ML20041G395
| ML20041G395 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1982 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Fiedler P JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| TASK-02-02.C, TASK-2-2.C, TASK-RR LSO5-82-03-073, LSO5-82-3-73, NUDOCS 8203220200 | |
| Download: ML20041G395 (6) | |
Text
.<
~
fg 3
March 16,1982 Docket No. 50-219 LS05-82 073 d
RECEnt50 Mr. P. D. Fiedler i
NSR2 S1994 $
'8 Vice President and Director - Oyster Creek Oyster Creek Huclear Generating Station f
Post Office Box 388 9
Forked River, IMw Jersey 08731
/
4 w
Dear Mr. Fiedler:
SUBJECT:
SEP TOPIC.II-2.C. ATMOSPHERIC TRANSPORT AND DIFFUSION CHARACTERISTICS FOR ACCIDENT ANALYSIS - OYSTER CREEK Enclosed is the staff's final evaluation of SEP Topic II-2.C for Oyster Creek. This evaluation is based on the safety analysis pmvided in your letter dated November 4,1981. The staff has concluded that the values provided in your safety analysis are appropriate with the exception of the shorter time periods for elevated releases.
Since the Oyster Creek site is a coastal, location where prolonged periods of fumigation are possible, this conditici must be taken into account.
Therefore, the staff has calculated hmigation values for an elevated release during the short time periods.
These values are presented in our safety evaluation. The remaining values are those provided in your November 4,1981 evaluation. Therefore, the values provided in the enclosed evaluation are to be used for all accident radiological con-j sequence calculations.
This evaluation will be a basic input to the integrated safety assess-ment for your facility unless you identify changes needed to reflect the as-built conditions at your facility. This assessment may be l
revised in the futare if your facility design is changed or if HRC criteria relating to this subject are modified before the integrated assessment is completed, kh l
Sincerely, se w a#)
Dennis H. Crutchfield, Chief 8203220200 820316 Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 PDR ADOCK 05000219 Division of Licensing P
PDR s
Enclosure:
As stated f2
'\\
er whari nem o-
% nort nan, SEPB:DL'.t r.....OR'B#5:Pt ~
SE. B.iD.L' 4
- BC A
- DL c
omce >
w..
suame >..G
, lina,Ld k,, WR,u s sell,,,,,l,,,,J Lg,m,b a.
. Q,b.,r..,u,t,c h,fielc
,,,,G L,,,},n,a s,,,,,,,
3!.U.L.62..... 3L.1fL.62..........3L19.LB2..
1 4rkl M....
. 31.{b'.62......
omy 5 NRC FORM M 00@pmCM Cao OFFiClAL RECORD COPY
(
usom mi-mm
Oyster Creek Docket No. 50-219' Rev. 2/8/82 e.
1 Mr. P. B. Fiedler
.4 CC G. F. Trowbridge, Esquire Resident Inspector Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge clo U. S. NRC Post Office Box 445 1800 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 J. B. Liebeman, Esquire Commissioner Berlack, Israels & Liebeman New Jersey Dep'artment 'of Energy 101 Commerce Street 26 Broadway New York, New York 10004 Newark, New Jersey 07102 Natural Resources Defense Council Ronald C. Haynes, Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I 917 15th Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20006 Office of Inspection and Enforcement 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 J. Knubel BWR Licensing Manager GGPU Nuclear 100 Interplace Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey 07054
.o Deputy Attorney General State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety.
36 West State Street - CN 112 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Ms. Phyllis Haefner 101 Washington Street 1
Toms River, New Jersey 08753 Mayor Lacey Township I
818 Lacey Road Forked River, New Jersey 08731 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II Office ATTN: Regional Radiation Representative 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 i
Licensing Supervisor i
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station l
Post Office Box 388 l
Forked River, New Jersey 08731
SEP TOPIC II-2.C ATMOSPHERIC TRAN5 PORT AND DIFFUSION CHARACTERISTICS FOR ACCIDENI ANALYh15
' OYSTER CREEK I.
INTRODUCTION The safety objective of this review is to determine the appropriate on-site and near-site atmospheric transport and diffusion characteristics necessary to establish conformance with the 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines.
In particular, the short-term relative ground-level air concentrations (x/Q) are determined for use in estimating offsite, exposures resulting from postulated accidents.
II.
REVIEW CRITERIA Section 100.10 o' 10 CFR Part 100, " Reactor Site Criteria," states that f
meteorological conditions at the site and surrounding area'should be considered in determining the acceptability of'a site for a power reactor.
III.
RELATE 9 SAFETY TOPICS Topic II-1.A, " Exclusion Area Authority and Control" provides the proper exclusion boundary distance over which the licensee has control. Various section XV topics utilize the atmosphere dispersion coefficients to deter-mine the offsite radiological consequences of postulated accidents.
IV.
