ML20008F617
| ML20008F617 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1981 |
| From: | Campe K Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20008F600 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104210385 | |
| Download: ML20008F617 (5) | |
Text
.
04/20/81 7
UNITED STATES Of A'1 ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMt11SSION O.
O BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD in the Matter of
)
)
H0llSTON LIGHTIflG & POWER C0f1PANY
)
Docket No. 50-466
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF 4
KAZIMIERAS fi. CAMPE RELATIVE TO THE AIRCPAFT HAZARDS
[TEXPIRG Contention 6 and McCorkle Contention 10]
Q.
Please state your name and position with the NRC.
A.
My name is Kazimieras !1. Campe.
I am employed at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a Site Analyst in the Siting Analysis Branch.
Q.
Have you prepared a statement of educational and professional qualifications?
A.
Yes.
It is attached to this, testimony.
Q.
What is the purpose of your testinony?
A.
The purpose of my testimony is to respond to TEXPIRG Contention 6 and McCorkle Contention 10 which state as follows:
The maximum credible accideat has not been considered because the present safety and environmental analyses do not consider the effects of a large airplane crashing into the containment vessel.
The Allens Creek plant containnent concrete shield should be built to withstand the impact of a 747 airplane.
Large plane traffic has increased at least 30 percent in the last three years, and will be several hundred percent higher before the plant is closed in about 40 years.
New airports have been proposed to be built in the Fort Bend County area much closer than present airports. The Houston area has recently been allowed many more routes to places such as Los Angeles, which cause more planes to pass near the reactor site.
8104210386
4 Q.
Has the NRC Staff reviewed the proposed ACriGS site with respect to aircraft hazards in its vicinity?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Are there any airports in the vicinity of the proposed ACNGS site which would have a significant effect on the safety of the Allens Creek i
pinnt, thus requiring design basis protection features?
A.
No.
Q.
What is the basis for this conclusion?
A.
The proposed ACNGS site does not have any airports within ten miles of the site.
The nearest commercial airport is located in Eagle Lake, i
about 14 miles southwest of the site. The nearest major airport is Houston Internatior.al, about 50 miles from the site.
Its current air traffic is about 335,000 aircraf t movements per year. The FAA projected 1992 air traffic shows a 57 percent increase in annual operations to about 526,000 aircraft movements per year. Another major airport (Hobby) is located about 50 miles from the site and currentiy has about 350,000 aircraft movements per year.
Its projected 1992 traffic is about 494,000 aircraft movements per year, or a 41 percent increase.
Using the above growth rates, the estimated air traffic for the Houston International and Hobby Airports at the end of the 40 year ACNGS plant life are approximately 1,200,000 and 1,000,000 aircraft movements per year. The tRC Staff criterion (Standard Review Plan i 3.5.1.6) with respect to airports beyond ten miles from a site is that if the projected operations 2
are more than 1000 d aircraft movements per year, where d is the distance
$n miles) to the airport, then a detailed probabilistic risk assessment
should be made in order to determine if design basis protection is required against aircraf t inpact. At or below this level of air traffic, the risks due to aircraft crashes are considered to be sufficiently small, such that design basis protection is not required. With respect to the Houston 2
International and Hobby Airports, the 1000 d criterion amounts to about 2,000,000 aircraft movements per year.
Since the projected air traffic for both airports is less than that, the proposed ACNGS site neets the NRC Staff criteria with respect to aircraft hazards from airports. Hence, design basis considerations, such as increased containment wall thickness for ac-commodating large aircraft inpacts, are not required.
Q.
Has the NRC Staff, in its review of nearby airports, taken into l
account proposed new airports which may be built in the vicinity of thr.
proposed ACNGS site?
A.
Yes.
In 1978 the NRC Staff reviewed the status of two proposed airports between the proposed ACNGS site and Houston.
Specifically, the proposed airports reviewed were near Katy, Texas, and Rosenberg, Texas.
It
- l was determined that these airports were to be limited to servicing general aviation.
Based on the proposed use and the distances involved (about 18 miles for Katy and 20 miles for Rosenberg, from Allens Creek), it was con-cluded that the proposed airports would not have a significant effect on 1.
I the safety of the ACNGS.
Q.
Has the NRC Staff considered aircraft hazards with respect to any federal air routes which may be present in the vicinity of the proposed ACNGS site?
'i 1
=
A.
Yes.
Past Staff review experience indicates that if a site is tra-
~
versed by only a few (two or three) federal airways, the risk of an onsite large aircraf t crash is small and well within ^.he acceptance criteria of Standard Review Plan 3.5.1.6.
Inflight traffic near the proposed ACNGS site is limited to only two airways--Vl98 and T138.
Q.
What are your conclusions with respect to risks of large aircraft crashes onto the proposed ALNGS?
A.
Our review of the air activity in the vicinity of the proposed ACNGS site indicates that the present and projected air traffic and airport operations meet the NRC acceptance criteria in Standard Review Plan i 3.5.1.6
~
and that design basis protection against large af rcraft impacts is not required.
2 A
f 6
9
KAZIMIERAS M. CAMPE PROFESSIONAL OUALIFICATIONS ACCIDENT ANALYSIS BRANCH DIVISION OF SITE SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENAc ANI. LYSIS I am a nenber of the Siting Analysis Branch of tne Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commissior.
My duties include the identification and evaluation of. hazards to the safe operation of nuclear power plants due to accidents external to those plants. This includes the revied of design basis accidents leading to hazards such as fires, explosions, missile inpacts, and coxic gases.
In addition, ny duties include the perfornance of probabilistic risk assessnents with respect to various frons of transportation, including pipelines.
Prior to being assigned to the Siting Analysis Branch, I was a nenber of
.the Accident Evaluation Branch as a Nuclear Engineer.
I graduated from the University of Connecticut where I received S.S. and M.S. degrees in Mechanical Engineering in 1958 and 1950, respectively. Between 1950 and 1962 I completed sone advanced mathenatics courses at the Rensselaer Polytechnical Institute branch in East Hartford, Connecticut. During this period I was employed by Pratt and *Wnitney at the CANEL Analytical Physics Group as an analytical engineer.
From 1952 to 1956 I attended Furdue University, where I received a Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering.
Fron 1966 to 1972 I was employed by Hittnan Associates, Inc. where I worked in the Radioisotope Department.
During this period ny responsibilities included radiation shielding analyses., radioisotopic generator design,
~
and conputer code development for reactor core physics calculations.
Since 1972 I have been enployed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the Accident Analysis Branch.
g,
-