ML20055A556

Forwards NRC Final Evaluations of SEP Topics II-1.A,II-1.B, II-1.C & III-4.D.Plant Meets Acceptance Criteria for Four Topics

ML20055A556
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	07/13/1982
From:	Caruso R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Kay J YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO.
References
TASK-02-01.A, TASK-02-01.B, TASK-02-01.C, TASK-03-04.D, TASK-2-1.A, TASK-2-1.B, TASK-2-1.C, TASK-3-4.D, TASK-RR LSO5-82-07-021, LSO5-82-7-21, NUDOCS 8207190154
Download: ML20055A556 (16)

Text

k4p/O [/

7 O

July 13, 1982 Docket No. 50-29 LS05-82-07-021 Mr. James A. Kay Senior Engineer - Licensing Yankee Atomic Electric Company 1671 Worcester Road Framingham, Massachusetts 01701

SUBJECT:

SEP TOPICS II-1.A, EXCLUSION AREA AUTHORITY AND CONTROL; II-1.B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION; II-1.C. POTENTI AL HAZARDS DUE TO HEARBY TRANSPORTATION, INSTITUTIONAL, INDUSTRIAL AND MILITARY FACILITIES; AND III-4.D. SITE PR0XIMITY MISSILES -

YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION Enclosed are the staff's final evaluations of SEP Topics II-1.A, II-1.B.

II-1.C and III-4.D for the Yankee Nuclear Power Station. These evaluations are based on the safety analyses provided by your letters of March 18, 1982, May 1,1981, April 9,1981, and June 30, 1981, respectively. These evalua-tions compare your facility as described in Docket No. 50-29 with the

~

criteria currently used for licensing new facilities.

The staff has concluded that the Yankee plant meets the acceptance criteria l

for the four topics.

These evaluations will be a basic input to the integrated safety assessment for your facility unless you identify changes needed to reflect the as-built conditions at your facility. The assessments may be revised in l

l the future if yt>ur facility design is changed or if NRC criteria relating to these subjects are modified before the integrated assessment is completed.

i Sincerely, 8207190154 y % 9 PDR ADOCK PDR P

Ralph Caruso, Project Manager 3

$d #MM ll)l Operating Reactors Branch #5 Division of Licensing l

Enclosure:

As stated g

"A*"'I5"

, AV o,

SEPB:(

,,,,,S,E,,

,,,,, ! QB, qg,@,,S,Efhp(,,,,,,p,Rhhb1, 0 A,f,;j ;,9L, _, s omc,,

su m )

..t. Goy.le.:.dn..

.-..G a........C Gdus.......HRusse.l.1..... pia ruso........

D tchfiel.d GLimas.........

.N..!.

. ! [...... -....h!.

...$.NS.. -- $5' 55-- -

d- - b - ~ l -- -

one>

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usom mi-ms-,eo unc ronu ass oom> sacu oao

Mr. James A. Kay CC Mr. James E. Tribble, President Yankee Atomic Electric Company 25 Research Drive Westborough, Massachusetts 01581 Chairman

~

Board of Selectmen Town of Rowe Rowe, Massachusetts 01367 Energy Facilitics Siting Council 14th Floor One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02.108 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region I Office ATTN:

Regional Radiation Representative JFK Federal Building Boston, Massachusetts 02203 Resident Inspector Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Station c/o U.S. NRC Post Office Box 28 Monroe Bridge,* Massachusetts 01350

~

Rcaald C. Haynes, Regional Administrator

~

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406

_w

,a.

..n.

r...

~

ENCL,0SURE SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM TOPIC II-l. A YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION TOPIC:

II-1. A. Exclusion Area Authority and Control I.

INTRODUCTI ON The safety objective of this topic is to assure that appropriate exclusion area authority and control are maintained by the licensee as required by 10 CFR Part 100.

II.

