ML20086P849

From kanterella
Revision as of 00:52, 15 April 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Submits Comments on Des (NUREG-1033) Re Operation of Facility.Fuel Cycle Impact Not Completely Described
ML20086P849
Person / Time
Site: Satsop
Issue date: 02/19/1984
From: Doherty J
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To: Vietti A
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
RTR-NUREG-1033 NUDOCS 8402270362
Download: ML20086P849 (2)


Text

p--- -

p February 19, 1984 318 Summit Ave.

Suite 3 Brighton, Mass. 02135 Ms. Annette Vietti-

' Project Manager - WPPSS - III Division of Licensing.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D. C. 20555 RE: Draft Environmental Statement related to the oneration of WPPSS - III (Washington _Public Powar Supply System)

HUREG-1033 Please enter the below comment on the above Statement.

.The statement does not indicate to whom Comments are to be mailed.

COMMENT-I In Anpendix C, the following statement (p. C-6) occurs:

To illustrate: A single model 1000-MWe LWR operating at :an 80F capacity factor for 30 years would be pre-dicted to' induce between 3 3 and 5.7 cancer fatalities in 100 years, 5 7 and 17 in 50c years, and 36 and 60 in 1000 years as a result of releases of radon-222.

My concern is_that_the DES has not completely descri-bed the fuel cycle imnact in' Appendix 0, not the impact of operation of the plant to the general public. Specifically the DES should contain a statement of:

1) The range 1of number of non-fatal cancer injuries induced by-fuel cycle radon-22 for the WPPSS Nuclear Pro.iect ~

No. 3 for its projected capacity factor (80#) and licensing period'(no years);

2) The range of number of non-fatal birth defects induced byffuel cycle radon-222 for providing fuel for the UPPSS Nuclear Pro.iect No. 3 for its projected canacity factor (804) and-Licesning neriod (40 years).

COMMENT 4II-On Page 5-14 ofE the Statement it states, "The lower limit limit of the range would be zero because there may be biological mechanias that can renair dacare caused by radiation at low dose and/or does rates." The statement is unsupnorted by ref-erence, or documentation. The DES should be altered to include 8402270362 840219 gDRADOCK05000 g

r JOHN F. DOHSRTY Conments pg. 2

~

I hhatever staff feels backs this position. It stands now vague and whimsical.

COMMENT - III On cage 5-33 of the Statement it says, "Some credit has been taken in this evluation for these actions (referring to Three Mile Island accident induced changes) and imorevements in es-ta'olishing the radiological risk of accidents at the 'clNP-3 nlant". 'ilithout some cuantitization, the statement is sia,17 too vague. It im71ies there was a pre-TMI analysis, and that it was changed to reflect chantres such as those in NURE-0737.

The DES should contain mention of just how much credit Staff has taken for this. Since there is a -uantitative base, a cuantitative statenent should be nossible.

Thank you for this opnortunity to comment.

tYh'.' ,i v

John F. Doherty s

4