ML19254B175
| ML19254B175 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 08/30/1979 |
| From: | Glenn R, Hodge C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19254B174 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909240519 | |
| Download: ML19254B175 (6) | |
Text
-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of DUKE POWER COMPANY Docket No. 70-2623 (Amendment to Materials License SNM-1773 for Oconee Nuclear Station Spent Fuel Transportation and Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station)
NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF R. DANIEL GLENN AND C. VERNON H0DGE Question No. 1 What is the purpose of your testimony?
Response.
Tne Environmental Impact Appraisal related to Spent Fuel Storage of Oconee Spent Fuel at McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool (EIA) evaluated the impacts associated with spent fuel transport along a route originally identified by Duke Power Company as its primary transshipment route.
- EIA, pp. 8-9.
Since the development of the EIA, new NRC regulations governing the shipment of spent fuel have become effective.
(44 Fed. Reg. 34467, June 15, 1979; 10 CFR 573.37). The regulations became effective on July 16,1979 and require, in part, NRC route approva1. Based on the NRC Staff review, Duke's originally proposed primary route was found unacceptable as it passed through a portion of Charlotte, North Carolina.
Several alternative routes have been approved by the NRC Staff. The analysis presented in the EIA has accordingly 993030 790924d57
. been re-examined to see whether the analysis remains valid, given the changed routing for the proposed transhipments.
Question No. 2.
Have you examined the EIA and the routes approved by the NRC Staff?
Response
Yes.
In addition, NRC Staff Exhibits Nos. 6 and 9 dealing with Carolina Environmental Study Group (CESG) Contention No. 2, have been reviewed.
Question No. 3.
Have you formed any judgment about the effect of the route changes on the analyses contained in the EIA and Staff Exhibits Nos. 6 and 9?
Response.
Yes.
Question No. 4.
What is that judgment?
Response
The decision to disapprove transport of Oconee spent nuclear fuel through Charlotte, North Carolina, thereby requiring the use of alternate routes, will not have a significant effect on the doses and conslusions presented in the EIA and Staff Exhibits Nos. 6 and 9.
Question No. 5.
Please provide the basis for your judgment.
393031
. Response.
The similarity of doses incurred during routine transport is a result of trade-offs in speed of transport, distance traveled, type of roadway utilized and population density along the routes (see Table 1). The effects of the route changes on the various scenarios analyzed by the NRC Staff are presented in Table 2.
In most cases, alternative routing results in no change in impacts.
In two cases, the change in impacts is small.
Question No. 6 In those cases where there is a change, please discuss the change and its significance.
Resoonse.
The total dose to the public from routine transport of 300 spent fuel assemblies from Oconee to McGuire on the alternate routes increases 30 to 130 percent from the doses calculated for use of the primary route. These increases are due almost totally to an increase in the dose to persons traveling concurrently (same direction) with the spent fuel shipments.
The latter increase is due primarily to the slower, closer-following traffic assumed on the alternate routes. This impact increases from 0.08 person-rem by a factor ranging from 1.2 to 4, depending on the route analyzed (see Table 1). The irgest of these doses, about 0.3 person-rem, represents.04 percent of the annual background population dose, and thus would be considered insignificant.
In addition, the dose to the maximum individual along the route increases due to travel through small towns. The dose to this hypothetical individual from 993d3P4
. 300 shipments would be 0.3 mrem instead of the 0.02 mrem presented in the EIA. However, the dose to this individual is included in the population dose (see Table 1), and is presented only to indicate the expected highest dose to an individual within the population. The 0.3 mrem dose is equivalent to 0.3 percent of the dose received annually from naturally occurring sources. Since this dose represents 0.3 percent of annual background radiation, which would be included in nornal fluctuations, the dose would be considered insignificant.
Question No.,.
Plea 3e discuss the effect of alternative routes on the Staff's accident analyses.
, Response.
With regard to *be NRC Staff's accident analyses, after traveling all of the alternate routes, it was determined That no population centers larger than population center B (E1A, page 35) existed along these routes.
Other aspects of the accident scenarios used in EIA are not site specific and need not be altered because of changes in routing.
The transportation accident frequencies used in the EIA are based on statistics for all types of roadways from multi-lane interstate highways to two-lane secondary roadways. Changes in the percentage of two-lane highway travel will not affect the accident frequencies stated in the EIA.
Thus, the conclusions reached.in the EIA with regard to accidents remain valid.
SS3033
Table 1.
Comparison of Doses to Population Using Various Approved Routes and the Primary Route Which Was Disallowed i
l l
Dose (manrem)
Travelers on Roadway Population Population Route Living Along Living Along Opposite Same No.
Route Route Direction Direction Total 1
23,000 0.11 0.06 0.3 0.47 2
20,000
.10
.06
.3
.46 3
33,000
.12
.04
.1
.26 e
4 30,000
.11
.04
.2
.35 Primary 42,000
.10
.04
.08
.22
?
\\
i i
i to to CJ CD CO 4a a
i Table 2.
Effect of Route Change on Transportation Scenarios Analyzed by the NRC Staff Dose Effect Scenario 1.
Dr,1ve.r Impacts (EIA, Section 5.3.1)
No change t
2.
Public at Truck Stops (EIA, Section 5.3.2; NRC No change Staff Exhibit No. 6 Item 1 of Table I) 3a. Population Living Along Route (EIA. Section No change 5.3.1; NRC Staff Exhibit No. 6, Item 2a of Table I) 3b. Most Exposed Individual Living Along Route Due to passage of the~ shipments through small towns, this (EI A, Section 5.3.1; NRC Staf f Exhibit No. 6, impact increases from 0.02 mrem to 0.3 mrem.
This increased Item 2b of Table I) impact is still small.
i 4a. Traffic Jam (EIA, Section 5.3.2i NRC Staff Four lane road; no change.
Exhibit No. 6, Item 3a of Table I) e Two-lane road; no vehicles would be parked beside the cask.
This would make the impacts of the traffic jam less than stated in ti
- EIA.
i 4b. Vehicle following Shipment (EIA, Section 5.3.1; No change.
I NRC Staff Exhibit No. 6, Item 3b of Table I) i 4c. Same Way Traffic (NRC Staff Exhibit No. 6, Item Due to slower, closer following tn.ffic on alternate routes, Item 3c of Table I) this impact increases from 0.08 perscn-rem by a factor ranging from 1.2 to 4, depending on tee route analyzed.(See Table 1). This increased impact is still small.
4d. Opposite Way Traffic (NRC Staff Exhibit No. 6 Essentially no change.
See Table 1.
~
CC Item 3d of Table I)
' f.O C 5 Staff Nu change h
. Accident Analyses (EIA, Section 6.1; Exhibit No. 9)
Cn