ML20096A395
| ML20096A395 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1984 |
| From: | Bayne J POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| To: | Vassallo D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| JPN-84-56, NUDOCS 8408310095 | |
| Download: ML20096A395 (5) | |
Text
-
123 Main Street V!tute Plains, New York 10601
. 914 t?BI 6200 4 NewYo.rkPbwer
- ""
- =
- ;.
4# Authority
~~- c--
August 24, 1984 JPN-84-56 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Attention:-
Mr. Domenic B. Vassallo, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing
Subject:
James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-333 Mark I Program
Reference:
1.
NRC letter, D.
B. Vassallo to J. P.
- Bayne, dated July 24, 1984.
Dear Sir:
In Reference 1 the NRC transmitted a request for additional ir formation on the structural aspects of the FitzPatrick plant unique analysis report for torus attached piping.
Attachment I provides the response as requested.
If you have any questions concerning this information, please contact Mr. J. A. Gray, Jr. of my staff.
Very truly yours, J
ayhe.
Irst execu ive Vice President Chief Operations Officer cc:
Office of the Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.
O. Box 136 Lycoming, New York 13093 8408310095 840824 PDR ADOCK 05000333 f
PDR gh P
' I,
,ft
..a
- gc t
w\\;,
w:,,i W' 'G.H;t V 9 : ~Lw o. g -
y
- m... w.
- n s,
's. %., $ 1';
Y ws
- p'#
y M 8h
_ wt
,1 c:.:,
j e:'-
r
_ ~. '
k.
m..
,1.,L k.
,m,...,r
- 4,6 _
L k
[b 1
t'( - * ;
.s..
l,',-.
( 4 ' (;_i
i g --
q_ q y,_
r, c,9,
s
- .s 4
, s <
~
i g.t.
s:
-: ~
1,
,s y :;y;g, we 4.
n s
3)
{if, ["
')C
. W.
yn
. t,v.
m.
t-
= 3
- q; * "
_ik ~
, j,#,
....o f.
, (' Y" I
?
l'f
-r
,I
. b (^r
- \\.^,1;...
om r
.:,mm:__ :sv, n
.. c.,..s r:
w%s -
<4
~
w S
^
n
,%, w; a q
=:
?
\\ %,. n' ' ',
.t.:
_. LJ.. % "D i U:
s z
-s i
a 1
_.,.d : p.
s
-.x -.,
s,.. d-.
.m.
4.1 n
~
n-T,.
- m. ab J
4 A1 ",
g I
i'.
- g, g,. k. _
x
'e-i,.
(
rw 1.
'- ~
y
, i
.y.,'.
m.m
.o y V y
~(.
wr m
c I h A"'TACHMENT I _TO JPN-84-56
- r.
W.o.
- s.. a'.
1' s
W t) m
((
,.t
' M' 3MARK Q PROGRAM ig 3
4
. m
....p-ygf>
s ww a 9
a t-4.'
s s
+.
dk\\'
f',
f t
o.
~
q%-
s m.
1
. e.
sj.
i q
s v
s
- i j.'
+
4
,k%.
T>
.g 1
h
.r-e l':
s
~
~
4, 6
't
. t,,
t-t
,c. y'
...iNEW YORK-POWER. AUTHORITY z 4 W
o.
p n.
NAMES:A. FITZPATRICK. NUCLEAR POWER PLANT L
^
' DOCKET-NO..50-333 e
s L---
r P,'.,
Fp(
a
~
p.;
s.-
'_ s-
,W
- ..a s
, ec f}.
\\
i p' -
t
," k 4
.m.,
f
.. ~,
7'-
'\\
g3 O
r
[;;L
',g.
.1 e
P.. i.
+
(
4 i'
29 6.
.4,.-
i.
4, p
s
+
g'r.
.( s / :.
f j ---
g' I.p r,
1 V
L. =$
v
- t 5.i, 4
E N
4, ;,
g p,...
1
+
a;,
' 'jg~4:,
.S f ?n' ?%
a v
4' e
s
_,r
...w
.,,.,_,,,m._,,
_ m,,, 3
_,,,,,y,
m. e.
1 --
c.:
-N h
~
'JAFNPP Torus Program l
LResponse.to: Review Questions on1TES Report
~
- TR-5321-2, PUARLfor Torus Attached Piping 8
c 4
~
' I tem -l '
In Section 2.4.2 of - the PUA Report, TR-5321-2 (2), some condi-tionsfareclisted that would:be evaluated in case the conserva-tive condition for SRV pipe stress could not be met. Provide the-(reason for considering.the-first of these case:, and: verify the
= value and derivation of; the allowable stress associated : with this case.