REVIEW CRITERIA Section 100.3(a) of 10 CFR Part 100 requires that a reactor licensee have the authority to determine all activities within the designated area, including the exlusion and removal of personnel and property.

III. RELATED SAFETY TOPICS Topic XIII-1, " Conduct of Operations" will assure that the licensee can adequately specify proper operation in routine, accident and emergency conditions.

The topic is being covered as part of the NRC TMI Task Action Plan.

~~

IV.

REVIEW GUIDELINES The review was conducted in accordance with the guidance given in SRP 2.1.2.

The capability of the plant to meet the dose criteria j

of 10 CFR Part 100 at the exclusion area boundary will be evaluated in the Design Basis Event phase of the SEP review.

V.

EVALUATION The Yankee Nuclear Power Station is located in a valley in the town of Rowe, Massachusetts on the east bank of the Deerfield River, three-quarter of a mile south of the Vermont-Massachusetts border. The site consists of approximately 2,000 acres straddling the Deerfield River in the towns of Rowe and Monroe, Massachusetts and is owned, in fee,,

by Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC), or an affiliate, the New England Power Company.

YAEC is a subsidiary of New England Power Company. The site is shown in Figure 1.

The exclusion area boundary is defined by a 3,100 ft. radius centered on the reactor vapor container, with the exception of a small segment in the southern sector where the minimum distance is approximately 2,700 ft.

This indentation into *.he 3,100 ft. exclusion radius is formed by an undeveloped corner of the Monroe State Forest and is situated behind an 1,800 ft. (MSL) ridge line with respect to the plant.

Plant grade is 1,127 ft. (MSL).

Figure i shows the exclusion area boundary.

,. =

+.

1^.

N All the land in the exclusion area is owned, including mineral rights, by Yankee Atomic Electric Company or New England Power Company, with

i' the exception of a small parcel situated across the river and south-c.j f west of the plant which is owned by the Ceerfield Specialty Paper All the area within the exclusion boundary is under the

!;f E

Canpany.

Written permission has been obtained from the control of YAEC.

paper mill in Monroe Bridge to have that portion of their land, which is within the 3,100 ft. radius, under Yankee control in the This piece of land is used as a disposal area event of an incident.

by the paper mill and contains no permanent buildings or residents.

The closest Two public secondary roads traverse the exclusion area.

is across the river from the plant and is approximately 1,500 ft.

,c away at its closest point. This road runs north-south along the l7 The second road, FA river between Monroe Bridge and Readsboro, Vermont.

ai which connects to the main access to the plant, is approximately LJ 2,500 ft. away at its nearest point and runs between Monroe Bridge "T

Provisions have been made in the and Rowe, south of the plant.

station's Emergency Plan to protect the public along these roadways pj

?-

should it become necessary in an emergency.

d It is across the One house is located within the exclusion area.

a pond NNW from the plant, approximately 1,500 ft. away, on the river 4

It is owned by the New England Power Canpany and occupied Provisions have been made in the station's

[j road.

by one of its employees.

Emergency Plan to evacuate this residence if necessary in the event e

of an emergency.

VI.

CONCLUSION Based on the above evaluation, we conclude that YEEC has the proper authority to determine all activities within the exclusion area, as required by 10 CFR Part 100.

D This completes the evaluation of this topic.

E i

r

//,.T. r O l.

\\D,'VF.d,pR,1[Mn~

'/n e

\\

f A : yN M

P'-l

../

%^Q f. :

s,

[

J' // l[ k<%;

N,G U,h5 f

62%uy..:

' f':'I']^.

V

~

}.

I s

a Sf' 1

\\

I

,ff

)

q Q

y

./

m c-,

' F, '.,'" !

