ML20237L585

Forwards Map Showing Exclusion Area of Plant,Info Used by Licensee to Justify Exclusion Area & Criteria Used by NRC to Evaluate Exclusion Area,Per 870805 Request

ML20237L585
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	08/25/1987
From:	Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Stanichak J STANICHAK, J.M.
Shared Package
ML20237L587	List: ML20237L585 ML20237L596
References
NUDOCS 8708280163
Download: ML20237L585 (21)

Text

_ ..

L

. AUG 2 5 IW {

Mr. Joseph M. Stanichak, Esq.a' 700 Franklin Avenue Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 15001

Dear Mr. Stanichak:

x.

1 In response to your request of August'5, 1987, we are enclosing (1) a map )

showing.the exclusion area of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 2 '

(BVPS-2); (2) information used by the licensee $to justify that exclusion a'rea;'

and (3) criteria used by the NRC to evaluate the exclusion area. 1 The map which is provided is the same as the one you obtained from Duquecne Light Company, the Beaver Valley Licensee; both are copies of Figure'2.1-2 of the BVPS-2 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). NRC used this map in its evaluation of the exclusion area. Other topographicttpps may be obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 22092.

The enclosed Section 2.3.4 from the BVPS-2 FSAR shows that the minimum distance to the exclusion area boundary was used to determine atmospheric dilution factors (x/Q values), and describes the methods used. The erclosed FSAR Table 15.0-11 indicates that a minimum exclusion areg distance of .547 meters was used to calculate design-basis accident (DBA) doses'to determine if the facility 1 complies with the guideline doses given in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 100 (these doses are 300 REM Thyroid and 25 REM Whole Body 2-hour exposure). i The enclosed excerpts from the NRC Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-1057, discuss the information provided by the licensee and identify criteria used in the NRC evaluation.

The documents from which this information was taken are available at the NRC ,

Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington D.C. 20555, and at the local Public Document Room for the Beaver Valley Power Station, located at the B. F. Jones Memorial Library, 663 Franklin Avenue, Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 15001.

I trust that this information will meet your needs.

Sincerely,  ;

f-r & Y jv v Thomas E. Murley, Director.

t Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

As stated

• See previous concurrence PD#I-4 PD#I-4 PDI-4 Tech:ed i/II OGC-Beth SNorris PTam; JSto,12 oger a

/ /* / / y,eh ,

\ //  ;/l { //p/f { /?

ADE jg . RR Q? R b FMi' lia s & ek T .lg

{/g/87 3/87 j / }/87 8708280163 870825 PDR ADOCK 05000412 P PDR 1

.j

7:%m'T"*<?f 3

,( x o r D@W

1 4tg p"%

/ Tp y%y.n,%

\

g

'ny ii .

u-

~

, y l*

,m%\

.N t;;

~

~ - .s u %l;,%Q-k wy. s. /

r  ;~ w%.

• y

[-,%;

Q,jg....

4 ~ ,

.x- ,

g., .

xb_ ,

o' .

3 s \ 's . :

3  ;

s, D<

,\

s N'#\ s'II s.at f e

/ /h Y7:'

?h,lkf lhn( kf g g

r-g#',-

a

,i ,.

i, y y w pu.-

a 9*

-awr e

ENCLOS' IRE 2 BVPS-2 FSAR 2.3.3.2 Meteorological Data Reduction .

l

(

The meteorological data acquisition system consists of a computerized data processing system which collects and reduces data on temperature a real-time basis. The average wind direction, wind speed.

differential ( LI), ambient temperature, dew point, and total precipitation are determined for four 15-minute samples each hour. l The sampling rate for each parameter for each level is approximately four times per second. Standard statistical equations are used to l

compute the 15-minute average values from the instantaneous samples. l The standard deviation of the wind direction is calculated every 15 minutes with 10-second smoothing of the instantaneous wind direction. l The meteorological data acquisition system also includes an analog When necessary to system as a backup to the di,gital system.

supplement digital data, the' strip chart data were manually reduced.

obtained for temperature, l Hourly averages centered on the hour are dew point, and temperature differential ( AT) data. The precipitation trace records cumulative precipitation amounts and recycles every 15 minutes. Average values of the wind direction are obtained from l 15-minute samples of wind data centered on the hour. Hourly averages j of 35-foot wind speed from analog data were electronically digitized to avoid human bias in the wind speed distribution for accident X/0 l calculations. Atmospheric stability, based on the temperature J l

differential, is classified according to USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.23.

Table 2.3-35 presents the USNRC AT stability categories. l 2.3.3.3 Meteorological Data Recovery  ;

Monthly and annual meteorological data recovery rates of combined analog and digital data for 35 , 150 , and 500-foot wind, 6Tg5, foot- j as foot; AT53, foot 35 foot, 35-foot dew point, ambient temperature, and1, l precipitation are provided in Table 2.3-36 for the period January 1976 to December 31, 1980. Table 2.3-3'i provides the monthly and annual data recovery rate for joint 35-foot wind and AT35, foot 35 foot and joint 500-foot wind and LT 5,, foot asfoot from January 1, 1976 to ,

l December 31, 1980.

