ML17309A145

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Assessment of SEP Topic III-4.D, Site Proximity Missiles. Topic Is Complete for Facility.No Addl Review Is Required During SEP Integrated Assessment
ML17309A145
Person / Time
Site: Ginna 
Issue date: 04/16/1981
From: Maier J
ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP.
To: Crutchfield D
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TASK-03-04.D, TASK-3-4.D, TASK-RR NUDOCS 8104220319
Download: ML17309A145 (8)


Text

F REGULAT INFORMATION.DISTRIBUTION STEM (RIDS)

ACCESSION'BR:8104220319 DOC ~ DATE: 81/04/16 NOTARIZED; NO, DOCKET FACIL::50 244 Rober t Emmet~ Ginna. Nuclear Pl anti Unit 1r Rochester' 05000244 AUTH INANE AUTHOR AFFILIATION MAIER'gJ,E ~"

Rochester" Gas L Electr ic Corp.

RECIP+ NAME<

RECIPIENT AFFILIATION CRUTCHFIELD<D ~

Operating Reactors Branch 5

SUBJECT'- Forwards assessment of SEP T'opic III 4.DI Site Proximity Miss)les;"'opic, is complete"-for facility.No addi rev'iew is'equired during: SEP integrated assessment.

'DISTRIBUTION CODE!- A035S COPIES RECEIVED ILiTR ENCL ~

SIZE:<<'

'ITLE:

SEP Topics NOTES: 1 copy:SEP Sec't; Ldro 05000244 RECIPIENT'D-CODE/NAME!

ACTION: -=CRUTCHF IELD 04 COPIES LTTR ENCL' 7

RECIPIENT'D CODE/NAME'OPIES LTTR'NCL INTERNAL: A/D-MATL8QUAL~1 3~

HYD/GEO-BR'0; 02'..

EG FILE:

01 1

1 2

2 fe 1

1 CONT'YS A

07 1

1 ILE" 06, 2

2'R'SSESS BR 11 1

1 SEP BR'2' 3>>

EXTERNAL!'CRS NSIC 14 05~

16 16 1-1 LPDR.

03 1

1 TOTAL NUMBER-OF COPIES REQUIRED:

LTTR ~

ENCL"

~,i

"I Il l

)

7+

77 aesFZ

~tuscan ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION L AE ~ Owl IAO~

YOAA' Sg g

O'AVC o

89 EAST AVENUE, ROCHESTER, N.Y. 14649

".".~-

JOHN E.

I7IAIER VICE PRESIDENT TKL.KPNONK ARKA COOK TIE 546.2700 April 16, 1981 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Mr. Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No.

5 Division of licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

'.<~cpgp -.e

%p lp

Subject:

SEP Topic III-4.D "Site Proximity Missiles" R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-244

Dear Mr. Crutchfield:

Enclosed is the Rochester Gas and Electric assessment for SEP Topic III-4.D, "Site Proximity Missiles".

This assessment for the R. E. Ginna site is modeled upon the NRC's assessment of this topic for Consumers Power Company's Palisades

plant, issued by letter from Dennis M. Crutchfield, NRC, to Mr. David P. Hoffman,
CPCo, dated January 13, 1981.

The majority of the information for this topic was derived from the SEP Topic Assessment II-1.C, "Potential Hazards Due to Transportation, Industrial, Institutional, and Military Facilities."

This topic assessment was transmitted by letter from John E. Maier, RG&E, to Dennis M. Crutchfield, NRC, dated April 15, 1981.

Very truly yours,

'(~ ~ OAA~

Jo n E. Maier

~

~

Attachment ge~S

(/(

~ 3)

Jl 7 h

~l(

k C'

q rv a,

ll

'h C

11

SEP To ic III-4.D Site Proximit Missiles, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant The safety objective of this topic is to ensure that the integrity of the safety-related structures,

systems, and components would not be jeopardized due to the potential for a site proximity missile.

The review was conducted in accordance with the guidance given in Standard Review Plan Sections 3.5.1.5, 3.5.1.6, and 2.2.3.

Descri tion and Evaluation The potential for hazardous activities in the vicinity of the Ginna plant has been addressed in SEP topic II-l.C, "Potential Hazards due to Industrial, Transportation, Institutional and Military Facilities".

As indicated therein, there is little industrial activity near the plant.

The distances to the nearest land transportation routes are such (about 1700 feet to the nearest

highway, and 3 1/2 miles to the nearest railroad) that.

the risk associated with potential missiles from transportation accidents on these routes are within the SRP 2.2.3 guidelines.

Similarly, the nearest large gas pipelines are about six miles from the plant, and do not pose a missile threat to the plant.

Major Zake Ontario shipping routes are also sufficiently far away (about 23 miles) so as not to present a credible missile hazard from lake traffic.

There are no military facilities or activities near the plant which would create a missile hazard.

The review of SEP Topic II-1.C also evaluated the potential for aircraft becoming a missile hazard, both in connection with the operation of the Williamson Flying Club Airport, which is about ten miles ESE of the plant, and due to commercial air traffic in r,

and out of Rochester via federal airways V2N and V2, which are 2 1/2 and 10 miles from the plant site.,

As evaluated in Topic II-1.C, it was determined that, since the Williamson Flying Club Airport expected a maximum of only 5000 operations per year, and is about, 10 miles from the site, the criteria in III.3.a and III.3.b of SRP 3.5.1.6 were met, and there is no need to determine the probability of an aircraft crash into the plant.

Further, the hazard to the plant from commercial aircraft use of airways V2 and V2N was shown to be only 5.1 x 10

-8 and 1.4 x 10 per year, respectively.

No danger to the plant from commercial airline traffic is thus expected.

Conclusion Since current regulatory criteria are met with respect to SEP Topic III-4.D,. "Site Proximity Missiles", it can be concluded that this topic is complete for the R. E. Ginna site.

No additional review for this topic is required during the SEP integrated assessment.

0 0

1 ib

3 References 2.

3.

5.

6.

7.

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, Robert Emmett Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Unit No.

1 - Final Facility Description and Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Sections 2.2 and 2.5.

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Unit No. 1, Environmental Report, Volume 1, Sections 2.1 and 2.2.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG-75/087, Standard Review

Plan, Sections 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, and 3.5.1.6, September 1975.

Code of Federal Regulations, Section 10, Part 100 (10 CFR 100).

Sterling Power Project Nuclear Unit No. 1, Preliminary Safety Analysis Report Addendum, Rochester Gas and Electric, Volume 1, Sections 2.1 and 2.2.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 1.91, Rev.

1, February 1978.

Letter, John E. Maier, RG&E, to Dennis M. Crutchfield,
NRC, SEP Topic II-l.C, "Potential Hazards Due to Transportation, Industrial, Institutional and Military Facilities",

April 15, 1981.