ML20135F680

Forwards Request for Addl Info Re TMI Item II.E.4.2, Purge & Vent Valve Operability. Schedule for Providing Responses Requested

ML20135F680
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	09/09/1985
From:	Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Goldberg J HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
References
TASK-2.E.4.2, TASK-TM NUDOCS 8509170355
Download: ML20135F680 (6)

Text

.

Docket Nos.: 50-498 and 50-499 Mr. J. H. Goldberg Group Vice President - Nuclear Houston Lighting and Power Company Post Office Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001

Subject:

South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 - Request for Additional Information Regarding TMI Item II.E.4.2(6)

Pursuant to your submittal of April 30, 1985 on containment purge and vent valve operability, the NRC staff's technical assistance contractor has determined that additional information is required on TMI Item II.E.4.2(6).

The enclosure provides the list of questions. Please inform us as to your schedule for providing the responses.

Please contact the Project Manager at (301) 492-7272 if you have any questions.

Sincerely, J

ORI,GINAL SIGNED BV George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated cc: See next page DISTRIBUTION Docket File-50-498/499 w NPKadambi NRC PDR JPartlow L PDR EJordan NSIC BGrimes PRC System ACRS(16)

LB#3 Reading Attorney, OELD JLee DL L #3 D NPKadambi/yt G fif1 ton 94}/85 9/ /85 l

i i' 8509170355 850909 PDR ADOCK 05000498 A PDR _

South Texas Mr. J. H. Goldberg William S. Jordan, III, Esq.

Group Vice President, Nuclear Harmon, Weiss & Jordan Houston Lighting and Power Company 2001 S Street, N.W.

P. O. Box 1700 Suite 430 Houston, Texas 77001 Washington, D. C. 20009

]

Brian Berwick, Esq.

Mr. J. T. Westermeir Assistant Attorney General Manager, South Texas Project Environmental Protection Division Houston Lighting and Power Company P. O. Box 12548 i

P. O. Box 1700 Capitol Station Houston, Texas 77001. Austin, Texas 78711 Mr. E. R. Brooks Mr. Claude E. Johnson, Resident 4

Mr. R. L. Range Inspector / South Texas Project Central Power and Light Company c/o U. S. NRC P. O. Box 2121 P. O. Box 910 1 Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Bay City, Texas 77414

Mr. H.~L. Peterson Mr. Jonathan Davis Mr. G. Pokorny Assistant City Attorney City of Austin City of Austin P. O. Box 1088 P. O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767 Austin, Texas 78767 Mr. J. B. Poston 4 Mr. a. Von Rosenberg Ms. Pat Coy 1

City Public Service Board Citizens Concerned About Nuclear i

P. O. Box 1771 Power San Antonio, Texas 78296 5106 Casa Oro San Antonio, Texas 78233 Jack R. Newman, Esq.

Newman & Holtzinger, P.C. Mr. Mark R. Wisenberg 1615 L Street, NW Manager, Nuclear Licensing 4

Washington, DC 20036 Houston Lighting and Power Company P. O. Box 1700 i

) Melbert Schwartz,Jr. , Esq. Houston, Texas 77001 Baker 1. Botts One Shell Plaza Mr. Charles Halligan Houston, Texas 77002 Mr. Burton L. Lex Bechtel Corporation Mrs. Peggy Buchorn P. O. Box 2166

' Executive Director Houston, Texas 77001 Citizens for Equitable Utilities, Inc.

Route 1, Box 1684 Brazoria, Texas 77422 t

i l

?  :

2-Regional Administrator - Region IV l U. S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Suite 1000

Arlington, Texas 76011 Mr. Lanny Sinkin

. Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 3022 Porter St. N. W. #304 Washington, D. C. 20008 n

$ Mr. S. Head '

i HL&P Representative Suite 1309 7910 Woodmont Avenue ,

7 Bethesda, Maryland 20814

1 a

3 3

i r

! l i

1 i

i f

i

- - , ,m - - -___ _ , _ , - -

-- - ,, -3, y-r __r_--,-.,om--, ,-c., , org-- .. -, ,- , ,, , ,e,-7,,,, ,7_-_,- , . , .,_ .y ,

.o c-ENCLOSURE Request for Additional Information South Texas - Docket No. 50-498 i

Purge and Vent Valve Operability TMI II.E.4.2(6)

1. Clarify the piping layout for valves 18-HA-1003-WA2 and 18-HA-1004-WA2, showing piping elements within 20 pipe diameters upstream or downstream of the purge valves, purge valve supports, and valve disc profile.

4

2. FSAR section 9.4.5.2.7 (Amendment 32) and Acceptance Review Question 022.5 i

do not clearly describe operation of the supplementary purge valves.

(a) Describe the flow path through the supplementary purge and supply lines. Describe the worst case configuration for which the valves are qualified to operate.

(b) Clarify that the submittal demonstrates closure of the valves from i

the fully open position (90').

3. Clarification of Attachment C.

i (a) The discussion of hydrodynamic torques in Attachment C does not address the flow effects of elbows or tees on the valve closing

torque. Discuss or describe operability of the valves under these conditions and the basis for any conclusions.

(b) The hydrodynamic torque calculated in Attachment C considered only

incompressible flow. The applicant should justify that the I

supplementary purge valves will see only incompressible flow during the accident scenario or provide a basis for applying torque values for incompressible flow to compressible flow.

, - - - _ , . - - , - - . - - , _ . - . -- - - - - -.<-.,v..,-.%-.m---

.~ r.

4. Provide the torque values versus valve opening angle for the limitorque actuators in tabular or graph form and compare these with the torque values with the maximum torque required to operate the valves.

i

5. The Rockwell letter dated October 4,1983 states that the Wyle Test Report 45116-2 did not consider 5 OBE and 1 SSE events. (Attachment E, Appendix IV, Item 5 of Rockwell letter to Bechtel). Provide justification that this seismic requirement has been satisfied.

6. Identify the breakaway torque as well as the torque coefficients (Ku and

] Kd) mentioned in Attachment C. Describe the use of these parameters in

the calculation of total shaft torque required to operate the butterfly valves.

7. FSAR Figures 6.2.4-1 (Amendment 39), 7.3-16 (Amendment 43), and 9.4.5-3 (Amendment 41) indicate that ESF Trains "B" and "A" will be used for valves HA-003 and -006, respectively. However, FSAR Table 7.3-9 (Amendment 43) indicates that ESF Train "C" will be used for both valves.

Address this apparent discrepancy.

i 8. Acceptance Review Question 022.5 indicates that DEHLG, DECLG, and DEPLG were found to be the limiting accidents for LOCA pipe breaks. Indicate the margin between the maximum stress and the allowable stress for design conditions used to qualify the valves and the worst case values calculated for this accident scenario.

9. Appendix C indicates an extrapolation method was used to calculate the flow dynamic torque for the 18" valve.

(a) Describe how Figure 3 in Appendix B and the equation appearing in

, Figure 3 were used to calculate T f r the 14" valve.

D 1

r

_- _- - _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ __. . . _ _ _ _ _ -___m -._-- .___---_____-______-_

.-- . c.

3 i

i 4

r (b) Describe how the flow dynamic- torque value of 15,000 in-lb was calculated and used in the static deflection tests of the 18" valve

[ Attachment D, Appendix D, DR-65407-32, page 9 and PS-3-2.10, Item ,

j 4(3), page 4].

i i

i I

L t

l 4

e I

I 4

4

i I

1 1

I f

f

l 4

i

.