Text

S-C-SF-MEE-1679, Rev 1, SFP Cooling System Capability with Core Offload Starting 85-Hours After Shutdown.
	ML062230319
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	05/18/2006
From:	Delgaizo T, Andrea Johnson, Lindsay P; Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	; Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	S-C-SF-MEE-1679, Rev 1
	Download: ML062230319 (61)
	v • d • e

Salem Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 S-C-SF-MEE-1679, Rev. 1 SFP Cooling System Capability With Core Offload Starting 85-hours After Shutdown Page I of 14

EE No.: S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Rev. No.: 1 Date: 5/18/06 TITLE: SFP System Cooling Capability with Core Offload Starting 85-hours After Shutdown Periodic Review Required: Yes No X Order No.: N/A j TABLE OFCONTENTS TABLE OFCONTENT ............................................................................................................................................ 2 REVISION

SUMMARY

............................................................................................................................................. 2 1.0 PURPOSE ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 SCOPE ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................................ 3 3.1 Background .................................................................................................................. 4 3.2 Assumptions/Initial Conditions ................................................................................. 4 3.3 Basic Parameters ........................................................................................................ 5 3.4 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 6 3.5 Inherent Conservatisms ............................................................................................. 6 3.6 Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 7

4.0 CONCLUSION

/RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................ 12

5.0 REFERENCES

............................................................................................................................................. 13 6.0 EFFECTS ON OTHER TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS ........................................................................ 13 7.0 SIGNATURES ............................................................................................................................................. 14 ATTACHMENT A - Decay Heat Spread Sheets (5 Pages) R1 ATTACHMENT B - River Water Temperature Analysis (8 Pages) RO ATTACHMENT C - Heat Exchanger Data Sheets at Various Temperatures (11 Pages) RO ATTACHMENT D - Pool Evaporative Heat Losses (1 Page) RI ATTACHMENT E - Reference Documents (5 pages) RI ATTACHMENT F - CC Temperature Assumption Validation (6 pages) R)

REVISION

SUMMARY

Revision # Deserit an S0 IOriginal Issue. Evaluates SFP cooling capabilities with an in-vessel decay time of 100 hours0.00116 days 0.0278 hours 1.653439e-4 weeks 3.805e-5 months .

I support SFP purpose is1toevaluates Revision Licensingcooling capabilities Change Request with LCR S06-07. decay time of 85 hours9.837963e-4 days 0.0236 hours 1.405423e-4 weeks 3.23425e-5 months , and its an in-vessel Page 2 of 14

EE No.: S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Rev. No.: 1 Date: 5/18/06 TITLE: SFP System Cooling Capability with Core Offload Starting 85-hours After Shutdown Periodic Review Required: Yes No X Order No.: N/A 1.0 PURPOSE This document evaluates spent fuel pool (SFP) Cooling Capabilities with 85-hours of in-vessel decay, rather than the 100-hour delay currently required by technical specifications during the period from Octo-ber 15' to May 15 '. As such, this evaluation is intended to provide a technical basis for a licensing change request to the USNRC to revise the technical specifications of both Salem Unit 1 and Salem Unit 2.

While this evaluation supports the licensing change request, the Salem SFP Integrated Decay Heat Man-agement (IDHM) program (as described and detailed in USFAR Section 9.1.3.2) is relied upon to assure that adequate SFP cooling capability is available prior to off-loading fuel during a specific outage. The IDHM program assures pool temperature does not exceed 149*F with both SFP heat exchangers available or 180*F with one SFP heat exchanger available..

2.0 SCOPE This evaluation applies to both Salem Unit I and Salem Unit 2, and addresses the period from October 15" through May 150, annually, when CCW temperature is expected to be 71*F or below. During the remainder of the year (May 16' through October 14' or when CCW temperature exceeds 71OF), the current 168-hour technical specification requirement will remain intact. This evaluation deals only with decay heat resulting from the radioactive decay of fuel rods loaded into the Spent Fuel Pools. It does not address radiological dose issues associated with fuel transfer to the SFP. Radiological dose issues are addressed separately.

3.0 DISCUSSION The Salem UFSAR, Section 9.1.3.1 makes the following statements:

"The Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System maintains pool temperature at or below 149*F, provided both SFP heat exchangers are available. If only one heat exchanger is available, pool temperature is limited to 180 0F."

Later, in Section 9.1.3.2, the UFSAR states:

"In 1998, additional spent fuel pool heat removal analyses were performed. The analyses addressed potential full-core off-loads during upcoming refueling outages as well as end of plant life. These analyses concluded one pump and one heat exchanger can maintain pool temperature below 149°F under all combinations of decay time and CCW temperature except minimum decay times and very high cooling water temperatures. Under these later conditions, in vessel decay-time would be extended or parallel heat 0

exchanger operation would be used to maintain pool temperature below 149 F."

In addition to the above, Section 9.1.3.2 describes the SFP IDHM program under which pre-outage assessments of SFP heat loads are performed prior to core offload as follows:

" Calculations to assure SFP temperature does not exceed 1491F following a full-core offload with one heat exchanger per pool.

" Calculations to assure SFP temperature does not exceed 180OF following a full-core offload with one heat exchanger for both pools.

" Validation of assumptions in the Integrated Decay Heat Management program including o Availability of both heat exchangers, each with an available pump and o Actual CCW system temperatures consistent with calculated values.

Page 3 of 14

EE No.: S-C-SF-M*'EE-1679 Rev. No.: 1 Date: 5/18/06 TITLE: SFP System Cooling Capability with Core Offload Starting 85-hours After Shutdown Periodic Review Required: Yes No X Order No.: N/A In view of the above, the questions to be resolved in this evaluation are:

1. If in-vessel decay time is reduced from 100-hours to 85-hours during the period from October 15"' to May 15", can the SFP cooling system maintain pool temperatures at or below 149*F with both heat exchangers available and below 180°F with one heat exchanger available? If so, is there a time limit on this activity based upon background heat within the Spent Fuel Pool?

2. If pool temperature is predicted to rise above 149"F, can the temperatures of both pools be maintained below 149*F by employing parallel heat exchanger operations? If so, with what frequency are the heat exchangers shifted between pools to maintain 149*F?

3.1 Background

In-vessel decay is required before moving a fresh, hot core into the SFP because of the radiation dose rates and fuel-pool cooling requirements. With regard to pool cooling, decay heat from previously irradiated fuel elements constantly decreases as the fission products and heavy elements decay. Therefore, the longer the elements are allowed to decay within the reactor vessel, the less heat duty is transferred to the SFP.

The 168-hour limit is based upon the capability of the SFP cooling system when River temperatures, and the consequent CCW temperatures, are at their highest. These analyses considered the River temperature to be at 90*F, with CCW at 99°F. This condition has never occurred at Salem, but if it did, it would occur in late July or early August, when River temperatures typically peak. The 168-hour delay imposes an unnec-essary penalty on plant operators in the cooler months, when refuelings are typically scheduled. For this reason, current technical specifications permit a 100-hour delay during the period from October 15" to May 15'h.

This evaluation considers SFP cooling capabilities if an 85-hour delay rather than the current 100-hour de-lay is imposed prior to defueling during the period between October 15"' and May 15" or when CCW tem-perature is 71*F or below.

3.2 Assumptions/Initial Conditions

1. Both spent fuel pool cooling (SFPC) heat exchangers will be assumed to have 6% of the tubes plugged.

This is a conservative assumption because the highest current tube plugging is 4% (Assumption 5.0.c, of Reference 5.1), and additional plugging is not expected with these pure water (SFP) and treated wa-ter (CCW) exchangers.

2. SFPC (one pump) flow to the heat exchanger is 2500 gpm (Reference 5.1, paragraph 6.2). When two heat exchangers are aligned to a single pool, 2 pumps will be assumed running with an average flow rate of approximately 1500 gpm per heat exchanger (Reference 5.1, paragraph 4.0.e).

3. CCW flow to the SFP heat exchanger is 3000 gpm (Assumption 5.0.a of Reference 5.1).

4. SFP heat exchanger fouling factor will be conservatively held equal to or greater than its design basis value (0.001075). The heat exchanger data sheet is shown in Reference 5.7.

5. Reactor power is conservatively assumed to be 3459 MWt [1.014 x 3411 MWt] (Reference 5.3, Input 3.19).

6. Based on current refueling programs, fuel assemblies while in the reactor vessel will be assumed to be expended in accordance with the following (Reference 5.2):

76 assemblies with 17 months of effective full power operation

76 assemblies with 34 months of effective full power operation o 41 assemblies with 51 months of effective full power operation.

Page 4 of 14

EE No.: S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Rev. No.: 1 Date: 5/18/06 TITLE: SFP System Cooling Capability with Core Offload Starting 85-hours After Shutdown Periodic Review Required: Yes No X Order No.: N/A

7. Defueling of 193 assemblies will be assumed to require 40 hours4.62963e-4 days 0.0111 hours 6.613757e-5 weeks 1.522e-5 months , which is faster than all recent Salem off-load times, as shown below (References 5.4 and 5.12).

Time Time Outage (hours) Ref. Outage (hours) _ef.

1R17 59.2 5.12 2R14 42.7 5.12 1R16 41.5 5.12 2R13 41.9 5.12 IRI5 48.0 5.12 2R12 47.8 5.12 1R14 53.0 5.4 2R11 53.0 5.4 1R13 60.0 5.4 2R10 58.0 5.4

8. There are currently 1137 fuel assemblies in the Unit I SFP (as of 1R17 in October 2005) and 964 ele-ments in the Unit 2 pool (as of 2R14 in April 2005). (Reference 5.12).

9. Background heat in the Unit I SFP was 2.31 x 106 Btu/hour prior to outage 1R13 in 1999 (Reference 5.1).

10. Background heat in the Unit 1 SFP at end of life (i.e. with a full pool) is 8.46 x 10' Btu/hr (Reference 5.5).

11. The maximum number of fuel elements that can be loaded into a Salem SFP is 1632 (Reference 5.11).

12. Background heat in the pool at any given refueling between the present and end of life (or full pool) is assumed to be a straight line between 2.31 x 10' Btu/hour (Input #9) and 8.46 x 106 Btu/hour (Input

10).

13. Net thermal capacity of SFP water at the end of life with all fuel racks filled (thereby minimizing avail-able water volume) is 1.96 x 106 Btu/F, as shown on page 29 of Reference 5.5. This value considers only the water volume within the SFP and does not include the fuel transfer pool.

14. The volume of the fuel transfer pool is 19,927 ft3 (16' x 28.5' x 43.7'-Reference 5.13). Subtracting 3 . When added to the 32,000 ft of the fuel ft 15% for equipment, the water volume becomes 17,000 pool (Reference 5.5, page 29), the thermal capacity of the combined pools is 3.0 x 106 Btu/WF (49,000 f? x 61.2 #/f x 1 Btu/# °F).

15. The surface area of the SFP is 1111.5 ft2 (Reference 5.5, page 30). The transfer pool surface is 16' x 28.5' (Reference 5.13) or 456 ft2 . Using 75% of the transfer pool (for conservatism), the combined sur-face is 1453.5 ft2 or 30% greater than the surface of the SFP alone. Hence, when considering surface evaporation, the evaporation rates of Reference 5.5 (shown in Attachment D) can be increased by a fac-tor of 1.3 when both pools are connected. The evaporation rates, both with and without the transfer pool are listed in Attachment D.

16. SFP pump heat adds 210,000 Btu/hr to the pool (Reference 5.5, page 31). This heat is orders of magni-tude below the decay heat and therefore is ignored for convenience, particularly since no credit is taken for evaporative heat (with 2 available heat exchangers) or heat lost to the concrete structure.

3.3 Basic Parameters The basic parameters that are used throughout the remainder of this evaluation are reiterated below:

1. Refueling operations are conducted during the period from October 15 to May 15.

2. All 193 fuel assemblies are off-loaded to the Spent Fuel Pool (full core offload). This assumption bounds any partial off-loads that might be conducted.

fage 5 of 14

EE No.: S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Rev. No.: 1 Date: 5/18/06 TITLE: SFP System Cooling Capability with Core Offload Starting 85-hours After Shutdown Periodic Review Required: Yes No X Order No.: N/A

3. In addition to the new 193 assemblies, the background heat (old assemblies) is assumed to be 8.46 x 106 Btu/hr, which represents a full spent fuel pool (Reference 5.5, page 50). This assumption bounds future refueling since assembly transfer to dry-cask storage would remove the oldest fuel first.

4. River temperatures are determined from 30 years of historical data.

5. Defueling begins 85 hours9.837963e-4 days 0.0236 hours 1.405423e-4 weeks 3.23425e-5 months and completes at 125 hours0.00145 days 0.0347 hours 2.066799e-4 weeks 4.75625e-5 months after reactor shutdown.

6. All SFP heat removal is via the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System. No credit is taken for heat transfer via evaporative cooling' or to the SFP (concrete) structure.

3.4 Methodology

1. Determine the decay heat rate from the off-loaded core using USNRC Branch Technical Position ASB 9-2 (Reference 5.6).

2. Determine background heat that will exist in the full spent-fuel pools.

3. Evaluate Delaware River temperatures during the period from October through May.

4. Benchmark the SFP heat exchanger design basis parameters against the Joseph Oats (Manufacturer's) data sheet, using the HTC-STX heat exchanger design computer program.

5. Using the benchmarked heat exchanger model in the HTC-STX heat exchanger computer program, de-termine heat duties with various SFP temperatures and CCW temperature appropriate for the time pe-riod.

6. Evaluate the ability of the SFP Cooling System to maintain pool temperature limits.

3.5 Inherent Conservatisms This analysis considers heat removal from the Salem Spent Fuel Pools using forced cooling provided by the SFPC heat exchangers. By relying only on the SFPC heat exchangers, the analysis contains several sub-stantial conservatisms as described below. These conservatisms could be credited in this calculation.

However, at this time they will be left as providing additional temperature margins.

1 No credit is taken for evaporative cooling, i.e. pool bulk temperature cooling resulting from evapo-2 ration at the surface of the SFP, provided that both SEP heat exchangers are available . Reference 0

5.5 indicates that evaporative cooling contributes 0.86 x 10' Btu/hour at 150 F and 3.87 x 10' Btu/hour at 180°F. Consequently, if the pool reaches 180*F, evaporative cooling amounts to about 8% of the peak heat load in the hot pool and 45% of the heat load in the non-refueling pool.

2 No credit is taken for the cooling that occurs when cold water is made-up to the pool to replace the evaporation. At 180*F, 3.87 x 10W Btu/hr releases 3900#/hour (3.87 x 10' Btu/hr/990.2 Btu/# [la-tent heat of vaporization for 180*F water]). When this 3900#/hr (approximately 8 gpm) is replaced 0

with 1000 F water (at 67.97 Btu/#), 311,800 Btu/hr are required to heat the 100 F water back to I80`F (147.92 Btu/#). [(147.92-67.97) Btu/# x 3900 #/hr= 311,800 Btu/hr]

3 No credit is taken for cooling through the concrete structure of the pool Heat is conducted through the pool steel liner, concrete structure, and ultimately to the cooler environment beyond the struc-ture. The higher the pool water temperature, the more heat transmitted through the structure.

