ML072290326
| ML072290326 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 08/14/2007 |
| From: | Morris G Tennessee Valley Authority |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TAC MD2621, TAC MD2622, TVA-SQN-TS-06-03 | |
| Download: ML072290326 (46) | |
Text
Tennessee Valley Authority, Post Office Box 2000, Soddy-Daisy, Tennessee 37384-2000 August 14, 2007 TVA-SQN-TS-06-03 10 CFR 50.90 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:
Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555-0001 Gentlemen:
In the Matter of Tennessee Valley Authority
))
Docket Nos.
50-327 50-328 SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT (SQN)
UNITS 1 AND 2 -
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (TS)
CHANGE 06-03 "ULTIMATE HEAT SINK (UHS)
TEMPERATURE INCREASE AND ELEVATION CHANGES -
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RAI)
NO.
2" (TAC NOS.
MD2621 & MD2622)
References:
- 1. TVA Letter to NRC dated, July, 12,
- 2006, "Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN)
- Units 1 and 2 - Technical Specifications (TS)
Change 06-03 'Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS)
Temperature Increase and Elevation Changes'"
- 2.
TVA Letter to NRC dated, December 7,
- 2006, "Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN)
- Units 1 and 2 - Technical Specifications (TS)
Change 06-03 'Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS)
Temperature Increase and Elevation Changes Supplemental Information' (TAC Nos.
MD2621 and MD2622)"
- 3.
NRC letter to TVA dated November 22,
- 2006, "Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 -
Request for Additional Information Regarding Technical Specification Change Request for Ultimate Heat SinkTemperature (TAC Nos.
MD2621 and MD2622)"
Printed on, vC le.l p[pr II9fo3c
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 August 14, 2007
- 4.
TVA letter to NRC dated January 26,
- 2007, "Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 -
Response to Request for Additional Information (RAI) for Technical Specifications (TS)
Change 06-03 (TAC Nos.
MD2621 and MD2622)"
- 5.
TVA letter to NRC dated May 8,
- 2007, "Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 -
Technical Specifications (TS)
Change 06-03
Temperature Increase and Elevation Changes -
Supplemental Information No.
2' (TAC Nos.
MD2621 and MD2622)"
- 6.
NRC letter to TVA dated July 5,
- 2007, "Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Request Regarding Ultimate Heat Sink (TAC Nos.
MD2621 and MD2622)"
- 7.
TVA letter to NRC dated July 20,
- 2007, "Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 -
Technical Specifications (TS)
Change 06-03
Temperature Increase and Elevation Changes -
Request for Information (RAI)
No.
2 Extension (TAC Nos.
MD2621 and MD2622)"
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) submitted a request for a TS change to Licenses DPR-77 and DPR-79 for SQN Units 1 and 2 by Reference 1. Additional information was requested and/or provided by References 2, 3,
4, 5,
and 6.
By Reference 7, TVA informed NRC of the addition time needed for response to Reference 6 in light of clarifications provided by NRC.
This letter provides the additional information requested by NRC in Reference 6 and as discussed in various teleconferences.
The addition information does not change the "No Significant Hazards Considerations" associated with the proposed change in Reference 1.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 3 August 14, 2007 Additionally, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91(b) (1), TVA is sending a copy of this letter and enclosures to the Tennessee State Department of Public Health.
If you have any questions about this change, please contact me at 843-7170.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this 14th day of August, 2007.
Sincerely, Glenn W. Morris Manager, Site Licensing and Industry Affairs
Enclosures:
- 1) TVA's Response to NRC Questions
- 2)
Vendor Data
- 3)
Commitments Enclosures cc (Enclosures):
Mr.
Brendan T.. Moroney, Senior Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 08G-9a One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852-2739 Mr.
Lawrence E.
Nanney, Director Division of Radiological Health Third Floor L&C Annex 401 Church Street Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1532
ENCLOSURE 1 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA)
SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT (SQN)
UNITS 1 AND 2 TVA's Response to NRC Questions NRC Questions regarding SQN License Amendment Request (LAR) dated July 12, 2006.
NRC QUESTION 1 Page El-6:
Only addresses design-basis accidents.
Please identify and discuss any impacts the proposed increase in ultimate heat sink (UHS) temperature will have on licensing-basis criteria that specify time related criteria associated with plant shutdown, cooldown, or accident mitigation, such as the time after shut down to be on residual heat removal (RHR) cooling, or time to reduce containment pressure by half.
TVA RESPONSE 1 With respect to time related criteria, plant shutdowns and cooldowns are controlled by the existing technical specifications (TS).
No changes have been identified to any required TS action as a result of the 2-1/2 degree Fahrenheit (OF) increase in the UHS temperature.
The Appendix R safe shutdown requirement, that the plant be able to be cooled to 140°F in less than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, is maintained by the proposed change.
NRC QUESTION 2 Page El-1O:
The table referred to in Item 7 provides information for the shell and tube sides of the component cooling system (CCS) heat exchangers.
This information is suspect because the CCS HX is a plate (not a tube) HX.
Please explain this apparent inconsistency. Also, the values listed in the table are said to be "assumed," and justification as to why these values are appropriate and conservative is required.
TVA RESPONSE 2 The CCS heat exchangers (HXs) are modeled by Westinghouse Electric Company in their standard design as shell and tube heat exchangers (STEs) in the containment analysis.
The table provided in Item 7 is a summary of the required flow rates and heat transfer coefficient (UA) values from the containment analysis model, WCAP-12455, "TVA SQN Units 1 and 2 Containment Integrity Re-analyses Engineering Report," Revision 1 Supplement 1R, dated September 2001.
TVA originally utilized STEs for the E1-I of El-26
CCS; however, these were replaced in the late 80's with the current plate HXs (PHEs).
The replacement PHEs provide capacity equal to or greater than the original STEs.
TVA has verified by analyses that the CCS HX is capable of meeting or exceeding the assumed minimum UA value in the containment analysis.
The supporting CCS HX calculations develop a U-ratio, which is defined as the actual overall heat transfer rate divided by the required heat transfer rate.
This value must be equal to or greater than 1.0 to satisfy the containment heat removal assumptions.
A U-ratio greater than 1.0 demonstrates essential raw cooling water (ERCW) flow margin (i.e.,
additional heat removal capability) to the CCS HX.
There are no design basis cases where the U-ratio is less than 1.0.
The UA value utilized in the containment analysis is provided in the SQN Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
UFSAR Table 6.2.1-1, Sheet 8, compares the non-accident rated full capacity of the CCS HXs and the assumed accident values used for the containment analysis.
Furthermore, UFSAR Table 6.2.1-1, Sheets 6 & 7, provide a table comparison of the non-accident rated full capacity of the other applicable HXs and the value used for the containment analysis.
The assumed values provide the input requirements for the HXs and the model.
NRC QUESTION 3 Page El-Il:
The last paragraph indicates that TVA continues to perform flow balance testing of the essential raw cooling water (ERCW) safety-related equipment and components served by ERCW.
Explain how often ERCW flow balance testing is performed; when thelmost recent flow balance test was completed; how the specific flow rates were determined and corrected to account for the most limiting conditions and uncertainties (analytical and measurement),
including how they were determined, validated 'and are assured to be correct over time; and what changes have been made to the system design or alignment during the period following completion of the most recent flow balancing determination and explain how the resultant ERCW flow rates were confirmed to be correct following implementation of these changes.
TVA RESPONSE 3 TVA performs flow balance testing of the lower containment vent coolers inside containment each unit refueling outage, in compliance with SQN TS surveillance requirement (SR) 4.6.2.2(b) (2).
For components served by ERCW outside of containment, the most recent physical flow balance was performed in May 1997.
Since that time, a system computer hydraulic model has been developed.
This model was developed to closely match, as best possible, the system physical conditions by performance of an extensive data gathering test in 2002.
Test data was E1-2 of El-26
obtained for all available components (i.e.,
both large and small bore),
including alignment with the small-bore throttle valves in fully opened position, as well as in a throttled position.
The test data was used to modify the model's individual piping roughness factors, particular component pressure drops (i.e.,
valves and coolers, etc.),
and pump performance for a realistic match with respect to actual plant components.
Subsequent to model development, physical changes to system components have been incorporated into the model.
The model is then re-validated using additional system data.
A recent system change placed the small bore throttle valves in a full open position.
This system change is acceptable because the original 2002 data used to baseline the model included the condition of the small bore throttle valves in the fully opened position.
The ERCW system hydraulic model is used analytically to determine the flow rates that the ERCW system will deliver to plant components.
Analysis is performed for a number of plant design basis conditions.
The analytical model is used as a more accurate, representative predictor of system performance over the physical flow balance test.
The analytical model is an improvement because it can perform various alignments and design basis conditions that can not be performed or accurately simulated in the field during power operation of shutdowns.
Examples include the ERCW system function of providing the safety-related source of water to all of the auxiliary feedwater pumps, traveling screen clogging, and ruptured or crimped off non-safety-related piping.
TVA has been validating flow rates to ensure that flow rates to individual components are in the expected range for both large and small bore components.
This validation typically occurs multiple times per year during the performance of mollusk control activities.
The validation is performed by measuring the flow values to the individual components and ensuring that the values are in the expected range for the conditions present at the time of the data taking.
A discussion of uncertainty considered in the model is provided in response to Question Nos.
8 and 16.
NRC QUESTION 4 Page El-12, top:
The information provided indicates that the ERCW flow test method compensates for minimum pump performance.
Explain how allowable pump degradation that is permitted by the in-service testing (IST) program is accounted for in this regard.
TVA RESPONSE 4 The ERCW system hydraulic model, described above, uses pump curves that allow for pump degradation in excess of the actual pump's performance.
These curves are identical for each pump.
The hydraulic model pump curves are the design minimum pump performance values, which are the limiting values provided in the E1-3 of El-26
IST program.
SQN has recently performed maintenance that has improved ERCW pump performance.
Four of the pumps have been rebuilt since 2004 and SQN intends to rebuild the balance of pumps in the future.
NRC QUESTION 5 Page El-17:
The first paragraph indicates that ERCW will provide the auxiliary feedwater pumps with water at 87 degree Fahrenheit (OF) if the condensate storage tank (CST) is not available.
This is not consistent with the information that was subsequently provided in the RAI response (Pages El-23 and 24, Question 8).
Also, part (b) of the response indicates that the proposed ERCW temperature increase is within the existing design limits of the auxiliary feedwater system (AFW) system, whereas part (c) indicates that the ERCW supply to the motor-driven AFW pumps may be as high as 126 °F (which exceeds the AFW design temperature limit of 120 OF).
