ML20209D018
Text
_
,p aa404 a
g(
\\
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
o 3
E WASHINGTON D. C. 20555
/
JUN 2 2 384 MEMORANDUM FOR: George Knighton, Chief Operating Reactors #3, DL FROM:
Robert J. Bosnak, Chief Mechanical Engineering Branch, DE
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION -
NUREG-0737, ITEM II.D.1 - PERFORMANCE TESTING OF RELIEF AND SAFETY VALVES, DIABLO CANYON, UNITS 1 AND 2
Reference:
Ltr. from P. Crane to F. Miraglia dated 3/31/82 Ltr. from P. Crane to H. Denton dated 6/23/82 Ltr. from J. Schuyler to F. Miraglia dated 6/30/82 Ltr. from P. Crane to H. Denton dated 12/13/82 Memo from R. Bosnak to G. Knighton dated 10/28/83 Enclosed herewith are additional questions which have been developed as a result of the EG&G Idaho review for the Mechanical Engineering Branch of the referenced Diablo Canyon 1 and 2 submittals for TMI Item II.D.1 of NUREG-0737, Performance Testing of Relief and Safety Valves. Please transmit these questions to the applicant requesting that they discuss their responses with EG&G Idaho and the staff so that the. review of this item may be completed.
90$f Robert J. Bosnak, Chief Mechanical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
R. Vollmer J. Knight B. Sheron J. Hannon T. Novak F. Cherny H. Schierling R. Emch G. Hanner L. Magleby, EG&G
~
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON TMI ACTION NUREG-0737 II.D.1 FOR DIABLO CANYON 1 AND 2 1.
The Diablo Canyon FSAR (Chapter 15.4.2.2, Amendment 5 dated March 1974) indicates greater liquid water relief through the safety valves (SVs) for the Feedwater Line Break (FWLB) accident than'that indicated in the EPRI Westinghouse.. inlet condition report (EPRI NP-2296). The FSAR also indicates water relief for a significantly greater time period than that of any of the EPRI tests. Please_ advise the applicable liquid flow conditions'that the SVs would be exposed to, i.e., pressure, temperature, flow rate, number of actuation cycles, and total length of time for liquid flow, for the FWLB accident and provide EPRI or other test datasthat demonstrates that the Diablo Canyon SVs can perform their pressure relief function and the plant can be safely shut down.
2.
NUREG-0737, Item II.D.1 requires that the plant specific PORV control circuitry be qualified for design-basis transients and accidents.
Please provide information which demonstrates that this requirement has been fulfilled.
3.
In one of the EPRI loop seal-steam tests on the Crosby 6M6 safety valve (Test 1419), the valve chattered after opening and the test was terminated after the valve was manually opened to stop the chattering.
This test had a 350 F loop seal, which is representative of the hot loop seal at Diablo Canyon. Additionally, the ring settings used in this test were evidently representative of the settings used in the plant valves.
Demonstrate that the behavior exhibited in~this test is not indicative of the expected behavior of the Diablo Canyon valves.
4.
Neither the Diablo Canyon submittal nor PG&E's response (dated Jan-uary 23, 1984) to the NRC's request for further information provide values for the expected plant backpressure. Furnish the expected plant back-pressures for the safety valves and PORVs for steam and liquid conditions so that backpressures measured in the EPRI tests can be compared with plant backpressures.
~
=._. _ _ =.. _ _ =. -. _...
,5.
.PG&E's response to Question 4 of the NRC's request for further in-formation (November 15,1983) states that the Westinghouse Owners Group performed an analysis to determine the effects of blowdowns exceeding 10% on safety valve performance.
The response states that results of
~
the analysis showed no adverse effects on plant safety and that a dis-cussion of the blowdown analysis is contained in the Westinghouse report WCAP-10105.
In reviewing this document, however, we are unable to confirm that excessive blowdowns are discussed therein. Therefore, provide documentation that discusses the analysis on the effects of increased safety valve blowdowns.
6.
