ML20199H323

Summary of 971119 Meeting W/Bwrog NPSH Subcommittee in Rockville,Md Re BWR Licensees Responses to Five Questions in GL 97-04.List of Meeting Attendees & Slides Used in BWROG Presentation Encl

ML20199H323
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/20/1997
From:	Joshua Wilson NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Essig T NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
PROJECT-691 GL-97-04, GL-97-4, NUDOCS 9711260083
Download: ML20199H323 (30)

Text

_ - _.

i November 20, 1997 e

,/MEMORANDUMT0:

Thomas H. Essig, Acting Chief Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management. NRR FROM:

James H. Wilson. Senior Project Manager Original Signed By:

Standardization Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management. NRR

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 19. 1997. WITH THE BOILING WATER REACTOR OWNERS' GROUP NPSH SUBCOMMITTEE On September 24, 1997, the staff held a public meeting at NRC headquarters in Rockville. Maryland with representatives of the Boiling Water Reactor Owners' Group (BWROG) Net Positive Suction Head (NPSH) subcommittee.

The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the BWR licensees' responses to the five questions in Generic Letter 97-04.

A list of attendees and their affiliations is provided as Attachment 1.

The B4ROG NPSH subcommittee was recently established to help BWR licensees res)ond to Generic Letter 97-04 in a comprehensive and consistent manner.

For eac1 of the 5 questions in the generic letter, members of the subcommittee provided clarification of the broad scope of NPSH analyses (from sump to pump) addressed in the generic letter.

This guidance will be circulated to the BWROG lic m sees in order to 3rovide guidance in formulating the licensees' 90-day responses requested by tle generic letter.

The slides used in the BWROG presentation are provided as Attachment 2.

The NRC staff indicated that the efforts of the subcommittee are responsive to the staff's needs and that the guidance provided by the subcommitcee members, if followed by the individual BWR licensees, should result in submittals responding to Generic Letter 97-04 that are acceptable in scope.

Project No. 691

/

Attachments:

As stated

/

cc w/ atts:

See next page 3

DISTRIBUTION w/ attachments:

PUBLIC (Docket PGEB r/f JHWilson JKudrick KKavanagh RLobel RElliott WLong RCaruso JStang MMarshall Document Name: MEETSUM.N19 3

f 0FC PGEB G#J (A)SC:PTB C:SRN C:PGEB O t

NAME JHWilso(

MJCar f JSt$'

TEssig f M DATE 11/20/97 11/9 /97 11N0/97 11/te/97 yM 0FFIC1AL RECORD COPY p

?"M %

ll ll,lli l!!.l!lll I,1 ll gg W CENTER COPY Q V (p.ni) g

2 e

f....g p

UNITED STATES

,}

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 30006 4001 November 20, 1997 MEMORANDUM T0:

Thomas H. Essig. Acting Chiaf Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management. NRR FROM:

JamesH. Wilson.SeniorProjectManag

$d Standardization Project Directorate

/

Division of Reactor Prograin Management.

RR

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 19, 1997. WITH THE BOILING WATER REACTOR OWNERS' GROUP NPSH SUBCOMMITTEE On September 24. 1997, the staff held a public meeting at NRC headquarters in Rockville. Maryland with representatives of the Boilirg Water Reactor Omers' Group (BWROG) Net Positive Suction Head (NPSH) subcommittee. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the BWR licensees

• responses to the five questions in Generic Letter 97 04. A list of attendees and their affiliations is provided ac Attachment 1.

The BWROG NPSH subcommittee was recently established to help BWR licensees res>ond to Generic Letter 97 04 in a comprehensive and consistent manner.

For eac1 of the 5 questions in the generic letter. members of the subcommittee provided clarification of the broad scope of NPSH analyses (from sump to pump) addressed in the generic letter.

This guidance will be circulated to the BWROG licensees in order to )rovide guidance in formulating the licensees' 90-day responses requested by tie generic letter. The slides used in the BWROG presentation are provided as Attachment 2.

