ML20198G482
| ML20198G482 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1975 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Moore V US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-1048 NUDOCS 8605290617 | |
| Download: ML20198G482 (19) | |
Text
v I
)
o
~
~
~t NAR 3.1975
~
DISTRIBUTION:
Docket Files NRR-Rdg SAB V. A. Mooro Assistant Director for LWR, Group 2, L REVISED HYDROIDGIC ENGINEERING
SUMMARY
(SER) l PLANT NAME: WFPSS Nuclear Projects 1 & 4 LICENSING STAGE: CF DOCEET NUMBERS: 50-460/513 RESPONSIBLE BRANCH: LWR 2-3 REQUESTED COMPLETION DATE: January 23, 1975 REVIEW STAIUS Hydrologic Engineering Section SAB - Complete Except for Open Items Listed Below Enclosed is a revised hydrologic engineering summary (SER) on the subject plant, prepared by G. B. Staley and E. Hawkins. Our original SER.
transmitted by letter dated February 12, 1975, had several open items.
All open items, except the excess temperature on the Ultimate heat sink spray pond, have been resolved by Amendment Number 15 to the PSAR. The amendment was received subsequent (10 February,1975) to the submittal of our initial SER.
@d Signed by L.5A.Denton Harold R. Denton, Assistant Director for Site Safety Division of Technical Review Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Enclosures As Stated l
l ces w/o anell A. Giambusse W. Mcdonald J. Pansarella ces w/enel F. Schroeder D. Eisenhut
~vp~
S. Hanauer R. Elecker H. Denton S. Varga
[
SS BC's C. Long A. Eannska G. Staley A. Schwencar L. Shao T. Cox Y. Benaraya l
SEE PREVIOUS YELLOW FOR CONCURRENCE CHAIN i
8605290617 750303 PDR ADOCK 05000460 E
PDR l
i
DISTRIBUTION:
Doc t Files NRR-R SAB V. A. Moore Assistant Director for LWR, Group 2, RL HYDROLOGIC ENG EERING
SUMMARY
(SER) l PLANT NAME: WPPS uclear Projects 1 & 4 LICENSING STAGE: C l
DOCKET NUMBERS: 50-4 /513 RESPONSIBLE BRANCH: L 2-3 REQUESTED COMPLETION DA : January 23, 1975 REVIEW STATUS: Hydrologi Engineering Section, SAB - Complete, Except for Open Items Li ed Below Enclosed is a revised hydrol ic engineering summary (SER) on the subject plant, prepared by G. B. Scale and E. Haw's. ins. Our criginni SER, transmitted by letter dated Feb ry 12, 1975, had several open items.
All open items, except the exces temperature on the Ultimate heat sink spray pond, have been resolved by dment Number 15 to the PSAR. The amendment was received subsequent 0 February,1975) to the submittal of our initial SER.
Harold. Denton, Assistant Director for Si Safety Division Technical Review Office of h clear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As Stated cc: w/o enc 1:
A. Giambusso W. Mcdonald J. Pansarella.
cc: w/ enc 1:
S. Hanauer R. K1ecker F. Schroeder D. Eisenhut B. Denton S. Varga SS BC's C. Long A. Kenneke G. Staley j
A. Schwencer L. Shao l
T. Cox V. Benaroya i
I TR: SA,B -
TR:SABf
.,TRTS TR: AB TR:S o,rie.,
GStal'e'y:ldm EHawkins GHubdd j
WGa M 1 HRDi ton 2/ '..; H5 21 & ns~'~ 313 ns 313 ns Vb n5 }
'oeum ABC.Sta (Rev. > SS) ABO ( 0240
- u. s. sovanmusar Paiurine orzicas sere.ese.coe t
I
_=
3 REVISED HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING
SUMMARY
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM NUCLEAR PROJECTS 1 & 4 DOCKET NO. 50-460/513 2.4. HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING 2.4.1.
HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION The site for Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) Nuclear Projects one and four (the plant) is located in the southeast area of the Hanford Reservation in Benton County, Washington, 8 miles north of the city limits of Richland, about j
2.5 miles west of the Columbia river at river mile 352 and 45 miles downstream from the Grant County Public Utilitics District Priest Rapids Dam. The Columbia River is the predominant hydrologic feature of the area and provides'the principle drainage for the site and surrounding area. The Columbia River, upstream of the plant site, has a drainage area of about 97,000 square miles. The major tributary upstream of the site is the Wenatchee River. The Snake and Yakima River enter the Columbia River just downstream of the site. Regulation of the Columbia River by dams and reservoirs has been extensive over the past 35 years.
A large portion of the main stream and major tributaries is developed to meet various functional requirements such as flood control, navigation,
- hydroelectric power, irrigation, and municipal and industrial water supply. The following Table 2.4.1 lists the dams on the Columbia River upstream of the site and dams on the tributaries above Grand Coulee Dam.
Table 2.4.2. lists tributary dams between Grand Coulee Dam and the plant site. The regulated average annual Columbia River flow at the site is 115,000 cfs. During the year the flow may vary upward from a regulated J
TABLE 2.4.1 UPSTREAM COLUMBIA RIVER DAMS
( AND ITS TRIBUTARIES ABOVE GRAND COULEE )
CREST GROSS USABLE NAME OF DAM RIVER MILE TYPE HEIGHT LENGTH STORAGE STORAGE (ft)
(ft)
(1000 Acre-ft) (1000 Acre-ft)
Priest Rapids 397 Concrete Gravity 100 10,137 200 170 5/
' and earth fill Wanupum 416 Concrete Gravity 133 8,707 796 389 5/
and carth fill
/
Rock Island 453 Concrete Gravity 73 3,800 5
Rocky Reach 474 Concrete Gravity 140 2,900 390 120
& carth fill Wells 516 Concrete Gravity 160 4,460 300 117
& carth fill Chief Joseph 545 Concrete Gravity 205 4,363 518 Grand Coulee 598 Concrete Gravity 355 4,173 9,402 5200 Albeni Falls 90 2/
Concrete Gravity 66 1,055 1,560 1.153 Hungry Horse 56/
Concrete Arch 520 2,115
'3,468 3,160 Kerr Dam 77J/
Concrete Arch 186 800 1,22D 1,219 7,090 Arrow 1/
781 Concrete Gravity 170
& earth fill Mica 1/
1018 Rockfill 640 12,000
TABLE 2.4.1 (CONTINUED)
UPSTREAM COLUhBIA RIVER DAMS
.( AND ITS TRIBUTARIES ABOVE GRAND COUiEE )
CREST GROSS USABLE NAME OF DAM RIVER MILE TYPE HEIGHT LENG'IH STORAGE STORAGE (f.t)
(ft)
(1000 Acre-ft)
(1000 Acre-ft)
Duncan 1/
8.3 3_/
Earthfill 130 1,400 Libby 220 4/
Concrete Gravity 370 5,000 1_/
These projects located in Canada are part of the Columbia River Treaty Storage as is Libby on the United States side.
2_/
The river mile shown is on the Pend Oreille River, which joins the Columbia River at Columbia R. M. 745.5 3_/
Duncan River Miles, Duncan River flows into Kootenai Lake in Canada.
~
4/
Kootenai River Miles, the Kootenai River joins the Columbia Riser at Columbia R. M. 774.1 5/
Not presently usable for flood regulation.
6_/
South Fork Flathead River Miles.
7/
Clark Fork River Miles.
