ML19241B381
| ML19241B381 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 12/06/1978 |
| From: | Mattsen C NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19241B379 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907160301 | |
| Download: ML19241B381 (9) | |
Text
.
.w, =- m.n w w:
c~n..a
_r EXHIBIT D r**
/
.H. C/$2.nb'.K.f p
/p nouq[o, umiso s ATes v
,[h e,j }
NUCLEAR REGU LATO RY COMM!sslCN W"
W AsHIN G TO N, c.
C.
20555
,.gt. g J ~
om t,y....*.f CEC 0 i E3 MEMORANCUM TO: Files FRCM:
Catherine R. Mattsen, FPSSB, ES, SD THRU:
Keith G. Steyer, Chief, FPSSB,' ES, SD
SUBJECT:
CHANGE IN POTENTIAL HAZARDS FROM RELEASE OF SPENT FUEL AFTER 5-YEAR CECAY In considering the p intial hazards of transporting spent fuel thrcugh urban environs as analyzed in SAND 77-1927, the question arose to the staff: To what extent would nciding back spent fuel for five year-before shipment reduce the potential hazards that could result fecm tr.e release of the radioactive uterial by acciuent or through sabotage?
To answer this question I calculated the relative potential latent cancer fatalities for 120-day-old spent fuel versus 5-year-old spent fuel (SAND 77-1927 analyzed 150-day-old spent fuel).
For the radionuclide inventary at 120 days and five years a recent (May 1978) run of these values., using the ORIGEN ccde, was obtained frca 0. W. Herman, ORNL (note attachment "A*).
The maximum percent released for the various nuclides was assumed the same as in SAND 77-1927. These actually play a small part in calculating the relative hazards; since the
.lides that were the primary centributors to the dose were all soli., the same percent release (l'.) was assumed for all of these. Re -cer-microcurie values came frco SAND 77-1927, table 58; for a few nuclides which were not included in table 53, values were obtained frca ' DASH-iaC0 and adjusted to re' lect the difference between rem-per-micrecurie-depcsited in the pulmonary ccmpart.:ent and rem-cer-curie inhaled.
For the risk faccors, i.e., latent cancer fa:alities per million persen-rem, I used those in '<.' ASH-1400 and repeatad the calculation using these in SAND-77-1927. These two sets of risk facters varied in cnly two cases (for thyroid and for bene, Sandia used a varying risk factor), hcwever the difference in the bone risk factor did affect the finai answer.
As a result of these calculations I concluded that the pctential hazard frca release of 5-year-old spent fuel was one third to cne half of the Y
S R
.om C "r 1
\\ '
l J-79071603 d C
l L-
Note to the Files potential ha:ard of 120-day-old spent feel or that holding back 120-day-old spent fuel for an additional 4 2/3 years results in a decrease in patential hazard by a factor of 2 or 3 depending upon which risk factors are anre accurate.
/5 Catherine R. Mattsen Fuel Process Systems Standards Sr.
Division of Engineering Standards Office of Standards Development Attachments:
A.
Ltr. dated 5/3/78 frca 0. Her: ann (Union Carbide) to R. Stanford, SD B.
Methods Involved in Calculating Relative Potential Hazards frca Release of Spent Fuel at 120 Days and at S Yrs.
Distribution: Central Files SD Rdg/ Alpha FPSS8 Rdg/Subj bec:
R. 3. Minogue R. F. Barker R.
G. Smith K. R. Galler G. A. Arlotto V. Hodge R. H. Bernero C. Sawyer X. G. Steyer W. Lahs R.E.L. Stan ford C. MacConald C. R. Mattsen D. Nussbaumer
' N. A. Eisenberg D. R. Mcpkins A. N. Tse D. O. Mellis FPSS3 Ta s k "o. : !!/A
,b s
C l.,i g
Ju cn c: >l................. l... 5 0 : FP S 5 3 l
50:FPSS3
.....,......-..................l.................l l
I dA 4 r
./7 I
i un.um >l....".a t t s e n : bn <G5hfer I
l
, CR.
~s >I........................../17 12/5/78 l 12
.............................................l...................f...........
...../.73 l
l
.s.
./..
/4.0 s
,'s.:', '
-c.
2-
_ i ~
v;.,,,t \\ ;.
s
./
exarsIT s
/
~Km t^ %
h%$<
j I
z +. ~ ~, r. &
Cwh %C7'mu October 11, 1978
- p &k lW3f' lir. J. J. Itetay Design Engineericg
Subject:
Fuel Sterage Spent Feel T:ansportation Coara File CS HO.20
Dear Sir:
The attached inferration is supplied on the above subject as requested.
Please advice if I can provide other infernation.
Yetrr, very tritly3 D. f. Frech lucicat Engineer DFF::no Attaciment CC '4/Act:
!!r.11. T. Snead lir. R. 7.1:ar:! ell
!!r. R. G. Sn. pes Mr. 11.
