ML20216J439
| ML20216J439 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1998 |
| From: | Tam P NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Gordon Peterson DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| GL-96-06, GL-96-6, TAC-M96794, TAC-M96795, NUDOCS 9803230443 | |
| Download: ML20216J439 (6) | |
Text
_
v March 19, 1998 Mr. Grry R. Pettrson
. Site Vice Prcsident
- Catawba Nuclear Station Duke Energy Corporation 4800 Concord Road York, South Carolina 29745-9635
SUBJECT:
CATAWBA NUCLE /iR STATION - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO THE GENERIC LETTER 06-06 RESPONSE (TAC NOS. M96794 AND M96795)
Dear Mr. Peterson:
Generic Letter (GL) 96-06, " Assurance of Equipment Operability and Containment Integrity During Design-Basis Accident Conditions," dated September 30,1996, included a request for licensees to evaluate cooling water systems that serve containment air coolers to assure that they are not vulnerable to waterhammer and two-phase flow conditions.
Duke Energy Corporation provided its assessment for the Catawba Nuclear Plant in a letter dated January 28,1997. We have reviewed your submittal and found that additional information is needed as set forth in the enclosure. Please provide this information by June 30, 1998. If you have any questions, please call me at 301-415-1451.'
Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
Peter S. Tam, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate ll-2 Division of Reactor Projects -l/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ encl: See next page Distribution PTam LBerry Docket File OGC HBerkow PUBLIC J. Johnson, Ril PDil-2 Reading J. Tatum, O-8 D1 J. Zwolinski ACRS C. Ogle, Ril LPlisco, Ril hh hj[ @f]{@ f$ff DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ CATAWBA \\ CAT 96794.RAI To receive a copy of this document, indicate in tho' box: "C" = Copy withbut attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with cttachment/ enclosure "N" = No copy wM OFFICE DRPE\\PDil-2\\PM l PDil-2\\L4h; l9 PQfi-2R\\ ' j l
l l
NAME PTam:en
("J/g LBerry M HSerkS'/
DATE 03/I8/98 4/\\
% /M98. '
NY/98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 9803230443 980319 PDR ADOCK 05000413 P
(
1 j
e atr,q j
e UNITED STATES
{n j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p
2 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066-0001
+,.....,o March 19, 1998 Mr. Gary R. Peterson Site Vice President Catawba Nuclear Station Duke Energy Corporation 4000 Concord Road York, South Carolina 29745-9635
SUBJECT:
CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO THE GENERIC LETTER 96-06 RESPONSE (TAC NOS. M96794 AND M96795)
Dear Mr. Peterson:
Generic Letter (GL) 96-06, " Assurance of Equipment Operability and Containment Integrity During Design-Basis Accident Conditions," dated September 30,1996, included a request for licensees to evaluate cooling water systems that serve containment air coolers to assure that they are not vulnerable to waterhammer and two-phase flow conditions.
Duke Energy Corporation provided its assessment for the Catawba Nuclear Plant in a letter dated January 28,1997. We have reviewed your submittal and found that additionai information is needed as set forth in the enclosure. Please provide this information by June 30, 1998. If you have any questions, please call me at 301-415-1451.
