ML20206K615

NRC Staff Response to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of UT Contention C (Dose Limits).* Staff Submits That Decision in Applicant Favor on Utah Contention C, Warranted as Matter of Law

ML20206K615
Person / Time
Site:	07200022
Issue date:	05/11/1999
From:	Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20206K619	List: ML20206K615 ML20206K634
References
CON-#299-20368 ISFSI, NUDOCS 9905130216
Download: ML20206K615 (15)

Text

1 2036F 1 DOCKETED USNRC May 11,1999 3 W 12 All :57 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OFR c- r NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RUL.

ADJUOm

• 4p BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of -)

)

PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, L.L.C. } Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI 1

(Independent Spent Fuel )

1 Storage Installation) i f NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF UTAH CONTENTION C (DOSE LIMITS)

INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. f 2.749(a), the NRC Staff (" Staff") herewith responds to the

" Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition of Utah Contention C" (" Motion"), filed on April 21,1999 by Private Fuel Storage L.L.C. (" Applicant" or "PFS"). For the reasons set forth below and in the attached Affidavt 3f James Weldy and Elaine Keegan ("Weldy/Keegan Aff."),

the Staff submits that each of the issues raised by Utah Contention C and its supporting basis statements have been resolved, and there no longer exists a genuine dispute of material fact with respect to this cor tentio:1. Inasmuch as all issues have been resolved, the Applicant is entitled to a decision in its favor on Utah Contention C as_ a matter of law. The Staff therefore supports the Applicant's Motion and recommends that it be granted.

9905130216 990511 7 PDR ADOCK 07200022 C pm l5 t

m o

BACKGROUND

' Utah Contention C (" Failure to Demonstrate Compliance with NRC Dose Limits") was filed by the State of Utah on November 23,1997.' As admitted by the Licensing Board,2 the contention states as follows:

CONTENTION: The Applicant has failed to demonstrate a reasonable assurance that the dose limits specified in 10 CFR f 72.106(b) can and will be complied with in that: )

I

1. License Application makes selective and inappropriate use of data j from NUREG-1536 for the fission product release fraction. j i

2. License Application makes selective and inappropriate use of data j from SAND 80-2124 for the respirable particulate fraction.

3. The dose analysis in the License Application only considers dose

- due solely to inhalation of the ptssing cloud. Direct radiation and ingestion of food and water are not considered in the analysis.

In the basis statements for this contention, the State asserted that the Applicant's dose analysis in i 8.2.7.2 of its Safety Analysis Report ("SAR"), filed with its application of June 20, 1997, did not provide an adequate evaluation of the dose consequences of a loss-of-confinement accident at the Private Fuel Storage Facility ("PFSF"), in that it "makes selective and inappropriate use of data sources regarding doses, and fails to take important dose contributors

.into account" (Utah Contentions, at 18). Specifically, the State asserted (a) that the Applicant incorrectly assumed (in the table on SAR p. 8.2-37), that the fraction of Cs-134, Cs-137, and

' " State of Utah's ' Contentions on the Construction and Operating License Application by Private Fuel Storage, LLC for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility" (" Utah Contentions"),

dated November 23,1997, at 16-21, 2

Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), IJP-98-7 (1998), at 185-86.

c

=

. Sr-90 that will be released into the canister is 2.3 E-5, based on NUREG-1536 (" Standard Review Plan for Dry: Cssk Starage Systems") (Id. at 19), (b) that the Applicant's dose analysis inappropriately relied upon a Sandia National Laboratories report concerning transportation j accidents (SAND 80-2124 "Transponation Accident Scenarios for Commercial Spent Fuel") to suppon its release fraction assumption that 90 % of the volatiles (Co-60, Sr-90, I-129, Ru-106, Cs-134 and Cs-137) released from the spent fuel to the canister will not escape the canister (Id.,

citing SAR at 8.2-38); (c) that the Applicant's dose analysis inappropriately relied upon the Sandia repon for its assumption that only 5 % of the release fraction of Co-60 and Sr-90 will be respirable (Id. at 20, citing SAR at 8.2-39); and (d) that the Applicant's dose analysis failed to take into

. account the' dose contributed by pathways other than inhalation of the passing cloud, such as direct radiation from cesium deposited on the ground, and ingestion of food and water or incidental soil ingestion, in violation of 10 C.F.R. f 72.24(m) (Id. at 21, citing SAR at 8.2-39).

In its motion for summary disposition of Utah Contention C, PFS assens that the bases for the contention have been eliminated and that the contention is therefore no longer valid. In support of this assenion, PFS states that it has revised the challenged portions ofits accident dose analysis in response to the Staff's RAls and in accordance with ISG-5. In panicular, PFS states that part 1 of the contention is no longer valid because its revised dose calculation no longer makes use of the fission product release fractions contained in NUREG-1536 or toe assumptions in SAND 80-2124 about the fraction of particulates or volatile fission products that would be released by the fuel but retained in the canister. Second, PFS states that pan 2 of the contention is no -

longer valid because its revised dose calculation no longer manies use of the respirable particulate fraction contained in SAND 80-2124.' Third, PFS states that pan 3 of the contention is no longer

l l

4 valid because its revised dose calculation takes into account all applicable environmental pathways to which a member of the public may be exposed both during passage of the contaminated plume and following deposition of contaminated material on the ground. See Motion for Summary  ;

l Lisposition, at 17-18; Affidavit of William Hennessy at-3-4. Accordingly, the Applicant I

concludes that summary disposition on Utah Contention C should be entered in its favor.

1 DISCUSSION

{

A. Legal Standards Governine Motions for Summary Disposition.

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.749(a), "[a]ny pany to a proceeding may move, with or without supporting affidavits, for a decision by the presiding officer in that pany's favor as to all or any pan of the. matters involved in the proceeding. The moving pany shall annex to the motion a separate, short, and concise statement of the material facts as to which the moving party contends that there is r o genuine issue to be heard." In accordance with 10 C.F.R. I 2.749(b), when a properly supported motion for summary disposition is made, "a party opposing the motion may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his answer; his answer by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this section must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact."8 In addition, an opposing party must annex to its answer a short and concise statement

' Accord, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2),

ALAB-841, 24 NRC 64, 93 (1986). General denials and bare assertions are not sufficient to preclude summary disposition when the proponent of the' motion has met its burden. Advanced Medical Systems, Inc. (One Factory Row, Geneva, Ohio 44041), CLI-93-22, 38 NRC 98,102 (1993). Although the opposing party does not need to demonstrate that it will succeed on the issues,-it must at least demonstrate that a genuine issue of fact exists to be tried. Id.; Public Service Co. ofNew Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-92-8, 35 NRC 145,154 (1992) (to avoid summary disposition, the opposing pany had to present contrary evidence that was so significantly probative as to create a material issue of fact).

i I

.$. l 1

of material facts as to which it contends there exists a gemiine issue to be heard. 10 C.F.R.

I 2.749(a). All material facts set fonh in the moving pany's statement will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted in the opposing party's statement. Id. .

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.49(d), "[t]he presiding officer shall render the decision sought if the filings in the proceeding, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the statements of the panies and the affidavit, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact {md that the moving pany is entitled to a decision as a matter of -

I law. "' j j

The Commission has encouraged the parties in its adjudicatory proceedings to utilize its I

-summary disposition procedures "on issues where there is no genuine issue of material fact so that

)

evidentiary hearing time is not unnecessarily devoted to such issues." Statement of Policy on 3

' Conduct of Licensine Proceedines, CLI-81-8,13 NRC 452,457 (1981).5 Further, the Appeal

' Board has recognized that summary disposition provides "an efficacious means of avoiding- ,

i unnecessary and possibly time-consuming hearings on demonstrably insubstantial issues."

i d

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.749(c), if a party opposing the motion demonstrates in its l affidavits that valid reasons exist why it cannot provide facts esantial to oppose the motion, the presiding officer may deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained, j

. or take such other action as may be appropriate.

5 The Commission recently endorsed its earlier policy statement, but indicated that " Boards l should forego the use of motions for summary disposition except upon a written finding that such a motion wir likely substantially reduce the number of issues to be decided, or otherwise expedite the proceeding." Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings, CL1-98-12, 48 NRC 18,20-21 (1998).. The Commission has also expressed its satisfaction with the Licensing ,

Board's expeditious handling of this proceeding. Private Fuel Storage, L.L. C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-98-13, 48 NRC 26, 37 (1998). The Staff submits that summary

' disposition of Utah Contention C will reduce the multiplicity of issues that require hearings in this i proceeding and will otherwise serve to expedite the proceeding.

