ML20148G468

IE Insp Rept 70-0033/78-12 on 780913-15 During Which No Items of Noncompliance Were Noted.Major Areas Inspected Incl Emergency Planning & Confirmatory Measurements,Coordination W/Offsite Agencies,Radioactive Waste Mgt,Training & Drills

ML20148G468
Person / Time
Site:	07000033
Issue date:	09/25/1978
From:	Donaldson D, Stohr J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20148G459	List: ML20148G456 ML20148G468
References
70-0033-78-12, 70-33-78-12, NUDOCS 7811130086
Download: ML20148G468 (7)

Text

4 N,.'

, j j S l DISTRTAH m N: '

. NOV 2 01978 i. ' l G entral

. u s. , .m i F ng @ File l DSS:MEB Reading File i l

MEMORA"CGI FCE: 'I R. Butler, Chief Contairmont Systens Stanch Division of Systens Safety FRCH: R. J. Bosnak, Chief l Mechanical Engineering Branch ,

Division of Systems Safety 1 I

SJDJECT: DIASLO CANYCN UN'.TS 13 2 CCNTAIfNENT PURGE VALVES In response to your memo of October 19, 1978, the Mechanical Engineering Branch has reviewed the portions of PT Cods letter of September 11, ~

1973, which pertain to the operability of the 40 inch centairanent l isolation valves. j The MES cannot complete its review of the analysis presented by FG&E  !

Co. untti it receives satisfactory responses to the attached requests for additional information.

1 i

l Robert J. Bosnak, Chief i Mechanical Engineering Branch l Division of Systems Safety cc w/ enc 1: R. L. Tedesco, DSS l J. P. Knight, DSS l F. C. Cherny, DSS l D. P. Allison, DPM l W. C. Milstead, DSS l P. Y. Chen, DSS l R. J. Kiessel, DSS l

Contact:

R. J. Kiessel, NRR, X27538/72 l

1 l

1130()(;Et2 l o,.. oSS:Mgsjlf _ DSS:ME8f 3

DAME 5 l l ,u,~w. , RJKiessel:jb FCCherny - R@nak ceT* * .._ l..}l[h.[7b 11/ /78 ld 73 l

NRC FORM 318 (9 76) NRCM 0240 W u. s. aovenaeu cu r paian o orric a, s ave - eae.eas j l

l '1

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1 & 2 CONTAINMENT PURGE VALVES

1. An error message ir printed only if the difference between the predicted and calculated valve positions exceeds 0.2 degrees. Justify the use of this error limit and indicate how the analysis results would vary if a smaller value were used.

)

2. The analysis assumes a perfect relief valve (i.e., one capable of l maintaining the cylinder pressure exactly at 45 psig) on the cylinder.

Justify the use of such a model and indicate how the analysis results would vary if a more realistic relief valve model were used.

3. Indicate how the actuator pressure is calculated when the solenoid ',

valve is open.

4. Expand your discription of the use of the hysteresis curve to specifically indicate:

a. The source of the entering arguments; and

b. The use of tne output value.

Of particular concern is the case when the cylinder pressure and valve position do not agree with the values shown on the hysteresis curve.

5. Indicate how the hysteresis curve was developed (i.e., Is it based on spring closure or aerodynamic closure of the valve? Is it based on back pressure in the cylinders?) Justify any deviations frcm

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

the conditions which exist a,t the time of post-LOCA valve closure.

6. Indicate how linkage flexibilities and slippages are accounted for in the analysis.

7. The calculated valve position is based on final torques and accelerations. Justify the use of such a method and indicate how the analysis results would vary if another method, such as the use of average values, were used.

8. Demonstrate that the valve will, in fact, oscillate through the zero position and not just open backward and remain there.

9. Demonstrate that the effects of the valve oscillation through the zero position will not adversely affect the ability of the valve to stop flow.

10. At approximately 1 second into closure the shaft (opening) torque exceeds the aerodynamic (closing) torque and yet the valve e.ontinues 1

closing at a constant rate. Justify this error and indicate how the analysis results would vary if this error were not present.

l I

l l

l l

l 1

v