ML19261C965
| ML19261C965 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/04/1979 |
| From: | Deyoung R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| PROJECT-559M NUDOCS 7904190392 | |
| Download: ML19261C965 (69) | |
Text
,
1
,f
~
[
4 UNITED STATES j
e3-t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j.M.ZL.j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 UC
%, 'v / #
...../
TJR d 9 79 Project No. P-559 Commonwealth Edison Company ATTN: Mr. Cordell Reed Assistant Vice President P. O. Box 757 Chicago, Illinois 60690 Gentlemen:
On December 20, 1978, you tendered an application pursuant to 2.101 (a-1) for Construction Permits for Carroll County Station Units 1 and 2 and as well requested an early review, hearing and partial decision on issues of site suitability.
In accordance with 2.101 (a-1)(1), you have submitted a Site Suitability Site Safety Report and a Site Suitability Environmental Report.
We have completed our review of Part I of your tendered Construction Permit (CP) application and have concluded that it is acceptable for docketing.
Your filing of the application and any amendments thereof should include three (3) originals signed under oath or affirmation by a duly authorized officer of your organization.
In addition, your filing should include forty (40) copies of the Site Suitability Site Safety Report (SSSSR) and forty one (41) copies of the Site Suitability Environ-mental Report (SSER).
As required by 10 CFR 50.40, you should retain thirty (30) copies of the SSSSR and one hundred nine (109) copies of the SSER for direct distribution in accordance with Enclosure 3 and Enclosure 4 of this letter.
Within ten days after docketing, you must provide an affidavit that distribution in accordance with Enclosures 3 and 4 has been completed. These requirements also apply to all subsequent amend-ments to your application.
During the course of our preliminary review of your application, the enclosed requests for additional information were generated.
Enclosures 1 and 2 contain, respectively, questions relating to the Site Suitability Site Safety Report and the Site Suitability Environmental Report.
An early response to these questions will benefit us mutually during the ensuing detailed technical review period.
We expect that these questions and your responses thereto will provide the structure for our technical discussions during the forthcoming site visit.
79041903 0-n
Comonwealth Edison Company It is wr current understanding that Part II of the CP application for the Carroll County Station will be submitted in early 1980. At that time, we would expect that the NRC safety and environmental reviews would focus upon the related material submitted in accordance with 50.30 (f), 50.33 and 50.34 (a)(1).
You will be advised of key schedule milestones of Part 1 of this CP Review as soon as the schedule is developed.
We will prepare the schedule based on the assumption that your responses to all of the acceptance review questions and requests for additional information will be received within five weeks from the docketing date.
If this milestone cannot be met, it might be necessary for us to revise our review schedule.
If, during the course of our review, you believe there is a need to appeal a staff position because of disagreement, this need should be brought to the staff's attention as early as possible so that an appropriate meeting can be arranged on a timely basis.
A written request is not necessary and all such requests should be initiated through our staff project manager assigned to the review of your application. This procedure is an informal one designed to allow opportunity for applicants to discuss with management areas of disagreement in the case review.
ff ffy yM Richard C. DeYoung, Director Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Questions:
Site Suitability Site Safety Report 2.
Questions:
Site Suitability Environmental Report 3.
Distribution list-SSER 4.
Distribution list-SSSSR cc w/ enclosures:
See next page
Commonwealth Edison Company 3-Carroll County cc w/ enclosures:
Mr. Richard E. Powell Commonwealth Edison Company One First National Plaza P. O. Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 Mr. William Naughton Commonwealth Edison Company One First National Plaza P. O. Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 EIS Coordinator Federal Activities Branch U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois Mr. Donald G. Swanson, Chairman Carroll County Board of Supervisors Carroll County Courthouse Mount Carroll, Illinois 61053 Director Illinois Institute of Natural Resources 309 West Washington Chicago, Illinois 60606 State Clearinghouse Bureau of the Budget Lincoln Tower Plaza 524 South Second Street, Room 315 Springfield, Illinois 62706 e
em
]
ENCLOSURE 1
~
ACCEPTANCE REVIEW:
NRC REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE SITE SUITABILITY SITE SAFETY REPORT CARROLL COUNTY EARLY SITE REVIEW P-559
f 312.0 SITE ANALYSIS - ACCIDENT ANALYSIS 312.1 The exclusion area boundary as shown on Figure 2.1-4 and referred (2.1.1.2) to in Section 2.1.1.2 is listed as 2524 ft. (800 meters).
The conversion is in error.
Please make the necessary corrections and changes.
312.2 Provide an enlarged scaled drawing (s) of the exclusion area (2.1.1.2) outlining the location and orientation of plant structures.
Show the exclusion area with respect to the low population zone and the low population zone in relation to the Mississippi River.
312.3 This Section states that there are several residential structures, (2.1.1.2) barns, silos, sheds and a commercial grain dealership within the site boundary.
Section 2.1.2.1 states that the Applicant owns all property within the site boundary and has the authority to control all activities within the exclusion area including the removal and exclusion of personnel or property from the site.
Please provide information and future plans pertaining to the use or disposal of these structures and the operations dealing with the grain dealership.
Show the actual location of t:1e grain dealership in relation to the exclusion area.
312.4 Section 2.1.2.2 states that no one will reside on site property (2.1.2.2) and that the Applicant retains authority to control all activi-ties, including the admission of visitors on the plant site and that only employees of the Applicant and other authorized personnel
.will be on the site.
There seems to be some misnomer throughout 1-1
~
s this document when referencing the site, plant site, site property, site boundary and station.
This problem is relevant to question 312.3 above.
Please clarify.
312.5 Figures 2.1-7 and.2.1-8 showing the population distribution (2.1.3.1) within 10 and 50 miles of the site are very difficult to work with.
Please provide the information on charts and enlarged drawings that are more legible.
312.6 Provide a detailed map showing the recreational areas in the (2.1.3.3) vicinity of the Carroll County Station.
Distinguish between the areas such as the:
Upper Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge; Big Slough; Mississippi Palisades State Park; Camp Benson and others.
312.7 Please provide a drawing that shows where the four 2 lane rural (2.2.1.6) roads actually traverse the site.
Indicate how close these roads are to the reactor facilities and explain what they are used for other than local traffic.
Discuss any hazardous situa-tions that may develop because of the existence and use of these roads.
312.8 Dista.mes from the release point of gaseous effluents to the (Table Restricted Area Boundary are supposed to be listed in Table 2.1-1 2.1-1) as stated in Section 2.1.1.3.
This information is missing.
Please supply this data.
1-2
361.0 SITE TECHNOLOGY - GEOSCIENCES 361.1 On Figure 2.5.1-15, Regional Fold Map, a number of folds are shown along the Plum River - Sandwich Fault Zones.
The legend for this figure indicates details and references for these folds are to be found in Table 2.5-2 (this table is misreferenced and was probably meant to be Table 2.5.1-2).
This is not the case.
Information for Illinois folds numbered IL-1 through IL-12 is apparently missing.
Please furnish this information.
361.2 A number of sinkholes (presumably affecting only the Silurian Alexandrian Series) are depicted on Figures 2.5.1-31 and 2.5.1-32.1.
It is not apparent, considering the glacial cover throughout the area, coupled with the absence of borings or other investigations in the vicinity of the sinks, how these depressions were detected.
Please discuss.
361.3 The Ordovician Galena Group consists of somewhat soluble dolomite and underlies the nuclear safety related facilities at a minimum depth of 66 feet (SSSSR p. 2.5-108). Other than joint widening, very little discussion is presented in the SSSSR relative to paleo or present solutioning susceptibility of the dolomite and the impact, if any, of the solutioning potential on bedrock integrity.
Please include this information.
O w
1-3
362.0 SITE TECHNOLOGY - GE0 TECHNICAL ENGINEERING
[ Questions 362.1 through 362.5 relate to information that will also be required in the PSAR to support a Construction Permit Application.]
362.1 Criteria for establishing the soil pressures on the proposed ultimate heat sinks is necessary in the PSAR.
362.2 As assessment of the effects of the slickensides noted in boring into the Maqaoketa shale and Galena dolomite is needed in the PSAR.
362.3 The settlement measurement program should extend throughout the life of the plant, not just through the period of construction.
362.4 A table of allowable settlements a.:d differential settlement along with the controlling criteria for each should be presented in the PSAR for all soil supported components of the plant.
A program for monitoring settlement to assure that allowable limits are not exceeded should be presented in the PSAR.
362.5 Quantitative criteria for compaction and performance monitoring of structural backfill is needed in the PSAR.
s.~
1-4
i 371.3 It ',s tr.e staff position that roofs of safety related buildings (2.4.2.3) be designed to safely store or dispose of the Local Probable Maximum Precipitation.
Therefore, provide the maximum water level for each safety related roof.
Generally the staff does not allow credit for roof drains that are set at the roof grade elevation due to the possibility of blocking with ice or debris.
Whera ponding levels are limited by scuppers, we require analyses which include, rainfall intensity, discharge rates and storages capacity as appropriate.
371.4 Provide the minimum elevation for pump suction at the river (2.4.11.3) intake for comparison to the minimum water level.
371.5 The spill intake must be based on actual or conservatively (2.4.12) postulated groundwater elevation.
The assumption of design (2.4.13.3) basis groundwater elevations, selected for other analyses, are inappropriate.
Specifically, the assumption that the groundwater sevel is at plant grade is, for this analysis, unacceptable.
Provide either the appropriate analyses and data to substantiate the assumption of plant grade groundwater elevation or provide the information suggested in Sections 2.4.13 and 2.4.13.3 of NUREG 75/094.
371.6 The information provided in Section 2.4.11.6 is insufficient for (2.4.11.6) staff review and acceptance.
Provide the information suggested in Section 2.4.11.6 of NUREG 75/094.
371.7 The grid system on Figure 2.4-8 is not identified and apparently
~
(2.4-8) is not the same one that is used for Figure 2.4-18.
It is (2.4-18) preferable to have the same grid system on all maps so that information can be correlated between maps.
b 1-6
t 371.0 SITE TECHNOLOGY - HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING 371.1 Prcvide details of the method of analysis used to compute the (2.4.2.4) discharges from zones 1 and 2 for site drainage.
Include all values for pertinent parameters such as:
length and slope of drainage basins, time of concentration, infiltration rates and other parameters used to define the flood hydrograph.
The analyses of the maximum water level at the entrance to safety related structures should include allowance for the backwater effects from the weir and/or culverts to Jing entrances.
If culverts are selected, the staff will reyuire documentation of bases for less than full blockage of the culverts due to debris or collapse.
If the Applicant takes credit for storage in the plant area, then area-capacity curves should also be provded for the plant area and hydrographs for the PMP runoff.
