ML20235B588
Text
__
, L9 -
ry, l}
o
\\
4 _ s ct w g
y7s1 gk UNITfT. BTATF.S
<' d '
W ATOMIC ENERG COMMISSION 7 l
-dW
, WASHINGTON o.C. 20545
- n..,
e
- t p
l
'A t
~
./
f JUN 1 S N
<?
Peter A. Morris, Director i r.,
Division of Reactor Licensing, c
, g
.a.
SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORTS Reference is ma' de to.the letters of April 28 and May 12, 1969, from Roger S. Boyd, ' Assistant Director for Reactor Projects, DRL, to the Environmental Science' Services Administration requesting cornments on the following safety analysis reports, respectively:
i Shorehum Nuclear Power Station Long Ir. land Lighting Company Preliminary Safety Analysis Report Amendments 4 and 5 dated April 28, 1969 5
t Y
l Duane Arnold Energy Center Iowa Electric Light and Power Company
- 1.,
Preliminary Safety Analysis Report Amendment No. 3 dated May 2,1969.
l-Review by the Air Resources Environmental Laboratory, ESSA, ha.s now been completed and their comments are enclosed.
M b(.
l
/
lton Shaa3 Director i
Division o_f 1:nactor Development RDT:NS:S150 and Technology
Enclosures:
Comments (Orig, and 1 07.)
R. S. Boyd, Assistant Dir. for Reactor Projects, DRL i
cc:
H. L. Price, Director, REG
.i l
l l
l 8709240156 870921:
1er
~svq
~
s 9
~ '
Comments on Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Long Island Lighting Company Preliminary Safety Analysis Repcrt Amendments 4 and 5 dated April 28, 1969 Prepared by Air Resources Environmental Laboratory Environmental Science Services Administration June 9, 1969 The meteorological data presented in Amendment 4 is identical to the information presented in the original submission. Thus, our general comments cf August 16, 1968 are still pertinent to the latest report.
The meteorological conditions used for the accident dose analyses (page XIV-4-1) are reasonably conservative for releases up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
We do not agree with the wind constancy approach in deciding the appropriate diffusion parameters for the 31-day release. A joint monthly wind rose and turbulence category distribution would be more pertinent. For example, the Brookhaven data show that during the su=mer l
months inversion conditions exist about 50% of the time and that of these conditions,13% occur in a 200 sector from the southwest, resulting in a joint frequency of about 6.5%. However, these data are based on a 10-year average. It is not unreasonable to assume that for an dadividual " worst" month, the inversion summer wirei rose could show a 25% frequency in the 200 sector from the southwest, for a joint frequency of 12 5% (25% x 50%). Thus assuming Pasquill Type F diffusion rates and to be 7.5 x 10-5 see,m->g compute the " worst" month average core entration j
a2m/seewindspeed w
l at the ite boundary. This compares with our computation of 1.5 x 10-5 cee using the applicant's lapse conditions.
l i
As was the case in our previous comments it is difficult to check dose calculations because no relative diffusion values are listed.
l l
l l
I l
l l
l l
l l
i
,