ML20062K140
| ML20062K140 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1980 |
| From: | Kane W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012020095 | |
| Download: ML20062K140 (24) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
b
- pa sto 8 \\ >"s, c %i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UN!TED STATES t
g /*S ^ %/. C WASHINGTON, D. C. 205S5 g
,/
9.
G8 A
fiOV 2 01580 1!
wB z2 EM Docket No. 50-382 to,
- S o
."j m'
pe 5
w4
~f E
55 oo "E
5 APPLICANT: Louisiara Power & Lignt Company to FACILITY:
Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF SEPTEMBER 3 THRU OCTOBER 3,1980 MEETING REGARDING MECHANICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH REVIEW General During the period September 30 thru October 3,1980, the staff and its consultants met with representatives of the applicant to discuss open items in the Mechanical Engineering Branch review. The meeting was held at the Ebasco offices in New York Sity, New York. A list of those persons who attended the meeting is included as an attachment.
Purcose The purpose of the meeting was to resolve the open items from our review of the FSAR in order to develop an initial draft of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER).
Discussion The meeting agenda centered around a list of questions and open items the staff and its consultants had concerning the latest version of the FSAR (up to Amendment 8).
In addition, some new items of concern that are now part of MEB's scope. of work due to the reorganization of the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation were introduced to the applicant.
Many of the staff's concerns were resolved by the applicant during the
" question and. answer" session. Although many items were resolved, several items were left open for fut::re resolution, and other items will be further elaborated in the subsequent FSAR amendment.
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS P00R QUAUTY PAGES
- ff R
. NOV 2 019%
Attachmant 1, " Status Summary Table", gives a su;nmary of the open items discussed at the meeting and the resolution of Items I thru 49 and 72 thru 79. summarizes the resolutions of Items 50 thru 71.
W. F. Kane, Project Manager Licensing Branch flo. 2 Division of Licensing Attachments:
As stated cc w/ attachments:
See next page
Mr. D. L. Aswell Vice President, Power Production Louisiana Power & Light Company 142 Delaronde Street NOV 2 01980 New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 c--
W. Malcolm Stevenson, Esq.
Monroe & Lemann 1424 Whitney Building New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Mr. E. Blake Shaw, Pittman, Po :ts and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Mr. D. B. Lester Production Engineer Louisiana Power & Light Company 142 Delaronde Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 Lyman L. Jones, Jr., Esq.
Gillespie & Jones 910 Security Mcmestead Building 4?00 Veterans Memorial Boulevard Metairie, Louisiana 70002 Luke Fontana, Esq.
Gillespie & Jones 824 Esplanade Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70116 Stephen M. Irving, Esq.
One American Place, Suite 1601 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825 Resident Inspector /Waterford NPS P. O. Box 822 Killona, Louisiana 70666
bi Atub bulu1AMI 1 AllLE 1 o[ 7 ATTACilMDIT 1 Item Renolution itinutes Commitment Number Comment page page date 1, 4 Commitment is satisfactory.
1, 2, 3 6
Dec. '80 2
Commitment is satisfactory.
4, 5 7
Nov. '80 2A Commitment is satisfactory.
8 Nov. '80 3
(a) Need a commitment date - inclusion of Tables 3.6CC and 6-31 9
7 3. 6 1111.
e l
(b) ASME BPVC,Section III, Subsection NC, Par. NC-3600 does not I
give either rules or limits for welded pipe attachments such as lugs or trunions.
(This was the motivation for the l
question.) The samples in the Resolutious suggest what limits were used, but nothing specific is given. Please expand the FSAR, as appropriate, to describe the loading combinations and stress limits used in your evaluations of lugs and trunions.
5 The text shown under " Resolution" should he added to the FSAR atl an 32, 33 10 7
l appropriate place. The phrase "in the order of the above questions" may require more text in the FSAR. A commitment date is needed.
6 Commitment is satisfactory.
34 11 Nov. '80 7
The question arose in connection with the FSAR text, 3.6.2.3.4.
35 11 7
The text in the Resolution should he added and/or the existing
. text modified. A commitment date is needed.
I i
8 Commitment is satisfactory (FSAR text addition of Henolutions 36 11
?
plus Items 3 and 4 of Hinutes). A commitment date is-needed.
9 The additional information contained in the Resolutionn plua 37-53 12 7
commitments in Minutes is satisfactory.
Perhaps thJs should be j
included as an Appendix to 3.6.
A commitment date is needed.
10 Resolution is satisfactory. Presumably part of Amendment 12.
54-56 13 11 Commitment is satisfactory.
57 13 Nov. '80 12 Commitment (handed out at 12:00 noon on 10/3/80) is satisfactory.
14
?
