ML20148G690
| ML20148G690 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1997 |
| From: | Ewing E ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| 50-382-96-202, W3F1-97-0131, W3F1-97-131, NUDOCS 9706060082 | |
| Download: ML20148G690 (2) | |
Text
- ~... ~... -
. ~.... - - - -
. - - _ - - -... ~ -. -. ~.
3 Entrrgy Oper:tions,Inc.
PO. Box B 1
Killona. LA 70066 Tel 504 739 6242 i
Early C. Ewing,111 Director ea afety & Regulatory Affairs VV3F1-97-0131 A4.05 PR June 3,1997 h
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
{
ATTN: Document Control Desk i.
Washington, D.C. 20555
Subject:
Waterford 3 SES Docket No. 50-382 License No. NPF-38 Discrepancy in Technical Specification Bases Requirement for j
Emergency Feedwater Flow Gentlemen:
j k
On December 13,1996, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued I
]
NRC Inspection Report (IR) No. 50-382/96-202. The report documents the results of
).
an engineering inspection conducted at Waterford 3 on September 23-27 and i
October 7-10,1996. During that inspection, the NRC reviewed a Waterford 3 j.
identified conflict between the Emergency Feedwater (EFW) flowrates in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and the flowrates in the bases forTechnical Specification (TS) 3/4.7.1.2, Emergency Feedwater System. On April 28-30 and May 1-2,1997, the NRC conducted another inspection to revisit the open items fg from IR No. 50-382/96-202. During that inspection, Waterford 3 committed to submit a letter to the NRC communicating that changes will be made to the TS bases based upon the results of new analyses that are currently being performed. The purpose of this letter is to satisfy that commitment.
[l in the original FSAR at the time of Waterford 3's licensing, Table 10.4.9A-1 stated that the turbine driven pump or both motor driven pumps together have been designed to provide 100% of the flow necessary for residual heat removal over the entire range of postulated design basis accidents. However, under realistic conditions any one EFW pump could supply adequate flow for decay heat removal to one (400 gpm required) or both (450 gpm total required) steam generators. These FSAR values are valid and supported by previous calculations. The values currently
@ 0I$o$ N0h0 8 O!!l5l0$lk$,h G
PDR y
Discrepancy in Technical Specification Bases Requirement for Emergency Feedwater Flow W3F1-97-0131 Page 2 June 3,1997 l
contained in the bases for TS 3/4.7.1.2 are inconsistent with the valid FSAR values and were apparently derived from pump curves which did not account for line losses, elevation head, and steam generator pressure.
i The new analysis which is being performed as part of a Waterford 3 effort to recapture design margin will be completed shortly. At that time the resulting values will be incorporated into the TS bases and FSAR. Waterford 3 anticipates that the FSAR and TS bases change will be completed by August 31,1997.
Should you have any questions, please contact David Matthews at (504) 739-6469.
Very truly yours, l
7,
/
E.C. Ewing Director Nuclear Safety & Regulatory Affairs ECE/WDM/tjs cc:
. E.W. Merschoff, NRC Region IV C.P. Patel, NRC-NRR J. Smith N.S. Reynolds NRC Resident inspectors Office i
4 i
1 t
l 4
-