ML103580004

Areva EPR DC - Draft Response to U.S. EPR Design Certification Application RAI No. 256, FSAR Ch 2, Question 02.03.01-14

ML103580004
Person / Time
Site:	Framatome
Issue date:	12/22/2010
From:	- No Known Affiliation
To:	NRC/NRO/DNRL/NARP
References
Download: ML103580004 (21)

Text

ArevaEPRDCPEm Resource From: BRYAN Martin (EXTERNAL AREVA) [Martin.Bryan.ext@areva.com]

Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 6:58 PM To: Tesfaye, Getachew Cc: DELANO Karen (AREVA); ROMINE Judy (AREVA); BENNETT Kathy (AREVA); Carneal, Jason; HALLINGER Pat (EXTERNAL AREVA); WILLIFORD Dennis (AREVA); HAMMOND Philip (AREVA); FLECK Sherri (AREVA)

Subject:

DRAFT Response to U.S. EPR Design Certification Application RAI No. 256, FSAR Ch 2, Question 02.03.01-14 Attachments: RAI 256 Q.2.3.1 MASTER - DRAFT 2.pdf

Getachew, To support a final response date of January 27, 2011, a second draft response to RAI 256 question 02.03.01-14 is attached. Let me know if the staff has questions or if the response can be sent as final.

Thanks, Martin (Marty) C. Bryan U.S. EPR Design Certification Licensing Manager AREVA NP Inc.

Tel: (434) 832-3016 702 561-3528 cell Martin.Bryan.ext@areva.com From: BRYAN Martin (External RS/NB)

Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 5:57 PM To: 'Tesfaye, Getachew' Cc: DELANO Karen (RS/NB); ROMINE Judy (RS/NB); BENNETT Kathy (RS/NB); HAMMOND Philip (RS/PT)

Subject:

Response to U.S. EPR Design Certification Application RAI No. 256, FSAR Ch 2, Supplement 8

Getachew, AREVA NP Inc. (AREVA NP) provided responses to 3 of the 7 questions of RAI No. 256 on February 26, 2010. AREVA NP provided Supplement 1 on April 2, 2010 to revise the commitment date for the remaining questions. AREVA NP submitted Supplement 2 to the response on April 20, 2010 to address 2 of the remaining 4 questions. AREVA NP submitted Supplement 3 to the response on May 4, 2010 to address 1 of the remaining 2 questions. A revised schedule to complete the remaining response was submitted via Supplement 4 on May 26, 2010, revised again via Supplement 5 on July 7, 2010, revised again via Supplement 6 on September 3, 2010 and revised again via Supplement 7 on October 6, 2010. The schedule is being revised to allow additional time for AREVA NP to address NRC comments.

The schedule for a technically correct and complete response to the remaining question has been changed and is provided below.

Question # Response Date RAI 25602.03.01-14 January 27, 2011 Sincerely, Martin (Marty) C. Bryan 1

U.S. EPR Design Certification Licensing Manager AREVA NP Inc.

Tel: (434) 832-3016 702 561-3528 cell Martin.Bryan.ext@areva.com From: BRYAN Martin (External RS/NB)

Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 4:22 PM To: 'Tesfaye, Getachew' Cc: DELANO Karen (RS/NB); ROMINE Judy (RS/NB); BENNETT Kathy (RS/NB); HAMMOND Philip (RS/PT)

Subject:

Response to U.S. EPR Design Certification Application RAI No. 256, FSAR Ch 2, Supplement 7

Getachew, AREVA NP Inc. (AREVA NP) provided responses to 3 of the 7 questions of RAI No. 256 on February 26, 2010.

AREVA NP provided Supplement 1 on April 2, 2010 to revise the commitment date for the remaining questions. AREVA NP submitted Supplement 2 to the response on April 20, 2010 to address 2 of the remaining 4 questions. AREVA NP submitted Supplement 3 to the response on May 4, 2010 to address 1 of the remaining 2 questions. A revised schedule to complete the remaining response was submitted via Supplement 4 on May 26, 2010, revised again via Supplement 5 on July 7, 2010, and subsequently revised again via Supplement 6 on September 3, 2010.

In order to reflect the related response to RAI 345 and RAI 351 questions (which are in review with NRC) a revised schedule is provided in this e-mail.

The schedule for a technically correct and complete response to the remaining question has been changed and is provided below:

Question # Response Date RAI 25602.03.01-14 December 16, 2010 Sincerely, Martin (Marty) C. Bryan U.S. EPR Design Certification Licensing Manager AREVA NP Inc.

Tel: (434) 832-3016 702 561-3528 cell Martin.Bryan.ext@areva.com From: BRYAN Martin (External RS/NB)

Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 4:12 PM To: 'Tesfaye, Getachew'; Miernicki, Michael Cc: DELANO Karen (RS/NB); ROMINE Judy (RS/NB); BENNETT Kathy (RS/NB); HAMMOND Philip (RS/PT); CORNELL Veronica (External RS/NB)

Subject:

Response to U.S. EPR Design Certification Application RAI No. 256, FSAR Ch 2, Supplement 6

Getachew, AREVA NP Inc. (AREVA NP) provided responses to 3 of the 7 questions of RAI No. 256 on February 26, 2010.

AREVA NP provided Supplement 1 on April 2, 2010 to revise the commitment date for the remaining questions. AREVA NP submitted Supplement 2 to the response on April 20, 2010 to address 2 of the 2

remaining 4 questions. AREVA NP submitted Supplement 3 to the response on May 4, 2010 to address 1 of the remaining 2 questions. A revised schedule to complete the remaining response was submitted via Supplement 4 on May 26, 2010 and subsequently revised again via Supplement 5 on July 7, 2010.

In order to reflect the related response to RAI 345 and RAI 351 questions (which are in review and comment resolution with NRC) a revised schedule is provided in this e-mail.

The schedule for a technically correct and complete response to the remaining question has been changed and is provided below.

Question # Response Date RAI 25602.03.01-14 November 16, 2010 Sincerely, Martin (Marty) C. Bryan U.S. EPR Design Certification Licensing Manager AREVA NP Inc.

Tel: (434) 832-3016 702 561-3528 cell Martin.Bryan.ext@areva.com From: BRYAN Martin (EXT)

Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 5:51 PM To: 'Tesfaye, Getachew' Cc: DELANO Karen V (AREVA NP INC); ROMINE Judy (AREVA NP INC); BENNETT Kathy A (OFR) (AREVA NP INC);

WILLIFORD Dennis C (AREVA NP INC)

Subject:

Response to U.S. EPR Design Certification Application RAI No. 256, FSAR Ch 2, Supplement 5

Getachew, AREVA NP Inc. (AREVA NP) provided responses to 3 of the 7 questions of RAI No. 256 on February 26, 2010.

AREVA NP provided Supplement 1 on April 2, 2010 to revise the commitment date for the remaining questions. AREVA NP submitted Supplement 2 to the response on April 20, 2010 to address 2 of the remaining 4 questions. AREVA NP submitted Supplement 3 to the response on May 4, 2010 to address 1 of the remaining 2 questions. A revised schedule to complete the remaining response was submitted via Supplement 4 on May 26, 2010.

In order to address cross-cutting issues between Design Certification and COL RAIs and to reflect the related response to RAI 351 questions (which have an NRC commitment date of August 31, 2010), a revised schedule is provided in this e-mail.

The schedule for a technically correct and complete response to the remaining question has been changed and is provided below.

Question # Response Date RAI 25602.03.01-14 September 27, 2010 Sincerely, Martin (Marty) C. Bryan 3

U.S. EPR Design Certification Licensing Manager AREVA NP Inc.

Tel: (434) 832-3016 702 561-3528 cell Martin.Bryan.ext@areva.com From: BRYAN Martin (EXT)

Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 5:40 PM To: 'Tesfaye, Getachew' Cc: DELANO Karen V (AREVA NP INC); ROMINE Judy (AREVA NP INC); BENNETT Kathy A (OFR) (AREVA NP INC);

WILLIFORD Dennis C (AREVA NP INC)

Subject:

Response to U.S. EPR Design Certification Application RAI No. 256, FSAR Ch 2, Supplement 4

Getachew, AREVA NP Inc. (AREVA NP) provided responses to 3 of the 7 questions of RAI No. 256 on February 26, 2010.

AREVA NP provided Supplement 1 on April 2, 2010 to revise the commitment date for the remaining questions. AREVA NP submitted Supplement 2 to the response on April 20, 2010 to address 2 of the remaining 4 questions. AREVA NP submitted Supplement 3 to the response on May 4, 2010 to address 1 of the remaining 2 questions.

A revised schedule to complete the remaining response is required in order to address cross-cutting issues between Design Certification and COL RAIs. In addition, the response is dependent upon the RAI 351 response (which has an NRC commitment date of July 1, 2010).

The schedule for a technically correct and complete response to the remaining question has been changed and is provided below.

Question # Response Date RAI 25602.03.01-14 July 15, 2010 Sincerely, Martin (Marty) C. Bryan U.S. EPR Design Certification Licensing Manager AREVA NP Inc.

Tel: (434) 832-3016 702 561-3528 cell Martin.Bryan.ext@areva.com From: BRYAN Martin (EXT)

Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 4:45 PM To: 'Tesfaye, Getachew' Cc: DELANO Karen V (AREVA NP INC); ROMINE Judy (AREVA NP INC); BENNETT Kathy A (OFR) (AREVA NP INC);

WILLIFORD Dennis C (AREVA NP INC)

Subject:

Response to U.S. EPR Design Certification Application RAI No. 256, FSAR Ch 2, Supplement 3

Getachew, 4

AREVA NP Inc. (AREVA NP) provided responses to 3 of the 7 questions of RAI No. 256 on February 26, 2010.

AREVA NP provided Supplement 1 on April 2, 2010 to revise the commitment date for the remaining questions. AREVA NP submitted Supplement 2 to the response on April 20, 2010 to address 2 of the remaining 4 questions. The attached file, RAI 256 Supplement 3 Response US EPR DC.pdf provides technically correct and complete responses to 1 of the remaining 2 questions.

Appended to this file are the affected pages of the U.S. EPR Final Safety Analysis Report in redline-strikeout format which support the response to RAI 256 Question 02.03.01-13.

The following table indicates the respective pages in the response document, RAI 256 Supplement 3 Response US EPR DC.pdf, that contain AREVA NPs response to the subject question.

Question # Start Page End Page RAI 256 02.03.01- 2 3 13 The schedule for a technically correct and complete response to the remaining question has been changed based on discussion with NRC staff on April 19, 2010. This additional time is necessary to ensure a thorough discussion of proposed new COL items.

