ML17258B183: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:I!RESUL'ATOiINFORMATION DISTRIBUTION
{{#Wiki_filter:I!
+TEN (RIDE)ACCESSIOQ'SR
RESUL'ATOiINFORMATION DISTRIBUTION                                     +TEN     (RIDE)
~810824005b DOC~DATE'1/08/18 NOTARIZED!*
ACCESSIOQ'SR ~ 810824005b                 DOC ~ DATE'1/08/18                             NOTARIZED!* NO                   DOCKEiT FACIL050~244 Robert Emmet Ginna Nuclear PlantF, Unit 1F Rochester                                                       G 05090244 AUTH INANE!                 AUTHOR AFFIl 'IATION MAIKRpJ  ~ E>>,           Rochester       Gas 8 Electric RECXPIENT AFFILIATION Corp'ECIP
NO FACIL050~244 Robert Emmet Ginna Nuclear PlantF, Unit 1F Rochester G AUTH INANE!AUTHOR AFFIl'IATION MAIKRp J~E>>, Rochester Gas 8 Electric Corp'ECIP~NAME)RECXPIENT AFFILIATION CRVTCHFIELOFD
          ~ NAME)
~Operating, Reactors Branch 5 DOCKEiT 05090244 SUBJECT>I Forwards" NUS Corp-"Ginna Station Des)gn Basis" Flooding, Study for Rochester" Gas 8 Electric.Corp'" in response to NRC)evaluation of SEP Topics IIM3~A, II 3~BF II 3~B~1 8 III.3,A rel potential of local flooding, UPS>>(>>>>SwqiPC>>S~DISTRIBUTI N CODE;:" A035S COPIES RECEX VED: LTR'NCL'SIZE": "Q'ITLEl::
CRVTCHFIELOFD ~                 Operating, Reactors Branch                             5 SUBJECT>I Forwards" NUS Corp-             "Ginna Station Des)gn Basis" Flooding, Study for Rochester" Gas         8   Electric. Corp'" in response to NRC) evaluation of         SEP Topics IIM3~ A, II 3 ~ BF II 3 ~ B ~ 1 8 III. 3,A rel potential of local flooding, UPS>>(>>>> SwqiPC>> S~
SEP.Topics NOTES::1 copy:SEP Sect;Ldr.05000244 REC I PI EN T'D CODE/l4AMK<
DISTRIBUTI       N CODE;:" A035S       COPIES RECEX VED: LTR                             'NCL'     SIZE":
ACTlION I ORB 05 BC 04 INTERNALS A/D i4IATL8GUAL>>13 HYD/GEO BR 10.OR ASSESS BR 11 SEP BR 12'OPIES LTTR ENCL>>7 7 1 2 2 1 1 3 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAMK'ONT SYS" A 07 06"'FII>01 COPIES L>>TTR>>ENCL<1 1>>2 2'1'XTERNALs ACRS NRCi PDR>>NTIS 14 02>>1e 1 1 1 LPDR NSIC 03 05.1 1 1 1/~q TOiTAL NUi>>BER DF COPIES'EQUIRED>>'iTTR P8 ENCL II hh Ih n I j I 4 n I~"~'4 i', i&#xc3;,'OCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION o 89 EAST AVENUE, ROCHESTER, N.Y.14649 JOHN E.MA IER VICE PRESIOEIIT TELEPHONE AREA COOS lls 546.2700 August 18, 1~9~!i I=,l (-'%>, Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 8-Attention:
SEP. Topics                                                                                      "Q'ITLEl::
Dennis M.Crutchfield, Chief~gG'p l~~Operating Reactors Branch No.S ,~~asoep'2 U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nashington, P.C.20555 p.Subject,: SEP Topics II 3,A, II-.3.B, II-3.B.1,~N-I3.R.E.Ginna Nuc3,ear Power Plant Docket No.50-.244
NOTES::1   copy:SEP Sect;           Ldr.                                                                                 05000244 REC I PI EN T'D RECIPIENT                                COPIES CODE/l4AMK<          LTTR ENCL>>        ID                                      L>>TTR>> ENCL<
ACTlION I     ORB   05 BC         04         7    7 12'OPIES CODE/NAMK'ONT INTERNALS A/D i4IATL8GUAL>>13                         1                                SYS" A      07      1    1>>
HYD/GEO BR           10.       2      2                                            06"'    2    2' OR   ASSESS     BR   11         1     1                     FII             >
01 SEP    BR                      3 1'XTERNALs ACRS                 14              1e      LPDR                                  03      1      1 NRCi PDR>>           02>>       1     1     NSIC                                   05. 1     1 NTIS                                  1
      /
                                                                                                ~q TOiTAL NUi>>BER DF       COPIES'EQUIRED>>'iTTR             P8               ENCL


