ML19341A562

Forwards Request for Addl Info Needed to Complete Review of OL Application.Fsar Should Be Amended to Include New Info

ML19341A562
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	01/13/1981
From:	Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Gary R TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
References
NUDOCS 8101270110
Download: ML19341A562 (4)

Text

v

?$h

/

g UNITED STATES y 'k s-q 3 g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON,0. C. 20555 a(([jyg':l.

s

( "'JAN1 Giggy g 'H Docket Nos. 50-445

']

8' %N8sD%p/

and 50-446 J AN 13198?

s 4r

/

Mr. R. J. Gary Executive Vice President and General Manager Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Towers Dallas, Texas 75201

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 Enclosed is a request for additional information which we require to complete our evaluation of your application for operating licenses for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2.

This request for additional information is the result of our continuing review by the Thennal-Hydraulics Section of the Core Performance Branch.

Please amend your FSAR to include the information requested in the Enclosure.

Your response to the enclosed request for additional information should be submitted within six (6) weeks. Should you have questions concerning this request for additional information, please contact us.

Sincerely, h

Nh l

Robert L. Tedesco Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

Request for Additional Information cc w/ enclosure:

l See next page l

l l

l l

81032VO//O f

L

F Mr. R. J. Gary Executive Vice President and JRN 13 EMS General Manager Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 cc: Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.

Mr. Richard L. Fouk.e Debevoise & Liberman Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation 1200 Seventeenth Street 1668-8 Carter Drive Nashington, O. C.

20036 Arlington, Texas 76010 Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.

Resident Inspector / Comanche Peak Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels Nuclear Power Station 2001 Bryan Tower c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dallas, Texas 75201 P. O. Box 38 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Mr. Homer C. Schmidt Manager - Nuclear Services Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

2001 Bryan Tower Callas, Texas 75201 Mr. H. P. Rock Gibbs and Hill, Inc.

293 Seventh Avenue New York, New York 10001 Mr. A. T. Parker Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1523U David J. Preister Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President Citizens Association for Sound Energy 142' South Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 Geoffrey M. Gay, Esq.

West Texas legal Services 406 W. T. Waggoner Building 810 Houston Street Fort Worth, Texas 76102 i

n--

,,,,--,n.

-.---n.,

n

ENCLOSURE STAFF POSITIONS AND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION C0f*ANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 & 2 00CXET NOS: 50-445 AND 50-446 233.0 Themal-Hydraulics Section, Core Performance Branch 233.1 The response to question 221.1 on Loose Parts Monitoring does (4.4.6.4) not adequately address the question. A more detailed discussion is needed to provide;

1. A description of plans for a signature analysis during initial startup testing; and

2. An explanation of why no formal training pr.ugram is necessary.

233.2 The applicant has provided a re's'ponse to question 221.3 which (RSP) addresses the contention that the core is thermal-hydraulically stable. The applicant has stated that 1) Westinghouse reactors will not experience any Ledinegg instability over Condition I and II operational ranges and 2) open channel configurations, which are a feature of Westinghouse PWRs, are more stable than closed channel configurations. This wa: shown by flow stability tests which were conducted at pressures up to 2200 psia. The results showed that for flow and power levels typical of power i

reactor conditions, no flow oscillations could be induced above 1200 psia.

The staff is presently conducting a generic study of the hydraulic stability characteristics of pressurized water reactors.

Limitations to the thennal-hydraulic design resulting from the staff study will be compensated for by appropriate operating restrictions; however, no operating restrictions are anticipated.

In the interim, the staff conclu(es that past operating experience, flow stability experiments, and the inherent thermal-hydrualic characteristics of Westinghouse pressurized water reactors provide a basis for accepting the Comanche Peak 1 & 2 stability evaluation for issuance of an operating license.

l

2-233.3 The staff is reviewing the effect of crud buildup in pressurized (RSp) water reactors on a generic basis. The applicant has stated that 1) operating experience on Westinghouse reactors indicate that a flow resistance allowance for crud deposition is not required; 2) the effect of crud enters into the calculations by use of a surface roughness factor three times greater than those obtained from samples from operating Westinghouse PWRs; and 3) reduced flow would be observed by three different means; a) flow meters; b) a reduction in reactor power if in an automatic control mode or an increase of AT across the core if in a manual mode; and c) core exit thennocouples readings.

Based on the information given above the staff concludes that the applicant adequately adressed our concerns relative to uniform of preferential crud depositions in the core. We will assure that appropriate surveillance requirements are included in the technical specifications to recognize any rapid crud buildup.

~

233.4 In the response to question 221.5 the applicant discussed the effect of the core exit pressure distribution on DNBR and stated why the use of a uniform upper plenum pressure distribution was acceptable. However, the applicant did not provide the following information from the requested THINC-IV calculations:

1. minimum DNB ratio (value and location)

2. hot channel flow vs axial position

3. hot channel enthalpy vs axial position

4. hot channel quality vs axial position

5. hot channel void fraction vs axial position

6. the assumed core exit pressure gradient.

233.5 In response to question 221.6 the applicant stated that they do not p!:.n to operate the Comanche Peak Units with one loop out of operation. The staff will ensure that the technical specifications include the appropriate proyMoos to ensure that

~

N - 1 loop operation is prohibited.

.,-v,

-n-

,--,--r-

, -+ ~,, -,,

e-.,,.,,y

--,,-a,,

,,-,. --, - - -- -