ML20198F363
| ML20198F363 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 01/24/1974 |
| From: | Cox T US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | NRC |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-0947, CON-WNP-947 NUDOCS 8605280488 | |
| Download: ML20198F363 (16) | |
Text
_ _ _.
4 JAN 2 i 1974 DOCKET NO.: 30-460 APPLICANT:
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM (WPPSS)
FACILITY:
WASHINGTON NUCLEAR ONE (WNP-1)
SUMMARY
OF MEETING HELD ON DECFMBER 18 AND 19,1973 TO DISCUSS DRAFT I
ROUND ONE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION on December 18 and 19, 1973, representatives of WFPSS met with the Regulatory staff in Bethesda to discuss issues arising.from the staff preparation of round one requests for information.
The meeting on December 18 continued for approximately 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and included 1) general discussions of site and regional geology and seismology, and 2) specific discussion of staff concerna in the areas of site characteristics, hydrology, meteorology and radiation protection.
On December 19, the meeting lasted approximately 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and included discussion of engineered safety features, accident analyses and radiation protection. For all areas, except geology and seismology, discussion was based on written draft requests for information prepared by the
. staff, which requests are included as an enclosure to this meeting susumary. The draft requests were individually reviewed to 1) assure that the applicant fully understood the draft request, and 2) to hear the applicant's proposed response to the request to determine that the response was generally adequate in scope, depth and technical orientation.
A list of attendees is enclosed.
Significant points discussed are summarized below:
1.
Site and Regional Geology and Seismology 1.1 Dr. H. Coombs delivered an approximately fifteen minute presentation concerning the regionil geology of the area, referencing the geologic mspping work of James Bingham and Reuben Newcombs. He discussed major anticlines and synelines, fault structures, general stratigraphy and lineaments, including the Rattlesnake-Wallula lineament. The Saddle Mountain anticline, a long structure, was discussed with reference to mapping by Mr. Daneby of FUGRO. Dr. Coombs pointed out that the USGS has identified what USGS terms the Saddle Mountain
- fault, lb I
8605280488 740124 PDR ADOCK 05000460 A
. ~. _ _ _
, 1.2 Dr. R. Miller presented an approximately fifteen minute review of the foundation studies, and particularly the boring tests, made to support foundation design work. This presentation was based on material in the PSAR.
Dr. Miller stated that FUGRO anticipates no problems in adequately founding the WNP-1 structures at this site.
1.3 The staff asked if there were more borings planned to be made in the intake structure area. The applicant responded that that was the current plan.
The staff asked for a description of what was considered the controlling geologic structure regarding potential seismicity. The answer given was that the Rattlesnake-Wallula lineament is controlling. This feature was then discussed in more detail.
Dr. Coombs pointed out that the lineament in this case consists of several intermittent fault systens and anticlinsi structures rather than one continuous fault.
The safe-shutdown earthquske is postulated to occur at a sharp bend in the lineament approximately 18 miles from the plant site.
2.0 Mr. R. Chitvood briefly explained the applicant's current position regarding the inquiry from the Bonneville Power Administration to WPPSS about continued utilization of the existing Hanford-1 facility past the now-planned 1977 shutdown. He stated that the WPPSS organi-zation is pursuing the licensing of WNP-1 as currently scheduled, with a decision on the possible relocation to the Hanford-2 site expected about February 1, 1974. The staff project manager assured the applicant that for the foreseeable future the application will be processed according to approved schedules already presented to the applicant.
3.0 Discussions of draft requests for information are summarized below, listed by the number assigned to the request in the enclosure to l
this meeting summary:
2.38 The applicant stated that a revised lease vill provide the authority needed, but that consummation of such an agreement is not anticipated in the immediate future. The applicant expects that the WPPSS organization will be able to make a commitment to the effective date of such a lease by March 1974.
i 2.39 The applicant will provide the requested map.
