ML20199E386
| ML20199E386 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 03/18/1986 |
| From: | Tam P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TAC-62883, NUDOCS 8603270022 | |
| Download: ML20199E386 (34) | |
Text
.
~
i March 18,1986 Docket No.: 50-412 DISTRIBUTION Docket File P. Tam
'NRC PDR OELD Local PDR E. Jordan APPLICANT:
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY PAD #2 Rdg B. Grimes J. Partlow ACRS (10) l FACILITY:
BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 2 L. Rubenstein NRC Participants
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING ON MARCH 4, 1986:
FIRST PROGRESS REPORT MEETING ON WHIPJET The subject meeting was held to discuss with Duquesne Light Company (DLC) its progress in the WHIPJET program. The program was described in some detail in DLC's submittal dated October 10, 1985.
Prior to this progress report meeting, other meetings have been held with the applicant to address use of the leak-before-break assumption to balance-of-plant piping. On March 3, 1986, the staff issued a letter to the applicant, fomally stating that the approach has merit, and describing the associated legal concerns. is the meeting attendee list. is.the agenda of the meeting.
Duquesne Light Company's presentation on the present status of WHIPJET is sumarized in the viewgraphs (Enclosure 3). Durino the presentation and after a caucus, members of the NRC staff raised a number of questions; these are summarized in Enclosure 4.
Duquesne Light personnel were requested to respond to these questions in the next meeting.
The next progress report meeting has been scheduled for March 13, 1986.
Peter S. Tam, Project Manager PWR Project Directorate #2 Division of PWR Licensing-A Office of Nuclear Peactor Regulation cc: See next page PM: PAD #P PTam:hc' 3/W/86 8603270022 860318 PDR ADOCK 05000412 PDR
6
- t Mr. J. J. Carey Duquesne Light Company Beaver Valley 2 Power Station cc:
Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
Mr. Roger Martin, Manager Jay E. Silberg, Esq.
Regulatory Affairs Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Beaver Valley Two Project 1800 M Street, N.W.
Duquesne Light Company, P.O. Box 328 Washington, DC' 20036 Shippingport, PA 15077 Mr. C. W. Ewing, Quality Assurance Director, Pennsylvania Emergency Manager Management Agency Quality Assurance Department Room B-151 Duquesne Light Company Transportation & Safety Building P.O. Box 186 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
.Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 Mr. Thomas Gerusky Mr. E. J. Woolever, Vice President Bureau of Radiation Protection Special Nuclear Projects PA Department of Environmental Duquesne Light Company Resources P.O. Box 4 P.O. Box 2063 Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Mr. T. J. Lex BVPS-2 Records Management Supervisor Westinghouse Electric Corporation Duquesne Light Company
' Power Systems Post Office Box 4 P.O. Box 355 Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 John A. Lee Esq.
Mr. P. RaySircar Duquesne Light Company Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation 1 0xford Centre P.O. Box 2325 301 Grant Street Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15279 Boston, Massachusetts 02107 Mr. Glenn Walton U.S. NRC P.O. Box 181 Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 -
Mr. Thomas E. Murley, Regional Admin.
U.S. NRC, Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 15229 Mr. John P. Thomas, Manager Engineering Beaver Valley Two Project Duquesne Light Company P.O. Box 328 Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 4
u.
UYo.S ure f
Beaver Valley Unit 2 Meeting, 3/4/86 Attendee List Name Organization l*"') 0 J"t Ah'7e Pede,- S.%
A"
NovE TCCH
$pi),5e?
M ~LF " ~"' ""* " -
Q iu +. Ma ri.s EM.L Asur 4 Aima SrmfxwrM WLLAa L. L avea.
g
(, g
$ws E A4cnd 3 0 0 w 's A s n i-9
@wP%e ww wr s.
n.. r si.. u DW'zwa 4cor c o, Y
.h a c ut-w e 0 mr to,
S%vs t
Muwe,3a N ct w NRR/7W R - A /EL
~i-~d 60 Axm zece.
