ML20210T235

Summary of 750804 Site Visit & ACRS Subcommittee Meeting W/Util,Ebasco & Woodward-Clyde Assoc Re CP Application. Agenda & List of Attendees Encl

ML20210T235
Person / Time
Site:	Satsop
Issue date:	09/02/1975
From:	Oreilly P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-WNP-1681 NUDOCS 8605290806
Download: ML20210T235 (7)

Text

4 Docket Nos b ~ au-,Q SEP 2 1975

' and - STN 50-509

/

APPLICANT: Washington Public Power Supply System FACILITY: WPFSS Nuclear Projects No. 3 and No. 5 SID91ARY OF AUGUST 4,1975 SITE VISIT AND ACRS SUBCole(ITTgE MEETING On August 4,1975, the Advisory Connaittee on Rasctor safeguards Subcomittee began its review of the WPPSS Nuclear Projects No. 3 and No. 5 construction Permit application. Following a visit to the site of the proposed facility, members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff, the applicant, the applicant's nuclear steam supply system (NSSO vendor, the applicant's architect-engineer and the applicant's consultants 6.at with the Subcoimittee and the Subconnaittee's cons:11tants to d 'scuss site-related matters. A list of participants is given in Enclosure No. 1.

Enclosure No. 2 contains the meeting agenda.

Following opening remarkt by the Subcommittee chairusa, the staff reported on the status of the safety review of the application. The staff informed the Subcoimaittee that discussion with the applicant regarding the following items was continuing:

(1)- Information about aircraft flights over the site and an estimate of the probability of damage from an aircraft accident.

(2) The applicant's estimates regarding the recovary time of the groundwater level at the site in the event of failure of the proposed groundwater drainage system.

(3) Effects of a rupture of a circulating water pipe located directly under or inside the turbing building on the groundwater drainage system.

(4) Consequences of the failure of a tank containing radioactive liquid l

vhere the spill is transported to a surface water user along Workman Creek by means of the groundwater drainage system.

(5) Details of the applicant's connaiteents to monitor the groundwater l

level and to provide radiological monitoring of discharges from

'the groundwater drainage system.

(6) The applicant's proposed tornado missile spectrum.

(7) The applicant's loss-of-coolant accident radiological dose calculations.

The next portion of the asettag consisted of presentations by the applicant and questioning by the Subconnaittee and its consultants. During this part of the meeting the Subconnaittee expressed concern about the following items:

I E

.,,.e.*

8605290806 750902 k

ADOCK 05000508 g

PDR PDR

.w.=.-r*

O l..

o r=

• Form AEC-318 (Rm 9-53) AECM C240 W v. s. sovs a=u r=v pm.=vina opric as s era.sas.t ee L_

~' -

S/S.

CESSAR Commaitment The Subcousaittee asked the applicant if the WPPSS Nuclear Projects No. 3 and No. 5 application incorporated the CESSAR without exception. The applicant responded that, although a total unconditional commitment to the CESSAR had not been made, the major portion of the design was the CESSAR design. The staff provided clarification for the Subcoustittee regarding the matter of interfaces with the CESSAR. The staff also provided clarification regarding exceptions which the application took to the CESSAR and how discussions between the applicant and the NSSS vendor had resolved many of the exceptions, and the current status of the few remaining exceptions.

Aircraft Flights over the Site The Subcommittee expressed concern that item (1) in the staff's status report represented a new position regarding the probability of damage from aircraf t.

The staff replied that item (1) concerned clarification of material already in the PSAR concerning aircraft overflights and was not a new approach to accident analysis.

Tornado Missiles The Subcommittee requested clarification from the staff regarding item (6) j in the staff's status report. The staff explained that item (6) was concerned with the applicant's proposed tornado missile spectrum, not with onsite strike probabilities.

Determination of the Safe Shutdown Earthquaka The Subcommittee asked the applicant what the results would hava been if the same method for determining the SSE had been used in 1949 prior to the Olympia l

earthquaka. Although the applicant's consultant stated that a strict answer to this question would have to be that the same type of analysis was not possible in 1949 because of the lack of reference material, further clarification was provided. The clarification included a discussion of the relationships between fault length and earthquake magnitude, the intensity relationship used in the analysis, published acceleration attenuation information, and the assumptions used in the selection of the SSE.

The Subcommittee inquired how the length of the Olympia linam - t was determined.

In response, the applicant's consultant stated that this determination was based I

on gravity gradings. The applicant's consultant then explained how the length of the Olympia lineament was determined using geologic evidence.

The Subcommittee inquired about the amount of uncertainty in the correlation of acceleration with fault length. The applicant's consultant replied that this question was difficult to answer since the relationship used in the determination of the SSE was selected from literature. In the determination of the SSE, the applicant's consultant had used what was felt to be a reasonable overbound for the published dcts. The curve selected enveloped the data on the high side which is considered conservative since it gives the highest earthq uska magnitud e for o.ruc s >

eun=esus k o ATs W Form MC 3 t B (Rev. 9 5 3) MCM 0240 W u. e. eovanmusur enintime oprics esta.sas.see

I Sl:F i

.r

- 3_

r a given length. In response to the Subcommittee's question, the applicant's consultant pointed out that the curve selected represented the highest evaluation of the usan curve by several authors.

i The Subcommittee asked for an estimate of the recurrence interval for a quake the size of the Olympia earthquake. The applicant's consultant responded that only one event was available historically and it was difficult to develop statistics based only on one event. The Subcommittee expressed concern about the determination of the SSE because the =ma- = earthquake that could occur is about as large as one that has occurred in a very short time span historically.

