ML19224A704
| ML19224A704 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | New Haven |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1979 |
| From: | Parr O Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Kintigh A NEW YORK STATE ELECTRIC & GAS CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905290066 | |
| Download: ML19224A704 (15) | |
Text
-e j
S, UNITED STATES 39
,,'4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y@ r\\
{ ' a"v,:}
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20S55 os.....
APR 2 71979 Docket Nos. STil 50-596 and STN 50-597 Mr. Allen E. Kintigh Vice President - Generation
?!ew York State Electric & Gas Corporation 4500 Vestal Parkway East Binghamton, New York 13902
Dear Mr. Kintigh:
SUBJECT-REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING NEW HAVEN 1 & 2 As a result of our review of the New Haven 1 & 2 Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, we find that we need additional information to continue our evaluation. The specific information requested in the Enclosure concerns the areas of containment systems, effluent treatment systems, radiological assessment, geology and seismology, geotechnical engineering, and operator training.
Our review schedule is based on the assumption that the additional information requested will be available for our review by July 13, 1979.
If you cannot meet this date,,.' ease inform us within seven days after receipt of this letter so that we may consider the need to revise our review schedule.
Please contact us if you desire any discussion or clarification of the nclosure.
Sincerely, afr ief Light Water Reactors Branch No. 3 Division of Project Management
Enclosure:
As Stated cc w/ enclosure:
See next page
,o 47 \\
b 7905290
/
4S2 05bR
Mr. Allen E. Kintigh
-2_
APR 2 71979 cc:
Roderic< Schutt, Esq.
Ecology Action Huber, Magill, Lawrence & Farrell c/o Ms. Helen Daly 99 Park Avenue W. River Rd. RD #5 New York, New York 10016 Oswego, New Ynrk 13176 Andrew W. Wofford, Vice President Safe Energy for New Haven Long Island Lighting Company c/o Ms. Linda Clark 175 Old Country Road Box #122 RD #1 Hicksville, New York 11801 Mexico, New York 13114 Edward M. Barrett, Esq.
Oswego County Farm Bureau General Counsel c/o Ms. Nancy K. Weber Long Island Lighting Company RD #3 250 Old Country Road Mexico, New York 13314 Mineola, New York 11501 Paul Voninski, Ph.D.
E. J. Walsh, Jr. Esq.
Vice President General Attorney Mexico Academy and Long Island ' ighting Company Central School 250 Old Court.ry Road Mexico, New York 13114 Mineola, Nea (ork 11501 Ms. Anne F. Curtin R.D. 1 Box 82A40 Valatie, New York 12184 Stanley B. Klimberg, Esquire Acting Counsel New York State Energy Office 2 Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223
022.0 CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS BRANCH 022.3 The New Haven 1 and 2 PSAR, Section 6.2.1. contains revisions
( 6. 2.1 )
to the subcompartment analysis presented in SWESSAR-P1 as it relates to 2
CESSAR. So that we may perform confirmatory analyses of the 100-in 2
hot leg limited displacement rupture (LDR) and the 350-in pump discharge LDR in the reactor cavity, provide the following additional information concerning the reactor cavity model:
For each internodal flow path, an L/A (ft-I) ratio, where L is the average distance the fluid flows in that flow path and A is the effective cross-sectional area.
Also, Figure 6.2-2 in the New Haven PSAR shows pressure differentials much greater than those shown in Figure 6.2-1, whereas it appears they should be the same. Also, it appears that Figure 6.2-2 should be labeled "LDR" instead nf " DER".
Resolve these apparent discrepancies.
452 024
321.0 EFFLUENT TREATMENT SYSTEMS BFA'iCH 321.5 Your response to Question 321,
- is not satisfa>: tory.
You were asked to perform an analysis of the radiological consequences of a pos-tulated component failure that could result in release of radioactive liquids to the site related potable water supply and nearby surface water.
Section 2.4.13.3 of the New Haven PSAR diseasses the grcund -
water pathway: howeve r, your response statea that the surface pathway was evaluated as part of th. "#ESSAR-P1 review.
