ML20198F509

Submits Responses to EPA Comments on Radwaste Section of Environ Statement,Per W Regan 721026 Request

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 l

1 l

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 i

following responses to Environmental Protection Agency 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 PDR

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.

! I

{ Comment (page 3)-The significance of the iodine source i from the Relief Yalve Augmented Bypass (RETAB) system 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 as that from the torus, the eencontration of l

, activity in these large volumes is expected to l

be low enough that releases to the environment i

will be negligible over the life spam of the plant.

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. I 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 or ic e . ' - ,  ; j

/ 1'., t .

, ,; Smith:cc VBen'aroya . RTedesco ,

11/ /172.11/ /72 11/#5/72 l j .

DA'E .. . . .

4 . . ,

Form AFC 318 .Nes 9 ' O ALCM 0240