ML20212M450

Board Notification 86-018:forwards Author to Util Requesting Addl Info on Main Steam Line Break Analysis Re Asco Solenoid Valves.Methodology Used for Qualification of Valves Exposed to Superheat Conditions Questioned

ML20212M450
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	08/25/1986
From:	Mark Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Linenberger G, Margulies M, Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
TASK-AS, TASK-BN86-018, TASK-BN86-18 BN-86-018, BN-86-18, NUDOCS 8608260124
Download: ML20212M450 (2)

Text

N005 g , <

1. 4g UNITED STATES

! n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,. 3 :p WA,SHINGTON, D. C. 20555

/

AUG 2 5 1986 Docket Nos.: 50-424 ,

and 50-425 i

f The Atomic Safety and Licensing MEMORANDUM FOR:

Board Panel for Vogtle (M. Margulies, O. Paris, G. Linenberger)

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

SUBJECT:

BOARD NOTIFICATION REGARDING ASCO SOLEN 0ID VALVES FOR V0GTLE UNITS 1 AND 2 (80ARD NOTIFICATION NO. 86-lI)

In accordance with the NRC procedures for Board Notifications (BNs), this BN is being provided to forward infonnation pertinent to the Vogtle contention the qualification of A3C0 solenoid valves. By letter cated August regarding(enclosed),

12, 1986 the staff forwarded a request for additional infonnation on the applicant's main steamline break (MSLB) analysis. The staff's request in part questioned the applicability of the methodology used for the qualification of ASCO valves exposed to superheat conditions following an MSLB outside of containment.

The applicant has infonned the staff that ' documentation discussing ASCO valve qualificaticn would be forwarded in approximately one week for staff review.

The staff will infonn the Bcard of final resolution of this issue promptly.

't Melanie A. ' iller, Project Manager PWR Project Directorate #4 Division of PWR Licensing-A

Enclosure:

As stated 082601 4

l

(- '

.- Mr. R. E. Conway Georgia Power Company Vogtle Electric Generating Plant cc:

Mr. L. T. Gucwa Resident Inspector Chief Nuclear Engineer Nuclear Regulatory Connission Georgia Power Company P. O. 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,ti.W.

P.O.' Box 2625 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Birmingham, Alabama 35202

- James E. Joiner Mr. Donald O. Foster Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman, Vice President & Project General Manager & Ashmore Georgia Power Company Candler Building 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 30305 P.O. Box 2625 Birmingham, Alabama 35202

Ernest L. Blake, Jr.

l 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.

Vogtle Plant Manager Atlanta, Gaargia 30307 Georgia Power Company ,

Rcute 2, Box 299-A Billie Pirner Garde Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 Citizens Clinic Director Goverrezent Accountability Project l Regional Administrator, Region II 303 10th Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Augusta, Georgia 30901 101 Marietta Street,-N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 l

l l

l l

. - . . - - - . - - -- - - - ~ . .-

's uth UNITED STATES l [ o,$ IJUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[ 3 p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

• • • • • ,o[

August 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, 1985, Georgia Power Company submitted an analysis of steamline breaks outside of containment in response to confirmatory item 9. The staff has ' reviewed this submittal and requires additional information 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.

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

Enclosure:

As stated cc: See Next Page i

l

y- .

ENCLOSURE N REQUEST FOR ADD.ITIONAL 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. Th~e staff believes that the therrral analysis presented in Attachmerit 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 3h d t w ith terms defined in Section 3.2.2. The Westinghouse model further specifies' that m = mass cf water on component -

= 0.021 lb

'm mass flowrate of steam impinging on component

= 0.71 lb/hr 4

2 .

Therefore, Equation 2 becomesA = b.0296 Ah,/h 3

, which implies that the time at saturation (4t) 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, WCA."-8687, Supplement 2. "ASCO Solenoid Valve l Qualification t'o a Derated Westinghouse Generic LOCA/MSLB Profile," and h0 REG /CR-3424, " Test Program and Failure Analysis of Class IE 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 MUREG/CR-3424 to calculate m and In for one component. This empirical approach is unique to that component for the test conditions. This

~

test cannot be extrapolated to other components, under different flow conditions.

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

3. Similarly, Equation 1 in Section 3.2.1 of Attachment 2 of the June 25 letter, with a constant value of Q equal to 4.29 Btu /sec, does not appear acceptable for calculating t other than for the specific component and test condition under which the value Q was derived. The applicant should provide further justificaticns for use of this equation in other applications.

i a

. - --. - .- . -- . . . . . . . a ,.

f. .

U ,

4. Theequation(=[Acomponen't ', *

(

A 8316 is stated by Westinghouse without proof. The applicant should provide further justification concerning the applicability of this equation.

5. It appears to the staff that the complicated vaporization process in a superheated environment with strong blowdown 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 recomendations in NUREG-058'8, Appendix B. The applicant should provide a thermal analysis using the methodology of NUREG-0588, " Interim Staff Position on Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment," or provide explicit justification for an alternative approach.

l

,,. __ m