ML20054H850

Forwards Equipment Qualification Branch Request for Addl Info Re TMI Action Plan Item II.D.1 to Justify Util 811019 Conclusion That Operational Adequacy of Safety Relief Valves & Associated Piping Has Been Demonstrated by Generic Tests

ML20054H850
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	05/27/1982
From:	Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Tauber H DETROIT EDISON CO.
References
TASK-2.D.1, TASK-TM NUDOCS 8206250076
Download: ML20054H850 (4)

Text

!

i DIST:

Dodbment Controli (50-341)j ,~'

'~NRC~PDR^

• • L PDR NSIC TERA 4

ACRS (16) 2I E LB#1 Rdg.

Docket No.: 50-341 MRushbrook

' LKintner Attorney, OELD Mr. Harry Tauber 0IE Vice President ZRosztoczy Engineering & Construction G8agchi Detroit Edison Company RWright 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226

Subject:

Operability of Safety Relief Valves for Fermi 2 One of the open items in the Fermi 2 Safety Evaluation Report (Section 22.2, Item II.D.1) is confirmation of the operability of safety relief valves under accident conditions.

The NRC staff and consultants have reviewed the final test results submitted by the BWR Owners Group in Report No. NEDE-24988-P " Analysis of Generic BWR

! Safety Relief Valve Operability Test Results." The staff has also reviewed your letter dated October 19, 1981 that provided the results of your review of the applicability of the generic test results to the Fermi 2 safety relief valves and associated discharge piping. We find that the additional informa-

, tion identified in the enclosure is needed to justify your conclusion that operational adequacy of the Fermi 2 safety relief valves and associated piping and supports has been demonstrated by the generic tests.

Please amend your application to provide the additional ~ information identified in the enclosure. Our review schedule is based on the assumption that the additional information will be available for our review by June 30, 1982. If you wish clarification of the requests or if you cannot meet this date, please telephone the Licensing Project Manager, L. Kintner, within 7 days after receipt of this letter.

Sincerely, OFifi&G'tWe'd by:

B. J. Youngblood B. J. Youngblood, Chief s206250076 820527 Licensing Branch No.1 PDR ADDCK 05000341 Division of Licensing A PDR

Enclosure:

Request for Additional Information cc w/ encl.: See n g page orncr> Dh;(B#,1 DLJ EQB ,

BJ).. /

9Ed)M,:ht ZR SURNAME ) L 5yyKigyn,tne.r./.l.g

- .... . . . g .,. o.c. .z. y.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

oare y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . /.g .. . . .. . . .

NRC FORM M OO-80) NRCM 0ao OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usom mygwem

Mr.. Harry Tauber Vice President Engineering & Construction Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigaa 48226

• cc: Mr. Harry H. Voigt, Esq.

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae ..

1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 Peter A. Marquardt, Esq.

Co-Counsel The Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue ' *

. Detroit, Michigan 48226 .

Mr. William J. Fahrner -

Project Manager - Fermi 2 The Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Mr. Larry E. Schuerman Detroit Edison Company 3331 West Big Beaver Road Troy, Michigan 48084 David E. Howell, Esq.

3239 Woodward Avenue Berkley, Michigan 48072

~

Mr. Bruce Little . -

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspector's Office 6450 W. Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 Dr. Wayne Jens Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 -

Mr. James G. Keppler ,

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 4

Enclosure Request for Additional Information by the Equipment Qualification Branch TMI Action Plan II.D.1 Your October 19, 1981 letter does not provide the basis for your conclusion that the test results presented in NEDE-24988-P on safety / relief valve testing are applicable to Fermi 2 valves. Describe the basis thoroughly, as indicated bel ow.

1. The test program utilized a " rams head" discharge pipe con-figuration. Fermi 2 utilizes a " tee" quencher configuration at the end of the discharge line. Describe the discharge pipe configuration used at Fermi 2 and compare the anticipated loads on valve internals in the Fermi 2 configuration to the

, measured loads in the test program. Discuss the impact of I

any differences in loads on valve operability?

2. The test configuration utilized no spring hangers as pipe suppo rts. Plant specific configurations do use spring hangers in conjunction with snubber and rigid supports. Describe the safety relief valve pipe supports used at Fermi 2 and compare the anticipated loads on valve internals for the Fermi 2 pipe supports to the measured loads in the test program. Describe the impact of any differences in loads on valve operability?

3. Report NEDE-24988-P did not identify any valve functional deficiencies or anomalies encountered during the test program.

Describe the impact on valve safety function of any valve functional deficiencies or anomalies encountered during the program.

4. The purpose of the test program was to determine valve performance under conditions anticipated to be encountered in the plants. Describe the events and anticipated conditions at Fermi 2 for which the valves are required to operate and compare these plant conditions to the conditions in the test program. Describe the plant features assumed in the event evaluations used to scope the test program and compare them to plant features at Fermi 2. For example, describe high

level trips to prevent water from entering the steam lines under high pressure operating conditions as assumed in the test event and compare them to trips used at Fermi 2.

5'nclosure (cont'd) 5. The valves are likely to be extensively cycled in a controlled depressurization mode in a plant specific application. Was this mode simulated in the test program? What is the effect of this valve cycling on valve performance and probability of the valve to fail open or to fail closed?

6. Describe how the values of valve Cy's in report NEDE-24988-P will be used at Fermi 2. Show that the methodology used in the test program to determine the valve Cy will be consistent with the application at Fermi 2.

s