371.2 Information has not been provided on the PMF from the drainage (2.4.3) area immediately east of the plant area or on its affect on (2.4.10) plant safety related buildings.
Provide information consistent with NUREG-75/094, Sections 2.4.2.3 and 2.4.3 It also acoears that the cooling tower will block the natural drainage channel.
If tha channel is to be re-routed or redesigned to convey the PMF past the plant site, the staff will require details of the modifications.
Provide the thalweg and PMF water surface profile.
Provide cross sections far enough downstream to insure that the assumed starting water surface elevations for backwater computa-tions will not influence the tailwater just downstream of the site railroads.
Provide railroad profiles and profiles for any roads that cross the channel.
If bridges or culverts are used to convey water under roads or railroads, provide the details and discuss assumptions on blockage.
Provide the details for erosion protection for the plant area; consider the possibility of hydraulic jumps in the channel.
1-5
372.0 SITE TECHNOLOGY - METEOROLOGY (2.3)
[ Questions 372.01 and 372.03 through 372.09 have also been provided in Enclosure 2 regarding the Site Suitability Environ-mental'. Report since.the. material. contained..in the.referencad--.
sections is similar.
Responses to these questions should therefore be cross referenced or duplicated.]
372.1 On page 2.3-3 it is stated that "the prevailing wind at both (2.3.1)
Moline (1967-1976) and Rockford (1966-1975) is southerly." This differs considerably from the prevailing direction of WNW given in Table 2.3-1.
Explain the discrepancy between these wind directions.
372.2 Provide values for the 100 year snowpack at ground level and the (2.3.1) 48-hour probable maximum winter precipitation at ground level.
372.3 To ensure that the time period for onsite data collection is not (2.3.2) an anomalous period, provide the wind direction and wind speed frequencies for Rockford and Moline for the period from August 1, 1976 to July 31, 1977.
372.4 As discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.70, onsite meteorological (2.3.2) data should be available on magnetic tape.
Having access to onsite meteorological data would facilitate the review of atmospheric dispersion characteristics.
If available, prcvide onsite meteorological data for the period August 1, 1976 through July 31, 1977 in the form of hourly averages on magnetic tape using the format given in Attachment 1.
(This question is the same as 372.3 provided in Enclosure 2.
Only one magnetic tape need be provided.)
1-7
372.5 The diffe.rential temperature range is given as -5*C to +5 C (2.3.3)
(page 2.3.-21).
Since positive temperature differences often exceed the value of +5*C, how are these data recorded?
372.6 What is the time interval between sampling of each of the meteor-(2.3.3) ological variables recorded on magnetic tape? How many of these samples are needed to constitute an acceptable hourly average?
372.7 Provide the dates and times of significant instrument outages, (2.3.2)
(e.g., greater than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or recurring), the causes of the outages, and the corrective actions taken.
372.8 Give the fraction of meteorological data obtained from analog (2.3.3) charts that was used to replace invalid data from the digital system.
372.9 Provide the criteria used to determine invalid data.
(2.3.3) 372.10 The atmospheric dispersion model and procedures used to evaluate (2.3.4) dispersion conditions to be used in an assessment of the conse-quences of design basis accidents described in Section 2.3.4 are based on Regulatory Guide 1.4 and Section 2.3.4 of the Standard Review Plan.
After review of the results of recent atmospheric dispersion field experiments, we have developed a modified procedure for calculating short-term relative concentration (X/Q) values which considers the following:
(1) lateral plume meander; (2) atmospheric dispersion conditions as a function of direction; (3) wind direction frequencies; and (4) exclusion area boundary distances as a function of direction.
1-8
. is a copy of DRAFT Regulatory Guide 1.XXX,
" Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessment at Nuclear Power Plants" (9/23/77), which describes the new procedure in detail.
We believe that this model will provide an improved characterization of atmospheric dispersion conditions around the Carroll County site.
This model will also be used to assess the conservatism of your evaluaton.
1.s the interim branch technical position concernino use of these two models.
During our review, we will examine X/Q values for appropriate time periods for design basis accident evalua-tions using the modified model described in the enclosed DRAFT Regulatory Guide, and compare them with X/Q values calculated using the model described in Regulatory Guide 1.4 and the proce-dures described in Section 2.3.4 of the Standard Review Plan.
Therefore, provide additional information on exclusion area boundary distances as a function of direction.
372.11 Provide the basis for the values of the exponent P (identified (2.3.5) by stability class on page 2.3-28) to be used in the power law extrapolation of wind speeds.
372.12 Regulatory Guide 1.111, " Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors" (July 1977), specifically states that use of a constant mean wind direction model for calculating annual average relative concentration (X/Q) values "will be acceptable only if a well-documented and substantiated discussion of the effects of spatial and temporal variations in airflow in the region of the site" is provided.
A comparison of a variable trajectory (plume element) model to a constant mean wind direction model at a si',e with meteorological and. topographic similarities to the Carroll County site indicated that the 1-9
constant mean wind direction model produced X/Q values about a factor of four lower than the variable trajectory model for certain receptor locations.
Discuss the effects of spatial and temporal variations in airflow (e.g., recirculation) in the vicinity of the Carroll County site on calculated X/Q values.
1-10
~'
~
~~-
-~
./ ". %
UNITED STATES g"K j' '*;,
NL CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Attachment l_,
{.g%.1 g/ia,7 WASWNGTON, D. C. 20555 7
Docket No:
All Power Reactor Licensees and Applicants with Applications for a License to Operate or Construct a Power Reactor Gentl emen:
SUBJECT:
STANDARD FORMAT FUR METEOROLOGICAL DATA ON MAGNETIC TAPE A standardized format for providing hour-by-hour meteorological data on magnetic tapes that would facilitate our review of atmospheric diffusion characteristics and cooling system impacts was distributed in a letter in April 1977.
This has led to a faster and more efficient meteorological review in the cases where these hourly data tapes have been received.
However, een though most of the magnetic tapes that have been received since Api n 1977 have met the data formatting criteria, problems with the physical attributes such as tape recording technique, density, internal labels, etc., have rendered some of the tapes unreadable.
This has led to delays in attempts to process the tape data or in the request and delivery of a second tape as a replacement from the originator.
To give further guidance in this area, a more detailed description of the tape attributes for an IBM and CDC system is enclosed.
Questions on the standard famat should be referred to William Snell, Hydrology-Meteorology Branch, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis, phone number 301-492-72S8.
Sincerely,
' f, _,A.,. n
~
Domenic B. Vassallo, Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors Division of Project Management
Enclosure:
As stated
r USE KEYWORDS IBM CDC I
tbde:
9-track, 1600bpi, EBCDIC UNIT = TAPE 9, DEN = 3 NT, PE, EB, S, CM = Yei 2
internal Labels:
none LABEL = (;NL)
Record format:
fixed length / blocked RECFM = FB RT = F, BT = K Record Length:
160 characters LRECL = 160 FL = 160
,Hlocking:
3200 characters / block BLKSIZE - 3200 RB = 20 I9-track, 800 bpi, EBC0iC or 7-track, 800 or 556 bpi, BCD are also acceptable IBM standard labels are also acceptable 00 NOT USE Variable length or unformatted records or records that span tape blocks.
e.g.
CDC SCOPE standard tape data format (use the 5 parameter on the REQUEST to avoid this)
OTilER SYS_TEMS For systems other than IBM or CDC the above information should be used as a guideline to produce tapes with simil4r characteristics.
," M-UNITED STATES
,yK NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON
{
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 5
%..;.s.. f APR 2 21977 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
STANDARD FORMAT FOR METEOROLOGICAL DATA ON MAGNETIC TAPE Regulatory Guide 1.70, Revision 2, " Standard Fomat and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants" (September 1975),
recommends that, if possible, hour-by-hour meteorological data should be provided on magnetic tape. The draft Environmental Standard Review Plan for meteorology (included in NUREG-0158, Part 1, January 1977) provides some guidance on the types of magnetic tapes that are acceptable and identifies limitations on block size and density. We havs also developed a standardized format (Enclosure 1) for providing hour-by-hour meteorological data on magnetic tapes that would facili-tate our review of atmospheric diffusion characteristics and cooling system impacts. provides a sample tape dump using this famat. We would prefer receiving meteorological data magnetic tapes in the standard femat; however, we will accept data on magnetic tape in any reasonable format, if the format is completely described (per guidance in NUREG-0158, Part 1) and a sample tape dump is provided.
Questions on this standard format should be referred to William Snell, Hydrology-Meteorology Branch, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis, phone number 301-492-7384.
This request for generic information was approved by GA0 under blanket clearance number B-180225 (R0072).
This clearance expires July 31, 1977.
Sincerely, Domenic B. Vassallo, Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors Division of Project Management
Enclosures:
As Stated
PIOPOSED mRMAT MR BOURLY METEDROIOGICAL DATA TO BE PIACED ON MAGNE1'IC 'IAPE Use:
9 track tape (7 will be acceptable)
Standard Label which would include Record u_ngth = 160 Block Size (3200 - fixed block size)
Density (1600 BPI - 800 will be accepted)
Do Not Use:
Magnetic tapes with unformatted or spanned records.
At the beginning of each tape, use the first five (5) records (which is the equivalent of ten cards) to give a tape description. Include plant name, t'x1 location (latitude, longitude) dates of data, in-formation explaining data contained in the "other" fields if they are used, height of measurements, and any additional information pertinent to identification of the tape. Make sure all five records are included, even if some are blank.
Format for the first five records will be 160A1. Meteorological data format is (I6, I2, I3, I4, 25F5.1, FS.2, 3F5.1). Decimal points should not be included when copying data onto the tape.
All data should be given to a tenth of a unit except solar radiation which should be given to a hundreth of a unit.
'Ihis does not necessarily indicate the accuracy of the data.
(e.g. wind direction is usually given to the nearest degree but record it with a zero in the tenth's place. That is 275 degrees would be 275.0 degrees and placed on the tape as 2750.)
All nines in an; field indicates a lost record (99999). All sevens in a wind direction field indicates calm (77777).
If only two levels of data, use the u;;er & lower levels. If only one level of data, use the upper level.
Enclosure I MAGNETIC TAPE MEIIDROIIGICAL DAIA I4CATIQi:
DATE CF DATA RECORD:
I6 Identifier (can be anything)
I2 Year I3 Julian Day I4 Bour (on 24 hr clock)
ACCURACY F5.1 Upper Measurements: IAvel = meters F5.1 Wind Direction (degrees)
F5.1 Wind Speed (meter /sec)
PS.1 Sigma Theta (degrees)
F5.1 AThient Temperature (*C)
PS.1 tbisture:
FS.1 Other:
FS.1 Intermediate Measurements: Level = meters F5.1 Wind Direction (degrees)
F5.1 Wind Speed (meters /sec)
F5.1 Sigma Theta (degrees)
PS.1 Amaient Temperature (oC)
_ F5.1 Moisture:
F5.1 Other:
, FS.A Iower Measurements: Invel
= meters FS.1 Wind Direction (degrees)
F5.1 Wind Speed (meters /sec)
F5.1 Sigma 'Iheta (degrees)
F5.1 Ambient 'Iemperature ( *C)
FS.1 m isture:
F5.1 Other:
FS.1 Temp Diff (Upper-Iower) ('C/100 meters)
FS.1
'Iemp Diff (Upptr-Intermediate) ('C/100 meters)
F5.1 Temp Diff (Intermediate-Iower) (*C/100 meters)
FS.1 Precipitation (m)
FS.2 Solar Radiation (cal /cm2/ min)
F5.1 Visibility (km)
_ FS.1 Other:
F5.1 Other:
l L
o e_
e e
O c
C
.c e
e e
o e
e e
oe a
e e
o e
o e
e o
f es I
ee 3
,e
=
se M
e.
'O e
z.
m.
\\
5 e
en a.
.a
.a
,l
'C en
=*
e e
s.
=
g E
3 g,
e.
e
.u e.t e
e t..l e.:
L..
=
A G
=
=
e
.o
.e.-.
- ;; s aa'3..33 3
e -.a-P
- e
- c
-~
- e. 4 e
ao s, w 4
.o 3
t c,
- e.
e.
=
e e
a
=
I
- e. e I
e...
. a e
6-
=.
e e.
e,,
I
.I oIo I a
a.
e.
a e
T e
e e
e e
=
a.
40,.I 4:_I..
4 a
e
=
e e
.e
~ ~..gd e
a e
3
- e e-
~
~
o...
~
.e.e G.
- e. e. e t.
.,, e
, e., e e
me
-- o-
-- -~ =
ss S.
e..
me e.m e,.
.e a a
- e. e e ga
=
-ee.e
- e tt e.
- e.,,e m en
- e. e. e.
e, 4
t.1,. a1. 1.,. -
ese -
= 5 e.
- 2
~
~
e,, -
-e.
e
- a ep p e to a33 3 m33 3 A
et== ep
- D e84 e3 e su.
eg
==
e e-e 3 e av e se es
- -.,- a es e e
e ag i
=al as se egg g4 es et 35e w"*es as emo ee en e are en e en om
- e. e :
e.
ea en J e as
- o. is wt e
e ao e e
as e e
gav J eb tas e
848 e
SW e
age e
e
. =.
g4 5
=
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
tad 4
84 Sun pm e
- 4 em em 8W
- m en et e
e - 4.
e,e, se se so gg sun om me ao se 889
%Ms She 84 8ht fif M.4 e ed am 4.s S
e W4 ee E.WD e G 65 mee eM e " E Af e 9>
e em e ee e em F ee as.
us pa
- s. #W
== W e e e8t
==s e WW es
et ens
====e SM es e e em en De e ee g es' e
- sf t
se e 848 e se e se p as e fu gt en e fu p me W eW e en e 84 e em e 8W N
ea pm ao pin sum 9m se en um Sm
- E**
es 48 8= 7e tus e==
e se e se e su ee e We m
s.
6t3 fu e #g
.en aus e e se
.P 3 **
.O e Dase g
e e
gm em se go es g y.e en e. a e A em as es fu as ao es as e
"y" Em,g,e e., F en e.,,,eo me
.=
me
=.
. e.
.,6 e
e oc
~e ed a
e e
a.
e e
e a-e e
- - - Ew tft O *=
ed d SW e
fu e
at$
e WW e
fu e
8tf e
e
- e= tpd af of e
e.
e
-e4 he e
e e
e e
e e
a e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
S e
o Em J
8=
S.sD e
e G
8e e
S e
em em e
e e
C
- B **
ed me f, %
es.E en se sua f4s
==
-e ens se
==
As aw su g
set se 4J hem, ems 4
eF e =* 89 ee epe ee S==,
e e fte e e.,
e eft Gee ee eee e
ed e6 W a.
- 4 S 84 em G* 9 e oft
== e en e we se e est ee
== en e e est sun N e e me
== e e e
" e" e 43 2 em, se e se e se e sts en en 3 pts gun se e 8tp e es e Me e ao e 84 9 en e
me as JP ep E ** em 8'r o' C eo
- m en em em 9m ens pm L e= 4 e *= am me CJ an em 1 em e9 e9 e ets e eft e eft ee e
e aus est g O ens 89 8W
.e. M 3 W D em C WW a
e se e g e.
m
- a a: en me e
se e
e,===
==
a e.
es no 8".
I J. f.
e,,,,==.t.. - e
~.
.a, e e
.a.
,~ e
~
, e ee
-e em e.t a
e
. n s.t t
e e
e e
- a. c, e
W se e=
a me e
se e
she e
su e
ets e
Se e
fu
$ em en e tad 59 2 e
b = en em u.m O
e e
e e
a e
e e
e e
e 9* tu
. p 4 em e
e e
es
- to tf* 4 of *1 e
e e
e e
e e
.e en W em en' ens ;* en
- 4 e
e e
seg go a.
e.
3 put e
e e.e a s.
.t me sw
==
es m
a.
em
==
e e
- b WC N
N N
N N
3 84 eee ee os se.e m 85 W-K * =* 1 d" '" e ** e ab s89 6 em e e==
eee e 29 e 818 e ee em em aun e e du es. m.
op e e ee
== en e e We e
W sus e e em
.e en s.e e e e et W em em e fte e ao e As e em
- ts e as e 84p GD es e 840 9 e*
e As &
se em 8"
ew
& e Ce a-sm om.*. it-
.e 3
og e.n e
,e 4
.e,e.
e, e e.e *=%
r
.e s.
w a-
-,w
.m,
t e-e <_
Sm Se e
E J"
d CEF GD e
& % T se e ed a= es em sts en se en so
- k. 4* *Ttw :-
s.4 e
.m e
=e e.
ee e e.
.e. a.,
e e.
=%
42 g-
.m e a
.t.
-e ei e
e e
=
et se c. =a e, n e
e su e
ce e
sw e
en e
as e
eu e
% et es g
=> em 4.3 em 438 Em ea e esf"E""""
ab e
e e
e e
e e-e e
e e
e e-.a.
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e r
W" me 0 as 3 CD e
e
==
en e
e
==
W4 ft We pum f ***
- e = 3 s ee em ao gig en am se een so Wa C
'R'*
- w as sts me se a
eE e oc eee e-e co e ee e no e e ew eee ee e a= e ee e est e e, e-o {e e apt en e e e est em e en ee em 9 4 e e8t em e 88a e out eis eu e e gg om e e 8
es og
=$
es e Me e um e se e se e WW De en e SW p s.m W 849 F e fle 9 e 843 Sm
> m.e w
De 1 og am em en Se pm Sm 6
- en O. N eN 4
ee eN ON 10 e O.
- b
? *. 5 G g
- e. N
.e W
e.e en
.e.
= w as at a-se e.
e se se
==
es u w w etme %
.,F 2 e.3 3e e
am esp m
e e
a-a a
a e
a s.
m a
a a
m a
a a
a
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~
y SEP 2 31977 REGULATORY GUIDE 1.XXX ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION MODELS FOR POTENTIAL ACCIDE CONSEQUENCE ASSESSMENTS AT NUCLEAR P0kT.R PLANTS A.
INTRODUCTION Section 50.34 of 10 CFR Part 50 requires that each applicant for a construction permit or operating license provide an analysis and evaluation of the design and performance of structures, systems and components of the facility with the objective of assessing the risk to public health and safety resulting from the operation of the facility.
Section 50.34 of 10 CFR Part 50 further states that the site evaluation factors in 10 CFR Part 100 shall be included in the analysis and evaluation described sbove.
Section 100.10 of 10 CTR Part 50 states that meteoro-logical conditions at the site and surrounding area are to be included in the factors to be considered in assessing the consequences of potenti l a
reactor accidents.
This guide provides acceptable procedures and assumptions that may be used to determine appropriate atmospheric dispersion conditions for assessi the consequences of potential nuclear power plant reactor accidents which are made as required by Section 100.11 of 10 CIR Part 50.
The Regulatory Position presented in this guide represents a substan-tial change in procedures used to determine atmospherie dispersion condi tions appropriate for use in assessing the potential offsite radiological 1.%%%-1
consequences resulting from a range of postulated accidental releases of radiological material to the atmosphere.
- This guide provides an acceptable methodology for detemining site specific relative concentrations (X/Q) and replaces portions of Regulatory Guide 1.3, Revision 2, " Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Loss of Coolant Accident ior Boiling Water Reactors," Regulatory Guide 1.4, Revisi~on 2, " Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Loss of Coolant Accident for Fressurized Water Reactors," Regulatory Guide 1.5, " Assumptions Used for Ivaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Steam Line Break Accident for Boiling Water Reactors," Regulatory Guide 1.24, " Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Consequences of a Pressurized Water Reactor Radioactive Gas Storage Tank Failure," Regulatory Guide 1.25,
" Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Fuel Handling Accident in the Fuel Handling and Storage Facility for Boiling and Pressurized Water Reactors," Regulatory Guide 1.77, "Assump-tions Used for Evaluating a Control Rod Ejection Accident for Pressurized Water Reactors," and Regulatory Guide 1.9A, "Assumptiocs Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Radioactive Offgas System Tailure in a Boiling Water Reactor."
B.
DISCUSSION The procedural changes contained in this guide are based on a review of recent experimental data on diffusion from ground-level releases yithout buildings present and from releases at various locations on reactor" facility 1.XXX-2
DWI buildings during stable atmospheric conditions with light wind speeds (Refs. 1-6), and a recognition that meteorological evaluation procedures should provide estimates of the variations in atmospheric dispersion that occur as a function of wind direction and distance from the source to receptor.
The procedures described in this guide incorporate the results of the atmospheric tests referred to above which verify the existence of effluent plume " meander" under stable (E, F and G) atmospheric conditions, as defined by the AT criteria in Regulatory Guide 1.23 (Ref. 7), when wind speeds are light. Effluent concentrations measured over a period of one hour under such conditions have been shown to be substantially lower than would be predicted using the traditional curves (Ref. 8) of lateral and vertical plume spread, based upon current atmospheric stability criteria. The procedures in this guide also recognize that atmospheric dispersion con-ditions are frequently directionally dependent; that is, certain air flow directions can exhibit substantially more or less favorable diffusion conditions than others, and the wind can transport effluents in certain directions more frequently than in others.
C.
REGULATORY POSITION This section identifies the atmospheric transport and diffusion models, methods of evaluating boundary distances for the exclusion area and t!e outer boundary of the low population zone for purposes of estimating disper-sion values, and the methods of establishing X/Q value distributions and selecting x/Q values to be used in consequence assessments that are accept-able to the NRC staff.
1.XXX-3
l.
Calculation of Relative Atmospheric Concentration y/Q Values x/Q values should be calculated at appropriate distances (see C.2 below) for each wind dirc: tion (16 compass points; 22-1/2 degree sectors cente d on ', rue north, etc.) based on wind speed and atmospheric stability class indicated by vertical temperature gradient (AT), as defined in Regula-tory Guide 1.23 for distances to 80 km (50 mi) from the site.
Either hourly averaged data or joint frequency distributions of' hourly data may be used. kten joint frequency distributions are used, the wind speed for x/Q calculations should be the maximum value in the wind speed class interval so that the individual x/Q values are calculated to represent the minimum value in the cumulative frequency class interval. The distribution is then enveloped by the maximal x/Q values.
Thus, when the cumulative probability distributions of x/Q are assessed, each x/Q value represents that which is equaled or exceeded within the class interval (Ref. 9). klen hourly data are used, the wind speed for x/Q calculation should be the " hourly averaged" wind speed as defined in Regulatory Guide 1.23.
Calms should be defined as hourly average wind speeds below the starting speed of the anemometer, and should be assigned a wind speed equal to that of the anemometer or vane starting speed, whichever is higher. klen joint frequency distributions are used, wind directions during calm conditions should be assigned in proportion to the directional distribution of the lowest non-calm wind speed class.
klen hourly data are used, wind directions during calts condi-tions should be assigned in proportion to the directional distribution of non-calm conditions with a wind speed less than 0.7 meters per second (m/s)
(the wind speed class limit, i.e., 1.5 mph).
1.XXX-4
s Formulae and parameters presented in this section should be used in the absence of site specific diffusion data unless unusual siting, meteoro-logical or terrain conditions dictate the use of other models or considera-tions.
For example, quality controlled, site-s,ec'ific atmospheric diffusion test.= may be used as a basis for modifying the formulae and parameters.
Short-term ($ 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />) release period calculations a.
Acceptable mathematical models for calculating yfQ values appro-priate for short time period atmospheric dispersion calculations are presented below.
Meteorological data and calculations for the one hour time period are assumed to apply over the entire two hour release period.
This assumption has been confirmed as reasonably conservative, considering the variation with time of postulated accidental releases.
If releases associated with a given postulated event are estimated to occur in a period substantially less than one hour (i.e., less than 20 minutes), the applicability of the models should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
(1) Releases through vents or other building penetrations This class of release modes includes all release points or areas which are lower than two and one half times the height of adjacent solid structures (Ref. 10). The formulae and assumptions are:
(a) During conditions of neutral (D) and stable (E, F and G) stability when the speed at the 10 meter level is less than 6 m/s, credit for horizontal plume meander can be considered such that X=
1 9
l0 " Iy "z dI) u 1.PN-5
whenever the X/Q value, calculated using Equation 1, is less than the greater value calculated frcm either (2)
X, 1
l0 ("
y"z + A/2) u i
i or j
X=
1 (3) 9 E10 ( * "y "z) where 3
X/Q is the relative concentration (sec/m ) at ground level, n
is 3.14159, "10 is the wind speed (m/s) at 10 meters above grade, I,
is the lateral plume spread (m), a function of atmospheric stability, wind speed u and downwind distance from release.
lo For distances to 800 neters, I = Ma ; M being a function of atmospheric stability and wind speed (see Figure 3). For distances greater than 800 meters, I = (M-1)ay800m + "y' y
a is the lateral plume spread (m), a function of atmospheric y
stability and distance (Figure 1),
e 1.XXX-6
RT is the vertical plume spread (m), a function of atmospheric og stability and distance (Figure 2), and A
is the smallest vertical plane, cross-sectional area (m ) of the 2
building from which the effluent is released.
Otherwise X/Q is the greater value calculated from either Equation 2 or 3.
In other words, calculate X/Q values based on Equations 1, 2, and 3.
Compare the values computed from Equations 2 and 3, and select the higher value.
Compare this higher value with the value calculated through use of Equation 1, and select the lower of these two values to represent the X/Q value for postulated release and atmospheric conditions.
Examples and a detailed explanatica of the rationale are given in Appendix A.
(b) During all other atmospheric stability and/or wind speed conditions, X/Q is the greater value calculated from either Equa-tion 2 or 3.
(2) Stack Releases A stack release is assumed when the effluent is exhausted from a release point that is higher than two and one half times the height of adjacent solid structures (Ref. 10).
The general formula and assumptions aru 2
I g=n,uha 8
exp (4) 2 o
2a y g 7
where i
'u is the wind speed (m/s) which represents conditions at the release h
- height, 1.XXX-7
9 h,
is the effective height (m) determined from h, = h, - h,
t h,
is the height of the release point above plant grade, and h
is the maximum terrain height above plant grade between the g
release point and the point for which the calculation is made, but should not be allowed to exceed h,.
The other parameters in Equation 4 have been defined previously.
Atmospheric stability for determination of e and c, is obtained from the vertical temperature differences (AT) between the release height and the 10-meter level as described in Regulatory Guide 1.23.
For those cases where fumigation conditions are to be evaluated for elevated releases, the formula and assumptions are:
X=
1 (5) 9 (2 :)1/2 Ec hy 7
where E
is wind speed (m/s) representative of the layer, h,,
for which a value of 2 m/s is a reasonably conservative assumption in most cases, c
is the lateral plume spread (m) at a given distance which is 7
usually assumed for a moderately stable (F) atmospheric stability condition which normally precedes the onset of-fumigation, and 1.XXX-8
4 l
h, is as defined above for elevated releases.
1 The'X/Q value calculated by Equation 5 should not exceed nu c, c, b.
Release periods greater than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> The average x/Q values should be calculated for appropriate time periods during the course of the postulated accident as described below.
The time periods for averaging should represent intra-diurnal, diurnal and synoptic neteorological regimes (e.g., 8 and 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> and 3 and 26 days as presented in Section 2.3.4 of Regulatory Guide 1.70) (Ref.11). The x/Q value for each appropriate time period at the distance of interest in each direction sector should be obtained by a logarithmic interpolation between the calculated value that is selected using the procedure described in Section C.3.a below, assumed as a "2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />" value, and the annual average (8760 hour0.101 days <br />2.433 hours <br />0.0145 weeks <br />0.00333 months <br />) value at the distance of interest in that direction sector (Ref. 9).
The annual average x/Q value should be calculs.ted using the method described in Regulatory Guide 1.111, Section C.1.c. (Ref. 12), but with h, detemined as described in Section C.l.a.(2) above.
2.
Detemination of Distances for X/Q Calculations In order to take into consideration the possibility of airflow trajec-tory deviations, plume segmentation (particularly in light wind, stable conditions), and the potential for wind speed and direction frequency shifts from year to year, the following procedure should be used to detemine the distance from which the calculations of relative concen-trations (x/Q) are made.
1.III-9
For each wind direction sector, the minimum distance (exclusion area or LPZ) to be assumed for the sector of interest should be defined as the minimum distance within that sector and one-half of the width of the direction sector on either side of the sector of interest. Effectively, this distance is the minimum distance of either the exclusion area or LPZ vithin a 45 degree direction sector, centered on the direction sector of interest. However, should there not be a well defined exclusion boundary in a sector (e.g., a sector extending seaward at a coastal site) then the distance for that sector should be taken as that distance over which the applicant or licensee intends to have control.
3.
Detemination of x/Q Values by Sector a.
Assessment of y/Q's at the exclusion distance Acceptable procedures for selecting the x/Q values to be used in the consequence assessment analyses for both the " conservative" and " realistic" accident conditions (see Section 2.3.4 of Ref. 11) are described below.
For the realistic assessment, fumigation conditions may be ignored.
(1) Non-fumigation conditions Cumulative probability distributions of the x/Q values, as detemined from Section C.l.a above at the distances detemined from Section C.2 above, excluding fumigation from elevated releases, should be constructed for each of the 16 cardinal compass point directions (22-1/2 degree direction sectors). Each directional probability distribution should be nomalized to 1007,.
If joint frequency table data are used to calculate the x/Q values, the cumulative probability distribution function should be computed such as to envelope the data points.
1.III-10
DRh7 The effective probability level (P,) for the selection of the X/Q d (Ref. 9) by first value in each direction sector should be determine
% for the conservative multiplying the probability level (P), selected as 5 f hours (N) having accident assessment, by the ratio of the total number o rd (1 year =
valid wind and stability data in the meteorological data reco 8760 hours0.101 days <br />2.433 hours <br />0.0145 weeks <br />0.00333 months <br />) to the number of those hours (n) in which the and then dividing.this product by into the direction sector of interest, f 22\\ degrees). For the the total number of sectors (S) (16 for sectors o ibed in Section realistic accident assessment x/Q determination as descr 0%.
2.3.4 of Regulatory Guide 1.70 (Ref. 11), P should be selected as 5 This procedure, in equation form may be stated as:
P (N/n)_
(6)
P, _
S ibed as above. It where the individual terms in the equation are descr l small. In should be noted that P, can exceed 100% if n is sufficient y be ignored unless the those directions, the selection of a x/Q value may x/Q values for that sector are very high when compared with x P, in other direction sectors.the X/Q values that are selected, a bd For each assessment, t value is selected.
h above, for the 16 directions are compared and the hig es Fumigation conditions - conservative assessment (2)
In the absence of information which indicates that fumigatio f the time, x/Q conditions occur substantially less than five percent o ditions, for each of values should be calculated, assuming fumigation con the 16 directions sectors using Equation 5 1.%%%-11
n
)
u (a) Inland sites For elevated releases at sites located at distances equal to
~
or greater than 3200 meters from large bodies of water (e.g., oceans or a Great Lake), a fumigation condition at the exclusion distance should be assumed to exist at the time of the accident and continue for one-half hour (Ref. 13).
In this case, two x/Q values, one for the o to 1/2-hour time period and the other for the 1/2 to 2-hour time period following the accident, should be selected for the accident consequence analysis using the following procedures.
For the O to 1/2-hour time period x/Q values should be determined, using Equation 5 for sectors in which the effective height of release (h,) is greater than 0, or using Equation 4 and the selection procedure described in Section C.3.a.(1) above for sectors in which h, = 0, for each of the 16 direction sectors.,
For the 1/2 to 2-hour time period, x/Q values for each of the 16 direction sectors should be determined using Equation 4 and the selection procedure described in Section C.3.a.(1) above.