2.3.4 Short-Term (Accident) Diffusion Estimates l 2.3.4.1 Objective .

All accidents hypothesized for BVPS-2 are considered to result in structure. For ground level effluent releases from the containment various time periods after an accident, atmospheric dilution factors l (X/Q) were calculated at the minimum distance to the BVPS-2 exclusion area and the low population zone (LPZ) (5,794 meters) for each of the 16 downwind sectors.

For the O- to 2-hour time period (represented by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> of l

meteorological data) at the exclusion boundary, the 0.5-percent and 2.3-19 December 1984 l

Amendment 9 i

i  !

~ - - - - _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ . i

af ' -- J '

.V.

p, s i. .

9  ! l b EVPS-2 FSAR 50-sercent sector-dependent X/Q values for each of the 16 downwind seetors are presented in Tables 2.3-38 and 2.3-38a. ]

Fer the time periods of 0 to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, O to 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />, 8 to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, I to 4 days, and 4 to 30 days, 0.5-percent and 50-percent - sector-dependent X/Q values at the LPZ are presented in Tables 2.3-39'and 2,.3-39a.

2.3.4.2 Calculations The X/Q dilution factors presented.in Tables 2.3-38 diffusion and 2.3-39model, were calculated using the bi-variate normal or Gaussian modified for source configuration and lateral meander under neutral and stable conditions. Input parameters were determined from onsite 1,. 1976 through meteorological data acquired dering the January December 31, 1980 period. These included the hourly-average values and of wind speed and wind direction at the 10-meter. level, atmospheric stability determined from the hourly-average . values of temperature difference measured between the 10 - and 46-meter levels.

. Atmospheric stability was classified according to the temperature gradient values listed for the various Pasquill stability categories in Regulatory Guide l'.23.

values for the 1-hour accident period Hourly-average X/Q the (representative of the O- to 2-hour period) were calculated from l

following equations from Regulatory Guide 1.145.

For Class D-G stability conditions, when the wind speed is less than 6 meters per second (mps),

10 y Z (2.3-4) where:

{ = M{II,,, Sl o y for distances up to 800 meters, and

+

[, = (M- 1 ) [il io, Sl e yeoom y:

for distances beyond 800 meters. ( 2.3-5) 4

\

Figure 2.3-29 depicts the functional relationship of M (meander factor) with respect to wind speed (ugo) and atmospheric. stability  ;

(S). If the X/Q value calculated in Equation 2.3-4 is less than the greater X/Q value of either of the following equations,.

1o U

y #z + (2.3-6) 2.3-20 December 1984 Amendment 9

EVPS-2 FSAR

-)

x _

u 2o o (2.3-7)

(. g= _

3n a it is retained; otherwise the applicable x/Q value is the greater of those calculated by Equations 2.3-6 and 2.3-7.

For all Class A-C stability conditions, and for Class 'D-G stability conditions when the wind speed is greater than or equal to 6 mps, the and 2.3-7 is greater X/Q value calculated from Equations 2.3-6 chosen.

In the preceding equations,. the parameter A corresponds to the minimum cross sectional area (1,600 m 2

)'of the containment structure, while o and a . represent.,the standard deviations of plume concenttationdistributioninthe 7 horizontal and. vertical planes, respectively, with u , representing the mean wind 5, peed at the. lowest 3

(10-meter) tower level.

For the time periods of 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> (representative.of the O- to 8-hour period), 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> (representative of the 8- to 24-hour period),

3 days (representative of the 1- to 4-day period), and 26 days (representative of the 4- to 30-day period), a graphical technique, described later in this section, was used to estimate the X/Q values.

Each valid hour of the January 1, 1976 through December 31, 1980

_s onsite meteorological data was utilized for the calculation. An hour of data was considered valid if recovery of the 10-meter wind speed, 10-meter wind direction, and 10- to 46-meter temperature difference was simultaneously accomplished. For the January 1, 1976 through December 31, 1980 period of BVPS-2, approximately 90 percent of the data fulfilled this criterion.

For each valid hour of meteorological data, a y/Q value was-calculated with Equations 2.3-5 through 2.5-7 (whichever- was 1 l

applicable), where the wind direction determined the' downwind sector.

In the calculation, the actual exclusion area or low population zone distances, .as defined in Section 2.3.4.1, were .used (along with the l Regulatory Guide 1.23 stability class typing scheme) to determine ,

magnitudes of a and o z according to the method outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.145, Revision 1.  ;

For the hourly-average calm winds, a wind speed of 0.34 mps 1 (instrument threshold) was assigned. Wind directions during calm-conditions were assigned in proportion to the directional distribution of noncalm conditions bounded by a wind speed ranging  !

from just .above threshold to 1.5 mps. For the hours with variable j

. wind directions, the last valid wind direction and the actual ]

recorded wind speed were coupled.

For each of the 16 downwind sectors, all nonzero X/Q values were stored and arranged in descending order, and the 0.5-percent values l i

( Amendment 9 2.3-21 December 1984

BVPS-2 FSAR '

were chosen. All 0.5-percent values were compared, and the sector l with the largest X/Q value determined the ultimate design basis )

0.5-percent sector-dependent X/Q value,. for use in the chapter 15 l dose calculations.

(2.3-8) l This equation has been intentionally deleted from the FSAR.

I At the LPZ, the 0.5-percent sector-dependent X/Q value for the O- to 2-hour period was plotted at 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> on logarithmic X/Q versus time coordinates, while the ground-level release, annual average WQ value for the same sector was plotted at 8,760 hours0.0088 days <br />0.211 hours <br />0.00126 weeks <br />2.8918e-4 months <br />. Logarithmic l interpolation was applied to establish X/Q values for time periods 4 to j corresponding to O to 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />, 8 to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, I to 4 days, and l30daysfollowinganaccident.

The equation that was applied for the calculation of the annual average X/Q value for each sector was N

2.032 '(Dg )k (2.3-9)

(e )k,4Ej=1 -

X

- s

+ D\ N 1e x[\c'z k # /

where:

j = the index for the number of hours <

k = the index for a particular receptor distance i

I I

l 1

1 1

I i

d.

l l

J i

l 2.3-22 December 1984 Amendment 9 i . _ - . _ - _ - _ ._ _ _ ___

• BVPS-2 FSAR

/ = the index for a particular 22.5-( degree sector Nj = the number of hours of wind in sectcr/ l I

og = the ground level release terrain {

recirculation factor x = the minimum distance to the LPZ hb = the height of the containment building Additional dispersion due to the building wake effect was limited to 5 o g, as outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.145. Table 2.3-40 presentt the site specific terrain recirculation factors for a ground-level release.

2.3.5 Long-Term (Routine) Diffusion Estimates  !

l 2.3.5.1 Objective i

Annual average and grazing season average X/Q and D/Q diffusion j facter estimates are calculated for each of the sixteen 22.5-degree I sectors using methodology consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.111, i

) Revision 1. Table 2.3-41 provides the dit;,tances of the controlling  !

I maximum individual receptors. In accordance with the Annex to Appendix I, 10 CFR 50, the BVPS site must consider radioactive release sources from all reactors. Therefore, diffusion estimates are provided herein for both BVPS-1 and BVPS-2. The five release points at BVPS and their radioactive release frequencies are: i BVPS-1 Ventilation v% c Continuous BVPS-1 Elevated rele ase Intermittent BVPS-2 Ventilation '/ent Intermittent BVPS-2 Elevated release Continuous Combined BVPS-1 and BVPS-2 Continuous l process vent Release point design parameters are listed in Table 2.3-42, and j release point locations are shown on ER Figare 3.1-1. l The resultant x /Q and D/Q values for the three continuous release  ;

vents are calculated as discussed in Sections 2.3.5.2.2 and l 2.3.5.2.3, respectively, and are listed in Tables 2.3-43 through 2.3-54. j The two intermittent release vents have identical x/Q and D/Q values.

Methodology for estimating these diffusion factors is discussed in Section 2.3.5.2.4 and the results shown in Tables 2.3-55 through 2.3-58. i 1

(

2.3-23

. I i

i

)

l l

. l BVPS-2 FSAR TABLE 2.3-38 O.5 PERCENT SECTOR-DEPENDENT 0- TO 2-HOUR x/Q VALUES AT THE EXCLUSION AREA BOUNDARY 0- to 2-Hour X/Q Downwind Sector Downwind Distance *(meters) (x 103 sec/m3 )

N 457 0.88 NNE 457 0.50 NE 457 0.33 ENE 457 0 26 E 457 0.24 ESE 490 0.20 SE 550 0.18 SSE 615 0.17 5 695 0.18 SSW 755 0.21 SW 780 0.30 WSW 710 0.49 W 610 0.95 WNW 558 1.40

?N 547 1.44 NNW 547 1.06 Worst (NW) 547 1.44 l

5% overall site X/Q value 1.10 NOTE:

• Regulatory Guide 1.145 extended distances.

1 l

1 Amendment 11 1 of 1 January 1986 l i

l l

1 -

BVPS-2 FSAR TABLE 2.3-38a

)

FIFTY PERCENT SECTOR-DEPENDENT 0- TO 2-HOUR X/Q VALUES AT THE EXCLUSION AREA BOUNDARY 0- to '2-Hour X/Q Downwind Sector Downwind Distance *(meters) (x 104 sec/ma ).

N 457 2.88 NNE 457 1.67 NE 457 1.40 ENE 457 1.12 E 457 1.04-ESE 490 0.60 SE 550 0.76 SSE 615 0.07 S 695 0.41 SSW 755 0.04 l SW 780 0.86 l WSW 710 1.18 W 610 3.21 WNW 558 8.11 l NW 547 '9.91 l 5.03 NNW 547 Worst (NW) 547 9.91 50% overell site 1.31 X/Q value NOTE:

• Regulatory Guide 1.145 extended distances.

Ame'ndment 10 1 of 1 May 1985

1 4

. k BVPS-2 FSAR l

I TABLE 2.3-39

( l l 0.5 PERCENT SECTOR-DEPENDENT X/Q VALUES FOR VARIOUS TIME PERIODS AT THE LOW POPULATION ZONE OUTER BOUNDARY J

I 3

X/Q (x 104 sec/m ) l 0-2 0-8 8-24 1-4 4-30 l Downwind Distance Days l Hours Hours Hours Days Sector (m) I 0.56 0.24 0.16 0.06 0.02 N 5,794 0.25 0.12 0.08 0.03 0.01 NNE 5,794 0.15 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.008 NE 5,794 0.09 1.15 0.03 0.02 0.006 ENE 5,794 0.09 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.004 E 5,794 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.003 ESE 5,794 0.09 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.004 ,

SE 5,794 0.10 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.004 SSE 5,794 ,

i 5,794 0.16 1.15 0.05 0.02 0.006 S

5,794 0.22 1.07 0.06 0.03 0.007 SSW 0.01 5,794 0.38 0.17 0.11 0.05 SW 5,794 0.61 0.27 0.18 0.08 0.02 WSW

/

5,791 0.98 0.44 0.30 0.12 0.04 W

0.67 0.48 0.23 0.08 ff?. 5,794 1.33 WNW 5,794 1.33 0.71 0.52 0.26 0.10 l NW 5,794 0.98 0.45 0.30 0.13 0.04 NNW 5,794 1.33 0.71 0.52 0.26 0.10 {

Worst (NW) 5% overall site 0.19 0.07 0.02 y/Q values 0.98 0.32 l

1 of 1 December 1984 nmendment 9  !

l BVPS-2 PSAR

- TABLE 2.3-39a

-)

l FIFTY . PERCENT SECTOR-DEPENDENT X /Q VALUES. FOR VARIOUS' TIME PERIODS AT THE LOW POPULATION ZONE OUTER BOUNDARY X/Q.(x 105 sec/m3) ~

Cownwind Distance 0-2 0-8 8-24 1-4 4-30 Sector (m) Hours Hours Hours Days Days N 5,794 1.22 0.68 0.51- 0.27 0.11 NNE 5,794 0.56 0.33 0.25 0.14 0.06' NE 5,794 0.44 0.26 0.20 0.12 0.05 ENE 5,794 0.29 0.19 0.15 0.09 0.05 E 5,794 0.25 0.15 0.11 0.06' O.03 ESE 5,794 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.03 .0.02 SE 5,794 0.24 0.14 0.11 0.06 'O.03 SSE 5,794 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 l

-S 5,794 0.10 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.02 .

SSW 5,794 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 SW 5,794 0.75 0.44 0.33 0.18 0.08 WSW 5,794 0.91 0.56 0.44 0.26 0.12 W 5,794 2.36 1.34 1.01 0.55 0.23 WNW 5,794 6.62 3.75 2.82 1.52 0.63 k,]

)

NW 5,794 8.63 4.92 3.71 2.02 0.84 ]

NNW 5,794 3.76 2.01 1.47 0.74 0.28 Worst (NW) 5,794 8.63 4.92 3.71 2.02 0.84 50% overall site X/Q values 0.61 0.37 0.29 0.18 0.10 I

l i

l Amendment 9 1 of 1 December 1984.

BVPS-2 FSAR

< TABLE 2.3-40 t -

TERRAIN RECIRCULATION FACTORS FOR GROUND LEVEL RELEASES  :;

l 1

Downwind Distance (miles)

Sector 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 >8 N 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 -1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 j NNE 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 '

NE 1.2- 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ENE 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.1- 1.0 1.0 1.0 l l'

E 1.4 1.2 1 ~. 2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ESE 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1' 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 SE 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.1' 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 SSE 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

. 1 S 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0  !

SSW SW 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ] <

l WSW 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 f W 2.0 2.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.0 1.0 WNW 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.1 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.0 NW 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 NNW 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1 of 1

1

\ .

]

10.0 l

)

9.0 e.0 j 7.0 G STABILITY 6.0 5.5 l

5.0 o 4.5 If 4 ,g F STABILITY k Le 3.5 \ ,\ l

$ 3c E SrasitiTY N\

!g 2.5 \,\,\ j z j

$ D STABILITY j 2 2.0 C N x 4

(

1.5 N i l

A,B,C STABILITIES 1 1.0

1. 0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.08.09.010.0 WIND SPEED (M/SEC)

NOTE: >

FROM REGUL ATORYGUl0E I.145 AUGUST 1979. l I

i FIGURE 2.3-29 ME ANDER AS A FUNCTION OF

- WIND SPEED AND STABILITY

( BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION -UNIT 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT JULY 1983 AMENDMENT 2

i .

LBVPS-2 FSAR j 1

• TABLE 15.0-11 j.,

J'!

