ML20244C821

Comments on Util Fsar.Dtd June 1967 & Amend 3

ML20244C821
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	12/18/1967
From:	COMMERCE, DEPT. OF
To:
Shared Package
ML17055E652	List: IA-89-101, Informs of Completion of Review of Application by Niagara Mohawk Power Corp for Conversion of Util Provisional OL to full-term OL During ACRS 740905-07 Meeting.Concurs in Subj License Conversion IA-89-114, Confirms 740624 Meeting Re Author Review of Util SER & Concurrence Subj to Revs Discussed ML20244C683 ML20244C712 ML20244C715 ML20244C728 ML20244C740 ML20244C768 ML20244C776 ML20244C791 ML20244C807 ML20244C810 ML20244C813 ML20244C816 ML20244C818 ML20244C821 ML20244C825 ML20244C827 ML20244D471 ML20244D475 ML20244D485 ML20244D499 ML20244D512 ML20244D553 ML20244D969 ML20244D979 ML20244D984 ML20244D995 ML20244E011 ML20244E026 ML20244E032 ML20244E123 ML20244E128 ML20244E141 ML20244E163 ML20244E184 ML20244E223 ML20244E231 ML20244E248 ML20244E270 ML20244E353 NUREG-1125, Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Forwards App a Documents.App a Documents Also Available in Pdr.Acrs Rept Subj to Request Published in NUREG-1125,Vol 2, Compilation of ACRS Repts
References
FOIA-89-101, FOIA-89-114 NUDOCS 8904200431
Download: ML20244C821 (3)

Text

( .

.. . ,} , . s . <

,y_

( )

i Comments on

, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation l ,

Final Safety Analysis Report, Dated June 1967

and Amendment #3 Dated July 14, 1967 .

i' Prepared by 1

Air Rer wrces Environmental Laboratory Environmental Science Services Administration December 18, 1967 As was the case with the Preliminary Hazards Summary Report, the meteorological analysis in the Final Report is very comprehensive and is particularly useful in estimating atmospheric diffusion in a -

wide variety of realistic meteorological conditions. We agree that the addition of one year of meteorological data since the PHSR shows

? no evidence of any important differences.

( The Turbulence Classes depicted in figures A-4,1 through A-4.7 are

{y similar to the Pasquill Types of atmospheric diffusion rates. For

] , example, Turbulence Class I is similar to Pasquill Type A (strong lapse) and Turbulence Class IV to Pasquill Type F (moderate inversion).

} These are the limiting categories for both classifications. A

' realistic attempt has been made to describe, quantitatively, the

changes in dispersion parameters such as occur with flow f rom cold .

1 water to hot land (fig.. A-4.7) and flow initially over land for 2 km, j ,

then over water for 21 km, and back over land again (fig. A-4,5) .

i The annual (actually a two-year average) atmospheric dispersion developed f rom on-site meteorological measurements and shown in figures 11-7 and 11-8 are realistic and have been spot-checked for accuracy. The highest long-term off-site dose in these computations j is about 5 x 10"8 sec/m-3 at a distance of 2 km at the northeast

! corner of the site assuming tric effluent is released from a 350-f t I stack. There is a slight discrepancy in figures 11-7 and -8 in that the 10 isopleth is inside the southern site boundary in the first figure and outside in the other.

As noted in Table A-5, credit has been taken for effluent rise above li the stack. With a stack effluent velocity of '55 f t/see and a 30 C 3

temperature excess of stack gas over ambient air, it is obvious that a significant rise will take place, especially at lower wind speeds.

.As reported by Moses [J3 there are many plume rise expressions

(

I ,

9904200431 FOIA 890413 4 PDR PDR i WETTERH89-101

ze >

i .

.c

..d -

,.r.

(

i p 'available in the literature, but he finds it extremely ' difficult to recommend any technique with enthusiasm. He concludes that for large stacks with appreciable buoyancy, such as,the stack under consideration, the Holland equatLon with a correction factor of 3

, gives the best results. Assuming the variables as listed in Table A-5

• and the corrected Holland equation, an effective stack height of 192 m results for a wind speed of 3 5 m/sec. This compares well with i I the 205 m computed by an entirely different technique in the report.

Our assessment of the maximum downwind ground concentration f rom an i' 3 accidental release of radioactive effluent through the stack would be I the pseudo-fumigation condition described by Van der Hoven [2] in his '

L, figure 3. A reasonable set of parameters in the case might be as i' follows: u = 5 m/sec, effective stack height and depth of mixed layer

= 150 m, oy at 2 km = 100 m (Pasquill Type E). Using the fumigation 1 equation, the resulting ground concentration is 5 x 10-6 sec/m3 If this phenomenon was to happen at 1 km downwind the concentration would be about 1 x 10-5 sec/m3 because of a reduction of cy to 50 m. These values should be considered as an upper limit to possible, short-term -

)

(2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />) downwind ground concentrations resulting from an accidental elevated release. These numbers are about a factor of eight higher than listed in Table E-20 of the report, which was detenmined  ;

directly f rom' the unidirectional, centerline' concentrations depicted

[4 ( in figures A-4.1 to A-4.7.

References , -

[1] Moses, H., G. H. Strom, and J. E. Carson,1964: Effects of l

meteorological and engineering factors'in stack plume rise.

Nuc. Safety, 6(1), pp. 1-19.

f d [2] Van der Hoven, I.,1967: Atmospheric transport and diffusion at 1 coastal sites. Nuc. Safety, 8(5), pp. 490 499. ,

4 e

1- ,.

+ ,

4.

l I *

• i  ; n ,

t ,,,

• 6 Af 4

4 4

4 it 44

__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _