DCGL fraction to 0.04 for BSA 04-06. This was not clearly spelled out in Vol 7 Chap 1, and there was not an additional column in the table showing the dose from remaining piping, so it appeared to be a rounding error, but was really due to poor explanation on our part.
For BSA 05-01, the mean of 308 TSC originally reported in Vol 3 Chap 16 Rev 1 (HEM-18-002) mistakenly included the 2 biased measurements also collected from BSA 05-01. The mean of the systematic measurements (excluding all biased measurements) is 273, the DCGL fraction was calculated separately and did not replicate the error of including the biased measurements, so the originally reported value of 0.01 DCGL fraction for BSA 05-01 (springhouse foundation) is correct.
I apologize in the delay for getting all of this information to you. Please let me know if there is anything I need to clarify, or if there is any additional help I can provide. Thank you.
W. Clark Evers, CHP
From: Evers, William C.
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 3:57 PM To: 'Chapman, Gregory'; Parks, Leah; Pallagi, Kenneth E.
Cc: Smith, James
Subject:
RE: RE: RE: Verification of Final Dose Tables
- Greg,
Unfortunately the Hematite server is down right now, it has been taken out of service and is in the process of being moved to the Westinghouse Cranberry HQ location. It should be back in operation by Tuesday. So I dont have access to the FSS data right now to verify exactly why some of the numbers differ slightly, but I also dont want to hold up anything in the review process. So I am going to answer to the best of my knowledge, based on the information I do have in front of me right now, and then when I get server access next week, I will follow up with an e-mail confirming 100%.
First off, it looks like Leah originally identified the issue with LSA 10-12. The final weighted SOF should be 0.23, the 0.19 submitted in the spreadsheet of the appendices was in error. It had to do with the number of stations that were used in the weighting calculation.
For BSA 02-15, the discrepancy certainly seems to look like human error when entering the numbers in the table, at least in my opinion. We originally reported a DCGL fraction of 0.04, and you have calculated a 0.004 DCGL fraction. If we are in error on this one it is conservative, Westinghouse would be comfortable moving forward with either number, whichever NRC is most comfortable with. I will review this one and confirm next week to be 100% certain.
For BSA 03-04, the residual DCGL fraction is listed as 1.0, this is of course a typo. The actual residual
DCGL fraction is 0.01, and the reported dose of 0.25 mrem/year is still correct.
As for the rest that you have identified in Table 1 and Table 2 highlighted in yellow, I also agree with you, the differences look to be rounding differences. Seeing as the reported numbers are always 0.01 higher than the numbers you have calculated it would seem to me that we just made the decision when the numbers were close to round up (conservatively). Again, I will review this and confirm next week.
Everything that is not highlighted in the table I can confirm we are in agreement, and there have been no changes that would affect the numbers.
I am sorry I cannot offer more concrete answers right now, but I definitely wanted to give you all of the information that I can today. Hopefully this will not impede the NRC review.
Ken is on travel this weekend, and I will be out of the office tomorrow, so I am listing my cell phone number below, in case you need to reach me tomorrow, please dont hesitate to reach out.
W. Clark Evers, CHP (618) 210-8018
From: Chapman, Gregory [1]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 2:23 PM To: Evers, William C.; Parks, Leah; Pallagi, Kenneth E.
Cc: Smith, James
Subject:
RE: RE: RE: Verification of Final Dose Tables
- Clark, Similar to Leahs request earlier, Im wondering if you would do a quick verification of the FSSFR results summary tables Ive compiled for the BSAs and LSAs. Ive pulled values directly from the reports or the supporting spreadsheets. Ive highlighted those values that are different than the FSSFR Vol 7 summary tables. The response you made previously to Leah accounts for most of those and I believe the remaining ones are primarily rounding errors or human errors (e.g., see BSA 03-04 in Vol 7 tables and LSA 10-12 in the spreadsheets vs Vol 7 tables). Thanks in advance.