(a) There in an error in SiloCK reference, nhould be 3.9.1.2.2.2.5.
e
2 of 7 Item Resolution Minutes Co mmi tmen t!
Number Comment page page date e n
,I 12 (b) The commitment is understood to include the last i
sentence of the request, "The applicant nhoi:1d include all computer proRram used in his analysin in the lint under 3.9.1.2".
(c) A commitment date is needed.
.l' 13 Resolution la satisfactory. Will this be part of Amendment 127 58, 59 15 7
il' 14 Commitment is satisfactory. A commitment date is needed.
60-62 16 7
1 15 Commitment is natisfactory.
63 17 Dec. '80 16 The Resolution wording (par. 2) is not clear or correct. An 63 17 Dec. '80
]
acceptable criteria is:
I I
" Stress amplitudes due to vibration will be considered
}
acceptable if they do not exceed 50% of Sa at 106 cycles as shown in Figures I-9 of the ASHE B&PV Code,Section III, 1971 edition up to and including the Winter 1972 addenda."
t ll llowever, this criteria in intended to apply to vibrations h]y 7
which accumulate to a large number of cycles; e.g., 10 or more.
The criteria may be too conservative for transient vibrations.
The applicant may wish to submit less restrictive criteria for
,)
such vibrations.
17 ASYMMETRIC LOADS (Also Items 21 and 41) 18
!l The portion of the PSAR being prepared by R. C. Iotti (Ebasco) l will be reviewed when recoived.
p 18 See " Discussion of Items 18, 20, 43, 44, and 47".
64 19 i
1.3 19 Commitment is natisfactory, provided Section 3.6A is nppropriately 68 20
?
l
!.)
expanded to include a discussion of the effect of pipe break londr on components (e.g., valves) that are required for safe shut down
.j after the pipe break.
O.
A commitment date is needed.
(See also Item 24) f J'
3 of 7 l'
Item Resolution Hinutes Commitment Number Comment page page date 20 See " Discussion of Items 18, 20, 43, 44, and 47" 69, 70 21 i
21 See Item 17 " Asymmetric Loads" 18 22 Response is satisfactory. Please indicate Amendment number 71-79 22
?
f or these revisions.
{f 23 Resolution is satisfactory. Presumably this is included in 80-81 22 Amendment 12.
t.
4 24 This item arose in connection with the FSAR 3.9.3.2 words:
82 19
?
"The operability of active componentn during and after exposure to design basin events is nasured by the following:"
The words " design basis events" alno appears in 3.9.3.2 a).
~
llowever, Appendices 3.9A, 3.9n, and 3.9C are restricted to seismic londfego. Our basic quest Jon is: Did you consider pipe break.lcads on components? The indicated renponse under Item 19 is:
Yes.
Further, Section 3.6A is to be expanded to l
indicate how they were considered.
Reference in the FSAR 3.9.3.2 to Section 3.6A seems necessary.
l The ' Minutes do not refer to the Resolution, hence just what is going into the FSAR, and where, is not clear.
I The commitment date la needed.
4 25 Resolution is satisfactory. Presumably this is part of 83, 84 22 Amendment 12.
]
26 It is not apparent whether the resolution text is intended to 85, 86 23 7
' l1 supplement or replace the existing text under FSAR 3.9.3.1.1.
4 8]
(a) What is meant by "the code"?
,l (b) Where are the data on the "horic acid pumps"7 it (c) Did the charging pumps operate natisfactorily during and/or after the test?
J'
i 4 of 7 i
I i
Item Resolution Minutes Commitment i
Number Comment page page date 26 (d) Do the equations for allowable pipe loada appin to each nozzle? Please in;licate the size and schedule of the pipe attached to each nozzle.
j (f) Please define what is acant by " low strennes".
General: Please indicate ASME Code Clans for eAch pump.
, I A commitment date is needed.
1 27 Commitment is generally satisfactory.
87-89 24 Dec. '80 l
With renpect to (b), cross reference to 3.6A would be
{
appropriate.
l With respect to (e), change " maximum allowable londs" to
" maximum nozzle loads" and provide that data.
With respect to (f), address operability of pumpo during and after exposure to design basis events.
(See FSAR wording under 3.9.3.2)
The applicant may choose to define what is meant by " design basis events".
28 The Resolution / Minutes are incomplete and, in part, 90 25 7
contradictory (compare Resolution (d) with liinutes 4).
t.
A commitment dated for a complete resolution is needed.,
i' 29 (a)
Commitment is satisfactory.91-100 26 Dec. '80
,]
(b)
Response is not clear. What le the Intended definitlon of " mechanical loads" to distinguish it from " design basis events"?
(See also Items 19 and 24.)
30 It is not apparent what will be added to the FSAR, or 101 27 7
where.
Clarification by the applicant is needed.
