ML20078R646
| ML20078R646 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200004 |
| Issue date: | 02/10/1995 |
| From: | Quinn J GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Boehnert P Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| MFN-017-95, MFN-17-95, NUDOCS 9502230064 | |
| Download: ML20078R646 (2) | |
Text
'
GENuclear Energy ceeweeantcmn l
115 curtw A,<e~a Sn hse CA 95125
- -i February 10,1995 GE-017603-95-027 MFN No. 017-95 Docket STN 52-004-l Document Control Desk i
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
{
Washington, DC 20555 -
Attn: Mr. Paul Boehnert ACRS Staff i
SUBJECT:
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM THE 1/12/95 417TH A CRS MEETING Ref:
E-Mail Correspondence between P. Boehnert and J. Leatherman -
February,1995 l
Dear Mr. Boehnert,
j
~
The attachment to this letter provides GE responses to the three ACRS questions posed in the referenced correspondence. The question numbering scheme is the same as j
that used in the referenced correspondence.
Sincerely yours,
_p' l
Quinn, Projects Manager l
Jame 4
LMR and SBWR Programs j
CC:
RW liasselberg )
SQ Ninh
) NRC JII Wilson
)
i
{
ss 9 90 A 1 '?
l 9502230064 950210 i
kl r
i
)
m
- o.
af' i
s,3 O.
-l
~
Attachment to MFN # 017-95 l
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM THE 1/12/95 417TH ACRS MEETING
~
l (Q-1) Jay Carroll raised an issues concerning the capability ofthe isolation condenser to
-l withstand the loadings resultingfrom a tube rupture. Specifically, whether the l
isolation valve (s) can close against the resultingflow.
l (R-1) Yes, the isolation valve design will be qualified by testing and analysis to l
demonstrate that it is capable of closing against full flow and differential pressure
'i due to a rupture of the isolation condenser. The qualification will be in accordance
-l with ANSI B16-41 " Functional Qualification Testing for Power Operated Active i
Valve Assemblies for Nuclear Power Plants", coupled with special effects testing l
and analysis for valve sizes too large to test under pipe break conditions due to
(
test facility limitations.
i (Q-2) CarlMichelson raised the issue ofmitigation ofthe consequences ofa break in the R WCUline. He asked ifGEplans to add a " third (isolation) valve".
t (R-2) The response to Carl Michelson's concern was provided in GE Response 165-166 i
in GE/ACRS letter MFN No.149-94 dated November 23,1994. Among the I
issues we will review when the design review is restarted is the ABWR " Third (isolation) valve" issue with regard to the SBWR RWCU line.
i f
(Q-3) Jay Carroll had asked ofthe valve in the vessel drain line could be remotely
)
closed, given a break in that line. Someone ofyour team thought it could, but said they would verify this, l
i (R-3) Yes, given a break in the vessel drain line, the isolation valve can be remotely j
closed. The appropriate SSAR figure is 21.5.4-2,' sheet 1, valve F004A, which can be remotely closed from the Control Room.
l i
-