ML20012B191
| ML20012B191 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron, Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1990 |
| From: | Shemanski P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Kovach T COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| IEB-88-008, IEB-88-8, TAC-73306, TAC-73307, TAC-73308, TAC-73309, NUDOCS 9003130757 | |
| Download: ML20012B191 (5) | |
Text
F a
March 5, 1990 i
Docket Nos. 50-454, 50-455, DISTRIBUTION 50-456, 50-457
('WlW'7TW"g NRC & Local PDRs PDIll-?"r/f" JZwolinski Thomas J. Kovach LLuther PShemanski
' Nuclear Licensing Manager OGC-EJordan Consonwealth Edison Company-Suite 300 ACRS(10)
Plant File OPUS West III Slee KWichman 1400 OPUS Place Downers Grove, Illinois 60515
Dear Mr. Kovach:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON ELIMINATION OF DYNAMIC EFFECTS OF POSTULATED PIPE RUPTURES IN REACTOR COOLANT BYPASS AND ACCUMULATOR PIPING FROM DESIGN BASIS FOR BYRON STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 AND BRAIDWOOD STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 (TAC N05, 73306, 73307, 73308' 73309)
By letter dated May 16, 1989, CommonwealthCompany(CECv)submitteda
" leak-before-break" (LBB) evaluation of the reactor coolant bypass line, the accun.ulator line, and the residual heat removal (RHR) line. CECO proposed to epply LBB methodology to eliminate the dynamic effects of postulated subject mipe ruptures from the design basis for Byron Units 1 and 2 and Braidwood
'Jnits 1 and 2, as permitted by the revised General Design Criterion 4 (GDC-4) of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50.
Ceco submitted the technical basis for its request in Sargent & Lundy Report SL-4518 dated May 12, 1989. The Material Integrity Section of the Materials and Chemical Engineering Branch, Division of Engineering Technology, has reviewed your submittal for compliance with the revised GDC-4. As previously discussed, we are limiting our review to the reactor coolant bypass line and the accumulator line. The RHR line is excluded from our review pending resolution of NRC Bulletin 88-08, Supplement 3.
We find additional I
information from CECO is necessary for us to continue our review. You are requested to provide the additional information (see enclosure) within 45 days i
of receipt of this letter.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely, Paul C. Shemanski, Project Hanacer re Project Directorate 111-2 S*e Division of Reactor Projacts - 111,
$s IV, Y and Special Projects o8 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Enclosure-M As stated i
No 8@
cc w/ enclosure:
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 3
See next page Docume K0VACH 3}06,7,8,9
$$o.
PDill-2:LA PDill-2:PH Pb!!N2:PM P I1 th Lluthe PShemenski:ta SSands JCraig
\\
l 3/a/
3 / 2./90
.8 /2/90
.5/jl/90
x
(
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 70bM March 5,1990 Docket Nos. 50-454, 50-455, 50 456, 50-457 Thomas J..Kovach Nuclear Licensing Manager Comonwealth Edison Company-Suite 300 OPUS West til 1400 OPUS Place Downers Grove, Illinois 60515
Dear Mr. Kovech:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON ELIMINATION OF DYNAMIC EFFECTS OF POSTULATED PIPE RUPTURES IN REACTOR COOLANT BYPASS AND ACCUMULATOR FIPING FROM DESIGN BASIS FOR BYRON STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 AND BRAIDWOOD STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 (TAC NOS. 73306,73307,73308,73309)
By letter dated May 16. 1989, CommonwealthCompany(CECO)submitteda
" leak-before-break" (LBB) evaluation of the reactor coolant bypass line, the accumulator line, and the residual heat removal (RHR) line. CECO proposed to apply LBB methodology to eliminate the dynamic effects of postulated subject pipe ruptures from the design basis for Byron Units 1 and 2 und Braidwood Units 1 and 2, as permitted by the revised General Design Criterion 4 (GDC-4) of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50.
CECO submitted the technical basis for its reouest in Sargent & Lundy Report
'SL-4518 dated May 12, 1989. The Material Integrity Section of the Materials and Chemical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering Technology, has
' reviewed your submittal for comp,liance with the revised GDC-4.
As previously discussed, we are limiting our review to the reactor coolant bypass line and the accumulator line. The RHR line is excluded from our review pending resolution of HRC Bulletin 88-08, Supplement 3.
We find additional information from Ceco is necessary for us to continue our review. You are requestedtoprovidetheadditionalinformation(seeenclosure)within45 days of receipt of this letter.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
sincerely.
OC Paul C. Shemanski, Project Manacer Project Directorate 111-2 Division of Reactor Projects - 111, IV, Y and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
]
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
See next page
D m',
Mr. Thomas J. Kovech Byron /Braidwood Power Station Comonwealth Edison Company Units 1 and 2 cc:
Mr. Jack Tain Dr. Bruce von Zellen Atomic Power Distribution Department of Biological Sciences Westinghouse Electric Corporation Northern Illinois University Post Office Bnx 355 DeKalb, Illinois 61107 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Joseph Gallo. Esq.
