ML20140E320

Forwards RAI Re TS Changes for Revised Sys Requirements to Ensure post-accident Containment Cooling Capability

ML20140E320
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	06/09/1997
From:	Gundrum L NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Grigg R WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
References
TAC-M96741, TAC-M96742, NUDOCS 9706110326
Download: ML20140E320 (3)

Text

.

i

~

• June 9, 1997 l

l Mr. Richard R. Grigg Chief Nuclear Officer Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Street. Room P379 ,

Milwaukee, WI 53201 '

SUBJECT:

POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RE: TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES FOR I REVISED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS TO ENSURE POST-ACCIDENT CONTAINMENT COOLING CAPABILITY (TAC NOS. M96741 AND M96742) (CR-192)

Dear Mr. Grigg:

We have received Point Beach Nuclear Plant's a) plication dated September 30. I 1996, as supplemented on November 26 and Decem)er 12. 1996, and February 13.

March 5. April 2. April 16. May 9. and June 3.1997 to revise Technical Specifications (TS) for system req;irements to ensure post-accident containment cooling capability. TS Change Request (CR)-192 includes reanalysis for radiological consequences of a loss-of-coolant accident and includes proposed revisions to the TS for the control room ventilation system. j During the review, the staff determined that additional information was l required. Enclosed is a request for additional information (RAI). Please respond to Questions 1. 2. 4. and 5. The information requested by Question 3 should be provided to Region III inspection personnel. Your response to these questions should be provided as soon as possible but no later than June 11.

1997. In addition. please document the elevation of the wind speed data. If you have any questions. please contact me at (301) 415-1380.

Sincerely.

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Linda L. Gundrum. Project Manager Project Directorate III-1 Division of Reactor Projects - III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301

Enclosure:

RAI cc w/ enc 1: See next page bb DISTRIBUTION: Docket File J. Roe J.McCormick-Barger OGC PUBLIC OGC PU 3-1 Rdg ACRS H. Walker D.Segala l DOCUMENT NAME: G:\WPDOCS\PTBEACH\PTB96741.RAI i

! Ta receive a copy of '.lds document, indicate in the bos: "C" - Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" - Copy with attachment / enclosure *N' = No copy 0FFICE PM:PD31 E LA:PD31 E D:PD31 n,p j LGundrum:lg )U$ CJamerson (1 NAME DATE 6/ q /97 6/ 9 /97 //

/ JHannohhLf4 6/ 't /97 '

3 D'j ,

4 0FPlCIAL RECORD COPY g 1 l 9706110326 970609 (

l PDR ADOCK 05000266 l P PDR

Mr. Richard R. Grigg Point Beach Nuclear Plant Wisconsin Electric Power Company Unit Nos.1 and 2 l cc:

)

Ernest L. Blake, Jr.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W. ,

I Washington, DC 20037 Mr. Scott A. Patulski Vice President Point Beach Nuclear Plant Wisconsin Electric Power Company l

6610 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241 {

l Mr. Ken Duveneck )

Town Chairman i Town of Two Creeks 13017 State Highway 42 l Mishicot, Wisconsin 54228 Chairman l Public Service Commission  ;

of Wisconsin l

P.O. Box 7854 1 Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7854 i Regional Administrator, Region 111 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 801 Warrenville Road Lisle, Illinois 60532-4351 Resident inspector's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6612 Nuclear Road '

Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241 Ms. Sarah Jenkins Electric Division Public Service Commission of Wisconsin P.O. Box 7854 Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7854

)

)

l l

March 1M7

_ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . - .. _ . _ _ _ _ _ .. . . _ _ _ . _ . ~

.=

, Request for Additional Information (1) Provide a chronology, from 0 to 720 hours0.00833 days <br />0.2 hours <br />0.00119 weeks <br />2.7396e-4 months <br />, of the unfiltered inleakage flow rates and sources, filtered flow rates, absorber and HEPA

[high-efficiency particulate air) filter efficiencies, initiation signals, and a list of operating components for all design-basis i accidents with and without an accompanying loss of offsite power [ LOOP].

i (2) Provide a detailed description of the timing for getting the control room ventilation system back on the diesels after being shed due to a 4

LOCA [ loss-of-coolant accident] with a LOOP. Provide the temperature rise in the control room and computer room at the end of this time and i' the basis for the acceptability of the temperature rise. What is the basis for your assum)tions for unfiltered inleakage, performance during a LOOP. and control leat up? Have any tests been conducted to verify j system response?

i (3) trays each i The ratedcontrol at 333 room ft'/ minventilation yielding a system system has 14 charcoal capacity of 4662 ftfilter,/ min. The tray design is based on a residence time of 0.25 second or a face ocity of 40 ft/ min. However, with the TS required flow rate of 4950 i

ve]/

ft min, the residence' time across the charcoal is less than 0.2 second. Using 4950 ft / min, the residence time decreases by 6% and.

using 5445 ft /mir the residence time decreases by 17%. Therefore.

your laboratory i.esting at a residence time of 0.25 second overestimates the capability of the charcoal. Provide the bases for the removal

capability of the adsorber assumed in the accident analyses.

(4) The computer room dampers (CV 4849A and CV 4849B) fail to a' closed position upon loss of instrument air or upon a LOOP. During the inspection beginning May 19. 1997, it was stated that the reason these dampers fail closed is to isolate the Halon from the control room. 4 Following a LOOP. all of the dampers of the control room ventilation systems but these two dampers fail to their emergency mode 4 position.

When the control room ventilation system fans are back on the diesels, these two valves remain closed. Without instrument air an operator  ;

would have to be sent to manually align the dampers. Have you incor> orated this information into your dose analysis, including possi)1e changes in the control room envelope volume?

(5) What is the basis for not assuming worst-case flowrates (4950 i 10%

ft / min) in your dose analysis? In addition, why are the efficiencies not reduced by the TS 1% bypass in your dose analysis?

Enclosure