ML20133F531
| ML20133F531 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/17/1983 |
| From: | Muller D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Lainas G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19264D658 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-353 TAC-49636, NUDOCS 8508080325 | |
| Download: ML20133F531 (1) | |
Text
2.. w..~.'.= u : ~..
- - - - -. = -. -. - - - -.. -...-
DISTRIBUTION:
METB Reading File ADRP Reading file MAR 171983 ME!!0RA!!DUM FOR: Gus C. Lainas, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors, DL FROM:
Daniel R. !!uller, Assistant Director for Radiation Protection, DSI
SUBJECT:
(TAC N0. 49636) USGS/FE'IA REPORT Oil llYP0THETICAL FAILURE OF SPIRIT LAKE BLOCKAGE J. Levine of the tieteorology Section, !!eteorology and Ef fluent Treatnent Branch, reviewed the USGS/FEt'A report, " Water Resources Investigation Report 82-4125."
Although the meteorological assunptions are not explici tly defined, the analysis of the impact of the natural dan failure was based on nomal precipitation and the 100 year inflow into the Spirit Lake drainage basin. The effect of greater than nornal precipitation, changes in the inflow rates to the 1,ake as a result of severe winter stoms, and changed topographic features due to the Mt. St. Helens eniptions, have not been considered. However, because of the snall drainage area feeding Spirit Lake, it appears that such considerations would have little effect on either the probability of failure or the severity of i ts consecuences. For exanple, the runoff from a probable naxinun precipitation event would be insignificant rela-tive to seasonal variation in nanoff.
Original signed by Daniel R. feluller; Daniel R. l'uller, Assistant Director for Radiation Protection Division of Systems Integration cc:
R. flattson W. Gamnill J. Stolz R. Clark C. Trannell
$Y.~NO'e9eCJ R. Gonzalez
- 1. Spickler J. Levine i
r
.{)/ ) D l
- SEE PREVIOUS WHITE FOR CONCURRENCES.
oma ;..DSI..: RP ;.MEIB.DSl;.RP;,W B
, DS1:RP,,,,
8508080325 850618 suame )
J RLev. i n.e: d..j.,
I S..p i c..k..l e...r.... WPG.amm.i.l l......... 'e..r....
. 0 3../.11../. 83
- 0 3./..1.1../.8..3.*...0 3../.14../. 83.*.. 0 3../f/./. 8. 3...
...... BELL 8 5-3. i.3...
5 PDR om>
.71
,, ~.. m,,am, sorm n,m o FF1ri AI RFCOR D COPY i,, m m
_.au.2au.w..a.
a,.w. e
.o.m.
... t.
,-.v_.,.
c;_
u 3
...s..
a.a
+_ua
+
w w a aa w..:
a 2.u -
...s --
...a t +-
i s
qQ]'(A J 'F'
~.: 3: : vis
)
4,.
..v_= u
_=._-... :..:-
~,.
)
4 z.
j.
February 17, 1984
~~*-
p
?
i~
j
.C 'ORAtlCUM FOR:
James R. Miller, enter j.
Operating Reactors Branch =3, DL FROM:
Charles M. Tracnell, Project Manager p
Operating Reactors Seanch 73, OL i
SUBJECT:
FORTHCOMING MEETING tlITH PORTLAND GEilERAL ELECTRIC TROJAN NUCLE'R PLANT SPIRIT LAKE BLOCKAGE Date and Time:
Thursday, February 23, 1984 9:15 A.m.
Location:
Phillips Buildirg Room P-422
Purpose:
To discuss licensee's and consultant's "
analyses of the flocd potential at Trojan cf a breakou c# Spirit Lt.ke on Mount St. Helens.
See at achec acenda.
C a rticipen.ts :
.lPC USGS W. Jcr.nston Chuck S ift R. Ballard
_es Lairc M. Pliecel R. Gcnzales PGE G. Lainas G. Iimer an 2-
.. Miller
~. Sushnel:
C. Tr3= ell 4-Si ons,
_1
. 2.si:c#: es i
Dr. ' 1 t
i
(
Charles ". Tram.rell, Project 7:r.necer Ooerating Reacters Brar.cn =3, :L
- 'EC T.en'..
s A:ar i
\\
h l T I')
T (.ltb 9 Rf 6 q q 0
[
v
~q "O '3 9 1.