Response. The first two ' alternate cases -listed in paragraph
' 2.4.2 are similarfexcept the first includes an OBE seismic event
-and the.second an-SSE. !They represent cases 14 and 15..in Table 1.
It;was judged necessary to consider. both of these as separate cases'for-FitzPatrick-.because the FSAR defines' separate spectra 4
for 08E and SSE.
That is,' they~ are not simple multiples as-in most -other plants (see paragraph 2.2.5).
The fact that the
- spectra are different and that SSE has higher damping.that.0BE (two percent 'versus 'one per' cent) made2 f t appear. possible that 3
- responsesLin small frequency bands could be higher.for 08E than
- SSE. -The first alternate load case,containing.0BE, was_there-
. fore run to cover-this possibility.
3 The allowable stress for this case is shown in paragraph 2.4.2 as 1.85p This is a typographical error and should have read 1.8 S '-
h in accordance with fo,otnote 3 to Table 1 in the TAP report.
. Item 2-
~With respect to Section 3.3.5 of the PUA. Report, TR-5321-2 (2),
indicate whether the 10 percent rule of Section 6.2d (1) was used to exempt any branch piping from analysis. If so.-provide calcu-lations demonstrating conformance to this rule.
Also, indicate.
why, in the analysis of flexible branch piping, a displacement equal to the' total torus attached piping motion as the connec--
tion point was used for:the FitzPatrick plant, whereas TES used
-twice the torus attached piping motion for other plants.
~
. Response The 10 percent rule was not used to exempt any branch
. piping from analysis.
The analysis of the flexible branch piping for FitzPatrick plant was-performed using twice the torus attached piping motion as it' was for the other plants. The report will be revised to correct thiscin the final issue.-
Item!3
.WithLrespect to Section 3.4.1 of the PUA Report, TR-5321-2 (2),
l'-
indicate whether seismic loads were considered in load cases 25 and 151(Table 1).
l'
,4 a
- - ~..
.. - _....., _,, - _. - -. _ _.,-... -. - _... ~.1
e JAFNPP Torus Program Response to Reviev Questions on TES Report TR-5321-2, PUAR for Torus Attached Piping Response The larger of the Oi.E or SSE seismic stress was in-cluded in the evaluation of load cases 25 and 15 (Table 1). Both seismic events were considered for the reasons discussed in Item 1 above.
Item 4 With respect to Tables 3-1 and 3-2 of the PUA Report, TR-5321-2 (2), indicate whether the lines in each of the following sets are identical and explain why only one result appears for each set.
X-202A and X-202F, X-202B and X-202G, X-210A and X-211A, X-210B
)
and X-2118, X-213A and X-213B, and A-206A, B, C, and D.
Response Lines X-202A and F are connected by a comon system in a single analytical model. A single analysis was performed and 4
only the maximum stress results are reported.
Lines X-202B and G are similar in configuration and in analysis l-method to that used in X-202A and F.
\\
Lines X-210A and X-211A are connected by a cross-over system in a i~
single analytical model.
A single analysis was performed and only the maximum stress results are reported.
Lines X-210B and X-211B are similar in configuration and in l-analysis method to that used in X-210A and X-211A.
Lines X-213A and B are identical and only the maximum stress results of one system are reported.
.=
Lir.es X-206A, B, C, and D are two similar systems where X-206A and " are connected by a comon piping system and X-206C and D are identical to X-206A and B.
Only the maximum stress results from one system are reported.
Item 5 With respect to Section 3.4.6 of the PUA Report, TR-5321-2 (2),
I provide the analytical results of the fatigue evaluation of the b
torus shell penetrations.
Response The usage factor "u" is used to determine the fatigue acceptability.
This is calculated as Maximum number of cycles possible Number of allowable cycles at S t
a The allowable number of cycles at S is calculated according to ASME Section III, NE-3221.5, and uses Table I-9 in the Appendices.
+
V JAFNPP Torus Prograa J'
Response to Review Questions on TES Report-TR-5321-2, PUAR for Torus
__ [
Attached Piping i
I I
The maximum number of full stress cycles was conservatively 1
taken as 10,000 as discussed in the PUAR (2), paragraph 3.4.6.
(The actual number of full stress cycles is actually. about 1,000.)
.; 8ased on a.1 assumed 10,000 full stress cycles, the three highest usage factors for lar e bore pipe penetrations (as tabulated in Table 3-6 of the PUAR are:
Large Bore Penetration Usage Factors Cycles Penetration Assumed Allowable Usage Factor X-212 10,000 12,000 0.83 X-225A 10,000 21,000 0.48 j
X-2108 10,000 23,200 0.43 -
All small bore penetrations have usage factors less than 0.01.
r A
M e
E 4