The NRC staff indicated that the efforts of the subcommittee are responsive to the staff's 1eeds and that the guidance provided by the subcommittee members, if followed by the individual BWR licensees, should result in submittals responding to Generic letter 97-04 that are acceptable in scope.

Prcject No. 691

-Attachments: As stated cc w/ atts:

See next page

.J

I r

l t

LIST OF ATTENDEES AT MANAGEMENT MEETING WITH THE BWROG

.HELO IN ROCKVILLE. MARYLAND ON_ NOVEMBER 19, 1997 l

I EME AFFILIATION J. Stang NRC J. Kudrick NRC R. Caruso NRC

.R. Lobel NRC NRC l

R. Elliott.

K. Kavanagh-NRC W. Long NRC J.-H. Wilson NRC

-M. Marshall NRC H. Williams BWROG N. Jones BWROG i

J. Butler NEI D. Raleigh Bechtel M. Straka NUS B. Williamson Nucleonics Week

}

?

-1 t

1' 3

f

._..,..s-.,.._;..,;...,-..._._._...u.,

.~.:..--..-:....

I NRR/BWROG NPSH COMMITTEE INTERNAL INFORMATION MEETING NOVEMBER 19,1997 PURPOSE:

To encourage early information exchange between industry and staff regarding 1

l resolution of GL 97-04 and Overpressure Issues.

l l

AGENDA:

Key Elements to GL 97-04 Response Considerations for OP Submittals e

Discussion /Other Actions e

l

GL Issues t

1. Specify general methodology for calculating head loss with ECCS suction strainers.

NPSHA= h. +h,t - hyp. - hr.

where:

h, = Absolute pressure (in feet of liquid) on the surface of the l!. quid supply level

. This term is thp containment pressure above atmospheric that is talcen credit for in the analysis. Use your response to Item #4 (of the GL) for any discussion on the crediting of containment pressure in your NPSH analysis.

• For plants not using containment overpressure credit,it should be assumed that h, =' hyp.

l 2'd dtvo 50:10te18 3 m udst:10 46. t t MN

..'s u swi pin opot E 592

<-:01 V3A1130 3St'31d Ei:4F:FI L6/>1/IT

~

GL Issues

1. Specify general methodology for calculating head loss with ECCS suction strainers.

NPSHA*ha +

ha - hyp. - hr.

where:

ha = Static height in feet that the liquid supply level is ab,ove or below the pump centerline or impeller eye i

. State datum point used for static height as compared to either mid-pump flange or oth'er.

. Static height should be based on the minimum suppression pool / torus water level.

• Provide basis for this minimum value if it differs from the Tech Spec minimumlevel. If iilis the same as the Tech Spec minimumlevel, reference the Tech Specs.

I l

cd S 2 0 s p ro &G JGD Wd4E:10 46. Pt AON

,- nrav

.m u. su'9 Un AR92 624 592

<-:01 H3rd130 3SV31d ZE:Lv:vi L6/t1/11

GL Issues

1. Specify general method, logy for calculating o

head loss with ECCS suction strainers.

NPSHA=h. + h.i hvp. - hr.

where:

hyp. = Head in feet corresponding to the vapor pressure of the liquid at the temperature being puniped a

. Based on temperature of the fluid being pumped.

. Provide basis for this assumed temperature.

. Outline the critical points on the torus heatup curve used in your calculations.

v i

r'd d'OMD S33110 tt16 "N2D 14d4E:TO 26, PI ACN as n,, n sweitten oaa7 624 582

<-:01 H3A113G 3SV31d ZS:Lt:ti L6/61/11

i GL Issties

1. Specify general methodology for calculating head loss with ECCS suction strainers.

NPSHA=ha + h,$ - hyp. - hr.

svhere:

hrs = All suction line losses (in feet) including entrance losses and friction losses Include consideration of fouled head loss for current 4

e strainer design (existing)..........f....OE Include consideration of fouled head loss for new strainer design (considering Bulletin 9 -03);if strainer analysis completed but strainers not ye installed, may want to y

defer this information until clc,sure of Bulletin %-03 and so state in your response.

