ML18016A328
| ML18016A328 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1998 |
| From: | Scott Flanders NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Robinson W CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-M98857, NUDOCS 9803050042 | |
| Download: ML18016A328 (8) | |
Text
Mr. W. R. Robinson, Vicr~esident
~ Shearon Harris Nuclear ~ver Plant Carolina Power 8 Light Company Post Office Box 165 - Mail Code: Zone 1
New Hill, North Carolina 27562-0165 February 25, 8
SUBJECT:
SHEARON HARRIS UNIT 1 - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION (RAI) - REGARDING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTTO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 3/4.6.2, DEPRESSURIZATION AND COOLING SYSTEMS (TAC NO. M98857)
Dear Mr. Robinson:
By letter dated May 16, 1997, Carolina Power 8 Light Company (CP8L) requested a revision to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Harris Nuclear Plant (HNP). Specifically, CP8L proposed to revise TS 4.6.2.3 a.2. Currently, TS 4.6.2 3 a.2, for the containment cooling system, requires verification, at least once per 31 days, of a cooling water flow rate of greater than or equal to 1425 gallons per minute (gpm) to each containment fan cooler. The amendment request proposes to reduce the cooling water flow rate requirement from 1425 gpm to 1300 gpm.
The staff has initiated its review of the submittal and determined that additional information is needed.
The enclosure provides the details of the requested information. It should be noted that the RAI is due to the lack of technical justification in the submittal to support the basis for the proposed change.
Although the submittal states that an "evaluation has shown that a flow rate of 1300 gpm to the containment fan coolers during worst-case, post-accident conditions will adequately remove the heat loads assumed in the HNP large-break loss of coolant accident (LBLOCA)containment analyses," it did not summarize the evaluation in any fashion or provide any other justification as to why a flow rate of 1300 gpm is sufficient to adequately remove the heat loads assumed in the containment analyses.
Your written response to the RAI is expected within 30 days of the end of the next refueling outage.
Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at (301) 415-1172.
9803050042 980225 PDR ADQCK 05000400 p
PDR Sincerely, Original Signed by:
Scott C. Flanders, Project Manager Project Directorate II-1 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-400
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/enclosure:
See next page
<<F
~Dis ribu ion Docket File J. Zwolinski PDII-1 RF G. Hubbard s
T. Marsh C. Saadu ACRS OGC L. Plisco, Rll PUBLIC fllffl!IlfllflflfllIfllfllflllflllll FILENAME-G:>HARRIS'IM98857.RAI OFFICE NAME DATE COPY PM:P SFlan as 98 Ye /No LA:PDII-1 Dunnington ~~>
PIA98 es o
D:PDII-PKuo
/498 Yes/No
I
Mr. W. R. Robinson, Vic~esident Shearon Harris Nuclear Mwer Plant Carolina Power 8 Light Company Post Office Box 165 - Mail Code: Zone 1
New Hill, North Carolina 27562-0165 February 25, 8
SUBJECT:
SHEARON HARRIS UNIT 1 - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION (RAI)- REGARDING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTTO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 3/4.6.2, DEPRESSURIZATION AND COOLING SYSTEMS (TAC NO. M98857)
Dear Mr. Robinson:
By letter dated May 16, 1997, Carolina Power 8 Light Company (CP8L) requested a revision to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Harris Nuclear Plant (HNP). Specifically, CP8 L proposed to revise TS 4.6.2.3 a.2. Currently, TS 4.6.2.3 a.2, for the containment cooling system, requires verification, at least once per 31 days, of a cooling water flow rate of greater than or equal to 1425 gallons per minute (gpm) to each containment fan cooler. The amendment request proposes to reduce the cooling water flow rate requirement from 1425 gpm to 1300 gpm.
The staff has initiated its review of the submittal and determined that additional information is needed.
The enclosure provides the details of the requested information.
It should be noted that the RAI is due to the lack of technical justification in the submittal to support the basis for the proposed change.
Although the submittal states that an "evaluation has shown that a flow rate of 1300 gpm to the containment fan coolers during worst-case, post-accident conditions will adequately remove the heat loads assumed in the HNP large-break loss of coolant accident (LBLOCA)containment analyses," it did not summarize the evaluation in any fashion or provide any other justification as to why a flow rate of 1300 gpm is sufficient to adequately remove the heat loads assumed in the containment analyses.
Your written response to the RAI is expected within 30 days of the end of the next refueling outage.
Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at (301) 415-1172.