REVIEW GUIDELINES The atmospheric dispersion factors were calculated using the direction dependent method described in Regulatory Guide 1.145, " Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants." This model incorporates.the results of recent atmospheric tracer tests, and considers the directionally dependent j
atmospheric dispersion conditions.
l Specifically, the modified dispersion medel considers the following
[
effects:
(1) Lateral plume meander, as a function of atmospheric stability, wind speed, and distance from the source, during periods of low wind speeds (<6 meters /sec) and neutral 'and stable atmospheric i
conditions; (2) Exclusion area boundary distance as a function of direction from the plant; (3) Atmospheric dispersion conditions when the wind is blowing l in'a specific direction; and o
,. (4) The fraction of time that the wind can be expected to blow into each of the 16 compass directions.
V.
EVALUATION By letter dated November 4,1981, General Public Utilities (GPU) submitted an evaluation of the relative concentration (X/Q) resulting from ground level and stack releases.
The evaluations were done for the exclusion area boundary (EAB) and low population zone (LPZ) distances.
These evaluations were reviewed by the staff and compared with an independent evaluation done for the site.
Both the GPU and staff analyses for ground level release conditions utilized wind speed and direction measured at the 10 meter level and temperature difference. measured between 10 and 116 meter levels which were measured on-site during the period July 1976 through June 1977.
The computational techniques described in Regulatory Guide 1.145 were utilized by GPU and the staff to calculate ground level relative concentrations (X/Q) at the circular 414 meter EAB and the 1208 meter LPZ, respectively.
The directionally dependent atmospheric dispersion model described in Regulatory Guide 1.145, with considera-tion of increased lateral dispersion during stable conditions accompanied by low wind speeds, was used.
A ground release was assumed with a building wake factor, CA, of 400 m2 (the smallest frontal area of the turbine building).
For the two hour time period X/Q analysis, GPU used the window method to determine the X/Q at the EAB and LPZ distances.
The staff cal-culated a distribution of X/Q using an annual joint frequency distribution for each direction and selecting the directional 0.5 percent value which represents the X/Q values used at EAB and LPZ distances.
For the longer time periods i.e., 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />,10 hours, 3 days and 26 days, GPU utilized this same window technique for appropriate time period X/Q values calculated at the LPZ.
The staff utilized logarithmic interpolation between'the 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and annual average X/Q values for the direction of interest as described in Regulatory Guide 1.145 to determine the 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />,16 hour, 3 day and 26 day time period X/Q values.
The X/Q values calculated by GPU are generally more conservative than those calculated by the staff; therefore, the following GPU values are adequately conservative and may be utilized in performing the analyses of the consequences of design basis ground release accidents for the Oyster Creek facilty.
Table 1 3
Oyster Creek X/Q (sec/m ) Ground Level Values Time X/Q (GPU) 0-2 hours EAB 414 m 7.7 x 10-4 0-8 hours LPZ 1208 m 9.6 x 10-5
-5 1-4 days LPZ 2.1 x 10
-5 4-30 days LPZ 1.0 x 10 For elevated reieases, GPU performed similar window analyses to those performed for ground releases.
The data utilized in these analyses was on-site wind speed and direction measured at the 116 meter ele-vation and temperature difference between 10 and 116 meters.
'A stack height of 112 meters with no plume rise was assumed.
No fumigation was assumed.
The peak X/Q value calculated in the window calculation was assumed to occur at the EAB or LPZ regardless of the actual distance at which this peak X/Q value was calculated to occur.
In the opinion of the staff these assumptions for non-fumigation situations are conservative.
However, since the Oyster Creek site is a coastal site where prolonged periods of fumigation are possible this condition must be taken into account.
The fumiga-tion X/Q values for a 112 meter stack release height at the EAB and LPZ distances were calculated with the assumption of F stability and a 2 m/sec wind speed as indicated in Regulatory Guide 1.145.
Tabulated in Table 2 are the staff's fumigation X/Q values at the EAB and LPZ distances and the GPU non-fumigation directionally dependent X/Q values at-the EAB and LPZ distances for the time periods indicated.
. Table 2 Oyster Creek Elevated Release 3
Fumigation X/Q (sec/m )
-4 l
0-2 hours EAB 1,1 x 10
-5 0-4 hours LPZ 4.2 x 10 l
Non-Fumiga tion 3
4-8 hours LPZ 9.1 x 10-7 8-24 hours LPZ 2.5 x 10-7
~'
1-4 days LPZ l.7 x 10-7 4-30 days LPZ 2.5 x 10-8 i
Since the Oyster Creek site is a coastal location, for elevated releases the fumigation X/Q values should be used for the 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> dilution value.
at.the EAB, and the fumigation X/Q values calculated for the LPZ should be assumed to persist for 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />.
Non-fumigation GPU X/Q values should be used all the other time periods beyond the first 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> period.
\\
VI.
CONCLUSION The staff concludes that the X/Q values presented in Section V are appro-priate for estimating exposures from postulated accidents and should be used in all accident calculations.
This completes the evaluation of this SEP topic.
Since this evaluation conforms to current licensing practice, no additional SEP review is required.
O l
B l
4
__