ML20247L586

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Forwards Request for Addl Info Re Adequacy of Net Positive Suction Head Available for ECC & Containment Heat Removal Pumps
ML20247L586
Person / Time
Site: Wolf Creek Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation icon.png
Issue date: 05/19/1998
From: Thomas K
NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To: Maynard O
WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORP.
References
GL-97-04, GL-97-4, TAC-MA0064, TAC-MA64, NUDOCS 9805260021
Download: ML20247L586 (3)


Text

_ - _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ - - _ _ . _- _- _

A.

May 19, 1998

.f

'Mr. Otto L. Maynard ,

President and Chief Executive Officer {

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation -

Post Office Box 411 Burlington, Kansas 66839

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION, WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING

. STATION, UNIT 1 (TAC NO. MA0064) .

Dear Mr. Maynard:

The staff issued Generic Letter (GL) 97-04, " Assurance of Sufficient Net Positive Suction Head -

for Emergency Core Cooling and Containment Heat Removal Pumps" on October 7,1997. The GL requested that licensees provide information necessary to confirm the adequacy of the net -

positive suction head available for emergency core cooling and containment heat removal

. pumps. By letter dated December 18,1997, Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation submitted its 90-day response to GL 97-04. The staff has reviewed your response and has determined that additional information is necessary. Please provide the information in the enclosed request within 30 days from the date of this letter. Should you have any questions,  !

please contact me at (301) 415-1362.

Sincorply, Original Signed By M. K. Gray -)

,lo Kristine M. Thomas, Project Manager Project Directorate IV-2 Division of Reactor Projects - lil/IV '

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation I

Docket No. 50-482. DISTRIBU flON-Docket File

Enclosure:

Request for Additional PUBLIC Information PDIV-2 Reading EAdensam cc w/ encl: See next page WBateman KThomas -

EPeyton ACRS.

-OGC WJohnson, RIV PGwynn, RIV.

y' DSkay!

KKavanagh '.

DOCUMENT NAME: WCMA0064.ral-OFC PDIV-2/PM i PDIV-2/LA NAME Er N f 2*g DATE 5//t /98 5/6/98 N \

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY .

Mr kM - gW t

e t Mr. Otto L. Maynard 2- May 19,1998 cc w/ encl:

Jay Silberg, Esq. Chief Operating Officer Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation 2300 N Street, NW P. O. Box 411 Washington, D.C. 20037 Burlington, Kansas 66839 Regional Administrator, Region IV Supervisor Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wolf Creek' > clear Operating Corporation 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 P.O. Box 4) i Asiington, Texas 76011 Burlington, Kansas 66839 Senior Resident inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident inspectors Office P. O. Box 311 8201 NRC Road Burlington, Kansas 66839 Steedman, Missouri 65077-1032 Chief Engineer Utilities Division l Kansas Corporation Commission l 1500 SW Arrowhead Road i Topeka, Kansas 66604-4027 L

I Office of the Govemor '

State of Kansas i Topeka, Kansas 66612

{

Attomey General Judicial Center 301 S.W.10th '

2nd Floor Topeka, Kansas 66612 County Clerk Coffey County Courthouse Burlington, Kansas 66839 Vick L. Cooper, Chief '

Radiation Control Program Kansas Department of Health and Environment Bureau of Air and Radiation Forbes Field Building 283 '

Topeka, Kansas 66620 L

i l

t L__-_--_--__-------_-_- -

f ',

s-e Enclosure REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION l

WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPOfMTION WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-482

1. What is the maximum sump temperature assumed in the net positive suction head (NPSH) analyses?
2. In response to question 2, it is stated that "during the review of the calculations for adequacy, weaknesses were identified. However, the net impact on the values being reported is insignificant as it relates to available NPSH versus required NPSH."

Describe the type of weaknesses identified. Will these weaknesses be corrected in the NPSH analyses?

3. Do these weaknesses affect RHRPs NPSH analyses, given that it was reported that there is 0.9 foot margin between NPSHR and NPSHA?

i

- - _ _ _ _ . _ - _ - . _ _ - _ - _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ - - - - - -