ML20198F509
| ML20198F509 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 11/15/1972 |
| From: | Tedesco R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Muller D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-0895, CON-WNP-895 NUDOCS 8605280528 | |
| Download: ML20198F509 (3) | |
Text
,
4 1
h0V 151972 ENVIRoy i
Docket No. 50-397 Daniel Muller, Assistant Director for Environmental Projects RESPONSE TO ACgNCY COMMENTS - NANPORD 2 NUCLEAR POWgR STATION i
Flant Name:
Hanford 2 Nuclear Power Station l
Licensing Stage:
CP Docket Number:
50-397 Responsible Branch:
Environmental Projects Branch No. 4 Project Leader:
R.
Loose j
Requested Completion Date:
November 29, 1972 Description of Response:
Radweste Section for Environmental Statement i
P.eview Status:
Complate l
In response to a request from W.
Regan, Chief, Environmental Projects Branch No. 4 dated October 26, 1972, we have re-I viewed comments from the various agencies.
We submit the following responses to Environmental Protection Agency i
comments.
No other agency comment related to radwaste treatment systems.
Comment (pase 3)-The bases for the steam and water leaks into the reactor and turbine building should be presented in the FES.
l Response-The first paragraph on page III-22 of the DES should be changed to read:
Ventilation air flow will be provided to the j
reactor building, turbine building, and the rad-was te building.
Mos t,of the ventilaties systema will utilise 100Z entside air with no recirculation.
l Exhaust air from the turhise building and the mescontaminated areas of the reactor building will be released through their respective reef vents without treatment.
Air from the potentially com-taminated areas of the reactor building and the l
radwaste building will be filtered through HEPA filters before being discharged to the environment.
8605280528 721115 PDR ADOCK 05000397 D
c l
. NOV 15191 Because the applicant uses clean steam in the l
turbine building, the arented steam leak rate j
was assumed to be equivalent to 1 gym conden-sete in our evaluation.
{
Comment (page 3)-The significance of the iodine source from the Relief Yalve Augmented Bypass (RETAB) system i
f should be presented in the FES.
Response-The RETAR system is expected to operate saly em l
a turbine trip er loss of load.
Each time the l
REVAB system is actuated, as much as 8 curies of noble gases and 0.06 of iodine may be dumped inte l
the torus.
The release of small amounts of primary I
coolant to the torus with subsequent dilution, de-cay and treatment of any radioactive gases by the Standby Gas Treatment system make such a source l
megligible.
I As operating data becomes available from this l
plant and other operating BWR's, we intend to l
evaluate the potential effect these sonroutine operations may have on waste treatment systems and recommend chenges as may be necessary.
Comment (page 4)-Analyses should be included in the final statement to indicate the source magnitude of maintenance l
on such items as suppression pool and condenser and the projected treatment capability.
Response-As indicated in the DES, we expect that releases i
of radioactive materials in liquid effluents will be a fraction of the values shown in Table III-2.
However, to compensate for equipment downtime and expected operational occurrences, including maintenance, the expected values have been nor-malised to G.25 curie per year.
Although there is some doubt that the vaste hand-ling and treatment system as installed is capable of handling large volumes of liquid wastes such l
as that from the torus, the eencontration of activity in these large volumes is expected to l
be low enough that releases to the environment will be negligible over the life spam of the plant.
i l
\\
t i
D 15 571
_3-Ceament (pane 4)-The applicant made a commitment to the Appendix I liquid radioactivity esseentration limit.
Justificaties for the expected limittaa eencontraties ex-
)
seeding the preposed Appendix I value by a f acter of two eheald be imeladed in the FES.
I l
Response-The opp 11 east seemitted as a design ohjastive to
)
the proposed Appendix I limits.
Our evaluaties was dose for mermal operaties of the plant and imeladed espeeted operatiemal escarreases, as well as, egalpment downtime.
The deoes frem ear evalmaties are withis the proposed Appendia I limits.
Comment (pane 4)-The FES eheald include a diseassion of the estimated amenato of radioactive material that eenld be re-leased from the plant andetected.
Response-We semelade that mesitoring equipment that will be installed entisfies the requiremente of Safety Caide 21 and Seneral Design criteries 64 se regards of-fluent discharge paths.
Therefore, radioactive retsases that can be detected will be nomitered.
Original signd byi nown L Tede*c
- 1. L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Centainment Safety Directorate of Licensing ee:
A.
Ciambasso W. Mcdonald S. Emmaner J. Bandrie C.
Disker 1.
Clark S. Miner T. Benareys R. Leese R. Smith
/DISTRIBUTION:
(Docket (50-397)
L neau us CS Reading ETSB Reading ETSB Staff ETSB/L ETSB/L AD/CS/
j j
or ic e. '
1'., t.
/
Smith:cc VBen'aroya. RTedesco 11/
/172.11/
/72 11/#5/72 l
DA'E..
4 j.
Form AFC 318.Nes 9 ' O ALCM 0240
. -. - -,