ML19319B327
| ML19319B327 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1976 |
| From: | Butler W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Roe L TOLEDO EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001150810 | |
| Download: ML19319B327 (5) | |
Text
/.
)
o -
Distribution
,y,AR 2 3 1976 Docket Fils l
LWR 4 File R. '. DeYoung C
Docket No. 50-346,9,
.c R. Heineman W. Mcdonald (Post Q-2) ams The Toledo Edison Company ELD bec:
J. R. Buchana, OR'il ATTN:
Mr. Lowell E. Rowe IE (3)
T. B. Abernathy, DTI.
Vice President, Facilities "E
- Development M. Rushbrook Edison Pi m f * (,
Gentlemen:
We have completed our review of your letter, dated January 8, 1976, regarding the proposed 1500 gpa ECCS flow test.
Based en this review, we find your proposed ECCS flow test to be unacceptable at this time.
We have prepared the enclosed staff position (Enclosure 1) and a request for information (Enclosure 2).
We request that you state your intent regarding compliance with the staff position identified in Enclosure 1.
In order to resolve these matters prior to the ACRS review for Davis-Besse, Unit 1, now scheduled for June 4, 1976, we vill need your responses to Enclosure 1 and 2 by May 7, 1976. If you cannot neet this response date, please inform us no later than seven days after receipt of this letter of the date you can nect so that we may revise our schedule accordingly.
Please call us if you have any questions concerning these =atters.
Sincerely, Onginal signed bT yalter Butlet _ J Walter R. Butler, Chief Light Vater Reactors Branch 4 Division of Project Management
Enclosures:
po D
D 1.
Posicion Statement 2.
Requests for Additional wo Inforr.ation
- o. -
gq cc: See page 2 g
d I-4 orrics >
p,
...__....._ $.... _.. r e d
.,jRButi eunmaus k oava >
- Forum AEC 318 (Rev. 9 53) AEG 0240 W u. s. oovsanusmv rasarine orricas sen.aa ios 8001150 g g
HAR 2 31976 4-ine Toleco L.dison company cc Mr. Donald H. Hauser, Esq.
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company P, 7. Box 5000 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Cerald Charnoff Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 910 17th Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Leslie Henry, Esq.
Fuller, Seney, Henry and l'odge 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43604 Oe F DC E W SUM *e & Mf W ossa W
- ~ -.
-. - - - ~.
Form AEC.318 (Re. 9 53) AECM 0240 W v. e. oovanmusm? rue,erswa orrices nova.eae-see
ENCLOSURE 1 POSITION STATEMENT TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY FOR DAVIS BESSE, UNIT 1 (DOCKET 50-346)
Sufficient justification of the sump design to assure that vortexing would not occur has not been given. No studies or test data have been offered. The design of the anti-vortexing device is not supported by test data. This additional reduction in available head, in c'eet, due to this device has not been provided. Available information (H. Woodhouse, POWER, May 1966) ' indicates that-less than 3 feet of margin exists to the minimum recommended pipe submergences.
Accordingly, the applicants are required to either provide a full-flow onsite vortex test, or conduct model tests to show that their sump configuration is not subject to vortex formation after a LOCA
'f
r s
ENCLOSURE 2 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY DAVIS-BESSE, UNIT 1 (DOCKET 50-346) 1.
In response to a question pertaining to NPSH, the applicant raised the predicted flood level inside the containment 6.1 feet over the predicted level used for NPSH calculations in the FSAR. The reason given scs that several errors were discovered in the FSAR calculations. Provide a comparison of current calculations of predicted flood height with the previous calculations, clearly showing the original error.
State the basis for the 360,000 gallons of water from the BWST and indicate the quantity of water still remaining in the BWST at the time of the shift to the recirculation mode.
Provide the calculations of pcessure losses in the suction lines
-for each of the four pumps, including the values of all L/D's, areas, Reynolds Numbers. and friction factors.
Clearly show where each value was derived, including all fittings in the suction piping. What pressure loss is attributed to the sump screens?
2.
Provide the manufacturer's test results (data / curves) for the four pumps used to determine the required NPSH. Confirm that these tests were conducted on the Davis-Besse 1 pumps (i.e.,
not prototypes).
3.
Item 4 in the 1/8/76 letter from the applicants is not clear.
The indication is that some means are provided to prevent excessive flows. Describe how the required ECCS flow will be established during the preop tests.
State the flow criteria and describe its basis.
Indicate the appropriateness of the flow criteria for both the injection mode and the recirculation mode. Discuss the potential for these settings becoming changed.
Include a discussion of the uncertainties involvti in the final established flow (in terms of I gpm).
4.
With the proposed test setup consisting of a connector in the sump between the two suction lines, it appears that the means exist to achieve the maximum flow rate capability of one train (DH pump plus spray pump). The object of the test would be to confirm t.he pressure losses submitted in the 1/8/76 letter from the appli-cants. Differences should only be due to entrance losses and temperature. Discuss means to confirm predicted entrance losses.
i l
' Provide all calculations utilized to predict the expected pressure losses for the cold sump test.
Describe the criteria which will be used to determine that the test verified the expected post-LOCA conditions and discuss the capability to vary flow to obtain more then one point on a plot of NPSH versus flow.
Describe the instrument to be used for the pressure drop measure-ments, include a diagram of its scale, and specify the instrument uncertainty involved.
4
-