SIn the abnormal case where only one heat exchanger is available for both fuel pools, evaporative cooling from the pool surface will be considered in order to determine more realistic timing for the HX transfer between pools. When both SFP heat exchangers are avail-2 able, no credit is taken for evaporative cooling.

See Footnote #I above.

Page 6 of 14

EE No.: S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Rev. No.: I Date: 5/18/06 TITLE: SFP System Cooling Capability with Core Offload Starting 85-hours After Shutdown Periodic Review Required: Yes No X Order No.: N/A 4 RHR cooling continues to provide forced cooling to the SFP with all fuel elements removed to the SFP as long as the refueling canal remains flooded and the transfer gate is open. The cooler water in the reactor vessel and refueling canal will transfer to the SFP via natural circulation through the transfer gate. This potential cooling source is never credited in any analysis or procedure.

3.6 Evaluation Core Decay Heat Decay heat from the newly discharged core is determined using the USNRC Branch Technical Position ASB 9-2, Residual Decay Heat for Light-Water Reactors for Long-Term Cooling (Reference 5.6). This is a conservative computer code for calculating fuel element decay heat, and is used here without scaling fac-tors or other adjustments.

As shown in Attachment A, pages Al through A4, the residual heat from the 193 assembly offload to the SFP is shown to be 3.95 x 10' Btu/hr as summarized in the following table. The 125 hours0.00145 days 0.0347 hours 2.066799e-4 weeks 4.75625e-5 months after shutdown includes the 85-hour delay plus an additional 40 hours4.62963e-4 days 0.0111 hours 6.613757e-5 weeks 1.522e-5 months to offload the 193 assemblies. A 10% uncertainty factor is included per the BTP.

This is the highest heat load in the pool from the newly discharged core, and it exists only at the moment that the final assembly is moved into the pooL After that time, the heat load continuously decays to lower values. Nonetheless, this value is used throughout this evaluation as the heat in the SFP.

Table 1 - Full-Core Off-Load Decay Heat Number of Reactor Power Time to Off-Load Effective Full Calculated Decay Assemblies After Shutdown Power Hours of Heat Burnup 76 3459 MWt 5.21 days (125 hrs.) 12,410 (17 mos.) 1.37 x I0CBtu/hr 76 3459 MWt 5.21 days (125 hra.) 24,820 (34 mos.) 1.42 x I10 Btu/hr 41 3459 MWt 5.21 days (125 hrs.) 37,230 (51 mos.) 7.75 x 106 Btu/hr Heavy Elements 3459 MWt 5.21 days (125 bra.) Same as above 3.89 x 106 Bu/hr (all assemblies) ________________________

Core Total 3.95 x 107 Btulhr

Background

8.46 x 10_BtU/hr Heat3 Peak Pool Heat 4.R0xl1'Btulhr

____x_1_7______

Load Background Heat The background heat is taken from Reference 5.5 for a full spent fuel pool (8.46 x 106 Btu/hr--see input 3.2.10). This is a maximum value (i.e. all available fuel racks full with spent fuel) and therefore it applies to any anticipated future refueling in either Salem unit. With 1137 assemblies in the Unit I pool, this pool will be fidl in another 4 refueling outages (i.e. 1632 - 1137 - 193 = 302/76 - 3.97), with room available for one additional core. However prior to that time it is expected that the oldest fuel will be withdrawn to dry-cask storage. In any event, either before or after implementation of dry-cask storage, the maximum back-ground heat value of Reference 5.5 will bound any potential background heat rate. Furthermore, this value is conservative since Reference 5.5 was based on a power level of 3600 MWt, which is higher than actual power levels to which the spent fuel was exposed.

3

Ddvation of backround heat is discained in the next paragraph.

Page 7 of 14

EE No.: S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Rev. No.: 1 Date: 5/18/06 TITLE: SFP System Cooling Capability with Core Offload Starting 85-hours After Shutdown Periodic Review Required: Yes No X Order No.: N/A The background heat value used in this evaluation (8.46 x 106 Btu/hr) is extremely conservative because it represents 1776 elements in the pool (the current pool is limited to 1632) with all elements exposed to 4.5 years of full power at 3600 MWt. Since the background heat in the SFP during outage IRI7 was only 3.1 x 106 Btu/hr, it is clear that the actual background heat in only 4 more refuelings will be well below 8.46 x 106 Btu/hr. Based on the above, 8.46 x 106 Btu/hr is appropriate for use in this design-basis evaluation, since it will bound any possible background heat scenarios. In the outage specific calculation performed in accordance with Reference 5.10, the actual background heat will be less and therefore the 85-hour decay time of this evaluation is conservative.

Delaware Rlver/CCW Temnerature As shown in Attachment B, pages BI through B8, the average monthly temperature in the Delaware River 0

(measured at Reedy Island) between the months of October andMay are 63 F and below. These tempera.

tures are based upon 30 years of weekly data recorded at Reedy Island, a location just upstream of Salem and Hope Creek. These pages also show that on average, inlet temperatures at the plant run 3*F higher than Reedy Island. Even though there have been measurements of plant temperatures as much as 5°F higher (and as low as 1*F) than Reedy Island, the 3*1F average is considered conservative in a condition where one of the two Salem Units is shutdown. The Salem Units account for nearly all of the output heat in the River.

Hope Creek has a cooling tower, through which most waste heat is released to the environment. Therefore, with one of the two Salem Units shutdown (and only discharging waste reactor heat), historical average dif-ferentials between the plant and Reedy Island am conservative.

The differential temperature between Service Water (SW) and CCW is reduced under shutdown conditions because there is less heat load on both the CCW System and the SW System. Using both CCW heat ex-changers during the few days that SFP heat loads are at their peak would lower the differential even further.

However, since both CCW heat exchangers may not be available when fuel is moved, the analysis of At-tachment F evaluates both one and two CCW heat exchangers. As shown in Attachment F, the CCW sup-ply temperature is 710 F with a Service Water inlet temperature of 660F (one CCWHX and two SFPCHXs).

Temperature Description 63aF Delaware River historical data 30F Reedy Island to plant intake 66oF Service Water Inlet Temperature 71OF CCW Temperature Based on 66VF SW Inlet, as shown in Attachment FV. [See Footnote 4 below]

Use of 71 OF for this analysis is considered appropriate for two reasons:

1. This evaluation provides a technical basis for reducing the in-vessel decay time for defueling from 168-hours to 85-hours during the months from mid-October to mid-May. Before fuel is actually transferred, the Salem Integrated Decay Heat Management Program (currently based upon the Holtec CROSSTIE computer code) is implemented in accordance with Outage Risk Management procedures (Reference 5.10) for the actual conditions in existence at outage time. In the case of a particularly mild winter or particularly hot summer where River temperatures might be above pro-4Attachment F is not changed from Revision 0, even though Revision 0 was based upon 4.4 x 10' Btu/hr while Revision 1 isbased on 4.8 x 10' Btu/hr. This isjustified because of the conservatisms inAttachment Fwith regard to both CCW flow rates and the calculated temperatures. Furthermore, since this evaluation concludes an 85-hour decay is justified with a CCW temperature of 71 F or below, Attachment F simply determines that these temperatures can be expected during this time period.

Page 8 of 14

EE No.: S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Rev. No.: 1 Date: 5/18/06 TITLE: SFP System Cooling Capability with Core Offload Starting 85-hours After Shutdown Periodic Review Required: Yes No X Order No.: N/A dicted temperatures, fuel would not be transferred until the Decay Heat Management Program indi-cated pool temperature limits would be achieved. 5

2. The inherent conservatisms in this analysis (i.e. evaporative cooling, structure cooling, cold water makeup, RHR cooling) are of sufficient magnitude to account for any foreseeable changes in river temperatures or other potentially non-conservative assumptions. Hence, this calculation is consid-ered to be sufficiently conservative.

Heat Exehanger Efficlency As shown in Attachment C, pages Cl through C3, the HTC-STX heat exchanger computer code, Version 3.6, is benchmarked against the original Joseph Oats data sheet from Reference 5.7. It should be noted that the HTC-STX data sheet says that SFPC surface area is over-designed by 7.55%. This is consistent with HOLTEC International's analysis of this same heat exchanger (Reference 5.5). In Reference 5.5, HOLTEC concluded that the SFPC heat exchanger was over-designed by 7.04%. Based on their analysis, HOLTEC concluded that the design basis heat duty should have been 12.78 x I0' Btu/hour rather than the 11.94 x 101 Btu/hour of the Joseph Oats data sheet.

The same heat exchanger model that produced the benchmarked data sheet was then changed to incorporate 6% tube plugging and to revise shell-side (CCW) inlet temperature to 71 *F. Using this model, heat duties were calculated for various spent fuel pool temperatures. As shown on pages C4 (for one heat exchanger) and page C5 (with two heat exchangers lined-up in parallel) heat exchanger efficiencies are determined as shown in the attached table. These efficiencies are then applied to the various conditions described below.

Table 2 - Heat Exchanger Efficiency Page No. HX CCW Flow Tube Flow Shell Tube Plugged Heat Duty Efficiency r[mi [gpml Inlet Inlet Tubes Btu/hour Btu/sec OF 160.9 0F 6% 4.3968E7 135.8 C4 One 3000 2500 71PF C5 Two 3000 1500 71OF 128.4 0F 6% 2.1998E7 106.5 Both SFPC Heat Exchanaers With two SFPC heat exchangers available, both Salem SFPs can be maintained below 1491F as follows:

1. With one heat exchanger aligned to each Salem SFP, the hot pool (the pool with the fuMl-core off-load) will heat toward 149*F, while the non-refueling pool will remain well below 149F.

0

2. With both heat exchangers aligned in parallel to the hot pool, the hot pool will'cool below 149 F, while the non-refueling pool will slowly heat toward 149*F.

3. The heat exchanger for the non-refueling pool will be swapped between the refueling pool and the non refueling pool as shown in the Table 3 below. Each succeeding cycle will be extended, since the spent fuel is constantly decaying. Assumed CCW inlet temperature is 71*F in all cases.

4. In Table 3, no credit is taken for (1) evaporative cooling from the pool surface (2) heat transfer through the pool structure (3) the volume of water contained in the fuel transfer pool or refueling cavity (which would still be attached), (4) the cool make-up water that would replace the evapora-tion or (5) any RHR heat exchanger.

'In October, River temperatures are highest on the day the fuel is offloaded and River temperatures slowly decrease thereafter. With residual heat from the fuel also decaying, SFP cooling capabilities become more conservative with each passing day. In May, how-ever, River temperatures can be expected to slowly increase (typically 2.26F to 2.30F per week) after the fuel has been offloaded. This Is not conservative, although the decaying residual heat would offset the temperature increases. Nonetheless, to assure that tempera-tore increases after fuel offload do not adversely impact the results of the CROSSTIE code analysis, refueling in May (with 85-hour in-vessel decay) has been limited to May I5"'. This assures that the fuel in the pool will be well decayed as River temperatures rise into the month of June.

Page 9 of 14

EE No.: S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Rev. No.: I Date: 5/18/06 TITLE: SFP System Cooling Capability with Core Offload Starting 85-hours After Shutdown Periodic Review Required: Yes No X Order No.: N/A Table 3 - Two Heat Exchanger Operation Average No. Heat Heat Added Differential Heatup or IX(K)

ELf. Initial Pool Final Pool 9 Time to switch J(

Pool HX Removal (MBtu/hr)7 (Mturhr) Cooldown per HlX Rate' (Btus F) Temp. Temp. w (mBtu*br):

Refuel 2 24.0 48.0 0 0 106.5 133.60F 133.6 0 F 11.4 hrs.

Non- 0 0 8.46 +8.46 +4.3*F/hr NA 100OF 1490 F 11.4 bro.

Refuel l 34.4 46.5 +12.1 +6.20F/br 135.8 133.6F 149 0F 2.5 hrs.

Non- 1 31.0 8.46 -22.6 0 Refuel -11.5 F/hr 135.8 149OF 120oF 2.5 hrs.

0 0 Refuel 2 27.0 46.2 -7.8 4.0 F/hr 106.5 149°F 131.2 F 6.7 hrs.

Non- 0 0 8.46 +8.46 +4.30 F/hr NA 120OF 1490F 6.7 hrs.

Refuel 1 33.8 45.4 +11.6 +5.90F/hr 135.8 131.2aF 149.0OF 3.0 hrs.

Non- 1 30.0 8.46 -21.4 -11.00F/hr 135.8 149°F 1160F 3.0 rs.

Refuel Refuel 2 26.2 45.2 -7.3 -3.7 0F/hr 106.5 149OF 130.0OF 7.7 hrs.

Non-None 0 0 8.46 +8.46 +4.3"F/hr NA 116-F 149-F 7.7 hrs.

Refuel As can be seen above once the non-refueling pool reaches 1490 F, the non refueling pool heat exchanger can be shifted between its own pool and the hot pool on a 2.5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months on, 6.7 hours8.101852e-5 days 0.00194 hours 1.157407e-5 weeks 2.6635e-6 months off basis as long as necessary to maintain both SFPs below 149*F. With each succeeding cycle, the shift times will increase slightly (3.0 hour0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months s/7.7 hours8.101852e-5 days 0.00194 hours 1.157407e-5 weeks 2.6635e-6 months for the 2' cycle) since the spent fuel heat load (particularly from the hot-core) is decreas-iug with time. This time cycle compares to 3.7 hours8.101852e-5 days 0.00194 hours 1.157407e-5 weeks 2.6635e-6 months on, 10.8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months off for the 100-hour decay that was evaluated in Revision 0 to this mechanical engineering evaluation. Both of these cycle times (the 85 hour9.837963e-4 days 0.0236 hours 1.405423e-4 weeks 3.23425e-5 months and the 100 hour0.00116 days 0.0278 hours 1.653439e-4 weeks 3.805e-5 months ) are well with the capability of plant operators to achieve.

One SFPC Heat Exchaner A full-core offload would not be undertaken unless both SFP heat exchangers are available. Should one heat exchanger fail or otherwise become unavailable prior to completing the offload, the offload would be suspended. Hence in the worst case scenario, one heat exchanger fails just as the full-core offload is com-pleted and the peak heat load is in the hot-pool.

In this case, the remaining heat exchanger would be aligned to the hot-pool until the non-refueling pool (which now has no forced cooling) heats to 180IF. As shown in Table 4, this heating will take approxi-mately 20 hours2.314815e-4 days 0.00556 hours 3.306878e-5 weeks 7.61e-6 months . Adding these 20 hours2.314815e-4 days 0.00556 hours 3.306878e-5 weeks 7.61e-6 months to the 85 hour9.837963e-4 days 0.0236 hours 1.405423e-4 weeks 3.23425e-5 months delay and 40 hour4.62963e-4 days 0.0111 hours 6.613757e-5 weeks 1.522e-5 months off-load time, the non-refueling pool reaches 180°F at 145 hours0.00168 days 0.0403 hours 2.397487e-4 weeks 5.51725e-5 months after shutdown of the refuel-unit. At 145 hours0.00168 days 0.0403 hours 2.397487e-4 weeks 5.51725e-5 months , the decay heat load in the hot-pool (including the background heat) would be 4.55 x 107 Btu/hr, as shown in Table 4 Row 3. With evaporative losses from the pool surface at 2.66 x 10 Btu/hr at 170*F, the heat available to raise pool tem-Heat renqoval is calculated based on the heat exchanger efficiency (K value) using the average pool tempera=re during the specific period aWd an assumed 71IF CCW tempcrature.

