ML17265A347

Forwards Request for Addl Info Re Analysis to Evaluate Effects of Svc Water Pump Available post-LOCA.Response Requested within 30 Days

ML17265A347
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	06/26/1998
From:	Vissing G NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Mecredy R ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP.
References
TAC-M84947, NUDOCS 9807010211
Download: ML17265A347 (11)

Text

'Dr. Robert C. Mecredy gune 26, igg8 Vice President, Nuclear perations Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14649 i

e

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION(RAI) RELATEDTO THE ANALYSIS TO EVALUATETHE'EFFECTS OF ONE SERVICE WATER PUMP AVAILABLE-POST-LOSS-'OF-COOLANT ACCIDENT (TAC NO. M84947)

DearDr. Mecredy:

I We have reinitiated the review of the subject, issue and have determine the need for additional

'nformation to continue the review. The enclosed request for additional information (RAI) identifies the information needed.

In order to complete our review of this issue, we request a response within 30 days of your receipt of the enclosed RAI.

Sincerely,'riginal Signed by:

Guy S. Vissing, Senior Project Manager

'roject Directorate I-1 Division of Reactor Projects

- I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-244

Enclosure:

Request forAdditional Information cc w/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION Docket File PUBLIC PDI-1 R/F J. Zwolinski (A)

S. Bajwa S. Little G. Vissing T. Marsh OGC ACRS C. Hehl, Region I

DOCUMENT NAME:G:)GINNAIGIM84947.RAI To receive a copy ofthis document, indicate in the

Co with attachment/enclosure "N"

o co Prig ItT'$jà ging))(g~p ~~

'l

Dl box: "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E"

Q~

OFFICE PH:PDI-1 E

LA:PDI-0:PDI-1 D

APLB IIAME DATE Gvissing: Icc SLitt 06/gd /98 06

/98 SBajwa 06/

98 Official Record Copy LHarsh

/98 06/

/98 eS070zoaai 980b26 il PDR ADQCK 05000244 P

PDR

Dr. Robert C. Mecredy brune 26 1gg8 Vice President, Nuclear Operations Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14649

\\

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION(RAI) RELATEDTO THE ANALYSIS TO EVALUATE'THEEFFECTS OF ONE SERVICE WATER PUMP AVAILABLE-POST-LOSS-OF-COOLANT ACCIDENT(TAC NO. M84947)

Dear. Dr. Mecredy:

We have reinitiated the review of the subject issue and have determine the need for additional information to continue the review. The enclosed request for additional information (RAI) identifies the information needed.

In order to complete our review of this issue, we request a response within 30 days of your receipt of the enclosed RAI.

Sincerely, Original Signed by:

Guy S. Vissing, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-1 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-244

Enclosure:

Request for Additional Information ccw/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION:

Docket File PUBLIC PDI-1 R/F J. Zolinski (A)

S. Bajwa S. Little G. Vissing T. Marsh OGC ACRS C. Hehl, Region I

DOCUMENT NAME:G:(GINNA>GIM84947.RAI To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E"

Co with attachment/enclosure "N"

o co OFFICE PM:PDI 1

E LA:PDI-D:PDI 1

D

APLB NAME GVIssing: Icc SL It t te 06

/98 DATE 06/AE/98 SBa wa 06/

98 Official Record Copy LHarsh

/98 06/

/98

C

~5 RE00

~o Op O

I C

Vl0

+~

~O

++*++

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 205550001 June 26, 1998 Dr. Robert C. Mecredy Vice President, Nuclear Operations Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14649

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION(RAI) RELATEDTO THE ANALYSIS TO EVALUATETHE EFFECTS OF ONE SERVICE WATER PUMP AVAILABLE-POST-LOSS-OF-COOLANT ACCIDENT (TAC NO. M84947)

Dear Dr. Mecredy:

We have reinitiated the review of the subject issue and have determine the need for additional information to continue the review. The enclosed request for additional information identifies the information needed.