Novareca ceurm" 4m de eetge4/a8 l
. yn NRR.lpwp-gl tSgpp
~'
d>ARPy Em T N % [/ M A / E B php/gg
,${m $ (ce NRI' Georhm 6AGC#L Ekf"'#-#[A'M g(>b bocNUK unitpSM/en3 gg d hecng NU/hWo/EIS iv'L Blanrut
- dc/tae.s/ta BM G %
cea.jewe.njne
)! 6 f4/r(i g,jM im e ad'emt)
AM /79)L
/0 /;
.A fu
.noss
_g.Cae dy5[048 GB iug _g 1fr Cwedzw' S7o d t'a&> m R.
L;c lo.s u re R
~
BEAVER VALLE Y U' LIT 2 ftEETI'4G ON WHIPJET PROGRE SS flarch 4,1986 Part A Opening Statements (P. Tam et al. )
Part B
/
Duquesne Light Company Presentation:
b Cr
/ Arfiq I
OVERVIN C
A.
OBJECTIVE - ALTERNATE % PIPE RUPIURE POSIULATION 1.
REDUCE N 7MBER OF PIPE BREAK POSITLATIONS 2.
REDUCE EARDWARE 3.
NO CHA33F. IN NON-MECEANISTIC CCNSIDERATICN h.
IMPROVE 00NSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE FACTORS B.
REULATORY 1ACKGROUND/RISMRY C.
AFFECTED SYSTD48 1.
SYSTIM DESCRIPTION 2.
PIPE SIZE RANGE AND MATERIAIS D.'
WHIPJET SCHEDULE 1.
CONSTRUCTION /0PERATION SCHEDULE LINKAGE 2.
FINAL SUBMITIAL M NRC - DE 86 3.
REqJIRE SER RESPONSE - FEB 87
.h.
RESOLUTIONOF10CFR50.12(a) 5.
IMPORTANCE OF NRC AGRIDGIT AT THIS TIME PROGRAM DESCRIPTION- (l d N M i k eccl /
II.
A.
FLOW CHART 1.
SCREENIN3/FATIOUE ANALYSIS 2.
FRACTURE ANALYSIS /TEBTING B.
NRC REVI N OF RESULTS 1.
MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT FREQUENT INTERVALS
III. SCREDING PROCESS
( d ), k b o [ d S Y e l'1 A.
THERMAL TRANSIEN'IS 1.
PROCESS 2.
PROGRESS % DATE B.
INITIAL SCREDING 1.
METHODOLOGY 2.
PROGRESS TO DATE a.
PASSED SYSTme (CUP -0.1) b.
FAILED 8YSTEMS (CUP +0.1)
C.
WATER HAMMIR 1.
METHODOLOGY a.
NUREG 0582 b.
ARBITRARY INTERMEDIATE BREAK STUDY c.
SYSTD( REVIEW 2.
PROGRESS TO DATE D.
CORROSION 1.
MrIHOD0!DGY a.
A.I.B. ST@Y b.
SITE SPECIPIC DATA 2."
PROGRESS TO DATE a.
PRIMARY SYSTDS b.
SECONDARY SYSTDIS E.
E@IPMENT SUFPORT8
'~
1.
METHODOLOGY s.
ASME III RECONCILIATION b.
EAZARDS REVIN c.
CLASS 4 PIPE REVIN 2.
PROGRESS TO DATE l
~(M bGYEf)
IV.
FATIGUE ANALYSIS A.
METHODOI4GY 1.
DEFINE GEOMETRY AT EREAK ICCATION 2.
ASME III EQUATION II EVALUATION l
3.
PROGRESS TO DATE
V.
FRA0 WRE ANALYSIS A.
Ment 0DOU)GY 1.
FIPE MATERIAL SELECTION (STAINLESS. CARBON STEEL) 2.
ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES 3.
PROGRES '20 DATE
~
1.
TECHNICAL REPORT (LEAKAGE AND CRACK STAIILITY)
VI.
FRA0WRE TESTING A.
METHODOIOGY 1.
PIPE 8 ELECTION (NATERIAL, SIZE)
^
~
2.
TESTING TE:INI41B 3.
PROGRESS M DATE 1.
TEST PLC 2.
MATERIAL ALLOCATION VII. LEAK DETECTION Part C NRC caucus Part 0 Summa'ry.'
