ML17309A256

Summarizes Final Disposition of SEP Topics II-3.A,II-3.B, II-3.B.1 & II-3.C Re Hydrology.Final Safety Evaluation Being Prepared & Will Be Sent in Near Future.Topic Evaluations Are Considered Final

ML17309A256
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	04/26/1982
From:	Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Maier J ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP.
References
TASK-02-03.A, TASK-02-03.B, TASK-02-03.C, TASK-2-3.A, TASK-2-3.B, TASK-2-3.C, TASK-RR LSO5-82-04-078, LSO5-82-4-78, NUDOCS 8204280217
Download: ML17309A256 (10)

Text

April 26, 1982 Docket No. 50-244 LS05-82-04-078 Hr. John E. Haier, Vice President Electric and Steam Production Rochester Gas

& Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649 gyp

+5' ct~ 8p'yg8

SUBJECT:

GINNA NUCLEAR POMER PLANT - FINAL EVALUATION OF SEP HYDROLOGY TOPICS II-3.A, II-3.B, II-3.B.l, AND II-3.C Your letters (J. Ilaier to D. Crutchfield).dated Hay 1, 1981 and August 18, 1981, presented RG&E's comments and a site flooding analysis that address our draft safety evaluation report (dated April 10, 1981) on SEP Topics II-3.A, Hydrologic Description; II-3.B, Flooding Potential and 'Protection Requirement; II-3.B.1, Capability of Operating Plant to Cope with the Design Basis Flood; and II-3,C, Safety Related Mater Supply.

Me have completed our review of your position on these topics.

A final Safety Evaluation Report is presently bding prepared and will'e sent to you in the near future.

This letter sumarizes the final disposition of these topics.

Our position on these topics is presented below:

1.

To ic II-3.A, drolo ic Descri tion - There are no open items; the ro og c escript on or t e G nna Nuclear Power Plant is complete.

2.

To ic II-3.B, Floodin Potential and Protection Re uirement 2.1 Deer Creek Floodin

- Current NRC criteria requires that a plant e des gne to w thstand the effects of a Probable Maximum Flood PMF), derived, in part, from the Probable Maximum Precipitation PHP).

The Probable Maximum Precipitation over the Deer Creek drainage basin mould result In a probable maxImum flood runoff with a peak discharge of about 38,000 cfs.

The resulting peak stream elevation near the sIte vrould vary from 276.4 ft msl at '\\

the upstream end of the site to 265.5 ft msl near Lake Ontario.

The Ginna site 'has two critical grade levels.

The south side of the plant (closest to Deer Creek) has access openings at elevation 271.0 ft msl.

The north side of the plant (closest to Lake Ontario) has access openings at elevation 253.5 ft msl.

The estimated PHP level would be about 5.4 feet above the 271.0 ft msl entrance level and about 12.0 feet above the 253.5 ft.

msl'ntrance level.

Presently, there are no flood protection f D OFFICE/

SURNAME/

DATE Q OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGPO: 1961~960 NRC FORM 318 (IO-80) NRCM 0240

~e 'l I tt ~

If >>>>I

'f.C

tlr. Dohn E. Maier Because of the flooding potential from the PtlF, other investigations were performed to bettev understand the potential for the Ginna site to flood.

A standard project flood (SPF) was estimated for the Deer Creek Basin using standard project rainfall from the V.S.

Argy Corps of Engineers Standard Project Flood Determination Procedure, EM 1110-2-1411 as revised March, 1965.

The SPF peak discharge was estimated to be about 15.000 cfs, which is about 404 of the PtlF peak discharge.

Ilowever, even at this lower discharge, flooding of the Ginna site would still occur because the SPF flow is greater than the limiting capacity of'eer Creek (about 12,000 cfs).

The discharge capability of Deer Creek was also evaluated against maximum rainfall and resulting runoff that has occurred historically in the region.

Annual maximum flood peaks from eight gaged uncontrolled and unurbanized small watersheds in the Lake Ontario region weve normalized to a pev square mile basis.

