ML20058K266

Submits Clarifications Requested During 931110 Discussions Re Util 931105 Response to IE Bulletin 80-13, Cracking in Core Spray Spargers

ML20058K266
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	12/08/1993
From:	Hunger G PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
IEB-80-13, NUDOCS 9312150043
Download: ML20058K266 (2)

Text

,

IEB 80-13

. PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR GROUP HEADQUARTERS j 955-65 CHESTERBROOK BLVD. I WAYNE, PA 19087-5691 l (215) 640#KO December 8, 1993 Docket No. 50-278 i License No. DPR-56 i STATION SUPPORT DEPARTMENT I

f i

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Center Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3 Information Regarding Core Spray Sparger Cracking

References:

1) Letter from G. A. Hunger, Jr. to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated November 5, 1993, #

2) Letter from G. A. Hunger, Jr. to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 10, 1993 1

Dear Sirs:

The above reference letter 1 was submitted in response to IE ,

Bulletin (IEB) 80-13, " Cracking in Core Spray Spargers," which required, in part, that in the event cracks are identified in the Core Spray Piping, an evaluation be provided to the NRC for j review and approval prior to return to power operation. J Reference letter 2 provided supplemental information regarding l the indicated crack. During discussions on November 10, 1993, i two additional clarifications were requested. The purpose of this letter is to provide those clarifications. These  ;

clarifications do not affect the analyses provided in the reference letters.

r The first clarification regards the ultimate resolution of this issue. The crack evaluation submitted by Philadelphia l Electric Company (PECo) in accordance with IEB 80-13 and I subsequent NRC approval are applicable for only the next _

operating cycle. An ultimate resolution of this issue will be determined prior to returning to operation from the next refueling outage. PECo cannot commit to a specific solution at this time; however, all options, including clamping, will be considered. If a more in-depth volumetric analysis of the crack indication determines that our existing analysis is overly 1 conservative, another evaluation may be performed to justify long l term operation without physical repair. This evaluation would be  ;

submitted to the NRC in accordance with IEB 80-13.

9312150043 931208 e PDR ADOCK 05000278 6 0 pog gj \

1

I U. S. Nuclonr Regulatory Commission December 8, 1993 .

Information Regarding Core Spray Page 2 !

+

,- Sparger Cracking '

. The second clarification regards the analysis provided in i reference letter 2. In specific, the pipe whip resulting from j the assumed sheared off core spray pipe was not fully documented.  :

At the time of reference letter 2, a qualitative assessment based on the low pressure of the Core Spray pumps and the thin wall of l the pipe in comparison to the reactor vessel was performed. This analysis concluded that there were no adverse effects caused by the pipe whip. Further analysis has been performed which has l confirmed our initial qualitative assessment. Based on size, pressure, and temperature of the Core Spray Header (a low energy .

line) the impact of pipe whip and jet impingement on the Reactor j Pressure vessel and surrounding components is considered  !

negligible. l Thank you for your support on this issue and if you have any i additional questions please feel free to contact us. ,

ht 0. N' G. A. Hunger, Jr. , Director,  ;

Licensing Section i cc: T. T. Martin, Administrator, Region I, USNRC  ;

W. L. Schmidt, Senior Resident Inspector, PBAPS W. P. Dornsife, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania l l

l i

.