31 Resolutio# Commitment is satisfactory.
102 28 Dec. '80 j
32, 35 Resolution is satisfactory..'
107-105 29 7
e I
J'
l' i '.
5 of 7 e
Item Resolution Minuten Commitment HunJier Comment page page date J
l 33 Resolution is satisfactory. Obviously, the text will have 103 30 7,
to be changed a bit to make sense in the FSAR.
A commitment date is needed.
34 The first paragraph of the Minutes is entisfactory text.
104 31 7
llowever, it should go in the FSAR; presumably in place of the present 3.9.3.3 a) 5).
The second paragraph of the Hintues is an acceptable commitment.
s i
A commitment date is needed.
36 Commitment is satisfactory, provided the FSAR in revised 108 32 7
accordingly.
i A commitment date is needed.
37 Commitment is satisfactory.
109 33 7
1 A commitment date is needed.
i 38 Proposed resolution is satisfactory.
110, 111 34 7
A commitment date is needed.
g I
39 The resolution is satisfactory provided:
112 35 7
I i
(a) the text of the Resolution /Hinutes is incorporated in the FSAR; e.g., on p. 3.9-48 8
(b) the " reference papera" do show it is conservative to l,
follow the Ebasco method.
i A commitment date is needed.
40 Commitment is satisfactory.
113, 114 36 7
A commitment date is needed.
i i
41 See Item 17 (Asymmetric Loads)
J
i 6 of 7 i
Item Resolution flinutes Commitment Number Comment page pnRe date 42 This item is not in the Resolutions or Minutes.
It reads:
7 "Were postulated pipe break loads evaluated for NSSS Code Clans 2 and 3 component supports."
.See the analogous Item 19.
43 See " Discussion of Items 18, 20, 43, 44, and 47".
115-117 37 7
44 See " Discussion of Items 18, 20, 43, 44, and 47" 118 38 7
45 Commitment is satisfactory.
119 39 Dec. '80 46 Commitment is natisfcctory.
120 40 Dec. '80 47 See " Discussion of Items 18, 20, 43, 44, and 47".
121-123 41 7
48 The Minutes are not correct.
12 42 7
Resolution of Items (18, 20, 43, 44, and 47) and Items (45, 46) will cover this Item.
49 The request was incomplete. The Minutes partially reflect the 125 43 omitted portion of the required; i.e.,
provide the information i
requested in NRC question 110.3 for mechanical anubhers. The commitment made in the Minutes is natisfactory.
The responne to the second sentence of the item la not_
antisfactory. The applicant's response to NRC I&E ilulletin 79-02, " Pipe Support Base Plate Design Using Concrete Expansion Anchor Bolts" may be applicable to this item.
72 Commitment is satisfactory.
- (Cae year prior to fuel loading 126 44 date).
73-77 (Seismic Analysis Methods for Piping Systems) 127-133 45, 46 See " Discussion of Items 73, 74, 75, 76, and 77" 78 Commitment made in Minutes is satisfactory.
134 47 7
Commitment date is needed.
s 7 of 7 Item Resolution Minutes Cornm i t men t Number Conwnent page pnRe drit e i
' l' 79 The floor response spectra shown in Figures AA,1111, and CC 135-138 48 7
of the Resolution are appropriate and should he included in the FSAR. The aspects mentioned in the Minutes should be included, as appropriate, in revisions to FSAR 3.7.3.1.1 and/or 3.7.3.5.
f j
A commitment date, for this Item along with Items 73-77, is q
needed.
ti
!l t
l i
e f
I J'
.s'
.'i I
l'
!j; e
L _ _______ _ ___________ - _ ___ - __ __ _
DISCUSSIONS OF IIEMS 18, 20. 43, 44 and 47 These five items all relate to the see=ing lack of clarity and/or cocpleteness of TSAR 3.9.3.1, " Loading Co=binations, Des'ign Tra,nsients and Stress Limits".
Part of the Iack of clarity appears to ste: fro = the intanded definition of two ter=s:
(1) Cc=ponents.
In nest of the FSAR text, th e t e r=
see=s to include vessels, valves and pt=ps.
So=etines it see=s to include piping. In ASME Code ter=inology, a piping system is a co=ponent.
(2) Valve s.
Does this ter= include Safety Relief Valves (SEV's)?
During the meeting with the applicant (9-30, 10-1, 2, 3; New Fork) it was anticipated that the applicant would clearly resolve Items 18, 20, 43, 44 and 47.
Sovever, as the =eeting progresses, the uncertainties I
concerning FSAR 3.9.3.1 seemed t ' increase rather than decrease.
Accordingly, to assure h'RC that the FSA!.* coverage is co=plete, we have prepared the attached " check list" which he request the applicant to co=plete.
Two such tables will presu= ably b,e needed; one representing NSSS, the other non-NSSS.
There =ay be portions of both tables where a= appropriate response would be "not applicable".\\ in the following, we' discuss so=e aspects of co=pleting the check list.
3.9.3:1.1.1 NSSS ASME Code Class 1 Supports The first sentence references 3.9.1.1 for design transients. On page 3.9-2, we find the sentences:
" Table 3.9-1 su==arizes the transients used in the stress analysis of Code Class 1 components. Additional specific co=ponent transients for the reactor coolant pc=ps, steam generators, reactor coolant pipi=g, and the pressurizer are provided in Subsections 5.4.1, 5. 4. 2, 5. 4. 3, and 5.4.10 respectively.'1 i
We note that the first sentence is correct and complete only if " components" I
does not include piping because 3.9.1.1.1 also covers Class 1 piping using i
transients in Table 3.9.3, not Table 3.9.1.
\\-
h l
I s
4 i
/
..... - -- 3 _
7
f
,f-r 2
i The third paragraph from the bottom on page 3.9-2 contains the key" word we are looking for: supports.
l t
" Pressure and ther=al str'ess variations associated with the above design transients are considered in the design of supports, valves, and piping within the reactor I
coolant pressure boundary (RCF3)."
E
';e observe that the wording suggests that neither valves or piping are cor.sidered to be "co=ponents".
Ecwever we interpret the intent of the FSAR to be:
" Design transients used for evaluatico of supports of all Class 1 equip ent, except non-NSSS Safety Class 1
/
piping, are given by Table 3.9.1 plus the additiona.1 specific component transients provided in 5.4.1, 5,4.2, 5.4.3, and 5.4.10."
This response, if correct and co:plete, would satisfactorily complete the portion of the NSSS check list under " Design Transients", supports for vessels, valves, pu=ps, piping, SRV's.
The second sentence references 5.4.14 for loading combinatiens i
and stress li=its.
This reference does give appropriate loading co=bi-natiens and stress licits but appears to be litticed to supports for i
the reactor vessel, steam generators, reactor coolant pu=ps and pressur-izer.
If this is co=plete fer NSSS Class 1 supports, the response under 4
"Icading coebinations" and " stress limits", supports for vessels and pu=ps would si= ply be "see 5.14.14".
3.9.3.1.1.2 NSSS ASME Code Class 1 Co ponents.
The first sentence uses the words " components and piping";
implying that the term " component" does not include piping.
If the appli-cant chooses to define conponents as not including piping and if the intent is that 3.9.3.1.1.2 cover piping, then the heading should include J
"and Piping".
The major problem with the paragraph is the words "other than valves", and whether valves includes SRV's (Items 18 and 20).
'th ese aspects were discussed at the meeting and the intent of the resolutions appeared satisfactory.
i 3.9.3.1.1.4 NSf Q ?ME Code-Class 2 and 3 Components and Supports i
The lead-in sentence says "and valves".but the referenced Table i
' ~
3.9.5 says "other than valves". Presumably the lead-in sentence applies to the following three subparagraphs and defines loading cotabination for vessels and pumps.
'i l
1
[3, r
p 6,
'" /
l l
l l
T. y, -
b
,j 7
3 3.9.3.1.1.4.1 addresses stress li=its for supports but not for the vessels the=selves.
3.9.3.1.1.4.2, NSSS valves, is not covered with respect to either loading conbinations or stress li=1ts.
If, in fact, the only loading condition considered was =axi=u: operating pressure and if the
" stress 11=it" vas si= ply that the operating pressure does not exceed the E16.5-1968 rated pressure; soee addition to the FSAR text should be made, explaining why this is deemed adequate.
3.9.3.1.1.4.3 satisfactorily addresses stress limits if, in fact, there are no NSSS Class 3 pu=ps.
We note that loading co=binations are addressed by the sentence:
" Concurrent loads include the dead weight (nor=al f:.uid level) and cczzle loadings". How does this relate to the lead-in sentence of 3.9.3.1.1.4 which i= plies that Table 3.9-5 defines leading conbinations. We are pu:: led by the last portion of 3. 9. 3.1.1. 4. 3 listing design ther=al transients.
There is no indicatien of how stresses due to these transients were combined,vith stresses due to other loads or limits on the stresses. However, because the ASME Code does not require evaluation of thermal gradient stresses for Class 2/3 ce=ponents, a response to our pu::le=ent is not needed.
Table 3.9-5 is essentially acceptable for defining loading combinations. However, in connection with Table 3.9-7, we raised the question of j us t what was meant by "DV", "DE, and "DF".
Table 3.9-6 appears to be acceptable; except possibly for the
" faulted" condition. We request the applicant, in co=pleting the check list, to identify exactly where in paragraph 3.9.1.4 the equipment and their supports are covered with respect to faulted condition stress li=its.
