ML17223A948

Forwards Request for Addl Info Re Topical Rept NTH-TR-01 on Retran Model Qualification & Decrease in Heat Removal by Secondary Sys

ML17223A948
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point, Saint Lucie
Issue date:	09/19/1990
From:	Edison G, Norris J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Goldberg J FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
References
TAC-75082, TAC-75083, TAC-75084, TAC-75085, NUDOCS 9009260009
Download: ML17223A948 (7)

Text

CP Docket Nos. 50-335, 50-389 50-250 and 50-251 Mr. J.

H. Goldberg Executive Vice President Florida Power and Light Company Post Office Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420

Dear Mr. Goldberg:

September 19, 1990 DISTRIBUTION:

.~F,.

NRCR'PDRs PDII-2 r/f SVarga GLainas OGC(info.)

EJordan MNBB-3302 ACRS(10)

JNorris HBerkow GEdison MSinkule RII

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO TOPICAL REPORT NTH-TR-01, RETRAN MODEL QUALIFICATION - ST.

LUCIE PLANT UNIT NOS. I AND 2 AND TURKEY POINT PLANT UNIT NOS.

3 AND 4 (TAC NOS. 75082,

75083, 75084 AND 75085)

The staff, with assistance of its contractor, International Technical Services, has completed a preliminary review of your Topical Report, NTH-TR-01, "RETRAN Model Qualification - Decrease in Heat Removal by the Secondary System."

The preliminary review indicates that additional information outlined in the enclosure is necessary before the staff can complete its review.

Your timely response is essential in order for our review to continue.

The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than 10 respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.

Sincerely, Original signed by Jan A. Norris, Sr. Project Manager Project Directorate II-2 Division of Reactor Projects-I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/enclosure:

See next page Original signed by'ordon E. Edison, Sr. Project Manager Project Directorate II-2 Division of Reactor Projects-I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation OFC

PD I 2 LA

P W

W W

WW WW NAME:D DATE:

QQ/90 rr's

/

/90 P:PDI -

P

~

WWW WW>>W W

~

W WWW

GEdison WW&

W

HB k

q, / /90:

/)/90 OF ICIAL RECORD CO Y

Document Name:

LETTER52 9009260009 900919 PDR

'ADOCK 05000250 bi=0)

]fi

~ I I rgi"paa I'

>>, p

~

h ta>>a

'I I

~ I ia

~

~

Ih>>a P

~ I a

~

I'rr>

Iva>> 'I af II~I

~ al' f f>>

III>

pa ~ r a"r" pr f >vl ~ I I

~ lh>>C l L li) 3I U:ifft<...'r

~

r J

~ P'f ~

~ >> Jr) a t>A Il II I fa>

, P UPI fAP f il I

~ al

~ J v tt ra i 'a

~

~

I P

P l 4

th I

~ P p ~.p.

Vaapf iH

>>4g Phh> i

~ r IllI>

pa pa r ~

~ ~

~ It r I

~ vl i

~

I> r>>>I I

>>I P

Pa

~

lat

>II

~

I ap l

'I

~ ai'p!Ea I

~

II II E>M ~ P'> ll I>

faff f r'

vva> <<II a>> 'I

'>UP

~ '

I fayaa panprfrptf h ~ f fhp f r l

~ r "Pq MP

~ I U lta I'g>>J ~P

)4

~

9'~U f f>~ > ah'i

~ I Ilr P

M'

~

A

.a g

Iridal fUl

~

VA!i)~ fvfiI" i 'vr P ~

~

~ ~

I' P

l i

I I

~

V I

>li>

1 I

pr J

'fv)>>I I"

' f

'A a

'I PM%.

a I

'Iir U'IIIa>>

4I I

> Q QPI >It>>

1>Jf>JA l f" vfff hff Vff

~M

'~r al

>>I I

>,,I e"

r

~ f>

M 'r

( llq Pi a

~ aa

~

J f..).P I 0'

> ~ P

)I Mrfv',~

f I

I'E I

~'

> ffJA'.VrVII i

I 4tJ Ll >

MP

,\\ I I EMQMU 11 tt,>> II -.