A l
v1Cf05 ci s C b G's Cw WL s L 4 l5 0 05h O
$NC5C p resc,8 fn 3)ls L C 'a
, -t a ;,
4,
+ f, e kSCLk o!\\
Accs h e.\\ c e.
th,a desy.,a;c.,,
l PRESENTATION FOR FEBRUA Y
27, 1986 MEETING WITH ACRS SUBCOMMITTEES ON STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, SEISMIC DESIGN OF
- PIPING, AND METAL COMPONENTS INTRODUCTION
< MARTIN)
REVIEW OF WHIPJET
<MIKESELL)
SWEC PROGRESS
<GOLDSTEIN)
RLCA PROGRESS CSERVER>
~
'EPRI PROGRESS
<NORRIS>
SUMMARY
<MIKESELL) d
EVENTS TO DATE o
MEETING WITH NRRn WHIPJET SCOPE 8/27/85 o
SUBMITTAL TO NRR WHIPJET PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 9/6/95 o
MEETING WITH ACRS SUBCOMMITTEES PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 9/24/85 o.
SUBMITTAL TO NRRs
,A'CCEPTANCE CRITERIA DOCUMENT
~
10/10/85 O
EVENTS TO DATE
< CONT >
o PRESENTATION TO ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON BVPS-2:
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 11/1/S5 o
PRESENTATION TO F=ULL ACRS COMMITTEE ON BVPS-2:
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 11/S/S5 cs CONVERSATIONS WITH
~
~
NRRz
-TECHNICAL 1/S6 CONSIDERATIONS 12/S5 o
MEETING WITH NRRs PLAN fro R M A L REVIEW 1/22/S6 e
UTILITY CONSIDERATIONS o
CONSTRUCTION AND LICENSING TIME CONSTRAINTS o
NRR REVIEW OF CRITERIA DOCUMENT o
BROAD SCOPE RULE RESOLUTION o
FREQUENT NRR MEETINGS DURING 1986 o
W IPJET FINAL REPORTS DEC B6 i
o REQUIRE SAFETY EVALUATION j
REPORTS FEB B7 I
i
4 o
G S
REVIEW OF WHIPJET WHAT WHIPJET WILL DO WHIPJET PROCEDURE O
WHAT WHIPJET IS NOI l
~ INTENDED TO DO l
l i
i l
[
l
WHAT WHIPJET WILL DO 1.
SATISFY DEGB POSTULATION WITH ENGINEERING ANALYSIS SHOWING A
DETECTABLE LEAK BEFORE BREAK IS ASSURED.
- }w 2.
REDUCE HARDWARE IN THE PLANT MINIMIZE PLANT COST FACILITATE ACCESS FOR INSERVICE INSPECTION BEDUCE TIME IN PERFORMING INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE THUS ENHANCING ALARA POSITION
~
l 3.
INCREASE PLANT SAFETY THROUGH MORE COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE OF PROPERTIES AND CAPABILITIES.
l l
l
l l
WHIPJET PROCEDURES 1.
DEMONSTRATE APPLICABILITY STRESS CORROSION WATER HAMMER FATIGUE CUMULATIVE USAGE FACTOR EQUIPMENT SUPPORTS 2.
IMPLEMENT LBB PROGRAM A.
' MATERIALS TESTING ACTUAL PLANT MATERIALS o
BASE MATERIALS (TYPES
- 304, 316, AND A106 GR B) o WELDMFNTS MADE wROM PLANT MATERIALS TENSILE TESTS FULL SECTION FRACTURE TOUGHNESS TESTS t
8
e e
e WHIPJET PROCEDURES (CONT)
B.
CUMULATIVE USAGE f= ACTOR AND CRACK PROPAGATION ANALYSIS C.
LEAK-BEFORE-BREAK ANALYSIS
~3.
LEAK DETECTION PROGRAM A.
LEAK-RATE CALCULATION B.
LEAK DETECTION METHODS
\\
WHAT WHIPJET IS N_ O_ I INTENDED TO DO (BASED ON Q
A AT 1/22/S6 MTG) 1.
2.