~ ;,

q

"" /,

"Cu vERMour

,,,iv yh= -p{, t 9(?'.

f./

W ' -

..I

,y

~

M ASS ACHUSE n\\sf MQ

" nf.,;. f"'

~- s,}..

d

&f h

' k 'T

. [, \\

g,

... (

,..{

^

s' ast c boune.ry

?'Y%

s g

,.-'., 3 b (,..) h 4.f, y A'?t., . #. y' /,g:lf /- ,i, 4/ r=-C Q.g x; x/ ~c

. ~.

j ~ ,l,,Qil p ~, \\ 'f.'***~~~ $) ';( I q- ',$ / '/ 5,H,, ,,Js .[ ' Exclusionares$.g';f,(

b,'. O'gt Lg z....

1 t-

ig 3

' ~- i M . ' )1 1,l',.' / f t boundar -,, s-:n-l. w: ~ ,o.s,. ,a . ' %.,. " ',\\( L_. 'j'A f'%, 3 Y i. .f f, ll'

O

~ . j,. /,l g'I.','), ;,,,1;.l) ( 0(/ 7 g ~ t ' uy. .v s ) ' mn recsr I &c \\ r.. g g i j,, l ), / j ( ; / .'l 1 'l i; - [' ' i' 4 I Y,j ~ ( i - j s it '[ .. x.g'Q. Flif, ui: t lI. i,,i B

b. \\ g.

iL.: 3- /. ,'3 : Q l l l 3. ;.i

p n,.= r

/ f; i / ],.;,' 0 ) n.) f 's,. y }v} g.g ; Q Q. ~

/ li

a..

4 ,a 1, % gral; e r:n. ' }'f.3l o.- [: at ? f '\\

y. a 1

h3 u O h \\ e...,:~ 's , % ~\\ ?..oa reiroa h i/, '\\f *,..., \\ _' ' Y. } ' ' ; .) ,,\\.. \\ r e ( al \\ ~h j i {j . o.,. ( %. A / -- p ? iam e un

oce n.

exo vno ao ro@ sta j 2- _,_ m,J._ m._ _. t =n .. e *%f ' ~ ) _j_ _= -.~ i.,t e,.cc. .,n_ .~ n-- e e l\\*. 3 a an >-n=n=n u.a==~ [;?- 5., 4 '/ Yankee Nuclear Power Station Site Area

.. a. m a -~ SYSTEMATIi' EVALUATION PROGPM ~ __h TOPIC II-1.B N d YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION-

1 TOPIC:

II-1.B. Population Distribution N

e.,

M i. INTRODUCTION r The safety objective of this topic is to ensure that the previously-established low population zone and population center distance specified for the site are compatible with the current popJiation distribution, p. and are in accordance with the guidelines of 10 CFR Part 100. hp s II. REVIEW CRITERI A p ~~ s k Sections 100.10 and 100.11 of 10 CFR P'artM00,(ld be considered when " Reactor Site Criteria" x provides the site evaluation factors which shou p evaluating sites for nuclear power reacters. These sections include guidelines for detemining the exclusion area,,, low population zone and-population center distance. ,3 ~- g 2 .N ~ d ~ III. RELATED SAFETY TOPICS i Topic II-1.A reviews th'e licensee's control over the exclusion area. / Various other topics will evaluate the capability of the plant to [ meet the dose criteria of 10 CFR Part 100 at the exclusion area .d boundary and low population zone.- The adequacy of emergency prepared-p ness planning for the area surrounding the. plant including the low population zone is being asiessed by the Comission-in a separate review effort. IV. REVIEW GUIDELINES The review has been conducted in accordance with Standard Review Plan (SRP) Section 2.1.3, " Population Distribution". V. EVALUATION The population distribution in the vicinity of Yankee has betv reviewed several times since the construction permit was issued. The safety objective of these reviews is to assure that the low popuRtion zone (LPZ) and population center distance specified for Yankee continue to be compatible with the current population distribution, and are in conformance with the guidance of 10 CFR Part 100. c s ( \\ 3 i g N -- _ _-