(
2.40 The applicant will provide the revised Figure 2.1.8.
2.41 The applicant will update the discussion given in the PSAR, and will include changes in the transport schedule and quantities proiected as a result of the planned N-reactor shutdown.
_ _ - _ - -,, - ~.
+ -_ - - -. - - - -, -
m.
- ~
. 2.42 The applicant will provide a discussion of the types and maxi-mu:n quantities stored as requested. Current procedures allow a =v4==
20,000 pound TNT equivalent storage within approxi-
)
mately 3.5 milas of the site.
2.43 The applicant will provide a more detailed discussion of the factors supporting the proposition that the probability for increased berge traffic is very low.
2.44, 2.45 and 2.46 These requests will be addressed in detail, with specific attention to the fact that the 100,000 and 200,000 gallon tanks will be buried under 40 to 50 feet of earth.
2.47 The applicant will provide the requested analyses.
2.48 The applicant will modify the PSAR wording and update the tabular data to reflect more positively the conviction that all major water users, both current and projected, have been accounted for in the PSAR.
2.49 The applicant will provide additional discussion including design bases demonstrating that safety-related structure design is adequate under probable maximum severity rainfall as well as severe ice and snow accumlations.
2.50 The plan and cross-section views requested will be supplied.
Tho staff pointed out that in the response to this request, riprap design bases must be adequate for the appropriate river vatar flow velocity, not just wind-generated wave action. The l
staff pointed out that appropriate references for design criteria to assure velocity protection would be the Corps of Engineers
" Engineering Manual on Spillway Design" and a manual titled
" Hydraulic Design Criteria", published by the Waterways Experi-ment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. The applicant agreed that consideration of these criteria would be made, and that additional discussion would be provided concerning design of piping bedding. A more detailed justification of the use of
{
riprap on 2 to 1 slopes will be submitted for staff evaluation.
2.51 The applicant agreed to clarify the current PSAR description to explicitly define the maximum flood water level at which the plant can be taken to and maintained at cold shutdown conditions.
The staff referred the applicant to Regulatory Guide 1.59 and its recommendations for cold shutdown and maintenance thereof under flood conditions including the worst site-related flood I
probable.
I l
l l
l
ste-e ne a -ree s s-et -e e.
o.e Otto 303y f tS-6 '^88) Slf-03V e.f
.......... p mg
<3 m uns
......._4-2.52 The staff stated that the use of Figure 2.4-11 requires a eore detailed justification of the derivation of the function shown. This justification should include a discussion of the conservatism in the graph presented. Additionally, the design bases leading to selection of the 370 foot design elevation for the service water intake should be provided.
6.10 The applicant stated he expected to propose ESF Air Filtration Systems which were in some respects different from those described in Regulatory Guide 1.52, and that the draft request would be eddressed in full.
6.11 Discussion of this draf t request led to clarification of the primary issue embodied in this request and in the prior request number 6.5.
The staff advised that a flow test will be necessary to verify that the design and installation of the mixing chanber, inlet piping, NaOH tank and the overall equip-ment arrangement is such that the solution of NaOH and borated water arriving at the CSS punip suction is continuously within an acceptable pH range. The test desi;n, including the pH' range of interest, shall be defined and justified by the applicant.
Testing of the above described mixing function of the system shall be in addition to flow testing of the overall system as installed, to verify the specified delivery capability of the as-built system.
The applicant agreed to study the request further with the i
intent of providing a more complete and satisfactory submittal in the response to formal "round one" requests for information.
6.12 The applicant agreed to supply further discussion of the NaOH concentrations as a function of system flow rates with special attention given to assurance that the recirculation phase pH of the solution is at least 8.0.
9 l
6.13 The applicant agreed to connait to later documentation of the l
data requested. The consniement will be documented in the near i
future, whereas the actual data sub.tittal will take place no I
later than submittal of the FSAR.
