ML20198G787
| ML20198G787 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Satsop |
| Issue date: | 10/02/1974 |
| From: | Kantor F US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Harold Denton US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198G728 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-1335 NUDOCS 8605290767 | |
| Download: ML20198G787 (22) | |
Text
.. .
0 ENCLOSURE NO. 3 g d ' "-Q* UNITED STATES
.)/ t ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
-l J fM L
- WASHINGTON D.C. 20545
/ .
OCT 2 B74 s
Harold R. Denton, Assistant Director for Site Safety, L ,g THRU: Brian K. Grimes, Chief, Accident Analysis Branch, L F/-
TRIP REPORT - SITE VISIT TO WPPSS 3 & 5 .
On September 16 and 17, 1974, I toured the WPPSS 3 & 5 site and environs as part of the Staff site safety visit. The WPPSS 3 and 5 site is located near the town of Satsop, Washington, about 30 miles from the Pacific coast and 75 miles SW of Seattic. The site is characterized by heavily forested hills which rise in several terraces from the Chehalis River valley. The peak elevation onsite is about 500 f t and the site will be excavated so that the plant structures will be at an elevation of 390 ft.
In the company of representatives of WPPSS and Ebasco, I drove and walked over the areas of the site that were accessible.
A logging operation was observed in progress onsite (the applicant states C. 9t logging will be permitted during plant operation). The trees had been fclied previously and the logs were being loaded on a truck. The logging crew consisted of a truck driver, a lif t operator, and a bulldozer operator.
Iobservedthesingletrackrailroadlinewhich[iesaboutone mile north of the site. The railroad is in the valley below the site and the elevation of the site above the railroad line and the dense tree growth which presently exists between the site and the railroad were noted.
l After some difficulty, the Elma " International" Airport was located about 2 miles KE of the site. The airport consists of a singic grass strip about 2000 ft long oriented in an east-west direction. No airplanes were visible at the airport (there were several small covered hangers which were closed),
and no one was present in the small operations building.
Some expansion is planned for the airport in the future.
After the site tour a meeting was held to discuss the draft first round questions. It was emphasized to the applicant that the unsettled status of the ownership of the site exclusion area presented a potential problem which could affect the licensing schedule. At present the majority of the site is owned by three lumber companies, an individual, and the State of Washington.
8605290767 740930 PDR ADOCK 05000508
[
1 A PDR 1
4 .
1 H. R. Denton OCT 2 1974 2
WPPSS does not intend to purchase all of the property within the exclusion area but rather to obtain easements from the owners and negotiations are presently underway to obtain these easements -
including the mineral rights. It was agreed that the question -
of site ownership and the authority to control activities'in the portion of the site not owned by the applicant is largely a legal .
matter and would have to be addressed by the WPPSS and Regulatory 1.egal staffs.
During the site visit I had the opportunity to contact severh1 officials of Grays Harbor County. These included represetitatives of the Engineers Office, the Assessors Office, the County Planning Cossaission in Montesano, Washington, and the Regional Planning Commission in Aberdeen, Washington. Several maps, serial photos,
~
and reports were obtained during discussions with these, officials.
[ [4fa2k
- v Falk Kantor Site' Analyst Accident Analysis Branch' Directorate of Licensing 1
e 4
l
- I ENCLOSURE NO. 4
- PARTICIPANTS IN SEPTEMBER 16. 1974 SEISNOLOGY SITE VISIT WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM R. Chitwood D. Whitford EBASCO A. Wern WOODWARD-LUNDGREN A. Patwardhan D. Tocher Y. Lacroix M. Perkins ,
NORWEGIAN GE0 TECHNICAL INSTITUTE Tor L5bek USAEC - REGULATORY STAFF C. Stepp .
