ML20214G564
| ML20214G564 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1972 |
| From: | Nunn D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Miner S US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-0125, CON-WNP-125 NUDOCS 8605220282 | |
| Download: ML20214G564 (3) | |
Text
.t E f 1 C 1972 Sydney Miner, Gas Cooled Reacter Brspch, But #3 TERU:
li. F. Gasmill, Chief, site Analysis Ersach ETDEEOGIC ElEE""*" WST10ES 05 EmFCED E0. 2 WCLEAR FWER FLANY FOR-DOCETE0(50-397]
Inclosed are hydrologic engineering questions on the subject plant for transmittel to the applicant. These questions were discussed informally during a visit in this office on May 12, 1972 with applicant representativa, Mr. L. L. Huaghreys.
Dwight E. Euan Chief, Rydrologic Engineer Site Analysis Branch Enclosures Hydrologic Engineering Questiona l
cc w/socl:
R. Boyd, BWR R. Clark, BnEL l
DISTRIElfr10N:
L - Suppl 4 T4 L - Bdg l
AD/SS - Rdg i
SAB - Rdg l
l I
..DC.M,n% l W ? G l Cn%
b..
.l i 6.....__
5 otnct >
..1 i SA SA y
n:e.j i r:n n L'PGammill SURNAME >
r oarE,. 5(17.02
..l. 5 /d.].L2..
5 /, 7./72.
Form AEC418 tRev. 9-51 AICM 0240 v s ec,as.mie r. e'es e.cr ses o-a..,
1 l
8605220202 720518 PDR ADOCP. 35000397 PDit A
r I
dYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING O'JESTIONS IIANFORD N0. 2 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PSAR DOCKET No.56-397 1.
Provide the probable maximum flood (PMF) estimate for the local 10.2 square mile drainage area in the immediate vicinity of the spray ponds (ultimate heat sink), and discuss the effects on the flood level at safety related facilities of the AEC mainline railroad. Show that the local PNF will not adeersely affect the functional capability of the ultimate heat sink or any other safety related plant structure or facil-ity.
Show that the spray ponds will not be adversely affected by a Columbia River seismically induced flood, and will resist the effects of a local P:!F. The local area probable maximum precipitation for use in the deeclopment ci the PMF may be obtained from Hydrometeorological Keport No. 43, " Probable Maximum Precipitation, Northwest States," Nov-ember 1966, U. S. Department of Commerce, Environnental Science Admini-stration, ".?cather Bureau (now NOAA).
2.
Prceide the following informati:n to substantiate the conclusion that the energency spray pends (ult a ate heat sink) will have an adequate 30-day wa*.er supply.in the evert of either normal or emergency shutdown and ecoldown, a.
Sunmarize the requiremer.ts and describe the sources of fire protection system water.
Where such firewater is drawn from the ultimate heat sink, include this recuirement in the discussion of the design basis for spray pcnds.
b.
The two spray ponds included in the ultimate heat sink include pro-vision for the transfer of water from one pond to another by pro-posed small portable pumps in an emergency. This proposal does not meet the ultimate heat sink criteria of a desired dependable 30-day water supply. A more permanent and dependable installation should be censidered.
c.
Furnish plan, cross sections and elevation views of all emergency heat sink structures. Present details of the Class I seismic service water spray pond structures, surface terrain in the vicinity, and normal pond level, including pertinent elevations. Substantiate that sufficient suction will exist on the safety related spray pond pumps. Provide the bases for the ultimate heat sink component sizes, including surface area, volume and shape, d.
Present an increnental analyses of the heat dissipation under the emergency and normal shutdewn conditions, and concurrent with the worst meteorolegical conditions expected during clant operation.
Substantiate heat lend, evaporation and meteorological assumptions.
What provis!ons will be made to prevent pond and spray system freeze up?
(
_2_
e.
Discuss the possibility that the entire surface area of the spray ponds may not be' effective in emergency use due to a direct hydraulic connection between discharge and intake facilities.
f.
Discuss the operation procedures which will assure the pond will have adequate water supply at all times.
3.
In the event of a design basis tornado or earthquake, what would prevent the loss of water supply in the spray pond? Discuss the possibility of a tornado sucking the water out of the pond, tornado missiles, or tornado or earthquake caused obstructions rendering the ultimate heat sink un-available.
4.
Provide plan and cross section information of the river intake structure which shous locations, pertinent elevations of the sump, minimum suction levels, operating ficor levels, and all exterior accesses. Provide the design criteria for high and low river flows and furnish a Columbia River elevation-discharge relationship. Discuss the capability of pumps to operate through the range of expected uater levels, and describe how the source of water supply will be safely switched to the ultimate heat sink in the event other water is not usable. Show that a break in the conduit from the river intake to the remainder of the ultinate heat sink will not cause water to be siphoned from the spray ponds.
5.
The discussion of seismically induced Columbia River floods is considered substantially more conservative than required as indicated by correspondence, informal discussion and the draf t Standard Format and Content of SAR for Nuclear Power Plants, dated February, 1972. The text material should be either qualified, or modified accordingly.
/