CHANGE THE USE OF DEGB FOR ESTABLISHING DESIGN CRITERIA FOR ECCS AND CONYAINMENT.
b.
CHANGE REQUIREMENTS FOR
~
~
. EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION l
l 4.
ADDRESS THE FAILURE MODE j
ENCOUNTERED AT MOHAVE AND MONROE.
1
a URIPJET-An Alternative to Pipe Rupture Postulation The folleving table is a su==ary of the sccpe of the URIPJET progra=.
It will list the piping syste= stall high energy) anvolved, their bul. ding l
location, the total number of breaks to be censidered, and the expected number of protective devicesteither restraints or jet shields) required h
chould UHIPJEI not be implemented.
[
[
l
(
- SYSTEM
- BREAKS - BREAKS -
PROTECTIVE DEVICES.
j EXISTING
- FLANNED OC IC t
[
7 S4 0
0
- AUXILIARY STEAM (ASS) 17 46 0
- STM CEN. BLOUDOUNtBDG) -
12 0
0 BORON RECOVERYtBRS) 0 51 14 0
48 92
- CHEM /VOL CONTROL (CHS)
'O 0
0
- HYDROGENATED DRAIN (DGS)-
42 0
0 0
6
- AUX. FEEDUATERIFUE)
I 0
9 0
0
- GASE0US NITR00EntGNS) 0 13 6
3
- MAIN STEAM! MSS) 2S 0
14 272
- REACTOR COOLANT (RCS)
S 22 27 6
- FEEDUATERtTUS) l 1
1 0
- RESIDUAL HEAT RMVLtRHS)-
7 l
12 10 104 25
- SAFETI INJECTION (SIS) l a
547 263 60 81 t
810*
j
+
The above table does n:t in:1ude the LOOP breaks and restraints nor the A.I.B. breaks and restraints.
t IC=inside conIainment CC=outside containment S
r 4
JC o'c 39/ri 55 /36, e
?
1 l
I l'
m
t WHIPJET SCOPE OF HARDWARE REDUCTIOlN f5 4n 39 sV EXISTING -60 g
sN s w
as _ 's N s
-m
.25s PLANNED - 81 Ill
,s y
. \\
27 e
an -
H p
2fs -.bx
.g w'
s5 NN
,Ns' 22 x
s k'Nk,k)' M en - x 12 '
I7 in x-22 w
h, ' '//
s\\ss s
s m...-
- '5';
I 3 16 -
s ym y
ss-xs.
s.s h,'
/
s 10 -. /..
/
10, N '. s N.
a xs
.- /.
7 s.
u 14 -
/,-
- ss s, x s s;,;,
e r,. //
/
/ ',
,NN s '.
//-
N. N
,/, //.f
/
./
g.%
\\
%y y
.s
., ~ ~
2
.x.
0 - -k ef
,4.,/ - s's
/
g
' N '-
o o
o o
s g
1---
~ g ^
-g
'r-
.f-
\\,-
- - - -, - - - ~, - - -
g-ItCS FWS SIS D i' G t'llS MSS.
