ML18016A461
| ML18016A461 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1998 |
| From: | Scott Flanders NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Robinson W CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| GL-96-06, GL-96-6, TAC-M96818, NUDOCS 9806260301 | |
| Download: ML18016A461 (5) | |
Text
tI June, 24, 1998 Mr. W. R. Robinson, Vice President Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Carolina Power & Light Company
'ost Office Box 165-Mail Code: Zone 1
New Hill, North Carolina 27562-0165
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION(RAI) REGARDING RESPONSE TO GENERIC LETTER 96-06 FOR THE SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT 1 (TAC NO. M96818)
Dear Mr. Robinson:
Generic Letter (GL) 96-06, "Assurance of Equipment Operability and Containment Integrity During Design-Basis Accident Conditions," dated September 30, 1996, included a request for licensees to evaluate cooling water systems that serve containment air coolers to assure that they are not vulnerable to waterhammer and two-phase flow conditions.
By letter dated January 28, 1997, Carolina Power 8 Light (CP8 L) provided a response to GL 96-06 for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. The staff has initiated its review of your response and determined that additional information is needed.
The Enclosure provides the details of the requested information.
To ensure a timely review of this submittal, the staff requests a response to the enclosed questions by August 30, 1998.
Ifthis is not achievable, CP8 L should notify the staff and propose a date for submittal of a response to the RAI. Should you have any questions related to this letter or the enclosed RAI, please contact me at (301) 415-1172.
Sincerely, Original signed by:
Scott C. Flanders, Project Manager Project Directorate II-1 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-400
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/enclosure:
See next page
~Di ribu io
~Docket. File
-, JZwolinski PDII-1 RF JTatum TMarsh ACRS OGC BWetzel GHubbard LPlisco, Rll PUBLIC FILENAME-G:hHAR 3 (M96818sp.RAI OFFICE NAME DATE COPY PM:PDII-1 SFI ders KA 98 Yes/No LA:PDII-1 Dunning ton 7~
dbf498 e
No D:PDII-1 PKuo 98 Yes o
98062b030i 980624 PDR ADOCK 05000400 P
PDR KE L'Q~ we
~
Mr. W. R. Robinson Carolina Power & Light Company Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 cc:
Mr. William D. Johnson Vice President and Senior Counsel Carolina Power 8 Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Resident Inspector/Harris NPS c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5421 Shearon Harris Road New Hill, North Carolina 27562-9998 Ms. Karen E. Long Assistant Attorney General State of North Carolina Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Public Service Commission State of South Carolina Post Office Drawer Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Suite 23T85 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. Mel Fry, Director Division of Radiation Protection N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 3825 Barrett Dr.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-7721 Ms. D. B. Alexander Manager Performance Evaluation and Regulatory Affairs CPB 9 Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-1551 Mr. Bo Clark Plant General Manager - Harris Plant Carolina Power 8 Light Company Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant P.O. Box 165 New Hill, North Carolina 27562-0165 Mr. J. W. Donahue Director of Site Operations Carolina Power 8 Light Company Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Post Office Box 165, MC: Zone 1 New Hill, North Carolina 27562-0165 Mr. Robert P. Gruber Executive Director Public Staff NCUC.
Post Office Box 29520 Raleigh, North Carolina 27626 Chairman ofthe North Carolina Utilities Commission Post Office Box 29510 Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0510 Mr. Milton Shymlock U.S Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Suite 23185 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. Stewart Adcock, Chairman Board of County Commissioners of Wake County P. O. Box 550 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Margaret Bryant Pollard, Chairman Board of County Commissioners of Chatham County P. O. Box 87 Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312 Mr. Chris A. VanDenburgh, Manager Regulatory Affairs Carolina Power 8 Light Company Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant P.O. Box 165, Mail Zone 1
New Hill, NC 27562-0165 Mr. Johnny H. Eads, Supervisor Licensing/Regulatory Programs Carolina Power 8 Light Company Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant P. O. Box 165, Mail Zone 1 New Hill, NC 27562-0165
6-0 EA 0 In your letter dated January 28, 1997, you provided an assessment of the waterhammer and two-phase flow issues for the Harris Nuclear Plant.
In that assessment, you determined that waterhammer and two-phase flow could occur in the emergency service water (ESW) system, which provides cooling water for the containment fan cooler units (EFCUs). The assessment concluded that should the worst-case waterhammer occur, the ESW system and the EFCUs would remain operable and able to perform their functions.
In order to assess your resolution of these issues, the following additional information is requested:
1.
Ifa methodology other than that discussed in NUREG/CR-5220, "Diagnosis of Condensation-Induced Waterhammer," was used in evaluating the effects of waterhammer, describe this alternate methodology in detail. Also, explain why this methodology is applicable and gives conservative results (typically accomplished through rigorous plant-specific modeling, testing, and analysis).
2.
For both the waterhammer and two-phase flow analyses, provide the following information:
a.
Identify any computer codes that were used in the waterhammer and two-phase flow analyses and describe the methods used to benchmark the codes for the specific loading conditions involved (see Standard Review Plan Section 3.9.1).
b.
Describe and justify all assumptions and input parameters (including those used in any computer codes) such as ampliflications due to fluid structure interaction, cushioning, speed of sound, force reductions, and mesh sizes, and explain why the values selected give conservative results.
Also, provide justification for omitting any effects that may be relevant to the analysis (e.g., fluid structure interaction, flow-induced vibration, erosion).
c.
Provide a detailed description of the "worst case" scenarios for waterhammer and two-phase fiow, 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, and potential component failures. Additional considerations for two-phase flow include:
the consequences of steam formation, transport, and accumulation; cavitation, resonance, and fatigue effects; and erosion considerations.
Enclosure It is important for licensees to realize that in addition to heat transfer considerations, two-phase flow also involves structural and system integrity concerns that must be addressed.
Licensees may find NUREG/CR-6031, "Cavitation Guide for Control Valves," helpful in addressing some aspects of the two-phase flowanalyses.
'd.
Confirm that the analyses included a complete failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA)for all components (including electrical and pneumatic failures) that could impact performance of the cooling water system and confirm that the FMEA is documented and available for review, or explain why a complete and fullydocumented FMEAwas not performed.
e.
Explain and.justify all uses of "engineering judgement."
3.
Determine the uncertainty in the waterhammer and two-phase flowanalyses, explain how the uncertainty was determined, and how it was accounted for in the analyses to assure conservative results.
4.
Confirm that the waterhammer and two-phase flow loading conditions do not exceed any design specifications or recommended service conditions for the piping system and components, including those stated by equipment vendors; and confirm that the system will continue to perform its design-basis functions as assumed in the safety analysis report for the facility and that the containment isolation valves willremain operable.
5.
Discuss specific system operating parameters and other operating restrictions that must be maintained to assure that the waterhammer and two-phase flow analyses remain valid, and explain why it would not be appropriate to establish Technical Specification requirements to acknowledge the importance of these parameters and operating restrictions.
Also, describe and justify reliance on any non-safety-related instrumentation and controls in this regard.
6.
Provide a simplified diagram ofthe affected systems, showing major components, active components, relative elevations, lengths of piping runs, and the location of any oriflices and flow restrictions.
7.
Describe in detail any plant modifications or procedure changes that have been made or are planned to be made to resolve the waterhammer and two-phase flow issues.
0 Aa Pl J'
~ - W