L 1
t TABLE 2.4.2
. TRIBUTARY DAMS LOCATED BETWEEN GRAND COUIEE DAM
~
AND PLANT SITE CREST GROSS INAME OF DAM 1tIVER MILE TYPE llEIGHT LENGTH STORAGE (ft)
(ft)
-(1000 A F)
Chelan 36/
Concrete 40 677
~
0 Sullivan 42 1,5/
Zoned earth fill 153 19,000 615.6 Billy Clapp 85 1,5/
Zoned earth fill 130 1
Banks 99 1,5/
Zoned earth fill 123 762 Snow Lakes 31 2]
Concrete Gravity 12 13 Conconully 48 3/
Hydraulic Earth 70 1000 13 Salmon Lake 49 3/
Zoned carth fill 42 1260 11 Owhi 16 4_/
Earth fill 14 5
1/
The river mile shown is on Crab Creek. Crab Creek enters the Columbia River at River Mile 411.
2]
The river mile shown is upstream from the mouth of the Wenatchen River. The Wenatchee River enters the Columbia River at River Mile 468.
3_/
The river mile shown is upstream from the mouth of the Okanogan River. The Okanogan River enters the Columbia River at River Mile 533.
4_/
The river mile shown is upstream from the mouth of the Nespelem River. The Nespelem River enters the Columbia River at River Mile 582.
TABLE 2.4.2 (CONTINUED) 5/
Part of the Columbia Basin Project and used 891ely for stroage of irrigation water.
6/
The river mile shown is on the Chelan River. The Chelan River joins the Columbia River at Columbia River Mile 503.3.
i i
1 1
4 i
8 l
i 1
I
]
2_
low of 36,000 cfs.
The main river channel near the site varies from 400 to 600 yards in width and in depth from about 30 feet for normal high water to about 45 feet or more for flood high water. The approximate river bottom elevation near the site is 328 feet above mean sea level datum (f t MSL). The,
ground elevation at the site is about 445 ft MSL, and will.be raised ~to an approximate elevation of 451 ft MSL. The lowest seismic Category I structure will be at elevation 446 f t MSL.
At the present time there are no ground water users on either side of the river in the vicinity of the site. Ground water will be used during plant construction at rates of between 950,000 and 4,200,000 gallons per month. There are 32 surface water users with registered water rights in the 50 miles reach downstream of the site. Most of the users are withdrawing water for irrigation and industrial purposes.
There are three users, the cities of Richland and Pasco and one private individual, that withdraw water for domestic or municipal uses.
In addition, the city of Kennewick obtains its water indirectly from the river thru a system of Ranney collectors that draw both ground and river water. With exception of the river intake structure, all the structures are located about 2.5 miles west of the Columbia River. The river intake structure is to be on the west bank of the Columbia River and is capable of supplying river make-up water from river stages between elevations 342 and 373 ft MSL.
9
_3 2.4.2 FLOODING The largest flood recorded on the Hanford reach of the Columbia River occurred JLn 1948 and had an observed peak discharge of 690,000 cfs. The largest known historical flood occurred on June 7, 1894, and had a peak discharge, estimated from high water marks, of f
800,000 cfs.
~
There is no record of major faulting in the site area due to ice jams.
Ice blockage is most likely to occur when water temperatures are already low, when flows are sna11, and when a significant cold spell occurs.
With the completion of Grand Coulee and other dams on the Columbia River main stem, the seasonal temperature and flow cycles have been drastically altered. These changes are coupled in such a way to reduce the intensity and timing of the conditions which many contribute to a potential ice blockage and flooding situations. Average winter flow rates have increased, the low extreme remperatures have risen over the years, and water temperatures have shown a shif t in time so that peak temperatures acu occur 30-45 days later than formerly.
In the event that ice blockage should occur, the potential for flooding can be greatly reduced by controlled river release rates at the upstream dams.
