ML19210C208
| ML19210C208 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/07/1972 |
| From: | Tedesco R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Muller D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911130468 | |
| Download: ML19210C208 (3) | |
Text
....
Joctet :i's ENVZgog SEP 7 1972 asetzt see. so-2se & so-sze amaial R. Isoller, A==i=*===
miw.rse for ase8========1 Frejesta. L EREMESE Te AABECT CSIRENIS - TEREE MILE ISIAND, WEITS 1 & 2 Fleet Bases these Mila Zeland, Weite 1 & 2 Lassestes senses et a sees cr peaket Eneberes 50-2sp/320 P u = Beseeks Eurisemeestal Frejeece > =mah No. 3 Pse$eet Leader W. ausgee
==q===a %1=*w notes seposeber 4, 2972 Demariptier of P ' Beepenen to Agaser Cessnesta Resiser Statues Oneplete In respeans as year sequest, se effer the fallasses respenses to the Eurizessental Pr=*==*h Aemmer has se thres Mile Kalmed Ik=1-F3 ass. Ehkits 1 & 2 that een salated to endiamative weste heed 11ag spetase.
iginal signed byf
.OcQ2.5do ne6ert s. wises. -< - nimester for casemh meme SaEsty 4
streeterneo of f h aaint f -
Docket (5 M 89/320,, [
DISTRIBUTION:
Bhelsomenes W
As stated L u--A4..
CS unmaing es2 w/o sealeesene ETSB Reading A. Giambasse J. Talford (w/o encl.)
- 4. McDeesid V. Wilson (2)
ETSB Staff S. Essauer 9 9m ogg 15y0 334 j
.1. -r<-
3'*
c a
K. Raial
- e. o - i- -
L M 8 M 4=9....ETSB/L ETSB/.L-
..AD/4S/.L omer >
W. Seegna sunnauc>. 3.. 3mith.
.RSmithaec 4'Beneroya--- -----RT.ede s co----
9/ /72 9/ /72 9/ /72 DATE >
oc. <w...m "" **
7911180
.~
)
)
Comment-(first 2 pcragraohs on page 3)-The sluice from Ur. t 1 Powdex filter and neutralized regenerant solution from Unit 2 should be treated in the waste manageaent system.
Response-Figure 12 in the draft environmental statement is in-complete, in that. Unit I has the capability to recycle the Powdex sluice.
The applicant has been requested to provide an estimate of the percentage of the sluice that will be recycled annually.
Nonetheless, our evaluation of the system using 100% discharge of the Powdex sluice concluded that the releases would be less than.01 C1/yr., and would insignificantly contribute to our calculated releases.
The applicant has verbally stated that the final design for the Unit 2 demineralizer regenerant system will be different from that described in the PSAR and that the regenerants will be treated before release to Susquehanna River.
After the design has been submitted, we will evaluate the system to assure that it meets as low as practicable criterion.
Comment-(last paragraph on page 3 ) -Ti. e final statement should indicate the criteria for installation of a deep-bed demineral-izer for Unit 1 and should provide the results of an evaluation of the environmental effects of its use.
Response-When the applicant submits a revision to the present treatment system, the environmental effects of this modification will be evaluated.
Comment-(first paragraph page 4)-The final statement should provide detailed information about turbine building leak rates, activity levels in the leakage and in the discharge, and the possibility of treatment before discharge.
Response-We suggest adding the following to the firs t para-graph on page III-20 of the Draft Environmental Statement:
Frog an accumulative leak rate of 5 gpm from all systems in the turbine building that con-tain secondary coolant we expect less than.05 Ci/yr.
Comment-(second paragraph page 4)-The applicant should provide 90 days decay for gaseous effluents rather than 30 days decay used in the Draft Environmental Statement since this system
1 2-is capable of holding gases for 90 days.
Response-Our evaluation shows that 30 days holdup for gaseous effluents is sufficient for this plant to meet the low as practicable criteria.
Holdup for 90 days would reduce the releases to essentially 845 Curies of Kr-05.
The incremental environmental effect of this reduction is not necessary.
o O
_...