Question # Response Date RAI 25602.03.01-14 May 27, 2010 Sincerely, Martin (Marty) C. Bryan U.S. EPR Design Certification Licensing Manager AREVA NP Inc.

Tel: (434) 832-3016 702 561-3528 cell Martin.Bryan.ext@areva.com From: WELLS Russell D (AREVA NP INC)

Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 10:50 AM To: 'Getachew Tesfaye' Cc: BRYAN Martin (EXT); BENNETT Kathy A (OFR) (AREVA NP INC); DELANO Karen V (AREVA NP INC); ROMINE Judy (AREVA NP INC)

Subject:

Response to U.S. EPR Design Certification Application RAI No. 256, FSAR Ch 2, Supplement 2

Getachew, AREVA NP Inc. (AREVA NP) provided responses to 3 of the 7 questions of RAI No. 256 on February 26, 2010.

AREVA NP provided Supplement 1 on April 2, 2010 to revise the commitment date for the remaining questions. The attached file, RAI 256 Supplement 2 Response US EPR DC.pdf provides technically correct and complete responses to 2 of the remaining 4 questions.

Appended to this file is the affected page of the U.S. EPR Final Safety Analysis Report in redline-strikeout format which supports the response to RAI 256 Question 02.03.05-6.

The following table indicates the respective pages in the response document, RAI 256 Supplement 2 Response US EPR DC.pdf, that contain AREVA NPs response to the subject questions.

5

Question # Start Page End Page RAI 256 02.03.05-6 2 2 RAI 256 02.03.05-7 3 3 (Part 4)

The schedule for technically correct and complete responses to the remaining 2 questions has been changed based on discussion and comments from NRC staff on April 19, 2010. This additional time is necessary to process the required changes to the responses.

Question # Response Date RAI 25602.03.01-13 May 4, 2010 RAI 25602.03.01-14 May 4, 2010 Sincerely, (Russ Wells on behalf of)

Martin (Marty) C. Bryan Licensing Advisory Engineer AREVA NP Inc.

Tel: (434) 832-3016 Martin.Bryan.ext@areva.com From: BRYAN Martin (EXT)

Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 4:11 PM To: 'Getachew.Tesfaye@nrc.gov' Cc: DELANO Karen V (AREVA NP INC); ROMINE Judy (AREVA NP INC); BENNETT Kathy A (OFR) (AREVA NP INC);

WILLIFORD Dennis C (AREVA NP INC)

Subject:

Response to U.S. EPR Design Certification Application RAI No. 256, FSAR Ch. 2, Supplement 1

Getachew, AREVA NP Inc. (AREVA NP) provided responses to 3 of the 7 questions of RAI No. 256 on February 26, 2010. To allow time for AREVA to discuss proposed responses to the remaining 4 questions with the NRC staff, a revised schedule is provided in this e-mail.

The schedule for technically correct and complete responses to the remaining 4 questions has been changed as provided below:

Question # Response Date RAI 256 02.03.01-13 April 20, 2010 RAI 256 02.03.01-14 April 20, 2010 RAI 256 02.03.05-6 April 20, 2010 RAI 256 02.03.05-7 April 20, 2010 Sincerely, Martin (Marty) C. Bryan Licensing Advisory Engineer AREVA NP Inc.

6

Tel: (434) 832-3016 Martin.Bryan@areva.com From: BRYAN Martin (EXT)

Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 5:17 PM To: 'Tesfaye, Getachew' Cc: DELANO Karen V (AREVA NP INC); BENNETT Kathy A (OFR) (AREVA NP INC); ROMINE Judy (AREVA NP INC);

WILLIFORD Dennis C (AREVA NP INC)

Subject:

Response to U.S. EPR Design Certification Application RAI No. 256, FSAR Ch. 2

Getachew, Attached please find AREVA NP Inc.s response to the subject request for additional information (RAI). The attached file, RAI 256 Response US EPR DC.pdf provides technically correct and complete responses to 3 of the 7 questions.

Appended to this file are affected pages of the U.S. EPR Final Safety Analysis Report in redline-strikeout format which support the response to RAI 256 Questions 02.03.01-15, 02.03.04-7, and 02.03.04-8.

The following table indicates the respective pages in the response document, RAI 256 Response US EPR DC.pdf, that contain AREVA NPs response to the subject questions.

Question # Start Page End Page RAI 256 02.03.01-13 2 2 RAI 256 02.03.01-14 3 4 RAI 256 02.03.01-15 5 6 RAI 256 02.03.04-7 7 9 RAI 256 02.03.04-8 10 11 RAI 256 02.03.05-6 12 12 RAI 256 02.03.05-7 13 13 A complete answer is not provided for 4 of the 7 questions. The schedule for a technically correct and complete response to these questions is provided below.

Question # Response Date RAI 256 02.03.01-13 April 2, 2010 RAI 256 02.03.01-14 April 2, 2010 RAI 256 02.03.05-6 April 2, 2010 RAI 256 02.03.05-7 April 2, 2010 Sincerely, Martin (Marty) C. Bryan Licensing Advisory Engineer AREVA NP Inc.

