ML20205F096

Forwards Request for Addl Info Re Confirmatory Item 9, Steam Line Break Analysis Outside of Containment. Meeting Suggested During Wk of 860825

ML20205F096
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	08/12/1986
From:	Mark Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Conway R GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
References
NUDOCS 8608190086
Download: ML20205F096 (5)

Text

,

AUG 12 1986 Docket Nos.: 50-424 50-425 Mr. Richard Conway Vice President and Project General Manager Georgia Power Company Box 299A, Route 2 Waynesboro, Georgia 30830

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CONFIRMATORY ITEM 9, "STEAMLINE BREAK ANALYSIS OUTSIDE OF CONTAINMENT" By letter dated June 25, 1986, Georgia Power Company submitted an analysis of steamline breaks outside of containment in response to confinnatory item 9.

The staff has reviewed this submittal and requires additional infonnation detailed in the enclosure to complete its review.

The staff suggests a meeting during the week of August 25 to discuss the issue with your staff.

I will contact your staff to finalize arrangements.

If there are any questions, I can be reached at (301) 492-7357.

g/

Sincerely, Melanie A. Miller, Project Manager PWR Project Directorate #4 Division of PWR Licensing-A

Enclosure:

As stated cc: See Next Page DISTRIBUTION:

ODockeLEH es;.3 CLi NRC PDR JShapaker Local PDR WLeFave PD#4 Rdg.

BJYoungblood OGC/Beth EJordan 8 Grimes JPartlow NThompson MMiller MDuncan 3

ACRS (10) plR-A MUun'{anPWR#/fPWR-A PWR#4/DP R-A c

BJYoungblood r:

h 08//

86 08//J/86 08/ (M86 agsiggg $$h A

s l

Mr. R. E. Conway

/

Georgia Power Company Vogtle Electric Generating Plant cc:

Mr. L. T. Gucwa Resident Inspector Chief Nuclear Engineer Nuclear Regulatory Comission Georgia Power Company P. 0. Box 572 P.O. Box 4545 Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 Mr. Ruble A. Thomas Deppish Kirkland, III, Counsel Vice President - Licensing Office of the Consumers' Utility Vogtle Project Council Georgia Power Company /

Suite 225 Southern Company Services, Inc.

32 Peachtree Street, N.W.

P.O. Box 2625 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Binningham, Alabama 35202 James E. Joiner Mr. Donald O. Foster Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman, Vice President & Project General Manager

& Ashmore Georgia Power Company Candler Build,r.g Post Office Box 299A, Route 2 127 Peachtree Street, N.E.

Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Douglas C. Teper Mr. J. A. Bailey Georgians Against Nuclear Energy Project Licensing Manager 1253 Lenox Circle Southern Company Services, Inc.

Atlanta, Georgia 30306 P.O. Box 2625 Binningham, Alabama 35202 Ernest L. Blake, Jr.

Bruce W. Churchill, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge Tim Johnson 1800 M Street, N.W.

Executive Director Washington, D. C.

20036 Educational Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia Mr. G. Bockhold, Jr.

1083 Austin Avenue, N.E.

l Vogtle Plant Manager Atlanta, Georgia 30307 Georgia Power Company Route 2, Box 299-A Billie Pirner Garde Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 Citizens Clinic Director Government Accountability Project Regional Administrator, Region II 303 10th Street i

l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Augusta, Georgia 30901 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 l

l

O i

ENCLOSURE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 MAIN STEAM LINE BREAK OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT The staff has reviewed the applicant's June 25, 1986 submittal concerning the MSLB analysis outside containment. The staff believes that the thern'al analysis presented in Attachment 2 of the June 25, 1986, submittal requires further justification. The specific concerns are discussed below:

1.

The staff finds that the Westinghouse approach for calculating the time a component remains at saturation temperature may not be appropriate. Section 3.2.2 of Attachment 2 to the June 25 submittal describes the Westinghouse model.

Equation 2 in Section 3.2.2 is given as:

m Ah, = in h 6t s

with terms defined in Section 3.2.2.

The Westinghouse model further specifies that m = mass of water on component

= 0.021 lb in=massflowrateofsteamimpingingon component

= 0.71 lb/hr

, Therefore, Equation 2 becomesA = 0.0296 Ah,/h, which implies that s

the time at saturation (At) is a function of enthalpy only; this is contrary to the physical meaning of the original equation which says that 4t is a function of In and m.

Additional information is needed to justify that 4t is independent of flow conditions, heat transfer, and the configuration of the component.

2.

The staff has also reviewed other documents cited by the applicant in the June 25 letter, namely, WCAP-8687, Supplement 2, "ASCO Solenoid Valve Qualification to a Derated Westinghouse Generic LOCA/MSLB Profile," and NUREG/CR-3424, " Test Program and Failure Analysis of Class 1E Solenoid Valves."

The staff notes that there is insufficient data to support the general applica-bility of Equation 2.

In WCAP-8687, Supplement 2, Westinghouse used one set of test data from NUREG/CR-3424 to calculate m and In for one component. This empirical approach is unique to that component for the test cenditions. This test cannot be extrapolated to other components, under different flow conditions.

The applicant should provide further justification to support the general application of Equation 2.

l 3.

Similarly, Equation 1 in Section 3.2.1 cf Attachment 2 of the June 25 letter, with a constant value of Q equal to 4.29 Btu /sec, does not appear acceptabid for calculating t other than for the specific component and test j

condition under which the value Q was derived. The applicant should provide i

further justifications for use of this equation in other applications.

l

...J 4

The equation M

[AJorpo_nent

=

y

\\

1. 8316 is stated by Westinghcuse without procf. The applicant should provide further justification concerning the applicability of this equation.

5.

It appears to the staff that the complicated vapcrization process in a superheated environment with strong blowdcwn flow has been overly simplified by the Westinghouse model. The acceptability of the Westinghouse approach, which, in effect, uses one set of test data to derive a generic equation, is questionable.

If the applicant continues to promote this approach, further justification is needed.

6.

The Westinghouse model is not consistent with staff reconnendations in NUREG-0588, Appendix B.

The applicant should provide e thermal analysis usirg the methodology of NUREG-0588, " Interim Staff Position on Envircnmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment," or provide explicit justification for an alternative approach.

O t

l

-t r

,