Explain these apparent inconsistencies. Also, if not addressed below in Question 16, describe the specific scenario that results in the highest temperature ERCW being supplied to the AFW pumps and, for this most limiting
- case, identify what the maximum ERCW supply temperature is and how the uncertainties were accounted for to assure conservative results, and compare the results to the AFW system design limits that apply.
TVA RESPONSE 5 a)
The July 2006 LAR and the December 2006 LAR Supplement were not clear in the description of operating temperatures of the AFW pumps supply when served by the ERCW.
The turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater pump (TDAFWP) is the largest capacity pump at 880 gallon per minute (gpm) total flow and serves all four steam generators.
When supplied by the ERCW, the TDAFWP takes suction from either ERCW supply header with worst-case supply temperature of 87°F.
The two motor-driven auxiliary feedwater pumps (MDAFWPs) each provide 440 gpm total flow.
Each MDAFWP delivers flow to two steam generators.
The ERCW water temperature to the MDAFWPs is a function of ERCW discharge header A and B and may be greater than 87°F under some scenarios.
The ERCW temperature of 128°F is determined to be the most limiting case and only applies to the lB-B and 2A-A MDAFWPs as a result of the suction piping configuration.
The ERCW discharge water temperature to these two pumps is dominated by the lB and 2A containment spray (CS)
HXs' discharge, respectively, and only during a large break loss-of-coolant accident (LBLOCA) when on containment sump recirculation with minimum ERCW design flow of 3400 gpm and no CST availability.
In contrast, the other two MDAFWPs, lA-A and 2B-B, have ERCW suction pipe configurations that are further downstream and receive flow mixing from the CCS HX E1-4 of El-26
discharges and remain at the 120'F AFW design temperature or less, see UFSAR Figure 9.2.2-2.
No changes are made to the AFW operating temperatures or limits as a result of the UHS change to 87 0 F.
The modeled flows with 5 percent uncertainty to the CSS HXs under various LOCA conditions is shown to be greater than the 3400 gpm minimum design and is 3600 gpm or greater (December 2006 Supplement Table 9 Series Extract).
Larger than design flows will suppress the AFW temperature to less than 128°F value.
SQN has historically justified the lB-B and 2A-A MDAFWP design temperature excess (greater than 120 0 F) based on American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
B31.1, "Power Piping," variations from normal operation.
The associated piping stress limits have not been challenged because the ERCW and associated AFW suction piping and supports have been analyzed to 128°F.
Additionally, the IA-A MDAFWP, which has the largest length of CST suction piping (i.e.,
furthest distance from the CST),
was acceptably evaluated for net positive suction head up to 130'F for tritium production.
TVA has entered the MDAFWP design temperature issue into its Corrective Action Program with an action to revise the suction piping design temperature to at least 128°F.
b)
The maximum ERCW supply temperature is the proposed 87 0 F.
The TS SR for temperature monitoring includes instrument loop measurement uncertainties.
Current plant instrumentation loop error is approximately plus or minus 1.16'F.
The main control room (MCR) indication is offset by a total of 1.50 F (i.e.,
plus 1.5°F),
to ensure that the actual limiting condition of operation (LCO) temperature is never exceeded without taking appropriate actions.
NRC QUESTION 6 Page El-17, Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) Cooling:
With respect to calculation MDQ 000 067 2003 0142, describe the most limiting scenario for the EDGs relative to temperature considerations and, for this most limiting case, explain what the most controlling temperatures are, including a discussion of how the uncertainties were accounted for to assure conservative results.
TVA RESPONSE 6 The 190°F case (Model No.
3, Section 6.10) is evaluated at the EDG thermal limits to determine the ERCW requirements and margins available.
This case establishes the limiting temperature values such that a horsepower (hp) de-rate is not required and is E1-5 of El-26
identified as an operating mode limit.
Proto HX software is utilized in the calculation and is a common industry software application that is quality assured (QA).
TVA uses the QA version such that discrepancies are identified in accordance with 10CFR21.
The physical Proto HX model parameters were developed from the vendor EDG HX data sheet.
An additional evaluation was performed (similar to Model No.
- 3) using Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association (TEMA) fouling factors and limiting EDG operating temperatures and ERCW flows.
This model is further discussed in response to. Question 19.
Uncertainties were handled in two respects:
Foremost, Section 4.0 of the calculation addresses the conservative nature of the input parameters and assumptions to ensure that the heat load evaluated was maximized and that heat removal capacity is demonstrated.
The test instrumentation utilized and the uncertainties considered are discussed in Section 4.8.
The instrumentation meets the requirements of the ASME Performance Test Code (PTC) for Single Phase Heat Exchangers.
The test results were treated as nominal values.
Secondly, the appendix to the calculation contains a discussion of the formulation and process of the Proto HX software.
An uncertainty evaluation package is part of the software capability and one of the test cases was evaluated.
All parameters are varied and combined by the software program so that the maximum deviations can be evaluated.
The resulting maximum possible fouling factor was shown to be 0.0012897 hour-square foot-degree Fahrenheit per British Thermal Unit (hr-ft2-°F/BTU).
This value is within the expected results as described within the ASME PTC.
Model No.
4, Section 6.11, demonstrates ERCW operating margins based on the current flow balance and the various LOCA configurations.
NRC QUESTION 7 Page El-17, Piping Impacts:
The information that was provided indicates that the RHR system is cooled by CCS and does not receive ERCW water.
Nonetheless, all other things being equal, increased ERCW temperature will result in an increase in CCS temperature, which will affect RHR.
Either confirm that the resultant CCS supply temperature will continue to be bounded by existing analyses associated with the RHR system, or explain what impact the proposed increase in ERCW temperature will have on RHR, including how this determination was made.
TVA RESPONSE 7 The RHR system is not impacted.
The ERCW and CCS interface point is the CCS plate HXs.
For the proposed ERCW temperature increase, the CCS HX exit temperature is maintained at the current design temperature.
This is accomplished by crediting E1-6 of El-26
the increased ERCW flow rate.
In addition, due to thermal conditions specified by piping analyses, a CCS design limit of 145°F is imposed on the RHR HX exit temperature.
It is noted in both TVA CCS plate HX calculations 70D53EPMMCG021290 and 70D530HCGKBO102287 that there are some cases at the proposed design ERCW temperature of 87°F and including restraints of the CCS HX temperature, that the CCS piping temperature limit is exceeded.
Acceptability of this excursion is further explained in TVA Response No.
8a under TVA letter dated December 7, 2006.
NRC QUESTION 8 Page El-18, Measurement Equipment and Uncertainties: Identify and explain how all of the uncertainties (flow measurement, temperature measurement, modeling, and analytical) were quantified and accounted for to assure conservative results.
TVA RESPONSE 8 Measurement uncertainties were considered in the proposed UHS increase to ensure conservative results.
Specifically, the supporting ERCW flow margin evaluations include a 5 percent flow measurement uncertainty that bounds the flow modeling input values.
This is discussed in Assumption 4.3 of design calculation MDQ 000 067 2002 0109.
Other conservative assumptions were utilized in this and the other mentioned calculations to ensure conservative results.
Temperature measurement uncertainties are accounted for in the UHS TS SR as detailed in Response 5b.
The instrument loop uncertainty is added to the MCR indication within the integrated computer system (ICS).
This practice ensures that the observed SR value is less than the UHS TS safety analytical limit, which is the safety limit.
Additional discussion of how uncertainty is applied can be found in Responses 5, 6,
and 17.
NRC QUESTION 9 Page El-24: Explain to what extent Station Blackout analyses and commitments will be impacted by the proposed change to the UHS temperature limit.
TVA RESPONSE 9 In developing this LAR, TVA considered the UHS temperature averaging approach and the four acceptance conditions provided in the Improved Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, "Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) 330."
Our determination in the July 2006 LAR submittal concluded the TSTF would not provide any benefit.
Yet, as stated in the July 2006 LAR, several of the conditions would be met within the existing E1-7 of El-26
design including SQN station blackout (SBO) requirements.
Commitments made to bring SQN into conformance with 10CFR50.63 have been completed and continued compliance is not challenged by either the requested temperature increase or the single river elevation minimum limit.
In particular, during a SBO, AFW is provided from a CST and not the UHS.
Overall, the proposed change to the UHS TS does not negatively impact or change the SBO outcome.
NRC QUESTION 10 Pages E4-5:
The Technical Specifications (TSs) Bases Section does not appear to be entirely appropriate and consistent with the WStandard TSs (STS).
In particular, the second paragraph refers to an "average" water temperature whereas the STS refers to the water temperature of the UHS; and the fourth paragraph credits "sensitivity analyses" for demonstrating that the containment will not be compromised (even under limiting large break loss of coolant accident [LBLOCA]) for UHS temperatures up to and including 90 °F whereas this information is not included in the STS, and sensitivity analyses are typically not credited for demonstrating acceptable performance of the containment.
Revise as appropriate.
TVA RESPONSE 10 SQN has chosen at times to convert associated LCO Bases from their original format to the more informative Improved Standard Technical Specification (STS) format that is found in NUREG-1431, "Standard Technical Specifications Westinghouse Plants."
The conversion, to the practical extent, retains the STS Bases formatting and those discussions which are applicable to the license-basis of SQN.
In this case, SQN has not requested to adopt the STS UHS LCO nor TSTF-330 Revision 3 as discussed in the July 2006 LAR (pages El-23 and El-24),
but does intend to revise SQN UHS Bases to be more informative.
The reference to "average water temperature" was based upon TVA's understanding of the 1988 LAR approval in which NRC defined "average" for the use in the SR.
Averaging of the water temperature was provided by NRC under the statement "This temperature may be averaged over a period of not more than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />."
SQN has not proposed a change to how the SR is performed.
As discussed in the June 22, 2007, teleconference, SQN explained that the UHS temperature is averaged on a rolling 24-hour basis using a one second sampling rate.
Application in this manner would minimize short-term river temperature transients without needlessly cycling operations to enter and exit an LCO action (placing both units in hot standby within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> only to find the river temperature has dropped thus allowing exit of the LCO action.)
24-hour averaging in effect E1-8 of El-26
produces a lag function such that elevated temperature durations are weighted and captured, and if continued to upwardly elevate would result in exceeding the upper LCO average ERCW supply header limit at which time the appropriate "Action" would be entered.
NRC informed TVA, during a teleconference on July 18, that time based averaging is not permitted except under the scheme in NUREG-1431, Revision 3.
TVA has taken steps to ensure the UHS temperature limit does not go unnoticed and would be acted upon appropriately beyond the once per day SR.
