ML20247G028
| ML20247G028 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 08/14/1997 |
| From: | Hamawi J, Rao K, Re G POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247F730 | List:
|
| References | |
| [[::JAF-CALC-RAD|JAF-CALC-RAD]], JAF-CALC-RAD-00, JAF-CALC-RAD-00007, JAF-CALC-RAD-7, NUDOCS 9805200111 | |
| Download: ML20247G028 (149) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:h O IP3 0 JAF EmW Ms page 1 of1 O Verification of: Doc"mentTitle: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersiv., Factors DocumentNumber: J AF-CALC-RAD-00007, Rev. 2 Subject-Modification / Task Number (if applicable): QA Categoy I m % wce Requred (rwamiof rwewr]
% azcmen.
MEOiANICAL I esmUMENT& CDNm0L I civ u STRUCTURAL FE PRoTEL10N SNULATOR x Meteorolog.
\ j o -
9805200111 900226 PDR ADOCK 05000333 P PDR DCM-4 DESIGN VERIRCATION ATTACHPKNT 4.1 l
DESIGN VERIFICATION CHECKLIST lil JAF page 1 of 4 N IDENTIFICATION: DISCIFUNE: DocumentTitle: Power UDrate proaram - Onsite and Offdte [j g [] gg a= uw Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors [] MECH () Firepect Doc. Number. JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 Doc.Reision: 2 U CM U smuw N DtherMeteoroloqic. GA Category I " METHOD OFVERIFICATION: [ Design Review [] Altemate Calculations [] Qualification Test Selected Verifier. pnrs name_a petn=rs_sr== ==.
# Design venficanon Quesmonnare All questais shall be exp!ained in the space prtwided.
i
- 1. Were the inputs correct and incorporated into the design?
Explanecon %e s my dave u C_o y v cc.F cuO surv ow ave d tJa 4iw deFu - ci ddon6e e CA f cu f d' -u + . I
- 2. Are the physcal and functaonal characteristics of the proposed design wthin the approved design basis of the system (s) structure (s) or uirperient(s)?
Explanation: 9e3 . #Ike. Pk W c,J cwg AA M' om ,J (M A y a deaf.' of. /t:,
& WO Cs3c4cW-we Ove b4 ~lk %QVTNeA clPb6 $tv715
- 3. Does the proposed design incorporate license Commitments?
Explanacon 4es
- 4. Are assumphons necessary to perform the design actuty adequately desenbed and reasonable: Where necessary, are the assumptions identified for subsequent reversic iasm when the detailed design actuues are completed?
E 9 nacon Nes , ~N (bougDo ws en c. Acic h aee L de>Cd1e@ I
- 5. Are the apprepnate quakty and quatrty assurance requirements specified? e.g., safety classifict tion?
E% Me3 4Ao Q uaRF % sud QunUPw ha v a w h
- YCA5? & ct u a en ,AC.M dke y d
- 6. Are the appbcable codes, se- ..Nrtis and regulatory requirements including issue and addenda property u$enufied and are their requirements for design met?
E& nation: Me.s , *fbe O.pOU cod,I e C2&e5 A % v oc & c m d) nerk%r--4 I' 4tAQS < t.s' &_4 V
'M J d'L%A Y O
DESIGNVERIRCATIDN ATTACHMENT 4.2 IDCM4 Aav No 3 Pana A nf p1 n
I i 1 DESIGN VERIFICATION CHECKUST page 2 of 4
# Demonvenficeuonae AH quescons shall be explained in the space prunded
- 7. Howe appbcable constmcuon and operaung expenence been considered?
Explananort p /A
- 8. Have the design interface requirements for mechanical, electrical /i&C, and civil /stmetural engineering been sansfied?
Explanaoort Me3
- 9. Was the appropriate design method used?
Explanatiort No.3
- 10. is the output reasonable compared to inputs? l Explanacon. Me) l 11, Are the specified parts, equipment and processes proper 1y suited for the fire protection Appendix R, GA, and '
O* EQ classificanons required for the application? Explanatiort 9[A' 1
- 12. Am the specified materials compatible wth each other and the design enwonmental conditions to which the matenalwin be exposed? ;
. Explanacort /A
- 13. Have personnel requirements and hmitations for maintenance, testing, and inspection beers satisfied?
r., w 9/A 14 Are merwashley, mantenance, repar, and inservice inspecuen requirements for the plant including the plant cxindmons under which these will be performed been considened? Explananort N ,) A
- 15. Has adequate accessibility been pruwded to perform the inserw:e inspecuon expected to be required during the plantlife?
Esei. N/A DESIGNVERIFICATION ATTACHMENT 4.2 IDCM4 o., u, , o .n na
8ter=" - vtm m - m ust j page 3 of 4
# ossion venticeman aussmannere All queshons shal be explaned in the space pronded
- 16. Has the desgn property cons & red radiation exposure to the pubic and plant personnel? (Al. ARA /cobat
! hI ) Explanmon %. 1 1 l 17. Are the acceptance entene irn.urycm ==d in the design documents sufficient to aRow venficanon that desgn ! l requnments have seusfactonly 66.c.c,TW ed? 44u We3 i i
- 18. l Have adequate pre-operational and subsequent periodic test requiremerns been appiupii.wiy specsfie@
Explanacon: efA <
- 19. l Are adequate handling. storage, cleaning and shippng requusments speerfied?
Explanacon. HIA
- 20. l Are adequate udenuhcanon requirements specified?
Explansoon WfA,
- 21. Are the conclusons drawn in the Safety Evaluation fuHy suppLrted by adequate discussion in the test or Safety Evaluanonitself?
Explansuon. ic) - W 6'b 6 h et < ne a y e. MM MO <Te c0
- 22. l Are necessary procedural changes speerfied, and are responsibilities for such chat'ges cleariy delineated?
Explanamort Me5
- 23. l Are requirements for record preparation, revew apprwel, retention, etc., adequately specified?
Explanatxn Mes j I
- 24. Have supplemental revews by other engineering discipienes (seismic, electncal, etc.) been performed on the ntegrated desen package?
EGs1 9/A
- 25. l Have the drawngs, sketches, calculations, etc included in the integrated design package been rewswed?
e -;.c.1 to / A , in 1 lU l DCM 4 ATTADMNT4.2 DESIGNVERIRCATION i Rev. No.3 Page 11 of,.21 t ___ __-______ - _ _ _ - _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ -___. ____
4# DESIGN VERIRCA'00N CHECKUST page 4 of 4
# Design verificaties casetieenstre AI questions shal be orplaned in the space provided
- 26. Haw renews been perfenned to identify any effect on the Check Velve Maintenance Program?
Explanation- p/g i
- 27. Does the design for check valves meet the intents of INPO SOER 86437 Explanatiore N/A
- 28. is the plant reference sedator physical and functional fidelity affected and it's design change been factored into the cost?
Explanation: tJf A 1 l 1
- 29. Are al references Ested fircludeg design calculationlanalysis) that were used as part of the design review?
Esplenation: M e) l REMARKSICOMMEllTS: Ov I l 1 o
\ g3q n . R A4 {
O cssignverircation l 1 u- l DCM 4 DESIGN VERIFICATION ATTACHMENT 4.2 Rev.No.3 Page J2 of _2L
- - - - - . - - - - _ _ _a
Pace-1 of 90 COMPU1 W CALCULATION CONTROL SHEET O CAI4. No. JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV. 7 IP3 JAF NOD / TASK'NO. QA CATEGORY OF CALCULATION: I CALCULATIONAL TYPE: PRELIMINARY: FINAL: x PROJECT / TASK: SYSTEM No./NAME: Power Uprate Proaram - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident TITIAN l Atmospheric Dispersion Factors PREPARER: John N. H i _ /). s W PIV 7 WsAV7 CNBCEER: 4sener G. C. /f/ // _ /', // K. Rao .\ W / _ 9////9 i VERIFIED: N/A D #A>/9 7 ' APPROVED: G . C . Re' _ wf9 fj ' f // f /r PROBLEN/ OBJECTIVE / METHOD See Pages 2, 9-11 and 17-33 DESIGN BASIS / ASSUMPTIONS / ANALYSIS ,O i See Pages 34-90 , j i
SUMMARY
/ CONCLUSIONS See Pages 12-16 )
REFERENCES See Pages 3-5 AFFECTED SYSTEMS / COMPONENTS / DOCUMENTS D VOIDED O SUPERSEDED BY: 1 O (CAI4 NO. ) This calculation supersedes JAF-CALC-RAD-00007, Rev 1 in its entirety.
' NYPA FORM DCN-14, ATTACHMENT 4.1 (REVISION 1) Page 1 of 1
l NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE d OF 90 l PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY ff DATE VA(F7 FINAL [X] CHECKED BY W DATE #/4Vf 7 () TITLE: Powe.r Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accidefit Atre spheric Dispersion Factors
=r j STATEMENT OF PROBLEM l This ce'culation forms part of the analyses carried out by I
l Corporate Radiological Engineering (CRE) in support of the power uprate program at JAF. Specifically, it deals with the computation of atmospheric dispersion factors (based on current i l methodologies) needed for re-analysis of the radio ' cal impact ! i of design-basis accidents at the new operating power level. l Consideration is given to releases from the main stack and from the turbine building, and the locations of interest include receptors at the site boundary (SB) and the low-population zone (LPZ), and the outside-air intakes of the Control Room (CR) and of the Technical Support Center (TSC). Notes i l () This calculation supersedes JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 Revs. O and 1 in their entirety. Differences between the various revisions are addressed in Sec. 1 (Introduction).
' Calculation"Use Limitations This,chiculation was developed to address theispecific issue (s).. described.
~
'in the above Statement of Problem. Information provided'in thisn calculation should not be used to' support. conclusions,-recommendations, 0 decisions..or procedure development / revision unrelated to the above:
;. .! issue (s):.
Fbr relatied , issues, Information providedfin t$is calculation-should be usedionly-by qualified staff','and'only'in' conjunction.withtrelevant
.referencesh(e.gU trelated calculations,'FSAR, TechnicaliSpecifications',
- DesigntBasis Documents,, Licensing. commitments, design drawings, etc.), as appropriate.
.If:this calculation is'used to change:the plant's Design Basis, the~
' Responsible Engineer should notify the. Corporate Radiological Engineering' Group;(WPO. Nuclear Ger - cion. Department) to ensure.these changes.
' accurately reflect.the information provided.in the calculation.
O
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE J OF 90 PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY SW DATE #Mo y w FINAL [X] CHECKED BY ~ #8 DATE W WF7 l TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsi'te Post-Accident
'~
Atmospheric Dispersion Factors REFERENCES
- 1. CRE Computer Code AEOLUS-3, "A Computer Code for the Determination of Atmospheric Dispersion and Deposition of Nuclear Power Plant Effluents During Continuous, Intermittent and Accident Conditions in Open-Terrain Sites, Coastal Sites and Deep-River Valleys," RAD-004, Release 1.3.1.1 (4/5/92)
- 2. USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.111, " Methods of Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors,"
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (October 1977, Rev. 1)
- 3. USNRC Regulatory Guida 1.145, " Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (August 1979) 4.* K. G. Murphy and K. M. Campe, " Nuclear Power Plant s Control Room Ventilation System Design for Meeting .
I General Design Criterion 19," USAEC, 13th Air Cleaning j
\~ Conference (1974) '
- 5. J. F. Sagendorf, J. T. Goll, W. F..Sandusky, "XOQDOQ:
Computer Program for the Meteorological Evaluation of Routine Effluent Releases at Nuclear Power Stations," Pacific Northwest Laboratories,.NUREG/CR-2912, PNL-4380 (September 1982) 6.* G. C. Holzworth, " Mixing Height, Wind Speeds, and Potential for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United States," U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Meteorology, Report AP-101 (January 1972)
- 7. JAF UFSAR, Sec. 14.8.1.5, " Analytical Method for Calculating Radiological Effects"
- 8. JAF Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, Rev. 7 (12/20/89)
- 9. "American National Standard for Determining Meteorological Information at Nuclear Power Plants," l ANSI /ANS-2.5, American National Standards Institute l j (1984)
/~'s 10. National Geodetic Survey Maps, U.S. Geological Survey, I Reston Virginia f (_)
l l NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE +' OF F# PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY SW DATE 2M/9": P gg FINAL [X) CHECKED BY 2/ DATE '////7 7 ! (, ) TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accid'ent Atmospheric Dispersion Factors
- 11. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Environmental Surveillance Procedura No.
S-EEVSP- 27, " Site Weatl.er Station Data Verif!:ation and Edit"
- 12. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Environmental Surveillance Procedure No.
S-ENVSP- 34, " Meteorological Monitoring Program QA and QC"
- 13. T. J. Bander, " PAVAN, An Atmospheric Dispersion Program for Evaluating Design Basis Accidental Releases of Radioactive Materials from Nuclear Power Stations,"
NUREG/CR-2858 (PNL-4413) (November 1982)
- 14. D. H. Slade, Ed., " Meteorology and Atomic Energy - 1968,"
USAEC, TID-24190 (1968)
- 15. GE letter addressed to R. Chau of NYPA, from C. H. Stoll, titled "J. A. FitzPatrick (JAFNPP) Power Uprate Program -
Summary of Source Term Data to be Transmitted ..", DSR No. 228225 (2/14/91) (See JAF-CALC-RAD-00008 for a copy
~s of this reference.) l
- 16. CRE Computer Code ALLEGRA, "A Computer Code for the Determination of Radioactive Decay Products and Gamma Ray Spectra (ORIGEN-2 Data Libraries and 7-Member Decay Chains)" RAD-003, Release 1.3.1.1 (4/4/92)
- 17. USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.3, " Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Loss-of-Coolant Accident for Boiling Water Reactors,"
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Rev. 2, June 1974)
- 18. CRE Computer Code DORITA-2, "A Computer Code for the Determination of Radioactivity and Radiation Levels in Various Areas of a Nuclear Power Station and Offsite Following Accidental Releases of Gaseous Fission Products," RAD-001, nelease 1.3.1.2 (8/17/92)
- 19. US AEC Safety Evaluation Report, J. A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Station, Docket No. 50-333, Sec. 2.5,
" Meteorology," (11/20/72)
- 20. USNRC, Standard Review Plan, NUREG-0800, Sec. 6.4, l " Control Room Habitability Systen " (Rev. 2, July 1981)
O
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE # OF 9* PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY .M DATE MW92 O FINAL [X] CHECKED BY 2/ DATE Y/df7 s q,/ TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accid'ent Atmospheric Dispersion Factors 21.* Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation letter # NMP86969 addrcssed to J. Hamawi, from Tom Galletta, titled "The Validity of the Nine Mile ?oint (NMP) Meteorological Data (1985-1990) Sent for Use in Updating the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM)" (2/23/93)
- 22. CRE Calculation JAF-CALC-RAD-00025, Rev. 1, " Atmospheric Dispersion and Deposition Parameters for Routine Releases" (5/4/95) 23.* Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation (ESEERCO) Technical Report No. EP 91-28, " Eastern Lake Ontario - On-Shore Flow Field Study," prepared by Galson Corp. (4/94)
- 24. Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation (ESEERCO) Technical Report No. EP 88-6, "Fuinigation Frequency Analysis: Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Station, Lycoming, NY," prepared by Galson Corp. (12/90)
- 25. Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation (ESEERCO) Technical Report No. EP 88-6, " Review of
'N Formulas and Observations of Thermal Internal Boundary Layers in Shoreline Environments," prepared by Sigma Research Corp. (8/90)
- 26. CRE Computer Code ELISA, "A Computer Code for the Radiological Evaluation of Licensing and Severe Accidents at Light-Water Nuclear Power Stations," RAD-005, Release 1.3.1.1 (3/9/92)
- 27. S. R. Hanna et al, " Development and Evaluation of the Offshore and Coastal Diffusion Model (OCD)", J. Air Poll.
Control Assoc., 35, 1039-1047 (1985)
- 28. S. A. Hsu, " Coastal Meteorology", 1988, Academic Press, San.Diego, CA
- 29. USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.23, "Onsite Meteorological Programs" (2/17/72)
- 30. USNRC Proposed Revision to Regulatory Guide 1.23,
" Meteorological Programs in Support of Nuclear Power Plants" (Sep, 1980) (Formal release still pending)
[ See Attachment A for copy of this reference, or excerpts thereof.
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE s _. OF 9F PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY j7 DATE V##77 FINAL [X] CHECKED BY 'd/ DATE g gf2 q) TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors LIST OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS EMPLOYED The following CRE computer codos were used in the analyses documented in this calculation: Program Code Ref. Release Release Computer Name Number Version Date System I AEOLUS-3 RAD-004 1.3.1.1 04/05/92 DG AViiON ALLEGRA RAD-003 1.3.1.1 04/04/92 DG AViiON /G k m U
l l f NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE 7 OF D PROJECT: JAF PREGE [ ] PREPARED BY 7W DATE A /N/97 eq FIR.L [X] CHECEED BY '// DATE WWF7 C'/ TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Acciden't i Atmospheric Dispersion Factors
=-- - --.
I CONTENTS Page CALCULATION CONTROL SHEET ..,........................... 1 STNru4ENT OF PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 REFEPENCES .................................... ........ 3 LIST OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS EMPLOYED .................... 6 TABLE OF L TENTS ...................................... 7
- 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................... 9
- 2.
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS ................................. 12
- 3. METHOD OF SOLUTION ................................. 17 3.1 General Features of AEOLUS-3 .................. 17 The Finite-Cloud Gamma (X/Q) .................. 21 g) g
's 3.2 3.3 3.4 The Murphy /Campe Dispersion Model .............
Sea Breeze and Fumigation Conditions .......... 24 26 3.4.1 The Nature of Sea Breezes .............. 26 3.4.2 Criteria for TIBL Formation ............ 29 3.4.3 TIBL Geometry .......................... 29 3.4.4 Dispersion Model ....................... 32 3.4.5 Regulatory Position .................... 32
- 4. INPUT DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS ......................... 34 4.1 Meteorological Data Base ...................... 34 4.2 Joint Frequency Distributions ................. 37 4.3 Wind Speed Extrapolation Coefficients ......... 41 4.4 Mixing Depths ................................. 42 4.5 Release Points and Associated Parameters ...... 43 4.6 Receptor Locations and Relative Elevations .... 48 4.6.1 Site Boundary and Offsite Receptors .... 48 4.6.2 Control Room Outside-Air Intakes ....... 52 4.6.3 TSC Outside-Air Intake ................. 61 l
l l b i 1 (a s
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE P . OF ~ 9O PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY #W DATE E NM9) O FINAL [X] CHECKED BY /// DATE , Y/#/9 7 (' TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accid'en't Atmospheric Dispersion Factors CONTENTS (Continued) Page 4.7 Fumigation Conditions ......................... 64 4.7.1 Onshore Wind Directions for Sea Breeze Conditions ............................. 64 4.7.2 TIBL Heights and Stack Releases ........ 67 4.8 Radionuclides Inventory for the Gamma (X/Q)s ... 69 4.9 Time Intervals of Interest .................... 70
- 5. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ............................... 73 5.1 Final Results ................................. 73 5.2 Comparison with UFSAR and SER Data ............ 84 5.3 Gamma (X/Q)s and Noble Gas Mixtures ........... 87 ATTACHMENTS n A. Excerpts from References Pertinent to this
/ l Calculation '
V B. Copies of Computer Outputs l O
i Y D NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE Or PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY d# DATE a////F"7 (] FINAL [X] CHECKED BY W DATE WMf ~7 ( ,/ TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors '
- 1. INTRODUCTION l
This calculation forms part of the analyses carried out by CRE in support of the power uprate program at JAF. Specifically, it . l deals with the computation (based on current methodologies) of atmospheric dispersion factors needed for re-analysis of the q radiological impact of design-basis accidents (DEAs) at the new uprate power level. For the analysis of radiation exposures to receptors of interest, there are two post-DBA primary release points to the atmosphere which should be considered at JAF, as follows: (a) The main stack (an elevated release), where airborne radioactivity within the reactor building is exhausted via the standby gas treatment system, and (b) The turbine building (a ground-level release), which () becomes contaminated following either a steam-line break outside containment or a control rod drop accident I (with release of radioactivity via.the condenser). Following release to the atmosphere, effluent radioactivity will be transported by the prevailing winds to the following receptor locations typically considered in the radiological assessment of DBAs: (a) The site boundary (SB) (b) The low population zone (LPZ), and (c) The outside-air intakes of the control room (CR) and of 1 the technical support center (TSC). The purpose of this calculation is to determine the time-dependent atmospheric dispersion factors which will dictate the transfer of the released radioactivity to the said receptors. Consideration is tiven to the following dispersion parameters: (a) The concentration (X/Q)s, needed for determination of: l Airborne concentrations of released radioactivity () at the various receptors, I
I NYPA - CALC.# JJ.F-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE /* OF 98 ' PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY M DATE 2/w/?"7 Q ( ,/ TITLE: FINAL [X] CHECKED BY '/2/ Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident DATE W//f7 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors 1 Internal radiation exposures due to inhalation, and External expositres due to beta radiation, j and I (b) The finite-cloud gamma (X/Q)s, needed for the i computation of external gamma radiation exposures from j finite-size radioactive clouds. I Data for these two parameters are needed as input to the CRE I computer codes DORITA-2 (Ref. 18) and/or ELISA (Ref. 26) for the ! I radiological assessment of the various DBAs. The atmospheric dispersion analyses documented in this calculation were carried out using the CRE computer code AEOLUS-3
)
(Ref. 1). Thorough descriptions of the analytical models j incorporated in the code may be found in the reference manuals. A l summary of its capabilities, and general remarks on the current I () application appear in Sec. 3 of this calculation. assumptions and input data are described in Sec. 4, Details on and the l analyses and results are presented in Sec. 5. An overall summary appears in Sec. 2 which follows. l The calculation supersedes its earlier releases in their i entirety. Differences between the various releases are as ; follows: Rev. O to Rev. 1 (a) The meteorological data base for calendar years 1985-1990 (which was made use of in JAF-CALC-RAD-0007 Rev. 0) was updated by Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (Ref. 21) to adjust a minor (few-degree) miscalibration in the wind direction sensors. (b) For consistency with the dispersion data in the latest release of .4.e JAF Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) (Ref. 22), the meteorological data base was extended to include 8 years' worth of hourly values (1985 through r ( j\ 1992), 1 l L _ . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
NYPA - CALC.# CAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE // OF 9# PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY M DATE V//F> (N. FINAL [X] CHECKED BY 4/ DATE V/#f7 () TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-AccidenIt Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (c) New information on onshore flows at the site (Ref. 23) was used to determine which receptor locations (SB, LPZ and/or CR and TSC) can be affected by the prescribed assumption of fumigation conditions at the time of a design-basis LOCA. Rev. 1 to Rev. 2 (a) The atmospheric dispersion factors for stack releases and the CR and TSC outside air intakes were reanalyzed to accommodate possible short-term meandering and looping j effects. The new model places the intakes at that distance from the stack where the concentrations would peak (based on the straight-line Gaussian plume model for elevated releases, and a 5% exceedance probability with () all sectors combined.)1 l l l
/~N
(_s) 1 This distance was determined to be 405m from the stack, l as compared to the actual distance of 185m. l t
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE /4. OF ## PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY S8 DATE a./r/f97 e FINAL [X] CHECKED BY W DATE Mr/9' > ( ,) TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors
- 2.
