ML17258A917

Forwards Draft Evaluation of SEP Topic III-3.A.Comments Requested within 30 Days of Receipt of Ltr

ML17258A917
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	03/24/1981
From:	Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Maier J ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP.
References
TASK-03-03.A, TASK-3-3.A, TASK-RR LSO5-81-056, LSO5-81-56, NUDOCS 8103310636
Download: ML17258A917 (10)

Text

Docket No. 50-244 LS05-.81-03-056 MAR 24

)98)

Hr. John E. Haier Vice President Electric and Steam Production Rochester Gas 8 Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649

Dear Hr. Haier:

SUBJEC:

TOPIC III-3.A, EFFECTS OF HIGH MATER LEVEL ON STRUCTURES (R. E. GINNA)

Enclosed is a copy of our draft evaluation of Systematic Evaluation Program Topic III-3.A.

You are requested to examine the facts upon which the staff has based its evaluation and respond either by confirming that the facts are correct, or by identifying errors and supplying the corrected information.

We encourage you to supply any other material that might affect the staff's evaluation of these topics or be significant in the integrated assessment of your facility.

Your response is requested within 30 days of receipt of this letter. If no response is received within that tiroe, we will assume that you have no corrments or corrections.

In future correspondence regarding Systematic Evaluation Program Topics, please refer to the topic numbers in your cover letter.

Sincerely, Dennis H. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No.

5 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/enclosure:

See next page SEPB:.DL OFFICE)

SURNAME(

-; ~ DATE)

.DPepsinko:

.3/Z/81 SEPB:DL:S

kRH, n

g//g/81 SEPB:DL:C WRussell

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

$/ +81

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

~ ~

naider 8//F/81

'DL;C eld g/P /81 arenas"""

2/g3/Sl-pp

~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~

~ ~ ~

~

~ ~ ~

~

gC~

. M&l8I/6/80I NRCM 8240 OF,F,ICIAL RECORD COPY w USGPO: 1980 329 824

E ct '

t I

'1

'I

'N k

>II ll > -

4

~ 4t -.gt)()(l

IICQQ

".;)) ';j!f o "'-., 'g!'Ill ~';-

IP +~~~hc Docket No. 50-244 LS05-81-03-056 i

U>JINNI 9STAtFS NUCLEAR REGULA'LORYCOMMISSION WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 Mr. J ohn E.

Ha ier Vice President Electric and Steam Production Rochester Gas 8 Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649

SUBJECT:

TOPIC III-3.A, EFFECTS OF HIGH HATER LEVEL ON STRUCTURES (R. E.

G INNA)

Enclosed is a copy of our draft evaluation of Systematic Evaluation Program Topic I II-3.A.

Y are requested to examine the facts upon which the staff has based its ou are r q evaluation and respond either by confirming that the facts are correct, or by identifying errors and supplying the corrected information.

'~!e encourage o

to supply arly other mate>ial that might affect the staff's evaluation of these topics or be significant in the integrated assessment of your faci i y.

'1't

~

Your response is requested within 30 days of receipt of =this letter.

If no response is received within that time, we will assume that you have no co~~vents or corrections.

In future correspondence regarding Systematic Evaluation Program Topics, please refer to the topic numbers in your cover letter.

S i nce rely,

Enclosure:

As stated Dennis H. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No.

5 Division of Licensing cc w/enclosure:

See next page

j/

...Ci. I.l+J

~

Nr. John E.

Maier R.

E.

GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-244 CC Harry H. Yoigt, Esquire

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and MacRae 1333 New Haopshire Avenue, N.

W.

Suite 1100 Washington, D.

C.

20036 Mr. Michael Slade 12 Trailwood Circle Rochester, New York 14618 Rochester Committee for Scientific Information Robert E. Lee, Ph.D.

P. 0. Box 5236 River Campus Station Rochester, New York 14627 Jeffrey Cohen New York State Energy Office Swan Street Building Core 1, Second Floor Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223 Director, Technical Development Programs State of f/ew Yorl Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223 Rochester Public Library 115 South Avenue Rochester, New York 14604 Supervisor of the Town of Ontario 107 Ridge Road 'West

Ontario, New York 14519 Resident Inspector R. E. Gi nna Plant

.c/o U. S.

NRC 1503 Lake Road

Ontario, New York 14519 Richard E. Schaffstall, Executive Director for SEP Owners Group 1747 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW Washington, D.C.

20006 Director, Technical Assessment Division Office of Radi ation Programs (AW-459)

U. S. Environnental Protection Agency Crystal Mall P2 Arlington, Virginia 20460 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II Office ATTN:

E I S COORDINATOR 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 Herbert Grossman, Esq.,

Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coomission Washington, D. C.

20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cormission Washington, D. C.

20555 Dr. Emneth A. Luebke Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Mr. Thomas B. Cochran Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

1725 I Street, N. H.

Suite 600 Hashington, D. C.