Sincerely, Original Signed by:
Scott C. Flanders, Project Manager Project Directorate II-1 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-400
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/enclosure:
See next page
~Dis ribu io Docket File J. Zwolinski T. Marsh ACRS OGC PDII-1 RF G. Hubbard C. Saadu L. Plisco, Rll PUBLIC FILENAME-G:)HARRIS'tM98857.RAI OFFICE PM:PD f-LA:PDII-1 D:PDII-NAME SFla Du'nnington ~~>
PKuo DATE COPY
/598 Ye No
/A98 e
0
/498 Yes/No
'1
\\
y ~pe RECT~
+~ 'o Cy I
qO
++**+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 February 25, 1998 Mr. W. R. Robinson, Vice President Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Carolina Power 8 Light Company Post Office Box 165-Mail Code: Zone 1
New Hill, North Carolina 27562-0165
SUBJECT:
SHEARON HARRIS UNIT 1 - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION (RAI) - REGARDING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTTO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 3/4.6.2, DEPRESSURIZATION AND COOLING SYSTEMS (TAC NO. M98857)
Dear Mr. Robinson:
By letter dated May 16, 1997, Carolina Power 8 Light Company (CP8L) requested a revision to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Harris Nuclear Plant (HNP). Specifically, CP8L proposed to revise TS 4.6.2.3 a.2. Currently, TS 4.6.2.3 a.2, for the containment cooling system, requires verification, at least once per 31 days, of a cooling water flow rate of greater than or equal to 1425 gallons per-minute (gpm) to each containment fan cooler. The amendment request proposes to reduce the cooling water flow rate requirement from 1425 gpm to 1300 gpm.
The staff has initiated its review ofthe submittal and determined that additional information is needed.
The enclosure provides the details of the requested information. It should be noted that the RAI is due to the lack of technical justification, in the submittal, to support the basis for the proposed change.
Although the submittal states that an "evaluation has shown that a flow rate of 1300 gpm to the containment fan coolers during worst-case, post-accident conditions will adequately remove the heat loads assumed in the HNP large-break loss of coolant accident (LBLOCA)containment analyses,"
it did not summarize the evaluation in any fashion or provide any other justification as to why a flow rate of 1300 gpm is sufficient to adequately remove the heat loads assumed in the containment analyses.
Your written response to the RAI is expected within 30 days of the end of the next refueling outage.
Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at (301) 415-1172.
- Sincerel, Scott C. Fla ders, Project Manager Project Directorate II-1 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-400
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encl: See next page
~
Mr. W. R. Robinson Carolina Power 8 Light Company Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Unit1 CC:
Mr. William D. Johnson Vice President and Senior Counsel Carolina Power 8 Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
. Resident Inspector/Harris NPS c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5421 Shearon Harris Road New Hill, North Carolina 27562-9998 Ms. Karen E. Long Assistant Attorney General State of North Carolina Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Public Service Commission State of South Carolina Post Office Drawer Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Suite 23T85 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. Mel Fry, Acting Director Division of Radiation Protection N.C. Department of Environment, 3825 Barrett Dr.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-7721 Ms. D. B. Alexander Manager Performance Evaluation and Regulatory Affairs Carolina Power 8 Light Company 412 S. Wilmington Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Mr. Bo Clark Plant General Manager - Harris Plant Carolina Power 8 Light Company Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant P.O. Box 165 New Hill, North Carolina 27562-0165, Mr. J. W. Donahue Director of Site Operations Carolina Power & Light Company Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Post Office Box 165, MC: Zone 1
New. Hill, North Carolina 27562-0165 Mr. Robert P. Gruber Executive Director Public Staff NCUC Post Office Box 29520 Raleigh, North Carolina 27626 Chairman of the North Carolina Utilities Commission Post Office Box 29510 Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0510 Mr. Milton Shymlock U.S Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Suite 23185 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. Stewart Adcock, Chairman Board of County Commissioners of Wake County P. O. Box 550 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Health and Natural Resources Margaret Bryant Pollard, Chairman Board of County Commissioners of Chatham County P. O. Box 87 Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312 Mr. Chris A. VanDenburgh, Manager Regulatory Affairs Carolina Power 8 Light Company Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant P.O. Box 165, Mail Zone 1
New Hill, NC 27562-0165 Mr. Johnny H. Eads, Supervisor Licensing/Regulatory Programs Carolina Power 8 Light Company Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant
', P. O. Box165, Mail Zone1 New Hill, NC',27562-0165 1
1 iv
E EST FOR DDITIONAL R
A EV EW 0 L
E MENDM T R GA D
ND COOLIN YST 3/
T EA EP ESS ZA ION ARRI The May 16, 1997, submittal indicated that Technical Specification (TS) 4.6.2.3 a.2, as currently written, does not address the effects of reservoir level, tube plugging, or system configuration; nor is it based on the existing Harris Nuclear Plant (HNP) containment analysis.
Because TS 4.6.2.3 a.2 is not based on the existing HNP containment analysis, provide the following information:
Discuss the analysis that provides the basis for TS 4.6.2.3 a.2.
b.
Provide the basis for the original cooling water flow rate of 1425 gpm.
Provide the flow rate (and basis) used in the existing containment analysis and describe the assumptions used in that analysis.
Identify the assumptions that were used for the proposed cooling water flow rate of 1300 gpm, and discuss how this reduction affects the containment parameters.
Enclosure