Tel: (434) 832-3016 Martin.Bryan.ext@areva.com 7

From: Tesfaye, Getachew [1]

Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 4:19 PM To: ZZ-DL-A-USEPR-DL Cc: Harvey, Brad; Hart, Michelle; Patel, Jay; Lauron, Carolyn; Colaccino, Joseph; ArevaEPRDCPEm Resource

Subject:

U.S. EPR Design Certification Application RAI No. 256 (2937, 2938,2940), FSAR Ch. 2 Attached please find the subject requests for additional information (RAI). A draft of the RAI was provided to you on July 7, 2009, and discussed with your staff on July 23, 2009. No changes were made to the Draft RAI Questions as a result of that discussion. As we informed you during our discussion, the questions in this RAI are considered potential open items for Phases 2 and 3 reviews. As such, the schedule we have established for your application assumes technically correct and complete responses prior to the start of Phase 4 review.

For any RAIs that cannot be answered prior to the start of Phase 4 review, it is expected that a date for receipt of this information will be provided so that the staff can assess how this information will impact the published schedule.

Thanks, Getachew Tesfaye Sr. Project Manager NRO/DNRL/NARP (301) 415-3361 8

Hearing Identifier: AREVA_EPR_DC_RAIs Email Number: 2394 Mail Envelope Properties (BC417D9255991046A37DD56CF597DB710871FF00)

Subject:

DRAFT Response to U.S. EPR Design Certification Application RAI No. 256, FSAR Ch 2, Question 02.03.01-14 Sent Date: 12/22/2010 6:57:30 PM Received Date: 12/22/2010 6:58:55 PM From: BRYAN Martin (EXTERNAL AREVA)

Created By: Martin.Bryan.ext@areva.com Recipients:

"DELANO Karen (AREVA)" <Karen.Delano@areva.com>

Tracking Status: None "ROMINE Judy (AREVA)" <Judy.Romine@areva.com>

Tracking Status: None "BENNETT Kathy (AREVA)" <Kathy.Bennett@areva.com>

Tracking Status: None "Carneal, Jason" <Jason.Carneal@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "HALLINGER Pat (EXTERNAL AREVA)" <Pat.Hallinger.ext@areva.com>

Tracking Status: None "WILLIFORD Dennis (AREVA)" <Dennis.Williford@areva.com>

Tracking Status: None "HAMMOND Philip (AREVA)" <Philip.Hammond@areva.com>

Tracking Status: None "FLECK Sherri (AREVA)" <Sherri.Fleck@areva.com>

Tracking Status: None "Tesfaye, Getachew" <Getachew.Tesfaye@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: AUSLYNCMX02.adom.ad.corp Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 16340 12/22/2010 6:58:55 PM RAI 256 Q.2.3.1 MASTER - DRAFT 2.pdf 327472 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

Response to Request for Additional Information No. 256 (2937, 2938, 2940) Revision 0, Supplement 9 7/24/2009 U. S. EPR Standard Design Certification AREVA NP Inc.

Docket No.52-020 SRP Section: 02.03.01 - Regional Climatology SRP Section: 02.03.04 - Short Term Atmospheric Disp Dispersion Estimates for Dispe Accident Releases SRP Section: 02.03.05 - Long-Term Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates for eric Disp ases Routine Releases ase AF n: FSAR Ch. 2 Application Section:

QUESTIONS for Siting and Accident Co Branch (RSAC)

Conseq B T

DR

AREVA NP Inc.

Response to Request for Additional Information No. 256, Supplement 9 U.S. EPR Design Certification Application Page 2 of 4 Question 02.03.01-14:

POTENTIAL OPEN ITEM This question is related to the applicants supplement 1 response to RAI 02.03.01-10 and supplement 1 response to RAI 02.03.02-11.

FSAR Tier 2 Table 2.1-1 presents a set of site parameters which are the postulated physical, environmental, and demographic features of an assumed site which the U.S. EPR standard design is based. FSAR Section 2.0 states that these site parameters represent more demanding conditions than normally expected for most U.S. nuclear power plant sites.

U.S. EPR Combined License Information Item 2.0-1 (from FSAR R Table Tab 1.8-2) states a COL Ta applicant that references the U.S. EPR design certification will cocompare site-specific data to the design parameter data in Table 2.1-1. If the characteristicss for the site s fall within w the assumed site parameter values in Table 2.1-1, then the U.S. EPR R standard desdesign is bounding b for the T

site. For site characteristics that are outside the bounds nds of the assumptions assumptio presented in Table 2.1-1, the COL applicant will confirm that the U.S. EPR design acceptably meets any additional requirements that may be imposed by the more limiting maintains conformance to the design commitments characteristics, and that the design miting site ccharacteris FSAR.

AF The response to RAI 02.03.01-10 states coincident wet bulb design point may as design point for the ultimate heat sink (UHS) co also evaluated using site specific the U.S. EPR design to verify cific meteorological data acceptance criteria described in the tments and ac tes thatt although the 81 °F zero percent exceedance non-ay be exceeded at locations loca throughout the U.S, it was used cooling towers. The U.S. EPR UHS design was da for several COL applicants referencing rify that the site-specific data yield acceptable UHS basin D

temperatures. Similarly,, the response to RAI 02.03.01-11 are design based on zero percent excee R

such that no makeup basis accident under er the worst case env cooling tower basins was also evaluated applicants referencing the evalua evalu e U.S. EP 02 states the UHS cooling tower basins exceedance coincident wet bulb and dry bulb temperatures exceedanc up to the basin is required requir for three days following the initiation of a design requi environmental conditions. The sizing of the U.S. EPR UHS using site-specific meteorological data for several COL EPR design.