State bash for assumptions fo both clean and fouled strainers (i.e., by test or analysis).

Include consideration of fluid velocity / pump flow and 6

li hed basis for how these were estab s

[ discuss pump " runout" flow).

Include consideration of suctionline frictionlosses with considerations for:

+ Pipe roughness assumptians

+ Pipe " aging" Include consideration of "entyance" loeses (if required).

Include consideration of number and types of valves and fittings in the suction piping.

E'd dnous serio 318 3N39 Wast:ta 46, t t ^<>4 mn ut'i n i n qA92 6ZL 592

<-:0J, 336113G 3SU31d 01:8k:FI 46/ti/IT

GL Issues

2. Identify NPSHnequirea and NPSHAvaHable

. State the source of NPSHa.

• Consider ut.ing the following clarification:

"The required NPh H is spetfic to each pump type and is dependent on the flow rate at the time being evaluated.

The available NPSH is dependent on the containment overpressure credited (if any), number of pumps operating, piping configuration and the suppression pool temperature at the most limiting condition. Tllerefore, NP3Ha and NPSHA for the limiting Cases for pumps taking suction from the suppression pool following a design-basis accident LOCA are provided in the table below."

\\

PUMPS NPsHa (ft)

NPSHA (ft) l l

You may choose to define your most limiting condition L

(refer to NSP 30-day response as a reference) e g..

68 t

2 5 1 __________"81_"

m tiiin qqq2 @2d 02 4-;@6 @ @ @B M gg;Dg gg/Jg1 I

GL Issues

3. Specify if current Design Basis NPSH analysis differs from Licensing Basis NPSH.

• Identify most recent design bases NPSH analysis, which has been reviewed apd approved by the NRC for which a safety evaluation was issued, and state where this basie ir dodumented.

• State whether your current NPSH design basis analysis is eanivalent to the above documented basis or whether it is different.

. If differences exist, explain and note whether they affect current FSAR.

l 4'd dnoa') 583 10 ais a m wa6E:10 26, eI AoH l

f

- ~ " * '

n.vi u suva t pq qqq2 62L S02

<-:01 H3A113Q 35U31d 6S:0k:ki L6/ki/II

GL Issues 4a. Specify if COP credited in calculation of NPSHAvaHable State whether containment overpressure was credited in calculation of NPSHA. [Make cl ear that any contaimnent overpressure is containment pressure above atrnospheric pressure (i.e., not vapor pressuke)]

If overpressure is not credited, so state.

d i

e Ik 8*d cr10W SN 318 3GD Wd6E:10 46, PI ACH

-a

nn, u r.u"' H ' S 4097 6U. SA2

<-:01 83A1130 3SU31d 8I:6k:H 46/H/IT

c GL Issues 4b. Specify ops..a.a

• If answer to 4a was "Yes", state amount of overpressure needed [value stated should nc.t include any added margin (i.e., state overpressure!needed only to insure NPSH remains positive)]

7 4

8 7

o O

ge-6*d

, COO @ SE3 NMO E18 3N30 WdOP:IO 46, Pt AON

~ " ' '

__* " i m til!n 9992 674 SBZ

_<-:01 H3A113G 3SU31d EE:6t:H 46/H/II

GL Issues

. 4c. Specify OPAv cable

• If answer to 4a was "Yes", state amount of overpressure available.

• OPAvelaMe should be based on current design basis and reflect the value actually shown by your analysis.

State if this value is consistent with currentlicensing basis or is pending approval.

I i

i i

l l

1 l

Ol'd '

, MS SM3Nt10 brG 3GD WdOP:TO 46, et AON

• Sa-

'n - u reatu rn gpq7 674 592

<-:01 H3A113Q 3SW31d 95:6):H 46/t1/II.

1

i 1

l GL Issues

5. If COP credited, confirm analyses performed to establish min containm!ent pressure.

• If containment overpressure not credited, answer here should be "NA".

• If containment overpressure credited, confirm that analyses have beer, performed to establish the minimum containment pressure. [a possible reference or basis for conduct of such analyses could be Information Notice 96-55 (refers to models in Branch Technical Position CSB 6-1)]

• State that, for BWRs some imp arrant considerations are:

+ Containmentleakage

+ Containment spray i!Mtiation times

+ Containment spray t unperature

+ Consistency between design basis and EOPs f

1T*d m S N W 2N39 WdtP:TO 46. Pt AON

~ ~ - * * '

nne i-anoitiin 99q7 G7 S92

<-:01 H3AI'I3G 3SVIId GT:BS:>I 46/ti/IT

e t

l NPSH 11/f147 RO:kville NRClHWBQGIMP_S_H MEETING-NOV 19 ISSUES FOR NRC Utilities will give current design-basis information as requested in GL (i.e., utilities who have completed non strainer analyses plan to subm t this information as part of closure of Bulletin 96-03); utilities who have NRC approved new strainer analyse's, results from this analysis will most likely be basis for req,uested GL 97-04 information. Description of planned modifications and submittals is op,tional, but could be helpful.

Utilities, not haying containment overpressure credited under current design basis, but potentially needing overpressure in the future for new strainer design, should make reference to that fact in their 90-day responses.

l BWROG definition of containment overpressure is considered to be containment! pressure above atmospheric pressure.

\\

t NIPSH\\11NOV,000 11/14M7 1

U *d N S M M M W IPtIO & PI @

wrt w ing M 9997 624 SP"2

<-:01 H3Al'13G 3SU3'Id 4t:BS:ti 46/ti/II

,. c BWR POST-LOCA' MINIMUM OVER PRESSURE CONSIDERATIONS I

Perform time vs. pressure and time vs. temperature analyses to establish presmre -

- variations. (Typically SHEX Analyhis) g

. Assure pump lineup assumptiers (incluiting those assumed in a " runout" condition) are consistent with break assumptions and NPSH requirements.

Initial drywell pressure (typically 1 psi)'may be used but is generally ignored for conservation.

j Initiation of drywell and suppression pool sprays must be considered Consistency with plant EOPs must be eqltablished to insure ope (typically @ 600 sec).

pressure is necessary for adequate hPSH.

Consider full range of service water tem'perature, consistent with design basis.

Heat exchanger fouling and tube pluggi6g must be considered cor.sistent with design basis.

- Thermal mixing of break flow with dryhll atmosphere must be considered.

- (60-100%)

Pipe aging should be a consideration. A,ctual flow tests over time may provide a basis not to increase the roughness factor.

Provide over-laging plots of over press (ure vs time to show periods in the eve where overpressure is needed.

NPSHa is not to consider instrument uncertainties; should also assene no additional margininNPSHavalue.

Short duration pump cavitation has been approved by the staffin one case. If overlapping cases, show limited tim' when cavitation is possible, it will most e

likely be accepted, j

If you use containment spray to control containment pressure, should look at the e

condensation oscillation phenomeno'n.

Regarding " draw-down" analyses, iflorig term torus temperature changes, make sure long-term torus inventory evaluatiok is done.

Assume allowable Tech Spec containm6nt leakage rates.

. InMude temperamre-related EQ and strdetural considerations.

. ; include considerations of"benchmarkirp SHEX results against original analyses regarding maximum contamment pressure.

