ML20198F427
| ML20198F427 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 02/09/1977 |
| From: | Markee E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Boyle R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-0883, CON-WNP-883 NUDOCS 8605280505 | |
| Download: ML20198F427 (4) | |
Text
--___-
6 O,.
DISTRIBUTION:
DOCKET FILES NRR RDG DSE RDG HMB RDG FEB 0 s 1977 MDIORANDUM FOR: Regis P,oyle, Environmental Projects Branch f3, DSL FROM:
Earl H. Markee, Jr., Leader, Meteorology Section, B2, SUBJECI:
ENVIRON 1E? ITAL REPORT ACCEPTANCE REVIEW - METEOROID'JI PLANT NAME: WPPSS Nuclear Project lio. 2 LICCiSIhG STAGL: OL DOC'JT IlUI'?.ER: 50-397 MILESTONE NO.:
01-62 U.SPO:ISIDLE DP/J;C": ETE!'2 TJ: QUESTED C0!'1LETION DATP: January 19, 1477 P.!XIhV STATUS: Meteorolofv Section (mlD) - Conplete As discussed between John Coll, of my section, and your office on January 19, 1977, we have reviewed the environmental report for the UTPSS ::.P. No. 2 and have found the sections concerning meteorology acceptable. Enclosed are initial reviev questions v11ch we ask you forward to the applicant. John Coll and I prepared these questions.
Original Si:;n:d by g, M. Ma rke 0, 3 f.
Earl 11. Markee, Jr., Leader Meteorology Section Ilydrology-Heteorology Branch Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis
Enclosure:
An Stated cc: w/o enc 1:
R. Loyd NI R. DeYoung 7/;
Jf. Krener._ JG011 tn --- ] - -- 2/ 9 /77 2/ /77, mare w 2/4/7 Perus ASc SIS (Rev. 9 99) A308 0840 W u. es movenouser paserine eerscos es,4.see. tee L ___________o i ACCEPTANCE REVIEW - ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT (OL) WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 DOCKET No. 50-397 METEOROLOGY 372.0 Meteorology 85% Complete (2.3) 372.1 Provide the following topographic maps: (2.3)
- 1) a map showing the detailed topographic features (as modified by the plant) on a large scale within a 10-km radius of the plant; and
- 2) a smaller scale map showing topography within an 80-km radius of the plant.
372.2 Provide monthly mixing height data representative of the site (2.3) region. Include average daily maximum and minimum heights. 372.3 Provide estimates of relative concentration (X/Q) and relative (2.3) deposition (D/Q) at points of potential maximum concentration outside the site boundary, at points of maximum individual exposure, and at points within a radial grid of sixteen 22 1/2 degree sectors (centered on true north) and extending to a distance of 80 km from the piant. 372.4 Provide wind direction persistence summaries which represent the (2.3.1) wind levels of plant release using data from 1) the WNP-2 tower (short-term, 4/74-3/75), and 2) the Hanford main tower (long-term, 1955-70). i 372.5 Both Regulatory Guide 1.70, Revision 2, and the Standard Review (2.3.1) Plan (NUREG 75/087) recommend that at least two consecutive annual cycles, and the most recent one-year period of onsite meteorological data should be provided at docketing at the operating license review stage. You have provided only one year (4/74-3/75) of oncite meteorological data. Provide a second year (4/75-3/76) of onsite meteorological data in the form of joint frequency distributions of wind speed and wind direction by atmospheric stability. (defined by vertical temperature gradient), with data recovery of at least 90%. 372.0 Ef fects of Heat Dissipation Facilities 95% Complete (5.1.4) Discuss any potential chemical interaction of the cooling tower plumes with existing nearby pollutant sources. I l l s 1 372.7 Tables 5.1-8 and 5.1.4-6, concerning cooling tower drif t deposition, (5.1.4.2) are missing. Please provide these. 372.0 Air 85% Complete (6.1.3) 372.8 Provide copies of the following references for Section 6.1: (6.1.3) 26. Droppo, J.G., C.E. Hane, and R.K. Woodruff, Atmospheric Effects of Circular Mechanical Draf t Cooling Towers at Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Power Plant Number Two, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to Burns and Roe for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, WA. in preparation. 27.
- Hosler, C.L., J. Pena, and R. Pena, Determination of Salt Deposition Rates from Drif t from Evaporative Cooling Towers, Pennsylvania State University, Dept. of Meteorology, May 1972.
- 29. Woodruf f, R.K., D.E. Jenne, C.L. Simpson, and J.J. Fuquay,
A Meteorological Evaluation of the Effects of the Proposed Cooling Towers of Hanford Number Two "C" Site on Surrounding Areas, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories to Burns and Roe, Inc., Hempstead, NY, September 1971. 372.9 Discuss the current state of the onsite meteorological monitoring (6.1.3.1) program. 372.10 For each measured meteorological parameter, provide the total system (6.1. 31. ) (sensor, recorder, analysis, etc.) accuracy. 372.11 Indicate the dates of calibration of the onsite meteorological (6.1.3.1) program and provide the findings of each calibration. 372.12 You have selected to use a Gaussian diffusion model to estimate (6.1.3.2) offsite gaseous concentrations. Justify its use for the WNP-2 site. As discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.111, consider its applicability both for within a few miles of the site and for distances out to 50 miles. Discuss the effects of deviations from the implied assumptions of the model (such as flat, homogeneous terrain, non-variability of the airflow, single-station analysis) that are necessary due to area-specific characteristics. Such characteristics could include the influence of topographic features on the airflow, preferred airflow paths, local diurnal wind patterns, and other spatial and temporal variations of the airflow. Provide any adjustments needed to your equation 2 which { i i may be necessary to prevent misrepresentation of actual atmos-pheric transport and diffusion characteristics which could result in substantial underestimates of actual exposure to an individual or population. 372.13 You have provided lateral (c ) and vertical (c ) spread parameters y z (6.1.3.2) determined experimentally at Hanford. Your o is a function of y 00 u. Discuss whether it is possible to relate the atmospheric stability categories defined by temperature difference (per Regulatory Guide 1.23) with ce u for this site. If so, provide the correlation. 372.14 You state that "one year of onsite meteorological hourly data (6.1.3.2) from the temporary meteorological system was combined with hourly stability data from the Hanford meteorological tower for the [ cooling tower effects] analysis." Why did you not use data from the onsite 245-foot tower system? Discuss any differences expected in the analysis if the 245-foot tower data were used. i I I _