ML20105C694

Advises That Test of as-built Pond Heat Rejection Capability Did Not Confirm Performance Predicted by Calculations. Licensee Concludes That If More Water Kept in Pond & at Temp of 81 F No Physical Changes Will Be Required

ML20105C694
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, Susquehanna
Issue date:	01/03/1984
From:	Perch R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Scinto J NRC
Shared Package
ML20102A920	List: ML20102A922 ML20102A925 ML20102A929 ML20102A931 ML20102A933 ML20102A934 ML20102A937 ML20102A939 ML20102A942 ML20102A944 ML20102A946 ML20102A948 ML20102A959 ML20102A961 ML20102A969 ML20102A974 ML20102A981 ML20102A984 ML20102A999 ML20102B001 ML20102B008 ML20102B010 ML20102B032 ML20102B045 ML20102B058 ML20102B060 ML20102B063 ML20102B068 ML20102B080 ML20102B085 ML20102B106 ML20102B112 ML20102B114 ML20102B120 ML20102B122 ML20102B125 ML20102B127 ML20102B139 ML20102B142 ML20102B147 ML20102B156 ML20102B159 ML20102B167 ML20102B177 ML20102B185 ML20102B194 ML20102B196 ML20102B200 ML20102B206 ML20102B211 ... further results
References
FOIA-84-166 NUDOCS 8401200198
Download: ML20105C694 (1)

Text

[

'o UNITED STATES

~g C - p%

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O

j CASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

,/

January 3,1984

,Nal~

NOTE T0: Joe Scinto FROM:

R. L. Perch

SUBJECT:

SUSQUEHANNA 1 SPRAY POND OPERABILITY In the Susquehanna SER (4/81) (Section 2.4.4) the NRC staff noted that, based on computer model calculations, the existing as-designed pond should be able to perform ultimate heat sink duty for both units (a LOCA in one unit and normal shutdown cooling loads for the other unit) without exceeding a 30 day heatup temperature of 95 F.

While the NRC staff called for a confirmatory test of the as-built pond heat rejection capability, we concluded that there was sufficient margin to allow one unit operation based on the design calculations alone.

The Technical Specifications on the spray pond in the Unit I license were based on two unit performance and assumed that at LOCA plus other unit shutdown loads could be rejected for up to 30 days with no makeup water provided the starting conditions in the pond included keeping the average water temperature at 88 F or below and the inventory at 19.95 million gallons or higher (represented by a pond level of 677 feet above mean sea level (MSL)). Had the tests that were subsequently ran on the as-built spray pond 1,

indeed confirmed the design calculations, the Unit 2 Technical Specifications would have used the same limits as are now in the Unit 1 Technical i

br Specifications.

y;m Unfortunately, the tests did not confirm the performance predicted by design J 3 N ['-

and computer model calculations.

64 x7 However, by conservatively applying the results of the tests, the licensee g/C has concluded that, by the simple expedience of making sure that there is more water in the pond than now required by the Unit 1 Technical Specifications (23 million gallons, up 15% from the 19.95 gallons now required) and that the average pond water is kept at a lower level (81 F, down 7"F from the 88 F now allowed - which allowed for a 7*F heatup to the.

accident design limit of 95 F after 30 days with no makeup), no physical o

changes will be required in the spray pond itself in order to handle the heat rejection losses resulting from a LOCA in one unit and a normal shutdown in f

the other unit. As you can imagine, requiring an average pond temperature of t.g 81'F during the summer months may result in an occasional plant shutdown.

/

Therefore, at a future date, the -licensee may desire to justify and take p.$ )s alternate measures.

e s

e.

i, y* / #

s Gu_Pa O.

/

R. L. Perch

/

b fry 3

'/g cc:

A. Schwencer T. Novak p' jf. V)

W

[ L &,l.

n 1

i.

..