ML20140B636
| ML20140B636 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 09/04/1981 |
| From: | Bryan J UNION ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| ULNRC-501, NUDOCS 8109140266 | |
| Download: ML20140B636 (11) | |
Text
..
o UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY soon onArsor sinscr sr. Louis. Missoune September 4, 1981
=^gg,=fyy,aff*-
,,,,m,,,,
c g
\\-
h N
J Mr. Harold R.
Denton SEp 13, ;ggy b 79 Ed Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- N'es@s U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory C>mmission 7s-Washington, D.C.
20555
//,fWEOf
Dear Mr. Denton:
ULNRC-501
.I DOCKET NUMBERS 50-483 AND 50-486 CALLAWAY PLANT, UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT l
l
Reference:
NRC letter dated Aug. 19, 1981, signed by B. J.
Youngblood The referenced letter requested additional information concerning the Callaway Plant FSAR.
Transmittcd herewith are responses to questions in the referenced lettet.
This information is hereby incorporated into the Callaway Application.
Very truly yours, fUn'.
.h
~
QA John K.
B yan NGS/mdj 9'
l AO OO 83 A
PDR j
d i
4 STATE OF MISSOURI )
)
Robert J.
Schukai, of lawful age, being first duly sworn upon oath says that he is General Manager-Engineering (Nuclear) for Union Electric Company; that he has read the foregoing document and knows the content thereof; that he has executed the same for and on i
behalf of said company with fu)1 power and authority to do so; and that the facts therein stated are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
By, C'
Robgrt J.
cYukai General Ma ager-Engineering Neclear SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me this 4th day of September, 1981 b
l
.v y
y.
! r BAstBARA J. PFAFF h0TARY PUBLIC, STATE OF MISSOURI MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 22,1935 ST. LOUIS COUNTY.
2 i
?
4 4
9 t
i 4
_-. _... _ _ _... _. _.. _. _, - - _. _ _ _ _ _ _ - -. _.... _ _ _ _ _,.. - _. _. - ~.. _ -... _ -., _ - _,, _... - _ _ _... ~. -
cc:
Glenn L. Koester Vice President Operations i
Kansas Gas & Electric P.O.
Box 208 Wichita, Kansas 67201 1
John E. Arthur l
Chief Engineer Rochester Gas & Electric Company 89 East Avenue i
Rochester, New York 14649
)
A. '.. Dienhart j
Vice President Plant Engineering and Construction Northern States Power 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Donald T. McPhee Vice President Kansas City Power and Light Company 1330 Baltimore Avenue Kansas City, Missouri 64141 Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Nicholas A.
Petrick Executive Director SNUPPS 5 Choke Cherry _ Road i
Rockville, Maryland 20850 W. Hansen Callaway Resident Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RR#1 Steedman, Missouri 65077 e
4 6
h s
-.---.,-,. ~..,-
,-,-r,--
n,
_..,-._-,n--,,--n-
-n.-,,-_-..
.-.n,-,n.--,..,,,----,,-.,,..,n,,nn-
SNUPPS-C Item 3.11.5C: Please explain the apparent discrepancies in popula-(Table 2.1-4) tion values between Table 2.1-4 and Figure 2.1-9.
(Fig. 2.1-9)
{
Table 2.1-4 Figure 2.1-9 0-1 mile 1970 25 25 1980 0
80 0-2 mile 1970 62 62 1980 52 120 Also, please provide your projection through end of plant life, of the population within the LPZ (2.5 mile radius from the plant).
Response
The projections provided in Figure 2.1-9 are correct.
The projections provided in Figure 2.1-9 and Tables 2.1-2 and 2.1-3 present the actual population values for 1970, and rounded values for 1980 to 2030.
The rounding conventien used in these tables was that for values less than 100, the value was rounded upward to the nearest ten.
That is, a value of 1 was rounded to 10.
This procedure is very conservative.
For example, the 1980 procjetions for 1 to 2 miles, which total 52 persons in Table 2.1-4, when rounded, total 120 persons.
The O to 1 mile estimates were rounded to the nearest five; as a consequence, all projections were zero.
Table 2.1-4 does not use rounding procedures consistent with the rest of the population analysis.
Table T attached, presents the Low Population Zone (
projections using a consistent rounding procedure (for values less than 100, the values were rounded upward to the nearest ten.)
Using this procedure for 1980 through 2030, the maximum number of people in the LPZ is 260 persons in 1980 and 1990.
