ML20234C424: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) StriderTol Bot insert |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) StriderTol Bot change |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| document type = INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL MEMORANDUM, MEMORANDUMS-CORRESPONDENCE | | document type = INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL MEMORANDUM, MEMORANDUMS-CORRESPONDENCE | ||
| page count = 2 | | page count = 2 | ||
| project = | |||
| stage = Other | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 17:41, 6 October 2021
Text
a oc,ogio= ao io i.
{ .
/
UNITED STATES COVERNMENT Memorandum -
To .: Eber R. Price, Assistant Director. DATE: April'22, 1963 Division of Licens ng & Regulation
- M FROM : Walter . el,er, Chief.
Environmental. & Sanitary Engineering Br., rid SUDJECT: U.S. WEATIER BUREAU C0!9ENTS ON HAZAhDS SUWARY REPORT RD:DNS:WGB 1 ~
Reference is made to your '4tter of April 11, 1963 to the U.S. Weather Bureau requesting commente on the following:
PG a.E Proposed Reactor - Bodega Bay, California Amendment No. 2 drated April L 1963
.to license application.
'Ibe comments of the Heather Bureau's Environmental-Meteorological Research Project are attached.
Attachments Comments (orig. & 1 cy.)
,f n
/ p,c, ;
Ap g2 3 h -6
~
d4ty
- Ah !;b% b '
.. s
^' ,e l:
2008 8709210283 851217 ~
FIRESTD85-665 PDRn -
3
-..y. ._ _ .-...,-.s.- . __ _ _ _ -
l
.- 1
( l Comments on PG & E Proposed Reactor - Bodega Bay, California Amendment No. 2 dated April 5,1963 to license application
(
Prepared by J I
Environmental Meteorological Research Project 4 Office of Meteorological Research U. S. Weather Bureau I
April 16, 1963 1
It appears in Amendment No. 2 that meteorology enterc into the questions and l responses caly in numbers 24, 25, 26 and 27. j I
The response to Question 24 indicates that reconcentrr. tion effects in the l environs will be considered in determining release rates. Presumab.y. thio I would result in iodine release rates below levels where direct inhalation is controlling. The relation to meteorology is to emphasize the cverage longer term dispersion patterns and to indicate-the desirability of analyzing the local tower data by wind direction and dispersion " classes" over time inter-vals commensurate with the monitoring program, i
la Question 25 it is presumed the " permissible annual average discharge rate" I will be based on calculations that include consideration of joint wind direc-tion and stability frequencies. It would be informative to determine for what period of time emissions in excess of this value up to bu: not including 10 times the F;nnuni rate could occur under restrictive dilution conditicas without exceeding the 0.5 rem / year limit (see pese VI-4 pp. 3 of Preliminary 5
Hazards Report).
In Question 26, sinca no atmospheric dilution is assumed, the analysis wonic seem quite conservative. Even if the wind speed were reduced to 1 oph thus increasing the inhalation period by a factor of 10 the omission of cloud rise and diffusion should still result in conservative estimetes.
Question 27 involves only changes in source strength possibilities. Since a constant wind and stability situation is assumed for computational purposes the meteorology is conservative.
I
\ *T g ,. , #.,s -.
' gd