ML19343D490
| ML19343D490 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1981 |
| From: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Aswell D LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105050010 | |
| Download: ML19343D490 (5) | |
Text
1b.
e
[,p[fcog'%
UNITED STATES a
! '49 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COr.iMISSION
{d,3w2'k E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 EM..n. /
,t.
%g~s.-e f F2 ? 3 1P.T.!
Docke:. i;u. 50-332
.r. D. L. As* 11
ice Fre;id;..;', ?u.cr Producti.n Louisinr,a l'c:::r Or.: Light Crpany li' iL'.a runa. ' ;;re;i.
'n, ^. t e g. 1 sui i.,rx
'.17 a 3 ear... i.:c.. :i i.
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION We have determined that certain additional information is required in order to permit us to complete cur review of your application for an operating license for Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3.
Th.t enclosed round two requests for additional information were prepared by the Core Performance Branch and are numbered 221.9 thru 221.15.
Please advise us of the date you expect to provide responses to the enclosed request.
If you require any clarification, please contact the staff's assigned project manager.
Sincerely, 10Y
%Am Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/ enclosure:
See next page kunm P00R OMyg g
l v.
1 Mr. _ D. L. Aswell -
-Vice President, Power Production Lcuisiana Power & Lignt Company
!<2 Oc! arcade Street hcw Orlean:, Lcuisiana 70174 cc:
L'. Malcolm Stevenson, Esq.
Monte: & Lem:nn-i424 Whitnoy Building
.New: Orleans, Louisiana 70136 Mr. E. Blake Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trcubridge 1800 " Str eet, i. W.
-!lushb.etun. C. C.
20C36 Mr. D. B. Lester Production Engineer Louisiana Power & Light Company 142 Delaronde Street-New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 Lyman L. Jones, Jr., Esq.
Gillespie & Jones P. 0. Box 9216 Metairie, Louisiana 70005 Luke Fontana, Esq.
Gillespie & Jones 824 Esplanade Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70116 Stephen M. Irving, Esq.
One American Place, Suite 1601 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825 Louisiana Office of Conservation ATTN: Administrator Nuclear Energy Division P. O. Box 14690 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808 President, Police Jury St. Charles Parrish
~
, Hahnville, Louisiana 70057 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ATTN: EIS Coordinator Region VI Office 1201 Elm Street First International Building Dallas, Texas 75270 l
i O
e
{
- o UR:
135f 221.0 Thermal-Hydraulics Section/ Core Performance Branch 221.9 The response to question 221.1 provides functional design information (4.4.6) about the loose parts monitoring system. This information provides an acceptable description of the system; however, no information has been provided relative to the operation of the system. Therefore, provide the following infcrmation:
1.
A description of how alert levels will be determined; 2.
A description of the diagnostic procedures to be used to confirm the presence of loose parts; 3.
A description of plans for a signature analysis during initial startup testing.
221.10 The staff has developed interim criteria for evaluating the effect of rod (RSP) bow on DNB for application to the Combustion Engineering 16x16 fuel assemblies. Credit has been given for thermal margin due to a multiplier of 1.05 on the hot enthalpy rise used to account for pitch reduction due to manufacturing tolerances. The resultant reduction in DNBR due to rod bow is given by.
Burnup (MWD /MTU)
DNBR Penalty (%)
0 0
3100 0
5000 2.0 10000 5.9 15000 8.9 i
20000 11.4 25000 13.6 l
30000 15.6 35000 17.4 40000 19..I The applicant should present to the staff an acceptable method of accommodating i
the thermal margin reduction shown above prior to issuance of an OL so that
[
appropriate provisions may be incorporated in the technical specifications.
l t
221.11 In Section 4.4.3.4 the applicant stated that operation at power with No (RSP) or three pumps or one pump operating or while in natural circulation is not allowed. The staff will require that the technical specifications include appropriate provisions to ensure that these types of operation are prohibited.
i s.
-- i w
i i
! 221.12 Combustion Engineering has submitted a topical repnrt (CENPD-225) on fuel (RSP) and poison rod bowing which presents results of tests performed on a 21-rod bundle of electrically heated rods and an unheated guide tube. Results were presented for rods in full contact and partially bowed rods. The data showed that plant rod bow penalties may be less than intended.