In order to complete our review of this issue, we request a response within 30 days of your receipt of the enclosed RAI~

Sincerely, Docket No. 50-244

Enclosure:

Request for Additional Information ccw/encl: See next page Guy S. Vissing, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-1 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Dr. Robert C. Mecredy Rochester Gas and Electric Company R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant CC:

Peter D. Drysdale, Sr. Resident Inspector R.E. Ginna Plant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1503 Lake Road Ontario, NY 14519 Regional Administrator, Region I

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Ailendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. F. WilliamValentino, President New York State Energy, Research, and Development Authority Corporate Plaza West 286 Washington Avenue Extension Albany, NY 12203-6399 Charles Donaldson, Esquire Assistant Attorney General New York Department of Lalw 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 Nicholas S. Reynolds Winston 8 Strawn 1400 S Street N.W.

Washington, DC 20005-3502 Ms. Thelma Wideman, Director Wayne County Emergency Management Office Wayne County Emergency Operations Center 7336 Route 31 Lyons, NY 14489 Ms. Mary Louise Meisenzahl Administrator, Monroe County Office of Emergency Preparedness 111 West Falls Road, Room 11 Rochester, NY 14620 Mr. Paul Eddy New York State Department of Public Service 3 Empire State Plaza, 10th'Floor Albany, NY 12223

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATINGTO SERVICE WATER SYSTEM ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-244 1.

The bounding maximum flow case for single service water (SW) pump operation has not been clearly defined. What is the maximum flow case for one SW pump' a.

Describe the maximum flow case.

This case is not limited to Chapter 15 events.

b.

State all assumptions and conditions used.

Include in your discussion (but do not limit your discussion to) the consideration of pump degradation and ultimate heat sink temperature and level. State whether each condition or assumption used is conservative and why.

c.

What components are required (or desired) to be available?

d.

What are the controls to isolate all other components'?

Provide the procedure or reference.

e.

For each functioning component, what is the minimum flow required for adequate cooling' f.

Demonstrate quantitatively that the flowthrough each functioning component, given the maximum load expected, is adequate for cooling.

2.

Provide the vendor's pump curves for each SW pump and any vendor information regarding the operability range for each pump.

3.

In your letter dated March 30, 1994, you state that the pump fiowrate of 7632 gpm (a flowrate near the pump runout flow) is acceptable for short tern, non-continuous operation.

Explain and/or quantify terms "non-continuous" and "short-term" as you expect to use the one SW pump in this case or in your most limiting case.

Additionally, provide vendor concurrence regarding the pump's capabilities.

4.

In the response to Question 1, Part 3, dated July 27, 1993, you state that SW flows assumed in the analysis were those itemized in updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR) Table 9.2-

2. You further state that, with the exception of the containment recirculation fan coolers, the flows in this table can be achieved under either one or two pump operation.

In the UFSAR Table 9.2-2, dated December 1992, the design-basis accident nominal flowfor recirculation phase is 11, 635 gpm. This value can be lowered to 10, 269 gpm because of the isolation of the spent fuel pool heat exchanger by procedure ES-1.3, Revision 15, and Enclosure

~

C the removal of cooling to the Sl and containment spray area coolers.

Demonstrate how one SW pump can supply this amount or clarifyyour previous statements from July 27, 1993 and March 30, 1994 (from Question 3).

5.

In the current UFSAR, you state that two component cooling water (CCW) heat exchangers are expected to receive SW flow in the post-LOCA recirculation phase.

However, procedure ES-1.3, Revision 15, instructs operators to isolate one CCW heat exchanger and have both CCW pumps operating.

Quantitatively compare the cases when both heat exchangers are operating and when one CCW heat exchanger with two CCW pumps is operating.

Provide any necessary documentation to demonstrate adequate heat removal from the containment sump to the SW system.

6.

State whether all the valves assumed to be operable in the analysis are accessible in the post-LOCA environment.

Provide an explanation, ifnecessary, of your response.

7.

In endnote "m" in the current UFSAR Table 9.2-2, dated December 1996, you state the number of SW pumps in operation while the plant is at power is dependent on lake temperature and pump header pressure.

Provide the information or table that determines the number of pumps.

Ifnot done in Question 1.B, state the conditions used for Question 1.

8.

Procedure ES-1.3, Revision 15, does not provide success criteria for adequate SW flowfrom one SW pump.

Explain what controls are in place to ensure adequate SW flow.

An alternative to responding to these requests for additional information, the licensee may submit a technical specification change for three SW pump operation.

C'

~

s f

P