7 The heat added is determined for each cycle including the additional time since plant shutdown into the spreadsheets of Appendix A.

As can be seen In this column, total heat in the refueling pool slowly decreases with time while the non-refueling pool remains con-stant at the maximum background heat level.

tm Heat up or cooldown rate is calculated by dividing the differential heatrate (in Btu/hr) by the SFP heat capacity of 1.96 x 0V Btu/F (see paragraph 3.2.13).

Final pool tcmpemturos with the hot (refueling) pool in cool-down using both heat exchangers are limited by heat exchanger capacity and not by the available cool-down time For example, in Table 3, Row 5, the 4 degree per hour cooling rate for 6.7 hours8.101852e-5 days 0.00194 hours 1.157407e-5 weeks 2.6635e-6 months should lower pool temperature to 1222.2F (149*F - 4 x 6.7). However, at 131 .2F, the two heat exchangers (in parallel) just balance the heat input rate of 4.62 x 107 Btu/hr and therefore temperature will not decrease below 131.2°F.

Page 10 of 14

EE No.: S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Rev. No.: 1 Date: 5/18/06 TITLE: SFP System Cooling Capability with Core Offload Starting 85-hours After Shutdown Periodic Review Required: Yes No X Order No.: N/A perature would be 4.22 x I0C Btu/br, which is well below the 4.4 x 10' Btu/hr that was analyzed and found to be acceptable in Revision 0 to this MEE. Hence, the evaluation of Revision 0 bounds the maximum heat load expected in this condition.

In addition to being bounded by the evaluation of Revision 0 to this MEE, Revision 0 did not credit any of the water in the refueling canal, reactor vessel or transfer pool, which would still be connected to the SFP from the refueling operations. As shown in Input 3.2.14, when the transfer pool alone is included, the heat capacity of the combined pools is 3.0 x 106 Btu/0 F. Using this revised heat capacity, the sequence of events with one heat exchanger is shown in Table 4 below.

Table 4 - One Heat Exchanger Operation Average Surface No Heat Heat Evapora- Differen- Heatup or Initial Final Time to Pool Removal Added tion tial Cooldown Pool Pool Switch per HX (MFBtulhr) (Mltobr) (MBtu/hr) Rate" Temp. Temp. HX hMBtur)' _ (Attaeh D)

Refuel 1 46 48.0 2.0 0 0 1650F 165OF 20 hrs.

Non- 0 0 8.46 1.56 +6.9 +2.30F/hr 1350F 1800 F 20 hrs.

Refuel ___________ ___

Refuel 0 0 45.5 2.66 +42.8 +14.3oF/hr 165°F 180cF 1.0 hrs.

Non- 1 49.6 8.46 2.66 43.8 -14.60F/br 180OF 165°F 1.0 hrs.

Refuel 1 49.1 45.3 2.66 -6.5 -2.15oF/hr 180OF 163OF 7.9 hrs.

NReue 0 0 8.46 2.66 +5.8 +l.9-F/hr 165aF 180-F 7.9 hrs.

Refuel 0 0 44.3 2.66 +41.6 +13.8"F/hr 163OF ISOOF 1.2 hrs.

Nan-Non- 1 49.6 8.46 2.66 -43.8 -14.6*F/hr 1800F 162OF 1.2 hrs.

Refuel 1 48.4 44.2 2.66 -6.8 -2.3oF/hr 180°F 160OF 9 bra.

Non- 0 0 8.46 2.66 -5.8 +1.90F/hr 162*F 180°F 9 brs.

As shown in Table 4, the 8-hour (hot pool)/1-hour (background pool) cycle can be continued as long as would be necessary to either restore the unavailable heat exchanger or begin transferring hot fuel back into the vessel of the refueling unit. In addition, the cooling times available prior to each heat exchanger shift are considered to be conservative and in reality, are expected to be longer. This is the case because (1) the BTP heat loads are conservative and do not consider forced outages or other lost generation time (2) the concrete structure would act to buffer the temperature changes and (3) no credit is taken for cold water make-up that replaces the evaporation. Also, when considering surface evaporation rates, the non-refueling pool may never reach 180*F, since evaporation plus heat transfer through the structure might offset the ac-tual heat input prior to reaching 180°F. In this case, the single heat exchanger would constantly cool the hot-pool, with a maximum temperature of approximately 165*F.

Finally, a more accurate assessment of the pool heat up times will be done prior to a refueling outage, as part of the Integrated Decay Heat Management Program, so proper planning on when and if to remove a SFHX from service can be performed.

,0 Heat exchanger efficiency is 135.8 Btu/sec TF, since only one heat exchanger is available.

" Heat up or cooldown rate is calculated by dividing the differential heat rate (in Btu/hr) by the SFP and transfer pool beat capacity of 3.0 x 10' Btu/F (see paragraph 3.2.14).

Page 11 of 14

EE No.: S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Rev. No.: 1 Date: 5/18/06 TITLE: SFP System Cooling Capability with Core Offload Starting 85-hours After Shutdown Periodic Review Required: Yes No X Order No.: N/A

4.0 CONCLUSION

/RECOMMENDATION Conclusion This evaluation demonstrates that a fully radiated 193 element reactor core can be off-loaded to either Sa-lem spent fuel pool with 85-hours of in-vessel decay, rather than the current 100-hours decay, provided the CCW outlet temperature is less than or equal 71*F. The evaluation also demonstrates that the required temperature (less than or equal 710F) can be expected during the period October 15t through May 15 , an-nually. Therefore, the technical specifications can be written to allow an 85-hour decay either during the period from October 15" through May 15d or anytime that CCW outlet temperature is equal or below 71 F.

This conclusion is based on the capability of the SFP cooling system to (1) maintain both Salem pools be-low 149*F with two SFPC heat exchangers available and (2) maintain both pools below 180OF with only one heat exchanger available. This capability meets the requirements of UFSAR Chapter 9.1.3.1. A Tech-nical Specification change will be required because the 100-hour delay is currently required by Technical Specifications during this time period.

This conclusion is justified because (1) the Salem Outage Risk Management Program", which includes a pre-outage assessment of the SFP heat loads and heat up rates will assure available SFPC capability prior to actually offloading fuel and (2) the inherent conservatisms in this calculation provide for additional cooling sources that are not credited herein. In order to maintain both pools below the required temperature limits, the SFPC heat exchangers may be required to operate in the crosstie mode (Le. in parallel) for a period of time, as determined by the pre-outage assessment.

Recommendation This evaluation justifies reduction of the Technical Specification 100-hour in-vessel decay to 85-hours dur-ing the period from October 151 to May 15". The Technical Specification can be based upon either the 0

time period (October 15" to May 15th) or the limiting CCW temperature (less than or equal 71 F), as Salem management may choose.

At the same time, Salem management may decide to take further steps in the future to increase SFP cool-ing, and thereby further reduce the decay time requirements. Such actions could include (1) installation of additional heat exchanger capability (2) connection of an RHR heat exchanger for SFP cooling in accor-dance with Reference 5.14 or (3) use of a fuel-shuffle that precludes a full-core off-load. Such action could be anticipated if the Technical Specifications rely on the Integrated Decay Heat Management (IDHM) pro-gram for determining the required decay time for any particular outage. Under this methodology, the Technical Specifications would state:

1. The minimum in-vessel decay time as required by radiological considerations in handling the spent fuel.

2. A requirement for the IDHM program to establish the minimum in-vessel decay time needed to as-sure the limits of 149*F with two available heat exchangers and 180*F with only one heat ex-changer prior to the start of each specific Salem refueling outage.

3. A fuel movement limit based on the more restrictive of steps I or 2 above. This Technical Specifi-cation would replace both the current 100-hour and 168-hour requirements, since the time of year would not be relevant in the IDHM calculations.

t 2

The Integrated Decay Heat Management Program is part of Salem Outage Risk Management.

Page 12 of 14

EE No.: S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Rev. No.: 1 Date: 5/18/06 TITLE: SFP System Cooling Capability with Core Offload Starting 85-hours After Shutdown Periodic Review Required: Yes No X Order No.: N/A

5.0 REFERENCES

5.1 S-C-SF-MDC-1780, Revision 0, Capability of Salem Spent Fuel Pool Heat Exchangers to Maintain 1491F Pool Temperature 5.2 Phone Call with Glenn Schwartz, Salem Fuels of 5/2/02 (see Attachment E) 5.3 S-C-SF-MDC-1800, Revision 4, Decay Heat-up Rates and Curves 5.4 Phone call with Glenn Schwartz, Salem Fuels Department, on 5-3-02 (see Attachment E) 5.5 S-C-SF-MDC-1240, Revision 1, SFP Thermal-Hydraulic Calculation (HOLTEC International) 5.6 BTP ASB 9-2 Revision 2 of July 1981, USNRC Standard Review Plan 9.2.5, Ultimate Heat Sink, NUREG 0800 5.7 PSBP 301110, Westinghouse Instruction Manual, Auxiliary Heat Exchangers 5.8 Phone call with Kevin King, PSE&G Engineering, on 5/6/02 (aem Attachment E) 5.9 LCR S02-03 5.10 SC.OM-APZZ-0001, Revision 1, Shutdown Safety Management Program Salem Annex 5.11 T/S 5.6.3, Fuel Storage Capacity 5.12 Email T. Wathey (PSEG) to T. DelGaizo (MLEA) on 5/9/06 (Attachment E) 5.13 PSEG Drawing 204836, Revision 7-Fuel Handling System Arrangement Drawing 5.14 S-C-N230-MDC-049, Revision 0, Spent Fuel Pool Cooling Using SFP and RHR Cooling Systems 5.15 SI(2).OP-SO.SF-0002, Revision 17(16), Spent Fuel Cooling System Operation 6.0 EFFECTS ON OTHER TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS The following procedure changes are required upon NRC approval of the LCR:

1. Sl(2).OP-IO.ZZ-0007, R13(11), Cold Shutdown to Refueling; Precaution 3.6 states TS 3.9.3 is valid until the year 2010. When the LCR is approved, the 2010 expiration will be eliminated.

2. SI(2).OP-IO.ZZ-0107, Rl(l), Administrative Requirements Cold Shutdown to Refueling, Precaution 3.3 states TS 3.9.3 is valid until the year 2010. When the LCR is approved, the 2010 expiration will be eliminated.

3. SC.OM-AP.ZZ-0001, Rev. 1, Shutdown Safety Management Program-Salem Annex. Paragraph 5.7.1 refers to I00-hours prior to core offload.

Page 13 of 14

EE No.: S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Rev. No.: 1 Date: 5/18/06 TITLE: SFP System Coolin Capability with Core Offload Starting 85-hours After Shutdown Periodic Review Required: Yes No X Order No.: N/A 7.0 SIGNATURES Page 14 of 14

NC.CC-AP.ZZ.0010(Q)

FORM-1 CERTIFICATION FOR DESIGN VERIFICATION Reference Number: S-C-SF-MEE-1679, Revision I

SUMMARY

STATEMENT This revision was prepared to evaluate SFP cooling capabilities with 85 hours9.837963e-4 days 0.0236 hours 1.405423e-4 weeks 3.23425e-5 months of in-vessel decay, rather than the 100-hour delay currently required by Technical Specifications. As such, it is intended to pro-vide a technical basis for a licensing change request. The calculation demonstrates that a fully radi-ated 193 element core can be offloaded to the SFP with 85 hours9.837963e-4 days 0.0236 hours 1.405423e-4 weeks 3.23425e-5 months of in-vessel decay and temperatures will not exceed 149°F In either pool with two SFP heat exchangers available or 180°F with one avail- with able. All changes made in Revision I have been checked line-by-line. The results are consistent the Drevious revision of this document considering the changes made and given the design input, and methodoiogv used conclusions reached were found to be appropriate and conservative.

The Individual named below in the right column hereby certifies that the design verification for the sub-ject document has been completed, the questions from the generic checklist have been reviewed and addressed as appropriate, and all comments have been adequately incorporated. SAP Or-der/Operation final confirmations are the legal equivalent of signatures.

atJI S'/1,1%re Paul Lindsay, MLEA Inc.

Design Verifier Assigned By Name of Design Verifier / Date (print name of Manager/Director)

Design Verifier Assigned By Name of Design VerifierO Date f

i (print name of Manager/Director)

Design Verifier Assigned By Name of Design Verifier I Date (print name of Manager/Director)

Design Verifier Assigned By Name of Design Verifier / Date (print name of Manager/Director)

If the ManerSupewSor acts as the Design Verifier. the name of ft next Ifgher evel of tedhnical management Is required In fhe left colunm.

Page I of I Nuclear Common Rev. I

FORM-2 Page 1 of4 COMMENT I RESOLUTION FORM FOR DESIGN DOCUMENT DOCUMENT NOJREV: S-C-SF-MEE-1679, Revision I COMMENTS

1) Page 2 and forward, header - change 70 hours8.101852e-4 days 0.0194 hours 1.157407e-4 weeks 2.6635e-5 months to 85 hours9.837963e-4 days 0.0236 hours 1.405423e-4 weeks 3.23425e-5 months .

2) 1.0 Purpose - 2"d sentence, add the word 'to" prior to "the USNRCO.

3) 1.0 - 2"d paragraph, see markup, abbreviate Integrated Decay Heat Man-agement during second use. Also, see Section 3.0, 3rd paragraph.

4) Section 3.0, 3xd paragraph, add "is performed" between "SFP heat loads" and %priorto core offload".

5) Page 4, top, item 1 - change "delay" to "decay". See other markups pro-vided.

6) 1.0 Purpose, define SFP during its first use.

7) Section 3.2.1 - is there a design reference for the less than 4% tubes plugged. The referenced calculation makes this as an assumption with-out a reference?

8) Section 3.2, Item 14, 19,972 should be 19,927.

9) The thermal capacities of the SFP and/or transfer pool are based on 1500 F, is this conservative for 180°F?

10) Make note on Attachment D, graph is for SFP only.

11) Section 3.5, change words 'only" and 'exclusively" per markup since we do credit evaporation for the limiting case.

12) Section 3.5, 10t paragraph - delete "quantified and,. Several of the following points are quantified.

13) Page 6 - combine footnotes 1 and 2 - they say the same thing.

14) Section 3.5, Item 2 - provide reference for 3400#/hour - I get 3900 us-ing steam tables. Looks like you used total heat not heat of evapora-tion.

15) Page 43 of Holtec report shows that the background heat is based on op-eration of 3600 MWT and more racks than currently in the Salem SFP. A number as low as 8.13 Mbtu/hr could be justified versus 8.46 used.

Justify.

16) Footnote 3 should be on the page before it.

17) See markups - page 8.

18) Page 7, equation requires correction 1675-1137-193 -345/76-4.5

19) Attachment 1, Page Al, remove statement "2010 total in pool."

20) Attachment F, Page 1, references the body of the calculation for total SFP heat load. Calls it 44 Mbtu/hr, but now we are at 48 Mbtu/hr.

What is impact of this change?

21) Attachment F - shows with I CCHX and 1 SFPHX temps rise to 750F. Any single failure which can simultaneously cause loss of both? (bus fail-ure or EDG?)

