ML20213C783
| ML20213C783 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1978 |
| From: | Hulman L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-0229, CON-WNP-229 NUDOCS 7811140083 | |
| Download: ML20213C783 (8) | |
Text
/
~
B M
NOV 0 3 $78 IAEriORA!!D'JM FCR: Steven Varga. Chief Light Water Henctors Franch un. 4. DPM l
TROM:
L. G. Hulman, Chief Hydrology 4bteorology Branch, asr SUtJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL IMFORf%TIGH (Q-1)
METEOP.0 LOGY i
PLANT HN'E: WPPSS Nclear Project No. 2 LICEftSING STAGEt.0L DOCKET NUS'JER:,50 '29 ttILESTONE NO. 05-62 ~
DisTE DUE: 11/8/78 RESPONSIBLE ERANCH: LWR 44 Enclosed are additional questions (Q-1) concerning neteorology which we ask you to forward to the applicant. John Goll and Earl l'arkce Jr.
prepared these questicus.
As discussed with Dave lynch, LPM, we are in the process of resolving the problem of the meteorological data tape provided by the Project being incompatible with the But and !:IH computer systems which we use. (Ce expect this to be resolved by c:1d-November. Based.on our analysis cf this tape we may have additional Q-1 questions at that tirac.
N2'iginal Signed by L. G. Hulraan L. G. Hulman, Chief j
Hydrology-!!cteorology Branch i
Division of Site Safety and Environemtal An-Jysis cc w/o enc 1:
R. Boyd I
cc w/ enc 1s DISTRIBUTION:
2:Mi;;"
askartS
%=+l D. Vassallo D. Lyodi W. Bivins R. Houston fj///j/g g g l
J. Go11 gj,f, i
fI
.05'S:
- EMB
.DSE1 MS_
- BMB..
.,,,e.-
..Jk h$g
. EM _ -
'b J mn
_.1U/L/78._
. I 1/N./78...
_. 11/2.178.
I NRC POPJI SIS (9-74) NRCM 0240 W us s. oova nmusme resuviae orroca. eeve - one4ee
M UNITED STATES
[3
,1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 flovember 3,1978 MEMORANDUM FOR: Steven Varga, Chief Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4, DPM FROM:
L. G, Hulman, Chief Hydrology-Meteorology Branch, DSE
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Q-1)
METEOROLOGY PLANT NAME: WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2 LICENSING STAGE: OL DOCKET NUMBER: 50-396 MILESTONE NO. 05-62 DATE DUE:
11/8/78 RESPONSIBLE BRANCH: LWR #4 Enclosed are additional questions (Q-1) concerning meteorology which we ask you to forward to the applicent. John Goll and Earl Markee, Jr.
prepared these questions.
As discussed with Dave Lynch, LPM, we are in the process of resolving the problem of the meteorological data tape provided by the Project being incompatible with the BNL and NIH computer systems which we use. We expect this to be resolved by mid-November. Based on our analysis of this tape we may have additional Q-1 questions at that time.
Swn-L. G. Hulman, Chief Hydrology-Meteorology Branch Division of Site Safety and Environemntal Analysis cc w/o encl:
D., Boyd cc w/ encl:
R. DeYoung R. Denise D. Vassallo D. Lynch W. Bivins W, Houston J. Goll
Request for Additienal Information - Q-1 WPPSS Muclear Project No. 2 - FSAR Docket No.
50-397
!!eteorology 372.0 Meteorology (2.3) 372.7 Proride the maximum and minimum wet and dry bulb' temperatures used (2.3.1.2) for the design of any safety related equipment. Provide the bases for these temperatures.
372.8 Regarding your analysis of dust storm potential and dust storm climatology
( 2. 3.1. 2) for design and operating bases:
a) To establish the " worst cace" dust storn, you examined 28 years of Hanford data and estimated dust loadings using nn ampirical relationship with visibility. This relationship was based on data fron the Great Plains. Justify that this relationship is also valid for the Hanford area, b) To compare measured and predicted data, provide the dust concentra-tion estimates for the dust senrms of 4/72 and 8/55 using the Great Plains enpirical relationship.
c) Provide the dates and windspeeds-(peak and average et the 50 foot level of the Han'ord tover) with the six worst storms listed on FSAR pai;e 2.3-18.
d) -You state that "the worst case dust storm.... was used in other FSAR charters for... plant design and operation parameters."
Please cross-reference these other chapters.
e) Provide a copy of reference 2.3-33, Brandstetter to Verderber, December 2, 1977.
l o
172.9 Describe how vertical temperature differences were derived (e.F. temp-(2.3.3.1) erature subtraction, electrical bridge system).
372.10 Describe how " corrections to the data have been applied per the
,(2. 3. 3.1) quarterly calibration' findir:gs."
372.11 You state that "for each hour.of... data, a representative half (2.3.3.2) hour interval was chosen... " How was this half-hour chosen?
Since your primary data recording system is digital, why wasn't the entire hour used?
372.12 Provide a descripticn of the proposed display for nonitoring meteorological (2.3,3.2) parancters in the cor. trol room.
Include a description of how the data will be displayed (e.g. strip-chart recorders d1eital readout), and 1
diccuss whether the displayed data will be time-averaged or instantcneous.
