ML20032E237

Forwards Request for Addl Info in Area of Hydrologic Engineering for FSAR Review.Responses Should Be Submitted by 811118

ML20032E237
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	10/26/1981
From:	Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Koester G KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
References
NUDOCS 8111200012
Download: ML20032E237 (5)

Text

,

l i-DISTRIBUTION:

' Docket' File, RWescott LB#1 Rdg l

007 2 6 1981 DEisenhut bcc:

BJYoungblood TERA Docket No.: STN 50-482 GEdison NRC/PDR 4

MRushbrook L/PDR SHanauer NSIC Mr. Glenn L. Koester RVollmer TIC Vice President - Nuclear TMurley ACRS (16)

Kansas Gas and Electric Company Rflattson 201 North Market Street RHartfield,f1PA WicMta, Kansas 67201 OELD OIE (3) i

Dear f1r. Koester:

MFliegel GLear 4

Subject:

Request for Additional Information for the Review of the Wolf Creek Plant, Unit 1 Regarding Hydrologic Engineering As a result of our continuing review of the Wolf Creek Plant, Unit 1 FSAR, we i

find that we need additional infomation to complete our evaluation. The specific information required is in the area of hydrologic engineering and is presented in the Enclosure.

i To maintain our licensing review schedule for the Wolf Creek Plant FSAR, we will need responses to the enclosed request by Hovember 18, 1981.

If you cannot meet this date, please inform us within seven days after receipt of this letter of the date you plan to submit your responses so that we may review our schedule for any necessary changes.

Please contact Dr. G. E. Edison, Wolf Creek Licensing Project Manager, if you desire any discussion or clarification of the enclosed request.

Sincerely, Originni signed bys s

(

B. J. Y c.yjb1 d.

B. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing l

Enclosure:

IE, # "N D,\\

As stated In,(,

l cc: See next page NOVQ

-9

&%.~.

M,-y ]

o.

a i

r,7 i

i 8111200012 811026 PDR ADOCK 05000482 A

PDR m,

\\ sua"~o24 % MW&

a f

S 10'/ M " '

'1' q 781'"'

'1'O

~

' ~ ~ ~ " " ' ' ' " " " ' '

" ' ' ' ~ ~ ' " " " '

omy

' sac ropu ais oow nneu em OFFICIAL RECORD COPY escm n-sum

I Mr. Glenn L. Koester Vice President - Nuclear Kansas Gas and Electric Company 201 North Market Street P. 0.' Box 208 Wichita, Kansas 67201 cc: Mr. Nicholas A. Petrick Ms. Wanda Christy Executive Director, SNUPPS 515 N.,1st Street 5 Choke Cherry Road Burlington, Kansas 66839 Rockville, Maryland 20750 2

Eric A. Eisen, Esq.

Mr. Jay Silberg, Esquire Birch, Horton, Bittner & Monroe Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1140 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.

1800 M Street,-N. W.

Washington, D. C.

20036 Washington, D. C.

20036 Kansans for Sensible Energy 4

Mr. Donald T. McPhee P. O. Box 3192 Vice President - Production Wichita, Kansas 67201 Kansas City Power and Light Company 1330 Baltimore Avenue P. O. Box 679~

Kansas _ City, Missouri 64141 1

Ms. Mary Ellen Salva 4

i Route 1, Box 56 Burlington, Kansas 66839 i

Ms. Treva Hearne, Assistant General Counsel Public Service Commission P. O. Box 360 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Mr. Tom Vandel Resident Inspector / Wolf Creek NPS 4

c/o U.S.N.R.C.

P. O. Box 1407 Emporia, Kansas 66801 Mr. Michael C. Kenner Wolf Creek Project Director State Corporation Commission State of Kansas l

Fourth Floor, State Office Bldg.

Topeka, Kansas 66612 l

r w-

a.

HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, UNIT 1 240.0WC Hydrologic & Geotechnical Engineering Branch 240.1WC In Section 2.4.10 you state that the ESWS screen house was designed to (2.4.10) withstand a high water elevation of 1100.2 feet. which corresponds to the maximum wave runup elevation from a wave height of 5.0 feet, with a period of 3.3 seconds. Using the PMF water surface elevation of 1095 1

l feet, the combined wind set-up and runup must have been 5.2 feet. The staff's independent analysis at the ESWS screenhouse shows the maximum runup including set-up is 6.60 feet resulting in a high water elevation of 1101.60 feet. Our analysis is based on the following assumptions:

1) an effective fetch of 2.1 miles, 2) average fetch depth of 34 feet,

3) over land windspeed of 40 mph adjusted for over-water (50 mph), and

4) average depth along the south side of the structure of 17.8 feet.

2 Either justify your wave runup calculations or use the staff's estimates and discuss the effects of the resulting higher wave runup elevation on the ESWS screen house.

240.2 WC Table 2.4-25.

The natural evaporation used to evaluate cooling lake 3

l (2.4.11.3) j drawdown are data for Fall Reservoir.

Provide geographical coordinates of Fall Reservoir location. Since evaporation is a micro-climatically dependent phenomenon, provide sufficient justification (i.e., similarity of meteorological variables - wind speed, vapor pressure, etc.) for using Fall Reservoir natural evaporation in the analysis of cooling lake evaporation.

I 1

t

240.3WC Table 2.4-27.

Provide a detailed description of your procedure for (2.4.11.3) calculating forced evaporation from the cooling lake as presented in Table 2.4-26.

Accompany the description with an example calculation including all data required to pe-fonn the example calculation.

240.4WC During the August 13, 1981 site visit, you indicated that concrete (2.4.11.6) d pads were placed on the bottom of the ultimate heat sink and essential service water intake canal, and that sedimentation rates would be monitored by divers. Please discuss details of sampling methods, locations and frequency. Also, provide details of dredging procedures to restore capacity if and when it is reduced below the required capacity.

240.5WC It is stated in Section 9.2.5.3 that the UHS dam embankment structure (9.2.5.3) will withstand overflow conditions that would result if the main cooling lake were to be drawn down below the UHS dam crest elevation.

Please provide the maximum expected overflow velocities at the UHS dam during i

l a postulated loss of the main cooling lake dam event and a discussion of l

the analysis including all pertinent assumptions.

Provide evidence that the unprotected soil abutments of the UHS dam will not be eroded during the postulated event to the extent that there will be a loss of essential service water from behind the UHS dam.

240.6 WC Please provide a description of the trash collection and removal procedures (9.2) from the service water and essential service water trash racks.

240.7WC What is the criteria used to determine which wells will be sealed and (2.4.13.1) what is the status of well sealing?

240.8 WC Please provide a revissJ Figure 2.4-52 showing the cooling lake at its (2.4.13.1) normal operating level and the WCGS property boundary superimposed on the well inventory within five miles of the plant.

240.9 WC Section 2.4.2.3.1 of the St1UPPS FSAR states that any rainfall in excess (2.4.2.3) of design intensity (7.4 inches) will overflow the roof curb and the building walls to the site drainage system. Describe in more detail the roofs of safety related structures regarding their ability to pond water. State the maximum heights of any curbs or parapets on the roofs and the dimensions and locations of scuppers or other openings that will limit the depth of water during the PMP event.

240.10 WC State whether any permanent underdrains or groundwater dewatering system are installed, being constructed or planr,ed at the plant site.

If so, i

l provide the information called for in Branch Technical Position HMB/GSB,

" Safety-Related Permanent Dewatering Systems."

l

~

_