ML20003H735
| ML20003H735 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1981 |
| From: | Counsil W CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO. |
| To: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19260H176 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0588, RTR-NUREG-588, TASK-06-02.D, TASK-06-03, TASK-6-2.D, TASK-6-3, TASK-RR A01203, A1203, NUDOCS 8105070356 | |
| Download: ML20003H735 (4) | |
Text
-
(
o QW CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY BERLIN. CONN T
hier P. o. sox.7o HAnTrono,c o
e. s-y, ri s v/l C fl[
L y
4 m....
........n s_
22 MAY 0 71981 > e April 27, 1980
~;
Mg;grou.y/
Docket No. 50-213 N
- S A01203 sy Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attn
Mr. Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #5 U. S. Nuclear Regula+ory Co==ission Washington, D.C.
20555
References:
(1)
W. G. Counsil letter to D. G. Eisenhut, dated October 31, 1980.
(2)
W. G. Counsil letter to Gus C. Lainas, dated February 27, 1981.
(3)
D. M. Crutchfield letter to W. G. Counsil, dated March 31, 1981.
(4)
W. G. Counsil letter to D. M. Crutchfield, dated May 1, 1980.
(5)
D. C. Switzer letter to D. L. Ziemann, dated March 21, 1978.
Gentle =en:
Hadda= Heck Plant Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment SEP Topic VI-2.D, Mass and Energy Release for Postulated Pipe Ereaks Inside Containment, and SEP Topic VI-3, Containment Pressure and Heat Removal Capability By Reference (1), Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) docketed a comprehensive submittal responding to the Co==ission's requirements regarding environ = ental qualification, thereby fulfilling the Order for Modification of License imposed on DPR-61.
In Section 3.1 of Feference (1), a su==ary of the analyses performed to ascertain the limiting contain=ent temperature and pressure profiles, considering both the LOCA and MSL3, was provided.
The =ethodology employed was consistent with the require =*nts of NUREG-0588, as discussed 'n Reference (2).
In Reference (3), the Staff requested responses to lh questions regarding the blowdown and r*, flood portions of the postulated events, and 5 questions re-garding the containment response. The information request was transmitted to CYAPCO under the guise of SEP Topics VI-2.D and VI-2.
kf s 81050703 b
/
7 _
e a In respor.se to the requests of Refc-ence (3), CYAPCO hereby provides Attact=ent 1, Modelin6, Report and Parameter List f ar the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Hadda= Neck Plant. This attachment has been structured to include a general description of the code utilized and relevant plant parameters, and responses to each of the 14 questions have been incorporated into the text of the report.
Section 1.1 of Attach =ent 1 discusses the applications and limitations of the methodology utilized, and the Staff is cautioned not to assume that the attached
=odeling report can be used without =odification to analyze LOCA's.
Attach =ent 1 con'ains information which is proprietary to Westinghouse. Accordingly, CYAPCC requests that this attach =ent be withheld fro = public disclosure.
In order not to delay this sub=ittal of infor=ation requested by the Co==ission, CYAPCO vill co= ply with the require =ents of 10CFR2.790 to provide proprietary and non-proprietary versions together with an affidavit as soon as Westingbouse specifically identifies the proprietary infor=ation contained in the report and provides CYAPC0 vith an affidavit. Proprietary and non-proprietary versions of the report c.nd the required affidavit vill be subitted promptly upon receipt of the Westinghouse affidsvit. For the interim period, copies of the proprietary report are enclosed for the Staff to initiate its review. Westinghouse has advised us that this procedure has been discussed with Mr. E. Shcr.aker of the IiRC Office of Executive i.egal Director and that he concurs.
A copy of this subittal is being sent to Westinghouse requesting the= to cifically identify the proprietary infor=ation and to supply the required
. %vit. Westinghouse has advised that they vill be able to return the report lavit within a week of their receipt of the report.
Rega 'ing the contain=ent response portion of Reference (3), the folloidng infor=ation is provided.
General Information Analyses performed to date have utilized the Con ^espt EI/026 computer code for both the main stea= line break and loss of coolant events.
Question (1) Provide a quotable reference for the heat structure data defined in the deck.
Response
(1) A listing of major heat structures at Connecticut Yankee had been trans=itted to the Staff in Attach =ent I to Reference (h).
Question (2) Define the nor=al and taximum expe: ed te=perature per=itted in the containment dryvell during normal operations.
\\
r-1 d
' Response (2) ' Normal contain=ent environmental conditions were also transmitted in Attachment 1 to Reference (k). These were as follows:
a) Temperature - 109 F (maximum normal)
(120 F used in analyses) b) Pressure - 15.7 to 17 2 psia. (normal operating)
(17 7 psia (technical specification limit).used in analyses) c) Humidity - 0.4 to 0 7-(normal operating range)
(1.0 used in analyses)
Note that values used in analyses were not previously transmitted.
Question (3) Verify that the initiation times, flow rates, and heat removal rates in the deck for the sprays and coolers are currently valid.
Response
(3) Infor=ation regarding initiation times and availability of the containment spray system and fan cooler system were also provided in Attachment 1 to Reference (4). The following information supplements that information:
a) In addition to one CAR fan being available at 60 seconds, two additional CAR fans are assumed to be manually initiated at 15 minutes. The basis for this assu=ption is documented in Reference (5).
b) Heat re= oval rates of one contain=ent air recirculation determined by testing are:
Te=parature Heat Re=otal Rate 163~F 28.6 x 10, BTU /Er 0
220 F 41.6x10gBTU/Er 0
0 261 F 57.0 x 10 BI'U/Hr Question (4) Define the maximum te=peratures of any and all ECC vater injected into the core or sprayed into the containment.
Response
(4) No water is assu=ed to be sprayed in the containment since the containment i
spray system requires manual initiation. The temperature of ECCS vater i
I n
,e
.m--w
.,--,ee-e,---.m.,--,--e w--,--,--,4 e
,-m
,m
.+--wnp.,r-,-- - -
.,m,
,,r,m.w,-4,,,r.--wen.,mney4.,,
w yw.p a g,,
.,--e,-+,,-.mwm-r~n-.r-w,
-.wm, w-rn.-
. i injected into the core was previously provided in Reference (4).
Question (5) Define the containment spray and fan cooler activation ti=e or activation signal and delay time due to the break and/or loss of outside power. Also, define the nu=ber of spray and cooler syste=s nor= ally available and the nu=ber to be assu=ed considering single failure criteria.
Restsense (5) This infor=ation was provided in ite= (3) of this letter and 3
i Attach =ent 1 to Reference (4).
We trust the above infor=ation vill be adequate to resolve any re=aining questions regarding the adequacy of the calculations performed to define the limiting
}
temperature and pressure profiles within the contairment 'ouilding. As pre-viously stated, the proprietary and non-proprietary versions of Attachment 1 vill be the subject of future correspondence.
Very truly yours, I
CONNECTICUT YAllEEE ATCMIC POWER COMPANY h
1
+
W. G. Counsil cenior Vice Preside.at
]
l l
i f