ML17139A368

Requests Preparation of Info to Address ACRS Concerns at 810723 Meeting Re Facilities.Agenda Detailing Util Presentation Encl

ML17139A368
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	07/16/1981
From:	Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Chapell D, Grimes B NRC, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8107290120
Download: ML17139A368 (12)

Text

Bcc:

TIC NSIC NRC PDR

~

L PDR ACRS(16)

Dist.

~Docket eV.

ASchwencer MService RStark RLTedesco RPurple/

DEisenhut OIE(3)

Attovney, OELD

'QL fl 6 398>

'Docket Nos.:

50-387 and 50-388 NOTE TO:

NRR Assistant Directors B. Grimes Donald Chapell Joel Kramer FROM:

Robert L. Tedesco,.Assistant Director for Licensing, DL

SUBJECT:

FORTHCOMING ACRS MEETING ON SUS(UEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1

AND 2, JULY 23, 1981.

The Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit Nos.

1 and 2 SER was issued on April 10, 1981 and SER Supplement

'No.

1 'was is'sued on July 7, 1981.

The ACRS subcommittee meeting-is scheduled for July 23, 1981 'in Hashington, D.C.

In order to avoid delays'n the Susquehanna

schedule, substantive staff support at the meeting -is necessary.

To make a good showing at the meeting, the staff should be prepared to address any questions from the applicant's presentation (s'ho'wn in Enclo-sure 1) that the committee mtgh't be concern.

The individual responsible is indicated in the enclosure.'our cooperation in me'e'ting these objec-tives will be appreciated.

ww ~

A snecial bus to H Street has:-:been arranged and will be leaving at 7:45 am.

Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing CC'arrell G. Eisenhut Richard H. Vollmer Roger Mattson Thomas E. Murley Robert F. Burnett 8107290120 810716 PDR ADOCK 05000387 A

PDR

='~~KLII:I -.

6.

JUL171981~

3 u,SI NUCIEAE EEEEA~

COI4IAeIOI48'pe I

OFFICE/

SURNAME/

OAVE0

..W.:...I,BA?....

rk:.cz.,

..Rs.t 7/

5/81

.ASchwen.car...

7/

l8.1

..P

.P.I.O.

...RTegs.co.

...uk..sax NRC FORM 318 IIO/80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

• USGPO: 1980-329.824

"lh

+1 ~

il II f'y

<J a+ 'k'v'(gl 'i/

1~@

'I

TENTATIVE SCHEDULE C

T<<~

Nllc Po i>>ll WASHINGTON, DC THURSDAY, JULY 23, 1981 I.

INTRODUCTION A.

Subcommittee Opening Statement M. Kerr, Chairman B.

NRC Staff Introduction R. Stark 1.

Overview of OL Review 2.

Overview of SER Open Items C.

Pennsylvania Power 8 Light Co. Introduction APPROXIMATE TIME 8:30 a.m.

8:35 a.m.

9:00 a.m.

1.

Site and Plant Description 2.

Organization and Management Structure 3.

Response

to SER Open Items 4.

Schedule for Completion of Licensing Review, ~~~

Operator Training, Test Program, Fuel

Load, and Commercial Operation

• • • • • • ~***"*********~*

BREAK *******************~****

10: 10 a.m.

II.

PENNSYLVANIA POMER 8 LIGHT COMPANY PRESENTATIONS AND NRC STAFF

COMMENTS, SEVERAL SPECIFIC ISSUES A.

Management Structure and Technical Resources Compliance with NUREG-0731, etc.

10:20 a.m.

S+

B.

Training and qualification Program 1.

Operator Training and Use of Onsite Simulator 2.

Onsite Technical Support Personnel Training 3.

Offsite Support Personnel Training C.

Plant Control Room 1.

Description of Advanced Control Room (ACR) 2.

Human Factor Review 3.

Control Room Instrumentation (Reg.

Guide 1.97 and Inadequate Core Cooling Instrumentation) 4.

Alternate Shutdown Panel 11:00 a.m..

'll:40 a.m.

TENTATIVE SCHEDULE SUSQUEHANNA D.

Emergency Planning

~

APPROXIMATE TIME 12:10 p.m.

81C+~ vf 1.

Support Facilities,,

p.

Eff Q~

pmm<A Ep~g ~uIi'~s) 2.

Status of Plan

(. QIEnv~ ~r f " /

3.

Status of Drill to Test I lan fCpsaa H.

Onsite Storage of Spent Fuel and Low-Level

Waste, Capacity and Future Plans c

I.

Response

to NRC Report on Hypothetical BWR Scram System Failures J.

Anticipated Transients Without Scram 1.

Plant Protection Measures tu.P~

f 2.

Operator Training and Procedures 3.

Compliance with ProposanRule III.

MARK II CONTAINMENT PROGRAM

• • • • • • • • • ~****~*******

LUNCH ****~*******************

E.

Station Electrical Power 1.

Loss of AC/Loss of DC (including DC system reliability) 2.

Station Blackout Analysis F.

Decay Heat Removal Capability 1.

Normal Mode 2.

Degraded Mode 5(O>i G.

