ML18017B980
| ML18017B980 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1982 |
| From: | Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Jackie Jones CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8208040085 | |
| Download: ML18017B980 (7) | |
Text
~-
JUL 14 198E Docket Nos.:
50-400 and 50-401 Mr. J.
A. Jones Vice Chairman Carolina Power 8 Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Dear Mr. Jones; Distribution:
Document Control (50-400/401)
NRC PDR L PDR PRC NSIC LB¹3 Rdg.
FMirag 1 i a JLee ELicitra DEisenhut/RPurple CBarth
'81E ACRS (16)
Subject:
Request for Additional Information - Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1
& 2 The Hydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Branch has identified questions that must be addressed prior to completion of its review of your operating license appl'ications.
The specific questions are listed in the Enclosure to this letter.
Your response to these questions should be in the form of an amend-ment to your FSAR.
You are requested to provide your response by September 15, 1982. If you.cannot meet that date, please advise
's what date you can meet.
If you have any questions, contact E. Licitra, (301/492-7200).
Sincerely, gigQ84 Bg~
Enclosure:
As stated Frank J. Miraglia, Chief Licensing Branch No.
3 Division of Licensing cc w/enclosure:
See next page BaOSa400 000400 85 820713
'pR
- pocK A
OFFICEI SURNAME) 0ATE f>
DL 0
~
S:CZ 07J Jji82 LB¹
..FMJl.a
..a....
07/
82 NRC FORM 318 RO/80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY A USGPO: 198~29.824
Ih
~ <<
~ <<
SHEARON HARRIS Mr. J. A. Jones Vice Chairman Carolina Power 8 Light Company Post Office Box 1551
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
- Shaw, Pittman, Potts Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N. M.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Richard E. Jones, Esq.
Associate General Counsel Carolina Power 5 Light Company 411 Fayetteville Street Mall
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Thomas S. Erwin, Esq.
115 M. Morgan Street
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 M. David Gordon Attorney Associate General State of North Carolina P. 0.
Box 629
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 George Maxwell Resident Inspector/Harris NPS c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Route 1, Box 315B New Hill, North Carolina 27562 Charles D. Barham, Jr.
Vice President and Senior Counsel Carolina Power 5 Light Company Post Office Box 1551
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 John Runkle, Executive Coordinator Conservation Council of North Carolina 307 Granville Rd.
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Wells 'Eddleman 718-A Iredell Street Durham, North Carolina 27705 George Jackson, Secretary Environmental Law Project School of Law, 064-A University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Dr. Phyllis Lotchin 108 Bridle Run Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Mr. Travis Payne, Esq.
723 M. Johnson'treet P. 0.
Box 12643 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Daniel F. Read, President CHANGE P. 0.
Box 524 Chapel Hill, N.C.
27514 Daniel F.
Read 100-B Stinson St.
Chapel Hill, N.C.
27514 Patricia T. Newman, Co-Coordinator Slater E. Newman,';Co-Coordinator Citizens Against Nuclear Power 2309 Meymouth Ct.'<
- Raleigh, N.C.
27612 Richard D. Wilson, M.D.
725 Hunter St.
Apex, N.C.
27502
Enclosure Hydrologic Engineering Safety guestions Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Units 1
5 2 Docket Ho. 50-400/401 240. 4 2.4.1.2 240. 5 2.4.1.2 240. 6 2.4.2.2 240. 7 2.4.2.3 The Construction Permit review was performed under the assumption that the water inventory would be augmented by pumping from the Cape Fear River.
Although the FSAR still discusses Cape Fear River pumping, it is our understanding that this pumping is no longer planned.
Please confirm this change in water sources and make the necessary documentation changes to the FSAR.
Also confirm as to whether the Cape Fear River pumping system will be constructed and maintained in a back-up mode.
If not describe the potential effects on safety-related water supply.
The CPKL Brunswick Plant should be included in Table 2.4.1-5 (Downstream Industrial l<ater withdrawals) along with corresponding values of location, drainage
- area, withdrawal and discharge.
Provide the design
- bases, including references, for the riprap slope protection on the downstream face of'the main dam.
In your discussion of the effects of local intense precipitation, the potential for ponding of water on the roofs of safety related buildings is not addressed.
