ML20210T227

Forwards Hydrologic Engineering Input to Site Suitability Rept.No Unique Hydrologically Related Phenomena Re Site Flooding,Adequate Water Supply & No Excess Potential for Contamination of Groundwater Observed

ML20210T227
Person / Time
Site:	Satsop
Issue date:	04/28/1975
From:	Gammill W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Parr O Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-WNP-1769 NUDOCS 8605290804
Download: ML20210T227 (4)

Text

r-1.

, -,., n :....

a

...,.., ~

NN Q #4*M M W W{~.c.;;hre..sWWW M@f o. V h.g M P '.i.?N uik* h?'

. My;:.i

\\'

j

.:4...{N -!:

h.?s M e# b Ql @ x ml'$

Wi,M

vew -

.~

[4

i. w.

ma-

/

~

i APR 2 g m s

~,

t

. O. P.arr, Chief. LWR Branch 1-3

. SITE SUITABILITY HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING INPUT.

C c, u, PLANT NAME: WNP 3.& 5.-

g.% 3. -

- 6 *:,9 LICENSING STAGE:; CP

~

la. 0# -

9) > o '

9 7

.'-.J. 61.. ' ?

" f' AeiDOCKET IRMERS: 50-508 & 50-509

%. RESPONSIBLE BRANCH:

LnR 1-3 %

W

' REQUESTED COMPLETION DATE:e April 25, 1975 we 7 REVIEW STATUS: Site Analysis Bmnch (HES) - Complete

._t,

,c~.

- Enclosed is the hydtelogic engineering input to the Site Suttability

[

(Report.preparedbyT,L.JohnsonandW.5.Bivins.

^

~,, ;

1 i

s

..>f Willi P. Gamill, Chief 1

Site Analysis Branch

?.

' ". ;;.p,.r.;,e

,,... f. J. e' '.

i Division of Technical Review

....e

.g

...w.wp. - m,. 4<~w c;w w 0ffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation y

,x.,

Enclosure:

~

~T As, stated i

cc: w/o enc 1:

I A. Giambusso l

W. Mcdonald J. Panzarella a

cc: w/ enc 1:

l S. Hanauer

. c F. Schroeder.

,le. iH. R. Denton m.

f SS Branch Chiefs

. M A.'Kenneke

..;)p, O'Reilly 3

-b., c

. I TJ Johnson-W l

Distribution:

7 f

- Central File i

NRR:RDG l

NRR:SAB 1

9 i

8605290804 750428 PDR ADOCK 05000508 A

PDR TR:SAB q.

TR:SA

,i,,,..

l

.(...s.

TJoh_nso.r.i/.,jo. c..L..GHulmab WPG...... il l 1

[

%,E _3/F/15 _ A/_M ns

_#.675_

2 N

Perm AhC 518 (Rev. 75H Ah3d 0240

. W u. si eos tassaswr PaimTime orricas s.74-saa.s ee l

-.,.... ~., -

,.s

...s~...

+ ~.

.~s.~.

~--~..--.m-

--- ~-~ - -

-~.-..=n l

~

q

~

~~

~

~~

)

,x SITE. SUITABILITY REPORT HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING INPUT WNP 3'& 5 DOCKET NOS.

50-508, 509 l

HYDROLOGY The proposed site for WNP 3 & S is located approximately 26 miles southwest of Olympia, Washington, about one mile south of the confluence of the Cnehalis River and Satsop River.

Proposed plant grade is elevation 390 ft. mean sea level (msl).

A series of collector wells located along the Chehalis or Satsop Rivers will provide makeup water to the circulating ecoling water towers.

The ultimate heat sink cor.sists of 3 system of dry cooling towers and components, which reject excess heat to the atmosphere.

The potential for flooding at the site from several sources has been con-sidered by the applicant and independently by the staff.

The applicant and the staff have concluded that the facility will be adequately protected from an occurrence of the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) in the Chehalis River, due to the large elevation difference which exists between proposed plant grade (elev. 390 msl) and the PMF level in the river (estimated by the applicantas53.1msl).

1 The applicant has proposed that site drainage facilities, including the roofs of safety-related buildings will be designed such that an occurrence of the local probable maximum precipitation (PMP) will not constitute a l

threat to safety-related facilities. These proposed design bases meet the l

criteria suggested in Regulatory Guide 1.70.1 " Additional Information, l

Hydrological Considerations for Nuclear Power Plants".

l W

i 1

4

~ -

A e

.w

--n.

N

()

~

7

- Due to the location and elevation of the site, the applicant and the staff have concluded that tsunamis, dam failures, and surges are not factors influencing design bases.

Groundwater in the site vicinity occurs predominantly in the alluvial aquifer that underlies the Chehalis River. Valley at the northern limits of the site area. The site is underlain by weathered and fresh sand-stones of the Astoria Fonnation, which produce little groundwater.

Makeup water to the cooling towers is groundwater.bbtained from the aquifer in the Chehalis River Valley.

The aquifer is approximately 2 miles wide and extends upstream about 15 miles and downstream about 14 miles. The aquifer is highly penneable, consisting primarily ' f o

alluvial sands and gravels.

Due to the high permeability of these materials, a hydraulic connection exists between the aquifer and sur-l face water flow in the Chehalis and Satsop Rivers.

Induced infiltration of surface water will occur due to the high rate of hydraulic con-ductivity between the river and the aquifer,thus providing adequate water to the proposed collector wells. We conclude that an adequate water supply can be provided.

e l

The applicant proposes to install a pennanent dewatering sr.iten to draw down the groundwater levels at safety-related structures to-mat level during the plant lifetime, using a series of vertical and horizontal i

l drains. The groundwater drainage system is currently being reviewed by 1

the staff. We conclude that no unique conditions exist in the aquifer

~

Q I

},_

__1 L

to preclude providing an adequate design basis for the system.

In the event of an accidental liquid radwaste spill, the spill would discharge directly into the proposed drainage system, and eventually discharge into Workman Creek. A potential for contamination of surface water exists due to the short travel tine and minimal dilution that would be received in Workman Creek. This problem is currently under review by the staff, but we conclude that adequate protection can be provided to mitigate the consequences of an accidental spill.

The staff concludes that there are no unique hydrologically-related phenomena related to site flooding, that an adequate water supply is available, and that the potential for contamination of groundwater is no greater than that at other similar sites. These conclusions are based on independent evaluations and comparisons of hydrologic engineering factors at this site with those at other plants that have been licensed for reactors of the size and type proposed.

f s

bYW I

=.

t J,;-skW.cy f:, g.,.;,..f;s.d g.Q A g :( g',@ q

., / ~.

i'~io n. m,4;;h,.Au,.,,, %,v2..,3

.m,

a v-m 3 -,.r.,.,;

c a.

., E,,s.u a o. a e eA.!

.g, _

Distributionr Dacket Fil.

R.'DeYoung o

IMt 1-3 File IM locker pgy oe 975

. PD0'RM ll-f ODParr

- W Milson Docket Mos.. SN 50-508

' Q {"i '?,

4

, 3' 9

• ar:1 Sm 50-509

, 7.f. - L J'

.n n'~. ': : W -: ?+ ' %

,f 3 c m '. n.

2.

v..

m

'.. ~

, - R..; :.,%

.L

. nm =

o2 2.>.d:,,:,, e n-

~

,,. u.. +.n r,-

.n.;.

m'

\\..

, ~, n " Gy;, j a:.;!yeni;,.,.

1 ;.n: a e: y;~...;; n }:.y; -;. '.

• v g -:i.t

,,. s a.,' w.*.Q m.:q:3; y.: : -i ng :

O g-t,..

i W.!M. Begun, Odaf, FJwirossaantal lavjsi.i Branch No.- 4, NL

- s s. sv.

,-a,

...m

.:..~

.Na\\

t E

l

. 'tHIEh Olan D. marr, Odef, Light; letter Amactxra Project FJ, RE.

T J

o.

.~,...

s.

O-j~

INR BRANCE 1-3 Connam CN WPSS NOCumR PRDECES NO. 3 AND No. 5 DES

.c.

en.

e.,,

~.

~..,..

x l

- As m-Trd n d. DasEis' Mzil 2R[1975 meno, wir=nro 10.1

' ~ t #2.*

i

- i contains our coueants on the Dv1="es to t2=t meno. We h.we also I

+

provided our cuaments on the DES in hit===re tm. 2.

n a..., W. ~.,.g.s ' <

. 1 Original S:gned by

' ^

c v

t s

~.

?

trick D CReilly 5

o

, ; e : x p# v. < w t

, w r;

,. a Patrick D. 'O'Peilly l

s*

Light thter Dsetot.s 1

Proja:t Branch 1-3 Division of Peactor Licrcting Enc 3caurust 1.

Ocammer.ts on raclourcs to Aril, 28,1975 Meso.

~

2.

Couwets on WPSS IWlamr Projects No. 3 armi No. 5

. ms.

.. t m

n e

.w-2

~

t

.3 s

e

}

• 1 I

+

~

• I t.

1 e..

h S -

y "a

.. t. ' ;b $

e c.

t

, = * *.

,2 p

,~

- ;fs

,\\

lj

-*--l31

,i s

v-i

'g ',53,. y p s

j i

g

..,f -

.p,

P ~ ".a

. i g

. f.,

{ - *'.

