ML18019A465
| ML18019A465 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1985 |
| From: | Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Utley E CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| TASK-2.E.4.2, TASK-TM NUDOCS 8511050078 | |
| Download: ML18019A465 (9) | |
Text
Docket No.:
50-400 OCT 30 1985 Mr. E.
E. Utley Executive Vice President Power Supply and Engineering and Construction Carolina Power 5 Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Mr. Utley:
ACRS (16)
DISTRIBUTION
-~sa.zoo~
NRC PDR LPDR NSIC PRC System LB¹3 Reading JLee BBuckley JPartlow BGrimes EJordan
- Attorney, OELD
Subject:
Request for Additional Information - Shearon Harris, Unit 1
We have reviewed your July 2, 1985 submittal regarding the demonstration of operability of containment purge and vent valves and find that additional information on the issues described in the Enclosure is required in order to continue our review.
Sincerely, OHIGNAI.SiaNao av
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
See next page George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No.
3 Division of Licensing DL:LB¹3 D
BBuckley/yt G
1 ton 10/2 /85 10
/85 8511050078 85100400 PDR ADOCW 05 DR A
't R
I I
I M
l I
E V
~
~
~
Mr. E.
E.
Ut1 ey Carolina Power 5 Light Company Shearon Harris CC:
George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts 5 Trowbridge 1800 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Richard E. Jones, Esq.
Associate General Counsel Carolina Power 5 Light Company 4ll Fayetteville Street Mall
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 M. David Gordon, Esq.
Associate Attorney General State of North Carolina Post Office Box 629
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Thomas S. Erwin, Esq.
115 W. Morgan Street
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Resident Inspector/Harris NPS c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 1, Box 315B New Hill, North Carolina 27562 Charles D. Barham, Jr.,
Esq.
Vice President 8 Senior Counsel Carolina Power 8 Light Compa'ny Post Office Box 1551
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. John Runkle, Executive Coordinator Conservation Council of North Carolina 307 Granville Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
'Mr. Wells Eddleman 806 Parker Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 Mr. George
- Jackson, Secretary Environmental Law Project School of Law, 064-A Univeristy of North Carolina Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Mr. Travis Payne, Esq.
723 W. Johnson Street Post, Office Box 12643 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Mr. Daniel F.
Read CHANGE Post Office Box 2151
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Bradley W. Jones, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Region II 101 Marietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Richard D. Wilson, M. D.
725 Hunter Street Apex, North Carolina 27502 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. Robert P. Gruber Executive Director Public Staff - NCUC Post Office Box 991
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Carolina Power 5 Light Company Shearon Harris Dr. Linda Little Governor's Waste Management Board 513 Albemarle Building 325 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
0 LOSURE RE UEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SHEARON HARRIS DOCKET NO. 50-400 PURGE AND VENT VALVE OPERABILITY - TMI II.E.4.2 6
- 1. The torque capacity of the Bettis actuator model N721C-SR60-12 is given as 2570 in-lb without reference to valve disc angle, minimum and maximum torque available, and torque available for reduced power source.
(Page 41 of BIF Dynamic Torque Calculation)
The applicant should provide the actuator torque curves versus valve opening angle in tabular or graphic form.
The applicant should compare the available torque of the operator with the maximum torque required to operate the valves during the accident scenario;
- 2. Item 3 of the Ebasco letter dated August 3, l982 requests BIF to demonstrate operability of the purge valve at "30'nd 50'pen with closure times less than 3.5 seconds."
However, the BIF report DT-67926 Revision A addresses valve op-erability from the fully open (90') to the fully closed position.
The applicant should indicate if he intends to operate the valves from an initial position that is'less than fully open.
The applicant should clarify that his submittal specifies and demonstrates full closure of the valves from the fully open position (90') in less than 3.5 seconds.
3.
The BIF analysis considered the valve to be completely closed at 4'.75 seconds elapsed time and containment pressure of 34.35 psia.
However, at 5
seconds the pressure can rise to 35.06 psia.
The Shearon Harris Technical
Specifications (FSAR Section 16.2, Table 3.6. 1) specify a maximum isolation time of 5 seconds.
The applicant should re-evaluate the BIF analyses and technical specifications to confirm that (1) the valve closure time and containment isolation time are consistent and (2) the subsequent adjustment for containment pressure will not adversely affect the ability of the valve to perform its function.
4.
The flow dynamic torque was calculated as the valve closed uniformily from fully open to fully closed against the ascending containment pressure.
