ML19270G278
| ML19270G278 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1979 |
| From: | Parr O Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Proffitt W VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906060020 | |
| Download: ML19270G278 (5) | |
Text
T ~AA n
L
/
4e UNITEO STATES y%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON
,,.[ ))1 j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 s % y,j
%.u MAY 9 31979 Docket tios. 50-339 50-40 nd 50-405 Mr. W. L. Proffitt Senior Vice President - Power Operations Virginia Electric & Power Company P. O. Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261
Dear Mr. Proffitt:
SUBJECT:
tt0RTH AtitlA SERVICE WATER RESERV0IR AND SPRAY SYSTEM In your letter of March 8,1979, you stated that a comprehensive test to evaluate the thermal performance and water inventory characteristics of the fiorth Anna Service Water Reservoir and spray system was conducted in July and August,1978.
You also submitted copies of the final report on the testing and evaluation of the florth Anna Service Water Reservoir and soray system. This report evaluates the florth Anna Service Water Resen iir for two and four unit operation.
We have reviewed the report and have several coments and requests for additional information regarding this report.
Our comments and the specific requests for additional information are described in the Enclosure.
To maintain our licensing review schedule we will need a completely adequate response to the enclosed requests by May 18, 1979.
Please inform us after receipt of this letter of your confirmation of the above date or the date you will be able to meet.
Sincerely, arr ef Light Water Reactors Branch tio. 3 Division of Project Management
Enclosure:
'As Stated cc w/ encl: See next page 2276 333 790606Dozo
a Mr. W. L. Proffitt MAY 0 31973 cc:
Mrs. James C. Arnold John J. Run:er, Esq.
P. O. Box 3951 Perrer, Hmil ton t. ichect c Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 123 South Pread 5t reet Philadelphia, Pennsylianta 13109 Mr. Anthony Gambaradella Of fice of the Attorney General Clarence T. Kipps, Jr., Esq.
11 South 12th Street - Room 308 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue,. t:.'!.
Richmond, Virginia 23219 Washington, D. C.
20006 Carroll J. Savage, f.sc.
Richard M. Foster, Esq.
1/00 Pennsylvania A.enue, :. U.
211 Stribling Avenue Washington, D. C.
20006 Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 Mr. James C. INM' an Michael W. Maupin, Esq.
Stat e Corporat ic.. Comissinn Hunton, Willianis, Gay & Gibson f n" "o'n.e a l t h o f Vi rg + nia P. O. Box 1535 Blandon Building Ri chmond, Vi rginia 23212 Richmond, Vi rginia 23209 Mrs. June Allen 412 Owens Drive Huntsville, Alabama 35801 Mr. James Torson Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.
501 Leroy Atcmic Safety and Lir.ensing Socorro, flew Mexico 87801 Appeal Board U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission Mrs. Margaret Dietrich Washington, D. C.
20555 Route 2, Box 568 Gordonsville, Virginia 22942 Michael C. Farrar, Esq.
Atcmic Safety and Licensing William H. Rodgers, Jr., Esq.
Appeal Board Georgetoui University Law Center U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission 600 flew Jersey Avenue, fl.W.
Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20001 Dr. John H. Buck Mr. Peter S. Hepp Atomic Safety and Licensing Executive Vice President Appeal Board Sun Shipping & Dry Dock Company U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 540 Washington, D. C.
20555 Chester, Pennsylvania 19013 Mr. R. B. Briggs Atcmic Safety and Licensing Associate Director Board Panel 110 Evans Lane U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D. C.
20555 n
2276 334 Nf3)k r
Mr. W. L. Proffitt MAY 0 31979 cc:
Mr. Michael S. kidd U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 128 Spots 1vania, Virginia 22553 Dr. Paul W. Purdom
. Department of Civil Engineering Drexel University Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 Or. Lawrence R. Quarles Apartment No. 51 Kenda l-a t-Longwood Kennett Square, Pennsylvania 19348 Mr. Irwin B. Kroot Citizens Energy Forum P. O. Box 138 McLean, Virginia 22101 James B. Dougherty, Esq.
Potomac Alliance P. O. Box 9306 Washington, D.C.
20005 Honorable Frederick S. Fisher Assistant Attorney General Commonwealth of Virginia 1101 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Michael W. Maupin, Esquire Hunton, Williams, Gay & Gibson P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 2276
>35 i.-
ENCLOSURE EVALUATION AND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE REPORT,
" SERVICE WATER RESERVOIR AND SPRAY SYSTEP1 PERFORMANCE TESTING AND EVALUATION" Docket No. 50-339, 50-404, and 50-405 1.
General Comment 1 In general, the experimental measurements and model simulations appear to have been performed carefully.
Several aspects of the way in which data were treated and conclusions were drawn are questionable, however, and must be clarified.
The staff concludes that the comparison between the model results and the prototype data in Section 3 may have been overstated. He do not consider, for example, that the linear regression equation formulated from experimental data can be extrapolated as far as they were beyond the region of measurement to serve as a basis for comparison of the model and prototype.
Such a comparison is mis-leading and may lend false credibility to the model.
The comparison of the model and prototype within the range for which there are data is sufficient justification for this model. We request that you carefully denote comparisons outside of the range of data so no unintentional overstatement is made.
2.
General Comment 2 Why wasn't an actual model-prototype comparison made on the entire spray pond system performance? The performance of the isolated sprays is useful information by itself, but you apparently had all the information for a complete simulation of the entire system.
You presumably have the discharge spray temperatures, the pond inlet (to plant) temperature, detailed meteorological data, solar radiation and external heat load. A simulation of the pond inlet temperature compared to that actually measured would be extremely useful, since it would allay uncertainties of your modeling approach such as heat transfer from the unsprayed pond surface and thermal hydraulics of the pond.
Therefore, provide a comparison of the sim ated pond inlet temperature to that actually measured.
2276 ;36
_2 3.
General Comment 3 Your design basis meteorology was extracted from the record at Richmond, VA, 45 miles Southeast of the site.
You have indicated no basis for relating this record to what is to be expected onsite.
The staff considers that there is the potential for a bias between the long term meteorology of Richmond and North Anna because of orographic differences and the proximity of the site to Lake Anna.
An attemot to correlate the limited onsite meteorological record with the longer offsite record should be made in a way which would be meaningful for establishing a bias which would affect the performance of the spray pond, especially the cooling performance.
The staff requests that the " coefficient of performance" described in Section 8 of your report be calculated for the onsite record (not necessarily restricted to the period of the cooling pond test) and compared to the offsite record for the same period, to determire the degree of the similarity of the two records.
If it is determined that the offsite record would predict a lower cooled water temperature, propose a suitable correction factor for pond performance.
4.
With respect to page 4.4 of the report, the last two equations on this page are not consistent with those of section 6.4 and other places. The equations on page 4.4 state that all heat in the spray is lost by way of evaporation, while in actuality some is lost by convection directly to the air. This is recognized as a conservatism but it should be so stated. Consider also whether data from Washington, D.C. data is more appropriate than Richmond.
5.
With respect to page 4.5 of the report, you do not state how the initial pond temperature T is chosen.
Since this would be the pond temperature at the stNt of the Design Basis Event, its choice may affect the maximum design basis temperature calculated.
Describe the bases for the choice of T or the sensitivity of the final answer to its choice.
P 6.
With respect to page 4.7, Section 4.4.3 of the report, is the solar heat load based on an observed value for the region, or does it represent the " Maximum Available" figure which excludes the effects of atmospheric or cloud attenuation. Describe the bases for its choice.
2276 ;37
.