ML20204F522
| ML20204F522 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 04/28/1983 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Counsil W NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO. |
| References | |
| LSO5-83-04-071, LSO5-83-4-71, NUDOCS 8305020121 | |
| Download: ML20204F522 (5) | |
Text
_ ______-_
e s.
Q April 28,1983 LS05-83-04-071 Docket No. 50-245.
Mr. W. G. Counsil, Senior Vice President Nuclear Engineering a Operations Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101
Dear Mr. Counsil:
SUBJECT:
MARK i CONTAINMENT LONG TERM PROGRM4 - PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT STRUCTURAL EVALUATION (NNECO Suhnittal Dated 12/23/82)
Re: Millstone Station, Unit 1 The NRC staff and its consultant Franklin Research Center (FRC) are reviewing the structural aspects of your plant unique analysis report. As a result of our review to date we have prepared the enclosed request for additional infornation.
It is requested that you provide a response within 45 days of receipt of this letter.
If you deternine there is a need to neet with or to have a conference call with the staff and FRC to discuss this request prior to responding, please
. contact your project manager.
In addition, if you cannot r'eet this response date, please notify your project manager within seven days of receipt of this letter.
This request for infon1ation was approved by the Office of Mananenent and Budget under clearance number 3150-0091 which expires October 31, 1985.
Sincerely,
%Df Original signed by/
p MG M Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #5 Division of Licensing.
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure See.next page DIST: ? Docket File?
NRC PDR LPDR HSmith DEisenhut BSiegel 0 ELD ACRS-10 ASLAB Gray ORB #5 Rdg JHeltemes, AE00 ELJordan JMTaylor HShaw JShea DCrutchfield NSIC 0305020121 830428 PDR ADOCK 05000245 P
pop s
n -
DL:08dff5 L:0RBf5 D /
2 D.:
OFFICE )
P422 9
NM-
. 4/.ff./83.
......................e 8 3...........
suaaaue>
/g3...
.y.................
o4re >
Nac Fonu sia tio-aoi nncu o24o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usom mi-meeo
Mr. W. G. Counsil April 28,1983 cc William H. Cuddy, Esquire State of Connecticut Day, Berry & Howard Office of Policy & Management Counselors at Law ATTN:
Under Secretary Energy One Constitution Plaza Division
~
Hartford, Connecticut 06103 80 Washington Street Hartford, Connecticut 06115 Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I Office 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company ATTN:
Superintendent
~
lillstone Plant P. O. Box 128 Waterford, Connecticut 06385 Mr. Richard T. Laudenat Manager, Generation Facilities Licensing Northeast Utilities Service Company P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Resident Inspector c/o V. S. NRC P. O. Box Drawer KK Niantic, Connecticut 06357 First Selectman of the Town of Waterford Hall of Records 200 Boston Post Road Waterford, Connecticut 06385 John F. Opeka Systems Superintendent l
Northeast Utilities Service Company P. O. Box 270
~
Hartford, Connecticut 06101
~
~
~-
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region I Office i
ATTN:
Regional Radiation Representative _
JFK Federal Building Boston, Massachusetts 02203
r I
TER-C550 6-317 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION TORUS, VENT SYSTEM, AND PIPING SYSTEM, Item 1:
Provide a summary of the analysis and the results for the following pene trations:
o vent pipe torus intersection o SRV quencher line o LPCI.line vacuum breaker line and RCIC torus penetration.
o Item 2:
Comment on the effect of the neglected loads indicated on page 68 of Reference 4 on the stress results for the drywell-to-vent penetration.
Item 3:
Provide evidence that the fatigue criteria for the bellows as required by para. NE-3365.2,Section III of the ASME B&PV code ~ are met.
Item 4:
Provide a summary of the analysis with regard to the vacuum breaker valves; indicate whether they are considered Class 2 components as required by the criteria [1].
Item 5 :
Provide analyses of the piping systems not included within the report.
