ML20093H393
| ML20093H393 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1984 |
| From: | Mittl R Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8410160258 | |
| Download: ML20093H393 (18) | |
Text
_ _.
r t
I
)
Pubhc Serwce L
Electnc and Gas
{
Company 80 Park Plaza, Newark, NJ 07101/ 201430-8217 MAILING ADDRESS / P.O. Box 570, Newark, NJ 07101 Robert L Mitt! General Manager Nuclear Assurance and Regulation October 12, 1984 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, MD 20814 Attention:
Mr. Albert Schwencer, Chief l
Licensing Branch 2 Division of Licensing Gentlemen:
HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-354 DRAFT SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT OPEN ITEM STATUS Pursuant to discussions with the Environmental and Hydrolo_gic Engineering Branch, enclosed for your review is the revised response to Draft Safety Evaluation Report Open Item Numbers 5a and 5d.
I l
Should you have any questions or require any additional l
information on these items, please contact us.
l Very truly yours, f ff g 8410160258 341012 PDR ADOCK 05000354 Enclosure C
D.
H. Wagner (I
USNRC Licensing Project Manager (w/ attach.)
W.
H.
Bateman USNRC Senior Resident Inspector (w/ attach.)
The Energy People 95 4912 (4u) 7 83 L-_ _
.... a.
.J.
.. ~ u..
~-- -- ^'
SE812 '940 2 7 0 9 7 6 b
HCGS i
DSER Open Ites No. 5 a, b and d ( DSER Section 2.4.5)
WAVE IMPACT AND RUNUP DN SERVICE WATER INTAKE STRUCIURE The applicant has analyzed the wind waves that would traverse plant grade coincident with the PMH surge hydrograph and runup on safety-related facilities.
These calculations were based on the assumption that wind waves would be generated in the Delaware Estuary and progress to the site.
As the surge level would begin to rise, resulting from the approaching eye of the postulated hurricane, the wind speed would progressively change direction from the southeast clockwise to the west.
Waves encroaching on the southern end of the Island would be depth-limited (i.e., the waves would " feel" bottom and thus become shallow water waves) by plant grade elevation on both the Salem and Hope Creek sites.
These depth-limited ( shallow water) waves will impact and runup on the southern and western f aces of the safety-related structures in the power block.
The applicant has stated that the southern. f ace of the Reactor Building and the Auxiliary Building are designed for a flood protection level of 38.0 f t mal or 3.2 f t above the maximum calculated wave runup height of 34.8 f t msl and the other exposures of safety-related structures have a flood protection level of 32.0 f t msl or 1 f t above the maximum calculated wave i
runup height of 31.0 f t mal.
The staf t has requested the applicant to provide additional information on the waves that impact on the river f ace of service water intake structure.
The waves impacting on this face of the structure are not reduced in height ( dept h-limited) as tMse that traverse plant grade.
As indicated in Section 2.4.1, the applicant states that all accesses to safety-related structures (doors and hatches) are provided with water-tight seals designed to withstand the head of water associated with the flood protection levels.
But, the I
applicant has not indicated whether the water-tight doors are designeo to withstand either the cambined loading ef fects of both static water level and the dynamic wave impa ct or, a s cited in Sections 3.4.1 and 3.5.1.4 of this report, the impact of a barge propelled by winds and wet'es associated with a nydrologic event that floods plant grade.
Based upon its analysis according to SRP 2.4.5, the staff concludes that the flood protection level of El. 38.0 ft asl for tne southern f ace of the Reactor buidling and Auxiliary suilding and El. 32.0 f t asl for the remaining safety-related structures within the power block meets the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.59.
Until additional information and analysis l
K51/2-15 5-1
s.
itr 12 40(./Ud.C
/(EVY DSIR 0;on Itan-No. 5 a, b end d ! Cont'd) are available, the staf f cannot conclude that the flood pro-tection level of El. 32.0 f t asl for the Service Water Intake Structure meets the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.59.
Based on its analysis, the staf f cannot conclude that the plant meets the requirements of GDC 2 with respect to the hydrologic aspects of Probable Maximum Surges and Seiche Flooding.
gesponse_
[
The requested information for the service water intake structure has been provided in the responses to the following NRC questions:
QUESTION NO.
INFORMATION PROVIDED 240.8 Wave runup elevations 240.9 Wave impact loads 240.8 & 410.69 Flood protection As a result of discussions with the NRC staff, the response to Question No. 410.69 has been revised and the following summary calculations have been revised and are attached:
1.
Analysis of overtopping of Service Water Intake Structure 2.
Runup on the East Face of the Service Water Intake Structure i
\\
n. w. =.
.. :... a.
.a...
....:.=...w...-.
. =.
=.
/fEV.fb-HCGS FSAR QUESTION 410.69 (Sectio.n 9.2.1)
Provide a figure (s) in the FSAR which shows the protection of the station service water system from the flood water (includ-ing wave ef fects) of the design basis flood.
RESPONSE
The general arrangement of the intake structure is provided in Fig ur es 1. 2-4 0 a nd 1.2-41.
Section AA of Fig ure 1. 2-41 is reproduced here as Figure 410.69-1 which identifies the water-tight areas and the walls and slabs designed to accomnodate flood loads.
As de sc rib ed in Sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.5, the south and west exterior walls of the intake structure are sub-ject to a maximum wave run-up elevation of 134.4 feet due to the probable max bnum hurricane (PMH).
Such waves could overtop the roof of the western portion of the structure at elevation 128_ feet.
However, a rigorous analysis has been per formed to determine the depth of water in the low area ( eleva tion 3 22.0 feet) af ter wave impact ano to confirm that water does not enter the building through the air intake control dampers (bottom elevation 128.5 feet). There fore, flood water will not enter into the dry area of the intake structure.
On the north side of the intake structure, the maximum water level will be only slightly higher than the still water elevation (113.8 feet) during the PMM.
According to Table 2.4.6, the maximum wave elevation for the north side of the intake structure is 26.3 feet MSL (elevation 115.3 feet ) d ue to a postulated mul-tiple dam break. Therefore, flood protection of the north exterior wall to elevation 121.0 feet is adequate.
On the east side of the inteke structure, the maximum wave run-up elevation due to the PMH equals 121.97 feet.
Tnis ele-vation is due to a 1% wave traveling in the direction of Fetch "A".
Fetch A, which is rotated about 15 degrees from Fetch 1
( as shown in Figures 410. 69-2 and 410. 69-3 ), is chosen to maxi-mize the wave run-up elevation.
Since this elevation is lower than the bottom of the HVAC exhaust opening, flood water will not enter the intake structure from the east side of the building.
In addition the following assessments have been made to confirm the adequacy of the structure and interior components for the overtopping wave :
a.
The exterior walls are designed to withstand the flood loads including the dynamic wave action ef fects.
b.
The roof hatches at both elevations 122.0 and 126.0 feet have been sealed (caulking, gaskets, etc.) to prevent i
any intrusion of water.
The hatch covers are keyed into i
F FSAR 2/24 410.69-1
itESPONSE - cont'd g,4 the openings to prevent any adverse slippage due to wave ipduced loadings.
c.
All Seismic Category I camponents except for the travel-
)
ing water screens are located within the dry areas of j
the structure.
d.
The traveling water-screens, located in the " wet" area between column lines B and C have electric motors which are fully protected against the flood water level, e.
A condition was postulated where suspended moisture enters the dry areas af the structure through the air intake control dampers.
It has been assessed that all of the Seismic Category I components subjected to this environment will continue to f unction as required.
Section 3.4.1 and Tdale 3.4-1 have been revised for clarifica-tion.
i l
t 1
l 410.69-2
~ ~ ' ' ' * ^;..;,.,,-,
g
'b g,
l J
1 H
!)
l
,. I l k. =1',.=im_a p/
I MA xv 3
,'j a w, N
N m
3 i
Il r': Q-g:. d l
- Ig:.,
I e h i
NE;.;
-1
' -l --
&W i~ l%
b, p{~.,1 ll S
I
-in #3 m
t L-
!!_}~
g l
E j
sks
)
- e* f g;
g
,i a
't 3
ra
(
- I I
0
$3 l
If (i)) g'j Il
+
5
's t
g g
a r.
8 i '
s l
- I i
II i
11! 5.,
!,3 e i
~* l l 23
! Il 1
ill
!1 o.. ::: L ljj FINALSArtTY A ALYS88 AD0f 8I SERVICEWATER INTAKE STRUCTURE - PLOOO g
PROTECTION y
l W'
l 3
d
'3 uu 33
.E$
50 33 u8 4
S. Q' g
~
- t t
s' y&O
~
g g
8 e
I
\\
\\!
F 85 #
g ON8 e
\\.,
E n-a"
'~'
_ g.,VM
[
k i
I e
~
' O* ! % \\i x\\ x,
- 3. x s
k'5k i
i q
(,'
Jws i./
J L
_ m
- IN
_4<
%g
-1 \\s\\, \\,
i, x
I f" mqr
. 4 \\,
i a
c, '
l N
e
$e \\'ig\\d i
l
~k j
33 w
[d.h I
B l
7 I
l
\\
i
\\
1d l
I Do
\\
'a
/
.u--
"i-i g
g w
l n
! --[
.-]
e r.i d i u
l
\\
s s
f Q 3 b'N)(( 'v j
(n@:
~
\\
'\\
I-j
.N e
-)
V
. e.
t g
l
/. m 3
/
w f
- y;\\
T j--
sq y
9 5.-
t kt (Q,
e u-
./.-
i.
l s
/s
_4k 0
1
'3 j
U
\\-
s v
s
\\'
'g\\
\\
w=
i 2
11" j
i t.,.1,
\\
.\\
- II./
a u
ss 1
g e 4% \\
C h.
k
\\
\\.
og 9
tt
}
\\
.)
. i g.
A
'. t
/
I
_..s -
2C-
,1-
't.
f-
,.,s g
g
~;\\. N 3
y-4 2
i t
t
~*
t
!i m
s t
yA l
h q-Ek j tb c*e ag e
.x
, g.
W l
"2,1 I
is
.}.
hY
{
1 s D
a,
'% fp,\\ '
a
~~
{
\\ 'g gw.. x.i.e.
sN 1
7
dope Crcek Gener3 ting Station Analysis of Overtoppina of Service Water Intaka Structure I.
Wave Ca yalations Wave heights and periods as well as still-water levels and runup o
elevations are as given in Table 2.4-10s of FSAR (Amendment 5, April 1984).
II.
Overtopping Calculations o
Overtopping rates were calculated for west face and south face where top of wall elevations are 128.5 and 122.0, respectively.
o Equations from Weggel (1976) were used for the overtopping calculations.
Q = (9 Qo* He's) exP { c.117 lo9ed(R+h~dsf I
gg
.n a,)j ho,,* (&7(i)%h(99
.HL N
s r=
e sL s21
. El. I28E o00*
where E was taken as 1/2TT in order to maximize the value of Qo*
o (see Figure 6 of Weggel's paper) o et was t@ru as 0.061r. order to maximize Q (see Equation 4 of Weggel's paper).
o Conservative assumptions in calculating overtopping rates were:
It was assumed that waves attacked normal to the wall of the structure.
It was assumed that the train of waves was made up of all 1%
waves.
It was assumed that wave height was constant along the crest.
calculated overtopping rate was increased to allow for wind speed o
using Equation (7-11) of the 1977 edition of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Shore Protection Manual.
W=1.0+W{(
)
+ 0.9 Sin 9 1
m
Is making the wind adjustaant the facecr Wg was assumed to be 2.0 for onshore winds greater than 60 mph. The angle 0 was 90'.
Af ter adjustaant for wind the overtopping rates were adjusted for o
angle of attack by multiplying the overtopping rate by the sin of ths'dagle between the fetch vector and the wall.
III.
Naziams water surface elevations were calculated by backwater calculation starting irom t'.a north and of the roof.
The separate overtopping rates were added and the total was assumed o
to flow off the top of the structure at the north end.
o critical depth was assumed to occur at the downstream and of the channel and was calculated as Divrl/6f fC 32,g where Q is the rate of flow from the west side in efs/ft.
o The backwater calcuL tion assumes a gradually varied steady flow.
t 26Q*bX *Q + &
2 1
S#=
/6*32,2 =$x o
Calculations were performed moving upstream starting with the depth at the north end.
o The calculations showed that fetch 3 was the critical case. The total flow rate for fetch 3 was 0.5 cfs/f t from the west and 14.7 cfs/ft from the south end.
The maximum water surface elevation reached was 126.9 for the fetch o
3 condition which is well below the critical 128.5 elevation at which flow could enter the air intakes.
IV.
A separate calculation was made considering a surge generated by flow coming over the south and of the building.
The depth of flow and velocity of flow ahead of the surge resulting from the previous surge had to be assumed.
Velocity ahead of the surge was assumed to be zero, since that condition maximizes the surge height.
Depth ahead of the surge was assumed to be 1.0' and does not have a really significant sffact on the baight of the following surge. The resultins elevation of the crest of tbs generated surge was 126.9 which is below the 128.5 alevation at which water can flow into the air intaka.
V.
A check was made to see if flow could surge into the air intakes as a result of plunging from the roof at alavation 128.5.