==Dear Mr.Crutchfield:==
II hh Ih n I j    I 4
n I~
                          "~
                        '4


This letter is in response to the NRC Staff's evaluation of the potential for local flooding which was provided by your letter dated April 10, 1981 and to the Staff's evaluation of the effects of high water levels on plant structures which was pro-vided by your letter dated Maxch 24, 1981.The Staff's evalu-.ations concluded that a".Probable Maximum Flood" (PMF)of 37,000 cfs would.pxoduce a water surface elevation of about.275 ft msl.In response to the Staff,'s assessment,'RG&E,requested a contractor, NUS Corporation, to analyze the potential for local-flooding as a result of storms varying from the 100 year precipitation to the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP)which would cause the pMFC Following field reconnaissance, analyses were performed, and the enclosed'report has been prepared.It is shown that the Deer Creek channel is capable of carrying a 12-inch rainfall event, with an associated peer Creek flow of 13,700 cfs, without exceeding a flood leyel of 270 ft ms).The estimated return period of this event is in excess of 10 years.Since plant grade in the area of Deer Creek is about 270 ft msl, we conclude that the present Ginna design is adequate to preclude flooding of safety-related structures, systems and components, and that no corrective actions are required.Further, we conclude that the referenced SEP topics should be considered resolved'with no open items to be assessed during the integrated assessment;.
i',
,810824005b 810818 PDR ADOCK 05000244~P PDR I\~'1 I 1 V I~, 4~I ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTR~ORP.
i&#xc3;,'OCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION o 89 EAST AVENUE, ROCHESTER, N.Y. 14649 JOHN E. MA IER                                                              TELEPHONE VICE PRESIOEIIT                                                    AREA COOS lls 546.2700 August 18, 1~9~! i I=,l Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
DATE To August 18, 1981 Mr.Dennis M.Crutchfield, Chief SHEET NO.The basis for our conclusion regarding closure of the curxently open items of local flooding is well founded in NRC documentation of the purpose of SEP.On November 17, 1977, the NRC Staff met with SEP utility representatiVes to describe SEP.(See a memo dated November 22, 1977 from R.D.Silver to D.Eisenhut.)
(-'%>,
The NRC Staff stated that an acceptable alter-., native to current criteria was that the"probability of event is sufficiently low" and/or the"consequences (more realistic) are sufficiently low,'~These alternative approaches were further documented in a letter dated December 1, 1977 from Victor Stello, Director, Division of Operating Reactors, to L.D.White, Jr., RG&E, and have been reiterated verbally by the NRC since then.Since the conclusions provided here are well within the scope enunciated by the NRC, the referenced SEP topics should be considered complete.Very truly yours, Enclosure Ca II ll f't~4}}
8-Attention: Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief                  ~ gG 'p l~~
Operating Reactors Branch No.        S
                                                                    , ~~asoep'2 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nashington, P.C. 20555                                      p.
Subject,:          SEP    Topics II 3,A,  II-.3.B, II-3.B.1,    ~N-I3.
R. E. Ginna Nuc3,ear Power    Plant Docket No. 50-.244
 
