ML20205A912

Forwards Comments on Air Resources Environ Lab,Essa Review of Preliminary SAR

ML20205A912
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	05/19/1969
From:	Shaw M US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Morris P US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20205A535	List: IA-88-443, Final Response to FOIA Request.App a Documents Encl & Available in PDR ML20205A530 ML20205A537 ML20205A560 ML20205A569 ML20205A584 ML20205A596 ML20205A601 ML20205A616 ML20205A647 ML20205A670 ML20205A696 ML20205A713 ML20205A850 ML20205A858 ML20205A893 ML20205A912 ML20205A922 ML20205A934 ML20205A954
References
FOIA-88-443 NUDOCS 8810260131
Download: ML20205A912 (3)

Text

.

UNITED STATES

, \., ,

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION l

" W ASHtNOToN O C. 20545 MAY 191969 l Peter A. Morris, Director Division of Reactor Licensing SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Reference is made to the letter of April 14, 1969, from Roger S.

Boyd, Assistant Director for Reactor Projects, DRL, to the Environmental Science Services Administration requesting coments on the following safety analysis report:

Seabrook Nuclear Station Unit No.1 Public Service Company of New Hampshire The United 111uminating Cor:pany Preliminary Safety Analysis Report Volumes I,11 and 111 dated April 9,1969.

Review by the Air Resources Environmental Laboratory, ESSA, has now been completed and their corments are enclosed.

L' h Milton Shaw, Director Division of Reactor Development RDT:NS:S129 and Technology

Enclosure:

Cotments (Orig, and 1 Cy.)

cc: R. S. Boyd, Asst. Dir. for Reactor Projects DRL H. L. Price, Direc tor, REG i

N ,

9 0010260131 000920 1 1;j ,

RZ 08 443 PDR

l Coments on j

Seabrook Nuclear Station Unit No.1 Public Service Company of New Hampshire t The United Illuminating Company i

• Preliminary Safety Analysis Report i

Volumes I,11 and III dated April 9,1969 l I

f Prepared by Air Resources Environmental Laboratory i

Environnental Science Services Administration i

April 25, 1969  ;

' he site is situated on very flat terrain with tidal marsh to the (

north, south, and east and Hampton Harbor,1 mile to the east.  !

j Consequently, except for a sea becete ef fect, one would not expect j

any unusual terrain ef fects with regard to atmospheric transport

and diffusion.

l ne applicant has used the technique of categorizing dif fusion  !

i regimes by wind speed, solar angle and cloudiness. This technique i has a distinct bias towards the Pasquill Type D category as [

evidenced by the Boston data 097.) and the Pease data (497,). We

}

do not believe this to be a real occurrence. The bias is, in part. l brought about by the criteria that all cases with winds greater j i

than 4 m/s during the nighttime and during daytime with slight  ;

insolation are classified as "D". Many of these cases, especially at night, would probably have been classified as stable if the horizontal wind fluctuation, , had been used.

i The diffusion parameters chosen by the applicant for the short- ,

l term (0-12 hours) inadvertent effluent release (Table 2.3-10) seems

' reasonably conservative and appropriate for this type of site.  ;

However, for the long-term dose experienced in a full release  !

(one month) it is our opinion that the dif fusion parameters are not  !

conservative. It appears that no consideration was given to the l possibility that inversion conditions are highly correlated with j

particular wind sectors. Por example, fig. 2.3-4 shows on an  !

i annual basis that inversion winds from the west sector occurs b percent of the time. This is probably an underestimate for two reasons, l

i namely,1) all winds less than 2 knots were listed as calm and amounted i to 4.2 percent and 2) the bias of the technique towards neutral condi-tions which probably is not real. If one then considers the "worst" l 7

month of the annual average, it is quite possible that a joint frequency cf  !

15 percent between vest winds and inversion conditions could occur. i

, I 1  ;

i , ;. v . .

1  ;

l f

) I

Using a sector spread of 22.5 (applicant used 57.3 ) gur estimate of the concentration at the site boundary is 1.2 x 10") see m*3 as compared to 4 x 10-6 sec m"3 shown in fig. 2.3-1.

In summary, we are in agreement with the applicant's short-ters concentration estinates but, on the basis of currently available information, disagree with the 30-day estimates by a factor of 3.

According to dose estimates in fig.14.5-1, this would increase the site boundary thyroid dose from 160 rem to 480 rem.

I i

l I

, 9" I

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .