ML19302F582
| ML19302F582 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie, Diablo Canyon, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 10/08/1982 |
| From: | Van Der Hoven COMMERCE, DEPT. OF, NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19302F581 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-03-81-099, CON-NRC-3-81-99 NUDOCS 8210150459 | |
| Download: ML19302F582 (3) | |
Text
e d'
Evaluation of the Procedures Proposed by the Florida Power and Light Company in their Emergency Plans to Consider Meteorological Conditions in the St. Lucie Plant Coastal Environment by Isaac Van der Hoven National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Air Resources Laboratories October 8,1982 8210150459 821000 ADOCK05000g5 CF
e I.
The review which follows is in response to Task Order No.1 of Inter-agency Agreement No. NRC-03-81-099 which requires an evaluation of the i
procedures proposed by the Florida Power and Light Company in their emergency plans to consider meteorologicai conditions in the coastal l
environment at the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No.1.
II. The documents reviewed which were submitted under NRC Docket No. 50-389 are as follows:
l 1.
Loss of Coolant Accident Dose Calculations, March 26, 1981.
2.
Classification of Emergencies, March 26, 1981.
l III. The reviews of the documents listed above are as follows:
1.
" Loss of Coolant Accident Dose Calculations" The key to the dose calculation appears to be "the dose rate as measured by the post-LOCA radiation monitor at the shield building wall." The other measured parameters are the wind speed and the atmospheric stability. The latter determines the diffusion coefficients, oy and oz, in the Gaussian dif-fusion egaation. For a ground source and ground receptor this equation is as follows-i 0
y X=
exp -) [2cy 3
2 w u cy oz The "y" parameter is the distance of the receptor from the centerline of the plume as measurea along an arc centered on the release point at a given dis-i tance downwind. From the worksheets on pages 26 and 27 and the tables which follow, it would appear that it is assumed that the radiation monitor at the shield building wall is along the centerline of ti,e plume.
If this is a fixed monitor, the tmation above would require the determination of a "y" distance.
In short, there mnsiderable ambiguity concerning the location of the radia-i s
tion monitor with respxt to the source location and the time interval over which the radiation measc ement was made, l
2.
" Classification of Emergencies" t
The classification of a General Emergency involves the " actual or immi-aent substantial core degradation and potential loss of containment integrity comowed with a likelihood of significant uncontrolled releases of radioacti-vity fr om the plant", (see page 2). One would assume then that this classifi-cation prtains to off-site effects. The fuel element failure and the un-controlled effluent release (pages 10 and 11) are classified as a General Emergency based on the LOCA dose calculation.
If these calculations are based, in turn, on the radiation monitor reading at the shield building wall, I would question the validity of this approach for the same reasons expressed in the comments on the LOCA Dose Calculations report.
IV. Conclusions regarding the documents as listed and numbered above are as follows:
i l
4 \\, c.
' t
. 1 i
-d.
2 i
1.
Unless it is known how far the shield building wall monitor
-or any other free atmosphere onsite.ar offsite monitor is l
from the centerline of the plume, it will not be possible to i
calculate offsite dose calculations.
1 i
- 2.
The same conclusion as in 1. above applies.
j Am b,W
+
I Isaac Van der Hoven i
Air Resources Laboratories, NOAA J
October 8,1982
-l t
I i
-I f
?
I e
t k
l I
l 1
i-a e
+.--e 4-.
m e-e-3<-ev-e. w c r ee v.
-,,r:-=.-,m,t
,mw, rw =
..,w
+ ' -
y-,-rs-'ar u + ~., d