ML032060586
| ML032060586 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 08/01/2003 |
| From: | Spaulding D NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD3 |
| To: | Cayia A Nuclear Management Co |
| References | |
| TAC MB8223, TAC MB8224 | |
| Download: ML032060586 (5) | |
Text
August 1, 2003 Mr. Alfred J. Cayia Site Vice President Point Beach Nuclear Plant Nuclear Management Company, LLC 6610 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, WI 54241
SUBJECT:
POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO SELECTIVE SCOPE IMPLEMENTATION OF ALTERNATE SOURCE TERM FOR FUEL HANDLING ACCIDENT (TAC NOS. MB8223 AND MB8224)
Dear Mr. Cayia:
By letter dated March 27, 2003, the Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC), submitted a license amendment request for a selective scope application of the alternate source term (AST) for a fuel handling accident (FHA). This submittal requested the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff review and approval of a selective scope application of AST for only the FHA and corresponding changes to Technical Specification 3.9.3, Containment Penetrations. The NRC staff finds that additional information, identified in the enclosure, is needed.
A draft of the enclosure was discussed with Mr. Jack Gadzala and Ms. Sara Scott of NMC during a conference call on June 27, 2003. A subsequent discussion with Mr. Jack Gadzala of NMC on July 25, 2003, indicated a mutually agreeable response date of 90 days from the date of this letter. If you need to revise this date or need further clarification, contact me at 301-415-2928 or email me at dws@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Deirdre W. Spaulding, Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate III Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: See next page
- Provided RAI input by memo OFFICE PDIII-1/PM PDIII-1/LA SPSB:SC*
PDIII-1/SC NAME DSpaulding MOBrien for RBouling RDennig LRaghavan DATE 07/30/03 07/31/03 07/03/03 08/01/03
Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 cc:
Jonathan Rogoff, Esquire General Counsel Nuclear Management Company, LLC 700 First Street Hudson, WI 54016 Mr. Richard R. Grigg President and Chief Operating Officer Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Street Milwaukee, WI 53201 Manager, Regulatory Affairs Point Beach Nuclear Plant Nuclear Management Company, LLC 6610 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, WI 54241 Mr. Ken Duveneck Town Chairman Town of Two Creeks 13017 State Highway 42 Mishicot, WI 54228 Chairman Public Service Commission of Wisconsin P.O. Box 7854 Madison, WI 53707-7854 Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 801 Warrenville Road Lisle, IL 60532-4351 Resident Inspectors Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6612 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, WI 54241 Ms. Sarah Jenkins Electric Division Public Service Commission of Wisconsin P.O. Box 7854 Madison, WI 53707-7854 Mr. Roy A. Anderson Executive Vice President Nuclear Management Company, LLC 700 First Street Hudson, WI 54016 Nuclear Asset Manager Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Street Milwaukee, WI 53201 Mano K. Nazar Senior Vice President Nuclear Management Company, LLC Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant 1717 Wakonade Drive East Welch, MN 55089 John Paul Cowan Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Management Company, LLC 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway Covert, MI 49043 March 2003
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO SELECTIVE SCOPE IMPLEMENTATION OF ALTERNATE SOURCE TERM FOR FUEL HANDLING ACCIDENT DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 By letter dated March 27, 2003, the Nuclear Management Company, LLC, submitted a license amendment request for a selective scope application of the alternate source term for a fuel handling accident. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff finds that additional information is needed.
- 1. Meteorological Data
- a. With regard to atmospheric stability, there appears to be a relatively high occurrence of category A and lower occurrence of categories D and E when compared with some other nuclear power plant sites. Further, stability category A is reported to occur for as long as 56 consecutive hours which seems quite high and the occurrence of unstable conditions at night is reported to be high relative to some other sites. The response to NRC Question 1 in Attachment VII to the March 27, 2003, letter provides a discussion of methodologies used historically to estimate the stability category for Point Beach. It notes that use of fluctuations in wind direction appear to provide estimates more similar to those at other sites than use of the temperature change with height methodology.
However, why do relatively warm temperatures occur near the ground so frequently at night and for such long durations at the Point Beach site? Other than changing from strip charts to digital recording in the control room in 1999, have other changes occurred in the onsite meteorological measurement during the period over which the data were measured? Was there a change in the 1999 time frame that resulted in the atmospheric stability data for that year appearing to be more similar to some other sites than the 1997 and 1998 data?
- b. With regard to wind speed, why was there a high occurrence of light wind speeds at both measurement levels in 1999 when compared with the other 2 years? For example, this is especially notable between roughly Julian days 159 and 214 at the upper level and Julian days 296 to 334 at the lower level when many of the speeds are listed as a single digit and do not seem well correlated with the wind speed at the other measurement level.
Further, there appears to be a relatively high occurrence of wind speed data repeating from hour to hour at the upper level, with a maximum duration of approximately 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> at the upper level and 11 hours1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> at the lower level. While this may be associated with the question concerning the apparent anomalous occurrence of light wind speeds, what is the procedure for reviewing data to confirm that repeating data are valid?
Page 5 of Attachment VII states that the wind speed data provided in the ARCON96 format is in units of meters per second, but it appears to be in miles per hour (mph). Are the data in mph?
c.
With respect to Figure 5, page 10 of Attachment VII, the frequency of occurrence of the north and north northwest winds in 1997-1999 is approximately 11.5 percent and 2.5 percent, respectively. The NRC staff estimates based on the 1997-1999 hourly data at the 10 meter level for the same two directions are about 7.5 percent and 5.5 percent, respectively. The NRC staff does not understand the reason for this difference. Are all measurements from the same tower? What are the measurement heights of the wind roses shown in Figure 5? Are values centered on each direction?
- d. Why are calibrations performed annually and not semi-annually as recommended by Regulatory Guide 1.23, Onsite Meteorological Programs?
Are all data presented, including that provided in figures, from the same tower?
Are any of the 1997-1999 data from strip charts? If so, how much and for what time intervals?
- 2. Onsite Relative Concentration (X/Q) Values
- a. Table 5-1 of Attachment II of the March 27, 2003, letter provides inputs used in the control room X/Q calculations. Is the distance from the containment purge stack to the control room air intake the same as the height of the intake and are both the containment purge stack and drumming vent stack the same height or are these approximations?
- b. The first paragraph of page 21 of Attachment II implies that the closer a release location is to the receptor, the higher the resultant X/Q value will be. This is generally, but not always, true. Were comparative estimates made for an assumed release from the Unit 1 containment vent purge stack?
c.
Referring to page 31 of Attachment II, how do the resultant X/Q values for an open equipment hatch and personnel airlocks compare with X/Q estimates from the containment purge stack?
- d. The first paragraph of the response to NRC Question 3, page 5 of Attachment VII, states that Bechtel drawing M-142 has been attached. Is it attached to Attachment II, Attachment VII, or elsewhere?
- 3. Offsite X/Q Values
- a. Table 2-4, page 9 of Attachment II, lists the 0-8 hour low population zone (LPZ) X/Q value as 3.0 E-04 sec/m3, but is given as 3.0 E-05 sec/m3 elsewhere. Is the value in Table 2-4 correct?
- b. Page 21 of Attachment II states that the X/Qs are 95 percentile values. Typically, but not always, the 99.5 percentile direction dependent values are more restrictive than the 95 percentile site X/Q values. Are the 95 percentile site X/Q values more restrictive at Point Beach and, therefore, the X/Q values shown are the 95 percentile values?