ML20136E883
| ML20136E883 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Vogtle |
| Issue date: | 03/20/1984 |
| From: | Liaw B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Adensam E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082840446 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-663 NUDOCS 8404050496 | |
| Download: ML20136E883 (3) | |
Text
steg
- 3 k,
UNITED 5TATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
j wAsHf NGTON, D. C. 20553
}
'+,....../
MAR 2 01984 Docket Nos.
50-424/425 MEMORANDUM FOR.
Elinor Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch #4 Division of Licensing FROM:
G. D. Liaw, Chief Materials Engineering Branch Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
GE0lIGIAPOWERUOMPANY,V0GTLEELECTRICGENERATING PLANT, UNITS 1 & 2, REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Plant Name:
Vogtle' Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 & 2 Supplier:
GE, Bechtel Licensing Stage:
OL Docket Numbers:
50-424/425 Responsible Branch & Project Manager _:
LB-4, M. Miller Reviewer:
S. J. Bhatt Despription of Task:
Review of Turbine Missile Issue
[g.4 Requested Completion Date:
April 1, 1984 l
Review Status: Applicant's Response Required The Component Integrity Section of the Materials Engineering Branch, Division of Engineering, has reviewed the available information in the FSAR.
In order to provide our input to SER sections 3.5.1.3 and 10.2.3.G, we are sending herewith our request for additional information which must be supplied by the applicant.
)
5' 1
B.bb.Llaw, Chief Materials Engineering Branch Division of Engineering
Attachment:
As stated cc:
See page 2
Contact:
S. J. Bhatt s
X-27742 4
l(
l YO Q 35 g
'. l...,
MA(3oam4 E. Adensam (
cc:
R. Vollmer D. Eisenhut W. Johnston T. Novak
- E. Sullivan S. Pawlicki M. Miller B. D. Liaw C. Y. Cheng W. Hazelton R. Klecker S. Bhatt U m ee S
1.
1 y
ATTACHMENT k
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION V0GTLE UNITS 1 AND 2 MISSILE ISSUE COMPONENT INTEGRITY SECTION 1
MATERIALS ENGINEERING BRANCH We have reviewd the Vogtle Units 1 & 2 facility with regard to the turbine missile issue and conclude that the probability of unacceptable 4
damage to safety-related systems and components due to turbine missiles is acceptably low (i.e., less than 10 per year) provided that the turbine
-5 missile generation probability is maintained to be 10 per reactor year or less for the life of the plant by an acceptable maintenance program.
In reaching this conclusion, the staff has factored into consideration the unfavorable or'ientation of the turbine generator.
The staff considers the turbine missile, issue as a confirmatory it.em if the applicant agrees to:
O MM (a) submit for NftC approval, within three years of obtaining an operating Q/
license, a turbine system maintenance program based on the manufac-I turer's calculations of missiles generation probabilities, or (b) volumetrically inspect all low pressure turbine rotors at the second i
refueling outage and every other (alternate) refueling outaga thereafter until a maintenance program is approved by the staff; and conduct turbine steam valve maintenance, (following initiation of power output) in accord-ance with present NRC recommendations as stated in SRP Section 10.2 of NUREG-0800.
Q 251.1 In Section 10.2.3.6 the ultrasonic inspection of the bore and 3.5.1.3 keyway region of.each wheel will be conducted at intervals of about 6 years.
Provide a chart for Inservice Inspection time (years) versus the probabilities of missile, using the material properties and turbine characteristic of Vogtle uiiits, based on the recent reference, " Probability of Missile Generation in General l
Electric Nuclear Turbines," January, 1984.
o
?,/
UNITED STATES I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
h, k
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
)
%....*./
APR S 0 liiB4 I
(
Docket Nos. 50-524/525 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Elinor Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch #4, DL
~
FROM:
Ronald L. Ballard, Chief Environmental & Hydrologic Engineering Branch, DE
SUBJECT:
ADDITIONAL SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS - V0GTLE PLANT Plant Name: Vogtle Electric Generating Station Licensing Stage:
OL Docket Nos.:
50-524/525 Project Manager:
M. Miller Attached are additional safety and environmental Hydrologic Engineering questions for the Vogtle Station.
Ch These questions were prepared by Gary B. Staley of Hydrologic Engineering Section, phone 492-8003.
t Ronald L. Ballard, Chief Environmental & Hydrologic Engineering Branch Division of Engineering
~.
Attachment:
As stated cc:
W. Johnston M. Fliegel R. Samworth M. Miller L. G. Hulman B. Jagannath G. Staley.
]
f
~
14 C
s.
h Hydrologic Engineering Safety Questions
[
Vogtle Station, 50-524/525 240.7 In addition to the information requested in Question 240.6, (SRP 2.4.12) also provide a discussion and bases to show why other aquifers in the plant vicinity will not be affected by a tank spill.
240.8 Reference Figure 2.4.12-7, sheet 1.
Label all groundwater contours with the proper elevation.
240.9 Reference Figure 2.4.12-6, sheets 1 and 2.
The quality of (Sect.
the base map used for sheet 2 is virtually illegible.
You 2.4.12.3.2) should use the same base map (and same scale) for both sheets 1 and 2 so comparisons can be made.
You state in Section 2.4.12.2.3.2 that very little change has occurred (in the contour levels?) between 1971 and 1980.
It appears to the staff that there may be as much as 25 feet of difference (increase) between the 1971 and 1980 contours.
The well hydrograph for Well No. Sereven 3 on Figure 2.4.12-5 shows an 8 or 9 foot decline for the same period.
Do you have any information that will explain these apparent differences?