The largest recorded normalized peak discharge (284 cfs/sq. mi) from the eight gaged watersheds was transposed to the 13.9 square mile Deer Creek Basin.

This resulted in a peak discharge of about 4000 cfs which is 1/3 of the capacity of Deer Creek to convey water without overflowing onto the Ginna Plant area.

These small gaged drainage basins with relatively short records do not yield consistent results when subjected to frequency analyses.

However, such analyses indicate recurrence intervals of several hundreds of years for these historic floods.

lte conclude that the return period for this flood on Deer Creek would be of the same order of magnitude.

For the reasons discussed above, 0t is concluded that the potential to flood the site and its safety related structures, systems and components at the Ginna plant is too great to meet SEP objectives.

We will require that physical features to protect equipment necessary for safe shutdown be provided.

The flood level to which protection should be provided will be established during the integrated assessment.

2. 2 Desi n Basis Ground Water Level - Current t/RC criteria require substantiation of normal maximum groundwater levels (well hydrogt aphs or other means) to establish hydrostatic loads to be used in con)unction with seismic and other loading conditions to evaluate structural capability of plant structures.

Adequate historical data has not been provided to substantiate groundwater levels of less than ground elevation.

Therefore ground elevation should be used as the basis for hydrostatic loads to be used with other,ic loads in structural evaluations.

OFFICE)

SURNAME/

DATE 51

~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 00 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 00 ~ 0 ~ ~

NRC FORM 318 u040) NRCM 0240 OFFlClAL RECORD COPY USGPO: 1981~~960

0 I

P f

't

0 Mro John E. Maier oo 300 2.3 ~fg

\\

-g,fl dfgg d

I I PIIPf 111 13\\

are evaluated under Topic III-T.B, Design Codes, Design Criteria Load Combinations and Reactor Cavity Design Criteria.

3.

To ic II-3.B.l Ca abilit of 0 eratin Plants to Co e with Desi n

Bas s

F oo in Con t ons -

resent y t ere are no plans establ shed to mst gate the consequences of site flooding.

As discussed in Topic II-3.B, we conclude that the licensee should take action to protect those systems ~essential for safe shutdown.

These systems are:

- Service Hater System

- Diesel Generator System

- Residual Heat Removal System

- Steam Generator Auxiliary Feed Systems (backup to RHR system) 4.

To ic II-3.C, Safet Related Hater Su 1

Ulttiiaate Heat 'Sink - The u t mate eat s n comp ex meets current regu atory cr ter a except for its ability to survive severe Deer Creek floods which could remove the service water pumps from operation.

The Deer Creek flooding problem will be resolved under Topic II-3.B.l.

The seismic capability of the ultimate heat sink structures and consequences was evaluated in Topic III-6, Seismic Design Considerations.

These topic evaluations are considered final and will be a basic input to the integrated assessment.

Sincerely, cc:

See next page Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No.

5 Division of Licensing

• See previous yellow for additional concurrences.

OR 'D:

>DL DC field GL snas Q482 4/g~/82 OFFICE/

SURNAME/

DATE$

SEPB:DLQ

-RFeTT';dR"""

4/4 I/82 4/21/82 4/21/82 HGEB:DE HGEB:DE

~Qge

~

oft

~oo+o ~ o ~ o ~

0 ~oopF f 0 ~ 0 ~t ~ 0 ~

T re

~

a ey sege HGEB;DE SEPB:D

~ 0 ~ ~t ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t ~ o ~ ~t ~ ~ e ~t 4/21/82

~ Ot ~ 0 ~ ~ O ~t ~t ~Ottt ~ O ~ ~ Ot ~

~ 0 ~ ~t ~t ~ Ottto ~Otttotto ~ O 4M82

~tototoo)ftotteo ~ oototot

~ 0 ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ 0 ~ o ~ o0%o ~ o ~ o ~ ~ 0 GLear