Greg From: Evers, William C. [2]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 10:49 AM To: Chapman, Gregory <Gregory.Chapman@nrc.gov>; Parks, Leah <Leah.Parks@nrc.gov>; Pallagi, Kenneth E. <pallagke@westinghouse.com>
Cc: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>
Subject:
[External_Sender] RE: RE: Verification of Final Dose Tables
- Greg,
No, there have been no revisions to Volume 7 submitted to date. We discussed submitting a
revision in the past, but the end came a little sooner than expected, and we did not get one in to you. So the Vol 7 Chap 1 submitted on 12/19/17 (Letter HEM-17-73, ML# 17356A169) is the only version out there.
W. Clark Evers, CHP
From: Chapman, Gregory [3]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 9:00 AM To: Evers, William C.; Parks, Leah; Pallagi, Kenneth E.
Cc: Smith, James
Subject:
RE: RE: Verification of Final Dose Tables
- Clark, Was a revised Vol 7 submitted? I ask just to make sure weve correctly reviewed and referenced the applicable FSSFR volumes.
Greg From: Evers, William C. [4]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 9:53 AM To: Parks, Leah <Leah.Parks@nrc.gov>; Pallagi, Kenneth E. <pallagke@westinghouse.com>
Cc: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Chapman, Gregory <Gregory.Chapman@nrc.gov>
Subject:
[External_Sender] RE: Verification of Final Dose Tables
- Leah,
There were two changes to the final dose estimate to be aware of since Volume 7 was originally submitted. Changes were made to the EMC dose estimates for LSA 05-01, and LSA 08-12, based on the respective revisions to those specific LSA reports. These changes were previously reflected in revisions to Volume 3, Chapter 16 (LSA 05-01) and Volume 3, Chapter 21 (LSA 08-12).
For LSA 05-01 the EMC dose changed from 8.75 mrem/yr to 2.75 mrem/yr, thus lowering the final LSA dose estimate from 13.18 mrem/yr to 7.18 mrem/yr.
For LSA 08-12 the EMC dose changed from 1.25 mrem/yr to 3.5 mrem/yr, thus raising the final LSA dose estimate from 9.43 mrem/yr to 11.68 mrem/yr.
Additionally these changes lowered the average LSA dose from 5.98 to 5.93 mrem/year, based on the revised dose estimates. The maximum LSA survey unit dose of 15.93 mrem/year (LSA 08-10) remains unchanged. These were the only two changes in final dose estimates. I have reviewed Table B-1 and B-2 that you provided and confirmed that all of the other information is correct (with the exception of the two areas noted above).
Please let me know if there is anything else we can provide.
W. Clark Evers, CHP
From: Parks, Leah [5]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 2:32 PM To: Pallagi, Kenneth E.; Evers, William C.
Cc: Smith, James; Chapman, Gregory
Subject:
Verification of Final Dose Tables
- Ken, Jim asked that I send these final dose tables directly to you to verify. We plan to put these dose tables into the final SER and wanted to verify their accuracy with you.
Table B-1 matches Volume 7, Chapter 1, Table 3-1 in the FSSFR.
Table B-2 matches the spreadsheet that you gave to use titled Final LSA Dose for NRC.
We wanted to check with you to see if there have been any changes to the various doses based on subsequent revisions to the various Chapters.
Thank you, Leah Parks This e-mail may contain proprietary information of the sending organization. Any unauthorized or improper disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail and attached document(s) is prohibited. The information contained in this e-mail and attached document(s) is intended only for the personal and private use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete the original e-mail and attached document(s).
This e-mail may contain proprietary information of the sending organization. Any unauthorized or improper disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail and attached document(s) is prohibited. The information contained in this e-mail and attached document(s) is intended only for the personal and private use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete the original e-mail and attached document(s).
This e-mail may contain proprietary information of the sending organization. Any unauthorized or improper disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail and attached document(s) is prohibited. The information contained in this e-mail and attached document(s) is intended only for the personal and private use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete the original e-mail and attached document(s).