240.10 Provide a stratigraphic column for the formations under the C-(Sect. 2.4.12) main plant area showing the elevation and thickness of h
formations, geologic or soil properties, and identify the aquifers, aquicludes and aquitards.
Reference this column in discussions of formation features and hydro geologic properties, especially as they relate to the potential for contamination from the Vogtle plant.
240.11 The groundwater velocity should be based on effective porosity (Sect. 2.4.13) rather than total porosity.
Reference the figure that shows the location of Mathes Pond.
Provide effective porosities for the permeabilities listed in FSAR Table 2.4.12-9.
O
[*J
}**1.
}
- Nh UNITED STATES i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555
(
e
/
JAN 2 41984
/
Docket Nos. 50-524/525 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Elinor Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch #4, DL
~
FROM:
Ronald L. Ballard, Chief Environmental & Hydrologic Engineering Branch, DE
SUBJECT:
HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING SAFETY QUESTIONS FOR V0GTLE OL REVIEW Plant Name: Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Liceasing Stage: OL Docket No. 50-524/525 Attached are Hydrologic Engineering Safety Questions for transmittal to the applicant prior to the February 6 site visit. We consider the attached as Draft Questions, since some may be resolved or revised and others may be Q
generated as a result of the site visit.
We are in the process of initiating a contract that will include the review of the mechanical draft cooling tower (UHS) performance at Vogtle.
Our contractor may request additional information from the applicant in order to complete his review.
However, since tnat contract has not yet been finalized we cannot now provide an estimated date for those questions.
This review was performed by Gary B. Staley of the Hydrologic Engineering Section, phone X28003.
1 Environmental & Hydrologic Engineering Branch Division of Engineering
Attachment:
As stated cc:
W. Johnston O. Parr
-W. Gamill M. Miller M. Fliegel J. Kane
- [
G. Staley 41
. P.,
k.
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Hydrologic Engineering Safety Questions Docket Nos. 50-424/425 240.1 Your design basis ground water level of elevation 165.0 ft ms1 is not substantiated by some of the observation well readings in the water table aquifer. Well numbers 124 and 142 have readings in excess of elevation 200 ft msl for several quarters. Figure
- 2.4.12-7, Sheet 2, shows a groundwater elevation of about 145 ft ms1 near well number 129, whereas Table 2.4.12-7, Sheet 2, shows an elevation of 176.0 ft msl for first quarter 1980 for well number 129.
It appears from your discussion in Section 2.4.12 that your design bases value (165.0 ft msl) may represent more of an average value
-i rather than an upper limit. The design basis groundwater should not
{d be exceeded during the life of the plant.
Provide additional justiff-cation to support your selected design basis ground water level of 165.0 ft ms1.
Your justification should include reasons for apparently disregarding some cbserved higher recorded values in the vicinity of the main plant area.
Alternately, you may provide a revised (higher) design basis ground water level that can be supported by the records and will reflect a value that is not likely to be exceeded during the life of the plant.
Your response should also include consideration of historic rainfall records in comparison to what has occurred during your groundwater monitoring period.
240.2 You have not provided sufficient information for the staff to review your provisions for site drainage.
Provide the following information:
S l
, k 1.
Full size (unreduced) drawings for Figure 2.4.1-2, sheets 1 and 2.
2.
On the drawings mark the contributing drainage area and subbasins.
3.'
The drainage area, time of concentration, runoff coefficient and peak discharge (for the PMP) for each subbasin.
4.
Elevations at each change in grade for all peripheral roads and railroads.
Also provide sufficient spot elevations on all flat or gently sloping areas (main plant area, parking lots, switchyard etc.) such that the staff will be able to detennine slopes or elevation limits.
5.
Arrows on drawings to indicate assumed flow paths for overland and ditch flow.
6.
Ditch cross sections and invert elevations at extremities and at each change in grade or size.
7.
Locate all culverts (used for PMP discharge) on the drawings and
~
provide the type and shape of pipe, inlet and outlet invert elevations and shape or type of inlet.
8.
The design basis water surface elevation for safety-related structures in the main power block area as a result of local PMP on the site area.
You should also provide the maximum water surface elevation (due to local PMP) for each subbasin that contributes flow in the vicinity of the power block.
S
a.
. 4 240.3 Your estimates for probable maximum precipitation (PMP) in Table 2.4.2-2 are 20% to 30% less conservative than the values estimated by the staff using Hydrometeorological Report (HMR) 51 and 52.
Since our Standard Review Plan 2.4.2 allows for at most a 5% difference, this discrepancy must be resolved.
Since both staff and applicant values have been interpolated from HMR 51 and 52, there is apparently some judgemental error in interpretation.
For the purpose of resolving this difference, we have listed below the values the staff determined and the appropriate HMR Figure number that was used:
I hour 1 sq. mi PMP 19.1 inches Fig 24, HMR 52 5 to 60 minute ratio 0.323 Fig 36, HMR 52 15 to 60 minute ratio 0.506 Fig 37, HMR 52 30 to 60 minute ratio 0.736 Fig 38, HMR 52
_h Provide your revised values and additional discussion to substantiate those values if different from the staff's.
240,4 Provide a tabulation of existing groundwater users and a map showing the location and other pertinent information as described in Section 2.4.13.2 of NUREG-75/094.
.~_
240.5 FSAR Section 2.4.13 is incomplete.
Describe the nearest downgradient groundwater and/or surface water users and show that a postulated release from the most critical radwaste storage tank (which you must identify or cross reference) will result in concentrations at the nearest downgradient user that are less than those identified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 2.
f
..