M I Ii lta V Pf>E I

~ r 4

~,l

~

ar rp rr

~

'i f

>> f >Via> ~

4, a

~

St. Lucie Unit 1&2 Turkey Point Units 3&4 CC:

Mr. Jack Shreve Office of the Public Counsel Room 4, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Senior Resident Inspector St. Lucie Plant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7585 S.

Hwy AIA Jensen

Beach, Flot ida 34957 State Planning

& Development Clearinghouse Office of Planning

& Budget Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol Building Tal lahassee, Flor ida 32301 Harold F. Reis, Esq.

Newman

& Holtzinger 1615 L Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036 John T. Butler, Esq.

Steel, Hector and Davis 4000 Southeast Financial Center Miami, Florida 33131-2398 Administrator Department of Environmental Regulation Power Plant Siting Section State of Florida 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Weldon B. Lewis, County Administrator St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue, Room 104 Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Mr. Charles B. Brinkman, Manage~.

Washington Nuclear Operations Combustion Engineering, Inc.

12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330 Rockvi 1 le, Maryland 20852 P lant Manager Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Florida Power and Light Company P. 0.

Box 029100 Miami, Florida 33102 Mr. Jacob Daniel Nash Office of Radiation Control Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Blvd.

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 County Manager of Metropolitan Dade County 111 N.W. 1st Street, 29th Floor Miami, Florida 33130 Mr. K. N. Harris, Vice President Turkey Point Nuclear Plant P. 0.

Box 029100 Miami, Florida 33102 Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station Post Office Box 1448 Homestead, Florida 33090 Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Intergovernmental Coordination and Review Office of Planning

& Budget Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol Building Ta1 lahassee, Florida 32301

c

ENCLOSURE RE VEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION General A

roach 1.

Demonstrate, by steam generator nodalization parameteric

studies, that the chosen nodalization for each vendor's plant produces conservative results compared to other nodalizations.

2.

Demonstrate, by parametric studies for each users specified mode, that the selected model produces conservative results.

Such studies should include, but not be limited to, the choices of (i) 0.08 and 3.0 ft/sec for the gradient and initial bubble velocity, (ii) 5 ft/sec for the rainout velocity, (iii) a single-node pressurizer (PZR) model, and (iv) user defined control system models such as feedwater and steam bypass controls.

3.

Demonstrate that the parameters selected for sensitivity studies are the only ones which might significantly impact the overall result by examining sensitivity to those user-selectable input parameters not selected.

4.

Compare each of the computed RETRAN initial conditions with all available measured plant data for each of the two plant transients analyzed in the submittal.

Discuss and justify any differences.

Turke Point Loss of Inverter Event Explain why FPL chose to use a longer rod insertion time than the plant data indicated (2.4 sec vs 1.9 sec).

Explain why lower predicted RCS temperature and PZR level would result in a higher predicted PZR pressure than the measured data.

St. Lucie Partial Loss of Feedwater Flow Explain how the HSSV component input was determined.

Provide any physical basis for the assumptions made in the sensitivity study with respect to the

t

flowrate and the number of valves operating.

Did FPL change nodalization as a

result of observing that separately modeling the HSSY's lead to better comparison with measured data'rovide comparisons of other computed parameters on the primary side with measured data after the change in HSSV modeling.

Explain the differences between predicted and measured steam generator pressure and level trends after 40 seconds.

Safet Anal sis Methods 1.

List each specific purpose for which the RETRAK plant models presented in this submittal will be used

( i.e., licensee FSAR update, reload analysis, tech 'spec revision),

and explain and justify each difference between each selected initial condition and those presented in the FSAR.

2.

Justify the use of the nodalization, user specified models and correlations, control systems and response and delay times presented in Chapters 2 and 3 of the submittal in FSAR-type analyses.

Identify and justify each modification to any of the foregoing which will be made for FSAR-type analyses.

Limitin Transient Determination l.

Discuss, in depth, the method by which FPL selected the limiting event and the limiting set of input parameters for each transient in this category.

Demonstrate that any changes from those used in the FSAR would produce results which are at least as conservative as those in the FSAR.

2.

For transient analysis in this category, provide comparison of each input parameter, assumption and initial condition with the existing FSAR assumptions and conditions and demonstrate that any changes from those used in the FSAR would produce results which are at least as conservative as those in the FSAR.