ML20128C679

Responds to Comments on Des.Listed Responses Should Be Included in Final Statement

ML20128C679
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	09/20/1972
From:	Harold Denton US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Muller D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 9212040506
Download: ML20128C679 (3)

Text

_ __ __ - _. _ _ _ __ _ _.

4 .

4 ENyyp9N pgg SEP 2 01972 .

D. Haller, Assistant Director for Environmental Projects, L RESPONSE TO AGENCY COMMENTS ON HOWT1 CELLO ,

PLANT MAME: Monticello Esclear Generating Plant LICENSING STAGE: OL  ;

DOCKET NUMBER: 50-263 .

RESPONSIBLE BRANCH Envireamental Projects Branch f 3 REQUESTED COMPLETION DATE: N/A .

APPLICANTS RESPONSE DATE NECESSARY FOR NEET ACTION PLANNED ON PROJECT: N/A DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSE: Response to Agency Comments REVIEW STATUS: Accident Analysis Brar.ch Review Complete As requested by the July 18, 1972 memo from B. J. Youngblood and the August 31, 1972 note from Baby Bevans the agency comments on the draft Environmental Statement for Monticello havs been reviewed with respect to the Plant Accident section. The attached responses were prepared by the Accident Analysis Branch.

Harold R. Denton, Assistant Director h iosure f** 8f** 8"I'EY Directorate of Licensing (As Stated) ces w/o enclosure A. Giambusso W. McDonak DISTRIBUTION L - Rdg.

L - Docket 7

/

cci w/ enclosure S. u===ar AAB - Rdg.

J. Hendrie AD/SS - Rdg.

D. Skovholt D. Ziemaan

1. Bevan J. Shea t

A omes, ...LA .

,,,.., ...LIAL 1 S,S .. ,, . . . . . . . . . . , , , , , , . . . . . ..

sumwe > .HRDENTC& , , , , , . , , . . , . . . , , , . . . . , . . . . . . . , .

..BG.. ...b. S.;mi. .

om > . 9L.1.' 12.. 9LJLH2... . ..

l f orm AIC-Sit (Rev. 9-53) AICM 0240 e o a novt ewt%, =ntw. on c t 1972 -ess ac t s 9212040506 720920 PDR ADOCK 05000263 D PDR r .

ACDICT CCessNTg CN N0lfr1CEuh ACCIDENTS

1. epi and Commerce Comments We suggest the following responses be included in t.he final statements

a. "With respect to meteorology a somment was made with regard '

to the assumptione used and a somment was made that en-site meteorological anamurements ehes14 he need to evaluate the done consegemases of postulated assidents. The meteorologiaal eenditions assumed in the analysis appreminate the dispersion osaditions whiah would prevail at laaet 501 of the time at a typical site. As ammination of t.he data ao11ested at the Monticello site indiestes that the vaines need are sa adequate appremi-metam of astual esaditions." t ,

b. "A comment was made that en operational transiest which re--

suited in the unplassed release of gaseous radioactivity should be related to the accident classes specified in the proposed annex to Appendia D to 10 CFR Part 50. h esament apparently refers to the lose of a water leep anal in the air-ejector.off-gas system im July, 1971. This operatismal transient could be classified as a Claes 1 er 2 seeerrames.

, h release was well within the techniaal spoeification j limits. Measures have been taken, bewever, to avoid a i

recurrence of this type of release. h comment alas re-quested that a controlled discharge et terms water be re-lated to the accident classes. During Movember of 1971 a liquid discharge of about 0.0002 euries diluted in about 43.000 gallons of water was made irom the plant during modifications to the containment terms. h controlled die-charge was unusual but small campared to the total of other routine discharges during the year. N total discharge for the year was itself a small fractima of tachateal specification limits."

2. Interior Comments Interior states that "the environmental effects of releases to' water are 1 9 4=s,, Many of these postulated accidents listed in Tables VI-1 and VI-2 eemld result in releases to the Mississippi Elver and should

+

\

s O F FIC E . . . . . , . -

Ba#NAME . _ . . . . _ . _

u m=_ > =

! 2-

, ,. ]

! be evaluated in detail." We suggest that the following response be l inserted is section III of the final detailed statensatt i "A samment was made that releassa to water =ha=1J be j eensidered. The deoes calestated as esasequemees of the postulated accidents are based on airberse transport of radioactive materials resulting ta both a direct and am inhalaties dese. Our evaluaties of j the accident doses assemos that the appliamst's 1 envireamental monitoring program and appropriate l additional moniterlag (shisk eem1d be initiated sub-I sequent to an incident detected by in-plant osmitaring) wenid detect the presemee of radienetivity in the

enviremment is a tiesty menest euch ghat remedial estima eould be taken if mesessery to limit espesure

from other potential pathweye to men."

A table is included which indicates the curies of iodine released for l t

each accident class. _3ecesse this is an atmospheric release and . l 1 because " average" meteorology shoald be assused in determining dispersal l I of the materials, any entry of iodine into the food chain should be in I l dilute form.

laterier also states'that Class 9 mecidents should be described and the enviremmental impact discussed. Because the current ABC position

is as stated in the accident aseesament writemp (that in view of the i low proba&ility of the accident the envireemental risk is extremely i small) no specific response to this laterior ceumient is required im j the final detailed statement.

I f

j j 3. Frederick A. Fleming Letter

• l l Fleming postulates failure of the emergency core cooling system. Our position is as stated in the interia ECCS criteria and the Environmental -

l statament that this is a Class 9 accident which need not be considered.

l No special response necessary.

! Fleming also brings up the question of acts of war er foreign aabetage.

! This is the responsibility of the Defense Department and is addressed l in our regulations and in the Ceemission dactatem en Turkey Feist .(CF).

00C should be asked to formiste a response if one is required.w.

I I

l -

i i ) i OFPtCE

• j d-suMNAME o . . . . -

l  !

OATr** .i.. . ..

l - . . . . . , . .

. Form AE C-318 Ikev . 9 D) A t.CM 0 240 l

i e