ML20217D890
| ML20217D890 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200003 |
| Issue date: | 08/22/1997 |
| From: | Joseph Sebrosky NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Liparulo N WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9710060202 | |
| Download: ML20217D890 (7) | |
Text
.
August 22, 1997 o
Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo, Manager Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Analysis Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Westinghouse Electric Corporation P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15230
SUBJECT:
FOLLOWON QUESTIONS REGARDING THE AP600 INSPECTIONS TESTS, ANALYSES, AND ACCEPTANCE CR11ERIA (ITAAC)
Dear Mr. Liparulo:
As a result of its review of the June 1992 ap)1ication for design certifica-tion of the AP600, the staff has determined tlat it needs additional informa-tion.
Specifically, the enclosure to this letter conte'ns requests for additional information concerning Revision 3 of the AL600 Certified Design Material including the ITAAC.
You have requested tha.t portions of the information submitted in the June 1992, application for design certification be exempt from mandatory public disclosure.
Wnile the staff has not completed its review of your request in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.790, that portion of the submitted information is being withheld from public disclosure pending the staff's final determination.
The staff concludes that these followon ques-tions do not contain those portions of the information for which exemption is sought. However, the staff will withhold this letter from public disclosure for 30 calendar days from the date of this letter to allow Westinghouse the opportunity to verify the staff's conclusions.
If, after that time, you do not request that all or portions of the information in the enclosures be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790, this letter will be placed in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Document Room.
If you have any questions regarding thir matter, you may conta'.t me at (301) 415-1132.
Sincerely, original signed by:
Joseph H. Sebrosky, Project Manager Standardization Project Directorate Division of Reartor Program l'anagement Office of Nuclear Ret.ctor Regula ion Docket No. 52-GM
/ /
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enc 1:
See next page
/ b)3 alSJRIEVllM:
See next page g l gj[g g DOCUMENT NAME: A:\\ECGB PIP.RAI Ti receive a copy of this document,indesle in the lion:
'C' = Copy without ettschment/ enclosure
't' s Copy with attachment /erwlosure
'N' = No copy 0FFICE PM:PDST:DRPM PDST:DRPM D:PDST_:DBPH s
NAME JSebrosky J. W JWilson / W TQuay M _
DATE 08/A/97//
08/tl/9PT/
08/ 9/97 N OTFICIAL RECORD COPY 9710060202 970822 PDR ADOCK 05200003 A
r D' Sill 8UT10N:
Letter to Nicholas J. Linarulo. Dated! Auoust 22. 1997 Moctet.ftle
- Enclosure to be held for 30 days
- PUBLIC PDST R/F TQuay TKenyon BHuffman JSebrosky DJackson ACRS(11)
WDean, 0-5 E23 JMoore, 0-15 818 TCheng, 0-7 HIS GThomas, 0-8 E23 MChiramal, 0-8 H3 DThatcher. 0-7 E4 HWalker, 0-8 D1 JLyons, 0-8 D1 REmch, 0-10 D4-JBongarra, 0-9 HIS JPeralta, 0-9 Al JKudrick, 0-8 H7 MSnodderly. 0-8 H7 HLi, 0-8 H3 MGareri, 0-8 H3 DTerao, 0-7 E23 JBrammer, 0-7 HIS Cli, 0-8 01
Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo Docket No.52-003 Westinghouse Electric Corporation AP600 cc: Mr. B. A. McIntyre Ms. Cindy L. Haag Advanced Plant Safety & Licensing Advanced Plant Safety & Licensing Westinghouse Electric Corporation Westinghouse Electric Corporation Energy Systems Business Unit Energy Systems Business Unit P D. Box 355 Box 355 d ttsburgh, PA 15230 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Mr. S. M. Modro Nuclear Systems Analysis Technologies Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company Post Office Box 1625 Idaho Falls, ID 83415 Enclosure to be distributed to the following addressees after the result of the proprietary evaluation is received from Westinghouse:
Mr. Russ Bell Ms. Lynn Connor Senior Project Manager, Programs DOC-Search Associates Nuclear Energy Inststute Post Office Box 34 1776 Eye Street, N.W.
