ML20011E711

Forwards Request for Addl Info Re 890602 Response to NRC Bulletin 88-011 on Pressurizer Surge Line Stratification. Response Should Be Submitted within 30 Days of Receipt of Ltr

ML20011E711
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	02/14/1990
From:	Wambach T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Shelton D TOLEDO EDISON CO.
References
IEB-88-011, IEB-88-11, TAC-M72128, NUDOCS 9002220277
Download: ML20011E711 (6)

Text

. -.

February 14, 1990 Docket No. 50-346 DISTRIBUTION:

i

55HRT%^ p NRC & Local PDRS PD111'3}/f_

JZwolinski JHannon TWambach PKreutzer OGC-WF1 Mr. Donald C. Shelton EJordan ACR$(10)

Vice President - Nuclear PDIII-3 Gray Toledo Edison Company Edison Plaza - Stop 712 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43652

SUBJECT:

DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, RESPONSE TO BULLETIN 88-11, t

" PRESSURIZER SURGE LINE THERMAL STRATIFICATION" (TAC NO M72128) l In the course of our review of your June 2,1989 response to Bulletin 88-11, we find that we require clarification and additional information. The specific information requested is in Enclosure 1.

Please respond within 60 days of receipt of this letter.

in addition, an audi' team is making a visit to Davis-Besse Nuclear Station on March 6 and 7, 1990 regarding this Bulletin. The agenda for the audit is given in Enclosure 2.

The information requested in this letter affects fewer than 10 respondents, therefore, OMB clearance is not required under Pub. L.96-511.

i Sincerely,

/s/

Thomas V. Wambach, Sr. Project Manager Project Directorate 111-3 Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, Y and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

As stated cc:

See next page DOCUMENT NAME: 72 1

Office:

LA D I-3 P PD111-PD/

11-3 Surnamej PKreutzer TWambach/tg JHannon A / /Y/90

)//f/90

/

90 Date:

9002220277 900214 ADOCK 0500 6'

{DR

umTED STATES 8'

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o

{

j wasenwovow. o. c. noses l

February 14, 1990 Docket No. 50-346 Mr. Donald C. Shelton Vice President - Nuclear Toledo Edison Company Edison Plaza - Stop 712 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43652

SUBJECT:

DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, RESPONSE TO BULL "PRESSURIZERSURGELINETHERMALSTRATIFICATION"(TACNOM72128 In the course of our review of your June 2, 1989 response to Bulletin 88-11, we find that we require clarification and additional information. The sper.ific information requested is in Enclosure 1.

Please respond within 60 days of receipt of this letter.

In addition, an audit team is making a visit to Davis-Besse Nuclear Station on March 6 and 7, 1990 regarding this Bulletin. The agenda for the audit is given in Enclosure 2.

The information requested in this letter affects fewer than 10 respondents, therefore, OMB clearance is not required under Pub. L.96-511.

Sincerely.

Thomas V. Wambach, Sr. Project Manager Project Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

As stated cc: See next page j

,e Mr. Donald C. Shelton Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Toledo Edison Company Unit No. I cc:

David E. Burke Esq.

The Cleveland Electric Radiological Health Program Illuminating Company Ohio Department of Health P. O. Box 5000 1224 Kinnear Road Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Columbus, Ohio 43212 Mr. Robert W. Schrauder Attorney General Manager Nuclear Licensing Department of Attorney Toledo Edison Company General Edison Plaza 30 East Broad Street 300 Madison Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43215 Toledo, Ohio 43652 Mr. James W. Harris, Director Gerald Charnoff, Esq.

(AddresseeOnly)

Shaw, Pittman, Potts Division of Power Generation and Trowbridge Ohio Department of Industrial Relations P300 N Street N.W.