==Dear Mr.        Crutchfield:==
 
This letter is in response to the NRC Staff's evaluation of the potential for local flooding which was provided by your letter dated April 10, 1981 and to the Staff's evaluation of the effects of high water levels on plant structures which was pro-vided by your letter dated Maxch 24, 1981. The Staff's evalu-.
ations concluded that a ".Probable Maximum Flood" (PMF) of 37,000 cfs would. pxoduce a water surface elevation of about. 275                       ft   msl.
In response to the Staff,'s assessment, 'RG&E,requested a contractor, NUS Corporation, to analyze the potential for local-flooding as a result of storms varying from the 100 year precipitation to the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) which would cause the pMFC Following field reconnaissance, analyses were performed, and the enclosed'report has been prepared.
shown that the Deer Creek channel is capable of carrying a It is 12-inch rainfall event, with an associated peer Creek flow of 13,700 cfs, without exceeding a flood leyel of 270 ft ms). The estimated return period of this event is in excess of 10 years.
Since plant grade in the area of Deer Creek is about 270 conclude that the present Ginna design is adequate to ft msl,      we preclude flooding of safety-related structures, systems and components, and that no corrective actions are required. Further, we conclude that the referenced SEP topics should be considered resolved 'with no open items to be assessed during the integrated assessment;.
,810824005b 810818 PDR ADOCK 05000244           ~
P                       PDR
 
I \
    ~   '1             I 1
I I
V
      ~,   4 ~
 
ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTR~ORP.                                            SHEET NO.
DATE To     August 18, 1981 Mr. Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief The basis for our conclusion regarding closure of the curxently open items of local flooding is well founded in NRC documentation of the purpose of SEP. On November 17, 1977, the NRC Staff met with SEP utility representatiVes           to describe SEP.
(See a memo   dated   November 22, 1977   from R. D. Silver to D. Eisenhut.)       The NRC Staff stated that   an acceptable alter-.,
native to current criteria was that the "probability of event is sufficiently low" and/or the "consequences (more realistic) are sufficiently low,'~ These alternative         approaches were further documented     in a letter dated December     1, 1977 from Victor Stello, Director, Division of Operating Reactors, to L. D. White, Jr.,
RG&E, and have been reiterated verbally by the NRC since then.
Since the conclusions provided here are well within the scope enunciated by the NRC, the referenced SEP topics should be considered complete.
Very truly   yours, Enclosure
 
Ca II ll   f' t
          ~ 4}}

Latest revision as of 18:11, 29 October 2019

Forwards NUS Corp Ginna Station Design Basis Flooding Study for Rochester Gas & Electric Corp, in Response to NRC Evaluation of SEP Topics II-3.A,II-3.B,II-3.B.1 & III-3.A Re Potential of Local Flooding
ML17258B183
Person / Time
Site: Ginna Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 08/18/1981
From: Maier J
ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP.
To: Crutchfield D
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17258B184 List:
References
TASK-02-03.A, TASK-02-03.B, TASK-02-03.B1, TASK-03-03.A, TASK-2-3.A, TASK-2-3.B, TASK-2-3.B1, TASK-3-3.A, TASK-RR NUDOCS 8108240056
Download: ML17258B183 (6)
v • d • e


Text

I!

RESUL'ATOiINFORMATION DISTRIBUTION +TEN (RIDE)

ACCESSIOQ'SR ~ 810824005b DOC ~ DATE'1/08/18 NOTARIZED!* NO DOCKEiT FACIL050~244 Robert Emmet Ginna Nuclear PlantF, Unit 1F Rochester G 05090244 AUTH INANE! AUTHOR AFFIl 'IATION MAIKRpJ ~ E>>, Rochester Gas 8 Electric RECXPIENT AFFILIATION Corp'ECIP

~ NAME)

CRVTCHFIELOFD ~ Operating, Reactors Branch 5 SUBJECT>I Forwards" NUS Corp- "Ginna Station Des)gn Basis" Flooding, Study for Rochester" Gas 8 Electric. Corp'" in response to NRC) evaluation of SEP Topics IIM3~ A, II 3 ~ BF II 3 ~ B ~ 1 8 III. 3,A rel potential of local flooding, UPS>>(>>>> SwqiPC>> S~