6-Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), AIAB-6%,16 NRC 1245,

- 1263 (1982); Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Geerating Station, Unit 1),

ALAB' 590,11 NRC 542,' 550 (1980).6 The Commission's summary disposition procedures have been analogized to Rule 56 of Lt he Federal Rules.of. Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry i Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-443, 6 NRC 741, 753-54 (1977). Indeed, the '

Commission, when considering motions for summary disposition filed pursuant to 10 C.F.R.

I i 2.749 generally applies the same standards that the Federal courts use in determining motions j for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules. AdvancedMedical Systems, 38 NRC at 102 (1993). Decisions arising under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules may thus serve as guidelines to the Commission's adjudicatory boards in applying 10 C.F.R. I 2.749. Perry, supra, 6 NRC

. at 754.'

Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules, the pany seeking summary judgment has the burden of proving the absence of genuine issues of material fact. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. , 398 U.S.

144,157 (1970); Advanced Medical Systems, 38 NRC at 102. In addition, the record is viewed j i

in the light most favorable to the pany opposing the motion. Poller v. CBS, Inc., 368 U.S. 464, l l

473 (1%2); Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. (West Chicago Rare Earths Facility), ALAB-944, 33 NRC 81,144 (1991). - However, if the moving party makes a proper showing for summary 1

disposition'and the opposing party fails to show that there is a genuine issue of material fact, the l

i

• It is well settled that an agency may ordinarily dispense with an evidentiary hearing where i no genuine issue of material fact exists. Veg-Mix, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Agriculture, 832 F.2d

' 601, 607-08 (D.C. Cir.1987).

l j

.. I l

District Court (or Licensing Board) may summarily dispose of all of the matters before it on the j

' basis of the filings in the proceeding, the statements of the parties, and affidavits. Rule 56 (e),

Fed. R. Civ. P. Accord, Advanced Medical Systems, 38 NRC at 102; 10 C.F.R. I 2.749(d).

For the reasons set forth below and in the attached affidavit, the Staff submi:s that in the 1 instant proceeding, there does not exist any genuine issue of material fact with respect to Utah Contention C, and the Applicant is entitled to a decision in its favor on this contention as a matter  !

of law.

1 B. Adequacy of the Aeolicant's Loss-of-Confinement Dose Amtvsis, 1

1. Apolicable Regulatory Standards.

1 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 72.106(b) (as revised in October 1998, to be consistent with 10 C.F.R. Part 20 dose calculational methodology (63 Fed. Reg. 54559)), an applicant for an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) must establish a controlled area such that:

. Any individual located on or beyond the nearest boundary of the controlled area may not receive from any design basis accident the more limiting of a total effective dose equivalent of 0.05 Sv (5 rem), or the sum of the deep-dose equivalent and the committed dose equivalent to any individual organ or tissue (other than the lens of the eye) of 0.5 Sv (50 rem). The lens dose equivalent shall not

- exceed 0.15 Sv (15 rem) and the shallow dose equivalent to skin or ,

' to any extremity shall not exceed 0.5 Sv (50 rem). . . . j LAlso, as set forth in 10 C.F.R. ! 72.24(m), an applicant's SAR is required to contain:

An analysis of the potential dose equivalent or committed dose equivalent; to an individual outside the ~ controlled area from accidents or natural phenomena events that result in the release of radioactive material to the environment or direct radiation from the ISFSI . . . . The calculations of individual dose equivalent or committed dose equivalent must be performed for direct exposure, inhalation, and ingestion occurring as a result of the postulated

' design basis event.

d.

a

)

i Further, as set forth in 10 C.F.R. 6 72.126(d), an' applicant is required, inter alia, to submit q l

analyses of design basis accidents which "show that releases to the general environment will be within the exposure limits given in f 72.106." l The NRC Staff has issued various guidance documents concerning the proper methodology l

for calculating offsite doses' for design basis events. Certain guidance is watained, for example, 1

in NUREG-1567, St:ndard Review Plan for Soent Fuel Dry Storane, at 15-32 (Draft, September i 1998). More recently (and subsequent to the Applicant's submittal of its SAR), the Staff issued further guidance on the proper methodology to be utilized in calculating offsite doses resulting from a~ loss-of-confinement accident, as set forth in Interim Staff Guidance-5 (ISG-5), entitled

