ML17297B117: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:ee~REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SY EM ('RIDS)AGCESSION NBR:8112230129 DOC~DATE: 81/12/16 NOTARI'ZED:
{{#Wiki_filter:ee REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SY
NO DOCKET FACIL:STN-50-528 (Palo Verde Nuclear Station<UniIt 1E Arizona Publ i 05000528 STN;50-529
                                                                          ~      EM ('RIDS)
'Palo Ver de Nuclear Station<Unit 2r Ar izona Publ i 05000529"STN 50-530'Palo Verde Nuclear Station<Unitt 3E Arizona Publi 05000530 AUTH BYNAME AUTHOR AFF'IL I ATION MITCHELL P J.D.A f f i 1 i a t i on'Unknown'RE'C IP~NAME RECIPIENT AFF ILIA'TION Di,vision of Licensing  
AGCESSION NBR:8112230129                   DOC ~ DATE:   81/12/16 NOTARI'ZED: NO           DOCKET FACIL:STN-50-528 (Palo Verde Nuclear Station< UniIt 1E Arizona Publ i                       05000528 STN;50-529 'Palo Ver de Nuclear Station< Unit 2r Ar izona Publ i BYNAME 05000529 "STN 50-530 'Palo Verde Nuclear Station< Unitt 3E Arizona Publi                     05000530 AUTH                     AUTHOR AFF'IL I ATION MITCHELL J. D.
P          A f f i i a t i on 'Unknown 1
    'RE'C IP ~ NAME           RECIPIENT AFF ILIA'TION Di,vision of Licensing


==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
Comments on NUREG"0841EDES for facility'Net wastes should defined, Rise in regional aquifer should be specified as harmful or benefical.
Comments   on NUREG"0841EDES             for facility 'Net wastes should defined, Rise in regional aquifer should                 be specified   as harmful or benefical.
DISTRIBUTION CODE: C002B COPIES~RECEIVED:LTR ENCL, 4l SIZE: TITLE: Environ, Comments.NOTES:Standardi'zed)Plant~1 cy'.C Grimes Standardi'zed
DISTRIBUTION CODE: C002B                 COPIES ~RECEIVED:LTR         ENCL, 4l   SIZE:
'Plant, 1 cy:C Grimes Standardized IPlant F 1 cy.C Grimes 05000528 05000529 05000530 RECIP I ENT ID CODE/NAYE ACTIOY: LIC BR 43 BC 06 KERRIGANP J>>01 ICOP IES LTTR ENCL RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME ANL COPIES LTTR ENCL INTERNAL: ELD NRR/DE/AEAB NRR/DE/HGEB NRR/DSI/AEB NRR/DS I/RAB EXTERYAL: ACRS NATL LAB NSIC 20 21 19 17 21 05 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IE 13 NRR/DE/EEB 16 NRR/DE/SAB 18 TSB 15 REG FI E 04 LPDR 03 NRC PDR 02 NTIS 2 1 1 1 1 a(a lTOTAL NUMBER OF'COPIES REQUIRED: L>TTR~ENCL I
TITLE: Environ, Comments.
(4~L yO~y P.O.Box 654 Citrus Heights, CA 95610 December 16, 1981 811223012~ppp528 9 811216%PDR ADOCK P PDP Q Director, Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 CO gECQPJE9 DEC 82~981~g g gg,"VV'j.j,gggQY'NK
NOTES:Standardi'zed )Plant           ~ 1   cy'.C Grimes                                     05000528 Standardi'zed 'Plant,       1   cy:C Grimes                                       05000529 Standardized IPlant       F 1   cy.C Grimes                                       05000530 RECIP I ENT             ICOP IES              RECIPIENT          COPIES ID CODE/NAYE               LTTR ENCL          ID CODE/NAME        LTTR ENCL ACTIOY:         LIC BR 43 BC 06                                 ANL KERRIGANP J>>       01 INTERNAL: ELD                                 1                IE            13        2 NRR/DE/AEAB       20          1                NRR/DE/EEB    16        1 NRR/DE/HGEB       21          1                NRR/DE/SAB    18        1 NRR/DSI/AEB       19          1                          TSB 15        1 NRR/DS I/RAB       17         1               REG FI E       04       1 EXTERYAL: ACRS                                1                LPDR           03 NATL LAB          21                          NRC PDR       02 NSIC              05          1                NTIS a(             a lTOTAL NUMBER OF       'COPIES REQUIRED:             L>TTR   ~     ENCL
+


