ML19319C579
| ML19319C579 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1974 |
| From: | Harold Denton US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Moore V US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002191016 | |
| Download: ML19319C579 (4) | |
Text
.
~
a goy 3 '.314 V. A. floore, Assistant Di rector for LWR's, Group 2. L POSITIONS AllD REQUETS F6R ADDITIO:iAL INFORMATION - METEOROLOGY PLA:IT lAfiE:
Davis-Besse Unit 1 LICE:ISI:lG STAGE:
OL 00C.<ET NUMBER:
50-346 RESPO.1SIBLE BRA:iCH:
LWR 2-3 REQUESTED CG:!PLETION DATE:
October 31, 1974 APPLICA.tTS RESPCNSE DATE liECESSARY FOR liEXT ACTI]Ii PLAiUIED 03 PROJECT:
As scheduled DESCRIPTI0ii 0F RESP 0:lSE:
Amendment to FSAR JEVIEW STATUS:
Site Analysis 3ranen (::eteorology) - Awaiting Information Enclosed are positions and questions on the subject plant reflect-ing itets identified during the Units 2 5 3 PSAR review.
There are same serious questions regarding the quality of the one year (12/1/d3 - 11/30/70) of data being used for the calculation of accident and annual average X/Q values.
These positions and q'uestions were prepared by J.
E. Fai roben t and E. ii. :larkee, Jr., Site Analysis Branch, L.
Cr;(=1 Siped by
- 11. R. Denten liarol d R.
Denton, Assistant 31 rector for Site Safety Girectorate of Licensing Eaclosure:
As stated cc:
N/o enclosure A. Giamousso e' em 0
0 W. Mcdonald J. Panzarella A
cc:
See attached page S
_ ]L v
_a ornic.
.....................,g.(T0'2"1 9 1 o / (
% oc.m u.,.m oc= om
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL IUFORMATION DAVIS-BESSE - UNIT 1 DOCKET N0. 50-346 ilETEOROLOGY 322.01 During the review of the Davis-Besse (2.3.3)
Units 2 a 3 apolications, we Icarned that the joint frequency distributions o f wind speed and direction by atmo-spheric stability (defined by delta-T) for the period 12/i/59 11/30/70 as presented in the Unit 1 application are not correct.
Provide corrected joint frequency distributions.
Also discuss the data reduction procedure of the strip chart data for the period 12/1/69 -
11/30/70 used by TRC and !US (as dis-cussed on p. 2.3-29 of the Units 2 & 3 PSAR), including the averaging techni-D
- n' i d que and the 30-minute period selected O
n' (i.e. first 30 minutes of the hour, es Ls JL 15 minutes on each side of the hour, etc.).
Clarify the reasons why, with the rau data D
cg l{
being reduced by TRC and submitted on c'
t cs t
. JL
_]
computer cards to HUS, th: joint frequency distributions, darived from the same data, presented in the Unit 1 FSAR are signi-ficantly different from those presented in the Units 2 & 3 PSAR.
322.02 From the dates of calibrations of the 300-ft (i.3.3) tower (as presented on p. 2.3-26 of the Units 2 & 3 PSAR), it appears that after the initial calibrations of the system in October 1358, no calibration was cada unti' 1371. Discuss the inpact of this lack of calibration of the data collection systen on the data collected frou 12/1/63 -
11/30/70, with special ematasis on the measu rement of del ta-T.
322.03(RSP)
It is our position tnat tha relative coa-(2.3.3) centration (X/Q) values bcsed on data collected from 12/1/69
'l/30/73 be varified by calculations. sing one full year o f ensi te da t a f ror., 'the new meteoro-logical program that meets the recommenda-tions of Regulatory Guide 1.23.
The sea-mittal of this additional year should include a discussion of the representacive-nass
- ( Con t ' d. )
e
/ 322.03(RSP) Cont'd.
of the onsita data wi th raspact to (2.3.3) expected icng tern conditiens at the site.
Provide a schedule far the submittal of these additional data to the staff.
322.0; Describe in detail the ?raposed (2.3.0) control ecen monitcring display of appropriate ceteorological carameters.
Also describe the data collection s~vstems, primary and secondary, used for the Sa0-f t and 35-ft towers.
3is-cuss the data reduction techniques being utilized for these systems.
322.05 Provide revised accident and annual (2.3.4 3 average relative concentrations values 2.3.5) based on the corrected 12/1/59 -
11/30/70 data.
Also provida a commit-ment to verify t;1ese values using one full year of data fecm the new meteoro-logical program.
222.05 The cri teria far th2 Design Basis Tocad:
(3.3.2) for this ;1 ant were established by USAEC Reac to r Tschilol ogy ?lemo randum ilo.1, " Tor-nado Considerations," dated Acril 10,1933.
These critaria are:
360 mph maximu.m !ind spaed (303 mph rotational p l u s 6 0 rin h translational); 3 ps, pressure decp'in 3 s2-FN "h D
n conds followed by immediata recovery; a n ti su Ls JL a tornado radius of 273 feet.
Cl a ri fy S3
~
design basis tornado criteria (presentac m m. gr }
A on p.
3-12) assumed for this plant.
If the 0
y,
_(
3 design basis tornado assumed for this plan; does not conform tc the Regulatory Tornaco I!cdel :
identify the differences; explain the rationale for the differences; and par-form an analysis of the inherent design capabilities.4ith regard to the tornado parameters ard compare these capabilities wi th the 3egt la tory criteria.
.m 9
/ 322.07 State the bases for tne neteoroloalcal (9.2.5) design critaria presented on p. 9-45, l
I including l?ngth of record examined and percent of tiae t.ia dasiga criteria can be expected to ba squaller; or exceeded.
4
" T_T ]0 0 ~9~T A
LL T
'.