\\\\
i
.~v..../.--...-.._
_. aa.
..u..-
e 1..
5 4
j t.'EETItiG t;0T' ICE DISTRIBL'TIOt4 i
cc: Docket File t1RC POR i
Lccal POR e
flSIC j
ORS #3 Rdg j
G. C. Lainas G. Holahan, ORAB H. Denton B. Grimes Project Manager OELD I&E Receptionist 1
i ACRS-10 Resident Inspector Regional Administra. tor 1
M. Schaaf i
tJRC Participants I
Licensee j
4 m
f 1
N 8
-.vm<,
7
.._ a
- ~-..
ua--
~ ~ ~
l r e.s. ru a ry
,s ~, 1 :_c.
1 Preliminary Agenda for t:eeting 4 Pojan - Spirit Lake - Mount St. Helens Fe br';a ry 23, 1984 9
I.
USGS Presentation 1.
USGS Report 82-4125 "Mudflow Hazards Along the Toutle anc Cowlitz Rivers from a Hypothetical Failure of Spirit Lake Blockage", as it relates to study done for 11RC 2.
Study done for NRC a)
Bases for assumptions
- 1) which assumptions are reasonable
- 2) which assumptions are conservative b) Conclusions regarding potential impacts on Trojan 3.
Status of USGS's long term FE.'M study for the Colunbia River.
- I.
PGE Presentation l.
Simons, Li Report III.
3roup Discussion 1.
L'SGS vie..s on Si ons, Li Repce: 5.'iRC's com ents en the 5 "cns, Li Report 2.
Discussion het..eEn h?.C, P2 anc consul:ar.:, anc J535 :n differences ce..een P3E's Sirens, L Reccr: anc L'535 's '.~::
repor:
3.
Nee: for furtner analyses anc evaluations v
O l
t
.... - - u.. -.; : : =. = 2 = -...=
- w. - - -. = -
aa.=
N s'.C - P 6 E - S L A mecHa Ott Trojam - Ulottd $ kalen 5 Fo b 13,14 h
nx SPt 2LT~
L/6WF VATC-
/v'e. k :
l A$4duw}
ClaA b % m et/
~
)8ymv. hadb[sje/-..k)iTQ
~
desde 6' es s
G av A. Leemm P G E.
74 aVArr axxMn?
Fe6
/4-u,acybtnau t cA Lr
.57amr, c z Mr:0c u ver, w c M t ctav.
S ieb Le 4 As.s..
SWS O A ilm' Goozuu=n adc-Ed RA ost
^'KC p
BcBaal nec -
=
6;//
5:kon ;a Usc5 C/uel W
assJ
/%h f-N eG
.L 7
w.,
.,...=.
..;g.
.. ? l:.?'
[.[..
..,;f
< j'
!,.OPDAlc 130 pn Feb 15;l18d i
j TRQIA d - SP@T LAG - ModdT ST AEtsd5 t
~ KOTE TO G. H\\LL6f_.
The lotys o[
6 Lv1eerS reSamed paybv3 -from SpLc& Lak. Av 3
@=hirdso Febrsg 11%..
'The erw manabg YLe pumps had bee >t l
I j
evacua,ei ovt February 5%
be was ito pav9g -for so 3
j abd a.
week. J)dr6 Ms-Ide., 4e Me.fevel rose abouf 3
o.s -ft. t.e evo:6 wa.o.
Tra.Aevel a.14 fee Awer
[
A b Auel consuaed safe b3 k con s.
E N'GESI G ) fens hRIVA.
&N>l1B ex bMikCL Nd. f se. fha a s ca k ha a J >qacs1 s semaa-tb k bormo-ThursJs3 eb !ce.
g F
~,,
'%?
s,.
l 1
Te
^k l.
