ML11129A313
| ML11129A313 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200016 |
| Issue date: | 12/30/2010 |
| From: | Office of New Reactors |
| To: | NRC/NRO/DNRL/NARP |
| References | |
| +reviewedjr | |
| Download: ML11129A313 (4) | |
Text
CCNPP3COLA PEmails From: Steckel, James Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 8:04 AM To: Brown, David Cc: CCNPP3COL Resource
Subject:
FW: EPR wetbulb vs C. Cliffs Attachments: DRAFT Response to U.S. EPR Design Certification Application RAI No. 256, FSAR Ch 2, Question 02.03.01-14; Response to U.S. EPR Design Certification Application RAI No. 256, FSAR Ch 2, Supplement 8
- Dave, FYI, here is information on EPR RAI 02.03.01-14(3) concerning 81°F zero percent exceedance non-coincident wet bulb air temperature as a site parameter.
Jim James Steckel Project Manager NRC EPR Projects Branch 301 4151026 james.steckel@nrc.gov From: Hearn, Peter Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 8:39 AM To: Tesfaye, Getachew; Steckel, James
Subject:
FW: EPR wetbulb vs C. Cliffs FYI From: Harvey, Brad Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 7:52 AM To: Wheeler, Larry; Eul, Ryan Cc: Segala, John; Lee, Samuel; Hearn, Peter; Patel, Jay; Brown, David
Subject:
RE: EPR wetbulb vs C. Cliffs Larry/Ryan:
Just wanted to let you know that AREVA has postponed providing their formal response to EPR RAI 02.03.01-14(3) (Consider deleting the 81 °F zero percent exceedance non-coincident wet bulb air temperature as a site parameter) until Jan 27, 2011.
Brad 415-4118 From: Harvey, Brad Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 4:48 PM To: Wheeler, Larry Cc: Segala, John; Tesfaye, Getachew; Eul, Ryan; Lee, Samuel; Hearn, Peter; Patel, Jay
Subject:
RE: EPR wetbulb vs C. Cliffs Larry et al:
1
Here is a draft response from AREVA. They are proposing not deleting the 81 °F zero percent exceedance non-coincident wet bulb air temperature as a site parameter because it is an important meteorological design input for establishing cooling tower performance for the U.S. EPR design basis accident.
Just because the 81 °F wet bulb temperature is a design input does not mean it must be a site parameter. Also, I think that we may be comparing apples and oranges because maybe the 81 °F wet bulb temperature design input shouldnt be compared to the zero percent exceedance wet bulb site characteristic value, which is the highest hourly value ever observed at the site.
I still believe the 81 °F zero percent exceedance non-coincident wet bulb air temperature should be deleted as a site parameter.
Your thoughts?
Brad 415-4118 From: Wheeler, Larry Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 4:51 PM To: Harvey, Brad Cc: Segala, John; Tesfaye, Getachew; Eul, Ryan; Lee, Samuel; Hearn, Peter
Subject:
RE: EPR wetbulb vs C. Cliffs Brad:
Thanks- John Segala was asking me again on this.
I am not sure the Chapter 9 PM has been following this issue and if the wet bulb gets changed at the DCD, Chapter 9 may have to be extended and the ESWS cooling tower for UHS may have to go thru more design changes.
Larry From: Harvey, Brad Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 4:31 PM To: Wheeler, Larry Cc: Brown, David; Eul, Ryan; Lee, Samuel; Segala, John
Subject:
RE:
We are already doing this - please see attached email.
From: Wheeler, Larry Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 4:20 PM To: Segala, John Cc: Harvey, Brad; Brown, David; Eul, Ryan; Lee, Samuel
Subject:
FW:
FYI - at some point we need to engage project with why the DCD does not bound the R.
2
From: Wheeler, Larry Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 8:41 AM To: Eul, Ryan Cc: Segala, John; Lee, Samuel; Harvey, Brad; Brown, David
Subject:
FW:
Ryan:
FYI - Guess we need to take as closer look at this and ask AREVA why their design cert is not bounding. It would make sense that the design cert should cover this new wet bulb temp going from 81 WB to 85 WB since Calvert is the R plant.
From: Brown, David Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 8:33 AM To: Wheeler, Larry; Li, Chang Cc: Steckel, James; Lee, Samuel; Segala, John
Subject:
Larry and Chang, From EPM, I see that you are the SRP Sec. 9.2 reviewers for the Calvert Cliffs RCOLA. I just wanted to be sure that you were aware of a proposed change to CCNPP3 FSAR Section 9.2.1 that Unistar provided in August. This is in regards to a departure from the DCD temperature site parameters for the design of the ultimate heat sink. The accession number for the attached RAI response is ML102360342.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
David D. Brown, CHP Acting Branch Chief Siting and Accident Consequences Branch Division of Site and Environmental Reviews Office of New Reactors U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11545 Rockville Pike, Mail Stop T7F27 Rockville, MD 208522738 3014156116 David.Brown@nrc.gov 3
Hearing Identifier: CalvertCliffs_Unit3Cola_Public_EX Email Number: 1820 Mail Envelope Properties (AF843158D8D87443918BD3AA953ABF781C8991EC7D)
Subject:
FW: EPR wetbulb vs C. Cliffs Sent Date: 12/30/2010 8:04:08 AM Received Date: 12/30/2010 8:04:11 AM From: Steckel, James Created By: James.Steckel@nrc.gov Recipients:
"CCNPP3COL Resource" <CCNPP3COL.Resource@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Brown, David" <David.Brown@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office: HQCLSTR02.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 4580 12/30/2010 8:04:11 AM DRAFT Response to U.S. EPR Design Certification Application RAI No. 256, FSAR Ch 2, Question 02.03.01-14 342878 Response to U.S. EPR Design Certification Application RAI No. 256, FSAR Ch 2, Supplement 8 55420 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received: