ML20198G392
| ML20198G392 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 02/24/1975 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Moore V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-1046 NUDOCS 8605290532 | |
| Download: ML20198G392 (8) | |
Text
-
g,
.~..
s i
FEB :: 11975 i
V.A. Moore Assintent Director for Light Vater I'coctors. Group 2, FL WASilINGTON NUCLEAR 1 & 4 LWA SITE SUITABILITY ITUT BT THE ACCIDENT l
NTALYSIS BRANCH i
l Plant Names Washington Public Power Supply Systems, Units 1 and 4 r
Licensing Stage CP l
Docket Numbers: 50-460/513 Responsible Branch: LWR 2-3 Project Manager:
T. Canc Requested coupletion Date: February 7,1975 Review Status: AA3 Complete i
Enclosed is the Accident Analysis Ilranch (AAB) Site Suitability Testimony for the site of the Washington Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 4 (VNP-1 and 4). This testimony was preparad by L. Soffer of the Accident Analysis Branch.
Harold Denton, Assistant Director for Site Safety Division of Technical Review Office of Nuclear Rasetor Regulation DISTRIBUTION:
Enclosure:
Docket File Site Suitability Input NRR Reading SS Reading een w/o enclosure i
AAB Reading A. Clasbuseo W. Mcdonald J. Pansarella w/ enclosure S. Hanauer D. Risenhut F. Sehroeder R. Elecker R. Boyd
- 11. Fontecilla R. DeYoung U. Pasedag TR A/D's J. Read
},, p. J SS 5/C's K. Mirphy
/
q TR T/C's K. Campe l
T. Cox L. Soffer S. Varga l
l l
..AAB/IR AAR/.TR.- -.. AD/ /TR -
060")290532 750P24 LSof fer_s.ec J" Grimes H~D ton PDR ADOCK 05000460
..g
.p L
PDR 2f)A/75..
. 2/t4/ 75..
.2/
75-l l..-.-._
...... l..
o."*
..r g.........
.. o c.,,.
...,,, u m o,..
l WASHINGTON !.*UCI. CAR, C;1TS 1 & 4 l
SITE SUITA3ILITY INTRODUCTION The site proposed for the Nashington Nucicar Plant, Units 1 and 4 has
(
been reviewed by the Regulatory staff to establish whether the site is suitable for light water reactors of the general type proposed. The i
facility will be located 8 ciles north of the city of Richland, in Benton County, Washington about 2.5 miles vast of the Columbia River i
at river mile 352. The facility consists of two cressurized unter t
i reactors of a design similar to that reviewsd and approved for other l
l nuclear pcwer plants now in operation or under construction.
Each unit is desirned for a rated t'ernal outout of 3A10 V' na.d a net l
l electrical output of about 1218 !f.T.
The site evaluation has bean l
l conducted for a stretch thermal power of 3760 t1U. The Nuclear Steam Supply Systems, including the initial cores, will be purchased fece the t.
l Eabcock & Wilcox Cc=pany. The turbine generators will be purchased from the Westinghcuse Electric Company.
l Our review has included the reactor site criteria given in the Co= mission's 1
regulation concerning site suitability as related to radiological health and safety (10 CFR Part 100). The factors censidered are the population density, the use characteristics of the site environ:,
including whother thcee are nearSy industrial, military, or transport faciliclea that could influence acceptability of tha site, and the l
physical characteristica of the site.
Each of thase fa: tors has been i
considered in detail by 32gulatory Jeaff specialists cualified in the i
t
the technical disciplines involved. The staff evaluated inforeatica 1
provided by the applicant, made visits to the site, and porforced in-dependent studies and calculations. On the basis of these. efforts, we have reached tha conclusions presented in the following.
A.
POPULATION DENSITY A'O USE CRLMCTETISTICS The exclusion area consists of the envelope of the two circles each having a radius of 1950 meters (1.2 miles) and centered on each of the proposed containments. The applicant is makinc arrangements with the Energy Research and Development Administration (formerly part of the U.S.A.E.C.) for the lease of 972 acres of land lying uichin the exclusion area, and upon which the principal station structures are to be located.
In addition, the applicant currently is leasing (1089 acres for the WNP-2 facility, which is contiguously located. Part of the exclusion area lies outside the leased acreage and remains under the ownership of the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA).
The applicant has committed ht=self to obtain a written agreement from ERDA, similar to one obtained for '4NP-2, wherein the AEC stated that it recognized the existence of an exclusion area and would undertake no activities within this area uhich uould interfere with or restrict the applicants right to fully cocply with this condition'of the license.
With the possession of a lease and this letter of intent from the AEC or its successor, we conclude that there will be reasonable assurance that the applicant has the authority, within the meaning of 10 CTR Part 100.3(a), to decernine all activities within the designsted exclusion area.
(This requires confir:ation by OCC).
Th. exclusion acea is traversed by the rainline track of the H2nford Reservation railroad system, operated by the AZC, a railroad spur lina lesding to the FFIF facility, and access roads Icading to the "MP-2 and WNP-1 and 4 facilities. None of these routes are open :o the general public. The UNP-2 facility, presently under construction, is located within the exclusion area as is cl.e proposed d.J. \\she substation and the existing Uye burisi ground, a nine acre radioactive waste i
burial facility, located about a =ile away. The only activities unrelated to plant operations within the exclusion area vill be travel along the above routes and activities at the above-cencioned facilities.
The applicant has selected a low population :ene (LPZ) radius of four alles. According to the 1970 census, 38 persons resided within the LPZ.
In addition to the resident population, the present transient population within the LPZ consists of about 450 agricultural and in-dustrial workers. This is projected to increase up to a eaximum of 900 workers, because of the work force associated with the !:UP-2 and FFrF facilities.
In addition, about 2000 workers pass through the LPZ twice per day travelling to andfrom their jobs in other areas of the Hanford reservation.
The nearest population center, as defined in 10 CFR Part 100, with more than about 25000 persons has been defined to be the city of Richland, 'lashington, located 8 niles south of the site. Richland had a 1970 population of 26,290 persons. The population center distance is at least one and one-third ti=es the LP: distance, as required by 10 CFR Part 100.
The 1970 population density within 10 miles of tho site was less chan six people per square mile, and is projected to increase to 23 people per square mile ay the year 2020. T!1 thin 30 niles of the site, the 1970 population density was about 35 peoole per square pile and is projected to increase to 67 people per square cile by the year 2020. Since the nearest large city is more than 30 miles away, no speciti considerations need to be given to distance from the population center, We conclude that the specified exclusion distance and leu population zone radius are of sufficient size that there is reasonable assurance that suitable engineered safety features can be provided to satisfy the dose siting critaria of 10 CF2 Tart 100.
(T..: ad quacy cf the
' low population zone with respect to protective ceasures which can be taken for cembers of the public within it in the eveat of an emergency has not yet been established and requires confirmation by IS & EP).
The population center distance meets the requirenents of 10 CFR Part 100 with respect to its distance from the outer radius of the low population zone.
B.
NEARBY IUDt*ST.IAL, TRA' 500T3TI'" Alm '!II.ITARY FACILITIPS No nearby indue rial, transportation, or ci*itary facilicios have been identified for uhich the WP-1 and *.W-4 sites could not be designed against, as necessary, to protect the health and safety of the public.
The nearest transportation facility is the mainline track of the Hanford Roscevation railroad systen which passes about 2500 feet southuest of the site. Transportation routes include Hanford Reservation Soute 4
I a
located 1.5 miles southwest of the site, the Colunbia River located 2.5 miles east of the site, and State Highuay 240, located 7 miles
- southwest.
We~ conclude that, because of the distances of these routes from the site, no significant ha ard to the proposed plant exists from these sources that could not be provided for in the plant design.
There are no airports or co==ercial airways within 10 tiles of the site.
The nearest airport, the North Richland airport, is located about 11 miles south of the site. The field has hard surface runways, s
but no commercial facilities.
The nearest airport with cec =ercial facilitias is the ?ase: airport located about 15 miles southeast of the site.
In additien, the Hanford Reservation presently lies in an aircraf t restricted zone (R-6715) with no private or commercial traffic permitted at altitudes below 10,000 feet without special permission. On the basis of the distances of the existing airfields from the site and previous staff studies ue conclude that the !iNP-1 and (lNP-4 plants need not be designed with special provisions to protect them against the effects of an aircraft crash.
There are no military bases or high speed. low altitude military training routes within 10 miles of the site. The nearest military facilities are the othello Air-Force station located about 30 miles northeast of the proposed plants and the Yahics Firing Ranga located cora chan 30 miles northwest of the site. On tha basis of the remoteness of these u.
r-6-
facilities from the proposed plants, we conclude that the activities at these facilities need not be considered in the design of the plants.
The only industrial facilities located within 5 miles of the proposed plants are those associated with other activities on the Hanford Reservation. These include the NNP-2 plant, presently udder construction, located about 1 mile away, the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFIF) located about 3 miles away, a substation located about 1 mile away, and 2 small solid radioactive waste disposal burial sites, the nearer of which is located about a mile away. Based upon the distances of these facilities from the plants, and the types and quantities of caterials stored there, we conclude that the effect of an industrial accident or an inadvertent release need not be considered in the design of the proposed plants.
We concluded earlier, at the ti=e of the UNP-2 review, that an accident occurring at the'FFTF would not result in doses which would ' prevent the
. safe shutdown of the UNP-2 facility. There is reasonable, assurance that suitable control roca designs can be provided for the proposed plants, and based upon the greater distance of the proposed plants from FFTF J
than "JNP-2, we conclude that there is reasonable assurance that design basis accidents at the FFTF uould not result in doses which would prevent asafeshutabunbfthe-proposedW'iP-1andU'iP-4 plants. The UN?-2 facilityhas[apostulateddesignbasisaccident source term which is similar to,those postulated for the proposed plants, and in view of the separation distance, interaction of these facilities is not a consideratica.
1 l
. There are no gas or petroleum pipelines or co=ercial storage facilities within 5 miles.
On the basis of the above considerations, We conclude that there are no nearby activities that would preclude site acceptability.
l R
4 l.
f I
b r
i i
f
.