I I

1

.m M4PSSOP CONS. doc l

11/14/97 l

dnO4D S4C3 NMO 4t1E 32 WdOS:PO 46, PI /04

GL Issnes f

1. Specify general method, ology for calculating head loss with ECCS suction strainers.

NPSHA=h. + hoe - hyp. - hr.

where:

hrs = All suction line lossds (in feet) including catrance losses and friction losses

• Include consideration of fouled head loss for current strainer design (existing)...............QE

• Include consideration of fouled head loss for new strainer design (considering Bulletin 96-03); if strainer analysis completed but strainers not yek installed, may want to defer this information until clc sure of Bulletin %03 and so state in your response.

. State basis for assumptions foq both clean and fouled strainers (i.e., by test or analysis).

. Include consideration of fluid, velocity / pump flow and basis for how these were established

[ discuss pump " runout" flow).

. Include consideration of suctionline frictionlosses with l

considerations for:

+ Pipe roughness assumptions

+ Pipe " aging"

. Include consideration of " entrance" losses (if required).

• Include consideration of number and types of valves and fittings in the suction piping.

gd dn0NS SM3NNO BME 2N39 ud8E:*;0 46. PI AW

GL Issues i

2. Identify NPSHaeguirea and NPSHAvaHable State the source of NPSHa.

Consider using the following clarification:

"The required NPSH is spec!fic to each pump type and is dependent on the flow rate at the time being evaluated.

The available NPSHis dependent on the containm.mt overpressure credited (if any), nu'mber of pumps operating, piping configuration and the suppression pool temperature at the most limiting condition.Tll erefore, NPSHa and NPSHA for the limiting Cases for pumps taking suction from the suppression pool following a design-basis accident LOCA are provided in the table below."

PUMPS NPSHa(ft)

NPSHA (ft) l I

i You may choose to define your most limiting condition (refer to NSP 30-day response as a reference) 9 9'd m S N M M N TO 26 Pt @

337 u sw3;13n gqq2 672 502

<-:01 H3A1130 3SV31d 9E:8&:t1 L6/FT/IT

d GL Issues

3. Specify if current Design Basts NPSH analysis differs from Licensing Basis NPSH.

. Identify most re_ent design bases NPSH analysis, which has been reviewed apd approved by the NRC for which a safety evaluation was issued, and state where this basis is d_odumented.

• State whether your current NPSH design basis analysis is equivalent to the above documented basis or whether it is different.

. If differences exist, explain and note whether they affect current FSAR.

g..

d'd an0@ Seco &E 3m Wass:Te 26, et NN

-en-n:n v sur 11tn 9992 62L S02

<-:01 if3A1130 3SU31d 6S:8t:ti 46/tT/TT z.

GL Issues 4a. Specify if COP credited in calculation of NPSHAvaHable State whether containment overpressure was credited in calculation of NPSHA. (Make clear that any containment overpressure is containment p$ essure above atmospheric pressure (i.e., not vapor pressure)]

If overpressure is n_ot credited, so state.

o t

l'-

8*d N 4110 318 JN3'J Wd6E:TO 46, tI AON

--an-nn, n r:vvi t p 3 q992 672 SRZ

<-:01 HUA1730.3SU37d BI:6):FT 46/>I/II

t' GL Iss;ues 4b. Specify ops.a.a

• If answer to 4a was "Yes", statg amount of overpressure needed [value stated should not include any added margin (i.e., state overpressure needed only to insure NPSH remains positive)]

e o

I l

l 6*d dnO@ SE3 NMO M18 JN3S WdOP:TO 46, PI AON

-as,

. nn, n s"' T i ' n 9992 624 S02

<-:01 H3A1130 3SU31d EE:6&:H 46/H/IT

a 1

GL Issues 4C. Specify OPAvailable If answer to 4a was "Yes", state amount of overpressure available.

OPAvailaMe should be based on Current design basis and reflect the value actually shown by your analysis.

