ML20211P469
| ML20211P469 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200003 |
| Issue date: | 10/10/1997 |
| From: | Scaletti D NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Liparulo N WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9710200202 | |
| Download: ML20211P469 (4) | |
Text
- _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
October 10, 1997 Mr. Nicholas J. Liparuto, Manager Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Analysis Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Westinghouse Electric Corporation P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15230
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATIVE TO OPEN ITEMS IN THE AP600 DESIGN CERTIFICATION REVIEW
Dear Mr. Liparuto:
As a result of the staff's continuing review of the AP600 design certification application, the Plant Systems Branch has prepared the final safety evaluation report (FSER) of Chapter 10 of the AP600 Standard Safety Analysis Report (SSAR). The FSER identifies four open items needing resolution by Westinghouse before the staff can complete its review of SSAF'. Chapter 10. The open items are identified in the enclosure.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me at (301) 415-1105.
Sincerely, original signed by:
Dino C. Scaletti, Project Manager Standardization Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No.52-003
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File PDST R/F JRoe PUBLIC DMatthews TQuay JNWilson TKenyon-BHuffman DScaletti JSebrosky ACRS (11)
DT p WDean, O-5 E23 JMoore,0-15 B18 I
I i
NAME: A:\\RAIDESIG.DE To receive a copy of this document, indicate in tht' aox: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment /cnclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE PM:PDST:DRPM 6-O:PDST:DRPM l
NAME DScaletti:sg Tlf&TRQuay 'TW DATE 10/ i /97
_/
10/io/97 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 9710200202 971010 PDR ADOCK 05200003 l
((
,,',,gj [,
{,
m~.-
E PDR
e Mr. Nicholas J. Uparuto Docket No.52-003 Westinghouse Electric Corporation AP600 cc: Mr. B. A. McIntyre Mr. Russ Bell Advanced Plant Safety & Ucensing Senior Project Manager, Programs Westinghouse Electric Corporation Nuclear Energy Institute Energy Systems Business Unit 1778 i Street, NW P.O. Box 355 Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Washington, DC 20006 3706 Mr. Cindy L Haag Ms. Lynn Connor Advanced Plant Safety & Licensing Doc-Search Associates Westinghouse Electric Corporation Post Offee Box 34 Energy Systems Business Unit Cabin John, MD 20818 Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Dr. Craig D. Sawyer, Manager Advanced Reactor Programs Mr. Sterling Franks GE Nuclear Energy U.S. Department of Energy 175 Curtner Avenue, MC-754 NE 50 San Jose, CA 95125 19901 Germanteun Road Idaho Falls,ID 83415 Germantown, MD 20874 Mr. Robert H. Buchholz Mr. Frank A. Ross GE Nuclear Energy U.S. Department of Energy, NE-42 175 Curtner Avenue, MC-781 Office of LWR Safety and Technology San Jose, CA 95125 19901 Germantown Road Germantown, MD 20874 Barton Z. Cowan, Esq.
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott Mr. Charles Thompson, Nuclear Engineer 600 Grant Street 42nd Floor Aro20 Certification Pittsburgh, PA 15219 N -50 19901 Germantown Road Mr. Ed Rodwell, Manager Germantown, MD 20874 PWR Design Certification Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303
(
CHAPTER 10 OPEN ITEMS 410.304F: AP600 main condenser system is described in SSAR Section 10.4.1 and shown in Figure 10.4.71 of the SSAR. ' Design parameters of the condenser (such as heat transfer capability, surface area, design operating pressure, shell side pressure,
- circulating water flow, tube side inlet temperature, tube-side temperature rise, condenser outlet temperature, condenser tube material,,,. etc.) were listed in Table 10.4.1 1, " Main Condenser Design Data," of the SSAR. The table was -
referenced in DSER Section 10.4.1, and was found acceptable by the staff.
