ML20032D305
| ML20032D305 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 11/09/1981 |
| From: | Fell R NRC |
| To: | Nagai Y GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| References | |
| TASK-02-03.A, TASK-02-03.B, TASK-02-03.B1, TASK-02-03.C, TASK-2-3.A, TASK-2-3.B, TASK-2-3.B1, TASK-2-3.C, TASK-RR LSO5-81, NUDOCS 8111130622 | |
| Download: ML20032D305 (11) | |
Text
_---,
e I
W e
.p 6
Docket 6. 50-219 e'
LS05-81-'
Off
'e %g%
Yosh Nagai 6
' dI/('~a>TV s GPU Nuclear 100 Interplace Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey 07C54 Dear Yosh;~
~
s Per,our telephce conversation on November 5,1981. I am sending you
' forictsrif1 cation'a duplicate copy of questions raised and telecopied to yoQ on July df 1981 regarding several SRP topics. These questions originated from our rrview of your May 5,1981 submittal of various SEP' Topics, iGPU shoulu respond to these questions in a ticely manner so tint the evaliation of the subject SEP topics can be completed.
Yours truely,
=.
Robert W. Fell Oyster Creek delegated Project Manager
'o Assessment 0
Enclosuret As stated
~ '
p,<
c3
$(Ol
~
s w
If l
~
p use (SI
_s
.c.
, '\\ '
O hd((9
.- P PDR
..:rggg[.4~.SEP b Y I
o,rj s
,SUPNCM Q
......j.....
om>
OFEICIAL RECORD COPY usa e>,, i_333. so -
wac roav ais cio-a03 sacu es o
e e
Mr. I. R. Finfrock, Jr.
0YSTER CREEK Docket No. 50-219 CC
\\
G. F. Trowbridge, Esquire Gene Fisher' Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge Bureau Chief 1800 M Street, N. W.
Bureau of Radiation Protection Washington, D. C.
20036 380 Scotts Road Trenton, New Jersey 08628 J. B. Lieberman, Esqeire Berlack, Israels & Lieberman Commissioner 26 Broadway New Jersey Department of Energy New York, New York 10004 101 Commerce Sireet Newark, New Jersey 07102 Natural Resources Defense Council 91715th Street, N. W.
Licensing Supervisor Washington, D. C.
20006 Dyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station J. Knubel P. O. Box 388 BWR Licensing Manager Forkts River, New Jersey 08/31 GPU Nuclear 100 Interplace Parkway Resident Inspector Parsippany, New Jersey 070$4 c/o U. S. NRC P. O. Box 445 Deputy Attorney General Forked River, New Jersey 08731 State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety 36 West State Street - CN 112 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Ocean County Library Brick Township Branch 401 Chambers Bridge Road i
Brick Town, New Jersey 08723 Mayor Lacey Township 818 Lacey Road Forked River, New Jersey 08731 1~
Commissioner Department of Public Uti'ittas State of New Jersey 101 Commerce Street Newark, New Jersey 07102 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II Office t
ATTN: Regional Radiation Representative 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 hN*--phw w a e -.
.e--
e e
kO T'
Request for Information:
From Qyster Creek (JCP&L)
Regarding Licensee Safety Evaluation for Topics II-3.A. II-3.B. II-3.B.1, and II-3.C.
Discussion:
During the review of the Qyster Creek SER submittal for the above identified
.a topics, it was detengined that certain issues have not been resolved, others not analyzed and in so.ne cases insufficient information or data to justify the stated conclusions or resolutions.
Further, it appears that the licensee may not have a clear understanding of exactly what is expected in their safety evaluations.
This request for information focuses on these issues and provides an expanded discussion for each Topic that is intended to clarify the material that is required for each topic.
i
'f O
.. - - -enw,
m -~m w - =.- - - ~w s mr
. Topic II-3.A Hydrologic Description The purpose of this topic is to identify those plant interfaces with the hydrosphere that may require specia~1 plant design or operating limitations with regard to floods and water supply requirements and the identification of surface and ground water uses that may be affected by plant operation.