3.9.3.1.2 Leading Co=binatiens, Design Transients, and Stress Limits for Non-NSSS Co=ponents and Supports The first paragraph (Class 1) raises the questions:
(1) What is included in the term "ce:ponent"! If it includes piping, the coverage (Tables 3.9.5 and 3.9.6) and 3.9.1.1 is suf ficient.
(2) Where are loading co=binations and stress li=1ts for valves?
(3)
Does " Valves" include SRV's? If not, where are they covered?
The second paragraph covers Class 2/3. With the change in the title of Table 3.9.7 at the meeting to " Class 2 and 3 Piping", this e
discussion becones si=pler.
It appears that loading co=binations and stress li=its are not provided for pu=ps, valves, SRV's, vessels (if there are any non-NSSS) or supports for any equip =ent.
, _ m :. y
+:-..
. - _.. ~... _...
........,.. -.. ~.
4 4
i
'l Table 3.9-7 was discussed at the meeting and several changes were agreed to.
The copy in the Resolutions does not fully represect
{
the agree:ects but we presume they will be,imple=enced (see Item. 43).
f u
e*
s I
3.9.3.4 Cocoonent Supports This does not appear to add acything 'to the subject of " Loading Co bications, Design Transients and Stress Litits" for compocent supports.
4
.i e
I I
b t
i i
4 i
4 y
i l
t i
l
~..
CHECK LIST FOR COMPLETENESS OF WATER 70RD-3 FSAR WITd RE.SP2CT TO 3.9.3.1, " LOADING Co.GINATIONS, DESIGN TRANSIEN S AND STRESS LIMITS" 7
y Class 1 l
Class 2/3 I,cading Design Stress Loading Stress Et;uipment Combina:icas Trsosients Limits Combinations Limits Vessels i
Valves Pucps i
Piping SRV's
[
Supports for:
Vessels I
)
valves Pu=ps W
Piping SRV's t
t i
6 1
-+
DISCUSSIONS OF IIEMS 73, 74, 75, 76 and 77
~..
The question in the ite=s can be briefly su==arized as: What seis=le analysis method did you use for each Seis=ic Class' I piping syste=?
From the discussions of the neeting, it appeared that the FSA7.
Methods included:
1.
Methods described in 3.7.3.1.2, II.
The modal response spectrus =ethod described in (pp 3. 7-15 through 3.7-19) 3.7.3.1.1 of the FSAR, III. An untitled method descsibed by the third from the bottom paragraph (p. 3.7-14) in 3.7.3.1.1 of the FSAR.
It is not clear whether the last two para-graphs on page 3.7-14 are describing this " Untitled Me tho d".
If they are, then at least at one point the method is identified as a " simplified dyna =ic analysis",
IV.
Method described in 3.7.3.5.1 "Use of Si=plified Dyna =1 Analysis (Chart Method)",
V.
Appropriate cax1=u: spas length cethod.
During the =eeting, we were informed that the "approxi= ate maxi =u= span length" method was not used for Waterford-3.
The questions, requests, and co==ents we have new as given in the following.
(1)
Insert A (Item 73 of the Resolutions)' lists three piping systems under the heading " Class 1".
Why is the surge line not included in thda list?
(2) What are the major differences (if any) between Method I and Method II; es applied to piping systems?
(3)
Insert A (Item 73 of the Resolutions) lists " chemical and volume control" and " safety inj ection" under both Class 1 and Class 2/3. How are these syste=s physically separated so that you can evaluate the Class I portion by Method I; the Class 2/3 portion by Method II?
(4)
Please indicate preef sely what portions of the FSAR describe Method III.
EWW
2 (5) 3.7.3.5 is headed "Use of Equivalent Static Load Pkthod of Analysis".
The sentence indicates that something is going to be presented in 3.7.3.5.1.
What is supposed to be in 3.7.3.5.2?
(6) 3.7.3.5.1 is headed "Use of Sieplified Dyna =le Analysis (Chart Method)", 3.7.3.5.2 is headed "Significant Dynamic Response Modes". The first sentence under 3.7.3.5.2 starts with:
"To justify the si=plified dynamic analysis procedures for piping...".
Noting that "si:plified dyna =ic anal-ysis" is precisely the words used in the heading of 3.7 /3.5.1, is 3.7.3.5.2 presented as a justifi-cation for the " Chart Method", Method IV?
(7)
J. Damitz provided to E. Rodabaugh a co=puter output which apparently is a ce=parison between Methods II and III for the particular piping system shown in FSAR Figure 3.7-29.
This indicates that 3.7.3.5.2 is, in fact, establishing a justifi-cation for Method III (not Method IV, despite the identical descriptive phrase).
