ML19207B797
| ML19207B797 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | New Haven |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1979 |
| From: | Parr O Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Kintigh A NEW YORK STATE ELECTRIC & GAS CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909050287 | |
| Download: ML19207B797 (6) | |
Text
.,,
$by ge "rcg
),
UNITf D STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5. % /,ld' i Wl '
i w AssiNotoN. o, c. 20sss
,'h,!
N Docket Nos. STN 50-596 JUN 2 21979 and STN 50-597
'tr Allen E. Kintigh Vice President - Generation New York State Electric & Gas Corporation 4500 Vestal Parkway East Bingnamton, New York 13902
Dear Mr. Kintigh:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING NEW HAVE?, 1 & 2 As a result of our review of the New Haven 1 & 2 Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR), we find that we need additional information to continue our evaluation. The specific information requested in the Enclosure concerns the area of hydrology.
Of the major hydrology deficiencies identified during the Acceptance Review, those related to site drainage and ultimate heat sink performance have not been adequately addressed in your PSAR.
Af ter you have had an opportunity to review the information requested in the Enclosure, we would like to meet with you to discuss and resolve the continuing difficulties in this area of review.
Appropriate staff and management representatives should be present to allow resolution of the issues.
Please contact us so that we may arrange the meeting.
Sincerely, O an Parr, Chief Light Water Reactors Br3nch ';o. 3 Division of Project Management
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
See next page
,. 3 s : 1^
7909050zsy an-m
Mr. Allen E. Lintign JUN 1979 cc: Roderick Schutt, Esq.
Oswego Co mrty f a rc J;reau Huber, Magill, Lawrence & Farrell c/ o Ps. f.ancy i..
< e;. c r 99 Park Avenue RD 3 New York, New York 100 16 Me x i co, New York 133 14 Andrew W. Wof f ord, Vi ce Pres ider.t Pa ul
.'o n i n s k 1, Ph.D.
Long Island Lighting Company Vice President 175 Old Country Road Me xi co /c ade",, and Hicksville, New York 11801 Central Schco!
Mexico, New York 13114 Edward M. Barrett, Esq.
General Counsel "r. P e t e r D. G. C r o,e Long Island L19hting Company Chairm:n of the Pcard 250 Old Country Road Mi d-Hud son % clear Opponents, Inc.
Mineola, New York 11501 P. C. Fox 660 New Paltz, New York 12561 E. J. Wa l sh, Jr., Esq.
General At torney Robert J. Kafin, Esqui re Long Isla,d Lighting Company Mi l ler, Manni x, Lemery 3 Kafin, P.C.
250 Old Country Road P. O. Box 765 Mineola, New York 11501 11 Chester Street Glens Falls, New York 12801 Ms. Anne F. Curtin R. D. 1 Willict Kepping, Supervisor Box 82A40 Town of Gardiner Valatie, New York 12184 Garciner, New York 12525 Stanley B. Klimberg, Esquire Er. Stephen J. Egemeier Acting Counsel Chairman New York State Energy Office 2 Rockefelier Plaza Environmental Faragement Council 300 Flatbush Avenue Albany, New York 12223 Kingston, New Yorx 12401 Ecology Action c/o Ms. Helen Daly W. Ri ver Rd. RD 45 Oswego, New York 13126 Sa f e Energy f or TM w Ha ven c/o Ms. Linda Clark Box # 122 RD al Mexico, New York 13114 J.r r L..k.f e
=
h
ENCLOSURE 371.29 In response to question 371.4 you have incorporated a (2.4.1.2) copy of the Current '/elocity and Strean Flow subsections of section 2.4.1.2 of tre Environmental Report into the PSAR. We found those secticns to be inacequate in cur environmental review and concluce tney are not an acequate response to question 371.4.
5 ecifically, provide general hydrolegic descriptions of the rearby s'.re?.ms.
Uiscuss drainage areas, gradients, streamficw characteristics (average and extreme) and velocities.
The discussions containec in section 2.4.1.2.7 are of limitec use in cescribing the hydrologic characteristics of the streams.
In ; articular, an average streamficw (cr velocity), obtainec at various times from several locations witn cifterent crainage areas anc on secarate tributaries, has little hydeclcgic meaning for use in this cocument. Note also, tnat the revisicr.3 to the ER contained in Amencment 2, wnile eliminating tne averages aiscussea above, do not provice the descri:ticns called for in Regulatory Guide 1.70.17 and aculc, therefore, not constitute an adequate resacnse to this questicn.
J71.30 Your response to question 371.7 is incceplete. Provice the (2.4.2.3)
. following information:
'v,e$u.s.$~ A p[)
Id e
m
371-2 a) A topographic map of the site and vicinity as it will exist after constructicn, with tne sub-basins used in your site drainage analysis clearly shown, b) The folicwing information for eacn sub-basin:
i) drainage area-ii) Time of concentration; and iii) Calculated peak discharge c) Water depths and elevations at critical site locations.
Cross sections of the site with tne maximum. vater levels indicated snould be provided.
371.31 Your res;onse to question 371.13 is unacceptacle.
The reliability (2.4.5) of the intake systems has a direct impact on tne utilizatien of safety systems. Provide the requestec informaticn cn the design flood level at the pum;nouse.
371.J2 Your respense to questicn 371.19 is unacceptacle. See 371.31, (2.4.7) acove. Provide the requested informaticn en the patential of ice bicckage of the intake or discharge.
371.33 Your response to question 371.20 is unacceptable. See 371.31 (2.4.11) above. Provide tne requested information on tne design low water levels of the intake and ciscnarge systems.
3/1.44 Your res;cnse to question 371.22 is unsatisfact;ry.
Provice (2.4.12) the callec for evaluaticn of an accicent failure of an cutsice tank that could result in contaminated liquid being released directly to one of the nearby streams.
If outsice tanks are protected by imcermeable seismic Category I dikes, so state and icentify the design bases.
Discuss how builduo of rainwater is crevented er how is it disposed.
c, i + 6 iO a..--
371 -3 371.35 You state (page 2.4-25) that "The fractures in tne (2.4.13.3) weathered zone at the tcp of bedrcck are distributea so as to reasone.bly approximate the conditions of homogeneity necesu.ry fce- *ht e.alculation of cispersien."
Provide the bases for this statement.
You state (page 2.5-42) that tha site area primary joint sets trend N4:W and N7CE. The NE trending joints are about normal to tne crevaient groundwater contours shown in rigure 2.5-45, while the NW trending joints are about normal to the gecund water :.ontours east of the reactor buildings.
3emcnstrate tnat the joint system does not control grouncwater tlca with resultir.g shorter trasel times than you calculatec.
Cemenstrate that ycur analysis of transverse and longitudinal dispersion is canservative, consicering ne characteristics of the joint system rather than a homogenecus aquifer.
?rovide the bases for full cre:i for sorption witnin the acuifer wnen the flow is actentially limit to tne joints.
371.36 Justify your selecticn of a ccetficient of permeaoility of 2x10' cm/sec, rather than the caximum estimated vaiue Of
-2 10 cm/sec. 371.37 Your response to question 371.25 is unsatistactory, provice (2.4.13.3) justification for the distributicn coefficient y ase; in your analysis of the grouncwater dispersicn af Cesium.
Since the value of K is dependent upon the precert:es of tne d
groundwater and the aquifer, in accition to those of tne en, values obtained for different rock ty::es at the Nevada Test Site cannot be directly used unless further cencnstration of their aoplicabi'ity to your site is ::rovicea.
.4
.......s>
371-4 371.33 Your response to question 371.23 is not satisfactcry.
(9.2.5)
You must provide analysis to sucstantiate that the cooling towers will meet the criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.27, rather than merely asserting that they will.
Your analysis should be based on data shown to be acplicable to towers you propose to use. 0.egulatcry Guice 1.27 specifically states that the analysis related to the 2C-cay cooling sucaly and the excess temcerature shoulo include sufficient information to substantiate the assumptions ano analytical methcas used.
This information should include actual performance cata for similar towers cperating under thermal loacs and metecrolegical conditions near the specified design conditions, or justification should be provided that conservative drift loss and heat transfer values have been used.
If your cooling tcwer design and specifications have not crogressed to tce stage where a Oredictive model can be developed and verifisc by hign-quality performance data frca existing to,ers of similar size and type, then ccmait to furnisn the recuirec analysis and data to NRC, for review anc acproval, pricr to constructicn of the cooling towers.
371.33 Uo tne cooling tower basins crovide a ccamcn alter sucaly for
, a..,. 0 )
(
c their four associated cooling tcwer cells? Table 9.2-5 imolies that each basin is separated into at least too ccmoartments, one for each reactor unit. Please clarify.
In acditicn, your analysis of the sufficiency of tne basins' water suo:ly implies transfer of water frca ne assumed incoerable to the operable basin. Discuss hcw this 4cuid be acccnolisnec.
p
~ %j' b r.s..* d-
_