ML20058N762
| ML20058N762 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/16/1993 |
| From: | De Agazio A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Feigenbaum T NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORP. (NAESCO) |
| References | |
| TAC-M86957, NUDOCS 9312220250 | |
| Download: ML20058N762 (7) | |
Text
.
December 16, 1993 Docket No. 50-443 Serial No. SEA-93-030 l
l Mr. Ted C. Feigenbaum Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation Post Office Box 300 Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874
Dear Mr. Feigenbaum:
i
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (TAC M86957)
A preliminary review of Yankee Atomic. Electric Company Topical Report YAEC-1856P, System Transient Analysis Methodology Using RETRAN for PWR t
Applications, reveals that the information identified in the enclosure to this 1
letter is required for us to continue with the review. To avoid seriously impacting the review schedule, you have agreed to meet with us to discuss.the i
information needs on December 21, 1993. This meeting should be followed j
promptly with a formal submittal of the information.
i Because we are certain that you understand that time is of the essence, we are i
not requesting the information by a specific date, but you should be aware that if there is a delay in satisfying the staff's needs, we might not be able to complete the review in a timely manner, and the staff has the option of ~
rejecting the application for incompleteness.
The requirements of this letter affect fewer than 10 respondents, and, 1
therefore, are not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under l
P.L.96-511.
-l Sincerely,
{
Original signed by:
170073 Albert W. De Agazio, Sr. Project Manager Project Directorate-I-4 Division of. Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated 1
cc w/ enclosure:
See next page g 22 g o$ N obo 43 P
PDR:
DISTRIBUTION:
j Docket File JCalvo OGC RJones t
+
NRC & Local PDRs SNorris ACRS (10)
Llois I
SVarga ADe Agazio JRogge, RGI MCaruso Ql OFFICE LA:PDI-4 PM:PDI-4/I DaPDJ-4 9
\\\\ (
WE SN ADeAgazi bf MMz@
DATE
@/b/93
///M93
- ? /r d/93
/ /
/ /
~"
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Document Name: G\\DEAGAZIO\\86957.RAI
[
J
i Decenber 16, 1993 i
Docket No. 50-443 Serial No. SEA-93-030 Mr. Ted C. Feigenbaum Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer J
North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation Post Office Box 300 Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874
Dear Mr. Feigenbaum:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (TAC M86957)
A preliminary review of Yankee Atomic Electric Company Topical Report YAEC-1856P, System Transient Analysis Methodology Using RETRAN for PWR Applications, reveals that the information identified in the enclosure to this letter is required for us to continue with the review. To avoid seriously impacting the review schedule, you have agreed to meet with us to discuss the information needs on December 21, 1993. This meeting should be followed promptly with a formal submittal of the information.
Because we are certain that you understand that time is of the essence, we are not requesting the information by a specific date, but you should be aware that if there is a delay in satisfying the staff's needs, we might not be able to complete the review in a timely manner, and the staff has the option of rejecting the application for incompleteness.
The requirements of this letter affect fewer than 10 respondents, and, therefore, are not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely, Original signed by:
Albert W. De Agazio, Sr. Project Manager Project Directorate I-4 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated
=
cc w/ enclosure:
See next page DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File JCalvo OGC RJones NRC & Local PDRs SNorris ACRS (10)
Llois SVarga ADe Agazio JRogge, RGI MCaruso oFi!CE LA:PDI-4 PM:PDI-4 DAPDJ-4, NE SN ADeAgazi bf NzM DATE 12/l(f/93
////493
- ?/,d/93
/ /
/ /
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
~"
'~
Document Name: G\\DEAGAZIO\\86957.RAI l
---. ~.
1 pn*'c%
f.