Section 11.1 of the SWESSAR-P1 SER, (NURZG-0096, August 1976), states that this evaluation was left as an item that should be reviewed durir.g cur review of a construction permit application by a utility-applicant referencing the SNESSAR-P1 design. Therefore, provide the following information:
(1)
Verif-that the c..ly tanks which contain poten.. ally radioactive liqutd and which are not located inside building structures are the two condensate storage tanks.
3 (2)
Verify that the reactor plant tank area is an enc 1c:ed building containing seismic Category I dikes which are capable of retaining the entire content of the largest tar.x, should this tank rupture or overflow.
(3)
Provide an analysis which shows that a failure of a condensate storage tank will not result in radionuclide concentrations in excess of the limits in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 2, at the nearest surface water in the unrestricted area.
30]RORISINAL 452 GGiLOU
331.0 RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT BRAf!CH 331.4 Your response to Question 331.1, regarding the qualifications (12.1.7.5) of the individual (s) responsible for the radiation
- rotection design review is unacceptable.
Provide assurance that the individual responsible for tnese o.1 going reviews will meet the qualifications require-ments for the Radiation Protection Manager as presented in Regulatory Guide 1.8, " Personnel Selection and Training."
331.5 Your response to Question 331.2 is unacceptable. The (12.1.7) exposure information in SWESSAR is generic in nature.
Provide a dose assessment in accordance with Regulatory Guide 8.19, " Occupational Radiation Dose Assessment in Light-Water Reactor Power Plants - Design Stage Pian-Rem Estimates," based on the manner in which NYSE&G intends to operate the SWES5AR plant.
In addition to factors included in SWESSAR, include routine maintenance, instrument calibration, fuel handling, and inservice inspection. Describe assumptions and calculations used.
331.6 Your response to Question 331.3 is incomplete.
Indicate (12.1.7.3) traffic patterns for male and female workers through the Health Physics Area on the way to and from work assignments in potentially ;ontaminated areas.
452 023
331.7 Provide your estimate of anticipated radiation doses (12.1.7.1) to construction workers at Unit 2 resulting from operation of Unit 1.
Describe the assumptions and calculations used in preparing your estimate.
331.8 Describe precautions taken to prevent inadvertent (12.1) personnel access during fuel transfer to the very hi;h radiation areas in the vicinity of the fuel transfer tube.
If there is sufficient permanent shielding to assure acceptable levels in adjacent, potentially occupied areas, provide diagrams o#
that shielding.
452 027
361.0 GEOSCIENCES BRANCH - GEOLOGY AND SEISiiOLOGY SECTION A very specific investigation and evaluation of geologic 361. 10 (2.5.1) structure on the site has been carried out, however, there is an apparent gap between consideration of this <tructure and its relationship to geologic structure in the irrnediate area around the site. For example, several significant structures were discovered and investigated at Nine Mile Point and Fitzpatrick a few miles to the north-Expand your evaluation of geologic structure on the site west.
to include a consideration of the relationship between those structures and other known structures around the site.
As a result of the investigations of the Demester Structural 361.11 (2.5.1)
Zone the applicant has proposed that the structures within this zone developed as the result of two phases of esr'itially contemporaneous movement. Phase one was described as folding and reverse f aulting and phase two as relaxation and normal In the evaluation of the history of movement on the faulting.
faults at Nine Mile Print, Niagara Mohawk has proposed the following
.equence cf events: (1) Late Paleozoic strike-slip movement,
p (2) Late Jurassic to Late Cretaceous normal faulting,(3) Early Tertiary reverse faulting,and (4) Thrust faulting.
The close proximity of these two sites (within 5 miles of each other) requires the tectonic history to be similar. Therefore, discuss in detail how the faulting as described at Nine Mile Point relates to the 452 329
9 tectonic de/elopment of the Demster Structural Zone.
361.12 The stratigraphy as described at the New Haven site
( 2. 5.1 )
differs from the stratigraphy as defined for Nine Mile Point. Discuss the reason for the different interpretations of the regional stratigraphy.