. D. Bernreuter P. O'Reilly 4
i
. )
5 ENCLOSURE No. 5 ATTENDANCE LIST SEPTEMBER 16. 1974 MEETING WITH WPPSS WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYST1!M R. Chitwood K. Dyekaan J. Gilbert W. Maclean R. Nicklas G. Sorensen D. Whitford K. Wise EBASCO D. Cooley T. Donaher C. Erickson '
J. Grossman J. Kinney J. Mauro A. Ross R. Vickers A. Wern WOODWARD-LUNDGREN ASSOCIATES Y. Lacroix A. Patwardhan M. Perkins D. Tocher NORWEGIAN GEOTECHNICAL INSTITUTE Tor L5bek USAEC - REGULATORY STAFF D. Bernreuter P. O'Reilly E. Hawkins C. Stepp T. Johnson F. Kantor R. Kornasiewicz T. Murphy l
I
,' l i
l
. )
ENCLOSURE NO. 6 AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 16. 1974 MEETING WITH WPPSS SEISMOLOGY
- 1. Discuss the techniques used for determining the date of movement along the faults in the region near the site.
- 2. Summarize the method employed for determination of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake.
- 3. Discuss the termination of the Hood Canal Fault. Relate this theory to the stress patterns that are observed in the Puget Sound area.
- 4. To what degree have you determined that the anamolies in the regional gravity map in the PSAR can be associated with surface features?
- 5. Discuss the " relocation" of the Stone Canyon earthquake.
t l
4 l
j l
. I DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WPP.SS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 3 DOCKET NO. 50-508 METEOROLOGY 322.01 Provide the maximum probable winter pre-(2.3.1) cipitation (cnow and/or rain) amount, in water equivalent, from a single storm in the vicinity of the site.
322.02 Provide an estimate of the frequency and
( 2,. 3.1) intensity of lightning in the thunderstorms common to the region.
322.03 Provide the meteorological data used for (2.3.1) consideration in Ultimate Heat Sink per-formance for the following conditions:
- 1) maximum evaporation and drift loss;
- 2) minimum water cooling (see Regulatory Guide 1.27.)
322.04 Provide the design basis wet-blub tempera-(2.3.1) ture and any other design basis meteorological parameters used for the cooling tower system.
(Include appropriate cross references.)
322.05 Provide the design basis meteorological para-(2.3.1) meters on which any other plant components are dependent. (Include appropriate cross-references.)
322.06 Because "all available plume length models, (2.3.2) including the one used for this report, are empirical in nature, and have experienced minimal verification"~(reference Section 2.3.3.2),
discuss the representativeness of Baker's empirical plume length formula as used for the site. Include in the discussion the plans to verify the model using onsite data.
I k
l I
l I
)
l 322.07' . Describe the Lightning Frotection System for the onsite Meteorological Tower.
(2.3.3) 322.08 Ref erence Table 2.3-61. Provide the cal-(2.3.3 .ibration/ Maintenance of the Wind Speed Systems.
322.09 Table 2.3-258, Wind 60M TEMP.DIFF 60M - 10M (2.3.3) STABILITY CLASS G. was omitted. Please provide.
G W
8 e
O
,c 33-1 33.0 RADIOIOGICAL ASSESSMENT BRANCH 33.1 Detail shielding around fuel transfer tuba ou f igure ", l- Ja.
(9.1.1)
Will thoro typicallh be ceilings on mazes male .tu with stub 33.2 walls in auxiliary building?
(12.1) 33.3 Describe planned normal personnel traffic pattern through-(12.1) administration building, auxiliary building, reactor building and turbine building.
33.4 Figure 1.2-22c is illegible in my copy. Is a Lull size print (1.2) available to look at?
33.5 Describe to what extent the applicant will follow Ragulatory (12.1) Guide 1.69.
With the fuel pool clean up system operating as described in 33.6 (9.1.3) Section 9.1.3 discuss what levels of radioactive material would be . expected in the full pool water and the expected radiatien levels at the pool surface.
33.7 One of the design bases for the ventilation system for the (9.4.2) RABMyS is not to provide a suitable environment for personnel and to assure integrity of equipment and controls. Is %
this an oversight?
33.0 Will provisions b2 made in the ventilation systems to tie (9.4) in temporary flexible exhaust trunks to provide localized ventilation during naintenance.
