ML19289F442

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to IE Bulletin 79-04 Re Use of Velan Swing Check Valves.Higher Weights Were Used in Seismic Analysis; Analyses Are Conservative
ML19289F442
Person / Time
Site: Arkansas Nuclear  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 04/27/1979
From: Trimble D
ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO.
To: Seyfrit K
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
References
1-049-17, 1-49-17, NUDOCS 7906070374
Download: ML19289F442 (2)


Text

.- .

rh ..- PDR:HQ L

$ h U

M NSIC ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPAN .

POST OFFICE BOX 551 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72203 (501)371-4000 April 27, 1979 l-049-17 2-049-16 Mr. K. V. Seyfrit, Director '

Office of Inspection & Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington ~ sas 76011

Subject:

.'mtansas Nuclear One - Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos.50-313 and 50-368 License Nos.DPR-51 and NPF-6 IE Bulletin 79-04 (File: 1510,2-1510)

Gentlemen:

In re:nonse to IE Bulletin 79-04, the following b#ormation is provided.

Item 1. List all Seismic Category I pioing systems (or portions thereof) where 3,4, or 6 inch diameter Velan swing check valves are installed or are scheduled to be installed Response: The following three systems have 3 or 4 inch Velan swing check valves:

(a) ANO Make-up Pump Discharge (b) ANO Safety Injection and Shutdown Cooling to Reactor Coolant System.

(c) ANO HPSI Header No. 1 from HPSI Pumps to Control Valves Item 2. Verify for all those systems identified in item 1 above that correct check valve weights were used in the piping analysis. Explain how and when the correct valve weights were determined.

Response: (a) A weight of 204 lbs. was used for each valve compared to 135 lbs. listed in subject bulletin.

(b) A weight of 120 lbs. was used for each valve compared to 100 lbs. listed in subject bulletin.

(c) A weight of 160 lbs. was used for the valve conpared to 150 lbs. listed in subject bulletin.

Item 3. If incorrect valve weights were used, explain what actions have been taken or are planned to re-evaluate the piping systems affected.

79060703ry 2231 348

- ?-

Mr. K. V. Seyfri t April 27, 1979 Response: Higher weights were used in our seismic analyses for all the subject valves. Since using higher weights mean our analyses are conservative, no reanalyses are required.

Item 4. Specify for all the affected systems identified in Item 1 whether modifications were or are required to the piping systems or their supports because of changes in valve weight. Also, include the basis for this determination. For those systems in which the actual valve weight is greater than the design weight, provide a '

summary of stresses and loads and their allowable limits for th piping and its supports.

Response: No modifications are required to either the piping systems or their supports as explained in Item 3 above.

Item 5. Identify the analytical technique including identification of any computer ccdes 'Jsed to determine the stresses indicated in Item 4.

Response: Not appl' cable.

Very truly yours, bCw1dC.V&h David C. Trimble Manager, Licensing DCT:JTE:lg cc: Mr. John G. Davis, Acting Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissi,on Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. W. D. Johnson U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 2090 Russellville, AR 72801 2231 349