ML20112E879

Requests Appeal Meeting Be Scheduled During Wk of 850325-29 to Discuss Backfit Issue Re Pmp.Outline of Position on Issue Encl

ML20112E879
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	03/11/1985
From:	Woolever E DUQUESNE LIGHT CO.
To:	Thompson H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
2NRC-5-040, 2NRC-5-40, GL-84-08, GL-84-8, WNRC-5-40, NUDOCS 8503270228
Download: ML20112E879 (6)

Text

P:

"hMp dvt w

(412 87 514 Nuclear Construction Division Telecopy 1) 8 6 Flooinson Plaza, Building 2 Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15205 March 11, 1985 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Mr. Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

Beaver Valley Power Station - Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-412 GNLR 84-08 Appeal Meeting Request and Position Statement on the Issue of Probable Maximum Precipitation

REFERENCES:

1) NRC letter (G. W. Knighton to E. J. Woolever) dated January 10, 1985

2) NRC letter (T. M. Novak to E. J. Woolever) dated November 6, 1984

3) DLC letter 2NRC-4-195, dated November 20, 1984 Gentlemen:

This le tter is in response to the NRC letter dated January 10, 1985 (Reference 1). In that letter, the NRC staf f amplified on the backfit issue relating to Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP). The previous staf f position was provided in a November 6, 1984, NRC letter (Reference 2). The Duquesne Light Company (DLC) response to the November 6 letter was provided by DLC letter dated November 20, 1984 (Raference 3).

DLC proposes that the first appeal of this issue be scheduled during the week of March 25-29, 1985.

The NRR procedure for management of plant specific backfitting speci-fies that the appeal meeting agenda be developed from the staf f and licensing positions and be distributed prior to any meeting. An outline of DLC's position on this issue is attached to facilitate the Project Manager's development of such.

DUQUESNE LIGH COMPANY By [f E. J. Wooleve r Vice President RW/wjs Attachment ec: Mr. S. Chesnut, Technical Assistant - w/ attachment Mr. M. Clausen, Technical As sistant - w/ attachment Mr. H. Denton, Director NRR - w/ attachment Mr. T. Novak, Assistant Director - w/ attachment Mr. B. K. Singh, Project Manager - w/ attachment Mr. V. Stello, DEDROGER - w/ attachment Mr. J. Tourtellotte, Chairman RRTF - w/ attachment Mr. G. Walton, NRC Resident Inspector - w/ attachment

\

Y* LEER 8288%,

PDR f

(

. c ISSUE: Review Criteria for Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) BACRPIT ISSUE NO. L-84-16 < .

Di4 BACRPIT NO.: _1 05/30/84 01/10/85 03/11/85 03/11/85 Backfit NRC Rqents A ppe al Position Meeting First Minutes & Second Meeting Second Minutes & Formal Ident if ied Letter Filed St at ement Age nd a Appe al Decision Appeal Agenda A ppe al Decision A ppe al Submit t ed Issued Meeting leeued Requested, leeued Meeting leeued Req ues t to Dir, NRR MRC POSITION DLC POSITION COMfGENTS PROPOSED NMR 33 methodology, as suggested by the SRP. was REQUIREMENTS used to demonstrate that BVPS-2 meets CDC 2.

e . e .e s. r eac-si. .s ., y mw .a-..

.*=u a . . w- - BVPS-2 was deeigned pr for to the issuanee of ima

.w. - .r.- -

e y

a .a."* $1 and 52.

f wM D. 4y

e. .w i , e s.se. rw.m - Construction of the BVPS-2 eafety related atruc-

. w ri . si.ier.ww.s =.-sawne ca .

s tures reached a significant percentage of comple-

%..- amm. a r.w ., wien==

n = m. n u.i w ., c e s tion yrior to the iseuance of MMR 52.

m. . noe m i == .-

i.

. , = . =

es. sw.i n e.t e r e.a.

= === -a.e""" No regulations provide for the use of 1stR 51/52 .

and their use has not been approved by the w r.. , ,,. ,, i = r.e. s .- .= .a w .= e.* == =. Coenieeion, a..

u. a.e.s e.im No regulations require upd a t e of FMP evaluation methodology.

=n s. .. . .