• -w=N

l The low population zone for Yankee has been defined This extending 2 miles upstream and 6 miles downstream from the plant. area was originally selected based on the terrain and meteorology at The total 1980 population within the low population zone is 3 estimated to be approximately 260 perscns, and has remained essent [ the site. unchanged over the last decade. f The nearest population center, as defined in 10 CFR Part 100, has The city of remained unchanged over the operating life of the plant. Pittsfield, Massachusetts, with a 1980 popuistion of 51,942 and locate 21 miles southwest of the site remains the nearest oopulation center. The population center distance of 21 miles is greater tFan one and one-third times the LPZ distance as required by 10 CFR Part 1 j j cities and large towns within 50 miles, and shows growth has only Table 1 presents the i.J,1 been minor in nature or negative over recent history. 1 e7 The rural nature of the towns in the immediate vicinity of the site A:( Table has remained basically unchanged over the Mst two d p.y!j The current for those towns totally or partially 5 miles of the site.

td population density for the 5-mile radius is approximately 26 persons.d There has been no significant additions of either new housing or commercial, military or institutional i pl*

per square mile. ild .AM r evi ew. d Within a 50-mile radius of the site, the total population has increase

9 This 1,397,666 in 1970 to 1,444,489 in.1980.

,] l represents a growth of only 3.4 percent over this ten-year interva from an estimate of TN and reflects the stable nature of the population distribution in the T Table 3 shows both the 1970 and 1980 population distributions F Current estim4tes of the population [l region. within 50 miles by radial rings. by sector out to 50 miles are contained in the Yanke yO tf April 1,1981. I d CONCLUSIONS VI. _The LPZ and population center distance are in conformance with theTh [ O criteria of 10 CFR 100 and SRP Section 2.1.3. Plant meets ll's is complete. 0 4 4 m _.

_ _ ~. TABLE I ~ ES POPULATION OF MAJOR' COMMUNITI j 5 WITHIN 50 MILES OF YANKEE. Population Distance and 1960(*) 1970(a) 1980(b) Direction from Site l' V ~ Ce=munity -~'); 26,281 P 21,717 33,210 4; (Massachusetts) 15,718 26,331 55,048 46 miles SSE 13,718 66,676 44,819 30 miles SE 61,553 50,112 29',128 Agavam 40 miles SSs 52,689 29,664 51,942 Amherst 35 miles SSE 30,058 Holyoke 28 miles SSE 57,87 9 57,020 152,212 Chicopee Northampton 21 miles SW 163,905 163,9C5 36,356 31,433 26,960 Pittsfield 48 miles SSE 26,302 28,461 Springfield 38 miles 5 24,924 Westfield 42 kiles SSE West Springfield l 21,385 1 20,467 (New Hm=pshire) 17,562 32 miles ENE g Keene 115,781 ~ 101,770 f 129,726 23,427 74,534 4 24,301 (New York) 45 miles W 18,936 69,147 56,614 l} .' j 44 miles W 52,760 62,918 Albany 3ethlehe: 44 miles W 67,492 . -g

y Colonie 38 miles W Troy W

7 'I i ; l] Characteristics of the Populat o k 1970 Census of Population:of the Census, U.S. Departm Preliminary Reports; Bureau Q ? (a) l Bureau of Population and Housing:f Co==erce, 1980. 1 1980 Censusof Census, U.S. Depart =ent o ci (b) .I 1 M <t4 o - - __ _ _ _ _._a.

-~ TABLE 2 .c L POPULATION OF TOWNS _ y tJITHIN 5 MILES OF YANKEE _ Population i ~ 1960(a) 197o(a) 1980 @ u Town I 't_.' l (Massachusetts) 231 277 325 Rowe 210 216 173 Monroe 569 672 731 Florida 897 897 1,141 Charlemont 304 383 482 Heath 4 4 (Vermont) 783 638 638 'j Readsboro 838 1,011 1,043

• h v

-M Whitingham .5 ^ 4 ti ' ' dj

)

.s Characteristics of the 1970 Census of Population:

c..