ACCIDENT METEOROLOGICAL PARAMETERS i

~

.X/Q (x10 ' sec/ms )

Exclusion area boundary - 547 m, NW-0-2 hr 1.44 Low population zone - 5,794 m, NW 0-8 hr 0.0707 8-24 hr 0.0516 1-4 days 0.0259 4-30. days 'O.00963 Control room 0-8 hr 7.01 8-24 hr 4.74 1-4 days 1.82 4-30 days 0.266

<1 i

1 i

l 1

j i

Amendment 9 1 of 1 December 1984 )jl l

l i

i

_____.___.______-____.-_______...-_-___l___._._._________.___..____.__._____.-_. . _ _ - _ . . _ _- ._ -- _ _ _ . _ _ . - ..

- 2 -. - _ _. -

ENCLOSURE 3

, 1 i

i i

2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS l

2.1 Geography and Demography _ ,

j 2.1.1 Site Location and Description  !

l The Beaver Valley site is a 501-acre tract of land on the south bank of the Ohio I River in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. The site is approximately 1 mile from Midland, Pennsylvania (1980 population 4310); 5 miles from East Liverpool, Ohio I (1980 population 16,687); and 25 miles from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (1980 pop-ulation 423,938). Beaver Valley Unit 2 is adjacent to Beaver Valley Unit 1 and the Shippingport Atomic Power Station (the latter terminated operations  ;

in 1982 and is scheduled for decommissioning by the U.S. Department of Energy).

Figure 2.1 shmes the-general region of the Beaver Valley site.

Figure 2.2 shows the topography of the site. The site topography consists of a fairly level river terrace on the south bank of the Ohio River at an approximate elevation of 730 feet above mean sea level (ms1). As a result of the use of navigation locks and dams, the normal pool elevation of the Ohio River is 665 feet. Hills rise to approximately 1100 feet on both side of the Ohio River, ,

which is about 1300 fee"l wide in the vicinity of the site. ]

1 The coordinates of Unit 2 are 40 37' 23" north latitude and 80 25' 57" west longitude. The universtl transverse mercator coordinates are 580,010 meters east and 4,496,890 metets ncrth. l 2.1.2 Exclusion Area Aut.hority and Control j s The Beaver Valley Unit 2 exclusion area is defined by a 2000-foot radius around the Unit 1 containment building and extending to the north shore of the Ohio River (see Figure 2.2). Phillis Island in the Ohio River is located within the exclusion area; however, the applicant has made arrangements with the Dravo Corporation, which owns Paillis Island, to control activities on the island.

Arrangements also have been made with the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to control traffic on the Ohio River within the exclusion area in the event of an energency. Arrangements have been made with both the Beaver County Civil Defent,e and the Pennsylvania State Police to control traffic f on Route 168, including tne bridge, in the event of an emergency.

The applicant controls the use of the Consolidated Rail Corporation (Con Rail) railroad within the exclusion area. The use of the railroad is limited to ser-i vicing the Shippingport and Beaver Valley stations. There are no residences or activities unrelated to the plant within the exclusion area.

Because the applicant owns most of the land within the exclusion area, including the mineral rights, and because suitable arrangements have been made to control traffic on the road, rail line, and river within the exclusion area and to control activities on Phillis Island, the staff concludes that the applicant has Beaver Valley 2 SER 2-1 i _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _

, a I

the10authority by CFR 100. to control all activities within the exclusion area, as required 2.1.3 Population Distribution Table 2.1 shows the resident population in the vicinity of the Beaver Valley station at various distances from the site. The nearest community with a pop-ulation of more than 1000 is Midland, whose 1980 population of 4310 people was a decrease from the 1970 census figure of 5271. Midland is on the opposite side of the Ohio River, approximately 1 mile northw at of the site.

The 1980 population within 10 miles of the site was 141,286. The largest community near the site is the Township of McCandless, Pennsylvania, approxi-mately 17 miles east of the site, which had a 1980 population of 26,250.

j The applicant has chosen a low pooulation zone (LPZ) radius of 3.6 miles. The 1980 population within this distance was 10,828 residents and approximately 4422 transients. The school population within the LPZ in 1980 was about 2855 persons.

The resident population within the LPZ is projected to reach approxi-

.mately 11,656 people in the year 2030. .

The applicant has indicated that the nearest densely populated center of about 25,000 or more persons, as defined in 10 CFR 100, is the Township of McCandless.

The distance of the township from the site--17 miles--meets 10 CFR 100 because it is at least 1-1/3 times the LPZ radius.

2.1.4 Conclusion On the basis of (1) the 10 CFR 100 definitions of the exclusion area, LPZ, and population center distance; (2) the staff analysis of the onsite meteorological data from which the relative concentration factors (X/Q) were calculated (see Section 2.3); and (3) calculated potential radiological dose conse.3uences of design-basis accidents (see Section 15), the staff concludes that the exclusion area, LPZ, and population center distance meet 10 CFR 100 and are acceptable.

2.2 Nearby Industrial, Transpo'rtation, and Military Facilities This review was done in accordance with SRP 2.2.1, 2.2.3, 3.5.1.5, and 3.5.1.6.

2.2.1 Transportation Routes Barges use the Ohic River adjacent to the Beaver Valley site to transport coal, sand and gravels iron and steel, gasoline, petroleum products, and chemicals. i i

Records for 1978 indicated that a total of approximately 20 million short tons 1 of materials were shipped through the Montgomery locks 3 miles upstream from the Beaver Valley site., During the Unit 2 CP review, the staff determined that the  ;

probability of damage to the reactor intake structure from barge traffic was high enough to warrant specific precautionary measures. Hence, the applicant  !

constructed an alternate intake structure to provide an adequate backup supply l of cooling water if the original structure were damaged by the impact of a '

gasoline barge and subsequent explosion.

A Pennzoil barge facility directly across the Ohio River from the cooling towers .

handles an average of two outbound shipments of gasoline and fuel products each l week and one inbound shipment of these materials each month, Beaver Valley 2 SER 2-2 i

~

l l_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. __ _ _ _

.j

. i 1

y l 3  !

,1 1 The meteorological program described above appears to meet the criteria for A

1 upgraded meteorological measurements during plant operation as part of the i emergency response capability.

The upgrading must be completed in accordance j l with the schedule of NUREG-0737 Item III.A.2 (emergency preparedness), and the, staff will conduct a post-implementation review. The incorporation of current i meteorological information into a real-time atmospheric dispersion model for j dose assessments will also be considered as part of the upgraded capability. j  ;

q On the basis of its review accordinq to SRP 2.3.3, the staff finds that the current instrumentation and data reduction procedures conform to RG 1.23, f.

"Onsite Meteorological Programs." The current meteorological measurements jj i program has provided by 10adequate data to represent onsite meteorological condi-tions, as required CFR 100.10. j -

l 2.3.4 $

Short-Term (Accident) Diffusion Estimates l j  !

To audit the applicant's estimates, the staff independently assessed short-term (less than 30-day) accidental releases from buildings and vents using the 7 direction-dependent atmospheric dispersion model described in RG 1.145, "Atmo-spheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at >

i conditionsPower Nuclear Plants,"

with low considering increased lateral dispersion during stable wind speeds.  : I On September 25, 1984, 5 years (January 1977- l

[

December 1981) of onsite data were submitted to the staff tent with the data for the other 4 years. j Therefore, 4 years (1978-1981) of j data were used for this evaluation. j was 92%. The data recovery during these 4 years 1, Wind speed and wind direction data were based on measurements at the 10.7 m level, and atmospheric stability was defined by the vertical temperature gradient measured between the 45.7-m and 10.7-m levels. A ground-level release with a building wake factor, cA, of 800 m2 was assumed. Distances by direction I from the reactor containment structure to the exclusion area boundary were based on the exclusion area as defined by the applicant on February 1, 1985. The i i 3

relative concentration (x/Q) at the exclusion area boundary (EAB) for the 0 to 2-hour period was determined to be 1.6 x 10-3 sec/m3 (  !

the northwest sector. The computed at a distance of 547 m in ]

outer boundary of the low population zone (5800 m) areX/Q values for various time i pe jt Period x/Q (sec/m3) 0 to 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> j 7.2 x J0 5 8 to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 5.1 x 10 s j 1 to 4 days 2.4 x 10 5 3 4 to 30 days 8.0 x 10 6 For the O to 2-hour period at the exclusion area boundary, the applicant calcu- )

lated a lower (about 15%) x/Q value than that calculated by the staff. The values calculated by the applicant for various periods at the low population zone (LPZ) distance are within 20% of those calculated by the staff.

On the basis of the above evaluation according to SRP 2.3.4, the staff concludes that the applicant has slightly underestimated atmospheric relative concentra-tions at the EAB for assessments of the consequences of radioactive releases for design-basis accidents in accordance with 10 CFR 100.11.

The staff used its independently calculated atmospheric dispersion estimates provided above in #

Beaver Valley 2 SER 2-10 y

a

f -

i

{ its assessment accidents. of the consequences of radioactive releases f or design-basis 2.3.5 i.ong-Term (Routine) Diffusion Estimates To audit the applicant's estimates, the staff independently average relative concentration (x/Q) and relativecalculated deposition annual(D/Q) values.

The staff calculated x/Q and 0/Q values for specific or points and in recept arrays to 80 km (50 miles) using the straight-line Gaussian atm sion model described in RG 1.111.

developed by the applicant. spatial and temporal variations in airflo

! to be partially elevated, except,for the transport dire tiReleases through i

of north northeast, northeast, east southeast,c and southeastons (affected se transport directions is affected by the larDe natural d Dispersion in these forbethese to transport at ground level directions, releases from the contairaft cooling towers, and, Intermittent releases,through the containment vent were ewith mixi methodology in NUREG/CR-2919. .

valuated using the available to the staff on magnetic tape this evaluation. ecember before 1981), Septem wind (35-foot) speed level and direction data were based on measurementsFor g vents, made at the 10.7 m