AEll. &
w
Losa coefficients cf 0.5 ct the catranco to the air intake opening o
and 0.5 at the band (see attached sketch were assumed).
Velocity.at the edge of the 128.5 elevstion roof section was o
calculated assuming critical depth there and was increased by 50%
for1 masons of conservancy.
o The velocity approaching the entrance to the air intake chamber was calculated using the energy equation and neglecting losses.
o Losses incurred by turbulsace and impact of the jet entering water ponded on top of elevation 122.0 were neglected.
o Headioes through the screens was neglected.
o The maximum elevation achieved was calculated to be 126.3 or well below the 128.5 elevation at which water could flow into the building.
o A separate analysis was made using a one-dimensional momentum approach. The presence of the louver on top of the outer wall was neglected. A velocity of 26 feet per second was assumed to occur over the top of the lower outer wall vbose top alavation is at 124.0. This velocity was calculated assuming that the total potential energy in c wave runup to 134.4 would be converted to i
5 kinetic energy at elevation 124 without energy loss. Tha one-dimensional energy analysis, assuming a flow rate of 5.75 cfs/ foot indicates that the water surface within the intake could rise to elevation 127.0 which is below the 128.5 alevation at which water could flow into the service-water intaka structure. The assumption of a flow rate of 5.75 cfs/ foot is very conservative since that is the total overtopping rate from the west side of the structure for the critical fetch conditions assuming the wave strikes normal to the structure wall.
The total pressure of the air intake fans equals o
4.5 inct.es of water.
The maximum elevations of 126.3 feet and 127.0 feet given above result in margins of 2.2 and 1.5 feet respectively with respect to the 128.5 feet elevation at which water could flow into the building.
Therefore, there is sufficient margin to accommodate a rise in water level due to fan suction pressure.
1
iza!
g I
I mtg
}
(
4 1
L Q
l T
v-s
~
~
s..
m
^
q/h/ch Cod 73 1220
\\
t i '
i n
i i
i i,
m 9
/
Flow along center of building
~$$
h
~ con 4rd tacru_
,3.5' I
I28$
12 8 Tc 128 t7 9
V 4X Ts-Flx 0
- t.avvtv kif 50llfkt gg
(
f
..': b
)
1Y 1122 l
l 4
/A V /f f/AWff
//AY4 Sketch of flow conditions at entrance to air intakes t
I t
References i
i
~
1.
Wessel, J. 5" " Wave Overtopping Equation" Proceedings of the 1976 Coastal Engineering Conference.
2.
Jackowski, R. A. (Editor) Shore Protection Manual, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center,1977.
a e
i l
l fev. &
..=_.___- _ __
^
Calculation Samary Runup on the East Face of the Service Water Intake Structure Hope Creek Generatina Station The attached Figure 1 shows the fetches considered for mye runup on the service water intake structure (SWIS). Fetch A, which has an azimuth of 119*,
is 4800 feet long over the ishnd and passes between the Sales Plant and the Hope Creek Generating Station. The wave f ront from Fetch A approaches the east wall of the service water intake s_truct.ure at an oblique angle equal to 55' (see Figure 1).
Under design conditions, hurricane generated waves approaching the SWIS would be tripped by passage over the dike at the edge of the island. The top of this dik.a is at elevation 106 feet (PSE&G Datum).
Incident wave heights, wave lengths, and still water levels are assumed as given in Table 2.4-10A of the FSAR. For Fetch A conditions, we have assumed that the incident wave characteristics, still water level, and wind speed are the same as for Fetch 1.
Thus, the incident wave has a significant wave height of 10.8 feet, period of 6.4 seconds, and a length of 180 feet.
The corresponding wind speed is 108.6 aph and the still water level is n2.1 feet (PSE&G Datum). The ground elevation of the island is 101 feet (PSE&G Datum), which makes the water depth equal tio 11.1 feet (H2.1 - 101.0 feet).
Because the dike at the edge of the island would trip all large waves and because the water depth is shanow over the island, it is reasonable to assume that the wave approaching the SWIS along Fetch A would have a significant height equal to the one generated by a 106.6 aph wind over an unlimited fetch and for a water depth of H.1 feet. Thus, the significant wave height at the east wau of the SWIS would be 4.7 feet according to Figure 3-21 of Reference 1.
The one percent wave height is 7.05 feet (1.5 * '. 7 feet). The ratio of mart =um (1%) waves to the significant wave height is taken to be 1.5 and was obtained from Reference 2, for shanov water wave generation approaching steady state conditions, including a 30% increase to account for data scatter.
To determine the runup of this mye on the east wall of the SWIS, a wave runup coefficient of 2.0 was chosen in accordance with the results presented in Reference 3 and shown in Figure 2, for a wave approach normal to the structure. This runup coefficient was further modified, taking into consideration the oblique wave approach for the wave propagation along Fetch A.
For a wave approach angle of 55*, a wave runup reduction of 301 was estimated based on the results presented in Reference 4 (see Figure 3). This reference was cited by Mr. Jolm Ahrens of the Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as applicable to the conditions under investigation (Reference 5).
Thus, the 1% wave runup would be 9.87 feet (2.0
- 0.70
- 7.05 feet) and the runup elevation would be 121.97 feet (PSF 4G Dattan) (u2.1 + 9.07 feet).
b v. +
REFEgENCES 1.
U. 3. Army Corps of Engineers, Shore Protection Namis1. Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Relvoir, Virginia, 3rd Edition,1977.
2.
. Bratschneider, C. L., " Field Investigation of Wave Energy Loss of Shallow Water Ocean Waves" Technical Memorandum No. 46, Beach Erosion Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, September 1954.
3.
Losada, M. A.,
and L. A. Gimenez - Curto, " Mound Breakwaters Under Wave Attack", Proceedings of the International Seminar on Criteria For Design and Construction of Breakwaters and Coastal Structures, Department of the Oceanographical and Ports Engineering of the University of Santander, Spain, 1980, p. 127-238.
4.
Tautenhain, E., S. Kohlhase and H. W. Partenseky, " Wave Runsp at Sea Dike Under Oblique Wave Approach", Proceedings of the Eighteenth Coastal Engineering Conferenes, Volume I, November 14 to 19,1982, Cape Town, Republic of South Afzica, published by the American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.
5.
Personal Communication between J. P. Ahrens of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center and S. L. Hui of Bechtel Civil and Minerals Incorporated, dated October 9,1984.
f 4
t
(
t i
4 4
4 hv. t}
's.
I h,6 hg
\\ s'v 4
e/
3, v
^
~
y'!
s
.,.g.
N
.j-Q
/ %.
J
=
- -f.:
4 y,
- I t-t IL 3,!s I
di /O
.i s
j g
- l..
}'
g s
b
\\
3 i es
=.
s 1
ss b
k N
s.
.\\
_ a..
t i
L
.. -s q,
w 7
zy r
.i 3
\\1
~
3 b
As
.n
')4 l
k hd s
+$ \\l_ % Q, '.
Q f*
e a
I
- 3s
. _~ /
ll 1
f-Y' R "
2 I
N.\\\\
F A \\\\ 'A' N A s.s.M s'\\ A\\'
g W
) )
ll M.
ee e
mm a
p aa o
KK O
)
)
l d
L s
.Es r.
o s
h
)
)
aa f t
e k i l g.
e o
n a Dc n a c
o o
b w\\
( (
i r
1 m
r n e l
>f 0
s h
u ns l 5
A C od a.
r
(
(
t oW d r
0 l
p p
i
,o 1
e sp o
(
m b
a e yr s a r
5 a
r r rd o r A
ra l e
m a.
m p
p au o e
r
[@_pY s Q D r
i i
e.
m.
e R.
R e
t) i p
- e a0 m
g p
s w8 i
k9 I
_S a1 r
e o
r,
f e
ao ec t
d i
sr n
0 uu h
oC e
i -
r T,
rs
~
e A
ae
- e vn
~
~
=
rm s
e
~
~
~
C oi y~-
. rC
.e r
Cd e
e n
s t
sa 9
u m
sa a
rd r
ea e
a vs
- e P
m s
PI y
U t
- m i
no r
ur e
~e a
RF l
(
s e
i m
v.
i i
S t s
- t e
. e f
Ii r
n 8" U u
S s
/'
y a
2 z
c
.g iF e
5 e
5 e
s e s
e
?
s 1
s 1
s.
e.
7 a
8 t
e e
e e i
sg*fj,Y3g e
1 1
k D%
t
.e i*
y2 g
[1 J~
l h
e_
[D Yh s sss
,44 SMCOROVA (1984 tacHmogn (377) \\
{42
- M"
"'73) 3 W455mo 0957)
I, AUTHORS 0901)
\\
o= at w w e w a w a so.
WAWE DIRECDON $
Fig. 3 RelativeWaveRun-upForWaveDirectionf 1
(From Tautenhain, et al, 1982) tcv.14
-