ML20132B791

Forwards Meteorology & Effluent Treatment Branch Draft SER Input Re Meteorological & Radiological Effluent Treatment Sections of Fsar.Addl Info & Analysis Required to Close Out Listed Items

ML20132B791
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	02/24/1984
From:	Muller D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19283C868	List: IA-85-926, Forwards Rept of 840726-27 in-progress Audit Re Detailed Control Room Design Review (Dcrdr).Dcrdr Proceeding Satisfactorily.Concern Expressed Re Differences Between Unit 1 & 2 Control Rooms & Role of Human Factors Specialist ML19283C867 ML19292E104 ML20132B767 ML20132B791 ML20132C010 ML20132C076 ML20132C105 ML20132C131 ML20132C209 ML20132C245 ML20132C247 ML20132C253 ML20132C285 ML20132C290 ML20132C295 ML20132C301 ML20132C310 ML20132C323 ML20132C334 ML20132C338 ML20132C344 ML20132C365 ML20132C379 ML20132C383 ML20132C389 ML20132C394 ML20132C421 ML20132C427 ML20132C433 ML20132C442 ML20132C453 ML20132C459 ML20132C464 ML20132C468 ML20132C474 ML20132C479 ML20132C484 ML20132C487 ML20132C493 ML20132C499 ML20132C512 ML20132C518 ML20132C536 ML20132C542 ML20132C559 ML20132C569 ML20132C575 ML20132C633 ML20133M691 ... further results
References
FOIA-84-926 NUDOCS 8403060488
Download: ML20132B791 (4)

Text

__ ______ _ - _ -

m.??

-f0 3

/

[0, UNITED STATES d

i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION,

.,e waswiscTON, D. C. 20555 p

n S.,, v.../-

\\

M.E 2 S 1EM

\\-

Dccket(No.' 50-412 MFMnRANDUM FOR:

Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing, DL FROM:

Daniel R. Muller, Assistant Director for Radiation Protection, DSI Stin.1r.r.T :

NeTFnR01.Or,Y AND EFFLUENT TREATMENT BRANCH INPitT FOR THE

~

DRAFT SAFETY EVAltlATION RF. PORT Pr?. TAI!'!r, To THE BEA'IER

{

val !.EY UNIT NO. 2 FINAL SAFFTv anni vcte neonor r

o'.a'IT NAME : Reaver Valley, Unit No. 2 L'ICENSING STAGE: DL applicant 00CKET *!UPAED: sn_41?

RESPO'!Slal.E BRANCH:

LBf 3; Lisa Lazo, PM REVIEW STATUS: Draft SER imput complete with sone open items Enclosed is the input to the draft Safety Evaluation Report (SER) regarding the meteorological and radiological ef fluent treatment sections of the l

i Beaver ~ Valley Unit 2 Final Safety Analysis Report.

At this time, some additional infonnation and analysis is required td close out several open i

items. These items are listed below:

1.

Unresolved items in Section 2.3 are the rate of pressure drop for the jg/*. 4*

design basis tornado, the 100-year return period snow pack, extreme c

temperature design of HVAC systems, representativeness of the location 2 ?t, 3 of the meteorological tower, and routine effluent release locations, gj hjy characteristics and composition.

4 b

2.

Section 6.5, ESF filtration systems, unresolved issue rogarding testing of ESF filter systems.

(ection 11.3, Gaseous Waste Processing Systems, unresolved issues 3.

pertaining to the containment vacuum system exnaust filt ration (i.e., unsatisfactory iodine removal filtration system).

r I

4.

Section 15.7.3, radioactive release due to liquid tank :ailures, the staff is presently performing a verification analysis reoarding dose consequences of a liquid radwaste tank or component rupt ure.

This analysis will be completed by April 1984 for incorporation into the final SER.

O 0

5.

Section 11.3, Gaseous Waste Processing Systems, the staff is presently performing a verification analysis for site boundary doses due to gaseous effluents.

This analysis will be completed by April 1984 for incorporation into the final SER.

h:3pr-b dyY i.:.fY 2

V v

6 T. I*. flovak FG 2 4 W This review was performed by Earl Markee (x27635), Meteorolony Section, and Robert Fell (x27642), Ef fluent Treatnent systens section, tieteorology and Ef fluent Treatnent Branch.

Please contact the respective reviewers for any que stions.,

original signed byt Daniel R. Miller, Assistant Director for Radiation Protection Division of Systems integration

Enclosure:

As stated cc:

tt. 9 ttson W. r,an,ill L. Lazo C. Willis I. Spickler E. "a rkee R. Fell DISTRIBtlTION:

Docket File 50-412 METB Docket File METB Reading File

. ADRD.Readi ng'Fil e l

i, 's

' ].I.,

C A ^ '~~

cnce)l"DSI:RP: MET $"3 mas, e '..............5..................v.....

.M.. pi DSh MP TB DSI:R., ETB DSI:RP:METB DSJ

%hR[P

..........[...'.

RWeI1:" 21 er C AWilli s DRMol WP,

.1 1

,ux.cus) 0 2[................

i p.!/84 i

.....g/84

......A....)./.R4

..........H.../ 8 4 02/L. /84 02/1

/84 02/

02/

02 me)

. :: ro = sis.io sei~=cu c:4c OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

• 5 ^^'I'~" -*

[,. [

s-4 p

4 5

I Heavy snowf alL is not uncommon in the region, and roof Loads may accumulate due to a wintertime precipitation mixture of snow, ice, and rain.

Maximus j

monthly snowf alL obse rved a t Greater Pittsburgh Airport wa s 1021 mm (40.2 i nch es) in Janua ry 1978, i

and the maximum snowf alL in a 24-hour period at Pittsburgh was 373 mm (14.7 inch es) in Ma rch 1962.

Ice storms, which can plug drains and scuppers as welL as disrupt offsite power, are rela tively f requent.

The applicani estima tes that ice pellets or f reezing c

rain may occur about 8 times pe r year in the Beave r

~~

Valley region, wi th a g Laze ac cumulation of 0.5 inch es or greater expected about once per year.

The applicant has estima ted t he weight on the ground of t he 100-ye a r return period snowpack to be 19.5 psf.

To de t e rm i ne the probable maximum snowload f o r consideration in the

~

design of saf ety-t ela ted s ti uct ur es, t he applicant has added the weight rf the 48-hour probable maximum winter precipitat ion (equivalent to 71.2 p s f) to the weight of the 100 <e ar return snowpack for a total weight of 90.7 psf _

.- [

c e

, ' < l 1

.c -

?

4 i

p

\\

t The staff's estimate of the snowpack based on

/

ANSI 58.1-1982, extrapolated from the 50 year

,/

return period in the standard to a 100 year return 1

I period, produces a weight of near 30 psf.

This snowp'ack weight, when added to the weight produced by t he 48-hour probable maximum winter precipitation (about 70 psf) produces a design 1

snowtoad of 100 ps f.

This will be an open issue only if the design of the ca tego ry I structures c a nnot a c c o,m mo da t e a snowt oad of 100 ps f.

The ib6 jM, g [h &" f, g

acceptability of the appli ca nt 's de s ign of safety

~~

)

related structures, with respect to the staff's estimate of design snowtoed and load combinations, i s di s cu s sed i n Sec t io n 3.8.1.

,J Large-scale episodes of a tmos pheric s tagnation oceur in the region. About 41 atmospheric stagnation cases tot ati ng a t least 164 days were

~

rei orted in the area in the pe riod 1936-1975.

As discussed above, the staff has reviewed av.itable inf ormation rela tive to the regional meteorological conditions of impo rtance to t he

' safe design and siting of this plant in accordance M