. ture difference,between the 45and atmospheric stability was defined by the -

releases through the process ve.7 m (150-foot) and 10.7 m (35-foot) levels. For and direction data were based on measurements made at the 152nt at the and atmospheric stability was defined by the vertical temperatur-m (499-foo between the 152 m and 10.7-m levels. e difference The applicant has calculated the NRC staff. X/Q and D/Q values similar to those calculated by On the basis of its evaluation performed in accordance with SRP concludes that the applicant has considered representative 2.3.5, the staff atmosph sion in estimates Appendix for demonstrating I, to 10 CFR 50. compliance withguides the ericnumerical disper-for doses (Section 11.3 of this report).the NRC staff were used in the staff a ance with Appendix I tion of the staff's Draft Environmental Statement (DES) (NUREThese est included in the assessment of the radiological impact G-1094) toand huma are releases to the atmosphere that appears in the DES .

ns from routine

2. 4

_ Hydrologic Engineering 2.4.1 Hydrologic Description Pennsylvania, about 5 miles east of northwest of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

s inEast southwest LiverpoolAs show i

, Ohio, and about 25 miles Ohio River adjacent to the New Cumberland Pool, abnut 3 0 riveThe station is of the Montgomery Lock and Dam and 19.7 miles r miles upstream downstreamof the New Cu and Beaver Valley 2 SE'R l 2-11 LW

• 4 .~

A- 4* ,

. , , ,7 .",.y " '

m

[ { 100,11 10 CFR Ch, I (1 1-87 Edhion) 1 operation an extremely low probabill- (2) Meteorological conditions at the ty for accidents that could result in re- site and in the surrounding area lease of significant quantities of radio- should be considered.

active fission products. In addition, (3) Geological and hydrological char-the site location and the engineered acteristics of the proposed site may

.q

• features included as safeguards have a bearing on the consequences of against the hazardous consequences of an escape of radioactive material from f, an accident, should one occur, should the facility. Special precautions e insure a low risk of public exposure. In should be planned if a reactor is to be K particular, the Comminnion will take located at a site where a significant f the following factors into consider

• r ation in determining the acceptability Quantity of radioactive effluent might of a site for a power or testing reactor: accidentally flow into nearby streams er (a) Characteristics of reactor design orunderground rivers or might find ready access to water tables.

pi and proposed operation including:

(1) Intended use of the reactor in- (d) Where unfavorable physical h cluding the proposed maxirnum power characteristics of the site exist, the g level and the nature and inventory of proposed site may nevertheless be g, found to be acceptable if the design of -

e contained radioactive (2) The extent materials'nerally to which ge the facility includes appropriate and i

g# accepted engineering standards are ap- adequate compensating engineering l

x plied to the design of the reactor; safeguards.

(3) The extent to which the reactor (27 PR 3509, Apr.12,1962, as amended at 38 bJ incorporates unique or unusual fea- FR 31281, Nov.12.19731 e' tures having a significant bearing on i the probability or consequences of ac- 8 100.11 Determination of exclusion area, 8, cidental release of radioactive materi- low Population sone, and population

)- t als; eenter distance.

(4) The safety features that are to

+

be engineered into the facility and (a) As an aid in evaluating a pro-those barriers that must be breached posed site, an applicant should assume y

a fission produce release 2 frorn the as a result of an accident before a re- core, the expected demonstrable leak

,- lease of radioactive material to the en-rate from the containment and the o o d r$sity and use char- "'# #" 0"8 E

• acteristics of the site environs, includ- his cite to derive an exclusion area, a ing the exclusion area, low population low population zone and population N sone, and population center distance. ce & t axe, e purpose d 2 (c) Physical characteristics of the this analysis, which shall set forth the n 9 site, including seismology, meteorol- basis for the numerical values used, ya ogy, geology, and hydrology, applicant should determine the c" (1) Appendix A. " Seismic and Geo-

• logic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power (1) An exclusion area of such size Plantr," dczeribes the nature of inves- that an individual located at any point F tigations required to obtain the geo- on its boundary for two hours immedi.

logic and seismic data necessary to de- ately following onset of the postulated W termine site suitability and to provide fission product release would not re-i reasonable assurance that a nuclear ceive a total radiation dose to the i power plant can be constructed and 4 operated at a proposed site without 8 The fission product release assumed for t undue risk to the health and safety of these calculations should be based upon a I j the public. It describes procedures for major accident, hypothesized for purposes l determining the quantitative vibratory of site analysis or postuisted from consider-  !

}I ground motion design basis at a site attons of possible amidental eventa, that due to earthquakes and describes in- would result in potential hazards not ex.

formation needed to determine wheth- ceeded by those from any accident consid-er and to what extent a nuclear power ered credible such accidenta have senerany been assumed to result in substantial melt-plant need be designed to withstand down of the core with subsequent release of the effects of surface faulting. approdable quantiues of flesion products.

892

}

4 k

?

l l Nucleer Reguletery Commle,slen { 100.11 whole body in excess of 25 rem

• or a lay of the areas so calculated shall total radiation dose in excess of 300 then be taken as their respective tema to the thyroid from iodine expo- boundaries.

