ML19221A954
| ML19221A954 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-75-087, NUREG-75-087-02.4.1, NUREG-75-87, NUREG-75-87-2.4.1, SRP-02.04.01, SRP-2.04.01, NUDOCS 7907120043 | |
| Download: ML19221A954 (5) | |
Text
o NUREG-75/087 j'pa arc
-, 'o, O'~
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
W<%&.(4 !
STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
- s OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
- s..+
SECTION 2.4.1 HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary Hydrology-Meteorology Branch (HMB)
Secondary - None I.
AREAS OF REVIEW The areas of review under this SRP section are:
l 1.
Identification of the interface of the plant with the hydrosphere.
2.
Identification of hydrologic causal mechanisms that may require special plant design bases or operating limitations with regard to floods and water supply requirements.
3.
Identification of surface and groundeter uses that may be af f ected by plant operation.
The review of Section 2.4.1.1 (Site and Facilities) of safety analysis reports (SART censists of compa,fng the independently verified or derived hydrologic design bases (see subsequent sections of 2.4) with the critical elevations of safety-related structures and facilities. The review of SAR Section 2.4.1.2 (Hydrosphere) requires identification of the hydrologic characteristics of '.,treams, lakes (e.g., location, size, shape, d*ainage area, etc. ), shore regions, the regional and local groundwater environments, and existing or proposed water control structures (upstream and downstream) influencing the type of flooding mechanisms which may adversely effect safety aspects of plant siting and operation.
II.
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The description and elevations of safety-related structures facilities, and accesses thereto should be suf ficiently complete to allow evaluatior of the in. pact, e flood design bases. Site topographic maps must be of good quality and of sufficient scale to allow independent analysis of pre-and post construction drainage patterns. All external plant structures and components should be identified on site maps. Data on surface water users, location with respect to the site, type of use, and quantity of surface water used are required.
USNRC STANDARD REVIEW PLAN s,.-4.n,
,ao..,..,
es. e.s4.ac..e,*. ome.., = oci, n c a.p.,..w
..w.... w. -...:.,,4 c.e.
iro,..g.
....ci
,.,,i.. rw..
u.w... c,.,o eiic..,.,,..w. comm..
. pone, i. ine,m en. noci..
wD oe in. (Oi
-.i
.,es 6, ice.
- c.. n c
.,,,,.c
.. c4 s,.o o,a e.,.
i.e.,,
woca.,e
,ri.
. m e Th.
.ac.,ac.v*
,t.a etae...
cei.
. en. s, p.
., n.
..v. n
-..a 2, e*. si.no.,e
..., in. c m.rm.i.adcoa,.at es.v.evAa.ip n $
- o..
m 4.
.,. m.v.4 robate,h.d.t.nd.,e 4ew ps.a..IN b.,ev6..d pe,t.e c.ny.
.pp o
,t.t.. t..c4.mm.d.t. c
-am.nt. sad to r.fl.ct n.. Inf.,m.te.n.nd..p.,1.nce c
.. n. e.,
..m 6. coa
...a.
.a.m 6.
.. tw. u s soci, n.,s.
,, comm.ao. om..., moci, n ceo, A.go et.a. W hington. D C. 20M4.
2.4.1-1 Rev. 1 79071200 6
The information presented in SAR Section 2.4.1.2 forms the basis for subsequent hydrologic engineering analysis. Therefore, completeness and clari'.y are of paramount importance.
Maps must be legible and adequate in coverage to substantiate applicable data.
Inventories of surface water users must be consistent with regional hydrologic inventories reported by applicable state and federal agencies. The description of the hydrologic characteristics of streams, lakes, and shore regions must correspond to those of the United States Geologic Survey (USGS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Soil Conservation Service (SCS), Corps of Engineers, or appropriate state ard river basin agencies. Descrip-tior.s of all exisoir.g or proposed rese:voir s and dams (both upstream and downstream) that could influerce conditions at the site must be provided. Descriptions may be obtained from repor+5 of the USGS, United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), Corps of Engineers, and other,.
Generally, reservoir descriptions of a quality similar to those contained in pertinent data sheets of a standard Corps of Engineers Pydrology Design Memorandum are adequate. Tabulations of drainage areas, types of structures, appurtenances, ownership, seismic and spillway design criteria, elevation storage relationships, and short-and long-term storaga allocations must be provided.
III. REVIEW PROCEDURE 3 The information presented in SAR Section 2.4.1.1 is generally amenable to independent verification through cross-checks with other SAR sections and chapters, available publica ;
" ions relating to hydrologic characteristics of the site region, and by site visits. The ev ww procedure consists of evaluating the completeness of the information and data by sequential comparison with information available from references. Based on the descrip-tion of the hvdrosphare (e.g., geographic location and regional hydrologic features) potential site flood mechanisms are identified. Subsequent SAR sections addressing the mechanisms are cross checked to assure that data and information required therein for review and substantiation are available.
An important f acet of the review procedure for this and other SRP sections in hydrologic areas is the site visit. Th site visit provides the principal technical reviewer with independent confirmation of hydrologic -haracteristics of the site and adjacent environs.
The site visit is discussed in Appendix A to this SRP section.
I i
IV.
EVALUATION FINDINGS For construction permit (CP) reviews, findings will consist of a brief general description of the site with respect to the general hydrosphere, and the off-site uses of surface water. For operating license (OL) reviews, findings will consist of the same material, updated as requir?d for new information available since preparation of the CP findings. A sample description for a CP review follows:
"The proposed site for the ABC Nuclear Plant is located about 26 miles SSE of Augusta, Maine, on the southwest bank of the DEF River at about river mile 152.
Plant grade will be at about elevatien 220 feet above mean sea level (MSL).
\\
Rev. 1 2.4.1-2
Significant hydrologically related plant features include the river intake structure, the natural draf t cooling towers, mechanical draf t nuclear service cooling towers (these are redundant towers and serve as the ultimate heat sink), and various ground-water wells."
V.
REFERENCES Because of the geographic diversity of olant sites and the large number of hydrologic references, no specific tabulation is given here.
In general, maps and charts by the
- USGS, 2A, Army Map Service (AMS), and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); water-
- suppl, ipers of the USGS; River Basin Reports of the Corps of Engineers; and other publica-tions of state, federal and other regulatory bodies, describing hydrologic characteristics and water utilization in the plant vicinity and regico, are referred to on an "as available" basis. Other SRP sections in the hydrology area (2.4.2 through 2.4.14) contain references l that are to be used in evali.ing the hydrologic description of the site.
1.
Appendix A, SRP section 2.4.1, " Hydrologic Engineering Site Visits," attached.
I 2.
Regulatory Guide 1.7U, " Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants."
L 2.4.1-3 Rev. 1
APPENDIX A STANDARD REVIEW PLAN SECTION 2.4.1 l
HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING SITE VISliS 1.
PURPOSES The purposes of hydrologic engineering site visits are as follows:
1.
Acquaint the reviewer with general site and regional hydrologic characteristics and topography.
2.
Confirm the applicant's general appraisal of the site / plant hydrologic interfaces.
3.
Review specific hydrologic er.gineering problem areas with the applicant, his engineers, dnd his consultants.
The site visit objectives witl have been achieved if, in addition to siewing pertinent hydrologic features, the reviewer has had the opportunity to discuss specific questions and concerns with the applicant's hydrologic engineers, and is assured that ti.e questions and concerns are understood. In addition, generally acceptable techniques and procedures necessary to respond to staff concerns should be discussed.
II.
PROCEDURES Questions or items of staff concern are to be developed by the Hydrologic Engineering Section reviewer and discussed in detail with the Section leader 7-14 days before the scheduled site visit. For any unscheduled site visit (which may be necessary to resolve issues or prepare for hearings), similar questions or items of staff concern should be prepared at least 3 days prior to such site visit and also discussed in detail with the Section Leader.
Areas of overlap or interfaces with reviewers in other areas (such as geology, foundation engineering, auxiliary and power conversion systems, mechanical engineering, ef fluent treatment systems and structu al engineering) should be coordinated before questions or f
items of staff concern are finalized.
The Section Leader will discuss any unusual or potentially controversial areas of concern with the Chief, HMB, prior to transmittal of the questions or items of staff concern to the Project Manager. Transmittal will be forwarded by memo route slip through the Section tcader.
Site visits are generally to consist of a detailed reconnaissance of site areas and environs with the applicant and technical counterparts, discussions of questions (or items of staff concern), discussions of acceptable methods of analysis, and a general surr,marization of the areas discussed and conclusions reached.
O q qs Ti1 Rev. 1 2.4.1-4
Normally, a small group composed of the staf f reviewer and licensing project manager (LPM) should meet with an applicant representative respnnsible for responding to staff questions nnd the applicant's technical advisor. For verbal summarization during the site visit, the recomcaerded method is to have the apolicant or his technical advisor summarize the discussions to assure understanding.
III. TRIP REPORT A trip report an a site visit should be prepared within 5 days of the reviewer's return.
The re. port is to be as brief as possible and should summarize the trip and the areas of discussion,r.d shoulu list the participants in technical aiscussions.
1iE
'/
IrJ
/
I 2.4.1-5 Rev. 1