JPN-98-034, Forwards Response to 980407 RAI Re Review of GL 96-06, Assurance of Equipment Operability & Containment Integrity During Design Basis Accident Conditions, Response. Engineering Evaluation Encl
| ML20236X368 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1998 |
| From: | James Knubel POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236X371 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-96-06, GL-96-6, JPN-98-034, JPN-98-34, NUDOCS 9808070333 | |
| Download: ML20236X368 (3) | |
Text
1 123 Man street White Plains, New York 10301 914 081E840 914 287.3309 (FA)0 N
I o Vce Pr sdent and 4# Authority che' "~ a=
July 30,1998 JPN-98-034 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Mail Station P1-137 Washington, D.C. 20555
Subject:
James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-333 Reauest for AdditionalInformation Reaardina Generic Letter 96-06
References:
1.
NYPA Letter, J. Knubel to NRC (JPN-97-019), Response to NRC Generic Letter 96-06, " Assurance of Equipment Operability and Containment Integrity During Design Basis Accident Conditions,"
dated May 27,1997.
2.
NRC Letter, J. Williams (NRC) to J. Knubel (NYPA), Request for Additional Information Regarding Generic Letter 96-06, dated April 7,1998
Dear Sir:
In Reference 1, the Authority provided the results of the FitzPatrick evaluation of Generic Letter 96-06 concerns, in Reference 2, the NRC requested additionalinformation to allow completion
')
of the NRC review of the Authority's Generic Letter 96-06 response. Attachment 1 provides the
/)
]
Authority's response to the NRC request.
To support NRC review, Attachment 2 provides the FitzPatrick engineering evaluation of Generic Letter 96-06 concerns. This report is based on current engineering analysis and industry information available on this technical issue. The Authority continues to participate in l
industry review of this issue and the efforts of NEl and EPRI. In the event that new information becomes available, this engineering report will be appropriately updated.
In Reference 1, the Authority committed to complete a modification to the Reactor Core Isolation j
Cooling (RCIC), and High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) suction line penetrations, and the C
Drywell Equipment Drain Sump line penetration to eliminate the susceptibility of these penetrations to thermal pressurization. Additional engineering evaluations have concluded that l
l the subject penetrations are not susceptible to pressure locking due to thermal pressurization.
)
', Item 2, provides the details of the evaluation. Based on this evaluation, the Authority does not plan on performing the previous committed modifications.
i 9808070333 980730
)
PDR ADOCK 05000333 P
PDR J
Att: chm:;nt 3 provides an updated commitment list based on ths results of the engineering cycluation.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Arthur H. Zaremba at (315) 349-6365.
Very truly yours, s
/.
J/ nubel Sr. Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer cc:
Regional Administrator United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Office of the Resident inspector United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 136 Lycoming, NY 13093 Mr. Joseph Williams, Project Manager Project Directorate I-1 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/11 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
Mail Stop 1482 Washington, D.C. 20555 Attachments I
- 1. Response to Request for AdditionalInformation Regarding Generic Letter 96-06
- 2. NYPA Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-02671," Summary of Detailed Evaluation fe MRC Generic Letter 96-06," Revision 2, dated July 14,1998
- 3. Summary of Commitments i
]
l to JPN-98-034 New York Power Authority - James A. FitzPatrick Response to Request for Additionalinformation Regarding Generic Letter 96-06 Question 1 l
l Provide a detailed description of the " worst case" scenarios for waterhammer and two-phase flow, taking into consideration the complete range of event possibilities, system configurations, and parameters. For example, all waterhammer types and water slug scenarios should be considered, as well as temperatures, pressures, flow rates, load combinations, andpotential
}
component failures. Additionalexamples include:
l the consequences of steam formation, transport, and accumulation; e
cavitation, resonance, and fatigue effects; and
)
e erosion considerations e
Response 1 Subsequent to the Authority's response to Generic Letter 96-06, as a result of a review of I
related industry operating experience, additional reviews were performed. The Authority has considered all possible event scenarios in arriving at the worst case situation for both waterhammer and two-phase flow conditions. Details are provided in item 1 of the attached I
engineering report (Attachment 2). Specifically, item 1 provides each event scenario and l
waterhammer type evaluated consistent with NUREG 5220, " Diagnosis of Condensation-Induced Waterhammer," dated October 1988. The engineering report concludes that the waterhammer or two-phase flow concerns of Generic Letter 96-06 are not applicable to FitzPatrick.
i Questions 2 throuah 8 The engineering report concludes that the waterhammer or two-phase flow concerns of Generic Letter 96-06 are not applicable to FitzPatrick. Therefore, these requests are not applicable to l
Fi'2 Patrick due to results and actions documented in the engineering report (Attachment 2) discussed in Question 1 above.
l Question 9
)
Provide a simplified diagram of the system, showing water sources, major components, active components, relative elevations, lengths of piping runs, and the location of any orifices and flow i
restrictions.
Response 9 See Figures 1 through 4 of Attachment 2.
l
(.
---_--____A