372.13 Concerning your Ultimate Heat Sink analysia:
(2.3.1.2) a) What period of record did you examine to choose your design meteorological data?
b) Dexcribe the selection process you used to single out the worst one-and thirty-day periods.
(For example, for the worst one-day' for. pond thermal performance, did you ir.spect the record data for those days with the highest average wet-bulh temperatures, and then use the three greatest " episodes" in your pond thermal performance program?)
372.14 The atnespheric dispersion model and procedures which you used to
.(2.3.4) determine short-term (accident) diffucion estimates cre based on Regulatory cuide 1.3 and Section 2.3.4 of the Standard Peview plan (S.R.P.). Howe'rer, you substituted plume growth coefficients specific
1
. for the Hanford site. We bave been re-cvaluating this S.R.P. and this and other related regulatory guides.
Based on this re-evaluation and on our review of recent atmospheric dispersion field experiments, we have developed a modified procedure for calculating short-term relative concentration (X/Q) values. This method considers 1) lateral plume meander; 2) atmospheric dispersion conditions as a function of direction; 3) wind direction frequencies; and 4) exclusion area boundary distances as a function of direction.
Enclosed is a copy of DRAFT Ecgulatory Guide 1.XXX, " Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at tiucicar Power Plants" (9/23/77), which describes the new procedure in detail. We believe that this model will provide an improvcd characterization of atmospheirc dispersion conditions around the WNP-2 Site.
Also enclosed is the interim branch technical position concerning your use of this and the S.F.P. 2.3.4 model.
During our N:iP-2 review, we will estimate X/Q values for appropriate time periods for design basis accident evaluations using the model described in the enclosed DRAFT Regulatory Guide with appropriate modifications for desert conditiens. We will compare these X/Q values with those calculated using the nodel described in Regulatory Guide 1.3 and the procedures described in Section 2.3.4 of the Standard Review Plant we will also compare them witn those you calculated using the Hanford diffusion coefficients, to aid in judging the conservatisn of
T;
. your diffusion estirates.
So that we may calculate X/Q values by sector, provide exclusion area boundary distances as a function of direction using the pro-cedure described in the DRAFT Regulatory Guide.
372.15 We have reviewed your uct of the Hanford diffusion coefficients (G' and G" as classified by AT/aZ,0s, and 5) fer short-term dif-y 4
fusion estimates. The scheme as described is not sufficient to evaluate the periods of roorest atmospheric diffusion needed to property determine design X/Q values.
We compared the Hanford values and classification schemes to those out-lined in draf t Regulatory Guide 1.XXX and S.R.P. 2.3.4,. and those derived by Markee for a desert site (these values included data from the NRTS and Hanford tevervations.)
(
Reference:
Yanskey, G.
R.,
Markee, E. H., and A. P. Richter,1966: Climatogranhy of the National Reactor Tes:ing Station. ID0-12048 Air Resources Field Research Station, Idaho Falls, Idaho).
- a)
For vertical dispersion, the Hanford parameters compare well with the Markee desert parameters, except that the Hanford scheme does not define values for extremely stable atmospheric conditions (Class G, AT/At >
).
Thus when used in the S.R.P. model, or the draf t Regulatory Guide 1.XXX model (with desert coef ficients substituted for the Pasq uill-Gifford coefficients with meander), use of the Hanford coefficients will not provide a sufficient description of those periods with the poorest vertical dispersion.
Their use would under-estimate the " design" X/q values.
For exampic, Stability Class G occurred 137 of the time as measured on the VNP-2 meteorological tower
1 f
5 between April 1974 and March 1976. Thus Class G would be significant in determining the design X/Q values.
Therefore, provide constants for Equation 5 for these extremely stable periods and add an " extremely stable" class to Tables 2.3-28a through 2.3-32b.
b) Oh is an acceptable predictor to estimate (I during periods when y
the wind sensors properly represent the actual windflow. H oweve r, during periods of low windspeeds (windspeeds less than about 1.5 meters /second), most windvanes do not respond properly to the directional changes of the windflow. During these periods the vertical temperature difference should be used to estimate lateral dispersion.
Therefore, either justify your use of G(to predict G) for low windspeeds, or state that Equations 3 and 4 are applicable to windspeeds greater than 1.5 meters /second, and use Regulatory Guide 1.23 or your Hanford scheme (with Class G) to define lateral dispersion for low windspeeds.
Jbend your X/Q calculations to reflect any changes.
c) Discuss the meteorological instrumentation (including instrument response characteristics) used during the field tests from which the Hanford dispersion coefficients were derived.
Compare the response characteristics of the WNP-2 meteorological tower instrumentation with the Hanford field-test instrumentation. Discuno whether use of the WNP-2 data is compatible with the Hanford diffusion model. (For example, are the response characteristics of the windvanos similar and would they produce similar 9(s).
e
E i
0 6
d) Discuss whether the Hanford test data covered the same range of meteorological conditions for the parameters (windspeed,kG) observed on the WNP-2 tower. Discuss whether the Hanford model is valid for all meteorological conditions observed on the WNP-2 tower.
372.16 On August 10, 1977, you provided u.s vith a magnetic tape containing
( 2. 3. 2.1)
- neteorological data in hourly form for the perioi April 1974 through May 1976. Provide a definition of " variable wind" as used on this tape.
a D
I i
l
!