ML20217C829

Submits Documentation of AP600 Informal Correspondence to Westinghouse Re Items Related to Chapter 3 & 6 of FSER

ML20217C829
Person / Time
Site:	05200003
Issue date:	03/23/1998
From:	Joseph Sebrosky NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
NUDOCS 9803270190
Download: ML20217C829 (8)

Text

., ,

March 23, 1998 APPLICANT: Westinghouse Electric Company PROJECT: AP600

SUBJECT:

DOCUMENTATION OF AP600 INFORMAL CORRESPONDENCE TO WESTINGHOUSE CONCERNING ITEMS RELATED TO CHAPTER 3 AND 6 OF THE FINAL SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT (FSER)

Attachment 1 through 5 contain the subject comments that were sent to Westinghouse during the months of January through March of 1998. The purpose of the comments was to resolve open issues in the FSER for Chapters 3 and 6. Attachment 1 contains comments sent to Westinghouse on March 9,1998, concerning the in-service testing requirements found in Table 3.5-16 of the AP600 standard safety analysis report (SSAR). Attachment 2 contains comments sent to Westinghouse on March 4,1998, conceming code case N 284 found in Appendix 3G of the SSAR. Attachment 3 contains comments sent to Westinghouse on January 23,1998, conceming containment insulation. Attachment 4 contains comments sent to Westinghouse on January 14,1998, conceming the replacement of dampers with valves in the main control room pressure boundary penetrations. Attachment 5 contains comments sent to Westinghouse on January 8,1998, conceming FSER open item 220.114F. The comments in the above attachments have been incorporated into the SSAR as appropriate. Therefore, the issues

~

raised in the attachments are considered resolved.

original signed by:

Joseph M. Sebrosky, Project Manager Standardization Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation  !

Docket No.52-003 Attachments: As stated l cc w/atts: See next page gg g DISTRIBUTION w/ attachments: I' Docket File PDST R/F TKenyon

~ PUBLIC BHuffman JSebrosky DScaletti JNWilson SMagruder g)g JHWilson MDunsaniwskyj HBrammer,0-7 H15 \ ,1 YHuang,0-7 E23 TCheng, O-7 H15 RLobel,0-8 H7 l DISTRIBUTION w/o attachments:

SCollins/FMiraglia,0-5 E7 BSheron,0-5 3E7 BBoger,0-5 E7 JRoe DMatthews TQuay ACRS (11) . ; o y L 7 JMoore,0-15 B18 DOCUMENT NAME:A:\CHPTR.,,3. FAX To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy ,

with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE LPM:PDST:DRPM l SCSB:DSSA l

-NAME JMSebrosky:sg . /c-- TRQuay@

DATE 03/'l#198 if 03/ W98 -

OFF!CIAL RECORD COPY 9803270190 980323 PDR ADOCK 05200003 A PDR I

Westinghouse Electric Corporation Docket No.52-003 cc: Mr. Nicholas J. Liparuto, Manager Mr. Frank A. Ross Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Analysis U.S. Department of Energy, NE-42 Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Office of LWR Safety and Technology Westinghouse Electric Corporation 19901 Germantown Road P.O. Box 355. Germantown, MD 20874 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Mr. Russ Bell Mr. B. A. McIntyre Senior Project Manager, Programs Advanced Plant Safety & Licensing Nuclear Energy Institute Westinghouse Electric Corporation 1776 i Street, NW Energy Systems Business Unit Suite 300 Box 355 Washington, DC 20006-37C6 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Ms. Lynn Connor Ms. Cindy L. Haag Doc-Search Associates Advanced Plant Safety & Licensing Post Office Box 34 Westinghouse Electric Corporation Cabin John. MD 20818 Energy Systems Business Unit Box 355 Dr. Craig D. Sawyer, Manager Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Advanced Reactor Programs l GE Nuclear Energy j Mr. M. D. Beaumont 175 Curtner Avenue, MC-754 Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division San Jose, CA 95125 Westinghouse Electric Corporation One Montrose Metro Mr. Robert H. Buchholz 11921 Rockville Pike GE Nuclear Energy Suite 350 175 Curtner Avenue, MC-761 Rockville, MD 20852 San Jose, CA 95125 Mr. Sterling Franks Barton Z. Cowan, Esq.

U.S. Department of Energy Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott NE-50 600 Grant Street 42nd Floor 19901 Germantown Road Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Germantown, MD 20874 Mr. Ed Rodwell, Manager Mr. Charles Thompson, Nuclear Engineer PWR Design Certification AP600 Certification Electric Power Research Institute ,

NE-50 3412 Hillview Avenue l

19901 Germantown Road Palo Aho, CA 94303  ;

Germantown, MD 20874 '

Mr. Robert Maiers, P.E.

Pennsylvania Department of l

Environmental Protection Bureau of Radiation Protection Rachel Carson State Office Building P.O. Box 8469 Harrisburg, PA 17105-8469

,. Problems with IST Table 3.9-16 March 9,1998 1)- The staff beleives that note 34 should be deleted. The information in note 34 can be found in notes 25,29, and 35. .

2)- Valve PCS-PL-V014A still appears in Table 3.9-16, however Fig. 6.2.2-1, Rev.20 does not include this valve.

3) Notes 25 and 34 refer to the moisture separator reheater (MSR) steam control valve as

~ MSS-PL-V020. Table 3.9-16 however identifies this valve as V016.