The response to Question 16 of the NRC's request for further infor-mation states that supports with a natural frequency of 20 Hz or greater are modeled as rigid in accordance with Diablo Canyon licensing commit-ments. The use of 20 Hz in the licensing commitments as a measure of' rigidity was based, however, on seismic loads. The fluid transient loads have higher frequency content and could excite higher frequencies in the supports. Thus, provide an evaluation of th~e effects of modeling supports having natural frequencies of 20 Hz as rigid when fluid discharge loads are imposed on the system.
o 9
e d
M a
O m
- - = - = + -
---,_s.
e
.= [
o UNITED STATES h ni ^
g 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r
~
- db o
g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 r E
?d[*.CR[
" ' ~
^'
June 25, 1984 (ag MEMORANDUM FOR: James M. Taylor, Deputy Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement FROM:
Richard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering, NRR
SUBJECT:
EFFECTIVENESS OF QA PORTION OF DIABLO CANYON IDVP During last week's review of issues raised by Mr. Yin on the Diablo Canyon IDVP, he questioned how the QA work performed under the IDVP could have missed the prograrrrnatic issues he found at the site.
I met briefly with the DC project group and Mr. Reedy last Thursday to discuss this question.
He stated that, although his review took place in the October 82 - January 83 time frame which was before'the "TC" program (where many of Mr. Yin's concerns arose) was initiated, that he had many of the same findings.
Please confirm that, for the extent of the Reedy audit, the findings of this audit were not in conflict with Yin's findings.
I am enclosing ITR-41 and appropriate portions of the IDVP final report to assist in this review.
We need the results of your review by July 6.
,ichard H. Voll,mer, Director R
Division of Engineering, NRR
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
H. Dentorr E. Case R. DeYoung M
N., Grace J. Martin, R-V w
7
- w p: w.w w w m g a y n erw e y q y y f..q ?~v; M~7.cM n e'. m ; W * ~ 'c M 7 y:,,3-q g,3<c.7 3,; p,;;g.j z d
.. ftl f r w...-.
r;2 ;.
.,e,.k. o
!ay <& r*Qb'.:n r. y%;, 5*hh *F Q'f 2. d; ; {- L,. ' * -
s
.w-
~
4M*
- <' N'-
!* k ' '
S-
~.
JUN 2 51984 4
p
~.,
UT yy,
Docket Nos.: 50-275 v,s
_.u
., and.'ID-323.,.,.. %.7,.:
3..
~
4g, 9, '
6
'^.. '
c DISTRIBUTION
. ), '
s d ", '
Docket File 50-275/323 W
- s MEMORANDUM FOR:,H. R. Denton
, LB#3 Reading 3 Y.
l E. G. Case v
~'
m..
?g-;G. Edison.
- Attorney, OELD N
.A,q v*.
Jtee-t
' \\' '
7 f J. Snfezek..., ;f * %.
A J:
4,,;'. ;D.'Eisenhut 7 ;;';<
~g' ;
- h..
SBlack
'N
\\{.,t
, g.
. s.,.
'J, R.: Purple
. '3
' rg
.s u,.7.; yp H. Thompson -
.. x. m, _
9:
-+.?
R. Vollmer
,^t C '<- '~
3
~
3:w -
Y'.r R.~Mattson >
vf 5 ' W +
?,
S T. Spets
' V,. ~.
...N. Grace.i ~'~ -G
?
N i
M
,? O J. Taylor 1 -
.1 +
a.
.,. ' ' p u. ? : G.-Holohan ",_
':.T.,,'
~
c
.,%.T. Novak a
- M "
m 6 5 S W d h j ';. '
~
t
~ g-
.GJ Lainas
~ F. Miragita;-s.,. x.
THRU:
' George W. Knighton, Chief
~
Licensing Branch No. 3-
, [..,'iDivision of Licensing
~
./ 3 gj..
FROM:
9:. ~ Hans Schierling,' Project Manager; v..
i Licensing. Branch No.~3
/-)
. Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
-DIABLO CANh0N' ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS g
v
.p
~
U Diablo Canyon 4
,7 a
. y y, 7.,.
On June 21. GAP submitted to the Commissioners "302 New Allegations" in support of its May 3 petition to defer further licensing decisions on the Diablo Canyon Plant. The submittal will be issued as a Board Notification and Region V will enter the allegations in the Diablo Canyon Tracking System. The staff will perfom an initial evaluation to determine if any of the allegations must be resolved prior to a full power decision.
J
- Hans Schierling, Project Manager
' Licensing Branch No. 3 1
Division of Licensing DL:LB#3 h
a, a e,,j v A HSchierTNg/ch tjhton OMO _<v /CMGT/v'
/
6/h84 6/
84 e--