ML18086A712

Forwards NRC Request for Addl Info Re Operability of Containment Purge & pressure-vacuum Relief Valves.Response Is Requested within 45 Days

ML18086A712
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	06/18/1981
From:	Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Mittl R Public Service Enterprise Group
References
NUDOCS 8106240040
Download: ML18086A712 (6)

Text

Docket No.:

50-311 Mr. R. L. Mittl, General Manager Licensing and Environment Energy Supply and Engineering JUN 1 8 1981 a£CEIV£n Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza, T17A Newark, New Jersey 07101

SUBJECT:

CONTAINMENT PURGE AND PRESSURE-VACUUM RELIEF VALVES; REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR SALEM UNIT 2 By letter dated November 8, 1979, PSE&G submitted in response to the staff's request, design information for the Salem Unit 2 containment purge and pressure-vacuum r~lief valves.

The staff has considered this response as it applies to the demonstration of long-term operability of the subject_ valves in accordance with the guidelines provided in the staff's letter of September 27, 1979.

We find that before we can complete our long-term operability review, a(fditional information is required.

PSE&G is reque*sted to provide the iniformation listed in the enclosure within 45 days of the date of this letter.

If you have any further questions in this regard, please contact our Licensing Project Manager5 Gary C. Meyer.

Enclosure:

. As stated 810624 Ool.\\o

\\) cc: See next page.

DISTRIBUTION:

Docket File 50-311 -

DGEisenhut

~pifff

• RLTedesco PDR FJMiragli.a NSIC GCMeyer TERA WRoss LB#3 Fil es Ii\\

11 SVa rga Sincerely, Original signed by

.Robert l-Teaesoo Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing NRCFORM318110/80lNRCM0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY.

1l USGPO: 1980-329-824:

..-.... *r::t:..¥~t-G:o~

.q;..

a

.~'f>

f.

'i~i::~{1f' ~

v1*1ICL,;..,i'"'I~~

NUCLEAR ncuui...H IGnY CCi.ii.~:ss:cN W/l.~Lll"!~TO"!, 0. C. 20'555

~ ~.:-.--;mm~.;~* i

~'(~,if,f:'

"'-i-,,

-~.,,.o JUN 1 8 1981 Docket No.:

50-311 Mr. R. L. Mittl, General Manager Licensing and Environment Energy Supply and Engineering Public Servtce Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza, T17A Newark, New Jersey 07101

SUBJECT:

CONTAINMENT PURGE AND PRESSURE-VACUUM RELIEF VALVES; REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR SALEM UNIT 2 By letter dated November 8, 1979, PSE&G submitted in response to the staff's request, des1~gn information for the Salem Unit 2 containment purge and pressur~

vacuum relief valves.

The staff has considered this response as it applies to the demonstration of long-tenn operability of the subject valves in accordance with the guidelines provided in the staff's letter of September 27, 1979.

We find that before we can complete our long-tenn operability review, additional information is required.

PSE&Gis requested to provide the information listed in the enclosure witt.iin 45 days of the date of this letter.

If you have any further questions in this regard, please contact our Licensing Project Manager, Gary C. Meyer.

Enclosure:

As stated cc:

See next page.

Sincerely, Robe.rt L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Ucensing Division of Licensing

.r

Mr. R. L. Mittl, General Manager cc:

Richard Fryling, Jr., Esq.

Assistant General Counsel Public Service Electric & Gas Company_

80 Park Plaza Newark, New Jersey 07101 Mark Wetteri1ai1n, Esq.

Conner, Moore & Caber Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. w.

washington, D. c.

~0006 Mr. Leif J. horrholm c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrnnission Drawer I Hancocks bridge, New Jersey 08038

i *-..

ENCLIJ'SUKl-R.Es-.......................................................... e I r UI\\ MlJLJ J. I J. unn1..

i 111 v"1*1n 1.L v11 SALEt 11 u:~IT 2 NU~~i:i;~ ;:L,~;*rr CONTAINMENT PURGING DURING

~:O~r~.".!.. PU'.NT OPERl\\T!Q~!

MECHANICAL OPERABILITY DEMui~STRATIOi; 10.0 INCH PRESSURE RELIEF 32200 BUTTERFLY Additional infonnation required with reference to PSE&G letter, November 8, 1979, R. L. Mittl (PSE&G) to 0. D. Parr (NRC).

1. What is the p~ak containment pressure predicted for the DBA-LOCA?

a. What is the maximum Tech. Spec. closure time requirement for these valves?

b.

Based*on (a.), what is the containment pressure predicted at tirre of valve closure?

2.

The seating torque requirement was given as 1390 in-lbs.

Does this value include bearing torque? If not, what affect does bearing torque have on required seating torque?

3.

76.2 in-lb was used to calculate dynamic torque.

How was this number psi established (test/analysis)? Considering toot dynamic torque is affected by the installation configuration i.e., valve proximity to upstream elbows, shaft orientation (relative to elbows), disc closure direction (relative to elbows) and flow direction through valves (off-set discs) have the Salem 2 installations been reviewed to assure the adequacy.of the above coefficient?

4.

Where the analysis detennined 60° position pin and shaft loads, the "maximum valve load" was shown as being "dynamic torque" for the 47 psi A p case.

In comparison, the "maximum valve load" for the 60 psi A p case was shown as "loading torque" minus "spring torque." Clarify the difference between these approaches.

Additional Questions

1. Other than the pilot. solenoid valves, are there any electrical components such as a pressure switch in the accumulator system which are required to activate.in order for this system to be operable* when required?

, 2.

Is the accumulator system seismically designed to the plant specified requirements?

3. a. Have the following components been certi'fied by their respective manufacturers to be qualified for the seismic and environmental con-ditions specified for the plant for normal service conditions followed by OBA conditions and post accident conditions as applicable?

i. Pilot solenoid valves ii. Actuators iii. Pressure switches or others (Reference Question 4).

b.

Is their qualification based on testing and/or analysis?

c. Where testing was performed, indicate if testing was in accordance with IEEE test standards or other. Indicate the type tests performed (thermal, radiation, etc. and LOCA type) and to what qual. levels. Were tests performed on components of identical design or generically equivalent designs?

d.

Where analysis is used as the basis of qualification, provide rationale used to justify analysis in lieu of testing.

4. a. *How was the valve assembly (body and actuator) seismically qualified i.e., test and/or analysis, and to what levels?

b.

Does seismic related loading concurrent with LOCA related.loading significantly affect the safety margins shown for critical parts in the Masoneilan LOCA analysis?

5.

Are the preventative maintenance requiremnts (part r~placement lubrication etc.) established by the component manufacturers being followed? Consideration should especially" be given to required replacement of elastomeric parts in _

valve body (seat), actuators, pilot solenoid valves etc. where these components are installed inside containment.

-~-

6.

Describe the ASME Section XI inservice testing presently being con-ducted on or planned for these valves.

36.0 INCH PURGE 32200 BUTTERFLY

l. What is the recommended valve seat design life? Is it periodically replaced?

2.

Describe the ASME Section XI inservice testing presently being conducted on or planned for these valves.