(b) Coastal sites For elevated releases at sites located less than 3200 meters from large bodies of water, a fumigation condition at the exclusion distance should be assumed to exist at the time of the accident and continue for four hours (Ref.13) in each of the onshore and along shore airflow directions.
The x/Q value to be used in the accident consequence analysis for the O to 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> period following an accident, in this case, is the maximum of the 16 individual direction sector X/Q values, calculated and selected as described 1.XXX-12
Lt DMT Therefore, two-hour x/Q values above for the o to 1/2-hour time period.
i onditions.
for exclusion distances should be based entirely on fumigat on c d duration This conservative assessment does not consider frequency an If information l
direction.
of fumigation conditions as a function of airf ow i
l occurrence can be presented to substantiate the actual direct ona h
ssumptions of and duration of fumigation conditions at a site, t e a half hour fumigation in all appropriate directions and of duration of one-
~
Then fumigation need only be considered and four hours may oe modified.
d will occur for airflow directions in which fu=igation has been determine For example, examination and of a duration determined from the study.
onounced river valley may of site-specific information at a location in a pr during the down-valley indicate that fu=igation conditions occur predominatly half hour.
" drainage flow" regime and persist for durations of about one-down-valley Therefore, in this case airflow directions other than the nditions, and i
directions can be excluded from consideration of fu=igat on co On be considered as one half hour.
the duration of fumigation would still (non-coastal) may show n the other hand, sites in open terrain durations much less than preference for fumigation conditions, but may show In this case, fumigation should be considered for all one half hour.
hour.
directions, but with durations much less than oce-half Assessments of y/Q's at the LP2 be used in b.
Acceptable procedures for selecting the X/Q values to b d below.
the consequence assessments are descri e time In most cases, the highest x/Q values for the appropriate degreedirectionsecthr.
periods will all occur within the same 22-1/2 l.IXX-13
e 47 for the various However, for those sites at which the highest x/Q values direction sector, an evalua-time periods do not all occur within the samei l accident should be m tion of the consequences of the potent a course of the accident h
sector using the x/Q values in that sector for t e t
The x/Q values, for that sector which produces the greates blic (i.e., the highest analysis.
potential risk to the health and safety of the pu dose estimate), should be considered controlling.
Non-fumigation conditions (1) l The 16 sets of x/Q values obtained by using the interpo a-l b above should be compared, and the tion procedure described in Section C..
d above, should be considered values for the sector, evaluated as describe d
This procedure may be used for both the conservative an controlling.
realistic accident assessments.
Fumigation conditions - conservative assessment (2) l to For elevated releases at sites located at distances equa f water, the x/Q value for or greater than 3200 meters from large bodies o hour and 1/2 to 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> time each sector, at the LPZ, for the 0 to 1/2 d as described for this i
periods following the accident should be determ ne case in Section C.3.a.(2) above.
200 meters For elevated releases at sites located less than tor, at the LPZ, for from large bodies of water, the x/Q value for each secid the O to 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> period following an acc for this case in Section C.3.a.(2) above.
~
e 1.XXX-14
3 DET IMPLIMENTATION D.
ide information to applicants The purpose of this section is to provfor using this regul regarding the NRC staff's plans d by the Commission.
This guide reflects current practice acceptelicant propos Except in those cases in which the appfied portions of the Comm l ions, method for complying with speciill be used in the eval.uation o.f l
the method described herein w it applications docketed after for operating license or construction perm will be considered for licensing The method described herein if an appli-s on an individual basis, actions concerning operating reactor uide in developing submittals for cant wishes to use this regulatory g rmit applications docketed on or before will be evaluated operating license or. construction peions of the application
_, the pertinent port on the basis of this guide.
ent.
_*Date 4 months after publication for public comm 1.%%X-15
REFERENCES Van der Hoven, I., " A Survey of Field Measuremenes of Atmospheric 1.
f Diffusion Under Low-Wind Speed Inversion Conditions," Nuclear Sa ety March-April 1976, Vol.17 No. 4.
h i Start, G. E. et al., " Rancho Seco Building Wake Effects On Atmosp e 2.
Diffusion," NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL ARL-XX (in draft), Air li-Resources Laboratory, Idaho Talls, Idaho, 1977, available from Pub l Oceanic cation Services, Environmental Research Laboratories, Nationa 2
and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado 8030 i
Near Wilson, R.
B., et al., " Diffusion Under Low Windspeed Condit ons 3
Air Oak Ridge., Tennessee," NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL ARL-61 Publi-Resources Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho, 1976, available from National Oceanic cation Services, Environmental Research Laboratories, 80302.
and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado d
d Sagendorf, J. T. and C. R. Dickson, " Diffusion Under Low Win spe 4.
Inversion Conditions," NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL ARL Resources Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho, 1974, available from National Publication Services, Environmental Research Labor *-,ies, 80302.
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado e
e 1.XII-16
UOT REFERENCES (Cont'd.)
d Gulf States Utilities Company, " Dispersion of Tracer Gas at the Propose 5
River Bend Nuclear Power Station," Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Amendment 24, Docket Numbers 50-458 and 50-459, 1974 Metropolitan Edison Company, " Atmospheric Diffusion Experiments with 6.
Tracer Gas at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Under Low W SF6 Speed Inversion Conditions," Final Safety Analysir. Report, Amendment 24, Docket Number 50-289, 1972 Regulatory Guide 1.23 (Safety Guide 23), "Onsite Meteorological P 7.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
Gifford, F.
A., Jr., "An Outline of Theories of Diffusion in the Lower 8.
Layers of the Atmosphere," Chapter 3 in Meteorology and Atomic Energ 1968 (D. H. Slade, Ed), available as TID-24190 from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22151.
Markee, E. H., Jr. and J. R. Levine, "Probabilistic Evaluations of 9.
Atmospheric Diffusion Conditions for Nuclear Facility Design and Siting," Paper in Proceedings of the American Meteorological Society Conference on Probability and Statistics in Atmosnheric Sciences, Las Vegas, Neveda, November 1977. (in draf t) e 1.XIX-17
REFERENCES (Cont'd.)
Synder, W. H. and R. E'. Lawson, Jr., " Determination of a Necessary 10.
Height for a Stack Close To A Building-A Wind Tumnel Study,"
Vol. 10, pp 683-691, Pergamon Press, 1976 Atmospheric Environment, i
Regulatory Guide 1.70, "Standar'd Format and Content of Safety An 11.
l y
Reports for Nuclear Power Plants - LWR Edition," U.S. Nuclear Regu Com=ission, Washington, D.C.
Regulatory Guide 1.111, " Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Tran.
12.
from Light-Water-and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases D.C.
Cooled Reactors," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, l
Van der Hoven, I., " Atmospheric Transport and Diffusion at Coasta
-13.
Vol. 8, pp 490-499, 1967 Sites," Nuclear Safety, 9
1.XXX-18
J Mman lo*
s',
,.//-
I a
' ' i s
. 6 i. : ese i e i ei.
i i
i//s/.
l l l llllll
\\ \\ l lllll l
dN! Y 3
II I Illi l I Ililli
//yfMR lI l'
g s
t g
I,. g
'/ / / [. [
f s_1 1
/ /
1
// /
//
f.
o
. e C
//./.// /.
D s
e iil l 161 1/ /. / '/ / /.
I i i 11 Il I
I I III!!i
/ffi/ '//. / I I I I ll11 h,
l l l l l!!V(([NN l
l ! I!!!!
li.,
i-12 l
a i
d io' I
s',','
' ' s' R
/,,ss
/
A-tziREMELY UNsTAsLE E
/// // /
i s - uceraattLv ums!*sLE ' ' ' ' '
8s 7 j j,j,7, f
, 8 c - sucarLr umstaste. ' ' ' ' '
/// y'f4 M 1
1 I o-Neurnat i lIl11
[ [ [ [ [ N !!!
l l l r Io'etnarcLv17 set ! ! !!!!
~
> </ X-to.,,,1
,1 g,,
,3 i
...e.e i.,e
,f
,s
..e se 2
s to 2
s to*
2 s
io'
' ' 'O 8
a cistsNec rnou scunct smi Figure 1.
1.ateral diffusion, c, vs. dov=vind distance from y
source for Pasquill?s turbulence types (Ref. 8).
dart =g extre=ely stable (G)
Tor purposes of esti=ati=g ey conditices, without pit:=e =cander or other la:eral enha:ce=ent,,the fc11cving app cx1=ation is app;cpria:e:
y (G) - j ey (7) e 1.III-19
.. ~..
4 BR7 3 s io*
Il ll
/
IAll!
l ll ll j
y
=
i Y
J
'*3 l
.l s'
o.
I 6 eie
/t 4
,te6 /i e
i8
/6
/ $ 6 i 18 8f f
I
!81 A
/
\\lu thcTl I
IAl I
til
/
VTl ll If Illi
/
/,
h s'
/
}*
s' s-s-
n,. '...'... -,, '.....
,,,'.f.,.,.., '
,/.
o f
g i
.,v i,
i iiiii g5 f,
f xiii
/ fij(I l l V M, l Ml l i
l T
lll
/VV lj#fV k'f I I I ll l
lll 0
/
Vl '
' }l!
l/
4-ExtRtMELY UNSTABLE i
.O e'
/ e' e'
B-MC:tRATELY unstaatt c
c - sucartt uastasLt ;
.. isiii
. o-aturmat i
e i i*'I t ff. f 8
f vi. i iiiii i E-sucare stastr 5
r f; l 1,llllll 1 r - =cetmattu s:Astti i i i Iili
/
I lIl i
I II I
I t o' 8 8
so 2
s 1o 2
s so*
2 s
to 8
cns;ance raou sounct imi Vertical diffusien, e, vs. dow=v1=d distance f =m
. Figure 2.
z source for Pasquill's turbulence tfpes (Ref. 8).
For purycses of esti=ating e during extre=ely stable (G) g conditions, the fo11 cuing approx 1=ation is appropriate:
e(G)=fcz (?)
g 1.I:CC-20
C s
6 F
4 Z
E
\\
.g3 t
2 m
S D
D 2 E
sc 8
i 1
1 2
3 4
5 6
10 WUD SPEID (m/sec)
Figure 3.
Correction fac: ors for Pasquill-Gifford ( values.
7 (Based on analyses of Ref. 2)
~
1.I22-21
~
E~T APPENDIX A ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION MODEL FOR RELEASES THROUGH VENTS AND BUILDING PENETRATIONS Rationale The effects of building wake mixing and ambient plume jeander on atmos-pheric dispersion is expressed in this guide in terms of conditional use of Equations 1, 2 and 3.