Byron / Resident Inspectors Office Hopkins and Sutter 4448 North German Church Road 888 16th Street, N.W.
Byron, Illinois 61010 Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20006 Ms. Lorraine Creek Rt. 1. Box 182 Regional Administrator Hanteno, Illinois 60950 U. S. NRC, Region 111 799 Roosevelt Road, Bldg. f4 Mrs. Phillip B. Johnson Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 1907 Stratford Lane Rockford, Illinois 61107 Ns. Bridget Little Rorem Appleseed Coordinator Douglass Cassel, Esq.
117 North Linden Street 109 N. Dearborn Street Essex, Illinois 60935 Suite 1300 Chicago, 1111nois 60602 Mr. Edward R. Crass fluclear Safeguards and Licensing Ms. Pat Morrison Division 913 N Main Street #707 Sergent & Lundy Engineers Rockford, Illinois 61103-7058 55 East Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60603 David C. Thomas Esq.
77S.WackerDrIve U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Chicago, Illinois 60601 Resident Inspectors Office RRil, Box 79 Braceville, Illinois 60407 Mr. Thomas W. Ortciger, ices Director Illinois Emergency Serv and Disester Agency l
110 East Adams Street L
Springfield, Illinois 62706 l
l t
t
,n e
/
- 4' i Mr. Thones J. Kovach-Byron /Braidwood Connonwealth Edison Company cc
j 1111nois Department of
-Nuclear Safety.
Office of Nuclear Facility safety 1035 Outer Park Drive Springfield, Illinois 62704 Michael Miller Esq.
Sidley and Austin One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60690 l
George L. Edgar i
Newman & Holt:inger, P.C.
I 1615 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 j
i Commonwealth Edison Company
)
Dyron Station Manager J
4450 North German Church Road Byron, Illinois 61010 5
9 l '-
a
?
k i
b P
k I
h
L 3
?
4 ENCLOSURE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON ELIMINATION OF POSTULATED PIPE RUPTURES IN REACTOR COOLANT BYPASS AND ACCUMULATOR PIPING AS A DESIGN BASIS COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY BYRON UNITS 1 AND 2 AND BRAIDWOOD UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET N05. 50-454/455 AND 50-456/457 MATERIAL INTEGRITY SECTION MATERIALS AND CHEMICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH DIVISION OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY By letter dated May 16, 1989, Commonwealth Edison Company (the licensee) submitted a " leak-before-break" (LBB) evaluation of the reactor coolant bypass line, the accumulator line, and the residual heat removal (RHR) line. The licensee proposed to apply LBB methodology to eliminate the dynamic effects of postulated subject pipe.ru9tures from the design basis for Byron Units 1 and 2 and Braidwood Units 1 and 2, as permitted by the revised General Design Criterion 4 (GDC-4) of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50. The licensee submitted the technical basis for its request in Sargent & Lundy Report SL-4518 dated May 12, 1989. The staff has reviewed the licensee's submittal for compliance with the revised GDC-4 We are limiting our review to the reactor coolant bypass line and the accumulator line. The RHR line is excluded from our review pending resolution of NRC Bulletin 88-08, Supplement 3.
We find the following additional information from the licensee necessary before our review can continue.
(1)Thereiscaststainlesssteelintheaccumulatorlinenozzles.
In Section 3 of the submitted report, the licensee discussed the thermal aging effects of cast stainless steel on the material fracture toughness.
The licensee used the data from a specific heat of SA351 CF3 material in the PIFRAC database to bound the properties of SA351 CF8A at the plants.
Although the referenced heat and the plant material appear to have similar ferrite contents, the two materials are of different specifications and have different chemistry contents.
Because(i) specific chemistry affects the thermal aging properties of cast stainless steel and (ii) the referenced data is from a single heat of material, the licensee should justify its assumption that the referenced data is bounding for the plant materiai.
(2) It appears that the pressure loading is neglected in the stability evaluations. The pressure loading must be included in LBB analyses. The l
licensee should modify Tables 4-1 through 4-3 in the submitted report to included the pressure loads. The stability evaluations in Section 7 of L
the submitted report should be revised to include pressure loads.
However, in performing the stability evaluation, it is not necessary to include the torsional moment, that is, "Ma" in Tables 4-1 through 4-3 j
assuming "Ma" is the torsional moment.
I i
s
o
-2*
(3) Verify the critical crack length calculations in Section 7 of the s
submitted report when the margin of 1.4 is applied to the loads.
Staff preliminary calculations indicated a discrepancy in the results.
(4) Confirm that the plant leakage detection systems meet the reconnendation of Regulatory Guide 1.45 such that a leakage of one gallon per minute (gpm) in one hour can be detected.
I