ML20211Q641
| ML20211Q641 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1997 |
| From: | Chandu Patel NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Dugger C ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. |
| References | |
| GL-96-06, GL-96-6, TAC-M96883, NUDOCS 9710220397 | |
| Download: ML20211Q641 (3) | |
Text
.
Mr. Charles M. Dugger Octcb:r 15, 1997 1Vice President Operations
\\
Entergy_0peratiens, Inc.
P. O.-Box B i
Killona, LA 70066'
SUBJECT:
. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING RESPONSE TO GENERIC LETTER 96-06 FOR THE WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 3 (TAC NO. M96883)
Dear Mr. Dugger:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has reviewed your submittal dated January 28, 1997, regarding the Generic Letter (GL) 96-06, " Assurance of Equipment Operability and Containment Integrity During Design Basis Accident Conditions."
Your submittal addresses the issues of water hammer, two-phase flow and thermally-induced pressurization of piping runs penetrating the containment for the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3).
In your response, you identified that twelve pipe lines penetrating the containment susceptible to thermally-induced pressurization were evaluated for operability.
You indicated that a nonconforming condition was documented in the Waterford 3 corrective action program. However, you did not provide a schedule for the completion of the further analysis and/or design modifications.- In order to complete our review of your response to the generic letter, we need additional information regarding your evaluation of these pipe lines.
Please provide summaries of your evaluations of these twelve pipe lines penetrating containment within 60 days from the date of this
~
letter. The summaries should describe the method of analysis, including the assumptions used in the analysis, and the results.
You should provide fabrication drawings of the piping sections evaluated.
You should also discuss how the criteria used for the evaluations meet the licensing basis r
criteria for Waterford 3 and should provide the schedule for the completion of' any modifications that may be required.
s 1
Sincerely, t
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
Chandu P. Patel, Project Manager.
Project Directorate IV-1
^
Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket *No. 50-382
. dc:
See next page r'
DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File PUBLIC PD4-1 r/f OGC C. Patel J. Clifford C. Hawes E. Adensam (EGA1)_
ACRS T. Gwynn, RIV Document Name: WAT96883.LTR NiER 98PY OFC PM/PD4-1 LA/,PD4-1 r
NAME CPatel/vw CHawes & hl DATE (0//l/97
/0//5/97 COPY h/NO YES/N0 DFo!
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 3
a
^
9710220397 971015 PDR ADOCK 05000382 P
A
- t UNITED STATES i
S NUCLEAFi REGULATORY COMMISSION k
f WASHINGTON. D.C. Po66H001
\\..,+/
October 15, 1997 Mr. Charles t. Dugger Vice President Operat "ns r itergy Operstions P. O. Box B Killona, LA 70066
SUBJECT:
RCQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING RESPONSE TO GENERIC LITTER 96-06 FOR THE WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 3 (TAC NO. M96883)
Dear Mr. D1gger:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has reviewed your submittal dated January 28, 1997, regarding the Generic Letter (GL) 96-06, " Assurance of Equipment Operability and Containment Integrity During Design Basis Accident Conditiors." Your submittal addresses the issues of water hammer, two-phase flow and thermally-induced pressurization of piping runs penetrating the containwant for the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3).
In your response, you identified that twelve pipe lines penetrating the containment susceptible to thermally-induced pressurization were evaluated for operability.
You indicated that a nonconforming condition was documented in the Wa erford 3 corrective action program.
However, you did not provide a schedule for the completion of the further analysis and/or design modif' cations.
In order to complete our review of your response to the gener!c letter, we need additional information regarding your evaluation of these pipe lines.
Please provide summaries of your evaluations of these twehe pipe lines penetrating containment within 60 days from the date of this letter. The summaries should describe the method of analysis, including the assumptions used in the analysis, and the results.
You should provide fabrication drawings of the piping sections evaluated.
You should also discuss how the criteria used for the evaluations meet the licensing basis criteria for Waterford 3 and should provide the schedule for the completion of any modifications that may be required.
Sincerely, 8 d.M./
Chandu P. Patel, Project Manager Project Directorate IV-I Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-382 cc: See next page p -
---pud mmwwy-"
3.2m#-
e
S Mr. Charles M. Dugger i
_ Entergy Operations, _ Inc.
Waterford 3 CC*
1 Administrator Regional Administrator, Region IV Louisiana Radiation Pretection Division-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-Post Office Box-82135
- 611 Ryan Plaza.Dri;e, Suite 1000 Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2135 Arlington, TX 76011 Vice President, Operations Resident' Inspector /Waterford NPS Support Post Office Box 822 Entergy Operations, Inc.
Killona, LA 70066 P. O. Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39266 Parish President Council St. Charles Parish Director P. O. Box 302 Nuclear Safety & Regulatory Affairs Hahnv111e, LA 70057 Entergy Operations, Inc.
P. O. Box B Executive Vice-President-Killona, LA 70066-and Chief Operating Officer Entergy Operations, Inc.
Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway P.-0. Box 31995 P. O. Box 651 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 Jackson, MS 39205
- Chairman General Manager Plant Operations Louisiana Public Service Commission Entergy Operations, Inc.
One American Place, Suite 1630 P. O. Box B
- Baton Rouge, LA 70825-1697 Killona, LA 70066 Licensing Manager Entergy Operations, Inc.
-P. O. Box B Killona, LA 70066 Winston & Strawn
-1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-3502 I
i n..n m e -
g =
__t_2_?_.____-__*._r_2._*;..t_.-_-_--rye"*---
~
P-T* + - - ~ * ~ - - ' - - -
te-r : ~
m+~-3-*-'~
7m
"-*-W-
-8'"-"
= -'
- -W'-
+
.