It can be concluded from these observations and studies, and the recorded observatious of 25 years of operation of the Hanford Production plants involving critical flows for nuclear caf;ty, that the potential for ice blockage or the combination of blockage arid flooding behind ice dams is so low as to be considered insignificant. In any event, ice flooding will not be a major deterent i
to the aske-up water pumphouse, and it would not ef fect the capability to shut down the reactor in a safe and orderly canner because of the availability of the ultimate heat sink spray ponds at the site.
f
. The applicant used an unregulated and regulated PMF developed by the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers (1) (2)as the design basis precipitation flood for the site. The peak discharge for the unregulated PMF is 1,600,000 cfs and 1,440,000 cfs. for the regulated PMF. The predicted river elevation (based upon Co'rps of Engineers profiles) for these flows is 392.0 and 389.0 ft MSL respectively.
Since all safety related plant structures are at or above elevation 446.0 ft MSL, it is concluded that flooding due to a PMF has na sign 1ficance to the safety of the plant.
The river intake structure is not a safety related structure.
The applicant has analyzed two types of storms to evaluate the effects of a local intense storm at tha site.
The analysis produced a calculated Probable Maximam Precipitation (PMP) of 10.1 inches over a 48 hr>ur period for a general storm and 9.2 inches of precipitation in 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> for a thunderstorm. Th4 applicant has analyzed the runoff from the PMP and has concluded that the chsen.cl wes:: of the site will have sufficient slope and capacity to convey these flood waters away from the site and that the highvay and ratiroad will not have an adverse affect on the flood stages.
We have concluded that the applicant's analyses of site precipitation and subsequent runotf hydrograph are acceptable. The applicant has provided an acceptable design to preclude flooding through roof penetrations on sufety related buildittgs. The applicant has also provided an acceptable design and analyses to insure that safety related buildings and equipment
- Underlined portions indicate changed material
~5-will not be flooded from runoff due to a local intense thunderstorm over the plant and contributing drainage area.
The applicant has used two studies by the Seattle District Corps of Engineers to define the potential river stage at the site due to a seismically induced dam failure of Grand Coulee Dam.
The results of these scudies indicate that the flood would have a peak flow rate of 8,800,000 cfs at Grand Coulee Dam at the moment of breaking, and flow rate a: the site, (including 400,000 cfs base flow) of 4,800,000 cfs.
This flow would produce a peak stage at the site estimated at 422.5 f t MSL. An additional foot was added to account for a higher postulated Regulated Standard Project Flood (RSPF) of 570,000 cfs. One foot of stage was also added to account for wind wave activity for a total stage at the site of 424.5 f t MSL, which is 23.5 feet below the grade level j
of the lowest safety related building. The analysis included the assumption l
that all reservoirs were full and that a partial failure occurred at all downstream reservoirs, causing a release of their pools to the flood.
The staff has reviewed this subject extensively for other reactor sites along the Columbia River.
From this conservative analysis it can be 1
l concluded that safety related facilities are safe from floods of this l
nature.
9
. 2.4.3 Ultimate Heat Sink The Ultimate Heat Sink (URS) for the plant has two sources of water (1) the river intake structure, which is not a Seismic Category I structure;and (2) a 300 ft x 250 ft Seismic Category I spray pond for each unit. The spray ponds are designed to provide a 30 day supply of water in the event of a loss of coolant accident (LOCA) and/or loss of offsite power (LOOP). They must also provide'this water at a temperature less than the maximum allowable for equipment operation.
The applicant used the following parameters or assumptions in his analyses of the UHS heat and water budgets.
1.
Percentage of heat rejected by spraying equals 80% (Ref.3). The range from Reference 3 was from 65% to 80%.
2.
Cooling efficiency of spray nozzles equals 40% (Ref.3.).
3.
Drift loss equals 0.8% (Ref.3).
4.
Wet bulb temperature equals 74*F for developing spray pond temperature response.
?
5.
The maximum evaporation rate was based on the maximum daily average dry bulb temperature of 91.8'F and the lowest monthly average rela-tive humidity of 21.9% (Wet bulb temperature of 65'F) for the 30 day period.
These values were assumed to occur simultaneous 1K.with the highest drift rate.
In addition there were some other conservatisms built into the analysis as follows:
1.
During actual operation, the sprays will be bypassed when the temperature goes below 80*F and until it goes ba'ck up to 85*F.
1 This is expected to save a significant amount of drif t.
2.
A constant flow rate was used in the analysis but in actual operation flow rates will be controlled by the heat load. This should reduce drift loss.
The only time that it will be necessary to depend solely on the pond water supply is when the river intake capability is not available. Loss of the river water supply could be due to a seismic event, flooding, or low water due to ice blockage or drought. Flooding and low water due to ice blockage are discussed above in section 2.4.2 and low water due to drought is discussed in the fol;owing section 2.4.4.
We have made independent analyses of the water and heat budgets for the UHS. From these analyses we have concluded that the applicants transient heat anslysis is not acceptable due to the use of the 40% nozzle efficiency for heat dissipation. This figure, obtained froc raference 3, has never been accepted by the staff for general use for spray pond design. We will require a ialue of no more than 25% be used for nozzle spray efficiency (lower range of likely values from reference 3). Our analysis for these spray ponds, using a nozzle efficiency of 25%, indicates a maximum plant intake water temperature of 115'F, which would be unacceptable since it exceeds the applicants maximum allowable design value of 110*F.
The applicant will be required to either redesign the spray ponds to provide acceptable 4
r
--v
r
_g_
return water temperature for the plant, or provide acceptable bases for the 40 percent value assumed in the PSAR analyses.
4 i
2.4.4 LOW RIVER FLOW CONSIDERATIONS Reservoir projects in the Columbia 4
River Basin upstream of the proposed site have a total usable storage in excess of 35 million acre-feet. This capacity alone is sufficient to maintain a flow in the Columbia River, at the proximity of the plant, of 36,000 cfs for over one year with no inflow from other sources.
Because of this regulation, the anticipated minimum and maximum monthly mean flow rates will be 60,000 and 260,000 cfs in the vicinity of the proposed site.
In the 18 years, since closure of Priest Rapids Dam, the minimum flow rate has been 36,000 cfs. It is concluded that it is improbable that the flows in the vicinity of the site will be less than the minimum regulated value of 36,000 cfs.,However, in the unlikely event that lower flows should occur, on an infrequent basis, they would not affect the safety of the plant since it can be brought to a safe shutdown condition through use of the ultimate heat sink spray ponds.
2.4.5 CROUND WATER Three principal hydrologic zones underlie the Hanford Reservations as follows:
(1) Unconsolidated silts, sands, and gravels (glaciofluviatile sediments).
(2) Semiconsolidated lake and stream sediments (Ringold Formation)
(3) Dense, hard basalt which forms the bedrock beneath the area.
. In general, ground water in the surficial sediments occurs under unconfined or water-table conditions. However, locally confined zones do exist in the area. Water in the basalt bedrock occurs mainly under confined conditions.
In some areas, the lower zone of the Ringold Formation is a confined aquifer, separated from the unconfined aquifer by thick clay beds and possessing a distinct hydraulic potential. The depth to the water table varies greatly from place to place depending chiefly on the local topography, ranging from less than 1 to more than 300 feet below the land surface. At the s_te the water table is from 72 to 85 feet below the land surface. The current estimate of the maximum saturated thickness of the unconfined aquifer is approximately 230 feet. From the proposed site, the groundwater flow is toward the discharge boundary at the Columbia River to the east of the site. The hydraulic gradient in this area is about 10-13 feet / mile in the unconfined aquifer. There are no groundwater users between the site and the river and reversal (due to pumping) of the groundwater gradient is highly improbable because the site is located on Federally owned and controlled land. The applicant has estimated that it would take several hundred years for any postulated accidental spill of liquid radwaste at the plant site to travel vertically through the 70-85 foot depth to the ground water table.
It would take another 10 -35 years to travel thru the aquifer to the Columbia River.