22) Table 3 - correct 3 incorrect temperatures.

23) Minor editorial changes on page 10.

24) Table 4 - correct per markup.

25) Minor editorial changes on page 11.

26) Section 5.0 - update references.

27) Page 13 - need new dates.

RESOLUTIONS

1. Corrected. Good catch, that's a tough one.

2. Changed as suggested.

3. Changed as suggested

4. Changed as noted

5. Changed as noted

6. Done

7. The referenced calculation is all I have. However, when I asked Bob Down to update the MEE-1679 assumptions, tube plugging was not updated.

8. Corrected

9. The available SFP water volume is conservatively rounded down to 32,000 gallons from 32,990 gallons. This offsets the use of 150OF for the heat 3

capacity (e.g., 32,990 gallons x 60.57 ibm/ft . 1.99 E6, therefore, the use of 1.96E6 is conservative for all SFP temperatures).

10.The note has been added to Attachment D 11 .Done 12 .Done 13.Footnote #2 now refers back to footnote #1.

14.This has been corrected. I had used the enthalpy of saturated steam at 18F when I should have used the latent heat of vaporization. The numbers have been revised accordingly, including the make up rate.

15.The use of the higher background heat although not present is conservative and provides margin in the evaluation.

16.1 agree but Microsoft Word puts it on the next page (for whatever reason) and I don't know how to change it. The footnote is there, the reader just has to find it.

17.Corrected 18.The problem with the formula was the space available should have been 1632 not 1675 (based on input 3.2.11). This leaves the result to be about 4 more outages. Added a sentence in this paragraph about the conservatism of the 8.46E6 value (based on 3600 MWt).

19.1 deleted all reference to number of elements in the pool and 2010. That was left over from the methodology of Revision 0 and doesn't apply to Re-vision 1.

20.See Footnote #4 on page 8. Basically, if we base the 85-hours on 71F CCW temperature, Attachment F is not critical.

21.There is no known single failure that can reduce SFP cooling to only 1 SFP and 1 CCW heat exchanger. Hence the 1-and-1 configuration is not a design basis configuration.

22.1 added Footnote #7 to Table 3 to explain that the configuration with 2 HXs on the hot-pool is limited by HX capacity to remove decay heat rather than the time available for cooling (which is actually set by the heat-up of the background (non-refueling) pool.

23.Changes incorporated 24.Table 4 revised 25.Changes incorporated 26.Done 27.Done ACCEPTANCE OF RESOLUTION Resolutions are acceptable Page 2 of 4

NC.CC-AP.ZZ-00 0(Q)

FORM-3 GENERIC VERIFICATION CHECKLIST REFERENCE DOCUMENT NUMBER/REVISION (SAP Standard Text Key 'NRICDV3") EG-0020, Revision 9 YES NO N/A WHERE FOUND COMMENTS PAGE NO. (Y/N)

1. WERE DESIGN INPUTS CORRECTLY SELECTED AND INCORPORATED INTO DESIGN? [] El El Section 3.2 N

2. ARE ASSUMPTIONS NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE DESIGN ACTIVITY ADEQUATELY DESCRIBED AND REASONABLE? WHERE NECESSARY, ARE THE E3 [I Section 3.2 N ASSUMPTIONS IDENTIFIED FOR SUBSEQUENT RE-VERIFICATION WHEN THE DETAILED DESIGN ACTIVITIES ARE COMPLETED?

3. ARE THE APPROPRIATE QUALITY AND QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED?

4. ARE THE APPLICABLE CODES, STANDARDS AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING ISSUES AND ADDENDA PROPERLY IDENTIFIED AND ARE THEIR [] 13 REQUIREMENTS FOR DESIGN MET?

HAVE APPLICABLE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING 5.

EXPERIENCE BEEN CONSIDERED? Ej '] I]

6. HAVE THE DESIGN INTERFACE REQUIREMENTS BEEN [ I-SATISFIED?

7. WAS AN APPROPRIATE DESIGN METHOD USED? *] El [I Section 3.4 N

8. ISTHE OUTPUT REASONABLE COMPARED TO INPUTS? E E3 Section 3.0 and N 4.0

9. ARE THE SPECIFIED PARTS, EQUIPMENT, AND PROCESSES SUITABLE FOR THE REQUIRED 1]

APPLICATION?

10. ARE THE SPECIFIED MATERIALS COMPATIBLE WITH EACH OTHER AND THE DESIGN ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS TO WHICH THE MATERIAL WILL BE [:1 EXPOSED?

11. HAVE ADEQUATE MAINTENANCE FEATURES AND TI REQUIREMENTS BEEN SPECIFIED? El []

Page 3 of 4 Nuclear Common Rev. I

NC.CC-AP.ZZ-0010(Q)

FORM-3 GENERIC VERIFICATION CHECKLIST REFERENCE DOCUMENT NUMBER/REVISION EG-0020, Revision 9 YES NO NIA WHERE FOUND COMMENTS PAGE NO. (YIN)

12. ARE ACCESSIBILITY AND OTHER DESIGN PROVISIONS ADEQUATE FOR PERFORMANCE OF NEEDED Q C MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR?

13. HAS ADEQUATE ACCESSIBILITY BEEN PROVIDED TO PERFORM THE IN-SERVICE INSPECTION EXPECTED TO 0 0 *jj BE REQUIRED DURING THE PLANT LIFE?

14. HAS THE DESIGN PROPERLY CONSIDERED RADIATION 0" 0 EXPOSURE TO THE PUBLIC AND PLANT PERSONNEL? Q3 0 HAVE ALARA CONSIDERATIONS BEEN ADDRESSED?

15. ARE THE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA INCORPORATED IN THE DESIGN DOCUMENTS SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW Si4 VERIFICATION THAT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS HAVE 0S n BEEN SATISFACTORILY ACCOMPLISHED?

16. HAS VERIFICATION OF THE ELECTRIC LOAD CONTROL PROGRAM [ND.DE-TS.ZZ-2908 (Q)] BEEN PERFORMED? 0oI1

17. HAS THE EFFECT ON THE DIESEL GENERATOR LOAD SEQUENCE STUDY BEEN ANALYZED? [3 ]

18. HAVE ADEQUATE PRE-OPERATIONAL AND SUBSEQUENT PERIODIC TEST REQUIREMENTS BEEN Q 1Q ]

APPROPRIATELY SPECIFIED?

19. ARE ADEQUATE HANDLING, STORAGE, CLEANING AND SHIPPING REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED? 13 11

20. ARE ADEQUATE IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED? -i09

21. ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR RECORD PREPARATION REVIEW, APPROVAL, RETENTION, ETC, ADEQUATELY 11 SPECIFIED? I Page 4 of 4 Nuclear Common Rev. I

FORM-2 Page 1 of 2 COMMENT I RESOLUTION FORM FOR DESIGN DOCUMENT DOCUMENT NO.;REV: S-C-SF-MEE-1679, Revision I OWNER REVIEW COMMENTS

1) Throughout the evaluation, reference is made to "reduce from 100-hours to 85-hours during the period from October 15 to May 15""'. The Recommendation section is based on an 85-hour de-lay for time-period or limiting CCW temperature. Consider rewording such that the 85-hours is not tied to the time-period. Such as, "reduce from current 100-hours during the period from Oc-tober 15" to May 15"', to a delay of 85-hours..."

2) Page 4 Section 3.2.1 - spell out "Spent Fuel Pool Cooling (SFPC)" the first time.

3) Page 5 Section 3.2.10 - the background heat of 8A6 Mbtu/hr appears high. The background heat for unit 1 from IR13 was 2.31 Mbtu/hr (per Assumption 3.2.9). The background heat from IR17 was 3.047 Mbtu/hr (per S-C-SF-MDC-1810 Revision 6). Assumption 3.2.12 states that back-ground heat in the pool at any given refueling between the present and end of life (or full pool) is assumed to be a straight line between 2.31 x 106 Btu/hour (Input #9) and 8.46 x 10' Btu/hour (Input #10).

4) Page 5 Section 3.3.3 - change "the background heat (old assemblies) = assumed" to Ilia as-sumed".

5) Page 6 Section 3.5.2 2"d sentence - change "vaporization for 180F water])." to "180F water])."

6) Page 8 Footnote 4 last line - change "that these te rature can be" to "these tmeratures can".

7) Page 9 Table 2 - modify column width for "plugged tubes", and add revision bar to right of table.

8) Page 9 Table 3 - the table is split between pages, move title and header to next page.

9) Page 9 Table 3 - change units for columns 3 and 4 to Mbtu/hr to match Table 4.

10) Page 9 Table 3 - provide reference for data in table.

11) Page 10 Table 4 - move title for Table 4 to next page.

12) Page I Table 4- Table 4 does not have column for IIX efficiency.

13) Page 11 Table 4 - provide reference for data in table,

14) Page 12 Reference 5.10 - change revision from "0" to "I", and verify that new revision does not impact engineering evaluation.

15) Page 13 References - add reference for SI(2).OP-SO.SF-0002 as justification for parallel -X operation.

16) Page 13 Section 6.1 -change "RT13" to "Revision 13 (11)".

17) Page 13 Section 6.2 - add "Revision 1 (1)".

RESOLUTIONS

1. Revised statements in the Scope (pars 2.0), Background (pars 3.1) and Conclusion (para 4.0).

2. Done

3. The background heat in Reference 5.5 is very conservative. A new paragraph is added to the back-ground heat section of paragraph 3.6 to explain the conservatisms in this number. It also discusses that this is another reason why the outage specific calculation is more appropriate.

4. Done

5. Done

6. Done

7. Done

8. Done

9. Changed columns 3, 4, and 5 from Btu/hr to MBtu/hr

10. The data in Table 3 is calculated. Footnotes are included to explain the various calculations that are not apparent.

11. Done

12. Footnote #10 added to show HX efficiency (which does not change in Table 4). 1didn't include a column for -X efficiency because Table 4 already had too many columns.

13. See response to comment #10 above.

14. Changed

15. Added new Reference 5.15

16. Done

17. Done ACCEPTANCE OF RESOLUTION Resolutions are acceptable Bob Down Q22Ga0zo TJD.Iz SUBMITTED BY DATE RESWJED BY DATE Page 2 of 2

SFP Decay Heat 76 Assemblies with 24820 EFPH (34 months) 85 Hours to Defuel 40 Hours after Reactor Shutdown when Refueling Begins:

Days after Reactor Shutdown when Refueling Begins: 3.5416667 Days to Defuel 1.6666667 No.

n An an S.D. ts P/Po PO P Elem. Bt/hr Infinite Core Fit Coeff. Fit Coeff. (days) (seconds) Power Fr. Full Power (Btu/hr) 1 0.5980 1.772E+00 5.21 4.50E +05 O.00E+00 6.12E+07 0.00E+00 2 1.6500 5.774E-01 5.21 4.50E+05 0.00E +00 6.12E+07 0.00E + 00 3 3.1000 6.743E-02 5.21 4.50E+05 O.OOE +00 6.12E+07 0.OOE+00 4 3.8700 6.214E-03 5.21 4.50E+05 O.OOE + 00 6.12E+07 0.OOE+00 5 2.3300 4.739E-04 5.21 4.50E +05 2.82E-95 6.12E+07 1.73E-87 6 1.2900 4.81 OE-05 5.21 4.50E+05 2.57E-12 6.12E+07 1.57E-04 7 0.4620 5.344E-06 5.21 4.50E + 05 2.09E-04 6.12E+07 1.28E+04 8 0.3280 5.716E-07 5.21 4.50E+05 1.27E-03 6.12E+07 7.76E+04 9 0.1700 1.036E-07 5.21 4.50E+05 6.1IE-04 6.12E+07 4.96E+04 10 0.0865 2.959E-08 5.21 4.50E + 05 4.27E-04 6.12E+07 2.61E+04 11 0.1140 7.585E-10 5.21 4.50E+05 5.70E-04 6.12E+07 3.49E+04 3.28E-03 6.12E+07 2.01 E+ 05 76 1.53E+07 n An an Op.Time to + ts P/Po PO P 1/3Core-2Cycles Fit Coeff. Fit Coeff. (days) (seconds Power Fr. Full Power (Btu/hr) 1 0.5980 1.772E+00 1039 8.98E +07 0.OOE+00 6.12E+07 0.OOE+ 00 2 1.6500 5.774E-01 1039 8.98E+07 O.OOE+00 6.12E÷07 0.00E + 00 3 3.1000 6.743E-02 1039 8.98E+07 0.OOE+00 6.12E+07 0.OOE+00 4 3.8700 6.214E-03 1039 8.98E+07 0.OOE + 00 6.12E+07 0.00E + 00 5 2.3300 4.739E-04 1039 8.98E+07 O.OOE + 00 6.12E+07 O.OOE+00 6 1.2900 4.81 OE-05 1039 8.98E+07 0.OOE + 00 6.12E+07 0.OOE + 00 7 0.4620 5.344E-06 1039 8.98E + 07 8.81 E-212 6.12E+07 5.39E-204 8 0.3280 5.716E-07 1039 8.98E+07 8.36E-26 6.12E+07 5.11E-18 9 0.1700 1.036E-07 1039 8.98E+07 7.74E-08 6.12E+07 4.74E+00 10 0.0865 2.959E-08 1039 8.98E+07 3.03E-05 6.12E+07 1.86E+03 11 0.1140 7.585E-10 1039 B.98E + 07 5.32E-04 6.12E+07 3.26E + 04 5.63E-04 6.12E+07 3,44E +04 76 2.62E+06 D.H. Rate 3.05E-03 6.12E+07 1.87E+05 76 1.42E+07 Elements 2010 total In Pool In Pool 1/3 for 2 cycles (76 assemblies) 1.42E + 07 1/3 for 3 cycles (41 assemblies) 7.75E+06 1/3 for 1 cycle (76 assemblies) 1.37E + 07 Background 956 1412 8.46E +06 Heavy Elements 3.89E +06 TOTAL 4.80E+07 Attachment A Page Al

SFP Decay Heat 76 Assemblies with 12410 EFPH (17 months)

Days after Reactor Shutdown when Refueling Begins: 3.5416667 No.

n An an S.D. ts P/Po Po P Elem. Bt/hr Infinite Core Fit Coeff. Fit Coeff. (days) (seconds) Power Fr. Full Power (Btu/hr) 1 0.5980 1.772E+00 5.21 4.50E+05 O.00E4- 00 6.12E+07 0.00E+00 2 1.6500 5.774E-01 5.21 4.50E + 05 0.OOE +00 6.12E+07 0.OOE+00 3 3.1000 6.743E-02 5.21 4.50E+05 O.OOE+00 6.12E+07 O.OOE+ 0D 4 3.8700 6.214E-03 5.21 4.50E +05 O.OOE +00 6.12E+07 0.OOE + 00 5 2.3300 4.739E-04 5.21 4.SOE + 0S 2.82E-95 6.12E+07 1.73E-87 6 1.2900 4.81 OE-05 5.21 4.50E+05 2.57E-12 6.12E+07 1.57E-04 7 0.4620 S.344E-06 5.21 4.50E+05 2.09E-04 6.12E + 07 1.28E+04 8 0.3280 5.716E-07 5.21 4.50E+05 1.27E-03 6.12E+07 7.76E + 04 9 0.1700 1.036E-07 5.21 4.SOE + 05 8.11E-04 6.12E+07 4.96E +04 10 0.0865 2.959E-08 5.21 4.50E + 05 4.27E1-04 6.12E+07 2.61E+04 11 0.1140 7.585E-1 0 5.21 4.50E +05 5.70E-04 6.12E+07 3.49E + 04 3.28E-03 6.12E+07 2.01E+05 76 1.53E+07 P

n An an Op.Time to + ts P/Po PO 1/3Core-i Cycle Fit Coeff. Fit Coeff. (days) (seconds Power Fr. Full Power (Btu/hr) 1 0.5980 1.772E +00 522 4.51E+07 0.OOE + 00 6.12E+07 O.00E + 00 2 1.6500 5.774E-01 522 4.51E+07 O.OOE + 00 6.12E+07 0.00E + 00 3 3.1000 6.743E-02 522 4.51E+07 O.OOE + 00 6.12E+07 0.OOE + 00 4 3.8700 6.214E-03 522 4.51E+07 0.OOE+00 6.12E+07 0.OOE+00 5 2.3300 4.739E-04 522 4.51E+07 O.OOE+00 6.12E+07 0.00E +00 6 1.2900 4.81 OE-05 522 4.51E+07 O.00E+00 6.12E+07 O.00E+00 7 0.4620 5.344E-06 522 4.51E+07 4.29E-1 08 6.12E+07 2.62E-100 8 0.3280 5.716E-07 522 4.51E+07 1.03E-14 6.12E+07 6.30E-07 9 0.1700 1.036E-07 522 4.51E+07 7.93E-06 6.12E+07 4.85E+02 10 0.0865 2.959E-08 522 4.51E+07 1.1 4E-04 6.12E+07 6.96E + 03 11 0.1140 7.585E-10 522 4.51E+07 5.51 E-04 6.12E+07 3.37E +04 6.73E-04 6.12E+07 4.11E+04 76 3.13E+06 D.H. Rate 2.94E-03 6.12E+07 1.80E+05 76 1.37E+07 Attachment A Page A2

SFP Decay Heat 41 Assemblies with 37,230 EFPH (51 months)

Days after Reactor Shutdown when Refueling Begins: 3.54166667 No.

an S.D. ts P/Po Po P Elem. Bt/hr n An Fit Coeff. (days) (seconds) Power Fr. Full Power (Btu/hr)

Infinite Core Fit Coeff.

1 0.5980 1.772E+00 5,21 4.50E + 05 O.OOE+00 6.12E+07 0.OOE +00 2 1.6500 5.774E-01 5.21 4.50E + 05 O.OOE + 00 6.12E+07 0.00E +00 3 3.1000 6.743E-02 5.21 4.50E+05 O.OOE + 00 6.12E+07 O.OOE + 00 3.8700 6.214E-03 5.21 4.50E + 05 M.OOE + 00 6.12E+07 0.OOE + 00 4

5 2.3300 4.739E.04 5.21 4.50E + 05 2.82E-95 6.12E+07 1.73E-87 6 1.2900 4.81 0E-05 5.21 4.50E +05 2.57E-12 6.12E+07 1.57E-04 7 0.4620 5.344E-06 5.21 4.50E+05 2.09E.04 6.12E+07 1.28E+04 8 0.3280 5.716E-07 5.21 4.50E +05 1.27E-03 6.12E+07 7.76E+04 9 0.1700 1.036E,07 5.21 4.SOE+05 8.11E-04 6.12E+07 4.96E + 04 0.0865 2.959E.08 5.21 4.50E + 05 4.27E-04 6.12E+07 2.61 E+ 04 10 11 0.1140 7.585E-10 5.21 4.50E+05 5.70E-04 6.12E+07 3.49E + 04 3.28E-03 6.12E+07 2.01E+05 41 8.24E+06 n An an Op.Time to + ts P/Po Po P Fit Coeff. Fit Coeff. (days) (seconds Power Fr. Full Power (Btu/hr) 1/3Core-3 Cycles 1 0.5980 1.772E+00 1556 1.34E+08 O.OOE + 00 6.12E+07 O.OOE+00 2 1.6500 5.774E-01 1556 1.34E+08 0.OOE +00 6.12E+07 O.OOE + 00 3 3.1000 6.743E-02 1556 1.34E + 08 O.OOE +00 6.12E+07 0.OOE + 00 4 3.8700 6.214E-03 1556 1.34E+08 O.00E +00 6.12E+07 O.OOE + 00 5 2.3300 4,739E-04 1556 1.34E+06 0.OOE+00 6.12E+07 0.OOE + 00 6 1.2900 4.810E-05 1556 1.34E + 08 O.OOE +00 6.12E+07 O.OOE + 00 7 0.4620 5.344E-06 1556 1.34E+08 0.OOE +00 6.12E+07 0.OOE + 00 8 0.3280 5.716E-07 1556 1.34E + 08 6.79E-37 6.12E+07 4.15E-29 9 0.1700 1.036E-07 1556 1.34E + 08 7.57E-10 6.12E+07 4,63E-02 10 0.0865 2.959E-08 1556 1.34E+05 8.09E-06 6.12E+07 4.95E + 02 11 0.1140 7.585E-10 1556 1.34E+08 5.1 5E.04 6.12E+07 3.15E+04 5.23E-04 6.12E+07 3.20E +04 41 1.31E+06 3.09E-03 6.12E+07 1.89E+05 41 7.75E+06 D.H. Rate Attachment A Page A3

SFP Decay Heat Contribution of Heavy Elements U-239 and Np-239 to ts 1-EXP EXP P/Po Po Elem P U-239 2.28E-03 0.7 4.47E+07 4.50E+05 1.00E+00 1.1E-96 1.76E-99 61168741 76 8.18E-90 N-239 2.17E-03 0.7 4.47E+07 4.50E+05 1.OOE+00 0.215563 3.30E-04 61168741 76 1.53E+06 U-239 2.28E-03 0.7 8.94E+07 4.50E+05 1.00E+00 1.1E-96 1.76E-99 61168741 76 8.18E-90 N-239 2.17E-03 0.7 8.94E+07 4.50E+05 1.OOE+00 0.215563 3.30E-04 61168741 76 1.53E+06 U-239 2.28E-03 0.7 1.34E+08 4.50E+05 1.OOE+OD 1.1E-96 1.76E-99 61168741 41 4.42E-90 N-239 2.17E-03 0.7 1.34E+08 4.50E-a+05 1.ODE+00 0,215563 3.30E-04 61168741 41 8.27E+05 3.89E + 06 Attachment A Page A4

SFP Background Heat Unit 1 IR13 1R14 1R15 1R16 IR17 1R18 1RIO 1R20 1R21 1R22 1R23 Unit 1 OCt-99 Apr-O0 Oct-02 Apr-04 Oct-05 Apr-07 Oct-08 Apr-10 Oct-lI Apr-13 Oct-14 Unit 2 2R10 2Rli 2R12 2R13 2R14 2R15 2R16 2R17 2R18 2R19 2R20 Unit 2 Apr-99 Oct-0 Apr-02 Oct-03 Apr-OS Oct-06 Apr-08 Oct-10 Apr-Il Od-12 Apr-14 Btuthr Year 2.31E+00 8.46E+00 1999 2014

[

Year I

i 2016

20124-Y X 2010 2010 6.819981

,* *:-4-Year'-

>' 2006.. .. .

S 2004 2002 2000 1998 0 2 4 6 8 10 a Btulhr x E6 4--E. 0 AtMcmet A Pae A5

Deleware River Temperature Data Weekly Averages compiled into Specified Era Averages 1967 - 1997 Jan I Fab I ~March Ir AprUI, - May .j -June 1 July I Aug I Sept 1

- U.- ~

Oct I Nov I Dec 1967-1989 40.0 38.7 37A61 45.8l 53.7 624 i70.4i 74.1 72.4 56.6 WO.6 47.41 1970 .197 I 39.2 38.0 41.01 47.91 57.3 64.8 7Z.2l 76.01 73.1 64.5 56.21 47.01 I980-1989i 3.i 3.l 41.4 52.81 63.1 72.1 77.6 76.0I 72.5 6o.6 49.7 I 3.-

,1990-1997 35.0 35.4 41.2 5S.6 62.2 70.9 76.8e 76.3. 70.5 60.3 48.4 41.0 IAVERAGE 37.01 35.7 40.31 49.5 59.1 67.5 74.2 75.3 72.1 63.0 52.7 4138 March April

. I...

i.- 39 4"1 :Feb 39.11 ri ýIiip

,riI 36.1 35.7 37.2 35.6 44.1 38.8 38.6 42.7 35.1 354 Of 40.3 37.6 31 38.2; 336.5 35.0'

~ ""42.3 37.2 39.4 37.61 35.7 39.31 101 37.6 DNVERAGE 39.08 386 7 37.571 S-C-SFoMEE-1679 Rev. 0 Attachment B Page BI

Deleware River Temperature Data Weekly Averages compiled into Specified Era Averages 1967 - 1997 Jan Feb ýMarch ýAprH May June I July ý Aug Sept Oct I Nov Doc 37.4 36 37 43.5 53.7 632 70.8 75.4 76.3 70.61 61.9 51.6 40.7 35.7, 39.1 44A 51.8 612 70.9 74.3 75.3 60.41 592 49.8 48.5 41.5 41 45 62.9 60.7 69.8 73 75.3 65.8 62.7 533 42.7 40.4 43 48.4 65.5 65.7 73.8 77.4 75 69 60.3 61.9 42.91 40.41 42.61 48.1. 66.21 64.3 71.31 73A, 73.7 65.3 68.7 50.7 44AI 40.71 411 43.61 53.91 61.91 TOAI 74.51 73.4 66.5 55.19 481

!l41,2 37.B 42-2 48.6 55.6 61.31 70.3 73.1 76.5 52.7 282 28.6 461 5.3 2.5 65.21 78.11 77.51 74 54.41 57.61 49.2 29.81 26.81 32281 50.21 55.91 09.71 74.41 78.11 73.71 8.61 50.71 49.5 31.4 24.7 38.8 49 64.7 70.21 76.5 73.21 73.3 7.31 6.2 48.3 42.1 36.1. 37.6 40.2 58.3 64.9 6. 758 72. 73.6 61.65 52.8

1 44.4 36.5 40.11 41.3 54 63.1 68.1 74.7 71.2 72.8 59.7 50.4 49.4 40 41.61 42.51 54.9 62.81 65.71 73.21 72. 70.71 54.-1 4,.1 48.6 39.3 43.61 48.1 58.4 67.11 711 76.5 72.2 72.4 52.11 44.6 45.3 40.7 42.91 4.5 58.7 68.1 68.4 74.11 71.61 69.11 51.31 35.8 I42.4 55.1 S4.B 67.8 74.6 70.2 68.9 47.6 36.8 68.6 64.3 68.8 73.31 71.7 69.11 52.5 42.4 67.1 58.8 73.6 74.61 70.8 64.6 50.1 39.

61.41 70.31 71.6- 77.81 7321 65.21 60.6~ 44.2 a5.41 711 70. 726 7.31 66.31 501 39.8 50.71 61.31 696 74.; 75,9 72.71 63.31 54.3 49.5, 58.71 69.7 73.7 74.6, 70.7, 6.6 63.9 50.81 59.21 V7 73.1 74.31 56.31 00.71 51.6 72.61 76.8 78.2 71A 61A 55.1

-. + _; __ _; __1 __ _1 "..I __ _

S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Rev. 0 Attachrment B Page B2

Deleware River Temperature Data Weekly Averages compiled into Specified Era Averages 1967 - 1997

., .,Jan IFeb March April May June July Aug 'Sept !Oct NOV 1 Doec

.~3. 0 363.5 62.3-62.3 67.71 77 76.3 74.9 60.3 48.6 40.4 25.6 32.4 40.8 64.7 64.6 68.3 77.9 75 72.9 55.6 432 3 26.7 33.5 41 6C0.6 61.2 71.7 60.7 76.7 71.5 60.5 48.6 37.3 33.3 39.9 39.7 49.8 62.8 74.1 77.8 70.6 69.2 60.2 48.3 34.8 36 31.8 40.6 58.3 53.8 68.4 78.1 78.81 72.6 63.51 51.11 44.a 324 34.6! 43.1 52.3 65.4 71 77.1 76.3 70.9 60.7 49.4 41.6 N:"-~- 37.7 35.9 38 54.2 68.3 74.2 79 76.7 72.4 59.8 52.6 41.5

.0 30.7 40.5 39.1 61.1 51.6 74.5 79.5 78.7 70.2 59 48.5 42.7 36 32.2 46.3 534 88.7 70.8 77.8 83.9 73.8 01.9 54.4 42.3

3. 35 45.3 48 67.41 71.6 73.8 76.7 70.3 67.2 63 37.7

__4.AiL'

.*'2" i

113iniiA

t*"i

[.*.

a00 ?A

¢*r.uI * *..,

SiA&,A EdM

-Mh.

A

=i,* .*

/.'..

7"

,;.*',p*,*

'i*,* 74.71 74.91 66,91 68.51 47.11 40.1 W;vk"r:44q 0 761 771 73.51 82.1 49.51 43.

81 73.1 75.9 72.8 67.2 47.1 41.4 41.

81 73.7 74.6 73.1 70 50.61 41 31 J

76A 77.71 70.9 68.3 49.4 37.3 80.21 76 67.5 54.7 78 AMA1 73.9 66.1 49.51 31 80.11 71.8 77. 63.61 50.21 40.5 Ej 7 7.67 57.71 52.31 41.5 AVERAGE

- t S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Rev. 0 Attachment B Page B3

Deleware River Temperature Data Weekly Averages compiled into Specified Era Averages 1967 - 1997

--- B . -- II Jon Z~bI Mac i I June I JuMy I Aug Sept I Oct Nov Doc 68.81 76.11 78.56 74.6 67. 1 49.81 44 39 44.8 51 54.5 11 71.7 I

79.11 75.1 70.31 60.1 47.4 44.3 38.1 36.8 43.3 50.3 76.7 78.7 77.2 75.3 60.8 49.6 48.3

`4~ 39.3 39.9 452 52.3 77. 60.3 77.4 74.1 59.8 52.2 41.6 28.7 35.3 432 58.3 7 60.1 53.9 41.6 41.6 38.7 40.9 52.4 71.5 82 74.73.1 1 49 41.6 29.7 38.6, 36.5 50.7 72.3 80.4

, 79.2 75.9[ 60.7 51.3 44.7 32.9 34.1 35.9 51.1 75.6 79.7 78 71.9 62.4 48.3 42.8 291 29.6 381 48.4 72.7 75.8 77.5 70.3 68.8 47 45.1 42 32.9 40.3 50.1 77.1 77.7 76.2 70.2 67.6 49.9 2.6 40.5 31.1 41.2 44.4 74.1 73.7 82.1 74.5 63.9 4.837.3 41 33.6 45.9 44.5 75.71 78.3 79.6 71.9 64.71 5 34.9 31.7 37.4 48.1 .71 74 7021 78.5 77.A 65.1 52.1 43.3 39.7 33.6 40.4 48.1 .9 77.31 77.2 79 73 68 45.7 42A 31 .1 35.6 44. 45.4 .3 88.31 76.4 77.8 71.6 67 49.9 40.3 41.3 41.3 41 50.1 .4 67.21 77.5 76.6 78 85.5 55.945.9 31.7 39.7 4.6 49.7 .6 762 76.1 77.5 76.1 68.5 50.6 47.2 39 35.1 42.7 55 .1 67.7 77.8 77.5 74.3 64.2 51.9 45.1 41.3 38.4 38.7 48.1 .4 68.5 75.9 77.5 80.1 62.2 52 47.9 40.7 29.4 356 47.5 .9 69.3 62.7 78.5 72.4 2 56.6 47.

