ML20138D483

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Informs That Approach & Draft Statement of Work for Experimental Determination of Sabotage source-term for Shipments of Spent Fuel from Gas Cooled Power Reactors & Nonpower Reactors Acceptable
ML20138D483
Person / Time
Issue date: 07/15/1983
From: Burnett R
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To: Goller K
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
Shared Package
ML20136E458 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-84-682 NUDOCS 8512130240
Download: ML20138D483 (4)
v • d • e


Text

. _.

,. /3-(~ l V

JUL 15 1983 HEtiORANDUM FOR: Karl R. Goller Director Division of Facilities Operations, RES FROM: Robert F. Burnett, Director Division of Safeguards, flMSS

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR EXPERIMENTAL DETERMINATI0ft OF SABOTAGE SOURCE TERM FOR SHIPMENTS OF SPEtlT FUEL FROM GAS-COOLED POWER REACTORS AND NON-POWER REACTORS (RR-NMSS-83-3)

The approach and draft statement of work for the subject project as set forth in your memorandum of June 30, 1983 is acceptable to us-

,fh

( -]

x_

Robert F. Burnett, Director Division of Safeguards, NMSS DISTRIBUTION: SG-128 CSawyer CKNulsen TSSherr RFBurnett .

AHoadley 031213o240 e51112 PDR FOIA MI LLAR 84-682 PDR O

no emc>.5mT....h.'......5M..w....S.GF , . , , , , , , . . S G j. jh'. , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

.w , > . .C. .S. .a.w. y.e. .r. .. .. .... ... .C..K..N.

.. .u. .l. .s.

. .T. . . ..e..n.

. . . . ... . . .R.. .F

. ...E.

.. u.. ..r n. . e. . ..t. . .t.. . ... ... .. . .. . . . . . . . ...................... . . . ./..f

, care > .U.El.M......... ..%%13.......7/g/83......Z/p,/sa................

t .

............................J

t , ..

' JUL 1 S 1910

.c N Carl Sawyer, SGMT ,- ,

QUESTIONS ON SAFETY ANALYSIS RE. SABOTAGE OPERATIONS ON SPENT FUEL TRANSPORTATION As requested, here are some questions that come to mind regarding the review of the Sandia and Battelle-Columbus safety reports for sabotage operations during spent fuel transportation: .ddd.1',

A. Sandia (#23651:

1. Explain more fully D.L the %assumptions,. parameters,.and thods (i.e., i.sotopes, quantities released per isotope, pathways, '

critical organs, etc.1 used for predicting individual doses and provide a suninary of the individual dose results that are calculated at points 50,100, 200, 400,1,000 and 10,000 meters from the release point. Also, provide the total of all individual doses that can be received within a 50 mile radius. .

2. Clarify why Sandia's predicted individual doses (Table 4.6.5) do not compare favorably with Batte11e's (off by a factor of 100-10,000) and why they do not cover similar critical organs e

and distances. Also, explain why the standard used by Sandia to compare the individual doses is different from that used by (N

v Battelle.

i

3. Clarify why the population density used on p. 79 utilizes an 800 Km radius; whereas, Battelle used a 50 mi radius. The 800 Km 'b pff also contradicts the infonnation given in Table 4.6.3 and would %4J include several major cities on the Eastern seaboard.
4. Clarify whether the dose results given in Table 4.6.5 are only external radiation doses (as implied in sub-reference) or do they also cover internal doses. If these doses are not correct, please ) M -

provide the correct values for comparison with Batte11e's results.I C M 3 '/

5. Explain the basis (i.e., the criteria) used in predicting the gg' g,j health effects given in Tables 5.3.1 and 5.3.2, and explain /,,*. i . .' g why no health effects are given for the solid release inventory. ,-

d"> '".

A discussion regarding the criteria used to calculate these 'g results and how they relate to the Bier III Report is requested. /M ps ,js uat duo 2 ' cis, l

9*

'h, 941 -

3 ...

JUL 191910 Carl Sawyer, SGMT . .

! QUESTIONS ON SAFETY ANALYSIS RE. SABOTAGE OPERATIONS ON  !

l SPENT FUEL TRANSPORTATION j! As requested, here are some questions that come to mind regarding the review of  !

i the Sandia and Battelle-Columbus safety reports for sabotage operations during l

! spent fuel transportatio : .4.//,:L,, .

. up A. / Ed */* ^ d-  !

Sandia (#23651: f O.L &L

, 1. Explain mori fully the , assumptions, parameters,.and thods j (i.e., isotopes, quantities released per isotope, pathways, l critical organs, etc.) used for predicting individual doses and i' provide a sumary of the individual dose results that are calculated i

at points 50,100, 200, 400,1,000 and 10,000 meters from the release point. Also, provide the total of all individual doses that can be received within a 50 mile radius.
2. Clarify why Sandia's predicted individual doses (Table 4.6.5) do not compare favorably with Batte11e's (off by a factor of i 100-10,000) and why they do not cover similar critical organs j f- and distances. Also, explain why the standard used by Sandia to clN compare the individual doses is different from that used by i, Battelle.

i

3. Clarify why the population density u' sed on p. 79 utilizes an 800 i

' "? '/

O.e t Km radius; whereas, Battelle used a 50 mi radius. The 800 Km

also contradicts the infonnation given in Table 4.6.3 and would %43 include several major cities on the Eastern seaboard.

1

4. Clarify whether the dose results given in Table 4.6.5 are only i external radiation doses (as implied in sub-reference) or do they I also cover internal doses. If these doses are not correct, please ) M -

{ provide the correct values for comparison with Batte11e's results.147'/

j. 5. Explain the basis (i.e., the criteria) used in predicting the g.,;,'.j.4f health effects given in Tables 5.3.1 and 5.3.2, and explain l * -

i why no health effects are given for the solid release inventory. '!'""~ g,;4 A discussion regarding the criteria used to calculate these

"'J . " r

results and how they relate to the Bier III Report is requested. "* /*j'
g. j 9 wsli C M ' i c' k *b ' % -*.

i i -

f l

j%

i L

1 mL 191983

- 1 B. Battelle (Task 3 Reportl
k -
1. Explain more fully the assumption?, parameters., and methods (i.e., isotopes, quantities released per isotope, pathways, critical organs, etc.).used for predicting the individual doses and provide a sumary of the individual dose results that are calculated at points 50,100, 200, 400,1,000 and 10,000 meters from the release point. Also, provide the tote 4 m' all 4divid =1 TS""yLJ4

., doses that can be received within a 50 mile radius.

2. Explain why the external radiation dose is not included in , t Batte11e's results as it was in Sandia's. Also, explain why the (8"  !

standard used by Battelle to compare individual doses is differeng  !

from that used by Sandia.

3. Confirm the results given in Tables,2.16 and 2.17 are indeed man-rem. Such informaticn is contradicted as being only rems on pages _27, and 28. a/d k m.'es -Aun.

Ig[gr 4. Explain the basis (i.e., the criterial used in predicting the health effects given on pages 27 and 28 and why the results in the August  ;

report are no longer valid. Note a discussion regarding the criteria ,

used to calculate these results and how they relate to the Bier III .

Report is requested.

Frank C. Davis e -

e, e

A. ma

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20138D483&oldid=2868379"