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS The dispersion parameters for the two release points and the various receptor locations of interest are presented in tabular form at the end of this section. The basic models, assumptions and data employed in their determination were as follows: (a) Use of atmospheric dispersion models which are consistent with the guidance in: Regulatory Guides 1.145 (Ref. 3) and 1.111 (Ref. 2) for both turbine-building and elevated releases, and for offsite receptors (SB and LPZ), Regulatory Guides 1.145 and 1.111 for elevated releases and onsite receptors (CR and TSC), 3 The Murphy /Campe (Ref. 4) multi-sector exposure model for turbine-building releases and close-in receptors (with j [~D releases being transported toward the CR outside-air s
'_) intake with winds from the W, WNW, NW, NNW, N, NNE, NE, ENE and E, and toward the TSC intake with winds from the W, WNW, NW, NNW, N, NNE, NE and ENE),
(b) Use of 8-years' worth of hourly meteorological data collected on site (by Niagara Mohawk) during the period 1985 - 1992 under approved QA/QC procedures (Refs. 11 and 12), with a i 96.8% recovery at the 30' elevation and a 96.5% recovery at the 200' elevation, I (c) Extrapolation of the wind speeds from the measurement level at 200 ft to the stack height using the extrapolation coefficients in Regulatory Guide 1.111, (d) Classification of the wind speeds into 11 groups, with a finer mesh at the low end of the wind speed range (in line with the guidance in ANSI /ANS Standard 2.5, Ref. 5), (e) Presence of a 4-hour fumigation condition (stability F and 2 m/sec) for stack releases and receptors at the SB and the LPZ [) v (but not at the CR and TSC outside-air intakes),
I NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 FAGE /7 OF P# r PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY BW DATE V///P 7 FINAL [X] CHECKED BY '/2/ DATE V/P/f 7 Q( / TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accid'nt e j Atmospheric Dispersion Factors l l (f) Terrain elevations extracted from geodetic survey maps (Ref. 10), and (g) Selection of a conservative noble gas mix for the finite-cloud gamma (X/Q), so as to permit application of the ! dispersion parameters at all post-DBA times (based on test runs using various decayed post-LOCA mixtures as well as a pure Xe133 source, with the latter yielding the most conservative results at all receptor locations). For stack releases and offsite receptors, analyses for various distances showed that ground-level concentrations would peak at about 4 miles from the stack, i.e., beyond the LPZ at 3.4 miles. This is primarily due to the presence of the hills which rise to about 240 ft above plant grade at about 5 miles south of l the plant. Finite-cloud gamma radiation exposures would peak at v) the LPZ. The peaking effect observed near the LPZ is of no significance for receptors at the site boundary. This is because the exposure time interval at this location (viz., 2 hours) occurs during the 4-hour fumigation condition which is assumed to prevail at the time of an accident. And, for fumigation conditions and relacively flat terrains, both the concentration and gamma (X/Q)s decrease with distance from the release point. As noted in the introduction, and in order to accommodate short-term plume meandering and looping effects (which are not accounted for by the straight-line Gaussian diffusion model), the actual location of the CR air intake vent with respect to the stack was ignored. Instead, the intake was conservatively placed at that distance from the stack (and at 17 m above grade) where the concentration of stack releases would peak. This distance was determined iteratively using the straight-line Gaussian model along with an exceedance probability of 5% and all sectors () combined (i.e., with all wind directions blowing toward the CR
.i
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE /9 OF Pd PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY GV DATE J////9"r { FINAL [X] CHECKED BY X/ DATE W #f7 (_ TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Acci'de'nt Atmospheric Dispersion Factors intake). The peaking distance was determined to be 405 m, as compared to the actual stack-to-inteke distar e of 185 m; there is about a 100-fold increase in the concentration (X/Q) from 185 to 405 m. The (X/Q) vs. distance curve is similar in shape to those , i shown in Regulatory Guide 1.3 (Ref. 17) for stack releases. l l However, at the JAF site there is a second peak in the l concentration (X/Q) beyond the LPZ, which is due to the presence of hills in the S sector. The magnitude of the concentration (X/Q)s at the two locations is approximately the same. Note that, where applicable, the (X/Q)s cover a post-accident time interval of 30 days, the last entry in the time array covering the 26-day period from the 5th day to the 30th. The entries in this last time interval may be conservatively assumed to apply for 27 days if the need exists to extend the
/~%
() i post-accident exposure time from 30 days to 31 days (as is the J case in the JAF UFSAR). As for a comparison of the dispersion parameters determined in this calculation versus corresponding data in the JAF UFSAR and Safety Evaluation Report (Refs. 7 and 19), the differences, which in some cases are significant, were attributed to the following: (a) Use of up-to-date dispersion models and of site-specific hourly meteorological data in the current calculation, and (b) Assumption, in the UFSAR, that fumigation conditions at the time of the accident will only prevail at the LPZ, with the site boundary being too close to the stack for
)
uniform vertical mixing to take place. In general, it is noted that there is better agreement between the current calculation and the SER than with the UFSAR. With respect to the UFSAR values, use of the dispersion parameters determined in the current calculation will yield: l () (a) Higher thyroid exposures for stack releases and f 1 I l _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _.____ _ _
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE // OF P# PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY 9F DATE verp
/' FINAL [X] CHECKED BY Tf/ DATE V///f7
( TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors receptors at the site boundary and the LPZ, and about the same exposures in the CR, (b) Lower thyroid exposures for TB releases and receptors at the site boundary and the LPZ, and higher exposures in the CR. As for the external gamma radiation exposures, assessment of the relative impact of the new dispersion parameters [ gamma (X/Q)s] is not straightforward due to differences in the analytical models between the current methodology and that in the UFSAR. Such an assessment would require detailed radiological analyses and is outside the scope of this calculation. N l I C#'
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE N OF 9# PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY JZy DATE VW97 FINAL [X] CHECKED BY ~// DATE 9/#/9'7 TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Acciden6 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors POST ACCIDfNT DISPERSION PARAMETERS - SB AND LPZ Time Sit.d Boundary (sec/m 3) LPZ (; c/m 3) Interval ---------------------- --------------------- (hrs) Conc. X/Q Gamma X/Q Conc. X/Q Gamma X/Q STACK REL. 0- 2 5.24E-5 4.75E-5 ----- ----- 0- 4 ----- ----- 2.04E-5 1.90E-5 4- 8 ----- ----- 2.17E-6 3.91E-6 8- 24 ----- ----- 9.53E-7 1.52E-6 24 - 96 ----- ----- 3.90E-7 5.68E-7 96 - 720 ----- ----- 1.08E-7 1.38E-7 TB RELEASES 0- 2 1.79E-4 1.32E-4 ----- ----- 0- 8 ----- ----- 2.00E-5 1.61E-5 8- 24 ----- ----- 1.34E-5 1.06E-5 ( 24 - 96 ----- ----- 5.59E-6 4.27E-6 96 - 720 ----- ----- 1.60E-6 ,1.16E-6 POST ACCIDENT DISPERSION PARAMETERS - CR AND TSC Time Control Room (sec/m3) TSC (sec/m3 ) Interval ---------------------- --------------------- (hrs) Cone. X/Q Gamma X/Q Conc. X/Q Gamma X/Q STACK REL. 0- 8 9.26E-7 3.24E-6 9.26E-7 3.24E-6 8- 24 6.75E-7 2.45E-6 6.75E-7 2.45E-6 24 - 96 3.39E-7 1.34E-6 3.39E-7 1.34E-6 96 - 720 1.26E-7 5.60E-7 1.26E-7 5.60E-7 TB RELEASES 0- 8 3.29E-3 4.06E-4 3.56E-3 4.00E-4 8- 24 2.81E-3 3.48E-4 3.03E-3 3.41E e 24 - 96 2.00E-3 2.49E-4 2.14E-3 2.42E-4 96 - 720 1.22E-3 1.54E-4 1.29E-3 1.48E-4 O U___-____-________-_-_____----_--_ _.
f NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE /? OF 98 i PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY fW DATE t////f7 Q FINAL [X] CHECKED BY '/ 2/ DATE Wp/f F k_,/ TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accid'en't Atmospheric Dispersion Factnrs
- 3. METHOD OF SOLUTION The atmospheric dispersion parameters documented in this calculation were determined through use of the CRE computer code AEOLUS-3. Complete details on the analytical models incorporated l
in this code may be found in Ref. 1. For the moment, it suffices to note that the code: (a) Accommodates the NRC guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.145 (Ref. 3) on short-term atmospheric dispersion models for the assessment of consequences of potential accidents at receptors which are not too close to the release point (such as receptors at the site boundary and the low population zone), and (b) Has the capability of making use of the Murphy /Campe methodology (Ref. 4) for receptors close to the release () point (such as the outside-air intakes of the Control Room and of the Technical Support Center (TSC)). The subsections which follow present the general features of the code, the definition of the gamma (X/Q) (which is used for the computation of external gamma radiation exposures from finite , clouds of radioactive material), and a description of the Murphy / Campe model. l 1 3.1 General Features of AEOLUS-3 I AEOLUS-3 was developed for implementation of the regulatory requirements for estimating atmospheric transport and dispersion of gaseous effluents released during both routine operations and under accident conditions. The code includes a number of significant features, such as dispersion and depo,sition in open terrains, at coastml sites and in deep river valleys, and can be l used for the determination of the following parameters: f_, The concentration (X/Q), or simply (X/Q)c, which converts ) (_)' _ effluent release rates of radioactivity to ground-level '
NYPA - CALC.# JA?-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE /# OF As* PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY S7 DATE _ E/w/f 7 p FINAL [X] CHECKED BY ' 8/ DATE V/#/f 7 1 TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accid'nh e Atmospheric Dispersion Factors concentrations at receptors of interest (with and without dep'ation in transit) The gamma (X/Q), or (X/Q),, which is used for the computation of external gamma doses from finite clouds of radioactive material (as described further in Sec. 3.2), and The deposition factor, (D/Q), which is used for the assessment of radiation exposure from standing on contaminated ground and from ingestion. Briefly, AEOLUS-3 includes the following basic models and features: Use of multi-year hourly meteorological data (wind direction, wind speed, vertical temperature difference, and, optionally, rainfall and solar radiation), ()
- Preparation of joint-frequency distributions (atmospheric stability, wind direction and wind speed; rainfall; sea breezes; up-valley and down-valley flows and associated rainfall),
Straight-line trajectory models with Gaussian diffusion (for gaseous releases in open terrains, at coastal-sites with sea breeze effects, and in deep-river valleys), Concentration (X/Q) and gamma (X/Q) models (plume centerline and sector-average), Depletion and deposition models (two options): (a) the models in Regulatory Guide 1.111, and (b) models making use of the deposition-velocity concept, Extrapolation of wind speed with height, Partial plum. .;ntrainment at the release point (split-H model, with part-time elevated and part-time ground-level releases), O ( f
- Building wake effects,
NYPA - CALC.# TAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE /f OF 98 i PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY S7 DATE 2////P#
"8 DATE V/#f7 p)
(_ TITLE: FINAL [X] CHECKED BY Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accid'ent Atmospheric Dispersion Factors 1 The Murphy /Campe (Ref. 4) building-wake methodology for close-in receptors,
- Plume meander effects, Plume rise effects (buoyant or momentum),
- Terrain features,
- Vertical reflection correction in all cases, and horizontal reflection correction in valley flows, Recirculation correction factors (built-in values for open terrains, or user-specified values),
In-transit decay correction (two user-specified decay constants, one for noble gases and one for halogens), User-specified halogen and noble-gas relative isotopic concentrations, or gamma spectra, for the finite-cloud gamma (X/Q)s, and
) Continuous, intermittent and accidental release options,
[~ % / with all of the above features in each case. For routine, continuous releases, the main parameters in the AEOLUS-3 output are: The plume centerline concentration (X/Q): (a) undecayed, undepleted (b) decayed, for noble-gas-release applications (c) decayed and depleted, for halogen-release applications The sector-average concentration (X/Q), (a) undecayed, undepleted (b) decayed, for noble-gas-release applications (c) decayed and depleted, for halogen-release applications The plume centerline finite-cloud gamma (X/Q), (a) undecayed, undepleted (b) decayed, for noble-gas-release applications (D L)
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE af d . OF 9* PROJECT: JAF PRELM [f PREPARED BY J7 DATE 2/A/9 7 r FINAL [X] CHECKED BY "//I DATE t/gf7 l k,
~
TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accid'ent l Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (c) decayed and depleted, for halogen-release applications
- The sector-average finite-cloud gamma (X/Q),
(a) undecayed, undepleted ) (b) decayed, for noble-gas-release applications I (c) decayed and depleted, for halogen-release applications The plume centerline decayed (D/Q), and l 1
- The sector-average decayed (D/Q).
For intermittent and accidental releases, use is made of the hybrid model described in the XOQDOQ code (Ref. 5) and in ! Regulatory Guide 1.145. The model makes use of log-log plots of the 1-hour plume centerline values (for the concentration (X/Q), the gamma (X/Q) and the deposition factor (D/Q)] and their
; corresponding sector-average values averaged over the v
joint-frequency distribution, to compute ' hybrid' values at intermediate time intervals of interest. For intermittent releases, the main parameters in the AEOLUS-3 output include the time-averaged values listed above for the continuous releases along with the following:
- The hybrid concentration _(X/Q):
(a) undecayed, undepleted
- 03) decayed, for noble-gas-release applications (c) decayed and depleted, for halogen-release applications
- The hybrid finite-cloud gamma (X/Q),
(a) undecayed, undepleted
- 03) decayed, for noble-gas-release applications (c) decayed and depleted, for halogen-release applications and
()
- The hybrid (D/Q).
L - __-_____---_____
I 1 anrPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 FAGE M OF ## PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY 7)V DATE ._3/ # P"7 FINAL [X] CHECKED BY #/8 DATE W#/97 I (Q) TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Acciden't Atmospheric Dispersion Factors {i For accidental releases, the main output of the code includes tables of hybrid values at the times of interest of undepleted and l undecayed concentration and gamma (X/Q)s and decayed (D/Q)s for l each sector independently and for the overall site. For elevated i releases, the output also includes concentration and finite-cloud gamma (X/Q)s as would be applicable during fumigation conditions. i 3.2 The Finite-Cloud Gamma (X/Q) As pointed out above, the analytical models in AEOLUS-3 make use of two dispersion parameters: (a) The concentration (X/0), which is used for the determination of airborne concentrations at offsite receptors of interest and the ensuing radiation exposures due to immersion in semi-infinite clouds, and p
,VI (b) The gamma (X/Q), which is employed for.the computation of external gamma radiation exposures due to exposure to finite clouds of radioactive material.
The manner in which t'r.sse parameters are applied in the assessment of offsite radiological impacts is presented below for additional clarification. By definition, the (X/Q), is a measure of the ground-level relative airborne concentration of released radioactivity at a given distance from the source. That is, if the release rate is defined as Qi , then the airborne concentration at the receptor of interest is: Xi = Qi (X/Q)e (Eq. 1) where Xi = airborne concentration of radionuclides i (pci/m 3) Qi = release rate of radionuclides i to the atmosphere (pCi/sec) (r~;j (X/Q)c = concentration dispersion factor (sec/m )3 .
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC- RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE #R OF f# PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY 77 DATE E//MP7 7% FINAL [X] CHECKED BY "/f/ DATE V/F77 TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors Exposure to this concentration could result in both inhalation and external radiation erposures. If consideration is given to a number of released radionuclides, the basic equation for thyroid dose exposure has the form: Dthy' = (X/Q)e B E Qi (DFT)1 (Eq. 2) i where Dthy' = thyroid dose rate (mrem /hr) B = individual breathing rate (m 3/hr) (DFT)1 = dose conversion factor for nuclide i (mrem per pCi inhaled). With respect to the computation of radiation doses from external gamma radiation, two models may be employed: O
- The semi-infinite cloud model, which is conservatively applicable only for ground-level releases (a simplistic j model based on the assumption that tihe airborne concentration at the receptor of interest is the same everywhere), and
- The finite-cloud model, which takes into consideration )
the actual plume dimensions, elevation above the receptor, and gamma radiation spectra. For the semi-infinite cloud model, the applicable equation for whole body dose due to external gamma radiation is as follows: i Dwb' = (X/Q)e E Q' i (DFB)1 (semi-infinite cloud) (Eq. 3) l l i 1 where Dwb' = whole body gamma dose rate (mrem /hr) (DFB)t = gamma dose-to-body conversion factor for , t radionuclides i (mrem /hr per pCi/m3)
1
)
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE 2.J OF M PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY J7 DATE e4*V7 7 W l FINAL [X] CHECKED BY DATE V//f7 l q ,/ TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accid'ent Atmospheric Dispersion Factors and the other parameters are as previously defined. The .aodel has 1 1 two drawbacks:
- It could be overly conservative for receptors close to the release point (for ground-level releases under stable conditions with limited plume dispersion) due to the fact that the high concentration at the receptor location is assumed to exist everywhere, and
- It is not suitable for elevated releases since gamma radiation emanating from the radioactive cloud could still reach a receptor on the ground even though the plume is still aloft (i.e., even though the concentration (X/Q) at ground level is equal to zero).
In the models that deal with the determination of external gamma exposure from finite plumes, the equations contain complex
/~'\ integrals representing the spatial distribution of the V radioactivity in the plume and the transmission of radiation through air. The desire to heve one form of equation which would apply for both finite and semi-finite cloud models, has prompted the definition of the " gamma (X/Q)", as described in detail in Ref. 1 (Sec. 4.2). Indeed, through use of this parameter, the finite cloud whole body gamma dose rate equation takes the form:
Dwb' = (X/Q), )U Qi ' (DFB)i (finite cloud). (Eq. 4) i The form of this equation is identical to the semi-infinite cloud equation above, the only difference being the replacement of the concentration (X/Q) by the gamma (X/Q). Thus, physically speaking, the gamma (X/Q) for a given finite cloud is numerically equivalent to the relative concentra* ion of a semi-infinite cloud which will yield the same gamma radiation exposure as the finite
~ cloud. Indeed, at distant receptors, where the plume dimensions - approach limiting conditions, the gamma (X/Q) equations reduce to
- - - - - - - - - - \
l NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE AY OF 98 PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY J# DATE '/N/F 7 f FINAL [X] CHECKED BY "#f DATE W#/F 7 (G
~
TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accid'ent Atmospheric Dispersion Factors those for the concentration (X/Q). Ncte that tPe finite-cloud equation applies for both ground-level and elevated releases, and that the gamma radiation spectrum associated with the airborne radioactivity is properly accounted for by the gamma (X/Q). Also, the concentration (X/Q)s and the gamma (X/Q)s in the above equations represent either plume centerline or sector-average values, the former being for estimating short-term dispersion effects, and the latter for dispersion during relatively longer periods of time. 3.3 The Murphy /Campe Dispersion Model Murphy and Campe (Ref. 4) provide a number of atmospheric diepersion equations in connection with their methodology for designing nuclear power plant control room ventilation systems [) LJ which meet General Design Criterion 19. Their methodology has been endorsed by the NRC and its use is recommended in the Standard Review Plan (Ref. 20). Of particular interest is their model for multi-point leakage from a building and a single point receptor. According to this model, a special formula is used to account for the increased dilution as a result of building wake effects; and, in contrast to *.he regulatory models for distant ! 1 receptors, there is no limitation on the magnitude of the wake I effects. Murphy and Campe also provide guidance as to the number of 22.5-degree wind direction sectors which result in receptor exposure. The number of sectors to be selected depends on the ; ratio of (x/d e ) , where x is the distance from the surface of the . building cau:ing the wake and de is the equivalent diameter of the building. The relationship is approximately as follows: O V
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE Af OF 9e PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY ## DATE */N/F7
/* FINAL [X) CHECKED BY '//
DATE #f/f7 ( TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Acciderit Atmospheric Dispersion Factors Approx. (x/d e) No. of Sectors ____ $_____ $ $$_ $_ $$ $b_ $$[$ 0.00 - 0.37 10 I 1 0.37 - 0.50 8 ) 0.50 - 0.63 7 l 1 0.63 - 0.83 6 0.83 - 1.25 5 j 1.25 - 2.50 4
> 2.50 3 AEOLUS-3 was programmed to accommodate partial implementation of the Murphy /Campe building wake model. The difference between AEOLUS-3 and the Murphy /Campe model is that in AEOLUS-3 use is , made of the actual meteorological data and of the other applicable models for dispersion during accident conditions. In other words, there is no need to rely on the wind-speed, wind-direction and exposure-time adjustment factors in the Murphy /Campe methodology.
In short, AEOLUS-3 was programmed to accommodate the Murphy /Campe building wake formula and to account for single receptor exposure when the wind is blowing into more than one sector. As described in Sec. 4.1.10 of Ref. 1, application of this model requires activation of the valley model of the code for the purpose of directing wind flow from many sectors into a single 1ector (i.e., towards the receptor of interest). In addition, it requires the definition of an up-valley or down-valley direction (which includes the sectors leading to receptor exposure), using as guidance the (x/d c) ratio in the table above. The receptor is to be positioned within the ' valley' at the appropriate distance, j and the valley sha,e parameters are to be selected to rep:_esent the valley as a flat terrain. 7,. The Murphy /Campe model in AEOLUS-3 was used for the Q - determination of the dispersion factors which would govern the
NYPA - CALC.# 87F-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE J# - OF 98 PROJECT: JhF PRELK [ ] PREPARED BY #7 DATE *#//97 O FINAL [X] CHECKED BY W DATE V/ # f7 ) ( TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accidedt I Atmospheric Dispersion Factors 4 transfer of post-accident releases from the turbine building to the outside-air intakes of the control room and of the TSC. See j i Secs. 4.6.2 and 4.6.3 below for the assumptions and data employed in its implementation, j i 3.4 Sea Breeze and Fumigation Conditions 1' Regulatory Guide 1.145 (Ref. 3) specifies that, for nuclear power plants with stack releases, a fumigation condition should.be ; assumed to exist at the time of the postulated design-basis ! accident. At JAF, a coastal site, fumigation conditions are driven by sea breezes. The subsections which follow present a discussion on the nature of sea breezes and their formation, a brief description of the dispersion model, and the NRC position j regarding the directional dependence of fumigation with respect to f'% ( ) the shoreline. 3.4.1 The Nature of Sea Breezes - Sea breezes commonly occur during spring and summer along the coastline. Because the land warms more rapidly than the water on a sunny day, the air temperature over the land is often higher than the temperature of the air mass over the water. Thus, when the synoptic flow is generally weak, a circulation develops from the water to the land at low levels and from the land to the water aloft. As described by Slade (Ref. 14, Sec. 2.3-5), during the morning hours of a clear spring or summer day with light winds, l 1 the sea breeze will begin as a gentle breeze. As the intensity of j the solar radiation increases, the breeze becomes stronger and penetrates further i.itnd, up to 15 to 20 miles. By midafterne a, the sea breeze has developed to the greatest extent an2 begins to weaken as the sun sinks. After the sun sets and the sea breeze () has dissipated, a land breeze frequently forms. The land breeze, l l
NYPA - CALC.# 7AF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE A7 OF 98 PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY J# DATE ##/AP) FINAL [X] CHECKED BY '8 DATE V/R7 7 (q) TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors l l which is usually weaker than the daytime sea breeze, is caused by a water temperature which is higher than the temperature over the land. The land breeze reaches its maximum development during the ; winter. The wind structure during a sea breeze is shown in Fig. 3.1. The cold air over the water surface can be characterized as stable. During an onshore wind, the cool and stable marine air is heated from below by the land surface and becomes unstable in the lower levels. The depth of the unstable layer increases with inland distance until the marine inversion is destroyed. The layer of unstable air beneath the marine inversion is known as the thermal internal boundary layer (TIBL). The importance of a TIBL in the behavior of effluents can best be understood with the aid of Fig. 3.1 for releases above the f') TIBL. The effluent plume is transported inland at a given height v above the ground surface. When the plume begins to intercept the l top of the TIBL the material in the plume is mixed rapidly downward in the unstable air within the TIBL. This rapid downward j mixing is known as fumigation, and leads to ground level concentrations which are higher than would otherwise be predicted. As the TIBL continues to grow, more material is entrained until the plume is entirely within the TIBL. At greater downwind distances, the continued growth of the unstable layer provides a greater mixing volume and the ground-level concentration begins to decrease. For releases which occur at ground-level, the material is trapped within the TIBL. This lid limits the mixing depth for the area around the site and can result in higher ground-level concentrations. rm U
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE 28 OF _ ## PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY_ 7# DATE m////97 FINAL [X] CHECKED BY "## DATE E/#f7 O TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accide't Atmospheric Dispersion Factors n Fig. 3.1 - Typical Fumigation Plume During a Sea Breese Air Flow ( f ~- m ~ ~ - -
.m Q w l1
/ '
i 1 i I i
!'t i
' *O o@Q. & c<
ae i i w_ i Heated Land Surface O
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE A9 OF 9# PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY ilV DATE VAMar? . A FINAL [X] CHECKED BY W DATE WJ/'f7 I k_,) TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors 3.4.2 Criteria for TIBL Formation Criteria and meteorological conciticns suitable for the l 1 formation of TIBLs are as follows: (a) TIBLs can occur only during spring and summer when the land-water temperature difference is suitable. A sea breeze season extending from April through September is typical. (b) TIBLs can occur only during daytime when there is sufficient solar intensity (typically between 0800 and 1800 hours during the sea breeze season). (c) The wind direction must be onshore with an overwater fetch sufficiently long to stabilize the air mass. A fetch of five to ten miles will result in a marine inversion several hundred feet deep. l (d) The wind speed must be in an appropriate range. Too low [J) a wind speed will not support a TIBL. If the wind speed is too high, mechanical turbulence.will overcome any thermal effects and a TIBL will not be formed. A range of wind speeds between 2 and 10 (m/sec) characterizes the conditions of interest. (e) Solar radiation must be sufficiently strong since it is the heating of the land which causes the development of a TIBL (typically 0.35 Langleys/ minute or more). This magnitude of solar intensity occurs early and late on bright days and is approximately 1/3 the peak midday values during clear summer days. 3.4.3 TIBL Geometry The best basis for defining the depth of the TIBL as a function of inland distance is a field measurement program at the site of interest. Visible tracers, turbulence measurements, A () temperature soundings, and other techniques have been used at some f L____________
I NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE 10 OF 98 i PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY ST DATE _ a////97 O. FINAL [X] CHECKED BY W DATE V/P/F 7 ( ,) TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors l sites to locate the interface between the TIBL and the stable layer. As described in Ref. 23 (ESEERCO, Eastern Lake Ontario On-Shore Flow Field Study, Sec. 1.1.1), no studies have been made on the formation of TIBLs specific to Lake Ontario. However, based on studies conducted on the other Great Lakes (including Lake Michigan and Lake Erie), Sigma Research Corporation (Ref. 25) recommends that one of the following empirical (robust) expressions be used to approximate the TIBL height (H723t, in meters) as a function of inland distance (X, in meters): OCD Model (Ref. 27) H 223t = 0.1 X when X < 2000 m H rzst = 200 + 0.03 (X - 2000) when X > 2000 m Hsu (Ref. 28) Hrzet = AX5 U where A = Over-land stability dependent constant equal to 4.9 for Class A l 2.7 for Class B 1.7 for Class C and 1.2 for Class D. These expressions are being referred to as robust in that they are not apt to produce excessively large or small TIBL heights due to variations in input data. TIBL heights as a function of distance from the shore line are shown in Fig. 3.2. The OCD TIBL height model is the most conservative (for releases initially above the TIBL) and requires the user to determine only if appropriate conditions for TIBL development exist. The Hsu model is slightly les.e conservative and requires more detailed assessment of the over-land stability. The OCD model has been () recommended (Refs. 23 and 25), and is used by Niagara Mohawk.
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE N OF 9# PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY. ## DATE ##/97 WI DATE V/p/f ~7 O TITLE: FINAL [X] CHECKED BY Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors Fig. 3.2 - TIBL Beight vs Distance Inland (Based on the Equations in Sec. 3.4.3) 400 --
- O C D M eth al
+
- + - Hsu: Stab =A -
350 __
*+~ #
Hsu: Stab =B -
- 300 - -
O2g250-- 5 #
^
Hsu: Stab =C - __ .. - Hsu: Stab =D - g . 1 #
/ ,... +
p 200
,,... +***.
p / V
/ .e 3
3 l50 -- ,Y **
..e*****
1 / ,,. ,__.__ & g / 100 -- /
-*- ** ~*~ *
*' .. -s 7 __
. _e 50 -- /. Y * **
/ . y*.4.+
0- l , : : : 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 2*tance Inland (m) O
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE iE OF 9# PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY S# DATE 2/eWF7 O FINAL [X] CHECKED BY W DATE WrN7 k TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accide'ht Atmospheric Dispersion Factors 3.4.4 Dispersion Model Details on the atmospheric dispersion model for use during fumigation anditions may be found in the AEOLUS-3 technical manuals (Ref. 1), and in Regulatory Guide 1.145 (Ref. 3). For the purposes of this calculation, it suffices to note the following: (a) Plume rise effects under accidents conditions are not allowed, (b) The over-land atmospheric stability is F, and the wind speed is 2 m/sec, l (c) The inversion layer is at the height of the stack, and (d) The dispersion equations are for uniform vertical mixing between the inversion layer and the ground. 3.4.5 Regulatory Position ( ) Regulatory Guide 1.145 (Ref. 3) specifies that, for nuclear power plants located at coastal sites (specifically, at a distance less than 2 miles from large bodies of water, such as JAF), a fumigation condition should be assumed to exist at the time of the postulated design-basis accident. This requirement is in line ; with that in Reg. Guide 1.111 (Ref. 2) for routine releases which states that, for coastal sites, consideration should be given to the characteristics of sea or lake breezes, the variation of the mixing layer height with time and distance from the shore, and the effects of shoreline bluffs or dunes. According to Reg. Guide 1.145, fumigation conditions are to be assumed at the time of the postulated design-basis accident. At coastal sites, the duration of fumigation is 2 hours at the site boundary (i.e., for the entire exposure interval), and 4 hours at the Low Population Zone (LPZ). This prescribed fumigation assumption is conservative in that it does not consider the frequency and duration of fumigation
/
I ( conditions as a function of airflow direction. However, as
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE 7J OF 9a PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY AP W DATE 2/#/97 gx FINAL [X] CHECKED BY ' /// DATE ##/f 7 ( TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Acci' dent Atmospheric Dispersion Factors provided by the Reg. Guide, the assumption may be relaxed, "if information can be presented to substantiate the likely directional occurrence and duration of fumigation at a site". Hence, as part of the present calculation, a review was carried out of new information on onshore flows at the site (Refs. 23, 24 and 25). It was concluded that fumigation conditions need only be considered for receptors at the site boundary and the LPZ, but not for the outside-air intakes of the Control Room and the Technical Support Center. Details are presented in Sec. 4.7.