'.). Tucker da b
pU lJJs f u Q[p n.;
..sli l'lc 7. t 4
'l
'n C I "ll
\\
r J"
%W Nw
s i
s CST 1.'L\\T!;!) S P I.:. i FU2L 1R/.;;3PC"TATION COSTS October, 1973 reanirment.tud Services Daily lea:,c charges for cask, yoke, vehicle and specini tools and equipment:
Truck 5 520 Rail 3600 Freicht Truck:
$1.35 per mile for loaded or en:pty e.i.sk.
Note:
$455 for cach fuel assembly shipped of f-si:e could be added to thin, b.tsed on $17.50 per hour atandby char;;es.
Rail Cask:
See Mr. J. W. Long's attached cetober 9, 1973 letter.
A1: hough previous information assumed that mandatory special trains would be utilised in the loaded dirce:ica, realis:i: estics:es shculd assume special train in both dirce:icns to mee: schedule constrain:s.
Labor The following estis:es are based on $13/hr. including fringe benefits and overhe:d, ten asseeJoly rail cask and experienca and observations concerning spent fuel shipments.
Type of Cask Number S Per Fuci Cask Tra ns f e r Turnaround. Hr.
persens Mcure Assembl.
Truck en-si:e 6
4 24 624 Truck off-si:2 16 5
BC 20dC Rail o n-s it e 20 100 250 Rail off-site 36 6
216 562
?b
\\' 'O 1
\\
(,. 7 l g.
-*4
- - eur e me ame em.
egpe w e = w e-e eem g en o mg.,e er, gee a g see esp e egne.
- g a m awe
" Se * *%p
- * *
- r "-*
- F W4'"w N,
- 9"*N M *
- M - M
- s.
. a.~
I' AIL r/.irCit.ATIM!
(ice meit.ch...g r c t: Irle< )
a r,...,.,. /
....w.
m,,..
C, t.r.. ~,a !..?
.e 1am.
- p t.
..r. g.vs.m a
(.m.. i.! -.. a, )
% s.. - _.
CATl!..?A (1)
S 5,8C5 5
6,168 9,048 S
9,048 (2) 2,430 2,543 3,735 3,735 (3) 2,319 4,638 2,319 2,319 (4) 4,638 9,276 4,638 4,638 CY '.w..':~'
(1) 6,576 9,048 8,280 (2) 2,723 3,735 3,420 (3) 4,638 2,699 2,319 (4) 9,276 5,396 4,633
. v.
W s. A,4 L,.r (1) 7,824 9,600 (2) 3,263 3,960 (3) 4,639 4,638 (4) 9,276 9,276 F.r.'.'.' '. 7.'.'D
(1) 11,472 (2) 4,748 (3) 4,427 (4) 8,354 (1)
L^.TC ~'] C;.S F.
.'in D"C1 '.C:Q:T 240,0C0 lbs.
(., i 1,.._,,.
C,...e c.
.,s. wa.
...,,,,,u a.
.-c.
a.c, u-v is.
(.,. ) c c ~
,.,..,, :..... s.
4.
- C
.:..n.
(4)
SFCd. ~~'JC',' $~7'/:C2 - 3CC' "'., "'F.'2
.e... -...,.,..,
c...n.,. m,.
,..r.,.-.....
m2v. c.,o
. s,
.a,
~.
ws
- c. -.,
~^.,,,s..,
-.. a s..
.C
,, e...,,0 0 c r..-s C3R a a #,-
v SD.D.,.
.4 C r A.g'
,,.,. c. _L.s d.'
t
.;.s..e
.,r.--
a
'v'J
., g d so
- e. '
W...e....
-A
/1
\\ t *
~
C6,
Jv(
b.M'""
P00R DillBIM
9 l
l
- 1.
e W
[W.-
[7 u:-- &.- j.?.tc-8 A
'a 11acter Butak w Aas Aad clu,n.ya F..
A e.<' s p 2lo pA cc-tGR twu a u?
V lu j.bt.c d d i c c o v u Y A e s -
(2 f.s 7 7 A t S C$tLL I
.n_.
'llu:. A.Acc kis.
nyta.on w,af u e neu f e.
g a c e aa,U.ie,m t e
. ~ e a w J <u
_ W- /.
. ~fr e J
vi.
m.._
7 LEL-18E Y)
&b&L.t.1 (
0N L%
v-7f'b y
n s
su'zd w s 8 = a / a. a /-
A u-<x.e w A et u
ch.4,~ &e an}. <2wcL,tc6~Xdt,f cavbwf.
tt he/W..
nie.
.ue&,
an& Jeu / &
/1l-f bf]cn O
/u'.o bes>u
^9 o
'11A C.
l
- G / gcc f an.~tip/: 2~- eny?, dfxx.cw m y@'.:.ntee.cw h
0
.cu y Cw kn'ta,;cc.s/
/ all Cx hLf.cd L
~o 0-.