==Dear Sir:==
I 4
'a I wish to enter the following comments concerning the D (T~>3 Environmental Statement related to the operation of Palo Ver e Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1,2, and 3, Docket Nos.STN 50-528, STN 50-529, and STN 50-530 (NUREG-0841)for consider-ation in the final environmental statement:
  ~L
(
yO                              ~y P.O. Box 654 811223012 9 P 811216%
                        ~ppp528              Citrus Heights,    CA 95610          CO PDR ADOCK          PDP            December 16, 1981 Q
Director, Division of Licensing                                      gECQPJE9 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                                DEC 82~981~
Washington, DC 20555                                              g g gg,"VV' +
j.j,gggQY'NK
 
==Dear   Sir:==
                                                    'a I wish to enter the following comments concerning the D (T~>3 Environmental Statement related to the operation of Palo Ver e Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1,2, and 3, Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-529, and STN 50-530 (NUREG 0841) for consider-ation in the final environmental statement:


==SUMMARY==
==SUMMARY==
AND CONCLUSIONS Item 4.k (p iv)Add"Any increase in risk to the population near the site is more than offset by the reduction in risk to the population near the 91st Avenue sewage treatment facility or the Salt.-Gila River system as the on-site water treatment plant will reduce pathogens by chlorination and other treatment processes and the use of sewage effluent will decrease radia-tion exposures due to decay prior to ultimate release to the environment." CHAPTER 2 i Paragraph 2.1 (p 2-1)Average annual rate of growth of 3.5%seems low when compared to the population growth of 53.1%between 1970 and 1980 (4.35%per,year)as noted in paragraph 4.3.7.3.As population is expected to gr'ow, why isn'electrical demand growth consistent, with population?
AND CONCLUSIONS Item 4.k (p iv) Add "Any increase in risk to the population near the site is more than offset by the reduction in risk to the population near the 91st Avenue sewage treatment facility or the Salt.-Gila River system as the on-site water treatment plant will reduce pathogens by chlorination and other treatment processes and the use of sewage effluent will decrease radia-tion exposures due to decay prior to ultimate release to the environment."
Hasn'growth in electrical demand exceeded 3.5%per year during the last decade?I would think it has been well above 4%per year.CHAPTER 4 Paragraph 4.2.5 (p 4-4)What are"wet" wastes?Specify that wastes are solidified.(See FES-CP paragraph 3.5.3.)Paragraph 4.3.1.2 (p 4-.11)Is the rise in the regional aquifer harmful or beneficial?
i CHAPTER 2 Paragraph 2.1 (p 2-1) Average annual rate of growth of 3.5%
~Please clarify.4 Paragraph 4.3.2.2 (p 4-12)What are radioactivity levels of 91st Avenue sewage treatment facility effluent?Wouldn'PVNGS use of effluent result in decreased population doses since hospital and industrial radwaste will decay prior to re-.release at PVNGS?Where is this included in 10 CFR 50 Appendix I evaluation?
seems low when compared to the population growth of 53.1%
Can this offset operational transient or steady state'releases from the plant?As the effluent is being used for crop irrigation by other users, I would think that a reduction in the ingestion pathway could be quite COO4 significant.