Instantaneous monitoring and alarms has been part of the ICS console in the MCR To maintain consistency with the LCO and SR requirements to
- average, TVA intends to average the UHS temperature between the A and B ERCW train headers, but will not perform time-based averaging.
Either of these ERCW trains can supply the Unit 1 or 2 safety-related components.
By this application, the Bases paragraph which discusses averaging is still appropriate.
As for the "sensitivity analyses", this is based upon the current containment integrity analysis discussed in the July 2006 LAR while only varying the UHS input temperature.
It shows that margin exists for containment integrity (i.e.,
maximum pressure and temperature),
above 87°F up to an UHS temperature value of 90'F during a LBLOCA.
These analyses provide assurance that under a LBLOCA, additional margin is provided above the proposed changes.
Nonetheless, the proposed Bases paragraph, paragraph 4 in section titled, "ACTIONS",
will be removed as part of the approved TS implementation process (Commitment 1).
NRC Questions in regards to SQN Response to RAI dated December 7, 2006.
NRC QUESTION 11 Pages El-I through E1-3, Question 1 (also, Page El-18, Question 5):
Discuss measures that exist or will be established to ensure that TVA river operations practices are controlled in a manner that preserves the capability of the UHS to perform its functions in accordance with the analyses that have been completed.
TVA RESPONSE 11 For emergency situations, up to and including the loss of downstream dam (LODD) event, the TVA River Operations Emergency Response Plan proceduralizes steps to address postulated events or situations that have the potential to compromise the integrity of a water barrier in the River Operations system.
The plan provides the process procedure for. identification and notification of a dam break within TVA. and to the media.
Notifications are made using a checklist such that the MCR is E1-9 of El-26
notified in a timely manner and that Watts Bar Hydro Plant minimum discharge is established to maintain the required ERCW intake water elevation at SQN.
TVA document, "Monitoring and Moderating the SQN UHS,"
describes River Operations' special practices of the river system to mitigate the intake temperature at SQN.
Special operations to control the intake temperature are planned, depending on the severity of the temperature problem.
The special operations options are implemented in order of severity.
In summary, by controlling the timing and quantity of releases from dams upstream and downstream of SQN, TVA has been able to reduce the peak summer water temperature at the SQN UHS intake and to maintain the water supply as established in Regulatory Guide 1.27 RO, although with potential environmental (i.e.,
aquatic life) and financial costs.
NRC QUESTION 12 Page El-3, Question 1:
The response states that the design basis temperature limits of safety-related equipment are not exceeded when operating at the increased UHS temperature limit.
Confirm that equipment design limitations that have been established by component vendors will not be exceeded (e.g., the heating, ventilation and air conditioning compressors at Watts Bar were affected and required modification).
TVA RESPONSE 12 Most safety-related HXs were originally purchased to the preliminary safety analysis report (PSAR) value assumed for the UHS of 83 0 F.
The metal materials involved with the components and HXs are typically rated for temperatures over 130°F including the gasket or elastomer materials.
Changes made in 1988 increased the UHS to 84.5 0 F which was a 1-1/2 degree increase.
The proposed July 2006 LAR further increases the temperature an additional 2-1/2 degrees.
Safety-related components can operate at 87°F and were determined by calculational evaluations and reviews (i.e.,
reference calculation MDQ 000 067 2002 0110).
Some components have a higher operating temperature than 87°F per the review.
Others were evaluated by performing additional calculations or evaluations that demonstrate performance.
The components are operating within their acceptable design range.
No components need to be rebuilt, altered, or replaced.
NRC QUESTION 13 Page El-16, bottom:
With the exception of the 1IF temperature increase referred to for the boric acid transfer (BAT) and AFW coolers, confirm that no other cooler or HX ERCW outlet temperatures will increase as a result of the increased UHS El-10 of El-26
temperature limit with respect to any plant operating or postulated accident conditions.
TVA RESPONSE 13 Table 8 Extract, page El-15 of the December 2006 LAR Supplement, listed all of the limiting components except for one additional component that was recently identified during an area cooler calculation revision.
The spent fuel pool and thermal-barrier booster pump area cooler lB as shown on Table 4 Extract, page El-10 of the Supplement, has 1.1 percent margin over the base 5 percent.
During a recent calculation change it was identified that the Tcold out temperature used was 100.5°F.
The correct value is only 99.2°F.
Using the corrected delta-T, the resulting ERCW flow requirement at 87 0 F would be 0.5 gpm greater or 34.3 gpm and is less than the 1 percent margin criteria.
TVA entered this issue into the Corrective Action Program.
Further review of deviation shows that the cooler is within its design temperature limit and therefore not impacted.
The resulting room temperature for accident conditions has been allowed to increase.
However, the environmental qualification (EQ) temperature remains significantly less than the 135°F limit and does not have any significant impact for this mild environment.
Other than the error found during the calculation revision, no other revised equipment flowrates dropped below the threshold limit of 1 percent set in the calculation.
NRC QUESTION 14 Page El-16, bottom:
Discuss whether or not the "other" assumption and methodology changes that were integrated into the July 2006 submittal require NRC review and approval, and provide the necessary justification as appropriate.
TVA RESPONSE 14 As described in the July 2006 LAR, SQN used the approved 1988 UHS LAR to build upon for this recent LAR and described those NRC reviews and approvals since 1988 that have impacted the design basis accidents.
Two LARs were cited, in particular to the UHS.
In the Section titled "Containment Pressure Analysis -
Long-Term,"
an LAR (Reference 4 in the July 2006 LAR) approved in 2002 revised ice condenser ice weight.
The supporting ice weight LAR analyses also proposed, including the contribution to containment pressure of accident-generated hydrogen in the containment pressure calculations, increasing the effectiveness of the CS HXs, increasing the UHS temperature, and decreasing the ERCW flow to the CS HX.
Also mentioned was the Appendix R Safe Shutdown evaluation, which was evaluated as part of the 1.3 percent power uprate LAR (Reference 9 in the July 2006 LAR).
El-1I of El-26
TVA discussed the change in the river recession analysis due to the revised failure assumptions for the Chickamauga Dam.
This was further discussed in our January 2007 RAI submittal.
To this end, TVA is only requesting approval of the proposed changes described in Section 2.0 "Proposed Change" of the July 2006 LAR.
NRC QUESTION 15 Page El-19, Question 6:
Explain how the most limiting heat transfer capability of the CCS HX is determined when evaluating the spent fuel pool cooling thermal analysis to assure conservative results.
Also, the 183 'F exceeds the value of 182 'F referred to in the UFSAR Table 9.1.3-1, Sheet 2, which is not consistent with the plant licensing basis.
Please explain.
TVA RESPONSE 15 In the early 1990's, SQN re-racked its SFP with high density racks to extend fuel storage capacity for more than 10 years.
The SQN LAR provided analyses that included thermal-hydraulic evaluations for normal and abnormal condition heat loads.
The analysis demonstrated compliance with Section III of the NRC document dated April 14,
- 1978, "OT Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications."
Also, decay heat loads were developed using the provision of NRC Branch Technical Position ASB 9-2, "Residual Decay Energy for Light Water Reactors for Long Terms Cooling, Revision 2 - July 1981."
The analysis showed that the SFP maximum bulk temperature (i.e.,
177.2°F) for the maximum normal heat load condition of the normal off-load scenario, including a single failure of the SFP cooling system (SFPCS),
prevented thermal damage to the SFP and the SFP support systems' components.
Other off-load scenarios included normal back-to-back unit core off-loads and normal back-to-back unit core off-loads with an unplanned core off-load.
Under each of these scenarios with both cooling trains operating, bulk SFP temperature is limited to less than 150'F.
Transient analyses were performed for loss of forced cooling.
The loss of cooling was assumed to occur coincident with the maximum bulk temperatures reached for each scenario evaluated.
The limiting scenario results determined bulk boiling conditions in the SFP near 3.4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> following the loss of forced cooling.
The analyses verified that no void formation occurs and cladding integrity is not threatened by calculating the maximum local water temperature and cladding temperatures.
The analysis indicated for both unblocked and 50 percent blocked flow conditions, no incidence of nucleate boiling and no potential for fuel cladding damage.
El-12 of El-26
SQN received NRC approval on April 28, 1993 (TAC Nos.
M83068 and M83069),
for the proposed re-rack LAR.
NRC noted in the safety evaluation (SE),
that for the scenarios presented, the staff's acceptance criterion for preventing thermal damage to the SFP and SFP cooling support system components by SFP temperature under maximum normal heat load conditions coincident with a single failure of the SFP cooling system were such that no damage would be expected.
The staff's acceptance criterion for SFP" temperature under maximum abnormal heat loads was found to be satisfied, which is to prevent bulk boiling in the SFP.
This acceptance criterion applies to the staff's full-core off-load scenario (i.e.,
a back-to-back offload with full SFP assembly capacity and no equipment failure).
The staff concluded that adequate time is available to provide makeup water to the SFP prior to the onset of bulk boiling and subsequent loss-of-coolant inventory.
This was determined by the scenarios reviewed, the limiting minimum time of 3.4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> to reach bulk boiling conditions, and the number of available alternate sources of makeup water.
TVA has conservatively analyzed the scenario of back-to-back unit off-loads postulating single failure of the SFPCS including a 1 3 th fuel rack presently not installed in the cask pit.
This analysis established the equipment design basis limit to prevent bulk pool boiling.
The limiting SFP bulk temperature is 183°F as shown in the UFSAR Table 9.1.3-4.
The lesser SFP bulk temperature of 182 0 F, shown in UFSAR Table 9.1.3-1 Sheet 2, corresponds to a similar scenario; however excludes the 1 3 th SFP rack.
As shown in the UFSAR tables, operation of both SFPCS trains limits the SFP bulk temperature to less than 150 0 F.
By another effort, TVA submitted an LAR on September 21,
- 2001, TS Change 00-06 (TAC Nos.
MB2972 and MB2973),
with various proposed changes to its license in which to provide irradiation services for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
TVA's Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) had requested similar changes; however, their request proposed a new methodology for the SFP cooling analysis.
TVA informed NRC that because of the timing of the WBN and SQN submittals, SQN would not duplicate the request of the new methodology, but would apply the requirement of 10CFR50.59 after NRC's approval of the WBN request.
TVA did however provide NRC advanced information on May 25, 2001, under letter titled "Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN)-
Units 1 AND 2 -
Information Related to SQN Tritium Program,"
regarding SQN's application of the new methodology to its plant conditions.
This letter provided existing design limiting analysis values of the SFPCS which included, in part, maximum SFP bounding heat load of 45.3 MBTU/hr, HX fouling factors, maximum CCS temperature of 95°F for cooling water, maximum bulk SFP temperature of 183°F under single train operation, time to boil, and boil-off rates.