The Subcommittee asked how the analysis had excluded shorter faults which may be closer to the site, but which, if they are located at shallow depths, could produce higher accelerations. The applicant's consultant replied that the geologic investigation program had resulted in the conclusion that the small faults closer to the site were not capable faults and therefore could be excluded from consideration. The Subcomunittee expressed conceern that the construction excavation at the site be monitored thoroughly from a geologic standpoint for features that may be significant regarding the selection of the SSE.

The applicant's architect-engineer commented that a commitment had been made to the staff for detailed mapping of the excavation, including photographs.

Slope Stability and Sandslides In response to a Subcommittee inquiry, the applicant's consultant replied that the available geologic evidence does not indicate that heavy rainfall is a triggering mechanism for landslides in the vicinity of the site.

The staff informed the Subconnaittee that the review of landslides was not complete due to newly submitted information in the PSAR. The staff furnished the following comments for the record:

(1) It would be useful to identify how slopes 4, 5, and 7, which extend into the plant area, cougare with the criteria used to evaluate the landslide activity. The presentation, and the PSAR, indicate that, in the absence of any one of these factors, a landslide is not likely.

(2) It would be appropriate to identify which one of these factors makes landslides in the plant area unlikely.

(3) The properties of the residual soil used in the latest analysis should be compared with the properties arcociated with the residual soil slidas, such as soil' elide 8 Following are executive session, the Subcommittee informed the applicant and the staff that the site-related items to be discussed with the full Committee would be concentra"ed in the areas of geology and seismology.

omer*

4 supNamet >

0""*

Fora MCW 5 (Rev. 9 9 3) AECM 024}

1. W s. novapnwant enemisese errects 1.?s-easase

a 4-The Subcommittee advised the applicant to refine portions of the model used to determine the SSE and to expand discussion of the confidence levels associated with the various correlations.

Original Signed by Patrick D. O'Reilly Patrick D. O'nat11y Light Water Reactors Project Branch 1-3

Enclosures:

1.

Attendence List 2.

Meeting Agenda 1

r i

l l

RL: LWR l-3 o,.c <,-

70'Re %y:mb

.u.

.9/ 77

..,s.-

Form AIC.}l5 (kee. 9 93) A101024)

W u. s. eovanmusm? paintino orrecse geva.sas-tes

. e,-

ENCLOSURE NO. 1 ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECTS NO. 3 AND NO. S AUGUST 4. 1975 ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE Dr. S. H. Bush, Chairman Mr. J. Arnold Dr. M. W. Carbon ACRS CONSULTANTS Dr. Thompson Dr. J. Wilson WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM G. Sorensen K. Dykeman ERASCO SEPVICES INCORPORATED J. Srivey A. Wern T. Rainey J. Teraszkiewicz WOODWARD-CLYDE ASSOCIATES D. Tocher A. Petwardhan M Perkins NRC STAFF

0. Parr C. Stepp D. Budge J. Creeves T. Johnson P. O'Reilly l

I l

l o*ree s e-svuaws

• cats

• Farm ALC 3 t h t he. 9 93) AICM C24J

1. v. a. eovanmus=T rneuerthe orricas se74.sas.tse

n.

W

/

SCliCDULE AND AGE::DA FOR SI VISIT 0

AND SUSC0r:ITTEC REVIEW Or UPPS 3 AND 5 - At; GUST 4,1975 g

OAKS RIDGE COUNTRY CLUB, EL*1A, WASilINCTON

.51TE VISIT 1

' Site Visit-Lunch 3UECO':'!ITTEE MEETING 2.0 Executive Sestion (Closed) 2.0 Meeting with the NRC Staff and Applic5nt (Open) p.

2.1 Coraittee Chairman's Opening Remarks 2.2 Eepart by*the ::RC Staff (Site Related Itens)

Status of site Ecview Outstandine, Site Related Items Staff Conclusions g

2.3 Presentatiens by App'licant Introduction and General Description brief plant description schedulo Site Characteristi:s Denography Sciccicity (Selection of the SSE)'

coil characteristics & hydrology netcorology slopp st:bility L landslides

h. zards censidered (e.g., transportation, industrial, military actit'ities)

Ultimate Hoet Sink t.

.G(nerai Description of Design meteoro. logical design bases Fater Drainage Surface drainage considerations L

ground water drainage system r

e

C dt> 4 2-

. kk 3.0 Executive Session (Closed) 4.0 Meeting with the NRC Staff and Applicant Discuss future meetings 6 agenda 5.0 Adjournment

1) A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for receiving oral statements from cembers of the public, if requested.

2) The speakers should limit their prepared presentations to the time alloyed.

An allowance, amour. ting to.approxientely 50% of the presentation time, has been made for questioning by the Co=mittee.

i O

a B

e 4\\