There are several site design parameters listed in Table 2.1-1 that can be deleted from FSAR Tier 2 Table 2.1-1 because (1) comparison with site characteristic values will not be particularly meaningful and/or (2) there are (or can be) Combined License Information Items providing more specific details regarding demonstrating that the design of the U.S EPR is acceptable at a proposed COL site. In particular:

1. Consider deleting the hourly wet bulb temperature and concurrent dry bulb temperature values presented in FSAR Tier 2 Table 2.1-3 (containing the design values for maximum evaporation and drift loss of water from the UHS) as site parameters. It is not clear how COL applicants can demonstrate that the wet bulb temperature and concurrent dry bulb temperature characteristics for their site are bounded by the 72 sets of hourly wet bulb temperature and concurrent dry bulb temperature site parameter values presented in Table 2.1-3.

2. Consider adding a Combined License Information Item to FSAR Tier 2 Table 1.8-2 stating that a COL applicant that references the U.S. EPR design certification will demonstrate that

AREVA NP Inc.

Response to Request for Additional Information No. 256, Supplement 9 U.S. EPR Design Certification Application Page 3 of 4 no makeup water to the UHS cooling tower basin is required for three days following the initiation of a design basis accident under the worst case site-specific environmental conditions pursuant to Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.27, Ultimate Heat Sink for Nuclear Power Plants.

3. Consider deleting the 81 °F zero percent exceedance non-coincident wet bulb air temperature as a site parameter. The supplement 1 response to RAI 02.03.01-10 states that although this site parameter value (which is used solely as a design point for the sizing of the UHS cooling towers) may be exceeded at locations throughout the U.S., the UHS design was evaluated using site-specific meteorological data from COL applicant referencing the U.S. EPR design. There is no benefit specifying a site parameter value that is known to be exceeded at number of locations.

4. Consider deleting the hourly wet bulb temperature and concurrent rre dry bulb temperature values presented in FSAR Tier 2 Table 2.1-4 (containing the design values for minimum desig e de water cooling from the UHS) as site parameters. It is nott clea clear how CCOL applicants can demonstrate that the wet bulb temperature and concurrent rrent dry bulb b temperature tem characteristics for their site fall within the 24 sets off hourly wet bulb temperature temp and

5. Consider adding a Combined License Information T concurrent dry bulb temperature site parameter values presented in T ation Item to FSAR Tier that a COL applicant that references the U.S. EPR PR desig Table 2.1-4.

Tab Tie 2 Table 1.8-2 stating certification will demonstrate that design certific meteorological condition site Tier 2 Table 1.8-2 already certification to evaluate e the AF the UHS cooling tower design is validated basin temperatures pursuant to RG ed with site-specific G 1.27.

7.

6. Consider deleting the potentiall for water freezing e parameter. Com site-spec time temperature profiles to verify that the site-specific tim dependent wet bulb yield acceptable maximum UHS te-specific data yie the UHS water storage facility as a UHS freezin in th Combined License Information Item 2.4-8 in FSAR applicant that references the U.S. EPR design applica y directs a COL applic freezing temperatures that may affect the e potential for freezi D

performance of the ultimate heat ssink make ice, maximum ice R

makeup, including the potential for frazil and anchor e thickness, and maximum maximu cumulative degree-days below freezing.

max

AREVA NP Inc.

Response to Request for Additional Information No. 256, Supplement 9 U.S. EPR Design Certification Application Page 4 of 4 Response to Question 02.03.01-14:

1. As stated in the response to RAI 351 Question 29, the Tier 2 Table 2.1-3 was relocated to Tier 2 section 9.2.5 as Table 9.2.5-3.

2. As stated in the response to RAI 351 Question 29, COL information item 9.2-6 was added to Tier 2 section 9.2.5.3 and Table 1.8-2.

3. The temperature parameter 81°F wet bulb (non coincident) UHS Design Only and its corresponding Notes, 2 and 5, will be deleted from U.S. EPR FSAR Tier 2, Table 2.1-1. The 81°F wet bulb, non coincident, zero percent exceedance, will remain in U.S. EPR FSAR Tier 2, Table 9.2.5-2, and a reference to Table 9.2.5-2 will be added to U.S. EPR FSAR Tier 2, Section 2.3.1.2. U.S. EPR FSAR Tier 2, Section 9.2.5.3.1 will be revised to include the information in Notes 2 and 5, which were previously included ed in COL C Item 2.0-1, as new COL Items 9.2-10 and 9.2-11. U.S. EPR FSAR Tier 2, Table able 1.8-2 will w also be revised to include these two COL Items. An additional note explaining aining the use of this temperature parameter will be added to U.S. EPR FSAR Table 9.2.5-2, as follows:

follow performance for the U.S. EPR DBA maximum ximum all subsequent cooling tower performance T

An important meteorological design point for the establishment of the cooling tower mum load case ca and consequently co establishes AF

4. As stated in the response to RAI 351 Tier 2 section 9.2.5 as Table 9.2.5-4.

to Tier 2 section 9.2.5.3 and 5-4.

ance forr other wet bulb conditions and lower loads.

1 Question uestion 29, the Tier Tie 2 Table 2.1-4 was relocated to

5. As stated in the response to RAI 351 Question 29, a COL information item 9.2-7 was added nd Table 1.8-2.

1.8 2.

D

6. The potential for water R

FSAR Impact:

er freezing in the UHS w conditions site parameter U.S. EPR FSAR, Tier 2, Table deleted fro rameter was delete able 1.8-2, 1

water storage facility as a UHS meteorological from Tier 2 Table 2.1-1 in U.S. EPR FSAR Revision Table 2.1-1, Section 2.3.1.2, Table 9.2.5-2, and Section 9.2.5.3.1 will be revised as described in the response and indicated on the enclosed markup.