The new methodology supporting analysis determined the heat El-13 of El-26
rejection capacity of the SFPCS for the maximum allowable heat load.
The analysis does consider heat loss to the air, but not through the SFP liner, concrete walls and floor, or un-insulated piping systems.
The worst-case consideration includes a LBLOCA, loss-of-offsite power (LOOP),
and LODD to which the non-LBLOCA unit is placed in hot standby and assumes the available train SFP cooling load.
The CCS temperature is limited to no greater than 95 0 F to the non-LBLOCA unit, which is the design limiting temperature for the analysis.
The limiting temperature of 95°F is captured in the CCS HX calculations and is assured by operator action as discussed in the December 2006 LAR Supplement.
CCS temperature and SFP HX fouling factors are instrumental in this new methodology.
SFP HX design fouling factors are 0.0005 hr-ft2-°F/BTU and 0.000575 hr-ft2-°F/BTU for the shell and tube sides, respectively.
In the analysis, the thermal model was modified by the introduction of a performance factor that is a
function of fouling.
This allowed for a range of fouling factors to be analyzed.
Based on SQN experience, actual HX fouling factors have been found to be less than design, with minimal negative trending over a long period of time.
This experience is consistent with expectations, given that both the CCS and the SFPCS streams are clean water systems, approaching demineralized water in purity and clarity.
With 20 plus years of operation without any specified cleaning, the results of the 2003 measured total fouling factor for the SFP HXs were 0.000220 and 0.000415 hr-ft2-°F/BTU.
To this end, the analyses determined the upper limit decay heat (55MBTU/hr) capable of being removed to ensure the SFP design is maintained at or less than 183°F for varying fouling factors and CCS temperatures with a single train of SFP cooling.
The licensing basis was considered in the analysis which assumes both trains of the SFPCS in operation, to which the same decay heat can be removed with the SFP bulk temperature less than or equal to 150'F.
The NRC concluded in Section 2.11 of the SE for TS Change 00-06, that the proposed alternative methodology for calculating the maximum SFPCS heat removal is acceptable since it utilizes the same basic methodology, equations, and data as the current analysis, and thus is essentially equivalent to the current method and maintains the currently established maximum temperature of the SFP water.
The proposed alternative methodology incorporates the use of actual, rather than conservative, values for SFPCS HX fouling factors and CCS temperatures.";
that the SFPCS can accommodate the additional decay heat load imposed by commencing the core offload as early as 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> and compensate for the projected increase in SFP decay heat from tritium production activities.";
"For the increased heat load, the existing cooling system satisfies the requirements of GDC-61 of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, with respect to provision of a residual heat removal capability having reliability that reflects the importance to safety of decay heat and other residual heat removal.";
in the unlikely event that there is a complete loss of forced cooling, cooling the SFP El-14 of El-26
at SQN by adding makeup water conforms with the guidance described in the standard review plan (SRP) Section 9.1.3, and operation of the tritium production core (TPC) does not adversely affect the ability to maintain an adequate coolant inventory in the SFP under accident conditions."
NRC QUESTION 16 Page EI-20, Question 7:
To the extent these items are not addressed above in response to Question 5:
(a) For the LBLOCA case, explain in more detail how the TS shutdown/cooldown requirements will be satisfied for the non-accident unit, including worst-case considerations, most limiting CST inventory, how the AFW supply temperature compares to the maximum allowed value over time, controls that are credited to ensure that AFW design limits will not be exceeded, and how and when the TS shutdown/cooldown requirements will be satisfied and maintained without exceeding any design limitations while continuing to mitigate the LBLOCA condition; (b) for the shutdown of both units case, explain in more detail how the TS shutdown/cooldown requirements will be satisfied for both units, including a description of the worst-case scenario (e.g. seismic event with loss of downstream dam, loss of offsite power, single active
- failure, and no CST available), how the AFW supply temperature compares to the maximum allowed value over time, controls'that are credited to ensure that AFW design limits will not be exceeded, and how and when the TS shutdown/cooldown requirements will be satisfied and maintained without exceeding any design limitations.
TVA RESPONSE 16 a)
For the LBLOCA case, SQN TSs do not directly specify a manual trip of the non-accident unit.
However, the maximum design basis heat loads on the CCS occur when the non-accident unit is in hot standby.
Loss of off-site power, for example, would cause the non-accident unit to trip.
The non-accident unit would then be held in Mode 3 (i.e.,
hot standby),
until its shutdown/cooldown heat loads can be placed on the CCS.
There is adequate volume in a CST or supply by ERCW for hot standby operation until such time that the accident unit's decay heat is substantially reduced and is operating in the LOCA-recirculation mode.
b)
For shutdown of both units, the TS shutdown/cooldown requirements are satisfied for both units.
Directed by the emergency operating procedures (EOP's),
both units would be placed into hot standby one at a time.
The first unit would eventually enter Mode 4 (i.e.,
Hot Shutdown).
The second unit would be held in Mode 3 until the decay heat loads could be placed onto the CCS.
El-15 of El-26
The limiting transients that define the AFW system performance requirements are:
Loss of Main Feedwater (with LOOP)
Rupture of a Main Feedwater Pipe Rupture of a Main Steam Pipe Inside Containment Small Break LOCA The normal plant cooldown flow requirements from 100 percent power define the minimum storage capacity of a CST (TS 3/4.7.1.3).
The CST level required is equivalent to a usable volume of at least 240,000 gallons, which is based on holding a unit in Mode 3 for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, followed by a cooldown to RHR entry conditions (Mode
- 4) within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> for a total of 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />.
The minimum usable volume was re-established under TS Change 02-06, "Increase CST Minimum Volume."
The TS change also established the limiting conditions of 120'F CST maximum temperature, steam generator refill to 39 percent narrow range level at RHR cut-in, use of 1994 American Nuclear Society (ANS) decay heat standard, and employment of Babcock and Wilcox (B&W)
Heavy Actinide model.
The AFW supply temperature does not vary over time and is analyzed at the CST maximum of 120'F for the AFW pumps.
As with any reactor trip or shutdown, the EOP's direct the operators to ensure that AFW flows are monitored and are limited to ensure that overcooling of the reactor coolant system (RCS) does not occur.
When supplied by a CST, no AFW design limits are exceeded under any shutdown scenarios.
The CSTs and ERCW supply to the AFW pumps are described in UFSAR Sections 9.2.6.2 and 9.2.6.3.
Plant cooldown and worst single failure is described in UFSAR Section 10.4.7.2 as part of the AFW system.
The limiting AFW temperature when served by ERCW is discussed in response to Question 5.
NRC QUESTION 17 Page El-24, Question 9:
Part (a) indicates that certain manual valves have been fully opened to increase overall ERCW flows, and that the flow gains were confirmed by ERCW multiflow modeling.
To the extent that this is not addressed in response to Question 3, describe how the increased ERCW flows that are being credited were actually confirmed to be correct after the changes were made and explain how the impact on other ERCW flow paths was determined and is assured to be conservative, including how the uncertainties in the ERCW flow rates were determined and accounted for in this regard.
TVA RESPONSE 17 El-16 of El-26
Please see TVA's response to Question 3 for a discussion of the increased ERCW flows and how they are credited and confirmed.
TVA utilizes a self-developed code called Multiflow (Copyright © 2001).
Multiflow is a steady-state hydraulic network analysis desktop computer code with multiple fluid choices including water (liquid and two-phase),
Multiflow solutions for raw water and condensate systems are quality assured or QA solutions.
The Multiflow software was developed around and makes extensive use of software previously developed and copyrighted by TVA employee Dr.
G. A.
Schohl.
The ERCW Multiflow model is a comprehensive calculation of the ERCW piping system that determines the available steady-state flow to the links and nodes (components) within the network (system).
The numerical methods of the software determine a definitive numerical solution.
The numerical solution in itself contains no uncertainty.
The network component flow losses through the various fittings, pipe, and valves; however, are based on empirical raw water test data gathered from TVA hydraulic experience and testing done at Norris Labs in Tennessee.
There is some uncertainty and variations associated with solutions that use empirical data.
TVA minimizes this modeling uncertainty in individual network branches by adjusting the model to agree with flow balanced conditions (tests) in the plant.
Fixed link flows and pipe break flows are modeled.
Limiting accident cases are modeled to ensure adequate flows are available for those conditions since many of these alignments cannot be normally configured or aligned during power operation or during other modes of operation.
Flow measurement uncertainties in the ERCW analysis are discussed in response to Question 8.
NRC QUESTION 18 Page E1-26, Question 10:
Explain what the basis/justification is for increasing the air flow for the BAT and AFW coolers, including a comparison with the design flow rates that were established by the equipment vendor.
TVA RESPONSE 18 The original equipment manufacturer (OEM) fan and motor capability for this area cooler is greater than 14,000 cubic foot per minute (cfm) as supplied under the purchase contract.
The recent surveillance performance values have been above 14,000 cfm.
The original purchase requirement for this cooler specified a minimum air flow of 11,700 cfm, but the operating design value has been 13,048 cfm for the cooler.
TVA chose to use the available existing cfm margin; therefore, the minimum required design flow has been increased from 13,048 cfm to 14,000 cfm.
Increasing the required design minimum flow is within the El-17 of El-26
demonstrated fan performance and ensures that the required heat removal for this cooler is achieved.
El-18 of El-26
NRC QUESTION 19 Page El-27, Question 11:
(a) The response indicates that various different fouling factors are used based on actual experienced values seen at the various components.
Provide a listing of the limiting fouling factors that are used for all shell and tube HXs that provides a comparison of the assumed values to those specified by Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association (TEMA).
Justify any inconsistencies that exist between the assumed values and the TEMA values, including supporting information that demonstrates that the assumed fouling factors are in fact conservative for the most limiting licensing basis conditions that are postulated (including, for example, those that would exist at the lower ERCW flow rates).
(b) Provide a listing of those shell and tube heat exchangers where the assumed heat transfer capability is different from the design capability that was specified by the vendor data sheet and explain/justify the different values that were used.
(c)
Provide a copy of the vendor data sheets for the major heat exchangers referred to in (a),
those referred to in (b),
and copies of data sheets that are representative of the other shell and tube heat exchangers that are used.
(d) The response indicates that the CCS plate heat exchangers operate in continuous, high velocity, turbulent service.
This is not consistent with the acceptance criterion that was established in the supporting calculations (for example, see assumptions 2.4 and 3 of Calculations 70D53EPMMCGO21290 and 70D530HCGKBO102287, respectively).
