ML17309A233

Forwards Final Evaluation of SEP Topic III-3.A Re Effects of High Water Level on Structures.Orginal Design Basis Groundwater Level Used in Design of Diesel Generator Bldg Should Be Clarified

ML17309A233
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	03/03/1982
From:	Crutchfield D, Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Maier J ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP.
References
TASK-02-03.A, TASK-02-03.B, TASK-02-04.E, TASK-03-01, TASK-03-03.A, TASK-03-03.C, TASK-2-3.A, TASK-2-3.B, TASK-2-4.E, TASK-3-1, TASK-3-3.A, TASK-3-3.C, TASK-RR NUDOCS 8203050343
Download: ML17309A233 (14)

Text

tPg RECIig c,",

na O~

+a*++

Docket No. 50-244 LS05-82-03 018 I

UNITED STATES.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 March 03, 1982 Mr. John E. Maier, Vice President Electric and Steam Production Rochester Gas

& Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York '4649

SUBJECT:

SEP TOPIC III-3.A, EFFECTS OF HIGH WATER LEVEL ON STRUCTURES - R.

E.

GINNA Enclosed is a;copy of our final evaluation on SEP Topic III-3.A.'his'evaluation compares your facility, as described in Docket No. 50-244 and subsequent submittals with criteria used in licensin'g new facilities.

The evaluation is dependent on the results of SEP Topic II-3.B, "Flooding Potential and Protection Requirements."

This evaluation will be a basic input to the integrated safety assessment for your facility.

This topic assessment may be changed in the future'f your facility design is changed, if NRC criteria relating to this topic are modified before the integrated assessment is completed, or if items from SEP Topic II-3.B are found to be different from that assumed here.

Sincerely, Enclosure; As stated Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No, 5

Division of Licensing cc w/enclosure; See next page o<'

gg $

~@6'

(,g

Mr. John E. Maier CC Harry H. Yoigt, Esquire

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and MacRae" 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N. W.

Suite 1100 Washington, D. C.

20036 Mr. Michael Slade 12 Trailwood Circle Rochester, New York 14618 Ezra Bialik Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau New York State Department of Law

.2 World Trade Center New York, New York 10047 Resident Inspector R. E. Ginna Plant c/o U. S.

NRC 1503 Lake Road

Ontario, New York 14519 Director, Bureau of Nuclear Operations State of New York 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 Or.

Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555:

Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

~ Washington, D. C.

20555 U. S. Environmental. Protection Agency Region II Office'-

ATTN:

Regional Radiation gepresentative 26 Federal Pl.gza New York,. New York 10007

'erbert Grossman, Esq.,

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

20555 Ronald C. Haynes, Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory 'Commission, Region I Office of Inspection and Enforcement 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406

'GINNA STATION SEP TOPIC III-3-A EFFECTS OF HIGH MATER LEVEL ON STRUCTURES X.gp I.

Introduction The original design basis high water. level including dynamic effects for nuclear power plants. is reviewed in SEP topic'I='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.wil'1 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

) 4

+

=

~

Standard Review Plan 3.4 defines analysis procedures for flood loadings and Regulatory Guide 1.102 defines'cceptable flood protection.

III.

Related To ics and Interfaces 1-Flood water levels and protection requirements are reviewed i.n SEP Topics II-3.A, B.

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

e 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.

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

was conducted by searching the docket files and the responses received from the licensee and then comparing the design criteria with current criteria as stated in the Standard Review Plan and in the

'I 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. 'hould'hat evaluation change, this Draft SER on Topic III-3.A may have to be modified accordingly.

Evaluation

l..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 inc1uded in

.the Draft Safety Eva1uation for SEP Topics II-3.A, B, and C.

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,

0 3

~

and the plant structures were, ther~fore~ pot.designed for the dynamic

'I effects of'he flooding.

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

This flood level was basically caused by Lake Ontario water.

No other source of water was considered to produce <ater higher than this

~ ~

design level (253.3 feet).

..c,. Evaluation The Draft SER on Topics II-3.A, 8, C indicates that the probable 1

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 fe t on the southside; The licensee.stated that fhe seismic Category I structures, systems and equipments were not designed for flooding (the licensee only postulated flood due 'to Lake Ontario and not to Deer Creek) and that this amount of flooding would be unacceptable from a systems viewpoint.

Because flooding of systems is limiting and because additional information concerning the flooding from Deer Creek is currently being reviewed, no structural analyses to assess the structural adequacy of the walls has been performed or need be performed at this time.

2.

Effect of Groundwater on Structures a.

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

In that'valuation, the recommended level for the highest groundwater-is at ground. elevation.

. The acceptable analysis procedure for evaluating the effect of groundwater...':is included in the SRP ~.4 2 5~

l b.

Ginna Station Normal water loads from the highest still groundwater were considered

~

~

~

in the design of the structures.

Groundwater level assumed for the design of plant structures was 250.0 msl.

-The 1'icensee has stated that of the safety class I structures, only the containment, auxiliary building and screenhouse are supported below a groundwater table elevation of 250. 0 feet.

In the, design of the screenhouse, the I

groundwater loads were considered in the design by assuming complete I

internal dewatering of the facility and a groundwater elevation of

'53.5 (grade) to determine lateral and uplift forces.

(Ref:

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

The containment design provided for no

'ackfill against the wall thus elimina ing the external lateral loads.

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

It is not clear what the original design basis groundwater level was used in the design of the diesel generator building.

c.

Evaluation Groundwater level is b'eing reviewed to consider additional information submitted by the licensee.

Ground wate'r level at gr'ade would increase he groundwater Toads for all structures except the screenhouse.

For most structures, this. would increase the groundwater level above the Ginna design groundwater level by approximately 20 feet.

