ML17309A188

Forwards Final Safety Evaluation of SEP Topic II-2.C Atmospheric Transport & Diffusion Characteristics for Accident Analysis. Requests Tech Spec Change Incorporating New Boundary Area Map

ML17309A188
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	09/24/1981
From:	Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Maier J ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP.
References
TASK-02-02.C, TASK-2-2.C, TASK-RR LSO5-81-09-063, LSO5-81-9-63, NUDOCS 8109300361
Download: ML17309A188 (8)

Text

September 24, 1981 Docket No.

50-244 LS05-81-09-063 Mr. John E. Maier Vice President Electric and Steam Production Rochester Gas 8 Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649

SUBJECT:

SEP TOPIC II-2.C, "ATMOSPHERIC TRANSPORT AND DIFFUSION CHARACTERISTICS FOR ACCIDENT ANALYSIS" (R.

E.

GINNA) iO)

P

<ff/Pj Enclosed is a copy of our final safety evaluation of SEP Topic II-2.C, "Atmospheric Transport and Diffusion Characteristics for Accident Analysis" for the R.

E.

Ginna Nuclear Power Plant site.

This assessment compares your facility with the criteria currently used for licensing new facilities.

This assessment replaces our previous draft assessment and responds to your comments submitted by letter dated June 30, 1981.

This assessment reflects the new exclusion area boundary as defined in our July 17, 1981 evaluation of SEP Topic II-l.A, "Exclusion Area Authority and Control."

This evaluation will be a basic input to the integrated safety assessment for your facility unless you identify changes needed to reflect the as-built conditions at your facility.

This assessment may be revised in the future if your.facility design is changed or if NRC criteria relating to this subject are modified before the integrated assessment is completed.

We believe that the changes to your Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB), as submitted by your letter dated June 26, 1981, are potentially significant enough to warrant changes to the Ginna Technical Specifications, incorporating the new boundary area map.

This will help ensure that x/9 valves generated in the SEP reviews, and conclusions drawn from the valves, are not unknowingly invalidated by future EAB dimensional changes which would be otherwise per-mitted by the present wording of the Ginna Technical Specifications.

Therefore, we request that you propose would result in your EAB being defined of receipt of this letter.

a technical specification change which by an appropriate map within 120 days SEPB:DL WRussel,l"'/18/81

• See previous yellow for additional concurrences.

SEPB:DL SEPB:DL GCwalina:dk*

CBerlinger*

9/15/81 9/16/81 Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief

~810930036i Bi0924 l oFF1cEI PDR ADQCK 05000244 SURNAME PDR DTcmsgre DATgf Division Bkkb%L'Pq

~

Gael oooo'RC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USQPO. 19S1~~960 l

C' 4

ll H,p I,

E' A

ll !

~ w gt y'-

~ sa P

V t

~

\\

Docket No. 50-244 LS05 Nr. John h. Naier Vice President Electric and Steam Production Rochester Gas 8 Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649

SUBJECT:

SEP TOPIC II-2.C, "ATMOSPHERIC TRANSPORT AND DIFFUSION CHARACTERISTICS FOR ACCIDENT ANALYSIS" (R. E.

GINNA)

Enclosed is a copy of our final safety evaluation of SEP Topic II-Z.C, "Atmospheric Transport and Diffusion Characteristics for Accident Analysis" for the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant site.

This assessment compares your facility with~the criteria currently used for licensing new facilities.

This assessment replaces our previous draft assessment and responds to your comments submitted by letter dated June 30, 1981.

This assessment reflects the new exclusion area boundary as defined in our July 17, 1981 evaluation of SEP Topic II-1.A, "Exclusion Area Authority and Control."

This evaluation will be a basic input to the integrated safety assessment for your facility unless you identify changes'rieedaU to reflect the as-built conditions at your facility.

This assessment may be revised in the future ifyour facility design is changed or if NRC criteria relating to this subject are modified before the integrated assessment is completed.

Sincerely.

Enclosure:

As stated Dennis H. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No.

5 Division of Licensing cc w/enclosure:

See next page OFFICEI SURNAME/

DATE Q SE B'$~)g

~

~ ~

1 fza: d 9//5/81

'RC FORM 318 (10.80) NRCM 0240 SEPB:

L CBer'1'anger'/HI/81

DL HRusse'Il'--"

B': L:

RSiia%der"'"'RB¹5:DL:C AD:SA:DL Dt."r"u'hach'fie1 '""GCainas 9//8/81 9/g /81 9/

/81 9/

/81 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGPO: 1981~960

I I U r

i Mr. John E. Naier-CC Harry H. Yoigt, Esquire LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and HacRae 1333 New Hampshire

Avenue, N.

W.

Suite 1100 Washington, D. C.

20036 Mr. Michael Slade 12 Trailwood Circle Rochester, New York 14618 Ezra Bialik Assistant Attorney General

'nvironmental Protection Bureau New York State Department of Law 2 World Trade Center New York, New York 10047 Jeffrey Cohen New York State Energy Office Swan Street Building Core 1, Second Fl oor Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223 Director, Bureau of Nuclear Operations State of New York Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223 Rochester Public Library 115 South Avenue

'ochester, New York 14604 Supervisor of the Town of Ontario 107 Ridge Road West

Ontario, New York 14519 Resident Inspector R. E. Ginna Plant c/o U. S.

NRC 1503 Lake Road

Ontario, New York 14519 Nr. Thomas B. Cochran Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

1725 I Street, N.

W.

Suite 600 Washington, D. C.

20006

~ 5 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II Office ATTN:

Regional Radiation Representative 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 Herbert Grossman, Esq.,

Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, D. C.

20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Dr.

Emmeth A. Luebke, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mashington, D. C.

20555

ITNOEPHERIC TAN~NO OIF O51ON CHARACTERIETIC5-'i"=i-:"::,::i'Ail.

FOR ACCIDENT ANALYSIS'"'

'::,.".>.?2='..-".'-"'-'='.=,;

R.

E.

GINNA INTRODUCTION The safety objective of this review is to determine the appropriate on-site and near-site atmospheric transport and diffusion characteristics necessary to establish conformance with the 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines.

In particular, the short-term relative ~round-level air concentrations (x/g) are determinid for use in estimating offsite exposures resulting from postul ated acci den'ts.

II.

REVIEW CRITERIA Section 100.10 of 10 CFR Part 100, "Reactor Site Criteria," states that meteorological conditions at the site and surrounding area should be considered in determining the acceptability of a site for a power reactor.

R RELATED SAFETY TOPICS

~ (r\\o Topic II-l.A, "Exclusion Area Authority and Control" provides the proper exclusion boundary distance over which the licensee has control.

Various section XV topics utiliz'e the atmosphere dispersion coefficients to deter-mine the offsite radiological conseouences of postulated acci dents.

R'='='n GUID LI '

The atmospheric dispersion factors were calculated using the direction dependent method described in Regulatory Guide 1-145, "Atmospheric Dispersion !';odels for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at l!uclear Power Plants."

This model incorporates the results of recent.

atmospheric tracer tests, and considers the directionally dependent atmospheric dispersion conditions.

Specifically, the modified dispersion model considers the following effects:

(1)

Lateral plume meander, as.a function of atmospheric stability, wind speed, and distance from the source, during periods of low wind speeds

(<6 meters/sec) and neutral and stable atmospheric condi tions; I

2)

Exclusion area boundary distance as a function of direction from the plant; 3)

Atmospheric dispersion conditions when the wind is blowing in a specific direction; and 4)

The fraction of time that the wind can be expected to blow into each of the 16 compass directions.

V.

EVALUATION For the purpose of this evaluation available onsite meteorological data for the periods 1966-1967 and 1973-1974 have been used.

For the composite data set, wind speed and wind direction were measured at 15.2m (50-ft) level with the wind speeds reduced by means of a power law to represent conditions at the 10m (33-ft) level.

Atmospheric stability was defined by the vertical temperature gradient measured between the 10m and 45.7m (150-ft) levels.

By letter dated June 30, 1981 the Rochester Gas and Electric Company modified their exclusion area boundary (EAB) such that the minimum distance is variable in each direction.

The staff has calculated the maximum EAB based on the minimum distance in each direction.

The maximum x/g value was calculated for the southeast direction, 503 meters from the plant.

Using the composite of onsite meteorological

data, the following x/9 values for ~n assumed ground-level release with a building wake factor, cA, of 440m have been determined at distances corresponding to the exclusion area boundary and the outer boundary of the low population zone (LPZ) in an onshore direction:

Time Period 0-2 hours 0-8 hours 8-24 hours 1-4 days 4-30 days Distance EAB (503m SE)

LPZ (4827m)

LPZ (4827m)

LPZ (4827m)

LPZ (4827m) x/

sec/m 4.8 x 10 3.0 x 10 2.1 x 10 8.6x106 2.5 x 10 VI.

CONCLUSION The staff concludes that the x/9 valves presented in Section V are appro-priate for estimating exposures from postulated accidents and should be used in all accident calculations.

This completes the evaluation of this

'EP topic.

.Since this evaluation conforms to current licensing practice, no additional SEP review is required.

4