Explain this apparent inconsistency and how the higher flow rates are assured consistent with performance assumptions.
Also, explain in detail how the performance of the plate heat exchangers was determined and is assured to be conservative for the lower ERCW flow rates that are postulated.
(e) Explain what provisions and design features exist to prevent clogging of the CCS plate heat exchangers, especially during postulated upstream dam failures.
(f)
Explain why the actual measured EDG jacket water heat exchanger fouling factor is less than the design value.
TVA RESPONSE 19 a)
Tables 1 and 2 in calculation MDQ 000 067 2002 0109 contain the listing of ERCW HXs.
The following is the summarized list of those STEs.
El-19 of El-26
Centrifugal Changing Pump. (CCP)
Gear & Bearing Oil Small HX Coolers (CLRs) 1A, 2A, lB, 2B Safety Injection System Pump Oil CLRs 1A, 2A, IB, 2B Small HX CSS HXs 1A, 2A, IB, 2B Largest HX EDG HXs 1A, 2A, IB, 2B pairs Large HX Electric Board Room (EBR) Condenser Units A, B A/C package MCR Condenser Units A, B A/C package Shutdown Board Room Chillers A, B A/C package The highest duty STEs are the containment spray system (CSS)
HX with a heat transfer coefficient UA = 2.953E6 BTU/hr-°F and the EDG with a heat transfer (Q) of 7.365E6 BTU/hr.
The CSS HXs uses a TEMA design fouling factor of 0.0003 hr-ft2-°F/BTU for refueling water and sump water inside the tubes and 0.001 hr-ft2-°F/BTU for raw water outside the tubes.
TVA has further evaluated the EDG HXs for long-term operation and fouling.
TEMA recommended fouling factors from both the 1968 edition and 1988 edition for river water and for engine jacket water have been considered as discussed below.
The EDG HXs were manufactured in 1971 to the 1968 TEMA Standards which utilized the recommended good practice for river water fouling with tube flow greater than three feet per second.
Summary of 1968 TEMA fouling:
Temp of Heating Medium Up to 240'F Temp of Water 125 0 F Water Velocity ft/sec 3 and less Over 3 River Water (min) 0.002 0.001 Engine Jacket 0.001 0.001
worked with Bruce GM Diesel and Thermxchanger (the HX manufacturer, now owned by Weigmann & Rose),
and together re-specified the river water fouling value of 0.001 hr-ft2-°F/Btu and the jacket water fouling value of 0.0005 hr-ft2-°F/Btu.
The data sheet was revised at that time for fouling factors, film coefficients, and overall heat transfer coefficient (U values).
The TVA EDG Proto-HX Design model nearly matches the vendor data sheet.
The limiting TVA EDG Proto-HX (Model No.
3, Section 6.10) determined that the calculated theoretical overall fouling is 0.001641 hr-ft2-°F/Btu based on the TEMA 0.001 hr-ft2-°F/Btu river water fouling and GM Diesel 0.0005 hr-ft2-°F/Btu jacket water fouling.
The 1988 TEMA Standards, 7th Edition, Section 10, Recommended El-20 of El-26
Good Practice (RGP-T-2.4 Design Fouling Resistances) has the identical minimum river water fouling value of 0.001 hr-ft2-°F/Btu but has added an additional line for average fouling with a value of 0.002 hr-ft2-°F/Btu.
TVA has also considered the larger TEMA average river water value and has prepared another Proto-HX model case using 0.002 hr-ft2-°F/Btu for river water.
The model was adjusted to utilize a lower U valve (i.e.,
Ufouled) of 260 Btu/hr-ft2-°F (rather than 307 for 0.001 fouling) in order to run this case.
See the below Table 1.1 and Figures 1.1 and 1.2.
The Proto-HX data sheet, Table 1.1, shows an overall fouling of 0.002752 hr-ft2-°F/Btu.
The EDG heat rate is reduced to 34 BTU/min-hp resulting in a duty of 6.27 MBTU/hr and the ERCW flow is increased to 400 gpm.
The modeling demonstrates that higher fouling can be utilized without de-rating of the EDG performance under the most limiting long-term (post-LOCA) requirements (Model No.
3).
The EDG temperatures (shell inlet and exit) remain below 1900 and 175 0 F, respectively, such that no de-rating of the EDG hp is required.
In conclusion, the EDG HXs can remove the required long-term heat loads with increased fouling beyond the original design values.
TVA design configuration controls will ensure that the new minimum ERCW design flow to each EDG HX is at least 400 gpm (including 5 percent measurement uncertainties).
The supporting diesel calculation MDQ 000 067 2003 142 will be revised to capture the revised values and TEMA references (Commitment 2).
The long-term EDG operating conditions assume that fouling will increase as a function of duty and time.
The long-term operation utilizes the continuous 100 percent generator rating of 4400 kilowatts and TVA defines this operating period beginning two hours after the accident until 100 days later.
There are margins associated with long-term operation, which are not credited in this analysis, but are presented for completeness:
- 1) Long-term conditions and its impact on fouling could be evaluated at an ERCW cooling water average temperature of approximately 82°F normalized for the most limiting 100 day summer period rather than at 87 0 F.
This recognizes the fact that ERCW temperature cannot exist at the maximum value of 870F continuously for 100 days.
- 2)
The minimum design ERCW flow is 400 gpm to each HX with flow margins including flows to account for the 5 percent flow measurement uncertainties.
ERCW flow to the EDG HX's can be manually increased long-term by repositioning ERCW system valves.
El-21 of El-26
- 3)
The long-term steady state heat load on the EDG would most likely decrease as redundant pump flows and attendant equipment is no longer required and secured days after the accident.
- 4)
ERCW system cooling water requirements decrease to the time-dependent components as accident and shutdown unit decay heat decreases.
Table 1.1
[
Calculation Specifications Constant Heat Load/Cold Inlet Temperature Method Was Used Extrapolation Was to User Specified Conditions Design Fouling Factors Were Used Test Data Extrapolation Data Data Date Tube Flow (gpm) 400.00I Shell Flow (gpm)
Shell Flow (gpm) 850.00 Shell Temp In ('F)
Tube Inlet Temp ('F) 870 Shell Temp Out ('F)
Constant Heat Load (BTU/hr) 6,270,000.00 Tube Flow (gpm)
Tube Temp In ('F)
Tube Temp Out ('F)
Extrapolation Calculation Results Shell Mass Flow (lbm/hr)
Tube Mass Flow (lbm/hr)
Heat Transferred (BTU/hr)
LMTD Effective Area (fl2) 425,212.10 200,099.81 6,270,000.73 78.5 334.0 Overall Fouling (hr-flt'°F/BTU)
Shell-Side ho (BTU/hr'fl2"°F)
Tube-Side hi (BTU/hr-flt'2 F) 1/Wall Resis (BTU/hr'fl2"°F)
LMTD Correction Factor U Overall (BTUihr ft2.F)
U.002752 16,292.6 1,095.0 2,958.0 1.0000 239.2 Property Velocity (ft/s)
Reynold's Number Prandtl Number Bulk Visc (lbm/ft-hr)
Skin Visc (lbm/ft'hr)
Density (Ibmn/f 3)
Cp (BTU/Ibm 0 F)
K (BTU/hr-ft.°F)
Shell-Side 2.89 39,664 2.1448 0.8260 0.8325 60.5425 1.0024 0.3860 Tube-Side 3.54 22,799 4.3934 1.6001 1.3207 61.9597 0.9989 0.3638 Shell Temp In (°F)
Shell Temp Out ('F)
Tav Shell ('F)
Shell Skin Temp ('F)
Tube Temp In ('F)
Tube Temp Out ('F)
Tav Tube (°F)
Tube Skin Temp ('F) 1M74. 1 181.4 180.3 87.0 118.4 102.7 122.1 El-22 of El-26
Figure 1..1 Area Factor Amin Shellj..
Hal.l Print Restore Menu Heat Exchanger Tag'. and TRIP ED Het E:::]ngine Jacket Cooler Heat Exchanger Performance
.Heat Exchan ger Con-stuction erShell )
Shell-Side I I Tube-Side Fluid Name Fresh Water 1-Fresh Water LI Fluid Quantity. Total gpm 850 660 i'Mass Fluid Quantity. Total Ibm/hr 425212 330165 Temperature (in/Out)
F 185 1/1167 93
/115.5 Fouling Factor hr-fta2-*F/BTU 0-0005 0.02 Design - [7365750 B
Outside h factor (Hoff),
132935 Fixed
[0 UBTU/hr-f-t2-*F Fixed Area (ft.
I2 Figure 1.2 0 Use Back Calculation Method Design U (BTUlhr-ft-2-F)"
L 26.0o0 O Use Geometry Method Central baffle spacing (in]
Inlet Baffle Spacing (in)
Outlet Baffle Spacing fin)
Tube circle diameter (in]
Baffle cut height (in)
Shell inside diameter (in)
Diametral difference between Baffle and Shell (in)
Diametral difference between Tube and Baffle (in]
Number of Sealing Strips (pairs)
S 0.000001 0- 0.000OO0 I
0.000001 S
0.00000 1
0.000001 1
0.000001 I
0.000001 S
0.0000
- I0.00 0 Calculate Cancel b)
The referenced STEs are operated within the realm of the OEM specifications and their design capabilities are not exceeded.
TVA has assumed that heat transfer capability of the CSS HX is less than the design capability that was specified by the vendor data sheet as a conservative input to El-23 of El-26
the containment analysis.
Also, the TVA standardized CCP gear oil cooler (replaced in 2000) has a capacity of two times that of the original OEM design.
c)
A copy of the CSS HXs (limiting HXs),
MCR air conditioning (A/C) condenser unit, EBR A/C condenser unit, and shutdown board room chiller data sheets are provided in Enclosure 2.
Also included in Enclosure 2 is a condenser operational chart for MCR A/C condenser unit and EBR A/C condenser unit.
The condenser operational chart provides additional evidence that the equipment is within normal operational range.
The EDG HX vendor data is contained in calculation MDQ 0000 067 2003 142, pages 43 and 44.
d)
SQN normal operational flow in the CCS HXs exceeds the 1.5 ft/sec flow velocity (or equivalent to 4330 gpm for A-train, and 5871 gpm for B-train) discussed in the CCS HX calculations.
The normal flows for the 1A CCS HXs ranges from 4800-5000 gpm, the 2A CCS HX is approximately 7,000 gpm, and the GB CCS HX ranges from 7500-8400 gpm.
These flow rates are achieved and maintained by the system physical arrangement and operating procedure valve alignments.