'External

~ >

loads were not considered in the design of the containment because of an external ring wall around'he containment.

The ring wall is not Ai

~

~

~

~'5-

..designed to.be impervious; however,seepage through the soil and concrete ring wall would be extremely slpw.

The licensee has stated 0

that personnel are in the area on an irregular basis and there has never been an indication of subsgantial water accumulation in the annular space.

In order.. for the water level to rise to a level. which may affect the containment structure, substantial amounts of, water would be required since the annular space opens into a large volume area or.

one side of the containment.

Since seepage is slow, it is believed that

~ ~

any large water accumulation would be noted and corrected before I

it could reach.

a high level in the annular space.

Calculations per-formed by the 1 icensee regarding hydrostatic water pressure on the

'ontainment have not been relied upon.

Should the groundwater level be higher than elevation 250 msl, as a

result o

SEP Topic II-3. 8, the effect of this higher level needs to be eval ated for all safeiy rela.ed structures.

Calculations performed by the staff for the below grade walls of the diesel generator building and control room -"or an undrained soil condition with groundwater at grade show these walls to be structurally adequate.

No calculations..

were performed on below grade.slabs in these buildings because of a lack 0

of structural information.

Sufficient information on other below grade

.walls and slabs, including the ring wall around the containment was not available upon which to perform similar calculations.

~

4

~

~

' VI.

Concl us ions Presently, there is no need to evaluate the effects on structures of Oeer Creek flooding since the flood is unacceptable fot systems reasons'and the flood level is being reviewed.

~

~

The effect of groundwater on all safety-related structures, except the walls of the control room and diesel generator building, needs to be evaluated by the licensee should SEP Topic II-3.8 conclude that groundwater level is greater than 250 msl.'he original design basis groundwater level used in the design of the diesel generator building should be clarified.

~h hfey

+4 PO C1 UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSiON WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 DEC 8 1 1980 Docket No. 50-244

'S05-80-12-068 Mr. John E. Maier Vice President Electric and Steam Production Rochester Gas and E1ectric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649

SUBJECT:

R.

E ~ GINNA - SEP TOPIC III-3.B, STRUCTURAL AND OTHER CONSEQUENCES (E.G.

FLOODING OF SAFETY REL'ATED EQUIPMENT IN f3ASEKNTS)

OF FAILURE OF UNDERDRAIN SYSTEMS This letter is to advise you that Topic III-3.B, "Structural and Other Consequences (e.'g. Flooding of Safety Related Equipment in Basements) of Failure of Underdrain Systems" has been deleted from the Systematic Evaluation

'rogram (SEP) review of your facility.

The topic is not applicable to your site because your site does.not.have a system whose function is to lower the groundwater table.

Please review and provide your coments within 30 days of the date you receive this, letter. If no response is received within that time, we will assume that you have no comIents or corrections.

Sincerely, cc:

See next page Dennis M. Crutchfield, C

ef Operating Reactors Branch 85 Division of Licensing

r

~

e

~

~

~ p

'Ir. John E. Naier.

R. E.

GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NO, 50-244 cc

. Harry H. Voigt, Esquire L'eBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and MacRae 1333 New Haapshire Avenue, N.

M.

Suite 1.100 Washington, D. C.

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

, P. 0.

Box 5236 River Campus

.', St at ion

. Rochester, New York 14627 Jeffrey Cohen New York State Energy Office

~

Swan'Street Bui 1 di ng "ore 1, Second Floor pire State Plaza

-.. <lbany, New York 12223 Director, Technical Development Programs State of New'York Energy Office Agency Building 2 Eoq ire State Plaza Alba', New York 12223 Rochester Public Library

'15 South Avenue Rochester, New York 14604 Supervisor of the Town of Ontari o 1.07 Ridge Road Mest

Ontario, New York 14519 Resident Inspector R'. E. Ginna Plant

.c/o U. S.

NRC 1503 Lake Road

Ontario, New York 14519

'irector, Technical Assessment Division Office of Radiation Programs (AW>>459)

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Crystal Mall 82

'rlington, Virginia 20460

'. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

'egion II Office

'TTN:

EIS COORDINATOR 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007

" Herbert Grossman, Esq-, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

~ U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, D. C.

20555 Dre Richard F. Cole

'Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U, S. Nuclear Regulatory Coamission

. Washington, D. C.

20555

\\

Dr.

Emmeth A. L'uebke Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, D. C.

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

,1725 I Street, N. M.

Suite 600

~',Washington,.0.

C-20006 Ezra I. Bialik

,Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection, Bureau

.New..York State Department of Law 2 World Trade Center New. York, New York 10047

~S IlEOy P

~4 0

Cy n

0

+~

~O

+>>*<<"

UNITf0 STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 May 27, 1982

~ ~

Docket No. 50-244 I.SO5-82-05-064 Mr. John E. Maier

'ice President Electric and Steam Production Rochester Gas 8 Electric Corp.

89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649

SUBJECT:

'EP TOPIC III-3.C, INSERVICE INSPECTION (ISI) OF MATER CONTROL'STRUCTURES - GINNA

'This letter is to inform you that the draft Safety Evaluation Report for SEP Topic III-3.C, "Inservice Inspection of Mater Control Struc-tures,"

forwarded by our letter dated. February. 22, 1982, is consider-ed final.

The conclusions are unchanged as you have not provided adequate basis in your letter dated April 5, 1982, to eliminate De'er'reek as.a water control structure.

The issu~f Deer Creek as a

water control structure is an identified difference which will'be evaluated in the integrated assessment.

Sincerely,'

W Dennis M. Crutchfield, ef Operating Reactors Branch No.

5 Division of Licensing CC:

'ee.next page