In section 12.1.3.7 the exponent on the concentration of 33.9 (12.1.3) radioactive material for the primary water tank is unclear.
What is it?
The definition of miscellaneous non-radioactive piping for field 33.10 (12.1.3) run piping in section 12.1.3.10 is unacceptable for certain applicatior Such a "non-radioactive pipe" should not be run through zona I.
Consideration should be given to modifying this definition.
In Section 12.1.6.1 second paragraph, you indicato that annual 33.11 (12.1.0) doscs to picnt perconnel vill be well beleu the limite of 10 CFR Part 20. Since most exposure is received during maintenance in areas of relatively high radiation, it is_ ot ,t 0 .
clear how doses will be maintained well belou .10 CFR Pae ..
u
'g .
. l 33-2 33.12 Please supply the referenced natorial for Yable 3 2.1.37.
(12.1) Is this data still valid today af ter three additional yeara of operation and possible buildup of long .11964 crud rtetivities.
33.13 To meet the criteria for necessity and 1.ocation of area nonihers (12.1.4) (particularly 12.1.4.lb) consideration should be given to additional monitors in the various levels of the auxiliary building.
33.14 On figure 12.1-10a expected radiation levels f r.7m the fuel (12.1) pool cooling pump should be reexamined and the radiation zone adjusted if re essary.
33.15 On figure 12.1-10a is the spent fuel pool really a Zone 17 (12.1) 33.16 Are there any plans for area monitors in the t urbine building?
(12.1. 4) 33.17 In order' to check calculations for the analysis of the airborce (12.2) radioactivity monitors, please provide flow rates for various cubicles on figures 9.4.1, 9.4. 2 & 9.4. 3.
33.18 The following acceptanco review questions appear to be still (12.1) outstanding. (a) Provide the location of the calibration (9.4) facility on the arrangement drawings. (b) Describe the containment purge branch duct distribution exhaust system.
0
F*
DRAFT HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING QUESTIONS WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NOS. 3 & 5 DOCKET NOS. 50-508 & 509 9
9 e
i f
l F
)
321.01 (1) Provide a site cap showing,in addition to plant (2.4.1) , ,
facilities and structures, various hpdrologic
'. +
features such as channels, ravines, ditches,. culverts, drainage structures, site grading and topography, and drainage patterns.
(2) Locate Wynoochea Dam on Fig. 2.4-1.
(3) Identify on Fig. 2.4-2 the surface water users listed in Table 2.4-2.
(4) Where are the surface water users listed in Tables 2.4-3 and 2.4-4 in relation to the plant site?
321.02 Provide the basis for yogr conclusion that high (2.4.2) flows resulting frcs local PMP will have no effect on plant operation. Can crosion on the filled
- areas of the ravines adversely affect either the drainage system of the foundations of safety-related structuras? Correct the table reference on pg. 2.4-3 from 2.4.3-1 to 2.4-11. Crcss reference the snow load discussion to Section 2.3.
321.03 (1) Provide a cross-section of the Chehalis River near (2. 4. 3) the plant site, with the vertical limit of the section extending n't least to plant grade.
F
{. .
.- I 3-SAR ,
b .
(2) Describe the site storm-drainage system.
Provide drawings and/or sketches of ravines, channels, and drainage. structures in suf ficient detail to demonstrate their ability to discharge flood flows.
(3) Show on figure 2.4-21 the flood hydrograph recor.-
stitutions, using your selected routing coef ficients shown on pg. 2.4-10. 17 hat routing interval and how nany reaches did you use? Did you use the same parameters when routing the PMF?
(4) There is a discrepancy between the PMP shown on fin. 2.4-11 and that shown on fin. 2.4-22. Further-more, if the discrepancy is due to the antecedent flood, there the discrepancy is in the urong
' direction. Picase discuss and correct any cerors.
(5) Show the components of the PMF from cach subarea prior to nnd af ter routing. Explain (or show by a figure) how the superposition was performed.
321.05 Describe any potential adverse effects of icing (2.4.7) on safety-related facilitics during winter operations.
321.05 (1) Provide bases for your determination of one-inch (2.4.10) height of water flowing overland due to local P>P.
, ' 4-SAR-
. )
Include any flood-routing procedures, rating curves, or design criteria used in your analysis.
(2) What will be the maximum depth of water during a local PMF on the roobof safety-related buildings? Provide the basis for, your estimate.
How does this compare with your design-basis roof loading?
321.06 Estimate the probable minimum flow rate at the (2.4.11) intake.
321.07 (1) Include Figure 2.4-28 in your report; it is (2.4.13) apparently missing. *
(2) Provide further permeability, porosity, and other pumping test data on the aquifers in both the immediate. site vicinity and in the Chehalis River valley.
(3) Discuss the dilution and dispersion capability of the ground water and surface water at tha site in the event of an accidental spill. Discuss travel tLme to nearest users.
(4) Provido arcundwater contour maps in the imnediate site vi:Lnity and in Chehalis River v.,11cy.
F
~
9
. )
(5) Provide details and drawings of the Ranney col-lection system showing location, size, withd'rawal depths, elevations, radial extensions , etc.
(6) Discuss the effects of silting of the river bed or clogging of radial lines with fines on the capacity of the Ranney collector. Describe any maintenance programs that may be applicable.
(7) Provide the bases for your conclusion that the groundwater table will be lowered by 7 feet during drought conditions with a withdrawal of 30 MCD.
(8) Provide estimates of the decrease in surface water discharges during drought periods due to infiltration into the groundwater collection system, including your bases and method of calculation. Discuss any adverse ef fects on downstream water users.
(9) Your description of on-site use from Ranney col-Icctor wells is not cicar. Ilow nuch water do you intend to withdraw? What is the basis for your claim that 50 percent will come from surf ace water and 50 percent from ground water? What is the basis for your claim that 30 ngd can be produced from two collectors?
f*
. )
(10) What permits, approvals, etc. vi11 be required for you to withdraw ground water? Are there any limitations imposed by these permits?
6 0
0
o ACCIDENT ANALYSIS BRANC11 K
-dO.l . With respect to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 100, Section 100.3(a), the
* that all land within the designated exclusion area is ,
PSAR statch To establish acceptability not, at the present time, owned by the applicant.
of the designated exclusion area, the following information must be submittect for our review: .
State how you will obtain the authority required under (1) i 100.3(a) for the land within the exclusion arca owned by the State of Washington.
tit
- Fa.* t h.2.ui areau in 'iest.ed ca ..at o: ned !sy h) n:.mern, ap.1ica.it, npec1iy Ihe currer.: . . . ,e l.y .v i t.d !.c r. .. ! n",
b r the arca.; ace v..ne.J ,
t! e, . ire publicly o :ned lauh.
10 optioac to purchss.: .. v hel.d , nral:e t h.-
dat e by uhich such opt f. nu trast be exerc t.. J vn.' provida a corra,itnant to enarc ia: thr-options by the require:1 dat.t.
[ L vv i\ t: 7C S Anw,g., g y cp t y , .
r-
. )
In connection with lands within'the exclusion area which (f/.)
Applica'nt will not own and which Applicant plans to obtain the appropriate easements, state the following:
(d.) Describe the nature and extent of the timber farming activities to be carried.out within the exclusion area including (1) the approximate number of persons who will be within the re/
exclusion area at4one time in connection with
- timber harvesting or'other duties and (2) the approximate length ci time such persons would be within the exclusion area.
O
i l
l
)
I' Will Applicant have the specific authority to re-(b) fuse permission or to remove persons from these non-owned lands?
Does Applicant intend to purchase the mineral (C) rights on these non-owned lands? If Applicant does not purchase the mineral rights on these non-owned lands, describe the basis on which you can conclude that the authority required by 5100.3(a) can be satisfied.
