ML20214T023
| ML20214T023 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 09/24/1986 |
| From: | Mark Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8609300170 | |
| Download: ML20214T023 (8) | |
Text
.
.{
[
UNITED STATES p
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y,
- l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- %.....]
,4 SEp Docket Nos.: 50-424 and '50-425 APPLICANT:
Georgia Power Company FACILITY:
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING HELD AUGUST 27-28, 1986 ON MAIN STEAMLINE BREAK OUTSIDE OF CONTAINMENT On August 27-28, 1986, the staff met with the applicant and its representatives to discuss the issue of main steamline break (MSLB) outside of containment (SER confimatory item 9) and in particular, the environmental qualification of equip-ment following an MSLB. Participants are listed in Enclosure 1.
The meeting was held in response to the staff's request for additional information dated
~
Kugust 12, 1986, which resulted from a review of the applicant's June 25, 1986 submittal.
During the first portion of the meeting the applicant discussed its qualification of the ASCO solenoid valves following an MSLB. The qualification of these valves was a contention litigated in March before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and also the subject of Board Notification 86-18 dated August 25, 1986.
Jhile the Vogtle units utilize four models of ASCO valves in safety related appli-cations, only one model (NP 8321) is of concern regarding superheat conditions
,fMlowing an MSLB outside of containment. Valve model NP 8320 is qualified by xtest to 420'F which exceeds the exncted conditions in the main steam isolation
^
valve (MSIV) area. Valve model NP 8316 is not required to perfom any mitigating function from an MSLB in the MSIV area while valve model 206-381 is not located in the MSIV area.
The applicant explained its themal lag analysis which it applied to the ASCO -
valves as well as other components as discussed in its June 25, 1986 submittal.
The applicant did not have to use a themal lag analysis on the auxiliary building side (steam generators 1 and 4) because the equipment is qualified without needing further credit obtained through thermal lag analysis. However, thermal lag analysis is necessary on the control building side (steam generators 2 and 3) for several pieces of equipment including ASCO valve model NP 8321.
While this valve model is not included in Table 1 of Attachment 2 of the applicant's June 25 submittal, the applicant has committed to include it in a revision. The applicant also indicated that it would correct the qualification temperature of valve model NP 8320 in the table.
The thermal _ lag analysis only considers forced convection.
In its request for additional information, the staff questioned the duration of the condensate evaporation in the analysis. However, the applicant did not consider this eva-poration time in its new analysis thereby rendering the staff questions in this area moot. The applicant analyzed the worst case node outside of containment using the Bechtel computer code FLUD.
e609300170 a60924 PDR ADOCK 05000424 A
r The applicant assumed that the valve is a lump mass. When the staff questioned this assumption, the applicant explained that a Biot number of 0.1 would equal at most a temperature difference across the component of 5%. The farther below 0.1 the Biot number is, the more accurate is equation 3 of Attachment-2 of the applicant's June 25 submittal.
For'ASCO valve model NP 8321, the worst case MSLB is 0.7 square feet in Node 3.
The staff inquired as to what caused the spike in Node 3 at approximately 500 sec.
The applicant responded that the spike was due to tube uncovery at that point. The spike terminates due to steamline isolation.
The staff asked the applicant why the computer code FLUD was utilized rather thin COPDA. The applicant indicated that FLUD uses the methodology of C0PDA including the blow out panel portion but has been modified to include the heat sink portion from C0PATTA plus a longer time scenario. FLUD has not taken credit for the phenomena of revaporization which makes FLUD conservative in this area.
The staff questioned the type of benchmarking process that had been performed to verify FLUD. The applicant explained that FLUD had been compared to'both C0PDA and COPATTA for the saturated steam portion of the code as well as against Battelle Frankfurt test data. The superheat portion was verified by a manual state point verification calculation. The staff indicated on the basis of discussion with the applicant and the benchmarking done that FLUD seemed to be reasonable. The staff further stated that it planned to have a consultant execute comparative computer runs on FLUD and several other computer codes to better understand levels of conservationsm in various codes. In order to complete this task, the staff indicated that certain FLUD input data is necessary from the applicant. The necessary infonnation is listed in Enclosure 2.
~
Besides thermal lag analysis, another way to show qualification of ASCO valve wiel NP 8321 is to demonstrate that the valve performs its safety-related M ~; tion-(feedline isolation) before its qualification temperature is excerJed.
' Th,: arplicant provided times of feedline isolation and the time to 346 F (valve model NP 8321 qualification level) for critical Nodes 3 and 8 for several break sizes. This information is sumarized in Enclosure 3.
The staff explained that in order for the position that the equipment performs its safety function prior to exceeding its qualified temperature to be valid, certain provisions of
' Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.89 would have to be met.
RG 1.89 requires that a time margin of one hour be demonstrated. Margins less than one hour are allowed if the applicant provides adequate justification in accordance with regulatory position C.4 of RG 1.89.
The applicant also explained its rationale for applying the test results of ASCO valve model NP 8316 to other pieces of equipment. The applicant has applied the ASCO test results to other components (all with smaller total surface area than the ASCO valve) in lesser conditions outside of containment.