• sure. (2) If the reactors are interconnect-(2) A low population zone of such ed to the extent that an accident in size that an individual located at any one reactor could affect the safety of point on its outer boundary who is ex- operation of any other, the size of the posed to the radioactive cloud result- exclusion area, low population zone ing from the postulated fisaton prod- and population center distance shall uct release (during the entire period of be based upon the assumption that all its passage) would not receive a total interconnected reactors emit their pos-radiation dose to the whole body in excess of 25 rem or a total radiation tulated fission product releases simul-doce in excess of 300 rem to the thy, taneously. This . requirement may be reduced in relation to the degree of rold from lodine exposure.

(3) A population center distance of coupling between reactors, the proba-at least one and one-third times the bility of concomitant accidents and distance from the reactor to the outer the probability that an individaal boundary of the low population zone. would not be exposed to the radiation In applying this guide, the boundary effects from simultaneous releases, of the population center shall be de- The applicant would be expected to termined upon consideration of popu- justify to the satisfaction of the Com-lation distribution. Political bound- mission the basis for such a reduction artes are not controlling in the appil- in the source term.

cation of this guide. Where very large (3) The applicant is expected to cities are involved, a greater distance show that the simultaneous operation may be necessary because of total inte- of multiple reactors at a site will not grated population dose consideration.

(b) For sites for multiple reactor fa- result in total radioactive effluent re-leases beyond the allowable limits of cilities consideration should be given applicable regulations.

to the following:

(1) If the reactors are independent Non: For further guidance in developing to the extent that an accident in one the exclualon area, the low population sone, reactor would not initiate an accident and the population center distance, refer-in another, the size of the exclusion ence is made to Technical Information Doc-area, low population zone and popula. ument 14844, dated March 23.1962, which

' tion center distance shall be fulfilled contains a procedural method and a sample with respect to each reactor individ. calculation that result in distances roughly ually. The envelopes of the plan over- renecting current siting practices of the Comm!=1on. The calculations described in Technical Information Document 14844 aThe whole body dose of 25 rem referred may be used as a point of departure for con-to above corresponds numerically to the sideration of particular site requirements once in a lifetime accidental or emergency which may result from evaluation of the dose for radiation workers which. accordins characteristka of a particular reactor, its to NCRP recommendations may be disre- purpose and method of operation, garded in the determination of their radi. Copies of Technical Information Docu-stlon exposure status (ace NB8 Handbook ment 14844 may be obtained from the Com.

69 dated June 5,1959L However, neither its mission's Public Document Room,1717 H use nor that of the 300 rem value for thy- Street NW., Washington. D.C., at by writing told exposure as set forth in these site crite- tM Director of Nuclear Resetor Regulation, ria guides are intended to imply that these U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commi= ion.

numbers constitute acceptable limita for Washington, nC. 20555.

emergency dc~s to the public under acci-dent condition. Rather, this 25 rem whole [21 FR 3609, Apr.12.1962, as amended at 31 bcdy value and the 300 rem thyroid value FR 4670, Mar.19.1964; 38 FR 1273. Jan.11.

have been set forth in these guides as refer. 1973; 40 PR 8793. Mar. 3,1975; 4o FR 26527, ence values, which can be used in the eval- June 24,19751 untion of reactor sites with respect to poten-tlal reactor accidents of exceedingly low probability of occurrence, and low risk of public esposure to radiation.

893 p-

{M b ,

l a

f . j

- , )

.#=dk*..%Qo UNITED STATES

-g '

• *f o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

$  ;$ WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

'?n***** $ [l}t 11

?d ed ii u i

l. -

EDO PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL .

l FROM: DUE: C8/28/87 EDO CONTROL: 003093 DOC DT: 08/05/87-JOSEPH M. STANICHAK FINAL REPLY ATTORNEY AT LAW TO9 -

OFFICE OF SECRETARY q FOR SIGNATURE OF: ** GREEN ** SECY NO:

MURLEY )

1 DESC: ROUTING: I

}

l. REQUEST COPY OF A DEFINITIONAL MAP SHOWING RUSSELL l PARAMETERS USED IN ORDER TO DEFINE EXCLUSION MURRAY AREA OF BEAVER VALLEY 2 FOR GEORGE G. & JUNE WHITE ]

DATE: 08/13/87 ASSIGNED'TO: NRR CONTACT: MURLEY i l

l SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS: .j l

NRR RECEIVED: AUGUST 13, 1987 ACTION: <DRPR:VARGA? i l

NRR ROUTING: MURLEY/SNIEZEK l STAROSTECKI ACTION %; 1

~~ I MIRAGLIA l$%88 DUE TO NRR DIRECTOR'S OFFICE MOSSBURG BY lla~nt; OS: I9D 1 r

I l

l

{ l o .. . ~ . . _ .. __._ __ . . . .

{

DISTRIBUTION Docket File NRC PDR w/cy of incoming Local PDR w/cy of incoming  !

ED0 #003093 EDO Reading TMurley/JSneizek RStarostecki FMiraglia JFunches l JBlaha 1 PD# 4 Reading (w/cy of incoming)

SVarga BBoger.

OGC-Bethesda SECY (3)

VStello DMossburg, PMAS (ED0iOO3093) w/cy of incoming PTam w/cy of incoming i SNorris .)

PD# 4 Green Ticket File {

WRussell i KMurray l

1 I

u i

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _