ML022250296
| ML022250296 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 08/14/2002 |
| From: | Robert Fretz NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD1 |
| To: | Jacob Zimmerman NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD1 |
| Fretz, R, NRR/DLPM, 415-1324 | |
| References | |
| TAC MB5488, TAC MB5489 | |
| Download: ML022250296 (4) | |
Text
August 14, 2002 MEMORANDUM TO: Jacob I. Zimmerman, Acting Chief, Section 2 Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Robert J. Fretz, Project Manager, Section 2
/RA/
Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2, FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION, ISSUES TO BE DISCUSSED IN AN UPCOMING CONFERENCE CALL (TAC NOS. MB5488 AND MB5489)
The attached information was transmitted by facsimile on August 12, 2002, to PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG or the licensee). This information was transmitted to facilitate an upcoming conference call in order to clarify the licensees submittal dated June 28, 2002, which requested a revision to the fuel decay time limits specified in the Salem Nuclear Generating Station Technical Specifications. This memorandum and the attachment do not convey a formal request for information or represent an NRC staff position.
Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311
Attachment:
Issues for Discussion in Upcoming Telephone Conference
August 14, 2002 MEMORANDUM TO: Jacob I. Zimmerman, Acting Chief, Section 2 Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Robert J. Fretz, Project Manager, Section 2
/RA/
Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2, FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION, ISSUES TO BE DISCUSSED IN AN UPCOMING CONFERENCE CALL (TAC NOS. MB5488 AND MB5489)
The attached information was transmitted by facsimile on August 12, 2002, to PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG or the licensee). This information was transmitted to facilitate an upcoming conference call in order to clarify the licensees submittal dated June 28, 2002, which requested a revision to the fuel decay time limits specified in the Salem Nuclear Generating Station Technical Specifications. This memorandum and the attachment do not convey a formal request for information or represent an NRC staff position.
Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311
Attachment:
Issues for Discussion in Upcoming Telephone Conference DISTRIBUTION PUBLIC JZimmerman RFretz PDI-2 Reading ACCESSION NO. ML022250296 OFFICE PDI-2/PM NAME RFretz DATE 08/13/02 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
RAI for Salem TACs MB5488, MB54889 The staff has reviewed the radiological analysis descriptions provided in the amendment request dtd June 28, 2002. The staff must make a finding that the Salem analysis inputs, assumptions, and methodologies are consistent with regulatory guidance and the proposed plant operation. The staff must make this finding on the basis of the licensees analyses since it is the licensees analyses that will comprise the Salem licensing basis. Salem is requested to provide the following additional information to enable the staff to make the requisite finding. If you believe that some of this information has already been docketed with the NRC, please provide a specific reference.
1.
Your submittal indicates that you have re-calculated control room X/Q values using the NRC-sponsored ARCON96 computer code, a change in methodology over that previously used previously at Salem. The staff has determined that it needs additional information to evaluate your use of the ARCON96 code in order to determine if the calculated X/Q values are acceptable for use in design basis calculations. Please provide the following information:
1.1 A copy, on floppy disk or CD in the ARCON96 data format, the meteorological data used in the ARCON96 code runs.
1.2 A brief confirmation statement that these meteorological data were collected by a meteorological measurements program that meets the guidance of Safety Guide 23 and that is covered by a quality assurance program that meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B.
1.3 A tabulation of the ARCON96 inputs used in your analyses. A copy of the actual ARCON96 code input dumps is an acceptable means to provide this information.
If the release has been modeled as other than a ground level release, please provide a technical basis for the treatment used.
2.
The discussion (page 8) of the FHA occurring in the FHB identifies three release pathways from the FHB--plant vent, truck bay, and gravity damper-and assigns three flow rates. The discussion implies that the assigned flow rates are based on the assumption of a failure of one FHB exhaust fan.
2.1 Please provide a brief explanation of how these flow rates were determined and the impact of not assuming FHB exhaust fan failure on these values.
2.2 Please provide a brief explanation of why you believe that the activity released from the pool might not be preferentially drawn to a particular exhaust path.
2.1 The discussion on page 8 states that the analysis assumes a release rate of one FHB volume per minute. However, the table notes on page 11 states that the activity is released to the environment at a rate of 21,439 cfm. This flowrate implies a small value for the fuel handling building free volume. Please resolve the apparent inconsistency in these two statements. Also, please explain the parenthetical entry (0.0 hr) included with the EAB results in the two results tables.
3.
Your analyses assume a control room unfiltered inleakage of 4000 cfm. This appears to be an arbitrarily high value used in lieu of a measured value. Please state the basis of the 4000 cfm unfiltered inleakage assumed in your analyses and provide an explanation of why this value is expected to reasonably bound the actual inleakage.