ML20197G112
| ML20197G112 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 12/02/1983 |
| From: | Knight J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-0697, CON-WNP-697 NUDOCS 8312120466 | |
| Download: ML20197G112 (5) | |
Text
.
D;STRI5!m0N:
Jocumen' Cc*of De_sk 016 DE:MEB Reading File DEC 2 1983 l'E!*.CPAt:Dili! FOR:
Thomas fi. ?!ovak, Assistant Director for Licensino, DL FR0ft:
Janes P. Knight, Assistant Director for Components & Structures Engineering, DE
SUBJECT:
It!PUT TD UNP-2 SSER The Pechanical Engineering Branch has completed its review of the applicant's responses to the confirmatory issues in Section 3.6.2, Determination of Break Locations and Dynamic Effe. cts associated with the Pestulated Rupture o' Piping, of the Uf1P-? SEP.,
Attached is our safety evaluation of the applicant's responses to be included in the next supplerent to the UNP-0 SER.
Jer.es P. Knight, Assistant Director for Components & Structures Engineering Division of Engireering
Attachment:
As stated cc w/ attach.:
P.. Vollner, DE P., Posnak, DE A. Schwercer, DL H. Brammer, DE P.. Auluck, DL P. Chen, ETEC Y. Li, DE
Contact:
Y. Li, DE:MES, x2a417 i
p-x
)(4 s
8312120466 831202 h
i
-4f5 ADOCK 05000397
[h
)-
-GF -
n rs DE i.x.E. B.' R..AD..(..C5S.E M
o,nc,>
DE. : MEB.......
.EME D
s=*uo..Rk,i,.0),,,,,
,, HB,r,amme r.
,,,,,, R,Bos,ng.
..dn i,gh,t, 11../. 2 9../. 8. 3......
. 11../.. /. 83
.......11../..(..'.l/. 8 311..N....' /.8. 3..
oan >
NEC FORM 318 (10-80) NROM C243 OFFIClAL RECORD COPY
_ gayy-m-se
f 1
3.6.2 Determination of Break Locations and Dynamic Effects Asiociatcd With the postulated Rupture of Pipina 1
t In Section 3.6.2 of the SER, the staff stated that the applicant is committed to document the results of its postulated pipe break study in the FSAR to complete Figures 3.6-11 through 3.6-36.
We have reviewed I
the information submitted by the applicant in References 1, 2 and 3.
In Reference 1, the applicant provided figures summarizing postulated break locations for all the various piping systems and one tabulation of stresses at postulated break locations for the recirculation piping
]
j system. The applicant stated that this information is based upon the
" status as-built" configuration which is not the final "as-built" configuration.
However, it is expected that the final-as-built will not result in significant differences from the information in Reference 1.
In order to further demonstrate that the pipe break criteria established in FSAR Section 3.6 have been properly implemented, the applicant provided in Reference 2 a tabulation of stresses at postulated break locations for the low pressure core spray system. The tabulated stresses are from the final as-built analysis of the low pressure core spray l
l systen.
In Reference 3, the applicant also stated that tabulated l
stresses for the remainder of the piping systems will be submitted, upon i
completion of the final as-built. analysis, by December 9,1983.
Based on a review of the information in Reference 1, 2 and 3, the staff has determined that the pipe break criteria established in FSAR Section 3.6 have been properly implemented by the applicant and, therefore, the staff considers this confirmatory issue closed, s
k
- In Reference 3, the applicant submitted a revised FSAR Section 3.6.2.1.3 concerning the analysis of leakage cracks in high energy piping systems.
The applicant stated that a physical inspection of each high energy line was completed to determine locations where adjacent safety related equipment or systems may be susceptible to jet impingement from cracks in high energy lines.
Inside containment it was found that the circumferential or longitudinal high energy line breaks bound the structural and environnental consequences produced by leakage cracks at any location in all high energy lines. Outside containment, analyses were completed and necessary protection was provided to ensure that critical plant systems are not harmed by leakage cracks in adjacent high energy systems.
Based on a review of the information in Reference 3, I
the staff determined that.the applicant's analysis of leakage cracks in high energy piping systems is acceptable.
In Section 3.6.2 of the SER, the staff also addressed the issue of the methodology used for determing break opening time for the annulus pressurization analysis.
In a letter November 1983 (Reference 4), the applicant submitted a copy of the changes to Section 6.2 of the FSAR to provide clarification of the methodology utilized in WNP-2 annulus l
pressurization analysis. The applicant has used the methodology l
provided in the GE topical report NED0-24548, " Technical Description -
Annulus Pressurization Load Adequacy Evaluation", which was approved by the staff during the Susquehanna annulus pressurization analysis review.
l
_ The applicant stated that those changes to Section 6.2 of the FSAR will 9
. +
be made in a future amendment to the FSAR. Based cn a review of the information in Reference 4, the staff concluded that the applicant's methodology of determining break opening time for the annulus pressurization analysis is acceptable, tnerefore, the staff considers this confirmatory issue closed.
i t
t 0
1 P
F f
d
.s
~
4-Referersces 1.
Letter f rom G. C. Sorenser te A. S'hwencer, " Nuclear Project No. 2 "afety Eyaluction Report, Ccnfirmatory Issue (1), Break Locati0ns",
a;[tedOctober 11. 1983 2.
Letter from G. C. Sorensen to A. Schwencer, "flucicar Project fio. 2 FSAR bection 3.6 Notes on Stress Tabulations e,nc High Enefsy Leakage Cracks", dated Nove,mber 7,1983 3.
Letter from t. C. Sorer.sen to A, Schwencer, " Nuclear Project f!o. 2 FSAR 5ettfon 3.6.tiotes en Stress Tabulations rnd High Energy Leakage Cracks'.', dated f oven,ber 17, 1983 4.
Letter f rom G. C. Sorensen to A. Senwencer, "fiuclear Project flo. 2 Annulus Pressurization (AP) Load Adequacy Evaluation, tlE00 24548",
da' ed tiovember 4,1983 t
a 4
~
e v