ML20039F173
| ML20039F173 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000561 |
| Issue date: | 04/04/1978 |
| From: | Parr O Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Sihweil I, Benaroya V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML111090060 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-80-515, FOIA-80-555 NUDOCS 8201120115 | |
| Download: ML20039F173 (11) | |
Text
.
i
.,__y uun, w s
?i oct F.W nEGU', i n"7 ':O' Jc.c:;
' 5':HING a.
J y
I Docket rio. STN 50-561 m 04 M i
MLMORAUDUM FOR:
V. Denaraya, Chief, Auxiliary Systems Branch, Division of Systems Safety I. Sihweil, Chief, Structural Engineering Branch, Division of Systems Safety FROM:
O. D. Parr, Chief, Light Water Reactors Branch No. '3, Division of Project Management
SUBJECT:
VESSEL HEAD DROP FOR B&W'S 205 FUEL ASSEMBLY REACTOR VESSEL REFE".EMCES:
- 1) Letter, D. L. Renberger, WPPSS, to 0. D. Parr, MRC, "WPPSS Muclear nrojects Nos. 1 and 4, Response to URC Questions Concerning RCP Cooling, CCWS Redesign, Pipe Break Criteria and Guard Pipes, RV Head Drop Analysis, Five Channel On-Site Power System and RPV Support M
Analysis," dated March 7,1977.
- 2) Memorandum, Docket Nos. 50-460 and 50-513, J: Knight to Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors, dated July 6,1976, " Review of Attachment C Seismic Qualifications of the Polar, Cask Handling and New Fuel Handling Cranes, etc."
A review of the SER input for Erie 1 and 2 has indicated that the subject of a vessel head drop accident has not been addressed.
Erie 1 and 2, as you are aware, references BSAR-205.
In the BSAR-205 Re;) ort to the ACRS we stated that Bini had provided the results of their analysis of the consequences of dropping the reactor vessel head assembly five feet.
This analysis was provided to show that core cnoling capability would be maintained and that unacceptable core damage would be precluded.
The review of that infonnation was deferred.
Consequently in the BSAR-205 Report to the ACRS we stated that until we determine that the consequences of the head drop accident are found to be acceptable, we will impnse an interface requirement upon applicants referencing BSAR-205.
This interface requirement states that the overnead reactor vessel head handling system must be designed ~so that the connected load would not fall in the event of a single failure or malfunction.
f..
r201 20115 810403 PDR FOIA MADDEN 80-515 PDR
k
- v. unneroya
- ?,1 6 4 1978
'. Sihweil.
The B&W analysis referred to above was actually sube.itted on the i
WPPSS 1 & 4 dockets. WPPSS provided responses (Reference 1) to the i!'
staf f's concerns (
Reference:
- 2) and we concluded that for WPPSS 1 & 4, we would defer the staff review until the WPPSS 1 &'4 applications are submitted for operating license review. WPPSS clected to proceed with the design of WPPSS 1 & 4 without incorporating a single-failure i
proof crane.
My concern, and the reason for this memorandum, is that the Erie SER should address the vessel head drop accident.
Further, the Erie applicant'(Ohio Edison) shouldobe required to. address the
- consequences of the reactor vessel head drop or required to commit to a single-failure proof crarie.
If our evaluation of the B&N analysis (WPPSS submittal) was complete the Erie cor.:mitment might not be required. Conversely, if the B&W analysis is unacceptable the WPPSS 1 & 4 design may be proceeding in a questionable direction.
While this issue is primarily the responsibility of ASB (SRP 9.1.4) the information from WPPSS which has not been reviewed are responses to SEB questions.