2323 West 5th Avenue Washington, D.C. 20037 P. O. Box 825 Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 799 Roosevelt Road 361 East Broad Street Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Columbus, Ohio 43266-0558 President Board of Mr. Robert B. Borsum County Comissioners of Babcock & Wilcox Ottawa County r

Nuclear Power Generation Division Port Clinton, Ohio 43452 l

Suite 525, 1700 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 State of Ohio Public Utilities Comission l

Resident Inspector 180 East Broad Street l

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Columbus, Ohio 43266-0573 5503 N. State Route 2 Oak Hsrbor. Ohio 43449 t

l L

l l

l

• .s..

l ENCLOSURE 1 p

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Page 1 of 2 PREEBt'RIZER SURCE 13NE (PSI 1 THFRMAt 9TRAJ.1ElcATinN aco TOLEDO EDISON REPORT FOR DAVIA BERAE l EERTAL No. 1871 n1Trn 3DNk 9.

19st section III-A i

1)

A visual examination of the PSL during cold condition indi-cated that a deflection shape characterised as concave down-ward was noted when the pip was sighted axially.

Where is this attributed since no stratification is present during cold condition?

section III-D 1

1)

Was any operability study performed with the snubber PSU-R1 renoved from the analysis?

What are the results at critical locations when compared to the original analysis?

2)

Page 8 indicates that "arrors of the same order of magnitude as the observed measurement changes are both possible and likely."

How can this review be conclusive that no permanent deformation of the surge line occurred?

section III-I 1)

It appears that the M*K plots for temperature and pressure were adjusted from the operational data point of view only.

What other adjustments if any were made to account for the surge lins differences (i.e. pipe wall thickness, thermocoup-les are naasuring outside and not inside temperatures).

section III-F 1)

What are the results of 4 of measured vs calculated values at I

critical locations?

1 2)

Why were cases 20 through 28 on1 used for comparison of the analytical results vs measured d splacements and not cases a through 197 3)

How was the effect of the broken piston of snubbber PSU-R1 evaluated?

Section III-G l

1)

What is the justification for cases 11, 135 and 14 to be the f

most conservative cases to be used in the fatigue evalua-tion?

l 2)

How was it determined that some plastic deformation of the surge line occurred by two separate occasions early in plant life?

• ;, e..

l Page 2 of 2 Section III-M 1)

How will the final temperature profile (axial, circumferen-tial) be developed for the final analysis?

2)

How was the temprature profile (axial, circumferential) developed for his 300 report?

It appears that one thermo-couple only was used.

Now was the temperature profile deter-nined at other locations?

Table 2 1)

What is the justification for exceeding Code interaction ratio of 1.0 (*1.09) even when the sa value is adjusted upwards to consider actual CMTR properties?

Table 3 1)

SL5 and SL6 show a progressive decrease in gaps. Where is this attributed?

Table 5 1)

How were the additional four heatup/cooldown values calcu-leted?

Does the total value include striping effects?

It r.ot, what is the inpact?

Table 7 i

1)

Now were the plastic deformation effects incorporated into the 4

PSL evaluation?

Table 8 i

How are these stresses related to table 27 2)

Why were the 0.D. and wall thickness of the pressurizer nottle and the hot leg nottle assumed?

What are the actual values?

h

a w* '

O # f et b g }

..g k

UNITED STATES

('

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5

1-mAsesteesTON,D C.sosts

\\.....

i AGENDA 1

i

~

NRC AUDIT OF BULLETIN 88-11 IS$UES AT DAVIS BESSE Audit Discussion Items A.

Surge line inspection results and corrective actions, if av B.

. Staff questions related to Phase ! Program submitted on.)une 2,1989 (see Enclosure 1).

C.

Compliar.ce to applicable codes 4 regulatory requirements

!!. Document Reviews i

A.

Inspection reports and results B.

Surge line design drawings C.

Analyses supporting acceptability of corrective actions D.

Analysis verifying code compliance

[

E.

Other relevant licensee or B&W reports.

111. _Walkdown A.

Inspectionofsurgeline(ifaccessible) l l

6

..