The 3.5 second closure period was divided into nine equal increments of 0.389 second duration and 10'isc rotation.
At each increment, the dynamic torque was calculated using the containment pressure response curve.
The maximum torque of 1731 in-lb was calculated'or an 80'pening angle at 1.639 seconds elapsed time from LOCA initiation.
Valve closure was initiated at 1.25 seconds to allow time to process the isolation signal.
(Page 7 and 41 of BIF Dynamic Torque Calculation).
The applicant should provide evidence that the valve closure rate is uniform from fully open to fully closed.
5.
BIF committed to test the valves for speed of closure and reject any above I
3.5 seconds.
I{owe'v'er, BIF does not have any test data for the closure speed of the sp~ing loaded cylinder "when it is bled into higher than atmos-sphere pressure."
BIF's reconmendation (to Ebasco) is "to pipe the exhaust port of the solenoid valve to atmosphere to insure the 3.5 closure period." (BIF response to fbasco comment k'5, Page 43 of BIF Dynamic Torque Calculation)
The applicant should clearly demonstrate that the valve closure time of 3.5 seconds
3 will not be exceeded during the accident scenario.
The applicant should provide a response to the BIF recommendation and justify operability of the valve for any new configuration, if applicable, that is not covered by the present submittal.
6.
The analytical procedure to perform the seismic analysis indicates that stresses will be considered due to a combination of seismic load, dead weight, design pressure, and maximum o erator tor ue.
(Item 2 of BIF Seismic Analysis).
The torque capacity of the Bettis actuator is given as 2570 in-lb compared to the maximum calculated dynamic torque of 1731 in-lb for an 80'pening angle.
(Page 41 of BIF Dynamic Torque Calculation).
Review of the seismic analysis revealed that the stresses are based on a torque value of 1731 in-lb.
(Page 4 of BIF seismic analysis).
The applicant should justify the torque valve 'used to demonstrate valve operability.
The applicant should amend the stress analysis, if appropriate, and clearly show that the calculated stresses do not exceed the allowable stress limits.
7.
The flow coefficient (Kv) and dynamic torque coefficient (Ct) were obtained from hydrodynamic tests using different valve disc orientation and flow conditions.
The tests were performed using water and measured with hand held torque wrenches; no tests with air were performed.
{Page 3 of BIF Hydrodynamic
- Tests, Reference 7, and Page 2 of BIF Head Loss Tests, Reference 6).
The applicant should'ustify that the purge valves will experience only incompressible flow during the LOCA accident scenario.
The applicant should compare the disc shapes used in the 12 inch valve flow tests versus the
4 specified 8 inch BIF valve.
The applicant acknowledges that the torque wrench readings from the flow tests have an error band of + 10%.
(Pages 3 and 6 of BIF Hydrodynamic Tests, Reference 7).
The applicant should clearly show that the
+ 10K deviation in torque does not adversely affect t y
he abilit of the BIF purge valve to perform its function.
~I 8.
FSAR Figures 6.2.1-2 and -3 show a comparison of containment pressure transients
{hot leg and cold leg breaks, respective y).
l ).
The FSAR and PSAR pressure response curves are shown on both figures.
The "old" PSAR analysis h
th used the currently approved mass and energy release model, whereas the new FSAR analysis used a model currently being reviewed by th
(
the NRC.
(FSAR Section 6.2.1.3, Page 6.2.1-21, Amendment 11 - effective through Amendment 18, November 30, 1984).
I'igure 6.2.1-2 shows that the old pressure response curve envelopes the new curve up to an approximate pressure of 50 psia (15 seconds elapsed time from LOCA initiation).
Beyond that point the new pressure curve p
envelo es the old curve and r eaches a peak value of 51.4 psia (18.5'econds elapsed time).
The BIF dynamic torque calculations were obtained by following the new pressure response curve up to an elapsed time of 4.75 seconds.
((Ebasco letter dated August 3, 1982 and gage 7 of BIF Dynamic Torque Calculation).
The applicant should verify that the containment pressure response data used to calculate the dynamic torque valves are based on the appropriate
'p riate LOCA'essure transient and valve closure time.
As appropriat pp the a
licant should A
{1) amend the purge valve report to state that its results are based on new pressure response
- data, which still-await NRC approval or {2) update the FSAR to state that the new pressure response curves for Figures 6.2.1-2 and -3 have been approved by the NRC.