between 1970 and 1980 (4.35% per,year) as noted in paragraph 4.3.7.3. As population is expected to gr'ow, why isn' electrical demand growth consistent, with population? Hasn' growth in electrical demand exceeded 3.5% per year during the last decade? I would think year.
Does PVNGS operation also lead to reduced contamination of groundwater?
it has been well above 4% per CHAPTER 4 Paragraph 4.2.5 (p 4-4) What are "wet" wastes?           Specify       that wastes are solidified. (See       FES-CP paragraph   3.5.3.)
IIO  
Paragraph     4.3.1.2 (p 4-.11)   Is the rise in the regional aquifer harmful or beneficial?     ~ Please clarify.
\J'/lq I ,r I II'\y',l J l I 1 I I I I ei f(~r  
radioactivity levels of 4
~y Director, Division of Licensing December 16, 1981 page 2 CHAPTER 5 Paragraph 5.9.1.1.1 (p 5-21)How can occupational doses average as much as 3 to 4 times 440 person-rems if the Hinson value is only 1300?Isn't 1300 representative of an old plant, not a new one designed to tougher standards?
Paragraph 4.3.2.2 (p 4-12)       What are 91st Avenue sewage treatment       facility effluent? Wouldn' PVNGS   use of effluent result in decreased population doses since   hospital and industrial radwaste will decay prior to re-. release at PVNGS? Where is this included in 10 CFR 50 Appendix I evaluation? Can this offset operational transient or steady state 'releases from the plant? As the effluent is being used for crop irrigation by other users, I would think that a reduction in the ingestion pathway could be quite                   COO4 significant. Does PVNGS operation also lead           to reduced contamination of groundwater?
CHAPTER 6 Paragraph 6.1, Item (2)(p 6-1)Modify to require that the NRC conduct cost benefit analyses of monitoring programs and determine conclusively that the benefit to be gained from monitoring exceeds the cost to the owners or their ratepayers.
IIO
Paragraph 6.1, Item (3)(p 6-1)Modify to provide a threshold of damage up to which no applicant action is required.Such threshold should be based upon a statistically defensible in-crement above the nominal, or average, impacts upon the regional ecology described in the FES-CP or the FES-OL, whichever may be greater.Prior to NRC or applicant action to restrict operation or increase applicant's obligations, a cost benefit analysis must be conducted to assure that the potential benefit in mitigating damage does not exceed the withdrawal of benefits normally bestowed by the operation of the plant.Table 6.1 (p 6-2)Why aren't taxes, employment, and payroll benefits of fuel cycle operations included in this table in the same manner in which fuel cycle impacts are included in section 5.10?The DES unfairly attributes a cost without consideration of the benefit.APPENDIX C Table C-6 (p C-ll)Population doses appear to have been calculated by use of non correlated data.An average annual dispersion factor is multiplied by the gaseous releases, converted to dose, and then multiplied by the total population within 80 kilometers.
 
Doesn't population distribution relative to the predominant wind enter into the equation?The Phoenix wind blows east to west.The population lives to the east.Out west is barren desert.There should be a correlation of wind frequency to the population sectors.Please provide me with a copy of the FES so that I may review the manner in which these comments have been addressed.
                      \
Sincerely'ours, Janet D.Mitchell l I 1 I I}}
J' lq I
l
            ,r I
II
          ',l'\ y J             I 1
I
      /                    I I
I ei f(
                  ~r
 