362.13 On Figure /.5I-11 and in PSAR section 2.51.2 the use of (App. 2.51) garmia logs and core logs were used to identify the Pulaski-Oswego formation boundary and subdivide the Oswego formation.
4 On Figure 2.5I-11, the gama log signature, as used for correlation,does not appear similar from borehole to borehole. For example, marker bed B shows a different gama log signature in boreholes P-1 and F-2 than shown in R-17, R-14 and R-13.
Discuss the basis for the correlaticn of the stratigraphy using these different gamma log signateres.
362.14 On page 2.5I-20 minor faulting is associated with the western (Aop. 2.51) flank of the Demster Beach Anticline based en data from borehole R-25.
Provide a discussion of (1) the parameters of the fault (s)
(i.e. strike, dip etc.), (2) the relationship of the fault (s) to the tectonics of the Demster Structural Zone, and (3) the possible relationship to faulting as described in the Nine Mile Point area.
362.15 Discuss the basis for proposing reverse fault movement proceeding (2.5.1) normal fault movements along the Demster Structural Zone.
I5?
'M t
361.16 On PSAR page 2.5I-22, trench. mapping and paragenetic sequences (App. 2.5I) have been used to establish that calcite mineralization occurs with the last stage of deformation. Describe in more detail the paragenetic sequem.6 and how the sequence can be used to conclude that calcite mineralization occurred with the last stage of deformation.
361.17 On PSAR pace 2.5I-23, the statement is made that a " vein" of (App. 2.51)
~
pink silty, very fine sand separates the gouge from the sandstone breccia in the main fault zone. The emplacement of this " vein" is cancluded to be the result of a secondary process, i.e.
glacial squeezing or groundwater transportation and concentration.
Provide the data used t.
support this conclusion.
361.18 In PSAR Section 2.5I-3.4.7,the relationship between jo,-
no (Apo. 2.51)
~
in the site area and the Demster Structural Zone has been discussed.
The analysis of faulting at Nine Mile Point included an interpretation of regional stresses, jointing and fracturing. How dc the jointing and fracture patterns as described at Nine Mile Point relate to the joiating described in the New Haven site area and to the regional interpretation of joints as discussed in Section 2.5I.3.4.7.
361.19 On page 2.51-22,the statement is made that the paragenetic (App. 2.51) sequence was used to conclude that calcite mineralization occurred with the last stage of defomation. On page 2.5I-26,the statement is made that the paragenetic sequence occurred prior to calcite mineralization. Correct this discrepancy.
g
361.?0 The faulting as deteribed at Nine Mile Point (2.5.1) strikes to the northwest and therefore could project into the New Haven site area. Discuss all evidence which relates to the possible projection of Nine Mile Point faulting into the New Haven site area.
361.21 Provide 9'fshore seismic reflection profiles 2.1 4.1, 3
(App. 2.51) 6.1, 8, 10, 10.1, 12.2, 14, 16.1, 18.1, 20.1, 22.1, 301, 302, and 303.
I 361.22 On Figure 2,51-1,the Demster Structural Zore is projected (App 2.5I) through seismic reflection line no. 64. What is the southwest limit of the Demster Structural, Zone.
361.23 In Appendix 2M, page 2.5M-10, the statement is made
( App. 2.5:1) that the av9 rage maximum and direction of the maximum compressive stress at the New Haven site does not agree with most regional data presented in the literature.
Discuss in more detail the discrepancy between the in-situ stresses at New Haven and the regional stresses as defined in the literature and at Nine Mile Poiat.
361.?4 On page 2.5M-ll, the statement is made that the most (App. 2.5M) convincing argument tha' can be made regarding potential hazards due to " rock squeeze" is the lack of reported damage in the site area.
At Nine Mile Point, finit I, they are present]y mor.itoring a crack in the NE corner of the secondary containment for its relationship to rock,queeze. The Corps of Engineers 452 048
362.0 GEOSCIENCES BRANCH - GE0 TECHNICAL ENGINEERING SECTION 362.1 Provide details and specifications for the blasting (2.5.4.5.1) monitoring program which will " minimize effects on nearby structures during construction and --- limit rock wall overbreak."