Describe the end' conditions assumed for the beam model of the vent Item 6:
header deflector shown in page 4-5, how these were derived, and the sensitivity of maximum calculated stresses to boundary assumptions.
, Item 7; Provide the.results of the buckling analysis including the margin of j
safety for the catwalk components, i.e., the 4-inch diameter Schedule 80 pipe supports and the 2-inch pipe brace.
Item 8:
Provide a list of'the component materials and their corresponding metal temperatures used for the stress limit selection.
Item 9:
Indicate whether each torus attached pipi6g and its supports have been classified as Class 2 or Class 3 piping, Class 2 or Class 3 l
component supports, and essential or non-essential piping systems.
Also, indicate whether a pump or valve associated with the piping mentioned above is an active or inactive component, and is considered operable.
Item 10 : With reference to Table 1 of Appendix B, indicate whether all loads have been considered in the analysis and/or provide justification if any load has been neglected.
4 b0 Franklin Research Center A Ome.an et The Fre,uen inessuee
=
TER-C5506-317 Item 11: Provide a summary of the analyses for the new modifications yet to be supplied; these include Items 7,12, 13,16,17, and 19 of the key for Figures 2.3 and 2.4 of Reference 4.
Item 12: Provide details of fatigue analysis for piping systems.
Indicate whether the fatigue usage factors for the SRV piping and the torus attached piping are sufficiently small that a plant-unique fatigue analysis is not warranted for piping.
The NRC is expected to
. tview the conclusions of a generic presentation (6) and determine wi.sther it is sufficient for each plant-unique analysis to establish that the expected usage factors for piping are haall enough to obviate a plant-unique fatigue analysis of the piping.
Item 13: Submit a summary of the analysis for the miscellaneous internal piping.
i Item 14: The ASME Code provides an acceptable procedure for computing fatigue usage when a member is subject to cyclic loadings of random occurrence, such as might be generated by excitations from more than one type of event (SSE and SRV discharge, for example).
This procedure requires correction of the stress-range amplitudes considered and the associated number of cycles in order to account for the interspersion of stress cycles of unlike character.
State whether or not the reported usages reflect use of this method.
If not, indicate the effect on reported results.
Item 15: Justify the reason for not considering skew symmetric boundary conditions in the Analysis of the torus shown in Figure 3.1.
Evaluate the effect of the thus-neglected modes.
Item 16: Specific comments addressing the method of summation used and its compliance with the prooability of non-exceedance (PNE) criteria of 84% stated in para. 6.3b of Reference 1 should be incorporated into the text.
Item 17 : Submit a summary of the analysis for the vacuum breaker and its pene tration.
Item 18: Justify that the 45' model of the vent header and downcomer used in the analysis is adequate to meet the intent of the criteria which requires at least 180*.
Justify the reasons for not considering skew symmetric boundary conditions to evaluate the effect of the resulting modes.
.. dd Franklin Research Center A Dres.on of The Frana!an insatute
~
l l,,
l TER-C550 6-317 GENERAL Describe fully the procedures used to assess cumulative fatigue Item Gl:
damage.
In particular, address:
Wiere departures from standard code procedure were introduced.
1.
How critical points were selected and how stress (or stress 2.
intensity) ranges were computed.
Which cyclic loads were omitted, if any, in these computations.
For example, were thermal transients given consideration?
3.
Whether cyclic amplitudes and the associated number of cycles were adjusted to account for the interspersion of cycles of 4.
unlike character.
How the cumulative usage factor was computed.
5.
What impact departures from code procedures have on the margins of safety shown for each component for which cumulative usage 6.
was computed.
Is the method described in Section 4.3.6 of Reference 4 for assessing thermal stress' typical of all evaluations made in the Item G2:
report?
Please discuss the tacit assumption that either:
'Diermal equilibrium is achieved before other significant 1.
mechanical loads are experienced by the structure.
or 2.
Maximum transient thermal stresses are conservatively bounded by
. the assumptions made.
O f
0 D
- nklin Research Center AChesenof The Frannhn W