Environment qualification of Equipment BREAK **********~****~~*****

12:30 p.m.

1:30 p.m.

2:30 p.m.

2:45 p.m.

3:00 p.m.

3:10 p.m.

3:25 p.m.

3:40 p.m.

4:00 p.m.

pe

((<

A.

Short-Term Modifications B. 'ong-Term Modifications C.

Hydrogen Control

TENTATIVE SCHEDULE SUSQUEHANNA IV M~RENE OISCUSSION OF ACRS QUESTIONS OM THE g gPf~5 ENVIRONI1ENTAL II1PACT STATEMENT SUPPLEMENT V.

SUSQUEHANNA SECURITY SYSTEM I

(NOTE:

Portions of this Session may be Closed as necessary)

APPROXIMATE TINE 4:30 p.m.

4:45 p.m.

(tO I'm A.

Overall Program B.

Separation of Units 1 and 2

VI.

SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION (CAUCUS)

VII.

INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT AND NRC STAFF ADJOURNMENT 5:00 p.m.

5:15 p.m.

5:30 p.m.

So-ER ~

/

JUL. l 5 1981 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Malter R. Butler, Chfef Containment Systems

Branch, DSI FROM:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE; Robert J. Bosnak, Chief Mechanical Engineering Branch, DE SUSQUEHANNA T-QUENCHER ARM BENDING MOMENT Memorandum from M. Butler to R..Bosnak dated June 10, 1981 In the above referenced memorandum CSB requested that MEB evaluate the applicant's 5ustfffcatfon for using a 65.1 KNm SRV afr cleagng bending moment fn thefr design specification rather than the maximum 81.7 KNm bending moment as measured during the Karlstefn test.

The purpose of this memorandum fs to summarize the MEB evaluation of the applicant's justfffcatfon.

The applicant's justfffcatfon fs based on the assumption that the T-Quencher arm bending moment fs used primarily for the evaluation; of the T>>Quencher body-to-arfh.weld.

Furthermore, the evaluation of the weld considers additional loadings other than the bending moment.

The applicant stated that the additional design specification loadfngs used fn their calculations exceeded the corresponding extrapolated test values and that the overall str ess calculation at the body/arm weld using design'specification values fs conservative.

The applicant has performed calculations using the rules of ASME Code Section III NC-3200", including Appendix XIII and XIV.

The calculations vrere performed for both the design specification and the extrapolated test data values.

A summary of the stresses at the T-Quencher body-to-arm interface point fs shown below.

Primary Stress (PL + P )

Test Data 11.1 ksf Design Spec 11.378 ksf Upset Allowable -

23.4 ksf (1.65 S

)

8i07230004 8107i5 CF ADOCK 05000387 CF "The T-Quencher fs an ASME Code Class 3 component.

However, the applicant has chosen to use the alternate C'lass 2 design rules of NC-3200, but has not committed to the additional special requirements of NC-3211.1(d).

The Code requires that the special requirements shall be met when NC-3200 rules JUL 28 tSSt OFFICE)

SURNAME/

OA1'E f>

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I I

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

NRC FORM 318 IIO/BOINRCM 0240 OFF ICIAL R EGO R 0 COPY

• USGPO: 1980-329 824

lit ett

~ t *.

va a

I F

lt 1I C

~

I I

~I, Cll

- ~

C I

tC Rt e

l I"l e

"t R

i ~ t I

<<lte

~ e

~

~

l

~ '\\a a

aa Fa

~

~ ~ '

r r:,.<<

~ a a

~ -'

fp,

~

~

E

~ r =

ttv a

R',l,r g <<IIC'Fk t Ft ~ ~

I

'I

~t ta It a

R 1

a et<<ltJ t g

lit L 'ttl

'l jt~

II ~ t

• 1 att tat g ~ I tat lit a

~

a I'

I

<<, E a

~ Ill

~

V la tt a

I a

"a

<<4 e"'I F

t

~

~

r tt It I

ia R

~

~ a a ~ t

~ I

"~ IC" I

I I

~.-

e I

Q<<E t t' a 'l a

~ ~

I*

V j

W Walter R: Butler Primar lus Secondar Stresses (PL + PB + g)

Test Data 39.2 ksi Design Spec 33.537 ksi Upset Allowable -

42.6 ksi (3

S )

As can be seen, the primary (membrane plus bending) stresses due to the total stresses from all asseciated loadings including pressure and other mechanical loads (e.g., weight, SRV and OBE) is greater for the design specification calculation than for the test data calculation.

In addition, the total primary stresses for both the design specification and the test data calculation are less than one-half of the primary stress allowable for the upset condition.

Thus, even if a higher bending moment were to be specified in the design specification calculation (i.e., 81.7 KNm vs.

65 KNm), it is not expected that the primary stress allowable would be exceeded.

For primary plus secondary stresses, the test data ca'Iculation exceeds the design specification calculation.

The specific load combination producing the higher secondary, g, stresses for the test data calcNation is uncertain due to the complexity of the finite element analysis using"Appendix XIII rules.

In general, the secondary stresses are caused by both thermal stresses and bending stresses at gross structural discontinuities.