(8)
A copy of a proprietary docu=ent that purportedly describes the " Chart Method" (Method IV) in sufficient detail for NRC evaluation was loaned to E. Rodabaugh.
This document vill be reviewed and the applicant vill be notified if further response on this aspect is needed.
(9)
Com=ents on Insert A (Item 73 of the Resolutions)
(b) seemingly should be divided into Method II and Method III. Also, the reference to FSAR 3.7.3.1.1 is meaningless; it is part of FSAR 3.7.3.1.1.
(c) needs editorial revision for clarity.
(d) seemingly will be incomprehensible to future readers of the FSAR.
l The list under " Class 2 and 3" should indicate which method was used; e.g., Method II or Method III.
(10)
Comments on Minutes, Item 73 1)
It is apparent from the preceding co=ments that we have found FSAR 3.7.3.1.1 and 3.7.3.5 difficult to understand.
L'e strongly recom-mend that these sections be throughly reviewed and rewritten ()erhaps combined) so that a clear description of seismic analysis methods, and piping systems they were used for, is presented in the revised FSAR.
^
.[
i _.
1
3 2)
A coc=it=ent date is needed.
- 3) Agree.
4)
Satisfactory.
Scratch cot =ent (9) (c).
5)
Excellent.
6)
Sa:ple run was provided to D. Terao and is being reviewed.
The applicant will be notified if further response on this aspect. (of fset weights) is needed.
7)
This was not acco=plished at the eeting.
8)
This is desirable in principle but we are not sure that the Minutes are correct in detail. See comment 1).
9)
See co==ent 1).
10)
See co==ent 1).
(11)
Coc=ents on Minutes, Item 74
%*e agree that resolution of Item 73 will provide an acceptable response to Item 74 (12)
Cot =ents on Minutes, Item 75 Our speculation is that both the Minutes and our request are incorrect. Apparently the FSAR does not attempt to justify the " Chart Method".
See cec =ents (6), (7) and (8).
(13)
Coc=ents on Minutes, Ire =s 76 and 77 Agree.
e t
l
._ _ _ _. _.. ~ _, -
-e.
)
W. R. G A L L, P.E.
t ryones
- n. Lun u tant P.O Ba 334 ATTACHMENT 2 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 (615) 482-4875 October 17, 1980 Mr. S. E. Mocre, Buildi 5 9204-1, Mail Stop 11, Unicn Carbide Corporation,
- p. O. Sex Y, Oak Ridge, Tenn. 37830.
Subject:
Waterford-3 SIR, Items 50-71
Dear San:
Following is a sun:.ary of my' notes during the discussions with repre-sentatives of L.p.&L., C-E, and Sbasco conceming Cpen Itens 50 through 71.
Item 50. In response to this item, the applicant proposed to revise the FSAR to say that the adequacy of, design of the non-pressure,
boundary parts of the CEDM has been verified by prototype accelerated life testing, so that stress intensities in those pa$ts do not have to meet ASMF Ccde limite.
We were shown a tabulation of calculated and allowable stresses for the pressure retaining parts, but we were not permitted to keep that information since it is proprietary. As I rene=ber, an allewable stress level of 99,900 psi was shown for the motor housing. Se basis for this e
value was not explained. We have asked by a hand-written ncte that the tabulation te provided to us for further review.
Various argu ents were 6 ven for not supplying further 1.fc=ation 1
on calculated stresses and desi n limits. With re53rd to Ccde itens 6
they insisted that a simple statement that the design ec= plies with the Code is adequate. I contend that we cannot verify Code cc pliance unless the data are available to us.
Item 31. 2e proposed resolution of this item was to add Emergency conditiens to Table 3 9-12 in the FSAR, consisting of Nomal Operating Loadings plus SSE Forces. Specified limits are " Figure N3-3224-1, including notes". Still no numerical data are provided. However, this was accepted as responding to the item.
Item 52. ne proposed resolution addresses the effects of distortion due to changes in flow rates but does not consider the effect due to change in pressure drop. We latter was discussed at the meeting, but no provision was made in the resolution.
Iten 53, 2e proposed resolution was accepted.
t Item 54 ne proposed resolution was accepted.
Item 55, 2e proposed resolutien was accepted with a minor revision to ecver drop time during small line LCCA.
s.
B 7
S. E. Moore October 17 1950 Item 56. This item concerns the effects of 150-in stroke on the lifetime and the drop time as determined by tests with a 138-in stroke.
1 The proposed response does not address the effect on drop time and does not give any quantitative estimate of the effect on lifetime. During the discussion a verbal statement was made that the drop tire for the 150-in strche was "less than 3 seconds".
What is the effect of the increased travel on the drop tine?
