ML19343C961

Forwards Response to FSAR Question 110.1/Asymmetric Loads, in Answer to Question & Requests Discussed During 810122 Meeting W/Nrc.Major Items Identified in Subsequent 810211 Minutes Addressed.Rept Available in CF Only

ML19343C961
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	03/23/1981
From:	Maurin L LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19250E622	List: ML19343C961
References
RTR-NUREG-0609, RTR-NUREG-609 Q-3-A29, W3P81-0421, W3P81-421, NUDOCS 8103260373
Download: ML19343C961 (3)

Text

s' .

?

LOUISIANA s42 ceLAncNee srnser P O W E A & L I G H T! P o Box soc 8 . NEW CALEANS LCUISIANA 70174

. (504) 366-2345 Eu?Ys5s$ March 23, 1981 W3P81-0421 Q-3-A29 Mr. A. Schwencer Division of Licensing Licensing Branch No. 2 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

SUBJECT:

Waterford 3 SES Docket No. 50-382 Response. to FSAR Question 110.1/

Asymmetric Loads

REFERENCE:

Letter W3P80-0158, dated November 14, 1980

Dear Mr. Schwencer:

LP&L transmitted via Reference A, a response to FSAR Q. 110.1.

Based on the MEB staff and its consultant's (ORNL) review of the response, LP&L received several questions and requests for additional information on LP&L's response. LP&L's responses to those questions and requests were discussed at a meeting with the NRC staff in Bethesda on January 22, 1981. Subsequently the NRC staff issued minutes of the January 22, 1981 meeting on February 11, 1981.

In the February 11, 1981 minutes, the NRC staff has identified the following four major points with regard to asymmetric loads analysis:

1. LP&L's analysis of LOCA asymmetric loads is plant specific for fuel, RPV internals and CEDMs and the balance of the review references the CE generic report and the St. Lucie report.

2. The revision of LP&L's November 11, 1980 report (Reference A) to conform to the format of NUREG 0609 and inclusion of a summary of the assumptions and relevant design para-meters in the text of this revision in lieu of referencing the pertinent FSAR sections.

3. The dominant break to be used for the fuel analysis will be a single cold leg break at the vessel inlet nozzle, based on providing appropriate documentation to demon- \

strate that a limited hot leg break will be less than  ?!(

135 square inches. L q0 -

6N to 8103260370 $

Mr. A. Schwencer W3P81-0421 Page 2

4. The WSES-3 fuel analysis (FSAR Q. 231.2) is scheduled for completion by February,1982. In this regard Mr. R. Meyer of 2PB staff suggested a technical meeting in mid-May, 1981 in which LP&L should present preliminary calculations which :ould provide a means for writing a temporary and conditional closure of this item in the SER.

Each of the above items, as they relate to LP&L's response on asy= metric loads (FSAR Q. 110.1 and 231.2) are addressed below.

1. LP&L's analysis of LOCA loads is plant specific for all components and structures stated in Enclosure 1 to FSAR Q. 110.1, except for RPV internals and CECMs. For the RPV internals and CEDMs a compariscn type evaluation is made using relevant information from St. Lucie 1 and/

ar the CE generic plant; whereas for the remaining co=-

ponents, a plant specific evaluation is made using the bounding plant specific forcing functions.

2. The November 11, 1990 report has been revised in accer-dance with the requirements of item 2 above, to rhe ex-tent practicable, and is enclosed as an enclosure to this letter.

3. CE has been authorized to perform a plant unique fuel analysis for the cold leg break at the vessel inlet nozzle as stated in the minutes of the meeting.

The results of the analysis will be transmitted to the NRC by February 1982. Attachment 1, " Stress Survey Analysis for Waterford 3 Primary Coolant Piping Leops", to the enclosed report provides the necessary documentation confirming the requirements of the second part of item 3 above.

4. At the time of the January 22, 1981 maeting the Water-ford 3 SER was scheduled for issuance in July, 1981, however; as you knew, the SER is now scheduled for issuance in May, 1981. Hence, in order to meet the goal of item 4 above, LP&L is in the process of rescheduling the mid-May, 1981 meeting (item 4 above) to mid-April, 1981. Mr. R. Meyer of CPB has been contacted via sev-eral teleconF. in-this regard and we will confirm the exact date with Mr. R. Meyer and Ms. S. Keblusek, the NRC Project Manager for Waterford 3, as soon as possible.

Mr. A. Schwencer W3P81-0421 Page 3 In summary, the enclosed report provides LP&L's response to FSAR Q. 110.1 and the relevant portions of the report (omitting the attacFaents to the enclosed report) is also inc'uded in LP&L's Amendment #16 to the FSAR. LP&L trusts that the NRC staff will conduct an expeditious review of the enclosed repcrt and will be

! able to issue a closure of the asymmetric loads istue in the Water -

ford 3 SER.

Sin er'el ,

L. V. M urin Project Director LVM/RWP/jc cc: M. Stevenson E. Blake l

.