These hydrologic considerations may have changed since they were reviewed at the licensing stage. A review of such changes, if any, should be performed including an assessment of their impact on the plant.
In addition to the above this topic should include the following:
1.
A brief description of the hydrologic features of the plant and surrounding related hydrosphere including the groundwater aquifer involved in hydrostatic loads on safety related buildings and the aquifer used for plant water supply if any.
I 2.
Provide the design basis values of surfa.e and groundwater levels used for plant design and construction. Where surface water levels are based on less than the probable maximum event, provide the approximate recurrence interval of the event used. State whether wind waves were considered in the design, if so provide details.
3.
Where safety related structures are exposed to significant hydrostatic and/or hydrodynamics loads induced by surface water bodies or local runoff, provide the design values used or justification that they are not controlling
loads. Also consider the roofs of safety related buildings with parapet wells or where water can pond. Discuss roof drains and scuppers and assumptions used in the analysis.
- The following items were found to be deficient or in need of further clarification.
a) Provide a site topographic map that shows plant features (safety related buildings, canals, ponds, streams etc) and site topographic features.
b) No drawings or cross sections were provided which would enable an evaluation of the location of safety related equipment.
c) No information was given pertaining to surface and ground water users regarding quantity and type of use. Alternately, state the plant does not use ground water or there are no downgradient surface on groundwater users.
~....
d) Have there been any modifications to the site due to Forked River Plant Construction?
e) State the design basis groundwater-level that was used for design and construction.
Provide the design basis groundwater level under current criteria. This should be based on hydrograph records from the site or nearby in the same aquifer.
In lieu of a justifiable level you should assume plant grade as the design basis groundwater level and discuss the affects if any on structural or stability analyses.
1
-'e-a e-
..e1
--s r
y c-
..,,....y 3,.,
....w--
, f) Although your discussion indicates that flooding from Oyster Creek and
-Forked River is not a problem, it would be preferable to state that they were not used as a design basis in the design and construction of the plant.
g) Provide the design basis (rainfall) for roof loadings for plant design and construction. Discuss drainage fectures.
Topic II-3.B Flooding Potential and Protection Requirements The purpose of this topic is to identify the design basis flood level for the plant and site, under current licensing criteria, resulting from all potential flood sources external to the plant and site. Evaluate and discuss significant differences between the levels or values used for design and construction and those derived under current licensing criteria.. This evaluation should include the flood effects on safety related structures, systems and equipment and the affects of changed hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads on safety related structures, systems and equipment. Discuss the features of existing or proposed flood protection measures such as revetments, flood walls or doors and emergency or administrative procedures.
The following items were found to be deficient:
a) Provide justification for your conclusion that Oyster' Creek and Forked River will not cause flooding of the plant. The justification should be in the form of a PMF discharge and computed flood level. A method acceptable to the NRC staff is the Triangular Unit Hydrograph method described in the U.S. Bureau of Reclanations " Design of Small Dams,"
. to detemine the peak PMF discharge. Then use an average stream cross section near the site to compute a normal depth rating curve which can be used to predict the water level for the PMF peak discharge.
b) Since the pertinent infomation for justification of the Oyster Creek design basis PMH flood level is contained in the 1972 Dames and Moore report, it would be appropriate to attach the report.
In lieu of attaching the report, the pertinent data and infomation necessary to justify the stillwater elevation and wave runup should be sumarized in your evaluation, c) Topographic mapping for For'Ked River indicates a reservoir at Wells Mills.
If a dam and reservoir are in existence, describe the details and discuss the impact on the plant, especially a failure during the PMF.
d) Describe the, local PMP for the Oyster Creek Plant and discuss runoff features that preclude flooding of safety related buildings.
e) What are the effects of the PMF on the fire protection / emergency cooling pond and dam located in the Oyster Creek Stream Valley?
f) Provide a discussion of the effects on safety related structures, syst, ems and equipment due to hurricane or surge levels between the event for which the plant was designed and the PMH.
6-g) What influence does the construction of the Forked River Nuclear Plant have on flooding potential and protection requirements for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant?
h) Provide the design basis roof loads based on current licensing criteria e
using the local PMP for the plant area. Discuss any diffe:ences from original design and the potential affects on safety related structures, systems and equipment.
Topic II-3.B.1 Capability of Operating Plants to Cope with Design Basis Flooding Conditions Protection against postulated floods may be accomplished, if necessary, by
" hardening" the plant and by implementing appropriate technical specifi:ations and emergency procedures. The purpose of this topic is to identify and describe these features that were incorporated into the original design and to discuss any additional features to be added in order to meet current licensing criteria.
The areas of concern are as follows:
a) How dces the plant cope with local site flooding or hurricane surge flooding - what protection devices or systems are.present to prevent flood water from entering safety related buildings or affecting safety related systems and equipment.
s vg-M m
u-w T
e w
gr-y yw-?
99 -
~
.. b) Your report should include an attached copy of Emergency Procedures 520 and a discussion of suggested revisions to make it confonn to current licensing criteria and practice. Also provide draft technical specifications for limiting conditions of operation.
l Topic II-3.C Safety-Related Water Supply (Ultimate Heat Sink)
The purpose of this topic is to determine the adequac) of onsite water sources with respect to providing safety-related water during emergency shutdown and maintenance of safe shutdcwn. The location and inventory of safety-related water sources and the meteorological conditions to be used in evaluating both temperature and inventory of the sources should be established. Considerations of ice, low water, leak potential and underwater dams should be included.
In most cases, plants operating prior to 1973 will have to be reviewed to establish the degree of conformance with current criteria.
Prior to the issuance of Regulatory Guide 1.27 in 1973, the Standard Fonnat and Content (now Regulatory Guide 1.70) provided the only guidelines to prospective applicants on UHS requirements. Since compliance was not required and hydrologic and meteorologic criteria had not been established, usually only minimal data was provided.
Although it is trus that, strictly speaking, tne Ultimate heat sink for cooling water systems is only the complex of water sources and their connecting canals l
or conducts +.o the intake structure, this topic does interface with other topics that review the remainder of the UHS complex which includes the safety related water systems and equipment.
It is therefore necessary to provide some discussions in this topic relevant to the overall operation of the UHS complex, especially with regard to the potential loss of function due to natural events or single failures.
.. The following items were found to be deficient or in need of further clarification:
a) Your response describing the ultimate heat sink does not contain sufficient technical documentation to support a reasonable assurance finding that the Oyster Creek UHS satisfies the Regulatory Positions of Regulatory Guide 1.27.
You have simply indicated that based on your analysis, the Oyster Creek UHS meets all applicable NRC criteria with two exceptions.
Exception nir.nber one addresses the capability of the canal to survive seismic and t]rnado events and a partial statement on seismic failure of bridges.
It does not address low water, ice blockage, or sediment accumulation.
Exception number two suggests the need for a technical specification on a limiting condition of operation, but a draft specification is not supplied.
It also suggests alternate sources of water which are not described.
As a minimum the licensee should describe how their design fulfills the Regulatory Positions with specific references to docketed information from either Oyster Creek on Forked River facilities.
In order to demonstrate an
' acceptable UHS with respect to temperature and amount, the licensee should address natural and site-related phenomena which minimizes canal flow rate or water volume or requires an alternate source of water.
.. b) Provide the limiting design basis UHS water temperature for safety related equipment and show that the sinks can meet the design basis. Alternately, show that all sources of UHS water are once through and no recirculation is required.
c) You have stated that the service water pumps (i.e., use of the canal UHS) are lost due to potential flooding from a surge with a recurrence interval of about 250 years. Provide documentation of the time required to put these pumps and sink capability back in service following the postulated flood.
Your analyses of this scenario should consider combined seismic events as per Regulatory Guide 1.27 and ANSI Ni70 Chapter 9 for the alternate water source (s).
4
,e
- r..
_-