The applicant explained that the temperature of the component at Vogtle is always less than in the Franklin tests. The combination of the smaller surface area and lesser temperature difference makes it conservative to utilize the ratio of area of the component over area of the ASCO NP 8316 valve as in equation 3 of Attachment 2 of the applicant's June 25, 1986, submittal.
=.
The applicant indicated that the use of Vogtle-specific analysis reduced the generic ambient temperature of the MSIV area from 457 F to 414 F.
l5' Melanie A. Miller, Project Manager PWR Project Directorate #4 Division of PWR Licensing-A
Enclosures:
As stated cc: See next page J:
,W f/).dvocad dyre p
PWR R-A CLi gPfgA EB/DPWR-jrpm PWR#4 DPW -A PSB/
JTh r /mac AMascianlonio BJYoungblood 09 80 09/) 3 /86 09/2 3/86 09/24//86 db r
r.
Mr. R. E. Conway Georgia Power Company Vogtle Electric Generating Plant cc:
Mr. L. T. Gucwa Resident Inspector Chief Nuclear Engineer Nuclear Regulatory Commission Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 572 P.0. Box 4545 Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 Atl,anta, Georgia 30302 Mr. Ruble A. Thomas Deppish Kirkland, III, Counsel.
Vice President - Licensing Office of the Consumers' Utility Vogtle Project Cour.cil Georgia Power Company /
Suite 225 Southern Company Services, Inc.
32 Peachtree Street, N.W.
P.O. Box 2625 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Birmingham, Alabama 35202 James E. Joiner Mr. Donald 0. Foster Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman, Vice President & Project General Manager
& Ashmore Georgia Power Company Candler Building P6st Office Box 299A, Route 2 127 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Danny Feig Mr. J. A. Bailey 1130 Alta Avenue Project Licensing Manager Atlanta, Georgia 30307 Southern Company Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 2625 Carol Stangler
, Birmingham, Alabama 35202 Georgians Against Nuclear Energy 425 Euclid Terrace Ermest L. Blake, Jr.
Atlanta, Georgia 30307 fBruce W. Churchill, Esq.
- Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Mr. G. Bockhold, Jr.
Vogtle Plant Manager Georgia Power Company Route 2, Box 299-A Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 l
~
ENCLOSURE I PARTICIPANTS NRC RT killer BECHTEL J'.
Thompson
- 5. Cereghino C. Li J. Purucker J. Shapaker D. Patton A. Masciantonio T. Quay.
SOUTHERN COMPANY SERVICES R. Thomas WESTINGHOUSE K. Kopecky R. Morrison J. Bass GEORGIA POWER COMPANY C. Benton L. Sucwa W. Cesarski D. Hudson
. P. Biondo 0
F pa e
i i
i 4
i 2
ENCLOSURE 2 PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE PROFILES FOR PIPE BREAKS OUTSIDE CONTA The following information is required for each pipe break analysis pirformed by the applicants.
1.~ With respect to the pipe to be broken, we need to know the:
Type of fluid (water or steam);
a.
i b.
Temperature; c.
Pressure; d.
Source of the fluid; e.
Flow rate (or assumed flow rate) versus time; and f.
Enthalpy versus time 2.
With respect to the compartments being analyzed, provide:
a.
Number of compartments analyzed; b.
For each compartment:
i.
initial terrperature 11.
initial pressure 111.
initial humidity tv.
floor area including floor space taken by equipment (square feet) number of vents and vent areas (square feet) for each vent; and v.
vi.
compartment wall height (feet) and Simple compartment and interconnection diagram; and c.
d.
Compartments in which break was postulated and equipment location
'3.
All assumptions used, including but not limited to the:
d' a.
Orifice coefficient; b.
Fluid expansion factor; and Heat transfer coefficient for heat through the walls c.
4.
Utility's analysis results:
Temperature versus time curve (peak temperature specified); and a.
b.
Pressure versus time curve (peak pressure specified) l l
l 1
k.
~.
ENCLOSURE 3 TIME TO PEAK TEMPERATURE, 346 F AND FEEDLINE ISOLATION FOR SEVERAL BREAK SIZE 5 IN NODE 5 3 AND 8 FOR AN M5LB DUT5IDE OF CONTAINMENT Break size 1 sq. ft.
0.7 sq. ft.
0.5 sq. ft.
Node 3 Time to peak 100 553 918 temperature (sec)
Tine to 346'F*
80 500 800 (sec)
Kode 8 Time to peak 110 565 933 temperature (sec)
Time to 346*F*
100 520 (sec) i
?? Time of feedline 8.2 37.8 140.1 isolation 346 F is the qualification temperature of ASCO valve model NP 8321.
I MEETING
SUMMARY
DISTRIBUTION WIDidlie'tTFile#"""?
NRC Participants
+;"NRC PDR'~^ """*
M. Miller
~
L PDR J. Thompson NSIC C. Li PRC System J. Shapaker PWR#4 Reading File A. Masciantonio Projec.t Manager M. Miller
_T.
Quay M. Duncan OGC J. Partlow E. Jordan B. Grimes ACRS (10)
OTHERS bec: Licensee & Service List
(
4
.