Population; Bureau"of the Census, U.S. Department (a) 3 of Commerce, Vol. 1, 1973 ~, Preliminary 1980 Census of Population and Housing: Reports; Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of (b) A Commerce, 1980. .1'i t i 4 i ~.j 7j ,;.] r ] .l .A b -1 1

• P#F$-

g jw e ._,_,,m s e,L_ ,l

T ~_ ? 4 t TABLE 3_ POPULATION DISTRIBUTION _ WITHIN 50 MILES OF YANKEE s, s.'.: - ~Q p.,. 7j Cumulative Population u Ring 1970(*) 1980(b) w:s (Milesl 116 98 0-1 295 229 0-2 1 744 .i 558 0-3 [ ?";[j 1,070 1,445 t :J 0-4

c. jg 1,618 2,058 t"W 0-5 tr: j 17,654 24,431 G

0 - 10 , ;j 100,485 122,689 n 0 - 20 f;q 260,899 287,663 1.t l 0 - 30 i 606,734 655,622 s 0 40 fj 1,397,666 1,444,489 ^ 0 - 50 .l r s ?. '? :

j, f ;r-.

I 9:-) tg yj p th, Characteris-i 1970 Census of Population: tics of the Population; Bureau of the 'Ij (a) Census, U.S. Department of Cocunerce, l vol. 1, 1973 Ji 1980 Census of Population and Housing: Preliminary Reports; Bureau of Census, f) (b) U.S. Department of Cocunerce,1980. d, k

L d

I y h[*t%'

• -'O

• M%

~ ~ SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM TOPIC Il-1.C 1 YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION TOPI C: II-l.C Potential Hazards Due to Nearby Transportation Institutional Industrial and Military Facilities 4 h I. INTRODUCTION The safety objective of this topic is to ensure that the integrity of the safety-related structures, systems and components would not be jeopardized due to the potential for hazards originating at hearby facilities. II. REVIEW CRITERIA l General Design Cr_iterion 4, " Environmental and Missile Design Basis," { of Appendix A. " General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," to 10 CFR Part 50, " Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," requires that nuclear power plant structures, systems and components important to safety be appropriately protected against events and + conditions that may occur outside the nuclear power plant. III. RELATED SAFETY TOPICS 4 Topic III-4.D, " Site Proximity Missiles" reviews the extent to which the facility is protected against missiles originating from offsite j facilities. - i 1 IV. REVIEW GUIDELINES { The review was conducted in accordance with the guidance given in t Standard Review Plan (SRP) Section 2.2.1-2.2.2, " Identification of Potential Hazards in Site Vicinity." V. EVALUATION Industrial activity in the' vicinity of the Yankee station is minimal. The 4 ~ only manufacturing or' storage facility within five miles is'th'e Decrfield ~ ~ Paper Company. They do not store or use any hazardous chemicals that could result in toxic fumes upon release into the atmosphere. The closest industrial gas supplier is H.A. George, located approximately 10 miles southwest of Yankee. They have two large LPG storage tanks having maximum capacities of 12,000 and 20,000 gallons and three LPG _ delivery trucks having maximum capacities of 1,200, 2,400 and 2,600 j gallons. The maximum quantity of fuel oil is 75,000 gallons located in above ground storage tanks. The separation distance between the l H. A. George gas storage location and the nuclear plant is considered adequate to preclude accidents affecting the safe operation of Yankee. ~~.n,-. ._n -s, _unn.-_m. .m