/%
i L ll I 1 l
r NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE 3T OF 9# i PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY A7/V DATE M */ h FINAL [X] CHECKED BY Mi DATE W W F 7 l (O) l , TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors
- 4. INPUT DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS 4.1 Meteorological Data Base The meteorological data base used in the analyses consists of 8 years' worth of onsite hourly values collected by Niagara Mohawk during calendar years 1985 through 1992. The data were collected and verified in accordance with applicable NMP Procedures (Ref. 11 and 12) and were provided to CRE by Mr. Thomas Galletta of Nine Mile Point #1. .
The 8 data files (one for each year) were broken up into a total of 96 monthly records for direct use by AEOLUS-3. A 2-line header was added to the beginning of each file for identification. , This was followed by a 3-digit integer (in columns 1 - 3) identifying the number of hourly records in the said file. Refer
/^\
- to the AEOLUS-3 outputs in Attachment B for reference samples.
(J Each hourly record in the data files consists of two entry lines, 80 columns each. The contents of each record are in line with the NRC guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.23 (Ref. 29) and are presented in the table which follows. l l O v
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE M OF 9# PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY .9'V DATE 2A/97 r~N FINAL [X] CHECKED BY '/// 14TE V/ # f 7 y) TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Acci' dent Atmospheric Dispersion Factors CONTENT 3 OF EACH HOURLY METEOROLOGICAL RECORD PROVIDED AS INPUT TO AEOLUS-3 Columns Format D e a c r i p t i o n Line 1 3 - 6 I6 Identifier 7- 8 F2.0 Calendar year 9 - 11 F3.0 Julian day (1 to 365/366 days) 12 - 13 F2.0 Hour (24-hr clcck, O to 23) 14 - 15 F2.0 Other (currently set as '00') , 16 - 20 F5.1 Upper measurement level (200.0 ft) 21 - 25 F5.1 Wind direction (degrees) 26 - 30 F5.1 Wind speed (mph) 31 - 35 F5.1 Sigma theta (degrees) 36 - 40 F5.1 Ambient temperature (deg. F) 41 - 45 F5.1 Moisture (not available) I 46 - 50 F5.1 Other (none available) l
/~N
(#l 51 - 55 F5.1 Intermediate measurement level (100 ft) 56 - 60 F5.1 Wind direction (degrees) l 61 - 65 F5.1 Wind speed (mph) 66 - 70 F5.1 Sigma theta (degrees) 71 - 75 F5.1 Ambient temperature (deg. F) 76 - 80 F5.1 Moisture (not available) Line 2 1- 5 F5.1 Other interm.-level parameter (:N.A.) 6 - 10 F5.1 Lower measurement level (30 f t) 11 - 15 F5.1 Wind direction (degrees) 16 - 20 F5.1 Wind speed (mph) 21 - 25 F5.1 Sigma theta (degrees) 26 - 30 F5.1 Ambient temperature (deg. F) 31 - 35 F5.1 Moisture (not available) j 36 - 40 F5.1 Other (none available) 41 - 45 F5.2 Temp. diff. (upper - lower ) (deg. F) l 46 - 50 FS.2 Temp. diff. (upper - interm.) (deg. F) 51 - 55 F5.2 Temp. diff. (interm. - lower) (deg. F) 56 - 60 F5.2 Precipitation (inches of water) 61 - 65 F5.2 Solar radiation (not available) i 66 - 70 FS.2 Visibility (not available) l (~'s - 71 - 75 F5.2 Barometric pressure (in of Hg) Other (none available) (_f 76 - 80 F5.2 l \ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE M OF 9# PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY /9 7 DATE e M/T 7
/] FINAL [X] CHECKED BY W DATE #7N7 (m,/ TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors The hourly entries of interest for each of the two release points and the read formats provided as input to AEOLUS-3 are as follows:
' Read' format for stack releases:
(6X,F2.0,F3.0,F2.0,F2.0,5X,F5.1,F5.1/40X,F5.2,10X,F1.0,4X,F1.0)
' Read' format for turbine building releases:
(6X,F2.0,F3.0,F2.0,F2.0/10X,F5.1,F5.1,30X,F5.2,F1.0,4X,,F1.0) Parameters of Interest l Seq. Format Description Line Columns (O) Stack Releases 1 F2.0 Calendar year 1 7- 8 2 F3.0 Julian date 1 9 - 11 3 F2.0 Hour of day 1 12 - 13 4 F2.0 Month (not available) 1 14 - 15 5 F5.1 200-ft wind direction 1 21 - 25 6 F5.1 200-ft wind speed 1 26 - 30 l 7 F5.2 Temp. diff (upper - lower) 2 41 - 45 l 8 F1.0 Precipitation (not used) 2 56 l 9 F1.0 Solar radiation (not used) 2 61 Turbine Building 1 F2.0 Calendar year 1 7- 8 2 F3.0 Julian date 1 9 - 11 3 F2.0 Hour of day 1 12 - 13 4 F2.0 Month (not available) 1 14 - 15 5 F5.1 30-ft wind direction 2 11 - 15 6 F5.1 30-ft wind speed 2 16 - 20 7 F5.2 Temp. diff (interm - lower) 2 51 - 55 8 F1.0 Precipitation (not used) 2 56
"'i 9 F1.0 Solar radiation (not used) 2 61 (O
l
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE 77 OF 9# PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY #W DATE 2./ # 9 7 (3 FINAL [X] CHECKED BY W DATE V/Xf7 () TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accide't Atmospheric Dispersion Factors n The hourly data extracted from the monthly records were converted to the appropriate units by providing the foll ving multipliers as input to the code: Paraaeter Multiplier Final units Wind speed 0.447 m/sec Temperature diff. 0.5556 deg. C Precip. (not used) 25.4 mm of water I The upper-limit entries in the data base acceptable as valid observations were set at 540 degrees for the wind direction, 67.1 mph (or 30 m/sec, from Sec. 4.2) for the wind speeds, 20 F for the temperature differences, and 9.9 units for precipitation and solar radiation. 4.2 Joint Frequency Distributions One of the functions of AEOLUS-3 is to convert the input hourly meteorological data to joint frequency distributions for use in the computation of the dispersion parameters. In the analyses documented in this calculation, two sets of joint-frequency distributions were prepared, one for each of the two release points of interest (namely the main stack and the turbine building). The tower data and other variables used in each case were as follows: Stack Releases l
- Wind speed and wind direction as measured at the 200 ft elevation of the meteorological tower
- Temperature difference as measured between the 200 ft and 30 ft elevations (sensor separation = 170 ft = 51.82 m)
(Use of these elevations is in line with the guidance in () ANSI /ANS Standard 2.5, Ref. 9, Sec. 4)
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE IP OF 9# PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY SF DATE 2/uM7 ( FINAL [X] CHECKED BY W DATE ##/9 7 ' (]) TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors Turbine Buildinc Releases
- Wind speed and wind direction as measured at the 30 ft elevation of the meteorological tot.
- Temperature difference as measured between the 100 ft and 30 ft elevations (sensor separation = 70 ft = 21.34 m)
[See Note at the end of this subsection regarding the classification of stability for ground-level releases.] The file hourly data on wind variability, rainfall, solar radiation, temperature and pressure were not used. The wind speeds were classified into 11 groups, as defined in l the following table: CLASSIFICATION OF WIND SPEEDS l l l ("] Wind speed Wind speed range Median Speed '() Group < (m/sec) < (m/sec) (mph)
- 1 0.0 -
0.268 0.134 0.30 2 0.268 - 0.5 0.384 0.86 3 0.5 - 1.0 0.75 1.68 l l 4 1.0 - 2.0 1.5 3.36 5 2.0 - 3.0 2.5 5.59 6 3.0 - 5.0 4.0 8.95 1 7 5.0 - 7.5 6.25 13.98 8 7.5 - 10.0 8.75 19,57 9 10.0 - 15.0 12.5 27.96 10 15.0 - 20.0 17.5 39.15 11 20.0 - 30.0 25.0 55.93 Group 1 was reserved for calms, i.e., for all observaticas where the wind speed was less than the starting threshold of the wind vane (0.268 m/ set, or 0.6 mph). Calms were assigned a wind speed equal to half the vane starting speed and were distributed () (by AEOLUS-3) to the 16 direction sectors in proportion to the
i i NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE 39 OF 9# ( PROJECT: JAF PRELM [] PREPARED BY # SV DA'ig 2/gpp FINAL [X] CHECKED BY W DATE ##/f'7 (G,) TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accl~ dent Atmospheric Dispersion Factors I distribution of observations in the second wind speed group for each stability. Note that the wind speed classification contains a finer mesh at the low end of the wind speed range. This is because it is the low wind speed observations which eventually dictate the values of the dispersion parameters to be used in the assessment of design-basis accidents. The selected distribution is in line with the guidance in ANSI /ANS Standard 2.5 (Ref. 9). i The joint-frequency distributions are not of interest in this calculation and will not ce addressed any further. They may be found in the AEOLUS-3 outputs in Attachment B, Run Cases 1 and 9, output pages 13 through 15. Note - Stability Classification for Ground-Level Releases () Proposed Reg. Guide 1.23 (Ref. 30) states that at coastal sites the primary meteorological tower should be in such a location that the upper measuring level is within the TIBL during onshore flow conditions, while still maintaining a 50-m separation between measurement levels. At NMP/JAF, the meteorological tower does not meet these criteria, and TIBLs typically intercept the tower. Hence, use of the temperature difference between the 200-ft and 30-ft elevations of the tower for the classification of near-ground atmospheric stabilities (i.e., under the TIBL) is not appropriate. A detailed analysis of the onshore flows at the NMP/JAF site appears in Ref. 23. Sec. 2.5 of that reference recommends that for near-ground releases use should be made of the sigma-theta method from either the 2 to 10 m micrometeorological tower, or the 30 ft level of the main tower. This recommendation was based on examination of the correspondence between " objectively determined" stability classes (based on solar radiation and wind speed during ' () the day, and temperature difference between the 2 and 10 m of the
l NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE F OF 9# PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY # jV DATE a////97 ( 1 FINAL [X] CHECKED BY 8 DATE t'/ P # ~7
\ TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accidedt Atmospheric Dispersion Factors micrometeorological tower at night) and those determined using other information from the main tower. The correspondence referred te (summarized from data in Ref. 23) is as follows:
Frequency of Occurrence (%) Stability Class Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 A 4.3 3.3 26.0 8.5 l B 16.9 9.2 4.5 4.5 l C 16.7 35.2 4.5 5.6 D 22.0 27.6 28.0 39.4 E 18.0 20.2 23.7 26.6 F 21.4 4.4 12.6 13.9 A,B,C 37.9 47.7 35.0 18.6 D 22.0 27.6 28.0 39.4 fg E,F 39.4 24.6 36.3 40.5 YY Case 1: Objectively determined Case 2: Sigma-theta at the 30-ft level of the main tower (Ref. 23, Table 2.15) Case 3: 100-ft to 30-ft temperature difference (Ref. 23, Table 2.18) Case 4: 200-ft to 30-ft temperature difference (Ref. 23, Table 2.19) Review of the above results shows that both Cases 2 and 3 (and not only Case 2 as recommended in Ref. 23) have reasonable correspondence with Case 1. In fact, Case 3 matches better the objectively determined stabilities when the classification is based on unstable (classes A, B and C), neutral (class D), and stable (classes E and F) conditions. In addition, Case 2 significantly underestimates the most critical atmospheric stability for short- t am (accidental) releases (namely, class F). Based on the above, the temperature difference betaeen the r- 100-ft and 30-ft elevations of the tower was used for the i
\_ classification of atmospheric stability for near-ground releases.
l
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE W OF 98 3 PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY GW DATE 2/ # 97 i FINAL [X] q) TITLE: CHECKED BY "/// Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accid (nt DATE ##/97 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors 4.3 Wind Speed Extrapolation Coefficients In AEOLUS-3, the extrapolation of wind speeds from the height at which the measurements are tal:en to the height of interest is accomplished through use of the equation: J U new
- Uold (h.,/h n o1a)q where u,n
= extrapolated wind speed (m/sec),
uoia = measured wind speed (m/sec), haoi
= height of instrum: ts (ft or m above station grade),
h,n
= height of interest (ft or m above station grade),
and n
\
q = stability dependent power coefficients. (Y All parameters (except q) are user-specified. As for the l power coefficients, the user has the option.of either providing his/her own data or letting the code default to the following built-in values (as used in the XOQDOQ and PAVAN computer codes, Refs. 5 and 13): , l q = 0.25 for Pasquill stabilities A, B, C and D, and q = 0.50 for Pasquill stabilities E, F and G. In the current application, it is these values which were used in the above equation to extrapolate the wind speeds measured l l at the upper instrument level of the meteorological' tower (200 ft j above grade) to the release height of the main stack (385 ft above l grade). n. l
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE M OF M PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY #W DATE VWU
/~ FINAL [X] CHECKED BY 7/8f DATE #1/99
(,}) TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident'
)
l Atmospheric Dispersion Factors I
}
4.4 Mixing Depths Vertical diffusion of plumes is inhibited by the existence of a stable atmospheric layer (an e'evated inversion) alort. _ The extent of vertical mixing is reduced in such cases and the stable layer can be considered as an effective lid on the vertical transport of pollutants. The impact of such a lid on the relative ground concentrations becomes significant only in cases where the plume vertical standard deviation (sigma z) is of the same order of magnitude as the mixing depth. Such situations typically occur I with unscable conditions, and as a result the presence of the lid . has practically no effect on the short-term accident (X/Q)s which are representative of stable conditions. (Note: Uniform vertical mixing is attained when sigma-z is approximately twice the mixing l
/ '
V) depth.) Although there are many hours in any given year which are characterized by unlimited mixing depths, AEOLUS-3 can only accommodate a single average mixing depth for the entire period represented by the joint frequency distributions. In the present calculation, this mixing depth was set equal to 600 m. Typical ! I annual average values at the JAF site range between 630m during a the morning hours and 1275 m in the afternoon (from Ref. 6, for Buffalo, NY; see Attachment A for pertinent excerpts). The j selected value of 600 m is conservative. Its overall impact on j f' the accident (X/Q)s is negligible. t
'l i
1 (~h
\) i l
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE W OF P# PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY #W DATE 2//Mf2 I p s TITLE: FINAL [X] CHECKED BY '/ ff Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident DATE 9'/J/#7 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors 4.5 Release Points and Associated Parameters As noted earlier, there are two potential post-accident release points at JAF: the main stack and the turbine building. For releases from the turbine building, the time-dependent dispersion parameters dictating the transport of released radioactivity to the outside-air intakes of the control room and of the technical support center were computed (by AEOLUS-3) using the Murphyi.Ampe model descrioed above in Sec. 3.3. For application of this model, it was necessary to convert the rectangular turbine building into a cylinder with the same cross-sectional area (top view). The height of the cylinder was set equal to that 7f the actual building and the vertical cross-sectional area of the cylinder causing building-wake effects was set equal to the product of the diameter times the building () heignt. The equivalent cylinder was centrally located with respect to the turbine building. Data for these two release points were extracted from JAF Drawing 11825-FA-2G and Fig. F-1 of the JAF ODCM (Ref. 8); they r.re presented below along with other pertinent information and assumptions. Portions of the drawings are included at the end of this subsection for reference (Figs. 4.1 - 4.3).
~h (G
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE M OF N PROJECT: JAF PRE 1M [ ] PREPARED BY 8W DATE E/#9 7 ("] FINAL [X] CHECKED BY TI DATE t'/p/9'7 ( ) TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Acci'ent d Atmospheric Dispersion Factors DATA PERTINENT TO THE RELEASE POINTS OF INTEREST . I Stack Releases ! All Receptors Release elevation : 656'-6" Grade elevation : 271*-6" Release height : 385 ft = 117.3 m above station grade Adjacent building wake effects : None Plume rise effects : None assumed Turbine Building Releases Site Boundary and LPZ l (Reg. Guide 1.145 Model) l East / West Projection (Turbine Building) (# ' Release height Building height Ground 380 ft - 272 ft = 108 ft = 32.9 m
- l l
Cross-sect. area : 275 ft x 108 ft = 29,700 sq ft
= 2759 sq m North / South Projection (Reactor Building)
Release height : Ground Building height : 434.8 ft - 272 ft = 162.8 ft = 49.6m Cross-sect. area : 151 ft x 162.8 ft = 24,580 sq ft
= 2284 sq m *
- Conservatively selected for use with all direction sectors Control Room and TSC (Murphy /Campe Model)
Release height : Ground Building height : 380 ft - 272 ft = 108 ft = 32.9 m Building equiv. diameter : 2.0 x [(275 x 130)/3.1415930 5
= 213.35 ft = 65.0 m Building equiv.
projected area : 108 ft x 213.35 ft = 23.040 sq ft l
/~'N = 2140 sq m !
\ w,) '
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE ## OF 9d PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY,"E >T/ DATE E/#/97 FINAL [X] CHECKED BY M DATE f'/.r/f7
] TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accideilt /
Atmospheric Dispersion Factors Fig. 4.1 - Excerpts from JAF ODCM (Ref. 4), Fig. *-1
/ RELEASE DOINT 4 6'-0" MIN yq- [ EL ese'-4*
i EED - EL 641'-e' I llEE-- EL 62 4*-4
- b V
346*4
- Il-- EL 478'-0*
1Il ME- EL 390'-4' g g3 0 P g EL SOS *-s* n A* f n aet'-e'
, Q Q pn set *-o' e gn 271*-t' n m -. i t co.co n
, MAT
,) STACK k_/.
E AST ELEVATION O
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE 8 OF _._ 9 8 PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY 74/ DATE ##P7
/~N FINAL [X] CHECKED BY ' "#f DATE r/#87 h TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accidefit Atmospheric Dispersion Factors Fig. 4.2 -
Excerpts from. Drawing 11825-FA-2G b li e B 's t-
, b'E
-r.
F.. C 1 [ .l t i
~T,
( l .I: it.I, I l
;;. . -;y ,.n.g .*--g e--
- 3. . ~g .,
*y ~I Y r .D'l l[
fv;a 4. b t .J i;1 ?- x-k t a ne
. s l y:: .. -
i'
?A. '
i
~ "
! I .I -
( y ~~f 3 5 , l p l tt 8 J gg [__
.< =Es 3;l o ,
lq4q a. O- c D 1 : - {E.'5E= ! 2o 5E 'I 7 F r' 1 I
-I
*i g N **S *i .- e m :,- ~
-K gp 1 h F' r=
H w yvI p- .!]$
. e lj ,s
- p.
y .
,1 m
> w
,M' 8
l - tya I.-- .
- v. .v 2 E, -A%
. . . .'f._
- +
1
. . _1~9 ~
3 l . D
}
r ' a
.- n. ,
a-
- I.I I:
.... r : -
O k .T 2: r s e -s
=_ *2 's, a.- =_. _r c y t.
Q
,r.-- y S
, g \
1 4._ _ ._.11 ---h . - - - - -
- ~~
h qY i 6' . _s I i . -
' L1-C 2
- i. pN- f b
~~
c . t : _ w l ltf-) v 1-E 1 i ! - trta % - T-G t t T I - _i_ ,i r ; l I i
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE 97 OF' 9# PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY. 27 7 DA'4 E W#+7
% FINAL [X] CHECKED BY W DATE r/#ff7 TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Acci'de'nt Atmospheric Dispersion Factors Fig. 4.3 - Excerpts from. Drawing 11825-FA-2G TCP OF PAR APET.,
L L. 380 - G" _ y "r:jr TCP OF PARAFET [ha 4 EL. 313 4- , TURBINE BLDG. , 2 3-LINE *?' TCP Cr pagapgy 8 h
+
/ -
EL 302-6*l i es aa u=- d ' ,A' /'d *i i a i O . . . . , <
-EL a ';
- c. =re-i nl j kcJ'o s
.e :
liln' I IN ' Fln I :'aW i I .I l es: l 7"Y**I l
.i b
! ! i mapwarro ag ., a.r seas
';f.'.g*.m gge. - l su.ssus e ton a pe'
..c.
,e. .-
O
@ @ e )
NCP.TH 1 l i i l 1 i l l e \ U - l l i > L ------ _ --_--
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE __ W OF 9# PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY JJV DATE V M F7 kQ,/ FINAL [X] CHECKED BY ' 8/ DATE V/#ff? TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors 4.6 Receptor Locations and Relative Elevations 4.6.1 Sito Boundary and Offsite Receptcrs The tables which follow present data pertinent to the site boundary and other offsite receptors for releases from the main stack and from the turbine building. These tables were prepared using the following data and assumptions: (a) For stack releases, the site boundary distances are measured from the main stack; for turbine building releases, the distances are measured from the outer surface of the building. (b) In line with the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.145 for accidental releases, the site boundary distance for each of the 16 sectors refers to the shortest distance () from the release point (stack or building surface) to the boundary within a 45-degree sector centered on the compass direction of interest. These distances were determined using the JAF Site Plan on Drawing 11825 FY-2A. (c) For sectors leading to the shoreline, the site-boundary distances were set equal to 975 m, the shortest site boundary distance on land. (d) For stack releases, analyses at offnite receptors were carried out not only at the LPZ (3.4 miles), but alsc at I 1.7, 4, 4.5 and 5 miles from the plant. The analyses at the non-LPZ distances were carried out to examine if the concentration (X/Q)s for stack releases peak at distances beyond the LPZ. At JAF, the potential of ) l such a situation is enhanced by the presence of .. ills which rise to about 240 ft above plant grade at about 5 miles south of the plant. o V l m
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE 99 OF $8 PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY 7W DATE MAV97 O FINAL [X] CHECKED BY W DATE V/#/f7 TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accide'nt Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (e) Terrain elevations were determined by examining the site topography naps (Drawing 11825 FY-12B, Sheets 1 -
- 9) and the per_inent geodetic survey maps for the area (Ref. 10). In line with the requirements in Regulatory Guide 1.111 (Ref. 2), the final entries in the tables refer to the highest elevation (m above station grade) between the release point and the given receptor. For ground level releases, the terrain elevation has no impact on the final results and is set equal to 0.
Note that receptor locations at the site boundary and beyond wela determined to be subject t~ fumigation conditions at the time of a postulated design-basis acaident, as prescribed by Regulatory Guide 1.145. This is discussed further in Sec. 4.7. O G b V i
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE f* _ OF 9O PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY 87 DATE #JWF7 r~- FINAL [X] CHECKED BY // DATE ##/77
\ TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accide'nt Atmospheric Dispersion Factors JAF - SITE BOUNDARY DISTANCES AND TERRAIN ELEVATIONS RELATIVE TO STATION GRADE Stack Releases Turbine Bldg Rel.
Downwind S.B. Terrain S.B. Terrain j Sector Dist. Elevat. Dist. Elevat.
]
(m) (m) (m) (m) j N 975* 0 975 0 I NNE 975 0 975 0 i NE 975 0 975 0 1 ENE 975 0 975 0 E 975 4 975 0 ESE 975 6 975 0 SE 975 12 1090 0 SSE 1290 18 1330 0
-- ) S SSW 2040 2040 15 10 2220 2220 0
0 SW 2040 10 2140 0 WSW 1635 6 1040 0 W 975 0 975 0 WNW 975 0 975 0 NW 975 0 975 0 NNW 975 0 975 0 1
- For sectors leading to the shoreline, use was made of the l shortest on-land site boundary distance. I Note: For the assessment of accidental releases, as specified j in Regulatory Guide 1.145, the site boundary distance for each of the 16 sectors refers to the shcrtest distance I from the release point (stack or building surface) to the 1 boundary within a 45-degree sector centered on the compass direction of interest.
Also, in line with the requirements in Regulatory Guide 1.111, terrain elevation in this table refers to the i highest elevation (m above station grade) between the
,_, release point and the given receptor. For turbine building / ) releases, which are at ground-level, the plume is assumed 'w / to follow the terrain and terrain height is not employed.
1
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE J'( OF 9# PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY DATE
' ,__ DATE W W 7 5/WW 7 FINAL [X] CHECKED BY A) TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Acciddnt Atmospheric Dispersion Factors JAF - OFFSITE TERRAIN ELEVATIONS RELATIVE TO STATION GRADE Terrain Elevations (m) at Spacified Distance
- Downwind ------------------------------------------------
Sector 1.7 mi 3.4 mi 4.0 mi 4.5 mi 5.0 mi N 0 0 0 0 0 NNE 0 0 0 0 0 NE O O 0 0 0 ENE O O 0 0 0 E 11 11 11 11 11 ESE 12 12 12 12 12 SE 17 40 40 42 52 SSE 18 58 58 58 58 S 21 60 68 73 73 SSW 15 45 63 63 63 SW 9 30 30 39 39
/9 WSW 6 6 6 6 6 \.)
W 0 0 0 0 0 WNW 0 0 0 0 0 : NW 0 0 0 0 0 l NNW 0 0 0 0 0 I Terrain elevations in this table refer to the highest elevations (m above station grade) between the release ! point and the given receptor (Reg. Guide 1.111 requirement) ! t Note: The LPZ is at 3.4 miles 1 l l 1 l
]
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 1 AGE OF 9'O PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY _ '7 W DATE _2/N # 7 FINAL [X] "#1 DATE FJVf7 O TITLE: CHECKEE BY Power Uprate Program - Onsite 7.nd Offsite Post-Acci'ent Atmospheric Dispersion Factorr, d 4.6.2 Control Room Outside-Air Intake.s The primary outside-air intake of the control room is located on the roof of the administration building (Lod #3, Drawing 11825-FA-16B, coordinates V-9.6, approximately). The roof elevation is 322 ft and the intake vent is at El. 326 ft (approximately, from Drawing 11825-FA-1G). The control room is also equipped with a secondary intake located on the west side of the administration building (at approximate coordinates B-9.7 and Elev. 305'-6", from Drawings 11825 FB-32G and FB-32K, vertical section 15-15). Due to its location, the potential concentrations of radioactivity at this intake are expected to be lower than those on the roof of the building. Hence, no further consideration was given to this intake, and outside-air intake into the control room will be assumed to be from the primary vent. Data pertinent to the control room primary intake with respect to the two release points are presented below. Stack Releases With respect to the main stack, the CR primary outside-air intake is at an approximate distance of 608 ft (185 m). This distance was determined from Fig. F-2 of the JAF ODCM (Ref. 8) which places the stack at Mercator coordinates (E 549100, N 1282950) and the CR intake at approximately (E 549000, N 1283550), the distancc. between the two points being [(549100 - 549000)2 (1283550 - 1282950)2 30 .s = 608 ft. From Sec. 4.4, the grade elevation at the main stack is ' 271'-6". Hence the elevation of the air intake with respect to the stack grade is (326 - 271.5) = 54.5 ft = 17 m (approx.). It was determined that the CR outside-air intake is not affected by the fumigation conditions assumed to prevail at t.he time of a postulated design-basis accident (as prescribed by Reg. Guide 1.145). This is discussed further in Sec. 4.7.
i l, i 1 i NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE (J OF F l PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY 87 DATE %/#h > j
/\ FINAL [X] CHECKED BY ~A/ DATE V/ #f7 '
TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors i Hence, the applicable dispersion model for stack releases and f the CR intake is the standard straight-line Gaussian. Hvvever, in order to accommodate short-term pluu.e meandering and looping . effects (which are not accounted for by the straight-line Gaussian diffusion model), the actual location of the CR air intake vent with respect to the stack was ignored, and the intake was conservatively placed at that distance from the stack (and at 17 m above grade) where the concentration of stack releases would peak. This distance was determined iteratively using the straight-line Gaussian model along with an exceedance probability of 5% and all sectors combined (i.e., with all wind directions blowing toward the CR intake). The set of distances employed in the analysis were as follows: 185 m (the actual stack-to-CR distance), 403, 405 and 407 m (to determine the peak), (#}
\~
- 600m,
- 800m,
- 1000m, and 1200m.
