ML20209D633
| ML20209D633 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Satsop |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1984 |
| From: | Ballard R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-1357 NUDOCS 8412100510 | |
| Download: ML20209D633 (4) | |
Text
'
G 110'/ 3 0 1984 Docket No. 50-508 MEMORANDUM FOR: George Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3, DL THRU:
William V. Johnston, Assistant Director Materials, Chemical & Environmental Technology, DE FROM:
Ronald L. Ballard, Chief Environmental & Hydrologic Engineering Branch, DE
SUBJECT:
MANAGEMENT REVIEW 0F THE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 3 (WNP-3) FES REVIEW Plant Name: WPPS Nuclear Project No. 3 Licensing Stage: OL Responsible Branch: Licensing Branch No. 3; B. K. Singh, PM Requested Completion Date: December 14, 1984 As requested in a memorandum from T. Novak dated November 23, 1984, we have reviewed those portions of the WNP-3 FES for which input was provided to you by the Hydrologic Engineering Section.
Our comments are provided in the attached annotated pages.
This review was performed by R. Gonzales who may be reached on extension 28117.
QElginal aL.---
'llard i
Ronald L. Ballard, Chief Environmental & Hydrologic Engineering Branch Division of Engineering
Attachment:
As stated cc: see next page g12100510841130 ADOCK 05000
)(f; Vfr
r 3
George Knighton.NOV 3 01981 cc: w/o attachment R. Vollmer T. Novak w/ attachment R. Ballard B. K. Singh D. Chery R. Gonzales DISTRIBUTION:
4 Mckets EHEB Rdg All
/
OFC : GE:EH
- DE.
E
.h:_DE
</f/._:..._____CET:
EWO DE:ADM NAME :RGonza'les:ws DLChery
- RLBall rd : WVJohnston :
.___:..___4...__.:_____...___.:..___.____._:________..__:____________:_____.__..__:___.______
DATE :11/f8/8-4
- II/2R/84
- 11/#/84
- 11/G/84 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
1983. Using the U.S. Geological Survey WATSTORE computer system, the staff determined average flows for the Chehalis River at Porter and for the Satsop.
River near Satsop. The average flow value of the Chehalis River at Ecrte-was then adjusted to a flow value for the Chehalis River just upstream of the con-fluence of the Satsop -River. This was done by using drainage area ratios. The next step consisted of adding the average ficw value from the Satsop River to the adjusted average flow value for the Chehalis River to obtain a flow value for the Chehalis River just downstream of the confluence of the Satsop River.
This flow value was then adjusted to the site by again using drainage area ratios. This procedure resulted in an estimated average flow in the Chehalis
, River at the site of 6824 ft3/sec.
Average monthly flows' cited in Section 4.3.1.1.1 of the DES as 730 f t3/sec and 14,900 ft3/sec, respectively, have been revised to 806 ft3/sec 'and 14,668 ft3/sec in the FES, as suggested by this comment. Also, the minimum historical low flow has been revised from 397 ft3/sec in the DES to 454 ft3/sec in the FES, as suggested in the comment.
WPPSS-33 WPPSS notes that in Section 4.3.1.1.1, third paragraph, the units of flow should be m3/sec, not m2/sec.
Staff Response The units of flow have been changed.
9.4.3.1.1.3 Supplemental Water Supply WPPSS-8 4.3.l.l.3 WPPSS notes that the third sentence of th+s section should make clear that the 4
550-ft3/sec river flow limitation could be waived by the state on the basis of regional power needs.
-Staff Response This possible waiver,has been noted in the FES.
9.4.3.3 Meteorology WPPSS-12 WPPSS suggests a clarification that although fog observations are from valley stations, the plant site is one ridge above the heavy fog.
Staff Response This change has been made.
WNP-3 FES 9-9
Jk *b9M 6ecaAlic. [ de meng under9in'ic5 ceMcaming ct(E-M#M ac4ideC5,* No S OrDd410 MJ an3ld5I5, d$e) con se(drive Mor$ au 455um'rions. Th5 Oe stcff's analysis is conservative and the result.s can be considered to be the upper bounds of the actual values that could be expected.
The objective of the staff's analysis was not to quantify the population dose that would result from a core-melt accident and subsequent melt-through of the concrete containment floor.
Rather, it was to determine whether the conse-
.qu;nces at WNP-3 could be substantially different, qualitatively, than those tss::ciated with a typical land-based nuclear power plant. The staff analysis did show that at WNP-3 there is a potential for a significant amount of radio-activity to enter the surface rather rapidly, a situation that is not typical i
of the large majority of land-based nuclear plants. The staff recognizes that its analysis depicts an upper bound condition.
Further, the staff states that although the liquid pathway consequences would be worse for WNP-3 than for the typical LPGS small river site, they still pose much less of a risk than the airborne pathway.
(6) Risk Considerations Environmental Risks 50-7 a
SD discussed direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts and commented:
"It wIs not clear whether these writers entertained such impacts and excluded them, er whether they had been ignored."
Staff Responde It is not clear to the staff which impacts SD means. With respect to the non-rrdiological impacts of postulated accidents, the " direct" impacts are generally of a different nature than " indirect" impacts, so a " cumulative" impact would nst be meaningful. With respect to the radiological impacts of accidents, the impicts summarized in Table 5.8 include dose risks from both early exposures and icng-term exposures.
Some of the latter are " indirect" in that the doses are from.the"fhod chain pathway.
The radiological impacts shown in Table 5.8 are, th3reforei cumulative.
Those impacts that were not discussed were judged to be of less importance than the impacts discussed.
WPPSS-25 WPPSS notes that the last paragraph of this subsection seems misplaced and per-haps belongs to the discussion of uncertainties in (7) Uncertainties.
Staff Response Tha suggested change has been made.
WPPSS-38 WPPSS notes that the figure referenced in the discussion on latent cancer fatal-ity risk should be Figure 5.11.
WNP-3 FES 9-24
_