ML17139B737
| ML17139B737 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1983 |
| From: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Curtis N PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8309070097 | |
| Download: ML17139B737 (3) | |
Text
.F AUG 3 >
1983 Docket Nos. 50-387/388 Mr. Norman Ll. Curtis Vice President Engineering 8 Construction - Nuclear Pennsylvania Power 5 Light Company 2 North Ninth Street A'llentown, Pennsylvania 18'I01
Dear Mr. Curtis:
DISTRI B UTION:
Document Control ~-
NRC PDR L
EHylton RLPerch
- MCutchin, OELD ACRS (16)
- ELJordan, DEJA: IE
Request for Additional Information on Susquehanna Feedwater Check Valve Analysis In a letter from N. tl. Curtis to A. Schwencer dated March 11, 1983, PPSL submitted a report entitled, "Evaluation of Feedwater Check Valves Due to Postulated Pipe Rupture" for the Susquehanna facility.
The report was pre-pared in response to the condition set forth in paragraph 2.c.(30).(a) of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Unit 1 Facility Operating License NPF-14.
The report presented the results of an evaluation of the structural integrity of the three feedwater check valves sub/ected to dynamic impact loads resulting from a postulated rupture of the feedwater piping outside containment.
The purpose of the analysis was to assure that the primary containment isolation function of the feedwater check valves per General Design Criter'ia 55 has been met.
The staff reviewed the re'suits of the analyses and found the calculated stresses to be low.
However, the staff cannot conclude that the analysis results are acceptable without further clarification from the licensee of the assumptions used to determine the postulated break opening time (100 milliseconds),
the postulated break location (at the valve), and the allowable stress value used for the valve hinge pin material.
Enclosed is a request for additional information relating to the feedwater check valve analysis.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact R. Perch, Prospect Manager.
Sincerely, Drlglnal signed'309070097 83083i PDR ADOCK 05000387 P
PDR A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No.
2 Division of Licensing As stated
~ 0 ~I~ ~ ~
~
~I~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
OFFICE/
SURNAME/ --cc-vr/encl o
....See...mxi.. ~ WOI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~
Q~
~ \\ M ~
Ro ~ ~ ~ ooo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
OATS P NRC FORM 310 u0-80) NRCM 0240 DL:LB¹2 PM
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~
RLPerch : kw
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~\\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
8/3(/83
~ \\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4
~
< ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
DL:
/~gas OFFICIAL R ECOR D COPY US0 PO: 1991-399.960
Susquehanna Jt.
Nr. hor an W. Curtis Vice President Engineering and Construction Pennsylvania Power
& Light Company 2 t<orth Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 ccs:
Jay Silberg, Esquire
- Shaw, Pi ttman, Potts
& Trowbridge 1800 M Street, H. V.
Vashington, D.
C.
20036 Edward N. tlagel, Esquire General Counsel and Secretary Pennsylvania Power
& Light Company 2 Worth Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 Nr. William E. Barberich l/uclear Licensing Group Supervisor Pennsylvania Power
& Light Company 2 North t)inth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 Mr. G.
Rhodes Resident 1nspector P.
0.
Box 52 Shickshinny, Pennsylvania
'18655 Gerald R. Schultz, Esoui re Susquehanna Environmental Advocates P. 0.
Box 1560 Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18703 Nr. E. B. Poser Project Engineer Bechtel Power Corporation P. 0.
Box 3965 San Francisco, California 94119 Ms. Colleen Marsh P. 0.
Box 538A, RD
-,:4 Mountain Top, Pennsylvania 18707 Mr. Thomas J. Halligan Cor respondent The Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers P.
0 ~ Box 5
- Scranton, Pennsylvania 18501 Mr. J.
V,. Millard Project Manaoer Mail Code 395 General Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125 Robert, V. Adler, Esquire 0ffice of Attorney General 505 Executive House
---P-;--0:Box-2-357 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud Co-Director Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Nr. Thomas M. Gerusky, Director Bureau of Radiation Protection Resources Commonwealth of Pennsylvania P. 0.
Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
RE UEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The staff has reviewed your feedwater check valve analysis which was-submitted in a letter from N.
W. Curtis to A. Schwencer dated March ll, 1983.
The staff requires further clarification of the assumptions used in your analysis in order to complete our review:
The feedwater line break opening time of 100 milliseconds was used in the analysis.
The 100 milliseconds was selected based on your assumption that the "piping system characteristics and operating conditions reviewed in NUREG/CR-1319 bound those of the Susquehanna feedwater piping system."
Because the piping systems in NUREG/CR-1319, (a) are PWR reactor coolant loop piping, (b)
piping, (c) seismic Category I piping, (d) do not experience water-hammer
- loads, (e) have low steady-state vibration stresses (less than 1000 psi), (f) do not accommodate gross temperature expansion stresses because steam generators and pumps rest on movable supports, (g) are relatively simple structures, consisting of mainly large diameter, heavy-wall, straight pipe, (h) are periodically inspected in accordance with ASME Section XI, and (i) are further backed up by leak detection
- systems, the staff cannot reasonably accept that the SSES feedwater piping characteristics, which do not exhibit the above characteristics, are bounded by those in NUREG/CR-1319.
2)
Therefore, provide the basis for selecting 100 milliseconds as the break opening time and the reasons why it should be considered the bounding valve.
Provide the basis for assuring that your selected break location (at the valve) will result in the worst case loading for the feedwater check valves.
3)
Provide the basis for determining the allowable stress values used for the valve hinge pins.
For example, the Anchor-Darling tilting disk check valve hinge pin material is shown in the valve drawing as A582-416T.
However, the ASTM specification for A582 material does not require a mechanical tensile strength test.
Consequently, the material. yield strength is uncertain.
Furthermore, it is not clear whether the "allowable value" is the allowable value for yielding, gross failure, bending, or shear and should be explained further.