Turbine Buildino Releases As noted in Sec. 4.5 for releases from the turbine building and nearby receptors, the rectangular turbine building was converted into a cylinder with the same cross-sectional area (top view) for use in the Murphy /Campe dispersion model. The cylinder was centrally located with respect to the turbine building, and the diameter (d e ) of the equivalent cylinder was determined to be 213.4 ft = 65 m. From the diagram et the end of this subsection, the projected horizontal distance of the control rvom primary intake from the l_ center of the turbine building is (275/2) + 63.5 = 201 ft. Hence, () the corresponding distance from the cylindrical surface is t -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE F OF M PROJECT: JAF PREIAE [ ] PREPARED BY AP9V DATE BA W ?7 /' FINAL [X] CHECKED BY 1 DATE V/#ff7 ( TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors x = 201 - (213.4/2) = 94.3 ft = 28.7 m.
-From the above, the (x/de ) ratio in the application of the Murphy /Campe model is (28.7 / 65) = 0.44. Hence, trom the tabulated data in Sec. 3.3, it is seen that the number of wind-direction sectors which should be assumed to contribute to the airborne concentrations at the CR intake is 8. Due to the symmetry between the turbine building and the CR intake, the number of sectors was conservatively increased to 9. That is, transfer of turbine building releases will be assumed to be transported toward the control room intake whenever the wind is
' blowing from the W, WNW, NW, NNW, N, NNE, NE , ENE and E.
The source / receptor geometry for this case, and excerpts from pertinent JAF drawings are shown in Figs. 4.4 through 4.9 which follow. G LJ
l I j I NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE FE OF I# PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY S7 DATE # # MP7 l (T FINAL [X] CHECKED BY ' Vd/ DATE ##F7 I V TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accidedt Atmospheric Dispersion Factors
)
Fig. 4.4 - Source / Receptor Geometry and Wind Sectors of Influence i Turbine Building and the CR Outside-Air Intakes l I, l i l l I e,,wsa- j
**</errcaidnkfy \
k mdeua / 7 % ,rfee f b & c h ;. / >, 4 k a COnfog/ Ac>pses ( *N {
- sn--day ,wea nry u, v.6, /
cy// k dor k
,, C f f. Jo.r'- s ")
O' a- ? ,, c 78.
~ ~
~
\ '
k =k \ 61 \ 0
-is.Yto,W F^ a2[W I 1 r
i f 9 -- --
, e.i. s ' ; &
s 2*,- A- I
.I ,
1 w . 1 I i v l
i NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE N OF 98 PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY A> W DATE 2 && CHECKED BY ' "d/ DATE W V f7 f\ TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident FINAL [X] Atmospheric Dispersion Factors 1 Fig. 4.5 - Excerpts from Drawing 11825-FA-16B 1
$ / W7RK 6 VE /V!T l J
__ . _ _k .- O j ; (Q $ @ O
._y 2 L v r' . . . .m : m.- _.._., _ ,. .g _,,
i
- L- I -
.j , w, ..
--c u- r- - 71 W.- ., - ~O i i i m y .v I ..- 2 ;l i (14, e l
I l l
' ,7,f. *6 *8 j ll 3
# ins , l , t
.I .
mi ,g a, i j :"."v"' *.s*.s "v".# 4 b ; i.h-@
.i. .. .... .....,. i,
=4 -~
-1 i,q ,
%*".."" L. l W. qd ' 7sr !
i _9
.I ,,,;-
z:,:.: ~' l sl u l I I _ L/"5? ?." -. 1 I r:.v
') ,L4f;M3
. t- ,]1.. fi%-
I l
/ty,J w e
N 1,i~
;)
aI . . . h, a;! l:l: l
^,.
r ;..,, p. ' . - - - , % -e -- 1 4 , l u-.**.
%- te ,
TFC l l **~* c4l i ' m i .",,'"'- t
,y.! co . ...
(! TI,. g::. _ ,, ,
-- ,i r =".i.ls...m k !. .-._I
(:~. =-ut.*- --.
-.-a- -sp -
i
; 7-a9 -
e...... n*s *
--y
-n - -
a . 52
,& 4__.s,,, m
( a 41,. Q*gm-'d e g., Mr.i. i r~ 7. tr, g 4 ..
*=**** ,
4 p - n T. .
- m ,,=. , s.
M.4.m
. _, y, g
2.m gg 3- - I
.<a*
- g p
~
- lri 1 1 g
g s ~ Ar q p ee* #,typ,eg 9
. l
,L
,., 8 8*'T "*6 <;
l
*I hC 7,. --a ~ N "*" d j 4 h' r*'[({"*'@: .,,
,,qr$try) ' I"** T
- h. . , ,, 4 Le f
* '**G -
oneca w a , L ., .
;g })
} +A j ue , g
.\,~=== s.%_
s_=.a= == 3 -. l 92- s.- ). - $_ ** 1r g ae u.st go a.ntio .
~""
'~- "i f,
4, ,
,, .T.Pa *.4 'I.* " '
ee=,e -I b 4*g4 , , " 1.lg
* ., **""* /';* W-
,,,,/*... [ ;
,["EIM"g 9
i
'N j REACTOIF BLDr. *'
g M y d 'i J f l - m.,
- W**> ' 9 b- - - -;-
.g c. e.
]- 2 g 'f.*=
'** e.aa d
_h
---~ ag k l"g ( $
t s.-
@ -i f--@
w g ;-y Mp. J g a a . i J. -. ; 3 La M9
. ((
g 0 g 2--@ .l* h-- 6asase
,\
\
. . _ '_..a r! .
* , 1L "t*. .R L,*c. l
@' \ W g, .
.ar.=--
~~~a g ; .
a to 1 . j.
.L *
\
h.s -
.-d E f "
I i .~.
-*-y-- - - ' f. i r g.g, -_
ma f _= t..~ e_, ., M : 1 ,
. <-i- 2. - $j
.N< r , saw1
) m b e, aeo i .'"
- A
/,>
,,I ~ ~~~~~'-
li .I I. j 'i I *i' f3 j 1 f ld n .1
.= t .a .
m t.,,. l~.,r,,- ::-*.::: m
-n ;
a
.s.. e i.
i .
&n f"J*. -
M s' ~ l l
~ .-@
..~, ]
L
,i J&", - } ~ _ ar 3*-~ .
O -
.o
-= .
s , 1> t
\ '- a .
}. lT .
I' 1
!W ** 23= - -*
i i
- s. - ,
^
h _- y e~- 'l,ff.=.=. 4 ,,N[-*c;,a,,,1 I , _ i 4., c
- p*
$$ TusPD FLOOP PL a u - EL. s on p..-
L..< m 5' 4 g o o, pg ,y h AX, += .. ..... pq m ---- + ~ v oE @ a - s
- )
gI rem ,--..e m.m".*~ 4 # E.M,i4*y
,-- %l_, _ ,p yt X sM - - - -
- ",,";. -*.--" * 't=.
1
I l l l l NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE 97 OF P# PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY #W DATE .7//WP n FINAL [X] CHECKED BY ' "4,' DATE V/ph 7 ( TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsi'te Post-Acciden't' Atmospheric Dispersion Factors Fig. 4.6 - Excerpts from Drawing 11825-FA-10 The Control Room Primary Intake Vent (On roof of the Ad. ministration Bldg) 7-CCNC. Mood d
/p---s
.# % N O ..
( ,.. asse ) I I METAL RE 3LET
*-- MMT FL-% l l i 20 YR SONMD FLm \, t l l
TOP CONC i EL VARIE! m nl _ e
-7 )
. I-I l'-l' FA -tfo-B SIMILAR s:s te:k'e s'.o*
,\
,75.
,)
l
r l NYPA - UALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE 3'JF OF 9# l PROJECTS JAF PRELM [] PREPARED BY. SW DATE 2./.*/9 7 Q y' TITLE: FINAL [X] Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Acciderit CHECKED BY '/F DATE W/97 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors Fig. 4.7 - Excerpts from Drawing 11825-FA-32G 9 0 si 3- u. - o n .u -. _. _-._
= !
c.i . ll
' .. j',,
; acor st aoo.c
. _. 7 " afl#f 04488 D + t0 Ce i
- d. U . M #." A _!__._Z E.c__Z 2.r4 M e~ p-
. ! q x ,, ., u - gy ; "*
m .r - -- I 3 g is... u. .. im u <-* I* I; , wo, <. m c t t *1 I-k r.e l c. e* r.e 157e a r-e 7.*.722.,'O . , I r n ra' '"aP to... ./. " " " " r,.ru * ='< a 3 m g,,L.j. p,1 -.--. % -
.i.
rsu- - - 'u-m or -
/~~N . _ . _ . Z g~-eq 4- _u s m 1 l,,) .
'. % m.r C3 '"""f". "'r_m.
(v) -
' L.e 4ll' %
\ min ' l l .. . J'=Dfl,-f. r.. ,
.P...~;- 4 ; s ; .. ,,
. s s,k .. <...
m e [ c- ; (N n i A., ...v. __ _, a i 1 i ,,. <..n. . ,,
==-
;7 -,>>
, , ,g6j i r.. i ;
l s s s Cm'J 1 {,f, o,,,, ,o ,,, W ' 's
. u #.. ..-2 5- + ^
i s a au-l i l
' .I Sg :ost ,w.st tr',, '
mr
,s..
, .v i PM:e=.4 m ,,,, ,o.,.tu 2 ,= 5 g 1 3,. .,,
, i I
o ,.. ..v w. : iah_;y , b. ,,, , A. (<i F-l : an d ; :a
- u m it . M mt '.A.3, eap n ,s'n r, Mw%,*) g'y ,$ j-SjT/,'drt**
.,V{'py, *"' A Cl.,-._Q g;. s'y* 4}-[1
,w c. mra- j w,i,.j o
; 2 .
u-su s. N a .) . ;. y, a , l i - H g- , a-t
- e. y
~y.
' hit *Cy'nor' . .%
-n -
y yp;%[ , [n u.x t' y*l-'a r ,a a, r,<. '
- " c '+= b t - .
f e l n: e; r.-
,\ f.,r_j 3 j e, sune.'
,,,,p_ a
.., n H<>= .' p (x4
.o n * * *1yr.{..' .Q,,,e -
,,, 543woui,m*g,=-
,j % p,- ., .
;, ; , j I
so.. . n ,s
.g 4/~3
.i, ,,,,
4E4 -
- 'm gL.) nwe .o m. ==. ,7 E j .-te-a - ,
. b -
ni- - ,,,. . um eu ei a6 ses l
.oo -
- k. k
.. U , . . . a . . o.- ,acesu I
! N Ns*aF '. ,
k wacd i M /ue Y
'E ~ " I" # #''
l ase..J ieu
.n.. a o .
\. -
n? ! 5 l g, g--+
*~""
-es py r e i.w ,, _,,,
, ., a p aalse,,,ny,y 1[r '9 ,,
~
f ., #.f. '* ' t -g.!!D ". i . 5 U"
*I','I- ~
l y.-] l y t ' t
' 719Fe.us r4 !
a lain$"f r' y - '; M
~
y E E I t5 -
+ M' '..b'
~~ s'..c, l ' .'
**d,~
t r-t -J . . . . ._ . rs.n
'~d"'~' e y
8 . u da *' -W* t,,e .,
, ,,,,..... I
==.s J.. o.. >l 7"T i ;
tu 30'40Wl'," I4 .__ 2,ats no m., , ,te j e.1.l , I.f L ,n **,.I / 12844 FG'Q;a,
-l -- l
- i u3 o 0.m a
; .1 ,
3 * "' M (# " ' 17
/ l. * - " - ',' , . ' j
_e : ,_ p
,~
'g___, 1 c 7 r** ' - .n 1 - *,
,.e. ,
( ,
. tu...a o. .,i . s
. s e.sse L
- ; *c - . , ... ,
g e. 3, s. i < ..,,,.d 7
, 7' -- l
* " 33
('h L L C{...v is.
) pant et AN EL MC'4 9 ' " t.'.I I
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE E9 OF P# PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY. 3 3/ DATE 3////97 f
\ TITLE:
FINAL [X) CHECKED BY W DATE V/# 8 7 Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accidefit Atmospheric Dispersion Factors Fig. 4.8 - Excerpts from Drawing 11825-FA-32E h > @ -
/ , ) N. A de een' l
- 1,l .
TOP EL 388'-O' , t TOP EL Ol6 J,, 22 x ll* l
. .. ,- TOP E L 38 G' ** , -
d Ibx24 7 s2Asi l 1._'" R 4* ; 5 m o f r--Petf1LTER, F tos O Aoo c' A
..y k
tL ia:.Q* b *N " " 136 s J 16 7 r FL EX. C ONNA. l ?
'y -/) .
I, " __ ts** W 3 gZ : 6
;* \ le g( ,1
%.s ?
\
I g.,y g.o , b, ' .']j
', L L-mo C IL
~
F-9 r-e
$'[d --
,d t soi 2'
\ . , _
N ~I 'I ~ (hp)C .TRAPPE0lfDRAIN f - 15-15 Crs-32G E-3) k CA SEco"bd* 7 d'R
/r7 4cc~ VtW l
r U
l i\ j l ji ' b$ . n N4gO g i
' blo ooa - l y ggg n o Nk E9 o3*6* $N 4 g
" '-
- gg 5wN y 4H l y" eg qp\ 5n N v S m EDM C n@trO M2ON@B
( DO s NMpg ymtpoHOm e 7 . r
>I
- !O a -
m O gnPO gHe*NMHO MA OD* M
- 34. & . I
=O M{ gy,s .
g o g qg oog
!.* = *%
- 1) \
! ,, =
N' _ t e h - , RM EI T T A E A E
, T
, WR S
,e T A
!_a = w r 3 D l A
T E S,
] M o
l AT l-E. Ln Eo
!_4 = v e Rp Y A e A t B B, s w K e R E
R = T T ie A C n E E u H O L T
!_4 = R E A
Y M
))' C f(" !,*"
T t w s v E u Ss s
, Ms t
Ai g
, eso Ew DL Le a Ae Eo, f c t
!,*
- w OS R N
e ss A A e g4 k
- 0 0 R t*4 OT S C
o T C o*8 T*9 )
!,** l A e A*2 C*
D R E R EN R A Y M C T l w
! ,*
- S v
n e 7 e 8 s / 3 0 e
!,*
- t a
D F , t 7
, 4 o e . 9 o ?
~ . o s.
o c. 7 o o m . "* = e e o , - ~- m. e s e s 4 c s
.~
) - e e e . e E e s
A m e (u nA .E A. 5 o N v e R
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE 6 OF 9# PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY 8 7 DATE 2/MP> p FINAL [X] CHECKED BY /V DATE r//F7 ( ,g/ TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors l l 4.6.3 TSC Outside-Air Intake l The outside-air intake of the technical support center is adjacene to the secondary CR intake supply (at th. same elevation, 305'-6", and at coordinates B-10.5, approx. 20 ft away from the CR intake). Data pertinent to this intake with respect to the two l l release points are presented below. Refer to Fig. 4.7 in Sec. l 4.6.2 for details. Stack Releases With respect to the main stack, the TSC outside-air intake is ! at an approximate distance of 642 ft (196 m). This distance was determined from Fig. F-2 of the JAF ODCM (Ref. 8) which places the stack at Mercator coordinates (E 549100, N 1282950) and the TSC l intake at approximately (E 548935, N 1283570), the distance l [S sJ j between the two points being [(549100 - 548935)2 + (1283570 - l 1282950)235 0
= 642 ft.
From Sec. 4.4, the grade elevation at the main stack is l 271'-6". Hence the elevation of the air intake with respect to the stack grade is (305.5 - 271.5) = 34 ft = 10 m (approx.). As was the case for the CR, it was determined that the TSC outside-air intake is not affected by the fumigation conditions assumed to prevail at the timu of an accident. This is discussed further in Sec. 4.7. Similarly, in order to accomodate short-term plume meandering and looping effects, the actual location of the TSC air intake vent with respect to the stack was ignored, and the intake was conservatively placed at that distance from the stack where the concentration of stack releases would peak. As a implication, the elevation of the intake above grade was conservatively increased from 10m to 17m to match that of the CR intake vent, such that thh (X/Q)s computed for the CR intake vent l would also apply to those for the TSC intake. Refer to Sec. 4.6.2 [ for further details. (- t ._ - . . _ - _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - - _ _ - - . _ _ _ _ _ _
! NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE (4 OF Pa l PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY #F DATA M"47 l O. FINAL [X] CHECKED BY '/8 DATE #S//7 l( j TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Acciden't
~
Atmospheric Dispersion Factors Turbine Buildino Releases In similarity to the control room analysis in Sec. 4.6.2, the diagram which follows shows the overall source / receptor geometry for TB releases and the TSC outside-air intake. Note that the projected horizontal distance of the intake from the center of the turbine building is [ { (275/2)+39}2 + 652 )o.5 = 188.1 ft. Hence, the corresponding distance from the cylindrical surface is x = [188.1
- (213.4/2)] = 81.4 ft = 24.8 m.
From the above, the (x/d e ) ratio in the application of the Murphy /Campe model is (24.8 / 65) = 0.38. Hence, from the tabulated data in Sec. 3.3, it is seen that the number of wind-direction sectors which should be assumed to contribute to the airborne concentrations at the TSC intake is 8. Based on the source / receptor geometry shown below, transfer of turbine building i(p) releases will be assumed to be transported toward the TSC intake whenever the wind is blowing from the.W, WNW, NW, NNW, N, NNE, NE and ENE. . The source / receptor geometry for this case is shown in Fig. 4.10. l l l i O(m /
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE U OF 98 I 8F DATE &N//92 PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY. FINAL [X] CHECKED BY // DATE y/J/'F7 O TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors Fig. 4.10 - Source / Receptor Geonstry and Wind sectors of Influence Turbine Building and the Tsc outside-Air Intake I k//ND D/Rfc7/or l SEc ro@S COV7//fvr/ 79 Af 4ffM/#4 7A&#.1FG4 70 THf7FC //re /#74/~G' (W "Ms&f/Gk G/VE) rrc 4// /#reke (AZ,Jof $ d} O , k
'*c , -
t s T B. ,,
, R ~7 S ' ,
O
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE W OF PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY _ DATE 2.////97 A FINAL [X] CHECKED BY DATE F/#/F"f ( ,) TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accidedt Atmospheric Dispersion Factors 4.7 Funnigation Conditions The results of analyses documented in Ref. 24 show that the southeastern Lake Ontario shoreline is under the influence of strong fumigation conditions over 15% of the time during May, June and July. On an annual basis, fumigation conditions are noted approximately 5.4% of the time. The best meteorological conditions for fumigation occur during the spring and early i summer, and are limited, mainly, to daylight hours. Hence, the l NRC requirement that fumigation conditions be assumed to prevail 3 at the time of a design-basis accident is appropriate. Nonetheless, as noted in S- . 3.4.5, review and assessment of new information on onshore flows at the site (Refs. 23, 24 and 25), lead to the conclusion that fumigation conditions need only be considered for receptors at the site boundary and the LPZ, but .
~ l not for the outside-air intakes of the Control Room and the Technical Support Center. This determination was based on the following:
(a) Review of the onshore wind directions which can support a sea breeze condition, and (b) Assessment of the TIBL height at the JAF stack (to determine whether the stack penetrates the TIBL). Details are presented in the subsections which follow. 4.7.1 Onshore Wind Directions for Sea Breeze Conditions Review of readily available literature showed that there exist various sets of wind direction ranges which can be classified as onshore flows and which can support the formation of TIBLs at the NMP/JAF site, as follows: l (a) 270-40 degrees (through N) for onshore flows, and 325-15 I l degrees for fumigation (ESEERCO, Ref. 23, pg 1-14) I) v (b) 240-69 degrees for onshore flows (ESEERCO, Ref. 24, pg 8) l
l l l NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE 6 OF N PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY #8 DATE 'h #'V92
'M DATE WE/F7 p)
( TITLE: FINAL [X) CHECKED BY Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (c) 245-65 degrees for onshore flows, and 270-55 degrees for fumigation (;NMP criteria, personal communication). Refer to Fig. 4.11 for a view of the area out to 50 miles and the wind direction ranges listed above. Since the JAF CR and TSC outside-air intakes are almost directly N of the stack (see Fig. 4.9), and the potential of having a fumigation condition with a S wind is non-existent, it is obvious that fumigation conditions need not be considered in the . radiological analyses for the CR and TSC. HoweJer, fumigation conditions can affect the worst-receptor I locations at the site boundary (in the SE sector, from AEOLUS-3 Run Case #1, pg 34) and at or near the LPZ (in the S sector, from AEOLUS-3 Run Case #4, pg 14). This is discussed further in Sec.
)
4.7.2. [ l I O v
l' NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE // OF W PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY. 37F DATE d"/97 FINAL [X] CHECKED BY W DATE V/I/f '7 TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors Fig. 4.11 - General area around the MMP/JAF Site 0
) GW? Od ,
/ ,
/ 55 1 RJ
/ 67 69
/
LA KE l ONTARIO 27o - f _
~
270 " - 90 k 10 b
\ 0
-D D""
240 ' 30 3 40 miles
~~
l 50
\lT'**
( o l n
l 1 NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE /7 OF 9# PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY 77 DATE J 8/h 7 ! FINAL [X] CHECKED BY '// DATE y/f8 '1 f~'S () ~ TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors 4.7.2 TIBL Heights and Stack Releases As noted in Sec. 3.4.3, the OCD model (Ref. 27) provides a simple (and preferred) formula for tefinitic at.the TIBL height ! as a function of inland distance. For a TIBL height equal to the JAF stack (117.3 m), the OCD formula requires a distance of 1173 m from the shoreline. [ Note: The corresponding distances based on the Hsu formulas are 573 m, 1887 m, 4761 m and 9555 m for near-ground stabilities A, B, C and D, respectively.] From JAF Drawing 11825-FY-2A, the closest distance from the JAF stack to the shoreline is 378 m (approximately). The compass j directions along which the overland distance to the shoreline is equal to 1173 m are 276 degrees (in the W sector) and 67 degrees j (in the'ENE sector). Hence, under the assumption that the OCD formula is reasonably accurate, the majority of fumigation g) conditions (which, can occur with onshore flows between 270 and 55 (G degrees (the widest range from Sec. 4.7.1)], the TIBL would l intercept the main stack. Under these conditions, releases from the stack will be into the stable layer above the TIBL, and would I be carried further inland (and farther away from the CR and TSC l intakes). Eventually, the releases would intercept the TIBL and fumigate to thE ground, as shown in Fig. 3.1. The discussion which follows addresses the offsite receptors, site Boundary From JAF Drawing ll825-FY-2A, the shortest distance from the shoreline to the site boundar. (which includes the stack centerline) was determined to be about 1620 m (in the ESE sector from the stack). At such a distance, the OCD formula predicts a l TIBL height of 162 m. That is, stack releases along this direction under fumigation conditions would initially be abcVe the TIBL, would intercept the TIBL within about 570 m, and would then (,
) fumigate down toward the receptor. In short, the prescribed I
b
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE #~8 OF U ; i PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY 7W DATE 3/MP7 l l O FINAL [X] CHECKED BY 2/ DATE V XP # ~7 l i TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors l assumption for fumigation conditions at the time of the postulated design-basis accident is appropriate for receptors at the site boundary. As a simplification, fumigation conditions were assumed to be applicable to all receptors at the site boundary, and the TIBL height was set equal to the height of the stack (as specified in Reg. Guide 1.145). LPZ From Sec. 4.7.1, the worst-receptor location beyond the site boundary is in the S sector, at 4 miles (6473 m) from the stack, or 6850 m from the shoreline. The TIBL height at this distance (based on the OCD formula) would be about (200 + 0.03 x (6850 - I 2000)] = 346 m. This is well above the stack height, and the conclusions arrived at for the site boundary are also applicable (O) at the LPZ. Note that the simplification of ignoring the increase of TIBL height with distance from the shoreline (and setting it equal to the stack height) yields results which are conservative by about a factor of 3.5.
)
l - - - _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - _ _ _ - _ A
ah-NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE O_ OF D PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY j7 7 DATE h/#/9'7 FINAL [X] CHECKED DY "IfT DATE WI#7 O. Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Acciden't
~
TITLE: Atmospheric Dispersion Factors 4.8 Radionuclides Inventory As noted abcve in Sec. 3.2, the gamma (X/Q) is a function of the racionuclide mix in the released clo,ud. Howc.er, the variation in the gamma (X/Q) is small in relation to the change in the energy spectrum. In general, the relationship between gamma (X/Q)s and gamma energies is as follows: (a) For ground level releases, the gamma (X/Q) increases (slightly) with decreasing energy; this is because the gamma-ray mean free paths in air decrease with decreasing energy and therefore the semi-infinite cloud conditions are attained within a shorter distance. [ Note: For a ground-level release, a twenty-fold decrease in gamma energy (from 2 MeV to 0.1 MeV) leads to an approximate increase in the gamma (X/Q) by a () (b) factor of only 2; see Ref. 14, Sec. 7-5.2.3). For elevated releases and elevated plumes, on the other hand, and for cases where the ground concentration is negligible, the gamma (X/Q) for an elevated plume would increase with increasing energy, since the mean free paths in air would also increase and more gamma photons would reach the ground. However, if the plume is not high enough ano ohe ground concentration is not negligible, the gamma (X/Q)s may either increase or decrease with increasing energy. One of the objectives of this calculation was to provide gamma (X/Q)s which can be conservatively applied to all potential DBA releases and at all times following the accident. As a result, test runs were carried out using a DBA LOCA mix following 1 various decay times, and also for Xel33 alone (the long-lived noble gas nuclide of crimary interest). The results are documented in Sec. 5. The table which follows presents the LOCA () mix following 0, 1 day, 4 days and 15 days of radioactive decay.
