ML20049J424
| ML20049J424 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 11/23/1981 |
| From: | Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Backus R BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20049J425 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-448 NUDOCS 8203180173 | |
| Download: ML20049J424 (1) | |
Text
(bll-DI&
sn mic.o
/
UNITED STATES '
E '".- ft i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
/
E WASHING T ON, D. C. 20555 g
6,*.' G<
November 23, 1981
_ 'g D,
f'; g/[i A
('
Op, (
.g e
,'O 7
2
~1 G-SA
?
A('[/'
Robert A. Backus, Esquire 116 Lowell Street r;
~ 'cc -
P.O. Box 516 IN RESPONSE REFER Manchester, NH 03105 TO F01A-81-448
Dear Mr. Backus:
This is in response to your letter dated October 30, 1981 in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, a copy of the procedures used in the Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences I
(CRAC).
The CRAC is performed by applying the Reactor Safety Study Consequence Model (COMO) to the specific plant being considered.
Data for the Seabrook calculations has been requested from the applicant but it has not yet been provided. A description of the model to which the Seabrook data will be applied is enclosed.
The description includes an example of a report that has been prepared based upon actual calculations.
This completes action on your request.
Sincerely,
,f',
y
~,
/
' f4 I
./
f,/ J/. Felton, Director
/
Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
Enclosure:
As stated l
l l
8203180173 811123 PDR FOIA BACKUS81-448 PDR
t
>., ~/
/
.UC L E Ali ii SU A !".... ;CCiG 3.,,.g,,,,
.w.nir.<,i or, a. ::,
t, SEP 3 01981 Docket Nos.:
50-443 and 50-444 Mr.
William C. Tallman Chairman and Chief Executive Of ficer Public Service Company of New Hampshire 100 Elm Street dancnester, New Hampshire 03105
Dear Mr. Tallman:
Subject:
Acceptance Review of Application for Operating Licenses for Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 On July 21, 1981, you tendered your application for operating licenses for Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2.
Your application included General and Financial Information, an Environmental Report - Operating License Stage (ER-OL), and a Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
(The latter two documents preceded the basic application, having been forwarded on June 29, 1981.)
We have completed our review of the General and Financial Information, ER-OL, and FSAR and have concluded that the information filed taken as a whole is sufficiently complete for docketing your application and for initiation of the safety and environmental reviews.
Substantive deficiencies may exist in some sections that need to be corrected during the review.
Your filing of the application should include three (3) originals signed under oath or af firmation by a duly authorized of ficer of your organization.
In addition, your filing should include fif teen (15) copies of the General and Financial Information, forty-one (41) copies of the ER-OL, and forth (40) copies of the FSAR.
As required by section 50.30 and section 50.21, 10 CFR Parts j
50 and 51 respectively, you should retain an additional ten (10) copies of the General and Financial Information, one hundred nine (109) copies of the ER-OL, and thirty (30) copies of the FSAR for direct distribution in accordance with Enclosure 1 of tnis letter and further instructions wnich may be provided later. Within 10 days af ter filing, you must provide an affidavit that distri-bution has been made in accordance with this enclosure. All subsequent amend-ments to the ER-OL and FSAR will require forty-one (41) and sixty (60) copies respectively, for distribution.
On October 28, 1980, the Commission approved a " Clarification of Till Action Plan Requirements," now contained in NUREG-0737, wnich supercedes previous NUREGs on the subject.
It is noted that the Seabrook FSAR addresses the requirements contained in NUREG-0737.
b.OlioW 3
a JB f
,.o SEP 3 0 1331 Your application indicated that your earliest projected fuel load date is Novenber 1933.
On this basis, the key milestones in the FSAR and ER-OL review have been established as follows:
Issuance of Safety Evalution Report (SER)
- September 1982 Issuance of the Supplement to the Safety Evaluation Report (SSER)
- October 1982 Issuance of Oraft Enviromental Statenent (DES)
- May 1982 Issuance of Finai Environnental Stateaent (FES )
- October 1932 We request that you keep us infomed of any significant changes to your construc-tion schedule for proper project and scheduling actions. We shall follow a revised review procedure whereby only a single set of questions will be trans-mitted to you for resoonses.
After your responses have been reviewed, a draf t SER will be preoared and will be the subject of a series of meetings designed to close out open items.
During the course of our preliminary review of your FSAR and ER-OL, the en-closed " Request for Additional Infomation' (Enclosures 2 and 3 respectively) wer'e generated.