                                                ~y Director, Division of Licensing December 16, 1981 page 2 CHAPTER 5 Paragraph 5.9.1.1.1     (p 5-21)   How can occupational doses average as much as value  is only  1300?
3 to 4 times 440 person-rems   if Isn't 1300 representative of antheoldHinson plant, not   a new one designed to tougher standards?
CHAPTER 6 Paragraph 6.1, Item (2) (p 6-1) Modify to require that the NRC   conduct cost benefit analyses of monitoring programs and determine conclusively that the benefit to be gained from monitoring exceeds the cost to the owners or their ratepayers.
Paragraph   6.1, Item (3) (p 6-1) Modify to provide a threshold of damage up to which no applicant action is required. Such threshold should be based upon a statistically defensible in-crement above the nominal, or average, impacts upon the regional ecology described in the FES-CP or the FES-OL, whichever may be greater. Prior to NRC or applicant action to restrict operation or increase applicant's obligations, a cost benefit analysis must be conducted to assure that the potential benefit in mitigating damage does not exceed the withdrawal of benefits normally bestowed by the operation of the plant.
Table 6.1 (p 6-2) Why aren't taxes, employment, and payroll benefits of fuel cycle operations included in this table in the same manner in which fuel cycle impacts are included in section 5.10? The DES unfairly attributes a cost without consideration of the benefit.
APPENDIX   C Table C-6 (p   C-ll) Population doses appear to have been calculated by use of non correlated data. An average annual dispersion factor is multiplied by the gaseous releases, converted to dose, and then multiplied by the total population within 80 kilometers. Doesn't population distribution relative to the predominant wind enter into the equation? The Phoenix wind blows east to west. The population lives to the east.
Out west is barren desert.       There should be a correlation of wind frequency to the population sectors.
Please provide me with a copy of the FES so that I may review the manner   in which these   comments have been addressed.
Sincerely'ours, Janet D. Mitchell
 
l I
1 I
I}}

Latest revision as of 11:35, 29 October 2019

Comments on NUREG-0841,DES for Facilities.Wet Wastes Should Be Defined.Rise in Regional Aquifer Should Be Specified as Harmful or Beneficial
ML17297B117
Person / Time
Site: Palo Verde  Arizona Public Service icon.png
Issue date: 12/16/1981
From: Jeffrey Mitchell
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
RTR-NUREG-0841, RTR-NUREG-841 NUDOCS 8112230129
Download: ML17297B117 (6)
v • d • e


Text

ee REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SY

~ EM ('RIDS)

AGCESSION NBR:8112230129 DOC ~ DATE: 81/12/16 NOTARI'ZED: NO DOCKET FACIL:STN-50-528 (Palo Verde Nuclear Station< UniIt 1E Arizona Publ i 05000528 STN;50-529 'Palo Ver de Nuclear Station< Unit 2r Ar izona Publ i BYNAME 05000529 "STN 50-530 'Palo Verde Nuclear Station< Unitt 3E Arizona Publi 05000530 AUTH AUTHOR AFF'IL I ATION MITCHELL J. D.

P A f f i i a t i on 'Unknown 1

'RE'C IP ~ NAME RECIPIENT AFF ILIA'TION Di,vision of Licensing

SUBJECT:

Comments on NUREG"0841EDES for facility 'Net wastes should defined, Rise in regional aquifer should be specified as harmful or benefical.

DISTRIBUTION CODE: C002B COPIES ~RECEIVED:LTR ENCL, 4l SIZE:

TITLE: Environ, Comments.

NOTES:Standardi'zed )Plant ~ 1 cy'.C Grimes 05000528 Standardi'zed 'Plant, 1 cy:C Grimes 05000529 Standardized IPlant F 1 cy.C Grimes 05000530 RECIP I ENT ICOP IES RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE/NAYE LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL ACTIOY: LIC BR 43 BC 06 ANL KERRIGANP J>> 01 INTERNAL: ELD 1 IE 13 2 NRR/DE/AEAB 20 1 NRR/DE/EEB 16 1 NRR/DE/HGEB 21 1 NRR/DE/SAB 18 1 NRR/DSI/AEB 19 1 TSB 15 1 NRR/DS I/RAB 17 1 REG FI E 04 1 EXTERYAL: ACRS 1 LPDR 03 NATL LAB 21 NRC PDR 02 NSIC 05 1 NTIS a( a lTOTAL NUMBER OF 'COPIES REQUIRED: L>TTR ~ ENCL

I 4

~L

(

yO ~y P.O. Box 654 811223012 9 P 811216%

~ppp528 Citrus Heights, CA 95610 CO PDR ADOCK PDP December 16, 1981 Q

Director, Division of Licensing gECQPJE9 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission DEC 82~981~

Washington, DC 20555 g g gg,"VV' +

j.j,gggQY'NK

Dear Sir:

