ML102800263

AFW Modification LAR Requests for Additional Information - Scvb

ML102800263
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	10/04/2010
From:	Beltz T Plant Licensing Branch III
To:	Hale S Point Beach
Beltz, T A, NRR/DORL/LPLIII-1, 415-3049
Shared Package
ML102800293	List: ML102800241 ML102800263
References
TAC ME1081, TAC ME1082
Download: ML102800263 (2)

Text

Requests for Additional Information Containment and Ventilation Branch of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) Modification License Amendment Request (LAR)

Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27 Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301 Primary Auxiliary Building Ventilation (VNPAB)

In letter dated June 17, 2009 LAR 261 Supplement 1, Extended Power Uprate (ADAMS Accession No. ML091690090), the licensee provided responses to the NRC staffs draft acceptance review questions, dated June 2, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML091530604),

related to AFW system modifications. The staff requests the following information related to the licensees response:

SCVB-1 Is the pre-established proceduralized time (2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />) for restoring the PAB ventilation fans, a part of the current licensing basis or is it required as a result of EPU?

Which exact fans of the VNPAB are restored in 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />?

SCVB-2 In addition to the MDAFW pumps being added, does the general area of the PAB currently house any other safety related equipment (e.g. ECCS pumps)?

SCVB-3 Staffs understanding is that the PAB exhaust fans are also credited in the AST application. If so, is it still 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> after an accident that these fans are required?

SCVB-4 In the licensing report, Section 2.7.5.2, Technical Evaluation of VNPAB system, there is a statement that Safety-related equipment in the PAB is not affected by a loss-of-HVAC for up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> thus indicating that the ability to maintain an 85F design temperature during normal operation is not critical.

The NRC staff requests clarification of the context of the 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> and the 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> restoration time stated above. Specifically, did the 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> consider the operation of the safety-related equipment in this area that may be called upon to operate during an accident or is it based on normal operating equipment only?

What initial temperature in the general area was considered in establishing the 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> proceduralized time for restoring PAB ventilation fans?

Containment Response to Main Steam Line Break SCVB-5 In the current analysis, what is the peak containment pressure and at what time does it occur?

SCVB-6 How does the AFW flow to the faulted and intact SGs differ between the current analysis and with the new AFW system?

SCVB-7 Please clarify if FW flow due to FW pump coast down is included in the current analysis with the new AFW system. If not included, please provide justification why it is unnecessary.