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE ~7E OF W PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY 03V DATA 2 /#N7 FINAL [X] CHECKED BY V // DATE #p/f7 p(,/ TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors The t=0 mix was extracted from Ref. 15, and the decayed activities I were calculated using the CRE ALLEGRA computer code (Ref. 16); the ALLEGRA output appears in Attachment B. I l 4.9 Time Intervals of Interent It is standard practice to compute post accident radiation exposures by assuming selected atmospheric conditions to prevail during specified time intervals. As noted in Sec. 3 .1, the model in AEOLUS-3 (which is based on Regulatory Guide 1.145) makes use of the 1-hour plume centerline values (for the concentration (X/Q), the gamma (X/Q) and the (D/Q)) and their corresponding sector-average values averaged over the joint-frequency distribution to compute ' hybrid' values at intermediate values of interest. These intermediate time values are user specified and, in this application, were selected to be as follows: s_ 2 hours - For use during the first 2 hours of a release (turbine building releases.and receptors at the site boundary, only) (Note: these are numerically equal to the 1-hour (X/Q)s, as specified in Regulatory Guide 1.145.) 4 hours - For use during the 4-hour time interval from 4 hours to 8 hours, following the end of fumigation conditions (stack releases and receptors at the LPZ) 8 hours - For use during the first 8 hours of a release (stack releases and receptors in the CR and TSC; turbine building releases and receptors at the l 1 LPZ, CR and TSC) 16 hours - For use during the 16-hour time interval from 8 to 24 hours (all types of releases, and exposure intervals in excess of 8 hours) l l
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE '7 / OF 9# PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY SW DATE 2 /N/97 Q FINAL [X] CHECKED BY V#/ DATE r/MVf 7 Q TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accideilt Atmospheric Dispersion Factors 72 hours - For use during the 3-day time interval from 1 to 4 days, (all types of releases, and exposure intervals in excess of 1 day) 624 hours - For use during the 26-day time interval from 4 to 30 days (all types of releases, and exposure intervals in excess of 4 days) These time intervals are in line with the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.3 (Ref. 17), in Ref. 13 (pg 3) and in Ref. 4 (Table 1). For convenience, the time values listed above were used in all the AEOLUS-3 computer runs. Only the applicable results were then extracted from the computer outputs. Note that for stack releases, and as required by Regulatory Guide 1.145, fumigation conditions (characterized by Stability F and 2 m/sec) must be assumed to prevail for the first 4 hours following a design-basis accident. Values for these conditions are included in the AEOLUS-3 output. Since fumigation conditions were determined not to be applicable for the CR and TSC, only the fumigation values at the site boundary and LPZ are of interest in the calculation. l O O i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . __ ._ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE M OF 9C PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY #7 DATE E##9'7 (~h FINAL [X] CHECKED BY #4[ DATE WWF 7 ( ,/ TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors NOBLE GAS INVENTORIES USED IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE FINITE CLOUD GAMMA (X/Q)s FOR A DESIGN-BASIS LOCA Relative Concentrations Following Given Decay Nuclide 0 hours 1 day 4 days 15 days Kr 83m 7.952E+06 8.965E+02 .000E+00 .000E+00 Kr 85 7.643E+05 7.643E+05 7.639E+05 7.624E+05 dr 85m 1.707E+07 4.167E+05 6.059E+00 .000E+00 Kr 87 3.275E+07 6.822E+01 .000E+00 .000E+00 Kr 88 4.639E+07 1.323E+05 3.068E-03 .000E+00 i Kr 89 5.770E+07 .vv0E+00 .000E+00 .000E+00 l Xe131m 4.010E+05 3 . '/ 8 3 E+ 0 5 3.177E+05 1.674E+05 Xe133 1.401E+08 1.234E+08 8.387E+07 1.984E+07* Xe133m 5.843E+06 4.258E+06 1.647E+06 5.065E+04 i Xe135 1.810E+07 3,025E+06 1.247E+04 .000E+00 ! Xe135m 2.641E+07 .000E+00 .000E+00 .000E+00 l Xe137 1.230E+08 .000E+00 .000E+00 .000E+00 Xe138 1.169E+08 .000E+00 .000E+00 .000E+00 Note the prevalence of Xe133 with increasing decay time. l O E
l l NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PACE 7 J7 OF 98 PROJWCT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY MW DATE 2/h&7 p) FINAL [X) CHECKED BY W DATE ##/f7 (, TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors
- 5. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Atmospheric dispersion factors were computed using the AEOLUS-3 computer code along with the data and assumptions described in Sec. 4 of this calculation. The overall effort included a total of 20 final computer runs, and consisted of the following:
(a) Test runs for the selection of the appropriate post-accident radionuclides mix (namely, a pt 7 Xe133 source), (b) Test runs for identification of the worst-case receptor beyond the LPZ,
-(c) Test runs to define the distance from the stack where concentrations (at an elevation above grade equal to that of the CR intake) would peak, with that distance becoming O
the assumed distance for the CR and TSC intake vent () locations, and (d) Final implementation runs for the selected radionuclides mix and the receptors of interest. A listing of the various computer cases analyzed appears in Attachment B along with copies of the computer outputs. The I subsections which follow present: Summary tables of the results, A comparison of the concentration (X/Q)s with those in the UFSAR and in the Safety Evaluation Report, and An assessment of the radionuclides mixture on the gamma (X/Q)s and selection of Xe133 as the representative nuclide for all releases and post-accident decay times. 1 5.1 Final Results Results are presented in the tables at the end of this subsection for different sets of sector combinations as described i () below. Selection of these combinations was based on the guidance l r i L____________ __ _ _ _ _ l
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE 79 OF 9# PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY #7 DATE 2////97 FINAL [X] CHECKED BY /2/ DATE ~V/Mf7 l ( TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident l Atmospheric Dispersion Factors l l l in Regulatory Guide 1.145 (Ref. 3) which can be summarized as follows: l (a) "Using the (X/Q) values calculated for each hour of data
..., a cumulative probability distribution of (X/Q) values should be constructed for each of the 16 sectors.
Each distribution should be described in terms of probabilities of given (X/Q) values being exceeded in that sector during the total time. For each of the 16
... (distributions), the (X/Q) value that is exceeded 0.5 percent of the total number of hours in the data set should be selected. ... The highest of the 16 sector values is defined as the maximum sector (X/Q) value."
(b) "Using the (hourly) (X/0) values ..., an overall (site) cumulative probability distribution for all directions combined should be constructed. ... The ... (X/Q) value that is exceeded 5 percent of the time should be selected
... . \
(c) "The (X/Q) value ... for evaluation (s) should be the maximum sector (X/Q) ... or the 5 percent overall site (X/Q) ..., whichever is higher." In the current calculation, the general NRC guidance above was adapted as follows: (a) For both stack and TB releases and receptors at the site boundary and the LPZ, identification of the " maximum sector" (X/Q) was limited to the sectors with on-land receptors (namely ENE, E, ESE, ... WSW for the site boundary, and E, ESE, ... WSW for the LPZ); it is identified as the " Maximum On-Land Sector" in the tables which follow. The final (X/Q) selection was then based
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE 7S OF diPo PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY SF DATE .7 M/97 FINAL [X] CHECKED BY 8 DATE f/JVf'7 (j TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Acciden't Atmospheric Dispersion Factors on a comparison of the " Maximum On-Land Sector" (X/Q) with the direction-independent "Overall Site" (X/Q), the latter including both on-land and c .r-water receptors. l l Results for the maximum sector (at the 0.5% exceedance probability, identified as the " Maximum Sector Overall" for clarity) are presented for information only and were not used in the analysis. (b) For stack releases and the CR and TSC intakes, the analysis was based on the assumption that winds from all directions would be blowing towards the intakes; i.e., the overall-site model and its associated 5% exceedance probability were invoked. Concentration (X/Q)s were determined for a number of distances from the stack, and the worst-case results were selected.
) (c) For TB releases and the CR and TSC intakes, where radioactive effluents are assumed to be transported toward the intakes with the wind blowing from any of 9 sectors for the CR and 8 sectors for the TSC, the !
" maximum sector" was selected to be the single sector representing the combination of sectors. The exceedance probability level was set at 5%, similar to the "Overall Site" model, and the "Overall Site" model was ignored.
In addition to the above, and as described in Sec. 4.7 of this calculation, fumigation conditions were assumed to apply only for receptors at the SB and the LPZ. Summaries of the concentration and finite-cloud gamma (X/Q)s (for a pure Xel33 source) are presented in tabular form on the pages which follow. They were prepared by extracting the pertinent information from the AFOLUS-3 outputs in Attachment B. Specifically, refer to the following computer runs and output pages for the selected entries:
/"T O
i NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE 74 OF 90 { PROJECT: JAF PREIJE [ ] PREPARED BY #7 DATE M"/97 l 3 FINAL [X] CHECKED BY M[ DATE WJ/f7 TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors l l l AEOLUS-3 Run No. D e s c r i p t i o n Output Page(s) l Case #1 Stack release - Site boundary 33, 34, 38, 39 Case #2 Stack release - 1.7 miles 13, 14, 15, 16 Case #3 Stack release - 3.4 mi. (LPZ) 13, 14, 15, 16 Case #4 Stack release - 4.0 miles 13, 14, 15, 16 Case #5 Stack release - 4.5 miles 13, 14, 15, 16 Case #6 Stack release - 5.0 miles 13, 14, 15, 16 Case #7 Stack release - Control Room 16, 19, 29, 32, 42, 45, 55, 58, 68, 71, 81, 84, 94, 97,107,110 Case #8 Stack release - TSC (See Case #7) l Case #9 TB release - Site boundary 33, 38 C Case #10 TB release - LPZ (3.4 mi.) 13, 15 Case #11 TB release - CR 37, 40 Case #12 TB release - TSC 13, 15 In general, the final accident (X/Q) values selected fit the following categories: Stack releases SB and LPZ : Maximum on-land sector [with a minor exception for the LPZ gamma (X/Q)) CR and TSC : Overall Site, worst-case distance (Fumigation not applicable) TB releases SB and LPZ : Overall Site CR and TSC : 9 combined sectors for the CR and 8 combined sectors for the TSC (Overall Site model not applicable) O
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE 7 "7 OF 98 PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY 97 DATE 2/M97 FINAL [X] CHECKED BY W DATE ##/f7 ( TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors The tables which follow include entries [such as Worst Sector overall (X/Q)s, and time intervals in excess of 2 hours for the site boundary) which are presented for informatit.. only. The final selected values are marked by double stars (**) for identification. Refer to Sec. 2 above for an overall summary. Note that for stack releases and offsite receptors, analyses for various distances showed that ground-level concentrations would peak at about 4 miles from the stack, i.e., beyond the LPZ at 3.4 miles. This is primarily due to the presence of hills which rise to about 240 ft above plant grade at about 5 miles south of the plant. Finite-cloud gamma radiation exposures would peak at the LPZ (3.4 miles) . Also, for stack releases and offsite receptors, the Maximum On-Land Sector and the Maximum Sector Overall are the same. For stack releases and the CR intake vent () -(at an evelation of 17m above grade), the worst-case distance is 405m from the stack; the same (X/Q)s were conservatively applied to the TSC intake vent. O f
l NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE ~7 F OF 9# PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY %P W DATE lt/W M t FINAL [X] CHECKED BY " A*/ DATE 9'/MF 7 i
~
TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accid'en't Atmospheric Dispersion Factors 3 j POST ACCIDENT DISPERSION PARAMETERfi (sec/m ) - STACK RELEASES I Condition or Max. On-Land Mnx. Sector Overall Time Interval Sector
- Overall* Site SITE BOUNDARY l
l Conc. X/O I Fumigation 5.243E-05** 5.243E-05 ----- 2 hours 1.638E-06 1.638E-06 1.271E-06 i 4 hours 1.127E-06 1.127E-06 8.990E-07 l 8 hours 7.758E-07 7.758E-07 6.357E-07 ; 16 hours 5.339F-07 5.339E-07 4.495E-07 3 days 2.384E-07 2.384E-07 2.119E-07 l 26 days 7.682E-08 7.682E-08 7.200E-08 Gamma (X/0) Fumigation 4.754E-05** 4.754E-05 - - - - - - 2 hours 7.065E-06 7.065E-06 5.800E-06 4 hours 4.503E-06 4.503E-06 4.022E-06 ' 8 hours 2.870E-06 2.870E-06 2.789E-06
- 16 hours 1.829E-06 1.829E-06 1.934E-06
' (- 3 days 7.762E-07 7.762E-07 8.740E-07 26 days 2.617E-07 2.617E-07 2.794E-07
~
l 1.7 MILES Conc. X/O Fumigation 2.258E-05 2.258E-05 ------ 2 hours 2.152E-06 2.152E-06 1.785E-06 4 hours 1.464E-06 1.464E-06 1.262E-06 ! 8 hours 9.965E-07 9.965E-07 8.928E-07 16 hours 6.782E-07 6.782E-07 6.314E-07 3 days 3.074E-07 3.074E-07 2.977E-07 26 days 1.030E-07 1.030E-07 1.012E-07 Gamma (X/0) Fumigation 2.626e-05 2.626E-05 ----- 2 hours 6.458E-06 6.458E-06 6.337E-06 ! 4 hours 4.232E-06 4.232E-06 4.190E-06 l 8 hours 2.795E-06 2.795E-06 2.770E-06 l 16 hours 1.846E-06 1.846E-06 1.831E-06 l 3 days 7.506E-07 7.506E-07 7.459E-07 l 26 days 2. 0 62T;-07 2.062E-07 2.055E-07 l Same/different sector (s) at different time intervals. Site boundary on-land sectors: ENE, E. ...... WSW On-land sectors at 1.7 miles : E, ESE, ...... WSW
** Selected entry C _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . . _ _ . _ _ _
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE 79 OF W PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY 97 DATE a/r/f y FINAL [X] CHECKED BY '/7 DATE VP/F 7 Os TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors l l 3 l POST ACCIDENT DISPERSION PARAMETERS (sec/m ) - STACK RELEASES Condition ( Max. On-Laud Max. Sector Overall Time Interval Sector
- Overall* Site LPZ (3.4 mi)
Conc. X/O Fumigation 2.030E-05 2.030E-05 ----- 2 hours 2.890E-06 2.890E-06 2.032E-06 4 hours 1.929E-06 1.929E-06 1.396E-06 8 hours 1.287E-06 1.287E-06 9.591E-07 16 hours 8.590E-07 8.590E-07 6.590E-07 3 days 3.571E-07 3.571E-07 2.919E-07 26 days 1.013E-07 1.013E-07 9.064E-08 Gamma (X/O) Fumigation 1.901E-05** 1.901E-05 ----- 2 hours 6.301E-06 6.301E-06 5.947E-06 4 hours 3.909E-06** 3.909E-06 3.776E-06 ,
<s 8 hours 2.425E-06 2.425E-06 2.397E-06 '
I 16 hours 1.504E-06 1.504E-06 1.522E-06** \~~'i 3 days 5.372E-07 5.372E-07 5.679E-07** 26 days 1.294E-07 1.294E-07 1.379E-07**
~
4 MILES Conc. X/O Fumigation 2.036E-05** 2.036E-05 ----- 2 hours 3.282E-06 3.282E-06 2.014E-06 4 hours 2.174E-06** 2.174E-06 1.389E-06 8 hours 1.439E-06 1.439E-06 9.575E-07 16 hours 9.532E-07** 9.532E-07 6.602E-07 3 days 3.898E-07** 3.898E-07 2.947E-07 26 days 1.080E-07** 1.080E-07 9.256E-08 Gamma (X/0) Fumigation 1.599E-05 1.599E-05 ----- 2 hours 5.923E-06 5.923E-06 5.646E-06 4 hours 3.730E-06 3.730E-06 3.569E-06 8 hours 2.349E-06 2.349E-06 2.257E-06 16 hours 1.479E-06 1.479E-06 1.427E-06 3 days 5.422E-07 5.422E-07 5.275E-07 26 days 1.284E-07 1.284E-07 1.264E-07 Same/different sector (s) at different time intervals On-land sectors: E, ESE, SE, SSE, S, SSW, SW and WSW
** Selected entry
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE ## _ OF f# PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY B7 DATE V///* 7 FINAL [X] CHECKED BY W DATE Mf/f2 p( ) TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors l 8 POST ACCIDENT DISPERSION PARAMETERS (sec/m ) - STACK RELEASES Condition or Max. On-Land Max. Sector Overall . I Time Interval Sector
- Overall* Site 4.5 MILES Conc. X/O Fumigation 1.766E-05 1.766E-05 -----
2 hours 2.968E-06 2.968E-06 1.982E-06 4 hours 1.933E-06 1.933E-06 1.352E-06 8 hourc 1.277E-06 1.277E-06 9.226E-07 16 hours 8.437E-07 8.437E-07 6.295E-07 3 days 3.432E-07 3.432E-07 2.746E-07 26 days 9.433E-08 9.433E-08 8.344E-08 Gamma (X/0) Fumigation 1.409E-05 1.409E-05 ----- 2 hours 5.740E-06 5.740E-06 5.276E-06 4 hours 3.529E-06 3.529E-06 3.314E-06 8 hours 2.170E-06 2.170E-06 2.082E-06 16 hours 1.334E-06 1.334E-06 1.308E-06 3 days 4.740E-07 4.740E-07 4.768E-07 26 days 1.116E-07 1.116E-07 1.120E-07 5.0 MILES l Conc. X/O Fumigation 1.541E-05 1.541E-05 ----- 2 hours 2.735E-06 2.735E-06 1.876E-06 4 hours 1.764E-06 1.764E-06 1.272E-06 8 hours 1.154E-06 1.154E-06 8.623E-07 16 hours 7.604E-07 7.604E-07 5.847E-07 l 3 days 3.074E-07 3.074E-07 2.517E-07 26 days 8.374E-08 8.374E-08 7.502E-08 Gamma (X/0) Fumigation 1.257E-05 1.257E-05 ----- 2 hours 5.316E-06 5.316E-06 4.999E-06 4 hours 3.257E-06 3.257E-06 3.122E-06 8 hours 1.996E-06 1.996E-06 1.950E-06 16 hours 1.223E-06 1.223E-06 1.218E-06 3 days 4.223E-07 4.223E-07 4.385E-07 26 days 9.865E-08 9.865E-08 1.012E-07 l Same/vifferent sector (s) at different time intervals On-land sectors: E, ESE, SE, SSE, S, SSW, SW and WSW n t
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE Id OF D PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY M DATE MN47 l m FINAL [X] CHECKED BY W DATE # 8 7 l 1 TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Acci'ddnt l Atmospheric Dispersion Factors POST ACCIDENT DISPERSION PARAMETERS (sec/m3 ) - STACK RELEASES Time Interval Distance ------------------------------------------------ (m) 8 hr 16 hr 72 hr 624 hr CR AIR INTAKE Cone. (X/0) 185 7.514E-09 5.370E-09 2.590E-09 9.091E-10 403 8.631E-07 6.330E-07 3.230E-07 1.229E-07 405 9.261E-07** 6.745E-07** 3.391E-07** 1.263E-07** 407 8.537E-07 6.270E-07 3.208E-07 1.226E-07 600 8.354E-07 6.022E-07 2.959E-07 1.067E-07 , 800 7.656E-07 5.428E-07 2.574E-07 8.816E-08 ' l 1000 7.030E-07 4.970E-07 2.343E-07 7.955E-08 l 1200 7.129E-07 5.073E-07 2.425E-07 8.405E-08 l l Gamma (X/0) O 185 403 405 2.921E-06 3.224E-06 3.237E-06** 2.215E-06 2.441E-06 2.449E-06** 1.215E-06 1.334E-06 1.337E-06** 5.130E-07 5.605E-07 5.603E-07** 407 3.236E-06 2.448E-06 1.335E-06 5.591E-07
- 600 3.282E-06 2.398E-06 1.224E-06 4.566E-07 l 800 3.626E-06 2.562E-06 1.205E-06 4.081E-07 1000 3.725E-06 2.580E-06 1.164E-06 3.709E-07 1200 3.767E-06 2.576E-06 1.130E-06 3.459E-07 All sectors combined - 5% exceedance probability TSC AIR INTAKE Above results for the CR air intake conservatively apply.
l ** Selected entry O V
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE FE OF W PROJECT: JAF PREIJE [ ] PREPARED BY dW DATE 7 ///M 7 FINAL [X] CHECKED BY 7/ DATE V/P/f7 p) (' TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Of fsite Post-Accide'nt Atmospheric Dispersion Factors 3 POST ACCIDENT DISPERSION PARAMETERS (sec/m ) - TB RELEASES Max. On-Land Eux. Sector Overall Time Interval Sector
- Overall* Site SITE BNDRY Conc. X/O 2 hours 1.290E-04 2.565E-04 1.794E-04**
4 hours 8.711E-05 1.819E-04 1.310E-04 8 hours 6.071E-05 1.290E-04 9.571E-05 16 hours 4.253E-05 9.145E-05 6.991E-05 3 days 1.964E-05 4.338E-05 3.535E-05 26 days 6.478E-06 1.487E-05 1.328E-05 Gamma (X/0) 2 hours 1.063E-04 2.021E-04 1.318E-04** 4 hours 6.947E-05 1.379E-04 9.315E-05 8 hours 4.540E-05 9.412E-05 6.585E-05 16 hours 2.967E-05 6.422E-05 4.665E-05
/~ i 3 days 1.241E-05 2.802E-05 2.193E-05
\s / 26 days 3.858E-06 8.520E-06 7.445E-06 LPZ (3.4 mi)
Conc. X/O 2 hours 2.331E-05 6.217E-05 4.455E-05 4 hours 1.478E-05 4.049E-05 2.982E-05 8 hours 9.372E-06 2.636E-05 1.996E-05** 16 hours 5.943E-06 1.717E-05 1.336E-05** 3 days 2.277E-06 6.769E-06 5.593E-06** 26 days 6.251E-07 1.779E-06 1.602E-06** Gamma (X/0) i 2 hours 2.376E-05 5.773E-05 3.719E-05 4 hours 1.471E-05 3.635E-05 2.446E-05 8 hours 9.103E-06 2.289E-05 1.609E-05** 16 hours 5.634E-06 1.442E-05 1.058E-05** 3 days 1.989E-06 5.387E-06 4.265E-06** 26 days 5.073E-07 1.315E-06 1.157E-06** l l Same/different sector (s) at different time intervals. Sita boundary on-land sectors: ENE, E, ESE, ...... WSW On-land sectors at 3.4 miles : E, ESE, SE, ..... WSW l Maximum Sector Overall (all cases): NW l (~~ ** l ( Selected entry ; l l l _ _ l
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE 27 OF 90 PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY SW DATE 2hMU FINAL [X] CHECKED BY #df DATE vh/F 2 O TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accicient Atmospheric Dispersion Factors l 3 POST ACCIDENT DISPERSION PARAMETERS (sec/m ) - TB RELEASES Murphy /Campe Disporsion Mc. _1 Time Conc. (X/Q) Gamma (X/Q) Interval (sec/m3) (sec/m3) CONTROL ROOM 2 hours 4.510E-03 5.532E-04 4 hours 3.852E-03 4.741E-04 8 hours 3.290E-03** 4.064E-04** 16 hours 2.810E-03** 3.483E-04** 3 days 1.996E-03** 2.492E-04** 26 days 1.221E-03** 1.542E-04** k TSC 2 hours 4.913E-03 5.476E-04 4 hours 4.182E-03 4.677E-04 O 8 hours 16 hours 3 days 3.559E-03** 3.029E-03** 2.135E-03** 3.995E-04** 3.412E-04** 2.423E-04** 26 days 1.292E-03** .1.483E-04** Conditions: Number of sectors contributing to material transfer to the outside-air intakes is 9 for the Control Rm and 8 for the TSC. The exceedance probability is 5%. Selected entry Note: The calculated 8-hour control room concentration (X/Q) (3.290E-03 sec/m3) corresponds to Stability F and a wind speed of 1.5 m/sec (Murphy /Campe model); the values for the other intervals (16 hrs, 3 days and 26 days) are approximately 1.4, 1.6 and 2.2 times higher than those which direct application of the Murphy /Campe methodology (as described in Ref. 4) would have yielded.
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE FP OF 80 PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] FINAL [X] PREPARED BY C [ DATE V#/9 7 CHECKED BY 97 DATE ##f 7 O TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsi6e Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors 5.2 Comparison with UFSAR and SER Data The following table presents a comparison of the site boundary, LPZ and control room concentration (X/Q)s as determined in this calculation versus corresponding data in the JAF UFSAR and Safety Evaluation Report (Refs. 7 and 19) The differences between the various cases are " interesting", to say the least, and are attributable to the following: (a) Use of up-to-date dispersion models and of site-specific hourly meteorological data in the current calculation, and (b) Assumption, in the UFSAR, that fumigation conditions at the time of the accident will only prevail at the LPZ, with the site boundary (and also the control room, as determined in the current calculation) being too close to the stack for uniform vertical mixing to O take place. In general, there is better agreement between the current calculation and the SER than with the UFSAR. With respect to the UFSAR values, use of the (X/Q)s in the current calculation will yield: (a) Higher thyroid exposures for stack releases and receptors at the site boundary and the LPZ, and about the same exposures in the CR, (b) Lower thyroid exposures for TB releases and receptors at the site boundary and the LPZ, and higher exposures in the CR. As for the external gamma radiation exposures, assessment of the relative impact of the new dispersion parameters [ gamma (X/Q)s) is not straightforward due to differences in the analytical models between the current methodology and that in the UFSAR. Such an assessment would require detailed radiological analyses and is outside the scope of this calculation. It is also of interest to note that the CR/TSC concentrations (X/Q)s, at the assumed location of 405 m from the stack, are in (k good agreement with the data in Regulatory Guide 1.3 (Ref. 17).