.i. n .cw . NMR 52 was issued after the . ef feet ive date for

=u . i a -a w.-* -a

• CRGR review requirement s (November 12, 1981). No

.e s c -n - m . n .a w

c ew . . ww . n .

guidance /re9uirement sPeeif yt'n3 the use of HMR 52 wo . . has been approved by CBCR.

w.- . e ==> si e sr p.=% co.e er p.r a t . 1 w.i e S. L 8 y ( E.g = & M 4.g F. t. h.

e M

PAGE 2 of 5 ..

ISSUE : Review Criteria for Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) BACKFIT ISSUE NO. : L-84-16 /

DLC BACKFIT NO.. -

1 .

NRC POSITION DLC POSITION (X)MENTS PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS

1. P=0PostD of0UtsfuteTS The PRC positten is esewately described ta OLCs statesent of the =#C posttee eder eneer discussten of -aetatieashte of new sentemats to Eststtag segulatory Pesttle**. That discussten sneefd be trenseesed ta 1tt e 'trety te this settlen. The following peregraph should be seced to tne treassened discussten: .

The criterten that' test meets the reqvtremsats of ECC.2 with respect to hydretagic events is the P"F. sad see 51/52 prestee methads fw estteettag Pmp for small dretaege erees. Prior to publication of ese 52, there were as decaentes u.: ttettve peacedures for evalesting P4P for guell betaege areas aer for distributtag the PmP tete short ties perteds th ce.'respead ,

to taese smell dretaege areas. secause iget 51/52 prestee nothods e d procedures. act prestevely evettelle, for estteettag POIP for gaell dreinste areas. the staff's positten is that see $1/52 sneuld to esed as a tests for review te accordance with procedures cited to sap 2.4.2 and 2.4.3.

IIeC Co8E=T3 The staff's F. seu peaceemres that utilite Protelle 90esteen Proctyttatten (PleP) me*e estatitshed to eset General Oesty Crtterien 2 (ESC 41. *deste teses for s chtectten egetest noteral pheacea e.' of to C8s 50, aseendis A.

unsch regetres to poet that nuclear gener plant structgre6. e.estems and compeaants te destped te withstead the effetts gf flames w*thGut less Not e that the . staf f comments use the term "c an of capettitty to perform their sehty fvattles. The pnnat less of caeentitty for safe netdava resultta,ettettlee from the mostis to reasonably be pr*dicted to occur."

sence fteed cemettleas that can mienatir te p-edicted to occur et a site as a mett of severe byerweteorelegical coaditions.

In su chtag for a coaststent eeste cetteet a for oretectten agetast 1 ecol 'leedtag. tne staff esepted the Protelle Mestaum Fleed (PIW) as eenic we my tw Ceres of Emetaurs. This criterim =es setetaatty ,

eeniawd to te mited to fne destga of Feewel stnctum (ersactentir easil .hese fattere by fleertag comte m It ta substettet im of nussa itfe er praeerty. Theset s'af f adesfeJ this metnadelege as the desip bests far rece-stiv Itceasee aucteer f actitttes 'e- statta- ressans. .

Precedures fee enimettae pur eve enind te urtees teres of Eastasers .

fCOE) eae netspas unther se vece (aus) puniscattens. of certtester staff comments not e that no updates of MRC tatecest for precipitatten-taeuced fleedtag (Protetle mestsens Prec1ptte.

tee. er pnp) en we's 33, 51. end 52. *e 33. puttished to 1956 The.

gut dance reflect the existe: ce of HMR-52. Requir-pervloed geereitted cham 4r utentishtag tne imi of pnp fw ing the use of an unreferenced and unapproved HMR se we enfied eretagesto St. petiisned of ene 1973united statn odeced uit of we 33 by the ,195th media themarid1F.

Par nt esta is incons is t ent with the procedures for incorpo-te a specific reap of drain,e em stres ed stm durettaan. We 52 ration of ot he code s /s t anda rd s / indu s t ry guid-punitsnedentud ntteetn la 19s2.

seepres.

e a tees e stepwise 5: te specifteopereech eretu ems ,for,adapttag Pur ance. NRC adopt n.ron/ approval / conditional approval of speci f ic editions of codeo/ standards / industry The sciat to be sede fras the eteve etscussten is that Pnr is the deste critetoa eenoted by tne eeC te men emat soc.2 ts met; ead the guides is usually incorporated into regulations e category of Par melts from preciottetten. lad ced lacet ' tending Regulatory Guidese and/or ?he SRP.

. The guteeltaes prestees by tee's 33. 53 reestres as teemtte ,the ta precedum oneteeed by twe Cor sad ev5 te misere 1. Regulati is - 10CFR50.55(a) endorses specific ee 52 fee tne P=F m en.

1 cat fiesetas. The eeC staaeerd swie. Pi s. etreet ene staff to tage sete ceasedmtion teorend metnadeleetes to its mee. editions o7 ASME codes.

erecess. such coastseettens are else ucteerd to the tadhstry's saa guiseltaes. Thes ass [ 3173 1974 contstaed re

2. Regulatory Guides - ItG 1.59 endorses a speci-tes op race t nesten, anst/ ass 2.s . aget, 'erences tactodeste n'erence 188 33 andto f a.c edition of an ANSI s t a nd ard; ANSI M170-toe-51. wa-52 =es outitshed to 1962 pd thm hm heea ao nest ed 1976

. nestees of estnw anC or aesi toises te neint its entstece. smr. 3. Standard Revtew Plan - SRP 2.4.3 endorses HMR theless. tecesse et meresents a refine ==t of sne pour metnesetegy tw somit dretaaps that are tretcai of ascine sites, tes m ti me,oriete 33, 1956, and EM 1110-2-1141, revision of se laag as P'e to the criterten for deter =tatag enet a facittty ents GCC-2.

March, 1965. Although SRP 2.4.3 was issued unire than three years af ter HMR 51, it did not endorse HMR 51.

a.

• ACE 3 cf $ *~

ISSUE: Review Criteria for Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) BACKFIT ISSUE NO.t L-84-16 i DIE BMEFIT NO.t! -

NRC POSITION DIE POSITION COME NTS PROPOSED at postitos REQUIREMEhT3 ta The OLC positte9 cermeenesace ludicates dated a. gustceaf1tettag guidance 31,19s3. octonee 12.by theand tesa RSC statt.eer e, tied, neve meC osswers on aswst 31.19s3. w rewested to it westeps, safermetten to coattave

' eve safety restow. One of the outsttees asked that they adjust their site fleedtog emelysts estag tem St/St. All the othee reevested taformatten mes aseed to restew the septscent's emelysts streed, to the f!ae. other thea senattttee a tessereenic mee. they ate met ressend to saw of the avesttaas sedresstag 56te flepetsg; easteed, thew meen se eseast essae *P cae e.eleottaa reewest. Il ic. e aee44 Mseantes to the e

other gt attens es conGave eve f5as restew. me resutettted est segust 31.19sa euesttens er octeter 12. Itse without the reeuest to se}wst their fleestag onelysts with a4 $1/52. OLC. by letter ested movemeer 4 1988. provided a ressoase to theaa enesttens. The leg $1/$2 reentrement was suseeased esadtee resolutten of OLC's appeal. The Revester 4.190a.

1etter from met merefy mteted unt's posittee en the tsses that the '

apettcaat utshed to speeal.

1LC CWuT1 .

fit tates that *Wec's accestance review fasad the svPS-2 Itcease

.eeticatten accesteele fee doctettag with the fae evelaatten based on

"'- 3 3 '

• The acceptance review may not be a de t ailed neC Corutses analysis / evaluation of each calculation or bit of the OLC stata= eat is accurate; tw=ever, an ecceetence restav as aet end data. The use of 199R 33 (as sugge s t ed by the thesis met ne cesteered to reemat e set SRP) is not a minor de t all e therefore, it is on the ceatrary, d rtg en accaetece mteasted . the miysts er evei.etten.

4taff mie=rs esse a eignificant that HMR 33 was cons (dered auf ficient reetd servey to deter s.ntcie t te settiste atae If the metectai detailed to initlate mie.. suemitted my the mite,nt isreadtag the itcme a eitcs. a detalled review.

stea ecceetate for eschettg she=14 there'are aet te can

. thet calculatten methods used by the aseitcoat such aseaslysts fue' r=dare to t= ply ecceptate.

SUCCESTED The st af f implementation date s within four uninths TIME FOR of August 31e 1983 e is not cons i st ent with NRC IMPLEMENTA- tv. 3 suGststre Ttut For tuettguration Manual Chapter 0514 (Paragraph 044) which states e TION "... staff proposed requirementa will not be imC Cassituts Imposed ... during the appeal process."

The staff poected the edwited eveteatten of local site fleestag ta e ressoastle ttee (about 4 months) fo11ewteg the first reevest for et en august 31. 1983.

o 9

_. e ,.

. PAGE 4 of 5 -

ISSUEt R2 tiw Critarie fu r Pro *e bts M;mimus Prec ipirit ies (PMP) BACKFIT ISSUE C3. I.-84-16 ,

' th DI.C BACKFIT NO. ? 1 y NRC POSITION Dt4 POSITION 00MW..is .

HOW PROPOSED DLC has pr eviou sl y docketed information th ich REQUIREMENT II- "*" " ' " " " ' " 58'O - indicates that the subject roof s are designed for WOUI.D The anC petitten as stated my RC is adeguate. loads of at least 72 psi (letters 2NRC-4-ll2, IMPROVE dated July 30, 1984, and 2NRC-5-019, dated

, g gg,73, '

SA FETY February 11, 1985).

RC states, 'The reefs of safety-related struttms m designed to succert meter aCCtmulatten at the perspot everflau level. Pestelating a greater *"a event results '# increased everflev rather than tatressed accumulate . . *

1. ef C08eT97$

The F$a# Contains ne information regardtag reef dest'en se the staff Caepet sorte er disagree estR the stateres', sedittenal taferitatice utll he required, free the snellCast before the staff is able te determine tf reafs of safe'w-related seuld he teduced struC!ures are Capse by peedes veter fre aofasuP9ertl## the Is,aasthe Pue. addittana11. that first s'a** ment ts met **ttret* Correct I Caste f 9r terreased flate aver the paresets, the mater fewel has te of rease. RC shavid prestas safearettee to d***estrate thet ree's of safe's related structures Can sweenr' the mettet of aav ad69ttecel storage at we the level 48 the aarace*1 RC DOSITIOEI RC further indtCates that because les 33 describes PsiP as totag speseymous eith *masime sessible prettpitattee*, the 19G 33 POW has a probattltty of aere. Therefore, voless the staff Cae demonstrate that a store more severe that the let 33 PIEP has a probattttty greater thee aere. me tacrease te safety Can te demonstrated for the use of a more severe projeCttee, haC CopeefuT1 It is well established that the secrepriate design bests for prettetta=

t1ee Induced fleedtog at nuclear pleets is the Proteele Mastema Fleed (PRF). An tatsgral Campenent of pnp determinattan is PI9 Per is est an absolete value as suggested by RC. but represents a best estteste of an steer beund whose value is subject te Change as addittenal dets became available and acre detalled studies are teneuCted. The value of P19 tiven to tee 33 was the best estiente of PWP te 1956 den lem 33 vos

• putilshed and the value ef PMP determined te tem $1/52 ts the best estimate today.

RC e05f710s le se attempt te shou bas Conservative lee 3313. W C also states that, "The nighest eCteaI relefall for the Pittsburgh aree ses 2.09 taches te I hour (durine 1876). The see 33 analysts eses a i hour totensity of 9.3 inches / hour '

neC CseteT1 Najor starus produce talefall that varies Censiderably ever the taeacted region, untch is refietted te diffmet ameusts measured by the rategeges stattmd throughout the regten. RC selected a retafall The Smethporte PA, storm has been considered in reCere taat had a mestansa ane hour catafett of 2.09 taches and Clates Lhe BV-2 PMP evaluation (HMR 33).

that it to the *htshest actual retafall for the Pittsnurgh me." Ints messerseest may to the Case for that one gage but it may est be represents.

ttee of estreme values from other gages en the area aad part1Celarly the Peensylvania regies. As an esemple the gage et Seetkeert. Fa.. la0 etles nepheast of the site, had a measured value of 15 taches to one haur and 30.8 inches of rate to a $ hours. Yhts aestored 15 taches f4F ene hour sueeerts the P4P es tlea.e produC*4 bv the use of the lee 4 $1/$7 methodelegy for a one st aare mile area. Precis 9It betaw9e of this 4artetten la measurements of estr.ae estefall from one place te emether **

the reason that general 3recedures Reve bee

• develaped that tacerrerate o measured teformattee fr e a f aceer eeems. a#4 te vos ths eCCurrence of

• s'aams such as the aa* t (**?heert that resulted to the eewissen of emp

• • 1ues ev the pueltCeth e af asse $1/52, 4

e PAGE 5 ef 5 ISSUEt Review Criteria for Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) BACKFIT ISSUE NO.- 1.-84-16 #

Dif BACKFIT NO. -

1 MRC POSITION DEI POSITION COMPENTS RELATION OF Itt. on attaaos of uru eteuropent To tilstres staulatomt postitons NEW REQtilRE-NENT TO as sedicated emtmly, this sectten to the tenie of attachment t to the espitcaat s newes*=r 20. agpa letter should be treassesed to sectfen I. aad EXISTING ta its place, provide the fellentag staff nstatement of the nec posttton:

REGULATORY

• The carmt sap r.d.: states to secetaa Its nevte proceduree areastruction POSITIONS perett (Cpt stage reviews are carried eut eaer this w satten to evaluate the sept'icance of the controlttag fiend Iews .ith regard to As de t ailed on page 3 of this attachment, the the staat deste easts for flood pretutta at the eserettag itcease (R) steee a treef mtew is cmted out to etermine of new safer utta has statf's hard lin8 of IMR 51/52 is inconsistent tecese avallatie stace the Cp review and to evaluate the staattscence of with the handling of other codes, stand a rd s , and the ae= fare emettea etth reyed to the plaat estga tests 'w fleed pro- guidance.

tectten, ses *=fersetten etyt artse. tw tastance fram the occorrence of a aev mestaus f1eed of reewd sa the site regten. from ideatificatten of a source of me.ter fleedtag aet omtausly coasteered, free constructica of aaw dams, from fleed pieta encreatments. er from advances sa predtettve models ead analyttcal techatenes. If the Co. stage evateatten of fleedtog seteattet have been has been cmfully ceasidered and any de.e,fleeds all searces of mejor of Meerd flaedtag sheuld should faII WeII =9 thin the desten bests. leprovements la calcelational enthods may occur, but peserelly mill be centerned with tacreased accureCT to stream fles and

. .eter level predictions rathee thea with substantive changes to the fleus sad imis oredteted. where the OL miew =enets that the centre 11seg fleed level differs more than $s less ceawevettwir frem the Cp evateettoa.

say sueelemental preetsteas aseed ta the vloed protectim eestea tests she=Id ne directed to ord nely mmta, meesures ad precedum *er asserta, safe in spite of the ataff's many ref e rences to the shutde== ef the plaat er te=ard stave strutmi modificattaa to eccemmedate the desty fleed level. Thus the requirement is a part of entsttag sg, ee vague ment ion of new inf o rmat ion, no eegolatory pestateas. existing regulat io n requi res the u se of HMR g ,g, - 51/52. Therefore, the burden of proof rests with eyes-t emets GDC 2.

the reviewers propos ing the req ui rement . Ifnt il the staf f has demo ns t r ated that the use of HHR sves.2 deity d arter ta the issuaace of set $1 ead 52. 51/52 is necessary to achieve an acceptable level Cmtrutten af the aves-r sar ety reisted structum mehed of safetye no requirement exists.

a sm**mt parmte,. of cervettaa pri e to the issuance of een St.

no regulate as praetee for the usa af *pe $1/52.

ea carpist as reoutre web.a af Me evaluattaa sotandaleet.

WRC C08eeEeT1 la the staff's view, the request that the effect of tatense local proctattatica be caleotated et*=; tha upfdted dele one analysts contataed la tre 51/52 for campertsen with elder aaelysts and data Centataed ta let 33 is ceaststent with the respeastbility of the aleacy aet ts traere new taformatten which any s'fect the safety of the plaat. Ordtaartiv such assessments are mede greerically. Isome,er local prectette.

ties effects colate to plaat spectftc tooegraphy and must therefere be eeterstaed ladividuelty. OLC empressed concern to their ressanse that plaat construction has reached a gelat that change. L .;ya seuld have adverse effects sa costs er schedule. Such coastderations were satictpated to the Standard sevtew plan and are escItcttfy discussed. purther, the document sta'es that if the OL eeview shaws that the CentreIts#e 'Ised ts stgaif te-*'.1ess cesservative t*?= fram the Cp evaluettaa.

eay suselemental ecovielens se the flood prat ction destsa ns..s should be aCCome11shed thraugt eerly waratag meeswees and procedures for assertag Sa*e shutdema of the plant er by eteer struc.tural heae f the modificattaas elet . to accommodate the dtethisdesten fined= level,

=thm i heen muired to a..iants,.htch e .e thenhm meen

.iaer nedsf scattm. ia sumn.

.

• hts apellcattea by tha staff ts coaststent eith the erectices of the $pp Sad staff postttens greetously ageraved. Therefere. this

, is en esteeN 'ega Chapter 051a per Sectica 084