Equation 1 is an empirical formulation based on atmospheric diffusion experiment results (Reference 2) and includes the combined effects of increased plume meander and of building wake in the horizontal crossuind direction over time periods of one hour when the wind speed is light. Although the results could not be quantified, these experi-ments also indicate that vertical building wake mixing is not as complete during light wind, stable atmospheric conditions as during moderate wind, unstable conditions. Equations 2 and 3 are formulations which have had widespread acceptance within the meteorological community over a period of many years (Ref. 8), but have been recently found to provide estimates which are too conservative at least for the light wind, stable atmospheric conditions (Ref. 1 and 2). Therefore, based on the principles that horizon-tal plume meander dominates dispersion during light wind, stable conditions and that meander diminishes as the wind speed increases and the atmospheric stability decreases while building wake mixing becomes more effective in dilution of effluents, the conditional use of Equations 1, 2 and 3 is appropriate for providing reasonable y/Q estimates.
[
A-l'
a.
Eilla==I i
Example Figure A-1 shows plots of X/Q times the wind speed U versus downwind 10
~
distance for Equations 1, 2 and 3 for atmospheric stability class G.
Equation 1 is plotted for M = 2, 3 and 6.
Figure A-2 shows plots of X/Q times ul0 versus downwind distance based on the conditional use of Equations 1, 2 and 3 as described in the Regulatory Position for wind speed conditions appropriate for M = 2, 3 and 6.
Comparison of Figure A-1 to Figure A-2 shows that for M = 6, Equation 1 is used for all distances since the X E /0 10 for Equation 1 is less than the values calculated for the greater value produced by either Equation 2 or Equation 3 at all distances. For M = 3, the values from Equation 1 are used for distances beyond 0.8 km since the greater value produced by either Equation 2 or Equation 3 is g eater than the value produced by Equation 1.
However, for distances less than 0.8 km, Equation 1 equals Equation 3.
Therefore, the appropriate X/Q value is determined from Equation 3 since Equation 1 is not less than Equation 3, and Equation 3 produces the higher value when compared with Equation 2.
When M = 2, Equation 1 will not be used at all since it is never less than the greater value produced by either Equation 2 or Equation 3.
- Instead, Equation 3 will be used up to 0.8 km and Equation 2 will be used beyond 0.8 km.
e A-2
i 10-2, Eq.1, M=3 Eq.1, M=2 Eq.1, M=6 10 -
~
Eq.2 N
^
N m
'a
\\
o 3.
\\
X
\\
cr
\\
M 10 \\
\\
Eq. I, M-3 s
x
\\
Eq. 1. M=6 Eq.3
\\
\\
10-5 4
0.1 1.0 10 PLUME TRAVEL OISTANCE (Kilometers)
Figure A-1.
x T /Q A8 a functi n f l
P e=e travel distance for G 10 stability condition us1=g Equations 1, 2 and 3.
A-3
t -
i
-2 10 N
j i
Eq.3
,cq.1 10~3 p
.J.
e
!=I~
Eq.1 Eq.2 M
R M
10 I
M2 M=3 M=6 10-5,
, '. 0 0.1 l
,D_
20 1
PLUME TRAVEL DISTANCE (Kile=eters)
~
Figure A-2.
Regulatory Positi.on on x F;gM as a function of ilme travel distance fbr G stability condition.
A,- 4
ATTACHMENT 3 T'E-iT?-2 (?.E'.'!S!":: !)
(AUGUST 2, 1978)
INTE?,IM SF.ANCH TECH.NICAL POSITION HYDROLOGY-METEOROLOGY 3F.ANCH ACCIDENT METEOROLOGY MODEL It is our position that either the draft Regulatory Guide 1.XXX,
^
" Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power' Plants",(dated September-23,1977),
or the procedures described in Standard Review Plan Section 2.3.4 may be used to evaluate atmospheric transport conditions for analysis of accidents with the following amendments to the draft regulatory guide model:
(a) a limiting sector X/Q value at the 0.5% probability level be used*,
(b) the accumulated frequency of the limiting sector X/Q or higher value in all sectors may not exceed 55 for the site, and; (c) normalization of individual sector probability distributions is not used.
l
- Amendment based on Memorandum from H. R. Denton to D. R. Muller,
Subject:
Proposed New Meteorological Model, dated August 2,1978.
\\
.\\
e E*
o g
^
% ** %.5l ;,
5
'~
~
s
ENCLOSURE 2 ACCEPTANCE REVIEW:
NRC REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE SITE SUITABILITY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT CARROLL COUNTY EARLY SITE REVIEW P-559
301.0 ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB - TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY 301.1 Identify by a map the area within the site boundaries classified as prime and/or unique farmlands.
Specify the amount of this area to be temporarily disturbed by construction and the amount which will be occupied by operational facilities.
301.2 Provide a map such as Figure 2.2-20 which depicts the site vege-tation and land use and also outlines the 475 acres to be dis-turbed during construction and also indicates those areas to be returned to their natural state after construction.
301.3 Explain the discrepancy between the size of the site as identified in section 2.1.1.2 and many other sections (3,490 acres) and that given in Table 2.2-65 as 2,734 acres.
Provide a corrected Table 2.2-65 if necessary.
301.4 Identify how much of each land use classification in Table 2.2-65 will be disturbed during construction and how much of each type will be only temporarily disturbed.
301.5 Was any sampling done to try to determine the presence or absence of bats at the site during spring, summer or fall? If so, discuss the methods used and the results.
301.6 Identify the time of day Emlen bird counts were made and the num-ber of hours per seasonal period spent sampling birds via the Emlen and road count methods.
301.7 Provide data or references to support the conclusion (page 2.2-148) that preferred habitats off site are below carrying capacity so displaced birds would be able to relocate in surrounding areas without significant increases in competition.
2-1
301.8 What is the proposed width of the corridor for the intake-discnarge pipeline?
List both the width needed during construction and the final width during operation. Will any road construction or addi-tional areas be needed for construction of the pipeline or will the total 100 acres of disturbed land lie within the pipeline corridor?
301.9 Identify how many man-hours were spent on the biotic survey of the intake-discharge pipeline corridor.
ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB - TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS AND LINES 301.10 Provide a diagram or figure depicting the single-shaft transmis-sion towers and the H-frame towers showing height, width and dis-tance between lines.
301.11 Identify the type of structures to be used for the ISP line.
301.12 Identify the number of acres needed for new or expanded substa-tions associated with the Carroll County lines and the amount of acreage needed for temporary construction areas such as access roads, laydown areas, etc.
301.13 Provide references or other data to support the statement on page 3.9-7, "No long-term disruption to wildlife of this region is expected, since R0W's are ecologically suited to a mixed type of habitat."
301.14 Provide a list of the number of acres of woodland, pasture, culti-vated fields and marshland which lie within the four transmission line corridors.
2-2
301.15 Provide a characterization of the methodology to be used to deter-mine if any federal or state listed endangered or threatened plants or animals occur within the propesed transmission R0W.
301.16 Discuss under what circumstances clear-cutting will be used for construction of the transmission lines.
301.17 Discuss the method (s) to be used to control vegetation where the transmission lines pass through wooded areas.
If herbicides are to be used, specify the type and frequency of application.
301.18 To what extent (# of miles) will the transmission lines parallel other utility corridors?
301.19 Provide a list of the number of rivers, streams, highways, rail-roads, other transmission lines and pipelines cror.ad by the pro-posed transmission line routes.
Also indicate the number of buildings within the proposed corridor and those within 1/4 mile of the corridor.
Include a list of all natural areas, wildlife refuges, state and county parks and recreation areas within l mile of the proposed corridor.
301.20 Provide maps such as seven and one-half minute topographic maps with the proposed corridor outlined.
ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB - HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM 301.21 Provide a cumulative distribution curve for wet bulb temperature for each month for nearest weather station with long term data.
301.22 Provide a typical natural draft cooling tower design curve (cold water temperature as a function of wet bulb temperature) such as that for the towers at the Byron Station.
2-3
301.23 Describe geometry and purpose of relief holes on the blowdown discharge pipe (Figure 3.4-4).
301.24 Provide preliminary results of the physical model test conducted at the Institute of Hydraulic Research as soon as they are available.
301.25 Provide information on alternate cooling tower designs.
301.26 Describe in detail (or reference) the moddls used to calculate plume and drift impacts from the cooling towers.
Identify the data base used in the calculations (meteorological data, tower parameters, etc.).
301.27 Describe the criteria used to select natural-draft cooling towers over other closed-cycle systems.
301.28 For each of t.he suggested alternate site, indicate the preferred mode of cooling.
ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB - CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE DISCHARGES 301.29 Please define "Ryznar Stability Index" (p. 3.6.1) and/or provide literature reference.
Does this parameter relate to the degree of saturation with CAC0 as with the Langelier Saturation Index?
3 If so, describe the relationship.
301.30 Please provide the average volume and composition of the chemical waste water (demineralizer waste, etc.) added to the blowdown before discharge.
ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB - AQUATIC ECOLOGY 301.31 What type of intake will be used and how effective will it screen river biota, especially fish larvae?
2-4
3 301.32 Should the notation given on page 2.2-8 of the SSER be 100m 2
instead of 100m 7 301.33 Will the intake and/or discharge be located in a fish nursery area, or in an area (s) of relatively high ichthyoplankton density?
301.34 Please discuss the purpose of Spring Lake. Why is the dike broken, and what is the reason for the location of the break? Also, please discuss data obtained from Station 5 (at the break in the dike),
and its biological significance insofar as the Carroll Co. Station intake and discharge impacts are concerned.
301.35 What will be the impact of chlorination (of the condensers) on the ichthyoplankton?
301.36 If available, please supply the following references:
P. 13.0-5 'Ist 3 refs P.13.0-6 2nd ref., from top of page, and last ref.
P. 13.0-7 Last ref.
P. 13.0-12 2nd ref. from top of page.
P. 13.0-13 Ref. #5 (on that page).
P. 13.0-14 Next to last ref.
P. 13.0-15 Last ref., and 3rd from last ref.
P. 13.0-16 5th ref from top.
P. 13.0-18 2nd and 4th from last references.
P. 13.0-19 1st reference.
P. 13.0-20 All available references (8 in number) by Helms.
P. 13.0-21 Ref #5 from top of page, and refs. 2 & 3 from bottom of page.
P. 13.0-22 Refs. 3, 4, and 6 from top of page.
P. 13.0-23 Last reference.
2-5
ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB - CULTURAL RESOURCES 301.37 Provide a detailed discussion of the field methods, analysis, and results of the survey on the plant property and transmission corridor.
Include a discussion of the chronology, structure and function of all cultural resources found and evaluated during this study including surface and sub-surface evidence.
Provide the basis for the evaluation of each resource.
Include consider-ation of resources that may be important to the religious cultural rights and practices of Native Americans.