U.S. EPR Final Safety Analysis Report Markups T

AF DR

U.S. EPR FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Table 1.8-2U.S. EPR Combined License Information Items Sheet 23 of 39 Item No. Description Section 9.2-8 A COL applicant that references the U.S. EPR design certification 9.2.5.3 will confirm that the UHS makeup capacity is sufficient to meet the maximum evaporative and drift water loss after 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> through the remainder of the 30-day period consistent with RG 1.27.

9.2-9 A COL applicant that references the U.S. EPR design certification 9.2.5.2 will compare site-specific chemistry data for normal and emergency makeup water to the parameters in Table 9.2.5-5. If the specific data for the site fall within the assumed design parameters in Table 9.2.5-5, then the U.S. EPR standard ard design is bounding for the site. For site-specific normal and emergency emergen emer makeup water data or characteristics that are outside the boun utside th bounds of the assumptions presented in Table 9.2.5-5, 5, the COL applicant ap will provide an analysis to confirm that thee U.S. EPR UHS co cooling D towers are capable of removing the design ign basis heat load for a 02.03.01-14(3) minimum of 30 days without exceeding ding specified ng the maximum specifi R

temperature limit for ESWS and minimum required basin water mum requ level.

9.2-10 A COL applicant that references ences desig design certification es the U.S. EPR desi 9.2.5.3.1 AF will evaluate site-specific ic conditions determin determine a wet bulb tions to determi correction factor.

9.2-11 A COL applicant that references the U U.S. E EPR design certification 9.2.5.3.1 will perform an n evaluation of the inter interf interference effects of the UHS cooling tower wer on nearby safety-relat safety-related air intakes. This evaluation T

will confirm firm that potential UHS ccooling tower interference effects on thee safety related air intak intake intakes does not result in air intake inlet conditions itions that exceed the U U.S. EPR Site Design Parameters for Air Temperature speci specified in Table 2.1-1.

mperature as spe 9.4-1 A COL applicant licant that references the U.S. EPR design certification 9.4.4 te-s will provide site-specific design information for the turbine building ventilation system (TBVS).

9.4-2 A COL applicant that references the U.S. EPR design certification 9.4.4 will provide site-specific design information for the switchgear building ventilation system, turbine island (SWBVS).

9.5-1 A COL applicant referencing the U.S. EPR certified design will 9.5.2.3 identify additional site-specific communication locations necessary to support effective communication between plant personnel in all vital areas of the plant during normal operation, as well as during accident conditions.

9.5-2 A COL applicant that references the U.S. EPR design certification Table 9.5.1-1 will submit site specific information to address the Regulatory C.1.7.1 Guide 1.189, Regulatory Position C.1.7.1, Design and Procurement Document Control.

Tier 2 Revision 3Interim Page 1.8-28

U.S. EPR FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Table 2.1-1U.S. EPR Site Design Envelope Sheet 5 of 7 U.S. EPR Site Design Envelope Temperature (Refer to Section 2.3) 02.03.01-14(3) 0% Maximum 115°F Dry Bulb / 80°F Wet Bulb (mean coincident)

Exce Exceedance 81°F Wet Bulb (non-coincident) UHS Design Only (2)

Valu Values3 Minimum -40°F Air 1% M Maximum 100°F dry bulb/77°F mean coincident wet bulb Exceedance 80°F wet bulb (noncoincident)

D Values (seasonal Minimuminim -10°F 4

basis)

R Atmospheric Dispersion and Deposition eposition Factors ((F/Q)

F/Q (D/Q) (Refer to Section 2.3)

Maximum Annual Average 4.973E-06 s/m3 F/Q)

(limiting sector) 5.0E-08 m-2 (D/Q)

Accidentnt ent AF 0-2 hr (EAB) 1E-03 s/m3

1E-0 0-2 hr (LPZ) 1.75E-04 s/m3 2-8 hr (LPZ)

T 1.35E-04 s/m3 8-24 hr (LPZ) 1.00E-04 s/m3 1-4 day (LPZ) 5.40E-05 s/m3 4-30 day (LPZ) 2.20E-05 s/m3 Tier 2 Revision 3Interim Page 2.1-7

U.S. EPR FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Table 2.1-1U.S. EPR Site Design Envelope Sheet 7 of 7 U.S. EPR Site Design Envelope 2-8 hours (s/m3) 3.71E-03 1.47E-02 2.68E-03 1.47E-03 6.67E-03 1.66E-03 2.12E-03 1.48E-02 7.21E-03 8-24 hours (s/m3) 1.46E-03 5.96E-03 1.15E-03 1 5.74E-04 2.88E-03 6.69E-04 8.28E-04 5.88E-03 2.96E-03 1-4 days (s/m3) 1.12E-03 4.28E-033 7.59E-7.59E-04 7.59E-0 4.37E-04 1.89E-03 5.02E-04 6.38E-04 4.55E-03 2.22E-03 4-30 days (s/m3) 1.03E-03 89E-03 3.89E-03 6.89E-0 6.89E-04 4.00E-04 1.71E-03 4.65E-04 5.85E-04 4.16E-03 2.06E-03 D

1. The effect of the extreme liquid winterr precipitation event on roof hour PMWP liquid of 32 inches is based on data rro loads is negligible due to the lack of parapets.The maximum 48-ata obtained from NaNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Hydrometeorological Report No. 53 Seasonal al 10-s al Variation of 10-square-mile 10-square- Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates, United States East of the 105th Meridian for the three winter months hs - December thr thro through February. However, the effect of rainfall events on roof R

loads is negligible, due to the lack of parapets.