Ite: 57 The preposed resolution of this iten, after the changes I
were nade to indicate that the quoted deflections are in the vertical directice, covers their effects en operation of the drive mechanists in relation to the shroud tubes. Ihe possibility of br.terference between the centrol element fin 6ers and the guide tubes in the fuel was discussed.
Ihe fin 6ers are 0.816 in. 0.D. and the guide tubes are 0.c00 in I.D.
Large break LOCA can cause la'eral deflection of C.125 in, but it is pointed out that operability of the rods is not required in case of large break LOCA.
Ihe preposed resolution was accepted as changed, and subject to the stipulation that NRC has accepted inoperability of the rods during large treak LCCA.
Iten 58. In describing the tests of the ability to overcene a stuck red we were told that the tests included bowed CEA guide tubes.
That prevision is not included in the final proposed resolutien.
The last sentence of the resolutien should be revised to state that bowed guide, tubes were included in the tests. *f they were.
Item 59 The proposed resolution was accepted.
Item 60. The applicant a6:eed to revise FSAR Section 3 9.4 3(b) by adding (includin5 turbine trip and less of coolant flow), and the proposed resolution was revised to include reference to the FSAR revision.
It was stated that these loads were actually included in the analyses.
The specified loads still do not include those due to weight or flow.
Iten 61.
It was agreed that the proposed resolution would be nedified by adding Figure 61-1 to show the gecnetry of the holdown ring in relation to the reactor vessel, the reactor vessel head, the core support barrel and the upper guide otructure. A statement was also added that the vertical forces due to the holdown ring had been included in the vessel head bolting analysis. Verbally it was estimated that the vertical force is approxinately 800,000 lb and that this is very small in relatien to the total load on the bolts.
It was stated that LOCA loads on the instrumentation support are "snall".
Item 62.
It was agreed that a sentence would be added to the proposed resolutien saying: "The reactor pressure vessel is weld overlayed at the factory with Incenel, for welding on the Inconel flow skirt".
With this codificatien the prepcsed resolution was accepted.
. m -_.. - _.. _ _ ;. y
.7.-.-
4 S, E. Mccre October 17, 1950 Ite 63 Part (e) of this item was withdrawn because it was poorly stated,and we believe that the expansten of t'he flow skirt and of the i
instru entatien sup;crt are accennedsted by clearances in relatien to i
adjacent cenpenents.
It was agreed to revise part (a) of the respense to indicate that the vertical gap tetween the betten of the core sup;crt 'arrel and top i
i cf the ccre step lugs is i-in het and 1-in cold.
Part (b) cf the respense was reviced to refer to Figure 3 9-4, Letail A in the FSAE, which clarifies the gecnetry of the 1cua-
- "=
ge cf the core suppert barrel.
The second sentence cf the propcsed resclutien was replaced by two sentences: "The material of the lower sup;crt structure and the core support barrel is 304 stainless steel and the tenperature difference between the components is small.
The radial and axial differential expansien is taken up by the flexure."
During the wrap-up neeting en Octcher 3rd, a handwritten note i
was given to the applicant requesting that the wcrds."and axial" be 4
deleted fren the new sentence because the flexure joint does not appear to be ca;able of abscrbing axial expansion.
The propcsed resolution of part (c) was accepted with the words
" axial and radial" inserted in the first sentence befcre the werd I
" clearance".
The propcsed resolutien cf part (d) was accepted with the second sentence deleted.
P The propeced resciutien of this ites is accepta** * " e words
'and axial" are deleted frca the last sentence of the resolutien of part(b).
Ite: 64 In discussion of this ite it was explained that the gaps at the alignnent keys are larger than the gaps at the guide luS3 and that the alignent keys are desiped to. provide restraint during the SSE and other leading conditions.
With the addition of this information the resolution was accepted.
However, the handout of the revised resolution which we received on October 3rd had an apparent typc6:aphical error in that the words i
" based en field data. By design the gaps at the alistment keys" were omitted between "ali nnent keys" and "are lar6er". Without those 6
words the third sentence of the resolution doesn'.t make sense.
Item 65 The applicant agreed to provide a rable 65-1 to be added i
to the proposed resolution of this item and to revise the item to include reference to the Table.
The table will give the maximum calculated and the maximum allowed stresses under SSE + LOCA loads (excluding asynnetric leads) for the followin6 items.
Ali nnent keys, Core support 5
structure at point of maximum stress, and T beans.
This infornation is to be received by NRC before Decenter 15, 1950.
i I
P P
L
- = + - + =
e
-e..
. -. = = =
w-
= w -.
.l
l S. E. Mccre Octocer 17, 1930 i
Iten 66. The propeced resolution of this iten was accepted with the addition of the sentence: "SSE loads are. considered only in con-junction with LOCA loads."
l Iten 67 The proposed resolution of this iten was accepted with the understanding that the FSAR will be revised by adding in parenthesis en page 3 9-63 after " shock leads":
"1. cads resulting fren dropping centrcl elenents during a scran."