._ u _ f .~ O e F No mining or quarry operations have been identified as being within 10 miles of the station. For this reason possible truck-size ship-p F ments of explosives on nearby roadways were not considered as potential l; hazards to safe plant operation. P The closest military facility is Westover Air Force Base located I$ outside of Springfield, appr7ximately 50 miles southeast of Yankee. he A discussion of tho effects of an on-site aircraft impact can be fcund in SEP Topic Section III-4.0, " Site Proximitj Missiles." p Hazurdoes chemicals have been identified as being shipped on an east-west rail line of the 90ston and Maine Railroad, located at its closest b The point approximately four miles from the south side of the site. evaluation of possible control room infiltration of toxic fumes from potentially hazardous chemicals was done according to methodology in h Reference (1) and criteria established in Reference (2). - [s5 An analysis was done for all shirnents defined by Reference (2) as being frequent, i.e., 30 per yea. for rail traffic, and was based on $j the maximum concentration accident, in which the quantity of the ,5 hazardous chemical considered was the instantaneous release of the 5 total contents of the largest tank car. This is the worst case y compared with partial ruptures in which the contents leak out in a h The concentration buildup on the control continuous steady flow. h room was the sum of the concentration due to the immediate, highly concentrated puff for low boiling point chemicals and the continual y! vaporization of any remaininc fluid. Y il Results indicate that hazardous chemical shipments via the rail line ] do not present a significant threat to the safe operation of Yankee. 1 The only majcr highway by Yankee is Route 2, an east-west road located There is not data j at its closest point six miles from the station. i presently available that indicates frequencies, quantities and types ) of hazardous material that are shipped via tank trucks using this i To determine the possible consequence of a truck accident roadway. involving hazardous material, an analysis was done assuming a sixteen Chlorine was used because of its ton chlorine tank truck rupture. high toxicity when compared to other chemicals and its production (6th among all chemicals in 1972 ) exceeds other highly toxic, volatile 3 chemicals such as hydrogen cyanide and phosgene by nearly two orders" Results indicate that a chemical truck accident on of magnitude. the highway would not affect the safe operation of the plant. There are presently no pipelines, gas or oil production fields, under-ground storage facilities, refineries or major waterways in the town of Rowe or in the surrounding area towns. VI. CONCLUSIONS We have concluded that Yankee is adequately protected and can be operated with an acceptable degree of safety with regard to industrial, transportation and military activities in the vicinity of the plant. a

.. ~ 4 ,3, y t: c. This completes the evaluation of this topic. .'); e y, y References _ @.M NUREG-0370, " Toxic Vapor Concentrations in the Cor. trol Room PMl Following a Postulated Accidental Release," June 1979. i.;.. 1, a ! ~- Regulatory Guide 1.78, " Assumptions for Evaluating 2. Chemical Release," June 1974. "The Risk of Catastrophic Spills of Toxic Chemicals," UCLA-ENG-7425, ~, J. A. Simmons, R.C. Erdmann, B.N. Naft, May 1974. 3. t' V p, ).db - {V ' L 9 a- ? 'J t. i ~ I., Nr. o c 9 i 4 4' 4

SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM ~ TOPIC III-4.D YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION TOPIC: III-4.0, Site Proximity Missiles (Including Aircraft) I. INTRODUCTION The safety objective of this topic is to ensure that the integrity of the safety-related structures, systems and components would not be jeopardized due to the potential for a site proximity missile. II. REVIEW CRITERIA General Design Criterion 4, " Environmental and Missile Design Basis," of Appendix A. " General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," to 10 CFR Part 50, " Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," requires that nuclear power plant structures, systems and components important to safety be appropriately protected against events and conditions that may occur outside the nuclear power plant. III. RELATED SAFETY TOPICSS Topic II-1.C, " Potential Hazards or Changes in Potential Hazards Due to Transportation, Institutional, Industrial and Military Facilities" provides a description of the potential missile hazards. IV. REVIEW GUIDELINES f The review was conducted in accordance with the guidance given in Standard Review Plan (SRP) Section 2.2.3, " Evaluation of Potential Accidents," 3.5.1.5, " Site Proximity Missiles (except Aircraft)," and 3. 5.1.6, "Aircra ft Hazards." V. EVALUATION The scope of possible hazardous activities on the vicinity of the Yankee plant has been discussed in SEP Topic II-l.C, " Potential Hazar,ds Due to Nearby Industrial, Transportation, Institutional and Military Facilities." As indicated, there is minimal industrial activity in the plant vicinity. The separation distance and valley terrain between the plant and any industrial facilities, highways, railroads, gas pipelines, or military facilities is such that the risk associated with potential missiles from these concerns are well within the SRP 2.2.3 guidelines. m--