20006 Ezra I. Bialik Ass istant Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau New York State Department of Law 2 World Trade Center New York, New York 10047

GINNA STATION SEP TOPIC III-3.A EFFECTS OF HIGH WATER LEVEL ON STRUCTURES Introduction The original design basis high water level including dynamic effects for nuclear power plants is reviewed in SEP topic II-3.A, B.

Should the design basis level or dynamic effects increase from that assumed in the original design, the ability of plant structures to withstand this new loading is reviewed, The objective is to provide assurance that high water levels will not jeopardize the structural integrity of Seismic Category I structures and that seismic Category I systems and components located within these structures will be adequately protected.

II.

Review Critera Standard Review Plan 3.4 defines analysis procedures for floni loadings and Regulatory Guide 1 ~ 102 defines acceptable flood protection.

III.

Related To ics and Interfaces 1.

Flood water levels and protection requirements are reviewed in SEP Topics II-3.A, B.

2.

Inservice Inspection requirements for water control structures are reviewed in SEP Topic III-3.C.

3.

Dam Integrity is reviewed in SEP Topic II-4.E 4.

Classification of Structures which need be seismic Category I is reviewed in SEP Topic III-l.

IV.

Review Guidelines A review of the existing design basis (maximum flood level, highest ground water level...etc.)

was conducted by searching the docket files and the Il responses received from the licensee and then comparing the design criteria with current criteria as stated in the Standard Review Plan and in the Draft Safety Evaluation Report on Topics II-3.A, B, C sent to Rochester Gas and Electric on December 12, 1980.

This evaluation is contingent upon the acceptan'ce of the Draft SER on SEP Topics II-3.A, 8, C.

Should that evaluation change, this Draft SER on Topic III-3.A may have to be modified accordingly.

V.

Evaluation and Conclusions 1,

Effect of Probable Maximum Flood a.

Current Requirements The design basis for highest level of water during flood is 261.0 feet msl level on the northside of the plant.

This position is included in the Draft Safety Evaluation for SEP Topics II-3.A, 8, and C.

b.

Ginna Station Design The general plant grade is about 270 feet, with the exception of the area between Lake Ontario and the turbine building where the grade level is at elevation 253 feet.

Because the plant is protected from the lake by breakwater with a top elevation o

261 feet and because of the elevation of the general plant, flooding was not considered a problem,

'I and the plant structures were, therefore, not designed for the dynamic effects of the flooding.

Moreover, the licensee stated that the probable maximum flood considered originally in the design of Ginna was based on 250.0 feet and 1'ater (1973) revised to a level of 253.3 feet.

This f

flood level was basically caused by Lake Ontario water.

No other source of water was considered to produce water higher than this design level (253.3 feet).

c.

Evaluation Because the Draft SER on Topics II-3.A, B, C indicates that the probable maximum flood in Deer Creek could flood the site (253.3 feet msl level) to a depth of about 8.0 feet on the northside and about 4.0 feet on the southside, and because the licensee stated that the seismic Category I structures, systems and equipments were not designed for flood (the licensee only postulated flood due to Lake Ontario and not to Deer Creek), all Category I structures, systems P

and components should be reevaluated for this new higher level of flood.

In the evaluation, the dynamic effects of waves should also be considered.

2.-

Effect of Ground Hater on Structures a.

Current Requirements H

The design basis for the highest still ground water is stated in the Draft SER on SEP Topics II-3.A, B, and C.

In that evaluation, the recommended level for the h':ghest ground water is at ground elevation.

The acceptable analysis procedure for evaluating the effect of ground water is included in the SRP 3.4.2.

~

~

I

~

0 b.

Ginna Station Normal water loads from the highest still ground water were considered in the design of the structures.

Of the safety class I structures, only the containment, auxiliary building and screen house are supported below a ground water table elevation of 250.0 feet.

In the design of the screenhouse, the ground water loads were considered in the design by assuming complete internal dewatering of the facility and a groundwater elevation of 253.5 (grade) to determine lateral and uplif't forces.

(Ref:

RGE letter to NRC - 1/28/81).

The containment design provided for no backfill against the wall thus eliminating the external lateral loads.

The auxiliary building was designed for lateral and uplift forces based on a groundwater elevation of 250.0.

c.

Evaluation Concerning the containment and auxiliary buidling, the recommended groundwater elevation is at ground level which is above Ginna design water table by about 20 feet.

External lateral loads were not considered in the design of the containment because of an external ring wall around the containment; however, there is no provision to assure that groundwater loads will always be non-existent.

The ring wall is not designed to be impervious and there is no require-ment to maintain the water level between the ring wall and containment.

wall at a low level.

Therefore, an evaluation of the effects of groundwater on the Containment and Auxiliary Building should be performed.

The criteria used in the design of the screcnhouse, namely assuming groundwater level at grade and complete internal dewatering, conforms with the recommendation in the Topic II-3.A, 8, C review and is therefore acceptable.

v