ML17037C234

Letter Enclosing a Copy of the Evaluation Dated February 8, 1972 of the Niagara Mohawk Response to the AEC Policy Statement on Interim Acceptance Criteria for ECCS for Light Water Reactors

ML17037C234
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	06/28/1974
From:	Goller K US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)
To:	Raymond P Niagara Mohawk Power Corp
References
Download: ML17037C234 (12)

Text

Io DISTRIUTION:

JUN 28 1974 Docket AEC PDR Local PDR Docket No., 50-220 ORB-2 Reading JRBuchanan'BAbernathy ACRS (16)

RO (3)

OGC Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation ATTN: Hr. Philip D.. Raymond DLZiemann Vice President Engineering CDeBevec 300 Erie Boulevard Vest RMDiggs Syracuse, New York 13202 TJCarter Gentlemen:

Enclosed for your information is a copy of our evaluation dated February 8, 1972, of the Niagara Moh'awk Power Corporation response to the AEC Policy Statement on Interim Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems for Light Vater Reactors. As the enclosure shows, our evaluation of the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 conformance to these criteria was based on our evaluation of the Oyster Creek (Docket No. 50-219) conformance with these criteria.

A review of our records shows that we did not provide a copy of our evaluation to you.

Sincerely, Karl R. Goller, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors Directorate of Licensing Enclosure!

Evaluation dtd. 2/8/72 r

cc w/encl:

See attached OIrPICE+ ,L;,Q II' L:AD/ORs~

SURNAME~ ....CDe ..e.c.:es DL erne .n....'. KRGoller, V o

...6/+/..ZC.............. 6./rM//,7,4. 6/atg 7< 6/ Zg1II Form AZC-318 (ReT. 9-53) hZCM 0240 Q U. SI OOVERNMENT PRINTINO OIrIrICEI IOTA ddd I44

'L t O~

/- si l

f, k

h g

0 p;) I~

~i~La~gara Mohwak Power. Corporation JUN 8 8 1974 cc w/encl!

J. Bruce MacDonald, Esquire Deputy Commissioner and Counsel New York State Department of Commerce and Counsel to the Atomic Energy Council 99 Washington Avenue Albany, New York 12210 Arvin E. Upton, Esquire LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae N Street, N. W. '757 Washington, D. C. 20036 1

Dr. William Seymour Staff Coordinator New York State Atomic Energy Council New York State Department of Commerce 112 State Street Albany, New York 12207 Anthony Z.,'Roisman, Esquire Berlin, Roisman and Kessler 1712 N Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 Oswego County Library OAAIC2~

OUANAMAW g

OAT/~

Form AEC.518 (1feT. 9.55) hZCM 0240 4 U, TN 4OVCANMKNTPAINTINO OPPICAI l074 620 IOO

E E EI

~ f 4

E

~ ~

p ~

F f'

k F F I ~ I

~ E 4

j i f O.( " (- r i ~

'HITED STATES ATOiVlIC ENERGY COMi>l ISSION iVASHING'TON. O.c. Z0545

F-"8 = i97Z fi

"'y~'

Files (Docket N 50-220)

THRU: D. L. Ziemann, Chief, ORB Pi2, DRL EUALUATION OF NIAGARA i~LOHAMK RESPONSE TO ECCS INTERIM POLICY STATEi& lT REGAPJ)ING NINE liILE POINT Introduction In response to our letter dated July 22, 1971, Niagara ~ilohawk Power Corporation submitted, on August 20, 1971, the requested. analysis of the performance of the emergency core cooling system *(ECCS) presently installed in tne Nine llile Point (hiP) Unit 1 facility.

Evaluation Since iMP was initially licensed to operate, on August 22., 1969, the applicable Intexim Acceptance Criteria consist of Sections IV A, B, and Cl(a) of the Policy Statement. This is the same as tnat applicable "to the Oyster Creek (OC) plant (Docket No. 50-219) .and the iQIP and OC licensees responded with similar xeanalyses because of the overall similarity of the two facilities. Tne OC reanalysis was submitted by Jersey Central Power and Light Company on September 3, 1971, an~sub-sequently evaluated oy DRS in their report dated October 29, 197K. -"Ae requested DRS to simultaneously evaluate the:vhP submittal on September 15, 1971 (Technical Assistance Request No. OPJ3-2-19). In view of the above, our evaluation of the FilP ECCS analysis is based on compaxison with the OC reanalysis and the DRS evaluation which found it acceptable as listed below.

The ¹VP and OC plants are the~me in all salient respects.

They are non-jet pump Bus navin~ redundant core spray cooling systems, redundant MM~~ief systems, redundant emergency condensex systems, and redundant onsite emer-gency power sources for tneir ECCS.

2. Tne operation of these-system~ VFF and OC under normal and'mergency conditions as required by the respective

-Techn'cal Specification is the same in all erseatxaXs.

3. The ECCS reanalyses for K'iP and OC are the same in all respects regarding combinations of systems operating, range of break sizes and analytical models.

I Files

4. The calculated peak clad temperatures fpr botn plants are 2237'F for the design basis loss-of-coolant accident and 2220'F for 'the worst case intermediate size break.

Conclusion Me conclude that tne ECCS at NiP is acceptable for the. current licensed power level of 1850 i~Mt.

C>4 ZiAXr.~

C. J. DeBevec Operating Reactors Branch 12 Division of Reactor Licensing

Enclosure:

DRS Review of OC cce DJSkovhol tp DRL RHVollmer, DRL DLZiemann, DRL MJDeBevec, DRL Ri~fDiggs, DRL

~ 1'eter A. liorris, .Director Division of Pianctor Lic nsing 1 ~

~

OYST. i C."~"'K di."~HDiKZZ 67 ZCCS t~~'-<:.'l;" 'SXS is our response to your request o . August S, 1971" "

J'nclose;d Ror tecnni.caJ. Gss3.stance oiI tiie oCCS r QnM~ys Q of Oyster Crectum Amend=.ant 67. Further c "n'l" end discus 'o:: of our e'nluation c n be provicicd ix needed.

Edson G 'ase~ D3.rector Division of -Re".ctor Standp'6s

~r Enclosure,:

Oyster Creel: RevieM cc %1/8 cl S. Pnnnuer, DR D. Sl~vnolt, DRL R. Schciel, Dt&

T. th-bach, DRL

~, ~ +i '

~

REVIVE OL. OYSt.,"'R CQEEt('.aEND fE'.l7.40....67.,:;.....,;:,.:..a -.

The non<<j t puaip f eature of the Oyster Cree:c, plant requires that thc spray cooling mode alone be ufficient to maintain a pro-perly cooled core. In GE jct pump plants, flooding froa ECCS water accumulation wi1.1 also terai<gate t'e loss-of-coolant accident te~-

perature transient. As a result of naving only core spray; the temperatures are above 2GQO P'o" a lar e rac.ge. of the break spectral'nd.

remain t these temperatures ror relatively longer periods of time than jet pump plantp. However, according'o the ca1culations presented in. the amendment, thc estimated peak te-pcrzture's-are within 0

the peanissible temperature limit of 2300 F.. !ie have also evaluated t

c l thc Oyster Crcelc reanalysis of thc ECCS to determine",conformance with the AEC Interim Pol'cy Statement on ECCS. t!e find, that the ev*lu"tion remodel is.accepL ble and that all of the criteria are mct.~<CA concluc!e that the ZCCS ac Oyster Creel(; is acceptable at the power. level o,'t

.1930 1Dft.

O.