33.1 32.5 37.5 51.7 .6, 74 81.2 82.1 76.6 62.5 54.3 42.7 37AI 30.5 37.5 49.7 2 68.5, 78.7 7.9 78.6 O8A 55.5 45.4 35.8 45. 6 63.51 79.7 78.7 72.6 62.3 52.5 42.1 41.9 49 8 74.2 77.8 76 67.6 68.7 47.6 43.9 41.3 4 .7 78 78 78.3 69.3 63 48.7 39.5 40.4 42.3 3 71.3 80.2 76.1 88.3 58.7 48.9 39.8 33.9 40.8 ,2 76.5 78 90.1 58.9 55.8 49 39 33.4 44.2 11 7878.3 75.9 68.8 69.2 48 .1 35.3 47.4 75.,6 81.5 77.- 68.1 59.4 43.91 31.0 77.4 76.e 46 .7e6 70.3 620 7.2J 40,6 45 41.2 78.5 74.41 67. 5686 5 4.44 39.3 4.21 3975 40.214. 3 76.2 75.41 71.4 b- ~,

77~ ~

ON 7. ;#

I--

I 78.7 5 78.82 3 48.44 41.01 3k5.451 4.0 S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Rev. 0 Attachment B Page B4

Delaware River Temperature Average 1967 to 1997 80 70 80 50 C

40 -- 1987 - 1997 I 30 20 10 0

/ / /

S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Rev. 0 Attachment B Page B5

Delaware River Average Temperatures for Past 20 years (1977 - 1997) 90 80 70 60 40 1-977-1979

1980 - 1989

-.- 1990- 1997 30 20

/

10 0.

6' op or je Ir / /

S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Rev. 0 Attachment 8 Page B6

Delaware Water Temps by Decade 1967 - 1997 90 80 70 60.

i 150 i

-1970 - 1979

-*r-1980 - 1989 240

- 1990 - 1997 I-30 20 10 0

/ / /

S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Rev. 0 Aftntment B Page B7

Comparison of Reedy Island and PSEG Maximum Annual Temperatures Maximum Annual Actual Maximum Annual Temperature Difference Year Temperature at Reedy Temperature from Between HC.A2438 and Island (V) HC.A2438 Reedy Island 1992 78.7 81.8 3.1 1993 82.7 85.5 2.8 1994 81.7 86A 4.7 1995 84.6 85.4 0.8 1996 80.4 82.0 1.6 1997 79.7 84.6 4.9 Average 81.3 84.3 3 AftwchmetfD ~ U 0 Pagc BS

HTC-STX Version 3.6 Timn: 90.11:16 AM Date: 4/30/02 File: Spfchx I*"Main Enallsh units Job No e No.

tem EVALUATION Case 2 Case Desciptlon SFFHX 3 TEMA Tpe BEU - HORZ Shell/Unlt I Conn In I Series I Parallel 4 Size: 33.500 In Die 146.3 in Tube Lenrth in Kettle Dim 6 SurfacsheSl fp 2,3532 Gross 2,310.3 Eft 151 U-Bend Area 6 Sudfhoe/Unit fF 2,2353.2 Gross 2,316.3 Eft"151 U-Send Area Performance of One Unit SHELLSIDE TUSESIDE 7 Fluid Circulated .,._SFPHX 8 Total Fluid In lb/hr 1,490,000.0 1,140,000.0 9 Vapor lb/hr 0.0 0.0 10 Lquid lbfr 1,49000.0 1,140.000.0 11 Fluld Vap/zCond lb/hr 0.0 0.0 12 Density In/Out 1bW.' 62.1W61.648 61.729151.841 13 Spec. Heat Vmp. Btuib-F 0.00010.997 0.00010.997 14 Visoosty Va oP 0,0010.*692 0.00010.588 15 Therm Cond Vap/Liq 1tu/ir..t-F 0.000/06.4 0.00010.370 16 Temperature In/Out "F 95.01103.0 120.01109,54 17 Operating Pressure (Abs) psi 75.000 50.000 18 Press. Drop AlowfCale psi 0.000/10.081 15.000118.933 19 Number of Posses/Sheal 1 4 20 Velocity, Average 1t/sec 4.07 9.61 21 Film Coo(. Blu/Iv-ft-F 1912,.81 2256.37 22 FouliNr Resist. hr-fW-F/Btu 0.000500 0.000575 23 HeatDuty 11,883,525 Btu/hr M'MNldCorr 14.81 OF F-CORR 0.941 24 Transfer Rate 345.99 Sern 372.11 Cale 655.32 Cean 0.00136 Foul Conmtucton of an*Sheal 25 TEMA Shell Type E Rear End Type U.T.

28 Tube Type PLAIN Bundle Die In 32.50 27 Tube O.D in 0.750 :No. Holes/TubeSheet 920 28 Tube 1.0 In 0.652 No. Holes Counted 29 Area Ratio .1.150 Tube Pich In 0.9375 30 Tube Length Total It 12.19 Tube Layout Angle 30 31 Tube Length Effective ft 12.00 knplngement Plate NO 32 Baffle Type VERT-DBL-SEo Crosspasses/Shell S 33 Baffle Cut, Frec Dla/NFA 0.160/0.200 Central Spacing In 181558 34 Window Area In= 94.0941 InfOut Sparinc In 23.9A.2 35 Seal Strips YES Drop Under Noz In/Out In 1.7/1.7 Shell Nozzlas Inlet Outlet Tube Nozzles Inle Outlet 36 Inside Die, in 10.00 10.00 Inside Dth. in 10.00 10.00 37 Veloty fMsee 12.23 12.25 Velocity ft/sec 9.41 9.39 38 Rho-V-Sqr IblM-esee 280 9296 Rho-V-Sr Ibft-sBe. 5461 6451 309 Nozzles/She"1 (OPP. SIDE) 1 1 Shalielde Performance Pressure Drop 40 Bundle Flow Fraction 0.761 Shell Cross,'Wlnd 4.378/4.408 41 Mass Vol CrmasM/Ind 252.1627.4 Tubes 17.750 42 Mass Vol Lonty~ean 125.51397.7 Nozzles Shell/Tube Z.19511.18.*l Bundle Diameter Clearnceas Tube Metal Temperatures 43 Bundle-Shell. In 1.000 Ava. Tube Metal Temp. IF 106.8 44Baffle-Shea In 0,18750 Shellslde Av6gSurf. Tamp oF 102.0 45 Tube-Baffle In 0.03625 Tubeside Avg. Surf Temp 'F 111.6 46 Bafe Thk. in 0,313 _1 Atltahment C Page CI

I** Summary "*...English untirs Roem No Ser.01c $FPKXj Calculation Modhs Versio HeI-tX 13,6 83.5251:1 Evaluaiston Case" A Date1 44.300 F Fcr 0.940 Si~m 34 x 148 "NM BEaU -,,HORZ Connections 1 ,Series J, 1 Paralle sufa.cefnint 2,319 Shlshe,* t I Surf/ha 2,316t.35s CostJunl 42,668 CoWStuff 18A4 WelghtfShe'll 9,531 Heast Duty 11,88,525, M'rO 14..61. F.OrT 0.11409 -

Rate-ServAce 345.99 Calculated 37211 Cole Fouline 0,00136 Shalt Tubes Tubes 0,750 x O.049 an 0.9375 30 Mg~

Flow Rate 1490000 1140000 Tube No 920 Type: PLAIN TemMratum in 95.0 120.0 MaffIes: VERT DOL.-.SEG 16.86 pace 20.0 cut Tempeatu1 m Out 103.0 109.5 Pressure 0rop ... 1 18.033 Surface Ar.. OK. Overdeplan by 7.55%

Velocity. 4M06 9..11 ShaelF pnssure Drop 'AIlowabl excee ded.

PICsse, 1 4 Tube Pressure Drop Allowable exceeded.

Film Coef. 1812.8 2256.4 Vibration 'Tube vibration like,/.

Nozzle In I x 10.0 10.0 Shell Nozzles

Rho-V-Sow exceeds 4000 Nozzle Out I x 10.0 10.0 Clhan Nozzles OK. Rho.V-Sqr wItNn 8000 Attnchmcn C Page C2

vpp Fi PtRIFORMANCE (PE~R UNIT)___________

F VAPOI LBAI/Ul t oww-ý4OZNIS1.LM 63/11 ______________

LI/Hl ________________________________________of._

£Tz~p~A"M! Mt 01____________ _____or.____

____ ___ ___ __1 v&D'cx1rust CU.". or. Sc PRSXC ESE Psi._ I6" _ __ _ __ _ _

Mons PA.rT -R - REC. M. s04 PHCSSr CC.CA#4C

- RP - ITU1i. -TZOV La /a ___ ___ __ ___ __

DOULIUGUX F&CA , CCCIC Z.'

?UA*SPCR XArg.StIMICE

MIALD

CC COM37RUCT WN rts'. oecssuse -PSIC.

nits- me. ",gig 0. 0. 5/' aw$ Lgt'w p' AV.j-gs zsic r 771-T&

Jj;; 'T'. /!% 1,~OIf

a. Sa.t -~, M(

CNNN n' N.IC I P&I#CIN C I 0. AVI -4* ^I

.? NG. - IN! NU.gM41Laa~a1 Mr. fMOA 2C OIL 4

~ 3.~ VflW.IAC P&KL6& SJ~

WT -%IE5 -CiA SKELL 6 A5URCS I I L "' 5d 6.J"I. VWh.&. %a~ -. I. ý* ý .

~~Sa4.a.S4m4wI -1 * &W R ;- rTlm J~~~

Avo ,, P.L a~ coat. c. 4 IrCOK

-~~~m AW WUNOOOMI I I u0 I go~mcwclt 13 A-

@II L I' aaLna p S.O.S ai sea*6. 668*4

.v a ~%

1' a...-. e.. ~ L- I I I~xer' .' or I..,.

LZ.

ft-- PG. I&;tj ftcltem 1.

Attachment C Page C3

HT--STX VYwain 3,6 Time: 212:11 PM Dats: W/122002 Fie: stphx-7lcwSr%-158

" SIummm y,. Enarih ungs ,

1tm No Senie *;FPHX-?IOCtnWe, C.alculaflon Made Raft OneCs SIZe 34 K,141 TWOe BEV - HORZ Connecdons 11Sarin I poralwa

$uprfscaA~nlt 2.179 Shds/uil I SutfMShef 2,179.24 Coetu/lt 41.g08co f 18,01 1%ghowsholl a.2m HeowDUtv 43,8.300 yr 64AI 0o64 ..

AIM.Mg _708lu GIF46" ae-t -clo s_ _ Tou Tub" Tu.as_._0 x 0.o.049_on0..37'30 Flo Rote" .. 1,0 22271a Tub No s8e Tww: PLAIN Tomrmtuem In 71.0 160.9 aflles: VERT DBL-SEG 11.6 soawe 22.0 cul T.apemtum Out 1001 125.4 Pemsr Orop IoA13 4,438 .SLdaceAma "oUnderdera *by .91%

v yatc 4.215 5~.642 ShalltnrsuurerOm "Alloablexceeded, Fosse 1. 1 2 TubePMessuis Di OK. W* al*owable.

Film Cod. 207.0 173D.5 vS*J,. "Tube vibra.in uIk,.

In. t 10.0 ShdAl Nomdes 'Rho-V-Scw Ma2 e 4000 N~~~10OuM.~lL. jJl Can mozzles "Iwmtp.V-Sr mcoods 6000 Attachmen C Page C4

Ratem No10 .. LTbeN 8 LI n

alm~toert~ Mods. Rafin CaaeseR B-E 1. ~ce2. u sin x5.140 34~w TWO REU - HORZ Oonnedow I __________

Fk ate t x150.0 1740.0 Tuben Nozze 0 K. Rho-Va PLAINn00 4-d-F-#ni~qedv eeir-o Attachment C Page Cs

HTC-STX Vrslon 3.6 Tnm.: 1"5:60 PM Date: 111122002 Flrw

" M SmrvEralshunits Serilce SFPHX-71CInOIet Calculatln Mode Reno Case Sm ,34x 146 Typoe PEU -HORZ Conn2eins I Swios I Parall SurfaceA~nIt 2,170 Shaflaenst 1 Suri/Shler 2o17.24

,os]Unn 41XS CostrSwf 18.*1 Welohnihldell 9,236 Heat Duty 42,071.I,4 MT) 54,.7

,T'o' 0)470 into-S o,* 2,82.8 I~.Iem-'o"O 258.01 alfc Feutsn oi0011

__________________ Shelf Tvb. Tubes 0.75 x 0,049 on D.9376 30 dmg Flow RatPo 15 00 1222718 Tbe No Oft Tyvg: PLAIN Temperature In 71.0 160.0 Beftls: VERT DBL-SFG 16.5 spaew 22.0 cut Temperature Ot J.J 125.3 Pressure Drag 104_12 4.459 Surface Area OK, Over deslgn by -14%

yoitv 4.214 5.840 Shell vwu Drop " Allowable exeeded.

Passes. 1 L Tube EguMM DMg OK. WihIn saowmbl.

Film Cost. 2D43.5 1725.7 Vibrollon "Tube vibralion liklcy.

Nozzle In , J0.0 1,0 , ShelfNozz es ,, "Rho-V4-rvem-*edWs400O Nozzle Out 1510,0, 1 10.0 1hu Nozzles " Rho-V-Sotr c. ed o000 Alwthm= C Pate CIS

'wmveat 34 x 16 To .....

SU ZL. Bamwfes; IERDLSeGe 18. Paralle.lc S~nofff Out 201.7 JhNW -jJJ ,102 qloseltv 41-M Owl oIr1re.su1 DrDAwalbleTII med2d F4bnF 3q 0 01 S~aba CTeFdts IO Nozzle n lx 100 J~9shell NozazTu es hVSrxud40 Ttmgrtue~ !a 71.0 17.0Jj B~affl zzes;VERho-V-Ba exceeds 8000W Attachment C Page C7

HTC-STX Version 3.6 Time: 1:43.40 PM DetO 6/12=2D02 file opx-71cv8%

, Summary , . Enalsh umb ritem No Service SFPHX.-710loCrat Calculala, Mode Ratoa Case sto $4Sx 146 Two . EU.HORZ Conections I Swis Paralle SurfacelUnif 2.179 Sheldua I SUrlISheal 2.A79,24 CostAMft 41,... Cou-tSLr e.S911 WeohtSW ,236 "Got Dufty 83,116,171 mm eD 610 F-co 0.9401 Rea't-Smyec 3R,'76 d Cateulat- 364.5 - r Falbo (IM0113 Shoff TJJ1L Tubeu 0,70x0.049oan0.1375 30do Flow Rate 16011"a 1213M55 jube No ads Tvye: PLAIN Tornvaratma In 71,0 160,0 Baffles: VERT DBL-SEG 16.5 arses 22.0 ut Tampoelpt" Out 108 ...... 1 _.0 Nossure D*mop 0402 4.379 Surfaca Am OK. Oyer d*ulon by-1.1%

~~-~~oclt22 I8.871 Shellressure Ores -Aloal ueid pms I J!.

2 Tube Preasum Drop OK. WMthin Awambe.

Fl*.Coef. 2088.7 187" Vibratimon Tube vtraonWsy.

No221 In 1x 10.0 10,8 Sel Nozzles " Rho-.V-Sgr emad, 4000 Nazmle Out 1 10,0 J a Chnm Nozzles " Rho.V-So *x,,,ds 6000 Mtahme C Page CS

HTC-STX Versioni 3.6 Thie: 4:01-40 PM Date: 611212002 Fio: mlphx-7lcc".%-3SB

ý 6 ryEnuallsh ifit Sealie SFPHX-71CC~net Oalculfflon Mode R#tia Case size 34 x 148 Twoe DEU-NORZ Connections 1 Sam~s Iprefel

~ ~ ,7 Iufc hegfshjnt I Su vheff 2170,24

~ ~

cot jGCoest/S 111.91 WelahtMshe -- (1.238 eaatDuty $0,407.980 LMh 39.67 Fewr 09506

- Caid "ACale aON Shs .Ii bt L sT0.750 Mx0.0on 0,9375 30 dm How Rat 15016W 12327" Tube No see Type. PLAIN Teprtr n71.0 M3M. Was* VERT DBL-SEG 15.5 space 22.0 cut M

Temartue 1. iaau Pressure Dro 10.428 4M67 5rfmacsArea "Under Ossiin bx-2,31%

veloity4.197. 4& .8 Shefl ressm Orco Allowable .CTeded.

¶lse 1** Tube Pressure Orco OK. WithIn aflloable.

_______Cod,___ 1988.9 1 14L Viba Vn "Tube vibratin Mkel

_____________In_ I x 10.0 10.0 She11 Navies " Rbgy-V-Sgr gmods 4000 Nots utI x100 10.0 lChan Naz~le "Rho.V-S . r exceeds 600 s-C - sr- A'We-M7 jve.

Attachmenl C Page C9

HiC-SIX Version U. Tkno: 2:1918 PI DatW. W1212002 File: sfphx-7lcmwS%-t49

" Su~mmary , Englhsh units Itom No S~ervice SFPH&-Lico~nlst SIS34 x 148 Type PEU . HORZ Cwmedcian I Swriesspr SU112guintt 2,170 She1Is~mN 1 SuyViSholl 2,179.24 ostlUnit 411206 00st/surf 18901 WgdalgIsIhel 0.2"8 Hieat Duty 29,943."D0 --- 44.18 - Fvcor 0.936 SMAS2 Cale Fooffnp 660111

.a1hL.. Tubes Tubes 2.M6x 0.049 on 0,0378 30 dog Kim ____________ 1801800 ?38 Tube No to6 Tmee pAN Torm _____r________In 71.0 14. Samols: VERT DBL-SEG '16.5 space 22.0 aut Dro

______________ IA27 I. surface Ake OK. Over daslon by -1.45%

_____________ 4.116 3,382 'ShenPressure Prop ~AIlowbIomc.ded.

page"_1_2_____________ OK. WatI salwable Film _____________ 1979.0 193, VIbration Tybe vibration Ikely, Nonds I I K10.0 109 ~.0 GtNozzEs "Rbo.-Sor-f exceeds 4000 NODozeOut I w10.0 0. Ohatn Nozzfes OK, Rho-V-Stur wMLtn 6000 Anahmem C Page CIO

Btii LEO Temp SFPC HX Capability vs. Pool Temp (CCW at 70F) 22.0 125 25.1 32.1 149 200 22.0 115 32.0 135 44.0 153 180 50.I 170 54.7 160 140 I-.- Tempi CL 120 E

100 80 60 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 Btuthr x E6 iee&v.D Attncbint C Pare oil

SFP Evaporation Losses SFP Only w/TRF Pool Temp Btulhr(E6) Btu/hr (E6) 149 0.86 1.118 160 1.2 1.56 165 1.57g 2.0527 170 2.05 2.665 175 2.9 3.77 179 3.64 4.732 10 c"I' .. ........

180 3.87 5.031 190 6.3 8.19 ..

20O 9.41 12.233 . .....

.*~~

. U.i o.. . ... :Ah =

14 50 10 17 80 10 20 1 S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Revision 1 ATTACHMENT D Page 1of I

DOCUMENTED TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Reference 5.2 Date: 5/2/02 From: Glen Schwartz, PSEG Fuels To: Ted DelGaizo, MLEA Inc.

Subject:

Future Refueling Plans

1. Based on current projections, Salem Station will replace 76 spent fuel assemblies during upcoming refueling outages. Consequently, at the end of each cycle, the core would contain the following types of assemblies:

76 assemblies with 1 operating cycle 76 assemblies with 2 operating cycles 41 assemblies with 3 operating cycles 193 total assemblies S-C-SF-MEE-1 679 Rev. 0 ATTACHMENT E Page El 04 S

DOCUMENTED TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Reference 5.4 Date: 5/3/02 From: Glenn Schwartz, PSEG Fuels To: Ted DelGaizo, MLEA Inc.

Subject:

Spent Fuel Pool Information

1. There are currently 920 fuel assemblies in the Unit 1 pool as of 1R14 (April 2001) and 812 elements in the Unit 2 pool as of 2R12 (April 2002).

2. Refueling was performed during the recent past Salem outages as shown below Off-Load Started Off-Load Complete Re-Load Started RIR3 9/28/99 at 1855 10/1/99 at 0607 10/8/99 at 0411 IRI4 4/14/01 at 1508 4116/01 at 2044 4Q26/01 at 1811 2RI0 4/14/99 at 0527 4/16/99 at 1549 4M28/99 at 1930 2RI I 10/16/00 at 0104 10/18/00 at 0616 10/24/00 at 0807 S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Rev. 0 ATfACHMENT E Page E2 ,

DOCUMENTED TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Reference 5.8 Date: 5/6102 From: Kevin King, PSEG Engineering To: Ted DelGaizo, MLEA Inc.

Subject:

CCW Temperatures with Shutdown Conditions Question: Based upon shutdown conditions with Service Water inlet temperature at 66*F and approximately 4 x 107 Btu/hr of heat duty, what is the CCW outlet temperature according to the ProtoFlo model of the CCW system.

Answer: With on SW/CCW heat exchanger in operation, the CCW outlet temperature is approximately 70F higher than the inlet SW temperature. If both CCW heat exchangers are operating and sharing the heat duty, the CCW temperature is approximately 3°F higher than SW temperature.

S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Rev. 0 ATTACHMENT E Page E3 ,

Ted DelGaizo From: King, Kevin C. [Kevin.King@pseg*com]

Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 5:32 PM To: Ted DelGatzo (E-mail)

Subject:

CC temperature confirmation Ted I ran my P-Flo model, and got the following resulta with 1 and 2 BFHXs. For both caases, SW temp - 660F, SW flow - 10000 gpm, CC flow to 5FnX - 3000 gpm.

I SgFX (Q = 44 K~tU/hr) :

UFP flow - 2500 gpi SFP temp - 161.8°F CC temp = 69.37F 2 BFHXs (Q - 22 MBtu/hr per hx):

SFP flow - 1740 gpm SFP temp a 121.09F CC temp w 67.79F Thus your assumption for 70OF CC temp is valid (and slightly conservative).

Kevin 9e eis0 d\l4AIz I lt.ý

REFERENCE 5.12 Ted DelGaizo From: Wathey, Thomas R. [Thomas.Wathey@pseg.com]

Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 12:58 PM To: Ted DelGaizo; Schwartz, Glenn S.

Subject:

RE: Assumptions for S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Here Isthe Information for #7:

IR17 - 59h 10m 2R14 - 42h 39m IR16-41h 32m 2R13 -41h 51m IRIS - 48h 2R12 - 47h 45m Note that with anticipated changes over the next couple of years to both the Tech Spec (100 hours0.00116 days 0.0278 hours 1.653439e-4 weeks 3.805e-5 months to move fuel after shutdown) and equipment upgrades, the total time from shutdown to fully offloaded could be in the 120 hr timeframe versus 142 hr currently.

The following is for #8:

There am currently 1137 fuel assemblies in the Unit 1 SFP (as of I.17 in October 2005) and 964 fuel assemblies in the Unit 2 pool (as of 2Rl4 in April 2005).

S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Revision 1 ATTACHMENT E Page 5 of 5

S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Rev. 0 Attachmcnt F CC Temperature Assumption Validation Preparer: Kevin King Date: 5/16/02 Reviewer: Ted Delgaizo Date: 5/16/02

1.0 PURPOSE

To determine the CC inlet temperature to the SFHX (CC supply temperature) based on the SFP heat load and SW temperature requirements specified in Section 2.

2.0 INPUTS/ASSUMPTIONS:

2.1 SW temperature = 660F [- 630 (Reedy Island historical data) + 30 (Reedy Island to plant intake) - Calc, Section 3.6]

2.2 SW flow to CCHXs 110000 gpm (max allowable flow). For the plate CCHX (#12),

this is 5000 gpm per each half.

2.3 CC flow to SFHX = 3000 gpm (Catc, Section 3.2.3) 2.4 The tube and shell CCHX (#1 I) is assumed to be 2% plugged (Reference 3.2, Section 2

3.3.6). No. tubes - 3400*0.98 = 3332; Surface area = 16954

0.98 = 16615 ft .

2.5 The SFHX is modeled as a fixed heat load. The required SFHX heat load from Calculation Section 3.6 is 44 MBtu/hr (I SFHX aligned) and 22 MBtu/hr (2 SFHXs aligned). For the two SFHX condition, it is assumed that the total SFP heat load is split equally between the two SFHXs.

3,0

REFERENCES:

3.1 S-I-CC-MDC-1788, Rev. 0, Component Cooling System Thermal-Hydraulic Model (Unit 1) 3.2 S-I-CC-MDC-1817, Rev. 2, Component Cooling System Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis- Unit 1 3.3 S-C.CC-MDC-1798, Rev. 2, Component Cooling System Heat Exchangers 3.4 Procedure S1.OP-SO.RHR-0001, Rev. 14, Initiating RHR Page I of 6

S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Rev. 0 Attachment F CC Temperature Assumption Validation Preparer: Kevin King Date: 5/16/02 Reviewer: Ted Delgaizo Date: 5/16/02

4.0 METHODOLOGY

The Unit I CC 'I.ermal-Hydraulic Model developed per Reference 3.1 will be used for this analysis. The default model database "S ICCRO.dbd" from Reference 3.1 will be the baseline database. A new working database "S I CCRO - Refueling.pdb" will be created for this analysis, and will be saved as default database "SICCRO - Refueling.dbd".

Approach:

1. Set the CC model alignment to match actual field conditions.

2. Input the known parameters from Section 2.0 into the model.

3. Run model, and determine the CC System supply temperature (SFHX inlet)'.

12 CCHX modeling:

The 12 CCHX is a plate type heat exchanger. It is modeled in Proto-Flo as a UA-counter flow type heat exchanger since the current version of Proto-Flo cannot plate type heat exchangers. That is, a fixed U value is inputted into the model. This requires a trial and error solution within Step 3 above to determine U, using the plate CCHX model developed per Reference 3.3, as follows:

I. Perform an initial run of the system model to determine the CC flows to each halt'of the plate CCHX.

2. Input the CC flows determined from above, SW flow (5000 gpm per halo, SW inlet temperature (661F) and an initial estimate of the CC inlet temperature into the plate CCHX model.

3. Run the plate CCHX model to determine the U values.

4. Input the U values into the system model.

5. Run system model.

6. Repeat until U values and CC inlet temperatures agree.

Page 2 of 6

S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Rev. 0 Attachment F CC Temperature Assumption Validation Preparer: Kevin King Date: 5/16/02 Reviewer: Ted Delgaizo Date: 5/16/02 5.0 ANALYSISo Discussion This analysis will use the CC System Thermal-Hydraulic Model, which will perform a thermal balance between the CCHXs and the SFHX. The CC system temperatures are determined by Proto-Flo as a result of this thermal balancing. By setting the SW flow to the CCHXs to the maximum value of 10000 gpm, the resultant CC supply temperature (CCHX CC outlet temperature) represents the minimum temperature for a given heat load and SW temperature. Thus if the CC supply temperature is set in the field at a value less than this, the setpoint value could not be maintained as the flow controls would limit SW flow to 10000 gpm.

System Alignment The Normal Operations alignment from the default model database NS I ccr0.dbd", which has two pumps aligned to the entire system, except the RHRHXs, is modified as follows:

I. The BAE Package is isolated by closing valve ICC4S. This is in accordance with Reference 3.4, which isolates the BAE Package prior to initiating RHR.

2. Letdown -IX(LDHX) temperature control valve ICC7I is closed, as letdown is isolated during shutdown modes.

3. The containment isolation valves are closed, as the containment loads are isolated during shutdown modes. This includes: ICCI 13 & ICC215 (Excess LDHX); ICC 117, ICCI 18, ICC!31, 1CC136, 1CC197 & ICCI90 (RCPs)

4. The RHRHX isolation valves (1 l&12 CC16) remain closed as RHR is not required after a full core offload.

5. Flow to the SFHX is set to 3000 gpm by establishing throttle valve ICC37 as the flow balancing parameter.

6. With the above valve alignments, only one CC pump is required - 13 CC Pump is selected. Since flow to the SFHX is being set to a specific value, the pump curve to be used is not critical - the "benchmark" curve is selected.

7. All heat exchanger heat loads are set to 0, except the CCHXs and SFHX. The parameters for these HXs (flows, temperatures, 12 CCHX Us) are inputted.

Page 3 of 6

S-C-SF-MEE-t 679 Rev. 0 Auachment F CC Temperature Assumption Validation Preparer: Kevin King Date: 5/16/02 Reviewer: Ted Delgaizo Date: 5/16/02 Results Cases were run with both one and two SFHXs and with both one and two CCHXS. Since Unit I has one tube and shell CCHX and one plate type CCHX, separate cases were run with each individual CCHX. A summary of the pertinent results are included below, The complete Pwto-Flo reports are saved as report files, and are included on the disk included with this evaluation. The 12 CCHX spreadsheet model results arm included on pages 5 and 6 of this attachment.