4
.,2,-..o..-.+,-e.ee4 4l irs cd b
) E.,.(N Q file.gd M WrwA i
M 14 EH RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION PROJECT: T124G Ad doLOM01A MACch.Id,lc)$[
DATE:
ticee_ /
~ RECORDED BY:
Raymond Gonzales TALKED WITH:
ChucI Ni 0F O$[5I CDJMS. Ida5k.
_ A' de. Feb. 2.3,i484 meek 4 05(a s, Wr2 Scw' MAIN SUBJECT OF CALL:
4 omrso$kws. 0%S Lo d nmdud % sn] MC ensios b f L VitaT--
a cauLi 4th 4Cs awk.) n Feb 15. n.Trn nubpH ks A called ULEd{arL+n.Ack. outte_ sfsita_>f gd Aeuzgraki-a4 alto L.uskM S.Asc sA uprte W_rsL20c2 weeQ W r
d
-. A es.+,_4u et d uM. m Mk a
_T card Ouc[Suiff at 2:15pm1Xatek.nf.JGQ%eA
. m e. s t G.vieurgab am
% be w ed i n b d
. $>a ko.) +been m c'else k h '
. Re.ey@A ~%atto be H&ah a stL k M<. Lade &,~
h tu # e w a ) # t a w a t x
t as~ur.La&AC$us pc $hdcf r-
- k d sd.
+ 4echhun,JA ?
.x
. -. k d% add la.dhd % _ ~ DK bfi idh.%l 4M&M 7 it g%p *f"p.4acp iver NNbe
~ddch a
-+ b w %sd Am unw'+Jn wuL'1l' & 6
. be M 'tfu k
beM%
Lua t-Far as neL +M. :
-$ u~. Of bedura d Mr r
s M+
a w..
k 2.dtut xjucf Ay l Ak ' daw).
Mr & d' vriN'be a ifa MA Hr 5dy td ~Ateikf %d< dudjv 1 0 ra za se m a f j u q L w &s u
~
t 4,
at
- 9. t > <
s+o m n>
SY lJff A Ys.twkns&
y I
/
p k.&7
.od s ukq5 k a
o.
fg' i
i
. L...... ; ^.=
!G6' -
. - = - -..
~ 2 2 :. - ;..:
k:
t 6
ra g;gw Mgs,ns4 NAf kA q
Mt7 4
?
5 i
e lr v o h
. _. ~. n._..__...
..i.a -e
- n e-x 'u
=-
4-
~.
i RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Tr0lan !Mk. St. Iefons DATE:
Ma4 8.1984 - 11:35 a w..
PROJECT:
c a
v f
RECORDED BY:
Raymond Gonzales TALKED WITH:
'M(\\ $iKoniL OF & 0$(rs -Tacoma.ulask.
{
MAIN SUBJECT OF CALL:
To ad if Me USGS-Ff MA-reon:. m 'O effecf5 o[
N u M oh $5 fik lnYe {)ur & N,' S hrurs 3.1 a 4 N res Yl$blGnCCL-As OMsAn Ane.cc Mc.
0 U
h Mt. SiAS h tu< tu< 2 L $
races 5 Y f fo 1 6 k c J h v Nw ' '
6r Trojam
__s.Jhess
_ w~e neur op roce e
. sp '. L& a kJ deedel t> =
o
% 6th Alci for u.s a e
iske~2 ogicoL%
34 4 u rep <rd. buis 0{ka~
%ev en.. T4 r.n p i a,.6...
w; + =.'
Ahx.y & /w.1a
/
K1 c3,L k m eef C L '/..
.n w':
yw
. air.,.
.,.m..9,..x,v. cut hx.w p Oc,. m V. ss ci
-~ -
.u'.
i l.
s*.? D
/*,* f'
{,'
ql'
...!a %-
' ' * ' ' ' b $a',l. ;'
/ w a m s q(4'r 0(9!$*
Mc m-Q mii;- lM.a( )kn.cc1Me!. %'. -
.becaa.w LiA A Al L.L avudA..Ang DD Lw$'!(A cAI
&. $ W i
w3 nuu i-T'o. u.-u R:'Y m Jc1 u-
.s m.w. ! *. aw,.a Wu A,<Apr &
dgcjmj s %
Cc%~Im ik('st&ma T
wi =.
5 f ",i-l
-a. ~ & ~ et; '
0d w a d % A z 0 w u < s k a f w Y r' po w Jj%]
kJ Ja d
y,4%f && Mpad a/i(! A b
,j) be,\\ & sd.d & Hncil f LM: A<
U C
'/
/
/
65 a
- i
0' g,
IJ
~
m..~., q.,' " =.s.
m
.C4 4afas..x.1 2.J_.,
.J. A L L. ~2.
___ ' 2 '.; C.L '...L.. w J md.AL.
..C*
i.... w UNITED ' TATEs 9
~~'
s E 'f,,,, ~ )
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
!] * ' [
- ,.g' E
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 tw
%.'"... /
JUL 2 51983 4
, Docket No. 50-344 1
Mr. Bart De Withers Vice President Nuclear Portland Generai Electric Company 171 S. W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204
Dear Mr. Withers:
In conducting our review of your letter of July 1,1983 relating to Spirit Lake, we have detennined that we will need.the additional information identified in the enclosure to continue our review.
In order for us to maintain our review schedule, your response is requested within 30 days of your receipt of this letter.
Following receipt of your response, we request that a meeting be held in Bethesda with you and your consultant to discuss 'this matter in more detail. We plan to also have'our consultant (USGS) attend.
For planning purposes, the meeting should be held about two weeks after we receive your response.
Please contact your NRC Project Manager who can make detailed arrangements.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this t-letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Please contact us if you have any questions concerning this request.
Sincerely,
+
Robert A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/ enclosure:
See next page L
w y
4-.-
. -... -..i.: _,
.u......._ c.
J._
_. u ___.
_ _.g _ _ _
2.
9
-Portland General Electric Company cc: Michael Malmros, Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trojan Nuclear Plant
- ~
P. O. Box.0 Rainier, Oregon 97048 r
Robert M. Hunt, Chairaan Board of County Comissioners Columbia County St. Helens, Oregon 97501 Donald W. Godard, Suoervisor Siting and Regulation Oregon Department of Energy Labor and Industries Building Room 111 Salem, Oregon 97310 Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Ccmission, Region V Office of Executive Director for Operations 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596 i
1\\
'T 2
1
- - ~ u.
=
- ~ ~ ~
~"
^ ~
HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING SECTION Additional Questions " Potential Mudflow from a Hypothetical Failure of Spirit Lake
. Blockage" (July 1,1983 response from PGE) 1.
Tha report appears to be a summary of J wre detailed analysis and report.
As such, however, it does not contain the information necessary to enable us to evaluate it.
If you have a more coinplete report please provide it.
2.
The important case of a mudflow during a low Columbia River flowrate, with consequent high sedimentation in the Columbia River, followed by a large flowrate has been neglected.
Records have shown that high flow-rates (1,000,000 CFS) have followed period's of low flow by only a few days.
Analyse the potential for flooding of the site by this scenario, or justify why this case was not considered.
3.
Item 1.3 The procedure 'used to reduce the sediment concentrations from 39, 52, and 65 percent to 20, 30, and 45 percent respectively, as summarized in Table 1 should be discussed and all assumptions should be justified.
For example, what is the basis for reducing the volume of material into the Cowlitz by 40% (column 2)? What is the basis for the ratio of sand to finer material of 2 to 1 (columns 3 and 4)? Etc.
4.
Item 1.4 Please explain the basis for the 30 percent moisture assumption.
Is this figure based on available pore volume or on total volume of dry solid?
What porosity was used and what is its basis?
5.
Item 1.6 What is the basis for assuming a Columbia River sediment concentration of 500 ppm? What effect would varying this concentration have on you'r results?
6.
Several references are used in the text, but are not documented.
For example, the "Colby method" in item 2.4.
Provide the references.
7.
Item 2.5 Define the term " bulking factor".
8.
Item 2.6 Give basis for your assumption that the shape of the mudflow sedi-ment deposit at the confluence of the Cowlitz and Columbia rivers can be raticed from the configuration of the deposition following the May 18, 1980 mudflow.