4) CVS-080 is referenced in Note 32, however, this valve is indicated in Table 3.9-16 as Code Category BC and no leak test is required. N6ted 32 has not been revised as committed in -

letter dated February 12,1998, (NSD-NRC-98-5569). -This item is also being tracktd by CVS piping class issue.

[

Attachment 1 r

b

-'}.y

'.~ / i The factor of safety against buckling (calcualted buckling stresses divided by the membrane comopressive stresses due to design loads and load combinations) can be calculated by numerical analyses such as BOSOR 5, ANSYS or ABAQUS of a portion of the containment vessel considering geometrical and material imperfections, and proper boundary conditions. The calculated factor of safety shall meet the factor of safety in accordance with Subsection 3G.2.

\

l I

^1 1

7 Attachment 2 j i

.i

.)

t_e. . t 8 ~

7i . uE gc :u g3o 48 wi R w i

)

i- , .-  !

l -

0 0

_. 6 1

e_- -

- ]

1

- 0.-

P-=

+

- 0 0

=M

)

c

- 5 e _ - -

e 0-s _

0 P _-

0 -

m0E A 1 -

m -

t 0

1

=

P

( _

i 0 s e_

i' p

- :D0 5

- - 1 P

0 * -

e 0 =

0 = e -

e080/ D 5

2 _

- - I 2-t - e P a _

t e

= 0 A

J _

+

• D 0

6 5

P

=

r -

t e -

=

a 3 W' '

0 0

4 7=

P

=

d -

t e -

y f

a a -

d D

U r 0 8 0

u 0

2 t

a -

S

' 0 0 0 0 0

5 0

0 m m m M 0

0 m 3 3 5

2 0

2 s D 5 O -

od 1

i I  ; .I - .i'  ! {(

,* 8aw _

1\i 1

- t. ,I -

1 ' cC -

ti g > E r :r .n

.8 g8$M1 4 e

)/.

w ,

l;?

- M W

- 1

_. =

s. -

- ,i M ._ P_

1

- "C E = _

) -

s ~

5 -

" ._0- -

0 -

~

_P .

1 -

- _. A - -

i' I

- M -

t "M 0 1

=

( -

"- P .

i - _

+

s p - .

5

.=

5 l _

0 -

- 1 .

" 0M .P 0 -

_ 8

=

3 1 - ~

" D .5 U

t 2=

a p,. _ * "- P n - E M 1

A w-o "e.

E M

0 5

P

=

d =

w .

l o .

i' 2

0 7 3

=

4 P B ,

=

m y r

a " d a

t e ;i.

0 0

0 n

u o

B S 2

?

.;' ~ 0 _

0 0 0 l 0 0

0 0

5 0

0 g 0 0 M 0 0

0 _

3 2 2 g D s 0 O&

i 1

l  :

Subject:

Replacem'ent of dampers with valves in the main control room pressure boundary penetrations

'SSAR Subsection 9.4.1.2.1.1 revision states that the main control room pressure boundary penetrations include isolation valves and interconnecting piping. It further statethat the new isolation valves are classifid as Safety Class C and Sesmic Category 1. The safety classification of the new piping is not identified. The following comments from ECGB apply to this revision:

1. The safety and seismic classifications of the new piping should be included in SSAR Subsection 9.4.1.2.1.1.

2. SSAR Figure 9.4.1-1 should be revised to identify all of the new isolattualves and the classification and extent of the interconnecting piping that apparently replaces HVAC ducting.

3. The AP600 Class should be added to the proposed revision to SSAR Table 3.2-3, Sheet 52.

l I

i I

Attachment 4-  !

')

l j

.,.- 3 Open item 220.114F (Meetina Open Item No. 8. Section 3.7.2.4)

In response to this open issue, Westinghouse provided a draft SSAR revision (SSAR Sections 3.7.2.2.1,3.7.2.3.1 and 3.7.2.5; SSAR Tables 3.7.2-20 through 3.7.2-23) in its submittal dated December 19,1997 (NSD-NRC-97-5501) for review. In general, Westinghouse's responses are reasonable and acceptable, except the following concerns are identified:

1. SSAR . .gure 3.7.2-4 should be revised to incorporate the elevations corresponding to the updated seismic model.

2. The phrase, "... and the design changes of tank structures due to the post 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> action requirements," should be added to the end of the last sentence of the first bullet of Section (revised) 3.7.2.2.1.

3. The SSAR should commit that if any new seismic analysis is to be performed for any site conditions, the revised model (Model B) should be used.

4. As indicated in Westinghouse's submittal (NSD-NRC-97-5251) dated July 28,1997, the comparison of floor response spectra (FRS) from Models "A" and "B" showed that the vertical FRS at Elevations 272 ft,284 ft,297 ft and 307 ft from Model "B" significantly exceed (about 20 to 25 percent) those from Model "A." If the FRS at Elevations 272 ft.

284 f1 and 297 ft are to be used for the design of safety-related subsystems and components (including seismic Category 11 piping and components), Westinghouse should either commit, in the SSAR, to use the FRS at Elevation 307 ft in the design or include the FRS at Elevations 272 ft,284 ft and 297 ft in the SSAR.

5. In Sheet 2 of 2 of SSAR Table 3.7.2-23 (a new table), Westinghouse should include bending moments at Elevation 306 25 ft. These bending moments were shown in its submittal (NSD NRC-97-5251) dated July 28.1997.

l l

1 Attachment 5 o