Submit copies of all executed agreements (d) c.
granting to Aopticant the described eagme:nta on the non-ou ed lands. .
e d
310.2'Y The ownership status of the land within the exclusion area, (2.1. 2) ,
shown in Figure 2.1-2, is not clearly defined. Revise the figure to clearly show the property presently owned by WPPSS, the property presently owned by others, the property to be acquired by WPPSS, and the property to be covered by easements.
310.3 Provide a figure (other than the one used to show the sttz (2.1.2) ownership) which clearly shows the exclusion area boundary, 4 cT w L v.v c-.d h -j.osTo k.s 6 of principai ,outes in the the location and iden'tification gr nearby vicinity of the site (e.g., Grays Harbor County Itoad) .
Predominant topographical features and contour linan abould be shown but not to the extent that they detract f rom the other information presented.
310.4 The response to acceptance review question No. 3 in (2.1.3) Section 2.1.3 is not adequate. The question in directed at determining the actual increase in the ro..ulatit.a dae to seasonal transients. Procide a table uhich nowa the current and projected estimates over the lifetime of the plant of the seasonal transient population during the summer months by compass sector out to 30 miles from the site.
e
)
310.5 .
Provide a table which shows the peak Jaily as well as (2.1.3) seasonal, if any, transient population within the low population zone.
310.6 Provide a table which lists the industries within 10 miles of the site along with a short description of each industry, the number of employees, and 'the distance and direction from the site.
310.7 lt is stated that there is s' plan to expand the El.sa (2.2.2) ,
Municipal Airport. Provide the date %-hen it is anticipated that this expansion will take place and the type, speed, and weight of the aircraf t expected to *use tne airport.
Also, describe the orientation of the Elaa runway and the landing patterns in relation to the site.
4 310.8 Provide a figure which shows the airways within 10 niles of (2.2.2) the site and give the number of flights by aircraf t type over each of the routes.
310.9 Provida an evaluation of a propane tank car accident en the (2.2.3) railroad one mile north of the site. Consider an accidental release of a tank car of propane with no immediate fire or explosion and determine the extent of the vapor cloud and the gas concent rations which may reach the nite under accident meteorology conditions.
Y
e t-
.: I 310.10 In reference to Table 3.5.5, provide a separate listing of (3.5.2) HTM strike probabilities with respect to turbine utssiles from each turbine unit.
310.11 In Table 6.2.3-1 which shows the comparison of safety-(6.2.3) related air filtration systems with the provisions of Regulatory Guide 1.52, two exceptions are noted with The respect to Iten 6a-c pertaining to testing criteria.
staff comments on taase exceptions are as follows:
- 1. The testing of activated carbon for 957. ef ficiency for trappLng methyl lodine vill be required at 9D; relative humidi:y as stated in lable 1, ites Sa, at Regulatory Guide 1.52. Tr.e test is considered to be a qualification test for the charcoal rather than a test of the conditions under which the system will operate.
- 2. Retention tests will be required as =. tated in inole 1, item $c, regardless of the latest"revluloo to la's 6 ,
M16-1T.
310.12 Clarify the following apparent inconsistencies with respect (0.4) to control room leak tightness:
- 1. Item 7 on p. 6.4-2, ' Test critoria for the control Room Envelope will be '400 cfm laflow at 0.25 in, w.g.
e vacuation."
f
)
-4. '
- 2. Last paragraph on p. 6.4-3, "The Acceptance Criteria will be that the Control P.com inlenkage not exceed 40 cfs at -0.25 in, water gauge."
e . .
- 3. . Fourth paragraph on p. 9.4-4, " Total infiltration into the isolated ccatrol room will be less than 20 cfm assuming a 1/4 inch vater gauge pressure differentisi . . ."
310.13 In Section 6.4.1.3.1, it is indicated that ocasice air vili (6.4) be brought into the control room at a r:te of 3000 efm.
Ilowever, this emerga.ncy outside air flow rate given in figure 9.4-2 is 6000 cf=. Clarify the npp.irec.t !:.smsis-tency.
1 f*.
1 .
_$