ML20028B199
| ML20028B199 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/23/1982 |
| From: | Devincentis J PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| SBN-383, NUDOCS 8211300161 | |
| Download: ML20028B199 (4) | |
Text
,I s u a su m IPUBLIC SERVICE Enyneering Omce:
Companyof NewHampshre 1671 Worcester Road Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 (617) - 872-8100 November 23, 1982 SBN-383 T.F. B7 1.2 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention:
Mr. George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing
References:
(a) Construction Permits CPPR-135 and CPPR-136, Docket Nos. 50-44 3 and 50-444 (b) USNRC Letter, dated April 28, 1982, " Request for Additional Information - Procedures and Test Review Branch," F. J. Miraglia to W. C. Tallman (c) PSNH Letter, dated November 10, 1982, " Response to 640 Series RAIs; (Procedures and Test Review Branch),"
J.
DeVincentis to G. W. Knighton
Subject:
Response to RAI 640.45 and 640 61; (Procedures and Test Review Branch)
Dear Sir:
We have enclosed responses to the subject Requests for Additional Information (RAIs) which were forwarded in Reference (b).
Please note that RAI 640.45 was inadvertently omitted from Reference (c).
The enclosed responses will be included in OL Application Anendment 48.
Very truly yours, YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY J. DeVincentis Project K3 nager ALL/fsf cc: Atomic Safety and Licensing Service Board List F211300161 821123 PDR ADOCK 05000443 A
ASLB SERVICE-LIST Philip Ahrens, Esquire Assistsnt Attorney General Department of the Attorney General Augusta, ME 04333 Representative Beverly Hollingworth Coastal Chamber of Commerec 209 Winnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03842 William S. Jordan, III, Esquire Harmon & Weiss 1725 I Street, N.W.
Suite 506 Washington, DC 20006 E. Tupper Kinder, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 208 State House Annex Concord, NH 03301 Robert A. Backus, Esquire 116 Lowell Street P.O. Box 516 Manchester, NH 03105 Edward J. McDermott, Esquire Sanders and McDermott Professional Association 408 Lafayette Road Hampton, NH 03842 Jo Ann Shotwell, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 l
I l
l
640.*45 Your core performance evaluation test abstract (ST 29) does not commit to establishing that a number of impor-tant core performance parameters are in accordance with design values.
Commit to performing sufficient measure-ments and evaluations to verify that the following are within design specifications:
1)
Flux distributions.
2)
Departure from nucleate boiling ratio.
3)
Radial and axial power peaking factors.
4)
Quadrant power tilt.
i
RESPONSE
The acceptance criteria will be changed to read:
"The flux map results, inclu' ding DNB, radial and axial power peaking factors, and quadrant power tilt, meet the requirements of Technical Specifications 3.2.2, 3.2.4, and 3.2.5.
i B
l l
640.61 Provide cast descriptions:
1) that will verify that the plant's ventilation systems are adequate to maintain all ESF equipment within its design temperature range during normal operations; and 2) that will verify that the emergency ventilation systems 4
are capable of maintaining all ESF equipment within their design temperature range with the equipment operating in a manner that will produce the maximum heat load in the compartment.
If it is not practical to produce maximum heat loads in a compartment, describe the methods that will be used to verify design heat removal capability of the emergency ventilation systems.
Note that it is not apparent that post-accident design heat loads will be produced in ESF equipment rooms during the power ascension heat phases therefore, simply assuring that area temperatures remain within design limito during this period will not demonstrate the design heat removal capability systems.
It will be necessary to include measurement of air and cooling water temperatures and flows and the extrapolations used to verify that the ventilation systems can remove the postulated post-accident heat loads.
RESPONSE
Prior to and during Hot Functional Testing, the ven-tilation system serving ESF eculpment will be tested.
Models will be developed basec on actual cooling water Lemperatures or outside air temperatures, as applicable, and fan parameters.
By using water and air temperatures and flow rates, a cooling capability will be established.
By varying these parameters, a series of equipment cooling capabilities will be generated.
During the test program ESF equipment will be operated to produce the maxiumum area heat load, the ventilation i
systems servicing the ESF eculpment will be monitored to annure that required air and water flow rates and temperatures are maintained, and operational data will be recorded.
The performance of the models will be verified by actual l
tests which will measure all normal variables of temperatura and4fhow to determine the test cooling loads.
The actual l
cooIlng test loads will be compared with that obtained from modeling.
Sufficient tests will be performed with varying loads to validate the model.
The post-LOCA performance of the equipment will then be extrapolated and compared to the postulated accident heat loads.
The method of extrapolation will be documented.
t l
The ESF ventilation systems shall satisfactorily demonstrate the ability to meet, or exceed, design requirements specified in FSAR Sections 9.4 and 6.5.
I l
4
- ~ _., _ -.
_.___,.,_-_.._,-.-,__._m
,__._.wr__.-
____.. _. - _ -.