State if this value is consistent with currentlicensing basis or is pending approval.

o OI*d cnogg cAOf10 ate 3GD Wdori10 46, ei A0H

~-

ac--

mu rv"Mita 9997 624 SR2

<-:01 H3A1130 3SV31d 93:6&:Fi 46/>I/IT

O I

GL Issues 1

5. If COP credited, confirm analyses performed to establish min containm!ent pressure.

If containment overpressure not credited, answer here should be "NA".

If containment overpressure credited, confirm that analyses have been performed to establish the minimum containment pressure. [a possible reference or basis for conduct of such analyses could be Information Notice 96-55 (refers to models in Branch Technical Position CSB 6-1)]

State that, for BWRs some imp arrant considerations are:

+ Containmentleakage

+ Containment spray initiation times

+ Containment spray tunperature

+ Consistency between design basis and EOPs t

l I

IT*d

.m sh W 3M WIP TO 46, et W l

nn' e mmit tin aqq7 67 S02

<-G H3AI'I3G 3Stf3'Id BT:8S:FT L6/tT/IT

v NPSH l

11/11/97 Rockville NRC/BWROGlNPSH MEETING-NOV 19 ISSUES FOR NRC.

Utilities will give current design; basis information as requested in GL (i.e., utilities who have completed non strainer analyses plan to subm t this information as part of g

closure of Bulletin 96-03); utilities who have NRC approved new strainer analyse!, results from this analysis s

will most likely be basis for req'uested GL 97-04 information. Description of planned modifications and submittals is opponal, but could be helpful.

Utilities, not haying containment overpressure credited under current Besign basis, bu't potentially needing overpressure in the future for riew strainer design, should make reference to that fact in iheir 904ay responses.

BWROG definition of containr$ent overpressure is considered to be containment! pressure above atmospheric pressure.

\\

i JWPSH\\11NOV. DOC 11/1497 Et d drom sa 10 a1e am udtrite 46, vi ACH

- - -=-.

m wot ii e n q,q7 67 SPZ

<-:01 H3AI130 3SV31d Lt:0S:ti 46/tT/IT

.....~

A-q I

I BWR POST-LOCA MINIMUM OVER PRESSURE CONSIDERATIONS-I-

Perform time vs. pressure and time vs. tdmperature analyses to establish pressure variations. (Typically SHEX Analyjis) g

'e Assure pump lineup assumptions (incluiling those assumed in a " runout" co5iition)

'~

.tre consistent with break assumpti 's and NPSH requirements.

Initial drywell pressure (typically 1 psi) y be used but is generally ignored for conservation.

• ' Initiation of drywell and suppression poo; l, sprays must be considered Consistency with plant EOPs must be egl ablished to insu (typically @ 600 sec).

pressure is necessary for adequate NPSH.

Consider full range of service water tem'perature, consistent whh design basis.

Heat exchanger fouling and tube pluggi$g must be considered consistent with design basis.

Thermal mixing of break flow with Oil atmosphere must be considered.

(60-100 %)

Pipe aging should be a consideration. Actual flow tests over time may provide a baris

+-

not to increase the roughness factor.! '

i Provide over 1 ing plots of over pressure vs time to show penods in the event e

where over hssureis needed.

NPSHn is not to consider instrument uncertaisties; should also amane no additional

+

margininhiPSHavalue Short duration pump casitation has been approved by the staffin one case. If

_ overlapping cases, show limited timkwhen cavitation is possible, it will most likely be accepted, j

If you use containment spray to control containment pressure, should look at the -

- condensation oscillation phenomeno'n.

Regarding " draw down" analyses, iflorQ-term torus temperature changes, make sure long-term torus inventory evaluatio$ is done.

Assume allowable Teca Spec containm6nt leakage rates.

Include tydure-related EQ and structuralconsi&vations.

Include considerations of" benchmarking 7 SHEX results against original analyses regarding maximum containment ssure.

