ML18026A306
| ML18026A306 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah, Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 09/05/1980 |
| From: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Curtis N PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8009100484 | |
| Download: ML18026A306 (13) | |
Text
Spp b 3980 Docket Nos.:
50 3g7 and 50-3/8 ~
'I Mr. Norman g> Curtis Vice President - Engineering and Construction Pennsylvania Power and Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsyl vania 13101
Dear Mr. Curtis:
Ulb l Kj,UU I lUN:
'OCKET FILES TERA LBIIJ'1 Rdg NRR Rdg NRC/PDR L/PDR DEisenhut RPurple BJYoungblood MRushbrook RStark RMattson SHanauer RTedesco klKreger
" MErnst
-RHartffeld
'ELD PCheck LRubenstein ASchwencer JMiller RVollmer DRoss JKnight VNoonan OIE (3) bcc:
ACRS (16)
"'eeb
Subject:
Susquehanna Steam Electric, Station, Units Nos.
1 and. 2 - Request for Additional Information As a result of our review of your application for operating licenses for the, Susquehanna Steam Electric Plant, we figd that. we need additional information in the area of Accident Evaluation.
The specific information required is listed in the Enclosure.
If you desire any discussion or clarification of the infopmation requested, please contact R.
M. Stark, Licensing Prospect (tanager,, (301-492-7238).,
Sincer ely.
Enclosure:
As stated Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director f'r Licensing Division of Licensing cc:
See next page P'ongles o g2 OFFICE)
SURNAME L:LB/1.
MSMrk/1s DL.:.Nii.l.......
BJYoungblood PJ.:AD/4........
RLTedesco,
~ ~ JI y /3/80 9/
/80 9/
/80 NRC FORM 318 {9-76) NRCM 0240
+U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE-1979-289.369
t
~,'
e k
l li
Enclosure 1
Susquehanna Unit Nos.
1, and 2
g-2 Review - Accident Evaluation Branch (312. 17) 3.5.1.4 (312.18) 3.5.1.4 (312. 19) 3.5.1.4 (312.20) 3.5.1.4 Provide the structural composition of all walls and roofs of buildings enumerated in Table 3.3-2 of the FSAR housing safety-related equipment, as well as the building locations.
Discuss the sizes and orientations of any openings in these buildings.
Oescribe the extent to which the control room air intake and diesel generator exhaust tubes are protected from tornado-generated missiles.
Provide the description and locations of all safety-related equipment not contained within reinforced concrete buildings or structures.
Oiscuss the capability of the plant safety-related structures,
- systems, and components to withstand at least missiles C and F of the Revision 0 to SRP 3.5.1.4 (specified below):
Missile C.
Steel rod, 1-inch diameter x 3-feet long, weight-8 lb.
Fraction of total Tornado Velocit 0.6 (312.21) 6.4 (312.22) 15.6;5 (312.23) 15.6.5 App.
A E.
Utility pole, 13-1/2 inch
- diameter, 35-feet long, weight-1490 lb.
0.4 In Section 158.2 "Control Room Oose Model, the text indicates that geometrical considerations lead to the use of Halitsky's model for atmospheric dispersion instead of Murphy's model for atmospheric dispersion, as described in SRP 6.4, Please provide a detailed justification of this substitution including a relative comparison between the two models.
List in Tables 15.6-18 and 15.6-19 the actual numerical values of X/g used in the calculation of LOCA consequences listed in 15.6.5 and give the basis for their selection.
In FSAR Section 6.2.3.2.1, the applicant stated that with only one SGTS train, the secondary containment would be drawn down to a
negative 0.25" WG pressure within 60 seconds.
In staff question 312.15, the staff asked for a secondary pressure curve following the LOCA to determine if the proposed SGTS design could meet the coranit-ment to draw down the secondary containment within the required time using the design flow rates.
Instead of providing the draw down curve for the rated system flow, the applicant provided two draw down curves at flow rates less than the design flow, neither of which meets the 60-second cri teria committed to.
The response to (}312.15 is therefore not satisfactory.
The applicant has not demonstrated the ability of the SGTS using its rated flowrate to achieve a negative pressure of 0.25" WG in the secon-dary containment within 60 seconds following a LOCA, as the applicant has stated in FSAR Section 6.2.3.
To resolve this concern, the appli-cant should provide a secondary containment pressure curve following the LOCA assuming the SGTS is operating at its rated flow.
(312.24) 15.6.5 App.
D It is not clear from the FSAR and associated amendments that the dose contribution from MSIV leakage is calculated correctly.
In Amendment 1 (8/78) the applicant indicates that the MSIV-LCS is not operational for 20 minutes following the postulated
- accident, yet the accident analysis in Chapter 15 of the FSAR assumes that all NSIV leakage is filtered.
This implies that the main steam line isolation valve leakage control system (NSIV-LCS) is assumed opera-tional from the start of the accident.