Describe the roofs of safety related buildings including the heights of curbs or parapets surrounding the roofs and the dimension and locations of scuppers. or other openings in the parapet walls that will limit the maximum depth of ponding during a local intense PMP event.
Assuming that regular roof drains are plugged, determine the maximum depth of water that could pond on the roofs of safety related structures during a
PMP event.
Also state the resulting roof loads and whether the roofs 'are designed to accept these loads.
240. 8 2.4.3.1:
240. 9 2.4.3.6 240.10 2.4.8 Explain why the time distribution for the PMP's in Tables 2.4.2-5 and 2.4.3-2 are different.
Reference Ho. 2.4.3-10 (and 2.4.5-3),
Engineer Technical Letter Ho.
110-2-8 is outdated.
It has been superseded by the following reference:
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Technical Letter Ho. 110-2-221, November 29, 1976.
Reevaluate your wave runup analyses using the current reference.
In your response, please note any significant changes in wave runup values and whether or not there will be any effect on safety related structures.
Discuss the inspection program that will be established for safety-related water control structures such as dams, canals,
- intakes, and etc.
List the structures to be inspected, what is to be looked at, the frequency of inspection, and to what extent the guidance provided in Regulatory Guide 1.127 will be followed.
Also describe the inspection program, if any, required by the State of North Carolina on the two dams on site.
240.11 2.4.8 240. 12 2'.11 240.13 2.4.11.2 240.14
- 2. 4.11. 7 240.15
('.4.12 240.16 2.4.13.3 It is our understanding that plant site drainage, along with overland runoff, flows into the intake and discharge canals of the essential service water system (ESl/S).
Sediment could therefore build up in the canals and auxiliary reservoir during operation, especially if any heavy construction is still in progress.
Describe your program, if any, for monitoring sediment buildup in the ESMS canals and the auxiliary reservoir.
You have not demonstrated that the reservoir is adequate for two unit operation without Cape Fear River makeup.
Provide analyses similar to those presented in Tables 2.4. 11-4 to 2.4. 11-9.
If the reservoir is not adequate describe the action to be taken.
Also, in addition to the other three selected
- droughts, the worst drought period for Buckhorn Creek, February 1951 through January 1952, should be analyzed for two unit operation.
In Amendment 2 of the FSAR, the 100-year return period Buckhorn Creek low flows were increased over what was presented in the original FSAR.
Please explain the basis for this change.
Mill Tables 2.4.11-14 and 2.4.11-15 (Hain and Auxiliary Reservoir Operation) be revised as a result of your decision to ask only for a license to operate two units?
If not, provide a discussion that confirms that the analyses summarized in the tables are conservative.
In Table 2.4.11-15, are values for rainfall, pumped make-up, and Buckhorn Creek inflow assumed
.to be zero over the four-month period'?
In the top line on page 2.4.11-8, should the table referred to be Table 2.4.11-14, rather than 2.4.11-4?
Your analysis of a failure of the radwaste storage tanks does not appear conservative in that you are assuming complete mixing with the volume of water in the reservoir at the time of the release.
Furthermore, your analysis does'ot state tank volume released or provide a dilution factor or reduction in concentration at the nearest point of surface water use.
Please provide these details.
In your analysis of the groundwater pathways for an accidental tank failure, you assumed an aquifer porosity of 30 percent.
Provide the basis for this assumption.
Furthermore, if this is total porosity, then provide values for effective porosity.
It is the later parameter that should be used in calculating ground-water travel time.
Also, your analysis is incomplete in that you have not provided dilution factors or reductions in concentrations at the potential points of water use.
Please provide the details of such an analysis, including the bases for assumed coefficients such as bulk density and dispersion, dispersivity and distribution coefficients.
240.17 2.4.13. 4 240.18 2.4 Identify which piezometers and wells will be retained during plant operation for monitoring purposes.
Also, please describe the operational monitoring data that will be obtained, the methods and frequency of measurement, the methods for processing and analyzing the data, and unassociated reporting and quality assurance procedures.
General Comment:
Since the completion of Unit 2 will take place after Unit 1 is in operation, provide a discussion of all hydrologic engineering safety-related aspects of constructing Unit 2 while Unit 1 is in operation.
For example, what effects will having an open excavation at Unit 2 have on groundwater levels and drainage at Unit 1?
~ Ig Ir, h