ML20094B481
| ML20094B481 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/24/1975 |
| 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-02.04.01-01, SRP-2.04.01-1, NUDOCS 9511010078 | |
| Download: ML20094B481 (6) | |
Text
n maco NUREG-75/087 fa
'o y
1, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
O STANDARD REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION r
SECTION 2.4.1 HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary - Site Analysir Branch (SAB)
Secondary - None I.
AREAS OF REVIEW The areas of review under this plan are:
1.
Identification of the interface of the plant with the hydrosphere.
2.
Identification of hydrologic causal mechanisms that may rquire special plant design bases or operating limitations with regard to floods and water supply requirements.
3.
Identification of surface and groundwater uses that may be affected by plant operation.
The review of Section 2.4.1.1 (Site and Facilities) of safety analysis reports (SAR) consists of comparing the independently verified or derived hydrologic design bases (see subsequent sections of 2.4) with the critical elevations of safety-related structums and facilities. The review of SAR Section 2.4.1.2 (Hydrosphere) requires identification of the hydrologic characteristics of streams, lakes (e.g., location, size, shape, drainage 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 affect safety aspects of plant siting and operation.
II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance of the infonnation presented in SAR Section 2.4.1.1 is based on a qualitative evaluation of the apparent completeness end quality of information, data, and maps. The description and elevations of safety-related structures, facilities, and accesses thereto should be sufficiently complete to allow evaluation of the impact of 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 USNRC STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
- = =:=.._. =..- - :::.":":::: ::".=r.".=r.== ::===~m:.==:
."" ".' '.= T..:.:.: '.'
n, "' **:"., '.".;.m::.',.".*" T:O."..'t;'.".?".,.".n,.'". =:TO:*.'". ; F *::":;t=l ".'=7l ":
=
..sta.h n
e.wi.ie pt.n.
- 4. b.
vt p
- t. 6
- y....pp p.6.t..
s.mm t.
mm.n,..n. t.
l n
In.o.m 6.a.n..ap 4.n c,,.g,, =,g n...
- c.mm l
11/24/75 l
9511010078 751124 PDR NUREG 75/087 R PDR 1
and enmponints should be identified on site maps. ' Data on surface water users, location with respect to the site, type of use, and quantity of surfcce water used are requirsd.
The information presented in'SAR Section 2.4.1.2 forms the basis for subsequent hydrologic engineering analysis. Therefore, completeess and clarity 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 Con-servation Service (SCS), Corps of. Engineers, or appropriate state and river basin agencies.
Descriptions of all existing or proposed reservoirs and dams (both upstream and downstream) that could influence conditions at the site must be provided. Descriptions may be obtained from reports of the USGS, United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), Corps of Engineers.
and others. Generally, reservoir descriptions of a quality similar to those contained in j
- .ertinent data sheets of a standard Corps of Engineers Hydrology Design Memor. aum are adequate. ' Tabulations of drainage areas, types of structures, appurtenances, ownership, seismic and spillway design criteria, elevation-storage relationships, and short-and long-
- term storage allocations must be provided.
!!I. REVIEW PROCEDURES The information presented in SAR Section 2.4.1.1 is not generally amenable to independent verification, except through cross-checks with other SAR sections and chapters, available publications relating to hydrologic characteristics of the site region, and by site visits.
The review 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 hydrosphere (e.g., geographic location and regional hydrologic features) poten-tial site flood mechanisms are identified. Subsequent SAR sections addressing the mechan-isms are cross-checked to assure that data and information required herein for review and substantiation are available.
An important facet of the review procedure for this plan and for other plans in hydrologic areas is the site visit. The site visit provides the principal technical reviewer with independent confirmation of hydrologic characteristics of the site and adjacent environs.
The site visit is discussed in Appendix A to this plan.
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 required 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 elevation 220 feet above mean sea level (MSL).
I 2.4.1-2 I
11/24/75
_m.
Significant hydrologically related plant featurss include the river intake struc-ture, the natural draft cooling towers, mechanical draft nuclear service cooling towers (these are redundant towers and serve as the ultimate heat sink), and various groundwater wells."
V.. REFERENCES.
Because of the geographic diversity of plant sites and the large number of hydrologic r
references, no specific tabulation is given here. In general, maps and charts by the USGS, NOAA, Army Map Service (AMS), and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); water-supply papers of the USGS; River Basin Reports of the Corps of Engineers; and other publications of state, federal,and other regulatory bodies, describing hydrologic characteristics and water utiliza-tion in the plant vicinity and region, are referred to on an "as available" basis. Other plans in the hydrology area (plans 2.4.2 through 2.4.14) contain references that are to be used in evaluating the hydrologic description of the site.
' 1.
Appendix A Standard Review Plan 2.4.1, " Hydrologic Engineering Site Visits," attached.
2.
Regulatory Guide 1.70, " Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants," Revision 2.
l l
2 l
2.4.1-3 11/24/75 e
APPENDIX A T
STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 2.4.1 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING SITE VISITS 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.
Confim the applicant's general appraisal of the site / plant hydrologic interfaces.
3.
Review specific hydrologic engineering problem areas with the applicant, his engineers, and his consultants.
l The site visit objectives will have been achieved if, in addition to viewing pertinent g
N hydrologic features, the reviewer has had the opportunity to discuss specific questions -
and concerns with the applicant's hydrologic engineers, and is assured that the questions and concerns are undrstood. In addition, generally acceptable techniques and procedures necessary to respond to staff concerns should be discussed.
II.
PROCEDURES Draft questions, or items of staff concern, are to be developed by the hydrologic en-gineering 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 draft 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, effluent treatment systems,and structural engineering) should be coordinated before final typing of drafts.
The Section Leader will discuss any unusual or potentially controversial areas of concern with the Chief, SAB, prior to transmittal of drafts to the Project Manager. Transmittal of the drafts will be by Memo Route Slip through the Section Leader.
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 sumarization of the areas discussed and conclusions reached.
2.4.1-4 11/24/75 i
.m
..m..
j Norumily, a small group composed of the staff reviewer and licensing projQct manager (LPM) should meet eith an applicant. representative responsible for rgsponding to staff questions and the applicant's technical advisor. For verbal summarization during the site visit, the recommended method is to have the applicant or his technical advisor sunmaritt the discussions to assure understanding.
- 111. TRIP REPORT F
A trip report on a site visit should be prepared within 5 days of the reviewer's return.
The report is to be as brief. as possible and should summarize the trip and the areas of discussion and should list the participants in technical discussions. Within 7-10 days of returning,'the reviewer should prepare final question lists, updating the draft for.
l new areas of concern, deleting areas.for which the site visit revealed that no safety I'
or environmental problems remain, and clarifying draf t questions based upon discussions l
and information obtained during the site visit.
o I
l l
i I
l i
l l
l i
l i-i I
2.4.1-5 I.
11/24/75 i
i s
e s
l
-4
+
I
,+3 4e 4,4:.M
,.44
..,._-2 Jm, aL J-4-Au 4
A
.4a-s.a,J 4-4 44S.
6 Mw-4 e@ Amu-4.a 4b-Owe-.4*4>4.4m4aa m.s.wasa_.qna 5-,Aa s4_*e-44 a= 4 Aa,Am.m&.twa.a.aus a.maa m.m.
-a_ a, as.anrggege4ma-
--es-w.
me.a&J.-
i 1
i 4
)
11/24/75
=-
n m
l 4
fh
$~d -Z l
i