301.38 Provide a more specific profile of the prehistory and history of the local area including information on the ethnohistory.
Pro-vide available state and county lists or ryisters of important cultural resources, chronology, etc. that have been listed includ-ing prehistoric resources.
301.39 Provide a monitoring / mitigation plan which includes a program for protecting and preserving the cultural rescurces that may remain on the plant property and in the transmission corridor.
This program must consider both direct and indirect impacts of station construction and operation.
301.40 Will plant construction and operation have indirect impacts on cultural resources surrounding the plant property? If so, how will these resources be protected?
2-6
340.0 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY - ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS 340.1 Figures 2.3-20 and 2.4-1 suggest that the entire Pool 13 is (2.6) included in the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife Refuge or in the Upper Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge.
Table 8.4-64 lists the refuge as a recreational and scenic resource of Carroll County, Illinois.
No further description of the impact on the refuge, in terms of reduced recreational or' scenic values, is presented in the text of Sections 4, 5, 8 and 9.
Neither this Section nor Section 2.2 mention the refuge as an attribute of the site ecology.
As a result please provide the following information:
1)
Describe the Upper Mississipoi River National Wildlife Refuge and the Upper Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge in terms of geographical extent and impli-cations of their designation as refuges.
2)
Discuss any conflicts with the goals and objectives, implied by the refuge designation, due to the construc-tion and operation of intake and discharge structures at the proposed location.
340.2 There is a discrepancy in the estimated maximum blowdown (3.4) rate given in various sections:
Section 3.4.1
" maximum.. 5.35 cfs per unit" Section 5.1.2
"...should not exceed 25 Section 5.1.3 "should not exceed 30 cfs" Section 5.7.1
" annual blowdown range of 10 to 50 cfs will eventually be returned to the Mississippi River" Please rectify the apparent discrepancy in estimated maximum blowdown rate.
2-7
340.3 Is the discharge system being designed for 4-unit operation?
(3.4) 340.4 Step 2 of Phase 2 includes as a " siting issue" the topographic (9.2.3.3.2) relief criterion that " areas of widespread... relief having numerous natural grades exceeding 15 percent" be excluded.
Is there any environmental basis for this criterion being exclusionary?
340.5 One attribute of the identified potential sites is " rela-(9.2.3.4.1) tively flat topography".
It would appear that the Argo Fay (A1) site has this attribute since it is one of the 16 poten-tial sites.
However, in Section 9.2.3.4.3, the Argo Fay site is " deferred" because "a significant portion of the site is marked by high topographic relief which is a non-exclusionary criterion that would inhibit site flexibility".
Explain the apparent discrepancy between Sections 9.2.3.4.1 and 9.2.3.4.3 in regard to the Argo Fay site.
340.6 Explain what " site flexibility" is inhibited by 10% or 15%
(9.2.3.4.1) slopes.
340.7 In the screening of land use compatibility, only Carroll (9.2.3.5.2)
County shows an obvious conflict, i.e., with a proposed expansion of the Stransky Memorial Airport.
Table 9.2-2 indicates that the Evaluation Parameter is "yes or no" with the Rating Value from 1 (most compatible) to 5 (least com-patible). To be consistent with the other two "yes or no" parameterized siting issues, Carroll County would have to receive a rating of 5 (least compatible).
In terms of land use compatibility, why hasn't Carroll County assigned a value of 5 since it is the least compatible?
2-8
340.8 In the screening of potential sites, three criteria are used (9.2.3.5.2) to arrive at the combined site suitability rating for aquatic ecology. Were the three criteria given equal weight in the combined rating?
If not, provide bases for combined rating.
340.9 The Applicant states that " Development of the Carroll County (9.2.5.5) site, which.is planned for at least four units, would enhance Ceco's future siting options."
In regard to site suitability and alternative site analysis, shouldn't the assumption for site and plant have been four units instead of two?
340.10 The Applicant concludes that "...the Carroll County site (9.2.5.6) should be developed before Units 3 and 4 at LaSalle because it... establishes a site that may not otherwise remain avail-able for future siting needs...".
Since the Applicant owns essentially all of the Carroll County site, tne basis for this conclusion is unclear.
Clarify the basis for the con-clusion reached in Section 9.2.5.6 (Item e).
2-9
350.0 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY - COST-8ENEFIT ANALYSIS 350.1 The peak annual average daily work force for the proposed Carroll
( 8.2.1.1 )
County Station is estimated to be 2,155.
This estimate is based on four Ceco nuclear power plants, three of which are currently under construction while the fourth is operating.
Forecasts made by the Construction Manpower Demand System (Energy Sector), a pro-gram sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor, indicate that work-hours per kilowatt in the construction of nuclear power plants will increase between 1977 and 1981.
Given this trend toward increased manpower requirements, the Applicant should justify the use of manpower data from the 1970's for a plant that would reach peak construction activity in the 1980's? (NB:
The staff believes that the Applicant has substantially under-estimated peak construction manpower requirements).
350.2 The Applicant should identify the construction worker studies (8.2.1.5) at Byron and LaSalle which are discussed on p. 8.2-7.
- Also, copies of such studies should be provided to the NRC staff.
350.3 The last sentence on p. 8.2-7 indicates that many studies have (8.2.1.5) concluded that excess capacity exists in small town businesses.
The Applicant should provide NRC with a short list of such studies.
350.4 The Applicant should specify the analysis that was undertaken to (8.2.1.5) arrive at a multiplier of 1.3 presented on p. 8.2-6.
Also, the Applicant should provide the factual basis for concluding that one-third of the induced jobs would be filled by spouses of the construction workers, one-third by residents, and one-third by migrants.
350.5 The allocation given on p. 8.2-9 relative to in-moving construc-(8.2.1.7) tion workers to type of housing is based on studies of the Byron, 2-10
LaSalle, and Watts Bar construction sites.
Such an allocation would have increased validity if the housing market in the Carroll County impact area is similar to that found at the three sites mentioned above.
The Applicant should indicate if such a com-parison was undertaken.
350.6 The Applicant should justify the use of 1.6 given on p. 8.2-13 (8.2.2.2) as the multiplier for induced employment.
350.7 In computing the local tax payments given on p. 8.3-1, has the (8.3.1.2) Applicant taken into account applicable state rea? property tax laws that would reduce tax liability?
350.8 In the Applicant's analysis presented on p. 8.3-6 does the condition (8.3.2.2) or "standardness" of housing affect the estimate of housing supply?
350.9 Does the Applicant have evidence that housing costs given on (8.3.2.2) pp. 8.3-18/20 escalate as a result of nuclear plant construction?
The discussion of es:alating housing costs implies that the entire rental and sale stocks of housing would be impacted.
However, only those units which are to be sold or rented would be subjected to inflationary pressures and that the numbers of such units is a small percentage of the housing market at any one point in time.
Please provide further clarification.
The Applicant should also discuss the course of ;ents and prices during the post peak construction period.
For instance, does the Applicant assume stabilization at the higher equilibrium point for sales and rentals or does the Applicant forecast a sub-sidence of housing costs to a lower point of market equilibrium?
350.10 The quotation presented (third paragraph) on p. 8.3-30 refers to an (8.3.2.2) MIT study on property values.
The Applicant should identify this study.
2-11
350.11 The third paragraph on p. 8.3-31 cites NRC and MIT studies on (8.3.2.2) property values.
The Applicant should identify these studies.
350.12 What is the factual basis for the statements made in reference (8.3.2.2) to the impact of the construction period on social life (see last paragraph of p. 8.3-33 to the end of the second paragraph of p. 8.3-35).
350.13 The Applicant should supplement Figures 8.3-4 to 8.3-7 with pic-(8.3.2.2) tures showing the plant from the following viewpoints:
a.
the scenic lookout approximately 2. miles east of Savanna; b.
Center Hill School; c.
Mount Carroll residential neighborhood; d.
City of Sabula residential area; and e.
Mount Carroll School.
Where possible, the view should include existing structures in the foreground.
350.14 With respect to the nine developed candidate sites and the two (9.2.3.5) preferred developed sites discussed on p. 9.2-19, the Applicant should provide information on:
a.
the origin and availability of the construction labor pool, and b.
anticipated points of vehicular congestion.
350.15 What is tSe significance of the 5-mile radius as used in the (8.3.2.2) Analysis of Aesthetics referred to on p. S.3-37?
350.16 Using the estimated impact region, the Applicant should provide (8.3.1 )
a breakdown of estimated procurement expenditures that will be spent during the construction period.
This information should indicate the year of expediture by the county within the expendi-ture will be made and by the four-digit industry code (Standard Industrial Classification Manual).
This submission should also 2-12
indicate the year the dollars are expressed in and the esca1' tion rates applied to each category.
350.17 On separate tables, the Applicant should provide a breakdown of (8.3.1) the payroll of direct and secondary employment for each year of construction and by the county of residence of workers.
Indicate whether the dollar amounts are current or deflated.
Provide the year dollars are deflated to and supply the relevant escalation rates applied to labor costs.
2-13
361.0 SITE TECHNOLOGY - GEOSCIENCES 361.1 The primary means of assessing the adequacy of the Applicant's (2.5) geologic, seismologic and geotechnical engineering screening of sites is by use of reconnaissance-level information.
It is not apparent in Chapter 13.0, pp. 13.0-38 and 13.0-39, that anything other than a very generalized reference source was used by the Applicant in the site selection process.
On this basis, provide a Data Sources Index Map using a base similar to Fig. 3.2-10.
On this base plot:
a.
Developed and Undeveloped sites b.
Identify, where feasible, the geographic area described in the data sources actually used.
c.
Provide a list of the sources used in the reconnaissance-level analysis.
d.
Provide the staff a copy of the cited references, if ava'!able.
361.2 As presented in Appendix 9.2C, geologic cross-sections and other (2.5) site specific alternate site information has been extracted from various Sargent and Lundy reports.
Please provide the following reports:
a.
Site Investigation of Areas Along the Mississippi and Lower Illinois Rivers, August, 1974, Report Number 3104.
b.
Erie Site Geotechnical Evaluation, May 1975, Report Number 3189.
c.
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation of the Proposed Glad-stone North and Rozetta West Sites, April 1975, Report Number 3193.
d.
Geotechnical Evaluation at Qucd Cities Site, March 1977, Report Number 3299.
2-14
361.3 In addition to the references listed in Question 361.2, several (2.5) unlisted data sources appear on the following figures.
Provide the information as noted in Items (a) and (b):
a.
Plot Plan, Bedrock Topograpty, Quad Cities Site - Provide the borings completed by Sail Testing Services of Iowa, Inc.,
in September, 1972.
Pr Jide the borings completed as part of the Sargent and Lundy Site Study, October, 1976.
b.