In addition to Enclosures 2 and 3, other additional infonna-tion is needed to expedite our review. contains this request for additional infornation.
In most cases, PuDlic Services Company of New Hanoshire was previously infor.ned of this additional information in the form of generic letters, requests for additional infornation and/or ISE Bulletins.
As part of our review of the application against the Comission's regulations we re-quest that you verify Seabrook meets the applicable requirements in 10 CFR 20, 50 and 100.
Your responses to these requests should be completed as soon as po ssibl e.
Your letter of transmittal for docketing of the application should include a comitment by Public Service Conpany of New Hampshire to provide the requested information within sixty days.
If the responses are not received within this period of time it may become necessary to revise the review schedule.
If, during the review, you believe there is a need to appeal a staff position, your appeal should be brought to my attention as early as possible so that the l
appropriate meetings can be arranged. This procedure is an infonnal one designed to allow the opportunity for applicants to discuss with nanagenent areas of disagreement in the case review.
Briefly, each side of the issue in question is to develop the position it intends to take and forward the position l
statement to the Division of Licensing. From these positions, an agenda will be developed containing appropriate discussion itens and will be distributed prior to any meeting.
There are provisions for two stages of actual appeals mee ti ngs.
The first stage involves NRR managenent at the Assistant Director Lev el.
If the matter is not resolved at the Assistant Director level, the second stage meeting is held with the appropriate Division Directors in attendance.
Your representatives should be of comparable management level to those expected
- g., 0 1981 to attend from NRC.
If a satisfactory solution has not been developed by the end of the second stage meeting, an appeal to the Director of NRR may be submi tted. As with other applicant / staff meetings, a summary report will be prepared and distributed per the current service list, including forwarding a copy to the Public Document Room.
The Project Manager assigned to the review of your application is Mr. Louis L. Wheeler. Mr. Wheeler's telephone number is (301 J 492-7792.
Sincerely.
i s-kre G.' E e'nh f, e
Division of Licensing Office of !!uclear Reactor Regulation cc:
See next page.
a
e t.
g
/
451.01 a) To expedite the meteorological review, provide hour-by-hour (2.3) meteorological data from the onsite meteorological measurements (ER) program for the period April 1979 - March 1980 using the enclosed guidance on tape attributes, b) One com;:lete year (i.e., r.o cissing hourly data) of data is uset by the staff in the calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences (CRAC) computational procedure.
Data recovery for the one-year period April 1979 - March 1980 was less than 100%, indicating that data need to be substituted for the staff to perform the CRAC ana Tys i s.
Provide substituted data for.all missing periods, identify the source of substituted data, and provide a brief description of the bases for selecting substituted data.
451.02 For reviews of Operating License Applications, at least two years (2.3)
(preferably three or more) of onsite meteorological data are to be (ER) submitted with the Environmental Report (see Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revision 2).
Only one year (April 1979 - March 1980) has beer, submitted with the Seabrook Environmental Recert.
Two years of data (December 1971 -
November 1972 and December 1972 - November 1973) were submittec during review of the Construction Permit Application.
However, after eac-one-year pericd of meteorological data collected at the Seabr ch Site, the measurements progra has been changed, preventing ccmoination into a multi-year period of recore.
a) Provide a comoarison of data from the most recent one-year ceriod with earlier periods, contrasting wind soeed distributions, win:
direction frequencies, ano occurrences of atmospheric stacility classes by annual cycles.
b) Provide comparisons of calculated short-term X/Q values (used in Chapter 7 of the ER) and annual average X/0 values (used in Cna::ter 5 of the ER) for each one-year period of record.
c) Provide joint frequency distributions (or hour-by-hour data on magnetic tape) of wind speed and wind direction for the 43-ft level by temperature difference between the 43-f t and 150-f t levels for period April 1950 - March 1981.
451. 03 Section 2.3.1 of the ER provides a qualitative description of air (2.3) quality in the vicinity of the site and states that these conditions l
(ER) will not " adversely affect station operation." Describe station l
sources of criteria air pollutants, including estimated emissions, and comrare these emissions to the DeMinimus criteria established l
by the Environmental Protection Agency.
If station emissions are in excess of the DeMinimus levels, provide a quantitative assessment I
of the station emissions on local air quality using current EPA l
guidelines on atmospheric dispersion modeling.
l l
3-14
-