4 l.

l LNPSH\\OP CONS. doc 1 l-11/14/97-l dnodD SENMO N1E 32 WdOS:PO 46, Pt A0W

=- - -

g, NRR/BWROG NPSH COMMITTEE INTERNAL INFORMA110N MEETING NOVEMBER 19,1997 PURPOSE:

To encourage early information exchange between industry and staff regarding e

resolution of GL 97-04 and Overpressure Issues.

1 L

AGENDA:

I Key Elements to GL 97-04 Response Considerations for OP Submittals l

Discussion /Other Actions l

l

a.

GL Issues

1. Specify general method; ology for calculating head loss with ECCS suction strainers.

NPSHA= h. + hot - hyp. - hr.

where:

ha = Absolute pressure (irj feet of liquid) on the surface of the li. quid supply level

. This term is thp containment pressure above atmospheric that is taken credit for in the adalysis. Use your response to Item #4 (of the GL) for any y scussion on the crediting of containment pressure in your NPSH analysis.

• For plants not using containment overpressure credit,it should be assumed that h =' hypa.

2*d d' odd Sd3 NMO &tE JN3D Wd9E:TO 46. PI t04

~'

n, u wri p t m enqZ 674 592

<-:01 If3Al'13G 3SU3'id ET:Lk:H 46/H/IT

4 4

GL Issues

1. Specify general methodology for calcu.lating head loss with ECCS suction strainers.

NPSHA=ha +

ha - hyp. - hr.

where:

hst = Static height in feet the.t the liquid supply levelis above or belolv the pump centerline or impeller eye c

. State datum point used for stai;ic height as compared to either mid-pump flange or other.

. Static height should be based on the minimum

)

suppression pool / torus water level.

. Provide basis for this minimum value if it differs from the Tech Spec minimumlevel. If 11!is the same as the Tech Spec minimumlevel, reference the Tech Specs.

i C'd dnotfD S413:10 &t8 3G9 Wd2E:10 46. t>t AON 5 MMn 492 6%L SW

<-:01 H3AI130 3SU31d ZE:Lk:ki L6/ki/IT

y GL Issues

1. Specify general method, ology for calculating head loss with ECCS suction strainers.

NPSHA=h + hst hyp.

- hrs where:

hyp = Head in feet corresponding to the vapor pressure of the liquid at the temperature being puniped Based on temperature of the fluid being pumped.

a Provide basis for this assumed temperature.

Outline the critical points on the torus heatup curve used in your calculations.

P'd dn0dS 533110 BMS 3N3S Wd4E:10 46. et AON n" a surtiren oao7 672 SA2

<-:0183Al'130 3SU31d ZS:2>:kT 26/ki/IT

fA

~

Project No. 691L Boiling) Water Reactor Owners Group cc: Thomas J. Rausch Chairman --

Boiling Water. Reactor Omers' Group Connonwealth Edison Company Nuclear Fuel Services 1400 Opus Place. 4th Floor ETWIII Downers Grove, IL 60515 Carl D. -Terry Vice President, Nuclear Engineering Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation:

Nine Mile Point-2

-PO Box 63 Lycoming, NY 13093 Drew B, Fetters PECO Energy Nuclear Group Headquarters MC 62C-3 965 Chesterbrook Blvd.

Wayne, PA 19087 John Hosner Commonwealth Edison Executive Towers, 4th Floor 1400 Opus Place Downers Grove. IL 60515 George T. Jones Pennsylvania Power & Light MC-A6-1 Two North Ninth Street Allentown, PA 18101 Lewis H. Sumner

-Southern Nuclear / Georgia Power E. I. Hatch Nuclear Power.P1 ant U.S.-Route 1 North. Box 439 Baxley, GA-31513 L A.-En land Entergy rations Inc.

PO Box 3 95

-Jackson. MS 39286

-K. K. Sedney

GE Nuclear Energy-175 Curtner Ave. M/C 182 San Jose, CA -95125-l w