9.16 The applicant indicated a complete understanding of this request and an intent to respond fully.
12.8 The applicant's proposed response appeared to the staff to be nenerally adequate in scope and depth.
5-12.9 The applicant indicated changes are planned to figures in Section 1.2 to previde tha clarification requested, 12.10 and 12.11 The applicant indicated an understanding of the requests as written and an intent to respond with the sdditional information requested.
12.12 The applicant referenced existing PSAR Sections 3.9.2.7 and 5.2.1.19 ar containing the information requested. The staff agreed to review the referenced material and inform the applicant of its adequacy prior to submittal of formal requests for infor=stion.
12.13 The applicant stated that the 1* value will be utilized.
12.14 The applicant stated that all area conitors will be shown on figures submitted for each building level.
I 12.15 The applicant stated that Regulatory Guide 8.8 would be referenced.
12.16 The applicant stated that information would be supplied as requested.
12.17 The applicant stated that pertable raonitoring equipment will be assigned where necessary to individuals entering cotapartments.
The staff stated that discussion must be provided concerning the ability of the fixed instrumentation to measure concentrations in individual compartments. The applicant agreed to provide su::h discussion.
i 12.18 The applicant stated that the intent is to use a silver-zeolite filter type rather than an impregnated charcoal type. The staff stated that such use should be documented as the PSAR specifies only the activated charcoal type.
12.19 The applicant's proposed response was deemed generally adequate by the staff reviewer.
12.20 The applicant agreed to provide raare information as requested.
15.4, 15.5, 15.6 and 15.7 The applicant indicated a full understanding of the information requested and an intent to respond fully in a futura submittal to the staff.
OmCE >
$URNAME>
I i
DATE >
Form AEC-Sit (Rev. 9-53) AtCM 0240
- *"- 3 8-S t 4*
-M 5 6
6-16.3 The applicant agreed to document the informtion requested.
Original Signed Thocuts H. Cox, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch 2-3 Directorate of Licensing Enclosures 1.
List of. Attendees, 4td 12/18/73 2.
List of Attendees, dtd 12/19/73 3.
Technical Agenda STRIBUTION:
ocket File SMCoplan AEC PDR ASchwencer Local PDR LSoffer L Reading RMcMullen RP Reading RKornasiewicz LWR 2-3 Reading TEssig RP ads LGHulman RP BCs WFPasedag SVargs KCampe DEisenhut JHendrie TR ads TR BCs RLoose THCox DKartalia R0 (3)
EGoulbourne RFraley, ACRS (16) i eme > WR,.2,3/J.8.S6...
~7dC I
sunawe > IHCox:cJh..
eart >
..l./4.1/74 Form AEC.318 (Rev. 9-53) AECM 0240 ero eu-as-st eske us-s7s g
ENCLOSUP2 1 WPPSS MEETING WITH STAFF ON DECEMBER 18, 1973 LIST OF ATTENDEES Atomic Energy Comunission T. Cox
- S. Coplan
- A. Schwencer
- L.
Soffer
- R. McMullen
- R. Kornasiewicz
- T. Essig
- L. Hulman WPPSS
- D. Tillson R. Chitwood A. Hosler C. Organ
- Dr. H. Coombs Shannon & Wilson
- Dr. R. Miller Weston Geophysical
- T. Turcotte
- T. Sexton UE&C G. Thornes J. Foremny A. Friedman R. Brocklebank Babcock & Wilcox G. Skillman FUGRO, Inc.
- E. Danehy
- Denotes Part-Time Attendance
ENCLOSURE 2 WPPSS MEETING WITH STAFF ON DECEMBEP. 19, 1973 LIST OF ATTENDEES Atomic Energy Commission T. Cox
- T. Essig
- W. Pasedag
- K.
