ML20210S447
| ML20210S447 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000510, 05000511 |
| Issue date: | 09/05/1978 |
| From: | Coto P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Woodhead C NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-1395 NUDOCS 8605290178 | |
| Download: ML20210S447 (2) | |
Text
t_.ii st/' dM
,g?
' SEP 51978 Docke j
GG l
NOTE T0:
Colleen Woodheed Office of the Executive Legal Director FROM:
Phillip C. Cota Project Manager Environmental Projects Branch 1. DSE
SUBJECT:
SUGGESTED QUESTIONS FOR BLUE HILLS HEARING Following are suggested questions for the Blue Hills Hearing:
Q.
State your name and employment.
A.
My name is Phillip Cota. I am employed by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Q. What position do you hold and what are your duties?
A.
I am an environmental project manager. I supervise the environmental review of a proposed project, including the preparation of the environ-mental statement. In an early site review, I also supervise the preparation of the site safety evaluation report.
Q.
I show you a document entitled " Professional Qualifications of Dr. Phillip Ci. Cota." Was that document prepared by you?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Is that document true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
A.
Yes.
Counsel: I move that thH document entitled....
782430172 r
fk i
i i
....e.*
8605290178 700905 PDR ADOCK 05000S10 A
PDR onve
- NRC FORM SIS (9 76) NRCM 0240 W un e eova AmassNT PAtNT1he OFFtCan 1 7e = 336 434
4 I
Ek s
s p_
Q.
I show you a document entitled " Final Site Environmental Statement related to the detemination of the suitability of Site G for_
eventual construction of the Blue Hills Station Unit Nos.1 and 2."
Was that document prepared by you or under your direction?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Is that document true and corrett to the best of your knowledge?
A.
Yes.
Counsel: I move that the document entitled...be incorporated into the transcript and admitted into evidence.
Q.
I show you a document entitled "Early Site Review for Blue Hills Site." Was that document prepared by you or under your direction?
A.
No, but I participated in the review of the document, and I have discussed the document with the technical reviewers who prepared the document, f
Q.
Is the document true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
'l A.
Yes.
Counsel: I move that the document entitled...be incorporated into the transcript and admitted into evidence.
/5/
Phillip C. Cota. Project Manager Environmental Projects Branch 1 Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Distribution:
EP-1 Rdg P. Cota M. Slater DSE:EP-j ar ri..,
PCota b
......s, 9/1/78 NRC FO108 SIS (9-76) NRCM 0240 W u. s. novsanneswv reinvine orrect sere eases 4 L
-\\
=
'?istribution:
bcket File JAN 30 W LWR #3 File Doctet mos. 50-460 hbrook and 50-513 y W.MORANDUM FOR: Olan D. Parr, Chief Light hater Reactors Branch No. 3, DN FRON:
Thomas H. Cox, Project Manager, Light n.ater Reactors tranch No. 3. DPM SUSJECT:
DESIGN DEFICIENCY - WP-1 AND WP-4
'The staff is submitting proposeo findings of fact and conclusions of law to the ASLB on January 27, 1978 concerning the WP-4 project. The Board could rule on these and the applicant's findings and reach a decision in z'the near future. A potential issue has surfaced concerning tne spray
' pond design. The issue may be reportable, and could delay the CP decision j
on WP-4.
The hashington Public Power Supply System (WPSS) notified me earlier this month. in a telephone conversation, that they had reported to Region V, IE, that the original spray pond design approved in 1975 for both WNP 1 and a may have been deficient in that there could be excessive loss of water due to drift during spray operations. This situation arose when WPSS concluoed that their assumption for wind velocity that was used to calculate maximum drift loss was not hign (conservative) enough. The velocity that WPSS originally used is 5.54 miles per hour, as statea in Section 9.2.5.3.
l of the PSAR, Amendment 19. liPPSS now states that they are designing l
for drif t losses based on a win 1 velocity of approximately 13 miles per hour. This revised velocity results from:
i t
1.
Correcting an earlier error in selecting a conservative maxit.uu l
velocity from the cata then available.
2.
The use of a s* ore conservative velocity averaging methoc than l
required by Regulatory Guide 1.27 Revision 2.
3.
The use of newer meteorological data now availanie from Battelle Northwest Laboratories.
I Drif t losses will be limited by the addition (over that now shown in PSAR) of "a 16 foot wide, sloping apron", around the pond perimeter. A report on the modification is expected to be submitted to IE Region Y in about one month. The report will be forwarded to ONRR for information. WPSS stated to me that they do not consider the change in assumed wind velocity (for drif t analysis) or the resultant pond design changes to be a change in the principal engineering criteria. I concur in that assessment.
]
s n
n i
opric s w
..= a m e >
oate >
18 (9 76) NRCM 0240 W u, s. sovannuent eni= vine orreca,, ore -one.saa h
I
\\
?
/
01ar. D. Parr JAN 3 01978 IE, Region V discussed this matter in a repert dated December 15, 1977 (copy enciesed). Jack Earvin, Region V Reastor laspector, stated that i
IE does not consider this ites to be a 50e56(e) itse because it was identifiefprior to the release of construction drawings for that portion i
of the pond design in which the design modifications are planned.
I discussed this matter on January 27,1978 with Gary Staley, the responsible technical reviewer for the WPS$ spray pond design as approved on the i
WP-1-4 docket (Supplement No. 2, August 1975, NUREG 75/036, page 2-3 The staff's independent analysis of the WPSS design included our own wind l
velocity assumption for drift loss calculations, and it was higher than the one that WPSS used. We found the design acceptable at the CP stage of review.
WPSS has apparently elected to improve their design during the post-CP period (WP-1). They have, however, identified (to Cox, in conversation on January 27,1978), that their improvement is based partially on the use of data not previously available (the BNL meteorological data).
These data may show that staff's previous assumption of maximum wind velocity (for calculating drift losses) may be non-conservative.
However, because there are known mechanical and civil engineering solutions to the problem of too much drif t loss, I believe that we could, onc2 we
~
have WPPSS' description of what they have done, move forward to a CP decision on WP-4 based on the provisions of 10 CFR 50.35(a).
i j
I believe we shoulo discuss:
I 1.
The content of a report to the sitting ASLB, if one is to be made.
2.
What the applicant should be requested to do.
l Original Signed By 3'hamna.Cox Theses H. Cox l
Light Water Reactors Branch No. 3 01visten of Project Management ccs: -D. B. Vassallo E. Ketchen G. Staley j
G. Hulman R. DeYoung
.,,te. =-
DPM; LEO nau,;. un, 3
...=.e..
Turnv2ah
_00Earr
-lL DB 1L H6_-
- ts (9 76) NRCM 0240 W u. s. sovannaeant poennus orrec s. e,re - ea eaa
-.