ML20198F763

Forwards Comments Which Must Be Incorporated to Make Pdes Satisfactory from Technical Standpoint & General Comments Which Should Be Given Serious Consideration,Per Review of Sections V.C,V.D,V.F.2 & Xi.B

ML20198F763
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	08/10/1972
From:	Harold Denton US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Muller D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
CON-WNP-0907, CON-WNP-907 NUDOCS 8605290080
Download: ML20198F763 (5)

Text

- __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

f a.Lr Do

/7 ENVIRON, FILE (NEPA)

AUG 101972 l

Danial R. hller, Assistant Dire-tor for Environanntal Projects, L REVIEW OF ANL FDES FOR RAMFORD NO. 2 Flant name - Ranford No. 2 Licemming stage - CF Docket number 397 Responsible branch - EP Branch f2 Project leader - R. Loose Date request received by RA-L - August 4,1972 Requested completion date - August 11, 1972 Description of response - Cossents on PDES for Hanford No. 2 Review status - Complete In response to a memorandum from C. Dicker to J. Kastner dated August 4, 1972, we havo reviewed the Preliminary Draft Environmental Statement for lianford 2 prepared by Argenne National Laboratory.

Our review involved a portion of Section V.C.Section V.D Section V.F.2, and a portion of Section II.B. As a result of that review, we have prepared cosusents which are contained in Attachments 1 and 2 to this memorandum.

1 The specific comments (Attachment #1) represent those which we feel must be incorporated to make the PDES satisf actory from a technical standpoint. We understand ths.: due to the accelerated schedule for this plant, the general comments ( Attachment #2) may not be incorporated in the PDES; however, we urge that they be given serious canaideration.

All of the comments in Attachments 1 and 2 have been discussed informally with the Environmental Project Manager, R. Loose. This mate-rial was prepared by T. Essig Radiological Assessment Branch, L.

Distribution: priginal signed by Docket File II. n. Denton L-Suppl AD/SS-L-Rdg Harold R. Denton, Assistant Director 1.-Rd g for Sita Safety Directorate of Licensing Attachments and cc See next page 8605290000 720910 PDR D ADOCK 05000397 pop CRESS omer > .RA7,, AD/S L,,_

RA,-L,jk,,

E, Astro 5003 F12 /

m,g , TEs i JKastner HDda /. .

8/10 /72 5//U/g:mim72 ~ ~

A/TS77f I//d772~

~ ' ' ~ ~

l part> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . _ _ . ... -- .-

Foran AEC-St tRev. 9-53; AECM 0240 o u s cove.we e mur*<. onu te72 4es-ots

s Daniel R. Nuller 2 AUG 10 1972 At tek=== ts :

As stated cct w/o attach A. clamenese W. McDesaid w/attacht J. Roadrie S. Manauer C. Dicker R. Loose J. Kastner T. Eseis i t i

OFFICE *

• SvaNAVF *

• e i

DATE *L i -

i 6 F orm A E C- 318 , Res 9 5 3 A F C M 0140

l s

Attachment #1 Essential Comments on llanf ord No. 2 PDES Page Comment V-29 Add a Section V.C.3 "Ef fects of Radionuclide Releases." In this new section, doses to biota (fish, invertebrates, and aquatic plants) should be discussed, as well as the significance of the doses. A table of bioaccumulation factors should follow the above discussion (see Table V-1 of the Kewaunee DES).

V In the line at the bottom of the page, delete "from these sources."

V-31 It appears that the consumption rate of 55 g of fish per day should be tied to reference 51, not 52; however, reference 51, while discussing fish consumption, does not specifically mention the 55 g/ day figure.

V-34 The dose from I-131 in milk should be reduced by 25% (i.e., f rom 3.6 to 2.7 mrem /yr) and the grazing period for cows should be nine months rather than one year.

V-34 The dose to the population from fish consumption should be based on the population consuming the total fish harvest (1.54 x 104 kg/yr - p. 5 of Section 2.3.7.3 of the ER) , rather than the rather high per capita consumption of 55 g/ day.

When this calculation is done, the dose should be changed from "less than 1.1 x 10-1 man-rem" to "about 4 x 10-4 man-re m . "

V-36 As a result of the change described above, change

" extremely small increment (less than 2.4 man-rem)" to " extremely small increment (2.2 man-rem) ."

s XI-25 " Radioactivity discharged to. . ." should be (Cost-Benefit Table) " Artificial radioactivity discharged to. . ." If this is not done, an estimate should be made of the doses from natural radioactivity released by fossil-fueled plants. Also, as a result of comments on other sections of the PDES, the dose from radioactivity discharged to river should be changed from 0.2 to 0.002 man-rem /yr.

e

,-- a - - -

At t achment #2 Non-Essential Comments on Hanford No. 2 PDES With respect to the format of Section V.D, we feel several changes are in order, viz. , sub-sections V.D.1, V.D.2, V.D.4, and V.D.6 do not belong in this section to the extent they appear and should be eliminated or reduced in the amount of detail they contain (this type of information appears in Section III.C.2) . Of the two tables presently contained in Section V.D, only one (Table V-5) is in a desirabic format.

Table V-4 contains too much detail on doses from liquid effluents; i.e.,

some of the information should be in the text only. This table should include doses frem gaseous effluents and any other pathways so that it represents the complete i.icture as far as doses to an incividual in the environs is concerned. .

table which should be added is one which summarizes the populatio: dose from all sources (includi e transporta-tion of spent fuel and solid waste) - these doses are pre. ently scattered in the text.

.