Please review the status of this matter and' inform us as to when your review will be complete,
&A.b./L Olan 0.~
Parr, Chief Light Water Reactors Branch No. 3 Division of Project Management cc:
D. Vassallo l
J. Knight R. Tedesco K. Kniel T. Cox W. LeFave C. P. Tan H. Silver J
m 3
-w--
r w
--we e,
,-n,
~e-v~
s-w w
-v<
E - 9.r.- C 5 0FaL RET,UCT! TO THE !CC 57 AFT 208th ACRS Mtg. Item 2 The specific question asked by ACRS appears at the bottom on page 44 of the August 11, 1977 transcript. Mr. Bender asked "how many of the outstanding items (on BSAR-205) might apply to Bellefonte and the subsequent plants that have comparable systems", and at the top of page 46, "...we would like to hear from the staff concerning these matters, for other plants."
On pages 50-52 of the transcript, D. Ross addressed Mr. Bender's question in part when he discussed his own statement that "several of,
these issues are in the category of both ACRS generic issues and Staff generic issues and Staff generic issues of either so-called A or B priority."
D. Ross then suggested that the ACRS' wait until their consideration of the Staff's Category A technical activities list to discuss the implementation of the resolution of the issues on similar designs. Thus, Ross' comments dispose of those BSAR-205 open issues which are part of the Staff's Technical Activities list, since implementation required by those activities will be discussed with ACRS at the appropriate time.
For the remaining issues, individual consideration will be given to the need for any back-fitting on applications for which the applicant has been issued a construction permit, or for changes in design on applications for which a construction permit has not been issued. -
I.
I These applications include Bellefonte 1, 2; Greenwood 2, 3; WNP-1, 4;-
and Green County, 1, 2 (consideration of all BSAR-205 issues has already been incorporated into the Green County construction permit review which is still in process).
This latter effort is limited to the following issue numbers as presented to the ACRS at the August 11, 1977 meeting:
4 - Boron Dilution Event 5 - Fuel Surveillance 10 - Failure Mode and Effects Analysis - ESFAS 2 13 - Turbine Trip Analysis - Secondary System Limits 3 - HPI line break 9 - ECCS Analysis 12 - Anticipated Transients - Use of Safety Grade Equipment F
i L
$ L hC50$5~ j
' l.
U I
,s U
$*';'f 1
Issue nurber 6 is overpressure protection.
It l
2l has been responded to by B&W. We have several things to consider' I
3 in this issue. I will just quickly give you an outline of it.
l 4
We are looking at the B&W definition and justification for the 5f wo rs t case overpressure-initiating event.
6!
Secondly, we are looking at function o f the decay q
7! heat removal systems isolation valve at relatively low i
3 temperatures within the reactor coolant system.
i 9
And, third, the definition of the limiting pressure 6
10 l for the B&W reactor pressure vessels as calculated within the i
II constraints o f Appendix G requirements.
j 12 We still expect resolution of this issue within the few weeks, but we are discussing our requiremerts in this 13 next 14 area with P&W now.
l i
Again, we expect to resolve these issues, including 15 16 tha t concerning overpressure protection within the aporoximate i
17 schedule planned for our decision on the issuance or a PDA.
I IS {
I could go on now with the other items in my agenda l
19 l here, or we can s top now and discuss some of the outstanding l
20 !
issues, if you like.
21 CHAIRMAN BENDER: ' Are there questions at this point?
22 I will ask a couple. Firs t, could you respond to the il questienof how many o f these outstanding items might apply 2
24 ! to Bellefonte and the subsequent clants that have comparable l
ste n?
l
' G.
- T i
.,1 MR. COX:
I think I can give you some s tatement on it 2!
Mr. Bender. They will be qualified to some extent in that, I l
3, i
mean the B-SAR-205 --
i 4
CHAIRMAN BENDER:
I know. But the Staff is supposed 5
to know the relationship between the standard plant and existing 6l:
i l
plants. I don't think it is an unreasonable ques tion to ask,
}
I 7!
l MR. COX:
I agree.
The issues you see on the second a!
L.M M 0.w page, that we still are evaluatin or getting more information 9
l from B&W, probably will all be looked at closely in the various 10
- I OL reviews -that come in on the prior plants that have been 11 looked at, the p rio r 205 fuel assembly plants.
IJPfhWC You know, there are Bellefonte and the 144MF plants 13 !
l have at leas t one CP.
