ML20244D328
| ML20244D328 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 05/02/1985 |
| From: | Bosnak R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235T530 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-51 NUDOCS 8505070524 | |
| Download: ML20244D328 (5) | |
Text
_ - _ _
MAY 0 21985
/.) 0 / S o g Docket No.: 50 443 and 50-444 MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director v'
for Licensing Division of Licensing FROM:
Robert J. Bosnak, Acting Assistant Director for Components and Structures Engineering Division of Engineering 1
SUBJECT:
SEABROOK NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1 - ARBITRARY INTERMEDIATE PIPE BREAKS - REVISED SER
References:
- 1. Memo from R. J. Bosnak to T. M. Novak, dated March 18, 1985
Subject:
Seabrook Nuclear Station L' nit 1 - Arbitrary Intermediate Pipe Breaks
- 2. Letter from J. DeVincentis, Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) to G. W. Knighton, hRC, dated February 7,1985,
Subject:
Elimination of Arbitrary Intermediate Pipe Breaks
- 3. Letter from J. DeVincentis, PSNH, to G. W. Knighton, NRC, dated April 12, 1985,
Subject:
Elimination of Arbitrary Intermediate Pipe Breaks in the Feedwater System In Reference 1, the Mechanical Engineering Branch forwarded its evaluation of the Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) submittal (Ref. 2) dealing with alternative pipe break criteria that would eliminate arbitrary intermediate breaks (AIBs) in all high energy piping systems except the feedwater system at the Seabrook Station, Unit 1.
Subsequently in Reference 3, the applicant requested approval for elimination of AIBs in the feedwater system. Based on our review of Reference 3, we have concluded that the applicant's request is acceptable. This approval is applicable to Unit 1 only, since the applicant's submittal gives details of proposed breaks, etc., to be eliminated for Unit 1 and not for Unit 2.
To incm. ' ate the feedwater system into our original SER, pages 8 and 9 of Refr.etee 4 have been revised and are attached.
- n _.._
( Q [**" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' -Ubu / " M M Syp,obert J. Bosnak, Acting A V'
for Components and Structures Engineering Division of Engineering
Attachment:
As stated cc: See page 2.
CONTACT:
R. Pichumani, DE:MEB, x28987
- DE:MEB 'g, ::DE: AD/CS..___....... s..:..
4......_:...........
DFC :DE:MEB
- DE:M
- DE:ME
- zff, Q
L....:._..........:....
/
DAME :5520/vgt
- RPichuma
- HBrammer
- FCCherny
- RJBosnak l
HATE:5/1/85
- 5// /85
- 5///85
- 5/ / /85
- 5/ / /85 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
I Thomas M. Novak i cc:
J. P. Knight, DE W. Shields, ELD J. Alzheimer, ETEC G. Knighton, DL V. Nerses, DL F. Cherny, DE H. Bramer, DE S. Hou, DE R. Pichumani, DE l
8-where the number of stress cycles, due either to pressure or thermal effect, is relatively large for the expected life of the equipment."
Ccce rules governing the fatigue effects associated with ge eral bending stresses caused by thermal expansion are addressed in NC/C-3611.2(e) and are cererally incorporated into the piping stress analyses in the form of an allowable stress reduction factor.
Thus it can be concluded that when the piping designers have appropriately ccrsidered the fatigue effects for Class 2 and 3 piping systems in accordance witt NC/ND-3645, the likelihood of a fatigue failure in Class 2 and 3 piping caused by unanticipated cyclic loadings can be significantly reduced.
-+ Insert W Basee on the staff evaluation of the design considerations given to Class 2 and 3 pipirg, the stress limits provided in the SRP break criterion, and the degree of uncertainty in unanticipated loadings the staff finds that dispensing with j
arbitrary intermediate pipe breaks is justified for Class 2 and 3 piping in whicn stress corrosicn cracking, large unanticipated dynami: loads, or thermal faticue in fluid mixing situations are not expected to occu* provided 1) the piping designers have appropriately considered the effects of local welded attachments per NC/ND-3645, and 2) all safety-related equip ent in the vicinity of Class 2 and 3 piping systems have been environmentally cualified for the rer.-dynamic effects of a non-mechanistic pipe break witn the greatest conse de cue *ces on the equipment. W th th: : cepticr
+M"4-
'::ds t:r :yst m sta#f has concluded that the above described requirements are present for th3se AS"E Code Class 2 and 3 piping systqms identified in the a;:licant's letters de ed February 7,1985,(References 2&f)Tb= 4 4 cert 4; p :: rig a :epe ae n:
- c i m;. a i, J c#c. n iecm s.
y. t c a.
Picine Systems Not included in Procosal 5'
Fcr those piping systems, or portion uhereof, which are not included in the ap;.icant's submittals (References 2 ', the staff requires that the existing cuicelines in BTP MEB 3-1 of the SRP (NUREG-0800) Revision i be met.
- However, it: ld other piping lines which arp pct specifically identi'ied in the a:;iicant's submittals (References 2W,dbsequently qualify fc-the conditions cescribed above, the implementation of the proposed elimina: ion of the artitrary intermediate break criteria may be used provided Inose additional piping lines are appropriately identified to the staff.
Conclusion q
The applicant has proposed a deviation from the current guidelines of the SRP by requesting relief from postulating arbitrary intennediate pipe breaks in some high energy piping systems.
The applicant has committed to perform pre m >
operational testing of all the systems identified in Referer.cr2f and also
~~
monitor those systems for vibration during preoperational and startup testing.
The staff has evaluated the technical bases for the proposed deviation with respect to satisfying the requirements of GDC 4.
Furthermore, the considered the potential problems identified in NUREG/CR-2136 (Ref.gtaff hasf[which
+--
could impact overall plant reliability when excessive pipe whip restraints are installed. Based on its review, the staff finds that when those piping system conditions as stated above are met, there is a sufficient basis for concluding that an adequate level of safety exists to accept the proposed deviation.
Insert A for P. 8 Because of the suste:tability of main feedwater systems in other plants to water hammer, the a;;1icant has incorporated several water hammer prew:ntion/
minimization features into the design of the feedwater piping at the Seabrook Station.
The Seabr::k steam generators (SG) are Westinghouse Model F type in which feedwater enters at an elevation above the top of the U-tubes through the 16-inch feedwater nozzle. The water is distributed circumferentially within the SG by means of a feed ring. The feedwater enters the ring via a welded thermal sleeve connection and leaves it through inverted J-tubes located at the flow holes that are at the top of the ring.
The J-tubes are arranged to distribute the bulk of the colder feedwater to the hot leg side of the tube bundle.
The feedrir.g is designed in minimize conditions within the SG which could result in water hammer occurrences in the feedwater piping.
Complying with the westinghouse recommendations regarding the routing of the feedwater piping, each SG nozzle utilizes a 90-degree elbow connected immediately to a near vertical run of pipe to minimize potential steam voids.
Under normal operating conditions, the feedwater flow arrangement ensures that the line is kept filled with water, thus preventing steam from leaking back into the feedwater piping. Also, feedwater control valves (FCV) instabilities have been minimized by ensuring that all components in the system are compatible. To stabilize operation at low power levels, a small bypass control line is provided.
As stated in the Seabrook SER Section 10.4.7, the applicant has agreed to perform tests to verify that unacceptable water hammer will not occur when the plar.: cpera'.iro pre:stures are beinc used for normal and emergency restoration of SG water level ft'.lcwing a loss of normal feedwater.
The staff concurs with the applicant's conclusion that the oesign features and operating procedures describec above will minimize the potential for water hammer occurrence in the nain feedwater piping system.
- _- Thus, based on the piping systems having satisfied the above conditions, the staff concludes that the pipe rupture postulation and the associated effects are adequately considered in the design of the Seabrook Nuclear Station Unit 1 l
and, thus, the deviation from the Standard Review Plan is acceptable.
IV REFERENCES
])
" Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants", NUREG-0800 (Revision 1) dated July 1981, 2)
Letter from J. DeVincentis, PSNH, to G. W. Knighton, NRC, subject,
" Elimination of Arbitrary Intermediate Pipe Breaks," dated February 7, 1985.
3)
Memo dated March 20, 1984 from J. P. Knight to T. Novak, subject, SSER for Catawba 2 on Arbitrary Intermediate Pipe Breaks."
4)
Memo dated June 22, 1964 from J. P. Knight to T. Novak, subject, "Vogtle Electric Generating Plant - Units 1 and 2, Arbitrary Intermediate Pipe Breaks."
"Effect of Postulated Event Devices on Normal Operation of Piping Systems in Nuclear Power Plants", NUREG/CR-2136 dated May 1981.
~n w n nA s,saa, a a ni. u~y. s,acgg"..