ItllS ANS UllS 11GS GNS FWE
[72']
lXISTING 1 ESTRAINTS
[', "j NEW IlM-iTIR 01: Sil11:1.11
I
)
4 FIFE SIZE RANGE -
FIFE MATERIAL
- AUXILIARY STEAM (ASS) 1.5. 2, 3, 4, 8
A1063 1.5, 2, 2.5. 3 IF316 A106B
- STM GEN. BLOUDOUN(!6DG) 1.5, 3, 4, 8 TF304
- BORON RECOVERY (BRS:
- 1. 5, 2, 3, 4 TF316/304
- CHEM /VOL CONIROL(CAS)
- HYDROGENATED DRAINIDGS)-
2 TF316
, AUX. FEEDUATER(FUE) 4 A1068 1.5 A1068
- GASEQUS NITROGEN (GNS) 32
.A106C/AISS_
- MAIN' STEAM (MSS) 1.5. 2. 3, 4, 6, 8, 14 TF316
- REACTOR COOLANT (RCS)
- 6. 16 A1068
- TEEDUATER(FUS)
- RESIDUAL HEAT RMVL(RHS)-
10, 12 TF316
- 2. 3. 4, 6, 12 7F316/304
- SAFETT INJECTION (SIS) e e
O
/
e p
9
/
e O
a f
I t
99
. rTh
- -,n ~ x u,w m.ug,..as
=
60 EXISTING DEVICES 81 PLANNED DEVICES If V
r SCREENING ACTIVITY CONSTRUCTION FATIGUE ASSESSMENT IMPACT WATE HAMMD EVAWATICN CORROSICN EVAMATICN EQUIPMENT SUPPORT EVAGATICN FAIL PASS (Wri1PJET APPLICABLE)
U l f II A
INSTALL DEVICES =
FATIGUE EVALUATION (CUT)
NOW PASS MATERIAL AND MATERIAL DATA COLLECTION l I jf
~~
/
FRACTURE ANALYSIS & TESTING (ALL PIPE CLASSES)
Wii1PJET PROGRAM i
FINAL RIPORT I
I
. FAIL PASS DEVICE REQUIRED; INSTALL k
NO DEVICE RZQUIRED DURING OUTAGE REMOVE EXISTING DEVICE IF DESIRED
emetem et#See sempegest 535965D9 assumphe a ese M
emeseS tett 1
I i
_e.o
.e..
..T._
_.-. e -
C me e v am. **T o supe.e seen y e e a ese 9eme P
PhN We em W 9 eer b 3 885 oma a T eG* b a ese gee 6 end 3 DGb S88E e 1
MET E EO ensSe M RWe pgafge g ab Te e T E 90e t empta?
efteWee WWW99988?e pgeggggenese p eaTe e49e l'
- T.
eus**
- oe8"8CT#
pa?8 SUS A884bWe S e
--T.
T-e.... e_.
emmebb G8Dee88 essenstes WWe s
erath eCCe#T"""
,,,,,,,,w ge o88STE"I" eefeeT N S d>
gysa393emb e33S eshmeBS beAgg@ee e$IE 4 *ee8u8**b * ##E' 8
peed SA8PSTT I
postsee S se p 9 vee e
f u
o M
mem 59453h8TV f
g__
---9 l-e eTaeSb3TV 4.48e 9
Yoo e
- p est 3 TWft $ 6 ir d
- een 88eeTwem 3 esTe
e
. THERMAL IRANSIENTS HIGH ENERGY LINE INPUT CLASS 2, 3 AND NNS IDENIIFY LINES ON APPLICABLE FLOW DIAGRAMS REVIEW SIRESS INPUT DATA PACKAGES (SIRM's)
FOR OPERATING CONDITIONS (NORMAL AND UPSET)
REVIEW OTHER DOCUMENTATION WHERE APPLICABLE
'(OPERATING MANUALS)
'(NSSS DOCUMENTS)~
/
DEVELOP SYSTEM THERMAL TRANSIENTS (NUMBER OF CYCLES)
(RATE OF TEMPERATURE CHAE.E)
4 I
WHIPJET FATIGUE ASSISSMDiT ASME CIASS 2. 3. AND WMS SYST2
/
SYSTE:
\\
TRANSID:TS
/ POST"LaTB BY ER.:;g, THEINAL I.CCATICi;S
/
ZONES
/
/
o 1P CATEGORIZE CATECOP.!2E ACCORDD:G TO SEVERITY ACCOROD:G TO THETC!AL.ZCf!E THEiMAL 2CNES HAVING NO ERIAKS GIT 3 SIy,r,,ti; ;,gsg3Ia;I D'.....""
