ML19221A950
| ML19221A950 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-75-087, NUREG-75-087-02.3.2, NUREG-75-87, NUREG-75-87-2.3.2, SRP-02.03.02, SRP-2.03.02, NUDOCS 7907120029 | |
| Download: ML19221A950 (3) | |
Text
en arc NU R EG-75/087
+
3'
't U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION let S
~
i j
STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
'%.... /
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SECTION 2.3.2 LOCAL METEOROLOGY REVIEW RESPONSIBIllTIES Primary - Hydrology-Meteorology Branch (HMS)
Secondary - None I.
AREAS OF REVIEW Information is presented by the applicant and reviewed by the staf f concerning the local (site) meteorological parameters, an assessment of the potential influence of the plant and its facilities on local meteorological conditions, and a topographical description of the site and its environs. The review covers the following specific areas.
1.
A description of the local (site) meteorology in terms of airflow, temperature, atmospheric water vapor, precipitation, fog, and atmospheric stability.
2.
An assessment of the influence of the plant and its facilities on the local meteoro-logical parameters listed in (1), including the effects of plant structut,, terrain modification, and heat and moisture sources due to plant operation.
3.
A topographical description of the site and its environs, as modified by the plant structures, including the site boundary, exclusion zone, anJ low population zone.
II.
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The information in this section will be acceptable if the loca', meteorolugical and topo-graphic descriptions of the site area applicable both before plant construction and during plant operation are adequately documented such that meteorological impacts on plant design and operation as well as the impact of the plant on local meteorological conditions can be reliably predicted. Specifically, the following information is needed. This information should be fully documented and substantiated as to its representativeness of conditions at and near the site.
1.
Local summaries of meteorological data based on onsite data and National Weather Service station summaries or other jtandard installation summaries from appropriate nearby locations should be presented,as specified in Regulatory Guide 1.70, Section 2.3.2 (Ref. 1).
USNRC STANDARD REVIEW PLAN Sienderd rowew pane are pre,.r.d fer the guidance of the ofnee of Nucieer Reactor Regoterion etaff roepensibie fer the rede= of oppiications to construei and operate nucteer power piente. These documents are made eyeitable to the public es port of the Comm4 solen a podty to inform the nucleer industry and the generet pubde of reguletery procedures and pencies Stenderd review piene are not oubetitutes for requietory guideo or the Commiselen a regutettone mod compuence wfth them le not required.The standard review plan sectierse are keyed to Revision 2 of the Stenderd Format end Centent of Sefety Anotyeie Reporte for Nueiser Power Plente Not oil sectione of the Stendsed Format have e corresponding rewtow pien.
Puhelehed etenders review piene wlR be redeed periodically. ee opproprisie, to accommodate commente e ul to reflect new V formetton and eywelen f b Commeate end e ggestione for improvement wel be concedered and should be sent to the u S. Nueleer Regulatory Commise&on.Offica og sect Regulatlen. Weehington. O C. 20666 Rev. 1 790712 0 00M\\
2.
A discussion and evaluation of the influence of the plant and its facilities on the lucal meteorological conditions should be provided.
A discussion of potential I
changes in normal and extreme values presented in SAR Section 2.3.2.1 resulting from plant construction and operation should be made.
3.
A complete topographical description of the site and environs out to a distance of 50 miles from the plant, as described in Regulatory Guide 1.70, Section 2.3.2.2 l
should be provided (Ref. 1).
Ill. REVIEW PROCEDURES 1.
The summaries listed in Section 2.3.2.1 of Regulatory Guide 1.70 are reviewee for l
completeness and adequacy of basic data. The wind and atmospheric stability data should be based on onsite data if possible since airflow and vertical temperature structure can vary substantially from one location to another and are inputs to the assessment of atmospherit diffusion conditions at the site.
The other summaries should be based on nearby representative stations with long periods of record since the locally measured extremes in intensity and frequency are compared to design basis values presented in Section 2.3.1 of the safety analysis report or are used by other branches to determine whether these meteorological conditions are limiting con-ditions for design and emergency procedures. When offsite data are used, a determina-tion is made of how well the data represent site conditions and whecher more represen-tative data are available. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) state meteorological summaries (Raf. 2), local climatological data (Ref. 3), and various NOAA Environmental Data Service summaries are used by the reviewer to evaluate the representativeness of stations and periods of record. The reviewer visits all prirnary meteorulogical data collection locations.
2.
Tne review procedure for evaluating the contents of Section 2.3.2.2 of the SAR is as follows:
a.
Determine the terrain modifications that will occur as a result of pl6nt construction such as removal of trees, leveling of ground, and installation of lak and ponds.
b.
Determine t acation, size, and materials used f or pl nt structures in-cluding buildings, switchyard gear, parking lots, and ro #,
c.
Determine and quantify the heat and moisture sources that will result from plant operations.
d.
Relate the input information in items a, b, and c, above, to local meteorological modifications.
e.
Compare the reviewer's assessment with that of the applicant.
\\h Rev. 1 2.3.2-2
3.
The reviewer assures that all topographic maps and topographic cross-sections pre-sented by the applicant are legible ard well-labeled so that the information needed during the review can be readily extracted. Reference points and the direction of true ncr h should be checked carefully. Points of interest such as plant structures, site boundary, and exclusion zone should be marked on the maps and diagrams.
The reviewer compares the applicant's assersment of the ef fect of topography to standard assessments such as those presented in " Meteorology and Atomic Energy -1968" (Ref. 4) and decides whether the standard regulatory atmospheric diffusion models (discussed in SRP sections 2.3.4 and 2.3.5) are appropriate for this site.
Section 2.3.2.3 is reviewed for content based on the specifications outlined in l
IV.
EVALUATION FINDINGS The reviewer verifies that sufficient information has been provided and that his evaluation supports concluding statements of the following type, to be included in the staf f's safety evaluation report:
"The staff has reviewed available information relative to local meteorological and air quality conditions that are of importance to the safe design and siting of this plant *nd has concluded that the preceding meteorological parameters are appropriate."!
This statement will be preceded by a resume of local meteorological and air qt ality parameters appropriate to the site.
V.
R E F E'< E NC E S 1.
Regulatory Guide 1.70, " Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants,"
2.
U.S. Department of Commerce, " State Climatological Summary," Environmental Data Service, NOAA, published annually by state.
3.
U.S. Department of Commerce, " Local Climatological Data - Annual Summary with Comparative Data," Environmental Data Service, NOA.., pub'. aed annually for all first order NWS stations.
4.
D. H. Slade (ed.), " Meteorology and Atomic Energy - 1968," TID-24190, Division of Technical Informaticn, USAEC (1968).
\\!}
(.
2.3.2-3 Rev. 1