ML17054A036
| ML17054A036 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1983 |
| From: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Rhode G NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8308290380 | |
| Download: ML17054A036 (10) | |
Text
F f9 19$
Docket No.:
50-410 Mr. Gerald K. Rhode Senior Vice President Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West
- Syracuse, New ~York 13202
Dear Mr o Rhode:
Subject:
Nine Mfle Point 2 OL Safety Information DISTRIBUTION:
Documeet Control NRC PDR Local PDR NSIC PRC LB¹2 File EHylton MHaughey Region I
- ELJordan, DEQA:IE JMTaylor, DRP:IE Bordenick, OELD FEltawila JLane
'ACRS (16)
Review - Request for Additional In our letter of August 12, 1983, we stated an additional request for information in the area of Containment Systems - Hydrodynamic and Mark II Containment. Loads vguld be forthcoming.
'e have completed our initial review of this area and have identified additional information required for.our review fn Enclosure 1.
These questions supercede questions 480.6, 7, and 8 of Attachment 12 to our letter of August 12, 1983.:,i Consistent with the licensing review schedule for Nine Mile Point Unit 2 responses to this request for additional information should be submitted as changes to the FSAR by October 27, 1983.
If'ou have any questions concerning the enclosed request for additional information, please call the licensing project manager, Mary F. Haughey, at (301) 492-7897.
Sincerely, Enclosure As stated i."Qlbal ggg410II 1, P,O~~
A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No.
2 Division of Licensing cc:
See next page 8308290380 8308i9'DR ADOCK 05000410
"'A PDR OFFICE/
SURNAME/
DATEQ DL:LB¹2 M
~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~
~ os ~
MHauqhev:pt
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oToo ~ oo'$ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
SgJ. J)8 DL:L
~ ~
~
~
ASc neer
~ ~ oo ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ooo ~ oo ~ ~ ~ ~
.s./....8.a....,...
NRG FORM 318 t10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL R ECOR D COPY USGPO: 1981~5-960
0
- l 0
I'
Nine Mile Point 2
Mr. Gerald K. Rhode Senior Vice President Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West
- Syracuse, New York 13202 CC:
Mr. Troy B. Conner, Jr.,
Esq.
Conner
& Wetterhahn Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania
- Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20006 Mr. Richard Goldsmith Syracuse Universi ty College of Law E. I. White Hall Campus
- Syracuse, New York 13210 Mr. Jay Dunkleberger, Director Technological Development Programs New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza
- Albany, New York 12223 Ezra I. Bial ik Assistant Attor ney General
'nvironmental Protection Bureau New York State Department of Law 2 World Trade Center New York, New York 10047 Resident Inspector Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Station P. 0.
Box 126
- Lycoming, New York 13093 Mr. John W. Keib, Esq.
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West
- Syracuse, New York 13202
'r I 4'ontainment Systems-Hydrodynamic and Hark II Containment Loads Request for-Additional'nformatiorl Nine Nile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2 480-47 (SRP 6.2.1.1.C)
I The LOCTVS computer code was used in several calculations instead of the PSAM computer code.
Provide comparisons that show the
'conservatisms of the results obtained from the LOCTVS to those from PSAM.
Similar comparisons regarding the SWECO code is also required.
(See criteria I.B.l.f of NUREG-'0487) 480-48 Section 6A.4.5.4 of the DAR presents a brief discussion of the (SRP 6.2.1 1.C) c/o load adjustment which is used for the region inside the pede-stal.
Additional discussion is needed.
Similarly, discussion is needed for the chugging load's adjustment due to the existence of the downcomer inside the pedestal region.
Also clarify what is meant by adjusting the chugging sources to simulate the effect of pool stratification (See page 6A.4-18, 19 of the DAR).
480-49 The statement is made in section 6.A.4.7 of the DAR that only the (SRP 6.2.1.1.C) single-downcomer loads will be used since the downcomers are unbraced.
It is our position that the multivent lateral load should also be used in assessing the vent system since the downcomers are braced together by the diaphragm floor.
480-50 In NUREG-0763 we provide the guidelines for either performing a
(SRP 6.2.1.1.C)
SRV inplant test or demonstrating the applicability of a previously tested SRV on another plant.
State your position regarding the SRY test guidelines of NUREG-0763.
480-5I 1 (SRP 6.2.1.1.C)
Section 5.7 of NUREG-0783, Item 8 states that information should be submitted to demonstrate that no single failure, either in the system design or power source, will result in the loss, of one RHR heat exchanger and the RHR shutdown cooling, mode.
Provide this infor-mation.
480-52 (SRP 6.2.1.1.3)
Provide the analyses and design modification implemented on the wetwell-to-drywell vacuum breaker if appropriate, to enable them to withstand the pool swell and chugging loads.
480-53 (SRP 6.2.1.1.C)
The statement is made in s ection 6. l.3.4.7.2 of the OAR that the quencher exit area has been reduced to half of the tested quencher conducted by KWU at Brunsbuttel to adjust for higher values of steam mass flux at NMP-2.
Additional discussion and justification is needed on the applicability of the test data since it appears that the design change has gone beyond the test envelope.
See AC A.l.2 and A.l.3 of NUREG-0802.
480-54 (SRP 6.2.1.1.C)
The statement is made that the time scale multiplier that expands the dominant bubble frequencies to cover 3 to 9 Hz, envelopinq the Karlstein tests.
State if this frequency band and the traces chosen envelope those accepted by the NRC in NUREG-0802.
480-55 (SRP 6.2.1.1.C)
Provide details of the "realistic load application" used in the analyses of the unbraced downcomer due to SRV submerged drag loads.
Provide a comparison with the NRC acceptance criteria.
a
In section 6A.3.4.8.2, a statement was made that the presence of a submerged body does not influence the bubble dynamics.
Provide justification for that statement and provide additional justifica-tion to demonstrate the conservatism of your methodology used to calculate submerged structure drag loads due to SRV acutuation.
480-57 (SRP 6.2.1.1.C)
Subsection 6A.3.5.2 states that comparison of important discharge parameters are within. the 15K exceedance criteria of NUFEG-0802.
Your attention is directed to Section 2.3.2.1 of NUREG-0802 for further clarification of the mentioned exceedance criteria.
Provide justification of the applicability of test data to NNP-2, in parti-cular the maximum/minimum discharge line length.
External forces on the quencher Arm and Body during valve opening, closing and intermittent steam condensation are different from the NRC acceptance criteria.
Provide justification for these deviations.
I S