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE FS OF 90 PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY d// DATE 2/M97 FINAL [X] CHECKED BY T DATE r/p/f 7 i TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors POST ACCIDENT DISPERSION PARAMETERS - STACK RELEASES COMPARISON OF RESULTS (sec/m8 ) i i i Time i Interval Current UFSAR SER (hrs) Calculation Sec. 14.8.1.5 Sec. 2.5 Site Boundary 0- 2 5.24E-5* 6.24E-06 5.1E-05* LPZ j 0- 4 2.04E-5* ------ 2.6E-05* 4- 8 2.17E-6 ------ 6.2E-06 l 8- 24 9.53E-7 ------ 4.4E-06** 24 - 96 3.90E-7 ------ 1.7E-06** 96 - 720 1.08E-7 ------ 5.5E-07** g-~g 0- 4 ----- 1.22E-05* ----- (j 0- 2 ----- 2.87E-06 ----- 2- 24 ----- 1.91E-06 ----- 24 - 120 ----- 1.40E-07 ----- 120 - 720 ----- 7.00E-00 . Control Room 0- 8 9.26E-7 1.0E-06 ----- l 8- 24 6.75E-7 5.0E-07 ----- 24 - 96 3.39E-7 2.0E-07 -----
)
96 - 720 1.26E-7 1.5E-07 -----
- Fumigation conditions
** From Reg. Guide 1.3 (height = 50 m, distance = 5470 m)
O
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE 9/ OF 98 PROJECT: JAF PREIJE [ ] PREPARED BY S7 DA'4'E 2/&/97
,n FINAL [X] CHECKED BY " /2/ DATE _y/J'
/f7 TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accid' erit Atmospheric Dispersion Factors POST ACCIDENT DISPERSION PARAMETERS - TB RELEASES '
l COMPARISON OF RESULTS (sec/m3 ) Time Interval Current UFSAR SER (hrs) Calculation Sec. 14.8.1.5 Sec. 2.5 Site Boundary 0- 2 1.79E-4 3.62E-04 1.3E-04 LPZ 0- 8 2.00E-5 ------ 1.5E-05 8- 24 1.34E-5 ------ 3.2E-06 24 - 96 5.59E-6 ------ ----- l 96 - 720 1.60E-6 ------ ----- O- 2 ----- 1.28E-04 ----- 2- 24 ----- 8.56E-05 ----- Control Room l 0- 8 3.29E-3 6.5E-04 ----- 8- 24 2.81E-3 ------ ----- 24 - 96 2.00E-3 ------ ----- 96 - 720 1.22E-3 ------ ----- l l O
r NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE O OF ## I PROJECT: JAF PRELM [ ] PREPARED BY )W DATE t. /d97 p FINAL [X] CHECKED BY W ~ DATE ~##r7 ( ,/ TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors 5.3 Gamuna (X/Q)s and Noble Gas Mixtures As noted in Sec. 3.2 of this calculation, the gamma (X/Q) is j a function .f the energy spc;tra associated with the radionuclides mix in the released cloud. One of the objectives of this calculation was to provide gamma (X/Q)s which can be conservatively applied to all potential DBA releases and at all times following the accident. This was accomplished by carrying out AEOLUS-3 test runs using a design-basis LOCA mix subjected to various decay times, as well as a pure Xe133 source. The results for the various release points and receptors are summarized in the table which follows. They were prepared by ] extracting the pertinent information from the AEOLUS-3 outputs in Attachment B. Specifically, refer to the following computer runs-and output pages for the selected entries: AEOLUS-3 Output Run No. D e s c r i p t i o n Page(s) Case #1 Stack rel. - SB - Xe133 source 39 I Case #1A Stack rel. - SB - LOCA/No decay 16 Case #4 Stack rel. - 4 miles - Xe133 source 15, 16 Case #4A Stack rel. - 4 miles - LOCA/No decay 15, 16 Case #4B Stack rel. - 4 miles - LOCA/1 day dec. 15, 16 Case #4C Stack rel. - 4 miles - LOCA/4 day dec. 15, 16 Case #4D Stack rel. - 4 miles - LOCA/15 day dec. 15, 16 Case #7 Stack release - CR - Xe133 source 45 Case #7B Stack release - CR - LOCA/No decay 15 Case #9 TB release - SB - Xe133 source 38 Case #9A TB release - SB - LOCA/No decay 15 1 Case #10 TB release - LPZ - Xe133 source 15 Case #10A TB release - LPZ - LOCA/No decay 15 Case #11 TB release - CR - Xe133 source 40 Case #11A TB rol ase - CR - LOCA/No decay 15 l The results presented correspond to the ' selected' values in () Sec. 5.1 above. For the sake of simplicity, and where applicable, the entries in the table include only a few of the time intervals
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE 9P OF W PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY 9 fV DATE J /#77 FINAL [X] CHECKED BY # /f7 DATE r /a f f 7
\ TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accid'ent Atmospheric Dispersion Factors of interest. The results for intermediate intervals range between the values listed in the table. Note that, for all release points and receptors, a pure Xe133 sour.:e yields gamma (X/Q)s which are
- higher than the decayed LOCA mixtures by factors ranging from approximately 1.0 to 2.4. The Xe133 values are approached as the decay time increases. Therefore, Xe133 was conservatively selected as the representative source for the final ' application' (X/Q)s (as presented in Sec. 5.1 above, and in the summary table in Sec. 2).
i , v i
/
U l E___________________
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE E9 OF M PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] DREPARED BY O7 DATE _d8 M97 l FINAL [X] CHECKED BY '#/ DATE WMF7 TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Acciden't Atmospheric Dispersion Factors POST ACCIDENT DISPERSION PARAMETERS - STACK RELEASES IMPACT OF RADIONUCLIDES MIX ON THE GAMMA (X/Q)s Gamma (X/Q) (sec/m3) - Selected Sector (s)* Radionuclides ----------------------------------------------- Source Fumigation 4-hr interval 26-day interval Site Boundary Xe133 source 4.754E-05 ------ ------ l LOCA/no decay 2.103E-05 ------ ------ (Xe133/LOCA) (2.26) ! 4.0 Miles ** l l Xe133 source 1.599E-05 3.730E-06 1.284E-07 , LOCA/no decay 8.603E-06 2.260E-06 9.728E-08 (Xe133/LOCA) (1.86) (1.65) (1.32) LOCA/1-day d. 1.521E-05 3.569E-06 1.244E-07 (Xe133/LOCA) (1.05) (1.01) (1.03) l LOCA/4-day d. 1.595E-05 3.722E-06~ 1.282E-07 i (Xe133/LOCA) (1.00) (1.00) (1.00) , i l l LOCA/15-day d 1.598E-05 3.727E-06 1.283E-07 (1.00) (1.00) (1.00) (Xe133/LOCA) CR Intake Xe133 source ------ 4.279E-06 5.603E-07 LOCA/no decay ------ 3.522E-06 4.715E-07 (Xe133/LOCA) (1.21) (1.19)
- Refer to the corresponding table in Sec. 5.1 for identification
** SSW sector in all cases, except for the LOCA case with !
no decay, which is for all sectors combined; also, the fumigation values are at 4 miles, and not at 3.4 miles as selected for the final results. O
NYPA - CALC.# JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 REV 2 PAGE ** OF W PROJECT: JAF PRELN [ ] PREPARED BY S 7/ DATE WD7 FINAL [X] CHECKED BY # /f/ DATE V/M9 7 (q) TITLE: Power Uprate Program - Onsite and Offsite Post-Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors POST ACCIDENT DISPERSION PARAMETERS - TB RELEASES IMPACT OF RADIONUCLIDES MIX ON THE GAMMA (X/Q)s Gan=nm (X/Q) (sec/m8 ) - All Sectors Combined Radionuclides --------------------------------------------- Source 8-hr interval 26-day interval Site Boundary Xe133 source 1.318E-04* ------ LOCA/no decay 5.546E-05* ------ (Xe133/LOCA) (2.38) LPZ (3.4 Miles) Xe133 source 1.609E-05 1.157E-06 LOCA/no decay 8.552E-06 6.554E-07 (Xe133/LOCA) (1.88) (1.77) Control Room ** Xe133 source 4.064E-04 . 1.542E-04 LOCA/no decay 1.852E-04 6.967E-05 (Xe133/LOCA) (2.19) (2.21) 2-hour interval
** 9-sector exposure 1 \
lU t
JAF-CALC-RAD-00007 - R;v 2 POWER UPRATE PROGRAM - ONSITE AniD OFFSITE POST-ACCIDENT ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION FACTORS
%./
ATTACHMENT A COPIES OF REFERENCES PERTINENT TO THIS CALCULATION Presented in the pages which follow are copies of the following references (or excerpts thereof):
- 4. K. G. Murphy and K. M. Campe, " Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Ventilation System Design for Meeting General Design Criterion 19," USAEC, 13th Air Cleaning Conference (1974) 6.* G. C. Holzworth, " Mixing Height, Wind Speeds, and Potential for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United States," U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Meteorology, Report AP-101 (January 1972)
- 21. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation letter # NMP86969 addressed to J. Hamawi, from Tom Galletta, titled "The Validity of the Nine Mile Point (NMP) Meteorological Data (1985-1990) Sent for Use in Updating the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM)" (2/23/93) 23.* Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation (ESEERCO) Technical Report No. EP 91-28, " Eastern Lake Ontario - On-Shore Flow Field Study," prepared by Galson Corp. (4/94)
- Excerpts only l
l l
13th AEC AIR CLEANING CONI ERENCE
/9?9 ,
Q , V NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CONTROL ROOM VENTILATION S FOR MEETING GENERAL CRITERION 19 K. G. Murphy and Dr. K. M. Campe Directorate of Licensing G' U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Abstract The requirement for protection of control room personnel against A, radiation is specified in GeneralofDesign The evaluation Criterion a control 19 of Appendix room design, especially 10 CFR Part 50. primarily consists of determining the radiation d . personnel under accident conditions. The accident dose assessment involves modeling radiological Some and protection features of the control room used ventilation in the sys' tem. dose analyses are of the assumptions and conservatism { based on the technical review experience of existing orto propoj j control room designs. revealed a great variety of design concepts, not all of wh l Z. ' have been based on radiation protection criteria. \
~N J (Q
~
' A summary of the basic control room protection requirements. /
design features, dose acceptance criteria, and an ou{ presented. ,, I. Introduction The General Design Criterion 19 of Appendix A, 10 CFR Part 50, includes a specific requirement with respect to control room to According person protection against radiation under accident conditions. i Criterion 19, control room design should' provide radiation protection l such that control room personnel do not receive radi.ation exposure d
)
excess of 5 rem whole body, or its equivalent to any part of the bo y, for the duration of the accident. The assessment of a p' articular control room design in terms o'f Criterion 19 doses. includes the following considerations: l
- 1. - Radiatio'n source term identification and evaluation.
2. Radiationtransport,eitherbyairbor$econtaminationorvia
-direct streaming through shielding and other structures.
_Q
- 3. Control room radiation protection with respect to airborne
- and direct streaming radiation sources.
d ,
, 4. Control room dose calculation models. ~
5.imck tw aux.sdage. . m 1 l
- 13th AEC AIR CLEANING CONTERENCE
- t. *; '
A relatively As a result, large number of control room designs have beenit
' reviewed.
terize several distinct ventilation system design concepts for itd pro-tecting control room operators from airborne contaminants assoc a eE i f with postulated d t accidents.es and disadvantages, as well as its These performance c i((.itsavanagties for short-term and 1cng-term contaminationfigura- situations. attributes, when applied to a specific nuclear power plan ventilation system. l II. Basic Protection Considerations _ operator exposure. An accidental release of activity can result in control roo l l radiation from activity outside the control room. h l of typical control buildings Streaming normally through wall penetrations reduce this con worst postulated accidents). requ. ires specific review with respect to external ra t l The operators also can'be exposed to both direct and The internal expo- l If radio-ch radiation from activity buildup within the control room.sures O (JP s exposure. active iodine is present the operators ,
,,d Thyroid exposure is the limiting consideration in most cases.
we Charcoal filters are installed to remove fodine and thus reduce theThe thyroid exposure to acceptable 1.evels. the control room as a consequence of various post Aside from estimating source terms room anddesign diffusion parameters, itself, namely the the problem centers around the control i analysis with respect- to charcoal filter These effectiveness consid- f of air entering the control room when it is isolated). impact on the outco erations usually have the greatestSubsequent sections will-discuss of current control room designs. these, as well as other considerations in depth. III.' Review of Current Control Room Designs _ Since July of 1973 a total of 50 applications, in various stages of review, have been studied Ittowas determine found that c'ontrol most room of-the design control adequac with respect to Criterion 19. . Very few of the 50 room emergency systems- have very little in common. Designs developed e t g designs differ significantly. are identical. For example, there are four basic recirculating filtration, design r/ categories: once-through fil tration,Very few of the systems within a cate-bottled air, and dual inlets. gory are identical. Equipment capacities, component ranging selection, asFor ins O well as component arrangements vary. f damping devices v lation is implemented by a' varit eyo from slow acting, leaky dampers, to fast acting, leak tight butterfl L l ' . valves. Charcoal l 402
- - - _ - . - _ _ _ _ _ . - _ - _ _ _ - - . _ . _ . - _ _ _ _ . _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . . - - _ - . _ . . _ . .__ , _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - _ _ _ . - - . - - - . _ . - _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~
- _.._'.........'_..:. .: i . ._ . _ . . . . . , u .. - 4. -
/~' (_,) 13th AEC AIR CLEANING CONTERENCE 43,500 cfm. Charcoal depths varied from the usual 2 inch depth to as much as 18 inches. Diversity was observed in the use of component redundancy: some designs show duplicate components connected to a . common ductwork (component redundancy), whereas others have two com- E pletely separate systems (system redundanc'y). Much of the observed design variations are caused by differing opinions as to the degree of protection that must be provided. In some cases, one has to conc.lude that the dose analyses were performed j af ter the ventilation system design had been established. Dose l analyses exclusively for the sake of satisfying safety documentation requirements is not a recommended practice. Rather, it should be used as a tool for system design and component selection. The section on Control Room Dose Evaluation should provide the basis for consistency in evaluating the protective requirements and capabilities of control room ventilation equipment. A consistent evaluating technique in conjunction with an appreciation for good versus poor design details will help reduce the number of design variations and allow for future standardization of these systems. A discussion of the presently proposed concepts should help in achieving this objective. The balance of this section describes the four con-cepts, their application, and their advantages and disadvantages. ,7 ( A. Isolation with Filtered Pressurization (_)i 'i -~ - In this concept, the control room is automatically isolated upon fa an accident signal or upon a high radiation s.ignal at the fresh air -- inlets. The operator has the option of manually initiating emergency pressurization (make-up air being directed through a standby charcoal filter train). Pressurization flow rates between 400 and 4000 cfm are typical. Five percent of the plants reviewed rely on this method of protection. Isolation is normally sufficient for accidents resulting in an activity release of short duration. Accidents resulting in releases of long duration, such as a LOCA, may require use of the charcoal filters. Filtered pressurization is relatively ineffective in protecting against iodine. The Regula tory staf f allows an iodine protection factor (IPF)* of 1.52 requirements. 20 for charcoal filters that meet Regulatory Guide In most cases, only plants with high stacks (greater than 100 meters) would meet Criterion 19 with this system. A basic drawback of this type of system is the fact that when the filter is in operation, the unfilterable activity (comprised of noble , gases) is being drawn into the control room and contributes to the whole body gamma exposure. Usually the recommendation is made that these systems be modified to allow the filter to be used either in a pressurization or a recirculation mode. This fea ture adds flexibility l to the system as discussed below.
- Scc Section V-D., the parameter IPF is defined as the ratio of the dose assuning no iodine removal over the dose assuming lodine removal.
i i - l B. Isolation with Filtered Recirculated Air in this concept the control room is automatically isolated and the emergency recirculating charccal filters started with the same lO.- i accident or high radiation trip. ~ Control room air is withdrawn, filtered, and returned to the control room. Typical recirculation rates vary from 4000 cfm to 15,000 cfm depending principally upon the i leak tightness of the zone serviced by the system and on the calculated l yI activity levels in the unfiltered air. About The 40 percent of the plants majority of these l r reviewed proposed this" method of protection. systems offered the option of manually pressurizing the control room l with filtered air. This mode woul'd be' selected only if it was determined that contamination is being introduced into the control j room within the building housing the control room. These systems have a much higher potential for controlling iodine i than those having once-through filters. IPF's ranging from 20 to over l 150 can be achieved. These are designs used mostly for plants having 4 vents located at containment-roof level. A system having a recircula-tiois rate of 5000 cfm and a filter ei .iciency of 95% would be rated as follows: Infiltration (cfm)* IPF** 200 25 100 . 49
%1 50 96 25 1.91 ,
d In addition to control of iodines, systems with low infiltration , rates will provide significant protection against noble gas exposure l as discussed in Section Y-E. l A design problem common to recirculation systems is the enhanced infiltration from isolation dampers. Typically, these dampers are located on the inlet side of the recirculating fans and may be exposed to several inches of negative pressure. Systems that are designed for low infiltration solve this problem by installing "zero" leakage butterfly valves. C. Isolation with Filtered Recirculation and Pressurization This system is essentially the same" as the one described in B.
- Calculated values will be acceptable for infiltration rates of 0.06 volume changes per hour or greater (for dose calculation purposes).
Smaller infiltration rates will be allowed only if infiltration For design test-ing is performed periodically during plant operation. purposes it. filtration rates less than 0.015 volume chang.el_per hour normally are not considered achievable.
- ** Within the range of interest, IPF is directly proportional to recir-(\ g,
- culation flow rate times filter efficiency.
404 ,
' . 5- . *.- . L .a --- --- e - - - < - - " ~ = - . - . - , ,_ i:: i. . . - . . . - -
O. 13th AEC AIR CLEANING CONFERENCE , ,,,, However, the designer has chosen to operate the system in the pres-surized mode during long-term accidents and therefore the system must be approved on this basis. About 15 percent of the designs reviewed used this method of protection. The advantage of-pressurization 1 of unfiltered air ent'ering the control,s that roomit byminimizes the amount infiltration. The leak. tightness of the control room then becomes only a secondary consideration. Of course,*the disadvantage is that the noble gas j exposure will be maximized since outside air is being intentionally admitted to the control room. In most cases, however, the whole body gamma exposure from the noble gases would still remain below Criterion 19 guidelines. The iodine protection factors for this type of system are given below for the case of a 5000 cfm, 95% efficiency filter . (flows in cfm): l IPF (Assuming IPF (Assuming No 10 cfm Make-Up Air
- Recirculated Air Infiltration) , Infiltration) 400 4600 238 159 rE% 750 4250 128 101 sas 1000 4000 .
96 '80 , _ f- The %sulatory staff normally assumes a 10 cfm infiltration
- rate, notwithstanding pressurization. This is to account for the possibili-ty of backflow of contamina tion into the control room when doors are opened or closed.. This flow would be reduced or eliminated if the design rules out the possibility of backflow by installing devices such as two-door vestibules.
A question that has not been answered satisfactorily as yet, is whether." isolation with recirculation" or " pressurization" is the best continuous mode of operation. This depends primarily on the assump-tions as to unfiltered inicakage. The Regulatory staff plans to measure infiltration on a number of actual control rooms to help determine the best operational mode. Isolation with recirculation.has the advantage of limiting the entrance of noble gases (not filtrable) and it is also the better. approach when the accident involves a short term " puff release." However, with pressurization there is a feeling of more security in that the question of infiltration becomes mute. i Also, with the addition of a second charcoal filter in the inlet duct i (assuring dnuble filtration of make-up air) the pressurization design ! becomes very effective against iodine.
'#)
*Makc-up air should be sufficient to pressurize the control room to at l
least 1/8 inch water gauge. If the make-up rate is less than 0.5 i Os. volume changes per hour, supporting calculations are required to i verify'it. i If the make-up rate is less than 0.25 volume changes per hour, periodic verification testing is required in addition to the calculations. i j 4 1
....si..w,.... w. . . . . . . ..s 6 ... ........%
D_._ Dual Inlets This concept utilizes two remotely located inlets. The inlets I (j)
/
,- normally are placed such that any potential release point lies between the two inlets, thus assuring that one of the two inlets is free of l contamination. This guaranteed supply of. fresh air is used to pres--
surize the control room for minimizing infiltration. About 35 percent of the plants reviewed proposed dual inlet systems. The viability of the dual inlet concept depends on whether or not the placement of the inlets assures one inlet free from contamina-tion. . This possibility depends, in part, on building wake effects, For terrain, and the existence of wind stagnation or reversal. example, consider a case where the inlets are located at the extreme edges of the plant structures; e.g., one on the north side and one on the south side. It is conceivable that under certain low proba-bility conditions both inlets could be contaminated from the same point source. The designer who is skeotical about this possibility is encouraged to witness a smoke visualization test either in a wind tunnel or at an actual site. These tests show that the complex 3 turbulence patterns set up in and around a group of buildings can result in contamination spreading throughout the complex, upwind as well as downwind of the release point. If the inlets were to be located several hundred feet outboard of the structure the probability of both being covered probably would approach zero. The staff normally requires at least a once-through
~
f~$$ ~~ charcoal filter for the make-up air in those cases where the inlets are located on or close to the plant structures. Filters usually are not required for plants with inlets 200 feet or more away from any Os , plant structure (provided of course that all potential source' points, ,
"se' including -toxic material containers, are located such that simultane-ous contamination of both inlets is not possible).
The acceptance of a dual inlet system is based primarily on assuring that the inlet selected for operation can deliver pressuri-zation air while at the same time assuring that the closed inlet does not allow any flow. The review involves a careful examination of the ducting and damping of the system. The ducting should meet seismic Category I criteria as well as be protected against missiles. The damping devices (normally butterfly valves) must meet the single active failure criterion. This results in each inlet having a parallel set of two valves in series (4 valves total). When applying the single failure of an active component criterion it should be noted that there must be a guarantee of both flow and no flow in each inlet. E. Bottled Air In some plant designs the containment pressure is reduced below atmospheric within one hour af ter a design basis accident (DBA). This assures that af ter one hour significant radioactive material will not P be released from the plant. This type of design makes it feasible to
"* maintain the control room above atmospheric pressure by use of' bottled air. Normally the staff requires periodic pressurization tests to
-- determine that the rated flow (normally about 300 to 600 cfm) is sufficient to pressurize the control room to at least 1/8 inch water f's, ,
gauge. It is also required that the system be composed of several 406 l
.. .: ;. ~.' *c '; *.-: I:- -.*:. . ~., . '.
- 2.. : - -
.:: r .:.- ..:I '.
- . : ^:a.:.:,...;a. d.
) N. ' .
= . .: .. .n. .; . .::. . . .. . . .. - :
- l , . l\ w:a 13th AEC AIR CLEANING CONFERENCE
-separate circuits (one of which is assumed to be inoperative to
~
account for a possible single failure). The staff also requires at leas't a once-through filter system for pressurization as a stand-by for accidents.of long duration. About five percent of the plants reviewed proposed this. method of ' operation. IV. Dose Acceptance Criteria The Criterion 19 dose guideline of 5 rem whole body or its equivalent
'is used to determine system acceptability. The following specific criteria are applied:
- 1. Whole body gamma radiation from direct shine radiation of sources external to the control room and from the airborne activity within the control room should not exceed a total of 5 rem.
2.. Beta skin dose from airborne activity within the control room should not exceed 30 rem. The dose is evaluated by assuming a 7 mg/caz depth dose (this takes into account the shielding effect of-the insensitive superficial skin layer) and a semi-infinite cloud A geometry.
'.=
- 3. Thyroid dose from the inhalation of radioactive iodine should O.'notexceed30 rem.The dose is determined by use o ICRP Publication 2 parameters and a breathing rate of 3.47 x 10-{ m3/sec.
~
, , - No.
V. Control Room Dose Evaluation Each of the three dose. components;i.e., the thyroid dose due to inhalation of iodine radioisotopes, and the whole body gamma and beta skin' doses due .to exposure to noble gas radioisotopes, is calculated on the basis of source strength, atmospheric transport, dosimetry . and
- control room protection considerations, as illustrate.d in Equations 1 through 3.
DO DIN E S C, * (X/Olj D/ = T; E; S;; g33 l i i NOBLE C,*(X/0) 8 GF=PF ii (2) 3
.. i O"' .
*(X/0)
=m a
C= d - Of = rF, ..J E'8 S ' + 1 8 (3) I where :
13th AI.C Alli Cf.L ATJi,JG LU:.'l EliE!!CE i Dj ', D j ,D 7 j = the thyroid, whole body gamma, and beta stin dose, res-l pectively, (rem) index, intervals of 0 to 8 hrs, 8 to 24 hrs, f
)= time 1 to 4interval days, and 4 to 30 days are typical
=294,doseqongersionfactor(includesbreathingrateof l
l c;e E 314&#t44e-f g s3ga I il . l IPF = iodine protection factor, ratio of integrated iodine dose ) at inlet to integrated iodine dose within control room (see Subsection D) 3 meteorological f actor (see Subsection B) (seconds / meter ) (x/0); = f I= isotope index i T,= ef fective hal f-life in the body (days) ; E,= ef fective energy absorbed in thyroid (Mev/ dis) Sj = quantity of isotope released in jt_h. time interval (see Subsection A) (Ci) , c2 = 0.25, semi-infinite cloud dose conversion factor A n7 GF = geometric factor, converts ' semi-infinite gamma dose to a 3 finite dose (see Subsection C) [V ". PF j =in purge factor, corrects for slow increase'in concentration *
- the case of a tight, isolated control room (see Sub-section E)
E3 7= average gamma energy (Mev/ dis) I= symbolic indication of iodine cuatribution, represents a negligible fraction of dose when iodine filtration is used 0 Eg= average beta energy (Mev/ dis) , The major input parameters defined in the equations above are based on the following considerations : A. Source Term (S) ' The source terms should be based on design basis assumptions ) acceptable to the AEC for purposes of determining adequacy of the ) plant design for meeting the criteria contained in 10 CFR Parts 50 and i 100. For the most part, these design basis assumptio~ns can For be found in Regulatory Guides that deal with radiological releases.
- b. Instance, when determining the source term for a loss-of-coolant l j
accident (LOCA), the assumptions given in Regulatory Guides 1.3 and 1.4 should be used. Gu ides 1. 5,1.24, 1.25, and 1.77 should be referenced for the evaluation of other design basis accidents. h08 \
\
I
13th AEC AIR CLEANING CONI:EllLNCE and 25% of the ()~ In the case of a LOCA, 100% of the noble gases lodines present in the reactor core are assumed to escape to theThe' reductio containment and are initially available for release. the amount of material available for release by containment sprays, l recirculating filters, or other engineered safety features is taken-Reference to the respective Guides should be made fo i into account. d[] - the balance of the assumptions. iodine, xenon, and krypton is calcula within of relatively each short time duration, interval ofsuch*as interest.a waste gas decay tank rupture or a main steam line break for a BWR, should be determined in such a way as to maximize control room operator exposure. B. Meteorology (X/Q) The term X/Q in Equations 1-3 denotes the degree of dispersion of the activity as it is transported from the' point of release to the receptor. The parameter is normally referred to as relative concen-tration tion at the forreceptor it can be (X)visualized bestrelease to 'the activity as therate ratio (Q)ofasthe concentra-shown below: ycund = X/o * (4) m 3 O CVsec O Relative concentration is difficu'lt to determine when both the tn release point and the receptor are located within or near the turbu-A num l lence created by a complex of buildings.
> field tests (References 1-6) have been performed on specific building .
configurations. Though these efforts have resulted in usable infor-mation for specific situations, general' applicability is not possible. In order to provide a basis for evaluation, 'the staff has formulated an interim position using conservative interpretations of the availa- : ble data. The procedure consists of first determining the five percentile X/Q(defined as the X/Q value exceeded 5% of the time at th specific site in question). This value is used as the X/Q for the first post-accident time interval. Then-the value of X/Q is reduced on the basis of averaging considerations for each subsequent time interval. The detailed procedures are described below.