14 i l
CHAIRMAN BENDER:
I am concerned a little bit about 15 l l
l the timeliness of that kind of examination. At the OL s tage,
16 !
there is not much you can do about installed equipment.
17 !
In view o f the fact that you are pressing very l
18 l l
l hard to get these requirements established on the standard 19 1 l
plant, it would seem to me there would be an equal interest 20 l I
in getting them resolved with respect to the plants daat are 21 l
under construction, unless they are unimportan.
f 22 MR. COX:
I don't think we would sav they are j
l I
unimpo rtan t. I think we are reviewing them. We will look at 24 i 6
nm. me. l them as they may af fect these other plants in the context of 25 '
.u
1 1
i._;
- 3 necessary, i,
j ll CHAIRMAN BENDER:
I think at some time in the near 3'
future, we would like to hear from the Sta6f concerning these 4l matters, for the other plants.
$l DR. BUSH:
I would like to ask a question with 6'
regard to number 13, Turbine Trip Analysis.
Whereas, I can i
7 understand the requests for an analysis, I am not so sure 3I I understand the significance, because it appears to me that 9
this becomes an interface problem between what Babcock &
Wilcox is responsible for and what the architect-engineer is 11 !
responsible fo r.
12 Can you indicate to me why you consider this as 3
exclusively a B&W problem, essentiallly?
14 l
MR. COX:
Let me state first, before turning it 15 '
i over to someone else, Dr. Bush, we were really looking for B&W i
~
16 to demonstrate that the secondary side prssure limits were 17 I
maintained for turbine trip transietn.
la We consider that their job to do.
19 i DR. BUSH:
I hear you, but we should be sensitive 20 j
to the system layout, to the port location, et cetera, which I 21 '
though historically was not an architect-engineer problem.
22 j
MR. MAZETIS:
The standard format Reg. Guide 170 23 lj requires of each applicant to analyze a specific number of 24 l
~
transients,and accidents of the turbine trip is one of 25 or 25 i
~ ~ ~ ' - ~ ~ -
~ ~ ~
30 events that are mudyzed in this case by Babcock & Wilcox,
> ~~***r
.m V o a, s 0,. -*
m gg y
?
--*-~-..,.n, 3
p? :?:
^~-
l CHAIRMAN SENDER :
?lha t is the report ca te ?
MR. COX:
Around Marcn of '77, early C113 year.
in Chapta r 3 of the r eport to the ACRS f
n I belie ve j
you will find these mentioned.
i CHAIRMAN BENDER:
Maybe the date would sugges t they j
t l
ar e not too curren t.
DR. BUSH:
I looked at 131.
I don't consider that f
i
- l r
re le va nt e ithe r.
132, I can't comment on because I haven't s een it.
l MR. COX :
132 is ac tually ICl 32 proprie tarp.
de r.
l re ceived i t Ma rch 9, 1977.
It is recorded here on page 3-11 i
of the report to t t.e ACR S.
r i
}
What does estimated comple tion date of PROF..< ERR 12-77 mean in the list ?
I s that a typo?
t MR. COX:
Tha t is not a typo.
Baat really is our l
f 1
es tima ted comp le tion date for review of that report, 1
5 CHAIRM AN BENDER :
That is because of the limi te d 1
1 l
re sour ces availaole for review, Bi ll, I assume.
I s that r ight ?
MR. COX:
Tha t could be.
I MR. ROSS:
That's correct.
CHAIRM AN SENDER :
Other que stions ?
If not MR. ROSS:
Mr. Sender, I would like to respond to a comme nt m ade a minute ago about the relationship of some the se out stand (ng 3-3 AR i ssue s for th e other pl an ts.
{
t P
1
~
l I
5:
l he ve ra l of tnese i ssue s are in the category of ooth ACRS 2
ge ne ri c i s sue s and 5ta ff g ener.ic i ssue s of e ithe r so-c alled j
3 A or S priority.
4 Speci fica lly ta lking about environmen tal
~
5 qualification, f ue l survei llance, overpressure, requiremen ts 6
for the shutdown heat removal system, I th in k those are some 7
of the more important ones.
8 dha t we are in the process of doing i s what we sa id.
9 I think Mr. Rusche said we would start last winter 10 in t erms o f priori ti zing issues.
11 On many of these we have come a fair distance, I
12 de veloping action plans that would resolve them and take them 13 of f everybody's list.
f 14 Part of this re solution will include an implementa-15 ti en s ch ed ul e.
16 I f, f or e xample, on overpre ssur e, when we have i
l 17 de veloped wnat we think is the complete solu ti cn, which would 18 ce, say, a branch te chnica l por t tien, we would have to, at 19 th a t time, when we do the la bit of cur work which would be 20 implemen ta ti on, if it is obvious to us tha t plants in the 21 field being built n ud this now in order to build it r ight,
22 then they would ge t an. appropr ia ta letter saying. don't build it
)
23 the way you though t you we r,e, build it thi s new way.
24 If it is something we think can wait until the O' 25 st ag e becaue it is minor or procedural, then that is wha t wi ll
(
l i
- ?
l i
"kl 52 kl 1
happen, but I th in k wn en w e go t hr ough a nd whe n tn e bi 2
Committee goes thr ough the ir consideration of our Ca tegory A i
2 te chni cal acti vi ties, which more or le ss i s on the Commi ttee 's
{
L 4
ge neri c '. st, you might ask the Staf f, or we will volunteer
[
5 how we will presen t the implementa tion of these problems.
6 DR. LAWROSKl I think I noted on the slide sho wn 7
by Mr. Taylor a De cember ' 79 l oadi ng f or Belle font e.
i i
8 MR. TAYLOR:
Ye s.
9 DR. LAWROSKI:
Approximately how f ar comple ted in 10 percentage would you estimate Be ll e f on te is as far as il cons tructi on t oday ?
12 MR. TAY LOR:
37 percent.
13 DR. LAWROSKI:
Th er e is some ti me, but not an awful 14 lot.
15 CHAIRMAN BENDER:
With regard to Dr. La wros ki 's 16 co se r vat ion, i t would appe ar a t least that the Sta fr would be
!7 ao le to say on the basis of the time availaole to do things 18 at Bellefonte cia t there ought to be some order of priority I
19 associated with these things to be sure they could be 20 implemented if necessary.
21 MR. ROSC:
Yes, sir.
Tha t is true.
22 CHAIRMAN SENDER:
ne can't te ll that fr om this. list, 23 but you ought to be able t o.'
24 MR. ROSS:
Yes, sir.
We ha ve to balance our own 25 internal needs to get the thing done right, which take s time,
{
i s >
l 0
!! i a.
~
tL 53 1
i0
.e rsus the need to get it done now so they don't have to weld h(
r something nere tomorrow and cut it and weld it somewnere else
-m
_l j
tomorrow.
This is a dif ficult dilemma, but I think we are
(
n moving with all de libera te speed.
l l
CHAIRMAN BENDER :
The other balance is between l
doing now or not doing it at a ll.
3 That is the con ce rn tha t I ha ve.
d or at l ea st doing it at very great expense to the J
ut ility customer that pays f or all of these things.
1 Let 's go on.
2 MR. COX*
I wanted to next bring up these topical l
I po ts which the agenda indicated your interest in th e 3
r 4
topical re port s.
l 5
I would like to point out the next two pages on l
6 your handout do list the r eports a ssoc ia ted wi th B-SAR -205.
7 As you can see, we have some comments to make on 6
es tima ted comple ti on date, out you do have a number of 9
asterisks there which show we expe c t the next Staf f action in 1
- 0 this process bef ore the end of calendar year '77.
Tha t might be a list of questions.
It might be 22 comple ti on of a re port.
But a t the time this list was prepared l
23 we d idn't have the spe ci fic dates, other than end of calendar 24 year '77.
25 The re a re a couple of typog ra ph ical e rr or s I should
. _ _, _. _