ML20214Q343
| ML20214Q343 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1986 |
| From: | Colburn T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Fay C WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.K.3.30, TASK-2.K.3.31, TASK-TM GL-83-35, TAC-45853, TAC-45854, TAC-48192, TAC-48193, NUDOCS 8612050110 | |
| Download: ML20214Q343 (5) | |
Text
_,
%V20ggogg Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301 Mr. C. W. Fay, Vice President Nuclear Power Department Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 W. Michigan Street, Room 308 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
Dear Mr. Fay:
RESOLUTION OF TMI ACTION ITEM II.K.3.31 RELATED TO THE SMALL BREA
SUBJECT:
LOCA ANALYSIS FOR THE POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 26, 1985 we issued our Safety Evaluation (SE), for resolution of TMI On June We indicated Action Plan Item II.K.3.30 for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant.
that within one year of that date all licensees and applicants of Westinghouse NSSS design were required to submit plant specific analysis with NOTRUMP as required by TMI Action Plant Item II.K.3.31. Additional guidance contained in Generic Letter 83-35 stated that this analysis may be submitted generically as long as the generic submittal included validation that the limiting break location has not shifted away from the cold legs to the hot or pump suction legs.
By letter dated July 1,1986 you indicated that resolution of II.K.3.31 for Point Beach Units 1 and 2 would be based upon generic NOTRUMP analysis submitted to the NRC as WCAP 11145 by the Westinghouse Owner's Group (WOG).
This WCAP was sent to the NRC by letter dated June 11, 1986 by L. D.
Butterfield of the WOG. The NRC staff approved use of WCAP 11145 by letter to Mr. Butterfield dated October 6, 1986.
We have reviewed the WOG submittal and have determined that the submittal adequately addresses TMI Action Plan Item II.K.3.31 for your facilities-including that the limiting break location has not shifted. The details of our review are contained in the enclosed SE.
Sincerely,
/s/
Timothy G. Colburn, Project Manager Project Directorate #1 Division of PWR Licensing-A
Enclosure:
As Stated cc's: See Next Page
~
861205o110 861120 PDR ADOCK 05000266-P pyg.
Office:
PM/ PAD #1 p PD/ PAD #1 Surname: TColburn/tg Glear Date:
11/Jo/86-11/J.d/86
e Mr. C. W. Fay Point Beach huclear Plant Wisconsin. Electric Power Company Units 1 and 2 cc:
Mr. Bruce Churchill, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 2300 N. Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037 Mr. James J. Zach, Manager Point Beach Nuclear Plant Wisconsin Electric Power Company 6610 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54243 Mr. Gordon Blaha Town Chairman Town of Two Creeks Route 3 Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241 Chairman Public Service Commission of Wisconsin Hills Farms State Office Euilding Madison, Wisconsin 53702 Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn Office of Executive Director for Operations 799 Roosevelt Road-Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Resident Inspector's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6612 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, Wisconsin 542t,l' 9
e c
SUPPLEMENTAL SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION POINT BEACH NUCLEAF PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 II.K.3.31 PLANT-SPECIFIC CALCULATIONS TO SHOW COMFLIANCE WITH 10 CFR 50.46 BACKGROUND Section II.K.3.30 of the NUREG-0737 outlines the Commission requirements for the industry to demonstrate that its small break LOCA methods continue to comply with the requirements of Appendix K to 10 CFR 50. The technical issues to be addressed were listed in NUREG-0611 including comparison with semiscale experimental test results.
In response to Section II.K.3.30, the Westinghouse Owners Group electeo to reference the NOTRUMP code as the new licensing small break LOCA model. The NOTRUMP code and methodology are described in WCAP-10079 and WCAP-10054. The staff reviewed and approved NOTRUMP as the new licensing tool for calculating small break LOCA response for Westinghouse plant designs. The staff further concluded that the Westinghouse Owners Group had met the requirements of Section II.K.3.30.
Our Safety Evaluation containing the staff's approval of NOTRUMP was issued to Wisconsin Electric Power Company, licensee for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 on June 26, 1985.
f Referencing the new computer code did not imply deficiencies in the WFLASH code (which was previously utilized for small break LOCA analysis) such that the code did not comply with Appendix K to 10 CFR 50. The decision to use NOTRUMP was based on desires of the industry to perform licensing evaluations with a computer progran specifically designed to calculate small break LOCAs with greater phenomenological accuracy than capable by WFLASH.
DISCUSSION Section II.K.3.31 of NUREG-0737 required that each licensee holder or applicant submit a new small break analysis using the model approved under II.K.3.30.
hRC Generic Letter 83-35 provided clarification for the II.K.3.31 requirements by allowing license holders and applicants to comply on a generic basis by demonstrating that the WFLASH analyses are conservative when compared to analyses performed using NOTRUMP.
In response to this guicance, the Westinghouse owners submitted WCAP-11145 which contains generic comparisons to WFLASH analyses for various plant types. These include comparisons for 2-loop plants of the Point Beach design.
In particular, the two-loop plant category results showed that the NOTRUMP computer program calculated a peak cladding temperature (PCT) 917 degrees F lower than the 1713 degree F PCT calculated by the WFLASH computer program for the most limiting plant in the two-loop plant category.
. The generic results documented in WCAP 11145 demonstrate that a plant specific reanalysis of the two-loop Point Beach Nuclear Plant small break LOCA using NOTRUMP would result in the calculation of a significantly lower PCT than the 992 F PCT calculated using the WFLASH computer program.
Although the calculated peak temperatures are significantly lower for the NOTRUMP analyses than for the WFLASH analyses, the 4 inch break remains the limiting break size.
CONCLUSION Staff review of WCAP-11145 has been completed and accepted as a licersing basis for SBLOCA analysis. The applicant has referenced WCAP-11145 (which consists of the results frcm calculations using approved methodology) in lieu of submitting a plant specific analysis and meets the criteria as stated in NRC Generic Letter 83-35. The staff, therefore, concludes that the Point Beach FSAR analyses of small break LOCA have been demonstrated to be conservative in comparison with the NCTRUMP Evaluation Model. This meets the requirements of II.K.3.31 and 10 CFR 50.46 for Point Beach.
Principal Contributors:
L. Bell T. Colburn Date:,
.I
)
v NOV 2 0 iggs
. Distribution Copies:
%_ Docket;Fjles}'g NRC PDR Local PDR PAD #1 r/f PAD #1 p/f TNovak, Actg. DD NThompson, DHFT OGC-Bethesda EJordan.
BGrimes JPartlow
", Lear
' PShuttleworth TColburn LBell,'RSB CBerlinger, RSB -
-JWilson, RSB ACRS (10)
LFMB J
r