2. Deleted.COL applicant to determine wet bulb temperature ature correction factor to account for potential interference and recirculation effects. (Refer to COL Item 2.0-1 in Table 1.8-2U.S. EPR mbined License In PR Combined Information Items).

3. By definition, zero percent exceedance temperature values exclude ude peaks of tempera temperatures less than two hours in duration. The zero percent exceedance temperature values are based on conservative ive ve estimates of 100-year return period values and historic extreme values, whichever is bounding.

4. For maximum values, data from the summer months or June, July, and nd August are used.d. For mminimum values, data from the winter AF months of December, January, and February are used.

5. Deleted.COL applicant to confirm potential UHS cooling tower interferencee effects ects o on safety safety-related air intakes do not result in air intake inlet conditions that exceed the site design envelope ambient air conditions ions (refer tto COL Item 2.0-1 in Table 1.8-2U.S. EPR Combined License Information Items).

T 02.03.01-14(3)

Tier 2 Revision 3Interim Page 2.1-9

U.S. EPR FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT the addition of the weight of the extreme frozen or liquid precipitation event, whichever is greater. Snow pack and snowfall are adjusted for density differences and ground level values are adjusted to represent appropriate weights on roofs.

A COL applicant that references the U.S. EPR design certification will provide site-specific characteristics for regional climatology.

2.3.1.2 Meteorological Data for Evaluating the Ultimate Heat Sink As described in Section 9.2.5, the ultimate heat sink (UHS) is designed to operate for a nominal 30 days following a LOCA without requiring any makeup water to the source, or it must be demonstrated that replenishment or use of an alternate or additional water supply can provide continuous capability of the heat sink to perform its safety-02.03.01-14(3) related functions. The tower basin contains a minimum imum 72-hour 7 supply of water.

Meteorological conditions resulting in the maximum aximum evaevaporative and drift loss of evaporativ water for the UHS over a 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> period are presented in Table Ta 9.2.5-3.

9 The UHS D

cooling tower basin is designed considering R

conditions.

Water makeup to the UHSS cooling dering the airwet 9.2.5-2 2.1-1 and maintains its cooling ling aairrwet bulb for the Tabl ng function fo oling tower basin beyond bey be temperature data of Table tem lb te Table 9.2.5-3 meteorological 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> is site-specific. As AF described in Section 9.2.5.3, 2.5.3, the COL applicant that references the U.S. EPR design certification will describe escribe the means for providing pro UHS makeup sufficient to meet the maximum evaporative orative and drift water loss los after 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> through the remainder of the 30 day periodd consistent onsistent with RG 1.27.

1.2 Table T

Meteorological rological conditions resulting le 9.2.5-4. These conditi minimum.

mum. The UHS h UHS cooling towe heat rresul in minimum water cooling are presented in conditions reflect a 1 day period where evaporative cooling is at a hea loads peak and decline within the first day, such that extendingg the 1 day meteorological m profile for 5 consecutive days does not cause the tower basin water temperature to exceed the maximum temperature of 95°F listed in Table 9.2.5-2. The potential for water freezing in the UHS water storage facility is addressed in Section 2.4.

2.3.2 Local Meteorology A COL applicant that references the U.S. EPR design certification will provide site-specific characteristics for local meteorology.

2.3.3 Onsite Meteorological Measurement Program A COL applicant that references the U.S. EPR design certification will provide the site-specific, onsite meteorological measurement program.

Tier 2 Revision 3Interim Page 2.3-2

U.S. EPR FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT the COL applicant. The site-specific UHS systems are shown in Figure 9.2.5-2

((Conceptual Site-Specific UHS Systems)).

9.2.5.3 Component Description 9.2.5.3.1 Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers The cooling towers are rectangular mechanical-induced draft-type towers. Each tower consists of two cells in a back-to-back arrangement. The two cells of the cooling tower in a particular division share a single cooling tower basin and each cell is capable of transferring fifty percent of the design basis heat loads for one division from the ESWS to the environment under worst-case ambient conditions. The division four cooling tower shares use with the dedicated ESW train and can transfer severe accident (SA) heat loads to the environment under wors worst-case ambient conditions.

worst-The Division 4 cooling tower fans can be supplied plied by a sstandby EDG or a station blackout diesel generator (SBODG) that iss provided as an alalternat alternate AC power source.

AF The cooling tower fill design and arrangement buildup of biofilm and provide rangement angement maximize con droplets and air inside the tower.. The tower fill contact time between water fil spacing is de for ease of cleaning, clean i chosen to minimize the maintenance, and inspection.

m T

UHS cooling tower fill is constructed stainless steel, bronze).

onze). UHS cooling tow supported to withstand ceramic tile, supported on reinforced concrete ructed of cerami beams. Spray pipingg and nozzles are ffabricated fabricat of corrosion resistant materials (e.g.,

tower internals are seismically designed and shutdown earthquake (SSE). Passive failures of the ithstand a safe shutdow DR cooling tower materials wer spray or fill systems are considered extremely unlikely due to their The UHS fans are desi supporting systems and Seismic Category I design.

als of construction, ssuppo designed to withstand the effects of tornado including differential designe pressure effects,, overs oversp overspeed, and the impact of differential pressure effects on other equipment located within the cooling tower structure (e.g., capability to function, potential to become missile/debris hazard). The method to be used to protect the UHS fans from overspeed due to tornado effects will be a brake system or the resistance of the fan gear reducer.