~ ~ ~ 0 ~ otooeooeoo

~ 0 ~ooet ~

iGrs mes SE B:

L OR%

PM

~ oooeemttooooteteteoooo teoett ~I

~

eoooeooooot

~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ooooettoo ~tttotottt

~ ~ ototoo ootoeootoooo 4/.~e/82 4/88 82

~oottotoogottttttttteet ttttttt+ltootootttoooto ~

NRG FORM 318 OO-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USQPO: 1981~080

lf El f

a E

I ~

I ~

~ /

, I

t1r, John E, Hafer 3 oo 2.3 Roof Drafna e - The adequacy of roof drainage and design basks oa s

ue to ocal PNP remafns an open item.

You have not yet responded to questions pertaining to these issues.

3.

To fc II-3.8.1 Ca abflit of 0 eratin Plants".:to Co e with Desi n

Bas s

ood n

Con t ons -

resent y t ere are-no p ans establ s ed to m t gate the consequences of site flooding.

As discussed in Topic II-3.0, we conclude that the licensee should take action to protect those systems essential for safe shutdown.

These systems are:

- Service Water System

. - Diesel Generator System

- Residual Heat Removal System

- Steam Generator Auxiliary Feed Systems

{backup to RHR system) 4, To fc II-3.C Safet Related Mater. Su 1

Ultimate Heat Sink

- The ultimate heat sink complex meets current regulatory cr teria except for fts ability to survive severe Deer Creek floods ichfch could remove the service water pumps from operation.

The Deer'reek flooding problem will be resolved 'under Topic II-3.B.l.

The seismic capability of the ultimate heat sink structures and consequences was evaluated in Topic III-6, Seismic'esign Consfderatfons'.

'hese topic'evaluations are considered final and will be a basic input to the integrated assessment.

1' Sincerely.

cc:

See next page Dennis H. Crutchffeld, Chfef Operating Reactors. Branch tlo.

5 Division of Licensing ORB¹5: BC AD:SA: DL DCrutchfield GLainas 4/

/82 4/

/82 OFFICES SURNAME/

DATE0 HGEB:DE GSta 1 ep (me 4/>I /82 HGEB:DE HF1ieael

~

s s ~ ~ s ~ ~

see ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~

~

4

/82

~ ~ ~ ~sftt ~

~ ~ o ~ o

~ o ~ ~

~ ~ ~

HGE GLear

~

~

~ s ~

s ~ ~ s ~ ~ s ~ ~ o ~ s ~ ~ ~

4/ ]/82 des ~

apses

~ s ~ s ~ o ~ s ~

SEPB:DL, RFel1 4/-

/82 SEPB,'l".........

CGrime

~

~ ~ ~ ~ oosssesle

~ oeeooooo 4/

/82

.KP.P.:.P.L.....,...

Il(gs.y.g1.1...,..

4/

/82

~PoLVeA ooe ~ s ~ esses 4/Pg/82

~ o ~ s ~ ~ esses

~ s ~ oooo ~ o ~ ~ o ~

1 NRG FORM 818 OO-80) NRCM 0240-OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGPO: 1981~960

'I F

I

/

It

• I

WtI l~

P I

rw~

a 0~

I I

lg I,

~

~

V

.ter. John E. Haier CC Harry H. Voigt; Esquire-

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and NacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.

M.

Suite 1100 Washington, D. C.

20036 Mr. Michael Slade 12 Trailwood Circle Rochester',

New York. 14618'--'- ":

'zra Bialik Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau'ew Yo'rk State Department of Law 2 Morld Trade Center New. York, New York 10047 U. S. Environmental Protection'Agency Region II Office-ATTN:

Regional Radiation Representa'tive 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York '0007 Herbert Grossman, Esq.,

Chairman Atomic Safety and Liceqsing Board

'U; S.- Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Ronald C. Haynes, Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 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 Supervisor of the Town of Ontario 107 Ridge Road West

.Ontario, New York 14519 Dr. 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 Mashington, D. C.

20555

~