- 1. Determination of Five Percentile Relative Concentration _
. a. In-line. Point Source - Point Receptor The following relation is used when activity is assumed to leak from a single point on the surface of the containment, or other structure, in conjunction with a single point receptor (e.g.,the "x" from single point operating air intake), which is located a distance source (the source and receptor having a difference in elevation of
_: less than 30% of.the containment height):
' _gj W x/o = (3unoyagl 4
( ) where: . 3 X/O = relative concentration at the plume centerline (sec/m ) . 409
oy, az = standard deviation of the gas concentration in the horizontal crosswind and vertical crosswind directions, respectively. Os both being evaluated at distance "x" (m) U = wind speed at an elevation of 10 meters (m/sec) 3 = wake factor based on Regulatory Guides 1.3 and 1.4
/3 The parameters e a z, and U are determined on the basis of site
-- meteorological data. y,he T data are statistically analyzed to determine that combination of- oy. oz, and U are indicative of the five percentile .
dispersion condition at the site. Typically, ey and az are based on a Pasquill "F" condition (see Reference 7 pages 102 and 103). Five percentile winds speeds of 0.5 to 1.5 meters /sec are typical.
- b. Diffuse Source - Point Receptor l The following relation is used when activity is assumed to leak from many points 'on the surface of the containm'ent in conjunction with a single point receptor:
y [ p.gg (6) X/O = [U(ro oyg+K+2* )] .1 where: e som F
- i. 5
. s e3 m s ..
"" ,,y,u e z_ . I~ @ tom F ;
s= distance between containment surface and receptor location l O, f ' d = diamet.er of containment a= projected area of. containment building (m 2) The above equation is also appropriate in the following cases: ) Point source - point receptor where the difference in elevation 1 l- _ between the source and receptor is greater than 30% of containment l height, l , Point source - volume receptor; a volume ' receptor being l l exemplified by an isolated control room with infiltration occurring
- at many locations.
- c. Point or Diffuse Source - Two-Alternate Receptors I This section applies to those designs having two or more control !
room fresh air inlets each of which meets the single failure criterion for active components, the seismic criteria, as well as any applicable missile criteria. The design details must assure that the most con-taminated inlet is isolated and the least contaminated inlet remains *
.itin operation to provide control room pressurization. -
-(1) Dual Inlets located on Seismic Category I Structures-The dual
. inlets are most conveniently placed on the seismic Category I struc-ture contiguous to the control room. The inlets,should be located to 1410
. i
,,_- , _ _ =_ .- ._ -.. - - - - ------:
~
13th AEC AIR CLEANING CONI EHENCE For instance, of . only locationsfirst8 and C locat O maximizethe benefit of the alternate inlet concept.the would be acceptable, assumingLocation that theAcontainment is the . location would be unacceptable because three of the major points of release. both inlets can be simultaneously contaminated. With good inlet p(lacement, 6). the relative concentration is calculated by us
'- j! the inlet closest to.the point of release and with K being set to Zero. *
(2) Remote Air Intakes-When the dual inlets are placed about 180 degrees apart from the potential-release points and each inlet is located more, seewell away Figure from any major structure -(typically 200 feet orD),th 1, location exposed to contamination at the s'ame time is reduced significantly. However, wind shifts and _ unusual meandering This of thewould wind occur may stillinfre-cause simultaneous exposure of both inlets. I quently and the contamination level at the operating inlet would be low. , I The staff estimates this level of contamination by assuming a plume that spreads out in all directions and is evenly dispersed in the vertical direction. The appropriate equation is: AVs (7) V' X/O = 0.16/ LUX p , V ^ ( g/ where: L = vertical mixing layer, m .
~
X = distance from source to closest inlet, e i In the cases where activity is released within the wake of~the , containment, L is taken as the containment height divided by V2 (the l height is divided bya/7 to be consistent with the policy of restrict- ! ing the wake. factor to one-half of the projected area of the contain-ment building). by Equation (7) will cover both inlets one-half hour per day. I Further adjustments in the X/Q, as discussed in the next section,
- apply to all methods using Equations (5) and (6), but do not apply in l
l the case of remote air intakes. ,
- 2. Determination of (X/Q)j
' The five percentile X/Q is used for the first time interval in For the calculation (normally 0 to 8 hours af ter ' accident occurence). subsequent time intervals, the X/Q is reduced to account for long term meteorological averaging. Consideration of other factors may require For instance, an allowance may be c,onsi-
~
further reduction of X/Q. dered for the time the operator leaves the plant vicinity. This is defined as the occupancy factor. Typical values for this factor Q ~ appear in Table 1. Note that the table also presents factors involving wind speed and wind direction. two other These factors 411
1::h AI.C AIR Ci f.A;.'li.'G i:v:u i ill.*NE > account for the effects of changes in wind speed and direction over progressively longer periods of time. {)
~
Typically, wind speeds of about 1 m/sec represent t'he five percentile case where as speeds of 3 m/sec represent the 40 to 50 percentile case. The staff allows credit.for higher wind speeds , during long term accidents as indicated in Table 2. The values shown l in Column 1 of the table can be used when meteorological data are not ' available. When available, the factors can be calculated by use of
. "\
the wind percentiles given in Column 2. When determining wind speed from site meteorological data, only the wind direction sectors that result in receptor exposure are used. Figure 2 defines the number of 22.5 degree sectors that is considered in obtaining the short term and long term wind speeds. The s/d ratio in the figure is the distance from the building surface to the , receptor divided by the diameter or width of'the building normal to the direction of the wind. Figure 2 was determined by analyzing the growth of the l'ines of equal concentration in planes parallel to the l ground using results from Reference 2. Figure 2 also is used to determine the fraction of time the wind is blowing from the sectors in question. The average wind direction frequency F is obtained by summing the annual average wind direction frequency of the sectors in question. Table 3 is then used to evaluate the appropriate wind direction factors. Column 1 of the is used when F is not available and Column 2 is used when F has
. f .- , table ' -s g
- t. been determined.
\ms/ -
4 I l l L! . h12 8 .. ..._ L____.__________________._.__
13tli AEC AIR CLEANING CONFEHENCE ,
-D, s
t TABLE 1 , EXAMPLE OF FACTORS USED TO. CALCULATE EFFECTIVE _ RELATIVE CONCENTRATIONS FOR SELECTED TIME INTERVALS s . gy g g l x th t 0.6
- 72, t 0* +
- D
- Ad'justment 1 - 4 days 4 - 30 days; factors 0 - 8 hrs _ 8 - 24_ hrs *
.5.
y' 1 0 50 0.40 1 Occupancy , 0.67 0.50 0.33 Wind speed 1 0.88 _ 0.75 0.50 Wind direction 1 0.59 0.23 0.066 Overall reduction 1 i
'~_*
I hit
l s.un ,61.c ,.;d i.i.i.,,..:.;u i c.<a i .u.::ce l 1
- 1
- O L1 . -
. l TABLE 2 l y, WIND SPEED FACTOR
- l l
~
Column 1 ' Column 2 Representative wind Corresponding wind l Time after Speed Factors
- speed percentile accident 5
0 - 8 Hrs 1 0.67 10 . ; 0 - 24 Hrs * , 0.50 20 i !- 1 - 4 days 0.33 40 E 4 - 30 days i TABLE 3 , 4 N WIND DIRECTION FACTOR O n Column 1 Column 2 l
'3j Time after Representative wind Relations used to estimate l direction factors ** wind direction factor when l
F has been determined 1 0 - 8 Hrs 1 l 8 - 24 Hrs 0.88 0.75 + F/4 l 1 - 4 Days- 0.75 0.50 + F/2 ! 0.5 F , 4 - 30 Days -
.l
- Defined as the ratio of the five percentile wind speed to the wind speed appropriate for the time interval in question.
** Defined as the fraction of time the wind is blowing activity toward the receptor. .
t f lls i L . i
- - - - - - - - - - ~ - =
L-_-- _
* *
- 13th ALC AIR CLL/Jil*JG CO.'.TLRL*JCE C. Geometr,y Factor (GF) k- ) s The whole body gamma dose from noble gas radioisotopes is casily Since -
evaluated on the basis of immersion in an infinite cloud.' con gamma radiation from outside the control room, the dose inside the control room is substantially less than what the infinite cloud model r?) predicts. A correction for this effect can be made by using a "
<? geometry factor which is a ratio of infinite-to-finite cloud doses, namely:
D'OSE FROM AN INFI' NITE CLOUD (8) DOSE FROJV1 A CLOUD OF VOLUME V 1 Taking into account geometric where V is the control room volume. effects and gamma attenuation (using 0.733 Mev as the a air, it can be shown that Equation (8) becomes: 3 (9) GF= 3 where the control room geometry is represented by a hemisphere of volume V (cubic feet). Equation (9) is plotted in Figure 3. D. Iodine Protection Factor (IPF) room
~
As outlined in Section III, there are several control f- ventilation-filtration configurations which are used in reducing the (' , iodine radioisotope concentration within the control room '! 3,s (IPF) which is evaluated by considering an equilibriumFigure balance 4(a)between shows iodine sources and losses within the control room. ~ a typical configuration, where: F) = rate of filtered outside air intake F 2
= rate of filtered air recirculation F
3
= rate of unfiltered outside air infiltration The balance of activity due to iodine can be written as:
M
= Ag3F (1 - n) + Ag3F - AF2+ AF2(1 - q) - A(Fg + F3) where:
i A = specific activity within the control room A o = specific activity outside the control room n = filter efficiency /1p0 ()
t = Lime 415
i.u n ,u x n m i. u.n...:.u i.v..1 8.i r .si.e
.. i Under equilibrium conditions the lef t hand side of Equation (10) can be set to zero and the resulting equation yicids the following equilibrium ratio of outside to inside specific activity, ,
3 , F, + nF, + F 3 ()]) A (1 - nlF, + F3
.O v .
Since d'se o is proportional to the specific activity, then the f odine ' protection factcr can be expressed as : DOSE WITHOUT PROTECTION A DOSE WITH PROTECTION I The ex Equations (pression for IPF in Figure 4(a) is based on combining
- 11) and (12).
The iodine protection factor for filtered recirculation with isolation is illustrated in Figure 4(b). It is obtained by letting Fj = 0 in Equation (11). , Figure 4(c) shows a double filtration configuration. The iodine l protection factor equation for this system has the same form as
- Equation (11), with the exception that, n-in the denominator is F, replaced by n' . The ters (1-n)F in Equation (11) represents activity
- inflow after single filtration of contaminated air. With double iO filtration the same term would normally.be written as (1 - n)2 F However, the effectiveness of two filters in series is limited. by
- i
? r Regulatory Guide 1.52. For example, two 2 inch deep charcoal filters l each having a n of 0.95 is treated as a single filter of 4 inch depth having a n of.0.99.
Figures 5 through 7 illustrate the dependence of iodine protec-tion factors on F j , F , and F , for each of the configurations shown 2 3 in Figure 4. Aside.from the des'ign, testing, and maintenance criteria given in i Regulatory Guide 1.52, the filter designer should review Reference 8 which providet some helpful observations on filter installation and design, based on the field inspection of the filter systems of 23 nuclear plants. E. Purge Factor (PF) - Control rooms characterized by a high degree of leaktightness can benefit by the relatively slow build-up of activity within an isolated control room followed by a purge of the control room atmosphere at appropriate times af ter a release. Given a finite-isolation time, a non-equilibrium build-up of 4
~
activity in the control room, followed by a purge, will result in a lower dose than in the case of instant equilibrium. It can be shown l Q that the ratio of equilibrium to transient doses for an isolated control room followed by a purge is given by 131 6
~
dth AEC Alli Cl.l.ANING CONI 1.liLNCE f
,. PF = 1 1 (1 - e-Rt) .
(13) ., Rt
.cs - *
,y where R = air exchange. rate, air change,s per hour t = isolation time..hpurs Figure 8 shows PF as a function of R and t. Equation (13) is i based on the assumption that the control room is.immers~ed in a cloud of constant activity concentration for a period of "t" hours and that immediately after the cloud passes the control room is"t" instantaneously should be 1
purged of activity. . A conservatively large value of used, depending on the specific circumstances, since the operator -- must 1) recognize that the external activity has fallenFor to aa typical low value and 2) manually initiate control room purging. control room it is reasonable to assume that several days will elapse before conditions warrant purging. . VI. Control Room Infiltration 5 Infiltration is defined here as any unintentional inleakage of M Pressure differences across the boundary O' air into the control room.of the control room air space cause infiltration through variou paths. Typical examples of leak paths include crackage aroundStruc- the
~ (' ' f) perimeters of doors, or duct, pipe, and cable penetrations.
tural joints, damper seals, and miscellaneous discrete cracks or openings are also candidate leakage paths. Good control room design i practice minimizes microscopic openings ofHowever, this typeitby gasketing, should be noted weather-stripping or sealing techniques. that continuous distributions of microscopic capillaries and pores are possible, as in concrete., for-example. Thus, complete eliminattun of l
. infiltration is not always feasible. ~ i' In most-cases, the principal cause for pressure differentials is j due to " natural" phenomena..such as winds, temperature differences, or l
barometric variations. Pr. essure differences also can er.ist between the control room air space and adjoining enclosures (e.g., mechanical
; equipment room, turbine building, battery room, etc.) brought about by flow imbalance in the overall ventilation system.
Precise evaluation of control room infiltration is difficult. Although various empirically determined formulas are available for predicting infiltration across individual leak paths of known size and shape, this in itself is of limited value for a realistic assess-
.i ment of infiltration when the control room is in the design phase.
Even after construction, the control room infiltration measurement is difficult since it is sensitive to'the combined effect of a number of independent variables.. For example, wind direction, building geometry. O. internal building pressure distribution, air columns (i.e., elevator
,7
'shaf ts, stairwells) etc. , can combine in a number of ways, resulting ,
417
I n . In different infiltration rates. Thus, to measure infiltration pre-cisely in a specific case would require many test runs covering the entire range of environmental conditions. O.,s . Current practice is to, estimate an upper limit on control room infiltration. This can be done on the basis of a gross leakage evalu-ation. The most. direct method is to pressurize an isolated control room and record the pressurization flow rate required for maintaining 4's a constant pressure. In the design phase, the pressurization flow Z' rate can be estimated analytically by taking into account all identi-fiable leakage paths, and applying appropriate pressure-flow rate equations. i The above approach characterizes the control room leak Lightness in terms of a gross leakage rate. The calculated or measured gross leakage is used to determine the design basis infiltration rate that will be applied to the evaluation of the radiological consequences of postulated accidents. This rate is determined as follows :
- 1. The feakage from a control room pressurized to 1/8 inch water gauge is calculated on the basis of the gross leakage data.
One half of this value is used to represent the base infiltration rate. ,
- 2. The base infiltration rate is augmented by adding to it the l estimated contribution of opening and closing of doors associated l
with such activities as the required emergency procedures external l iw to the control room.
),
1
- 3. An additional f actor that is used to modify the base. infil-l h. tration rate is the enhancement of the infiltration When occurring at the closed, these G '- dampers or valves upstream of recirculation fans.
dampers typically are exposed to a several inch water gauge pressure differential. This is accounted for by an additional i n fil tra tion contribution over the base infiltration at 1/8 inch water gauge. It is anticipated that a better understanding and improved methods of evaluation of control room infiltration will be available in the future. An experimental program is planned for precise in-filtration measurements of typical control rooms. The program will involve the use of tracer gases in a series of concentration decay measurements under a variety of atmospheric conditions. One of the objectives is to establish an empirical correlation between control room configuration, construction quality, and ventilation characteris-tics and its infiltration characteristic,s. VII. Summary and Rec ommenda t i ons i i Acceptance of a control room design with respect to General Cesign Criterion 19 is measured.by its capability for protection against postulated accidents within or in the vicinity of the plant. The Regulatory staff reviews control room acceptability by evaluating radiation source and transport terms, and by applying conservative modeling of the control room ventilation system. A similar approach
~
should be used by A/E firms in conjunction with control room design and equipment selection. This would provide for an earlier establish-O. h18 e- 8#
,e . 3 $
13th ALC AIR CLEANING CONI LIM.i/CE (~ \
\--) ment of an acceptable control room protection system, as -
^
- Licensing technical review activities'. !
The approach outlined in this paper should be considered as the first step in establishing standard design specifications of. Combinedl
' s~'
. ,' control room ventilation systems. industry and the government should pro proven and that meet all applicable safety criteria, including -
Criterion 19. - The following recommendations are made on the basis of the pre- . sent status of control room protection systems : l
- 1. Consistent evaluation techniques should be employed when This paper determining system acceptability under Criterion 19.should su evaluation.
- 2. Dose analyses should be used as a design tool, at least until such time as the systems have been standardized and approved on a generic basis.
- 3. The capacity of the charcoal filters should be based on the The design, installation, and maintenance of the dose evaluation.
filter systems should be based on recommendations provided in Regula-f>A t ' tory. Guide 1.52 and Reference 7 (WASH-1234).
4. Careful attention should be given to the placement of fresh .
air inlets. They should be kept away from exhaust vents or other
. _y>
' potential release points of toxic or radiological materials.
- 5. The structural details of the control room should be suchAll penetratio as to limit infiltration when the room is isolated.should be seale weatherstripping, low leakage dampers or valves should be used, exhaust fans should be stopped, and that the air balance of the entireinadv control building reviewed to assure inleakage will not occur as a result of poor system design or~ opera-tion.
smoke, toxic gas,)
- 6. All emergency conditions (e.g., fire, including radiological releases should be identified and the proposed concepts for control room emergency ventilation systems reviewed against the entire spectrum of postulated events to assure adequate protection.
VIII. References G. E. Start, and E. H. Markee, (1969), Aerodynamic
- 1. Dickson , C. R.,
Reactor Complex on Effluent Concentration,
/ Ef fects of the EB R-II Nuclear Safety, 10, 3, 228-242.
Halitsky, J. , J. Golden, P. Halpern, and P. Wu, (1963), Wind l /~T/ 2. Tunnel Tests of Gas Dif fusion from a Leak in theNew Shell of Ua niv. York ('T' Nuclear Power FMactor and from a Nearby Stack. , 1 I;10 s
.......u .............,s... ....,,....e Geophysical Sciences Lab. Re p o_r t , flo. 63-2, 68 pp.
^
- 3. Hinds, W. T., (1969), Peak-to-Hean Concentration Ratios f rom i
se s Ground-level Sources in Building Wakes. Atmospheric Environment, 3_, 2, 145-156.
- 4. Islitzer, N. F . , (1961), Short-Range Atmospheric- Oispersion Measurements from an Elevated Source. Journal of !!cteorology, e 18, 4, 443-450.
- 5. Is11tzer, N. F., (1965), Aerodynamic Ef fects of Large Reactor Complexes U pon Atmospheric Turbulence and Dif fusion. U .S.
Atomic Energy Commission, Idaho Operations Office Rpt. No. 100-12041, 28 pp.
- 6. Yang, B. T. and R. N. Meroriey, (1970), Gaseous Dispersion into Stratified Building Wakes. Colorado Sta'te U niv. , AEC Rpt. No.
C00-2053-3, 103 pp.
- 7. Slade, P. H. Meteorology and Atomic Energy 1968 U .S. A.E.C. ,
July 1968.
- 8. WASH-1234, Engineered Safety Features Air Cleaning Systems for Commercial Light-Wa ter-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants , U .S. A.E.C. ,
June 1974. m . (J . s l I e 4 +.
** .d)
O:
- h?O
13th AEC AIR CLEANING CONFEnr.NCE
-S CONTAINMENT CONTROL
/ BUfLDING j j a
AUXILI ARY - , BUILDING N N O O . O ( t, IBI (A) (NOT ACCEPTABLE) y
-u ,
6 O 1 1 O NY l l N) . 0 (D) (C) { O. . Figure 1 Alternative Locations for Dual Inlets i.,,
16 - r%. e m 14 - - 1 12 -
~
e s s I 10 5 - 4s - ti we. . 2 8 ' ' .s
.y 3 s - -
'e 5
D ~ E 3 2 6 - l 1 l l 4 - 4 1 l l , 2 3 ! 1 2 0 s/d Ratie Figure 2 Number of Wind Direction Sectors to be Used in Determining , Wind Direction Trcquency and Wind Speed ), 1822
. . . . , m - <; .
~ a9_ >nO >5 o .n~,h 2o @ <._ C.rznm ;
,) ;' 'a
~
- i r i 0
0 3
"*-r s e -
- m h. r u
)
- l o
p r t V -
. v b
m . o
< o .
l 0 0 R e g 2 e l - o y r .. t . n .,. o , 7 C . i . . s v
)
3 t r i o f t _ o c _ s 0 a ._ - 0 F - 0 1 ( y _. 0 V. r
- u k
l i 0 1 e m u t e m o lo r . l 0 9 V m G e J i oo 0 d
,N .
t 8 R l u o
. . o r l t
C n l 0 o - 7 C e
. t i
_ 0 n - I 6 i _. F _ o t 0 - t 5 e . t i
, n
_ i - f n - _ t 0 I 4 _ 3 e r
- 0 u
- 3 g 0
0 1 i 0 0 2 F 0 0 3 6 5 4 u 0 ,B ;;.,' ? .E g U a _u" .
e ,tsi sst.t. s u n s .. .n..... v . ... . ... .. l l \ l . j a n * . . R F8 V d l % FILTER F, + qF2 + F3 F2 IPF = (1 - q)F, + F3 CONTROL
- F y ROOM p + p, 3
(al W
/.- % w FILTER
. t. - f y F2
- IPF = q 1 r,
0 Y
?' s-y" ~
CONTROL D ' F3 ; ROOM y 3F (b) s . I W :
+
r 2
~
g 4 e F, O FILTER y FILTER _ p,+p p,+p,
. IPF = (1 - 0 )F, + F2 F, .
~
CONTROL F3 y ROOM w F, + F3
-. . . (c) . . .
O
~
O. Figure 4 Selected Control Room Filter Models 14 211
- - - - ~
. - n n - - s Y ~~===--
, ,t *
- 13th AEC Allt CLEANING COf41'LiiLNCE O' .
F, a SCO CFM 800 600 700 l 1000 - 400 F=0 3 1500 2000
- 200
- 100
- 80 800 -
~
m s
~ - 60 n.
. 600 - . F, = 500 CFM 4.% 5 .
E7 '5 700
- O 40 C -
.* 400 -
- 100.0
.-.7 * ' i st .
- 1500
.E 3 .
' 2000 200 -
100 - 80 - F3 = 10 , s0 -. 40 -
,.o. t t
! __ _ _ t t f f I t t l t ,
' '; 8 2 10 2 x 10 ~
Recirculation Flow Rate,2 F I'I*I figure 5 Iodine Protection f actor as a function of F1 , F2, and F 3 for a filter Ef ficiency of 95% . 425
l 1 O
. )
,s 4000 F, a 500 CF M 700 c *
.a' /
* - 1000
- 2000 L
I l 1500 l F2 = 0 CF M 1 2=0 _ 10o0 I
* - 800 i_ -
g' .
- 600 l 5 I
- u. !
c '- - l !
- 2000 -
.E - 400 j i' g E F, = 500 CFM j l E ~
700 m --_3 r
.a =. , g-1000 1500 l
- 2M ,j
/ 800 -
U+f - . , 2000 1 600 -- i l 400 - F3= 10 CFM ! 200 - l l I I 3 l g i i t t I t ! 100 8 3 10 . 2 x 10
~'* Recirculation Flow Rate,2F I'I'"I .
Iodine Protection factor as a function of F;. F 2, and F 3 O. figure 6 for a Filter Efficiency of 99% 426
. .. - =
- _ -L y. .n - n=* .r== ;m
- 9?"* % t '** .'L'e?E.?_-f".~,
? f*,:
13th AEC Alli CLEANING CONI;LitLNCE" '# ( - .
/ N I
c g : l t_
? h. . ,
u . T' I'9 !
~ F'3 = 25 CFM 800 -
$)
' ~ k4R}
' d, i SO .
F, = o CF M t 400 -
~
F 100 g l 200 A . T ~ ." h. 5 O.
' i;=5~'
, 2 t'.
j ion _ 200. i E ' E 80 -
- n. ~
E - j r,0 __ _ l 40 - ~ 20- .
,- , , , , ,,l t
10 - 10, 3 2 x 10 Recirculat on riow Rate,2 F I'I*I
~
I - and F 3 for a 2 Figure 7 Iodine Protection filter Efficiency factor of as 95%a function of F . 1:27
a . p ~. . e .%, .
, ,,y . .
3 - 10 - 2 ' 10 7 Air Changes /hr l 0.006 Flow Rate, cirE/100,000 f t3 Control Room Vol. j 0.015 .
,O# ,
u. (25) 7
\' ' [,. $ . .
I
*- 0.030 -
i (50) 1 10 7 o.ogo ,
- (100) i i i iii!! I e i.I iiiil i i e iieie ig o e n
io' - - lo' -- - ior. io
,w Caposues Persistence, t (hrs)
I . l Figure 8 Purge factor as a function of Time for Several Infiltration Rates k28
. . , _ _ , _ . .~ ;; -:- c. . I t-M*""
. )
13th AEC AIR CLEANING CONFERENCE - 4 [
~.'~,
UISCUSSION : G a Have This may be a little bit off the subj ect. [- SULLIVAN_: !. 7I '. you seen any designs for the incorporation of devices in . 1 chemical releases, namely chlorine? * . For . chlorine, I think that immediate isolation ; MURPHY: or tne control room is the first defense against such a release. [; Unfortunately, I think we also have to rely on breathin5 apparatus design basis type accidents) where we assume the ent - car ruptured. We know that charcoal filters can be effective against We believe that their use in chlorine accidents will helpchlorine. mitigate most of the lower spectrum of such incidents. The reason I asked the question is that at the SULLIVAN: Midland Plant, we are 6oing to be supplying process steam to the Being close to Dow presents some unique
.Dow Chemical Company.
, ~
problems for us in this respect. A' regulatory guide specifically for the problem f5% .'4URPHY: This will help to determine O ',, of' document chlorine room within is the necessary control room protection.. a now month orunderway two. and hopefully will b from
. :ig. . -
Do you have. any data that has come out DODDS: plants' to justify your infiltration assumptions? To my knowledge there are no data on control MURPHY: room infiltration or infiltration of a similar structure that is soOf leak-ti6ht. buildings. The Mational Bureau of Standards, under an AEC contract, ilt ra-will be doing tracer tests'on control rooms to determine in . our present assumptions are valid. You showed bottled gas being used to pressurize MOELLER: is the comparison of the efficiency of using the control room. .What versus using it as a source of individual air bottled air for that - supply to the people in the room? It's much poorer. You see, what we're hopine l MURPHY: to do~here is to keep a shirt-sleeve. environment inside the contro
~
room. We might be hurting in terms of whether we used bottled air-to pressurize the entire room versus its in use in breathing maintaining apparatus. a shirt-sleeve 97' However, I think we gain an awful lot - environment during emergencies. ,
- On the completion of the NBA study, will you FOVACH:
c6tisTser revisin6 the new guide? Y . h29 ____.-____.___.____._.___..-_-__._.-__._._.m _ _ _ _ .
7 . 13:h ALC Allt Ct. CANING CdNI Liu.i.'GE O% , MURPHY: Which guide is this? XOVACH: Your assumption is based on 10 CFM. I believe the rates are . considerably lower.