Campe UE&C G. Thornes J. Foremny A. Friedman R. Brocklebank J. Killian L. Deackoff I
A.- Papadopoulos J. Gonzaga WPPSS R. Chitwood A. Hosler C. Organ Babcock & Wilcox G. Skillman
- Denotes Part-Time Attendance h
I 9
ENCLOSURE 3 TECHNICAL AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION PRIOR TO ROUND 1 REOUESTS FOR INFORMATION DOCKET NO. 50-460, WPPSS WNP-1 PLAh7 2.0 SITE C CTERISTICS 2.38 Regarding the one mile exclusion radius, it is not clear that WPPSS has the authority to determine all activities, as required by 10 CFR 100, within the exclusion area, but outside of the currently leased property. Provide the effective date of a revised site lease with the Commission (mentioned on page 2.1-4) and explain how the revised lease will give WPPSS the authority required by regulation.
2.39 Provide a map, as required by Section 2.1.2.2 of the Standard Format, showing the minim m distance from each effluent release point to the boundary of the restricted area.
2.40 In Section 2.1.3, provide a revised Figure 2.1-8 showing the estimated 40 residents living between 5 and 10 miles of the site, as mentioned on page 2.1-7.
2.41 Discussthetransportofanyhazar[lousfreightsuchasvolatile petroleun products, toxic gases, high explosives or radioactive
^
materials on existing railroads within 5 miles of the site.
2.42 Figure 2.1-5 shows an area labeled as an " explosive storage area".
Provide types and maxi =um quantities of any explosives stored in this area within 5 miles of the facility. Provide a scale notation on the figure.
2.43 Discuss the possibility of increased barge traffic on the Columbia
. River past the site, in the event of creation of a nuclear park having other plants within 5 miles of WNP-1.
2.44 Describe the intended use for the fuel oil in the two separate 100,000 gallen storage tanks shown on Figures 1.2-54 and 1.2-56.
Discuss also the mod.e of oil transport to these tanks, frequency of re-supply and consequences of tank rupture, spillage, and fire.
2.45 In the event of rupture of the 200,000 gallon fuel oil tank, provide assurance that oil spillage will not run into the General Services Building. Discuss the mode of oil transport to this tank and the frequency of re-supply.
2.46 Figure 1,2-16 shows an underground fuel oil storage tank of 20,000 gallons capacity. Describe the intended use, and frequency and mode of re-supply.
)
2-2 2.47 Indicate the maximum quantity of propane stored on-site. Assuming various propane releases, and postulating the subsequent occurrence of imme' iate and delayed ignition events, provide your analysis d
of the possible effects on safety related features of the plant.
Consider the effects of missiles generated by any explosion.
State all your assumptions.
2.48 Section 2.4.1 and Table 2.1-9 reference water users-along the Columbia River from State c Washington records through 1969, and excludes those users that nave not applied for water rights. Please extend Table 2.1-9 f-E any major existing users, or any that are known that propose to use the Columbia River as a water supply, as far downstream as just below the Tri-Cities.
2.49 It is not clear that the roofs and drainage system of safety-related structures will be designed to adequately store and/or pass rainfall of probable maximum severity without a loss of function. ' Provide your analysis of the consequences of the occurrence of rainfall as severe as the probable maximum thunderstorm values indicated in Section 2.4.3.1 on the roof of each safety-related structures where accumulations can occur.
Furthermore, provide your design bases and analyses of the capability of the came facilities to withstand severe ice and snow accumulations approaching probable maximum severity.
2.50 Provide ~ preliyinary plan and cross section views of the river bank in the vicinity of the intake which show the extent of the riprap prctection referred to in Sections 2.4.3.6 and 2.4.5.7.
Provide a discussion of your applicatica of the bases for the selection of the size, blanket thickness-red type of material, including any bedding required to pro co' ot ing failure, to be utilized. We note that riprap placra r ab as as you propose (2 to 1) by others
. has not been stable; if r ist
. :uss.
2.51 Assuming that flood warnings are not transmitted to th'e plant operator from outside sources, such as Priest Rapids or Grand Ceulee (ref. page 2.4-19 and 19a), at what water level and rate of rise would action be taken to bring the plant to a safe shutdown condition? Provide the design bases for this action.
2.52 Provide the bases for Figure 2.4-11, including measurements referred to in Sect' ion 2.4.11.1, and for extrapolation to the site. Provide the low water design bases for safety-related pumps.
?
6-1 6.0 ENCIJ{EERED SpF{fY FEATURES (ESP) 6.10 The responses to Request 6.2 on EST Air Filtration Systems do not address all the design features and/or specifications presented in Regulatory Guide 1.52.
For each ESF air cleaning i
system, present in tabular form, a comparison between the features of your proposed system and the appropriate acceptable methods and/or characteristics presented in Regulatory Guide 1.52.
For each design item for which an exception is taken, justify the acceptability of your proposed design in detail.
6.11 Your November 13 response to Request 6.5 states that the pH values used in the system design are based on the work of Gallagher, et al.,
(Nuclear Technology, 10, 406). However, the design of the system differs from that of the referenced article both in the range of pH values and in the method of additive mixing employed to achieve these pH values.
Describe how you intend to verify the capability of the system to deliver the appropriate mixture of borated dater and spray additive.
If the spray additive mixing function of the proposed design has not been tested and is considered not testable, an alternate design which is amenable to testing and calibration should be proposed.
Provide a description of preoperational tests to be performed to substantiate the mixing capability of either the current system or any alternative system proposed.
6.12
. Prior response to Request 6.7 is incomplete.
Supply the concentration of NaOH in the sodium hydroxide tank and in the spray solution entering the containment under caxicu= and minimus NaOH flow conditions.
Discuss the decomposition of Na0H exposed to air in the sodiu= hydroxide tank and state the reasons for not providing a nitrogen cover gas for
- 'this tank.
State whether heaters are required for the tank to prevent precipitation in winter conditions.
6.13 Concerning the drop size data supplied in Figure 6.2-66, supply the following information:
a.
Source of data.
- b.. Method of drop size measurement ecployed, including a discussion of the expected accuracy and repeatability of the data.
The type of drop size spectrum obtained frem this method, (i.e.,
c.
spatial or temporal distribution), and the type of distribution used in the analysis.
6-2 d.
The method of selecting a representative section of the spray cor'e.
State whether the measured drop population covers the outermest region of the spray core, or whether a cross-section through the spray core was analyzed.
The number of data points collected in comparison to a e.
statistically meaningful sample.
4 e
Y
+
4 0
4 e
e v
9 e
b w-r
9I 9.0 MIxit,tATi SypTrits_
9.16 a.
Prdvide the time increment required for the implementation of each of the.ltems marked (a) through (1) on pages 9.4-4 and 9.4.5 (with the exception of the air intake damper whose time constant is already given as 2.5 seconds).
b.
Provide a basis for assuming that all of the 400 cubic feet of contaminated air is available for cleanup through the filtra-tion unit, as indicated on page 9.4-6, without some fraction passing directly through the air conditioning unit prior to
}
closure of the damper marked HCL-POD-9 shown in Figure 9.4-1, S
e e
9
___, _._, _ -y-
o
?
12-1 12.0 RADIATION PROTECTION 12.8 Provide more detail with respect to layout and function of rooms within the health physics area (PSAR Figure 1.2-5).
Indicate access points and traffic flow to and from this area (PSAR Figure 1.2-5).
12.9 Provide a clearer distinction between the various radiation zones shown in the figures in Section 1.2 (e.g., see Figures 12.1-3 through 12.1-14 of the Perry Nuclear Plant PSAR, docket nos.
50-440 and 50-441).
12.10 Provide additional information on considerations followed in design and to be followed in operation to minimize radiation exposures to plant personnel as discussed in Regulatory Guide 8.8.
In particular, the following items warrant further discussion:
The expected procedure for the review of detailed shielding a.
design (during preliminary and periodic design reviewers) by competent radiation protection engineers (with the support of other specialists as necessary).
b.
Description of how exposure from routine in-plant inspections is considered in shielding and piping design and layouts.
Management policy, organizational structure, and program for c.
maintaining radiation exposures as low as practicable (ALAP).
d.
Ambient radiation levels at instrument locations for calibration.
Design features for contamination control considerations, e.
f.
Provision for localized ventilaticn during maintenance operations, f.
Provision for easy and rapid filter changes in the ventilation system.
12.11 Provide illustrative examples of the design considerations for each of the following items: filters, demineralizers, tanks, evaporators, pumps, and sampling stations.
12.12 Describe the criteria which will be used for routing field run process piping that will contain radioactive materials (e.g., see Section 12.1.3.6 of the Greenwood PSAR, docket nos. 50-452 and 50-453 and Section 12.1.3.3 of the Perry PSAR, docket nos. 50-440 and 50-441).
l l
o 12-2 1
12.13 Provide the failed fuel design basis for the personnel doses presented in Table 12.1-4 (i.e., 1% or 0.1%).
12.14 show the locations of all area monitors on the figures in Section 1.2.
1:2.15 In Section 12.1.6.1, it is stated that " consideration will be given...to a level as low as practical in accordance with 10 CFR 20 guidelines". The applicant should also reference Regulatory Guide 8.8, since it contains guidance for implementing the ALAP provisions of 10 CFR 20 (P5AR p. 12.1-11).
12.16 a.
Explain the relationship between the radiation monitors shown in Figures 9.4-1 through 9.4-13 and the airborne radioactivity monitors listed in Table 12.2-7.
b.
Th locations of all airborne radioactivity monitoring sample heads listed in Table 12.2-7 should be indicated on Figures 9.4-1 through 9.4-13 or indicated on a figure such as Figure 9.4-2 of the Seabrook PSAR, docket nos. 50-443 and 50-444.
Also, show the locations of these sample heads in the figures in Section 1,2.
12.17 Demonstrate that the airborne radioactivity monitoring system which monitors =any compartments via a plant vent (e.g., Figure 9.4-2) can adequately measure the concentrations of airborne radioactivity to which plant personnel are exposed while occupying individual co=partments.
12.18 The statement on p. 12.2-6 that "The iodine filter...is placed in parallel with the particulate filter." appears incorrect (it should be in series rather than in parallel). Also, justify the use of an activated charcoal type filter,for iodine removal since an impregnated (KI) charcoal type is more suitable for collecting organic iodide.
12.19 Describe the internal dosimetry program (e.g., whole body counting and bioassay) which will be conducted for plant personnel.
12.20 Show the locations of isokinetic probes in the General Services Building on the building layout drawings and ventilation systems drawings. Explain the relationship between the isokinetic probes
'and the airborne radioactivity monitoring system discussed in Section 12.2.
/
15-1 15.0 ACCIDENT ANAI.YSES 15.4 Provide a revised design basis accident case (including dose rates) due to a loss of ecolant accident (LOCA) which =akes use of the revised icdine fractions of F.egulatory Guide 1.4 (91% ele: ental iodine, 4% organic iodides, 5% particulate iodine).
15.5 Provide your analysis of the radiological consequences of a hydrogen gas purge following a LOCA assuming the recombiners are not functional.
Clearly state all your assump-ions such as meteorology, cc==ence:ent of purge, purge rate and duration, and filtration.
15.6 In addition to the list of toxic chemicals provided in Section 15.1.35, provide the quantity of each chemical nor= ally stored on-site.
15.7 Assuming a morpholine tank rupture, spilling its contents, esticate the maximus morpholine air concentration at the normal control roen air intake. The analysis should consider the quantity of corpholine that is stored, its transport and dilution through the General Services Building (GSB) ventilation system, as well ac the transport and dilution between tne GSB ventilation systes exhaust and the normal control room air intake. State all your assumptions.
9 mm?-w