ML18038A671

Requests CRGR Review to Determine Applicability of Hydromet 15 & 52 to Licensing Basis,Per NRC Question F240.11 Re Pmp. Util Preliminary Review Indicates Local Flooding Could Occur.Meeting W/Noaa Requested

ML18038A671
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	05/11/1984
From:	Mangan C NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP.
To:	Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
RTR-NUREG-0800, RTR-NUREG-800 NMP2L-0050, NMP2L-50, NUDOCS 8405150004
Download: ML18038A671 (6)

Text

7 HI~~ARA MGHAWK PGWeR CGRPGRATIGN/aM -..;- aOGL-ViR W-ST B'.'R'-. 'lY 1 "ZG s T" -: G I I" IS) ~T-'BI>

)~ay 11, 1984 (Nt~P2L 0050)

Iir. A. Schwencer, Chief U. S. Nuclear .Regulatory Commission L-icensing Branch No. 2 Washington, DC 20555 De=r i~r. Schwencer:

SUBJECT:

Nine ~1ile Point Unit 2 Docket No. 50-410 r The Standard R vi w Plan (HUREC-0800, dated July 19, 1981) requir s an anaIysis of the Probable llaximum Precipitation at Nine I'1i Ie Point Unit 2. FSAR Section 2.4 provides the results of the analysis pe. TOImed fol Uni~ 2. The analysis used Hydromet 33 and Corps of Engineers Enc-:.neering flanual as required by NUREC-0800. The Unit 2 design, based upon hese references, prevents any local flooding at the site.

SubseqUe'ntly, in Nuclear Regulatory Commission question F2~0. 11, it was req usted that that we base the Probably i~laximum Preclpita 'on o- Hydromet 51 and 52. ,We believe that these bases go beyond the current Stancard Review Plan requirements since these reports are not referenced in the Standard Review Plah explicitly. We request the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Committee for ihe Review of Ceneric Requirements review this Generic new requirement to determine if Hydromet 51 and 52 are applicable to the Nine fii le Point Unit 2 licensing basis.

Our review of Hydromet 52 indicates that the development of the Probable Haximum Precipitation curves for the Nine l1i le Point Unit 2 area was heavily inTtuenced'by the Smethport, Pennsylvania storm. It is our opinion that it may be inappropria e to anslate the Smethoort storm to the N',ne Nile Point Unit 2 site. AIso, it is unclear what the basis is of ihe 0.7 ratio used to cetermine '.he one hour, robable Naximum Precipitation rainTall from tne six hour Probable Yiaximum Precipitation rainfall. I, Hydromet 51 anc 52, as presently def i ned, were applicable to the NiIle 11i le Point Unit 2 site, our prel',Ininary review indicates that local flooding could occur.

'-.4O51 1

-DnC~ O5OOOPlO PDR

Page ,".2 During the period that the Committee or the Review of Generic Reoui e cAts is ~

reviewing .he applicability of Hydromet 51 and 52, we request that a meeting b a. ranoed with the i~ational Oceanographic and At!Bospheric i."'.inistration (au'.hors of Hydromet 52) and our technical staff to discuss and clarify hese

-.-chnical requirements, ii applicable. re believe this to be an expedient approach in complei ino oui evaluation of i he ?I obable 'Iax imum Precipitation.

Very truly vours, C~71~<)~,c~'~

C. V. l/angan Vice President tiuclear Licensing and =ngineerino CVII/NLR:1 f cc: Di rector o f Inspect i on and Enf or" ement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cor.~ission Ii'ashington, DC 20555

D. c~et !'0. 50-410 Docke e

>.'RC PDR r., orden

!'.. C. V. 1'.;-r>can Local PDP.

> ice PI esi dent PRC S.'"':m ei ~ ~ es> 0>

!'Uclear Licensing and Engine=-ring  !>SIC ,'..=1l eccl

!':.acara !';"halA: Power CorporatiGfl Lr ~:(~ac > ng 300 Erie ."Ouievard t.'est EHv'>tor, S'ecuse, h.Y. i3202 Hnau>>

he/'~ordenick

Dear  !'r.  !'anigan:

SU a'ECT t> I 'iE  !'>I LE POI>IT Ui> I T 2 PR08ABLE > AX It'>U!'REC I 1 i TAT; Oi> ( i .P )

In ;our letter to >>r. A. Sc".wencel Ga;ed Pay 11, '.84, concernirig 'he Use of

,-'.'ydro-.eteoro'alogy Peports (h!'>R) 51 arid 52 as the basis >or the Pl'>P a !> inc ! lii 1 e t Poi>nt Unit 2 (>'l';. -2), iou re"Uested that (1) the l:RC reo"est a r ee ting al af>ged wi ih he f a i01'>al Oceaf leg. aphic anc At..osphel ic Acmiliistl be'tion (tiC .A) and vour staff to Giscuss and clef i>y the Use GT . >R 51 and 52 at the !'! lP-2 site and (2) the t'RC Cof>mittee >01 the eview of Generic f:ec,uire>-..e r+s (CRGP)

~

review the Use of'!>R's 51 and 52 as a design basis for l'!>P-2.

The r;ecting you recuested with !lOAA '>>as held on l>ay 15, 1984. During that meeting representatives of llOAA discussed why',-'.l,'R's 51 and 52 are appropr',ate

> 01 the !>: >P-2 s i te. T"ansi ation of the S>methport, PA storf.. and the bas i s of the 0.7 ratio used to determine the one hour Pi'.P rainfall vere also discussed.

During the meeting the t<RC staff also discussed alternate means of dealing with potential floodina.

In our lietter from Thomas H. hoiak to Gerald V.. Rhode da cd ebtuary 3, 1984, we stated the reasons why use of ,".'hR 51 and 52 as a desigfl basis fol t>HP-2's PhP have been evaluated to be in conf01>>ance with the SRP.

As noted in our letter o> February 3, 1984, if there are still objections to the use o> H!>R's 51 and 52 you have the right to appeal. If 'u dc intend to appeal, it should con.ain a clear statement of your position aloft vfith supportino iustification. The appeal process is described in Generic Letter 84-08 "Interim Procedures for hRC >>anagement of Plant-Specific Backfi tting."

I f VGU ave any ouestions conc21 nina the above information, please con~act the liicensing project m>a ager>> ">a)y . 'aughey at (301~ 492-7897.

Sincerely, Darrell G. E'.senhut, Director Division o Licef:sing 0>> i ce 0 fi>Jcl ea I:,cac tor .".egul at i ofi cc: See next co

'L""..-."2!DL >'. t iIFil!DE "L'= /DL ""D

'>Gvak

'/ L D!DL 0".i ser.r.ut

'.."ia Ughcy: dh ."-.F>a l a d I> 1 ASch"encer 05/ /84 05/ /84 05/ /84 Oi! /84 0>g/ 10'E4 Sec plevious concu> rence