The staff calculated a groundwater dilution factor of 64 for an accidental liquid radwaste spill, assumed to enter the groundwater aquifer directly.
The dilution factor is applicable at the point where the groundwater aquifer i
I J
. joins the Columbia River east of the site. The travel time for the postulated spill to travel thru the aquifer from the plant to the river was calculated by the staff to be 6 years (does not include vertical travel time from
_radwaste tank to groundwater aquifer). The groundwater diluted liquid radwaste would be further diluted by a factor of approximately 37,000, assuming complete mixing with the minimum regulated Columbia River flow of 36000 cfs. Refer to section 15.2 for a discussion of radionuclide concentrations.
Groundwater hydrographs over the past 10 years have indicated a rising
_ trend in groundwater levels. Present groundwater levels are about 10 feet below the foundation level of safety related structures. Hydrostatic pressures, up to elevation 424.5 feet MSL (the probable maximum flood level),
were used in the design of building foundations.
The staff has concluded 4t that the applicants design basis for hydrostatic pressures is acceptable.
k 1
2.
4.6 CONCLUSION
S _ We have reviewed the applicant's flood analysis for the plant site, including determination of the maximum river stages on the Columbia River due to PMF, ice, and dam failures and flood conditions at the site and on rooftops due to local intense precipitation of up to PMP severity. We have concluded that the maximum predicted flood levels on the Columbia River are conservative and acceptable. All safety related structures, except the river intake structure, will be above any reasonably possible Columbia River flood stage.
The river intake structure will be designed for river stages up to elevation 373.0 f t MSL, which corresponds to a Columbia River discharge of approximately 400,000 cfs r
m-
. (compared to the 1948 observed record peak discharge of 690,000 cfs at a stage of about 375.0 ft MSL). Although the river intake would be subject to flooding by rare floods, and subsequent loss of pump function, the plant can still be brought to a safe shutdown condition and maintained for a period of 30 days through use of the two seismic category I spray ponds.
We have concluded that the safety related structures will not be subject to flooding (including flooding of roof penetrations) due to runoff from a local intense thunderstorn, which is the critical storm for the plant area.
We have found the applicant's analysis of low flows to be acceptable, and although there is a possibility of the occurrence of river flows less than 36,000 cfs, it is unlikely to happen during the life of the plant. Even if these flows should occur, they would be for a short duration of time, and the plant.can be brought to a safe shutdown condition through use of the UHS spray ponds, if necessary.
Since the ground water table has a significant gradient toward the river, is below foundation levels, and there are no groundwater withdrawal between the site and the river, it is concluded that in the event of a postulated accidental liquid radwaste spill, the groundwater will not be a potential pathway to man.
0
- We have reviewed the applicant's analysis of the UHS spray ponds with respect to pond temperature and water loss over a-30 day period, and conclude that the analysis is unacceptable. The assumed nozzle efficiency of 40 percent has never been accepted by the staff as a conservative design value for general use in design of spray ponds. The applicant will be required to use a nozzle efficiency value no greater than 25%
(a conservative design value based upon Rancho Seco performance tests).
We have made in independent analysis of the spray pond, using a nozzle efficiency of 25%, and the resulting maximum return temperature to the
, plant was 115'F.
This value is above the allowable design limit of 110*F.
Consequently, the applicant will be required to either redesign the spray ponds, or provide acceptable justification for the assumed nozzle efficiency used.
O n
4 *.
~
REFERENCES (1) Artificial Flood Possibilities on the Columbia River, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, Washington, Nov.
1951.
(2) Artificial Flood Considerations for Columbia River Dams, U.S. Army Engineer District, Seattic, Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washingt'on,
~
August 1963.
(3)
Schrock, V. E., and Trezek, G. J., " Rancho Seco Nuclear Service Spray Ponds Performance Evaluation", University of California, Berkeley.
e p
O O
9 9
4 9
e 4
s
_m.
_ _