ML17258A721
| ML17258A721 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 01/19/1981 |
| From: | Maier J ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. |
| To: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TASK-02-02.A, TASK-2-2.A, TASK-RR NUDOCS 8101230422 | |
| Download: ML17258A721 (5) | |
Text
REGULATORY IFORMATION DISTRIBUTION S M (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR:8101230422'OC
~ DATE: 81/Oi/19 NOTARIZED:
NO DOCKET FACIL:50-244 Robert Emmet Ginna Nuclear PlantE Unit li Rochester G
05000244 AUTH,NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION MAIERrJBEB Rochester Gas 8 Electric Corps RECIP ~ NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION CRUTCHF IELDz D ~
Operating Reactors Branch 5
SUBJECT!
Forwards preliminary response to NRC a'assessment of SEP'opic II"2.Ai "Severe Weather Phenomena."
Unnumbered refs impede verification of info ~ Design basis wind load will be providedipending more detailed review DISTRIBUTION CODE:
A035S COPIES RECEIVED:LTR
/ENCL 2 SIZE:
TITLE: SEP Topics NOTES: 1 copy:SEP Sect.
Ldr.
05000244 EXTERNAL: ACRS NSIC 14 05 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME ACTION:
CRUTCHF IELD 04 INTERNAL: A/D MATLEQUAL13, HYD/GEO Bp 10 02 FILE 01
~
COPIES LTTR ENCL.
7 7
1 1
2 2
1 1
1 1
16 16 1
RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME LPDR 03 CONT SYS A
07 I8E 06 OR ASSESS BR 11 SEP BR 12 COPIES LTTR ENCL" 1
1
'2 2
1 1
3 3
1 1
6e TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED o LTTR ~
ENCL
II I
eP "I ~
E-If
//I/////II
////////////
iha ~ 0>>ls~+)
//////
///
/////////////
ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION o
89 EAST AVENUE, ROCHESTER, N.Y. 14649 JOHN E.
MAIER VICE PRESIDENT TCI.CPHONC ARC* COOr. 7lo 546-2700 January 19, 1981 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ATTN:
Mr. Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch g5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Subject:
SEP Topic II-2.A, Severe Weather Phenomena R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-244
Dear Mr. Crutchfield:
Enclosed is the Rochester Gas and Electric response to the NRC's assessment of SEP Topic II-2.A, "Severe Weather Phenomena".
This response is necessarily based on a preliminary review, since it is only one response to the many (10)
SEP topic assessments which RG6E received on December 18, 1980 (all of which are to be responded to before or on January 30, 1981).
It is expected
- that, additional comments will be forthcoming, following a more detailed review of this topic assessment.
Very truly yours, Enclosure
~C1 CD>
rv MpD>,
Ilcnkrj~
llI
,.lrl Q M*
a~2*
C'J '.
z~r c0 ffl ca) llJI IAI CC2cn~
CD C-Q)gf I
Cl) 8 1 0 l23QggP-
l V
Enclosure - Comments on SEP, Topic II-2.A, "Severe Weather Phenomena" 2.
3.
It would be most useful if a reference were provided for all facts denoted in the safety evaluation.
As presently formatted, the unnumbered references do not refer to any specific information.
This makes it more difficult to review and verify the information presented.
Some references which are internal to the NRC are not avail-able to us.
These include the memo from Harold R. Denton to R. R.Maccary, March 24,
- 1975, and the memo from Jerry Harbour to I. G. Hulman of August 14, 1978. It would be useful for us to be able to review this information to better respond to the NRC assessments.
It is not, discernable how the snow load of 150 psf was determined.
A review of ANSI A58.1-1972 disclosed a 100-year recurrence roof snow load of approximately 40 psf.
The New York State Code also requires a normal snow load of 40 psf to be considered for a flat roof.
Even adding this and the maximum single storm snowload would result in a roof snow load of less than -60 psf.
The basis for the Ginna roof load is provided on page 4-3 of the Ginna "Technical Supplement Accompanying Application for Full-Term Operating License,"
August 1972.
The NRC evaluation should be consistent with this design basis, or provide specific reasoning and methodology for choosing an alternative basis.
It is not clear what Sterling PSAR data was used.
Snow load data would be incorrect, since that site receives more snowfall than the Ginna site.
5.
It is apparent, both from WASH-1300 and the Institute for Disaster Research (IDR) report appended to this NRC assessment, that tornadoes in the vicinity of the Ginna site are very rare.
The IDR report notes that, for windspeeds
< 109 mph, the straight wind model governs; for winds
> 109 mph, the tornado model governs.
Table 8 of the IDR5report notes that, for a mean recurrence interval of 10
- years, the governing wind hazard would be a 103 mph straight wind.
From this data, it appears
- that, on any reagonable design
- basjs, (such as a hazard probability of 10
/yr, rather than 10
/year) tornado loadings for the Ginna plant need not be considered.
As noted in the cover letter, RG&E has not had time to perform a detailed review of this assessment.
We will, however, evaluate the available data and to the IDR report methodology, and determine a reasonable design basis wind load.
This information will be transmitted to the NRC as it becomes available.
Further correspondence should provide a final. agreeable basis for evaluating the Ginna plant relative to wind loadings.