ML20198G295
| ML20198G295 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 02/13/1975 |
| From: | Benaroya V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | NRC |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-1040 NUDOCS 8605290438 | |
| Download: ML20198G295 (3) | |
Text
,
4 4
s N.
e
.n.
M 0 Sly.--/~
wg g
s
/.
....4 a la h i
Dochet Mos. 50--460 50-513 I
l U. Regan, Chief, Envirotunental Projects Branch 30. 4 l
PISPONSE TO AGENCY C0 TENTS ON DES FOR WASHINGTON NTTCLRAP. PROJECT, UNITS 1 AND 4 t
Plant Name: Weehington Nucletar Project, Unita 1 nad 4 Licanaing Stage: CP Docket Numbers: 50-460/513 Responsible Branch: EPB #4 Project Manager:
R. Loose Requested Conpletion Dater February 14. 1975 Description of Response: P.asponse to 4,sucy Coments
'taview Status: Under Review Enclosed are our responses to agency comments en the radvaste 3
treatment systems in the DES for Washington Nuclear Project, l
f i
Unita 1 and 4.
f I
Y l
Victor Bencroya, Chief Effluent Treatment Systana 3 ranch Division of Technical Reviou l
Office of Nuclear Psactor Regulation Rnclosure:
DISTRIBUTION:
As stated Docket File MEENRR Reading cc: w/o enclosure ETSB Reading i
i A. Ciamboeso W. Mcdonald l
w/snelosure gg l
M. Hanauer R. Loose F. Schroeder T. Cox C
l D. !!uller T. Essig I
V. Moore U. Burka 8605290428 750213 DR ADOCK 05000460 R. Tedesco P. Stoddart p
PDR V. Regma N
g-(q-
....>cnwoucar s
o
'a
- J lsarmr.__ETSBLTE
.EISB/TR,
_ ETSBLIR _
\\
.u...,
J. 017r.n
..VBenNoya_.
PStoddart:cc
.WB
.. n
- 21f.1f.75... -
2LdJ15 -...
1/..G/ 75.
-m in...
m acx ouo u.....
i i
l
y
-4 I
RESPONSE TO AGENCY CO)D!ENTS e
WASHINGTON NUCLEAR PROJECT, UNITS I AhT 4 Docket Nos. 50-460, 50-513 U.S.-Environmental Protection Agency 1.
Comment: In the draft statement, no estimate is made of the quantity of dissolved noble gases in the radioactive liquid effluent. In the final statement, the dissolved noble gas liquid effluent quantities should be estimated in Table 3.3.
F
Response
The concentration of dissolved noble gases in the liquid effluents from operating reactors is reported to be on the order.of 6
4 x 10-8 uCi/cc. Assuming a liqu'id release of 1.1 x 10 gallons per year per reactor from the liquid radwaste system of Units 1 and 4, the estimated release from this source would be approximately 1.7 x 10-4 Ci/yr/ reactor. We consider such releases to contribute a negligible, quantity to the overall dose burden and therefore, did not include a value fer dissolved noble gases in Table 3.3.
4 2.
Comment: According to the draft statement, turbine building Saseous releases will not be treated before being discharg'ed to the atmosphere. It is not clear whether these releases will be monitored. If these releases are to be monitored, it should be stated in the final statement.
Response
Many PWR's do not have enclosed turbine buildings, therefore, gaseous releases cannot be monitored. Those PWR plants that have turbine buildings have many openings, as a result monitoring will not be representative. Since radioactive gaseous releases l
from a PWR turbine building are limited by primary to secondary
e l
I l
system leakage, and then by leaks from the secondary system to the outside, radioactive gaseous releases would normally be very small indeed. Based on these considerations and in order to treat all PIJR alike, PWR turbine building gaseous releases are not required to be monitored.
3.
Comment: To evaluate the WPPSS--I and 4 site completely, the most recent Unit 2 source term estimates for both gaseous and liquid wastes are needed. The estimated gaseous releases presented in Table III-3 of the Hanford No. 2 final statement are not adequate since turbine building and react.or building source-terms are not given individually. The latest Unit 2 source-terms for gaseous and liquid effluents should be included in the final statement.
Response
The source term'for Unit 2 appears in the FES for Unit 2.
This is the source term used in the evaluation of the WPPSS-1 and 4 site.
f e
l t
.