Discuss hcw this data will affect Waterford 3 including the application and value of any anticipated penalties.
221.13 Crud deposition in the core and associated change in core pressure drop and flow have been observed in some pressurized water reactors. The applicant hee stated that the effects of possible crud deposits are included in the l
Wau.rford Unit 3 design in the form of an increase in the pressure drops used in the determination of design hydraulic loads.
In addition, the core flow will be continuously monitored by the core operating limits supervisory system (COLSS) using pump casing differentials and pump speed as input. Any i
reduction in the core flow rate due to crud deposits will be accounted for in the COLSS thermal margin assessment.
Based on this information the staff concludes that the applicant has adequately addressed our concerns relative to Jniform or preferential Crud depositions f
in the core.
We will require that the plant Technical Specifications include the requirements that the actual reactor coolant system total flow rate be greater than or egaal to the value indicated by the core protection calculator system.
[
I 221.14 The applicant has provided the following information to support the contention (RSP) that the Waterford-3 core is thermal-hydraulically stable. " Flow instabilities which have been observed occur almost exclusively in closed channel systems i
operating at lov pressures relative to PWR operating pressures." Dynamic flow test performed on four x four fuel arrays and full size fuei dssemblies have shown that no adverse effects are expected on the performance of the fuel assemblies due to flow-induced vibrations.
Since crossflow resistance is extremely small among subchannels of the C-E 16x16 fuel assembly, it would i
have a stabilizing effect.
This has been confirmed by Veziroglu and Lee i
who found that cross flow between parallel heated channels enhances flow stability, Kao, Morgan and Parker conducted flow stability experiments at l
pressures up to 2200 psia with closed parallel heated channels. They found that at pressures above 1200 psia for flow and power levels encountered in i
power reactors no flow oscillations could be induced.
l The staff is presently conducting a generic study of hydraulic stability characteristics of pressurized water reactors. Combustion Engineering has made a commitment to take appropriate action to address the conclusions of the NRC study of hydraulic stability.
l i
t..-:
- In the interim, the staff concludes that past operating experience, flow stability experiments, and the inherent therma'-hydraulic characteristics of Combustion Engineering pressurized water reactors provide a basis for accepting the Waterford-3 stability evaluation for issuance of an operating license.
S 221.15 In response to question 221.8 the applicant committed to supply the following information; l.
A definition of software algorithm and data changes, giving the reason for the changes and a definition of the change.
2.
A description of the conduct and results of Phase I and 11 implement-ation testing. The description will include test cases, test results, errors found in testing, and corrective action.
The staff has not received this information from the applicant. Before the issuance of an OL the staff wil require the applicant to supply the requested information.
In addition, the applicant should provide:
3.
The Sof tware Functional Specifications upon which the Waterford-3 CPC's are based.
4.
The data base constants used in the CPC algoithms and the assumptions and methodology used in the data base design.
5.
Evaluation of the CFC response to design basis transient events by comparison to safety analyses and to other versions of the CPC sof tware which have been previously evaluated by the staff.
i L
If any of the information requested has been previously supplied under a different docket, the applicant may reference the submittals and staff approvals.
j i
221.16 Define the C-Factor mentioned on page 4.4-3 and explain its usuace, (4.4.2.2.1)
~
t I
y I
i
.l DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File 50-382 LPDR PDR NSIC,.
'LB#3 Files DEisenhut o
g RPurple SHanauer p
9 TMurley I-RMattson 1,4pO(7 g RVollmer O-g
/
e TNovak E
g Glainas JKnight g
DMuller PCheck WKreger LRubenstein i
FSchroeder MErnst i
FMiraglia i
ASchwencer BJYoungblood t
EAdensam JRMiller RHartfield, MPA OELD IE (3)
ACRS (16) t i
e l
f e
i.
\\
I l
c,. m.>
7 l..~->;
..j.
i 4
L 1
cc:>
sac r;a ;u 1.
..a0 C??!Cl..L RECCRC C.'2
'