Based upon this finding, the current FSAR analysis for the NSIV leakage dose contribution following a postulated LOCA is unacceptable and the applicant should provide an analysis for the NSIV leakage offsite dose contribution paying strict attention to the actual operation time of the MSIV-LCS given in the FSAR.
Mr. Norman W. Curtis Vice President. - Engineering and Construction Pennsylvania Power and Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Al 1 entown, Pennsyl vani a 18101 CC Mr. Earle M. Mead Project Engineering Manager Pennsylvania Power
& Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Al 1entown, Pennsyl vania 18101 Jay Silberg, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts Trowbridge 1800 H Street, N.
W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Mr. William E. Barberich, Nuclear Licensing Group Supervisor Pennsylvania Power 8 Light. Company 2 North Ninth Street Al1entown, Pennsyl vania 18101 Edward H. Nagel, Esquire General Counsel and Secretary Pennsylvania Power
& Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Al 1 entown, Pennsyl vani a 18101 Bryan Snapp, Esq.
Pennsylvania Power
& Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Al 1 entown, Pennsyl vani a 18101 Robert M. Gallo Resident Inspector P. 0.
Box 52 Shickshinny, Pennsylvania 18655 Susquehanna Environmental Advocates c/o Gerald Schultz, Esq.
500 South River Street Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702 John L. Anderson Oak Ridge National Laboratory Union Carbide Corporation Bldg. 3500, P. 0.
Box X
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Nr. E, B. Poser Project Enqineer Bechtel Power Corporation P. 0.
Box 3965 San'rancisco,'alifornia 94119 Matias F. Travieso-Diaz, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud Co-Director Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue State College, PA 16801 Hr. Thomas M. Gerusky, Director Bureau of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Resources Commonwealth of Pennsylvania P. 0.
Box 2063 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Ms. Colleen Harsh Box 538A, RD44 Mountain Top, PA 18707 Hrs. Irene Lemanowicz, Chairperson The Citizens Against Nucl ear Dangers P. 0.
Box 377 RDgl
- Berwick, PA 18503 Mr. J.
W. Hillard Project Manager Mail Code 394 General Electric Comoany 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125
0 yah REOy
~4
~o Cy
- ~i 0
C O
I C
Oh0
+~
~o UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 July 2, 1980 ALL APPLICANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND OPERATING LICENSES Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING EVACUATION TIMES This letter is being sent to all applicants for construction permits and licensees of plants under construction.
The purpose of the letter is a request for informa-tion regarding estimates for evacuation of various areas around proposed nuclear power plants.
The information sought is described in ou} letter of December 26, 1979 (copy enclosed).
The requested submittal date for this information was suspended by our letter of March ll, 1980.
Me are requesting that you submit evacuation time estimates on an accelerated basis to enable the NRC staff to identify, in a timely manner, those sites where evacuation constraints exist and special planning measures should be considered.
In some cases of extreme difficultywhere a large population is at risk, special facility modifications may also be appropriate.
The information requested in the enclosure should be submitted by August 1, 1980.
This time is shorter than provided in the December 26, 1979 letter because of the need +or timely information and because the content of the information desired has been available to you for some months.
Units sharing the same site need not, of course, submit separate time estimates.
This special request for information has been submitted to the General Accounting Office and cleared by GAO as noted in the clearance block below:
Approved by GAO B-180225 (S80010)
Expires 80-09-30
- incerely,
Enclosure:
December 26, 1979 Letter w/Request for Evacuation Time Estimates cc:
Service Lists sen ut, r
Division of icensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
k
,r t
f t
h
0
~g$l AEgg
~4C
~o Cy I~i n
C 0'
c O~
VI
~O
++*++
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMNl!SSlON WASHINGTON, D, C. 20555 December 26, 1979 APPLICANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND LICENSEES OF PLANTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING EVACUATION TIMES This letter is being sent to all applicants for construction permits, and licensees of plants under construction.
The purpose of the letter is a
request for information regarding estimates for evacuation of various areas around future nuclear power plants.
The requested information is,in addition to that requested by the November 21, 1979, letter to all applicants for an operating license and licensees of plants under construction from Domenic B. Vassallo, Acting Director, Division of Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Although evacuation time estimates are expected to be prepared in the course of the upgrading of the state of emergency preparedness as previously specified submission of these estimates to the NRC is being requested on an accelerated time scale so that the NRC can identify those instances in which unusual evacuation constraints exist and special planning measures should be considered.
In some cases of extreme difficulty where a large population is at risk, special facility modifications may also be appropr iate.
The information requested in the enclosure should be submitted no later than March 31, 1980.
Previous correspondence indicated that efforts to develop a model plan were continuing.
It now appears that the model plan will not be completed on a
schedule which will be of use in developing upgraded plans in the near term.
The upgraded plan development should therefore proceed on a site-specific basis.
Enclosure:
Request for Evacuation Time Estimates
(
~c~
~
Brian K. Grimes, Director Emergency Preparedness Task Group Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc w/enclosure:
Service Lists
i k
~
I V
~'I
~/
l V
tC',
I 4
~
C h
I h
1 r
, Cg Enclosure RE UEST FOR EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES (AFTER NOTIFICATION)
FOR AREAS NEAR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS Back round Prior to recent NRC requests
.that means for prompt notification to the public be installed around each nuclear power plant site, a significant component of evacuation time estimates was the time required to notify the public of a need for evacuation.
Studies of actual evacuations that have take'n place generally do not distinguish between the time required for notification, the time required to implement the evac~qtion, and the time required to confirm that an evacuation has taken plaice.
The estimates for time required for evacuations now.requested relate primarily to the time to implement an evacuation as opposed to,the time required for, notification.
These estimates may be based on previous local experiences (e.g.,
cnemical spills'r floods) or may be based on studies related to population density, local geography and road capacities.
No standard method for making such estimates is identified for use at this time.
The basis for the method chosen should be described in the response.
As a check on the evacuation time estimates,'omments on the time estimates made should be obtained from the principal local officials responsible for carrying out such evacuations.
Such comments should be included in the submittal.
The forinat given below is appropriate for reporting to the HRC estimates of the time required to implement evacuation of areas near nuclear,'poser plants.
These estimates, are, to be made for the primary purpose of making available, to those officials who would make evacuation decisions in an emergency situation, knowledge of the time required to complete one of the protective action options (evacuation) available for a particular potentially affected segment of the population.
A second purpose of these estimates is to identify to all concerned those instances in which unusual evacuation constraints exist ana that special planning measures should be consiaered.
In some cases of extreme difficulty where a large population is at risk, special facility modifications may also, be considered.
Given a decision to evacuate rather than shelter in an actual
- event, fewer or more sectors or different distances than given in the reporting format might be evacuated should this be the chosen protective action.
For
- example, three 22-1/2'ectors might be initially evacuated in a downwi'nd direction (the sector containing the plume and an adjacent sector on each side),. followed =by the evacuation of other, sectors as a precautionary measure.
1/
i Hans, J. M., Jr.,
and T. C. Sell, 1974 Evacuation Risks - An Evaluation, U.
S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Environmental Research
- Center, Las Yegas, EPA-520/6-74-002.
4411
. ~
441'.. ~
Format for Re ortin Information The areas for which evacuation estimates are required mus't. encompass the enti're area within a circle of about 10 miles radius, and have outer boundaries corresponding to the plume exposure EPZ.
These area's are as follows:
Distance 2 miles 5 mi1 es, about 10 miles Area two 180'ec.tors four 90'ectors four 90'ectors Estimates for the outer sectors should assume that'he inner adj'acent s'ectors are being evacuated simultaneously.
To the exent practical, tne sector'oundaries should not divide densely populated'reas.
Wnere a direction corresponding to the edges. of areas, for which estimates have been maae is thought'not to be adequately represented by the time estimates for adjacent'reas, an-additional area should be defined and a separate estimate made for this case.
The format for submittal should incluae ooth a table and a
figure (overlaid on a map) which each give the information requested in items 1
and, 2 below.
Additional material may be'rovi.ded in associatea text.
Re u,ired Information 1;.
Two-estimates are requested, in each of the areas defined in item 1 for a general evacuation of the population (not including special facilities).
A best estimate is; requi,red and, an aaverse weather estimate, is, required for movement of the population.
2.
The total time required to evacuate speci.al facilities (e.g.,
hospi tal's')
within each area must be specified (best estimate and aaverse weather).-
3.
The time. required for confirmation of evacuation shculd oe indicated.
Confirmation times'ay, consi.der special instructions-to the public (e..g.
tying a hankerchief to a door or gate to i'ndicate the occupant ha's l.eft the premises).
4.
Where plans and prompt notification systems have not been pu-. in place for areas out to about 10 miles, estimates of tne times, required to evacuate until such measures are in place for:the plume exposure et-er=-ency planning zone- (EPZ), should also be given..
Notification times greater than'5 minutes, should be includea in the evacuation times and footnotea to indicate the notification time.
5.
Where special evacuation problems are identified (e.g., in high population density areas),
specify alternative protective actions, such as sheltering, which would reduce exposures and the effectiveness of these measures.
6.
A short background document should be submitted giving the methods used to make the estimates and the assumptions made including the routes and methods of transportation used.
This document should also note the comments of principal local officials regarding these stimates.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHffeC5ON. U.C tfe555 OFFIClAL SU51N555 II',
POSTAGE'Sf fEES PAID V51efodeel eeeloteeeey CooUOOi Ooe 1111MAIUf'