" Accident Dose Calculations" (September 28, 1998). ISG-5 recommends the use of release fractions contained in NUREG-1617 Standard Review Plan for Transoortation Packnoes for Soent Nuclear Fuel (DRAFT, March 1998),- Table 4-1. In addition, ISG-5 describes an acceptable method to account for radionuclides that are released into the cask volume but do not escape the cask volume based on the leakage rate of air out of a small hole in the confinement boundary. The ,

l technical bases for these release fractions (penaining to the release of gases, volatiles and {

particulate from the fuel to_ the cask interior) and calculation methodology are described in NUREG/CR-6487, Containment Analysis for Tvoe B Packanes to Transport Various Contents l (November 1996). In contrast to previous Staff guidance, ISG-5 does not assume that the confinement boundary will be breached (non-mechanistic failure). This is consistent with structural analysis which demonstrates that the confinement integrity is maintained during normal, off-normal' and accident conditions. Also, ISG-5 recommends the use of larger values for the concentration of " CRUD" on BWR fuel, and consideration of a more comprehensive array of  !

I l

1

w

.e 9

gaseous, volatile, and particulate radionuclides in the calculation. ISG-5 does not include any mitigation of the radioactive source term available for release from the cask interior to the  !

environment -- i.e., no credit is given for plateout, particle size, etc. This provides a bounding condition for the analysis. See Weldy/Keegan Aff. at 5-6.

2. The Anolicant's Revised Dose Am1vsis. i

'l As' set forth in the attached affidavit, the Staff has reviewed the revised accident dose I calculation which PFS submitted to the NRC in its February 1999 response to the Staff's RAls.

On the basis of this review, the Staff has determined that the Applicant's revised dose analysis satisfactorily addresses each of the concerns raised by this contention, that it appropriately follows the guidance in ISG-5, and that its resulting dose estimates satisfy the regulatory requirements set i

forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 72. Accordingly, the Staff has concluded that upon revision of the SAR

- to reflect the Applicant's revised dose analysis, the-license application will satisfy the Commission's regulatory requirements pertaining to the analysis of offsite dose consequences of a loss-of-confinement accident. Weldy/Keegan Aff at 4.7 In its initial SAR,'the Applicant utilized the release fractions from NUREG-1536, Table 7.1,' to estimate the quantity of radioactive material that is released from the fuel into the cask cavity during a loss-of-confinement accident. The Applicant then reduced this release 7 The Applicant has indicated that it' intends to revise its SAR to incorporate its revised dose analysis. See " Applicant's Response to State of Utah's Proprietary and Non-Proprietary Motions to Compel Applicant to Respond to State's First Set of Discovery Requests," dated May 7,1999,

' at 6 n.12 ("PFS intends to file a license amendment on or about May 14,1999 which will formally incorporate into the License Application the various analyses and commitments that it has made

'in.its RAI responses filed in February . . ."). The Staff understands that this submittal may be

' delayed for several days, to on or about May 19,1999. .

x

D.

quantity by (a) the fraction of volatile and particulate material that plates out on the interior of the cask and is not released to the environment, and (b) the fraction of Sr-90 and Co-60 that are not respirable and cannot contribute te the inhalation dose, which the ' applicant obtained from SAND 80-2124. Id. at 6-7.

-_ In section 8.2.7 of its initial SAR, the Applicant included a calculation of the consequences from a postulated loss-of-confinement accident, which considered the committed effective dose

. equivalent (CEDE) from the inhalation of the passing cloud; the SAR did not calculate the doses q

received by members of the public from other pathways, such as from direct exposure and ingestion, as required by 10 C.F.R. i 72.24(m). Id. at 7.

The Applicant's accident dose analysis was the subject of two separate Requests for Additional Information (RAls) transmitted by the Staff to PFS. On April 1,1998, the Staff requested additional information concerning the Applicant's accident dose calculations, including I the basis for its assumption of a respirable fraction of 5 percent for Co-60 and Sr-90, and its consideration of an inhalation pathway only (see RAIs 8-4, 8-5, and 8-8, dated April 1,1998).

Subsequently, the Applicant's dose analysis was funher addressed in an RAI transmitted by the

. Staff to PFS on December 10, 1998. In particular, RAls 7-1 and 8-4 of this second round of RAls requested that the Applicant revise its dose calculations to correct its assumptions for the respirai>1e fraction of Co-60 released in an accident; that the Applicant follow the latest NRC guidance on calculating offsite doses for a loss-of-confinement accident, as set forth in Interim Staff Guidance 5 (ISG-5), " Accident Dose Calculations"; and that the Applicantjustify its failure to model pathways other than the inhalation pathway. Responses to the Staff's first and second

. round RAls concerning these matters were submitted by PFS on May 19,1998, and February 10,

c l

.1999, respectively. PFS submitted a partial revision to Chapter 8 of its SAR on May 22,1998; j and has indicated that it will submit a further SAR revision in May 1999 that will incorporate its revised accident dose analysis, discussed below. Id. at 7-8; see n.7, supra.

The Applicant's revised dose analysis, set forth in its February 10,1999 response to RAls and its February 1999 revision of its SAR, appropriately take into account the considerations set j

fonh in ISG-5, with respect to the respirable release fractions of radionuclides and mitigation factors such as plateout and deposition. The Applicant's revised dose analysis conservatively assumes that 100% of the released radioactive material is respirable. The revised dose analysis bases the release quantity of radioactive material from the free volume inside the cask to the exterior of the cask on the volume of air that can leak through a very small diameter hole assumed 1

to exist in the containment boundary under accident conditions, consistent with ISG-5. This methodology is in contrast to the Applicant's original accident dose calculation in that it does not rely on a constant fraction of mass released from the fuel that escapes containment to account for mitigation factors such as plateout and deposition of material within the breached cask. Id. at 8.

In light of the Applicant's revised dose analysis, Part 1 of Utah Contention C, which assened that the license application made selective and inappropriate use of data from 1

' NUREG-1536 for the fission product release fraction, is no longer applicable, because (1) the accident dose calculation no longer utilizes data from NUREG-1536 for the fission product release  ;

1 fraction; (2) the accident dose calculation no longer utilizes data from SAND 80-2124 for the l

- fission product release fraction; and (3) the accident dose calculation follows a single NRC guidance document (ISG-5) and does not make selective and inappropriate use of data from any 4

source. Accordingly, Part 1 of Utah Contention C is no longer valid. See id. at 8-9.

=

. . Similarly, the Applicant's revised dose calculation no longer takes credit for any reduction in dose due to the size distribution of the released paniculates. The original dose calculation utilized data from SAND 80-2124 to support its assumption that only five percent of the isotcpes Co-60 and Sr-90 released from the fuel assemblies will be respirable by a human. The revised dose calculation assumes that all particulates matter released from the cask will be respirable.

1 Therefore, Part 2 of Utah Contention C, which assened that the License Application made 1

l selective and inappropriate use of data from SAND 80-2124 for the respirable particulate fraction, 1 i

is no longer applicable because (1) the accident dose calculation no longer utilizes data from f l

SAND 80-2124 for the respirable particulate fraction; and (2) the accident dose calculation follows i a single NRC guidance document (ISG-5) and therefore does not make selective and inappropriate  ;

use of data from any source. Accordingly, Pan 2 of Utah Contention C is no longer valid. See

- id. at 9.

The' Applicant's revised dose analysis also addresses the concerns raised in part 3 of the contention, with respect to dose pathways. In its revised dose analysis, the applicant has included an assessment of the dose delivered to members of the public following the deposition on the ground of radioactive material in the plume from a loss-of-confinement accident. This is in accordance-with the requirements of 10 CFR 72.24(m), which requires that calculations of individual dose equivalent or committed dose equivalent be performed for direct exposure, inhalation, and ingestion occurring as a result of postulated design basis events. The revised dose calculation assesses the dose received by a receptor from the direct exposure to contaminated ground,-inhalation of resuspended radioactive material, ingestion of milk and beef following grazing of contaminated plants, and inadvenent ingestion of soil contaminated with radioactive c

Ei ._

. material deposited on the ground. Additionally, the revised dose calculation determines the dose received from the external exposure to the contaminated plume as it passes the receptor. While the revised analysis omits the surface water and groundwater pathways, this is not inappropriate, based on the Applicant's determination, described in its Environmental Report, that there are no public or private surface drinking water supplies in the PFSF vicinity and there are no wells used for drinking water located near the boundary of the controlled area of the ISFSI, which is the location 4t which a member of the public could receive the greatest dose from the accident. Id.

at 9-10.

