ML20054H779

Forwards Supplemental List of Questions on Steam Generator Design.Conference W/Applicant on Design Suggested

ML20054H779
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	06/22/1982
From:	Bosnak R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Morris B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20049H240	List: ML20054H334 ML20054H337 ML20054H779 ML20055B281 ML20055B284 ML20055B286 ML20055B288 ML20055B290 ML20055B291 ML20055B292 ML20055B293 ML20055B294
References
FOIA-82-272 NUDOCS 8206240423
Download: ML20054H779 (2)

Text

.

3arcoq' e "q; UNITFD STATES j g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 yp WASHING TON, D. C. 20555

% / -

BN JUN 2 21982 MEMORANDUM FOR: B. M. Morris, Section Leader Technical. Review Section Clinch River Breeder Reactor Program Office FROM: R. J. Bosnak, Chief Mechanical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering

SUBJECT:

SUPPLEMENTAL LIST OF MEB QUESTIONS ON CRBR STEAM GENERATOR DESIGN (50-537)

Plant Name: Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Suppliers: Project Management Corporation (PMC)

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

Responsible Office & Project Manager: CRBRP: R. Stark Licensing Stage: CP Requested Completion Date: Open Description of Response: Questions Review Status: Awaiting Information The Mechanical Engineering Branch, Division of Engineering, has prepared a supplemental list of questions, which reflects our concern and our consultants concern relative to the design of steam generators. A conference with the applicant on the subject at the earliest possible date is suggested.

R. J . osnak, Chief Mechanical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering

Attachment:

As stated cc: R. Vollmer 'C'. Thomas'.j J. Knight H. Holtz E. Sullivan R. Becker P. Check R. Stark T. Burr W. O'Donnell, SMC

Contact:

S. Hou, DE:MEB, x28438 3

eg 90 b >qpW?

L

.I k f b

1 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH, DE _

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CRBR STEAM GENERATOR DESIGN

1. The present steam generator /superheater design differs from the.t shown in the PSAR.

(a) Explain the changes and the reasons for them.

(b) Explain in some detail, the impact of the above changes upon the safety of the steam generator /superheater system.

(c) Explain the elevated temperature design and analysis used to

-establish the integrity of the present design.

2. Test descriptions in the PSAR are contained in amendments variously dated from 1977 to 1981. Provide an updating of steam generator test plans and the reasons why you believe modeling and testing to be adequate.

3. Provide additional information on the new evaporator /superheater design in the follcwing areas:

(a) Detail the tube /tubesheet weld area.

(b) Are the tube walls and tubesheets of a single or duplex design? ~

(c) How will the design accommodate stresses arising from temperature differences throughout the module, expecially between the tubes and the shell?

(d) Will routing the sodium throu:'. the shell side of the module alleviate the corrosion problems experienced with LWR steam generators? Are there any corrosion problems not seen in LWR generators anticipated from using sodium as a heat transfer fluid?

(e) A gross failure of a tube away from the module centerline could gener atre severe asymmetric loads. Will this be considered in the design and analysis?

.ua,  ;;au.,awaa u. s . u :w.swuu. wsx::sa,nns.;au awax;uu. _ awn am