Gr.-lbUhj [L% u b.utit
- e. u e a gl &? +,c L c c eci.d. O m& CN' a
Ocaw
%Ciq cu (d c1Luj.
~7h.
icas:.LDI t.4Llew e.d/
dezc
}/r b
/ Lei.cun.c d. u c.w MuS c_.cp.J/ uL c
m A %Q % m r mt d l<e c. j v x t" k Kc cen:/:
c-1 i
' ac.ur.et%
?i/-sotu
-4 tu-p.p.c,u; n7 (L; jt.<. cy'ortd.12; Y425% n.,
7C /7k.nuuh m
,1
.e
..3a
?[H OHNAL
i
< ~
v 4
enn a r..
,y..
2 da _. m.u-,.,a m m.n t,
EXHI3IT F
/
23.
Question In accordance with Table 5.2-1 of the aforementioned submittal, the occupa-tional exposure expected for the spent fuel pool modification is e:timated to be 125.5 man-rem.
Provide the data showing the derivation of this estimation. The data should include the expected dose rate to workers duri:g each phase of the operation, the number of people involved and their occupancy times.
Include the exposure that will be received from removal, decontamination and disposal of miscellaneous equipment presently stored in the pool.
Resoonse Since the original estimate of 125.5 ma.1-rem for completion of the proposed modification was submitted, a subsequent estimate has been calculated using more reliable data and additional information which was unavailable previously. Also, information from the Ginna modification was reviewed and factored into the revised estimate where applicable. The total occupational exposure necessary to accomplish the pool modification is presently estimated to be approxi=stely 76 man-rem.
This estimate is broken down in the revised Table 5.2-1 as to work gro"a number of indi-viduals involved, occupancy time, average dose rate, a..d job exposures.
It should be noted that uncertainties exist as to the effectiveness of underwater vacuuming in reducing dose rates to divers, and as to radiation levels from removed rack sections.
9
).
i "I
LN 4
b'g.,!
r I
s
Revised March 30, 1979 TABLE 5.2-1 (revised)
OCONIE NUCLEAR STATION SPENT FUEL PCCL 1 & 2 MCDIFICATICN DCSE ESTIMATE 3 1.
Removal, Decontaminatien, and Dispcsal of Miscellaneous Equi: ment Presen 1v Stored in Pool:
No. of Occupancy Avg. Dose Job Exposure Work Group Individuals Time (Man-Urs.)
Rate (mrem /hr)
(Man-Rem)
Operations 2
70 10 0.7 Engineering 2
70 10 0.7 Total 4
140 1.4 2.
Undervater Vacuuniing:
No. of Occupancy Avg. Dose Job Exposure Work Groun Individuals Time (Man-Hrs.)
Rate (mrem /hr)
(Man-Rec)
Miscellaneous 2 2
160 15 2.4 Operations 1
30 10 0.8 Health Physics 1
80 5
0.4 Total 4
320 3.6 3.
Base Plate Survev:
No. of Occupancy Avg. Dose Job Exposure Wo rk Grouc Individuals Time (Man-Hrs.)
Rate (mrem /hr)
(Man-Rec)
Miscellaneous diver 1
30 100 3.0 diver supvr.
1 30 10 0.3
}
Engineering 5
20 10 0.2 Health Physics 1
30 10 0.3 Janitorial 2
10 10 0.1 2
Total 10 120 3.9
(% D.
d g!
L Js
's TABLE 5.2-1 (continued) 4.
Rack Ecmev21 and Installation:
No. of Occupancy Avg. Dose Job Exposure Work Group Individuals Time (Man-Hrs.)
Rate (mrem /hr)
(Ma n-R e:n)
Miscellaneous divers (undereater) 5 300 100 30.0 divers (pool side) 5 300 5
1.5 diving supvr.
1 300 10 3.0 Operations bridge operators 2
1200 10 12.0 crane operators 2
800 5
4.0 Engineering 2
200 5
1.0 Health Physics 3
1200 10 12.0 Quality Assuracce 1
20 10 0.2 Janitorial 2
200 5
1.0 64.7 Total 23 4520 5.
Rack Discosal:
No. of Occupacey Avg. Dose Job Exposure Work Grouc Individuals Ti=e (Man-Hrs.)
Rate (crem/hr)
(Man-Re='
2 2
18 100 1.8 Miscellaneous Health Physies 2
14 5
0.1 Janitorial 2
14 5
0.1 2.0 Total 6
46 GRAND TOTALS No. of Qccupancy Effect ve :cse Jc:: Expcsure
'4c r:< Cr:ue Indie: duals Time fMan-Hrs.3 R2:e fmrem/h-1
( M a n - R e e '-
ALL 47 5106 15 75.e IVendar underwater vacuum :perators Vendor power saw operator and assistant L ',
C; k.1 l
s