3REAKS r
FAIE aliIp Jr-DISRICARD 1
SCREEiI!iG SCREEi!!iG s
4 34ASC ian.E THER2.AL 20i;ES HAVI::G PUSTUlaTIL i
3Rk.AES l
s l
l I
i e
D l
l t
l L
I 1
o FAIIGUE SCREENING RESULIS TO DATE
- - - - - - - - - _ ___ - - _ _ _ _ =
- SYSTEM BREAKS EVALUATED HARDUARE REQ' MIS FASS FAIL EXISTING FLANNED 29 25 0/0 3/7
- AUXILIARY SIEAM(ASS)
S 49 0/0 17/17 SIM GEN BLOUDOUN(BDG) a 0/0 0/0
- BORON RECOVERY (BRS) 103 37 0/0 9/12
- CHEM /VOL CONTROL (CE5)
- HYDROGENATED DRAIN (DGS)-
42 0
0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
- AUX. FEEDUATER(FUE)
- GASEQUS NIIROGEN(GNS) -
e a
0/0 0/0
- MAIN SIEAM(MSS) 9 0
0/13 0/0 272 0
0/14-0/25
- REACIOR C00LANI(RCSI 0
33 22/22 5/5
- FEEDUATERIFUS)
- RESIDUAL HEAT RMVL(RHS)-
7
~ 0 0/1 0/1
- 129 0
0/10 0/12 SAFETY INJECTION (SIS) 600 144 22/60 34/81 TOTAL CLASS 2, 3. AND NNS BREAK LOCATICNS TO BE EVALUAIED - 325 TOTAL CLASS 1 BREAKS LOCATIONS (ALL FASS 1.0 CUF CRITERIA) - 485 MARDUARE REQUIREMENTS = ACTUAL REQUIRED /ESIIMATED REQUIRED.
CUF = CUMULATIVE USAGE FACIOR AS DEFINED IN ASME 3 s
56 FROIECIIVE DEVICES REQUIRED BY UNIFJII 85 FROTECTIVE DEVICES ELIMINAIED BY UHIFJET OF THE 85 DEVICES ELIMINAIED. 61 ARE ASSOCIAIED UITH CLASS 1 BREAKS sc lo e trX tsr lo t, Fws t 7.
V[tS PLANMao ASS 3
o/3 SDC1 17 F /12 CW5 9
1/ o PWS
.F o[T 14 l20 "Tc'rrAL 18 /38 p
FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH CEXTRA SCREENING) o POSTULATE PTC GREATER THAN SECTION XI ACCEPTANCE STANDARDS o
EVALUATE FOR SIGNIFICANT GROWTH EVALUATE o
CLASS 2/3 a
TYPICAL LINECS)
WITH CUF O1 EVALUATE CASE-o CLASS 1
BY-CASE l
l l
l
MATERIALS TESTING PROGRAM o
STAINLESS STEEL DATA BASE IS ADEQUATE TYPE 304 TYPE 316 SMAW ca FERRITIC STEEL TESTS PLANNED ONE HEAT OF A106C
<4" PIPE)
OR A106B (3"
PIPE)
TWO HEATS OF A106B l
(6" B"
PIPE)
THREE HEATS OF SMAW l
C3" OR 4",
6",
AND l
[
B" PIPE)
FERRITIC STEEL TEST MATRIX (3
HEATS BASE 3
HEATS WELD) o J-R CURVE 2
a 550 F
PIPE BEND 1
e 200-300 F
1S TESTS TOTAL o
TENSILE 3
e 550 F
STRESS-STRAIN 1
Q 200-300 F
24 TESTS TOTAL t
l l
l
W 9P POSTULATE THROUGH-WALL CRACK if S MOtaf LEAMAGE IB DETECTABLE CRITICAL GEZE CRACK LEAKAGE ITE CRACp(
(NORMAL
- GGE3 (NOMMALD 1'
WAFETY y
MARGIN
> C CRACK HTABILITY (NORMAL +BSED
/
r s
CRACK WTABILITY 1.414 NORMAL +SWED' g.
.i.
MA..
.CCEmA~C.