As
- observed, flow differences exist between the A-and B-train CCS HXs and are based on the system flow balance.
The B-train CCS HXs are physically larger than the A-train, and experience a lower pressure drop.
The A-train ERCW supports the lAl/1A2 CCS HXs and also the 2AI/2A2 CCS HXs while the B-train ERCW only supports OBl/0B2 CCS HXs.
Therefore, there is more available ERCW flow in the B-train CCS HX.
'The design flow rates for the A-train and B-train CCS HXs are different due to slightly different design heat load and also to a significant heat transfer area difference.
Thermal performance testing of the PHEs is performed quarterly for the A-train and during every refueling outage for the common B-train HXs.
Results are trended and projected to ensure that the PHE thermal performance will exceed the design minimum values.
Cleaning of the PHEs is scheduled based on the most recent test results, historical trending, adequacy of chemical treatments, and sensitivity to equipment availability.
Historical data is available for two occasions where a CCS HX experienced flow velocity less than 1.5 ft/sec for an extended period of time with thermal performance testing performed at the beginning and end of the time.
The 1A CCS HX experienced an average flow rate of 3676 gpm for the timeframe of September 10, 1995, to March 5, 1996.
During this time the total fouling factor increased from 0.00023 to 0.0004 hr-ft2-°F/BTU.
The fouling factor change is approximately 9.6E-7 per day.
The 2A CCS HX experienced an average flow rate of 3880 gpm for the timeframe of October 1997 to July 1998.
Two tests were performed in August and El-24 of El-26
October 1997 with the average fouling factor being 0.00034 hr*ft2*OF/BTU.
Three tests were performed in July 1998 with an average fouling factor of 0.00043 hr-ft2-°F/BTU.
The fouling factor change is approximately 3.42E-7 per day.
In order to examine the issue of plate HX fouling rate, an informal sensitivity analysis of CCS HX thermal performance is provided here.
The design heat removal-requirement for the A train CCS HXs following a LOCA, is approximately 43.7 MBTU/hr, with core decay heat removal constituting 98 percent of the heat input.
For the analyzed worst-case available ERCW flow of 3932 gpm, the maximum fouling factor that can exist with the ERCW temperature at 87°F is 0.00055 hr-ft2-°F/BTU in order for the design heat removal to occur.
If the fouling factor were to increase to 0.001 hr-ft2-°F/BTU, the maximum heat rejection capability would be 37 MBTU/hr with the ERCW remaining at 87 0 F.
If this fouling change occurred over a 30-day period, the fouling factor rate of change would be 1.5E-5 per day.
This postulatedrate of fouling greatly exceeds the fouling rate actually experienced.under low flow conditions.
In perspective, shutdown or accident core decay heat would decrease at a substantially rate faster than the rate of fouling would increase as described above during this timeframe.
Therefore, increases in CCS HX fouling after an LOCA will not result in an inability to remove the required heat from the CCS.
e)
The ERCW system has intake traveling screens with nominal 3/8-inch square openings, and contains strainers with nominal 1/32-inch opening.
These features serve to protect system components from being fouled by debris from the river during postulated events, including loss of either the upstream or downstream dam.
In particular, the CCS PHEs have flow passages that are larger than the strainer openings.
SQN has proactive measures included in the technical requirement manual (TRM),
Section 3.7.6, "Flood Protection," that includes requirements to have a flood protection plan ready for implementation to maintain the plant in a safe condition.
Actions include staged plant flood preparation up to placing both units in hot standby with continued cooldown upon early warning notification from the TVA River Scheduling organization.
These warnings are issued on major flood-producing rainfall conditions, combinations of flood-producing rainfall and possible dam failures or other dam related emergencies, or flood elevations predicted to exceed plant grade.
f)
The EDG performance test was modeled using Proto-HX software as explained in calculation MDQ 000 067 2003 0142.
Proto-HX Model No.
titled "Design" utilized the vendor data sheet in order to build and validate the base model.
Reasonable agreement was obtained between the model parameters and the El-25 of EI-26
OEM data sheet. The overall-U value was nearly matched.
Proto-HX Model Nos.
1 and 2 utilized the actual field test data.
The observed total fouling factors were 0.001080 and 0.001215 hr*ft2*°F/BTU, respectively, and are lower than the total design value of 0.001641 hr*ft2*°F/BTU.
The uncertainty analysis performed in Proto-HX yielded a maximum possible total fouling of 0.001290 hr*ft2*OF/BTU.
Model Nos.
1 and 2 also show that the tube side velocity is greater than 3-1/2 ft/sec in one HX and greater than 5 ft/sec on the other.
Tube side velocities above 3 ft/sec probably lend themselves to the lower than design fouling conditions seen in these HXs.
El-26 of El-26
ENCLOSURE 2 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA)
SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT (SQN)
UNITS 1 AND 2 Vendor Data (15 Pages)
E2-1 of E2-16
©0 L! Z b-AV.:ý.
Nr, A
RK, W. J.
HEAT7 E-XCHANGER SPECIPICATION SHEET CONDM.
-A 7S'EVA LLEY AUT140RITY JEEt
- o.
B Z4 Tt~no~
cenn2ss e~ e PopoUL No.
I1c D0Q oDAITE 1ea2/lantAT
ýrV7-c-U.%-T*
Containment Spra3ý Id at Exchamn-,rs iTEm No.
~!-
S.~
U ~
1 41 30 SHELLS/U:IIT'r On e So T UF7-EL
-i 14i 30 PE:RFORMANCE OF ONE
- UNIT, Lýoncairon A
____________________SHELL SIDE LTu~
CIn c A
Cooling Water W
at r
It I~A~LU~l LNE~I~iGPM
, 02 4.
T B.TU/L E31 eTU/Lz
~OI.E~U.-Af\\'*IGHT__________________________F 3
-- 794 1rA B.T/L E£TrU-
- -./ S ý.
rURE-IJL I 123pSI 0
,5P
(
..,+/-o-;.H
~
7 ; 000 M.LCL(TýoUTD) -'F U8. 3 CONSTRkUCTION OFý IONE SHELL-5
'.~'SiE:
CONTDITION B" P
- 7IIU-9-WG.
LENGTH PlT 94:
c;,*
o~
CHvmN" CL,~
___________TYPE. ____________________
'CIT:.
HEAO COVER________
LIYP UANE-CMý'
PROTFCTI.'lN SHZL L S O-Z I UB lID' TE M ACL.
-A n1 rn V
H.
iCr
0 UST"R AV=--
NI!WAR;NA.
N. J.
HEAT EXCHANGER SPECIFICATION SHEET COND. - B
.j-:!;r-a."
.TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Joe No
& b6o-
'"I
~~R CE*[*.:
ND.
92.).4 CHATTANOO A, TENNESSEE PROPOSAL No.
29995
- Lc-.riN-
'SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT I AATE N
126170 S S.vEIVCE o-UNITCONTAINMENT SPRAY NEAT EXCHANGERS IhEw No IS 'z-55-34Z T7-_-' CFU (SPECIAL) lm).Tý:r C-T 3D IN
_% FT.S U N;:./
SIELjs/LINIT-ONE Sc.FTSU.fý/SH L
(-
i *, 130;t I
_PERFORMANCE OF ONW UNIT-SMELL SIDE TaE 5DE Iw" um CmcuLA'renO COOLING WATER CONTAINMENT SPRAY WATT-;
,, tT0-FLUIo EKTEqlWGPM
- 6. 0Z8 4, 75C
.* jVT.,x"o
,7 0
- .ILus:
_6.
028 4.750 I S.FuOm VAPC.a;z!D Op CONDENSED' I A
TI STEAb.' O'Gr:D'" '---s :
2oFU', 3LZC:LRA R WEAGHT*
!rr;lL O NlCo TI*VI B T.UIHR-FT-*F i
. H -Te 23IL-'-rE.7** H=a BTU/L B31
-TU/LBI
- '7i "
k,_PnATUP_
0117.
1_ 5 I
_F._
McLcu'..
P S____
1_________________________________________
IND1 PASý;-S
.1
'14o T7 M C TWO I
2E EL ~ocjTr 3 (AXLhL FLOW*
Fl/Ssc
- 3. 5
/S
-9..
U.,- D*o,'A lo,*'!CaIC.
1 D S
4.__
.,O IN*
[.
I E.-.-
(~~~ 1
- 0. 001oo.
0003 F,G
-- BT U /HR 95, 00 000 MT DICORECT,-)-°F 26.8 sflFI r:F R RATE.-SERVICE' Z52 C,
A 371 F._1 CON'STRUCTION. OF ONE SHELI..
_)
- ,40I.--.,
PRESL,,R E 50 PSIJ 300
~ISFES prrsuqE 2 ?25 pIJF
-450 PSI 1.
- _Z.,I). T E,,)R 2..
0 3 0 0 "F l
- .,*ITu=:sA2. 49. T-304 N-2.1 5"U-OD 3/4 BW*.G
?0 Avg. LENT,
-t"Str.PITC 5,I)u" A U IS S
)L..
Gr..
A0" I.D D6 Q 5 0 )DSH-VC SA.--5*
.0
('8) 0 7R O0)I IO
'-L --
_ Z 5
5 G-70
) -
Co:ANq
-51 5 Gr. 70 (68) 40u) rUFUIE T-STAT~r.T*FRA.
SA-1 0 Cl. I T vs.iU--FLDATIN" JB IAFL-O&
Ty'pr.F hNHECv
'i
-- Le':. SA5I 5 Gr. 70 7 yp.v LA NU FLEX IMPING-.MENT P:*-T.N SA-55 G1. 70 7/6 453 TUBE SUDORTS SA-Si r 10 ('6b8) 6517 OPEN 4 4 [T TEO To ruvrfEH-E-T Jow-ROLLE-T-3 AND SEAL WNLD"D 45)G-S:cE7TS FL_)XITALLIC Si'YLE CO SS-304 WITH ASBESTOS FILLER WARE A GFUO:l IECTtoNs-SýIELL SLIDE IN
- 1 8" OuS I S RATrND 1 S R. F. W N
-, 7 z;;
- .ZTIONS- (I IJ'N;EL SIC'-
IN 2
O'T
. 1 2" PArTING ICO*O~bJZNT.. ALLOWANCE-S1HELL SIDE I /8" UZS z{0r
-/
SISLLSrLDE IN.'.LET AND OUTLET NOZ. ZL1ES CONSTRUCTED WITH 26' EXPANDED DiTOER OOMES TO ACCON.MMODr.kE DOUBLE FLO=
CONb.
HI] CLASS "C."
ON TUBESiDE: SEC. V-iI DFT.