~ - L d .2 In addition to the review of fixed facilities and ground transporta- ? tion routes in the site area, the potential of aircraft accident generated missiles has also been evaluated in detail. The methodology 5 employed in this analysis is the same as that outlined in SRP 3.5.1.6. ,p N There are four airports within thirty miles of Yankee: (1 ) Harriman-O and West (North Adams), (2) Bennington State, (3) Pittsfield, and k~ (4) Turners Falls. Each can be described in general as being small airports typically handling light, single-engine, private aircraft. Table i summarizes each airport's annual operations. As shown, none of the airports are within ten miles of Yankee, and all of the airport reported annual operations are well within the 1,000 times distance squared criteria of SRP 3.5.1.6 which, if exceeded, would indicate the possible need for further analysis of aircraft from these airports ,3 effecting plant operations. N Table 1 R M Distance (d) Annual Number if Statute Miles 1000 x d of Operations li 2 North Adams 12.0 144000 32500 G Bennington 19.0 361000 10950 (a) o i Pittsfield 28.0 784000 50000 Turners Falls 22.0 484000 ~ 34873 (a) Annual operation information obtained directly from Bennington Airport Manager, April 1,1981. In addition to the above noted airports, there are two federal airways, V2-14 V2-14 and J16-94, which could bring aircraft near the plant site. is used by aircraft below 18,000 feet, whereas J16-94 is used by aircraft Both airways have a total width at altitudes of 18,000 feet and above. of 8 nautical miles (9.2 statute miles); i.e., 4 nautical miles each-side of centerline. Yankee is located approximately 2.5 nautical miles north of the V2-16 centerline, and 5 nautical miles north of the J16-94 centerline. In estimating the annual number.of aircraft that may pass near the site due to these airways, a count was made of the IFR traffic on, both these airways for the " peak traffic day" of 1980 ( August 22). Federal Aviation Administration radar records associated with these corridors indicate a total of 155 aircraf t could have flown Based upon the peak day near the plant site during the peak day. traffic, an annual estimate of 56,575 aircraft passing near the site was calculated. Employing the analytical model given in SRP 3.5.1.6,

. -~ it is calculated on a conservative basis that the overall probability of an aircraft associated with these air corridors striking the plant is approximately 1.4 x 10-7 per year. This is an acceptable level of risk in accordance with the acceptance criteria of SRP 2.2.3. In calculating the risk probability, an effective plant area of 0.0075 square miles was used. This was determined by assuming an aircraft crash angle of 30 degrees relative to the principal plant structures, including non-safety related buildings attached to the plant. Since Yankee is located in a valley, the crash angle was based on the kinds of aircraft identified within the V2-14 and J16-94 airways, and the width of the valley and height of the mountains surrounding the pla nt. An inflight crash rate of 3 x 10-9 per aircraft mile was used in the calculation (SRP 3.5.1.6). No information was identi-fied from the FAA on future growth of traffic in these corridors. However, since the calculated probability of 1.4 x 10-7 conservatively assumes that a single day peak traffic load in the corridors is ~ maintained throughout the year, any future real growth in aircraft activities in these corridors over the remainder of plant life would not be expected to change significantly the calculated risk factor. VI. CONCLUSIONS Based on our review, we conclude that operation of the Yankee plant-does not present an undue risk to the health and safety of the public as a result of aircraft and site proximity missile hazards. O i e ___}}