ML20151A800
| ML20151A800 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/22/1980 |
| From: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Major J OTTO H. YORK CO, INC. |
| References | |
| REF-SSINS NUDOCS 8011060525 | |
| Download: ML20151A800 (3) | |
Text
-
/ *%g
[(', s.,,,
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES g
WASWNoTON, D. C. 20555
\\,; Ol}
~
0CT 2 21980 j
Otto H York Company, Inc.
Attn: Mr. James H. Major P. O. Box 2l00 100 Lehigh Drive Fairfield, New Jersey 07006
Dear Mr. Major:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST NUMBER 1 FOR ADDIT'O<AL INFORMATION ON YORK 80-67a59 We are currently reviewing the Otto H York Company, Inc., Topical Report York 80-67459 entitled " Performance Of The York Model 299 Type 3G Demister, Moisture Separator In Removing Droplets In An Air-Stream Dispersion" dated March 21,1980.
The initial review reveals the need for additional information as indicated in the enclosure.
This information is necessary to complete the review.
Expeditious preparation and submittal will therefore be to the Otto H York Company, Inc.'s advantage.
Please advise us as soon as possible of your planned submittal date to permit us, in turn, to develop a review schedule.
Sincerely, d
Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS P00R QUAUTY PAGES 8011060 ME 1
y'JL 5ii0.' S ON OTTO H. YUW: M'IC AL d: Poli
- -67 39 1.
State, specifically, the rated ficw of the York Model 299 3G Cetister moisture separator.
The introduction,Section I, implies that rated flow is 1000 CFM and that the test rate of 1600 CFM is conservatively severe.
This conclusion is unsupported and not readily apparent.
It should be justified, particularly in view of the fact that the ANSI /
ASME N509-1975 criteria for 99% moisture removal and 99%, by count, re.noval of the 2.5 to 10 pm-diameter decplets are based on operation at rated capacity.
Testing should also be performed at the rated ficw rate.
2.
Frevide the pressure drop at rated flew,. hen se_t 2nd dry, of the moisture separator in accordance '.sith the ruierenced ANSI s tandard cri-teria. Yeur conclusicos,Section V!, enly refer to dry prassure drop, at the test flow rate of 1600 CF".
3.
No conclusion, ncr drainage data, is provided to confirm that the separ!-
tor is "... capable of ramoving at least 995 by s.eight of the entrained moisture in an air stream..." in accordance with the referenced ANSI standard.
Data should be provided to shew water collection r3tes up-stream and downstream of the moisture separator and HEPA.
In our opinion this ccnclusion cannot be supported by t he f act that there was no m0isture collected in the be:Lors :c.ms:. ream of the -oisture separator, nor by Uie FE?A DCP % penetration lata before and af ter axpcsure.
1
?
2 4
Compare the Monsanto cascade impactor used to establisn the droplet size distribution and concentration in your tests to the Cassella impactor used by Griwatz, et al, in MSAR report 71-45.
Discuss the validity of using the magnesiuin oxide slide coating technique in view of the fact that Griwat:, et al, in MSAR 71-45 abandoned this method in f avor of the soluble st ain collection surf ace tachnique.