ML20128E038

Discusses Review of Question Round One -Mark I Short Term Program Final Rept & Proposed Long Term Program (TAR-1989/ ORB-3-105 Rev One) & Requests Addl Info Be Provided.List of Addl Info Encl

ML20128E038
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone, Hatch, Monticello, Dresden, Peach Bottom, Browns Ferry, Nine Mile Point, Fermi, Oyster Creek, Hope Creek, Cooper, Pilgrim, Brunswick, Vermont Yankee, Duane Arnold, Quad Cities, FitzPatrick, 05000355
Issue date:	12/19/1975
From:	Maccary R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Goller K Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 9212070455
Download: ML20128E038 (4)

Text

--.nma-,we.w aw m- - ~

... e..

• ' s N U (o b '

g)

- UNITO STA1ES Q

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGT 4, D , C. 20555 DEC 191975 K. R. Goller, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors Division of Reactor Licensing QUESTION ROUND ONE - MARK I SHORT TERM PROGRAM FINAL REPORT AND PROPO j LONG TERM PROGRAM (TAR-1989/ ORB-3-105 REVISION 1) t PLANT NAMES: Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Nine Mile Point Unit 1, Pilgrim 1, Dresden Units 2 and 3, Millstone Unit 1 Quad Cities Units 1 and 2, Monticello, Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 Browns Ferry Units 1, 2 and 3, Vermont Yankee, Hatch Units 1 and 2, Brunswick Units 1 and 2, Duane Arnold Energy Center, Cooper, Fitzpatrick, Enrico Fermi Unit 2, and Hope Creek Units 1 and 2.

DOCKET NOS.: 50-219, 50-220, 50-237, 50-245,'50-249, 50-254, 50-259, 50-260, 50-263, 50-265, 50-271, 50_-277, 50-278, 50-293, 50-296, 50-298, 50-321~, 50-324, 50-325, 50-331, 5G-333, 50-341, 50-354, 50-355, and 50-366.

Responsible RL Branch & Individual: ORB-3, W. Paulsen vyo Responsible TR Branch & Individuals: MEB, S. Hou & B. D. Liaw Requested Completion Date: March 15, 1976 Review Status: Awaiting Information In accordance with your request, the Mechanical Engineering Branch, Division of Technical Review, has reviewed the subject report, including Addendum I.

The primary scope of review includes load cowbinations, methods of analysis, and criteria for evaluating vacuum breaker assembly and piping inside and connected to the torus.

The MEB has directed special attention to the functional operability of piping and components necessary' to mitigate the consequence in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident. We have concluded that the licensees have.not provided

< enough information in the

• report. #9 y w l ,,

~

The MEB has not attempted to separate the acceptance criteria ^for short-term l

' and long-term programs at Q1 stage. We will' review the ' licensees' response to the attached list of questions and take a position on each item of concern.

\%

y hp z 9212070455 751219 ADOCK 05000263 PDR -- --

P- PDR l

. - . m--- . _ . . , . . - . , . . .

Q

( ..

v K. R. Goller :n..

. .. g . .

A list of additional information requested is attached.

.v.,

< 611t6l1LIAL i ./cs , i R. R. Maccary, Assi t t Director 1 for Engineering l - *{ .

Division of Technical Review i os" cc w/encli j R. E. Heineman, TR G. E. Lear, RL i J . P. Knight , TR

; W. Paulson, RL R. J. Bosnak, TR-

.! H. L. Brauner, TR l ') S. Hou, TR

! B. D. Liaw,-TR a cc w/o encl:

1 W. G. Mcdonald, MIPC R. Boyd, RL

• tfdy.

~

3 1

1 .

4 4

i o-T i

s 0

j >

3

, J .,

• s ,

6 E $

< m. r ., '

d

$3 *F

! fif,1 1 ._ o lU ,1lQ .