1 ON SH:LLS OV~RLA1D WITH TY?~ ~'0~ STAINLESS STEEL
-)i
'1 : RE*,\\I'$B D F1, 6:7!
J ]
J... I
~?EV)S1ON
/
~.
/-4 ______
3 7-T7 If - - -
'( -I(-
-, 'J i'-kU (l
.c 7
3
_DU11HAM-1jL3USH 111VC 2ug PvZ
- ATTACH MENT 2.
L.
rZ OPEN PACKAGE CHILLERS EPM - RC,-07"087 PCX120-O THRU 350-,:)
Cor b
. ? 7-1/-87t
-,-E (2) PCX Q
CERTIFICATION DATA UNIT MOD"
.(2 ) PCX 230-'O-Q*
CApAOTyLI ToNsi REFRGERANT A1-22 o
OTHE 11P3 25 cobmomNs. *;Lj-.4tIyo6
&,ký CHILLER apIr FLUID C % BY VOLUME ; D % BY WEIGHT H20 ftOW RATE (GPM) 0"ERING RIJI TEMP rn.5 V1 WAVING FLUID TEMP (M
.2Y FOUuNG FACTOR
- 0005
.002 COMPRESSOR MOTOR FURNISHED BY: gDUNHA*MB USH n OTHERS MOTOR 250 HF; 3 () 6.00..RI'M; TYPE.
C "E DRIP PROOF 1STD.)
0 OTHER FRAMAE sa. 445 TS ELECTRICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
COMPRESSOR OIL PUMP MOTOR LINE VOLTAGE 46
/
3#_ý___
460 v/.
60 N RATED LOAD AMPS IRLA) 2 LOCKED ROTOR AMPS (LIRA)
Wn /DELT 31.
CONTROL CIRCUIT
.1sv, 0/
)
16-,1 STARTERS FURNISNED S.: Q DUNHAM.BUSH
.M OTHERS" IMWTE DELTA OPEN TRANSTnION C3 WYE DELTA CLOSED IRANSITION
[3kCROS-THE.UNE aAUTO TrANSFORtmER ICLOSED TRANSII"]ON)
STARTER OPTIONS:
JICONTROL TRANSFORMER 3 KVA 2 EVA
[OAMMETER -
1 PHASE
-3 PHASE W/SWITCH
([Cc)OMBIATION/DISCONNEcr 0
FUSED (mUF4FUSED (OCRCUrT REA.KER
-DUNHAM-BUSH RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SELECT THE STARTER MANUFACTURER FOR ANY STARTER SUPPUED BY DUI*AM.BUSH. SPECIAL MAKE STARTERS ARE AVAILABLE ON REQUEST. STARTERS MAY BE SUPPUED BY OTHERS BUT MUST CONFORM TO DUNHAM-BUSH EA$.,,NEERtNG SPECIFICATION ELC.!S.9 AND MUST BE APPROVED By THE DUNHAM-BUSH ENGIllEERJNG DEPT.
STANDARD EQUIPMENT C
V I
I-DIRECT EXPANSION INNER."IN CHILLER, ASME STAMPED V"'7H
- 7.
FLOW. SWIT7C SUPPLIED UNMOUNTED FOR FIELD INST.ALLATION.
RANGED CONNECTIONS.
"RB. COMPLETE WIRING WITH PROVISION FOR SAFETY INTI'TLOCKS
- 2.
WATER COOLED CLEANABLE CONDENSER, ASME STAMPED FLANCED BETWEEN CONDENSER AND O'NLLER WATER PUMP!,
COOLING CONNECTIONS.
TOWER FANS AND COMPRESSOL
- 3. COMPRESSOR., WfH COUPUNG.
- 9. MANUALLY ADJUSTABLE LOADiCURRENT UMmNG COT.'JL
- 4. OIL SEPARATOR/SUMP Oil COO!ER AND HERMETIC PIUMP WITH W. COMPLETE FACTORY SUPPLED REFRIGERANT AND OIL OPERATiNG MOUNTED AND WIRED starter.
CHARGES.
- 5. INTERNAL CAPACITY CONTROL CRA DS F
- 6. CONTROL CENTER--CONTAINS NECESSARY SAFETY
- CONTRECS, ii.
VIBRATION! PADS FOR NON-CIC.
INSTALATIONS.
GAUGES AND PILOT UGHTS FOR COMPLETELY AUTOMATIC OPER-
- 12. FACTORY PERFORMANCE TEST, AIION. ADDITIONALLY SUPPLIED WITH ANTI-RECYCLE TIMER AND
- 13. START.UP SERVICE-FACTO REPRESENTATIVE 0N LOCATION ELAPSED TIME METER.
N L I WORKING DAYS.
OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT 4 p 1 It O V 1E 11 0
g CHILLER AND REFRIGERATION INSULATIONI E
VIBRATIO RIISOLATOR AT C
m i
jOoTER 3
KVA Transfcrmer mtc OF
- 7.
d with fuse on MEC. a4, 3-Grounding Pads; uOS-A primary slue.
Seismic Testing i
p,,,.I.,
Flow Switch' Press.Diff.
'7...,
,!lo15 Oil Temp. Gauge and T-StIA
!,oWI qeaer-.
p
.1 I
NOTES CONSULTING I ENGINEER:
SIOUCYAP I & 2 CONTRANTW
~3 TITLE: WrA9 e 4ts,v c.
& o';rs. 4, CEC 8[CK E.
Ow CUSTOMER: Tennessee Valley Authori JOS: Sequoyah Nulear Plant DUNHAM-BUSH, INC.
WEST MARTFORD, CONN. 06110, U.S.A.
PLA-*PT.O.,
606466[14.25A&B)
POWNO.
CUST.,..o.,
75K35-3709-l._.
6341.1 "AT" February 2L, 1975.
'y PERFORMANCE, DIMEBISIONS AID SPECIFICATIONS ARE. CERTIFIED CORREOC WHEN SIGNED BY AN iORIOID EMPLOYEE OF GH U
If N2/24/75
a~
- L Wm
-- W4
- MN UKmm No.irm rlb xc
_60
.11ft_____________
so Aunat 12. 19n "ION ý%L MW
_0119"o-h ftelu" pt"t i
I.
s "*ONse 0 ** am UUdiKsi 114 be got"it II I
I II l
i SW
- vow-
.AMtiLE 01 SRNICS AND ARNOIWfS WWOC Or!A Prm or canoIEcT 2a 2.
L.-
. u::::s:::::::::::
11 emylasc es l'e ft lot ktba d
.A ft
-a 0 0"te i
s e
we Ml isI if oft bid I*
sapil no*s vso CU 0i
~so 10"
~
41w
'111th
- 0% d mee t
m
-I50 we tojewa* 4m" megulk-ap AiM.
- m an t;owom itlo ime "
ow. l Z;"
e k
myMv W w ~
. isco w w ill be
.owe d for fpa m mrts as fO Iwans Uls etherwise qualitied by the bidder on this knw."il sgtMm to edtf-fd ft!
- -a..
(Uviat price; mnd 12? tvive in cecuwhon with diSstso ofteed will! be erpiute4 Item d 1t.1.
deft" of ft som es at. destination.W fom date 44 Ftees of cmm bi, A
icks.
ft bidder represents:
That he Is.*
$s notljL, a small business con as defifed in Co& of Fede"iul N Tite. 13, Chapter I. Part 121. Section 121.-3.. In emectln. with 1t"M corac. it idde*:
is a.. fn1a" fctutor., he also represents that the products to be IiSrhed hereunedrw41 wil hot._L.. be prodied by a small business concer In construction and M
aW bti4e1di mrqersonial Sonervc coiflacis, the preceding sen~tence is Sot aput*ab*.
.CMNITIOMM FO IUIRMUT
-:'1.
fS idul. of Prices (including
- h1PPin9 Date) lSWapteed Data.
~ipsent Data,
,ze. Instellations lal Co.ditions 1 %Conditions (form 50o2)
Hpale y Act O.unity.
(forms 9923 &9925)
Splcifications.1254 (Revised),
1uding Gviide for Seismic Qualifi-.
gationa Of Class I Mechanical Equipnmer
- (co"mlete only.0wen the aggregate amount of bid is $10.000 ot moe:
Tha. he lsaCa. manufacluret of the articles, eWipnmiet ma!eril or s ipplies quoted uv.W hRi That ho Is-ii regulardeajer in. and maintains a shk fora s.le: to the general public of vIftll,.:
equ**pmlnt, materials. or supplies of the genetal character of that or those up h heo -
(Complete only when (a) the ajgregate amount of bid in respone to aditertsdt Is 4
ve.
.more. or (b) the. aggregate amount of bid on a negotiated purchase is.ne than 1,000)
ThaI (a) he has<,
has not Xremptcyed or retained any company.or person [other than bomid employees or bona fide estabiished corimercirl or selting agencies maintained by the. bi*i
.vo contractor) for purposes of securing businessI to wlicit or sec re.this antract: end tb) he hasi._
has not X._ paid or agreed. In 0ay any ccmpany or persoan.[other than boha fide emotpyms r.,
bona tide established cemmercial or selling agencies maintained -by the bidder for contratr fan!'
purposes of securing busines1.any fee, conmmission, percentage. or brokerage fee. contient non or resulting from the award: of this contract, and agrees to lurnish infonmtbiot relating thtto'a requested by 1he Contracting.Offictr.
L APPMVJED -
J. L.Will jams,Jr, 9/10o/71 Bonine 4.
PAB.
Sherrod.
Specs. 9 Sisk Gidiv M.r L44J.M -e J
1I'e
%~r AP~Lay re 0."
4WI042 il 1460" 110
~ ~c~ /42Z&LI~
City, Sltat, and lip Code
.Ax No.
A~
0X
//6
__ 3y, ZVI_____
.:i Person Authoelzedl to sign bid - NAMI(afdtitlMid (rirnt 0
- 0.
J.~.I P
~
~
.~e
.l.
r l:G
- 0MTANCE -
Acceopted only as to; Sche.ulel.(items: 1 and 2, Item 3 if required And requested by TVA)
P.0.B. Destination--ship by prepaid motor freight Submit drawings by October 12, 1971 s".
,~r AURT.
CONSIGN TO -
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Setuoyah Nuclear Plant,. near Daisy, Tennesse, MARK: Contract 72C35-92693 For:
Sequoyah Nuzl.ear Plant
- Alt, Chief Storel*eEper MAIL INVOIC--i.DUPLICAT---o MAIL, INVOICE.in DUPLICATE to -
TENNESSEE VALLEY. AUTHORITY Construction Aceounting Branch
.400 Morthshore Building:
Knoxville. Tennessee 37902.