Plot Plan, Granville South Site - Provide the report contain-ing the borings dcpicted on this figure.
361.4 Provide one copy of each of the USGS quadrangle maps (7-1/2" or (2.5) 15' as appropriate) within 15 miles of each of the candidate sites (Appendix 9.2C).
Also, incorrect quadrangle maps are listed on the C.didate Site Evaluation Data Sheets and elsewhere for several of the Candidate Sites.
For instance with the res-pect to the Hillview (Hl) Site, the quadrangle listed is the Roodhouse (15) quadrangle (page 9.2C-42).
The Topographic Map, Hillview Site references the Truncy quadrangle.
The staff finds that neither of these is correct.
The Pearl quadrangle appears to be the quadrangle within which the Hillview site is located.
Please explain or correct as noted.
2-15
371.0 SITE TECHNOLOGY - HYDROLOGICAL ENGINEERING 37'.1 Provide the bases for the statement that, "There will be no (1 4.2.4) offsite effects due to construction dewatering for the main plant excavations." Discuss the aquifers involved, the flow rates and radius of influence with methods of analyses and pertinent parameters. Where will the effluents.e discharged and what sile be the effects on the receiving stream? Also identify, for each aquifer involved, the nearest offsite well and confirm that it will not be affected.
371.2 Provide a map that shows the bathemetry for the monitoring (6.1.1) stations.
371.3 Provide a discussion and history of ice depths and accumula-(2.4.1) tion on the Mississippi River and affects on the intake structure and station operation.
371.4 Discuss the disturbance of the surface ad ground-waters and (2.4.2.4, shoreline of the Mississippi River due to the constructicn of 4.1.2, de intake and discharge structures.
Where earth cofferdams 4.1.3) are proposed, provide the magnitude and areal extent of changes in turbidity and associated damage.
The construction dewatering affe;t, should be discussed in detail.
Provide methods of anal /ses and parameters for determining flow rates and zoner, of influence.
Provide a list of affected wells, the du.ation of affect,and any proposed mitigation.
Candidate site evaluations and comparisons should include discussions relevant to the following hydrologic features:
a.
Flooding potential and required flood protection.
b.
Availability of water supply and effect on station operation (potential for power reduction due to limited water supply).
Consider upstream and downstream water rights.
2-16
c.
Construction and operation influence on local ground-water supply and quality.
Please provide a discussion of these items.
371.6 Provide, in support of the calculated radiological doses for (2.4)
App. I, dilution factors, travel times and hydrologic bases at the edge of the mixing zonc and at all municipal water intakes from the release point to 50 miles downstream.
371.7 The small tributary stream just east of the plant site will (2.4) be blocked by a cooling tower.
Provide a description of the stream and discussion of the consequences of blocking and re-aligning the stream channel.
371.8 Item 48 of the Proposed Findings states that, "The applicant has demonstrated t'y calculation that onsite pumping will not significantly afi ct groundwater levels..."
The staff has not found any calculations on zone of influence or flow rates for either onsite wells or construction dewatering.
Provide a reference for the section where the calculations can be found.
371.9 Provide thermal mapping to quantify the areal extent of the (5.1.3.2) thermal plume.
Also provide vertical temperature profiles for 2 unit operation at full power.
Provide a detailed des-cription of models and parameters used and bases thereof.
2-17
372.0 SITE TECHNOLOGY - METEOROLOGY
[ Questions 372.1 through 372.3 and 372.5 through 372.9 have also been included in Enclosure 1 regarding the Site Suitability Site Safety Report.
Responses to these questions should be cross referenced or duplicated.]
372.1 On page 2.3-3 it is stated that "the prevailing wind at both (2.3.1)
Moline (1967-1976) and Rockford (1966-1975) is southerly".
This differs considerably from the prevailing direction of WNW given in Table 2.3.1.
Explain the discrepancy between these wind directions.
372.2 To ensure that the time period for onsite data collection was (2.3.5) not an anomalous period, provide the wind direction and wind speed frequencies for Rockford and Moline for the period from August 1, 1976 to July 31,1977.
372.3 As discussed in Section 2.8 of NUREG-0158, " Environmental Stand-(2.3.5) ard Review Plans for the Environmental Review of Construction Permit Applications for Nuclear Power Stations" (Part 1, January, 1977), onsi' ieteorological data should be available on magnetic tape.
Having access to onsite meteorological data would facili-tate the review of atmospheric dispersion characteristics.
If available, provide onsite meteorological data for the period August 1, 1976 through July 31, 1977 in the form of hourly aver-ages on magnetic tape using the format given in Attachment 1.
372.4 Provi< ' a brief description of the cooling tower model used to (5.1.4) determine visible plume and drift from the natural and mechanical draft cooling towers.
2-18
372.5 The differential temperature range is given as -5 C to +5*C (6.1.3)
(page 6.1-43).
Since positive temperaure differences often exceed the value of +5'C, how are these data recorded?
372.6 What is the time interval between sampling of each of the meteror-(6.1.3) ological variables recorded on magnetic tape? How many of these samples are needed to constitute an acceptable hourly average?
372.7 Provide the dates and times of significant instrument outages (6.1.3)
(e.g., greater than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or recurring), the causes of the outages, and the corrective actions taken.
372.8 Give the fraction of meteorological data obtained from analog (6.1.3) charts that was used to replace invalid data from the digital system.
372.9 Provide the criteria used to determine invalid meteorological data.
(6.1.3) 2-19
el*
9 Enclosure (3)
DISTRIBUTION LIST ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT, AMENDMENTS, Ai40 SUPPLEMENTS (Number in parens indicates number of copies)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Dr. Sidney R. Galler (6)
Mr. Norton Savage D:puty As:i: tant Secretary Economic Regulatory Administration for Environmental Affairs Power Supply and Reliability Div.(RG-752)
U. S. Department of Commerce 1726 M Street, N.
W., Room 850 14th & Constitution, N. W., Rm. 3425 Washington, D. C.
20036 Washington, D. C. 20230 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
. Mr. Robert Ochinero, Director (1)
National Oceanographic Data Center (transmittal letter only, addressed to:
Environmental Data Service Mr. Joseph Canny National Oceanic and Atmospheric Office of Environmental Affairs Administration U. S. Department of Transportation U. S. Department of Commerce 400 7th Street, S. W., Room 9422 Washington, D. C. 20235 Washington, D. C. 20590 DEPARTMEiiT OF INTERIOR cc of transmittal letter with Mr. Bruce Blanchard, Director (18) l copy of enclosures to:
Office of Environmental Projects Mr. Lee Santman, Director Review, Room 4239 Materials Transportation Bureau U. S. Department of Interior ATTN:
J. Nalevanko 18th & C Streets, N. W.
2100 Second Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20240 Washington, D. C. 20590 cc:
transmittal letter only to:
Secretarial Representative (1)
U. S. Dept.rtment of Transportation Chief Region V Office Division of Ecological Services 300 S. WackrrDrive - 17th Floor Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife Chicago, Illinois 60606 U. S. Department of Interior 18th & C Streets, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20240 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE cc of transmittal letter without enclosures to:
Mr. Charles Custard, Director (2)
Office of Environmental Affairs Capt. William R. Riedel U. S. Department of Health, Education Water Resources Coordinator and Welfare, Room 524F2 11/S 73 USCG, Room 7306 200 Independence Avenue, S. W.
U. S. Department of Transportation Washington, D. C. 2D201 400 7th Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20590 (After DES is issued, send 4 copies
_qf R_anq_amenqm_ents _temedq1_L_________
Carroll Siie Unit Nos. i and 2 (ESR SSER)
Commonwc41th Edison Company April 1979
^
. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NATIONAL LABORATORY (10)
Director (1)
Dr. Phillip Gustafson Technical Assessment Division Argonne National Laboratory (AW-459) 9700 South'Cass Avenue Office of Radiation Programs Argonne, Illinois 60439 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Crystal Mall No. 2 Washington, D. C. 20460 EPA REGIONAL OFFICE (2)
RIVER BASIN COMMISSION (1)
EIS Coordinator Upper Mississippi River Basin Federal Activities Branch Commission, Regional Office U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Room 238, Federal Building 230 South Dearborn Street Fargo, North Dakota 5812 Chicago, Illinois ARMY ENGINEERING DISTRICT (1)
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN he Army Reg onal Admin s ration orps ng eers Region V Office Rock Island District 300 South Wacker Drive Clock Tower Building Chicago, Illinois 60602 Rock Isalnd, Illinois 61201 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION cc:
(transmittal letter only:
"Mr. Robert Garvey, Executive Director (1)
Mr. Richard H. Broun Advisory Council on Historic Environmental arance Officer Preservation Department of housing and Urban 1522 K Street, N. W., Suite 430 Development Washington, D. C. 20005 451 7th Street, S. W., Rm. 7258 Washington, D. C. 20410 cc:
(transmittal letter only)
LOCAL OFFICIAL (1)
Director Mr. Donald G. Swanson, Chairman Department of Conservation Carroll County Board of Supervisors 602 State Office Building Carroll County Courthouse 400 South Spring Street M unt Carroll, Illinois 61053 Springfield, Illinois 62706
~
rom
~
' ADJOINING STATES OTHERS Director (1)
Librarian (1)
Office for Planning and Projramuing Thermal Reactors Safety Group 523 East 12th Street Building 130 Des Moines, Iows 50319 Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, L.I., New York 11973 Burea of Eny,ronmental Impact (1)
Wiscr. sin Dept. of Natural Resources Atomic Industrial Forum (1)
P. O. Box 7921 1016 16th Street, N.W., Suite 850 Madison, Wisconsin 53706 Washington, D. C. 20036 STATE OFFICIAL Director (1)
Illinois Institute of Natural Resources 309 West Washington Chicago, Illinois 60606 Department of Public Health (lh ATTN:
Chief, Division of Nuclear Safety 545 West Jefferson Springfield, Illinois 62761 CLEARINGHOUSES State Clearinghouse (10)
Bureau of the Budget Lincoln Tower Plaza
~
524 South Second Street, Room 315 Springfield, Illinois 62706 Regional Clearinghouse (1)
Northwest Illinois Regional Council of Public Officials 210 East Third Street Sterling, Illinois 61081 mm
Enclosure (4)
Distribution List Site Suitability Site Safety Report State Officials (1)
Department of Public Health ATTN: Chief, Division of Nuclear Safety 535 West Jefferson Springfield, Illinois 62761 Director Illinois Institute of Natural Resources 309 West Washington Chicago, Illinois 60606 Local Officials (1)
Mr. Donald G. Swanson, Chairman Carroll County Board of Supervisors Carroll County Courthouse Mount Carroll, Illinois 61053 w p-
---e
-+e e--+
e w-e
-