362.2 Identify the plan location, the support elevation and (2.5.4.5.1) the support details for all Category I pipelines, conduits, etc. which will not be supported on either sound rock or lean concrete backfill.
362.3 The Environmental Report, Section 4.1.1.6 states that (2.5.4.5.1) the maximum quantity of seepage into excavations will not exceed 200 gpm. The PSAR states that dewatering can be accomplished by pumping from sumps.
If the actual quantity of the water pumped is greater than the estimate, or if pumping from sumps is not effective, NRC must be notified ar.d, if appropriate, a design revision must be provided for approval. The PSAR should reflect the applicants' intention to fulfill these requirements.so that we can be assured that alternative dewatering systems do not compromise the integrity of foundation rock under safety related structures by causing heave or " slabbing" of foundation rock.
4> s, cC7 Il 6 v
o
362.4 Provide the criteria which will be used to determine (2.5.4.5.1) if a porous foundation slab will be needed to relieve gas pressures. Coordinate the response to this question with the response to question 362.10, below, regarding instrumentation.
362.5 The design of below grade walls for lateral loading has (2.5.4.5.1 2.5.4.5.2 not been adequately described. The influence of unrelieved 2.5.4.11) rock stresses, of backfill type and compaction, and of dynamic loads need to be addressed in greater detail.
Section 2.5.4.5.1 states that time dependent inward movement of excavation walls is not expected. Specify the amount of movement that is considered to be significant and the method to be used to collect and evaluate field data for the design of the compressible material against the outside walls of Category I structures (Section 2.5.4.5.1).
Refer to the field data which will be obtained in accordance with your response to question 362.10 below.
Indicate how the design of the compressible material will influence the earth pressure coefficients. Provide sample calculations showing the development of typical earth pressure coefficients discussed on Figure 2.5-63.
Include a discussion of the influence of backfill materials and compaction.
If maximum compaction is a limiting criterion, section 2.5.4.5.2 should indicate that a maximum degree of compaction also will be specified..
452 030
362.6 Specify the minimum compressive strength required for (2.5.4.5.2) lean concrete backfill. Specify the tests that will be perfomed on the lean concrete and the frequency of testing.
362.7 The minimum acceptable compaction for granular backfill (2.5.4.5.2) is specified as 95% of the maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557).
Moisture content limits which are compatible with the design assumptions must also be specified.
For granular materials containing small amounts of fines (silt and clay) relative density should be used. For such materials, specify limits for acceptable relative density. Also specify the methods to be used to determine the laboratory maximum and minimum densities.
362.8 In Section 2.5.4.7 the bedrock shear modulus used in the (2.5.4.7) dynamic analyses of the structures is provided.
Section 3.7.1.6 states that analysis to determine the effects of subgrade -
structure interaction will not be performed. The apparent inconsistency in these statements needs to be clarified.
If the fomer statement is valid, indicate how the shear modulus and damping values were obtained and used in dynamic analyses.
362.9 Provide the design basis ft
+M statement that select (2.5.4.8) granular backfill will be placed so as to preclude liquefaction.
452 051
362.10 Provide details of the surface and subsurface instrumentation (2.5.4.13) to be provided for the monitoring of such conditions as excavation heave, structure settlement, movement of excavation wa.lls, settlement of surrounding areas or structures, piezometric levels, subsurface gas pressures etc.
Inc'ude details of the type of instruments or the manufacturer's identi-fication, the location and elevation, the time of installation, the frequency of reading, etc.
Indicate how the data obtained will be used during construction, design and 5
for confinnation during the plant life.
452 0 3191
441.0 OPERATOR LICENSING BRANCH - TRAINING SECTION 441.4 Your response to Question 441.4 is incomplete.
Provide (13.2) the following additional information:
While Figure 13.2-1 identifies the schedule of simulator training for R0 and SR0 candidates, Section 13.2.1.1.3 permits an experienced candidate to be exenpt from one or more training courses (simulator courses are not excluded).
Resolve this apparent discrepancy and provide the commit-ment that all license candidates participate in a simulator training course.
AEo n 7.
-1 J L
':J