Cabin John, MD 20818 Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006-3706 Mr. Robert H. Buchholz GE Nuclear Energy Mr. James E. Quinn, Projer.ts Manager 175 Curtner Avenue, MC-781 LMR and SBWR Programs San Jose, CA 95125 GE Nuclear Energy 175 Curtner Avenue, M/C 165 Mr. Sterling Franks San Jose, CA 95125 U.S. Department of Energy NE-50 Barton Z. Cowan, Esq..
19901-Germantown Road Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott Germantown, MD 20874 600 Grant Street 42nd Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Mr. Charles Thompson, Nuclear Engineer AP600 Ce'rtification Mr. Frank A. Ross NE-50 U.S. Department of Energy, NE-42 19901 Germantown Road Office of Lk'R Safety and Technology Germantown, MD 20874 19901 Germantown Road Germantown, MD 20874 Mr. Ed Rodwell, Manager-PWR Design Certification Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 P
e
_m._______._-----
Reouest for Additional Information (RAI) for the AP600 liAAC Note:
RAls 640.64 through 640.75 are from the Civil Engineering Branch and are focused on the adequacy of the CDM in light of Westinghouse's decision to eliminate the piping Design Acceptance Criteria (DAC) and instead provide a more complete design of the AP600 piping systems.
In conjunction with eliminating the piping DAC, Westinghouse proposed to relocate the Tier 1 design couitments that previously were included in a generic piping design description into each CDM piping system.
The Branch has reviewed Westinghouse's approach to relocate the piping DAC into specific systems and, in general, find it acceptable.
However, we have several comments and suggestions for improving the CDM and for ensuring that the specified inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) are "necessary and sufficient."
It should also be noted that the review of the structural area is not complete and the following comments do represent a complete list of the branch's concerns with the ITAAC.
640.64 Edj Fuel IQadlina and Refuelina System Because there is no functional arrangement figure associated with this design description it is not clear what ASME Code Section III design requirements are appitcable (e.g., Subsection NB, NC, ND, NF7).
The design description should specify the Subsection or ASME Code class for the system.
Note:
RAls 640.63 through 640.69 apply to section 2.1.2 Reactor Coolant System 640.65 Design Description 6.b addresses piping functional capability.
The design description should be rewritten to state, "The piping is designed to withstand seismic design basis loads without a loss of its functional capability."
In Table 2.1.2-2, the column " Functional Capability Required" may be deleted and its information may be included in the SSAR only.
640.66 Design Description 6.c is a comtitment that piping be constructed of the material specified. This commitment is unnecessary and may be deleted because, with the elimination of the piping DAC, it may be accomplished as an SSAR (Tier 2) commitment.
This is a generic comment that applies to the same ITAAC in other systems as well.
Enclosure
t
.o o'
C 9 640.67 In Table 2.1.2-4 (and in the Decign Description)
Item 6.b should be combined with Item 5 (which should become 5.a) because both items concern ensuring safety functions under seismic loadings.
For 6.b (the new 5.b), change the Design Commitment to be consistent with the new Design Description. See comment 640.65 above.
Change ' Inspections Tests, and Analyses" to read, " Inspection will be prformed to verify that the as-built piping meets the requirements for functional capability."
Change ' Acceptance Criteria" to read, "A report exists and concludes that the as-suilt pipin for which functional capability is required meets the rsquirements or functional capability This is a generic comment that applies to the same ITAAC in other systems as well.
640.68 In-Table 2.1.2-4, Item 6.c required that the piping be constructed of the material specified. This ITAAC can be deleted because, with the elimination of the piping DAC, it is unnecessary and can be accom-plished as an-SSAR (Tier 2) commitment.
This is a generic comment that applies to the same ITAAC in other systems as well.
640.69 In Table 2.1.2-4, Item 12.a provides ITAAC'for MOV testing. Para-graph 11) in the " Inspections, Tests, and Analyses" column should be rewritten to state, " Tests will be performed of the as-installed motor-operated valves under preoperational differential pressure, fluid flow, and temperature conditions."
Paragraph i) in the " Acceptance Criterta" column should be rewritten to state, "A test report exists and concludes that-each motor-operated valve is qualified to perform its safet Table 2.1.2-1 under design conditions."y function as indicated in Paragraph 11) in the Acceptance Criteria" column should be rewritten to state, "The as-installed motor-operated valves changes position as indicated in Table 2.1.2-1."
The above comments in 640.69 are generic comments that applies to the same ITAAC in other systems as well.
Note:
RAls 640,70 and 640.71 apply to section 2.1.3 Reactor System 640.70 This Tier 1 system needs a figure of the reactor vessel and major internal components described in the design description.
The figure should also depict the nominal dimensions of the vessel, minimum wall thicknesses, elevation.of core, and-locations of major nozzles.
- i 640.71 In the Design Description and in Table 2.1.3-2, Item 2, the Tier 1 coenitment and ITAAC should apaly only to ASME Code Class 1 (Subsec-tion NB) components (not for N or NG components).
Note:
RAls 640.72 and 640.73 apply to section 2.2.1 Containment System 640.72 In the Design Description and Table 2.2.1-3. Item 6.a. the erosion-corrosion allowance for wall thickness may be deleted because, with the elimination of the piping DAC, the design commitment is more appropriately addressed in the SSAR as a Tier 2 commitment.
- However, it is not clear how erosion-corrosion is addressed in the SSAR and needs further discussion.
This is a generic comment that applies to the same ITAAC in other systems as well.
640.73 in Table 2.2.1-3, item 12.a. check valve testing is addressed in saragraph 111. The " Inspections, Tests, and Analyses" column should
>e rewritten to state " Testing of check valves with active safety functionsidentifieaInTable2.2.1-1willbeperformedundersystem pressure, fluid flow, and temperature conditions."
The " Acceptance Criteria" column should state, "Each check valve changes position depending on the valve's safety function."
This is a generic comment that applies to the same ITAAC in other systems as well.
640.74 For the Passive Containment Cooling System Table 2.2.2-3, Item 7.a provides ITAAC for verification of Class-lE equipment. The "Inspec-tions, Tests, and Analyse " column should delete analyses alone as s type of qualification. -The paragraph should state, " Type tests or a combination of type tests and analyses will be performed on Class IE equipment located in a harsh environment."
This is a generic comment that applies to the same ITAAC in other systems as well.
640.75 In Section 3.2.2.5 of the SSAR, it is implied that there are some Class C (ASME Code Class 3) lowing a seismic event. systems that are no safety-related function fol It is not clear from reviewing the AP600 Certified Design Material whether all ASME-Code Class 3 piping systems are included in the CDM or only those that provide a safety-related function.
Are there any ASME Code Class 3 piping systems that are not safety-related listed in the CDM or that were not included in the CDM7
.. ; e *..
4-Note:
RAls 640.76 through 640.78 are preliminary commer,ts from the Plant Systems Branch and concern insufficient detail prest,ted in the ITAAC.
640.76 rigure 2.3.10-1, Liquid Radwaste System, does not include most of the major system components such as holdup tanks, ion exchangers, monitor tanks... etc.. This is contrary to the statement in Item 1 of-Section 2.3.10, "the functional arrangement of the applicable portions of the WLS is as shown in Figure 2.3.10-1".
Figure 2.3.10-1 shows only liquid waste input to the system.
640.77 Section 2.3.11, Gaseous Radwaste System and Section 2.3.12, Solid Radwaste System do not contain a functional arrangement diagram.
640.78 Justify that the following systems do not have any-content in ITAAC except the title: Main Turbine System, Main Steam System, Radiation Monitoring System, and Main Turbine Control and Diagnostic System.
640.79 The following is a miscellaneous comment from the Civil Engineering and Geoscience Branch. Design connitment number 7 in Table 3.3-5 refers to itself (i.e. 3.3.5).
The staff believes the appropriate reference should be Table 3.3-4.
_ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -