ML20003F502
| ML20003F502 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 04/09/1981 |
| From: | Baynard P FLORIDA POWER CORP. |
| To: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 3-041-12, 3-41-12, NUDOCS 8104210443 | |
| Download: ML20003F502 (2) | |
Text
'
-s ll\\
/
f b
N (O
l1& \\L.D
- /
g sl~ APR 201981
%" v.s.mm mwan '-
Flon.da
==
y Power co n eo n a r io s gf Aoril 9,1981
- 3-041 -12 50 -3R File:
3-0-30 Mr. John F. Stolz, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Reference:
Letter from R. W. Reid to All Babcock & Wilcox Licensees, February 24, 1981
Dear Mr. Reid:
We have reviewed the referenced letter, evaluated the stated objectives, and we are of the following opinion:
The B&W prediction of the L3-1 test compared very favorably with the other vendor predictions.
All of the predictions showed the clearing of liquid from the pump loop seal.
l However, the test did not produce this result due to a bypass i
flow path which existed between the vessel upper head and the l
downcomer annulus, as well as another bypass between the i
hot-leg and cold-leg pipes due to leakage through the reflood l
assist valves.
EGaG calculations indicate that this leakage l
path in LOFT is approximately 3 percent of the core flow or comparable to prototype valves.
However, the actual leakage path cannot be measured directly but only indirectly inferred by assuming a value which leads to the prediction agreement with the test.
Therefore, the leakage flow from L3-1 must be further evaluated before additional analytical work could be justified.
In addition on page 40 of EGG-CAAP-5255 (LOFT L3-1 Preliminary Comparison Report), it is stated that B&W was the only vendor who accurately calculated the behavior of the l
secondary side of the steam generator.
For these reasons, we are of the opinion that only a marginal benefit at best could be realized from further evaluation of the L3-1 test.
l 810.4210fD
[
I l
General Office 3201 Tmnyaounn street scutn. P o Bo 14042. St Petersburg Forida 33733 e 813-E66-5151
Page Two April 8, 1981 Regarding the S-07-100 test, the situation is a little different.
None of the Vendor predictions characterized the test very well. However, we feel this is due in large measure to insufficient information to model the steam side of the steam generator, as well as insufficient data on the valve and associated piping. There is also insufficient information to adequately model the steam separator. Based on these reasons, we are of the opinion that our current results are not unreasonable considering the conservative features of the model B&W used to predict the experiment.
Not withstanding the above arguments, we will provide to you our quali-tative opinion of the impact of identified test uncertainties and model conservatisms on the iesults previously provided on the blind predic-tions of L3-1 and S-07-100.
Due to the extensive manpower cor.Tnitment on the analysis of the L3-6 test, which was just completed and submitted to Dr. Sheron on March 23, as well as a continuing effort to respond to the requirements of NUREG-0737 and others, we will respond to your letter of Februc y 24, 1981 by June 1,1981 in the context described above.
Sincerely, FLORIDA-POWER CORPORATION c) j$ -
L'} y\\ si L b P. Y. Baynard Manager Nuclear Support Services Legendre(T05)D1-3 i
l
. _ _ ~
.,,. _ _ _ -