ML18227C722
| ML18227C722 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1977 |
| From: | Lear G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Robert E. Uhrig Florida Power & Light Co |
| References | |
| Download: ML18227C722 (6) | |
Text
0 Dockets Nos.
-2 0 and 50-Florida Power 5 Light Company ATPl:
Dr. Robert E. Uhrig Vice President P. 0. Box Ol3100 Miami., Florida 33101 Gentlemen:
pygmy S 3Ã'istribution U
ORB 83 HRC PDR Local PDR VStello KGoller
- Attorney, OELD OI8IE (3)
GLear CParrish DElliott JTCollins DEisenhut TBAbernathy JRBuchanan ACRS (16)
In november 1976 you submittedan undated letter which included informa-tion in support of your proposal, to. decommission the Turkey Point meteoro-logfcal facility.
ate have reviwed,the. submitted infornation and find that it is contradictory to information, previously submitted regarding comp'liance with Appendix I to 10 CFR 60.
Because ofd these contradictions we have detenained that additional information. is required before. we can continue our review of your submittals regarding compliance with Appendix I to i'10 CFR 60.
. 'lease supply the information 'requested..in, the enclosure.
In order for us to continue our review in a,.timely manner, please provide your response to our request within 45 days of receipt of this letter. If you have any questions concerning this request,,please.
contact us, Sincerely, Enclosur e:
Request, for Additional Information cc:,
See next page Original signed by George Lear, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 03 Division of Operating Reactors DPPICC~
SURNAMC~
DATC~
~ORB-43.
-DFQ4ott ~
4/
/77 GLear 4/
/77 NRC FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240 A U 8, OOVCRNMCNT PRINTINO OPPICC< IOTO 02~24
4 VL V,
I Ir
<<'r
'r r
f I
~ '
J['4
~ lil, ht V
, Jhf ff
[, 4 'r r
1 3 fk k
g "f Ih IJ Eh]
y 4
~ J'
~
\\
~
VF lh VV, lkg 4
I 4
I 44l'H I
4 I I, I
4 3
II 4
'4 ~
4 I
1 F
F "hl'..
~
~
4%F 4 ~
4" 3
4 I
tf g 4
I!I 4
a~
4 I'1-Vr H
4 ~ 4'l 4
,II 4 34'ph V
I'
.v 4
4 41 I 3 3
hf n
I I
Ir 4
I 3 4,
'I H
4 4
1 I
Pt '"
tv 4
3g,-
I, kf I 1 4
H ft 4"
1 3
~
h 4 14
Florida Power 5 Light Company CC:
Mr. Jack R.
- Newman, Esquire Lowenstein,
- Newman, Reis
& Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.
W.
Suite 1214 Washington, D.
C.
20036 Fl Environmental 8 Urban Affai L'b or> da International University airs i rary Miami, Florida 33199
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - APPENDIX I TURKEY POINT - UNITS 3 8
4 DOCKET NOS.
50-250
& 50-251 METEOROLOGY There appears to be an inconsistency between information provided in support of the decommissioning of the Turkey Point meteorological facility (undated letter from Uhrig to Lear, received ll/15/76) and the information provided to demonstrate compliance with Appendix I to 10 CFR 50 (1/27/77 letter from Uhrig to Lear).
The conclusions reached by FPKL in the ll/15/76 submittal were that "...the Turkey Point meteorological instrumen-tation system in its present form (should) be decommissioned since some of the equipment does not meet Regulatory Guide 1.23 measurements and the exposure of the equipment is questionable."
Specifically, the exposure of the temperature sensors is such that a "heat island influence (is) experienced at night at Turkey Point, due to the location of the aT instru-mentation at Turkey Point to the facility s.ructures",
and "the lower level wind sensor at Turkey Point is located within an area that potentially obstructs the flow of air due to foliage growth that exceeds the sensor height."
Furthermore, comparison of low level wind data from the present Turkey Point meteorological ins.rumentation with data from a supplemental low level wind sensor (located in "unobstructed terrain") indicated sufficient differences in wind speed and wind direction measurements to warrant the conclusion that "there has been shown considerable evidence to suggest the wind is distorted at the Turkey Point site at the Ranger Station."
The resultant recommendation by FPLL was to initiate a monitor-ing program to "provide low level wind data that adequacy represents the ambient meteorological conditions in the vicinity of the Turkey Point site" by locating suitable instrumentation "in the Turkey Point Plant area, in flat, open, unobstructed terrain."
These conclusions and recommendations contradict with information provided in the 1/27/77 submittal.
Statements are made that this "data presented in Attachment A are representative of the climatology at Turkey Point and should reflect what is to be expected as the meteorology data is collected continuously at the site and analyzed",
and that the "meteorological pro-gram for Turkey Point has been properly organized and equipped to assess the diffusion parameters characteristics of the site."
The data presented in Attachment A using the "30-ft level" wind data and for the unspecified interval of vertical temperature gradient are probably non-representative because of distortions due to the presence of structures and other obstruc-tions of airflow (as discussed in the ll/15/76 submittal).
In view of the foregoing, please respond to the following concerns:
1.
Clarify the inconsistencies in information concerning the represen-tative of onsite meteorological measurements, particularly low level wind speed and direction, and vertical temperature gradient.
2.
Discuss which available onsite meteorological measurements would provide the "best estimate" of atmosphere transport and diffusion characteristics for an interim Appendix I evaluation.
3.
Provide 7 tables of joint frequency distributions of wind speed and wind direction at the 64 m level by atmospheric stability defined by the vertical temperature gradient between 5m and 64m for at least one year with data recovery of 90'; or greater.
4.
Explain the difference between the level of wind measurements indicated in Item c(l) of the 1/27/77 submittal and those indicated in Table 2 of Attachment C to the same submittal.
5.
Explain how "All meteorological tower wind speeds are reduced to a
10 meter level by the Pasquill definition of the vertical lapse rate (see Table 1 of Attachment B)."
C'