ML071570009

Meteorology Request for Additional Information Regarding Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Implementation of Alterative Source Term

ML071570009
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	06/08/2007
From:	David M NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLI-1
To:	O'Connor T Nine Mile Point
david marshall NRR/DORL 415-1547
References
TAC MD3896
Download: ML071570009 (5)

Text

June 8, 2007 Mr. Timothy J. OConnor Vice President Nine Mile Point Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC P.O. Box 63 Lycoming, NY 13093

SUBJECT:

METEOROLOGY REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 1, IMPLEMENTATION OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCE TERM (TAC NO. MD3896)

Dear Mr. OConnor:

By letter dated December 14, 2006, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC requested an amendment to the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1 (NMP1) Renewed Facility Operating License. The proposed license amendment would revise the accident source term used in the NMP1 design basis radiological consequence analyses in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.67. The revised accident source term would replace the current methodology that is based on TID-14844, "Calculation of Distance Factors for Power and Test Reactor Sites," with the alternative source term methodology described in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.183, "Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors."

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed the information provided in that letter and has determined that additional information is needed regarding the meteorological aspects of your request to complete its review. Enclosed is the NRC staffs meteorology request for additional information (RAI). The RAI was discussed with your staff on May 18, 2007, and it was agreed subsequently that your response would be provided within 45 days from the date of this letter.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Marshall J. David, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch I-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-220

Enclosure:

RAI cc w/encl: See next page

June 8, 2007 Mr. Timothy J. OConnor Vice President Nine Mile Point Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC P.O. Box 63 Lycoming, NY 13093

SUBJECT:

METEOROLOGY REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 1, IMPLEMENTATION OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCE TERM (TAC NO. MD3896)

Dear Mr. OConnor:

By letter dated December 14, 2006, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC requested an amendment to the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1 (NMP1) Renewed Facility Operating License. The proposed license amendment would revise the accident source term used in the NMP1 design basis radiological consequence analyses in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.67. The revised accident source term would replace the current methodology that is based on TID-14844, "Calculation of Distance Factors for Power and Test Reactor Sites," with the alternative source term methodology described in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.183, "Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors."

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed the information provided in that letter and has determined that additional information is needed regarding the meteorological aspects of your request to complete its review. Enclosed is the NRC staffs meteorology request for additional information (RAI). The RAI was discussed with your staff on May 18, 2007, and it was agreed subsequently that your response would be provided within 45 days from the date of this letter.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Marshall J. David, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch I-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-220

Enclosure:

RAI cc w/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC RidsNrrPMMDavid RidsNrrLASLittle LPLI-1 PDI-1 Reading File RidsNrrDraAadb RidsOgcRp RidsNrrAcrsAcnwMailCenter Accession Number: ML071570009 NRR-088 OFFICE LPL1-1/PM LPL1-1/LA AADB/BC(A) LPL1-1/BC NAME MDavid SLittle MHart* MKowal DATE 6/07/07 6/07/07 05/24/07 6/08/07

• RAI provided by memo on date shown OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station cc:

Mr. Michael J. Wallace Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esquire President Winston & Strawn Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC 1700 K Street, NW c/o Constellation Energy Group Washington, DC 20006 750 East Pratt Street Baltimore, MD 21202 Supervisor Town of Scriba Mr. Mike Heffley Route 8, Box 382 Senior Vice President and Chief Oswego, NY 13126 Nuclear Officer Constellation Generation Group Carey W. Fleming, Esquire 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Senior Counsel Suite 500 Constellation Generation Group, LLC Annapolis, MD 21401 750 East Pratt Street, 17th Floor Baltimore, MD 21202 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 126 Lycoming, NY 13093 Charles Donaldson, Esquire Assistant Attorney General New York Department of Law 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 Mr. Paul D. Eddy Electric Division NYS Department of Public Service Agency Building 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223 Mr. Peter R. Smith, President New York State Energy, Research, and Development Authority 17 Columbia Circle Albany, NY 12203-6399

METEOROLOGY REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCE TERM The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has performed its initial review of your December 14, 2006, request to revise the accident source term used in the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1 (NMP1) design basis radiological consequence analyses in accordance with 10 CFR 50.67. As a result of that review, we have determined that additional information is required regarding the meteorological aspects of your request to adequately evaluate the acceptability of the proposed revision. The items that follow are numbered as a continuation of the Accident Dose Branch items in our May 21, 2007, request for additional information (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No.

ML071410047).

AADB-7 Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.183, Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors, states that the total effective dose equivalent should be determined for the most limiting person at the exclusion area boundary (EAB). Page 3 of Attachment 7 of your request states that the distances to the EAB and low population zone (LPZ) in the coastal sectors (i.e., west clockwise through east northeast) were not considered in determining the direction dependent atmospheric dispersion factors (/Q values).

Why was this done? Assuming that the near-shore area of Lake Ontario could be temporarily used by members of the public (e.g., boaters), what is the area and associated distance as defined in RG 1.145, Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants, in each coastal sector over which Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC can exercise control in determining who may be in an area adjacent to the Nine Mile Point site?

AADB-8 The NRC staff notes that 60.7 meter wind measurements, rather than the 9.4 meter measurements, were used in the calculation of the ground level EAB and LPZ /Q values. In addition, the 60.7 meter wind measurements and atmospheric stability measurements between the 60.7 and 9.4 meter levels were used to calculate the elevated release /Q values for releases from the 106.7 meter NMP1 stack. NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2006-04, "Experience With Implementation of Alternative Source Terms," dated March 7, 2006, states that when running the offsite atmospheric dispersion model PAVAN, two or more files of meteorological data representative of each potential release height should be used if /Q values are being calculated for pathways with significantly different release heights. Please provide justification that use of the 60.7 meter data is adequate for generation of both the ground level and elevated release /Q values used in the dose assessment.

AADB-9 Please provide figures which support the selection of the inputs and assumptions used to calculate all of the /Q values. Include a figure of the general Enclosure

arrangement of plant structures, drawn approximately to scale and showing true north, sufficient to enable NRC staff to make confirmatory estimates of the selected inputs and assumptions and resultant /Q values. For each accident, highlight the postulated release and receptor locations including control room locations that may experience unfiltered inleakage. Are distances input into the ARCON96 calculations directly estimated as horizontal straight line distances or was another methodology (e.g., a taut string methodology) used to estimate the distances? If the distances were not estimated directly as the straight line horizontal distance, how were they determined? Did the procedure used to estimate the distances properly factor in differences in heights between source and receptor?

AADB-10 Please confirm that the accident scenarios and generated /Q values model the limiting doses considering multiple release scenarios including those due to single failure. Which /Q values are used to model unfiltered inleakage to the control room?