ML20197F802

Forwards List of Questions Requiring Addl Info for Environ Rept.No Analysis of Radiological Consequences of Postulated Core Melt Accident Release to Groundwater & No Mapping of Floodplain & Impacts on Floodplain Structures Provided

ML20197F802
Person / Time
Site:	Satsop
Issue date:	07/12/1982
From:	Lear G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-WNP-1265 NUDOCS 8207220209
Download: ML20197F802 (4)

Text

o 1

, ., q --

j 1

DISTRIBUTION Docket File HGEB Reading l

Docket No. 50-508

!!Ef10RA!!DUM FOR: Frank J. fitraglia' l Licensing Branch flo. 3 Division of Licensing Ti!RU: James P. Knight, Assistant Director for Components and Structures Engineering Division of Engineering FROM: George Lear, Chief Hydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering

SUBJECT:

liYDR0 LOGIC E!'GIf!EERIf;G Ei!VIR0!!!!EtiTAL ACCEPTAtlCE REVIEU Plant !!ame: ?>ashington Public Power Supply System fluclear Project l!o. 3 (!E'P-3)

Licensing Stage: OL Docket flumber: 50-508 Responsible Branch: LB-3; L. Mheeler, P!1 Requested Completion Date: July 7, 1982 t,'e have reviewed the hydrologic engineering aspects of the subject Environmental Report (ER). The ER does not contain adequate infomation on the issues listed in the attached set of questions. The major deficiencies are that no analysis of the radiological consequences of a postulated core melt accident release to the groundwater and no mapping of the floodplain and accorpanying discussion of the inpacts of the plant structures located in the floodplain have been provided.

In order for us to continue our review adequate responses to our infomation requests are needed.

This review was perfomed by D. L. Chery, Jr. who can be renched at extension 23116.

Original signed by George Lear George Lear, Chief 722020f 820712)(k ilydrologic and Geotechnical ADOCK 05000508 ) Engineering Ilranch M ki Division of Engineering Er. closure: As stated cc: As stated hhj./l4,h S (?,]

cmc., . .H. .G. .E. .B. ..:.D. . .E.

. . . . . . ....N..

H. C.

. . .....G..E.

E.B...:.D.A/..D

.. 8./.2..).E../

E........ :CSE:DE

. . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ~ ~ ~ - - ~ - - - -

. --.. .ns3s.r.y./.s.... .z.m es.n... . .....G t e.g.r..s.. .Jex.e.tet

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " "~ "-

m. . ..u..y.../.82...... . ...m..gs .. ?/ .e.. ... . . .. :::

...u. 7..a.2...... .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NRC FO.7.M 318 (10 80) NReuem OFF1CiAL RECORD COPY esmui-m.m

'o

, m.

Frank J. Miraglia I' JUL 12 082

~

cc: w/o enclosure R. Vollmer R. Tedesco ..

w/ enclosure -

G. Lear R. Ballard '-

L. Hulman M. Fliege1 D. Chery, Jr.

L. Wheeler D

upce > .................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .

sunm ue> ...................... ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DATE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ... .. . . . . . . . . .. . . + . . . . . . . .. . . . . . = =

pc ror.u sia cio-soi meu om OFFiClAL RECORD COPY um insi-mes

'9 1

HYOROLOGIC ENGINEERING ACCEPTANCE REVIEW

^

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT WASHINGTON NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 3 (WNP-3)

DOCKET NO. 50-508

~*

REVIEW QUESTIONS

.240.01 Provide a summary of legal restrictions relating to water use imposed ' "

(ER) by local, state, regional or federal regulations.

(2.1.3) 240 02

. Were rainfall and runoff data obtained at the four watersheds mentioned (ER) -

in the Site section of the ER (p. 2.2-1 and 2.2-2)? If so, describe (2.2.1.1) the data and how it was, or can be, used in evaluating the site runoff?

240.03 For a more complete and useful hydrologic description, the figures (ER) need to reflect all items mentioned in the text. The locations of (2.4.1.1) specific river mile (RM) marks and gaging station mentioned in the description (p. 2,4-1) needxta be marked on the figures.

240.04 What is the exact location (please show in appropriate figures) of the (ER) place called "near the site" (pp. 2.4-1 and 2.4-2)?

_ (2. 4.1.1 )

240.05 For a verification of the estimated yearly flood values ("near the (ER) site"), was use made of the approximately 5 years of record now (2.4.1.1) available at the lower Chehalis River gage site to evaluate the drainage area ratios used to make the estimates? If so, please describe the evaluation and if not make such an evaluation.

240.06 The map in Figure 2.4-6 is not legible. Provide a more legible copy of (ER) this map.

(2.4.1.2) 240.07 For an evaluation of ground water flow in the vicinity of the plant site, (ER) maps and cross sections are needed of the geologic fonnations and acquifers.

(2.4.2.1) These should encompass the plant site and nearest (by travel time of ground water), individual and public use of the ground water. Locations of these users should be indicated.

Provide information on the piezometric level, hydraulic gradients, permeabilities, transmissivities, storage coefficients, flow times, and adsorption properties for each of the soil or geologic units in the area of interest.

. ~l* .\. ...,...,.w.. ~. _ .. s ., , 4

, = .

,m m 240.08 On a suitable scale map provide delineations of the one, percent chance (ER) floodplains for watercourses altered or affected by construction and (4.0) operation of the plant or appurtenant structures. Identify and describe the location of all facilities within the one percent chance floodplains. Include a floodplain delineation for conditions prior to initiation of plant construction and one for conditions expected when the plant is in operation.

240.09 Provide details of your methods of analyses for item 240.08. Include (ER) your assumptions of and bases for pertinent parameters such as length and (4.0) slop 9 of drainage basins, times of concentration, infiltration rates, i rainfall amounts and distribution, Manning's "n" values, and any other assumptions or parameters used to determine the floodplains.

In some circumstances floodplain delineation by others may be acceptable.

Specifically, if studies by FEMA or the Corps of Engineers are available for the site area, the details of analyses requested above need not be supplied; provide instead the reports from which you obtained the floodplain information. ,

240.10 Discuss the hydrologic effects of all items identified in 240.08 above.

(ER) Discuss the potential for altered flood flows and levels, both upstream (4.0) and downstream. Include the potential effect of debris accumulating on the plant structures. Additionally, discuss the effects of debris generated from the site on downstream facilities.

240.11 Provide the details of your analysis used in response to 240.10 above.

(ER) The level of detail is similar to that identified in item 240.09 above.

(4.0) 240.12 Describe the effect on river flow of the bank protection constructed (ER) in the vicinity of the Ranney Well collectors.

(4.0) 240.13 Calculate the radiological consequences of a liquid pathway release (ER) from a postulated core melt accident. The analysis should assume, unless (7.1.9.2) otherwise ju~stified, that there has been a penetration of the reactor basemat by the molten core mass, and that a substantial portion of

~ radioactively contaminated sump water was released to the ground. Doses should be compared to those calculated in the Liquid Pathway Generic Study (NUREG-0440, 1978). Provide a summary of your analysis procedures and the values of parameters used (such as permeabilities, gradients, populations effected, water use). It is suggested that meetings with the staff of the Hydrologic Engineering Section be arranged so that we may share with you the body of information necessary to perform this analysis.

.-<. 4. . . \ , .. . ,.~..-... -

. . _ .