J The Applicant's revised dose analysis includes dose calculations for a receptor located at

{

the PFSF site boundary and at a location representing the nearest actual residences to the facility using realistic estimates of exposure times for receptors located at both locations. Both locations showed that the dose following deposition of radioactive material in the soil was dominated by external exposure to Cof60. - The Applicant's calculations also showed that a higher dose was i

received by an individual located at tLe PFSF fence than by individuals located at actual residences j in the area. Id. at 10. i i

Based on the Staff's review of the Applicant's revised dose analysis, as set forth in its 1

l February 1999 response to the Staff's RAls, the Staff has determined that the pathways considered j by the Applicant are appropriate and adequate to assess the dose that an individual located at the i

site boundary would receive from the passing cloud and following the deposition of radioactive material'on the ground after a loss-of-confinement accident. Further, the Staff agrees with the

. Applicant's determination that an individual located at the site boundary would be the member of the public who would receive the largest dose from a loss-of-confinement accident. 'Id. at 11.

s I

r r i J

14 j In light of the Applicant's revised dose analysis, part 3 of Utah Contention C is no longer valid, in that (1) the revised dose calculation determines the dose from direct exposure to the maximally exposed member of the public from the contaminated plume of airborne radioactive material; (2) the revised dose calculation determines the dose from all applicable pathways for the maximally exposed member of the public including direct exposure, inhalation, and ingestion pathways from the soil contaminated by radioactive material deposited by the plume; and (3) the

{

ingestion of contaminated water is not a credible pathway because the member of the public who )

would receive the largest dose from a loss-of confinement accident is a hypothetical individual located just outside the site boundary -- and there are no permanent residences, or public or private surface drinking water supplies or wells used for drinking water at the location of the maximally exposed individual. Id.

Based on the S'taff's review of the Applicant's revised dose analysis, the Staff is satisfied that the revised dose calculation was performed in accordance with applicable Staff guidance, ,

contained in ISG-5, and that it satisfies applicable NRC requirements. Specifically, the revised I

. dose analysis meets the requirements of 10 CFR 72.24(m), by performing calculations of i 1

individual dose equivalent for direct exposure, inhalation, and ingestion occurring as a result of

. a loss-of-confinement accident. Further, the revised dose calculation meets the requirements of

'10 CFR 72.1%(b), by demonstrating that any individual located on or beyond the nearest boundary of the controlled area will not receive from a loss-of-confinement accident a total

effective dose eqttivalent of 0.05 Sv (5 rem). Additionally, if the entire dose calculated by the J Applicant was deposited in any single organ, the sum of the deep-dose equivalent and the committed dose equivalent to any individual organ or tissue other than the lens of the eye would y

I

w

' not exceed 0.5 Sv (50 rem); the lens dose equivalent would not exceed 0.15 Sv (15 rem); and the shallow dose equivalent to skin or any extremity would not exceed 0.5 Sv (50 rem). Id. at 11-12.

Based upon the above considerations, the Staff has concluded that upon revision of the SAR to reflect the Applicant's revised dose analysis, which the Applicant indicates will be submitted later this month, the license application will satisfy the Commission's regulatory requirements' pertaining to the analysis of offsite dose consequences of a loss-of-confinement accident.: Further, upot revision of the SAR to reflect the Applicant's revised dose analysis, there is no basis for Utah Contention C. Id. at 12.

CONCLUSION Based upon the above considerations, as set forth in the attached Affidavit, the Staff has concluded that upon revision of the SAR to reflect the Applicant's revised dose analysis, the .

license application will satisfy the Commission's regulatory requirements pertaining to the analysis i

of offsite dose consequences of a loss-of-confinement accident. Further, upon the Applicar.t's revision of its SAR to reflect its revised dose analysis, there is no longer any basis for Utah

~

Contention C. Accordingly, the Staff submits that a decision in the Applicant's favor on Utah

' Contention C is warranted as a matter of law.

Respectfully submitted,

/

. , y, {l Y Sherwin E. Turk.

Counsel for NRC Staff s Dated 'at Rockville, Manland this.11th day of May,1999 ' ,

c ;

)

1