ML20234C424

From kanterella
Revision as of 17:41, 6 October 2021 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Us Weather Bureau Environ Meteorological Research Project Comments on Hazards Summary Rept Re Amend 2 to License Application,Dtd 630405,concerning Util Proposed Reactor at Bodega Bay,Ca
ML20234C424
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Bodega Bay
Issue date: 04/22/1963
From: Belter W
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To: Price E
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20234A767 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-85-665 NUDOCS 8709210283
Download: ML20234C424 (2)


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 ~

PDR FOIA -

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