Case CCI-Xs # SFHXs Qsnvc CC supply (MBtu/hr) temperature (OF)

I 11&12 1 44 6993 2 11 1 44 75.0 3 12 1 44 74.5 4 11 & 12 2 22 67.7 S 11 2 22 70.7 6 12 2 22 70.6

6.0 CONCLUSION

The minimum CC supply temperature with a SFP heat load of 44 MBtu/hr and a SW temperature of 66*F is as follows:

CCHXs #SFHXs CC supply temperature (OF) 2 1 69.3 1 1 75.0 2 2 67.7 1 2 70.7 Page 4 of 6

S-C-SF-MEE-1679, Rev. 0 Attachment F EXCE S~ odsled for 12 CC Evaluation - L Ful Corm pFP 11 & 12 CCHXs: I SFHX 11 & 12 CCHXs; 2 SFHXs A hf B haft Total A half B haft TotlW SW CC SW CC- SW CC SW CC kflttmV rF) 66.00 91.37 66.00 91.37 66.00 78.80 66.00 78.80 Outet ftmp (T) 70.61 69A4 70.64 89.47 68.32 67.82 68.33 67.84 mans Mow vbJh" 2Z521,178 630,990 2.521.178 535.008 2,521,178 533,600 2,521,178 537.124 Voluief.-Flow (gn) 5000 1057 5000 1065 5000 1060 5M0 1067 0.001000 0.001000 0.001000 0.001000 Prpees:

Tiny ('F) 88.31 80.40 68.32 80.42 67.16 73.31 67.17 73.32 62.88 62.83 62.86 62.83 62.86 62.76 62.88 62.76 DenaIty@QTav lbNft') 62.84 52.21 62.84 62.21 62.85 62.27 62.85 62.27 cp (Bftuflr-F) 1.0008 0.999M 1.0008 0.9998 1.0006 1.0O03 1.0006 1.0003 k (lbtur-t-OF) 0.3483 0.3547 0,3484 0-3547 0.3478 0.3515 0.3478 0.3515 2.473 2.054 2.473 2.064 2.512 22 2.512 22M59 Kliemaftivisc (ft2 s) 1.03E-05 9.217E106 1.093E-05 9.215E-M8 1.110E-05 1.008&-05 1,11iE-05 1.008E-05 Pr 7.106 5.820 7.105 5.818 7.227 A.431 7.227 6.430 Film Resilsanoew.

Ve y (ws) 1.631 0.345 1.631 0.347 1.631 0.34 1.631 0.348 Re 4475 1122 4477 1131 4408 1029 4408 1038 Nu 128.22 40.35 12823 40.59 127.58 3926 127.56 39.45 h (trft--F) 1488.9 477.0 1489.0 479.9 1478.8 460.0 1478.9 462.4 C (BkW/P'F) 2.523,314 530107 2,523,320 534,924 2,522,809 533.771 2.522,812 537296 C,. (Bhfh-'F) 530,907 534,924 533,771 537,296 C6. (Bb,*r-'F) 2,523.314 2.523=320 2,522X809 2,522.812 r (C, w/,m) 02104 0.2120 0.2116 0.2130 R (hr-fe-'Fft,)

0.0037m19 0.0039594 0.0O40542 0.0040430 U(lbftr-'F) 251.8 252.6 246.7 247.3 NTU 22727 2.2668 2.2186 22101 0.8645 0.8631 0.8578 G.8564 LMM('F) 9.63 9.66 4.95 4.96 Q(MB'wM 1 11.64 1 11.71 23.36 5.86 5.89 11.75 Page 5 of 6

S-C-SF-MEE-1679, Rev. 0 Attachment F EXCEL Somadsheet for 12 CCHX Evatluion - FML Funl Corns SFP DM OW 12 CCHX on-y I SFHX 12 CCHX ont, 2 SFHXs Ahlf B half Totl A half B haff Total SSW CC SW CC sw CC sw cc viet tem ('F) Wi.00 96.91 68.00 96.91 68.00 82.02 66.00 62.02 O, e ('F) 74.73 74.60 74.78 74.66 70.49 70.60 70.50 70.62 Mass lwM (IbnW 2,521,178 988,110 2,521,178 994,132 2,521.178 991.204 2,521,178 997,242 Vlmeti Fow (gpm) 5000 1989 5000 1981 5000 170 5000 1982 Foulig (tw'.1-IFJIf) 0.001000 0.001000 0.001000 0.001000 P, werti,:

Tmtg (0F) 70.36 85.76 70.38 85.78 68.24 76.31 68.25 76.32 62.88 52.56 62.86 v2.56 62.86 62.73 62.86 82.73 62.83 62.16 62.83 62.16 62.85 62.25 a2.85 6225 cp (9t, 0 0-F) 1.0012 0.9995 1.0012 0.9995 1.0008 1.0001 1.0008 1.0001 k(9tufhrfl-'F) 0.3493 0.3570 0.3493 0.3570 0.3483 0,3528 0.3483 0.3529 Dymilc vim MdW) 2.406 1.934 2.406 1.934 2.475 2.174 2.475 2.173 Kinemeat vise (ttis) 1.064E-05 8,644E-06 1.04E--05 8.642E-06 1.,04E-05 9.700E-05 1.094E-05 9.8SE-M06 Pr e.896 5.416 6.895 5.414 7.113 6.181 7.112 6.160 FOm Resibntw.

Ve ,ty(fft) 1.631 0.642 1.831 0.648 1.631 0.643 1.631 0.647 Re 4000 2229 4601 2244 4472 1988 4473 2000 Nu 129A1 66.87 129.42 67.20 128.19 64.40 128.19 64.71 h w-tft-IF) 1506.9 795.8 1507.1 799.6 1488.3 757A 1488.4 751.1 C (Bthdr--'F) 2,524,232 987,660 2,524=239 993,678 2,523,28= 991,311 2,523,290 997,348 C.i (Bhft-PF) 987,660 M93.678 991,311 997,348 C.U(B hr-t'-F) 2,524,232 2,524,239 223286 2.523=90 0.3913 0,3937 0.3929 0.J53 R(h-fe-'Flt) 0.0031243 0.0031181 0.0031961 0.O31898 U(nf-'-F) 320.1 320.7 312.9 313.5 NTU 1.5559 1.5495 1.5153 1.5091 Effectvesnm 0.7217 0.7200 0.7131 0.7114 LMT (-F) 14.34 14.38 T.54 7.55 Q(MNth 22.03 22.11 44.14 11.33 - 1137 22.69 Page 6 of 6

NC.NA-AS.ZZ-0059(Q)

FORM-1 REGULATORY CHANGE PROCESS DETERMINATION Document I.D.: S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Revision: 1 Calculation

Title:

SFP Cooling Capability with Core Off-Load Starting 85-Hrs after SD Page I of 4 Activity

Description:

The activity evaluates the capability of the spent fuel pool cooling system to maintain fuel pool temperatures within UFSAR requirements (149°F with both heat exchangers and 1800F with one SFP heat exchanger) If In-vessel decay is reduced from 100-hours to 85-hours during the period October 15e to May W5.h The activity is Intended to provide the basis for a licensing change request In order to change the Salem TS to require an 85-hour decay period rather than 100-hours.

Note that motre than one process may 2ppy. ff unsure of any answ contact tc&nzant dartmnt torguidance.

Activities Affected Yes No Action

1. Does the proposed activity Involve a change to the Technical If Yes, contact Licensing. See NOTE In Specifications or the Operating License? 0 0 Section 4.1.1. LCR No. (later)

The intention of the activity Is to change

_the technical specifications.

2. Does the proposed activity Involve a change to the Quality IfYes, contact Quality Assessment.

Assurance Plan? Example:

0 Changes to Chapter 17.2 of UFSAR

3. Does the proposed activity Involve a change to the Security if Yes, contact Security Department.

Plan? Examoles:

" Change program in NC.NA-AP.ZZ-0033(Q)

" Change Indoor/outdoor security lighting

" Placement of component or structure (permanent or temporary) within 20 feet of perimeter fence I] S

" Obstruct field of view from any manned post

" Interfere with security monitoring device capability

Change access to any protected or vital area

" Modify safeguards systems or equipment Does the proposed activity Involve a change to the IfYes, contact Emergency Preparedness Emergency Plan? Examples:

" Change ODCM/accident source term

" Change liquid or gaseous effluent release path

" Affect radiation monitoring Instrumentation or EOP/AOP setpoints used In classifying accident severity 0 [

" Affect emergency response facilities or personnel, including control room

" Affect communications, computers, Information systems or Met tower

5. Does the proposed activity Involve a change to the ISI If Yes, contact Engineering Programs Program Plan? Example: ISI/IST.

Affect Nuclear Class 1, Z or 3 Piping, Vessels, or 0 [

Supports (Guidance In NC.CC-AP.ZZ-0007(Q))

Nuclear Common Rev. I1I

NC.NA-AS.ZZ-0059(Q)

FORM-1 REGULATORY CHANGE PROCESS DETERMINATION Document I.D.: S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Revision: I Calculation

Title:

SFP Cooling Capability with Core Off-Load Starting B5-Hrs after SD Page 2 of 4 Activities Affected Yes No Action

6. Does the proposed activity Involve a change to the IST If Yes, contact Engineering Programs Program Plan? Example: ISI/1ST.

Affect the design or operating parameters of a Nuclear 3 0 Class 1, 2, or 3 Pump or Valve (Guidance in NC.CC-AP.ZZ-0007(Q))

7. Does the proposed activity involve a change to the Fire If Yes, contact Design Engineering.

Protection Program? Examples:

Change program In NC.DE-PS.Z-0001(Q)

" Change combustible loading of safety related space

" Change or affect fire detection system 13 0

Change or affect fire suppression system/component

Change fire doors, dampers, penetration seal or barriers

" See NC.CC-AP2Z-0007 for details

Change or affect FFP compensatory measures I

. Does the proposed activity Involve Maintenance, which If Yes, process in accordance with restores SSCs to their original design and configuration? NC.WM-APZZ-0001(Q)

Examples:

" CM or PM activity

Implements an approved Design Change?

" Troubleshooting (which does not require 50.59 screen per SH.MD-AP.ZZ-0002)

. Is the proposed activity a temporary change (T-Mod), which If Yes, contact Engineering.

meets all the following conditions?

Directly supports maintenance and Is NOT a compensatory measure to ensure SSC operability.

Will be In effect at power operation less than 00 days.

Plant will be restored to design configuration upon 0 0 completion.

SSCs will NOT be operated In a manner that could Impact the function or operability of a safety related or Important-to-Safety system.

Nuclear Common Rev. 11

NC.NA-AS.ZZ-0059(Q)

FORM-I REGULATORY CHANGE PROCESS DETERMINATION Document I.D.: S.C-SF-MEE-1679 Revision: I Calculation

Title:

SFP Cooling Capability with Core Off-Load Starting 85-Hrs after SD Page 3 of 4 Activities Affected Yes No Action

10. Does the proposed activity consist of changes to f Yes, process In accordance with maintenance procedures, which do NOT affect SSC design, C.NA-AP2ZZ-0001(Q) performance, operation or control?

Note: Procedure information affecting SSC design, performance, operation or control, including Tech Spec I] [

required surveillance and inspection, requires50.59 screening. Examples Include acceptance criteria for valve stroke times or other SSC function, torque values, and types of materials (e.g., gaskets, elastomers, lubricants, etc.)

11. Does the proposed activity Involve a minor UFSAR change If Yes, process in accordance with (including documents Incorporated by reference)? NC.NA-AP.ZZ-0035(Q)

Examoles:

0 Refohnatting, simplification or clarifications that do not change the meaning or substance of Information a Removes obsolete or redundant information or excessive detail

Corrects Inconsistencies within the UFSAR 0 Minor correction of drawings (such as mislabeled ID)

12. Does the proposed activity Involve a change to an If Yes, process In accordance with Administrative Procedure (NAP, SAP or DAP) governing the NC.NA-AP.ZZ-0001(Q) and conduct of station operations? Examoles: LI 0 NC.DM-AP.ZZ-0001(Q)

Organization changes/position titles

" Work control modification processes

13. Does the proposed activity involve a change to a regulatory If Yes, contact Ucensing.

commitment? -O

14. Does the activity Impact other programs controlled by If Yes, process In accordance with regulations, operating license or Tech Spec? Examles: applicable procedures such as:

Chemical Controls Program NC.NA-AP.ZZ-0038(Q)

" NJ "Right-to-knowN regulations NC.LR-AP.ZZ-O037(Q)

" OSHA regulations E] 0

" NJPDES Permit conditions

" State and/or local building, electrical, plumbing, storm water management or 'other" codes and standards

" IOCFR20 occupational exposure Nuclear Common Rev. 11

NC.NA-AS.ZZ-0059(Q)

FORM-1 REGULATORY CHANGE PROCESS DETERMINATION Document I.D.: S-C-SF-MEE-1679 Revision: I Calculation

Title:

SFP Cooling Capability with Core Off-Load Starting 85-Hrs after SD Page 4 of 4 Activities Affected Yes No Action

15. Does the proposed activity affect the Independent Spent IfYes, contact Uicensing and Initiate the Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) or the Dry Cask Storage 10CFR72.48 screening process per System (DCSS) or their analyses? Examples: NC.NA-AS.ZZ-0041 (NAS-41).

Affect the spent fuel canisters or casks a Affect the method of lifting, rigging or transporting DCSS a Challenge Spent Fuel Pool level limits or reactivity limits

Affect fire hazard analyses for the Heavy Haul Path a Affect procedures for DCSS operation or ISFSI activities

16. Has the activity already received a 10CFR50.59 Screen or Take credit for 10CFR50.59 Screen or Evaluation under another process? Examples: Evaluation already performed.

" Calculation

Design Change Package or OWD change [ 0

" Procedure for a Test or Experiment

DR/Nonconformance

Incorporation of previously approved UFSAR change

17. Is the proposed change a change to a Chemistry procedure If YES, no 50.59 Screen Is required as described In paragraph 4.1.7? 0 1 If any other program or regulation may be affected by the proposed activity, contact the department Indicated for further review Inaccordance with the governing procedure. If responsible department determines their program is not affected, attach a written explanation.

If ALL of the answers on the previous pages are "No," then check A below:

A. [ ] None of the activity Iscontrolled by any of the processes above, therefore -a10CFR50.59 review LS required. Complete a 10CFR50.59 screen.

Ifone or more of the answers on the previous pages are "Yes," then check either B or C below as appropriate and explain the regulatory processes which govern the change:

B. [X] All aspects of the activity are controlled by one or more of the processes above, therefore a 10CFR50.59 review IS NOT required.

C. [ ] Only part of the activity Is controlled by the processes above, therefore a 10CFR50.59 review IS required.

Complete a 50.59 screen.

Explanation: A 10 CFR 50.69 screen Isnot required. A licensing change reauest will be prepared In order to chance the Technical Spoecifications, 5D1A006 T. J. DelGalzo. MLEA 7/1612006 PREPARER (SMNG DATE NAME (PRINT) QUAL EXPIRES M I.. ,.M5212006 Barry L. Barklev, MLEA 12E06X2007R DATE NAME (PRINT) QUAL EXPIRES Nuclear Common Rev. 11

ML062230319

Contents

Text

SUMMARY

4.0 CONCLUSION

5.0 REFERENCES

SUMMARY

3.1 Background

Background

4.0 CONCLUSION

5.0 REFERENCES

SUMMARY

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

1.0 PURPOSE

REFERENCES:

4.0 METHODOLOGY

6.0 CONCLUSION

Title:

Description:

Title:

Title:

Title:

Navigation menu

ML062230319

Text

SUMMARY

4.0 CONCLUSION

5.0 REFERENCES

SUMMARY

3.1 Background

Background

4.0 CONCLUSION

5.0 REFERENCES

SUMMARY

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

1.0 PURPOSE

REFERENCES:

4.0 METHODOLOGY

6.0 CONCLUSION

Title:

Description:

Title:

Title:

Title:

Navigation menu

Search