ML20024E068
| ML20024E068 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/28/1983 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Stanford R EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024E069 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-PROJ-M-12 GL-81-38, NUDOCS 8308090126 | |
| Download: ML20024E068 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ -
JUL 2 81983 fir. R. E. L. Stanford Progran lianager Utility fiuclear Waste f4anagenent Group 1111 19th Street Washington, DC 20036
Dear fir. Stanford:
This is in response to your letter of July 7,1983 to fir. Willian J. Dircks, which addresses our Generic Letter 81-38 concerning interin storage of low-level radio-active wastes at power reactor sites.
In the enclosure to the generic letter we indicated that shielding configurations for radioactive waste storage facilities would be dictated by annual dose linits specified in 40 CFR 190 and that of f-site doses from onsite storage nust be sufficiently low to account for other uraniun fuel cycle sources. As an exanple, we stated that an additional dose of < i nren/ year is not likely to cause the limits of 40 CFR 190 to be exceeded. -This was intended as a radiation level that would require no further consideration under any circunstance.
It was not our intent that the 1 mren/ year level becone a design criterion or de facto requirenent.
The actual requirenent is given explicitly in 40 CFR Part 190 That is, the con-bined doses to any nenber of the public from all uraniun fuel cycle activities must not exceed 25 nren in a year..Deternination of this conbined dose is difficult because it involves nunerous considerations including doses from radioactive ef fluents, direct radiation doses from the turbine building and other plant struc-tures, doses from other fuel cycle activities, local food consumption patterns, and residence tines at critical locations.
In an effort to sinplify the approval process, we established that a blanket acceptance of facilities designed to 1 nrem/ year would be helpful in sone instances.
Your calculations suggest that this value nay be too low, even for storage facilities that are considerable distances from site boundaries. He believe there is nerit in your suggestion and are undertaking a reevaluation to detemine whether a somewhat higher value nay be appropriate for general acceptance. Depending upon the outcone, we will issue a clarification of the enclosure to Generic Letter 81-38.
Pending ctnpletion of this reevaluation, a statenent on our position and views nay be of value to the industry.
It is our position that radioactive waste storage facilities should be designed in a nanner which will assure compliance with 40 CFR 190 while retaining a substantial degree of operational flexibility. He believe that it is possible to achieve this using, for design purposes, a range 8308090126 830728 PDR PROJ M-12 PDR OFFICE)
.............. - ~......
-............. - =.
SURNAME) o4re >
nac ronu sis tioe> nacu om OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usceo: mi-m.co
A l
l R. E. L. Stanford
-2 of off-site dose limits, including those proposed by your consultant, Dr. Lawroski, provided such a design basis is supported by a sufficient analysis of real and potential sources of radiation exposure to convince an objective third party that 40 CFR Part 190 will not be violated.
Thank you for your interest and thoughtful letter.
Si ncerely, Odinal Sind 83 E. G. Cu /
arold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION:
HRDenton l
EGCase WJDircks DGEi senhut RJMattson JWRoe TRehm VStel1o JGDavi s RBMinogue GHCunningham RECunningham LCRouse REBrowning TPSpeis RHVollmer HLThompson JNGrace BJSnyder l
LUnderwood DRMuller FJCongel WPGammill CAWilli s MLGarver-(13305)
DMeyer PBrandenburg PPPAS fp E00 Readir,; File
/[ l NRC PDR_
? Central - File" METB Subject" File 12.1 METB Reading File
. _. f..u l _
- SEE PREVIpdS) WHITE F0JVt0NCURRENC { 'n CSP S
DSI:RP:tTETB D
R I
i, -
i OFFICE)
,"..S.I : RP : M.ET.B DSI:R.P 0 f:NRR
"* U " "
- a--
~
y 4..".. "
- af.
SURNAME) a
. g. = =.
.a.
om>
NRc FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0243 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam mi m.oo
Y
.f a.
/
R. E. L. Stanford o off-site dose linits, including those proposed by your consultant Dr. Lawroski, pro ided such a design basis is supported by a detailed analysis of 11 likely pote ial sources of radiation exposure from all fuel cycle source during the expect life of the facility.
Thank yo for your interest and thoughtful letter.
Si ncerely, s
s-l Harold R.
enton, Director Office Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION:
HRDenton EGCase WJDircks DGEisenhut RJMattson JWRoe TRehm VStello JGDavis RBMinogue GHCunningham RECunningham LCRouse REBrowning TPSpeis RHVollmer HLThompson JNGrace BJSynder LUnderwood DRMuller FJCongel WPGammill CAWillis
-MLGarver (133 )
'?
DMeyer PBrandenbu 9
(;
PPAS.
ED0 Re ing File NRC P
'Cen al File.
4' ME Subject File 12.1 B Reading File CSPaul:
.DSI:
METB.
DS ETB D
DSI:NRR NRR NRR orr et su AME)............b......h................. 9.........e,r,,,,,
,,$,@a,$,$,j,o,n,,,,
,,,(,@,Q a,s,e,,,,,,,,,,,,,y,@,D,e,g,t,o,n,,,,,,
... 7..N.... 3......
.. '.7J.p/.83 7
83
......./..../. 8 3
.....g..................
7
......./..../. 8 3 7
......./..../. 83 7
oare >
nac ronu ma no-so) Nacu eno OFFICIAL RECORD COPY-us a mt.-m.=
r FROM:
ACTION CONTROL DATES CONTROL NO.
h 7/M!n 13305 1
- n. t. L. sta: ford
"-'=^*'~c Utility Nuclear idaste Management Groep g /t[g3 oATE OF oOCouENT (UmMG) 7/7/g3 iuTERiu aEety TO-PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE FINAL REPLY g[
,?,
g Dircks rite tOCATiON yyayg
,7 DESCRIPTION
[ LETTER O uEuo O REPORT O OTHER SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS Request clarificaties of Generic Letter 81-63, dtd 11/10/81 with respect to the 21 mR/ year dose to the public ASStGNED TO DATE INFORMATION ROUTING Dentaa N 3/11/83 Dircks 2.
Spets Eisenhut 7/12L8_3 Roe 3.
Mattson riattenn 7/18/B3-Aehn 4.
Vo11mep r:u11er 7/15/R3 Stelle 5.
Thompson camnill 7/is/n3 Davis 6.
Grace lN Willk 7[/1 A/R3 Minogue 7.
SnyderN
GCunningham Case /Benton N
1.
PPAS x
NRC FORM 232 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS i
'8 80)
PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL b
II I
I I
be M.
MM s WOF