'a I wish to enter the following comments concerning the D (T~>3 Environmental Statement related to the operation of Palo Ver e Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1,2, and 3, Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-529, and STN 50-530 (NUREG 0841) for consider-ation in the final environmental statement:

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS Item 4.k (p iv) Add "Any increase in risk to the population near the site is more than offset by the reduction in risk to the population near the 91st Avenue sewage treatment facility or the Salt.-Gila River system as the on-site water treatment plant will reduce pathogens by chlorination and other treatment processes and the use of sewage effluent will decrease radia-tion exposures due to decay prior to ultimate release to the environment."

i CHAPTER 2 Paragraph 2.1 (p 2-1) Average annual rate of growth of 3.5%

seems low when compared to the population growth of 53.1%

between 1970 and 1980 (4.35% per,year) as noted in paragraph 4.3.7.3. As population is expected to gr'ow, why isn' electrical demand growth consistent, with population? Hasn' growth in electrical demand exceeded 3.5% per year during the last decade? I would think year.

it has been well above 4% per CHAPTER 4 Paragraph 4.2.5 (p 4-4) What are "wet" wastes? Specify that wastes are solidified. (See FES-CP paragraph 3.5.3.)

Paragraph 4.3.1.2 (p 4-.11) Is the rise in the regional aquifer harmful or beneficial? ~ Please clarify.

radioactivity levels of 4

Paragraph 4.3.2.2 (p 4-12) What are 91st Avenue sewage treatment facility effluent? Wouldn' PVNGS use of effluent result in decreased population doses since hospital and industrial radwaste will decay prior to re-. release at PVNGS? Where is this included in 10 CFR 50 Appendix I evaluation? Can this offset operational transient or steady state 'releases from the plant? As the effluent is being used for crop irrigation by other users, I would think that a reduction in the ingestion pathway could be quite COO4 significant. Does PVNGS operation also lead to reduced contamination of groundwater?

IIO

\

J' lq I

l

,r I

II

',l'\ y J I 1

I

/ I I

I ei f(

~r

~y Director, Division of Licensing December 16, 1981 page 2 CHAPTER 5 Paragraph 5.9.1.1.1 (p 5-21) How can occupational doses average as much as value is only 1300?

3 to 4 times 440 person-rems if Isn't 1300 representative of antheoldHinson plant, not a new one designed to tougher standards?

CHAPTER 6 Paragraph 6.1, Item (2) (p 6-1) Modify to require that the NRC conduct cost benefit analyses of monitoring programs and determine conclusively that the benefit to be gained from monitoring exceeds the cost to the owners or their ratepayers.

Paragraph 6.1, Item (3) (p 6-1) Modify to provide a threshold of damage up to which no applicant action is required. Such threshold should be based upon a statistically defensible in-crement above the nominal, or average, impacts upon the regional ecology described in the FES-CP or the FES-OL, whichever may be greater. Prior to NRC or applicant action to restrict operation or increase applicant's obligations, a cost benefit analysis must be conducted to assure that the potential benefit in mitigating damage does not exceed the withdrawal of benefits normally bestowed by the operation of the plant.

Table 6.1 (p 6-2) Why aren't taxes, employment, and payroll benefits of fuel cycle operations included in this table in the same manner in which fuel cycle impacts are included in section 5.10? The DES unfairly attributes a cost without consideration of the benefit.

APPENDIX C Table C-6 (p C-ll) Population doses appear to have been calculated by use of non correlated data. An average annual dispersion factor is multiplied by the gaseous releases, converted to dose, and then multiplied by the total population within 80 kilometers. Doesn't population distribution relative to the predominant wind enter into the equation? The Phoenix wind blows east to west. The population lives to the east.

Out west is barren desert. There should be a correlation of wind frequency to the population sectors.

Please provide me with a copy of the FES so that I may review the manner in which these comments have been addressed.

Sincerely'ours, Janet D. Mitchell

l I

1 I

I

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17297B117&oldid=1991343"