DISTRIBUTI N CODE;:" A035S COPIES RECEX VED: LTR 'NCL' SIZE":

SEP. Topics "Q'ITLEl::

NOTES::1 copy:SEP Sect; Ldr. 05000244 REC I PI EN T'D RECIPIENT COPIES CODE/l4AMK< LTTR ENCL>> ID L>>TTR>> ENCL<

ACTlION I ORB 05 BC 04 7 7 12'OPIES CODE/NAMK'ONT INTERNALS A/D i4IATL8GUAL>>13 1 SYS" A 07 1 1>>

HYD/GEO BR 10. 2 2 06"' 2 2' OR ASSESS BR 11 1 1 FII >

01 SEP BR 3 1'XTERNALs ACRS 14 1e LPDR 03 1 1 NRCi PDR>> 02>> 1 1 NSIC 05. 1 1 NTIS 1

/

~q TOiTAL NUi>>BER DF COPIES'EQUIRED>>'iTTR P8 ENCL

II hh Ih n I j I 4

n I~

"~

'4

i',

iÃ,'OCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION o 89 EAST AVENUE, ROCHESTER, N.Y. 14649 JOHN E. MA IER TELEPHONE VICE PRESIOEIIT AREA COOS lls 546.2700 August 18, 1~9~! i I=,l Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

(-'%>,

8-Attention: Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief ~ gG 'p l~~

Operating Reactors Branch No. S

, ~~asoep'2 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nashington, P.C. 20555 p.

Subject,: SEP Topics II 3,A, II-.3.B, II-3.B.1, ~N-I3.

R. E. Ginna Nuc3,ear Power Plant Docket No. 50-.244

Dear Mr. Crutchfield:

This letter is in response to the NRC Staff's evaluation of the potential for local flooding which was provided by your letter dated April 10, 1981 and to the Staff's evaluation of the effects of high water levels on plant structures which was pro-vided by your letter dated Maxch 24, 1981. The Staff's evalu-.

ations concluded that a ".Probable Maximum Flood" (PMF) of 37,000 cfs would. pxoduce a water surface elevation of about. 275 ft msl.

In response to the Staff,'s assessment, 'RG&E,requested a contractor, NUS Corporation, to analyze the potential for local-flooding as a result of storms varying from the 100 year precipitation to the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) which would cause the pMFC Following field reconnaissance, analyses were performed, and the enclosed'report has been prepared.

shown that the Deer Creek channel is capable of carrying a It is 12-inch rainfall event, with an associated peer Creek flow of 13,700 cfs, without exceeding a flood leyel of 270 ft ms). The estimated return period of this event is in excess of 10 years.

Since plant grade in the area of Deer Creek is about 270 conclude that the present Ginna design is adequate to ft msl, we preclude flooding of safety-related structures, systems and components, and that no corrective actions are required. Further, we conclude that the referenced SEP topics should be considered resolved 'with no open items to be assessed during the integrated assessment;.

,810824005b 810818 PDR ADOCK 05000244 ~

P PDR

I \

~ '1 I 1

I I

V

~, 4 ~

ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTR~ORP. SHEET NO.

DATE To August 18, 1981 Mr. Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief The basis for our conclusion regarding closure of the curxently open items of local flooding is well founded in NRC documentation of the purpose of SEP. On November 17, 1977, the NRC Staff met with SEP utility representatiVes to describe SEP.

(See a memo dated November 22, 1977 from R. D. Silver to D. Eisenhut.) The NRC Staff stated that an acceptable alter-.,

native to current criteria was that the "probability of event is sufficiently low" and/or the "consequences (more realistic) are sufficiently low,'~ These alternative approaches were further documented in a letter dated December 1, 1977 from Victor Stello, Director, Division of Operating Reactors, to L. D. White, Jr.,

RG&E, and have been reiterated verbally by the NRC since then.

Since the conclusions provided here are well within the scope enunciated by the NRC, the referenced SEP topics should be considered complete.

Very truly yours, Enclosure

Ca II ll f' t

~ 4

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17258B183&oldid=1998576"