TJl* 'T'.~- *4'~

}lp. '

gy.;

- tr.s- ' a

'.*'**. . h;dhIl Q.' ,

.m N 5

~ ~~ ---o-*--

4

_ ,_,_..,~ ..,--

. ~ ~ . .

p -- - s;-

.-,-~ m...

e-

=_ Mi '

i-m - -- , . - .m. . ,., ye.

W .. .

c .

0 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH

'- REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION se-

1. Discuss justifications for applying the equivalent static presuure of 25 psi to the vacuum breaker assembly.

l

2. Verify that the original design functions of the spray header and vacuum breaker air line will not be impaired due to the occurrence of inelastic strain or large displacement during a postulated LOCA.

Discuss further the bases for concluding that vacuum breaker nozzles for all plants will withstand the pool swell loads.

. 3. Identify loading combination criteria and design limits for ECCS piping and mechanical components essential to safety. The functional e capability of these components must be maintained under f aulted plant conditions.

- 4. Assess the functional operability of the section of ECCS piping near i the torus penetration if the torus supports f ail to hold torus in place during pool swell.

t

5. Describe the earthquake induced sloshing ef fects on ECCS piping and l

I mechanical components essential to saf ety. One of the required design considerations is the combined effect of LOCA + SSE loadtig.

6. Provide adequate details on analysis methods used to calculate the dynamic response. Conservatism should be demonstrated if simplified analyses are used, such as equivalent static or aingle degree-of-freedom analyses as shown in the short term program final reports.

Provide original design criteria for the Section of MSRV line inside 7.

the torus. As a minimum, the criteria should include the quality group classification in terms of ASME Code class and/or ANS Safety Class, and stress limits for design and operational conditions.

8. The impact duration was stated to be 15 milliseconds in Subsection 2.2 of Addendum I. However, Figure 2.2-1 and Tables B'2 and B-3 show the duration to be 3.0 milliseconds. Verify that-the value used is 15 milliseconds. If the 3.0 millisecond duration is indeed used in both response and parametric analyses, provide the justification for reducing

, it from 15.0 to 3.0 milliseconds.

9. The maximum stress'in the MSRV discharge piping was shown to exceed the minimum yield strength at temperature. Therefore, the calculated displacements may not be realistic. Provide justifications for the >

conclusion that the function of the piping can be maintained. Also, provide the calculated strains associated with the displacements and stressna shown in Table 2.3-1, Addendum I, and discuss any strain concentration at pipe bends.

. . . ~ -

~~ > e -.... .. . . m - ,

Q . .. .

' 1

,I-(~7 3 ~

($.v . (.i')

J 1 t. ,

q w 1 4 j 10. Provide a summary of calculated stresses and strains at all nodes or l @4f I elements shown in Figure 2.1-1, . Addendum I, for the Peach _Botton Units 2 and 3, including those at restraints; i.e., hangers.' vent pipe.-

4 penetration, and anchor bolts. Also indicate' the . load-c'arrying capabil-ities at all restraints,

w. p .

11. With' respect to the MSRV discharge operation, only. Millstone l', Cooper, Dresden Station' 2 & 3, Quad Cities ' Station 1 & 2. Brunswick, Duane f' Arnold, and Pilgrim I have responded to the NRC -letter on September 10, 1975, to show the adequacy of their restraints on MSRV lines inside the l

to rus. Most of these analyses consider.only the initial blowdown loads, j  ;

which is not completely acceptable. The effects due to any bubble formation, bubble oscillation, and sequential operation were not included te,:] in the assessa.ent. Provide a definitive test program to obtain load j

4 data for use in evaluating the adequacy of pipe restraints in each _ plant. ,

3 The test program may consist of tests to obtain load history during a single and a multiple discharging, coupled with direct strain measurements at restraints.

{

4 s-j 1

^

i i

i

. pf*df j s-P l

L ..

i m s

1' uh .i l

' 4 '

..% *l 4...

i

-i l .khNN, .

.* Y l +- - -

. - < - ----g.  ;

l y.

,