Local yielding and minor distortions can satisfy the conditions which caused the stresses to occur.

Failure is not expected to occur from a single application of the stress.

Exceeding the 3 Sm limit on the range of 'primary plus secondary stresses is acceptable provided a simplified shakedown analysis is performed in accordance with XIII-1153.

However, the primary plus secondary stresses for both the design specification and the test data calculations were less than the S

Sm elastic limit.

In considering peak stresses, the applicant has performed fatigue evaluations for both design specification and test data values using Appendix XIV rules.

The fatigue evaluation conservatively assumed that maximum design specification values would occur for 7000 aalve actuations.

The design specification bending moment used was 65 Kf4a.

The average test databbending moment measured was 35 KNm, however, in only 3 cases out of 99, the test data bending moment exceeded the 65 KNm design specification bending moment with a maximum measured bending moment of 81.7 KQn.

However, the governing stress in the fatigue evaluation was the thermal peak stress and not the mechanical bending moment.

The thermal peak stress calculated from the design specification exceeded thermal peak stress calculated from test data values (93.37 ksi vs.

81.9 ksi, respectively).

The resulting cumulative usage factor for the design specification calculation exceeded the test data usage factor (0.93 vs.

0.7) even though the test data usage factor was calculated assuming 7000 cycles of the maximum measured bending moment (81.7 KNm).

Therefore, it is OFFICE/

SURNAME/

DATEP

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

, ~

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ \\ ~ \\

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ I ~

NRC FORM 318 IIO/80I NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

• USGFOpD~

f a

444th 3

~

~

4 rt

~ 4" g ~

I

~

~

I 4t,t ~

f Sa

%tata ft r HI 4 'I 4

1 a

4

~ ~ ~ '

f 1

~ 4 s

. l t

~

il I ~ at g 1 4 ll

~

~

I 4

'4 4"

~

I'ra hf d

4 H 4

} ~ I

'p ~

~

li'"

s

~

4 a 4

~

1 F= hfh, I'al)a 444', '

s ~

1 1

~ '

af

• '1 Sa 4

I I

~

~ 1 Ih

~ 1

~ 1 I.

I

~ s i fahh hj

~ F I

s ht I'

th-

~

1

~

4 4

y 4) 4 I

~ 4 4

,a

~

s 14 4

~ ~

y

~ I

~

4 4 1

4 4

-~ ~

~

1

'I f

I

~

t

~ ~ 4

=

414 1

~ 1 tl

l

~ 4 I

4 I I ~

~

~

~'I a r 1

4 4 sa

,f

~

I I

~ I ar fa 4" fhf

'I I ta f.

E.

~,

1 4

sa l'

~.

1

\\

• 4 iat

~

~

Maltee-P,-

But-1 er,.

w 3 not expected that the larger bending moment from the test data would have a significant effect on the design specification fatigue usage factor and that the relatively few cases where the design specification bending moment fs exceeded will not cause fatigue faflure.-

In summation. for the primary stresses, the design specification calculation resulted fn stresses higher than the test data stresses.

In both cases the primary stresses were less than one-half the stress allowable.

For consid-eration of primary,secondary and peak stresses, the applicant has performed a conservative fatigue evaluation using maximum design specification values.

For the few cases where the bending moment does exceed the dest11gn specfffcation value, ft fs not expected that the higher bending moment will result fn fatigue faflure.

Therefore, based on our review of the applicant's stress report summary and contingent upon the applicant meeting the special requirements delineated fn NR-3211.1(d),

we find the Susquehanna load specification for the SRV afr clearing bending moment acceptable for use fn the design of the T-quencher body-to-am weld.

cc:

J. Knight, DE R. Tedesco, DL L. Rubenstefn, DSI R. Stark, DL H. Brammer, DE F. Cherny, DE S. Hou, DE J. Kudrick, DSI F. Eltawfla, DSI D. Terao, DE Robert J. Bosnak, Chief Mechanfcal Engineering Branch Division of Engineering

Contact:

D. Terao, MEB:DE X29477 DISTR1'BUTION,:

'Docket F/1 eg DE:MEB Rdg. File OFFICE/

SURNAME)

OATEP DE:MEB M

~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ 0 ~ ~

..(Ty.r.aq.: jn..

.7.D.~/81......

DE:ME

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ o g Q o ~

HBrakher 7/ A/81

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

DE:

B

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~

~ ~

RJB nak

.?l. N081.......,..

NRC FORM 318110/801 NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

> USGPO:1980-329424

I'v 1

1 r"

~

r

~Idv 1 I 1

fl

~ 114

~

J 1

I'af a

aa I

I F.

~

a e*

~ Q+>> 1 4 1 P ~ a a*

~

P, I

~

1

~

yP ~. vaaaa.

g a

PPM-I r-,e-a v

~ 'I I

a a.

ia a

1" ape aa IMIl

-. ~

~

~

1 I'f

~

I f

a

~

~ri ae I'(

ii" Ib' ll'p1a1 4 1 Vp ~

v. ~

at >ki

~~M a

raa Va I

~

<<a 1

~

I a

V a ',et ra4' I

PM 11 / afv f

~

p a

a pa 1

v ea f ~

R