Invoices mirnsl show contract numb~er. discouril or terms of Miaymen apib. itetli
~ ~
j Pewasert aescimaem c amcie o.q sefeine. ;uanalv. At price, am anp amCoum.
So we It*
uichate Call.
j~~
LI]1-f
[a" Oak LfofTJt1 [w Cs NMI.
iIt FarI.-J A
V'
-,j l.i.
~I PAWrC*"
A_____
of a'l #a I
-U 4'
~
U-sIchh of 1%m
~'. (
Awne.1-eg lamp" I
1 2
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Tenmesm, if by motor freight
The following refrigerant condensing units in accordance with TVA specification 125h.
Mafin control room condensing units Electrical board rooms condensing units Point of Manufacture
£/457 A4
- 1. /
0 4.
Drawing Submittal after Award 4
ic-Services of startup Engineer if required by TVA
- OVERTR7.E.
Bidder shall state:
Hours constituting regular workdayZZQ a.m. to #
Days constituting regular workweek if other than ?IondF Friday Overtime rate for startup Engineer Hours in excess of re.,ular workday
_______i*er hot Hours worked on other than regular workdays t.Z NOTE:
See Special Condition "Services of Contractor'"
Total Schedule I cry to S 2
2 each each
ýEach rorkdaý
- racti, hereol and/
Plant Jte, If I
C~.'?~. ~1 a
~
04.m r thru
-Per hoL Engineer er or or Meehan Les."
VYA. 09*1 lopS6-70
- IDD~~ft eP/'
0.
Omm do ý
ý U
U -
fme
-V
~wonn "MW-WO no-1
~
3SiiL4m. Date.
Bidder mst state:
Number of calendar Gs sater award for delvery, days I(. *ajsc A P-O2 Point of shipment Method of shipment and name of first carrier Shippinag weights pounds
!) i frr-
- h.
g rU.
AC-
ý fAigma,,, R 111 J
31j, 100 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SEISMIC REQUIREETTS The undersigned bidder can and will comply with the Seismic requirement as specified in Section 19 of TVA Specification 1254 (Rev.) and Guide for Seismic Qualifications of Class I Mechanical Equipment.
A~
/K,;.&
Bidder I
I I
A Al HO" A-V A
&J=,~
3-mm Schedfle of Prices
~
TVA 9081 it*w-"
WTI`
59"m 1
m WAk%
WE=
WAAft MML 4
0 as M.m mt got JqmWWAWm
""Me I PMAn IMuPIOM*
IACW.The bidder r"e eat
- 1.
Was partIcipated in & previous contract or subcontr opportiunty clause in form TVA 9923 or the abiost I clauses previously required unler Z*ecutive Orders Yes X
no I that h4b
- e equal Mp~rtu" 9=
Ret subje dentical
- 925 and 0o
ýt to KquaI 1111h.
- 2.
Has 50 or more eoployees in his company:
It answered "Yest answer A and B:
Yes X A.lHas yes developed a written affirmative action comp coppany's establishments to insure equal op X
No Lance preraan
)ortunityi(see 'or each
)f)925) :
S.
Ma 100 or more employees in his company:
Yes If answered "Yes," has the cormany filed 2--ploy (Standard Form 100) with the Joint Reporting Cc 12 months?
Yes.
11 No ---
- 3.
HBa filed other equal opportunity compliance report agencies as required by such agencies:
Yes X
tic No such reports have been required:
Ia Will obtain representations indicating submission c signed by each proposed subcontractor, before award
$10,000 or more:
Yes X
No Labor r'"'*f"s ?r" nce Certification.
Has the bidder Secretary of Labor as a firni eligib2le for oreference in in accordance with 29 C-i 8.7(b) (32 Fed. Reg. 1i388)?
ýX No er Inforr ttee v with Go f require tng each I A.
or VIA teport =I
- he past Ltion Lthin
- ertnepit, contr tring I comp-.iance reports, aubcontract of been certified by the Ithe place=ent pf contra Mts Yes r7 No.
Iis pr.
If the answer is "Yes," the bidder shal. eParreish with b of eligitbility furnished by the U. S. Departrzent of Lat bid a
-opy or the cer;ificate I -
~
NMI 4DP4b-VQ)
- Motu4 W
../'ý
/-
! 5.-"
~v S
.4 0
~flT ~
bw abI GURNTE DAMA The bidder hereby guarantees that performance and characteristics of equipmUt bid upo will be as stated in following tabitlation.
In case of conflict between data furnished below and any other data furnished with bid, that furnished below shall govern.
TVA considers this information so material to its decision on whether or net a bid meets specifications that omission of any of it could make impossible such decision and cause the bid to be nonresponsive.
A bidder leaves any space blank-at his own risk. All of this information must be in bid when it in opened.
SCHEDULE I K...;
General Maximum capacity at specified gpm condenser water, tons COndensing temperature, F Overall floor space required Maximum headroom Ite. 1 Item id it z z4 -12s~fls ComDressor Rated capacity at specified conditions Operating rpm Suction temnerature, F Suction pressure, psig Dischnrge pressure, psig Piston rated operating speed, fpm Capecity reduction, steps Maximum brake horsepower
... 2,,
°A
/- 7 1/Z' 0
motor Horsepower Rated voltame lu.U -load speed, rpm Full-load current, amperes at 4i60 volts, 3 phase locked-rotor current at 460 volts, 3 phase, in percent of full load Insulation, class and temperature rise Condenser Head loss at specified gpm, feet Rated capacity at specified gpm at 85 F entering, tons Liquid subcooling, F Water side test, psi RPfriqerant side test, psi
/N2R")
pA &VL item 1 ot~~*~ftm j
aF Is ~
422's °
/4~~
17
- 9(.,,A,,4#.
L
,,,~/
11 *C-Bidder a
I 06 9
NO-35-99ft bP-14 R"
W I
~
LE a
I IAII A
A B
H
-ATA Each copy of proposal shall be accompanied by manufacturer's complete specifications for equipment included in proposal, and these specifications, upo award, will be incorporated in contract.
The manufacturer's specifications shall include but not be restricted to following:
- a.
Drawings or cuts in sufficient detail to permit a clear understanding of size and construction of equipment, and proportions of its principal parts.
- b.
Detailed data as follows:
SCH!EDULE T General Item 1 Item 2 Manufacturer Model No.
Overall length Overall width
-D uo/.,
j'9 l
'4,,
4r Overall height Additional length required for tube removal Refrigerant Normal refrigerant change Gross weight 7 7-__-_______
I WW f.to..
S 4,
0 hn* so
~flREN2 MA (~)
.(*Irea sow Manufactuwer Model No.
Number of cylinders Bore and stroke D*Lcharge line size Suction line inlet size Type of capacity reduction Method of operating capacity reducer Oil carryover, ppm Aothr Hanufacturer Type and frame No.
Horsepower Breakdown torque at rated volts, percent of full-load torque Pullup torque at rated volts, percent of full-load torque
.Locked-rotor torque at rated volts, percent of Tlha-load torque Power factor at 100, 75, and 50 percent rated horsepower, percent Efficiency at 100, 75, and 50 percent rated horsepower, percent Type bearings Bearing average expected life, bours Gross veight ll-
./.
1,
_5.7 X~t~
C.1, L.
A7
~J(~JZ 4(4
-~4-
/
-,7*,*':, '*..
,f
.t
.F,'T
//-,
- c. *-,"
r.,*
SDMe (O mhmei)m o
,*mI.
nt-.
~
Drive Manufacturer (direct drIw)
Manufacturer (belt drive)
Ntumber of belts belt section Horsepower rating per belt Motor pulley, pitch dimmeter.
peasor pulley, pitch diameter Condenser Manufacturer Model No.
Performance factor at 0.002 fouling factor Water inlet size Water outlet size Number of tubes Length of tubes Tube material Tube size Tube wali thickness Number of passes Condensing temperature, F
/.9 7~*' /
-l e
t*
- * '( -'
c~-'- -~-c C-e~Ž2.44" ~
7~T
~eY~Z Z*Z~LT 4
-~
'7- '
0
-ng
- Oam, (m~~)
C'ndenser refrige.ant storas, oq ity Is meler required?
._A._
Receiver storage capa*ity Mt weight Oil Cooler Manaufacturer D d Model No.
e
," 4A, A Water inlet size Water outlet size
- wiber of tubes
/,
Length of tubes
,Tube size and thickness Tube me*terial C'c /Vi-Number of passes Performance factor at 0.002 fouling factor 7
Oil temperature
..Water. Rejulating Valve Manufacturr
..Model No.
31d,() -
2(
size, inches Pressure drop at specified gpm, feet
- 23. Z 32...
.e.
A.-
i-if 41 Z/-
-a'-
~W1E~T~
~~~TFflE capacity Controner Manufacturer Type Number of control ste]
Sensor manufacturer.a 0
,IJA (dontu~aued) ftd N b It p2 EA.
XI A'
- d. model ~I.o.
~
~
Ž<
~
/4 4
I Control: Equipment List of manufacttirer's catalog designations, rated capacity of each piece of equipment and safety devices.
Bidder offering helical :rotary type 4compressors must Nrnrishthe. following additional information:
List instalatlions* o' cý--pralbbo sine and ýtyvpe buil. by bidder, g ving nam.xe of purchaseyr N
dt' o
ý"f installiation, capacity, approximate O*eratib, t time, plant na-me and location.
List nivaiiabilty and location pf arts and repair service.
Note:
Give complete dtna on Comparable Installation Sheet-included in invitation,
- i
- Biddcr,
ý CSTC 1860 - 2 PASS COMPu-E _D Rjý DATE 8-I1-&7 CHECKED Iy ALi§A7-F-(
400 360 l-*,i*
-:E HE=
oc 2
32
.. j20 Ui-D
~
6.0 5.0 0
- 4.0 cc 3.5 w 3.0 2.5 2.0 1) 1.5.
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 TOTAL HEAT OF REJECTION - THOUSANDS BTUH 15
ENCLOSURE 3 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA)
SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT (SQN)
UNITS 1 AND 2 Commitments
- 1.
The proposed Bases paragraph, paragraph 4 in section titled, "ACTIONS" will be removed following NRC approval and as part of TVA's TS implementation process.
- 2.
TVA design configuration controls will ensure that the new minimum essential raw cooling water design flow to each emergency diesel generator heat exchanger is at least 400 gallons per minute (including 5 percent measurement uncertainties).
The supporting diesel calculation MDQ 000 067 2003 142 will be revised to capture the revised values and Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association (TEMA) references.
E3-1 of E3-1