CMITEMEA e
LEAKAGE SIZE CRACKS (NORMAL OPERATING LOADS) o USE EPRI PICEP COMPUTER CODE o
PRESSURIZER SPRAY LINE (TYPE
- 316SS, 6"
DIA) 5 GPM CIRCUM TWCs 4.9"
,LE AK - DETECTION CAPABILITY o-IS AT LEAST 1
GPM l
e
LEAK DETECTION SAFETY MARGIN
< INSTABILITY FOR NORMAL
+
SSE LOADS >
o REQUIRE RATIO O Fr INSTABILITV CRACK SIZE TO LEAKAGE CRACK SIZE 2
o-PRESSURIZER SPRAY LINE CIRCUM
'T W C e
5 GPM 2.04 o
STABILITY CHECKS o
LEAKAGE SIZE CRACKS STABLE AT NORMAL
+
SSE LOADS MARGIN ON J
(FOR NO CRACK GROWTH)
IS C
o LEAKAGE SIZE CRACKS STABLE AT EXCESSIVELY HIGH LOADS
~
1.41 X
CNORMAL
+
SSE) e MARGIN ON INSTABILITY 1_9 l
1 4
i 0 CI GGs re OUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED BY DLC ON WHIPJET 1.
Tests on pipes to de+. ermine J-R curves may turn out to have significantly higher results than from compact specimens, depending upon the computational techniques. Differences arise from'the crack associated displacements. DLC should discuss the techniques they intend to use.
2.
The staff would like to have a presentation on a step by step example-of fatigue crack growth analysis methods and results.
3.
The staff would like to have a presentation on the methodology followed by DLC to determine the susceptibility of each high energy piping system to waterhamer. This presentation should reflect the findings in NUREG-0927, Rev. 1, since NUREG-0582, which was referenced by DLC, is outdated.
~
4 The staff would like to hear a presentation describing the procedures DLC willAse to detect leakage from a cracked pipe. These procedures should be illustrated by discussion of a typical scenario. The discussion should also include licensee action upon detection of leakage.
5.
The staff wculd like to review a verification package for the PICEP code as pertains tn leakage calculations. This infonnation should show both analytical and experimental verification to the extent possible.
2 i
t 6.
The staff would like to have a presentation on the methodology followed by DLC to determine the susceptibility of each high energy line to stress corrosion cracking. This presentation should address both ferritic and stainless steel piping.
7.
The staff would like to have DLC present the justification for the flaw size used for fatigue crack growth studies and for using their
~
~
material-data for the tearing stability analyses for the non-nuclear high energy piping. This question is asked in view of the differences between nuclear and non-nuclear piping with respect to fabrication, examination, and design.
8.-
DLC should confirm whether there are any cast fittings in the BOP piping.
9.
DLC should discuss whether the Section III Fatigue calculations
, accounted,for flow stratifications. Specifically did any of the calculations resulting in CUF <0.1 involve piping with flow stratification.
- 10. The testing program for J-R curves is for ferritic piping. DLC is planning to rely on stainless steel data base rather than testing.
DLC should provide the NRC with austenitic weld data for our review prior to beginning their testing program.
d
f 4
hg.
/[-
((
Were, d is c ws.5a4 h/I N NL C.
cy 'p i c u vi i l
g glio.1e.
Cawerufset fF M '" b b(Ce
- 4 cs wie re
.10 t wei flo os O ke(
iq f(i e mee ti l
- 11. The austenttic weld data base and ferritic weld tests should represent the weld metal with the limiting fracture properties. To justify this conclusion for each weld joint for which a break will no longer be postulated indicate:
a)
Type of weld: full penetration, socket, etc.
b)
Weld process c)
Electrode type and size d)
Weld procedure e)
Post weld heat treatment f)
Inspection required following fabrication Based on these parameters", DLC should justify the conclusion that the austenitic weld' data base and ferritic weld tests represent the limiting fracture properties for each weld joint for which a break will no longer be postulated.
- 12. Will J-R tests be perfonned under static or dynamic conditions? Why?
- 13. Which lines have positive displacement pumps? How do you account for vibration fatigue from positive displacement pumps?
- 14. What is the fracture properties of ferritic heat affected z.ane (HAZ) material that has not been post weld heat treated (PWHT)? How does adde 4 your-leak-before-break evaluation consider p6st HAZ cracks?
- 15. How does your leak-before-break evaluation account for residual weld stresses in welds, which have not been PWHT? (Resolved with our consultant)
- 16. What is the minimum fluid temperature in each line when the line.is perfonning its normal operation and its failure could result in a safety concern? What are the fracture properties for the ferritic materials at the minimum fluid temperature?. Will. tests confim this?
e p
e 4
6
_