However, the staff found, while propanng this SER, that SSAR Table 10.4.1 1 was removed by Westinghouse. The staff indicated to Westinghouse in a telephone conversation on August S,1997, that the design parameter information in GSAR Table 10.4.1 1 is necessary for the staff to complete its review of the condenser system. As a result, Westinghouse sent a marked-up copy on ALgust 13,1997, to restore a portion of SSAR Table 10.4.1 1. In addition, Westinghouse provided justifications for the deleted portion, stating that the deleted parameters are dependent upon the site specific heat rejection system (e.g., cooling towers).
The deletion of the information on circulating water flow, tube inlet temperature and temperature rise, and tube sheet material represents an incomplete condenser design and a reduction in review scope. There are other ways, such as bounding design or reference design, to deal with the variation of the site-specific parameters.
The staff has determined that deleting the SSAR information simply because of the var;ation of site-specific parameters is not acceptable. This information was.
previously reviewed and used as the bases for the staff findings in the draft safety evaluation report. This is a new open item resulting from the deletion of the SSAR Table 10.4.1-1, 410.305F: In P.Al Q410.250, the staff requested Westinghouse to provide a system flow diagram, piping and instrument diagram (P&lD) for the GSS, This was identified as the second part of DSER Open item 10.4.3-1. In a meeting with Westinghouse on February 22 and 23,1995, Westinghouse explained that the reason for not having a P&lD of the GSS in the SSAR was that GSS was a nonsafety system and not important enough to provide such a detail, The staff explained to Westinghouse that simply because the system is nonsafety, is not an adequate justification. The importance of the GSS to AP600 is not much different from the importance of the GSS to other PWR plants. The staff performed its review according io SRP Section 10.4.3, which identifies the P&lD of the GSS in the review area, recognizing GSS being a nonsafety-system. In SSAR Revision 4, Westinghouse provided the requested diagram as Figure 10.4.12-1. The staff found it acceptable and resolved the open item regarding the P&lD for GSS. However, while preparing this SER, the staff discovered that Figure 10.4.121 was removed by Westinghouse. This is not acceptable. Open item 10.4.3-1 with regard to piping and instrumentation diagrams is reopened.
410.306F: in Revision 14 of the SSAR, Table 10.4.5-1 was deleted. The staff cannot complete its review without the reference design information that was provided in the table.
Enclosure
~
.o
~
2-410,307F: The staff reviewed the SSAR using the guidance of BTP (ASB) 10 2 and finds that I
the cited design features would minimize, but not necessarily eliminate, water hammer occurrence in the AP600 feedwater system design.- Consequently, flow testing to detect possible feedwater hammer in the feedwater piping should be performed, in its response to Q410.263, Westinghouse stated that the test requirement of BTP(ASB) 10-2 is met by the tests performed on feedring-type steam generators of operating plants in the United States and by monitoring the feedwater -
system for water hammer during the AP600 initial test program. Therefore, they concluded that further design testing is not mquired. The staff observed that there was no operating experience for the AP600 feedwater system and the test data from operating plants may not be usable. Therefore, tas tests for detecting feedwater hammer occurrence to meet BTP (ASB) 10 2 are required for the AP600 design.
This was identified as Open item 10.4.7-1 (Westinghouse OITS No. 5).
The staff had previously reviewed the initial test program in Sections 14.2.9.1.7 and 14.2.10.4.18 of the AP600 SSAR concoming preoperational and etsrtup tests and found that these sections did not incorporate the tests for feedwater hammer prevention. In a letter dated June 3,1997, the staff requested Westinghouse to perform feedwater flow tests or perform an engineering anahsis based on acceptable test data from an identical Westinghouse plant for preventing feedwater hammer.- However, Westinghouse's response to the June 3,1997, letter was unclear whether they committed to perform such tests for the AP600 standard design Therefore, the staff cor.cludes that Westinghouse's response to Open item 10.4.7-1 is not acceptable.
.