That mudflow deposition was rather flat compared to other known mudflow slopes. What is the sensitivity of your results to variations in.
the slope of deposited sediments?
9.
Item 3.4 Give basis for calculations of sediment load.
Were formulas employed derived from relationships for sediment transport in rivers?
If so, justify that these fonnulas are acceptable for the very-high sediment loads of the present case.
- 10. Item 3.8 Why is 400,000 CFS the "most reasonable Columbia River flow to evaluate"? Is there a probabilistic basis for this conclusion?
- p.,. _ _.. _ _... _. __. _.
e
~;.
.:. : =.x -.
j_
.-2...
. :.... a
- a... -
- w:..
~
2
- 11. Table 1 (a) Column 8 is unclear. Arithmetica11y, it appears that the expression should be (col 6 + col 4)/1.4.
Explain the meaning of the value 1.4, and why it is used here.
t (b) - Explain the difference between column 1 and 2.
Also, why is " material" used in column 1 and " sand, silt and clay" used in column 27 q
9
,7 -
i b
e 1
S m.-..
-e.
-.n-.,
. - e --
.., _...... ~... -....
% 2.
' :a -.L
.. x.
'
- Au %
/g
'c, UNITED STATES
_[',
fj NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- /, E WASHWCTON. D. C. 20555
%, S. //
NAY 2 7 1983 D6cket No. 50-344 r
Mr. Bart D. Withers Vice President Haclear Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204
Dear Mr. Withers:
In conducting our review of your letter of April 12, 1983 relating to potential mudflows from a postulated failure of the Spirit Lake blockage, we have determined that we will need the additional information identified in the enclosure to continue our review. As you are aware, we are also presently discussing this matter with the United States Geological Survey.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in.this letter af fect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Please respond to this request within 30 days of your receipt of this letter.
'se intend to review your response and complete our independent review of this matter in order to ensure that a breakout of the Spirit Lake blockage would create no safety problem before plant operation is resumed in uly.
Please centact us if you have any questions concerning this request.
Sincerely,
,q
}RobertA. Clark,ChiefWk$(A0{5r Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/ enclosure:
See next page g
n ---
gg 3
t PP 1y6 e
.s.
... a-.._. =. x =..... -.... : : -. u = :.
T.
Portland General Electric Company Michael Malmros, Resident Inspector cc:
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trojan Nuclear Plant P. O. Box 0 Rainier, Oregon 97048 Robert M. Hunt, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Columbia County.
St. Helens, Oregon 97501 Donald W. Godard, Supervisor Siting and Regulation.
Oregon Department of Energy Labor and Industries Building Room 111 Salem, Oregon 97310 Regional Administrator riuclear Regulatory Commission, Region V Office of Exe.cutive Director for Operations 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, Californ,ia 94596 7
a r
- l
't e
-e l
l
m
. -.;.~ - :..~..: =.~...v--
a;
.. ~.
=
RE0 VEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION In referring to USGS Report 82-4125, you state that the Troj'an Plant is protected against conditions that might be expected from a failure of the Soirit Lake debris blockage. You apparently base this statement on the fact that the design basis flood for Trojan, 4,400,000 cfs, is substantially more than the 1,090,000 cfs postulated by the USGS in their report. We would agree with this reasoning if the Spirit Lake breakout flood was a clear-water flood.
- However, since it would be a mudflow, the forces considered in analyzing fluid flow, particularly pressure, inertia and viscosity would be significantly different.
We would expect that the more viscous mudflow would result.in reduced channel efficiency and higher flood levels for a given flow.
In addition, the mudflow would be capable of depositing a tremendous amount of sediment in the Cciumbia River thus resulting in even higher flood levels.
The staff position is that you have not provided sufficient information to show that a breakout of Spirit Lake and the ensuing mudflow would not affect the safety of the Trojan Plant.
You should therefore provide the following informa-tion for staff review.
1.
Taking the scenario in the USGS report as a "given", discuss the likeli-hood of water levels exceeding plant grade elevation of 45 feet msl at Trojan.
2.
Discuss the effect of water levels higher than elevation 25 feet nsi on a
the safety of the Trojan Plant assuming various durations and levels of flooding.
---