To prevent the entrainment of debris from the UHS cooling tower, each cell of the UHS cooling tower includes a debris screen located between the cooling tower 02.03.01-14(3) internals and the ESW pump.

To account for potential recirculation and interference effects of the cooling towers, an inlet wet bulb correction factor is used. A COL applicant that references the U.S.

EPR design certification will evaluate site-specific conditions to determine a wet bulb correction factor. With respect to interference effects site factors including orientation (with respect to wind direction), location, and wind velocity and direction Tier 2 Revision 3Interim Page 9.2-119

02.03.01-14(3)

U.S. EPR FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT should be considered. With respect to recirculation effects, factors including the site layout should be considered. The site-specific wet bulb correction factor will be applied when evaluating the applicability of the UHS design parameters provided in Table 9.2.5-2. If the site-specific 0% exceedance maximum non-coincident wet bulb temperature exceeds the value provided in Table 9.2.5-2 when the site-specific wet bulb correction factor is applied, then a site-specific evaluation will be performed to demonstrate the acceptability of the UHS design for the site-specific conditions.

Depending on site layout and site meteorological conditions, the UHS cooling tower could have interference effects that would impact nearby safety-related air intakes. A COL applicant that references the U.S. EPR design certification will perform an evaluation of the interference effects of the UHS cooling tower on nearby safety-related air intakes. This evaluation will confirm thatt pot pote potential UHS cooling tower interference effects on the safety related air intakes does no kes do not result in air intake inlet conditions that exceed the U.S. EPR Site Design Parameters for Air Temperature as gn Parame specified in Table 2.1-1.

D To account for potential interferencee effects of the cooling to correction factor is used. As part of addressing R

applicant that references the U.S. EPR design ccertificat specific conditions of orientation ntation towers, an inlet wet bulb ddressing IItem 2.0-1 of Table 1.8-2, the COL certification will evaluate their site-ion (with respect to wind w direction), location, wind AF velocity, and direction to determine mine a wet bulb correction factor to account for interference effects.

To account forr potential recirculation eeffects of the cooling towers, an inlet wet bulb correction factor is used. As part of addressing Item 2.0-1 of Table 1.8-2, the COL T

applicant specific nt that references the evaluation ant. As p references the U th U.S.

ific location to determin effects.To U.S EPR design certification will evaluate their site-determine a wet bulb correlation factor to account for recirculation ts.To account for pot potential interference effects from the UHS cooling tower, an on of the effects COL applicant.

effec on nearby safety-related air intakes will be performed by the part of addressing Item 2.0-1 of Table 1.8-2, the COL applicant that U.S. EPR design certification will confirm that potential UHS cooling tower interference effects on the safety-related air intakes does not result in air intake inlet conditions that exceed the U.S. EPR Site Design Envelope air temperature parameters specified in Table 2.1-1.

Each cooling tower basin is sized to provide for a minimum 72-hour supply of cooling water to the associated ESW division under design basis accident (DBA) conditions assuming loss of normal makeup water capability. In the event of torrential rains and hurricanes, water would enter through the air inlet and air outlet area of the cooling tower portion of the Essential Service Water Buildings. Refer to Figure 3.8-95 through Figure 3.8-102 for details of the Essential Service Water Building. As the water level reaches the high level, an alarm in the control room will alert the operator. Operator action is performed to remove water from the cooling tower basin through the use of Tier 2 Revision 3Interim Page 9.2-120

U.S. EPR FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Table 9.2.5-2Ultimate Heat Sink Design Parameters Cooling Tower Cells 31/32/33/34 URB Description Technical Data Cooling Tower Type Mechanical Induced Draft Design Water Flow (total both cells) 19,200 gpm Design Hot (Inlet) Water Temperature 135°F 02.03.01-14(3)

Design Cold (Outlet) Water Temperature d95°F (max, DBA)

Winter Design Cold (Outlet) Water Temperature @ 71°F Normal Ops/72°F Cooldown 50°F Inlet WB 78.5°F DBA Design Inlet Wet Bulb Temperature 81°F (non-coincident, 0% exceedance value)(1)(2)

Maximum Drift Loss (Percent of Water Flow) < 0.005%

Maximum Evaporation Loss at Design Conditions 571 gpm (total both cells)

Number of Cells 2 Cell/Tower Tower Towe D

Basin Water Volume (Min) 295,120 ft3

295,1 Basin Water Level (Min) 23.75 ft 23.7 Required Cooling Tower Emergency Makeup Flow,ow, 300 gpm R

72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, -post-DBA (72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> through 30 days)

AF Note:

potential interference Table 1.8-2).

-2).

)

ays)

1. COL applicant to determine wet bulb temperature te recirculation effects. (Refer to COL Item 2.0-1 in recirculati terference and recircul correction factor to account for T

2. An important meteoro tower conditions meteorological design point for the establishment of the cooling meteorologica ower performance for tthe th U.S. EPR DBA maximum load case and consequently subsequent cooling tower performance for other wet bulb subseque establishes all subs lower lowe loads.

nditions and low 02.03.01-14(3)

Tier 2 Revision 3Interim Page 9.2-131