UNITED STATES
[
. j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'f WASHINGTON. D.C. 20566 0001 v....+/
December 16, 1993 Docket No. 50-443 Serial No. SEA-93-030 Mr. Ted C. Feigenbaum Senior Vicc-President and Chief Nuclear Officer North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation Post Office Box 300 Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874
Dear Mr. Feigenbaum:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (TAC M86957)
A preliminary review of Yankee Atomic Electric Company Topical Report YAEC-1856P, System Transient Analysis Methodology Using RETRAN for PWR Applications, reveals that the information identified in the enclosure to this letter is required for us to continue with the review. To avoid seriously impacting the review schedule, you have agreed to meet with us to discuss the information needs on December 21, 1993.
This meeting should be followed promptly with a formal submittal of the information.
Because we are certain that you understand that time is of the essence, we are not requesting the information by a specific date, but you should be aware i
that if there is a delay in satisfying the staff's needs, we might not be able to complete the review in a timely manner, and the staff has the option of rejecting the application for incompleteness.
The requirements of this letter affect fewer than' 10 respondents, and, therefore, are not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely, Albert W. D Agazio, Sr. Pr ject Manager Project Directorate I-4 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
See next page
i !
I i
~
1 j
Mr. Ted C. Feigenbaum Seabrook Station CC:
i i
Thomas Dignan, Esq.
Mr. George L. Iverson, Director l
John A. Ritsher, Esq.
New Hampshire Office of Emergency j
Ropes and Gray Management j
One Interr;.:tional Place State Office Park South i
Boston, Massachusetts 02110-2624 107 Pleasant Street
{
Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Mr. Peter Brann i
Assistant Attorney General Regional Administrator, Region I l
State House, Station #6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commmission j
Augusta, Maine 04333 475 Allendale Road i
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 i
Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Attorney General Seabrook Nuclear Power Station One Ashburton Place l
Post Office Box 1149 20th Floor j
Scabrook, New Hampshire 03874 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 1
4 Jane Spector Board of Selectmen j
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Town of Amesbury i
825 North Capital Street, N.E.
Town Hall Room 8105 Amesbury, Massachusetts 01913 j
Washington, DC 20426 8
Mr. Jack Dolan Federal Emergency Management Agency j
Mr. T. L. Harpster Region I j
North Atlantic Energy Service J.W. McCormack Post Office &
Corporation Courthouse Building, Room 442 Post Office Box 300 Boston, Massachusetts 02109 j
Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 Mr. David Rodham, Director f
Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency Town of Exeter 400 Worcester Road 10 Front Street Post Office Box 1496 Exeter, Ncw Hampshire 03823 Framingham, Massachusetts 01701-0317 ATTN: James Muckerheide i
Gerald Garfield, Esq.
l Day, Berry and Howard Jeffrey Howard, Attorney General City Place G. Dana Bisbee, Deputy Attorney Hartford, Connecticut 06103-3499 General l
Attorney General's Office Mr. R. M. Kacich 25 Capitol Street
- Nor}heast Utilities Service Company Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Post Office Box 270
)
Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270 Mr. Robert Sweeney Bethesda Licensing Office j
Suite 610 3 Metro Center j:
Bethesda, Maryland 20814 l
l d
i 4
i r e
~
-v n+e e c-ev = -
e=-
i I
t ATTACHMENT Request for Additional Information Review of YAEC-1856P 2
General Approach:
l.
Identi#y clearly and accurately transient analyses performed with RETRAN for which YAEC received NRC approval.
YAEC should identify:
(1) which version of RETRAN was used, (2) the scope of application approved, such as reload and transient specificity, (3) for which plant and (4) references to NRC approvals.
l 2.
YAEC correctly stated that "due to differences in plant geometry, actual nodalizations may not be identical in all cases...the-nodalization is governed by certain transients."
Therefore, YAEC should justify on a transient-by-transient and plant-by-plant basis, what modifications and adaptations are made to the " standard PWR nodalization".
Provide schematics of nor-standard nodalizations and justify thoroughly: (i) the plant nodalization on a transient-by-transient basis; and (ii) the variables (and values obtained) which were permitted to be adjusted by the RETRAN initialization routine.