~ .c . NURPHY: -
We will adjust our assumptions to bring them in -
.c line with our test findings. , -
a PASSISI: I notice you used the paper of Halitsky as a { source. I'm wondering, considering some of the discrepancies in
.the original Halitsky paper, if you had considered using another dilution model? {
MURPHY: . We have looked at the appl $ cable wind tunnel tests and all. of the field tests that are available to us and we find nothing in all of these tests to show that our modeling is
-not appropriate. Our position is an interim one. It requires further study, I'm afraid, in terms of both the wind tunnel testing and actual field testing, to determine whether this interim position is'far off. -
.PASSISI: You also made reference to a 95 percent erricient charcoal filter. I wonder if y'ou have considered the removal of
. ,e.
particulate 1odins by llEPA filters . . Are - you naking an assumption that a certain fraction of the particulate of iodine that would be - left in the containment after the initial spray action would be the O/'7 ,. type of iodine released? *
.r f MURPHY: -
Under most circumstances the iodine that is released to tne environment is principally organic and not parti-
- culate. .
PASSISI: That 's contracy to Regulatory Guide 1.4 in-terms of the fractions of particulate iodine Icft after the spray has' eliminated the bulk of the elemental iodine. In a PWR with sprays, 40% of the iodine left after the first half hour of spray operation will be particulate. 3 HURPHY: . We usually.do not take any credit for the re-moval of particulate by the HEPA filter, since it _ usually results in a small' dose reduction. It should be noted that the particulate will be reduced to low concentrations after about ten hours of spray operation. The iodine that is subsequently released will be j essentially all organic. Nevertheless, an allowance based on HEPA 1
- filtration. of particulate would probably be acceptable to the' '
Regulatory staff. Q =~ . 430
l l O f - l 1 0 9<r 4 l MIXING HEIGHTS, WIND SPEEDS, AND POTENTIAL ) FOR URBAN AIR POLLUTION THROUGHOUT i THE CONTIGUOUS UNITED STATES l l George C. Holzworth j Division of Meteorology j i i I l l l l l l l EN'/IRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY Office of Air Programs l
'Rev, arch Triangle Park, North Carolina January 1972 l
l l 1 l O . 1 I e
O
^
N ( ,
}
L 5
~L .e i .
b
- i g L \, --
2 3 .
. 3
, ) .
i t [' q f- j-f lQ v v y
~
~"
g[t l l ~
.g j l
( : l I i -
=
/ ,
~
' N. ~
'h l
~ '
! N' I
?., ,./ '
N .. I . g i i f O MIXING HEIGHTS WIND SPEEDS, AND URBAN AR POLLUT10N POTENTIAL 26
1 l O ; 9 . 9
=
a i
. .. } 7 !
t 1 r- t e ,
' m .. .-
l 0 / , pui N j
,s 7 _ -
i 9 I r I a ll _a
- I :
. ! 1 !
S i I
~
.. ~ m ..
~.- , .
)
P, u.. ./ s . 1 n a g 4 l' W G 31 Figures
T :: :: :: :: :: :a :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: I
} I *: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: : : 2: :: 2: ::
l 1 4 l n -, .. .. en s,.i is a de We 3..
-n n.
ss ss er as se en ce l , a !! Il ni ai n! n! si si un sE !! E! l! si t Ei!!Ei#!I!IIE!i!EEEE8!E!R!I! T, a :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: l 1 I, :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: : :: :: :: Ie ss a s .. ., .. .. ,. -- .- ss as 33 es si et sg en sa .. is .. -,as 3.s. i Ei il si it i! E! i! !! 11 ti si ai n! ?! ! id E I I fi si II !! E! E! Si 95 ll if El I! E! X!
- Iti t i 8 i
It i i :: :: :: :: : 2: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::.:: 1 Il I 3 t, .. . .. si ss as se , su
,. as
.. I.s as sg me se -. ,- se
,. ..__sa as -
gg ( lI I E! Ei '!I si si si ng : !g ti si el sg al 5I II E! Al 5i Ei Il li !! II fi 5[ Il 11 Il T, a :: :: :; : :: :: :: :: :: :: : :: :: :: t I i :: :: : 3: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: sa :: l8 s i .. .. .. .. ! n.,ss.as ,. as en er. en I -. as as e,,n su as ce ss
.. u.I ., I
!.Ii , a na ag ng n! si sg rg it si as ai ni si si j i g si si mi si !! El si sg in 25 si ai si 11
' 1 !
T, a :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: } l 11 :: :: :: :: :: : :: :: :: : :: :: :: f-si l
"3
{ t, .. ,- .. ,. ss ss as :# s I a s, ., ze .. mW . st 3. as I. n
- n. .. 1:
z: at I
, a II E! Ei li R5 iE 51 ti li El IE Hi IE E5 so i l II!!E!IIEERiliIE$5IfIIIIIEII }
e=5 z< z< s s< e4 = z< se s. se s< s< s< s< c l b
- 4 1 il b 1111 d 11l II L !I11li11la!.!.! .
Q . . los MIXING HEIGHTS, WIND SPEEDS. AND URBAN AIR POLLUTION POTENTIAL l
1 M V NIAGARA R uMOHAWK O NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION /P.o. BOX 32 LYCoMING, NEW YORK 13093 / TELEPHONE (315) 343 2110 i v.] l I l NMP86969 February 23,1993 i Dr. Jahn N. Hamawi New York Power Authority 123 Main Street White Plains, New York 10601 RE: The validity of the Nine Mile Point (NMP) Meteorological Data (1985-1990) sent for use in updating the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM)
Dear John:
This letter is a follow-up to our recent telephone conversations summarizing the resolution of Niagara Mohawk Deviation Event Report (DER) #1-91-Q-1385. The DER described a problem with an out-of-adjustment wind direction test fixture that was used to calibrate the NMP main meteorological tower wind direction sensors. The original assessment estimated the test fixture was out of adjustment by approximately 8 degrees. Final analysis showed this error to be somewhat less. A thorough and extensive analysis was conducted. Calibration results were reviewed and tabulated back to 1985. A Niagara Mohawk survey team resurveyed the land mark used for the orientation of the wind direction sensors. The results of the investigation found two bias errors, a test fixture error of +1.6 degrees and an orientation error of -4.6 degrees, for a combined error of -3.0 degrees. An error of this magnitude is not viewed as significant because the regulatory guide accuracy for wind direction is 5 degrees. I I do plan, however, to incorporate the corrections for these biases into the data base for any I future data that is sent out. For your information, the individual biases both began in 1986 and continued through the end of the data period. J
Dr. John N. Hamawi O N February 23,1993 1 i Page 2 Please forgive the inconvenience this may have caused you or your organization. As soon as a new data tape is made, I will send you the NMP meteorological data for the period 1985-1992. Thank you for your patience. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to call me at (315) 349-2715. Sincerely, l 1 Thomas A. Galletta l Environmental Pmtection Coordinator- l I Meteorological
/jm pc: H. Flanagan, NMPC A. McKeen, NYPA-JAF B. Gorman, NYPA-JAF !
N. Avrakotos, NYPA-JAF ) G. Rd, NYPA-WPO < K. Rao, NYPA-WPO i hew =s l l l 4 Q L_____-_________________________________
O O 9
l l Final Project Report
}
9 Ji ESEERCO Project EP 9128 g+b Eastern Lake Ontario On-Shore Flow Field Study April 1994 l Prepared by: Galson Corporation 6601 Khtville Road East Syracuse, New York 13057 Principal Investignor Christopher D. Bedford, CCM l l Additional Subcontracted Effort Supplied by: AWS Scientific,Inc Radian Corporation 'J 3 Washington Square P.O. Box 201088 , Albany, New York 12205 Austin, Texas 78720-1088 l ,q Principal Investigator Mike Marcus Principal Investigator Gary Zeigler :
"Ihe Research Foundalon of the State Sonoma Technology, Inc.
University of New York 5510 Skylane Boulevard. SUNY - Brockport Suite 101 Brockport, New York 14420 Santa Rosa, California 95403
. Principal Investigator Dr. Greg Byrd Principal Investigator Timothy Dye The Research Fomintion of the State Sigma Research Corporation University of New York 196 Baker Ave SUNY - Oswego Concord, Massachusetts 01742 Oswego, New York 13126 Principal Investigator Dr. Lloyd Schulman Principal Investigation Dr. Robert Ballentine Prepared fot Empire Stae Electric Energy Research Corporation 1515 Broadway New York, New York 10036 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Eric Boulevard, West lO~ .
Syracuse, NY 13202
Abstract The Eastem L. eke Ontario On-Shore Flow Field Study was designed to address several nuclear-speciSc meteorological issues in the coastal mne near Lake Ontario. Specifically, the following issues wese investigated: I nearion ad height of elevated stability layers; stability classification problems; vertical varision of w%i speed; data bases & model validation stu&es; and suitability of new remote sensing technology. These issues wese studied tisough one-year of continuous site-speciSc mater =ological monitoring using acoustic annart=, meteorological towers, a microwave profiler, and a Radio Acoustic Soun&ng System (RASS). rantimirme monitoring data was supplemented with intensive observations to collect detailed infonnaion during targeted menarvological conditions. Acoustic ecumriers were used to observe the occurrence of elevated mixed layers and stability gr.Aests.1he monitoring failed to identify a statistically significant number of thennal intemal boundary layers (TIBL). It is eenmmentiari that 'I1BL heights be estimated using robust empirical expressions. Nojustification for selocating the tall matarvological tower was detennined. The cunent tall tower should be used to estimate release height winds. A 10 m tower located inland should be used to provide 11BL stabihty. Pennanent installation of an acoustic sounder is also recommended. A micromesaruological tower was installed ad <=mari for a one-year period to measure stability using several techniques and investigae stabihty classi8caion problems in near-shore areas. The results show that local conditions must be factand into detennining the most appsopdme stability class
& dispersion marialing. In cases involving er==al*= meteorology (iA coastal zones), consideration should be given to the collecnon of stability data at heights close to release elevation.
1he vertical variation of wind speed was investigated by obtaining wind speed measmements at pntential telease elevaions using a tethersonde and concunent measmements from the 200 ft meteorological tower. *Ihe results intimatari difficulty in estimaing instantaneous wind speed at release elevations using established empirical expressions. Continuous meassements at release elevaions are seenmmentiari for emergency response applications along with refined pro 61e ey= = for average winds used in soutine release impact aswsamente Detailed measmennents of meteorological regimes weie collected in order to develop detailed data h the development and validation of numerical models for predicting the aansport and dispersion of pollutants in shoseline environments.This data, combined with the other measurements taken during this study should provide researchers with a data set suitable for developing and validating conceptual and numerical models of the dispersion meteorology along the southem shore of Lake Ontario. A 915 MHz Profiler and RASS were operated for a period of one year to evaluate the technology as a I possible replar ement for existing tall meteorological towers at nuclema facilities. It was concluded that ! the new technology is not a replacement for tall towers but can psovide important supplemental infonnation. Combined with an existing 200 ft meterological tower and sodar for profiling in the l i lowest portion of the boundary layer, the peo61er and RASS can provide valuable infonnation on plume level wind and tempemane strucane. This study focussed on the unique meteorological problems faced by power generating facilities located in coastal environments. The infonnation and Sadings are applicable to facilities which must j make estimates of the downwind dispersion of air pollutants in a coastal environment. Q 11
Section 1.0 Monitor Coastal Transition Zone Internal Boundary Layer
'Ihis Section summaizes the results of a monitoring program to detect the existence of coastal intemal boundary layers along the southeaster shore of Lake Ontario and make ecammentiatinne as to the placement of a meteorological tower at the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (NMP). A brief background description of the coastal internal boundary layer Wa investigated during this study is presented in Section 1.1 and the study goals presented in Section 1.2. Descripdons of the equipment, monitoring psogram, and data analysis approach are provided in Section 1.3, with the data analysis results summarized in Section 1.4. Section 1.5 presents some conclusions and recommendations resulting 60m this portion of the study.
1.1 Background
1.1.1 Meteorology of the Coastal Transition Zone At the coastal land / water interface, these is a unique step change in the surface characteristics over j which air Sows. "Ihe water is characterized by high heat capacity and low surface roughness; thus, the tempswe of the air over water is slow to change and now is relatively smooth. On the other hand, land surfaces are distinguished by luge : - : + changes and idgh surface eghaan: thus, air over land experiences large temps variations and 80w is more turbulent.
- As air flows from one surface type to the other, it is modi 6ed at the bottom, gradually taking on the characteristics typical of air resident over the new surface. 'the depth of the modi 6ed surface layer i
increases with distance over the "new" surface type. 'Ihe layer of mart Aart air near the surface is refened to as an Internal Boundary Layer (IBL) haemise it grows within another boundary layer associated with the approach Sow or the unmodi6ed air. Two types of IBL.s have been identi6ed: the aetodynsnic internal boundary layer (AIBL) resulting from changes in surface roughness, and the thennal internal boundary layer (TIBL) resulting from changes in surface temperstme. 1-1
The AIBL and 11BL cach have important implications for the assessment of stability in the coastal mne and, thmefoe, the transport and diffusion of pollutants. A step change in surface roughness, such as going ima relatively Q?oth flow over water to more turbulent flow over land develops an ATBL, producing a wind profile mnrkfirstina (Figure 1-1) and a change in stability. A step change in surface temperanse results in an adjusunent in the vertical temperature profile (Figure 1-2) and likewise, a change in stability. 'Ihe change in stability from inside to outside of the TIBL can be measured in tenns of the standmed deviation of vertical velocity (Figme 1-3). To consider the AIBL and TIBL separately in the coastal zone is not really appropriate since both are occurring simultaneously. However, the surface roughness change is essennally constant over most h.-gasmi scales while the surface temperarme (land and water) has dramatic vaistions on time scales ranging from several hours to one year. As a result, the TIBL is substantially more difficult to l quantify since it -Me* on a number of continually chaging merensological parameters. The most dramatic IBLs occur when cold stable air over a lake or ocean surface moves onshore over land heated by the daytime sun. This condition develops a TIBL. In order for a TIBL to develop, the
' following meditics must exist:
- Wind direction onshore (ie, air flow from water to land).
~
- Stable vertical : =p - gn=Hent over water.
- Neutral or naarshle vertical temperstme gradient over land.
True 11BL conditions occur only with unstable vertical tempe=c gradients over land. Shoreline fumigation under neunal armhility classifications is possible, but most often results from mechanical mixing rather than thennal imbalances. l 'Ihe 11BL is important to dispersion meteorology since a phenomena known as shoreline fumigarion l can occur when a poGutant plume intersects the boundary between an elevated stable layer and a surface-based unstable layer. When an elevated point source exists near the shoreline, the resultant plume would initially be emitted into the stable layers above the TIBL pmvided the wind is directed on-shore. However, the plume may eventually intersect the growing TIBL, where downward mixing of the plume occurs in the unstahle air of the TIBL 1he sudden downward mixing of the pollutant plume'is referred to as shoreline fumigation. The occunence of shoreline fumigation leads to sudden j l 1-2 l i
increases in ground-level pollutant concentrations closer to the source than would be expected if the phenomena was not occurring. The NMP facility is located on the southeaster shore of Lake Ontario near Oswego in New York State, and is therefore subject to the potendal of a 11BL meteorological regime. A previous frequency analysis using two years of site-specific meteorological data detennined that on-shore flow occurs approximmely 50-percent of the time in the vicinity of the NMP frility (Galson,1990). The analysis also showed that on-shore flow with meteorological conditions appropriate for the development of a TIBL occur approximately 5 percent of the time on an annual basis, and over 15 percent of the time dudag the months of May, June, and July. It was concluded that the occunence of *I1BLs and associated shoreline fumigation conditions is potentially important when describing the transport and diffusion of pollutants in the vicinity of NMP and other power generating frilities with coastal locations. 1 As part of the Eastern Lake Ontario Meteorological Study-Phase III, a literature review of observations and TIBL fonnulations was conducted (Hanna,1991). The review found that no studies of TIBLs have been made speci6c to the Lake Ontario shore. However, several studies have been n=Au*d on some of the other Great Lakes, including Lake Michigan (Lyons,1975), and Lake Erie ] (Portelli, et.al.,1982). Hanna (1991) compared previously developed fonnulas to describe the TIBL height as a function of inland distance with observed 11BL heights from several field studies. Empirical TIBL height equations were also compared to the observations. . i Hanna (1991) identified the following difficulties with theoretical expressions for 11BL height when compared to the existing condition: l
- 1) The vertical position of the TIBL is difficult to verify, since it can be defined as a temperature, wind speed, and/or turbulence discontinuity.
- 2) Some observation studies have shown that there may actually be two 11BLs, the top of l
! the layer modified by the saface and the top of a second inner layer in which the l boundary layer has reached an equilibrium with the undedying surface. This situation l l 1s further complicated by 'I1BLs which fann inside sea (lake) breeze circulsions.
- 3) 'Ihe wind speed profile (an important input to some 11BL height expressions) is not spadaily consistent, and can be different over water, at the coastline, and over land.
1-3
O 4) Sensible heat Sux is not constant with distance from the shoreline. It is expected that hamdary layer fenwihack will case the heat flux to increase as the boundary layer
?-
, -e.
- 5) 'the over-water temperatae gadient is not likely to be constant with height. Most boundary layer theories and observations suggest that the potential temperature gradiam is greatest near the surface.
- 6) Water and surface temperatures are poody defined. Temperature shows its largest variation near the surface, and can vary by several degrees between surface skin temperstme (ie. air We-o 0.1 m above the surface) and the standard temperature meassement level.
To descdbe the TIBL height on the southeastan shore of Lake Ontario, Hanna indicated that theoretical equations would be preferable to empirical equations. However, in real-wodd applications, the values of some of the parameters nanranary to solve theoretical equations are difficult to de6ne. In addition, the equations may give unrealistic answers for certain combinations of parameter values. Therefore, Hanna secammende using " robust" empirical equaions to estimate TIBL height. Such equations me stable with respect to input data, and agree seasonably well with the results of field experiments. . Specifically, Hanna (1991) secommends using one of the following empirical expressions developed to approximme the TIBL height (Hm, in meters) as a function of inland distance (x, in meters):
- OCD (1985): H = 0.1x when xs2000m ,
Hm= 200m + 0.03(x-2000) when x>2000m
. Hsu (1988). Hm = Ax"' whe e A = 4.9,2.7,1.7, and 1.2 for over-land stability classes A, B, C, and D, respectively The TIBL heights predicted by these expressions are shown in Figure 14. The TIBL height equations l l
l all show a similar pattem, with the steepest slope near the shore, and decreasing slope farther inland. The deepest 'IIBIJ me awa=*ad when instability is gremest Oe. Pasquill Stability Class A). 'Ihis makes intuitive sense since the convective cunents are most intense under high thennal instability, ) thus mixing through a deeper lay is supported thennodynamically. As mentioned previously, TIBL existence under neutral boundary layer conditions Oe. Pasquill Stability Class D) is mainly a result of mechanical mixing, and the TIBL is weaker and most difBcult to define. "Ihe OCD TIBL height 1-4 l l
model is the most conservative of the approaches, and requires the user to determine only if appropriate conditions for TIBL development exist. De Hsu model is slightly less conservative, and requires a slightly more detailed assessment of the ovedaad stability. As compared to the unstable TIBL, the reverse situation of warm air advection over a colder surface has received very little attention. ~1his situation may exist in winter along the southeast shore of Lake Ontario when warm lake air moves on-shore over cold, often snow covered land. Raynor et. al. (1979) reported on the stable IBL on the southem shore oflong Island, and developed an empirical relationship to predict growth of this type of IBL Like the TIBL, the stable IBL also presents a problem when it is necessary to estimate the proper stability. In general, a plume release into or intersecting the stable IBL will remain in the stable layer where more traditional metlods are adequate ; for estimating dispersion. Herefore, this study was intended to focus on the more volatile conditions presented by an unstable TIBL, and cold air advection over a warm surface. 1.1.2 Applications to Nuclear Facilities O d The meteorological program at Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Stadon and all other power generating facilities employing nuclear technology in the United States is subject to Federal Regulation 10CFR50.47. The regulation is in place to provide protection for the general public by reqairing nuclear power generating facilities to have adequate facilities to allow the" assessment and monitoring of actual or potential offsite consequences of a radiological emergency." De Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued the following documentation to provide guidance to nuclear facilities in meeting the requirements of the regulations:
+ " Recommendations for Meteorological Measurement Programs and Atmospheric Diffusion Prediction Methods for Use at Coastal Nuclear Reactor Sites" (NUREG/CR-0936) e " Meteorological Programs in Support of Nuclear Power Plants" (NRC Safety Guide l 1.23 Revision 1*)
Meteorological data collected in support of the meteorological programs are used for short- and long-tenn dose calculations, and emergency response plume trajectory and arrival times. Regulations and guidance make specific statements regarding the need, localon, availability, quality, and type of 1-5
menanelogical mamanemants
'Ihe guidance daramanen limed above speci6cally idendfy coastal internal boundary layers (ie. TIBLs) as a "psoblem area" with sespect to detennining transport and diffusion from nuclear facilities locaed in coastal areas. Cunently, the dispersion mndels employ robust, k epasable methods for simulating the effect of shoseline fumigation on downwind impacts for pollutant plumes. In order to support dispersion estimates in mens whese coastal infamal boundary layers may be a factor, the above guidance dacamantarian makes the following seen-mandarinna with respect to monitoring the TIBL: )
9
- 1) 'the primary meteorological tower should be located so that the upper measuring level
' is always within the innemal boundary layer.
- 2) A macandary meteorological tower should be placed at a location where measurements representuive of the unmndined marine air can be obtained.
- 3) Instrumentarian heights on the primary meteorological tower should be representative of conditions within the internal I=ndary layer while maintaining adequate separation i between levels so that likely differences measmed me greater than the uncertainty of l the instrumanentian ;
,O This task is designed to further investigate the 'I1BL, and provide ternemandstinas for assessing the i signi6cance to the problem, aparinemily to nuclear facilities located in shoreline areas. 1.2 Study Objective l The objective of this study is to make measurements of the TIBL in order to detennine the most appropriate location for a maramological tower to saisfy NRC guidance. Knowledge of the TIBL height will assist in assessing the stability of the air into which speci6c plumes me released, and provide =-,-'--A infonnation for the modeling of transport and diffusion of releases inom coastal nuclear facilities, aparlecally the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station and LA. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant. l 1.2.1 Study Goal
'Ihe following speci6c goals were identi6ed as nacamenry to address the task objective:
b 1-6 ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . . - . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . J
a BSTR2FOR - Decode mw backenter data
- Calculate average backentar data e MDCDETFOR - Bin data and smooth (33 bias with 27 m increments)
- Identify scattering layers
- Output number, depth, and strength of scattering layers
- MDTREQFOR - From MIXDETFOR output, detennines the occurrence and frequency of multiple mixing layers by identifying layers with Ab>25 In addition to the robust autommed procedure outlined above, mixing height data was reviewed by a meteorologist faniliar with the project to verify the results. 'Ihe results of the multiple mixing height frequency analysis are presented in Section 1.4.
13.3.2 Identificsion of11BLS The identification of TIBLS proved to be extremely difficult due to the apparent dominance of synoptic scale mixing layers, the variable nature of onshore flow conditions, and the complexity of perfonning detailed review of the digital backscater data files. i i
'Ihe first step to identifying TIBLs, was to identify hours of onshore flow a NMP. This was perfonned using available meteorological data from the NMP main meteorological tower (9MP) and the ELOOFFS micrometeorological tower (MMT). For the purposes of this analysis, periods of onshore flow were identified using the~ following criteria:
1) Wind direction at 9MP 30 ft level between 270 and 40 degrees
- 2) Wind direction at MMT 10 m level between 270 and 40 degrees
- 3) Wind direction criteria must be met at both 9MP and MMT for at least 2 consecutive hours Over 2,300 hours were selected as meeting the onshore Gow criteria. In order to identify potential onshore flow cases which were more likely to support a T1BL across the acoustic sounder " network",
the wind direction criteria were.further refined to better distinguish periods with onshore flow perpendicular to the shoreline at NMP. In addition, a wind speed criteria was added to eliminate consideration of light and variable wind conditions. Night-time hours were also eliminated from consideration. The potential 11BL criteria are as follows: D l i d 1 - 13 i i i
- 1) Wind duection at 9MP 30 ft level between 325 and 15 degrees O 2).
3) Wind direction at MMT 10 m level between 325 and 15 degrees Wind speed at 9MP 30 ft level greater than 1.5 m/s
- 4) Wind speed at MMT 10 m level greater than 1.0 m/s
- 5) Solar radiation at MMT grener than 0.02 Langleys/ min Approximately 231 hours were identi5ed as M TIBL hours using this selection criteria. It l should be noted that the actual number of potential 11BL hours at NMP during the one year !,
monitoring period is higher, however, the wind directions for the eliminated hours would not have ll t ' been favorable for investigating 11BLs over the sounder network. Finally, the best time periods for teamial TIBL development weie identiSed using the following additional data reduction criteria in order to assme that conditions sufficient for the development of unstable lapse rates over the land existed:
- 1) Solar radiation measured at MMT greater than or equal to 75% of total possible.
- 2) No snow cover reported on ground at the Naional Wemher Service Office in ,
Syracuse, New York (nearest inland snow cover reporting station). p 3) Air tempendue measured at the 2 m elevation of the MMT tower should be greater V than the climmalogical lake tempmane (no reliable observed lake te+4 was available for the period of second). data Following this Snal strati 6caion of the data, approximately 84 hours remained for detailed TIBL ll investigation. 'Ihe speci6c time periods identiSed as potential TIBL hours are detailed in Table 1-2. Each of the 84 hours of potential TIBL data was manually iae,ed by a meteorologist faniliar with the project. The hourly averaged backscater das produced from the mutine BSTR2. FOR described above were used rather than the 10 minute data since the fonnat of the higher resolution data was very cumbersome and tended to be extremely variable. The results of the 11BL identificsion and height analysis are presented in Section 1.4. O - 1 - 14
l _ x x A B C D . l = = = = _ i e b b b b _ a a a a _ M t S S t S t S t _ D C u s u s us u s _ H H H O H _
" A
* + *
- _
" ~ _
)
X
' e 4- ,, (
0 6
's e-
#W'e-
- 0 .
0 .
,- 0
)
1
. e_ 5 9
9 1 a - n A _ n a H( a
'x, 0 l
u m
. ; 0 4
0 r ~ o -
- 4 F - 2-t )
s 1 t m o ( m d 4 R 1 g
- - ' n a
- 0 l ei n 0 nI r s uU g #
,, 0 3 e c
id n _ Fn a .
- t a _
s
/-
l n i I
+ D
_+ e c , - n - t a , - s - 0 _ M e e- .. 00 _ I s # . 2 t v hg - y i e e e l - i . L , B , . I T V e , : 0 0 0 1 f . _ y f
/
/ . .
/
0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0
. 0 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 3:$*E J. 9 t~~
1 1 ! 1 L}}