ML19344E758
| ML19344E758 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1980 |
| From: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Borgmann E CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8009110255 | |
| Download: ML19344E758 (6) | |
Text
)
p KEgg 8
b UNITED STATES 8"
N NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
% *****/
August 21, 1980 Docket No. 50-358 Mr. Earl A. Borgmann Vice President - Engineering Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company P. O. Box 960 Cincinnati, Ohio 45201
Dear Mr. Borgmann:
SUBJECT:
PERMITTED EXEMPTIONS UNDER lWB-1220 (b)(1.) 0F SECTION XI 0F THE ASME CODE Subsection lWB-1220 of Section XI of the ASME Code describes the conditions under which component may be exempted from inservice inspection.
Paragraph 1WB-1220 (b)(1) of the 1974 Edition including Summer 1975 Addenda states that "Under the postulated conditions of loss of coolant from the component during normal reactor operations, the reactor can be shut down and cool down in an orderly manner assuming makeup is provic'ad by the reactor coolant makeup system only.
However, in no instance may the size exemption be more than 3 in, nominal pipe size." The code also states that " Normal makeup system is defined as those systems that have the capability to maintain reactor coolant inventory under the respective conditions of start-up, hot standby, operation or cooldown, using onsite power."
We are currently reviewing the preservice inspection program for the Zimmer power station.
The preservice inspection program states that certain pipe systems less than 2.12 in, for water and 4.24 in, for steam nominal diameter were exempted from examination.
Paragraph 1WB-1220 (b)(1) clearly states that no exemptions are permitted containing pipe greater than 3 in. nominal diameter.
The staff reviewed the method of analysis used by the Zimmer power station for the pipe exempted under paragraph lWB-1220 (b)(1).
It was found that the method of analysis was correct but that the input assumptions were in The staff's calculated values for the limiting pipe diameters for error.
exemption under paragraph 1WB-1220 (b)(1) are 1.11 in, for water and 2.22 in, for steam. Of course, these values are based on the assumptions of the staff shown in the enclosure to this letter.
l A
.80091.Lo?
i i
--~
4 Mr. Earl A. Borgmann August 21, 1980 Our review indicates that exemptions were probably made on thirty seven (37) pipe lines at La Salle. The pipe involved are seventeen (17 lines on the Main Steam, twelve (12) lines on the Nuclear Boiler, two (2)) lines on the Residual Heat Removal, two (2) lines on the Coolant Injection, one (1) line on the Reactor Recirculation, and three (3) lines on the Standby Liquid Control Systems.
Please advise us regarding how many lines you had previously exempted each on the 1) main steam, 2) nuclear boiler, 3) residual heat removal, 4) coolant injection, 5) reactor recirculation and 6) standby liquid control systems.
The staff will be happy to meet with you on this matter to expedite resolution.
S)ncerely/,.
-)
j,,v lif@YV A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch.No. 2 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
See next page l
l l
l l
l l
1.
l l
l
2.
_4~
Mr. Earl A. Borgmann August 21, 1980 Vice President - F'1gineering Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company P. O. Box 960 Cincinnati, Ohi,o 45201 cc: Troy B.' Conner, Jr., Esq.
Dr. Frank F. Hooper.
Conner, Moore & Corber School of Natural Resources 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
University of Michigan Washington, D. C.
20006 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Mr. William J. Moran General Counsel y
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq., Chairman Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel P. O. Box 960 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Washington, D. C.
20555 Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 Mr.. William G. Porter, Jr.
Mr. Glenn 0. Bright Porter, Stanley, Arthur Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel and Platt U..S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 37 West Broad Street Washington, D. C.
20555 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Leah S. Kosik, Esq.
3454 Cornell Place Mr. Steven G. Smith, Manager Cincinnati, Ohio 45220 Engineering & Project Control Dayton Power & Light Company W. Peter Heile, Esq.
P. O. Box 1247 Assistant City Solicitor Dayton, Ohio 45401 Room 214, City Hall J. Robert Newlin, Counsel-Cincinnati, Ohio 45220 Dayton Power & Light Company Timothy S. Hogan, Jr., Chairman P. O. Box 1247 Board of Commissioners Dayton, Ohio 45401 50 Market Street Mr. James D. Flynn, Manager Clermont County Batavia, Ohio 45103 Licensing Environmental.\\ffairs Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company John D. Woliver, Esq.
l P. O. Box 960 Clermont County Community Council Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 Box 181 Batavia, Ohio 45103 Mr. J. P. Fenstermaker Senior Vice President-0perations l
Colurrlaus & Southern Ohio Mrs. Mary Reder i
Box 270, Rt. 2 Electric Company 215. North Front Street California, Kentucky 41007 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Dale D. Brodkey David Martin, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Division of Environmental Law Office of the Attoraey General Office of Attorney General 209 St. Clair Street First Floor 209 St. Clair Street Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 4
{.?
_}
w 8
Mr. Earl A. Borgmann ~ August 21, 1980 cc: Andrew B. Dennison, Esq.
200 Main Street Bataviat Ohio 45103 Robert A. Jones, Esq.
Prosecuting Attorney of Clermont County, Ohio 154 Main Street Batavia, Ohio 45103 Resident Inspector /Zimer
\\
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission-P. O. Box 58 New Richmond, Ohio 45157 d
4 b
C t
(
3 f
i 9
b i
l b
b Y
C
~-.- -
I e
s ENCLOSURE We have reviewed the analysis of the exempted piping inside diameters as provided for in Section XI (IWB-1200(b)(1)) of the ASME Code for the Zimmer Power Station.
Our position is as follows:
1.
The mass flow rates of 8000 lbs/sec/f;2 at 1000 psi for water and 2000 lbs/sec/ft2 at 1000 psi for steam are consistent with the Discharge Model for Blowdown Phenomena in 10 CFR 50 Appendix K (F. J. Moody,
" Maximum Flow Rate of a Single Component, Two-Phase Mixture," Journal of Heat Transfer, Transactions of American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 87, No.1, February,1965) and are acceptable.
2.
We have determined that makeup flow from the condensate system and control rod drive returns cannot be assumed in the analysis.
This position is based on our interpretation of the 1974 Code Edition (referenced by the applicant) which states " Normal makeup systems are those systems tMt have the capability to maintain reactor coolant inventory under the respective conditions of startup, Hot Standby, operation or cooldown using'onsite power." The condensate and control rod drive return flows require offsite power and are therefore excluded from these considerations.
3.
The temperature assumed for makeup water shall be the highest temperature for which the applicable system is designed for during normal operation.
For the RCIC system Tmax = 1400F. The applicant assumed a makeup water temperature of 700F.
Taking these factors into account, the limiting diameter for exemption can be computed as follows:
(1) w "fM U
70 V70 l
v vian 17.8 Ds=2Dw where:
Dw = exemption diameter for water (in) t Ds = exemption diameter for steam (in)
M70 = volumetric flow rate at 700F makeup (gal / min)
V70 = specific volume of water at 70% (ft /lbm) 3 3
V140 = specific volume of water at 140 F (ft /lbm) l l
For a RCIC flow rate of 400 gpm, D, = 1.11 in. and D = 2.22 in.
s It is important to note that the above calculation is limited to those lines whose rupture would result in primary coolant loss from only one side of the break.
For lines whose rupture could result in loss of coolant from both sides of the break, the choked flow rate would be doubled resulting in a reduction in the exemption diameter by a factor of I relative to TT1 (1)above. That is:
D (doubled ended flow) = D(Single end flow)
(2) l.41 Accordingly, each.line being considered for exemption must first be examined for the potential for double ended flow upon rupture.
W
- - - -,