ML20133E229
| ML20133E229 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 07/15/1985 |
| From: | Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Edelman M CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8507220426 | |
| Download: ML20133E229 (3) | |
Text
.
e s3 KtQy
+
UNITED STATES
[
h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
1l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k...../
JUL 16 B85 Docket Nos.: 50-440 and 50-441 Mr. Murray R. Edelman, Vice President Nuclear Operations Group The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company P. O. Box 5000 l
Cleveland, Ohio 44101
Dear Mr. Edelman:
Subject:
Request for Additional Information Pertaining to Final Analysis of '
ASME Code Class 1 Pipe Break Locations and Dynamic Effects for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant (Units 1 and 2) -- SER Confimatory Issue (1)
Your letter dated June 7,1985 provided the results of the final stress analyses performed for several high energy systems which postulated pipe break locations in the Perry plant piping system, in response to SER Confimatory Issue (1).
The results of these analyses were also documented in Section 3.6 of FSAR Amend-ment 19 (May 13, 1985).
In Figure 3.6-78 of FSAR Amendment 19, it is shown that the reactor water clean-up (RWCU) line, from the connection to the feedwater line outside containment up to the RWCU isolation valve, is considered by CEI to be a part of the break exclusion region.
In accordance with Branch Technical Position (BTP) MEB 3-1, Position B.1.6, pipe breaks need not be postulated in those portions of the piping system from the containment wall to and including the inboard and outboard isolation valves, provided that they meet the requirements of the ASME Code Section III, Subarticle NE-1120, and the additional requirements of BTP MEB 3-1, Position B.I.b.
Position B.1.b.(3) specifically states that the number of circumferential and longitudinal piping welds and piping branch connections should be minimized.
The RWCU line in question connects to the feedwater piping in an area beyond the outboard isolation check valve. This area is an extension of the break exclusion region as defined in the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800), and is :lassified as ASME Code Class 2 piping. Although extending the break exclusion re.gion beyond the isolation valve is not necessarily unacceptable to the staff, the staff is nevertheless concerned with CEI's position of not postulating a break at the RWCU connection to the feedwater line. The staff believes that the break exclusion region should not be categorically applied to the RWCU nozzle on the feedwater piping because of the high cyclic themal gradients that will be experienced at that connection.
8507220426 850715 PDR ADOCK 05000440 E
PDR l
~
JUL 151935 Mr. Murray R. Edelman Perry Nuclear Power Plant The Cleveland Electric Units 1 and 2 Illuminating Company cc:
Jay Silberg, Esq.
Mr. Larry O. Beck Shaw, Pittman, & Trowbridge The Cleveland Electric 1800 M Street, N. W.
Illuminating Company Washington, D. C.
20006 P. O. Box 97 E-210 Perry, Ohio 44081 Donald H. Hauser, Esq.
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company P. O. Box 5000 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Resident Inspector's Office U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Parmly at Center Road Perry, Ohio 44081 Regional Administrator, Region III U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Donald T. Ezzone, Esq.
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 105 Main Street Lake County Administration Center Painesville, Ohio 44077 Ms. Sue Hiatt OCBE Interim Representative 8275 Munson Mentor, Ohio 44060 Terry J. Lodge, Esq.
618 N. Michigan Street Suite 105 Toledo, Ohio 43624 John G. Cardinal, Esq.
Prosecuting Attorney Ashtabula County Courthouse Jefferson, Ohio 44047
1 JUL 151985 Mr. Murray R. Edelman It is therefore requested that CEI address the safety consequences related to the dynamic effects (pipe whip and jet impingement) associated with a postulated pipe break at the terminal end where the RWCU piping connects to the feedwater piping, in order to allay the staff's concern and to consider SER Confirmatory Issue (1).
resolved. Your response should be identified as addressing Q210.16, for subsequent documentation in a future FSAR amendment.
Within 5 days after receipt of this letter, please advise the Project Manager when we may expect to receive your response, and/or if further discussion with the technical review staff is desired.
Sincerely, Originn.1 nimed byr B. J. Your451ood B. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing cc: See next page
, DISTRIBUTION:
ipoetet m e x NRC PDR Local PDR PCR System NSIC LBf1 R/F MRushbrook JStefano OELD ACRS (16)
JPartlow BGrimes EJordan RBosnak FCherny,MEB/DE HBransner, MEB/DE DTerao, MEB/DE V,
DL LlI 4
1.
J
- efano/mac Bui 60 lood 07'ff/85 07/{/85 s