Furthermore, provide and describe in depth all parametric studies performed to lead YAEC to conclude that the nodalization presented in Appendix A
is either a best-estimate or a conservative representation of the plant, and demonstrate that the use of code models is conservative.
3.
In modeling the steam generator, the nodalization (Figure A.1) shows use of only one volume for the boiling region of the steam generator secondary side.
Justify the steam generator modeling and demonstrate that it will produce conservative results on a SG design basis for each plant.
In addition, provide detailed qualification of the steam separator model, mixture Ir" i mdel, steam line model, bypass valve sizing, etc.
and asser-
&na justify the uncertainty level (or bias) associated with ic!.
.ie of these models.
Describe thoroughly the impact of the i c6ry side modeling on secondary side initiated and dominated transiants and justify (through parametric studies) the single-node SG model.
4 On page A.10, YAEC briefly described its special technique to preserve the pressure drop when specifying geometric data.
Discuss how this method also preserves the volume so that the liquid inventory is accurately predicted.
5 Specify the gap conductance assumed for transient analysis.
If 1
,,,., ~, - -,
- 1 s
l values vary for different. transients, discuss how they are determined.
6.
Explain and justify the upper head circulation path modeling and demonstrate that predicted flows are realistic and/or conservative 1
on a transient-by-transient.
7.
YAEC should provide FSAR benchmark. ilysis for the full spectrum of transients before its methodology ; :n be reviewed for generic application.
Comparison should be made for all 5 categories of transients with focus upon three categories (loss of heat sink, overcooling, reactivity anomalies) including loss of normal i
feedwater, loss of AC power and feedline break for Category 1,
)
locked rotor and loss of flow for Category 2, rod ejection, rod withdrawal at different powers for Category 3.
All such comparison i
must be thoroughly discussed and differences explained and justified.
i 8.
Provide tables containing YAEC's approach to performance of Chapter 15 non-LOCA transient analysis for each plant.
One table should l
contain ranges of key plant parameters and the other should contain (1)
SG nodalization, (2) core nodalization, (3) reactivity coefficients, (4) key plant parameters and their status (high/ low or
]
min / max), (5) transient assumptions and (6) operable & inoperable i
j components.
{
}
9.
Provide a table of transient specific actuation setpoints of trips,
]
time delays, trip parameters and initial values.
10.
Provide description of the valve modeling in the YAEC plant model.
i Discussion should include handling of uncertainty, hysteresis effect, if modeled, and discharge flow rate qualification.
Plant Data Comparison (Chapter 4.0) l 11.
]
Explain why RTN initial conditions were not matched with the data for the natural circulation test for Seabrook.
Justify the 1
statement that the difference in hot leg temperatures between 100 and 300 seconds while the cold leg temperature were matched with an offset in the initial conditions was caused by the modeling of steam J
dump control system.
Discuss the source (s) of the hot leg temperatures. Does YAEC have similar analysis for other plants?
In order to assure that the steam dump control system modeling is the source of mismatch (as YAEC postulates) in some of benchmark analyses, provide the description of the simple steam dump model.
12.
What is the timing of the operator action during the reactor trip tests?
For the Maine Yankee reactor trip test benchmark analysis, the pressurizer pressure was predicted to be about 300 psi higher than the plant data by the end of simulation.
Explain in depth the cause of this difference since the pressurizer level was well-matched.
2 a
i FSAR Applications:
- 13. Provide a loss of load analysis for Maine Yankee. YAEC demonstrated that for Yankee Rowe, GEMINI predicted higher pressure than REi?AN at slightly earlier time.
Explain the reasons for the diverget t results after the pressure peaked.
14.
The MSLB analysis which was approved for Maine Yankee examined core physics but not thermal hydraulics.
Therefore, complete justification for MSLB thermal / hydraulics must be provided for all i
three plants.
Such justification should be provided for the full and hot zero power (HZP) cases.
15.
Provide detailed qualification of the boron transport model, i
)
i e
e W
3
.