311.5C-1
SNUPPS-C TABLE 2.1-4A Distribution of The Population Within the Low Population Zone 1970 through 2030 Radial Distance from Reactors (Miles)
Sector Year 0-1 1-2 2-2.5 Total N
1970 0
7 0
7 1980 0
10 0
10 1990 0
10 0
10 200G 0
10 0
10 2010 0
10 0
10 2020 0
10 0
17 2030 0
10 0
10 NNE 1970 5
5 0
10 1980 10 10 0
20 1990 10 10 0
20 2000 10 10 0
20 2010 10 10 0
20 2020 10 10 0
20 2030 10,
10 0
20 NE 1970 5
0 0
5 1980 10 0
0 10 1990 10 0
0 10 2000 10 0
0 10 2010 10 0
0 30 2020 10 0
0 10 2030 10 0
0 10 ENE 1970 5
0 0
5 1980 10 C
0 10 j
1990 10 0
0 10 2000 10 0
0 10 2010 10 0
0 10 2020 10 0
0 10 2030 10 0
0 10 E
1970 0
2 0
2 1980 0
10 0
10 1990 0
10 0
10 2000 0
10 0
10 2010 0
0 0
0 2020 0
0 0
0 2030 0
0 0
0 311.5C-2
[
SNUPPS-C TABLE 2.1-4A continued 1
l Sector Year 0-1 1-2 2-2.5 Tctal ESE 1970 0
0 2
2 1980 0
0 10 10 1990 0
0 10 10 2000 0
0 10 10 2010 0
0 10 10 2020 0
0 10 10 2030 0
0 10 10
~
SE 1970 2
2 6
10 1980 10 10.
10 30 1990 10 10 10 30 l
2000 10 10 10 30 2010 0
0 10 10 3
2020 0
0 10 10 2030 0
0 10 10 3
SSE 1970 2
2 0
4 l
1980 10 10 0
20 I
1990 10 10 0
20 2000 10 10 0
20 2010 0
0 0
0 2020 0
0 0
0 2030 0
0 0
0 S
1970 2
2 3
7 i
i 1980 10 10 10 30 1
1990 10 10 10 30 2000 10 10 10 30 i
2010 0
0 10 10 2020 0
0 10 10 2030 0
0 10 10 l
l SSW 1970 0
0 0
0 1980 0
0 0
0 1990 0
0 0
'O 2000 0
0 0
0 l
2010 0
0 0
0 2020 0
0 0
0 2030 0
0 0
0 SW 1970 0
0 5
5 1980 0
0 10 10 1990 0
0 10 10 l
2000 0
0 10 10 2010 0
0 10 10 2020 0
0 10 10 2030 0
0 10 10 i
~
i 311.5C-3 I
l SNUPPS-C TABLE 2.1-4A continued i
i i
Sector Year 0-1 1-2 2-2.5 Total
)
SW 1970 0
0 5
5 10 1980 0
0 10 1990 0
0 10 10 2000 0
0 10 10 j
2010 0
0 10 10 2020 0
0 10 10 l
2030 0
0 10 10 WSW 1970 2
5 0
7 1980
'10 10 0
20 1990 10 10 0
20 2010 10 10 0
20 2000 O
10 0
10 j
2020 0
10 0
10 i
2030 0
10 0
10 1
W 1970 2
20 0
22 l
1980 10 20 0
30 1990 10 20 0
30 2000 10 10 0
20 2010 0
10 0
10 l
2020 0
10 0
10 2030 0
10 0
10 WNW 1970 0
10 0
10 1
1980 0
10 0
10 1990 0
10 0
10 2000 0
10 0
10 2010 0
10 0
10 2020 0
10 0
10 2030 0
10 0
10 NW 1970 0
5 6
11 1
1980 0
10 10 20 1
1990 0
10 10 20 2000 0
10 10 20 2
2010 0
10 10 20 2020 0
10 10 20 2C30 0
10 10 20 NNW 1970 0
2 7
9 1980 0
10 10 20
)
1990 0
10 10 20 2000 0
10 10 20 2010 0
0 10 10 l
2020 0
0 10 10 1
2030 0
0 10 10 I
l 311.5C-4
SNUPPS-C TABLE 2.1-4A continued Sector Year 0-1 1-2 2-2.5 Total Totals 1970 25 62 29 116 1980 80 120 60 260 1990 80 120 60 260 2000 80 110 60 250 2010 30 60 60 150 2020 30 60 60 150 2030 30 60 60 '
150
~
l l
l l
l l
311.5C-5
_ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _
-. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. =.
SNUPPS-C 4
Item 311.6C:
Section 2.2.1.4 discusses land transportation in (Table 2.2-4) the plant vicinity (generally within 5 miles) and i
l (2.2.1.4) the potential hazards to the plant.
Table 2.2-4 identi-fics hazardous materials transported on the Missouri-i i
Kansas-Texas railroad between Jefferson City and St.
s Louis, Missouri in 1978.
Please provide your analysis j
of the probability of a toxic hazard to the plant in accordance with Reg. Guide 1.78.
Please specifically I
include your toxicity assumptions for each material including " Warfare Gas" identified in Table 2.2-4.
Also provide the origin and destination of this above
. mentioned material along with more complete identification of the agent.
4 i
Response
No information on the identification, origin or destination of " Warfare Gas" was available from MKT 4
Railroad.
2 Section 2.2 of the FSAR discusses land transportation within 5 miles of the plant and the potential hazard to the plant.
Table 2.2-4 identifies hazardous materials transported on the Missouri-Kansas-Texas 1
railroad netween Jefferson City and St. Louis, i
Missouri in 1978.
Probability of hazardous chemical accident occurrences associated with chemicals listed in Table 2.2-4 were not determined.
Instead, the hazard analysis was perfomed based on the assumption that chemical acidents occurred.
Detailed analysis of the effects from accidents ( 1 the plant's safety 4
related structures and control' room habitability was j
performed to determine which accident is a design basis event.
Results are reported in Section 2.2.3.1.
The occurrence of each accident was postulated to involve only a tingle chemical.
The worst meteorological conditions for dispersion, low wind (1.4 m/s) and very stable stability, were used in the 3
)
stuuy.
Accidents were assumed to occur at the shortest distance from the storage site or transportation route to the plant site.
Evaluations of effects due to explosions used a mass equivalence of 240 percent of the vapor clouds (Reg. Guide 1.91).
i l
i 311.6C-1
= _ - -
- _ - =._ -...-
SNUPPS-C l
i Item 311.7C:
'Section 2.2.1.4 identifies County Roads 335 and 337 (Tabic 2.2-3) as the roads nearest the plant (1900 and 2400 feet, t
i (Fig. 2.2-3) respectively).
Figure 2.2-3 indicates that County (2.2.1.4)
Road 335 is further from the plant than County Road 337.
(2.1.1.1)
Table 2.2-3 indicates that State Route CC is 0.3 miles (2.2.3.1.2)
(1584 feet) north of the plant.
Figure 2.2-3 indicates that State Route CC is approximately 0.6 miles NW of the site.
Please explain or correct these apparent
];
discrepancies.
1 l
The latitude given in Section 2.1.1.1 for Unit 1 is 38 3
degrees - 46' - 40.7" and the latitude given for Unit 2 is 38 degrees - 45' - 43.8".
This indicates that the two onits are about 1 mile apart.
This is incompatible with other data (i.e., Figure 2.1-3)'.
Please confirm the' site coordinates.
4 Please provide the closest distance these roads come to vital plant structures.
In accordance with Reg.
j Guide 1.91 please provide your analysis and conclusion i
regarding potential explosive hazard from all roads 1
within 1 mile of the plant (if the distances used in 2.2.3.1.2 are correct and include all hazards, please confirm).
Response
The following tabulation shows the closest approach of roads in the immediate site vicinity to the Unit 1 Reactor Building:
County Road 335 - 1900 feet (0.36 miles) Northeast County Road 337 - 2300 feet (0.45 miles) Southwest State Highway CC - 4800 feet (0.91 miles) West Figure 2.1-2 more clearly shows distances of roads from the Reactor Building.
All distances used in Section 2.2.3.1.2 are correct.
i The latitude for Unit 1 was incorrectly stated as 38 degrees - 46' - 40.7" in Section 2.1.1.1.
It should i
have read 38 degrees - 45' - 40.7".
All other coordinates are correctly stated in Section 2.1.1.1.
Propane is transported by trucks in quantities of 1800 to 2600 gallons on county roads 335 and 337, and highway CC.
The nearest approach to the site from any of these roads is less than one mile.
Propane is considered to be the most potentially explosive material.
Therefore, only the propane accident was analyzed and the other accidents would have less i
I effect on the plant's vital structures.
In the analysis, an accident has been postulated to occur on the road at its closest point to the plant.
The effects due to explosion on the vital plant structures were studied.
The technical approach and results of the study are presented in Section
- 2. 2. 3.1. 2 and Table 2. 2-6 of the FSAR.
The calculated overpressure on any of the vital plant structures, 311.7C-1
r SNUPPS-C e.g.,
control building and reactor building is less than 1 psi.
Therefore, no threat to the plant. is posed from explosions.
311.7C-2
'