Sincerely, Pet r. Tam, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate 11-2 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/il Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414
Enclosure:
As stated cc w! encl: See next page l
1
~
Catawba Nuclear Station cc:
Mr. M. S. Kitlan North Carolina Electric Membership l
Regulatory Compliance Manager Corporation Duke Energy Corporation P. O. Box 27306 4800 Concord Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 York, South Carolina 29745 Senior Resident inspector Mr. Paul R. Newton U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
]
Legal Department (PB05E) 4830 Concord Road -
Duke Energy Corporation York, South Carolina 29745 422 South Church Street 1
Charlotte, No'th Carolina 28242 Regional Administrator, Region ll j
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coriimission J. Michael McGarry, Ill, Esquire Atlanta Federal Center Winston and Strawn 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Suite 23T85 1
1400 L Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Washington, DC 20005 Max Batavia, Chief North Carolina Municipal Power Bureau of Radiological Health 1
Agency Number 1 South Carolina Department of 1427 Meadowwood Boulevard Health and Environmental Control P. O. Box 29513 2600 Bull Street i
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626 Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Mr. Peter R. Harden, IV L. A. Keller i
Account Sales Manager Manager-Nuclear Regulatory i
Westinghouse Electric Corporation Licensing f
Power Systems Field Sales Duke Energy Corporation j
P. O. Box 7288 526 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28241 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242-0001 County Manager of York County Saluda River Electric York County Courthouse P. O. Box 929 York, South Carolina 29745 Laurens, South Carolina 29360 Piedmont Municipal Power Agency Ms. Karen E. Long 121 Village Drive Assistant Attorney General
- Greer, South Carolina 29651 North Carolina Department of Justice P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Elaine Wathen, Lead REP Planner Division of Emergency Management 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-1335
7 Catawba Nuclear Station i
cc:
Mr. T. Richard Puryear Owners Group (NCEMC)
Duke Energy Corporatian 4800 Concord Road York, South Carolina 29745 Richard M. Fry, Director Division of Radiation Protection North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources 3825 Barrett Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-7721 j
l I
4
)
\\
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR RESOLUTION dF GENERIC LETTER 96-06 ISSUES AT THE CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION. UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 (TAC NOS. M96794 AND M96795)
Generic Letter (GL) 96-06, " Assurance of Equipment Operability and Containment integrity During Design-Basis Accident Conditions," dated September 30,1996, included a request for licensees to evaluate cooling water systems that serve containment air coolers to assure that they are not vulnerable to waterhammer and two-phase flow conditions. Duke Energy Corporation (the licensee) provided its assessment for the Catawba Nuclear Station in a letter dated January 28,1997. In order for the staff to adequately assess the licensee's resolution of the waterhammer and two-phase flow issues, the following additional information is requested:
1.
The licensee's response indicated that for certain scenarios, the containment penetrations for cooling water to the upper and lower containment headers isolate and the Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) do not direct the operators to restore cooling water to these headers for accident mitigation. However, during accident I
conditions, plant operators may elect to take actions to restore the containment cooling water headers to service if the situation calls for it. Describe any measures that exist or that have been taken to assure that these headers will not be restored as an option to 1
mitigate accident conditions during these event c:enarios.
The following questions are applicable to accident scenarios where the containment penetrations for cooling water are not isolated and the potential exists for waterhammer and/or two-phase flow to occur:
2.
If a methodology other than that discussed in NUREG/CR-5220, " Diagnosis of Condensation-induced Waterhammer," was used in evaluating the effects of waterhammer, describe this attemate methodology in detail. Also, explain why this methodology is applicable and gives conservative results for the Catawba units (typically accomplished through rigorous plant-specific modeling, testing, and analysis).
3.
For both the waterhammer and two-phase flow analyses, provide the following information:
a.
Identify any computer codes that were used in the waterhammer and two-phase flow analyses and describe the methods used to benchmark the codes for the specific loading conditions involved (see Standard Review Plan Section 3.9.1).
b.
Describe and justify all assumptions and input parameters (including those used in any computer codes) such as amplifications due to fluid structure interaction, cushioning, speed of sound, force reductions, and mesh sizes, and explain why the values selected give conservative results. Also, provide justification for omitting any effects that may be relevant to the analysis (e.g., fluid structure interaction, flow induced vibration, erosion).
Enclosure 1
. c.
Provide a detailed description of the " worst-case" scenarios for waterhammer and two-phase flow, taking into consideration the complete range of event possibilities, system configurations, and parameters. For example, all waterhammer types and water slug scenarios should be considered, as well as temperatures, pressures, flow rates, load combinations, and potential component failures. Additional -
examples include:
the consequences of steam formation, transport, and accumulation; o
cavitation, resonance, and fatigue effects; and e
e erosion consklerations.
d.
Confirm that the analyses include a complete failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) for all components (including electrical and pneumatic failures) that could impact performance of the cooling water system and confirm that the FMEA is documented and available for review, or explain why a complete and fully documented FMEA was not performed.
e.
Explain and justify all uses of " engineering judgement."
4.
Determine the uncertainty in the waterhammer and two-phase flow analyses, explain how the uncertainty was determined, and how it was accounted for in the analyses to assure conservative results for the Catawba units.
5.
Confirm that the waterhammer and two-phase flow loading conditions do not exceed any design specifications or recommended service conditions for the piping system and components, including those stated by equipment vendors; and confirm that the system will continue to perform its design-basis functions as assumed in the safety analysis report for the facility.
6.
P ovide a simplified diagram of the system, showing major components, active components, relative elevations, lengths of piping runs, and the location of any orifices and flow restrictions, i
4 4
i 1