. [ %st ;* i (a t

.( ',

'h

. '. '. ** - *h P., b '.-

s.

,.c

(

s.

y, ' :. ?

a'.

~

v 2

^

' / 'x., '

g,,.y'.

7,' a L  !'

l i

- j-o i

,c.

j k

=

s l

.I_

f, l

1 7

m I

RL I 3

LhB l-3

erms, a

l,

_5/V75 S/t./15 om

--,n...._

n

, - - _..,~... -.

. _..a.,.

_m

_~-

M4Y 061975

)

E n G URE ID. 1 RESPCNSS ((mCES t

DRAET DUIPOWstmL steel' 92PSS IDCLEAR PFErrS ID. 3 AND 20. 5 4

.Ircation C_c_utetts Page 4 of Attach ent

'Ibe scope and depth of current NRC review to E?A letter -

poLicios wj.th resrect to emergency planning Drargency P1.anning at the CP application etage provide assurance that a responsible plan of action can be deve10 ped for protection of the public in the event of a seridus reacter accident.

Ctandard Pavica Plan p:cvides a ccanpleto description. EPA is apparently not aware of our latest critaria for CP applications.

P6ge 9 of Attachrant Although the meteorolcgical data reccvery to EPA letter -

Mditional Cctrants -

percentage was not cited in the DES, the rar.airder of EPA's acrrents are tot gemaine Sectica (2) to an ER. Such carants are nere appropriate for the PSAR portica of an aptM eation',

Departent. of the These ccmnents crrmletely disregard ik Interior letter -

siting criteria established try 10 ca Outdecr Facroatiott Part 100. Interior Drwent reccx:rae.Ms Section tising the exclusicn araa as a public playgreuM.

O Depamt of the Interior DepaG.wd rotes that the potential.

Interior letter -

for landslides in the site ares has not Geolo;rf aM been adequately addressed. The applicant Sei:rology Section has ccr:pleted an extensive investigation of existing landslides in the area and the potential for laMalides at the site.

The results aM conclusions are presented in Section 2.5, AppeMix L of the PSAR.

Departrent of the The question of petrolec: exploration on Interior letter -

the anticline referenced by the Interior Mineral Fescurces Departrant is addressed in detail in Scction Section 2.5 of the PSAR, as pa_4 of the applicant's response to our safety review questions.

4 m.=w p

!tAY 061975 e

.s

.s

}

Enclosure Ib.1.

Incation Ccrrants Departrent of the A Class 9 ao::ident is not considered by Interior letter -

the staff to be a design basis event.

Enviromental Iq:act Consequently, we do not require applicants of Postulated Iccidents to aralyze Class 9 accidents in their l

Section applications, t@SH-1400 is considered a draft docunent and is still u.Mer review by the staff and other organizations.

i Ibne of the results of the evaluations described in NASH-1400 are being used in licensing decisions.

IEd letter -

As part of our CP application stage safe:y Item (4) review, an applicant rmst subnit evidence that at least two Nie al facilities have iMieated a capability and a willingness to treat patients resulting frcn radio-logical accidents. Tne finalized agresents rmst he sulmitted for staff review at tFa OL application stage.

~

e S

i e

e e

s.w

+ew.*

= e

.. n.

w

,...,.,.e

--y

- MAY 0 61975

i

-)

4 DEIOSURE NO. 2 IRR l-3 C04ENTS ON THE DRAET DV. IPOINENTAL S'IATEMD7P 5

KPPSS 1;UCLEAR PROJECIS NO. 3 ASD NO. 5 Iccation Coments Page 1-2, Line 1 i

Project Number for this application was always S'IN-501. Docket Nos. STN 50-508/

i 509 were not assigned until application j

was docketed.

Page 1-2, Line 2 Application-(PSAR arxl General ani Antitrust Information) was resuhn.itted July 15/ 1974 and docketed August 2,1974, not August 23, 1974. ER was remh'itted August 15, 1974, and accepted August 23, 1974.

Page 2-12, Line 9 Charge " pleistocene" to " Pleistocene."

Page 3-1, Lira 42 Change " auxillary" to "anviliary."

Page 5-8, Lira 17 This statenent requires clarification.

Possible typographical error.

Page 5-12, Line 19 Change "Wahsirgten" to " Washington."

Page 7-4, Lines 6 & 25 Change "AEC" to "NBC."

Page 7-4, general Has status of NASH-1400 been described at:curately?

Page 8-3, Line 47 Change "AEC" to the appropriate agency.

Page 9-12, Lira 44 Statenent in parentheses needs clarification.

i Page 10-2, Line 31 Change "curent" to " current."

I i

ai

~.

e,,

e s o, e=

-s-e

, me-w

~