Iter 63. The proposed resolution of this ite: was accepted with the second sentence revised to read: "These stresses linit deflections to the elas+4^ "'"6e and they are within the limits of functicnal accep ability."
Iten 69 No design basis pipe break has been specified for use in design of the reacter vessel internals.
The preposed resciutien was to refer to FSAR Subsection 3 9 2 5, but in that subsection several pipe breaks are defined. The applicant said that th,e internals were designed with consideration of all of those pipe break conditions.
Therefere it was decided to accept the proposed resolution if it is
[
revised o pluralice the werd " breaks".
This will require editerial revision cf other words also.
Iten 70. The prcpesed resciution was accepted.
Item 71. In the discussic: cf this iten it was brought out that the internals for Waterferd-3 are identical to these in San Oncfre 2 and 3 The applicant also stated that the elinination of the thernal shield is discussed in the FSAR in conjunction with the surva"' e ce capsule prcEran. We did not review that reference, but I doubt that the discussien in that section would deal with the temperature effect,_
thernal stresses or other nechanical design considerations.
-The proposed resolution was accepted with the additien of the i
sentence: "Ihr internals of Waterford-3 are identical to those of San Oncfre 2 & 3."
It is assuned that the deletion of the thernal shield was adequately reviewed for San Onofre.
l In conclusion, I still feel that the applicant is withholding too much information for the review to be complete. However, it is my impression that the NRC has accepted other systems with no more than was provided for this one. Also, the control elenent drive mechanisns for Waterford are similar to those used in other operatin6 reactors, and the sane is true for the reacter internals.
This may be sufficient grounds for accepting then for normal operating conditions, but there is no experience on which to base a jud enent as to their adequacy 5
under other than normal conditions.
A list of questions concerning six of the above items was handed I
to Randy Stephens en October 3rd, and he was supposed to have 6 ven i
a copy to Joe Ccstello for transnittal to Combustion-Engineering. A copy is attached to this letter.
Very truly yours,
[l), /.
(J[
~~~
- e..
- <=a
-aus
.w
.ee=-**
a Me-e e
t f
l Attachnent for letter to S. E. M0 ore. 10/17/SO.
t October 3, 1930 l
l
'n'e have the following additional cuestion:.
Iten 50. At the nestir6 with,,C-E, and Ebasco on 10/2 a copy of 4
calculated stresses and Code allowable stresses was shown to us.
The hi hest value of.htress limit shown was 99 9 ksi for the notor housing.
i i
6 e
1.
What is the value of Sn en which this is based?
t 2.
Can we have a co.w of the data that was shor. to us, so we can i
review it?
t 3
What are the naterials?
l The last sentence of the prc;0 sed recclutien cheuld include the i
following words: "fer ncn-pressure parts".
I F
V Iten 52. The proposed resolution covers the effects of dis:Ortien.
What are the effects of changes in pressure drop?
t Item 56. The proposed resolution covers lifetine. What is the effect f
I cf the increased travel on the drop tine?
3 Iten SS. Revise by ad: ling to the-last sentence:," including bowed i
t CIA guide tubes."
i r
Iten 63 par. b) cf resolution.
Delete "and axial" fron the last f
sentence. The flexure joint between the icwer su;;cr structure and the
[
6 core su;;cr: barrel'is designed for red *=1 #bxibility only.
,L Iten 64. Ty;cgraphical.
Tne, words " based on field data. 2y
(
desip the gaps at the alignent keys" have been omitted fr n the
[
i third sentence.
(This Ls in reference to the version that uas ha.ded
?
e cut at the neeting on 10/3/80.)
[
b
/{.0;ko t: Y i
i V. R. Gall
't t
t t
V s
i i
l 1
1 i
s i
i
,,---~,,-,,,,,,,,e
v ATTACHMENT 3 7
LIST OF ATTENDEES i
NRC STAFF COMBUSTION ENGINEERING f
l A. Schwencer T. Nathan
{
R. Bosnak H. Mulliken W. Kane E. Fitzsimmons D. Terao F. Sernatinger R. Stephens H. Brammer i
i LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY L. Maurin I
F. Drummond T. Armington R. Prados i
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY l
1 R. Nastad S. Moore l
BATTELLE - COLUMBUS LABORATORY E. Rodabough
[
i EBASCO G. Hofer R. Devine J. Padalino J.' Hart R. Stampley 4
J. Costello i
R. IoHi D. Lott M. Hore11 P. Guildys-J. Damitz T. Gangopadayay I. Sydoriak l
n
.i,
-e,s w~g-
- -,.y-
~.%.
-w-sew
-,w r-w
-y q
y