"Eks q AM~y MA %. kkfyeypg
1 i
[mng'o UNITED $TATEs g
[
p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
l W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 j
4 MAY 2 0155 Docket Nor.: 50-443 and 50-444 APPLICANT: Public Service Company of New Hampshire FACILITY:
Seabrook Station, Unit 1 and 2
SUBJECT:
MEETING
SUMMARY
On April 1,1985, NRC, and applicant representatives met in Bethesda, Maryland to discuss the fire protection of safe shutdown capability. The discussion i
pertained to technical areas, in which the Auxiliary Systems Branch (ASB) has l
review responsibility. Enclosure (1) provides the attendees to this meeting.
l The applicant noted that their original report on fire protection of safe shutdown capability was incomplete because at the time decisions on instruments (or design of instruments) in containment had not been made. Also, items outside of containment have been added since the report. Theapplicantconsidersthe/ [
updated report complete and that it identifies deviations and the basis for these deviations.
[
l As a result of this meeting the applicant committed to the following actions:
1.
To rewrite and complete the justification for the deviation in the mechanical penetration area, t
2.
To review the emergency feed water fire area justification to detennine what if any additional words are needed for further clarification.
3.
To revise the Fire Hazards Analysis Report (FHA) pages to delete identification of the Baron Injection Tank (BIT) valves because of the elimination of the BIT.
4.
To remove from the FHA any reference to ta9. fann since the tank fann is not an area needed for alternate capability.
5.
To clarify in the FHA the Condensate Storage Tank level location.
6.
To remove the Primary Component Cooling Water temperature indicator from pages 3-9 of the FHA.
' AW MO344-850520 h
PDR ADOCK 05000443 F
P2 V
9 2
The staff agreed to formally submit the recent request for additional information
,that was verbally discussed with the applicant.
Victor Nerses, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated cc: See next page
s Seabrook Mr. Robert J. Harrison
~
President and Chief Executive Officer Public Service Company of New Hampshire
-i Post Office Box 330 1
Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Thomas Dignan, Esc.
E. Tupper Kinder, ETq'.
l John A. Ritscher, Esq.
G. Dana Bisbee, Esc.
Ropes and Gray Assistant Attorney General 225 Franklin Street Office of Attorney General Boston, Massachusetts 02110 208 State Hosue Annex
~
Concord, New Hampshire 03301 i
Mr. Bruce B. Beckley, Project Manager l
. Public Service Company of New Hampshire Resident inspector Post Office Box 330 Seabrook Nuclear Power Station Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 c/o US Nuclear Regulatory Comission Post Office Box 700 Dr. Mauray Tye, President Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 1
Sun Valley, Association 209 Sumer. Street Mr. John DeVincentis, Director
.Maverhill, Massachusetts 01839 Engineering and Licensing Yankee Atomic Electric Company Robert A. Backus, Esq.
1671 Worchester Road O'Neil, Backus and Spielman Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 116 Lowell Street Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Mr. A. M. Ebner, Project Manager United Engineers & Constructors Ms. Beverly A. Hollingworth 30 South 17th Street 7 A Street Post Office Box 8223 Mampton Beach, New Hampshire 03842 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 William S. Jordan, III Mr. Philip Ahrens, Esq.
Diane Curran Assistant Attorney General Harmon, Weiss & Jordan State House, Station #6 20001 S Street, NW Augusta, Maine 04333 Suite 430 Washington, DC 20009 Mr. Warren Hall Jo Ann Shotwell, Esq.
Public Service Company of Office of the Assistant Attorney General New Hampshire Environmental Protection Division Post Office Box 330 One Ashburton Place Manchester, New Hamoshire 03105 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League D. Pierre G. Cameron, Jr., Esq.
Ms. Jane Doughty General Counsel S Market Street Public Service Company of New Hampshire Portsmouth, New Hamps. hire 03801 Post Office Box 330 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Mr. Diana P. Randall :
70 Collins Street Regional Administrator - Region I Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
l
)
. Mr. Calvin A. Canney, City Manager Mr. Alfred V. Sergent, City Hall Chairinan Board of Selectasn 126 Daniel Street Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 Town of Salisbury, MA 01950 Ms. Letty Hett Senator Gordon7. Humphrey Town of Brentwood U. S. Senate RFD Dalton Road Washington, DC 20510 Brentwood, New Hampshire 03833 (Attn: Tom Bureck)
Ms. Roberta C. Pevear Senator Gordan J. Humphrev Town of Hampton Falls, New Hampshire 1 Pillsbury Street Drinkwater Road Concord, New Har.pshire 03301 Hampton Falls, New Hampshire 03844 (Attn: Herb Boynton)
Ms. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Owen B. Durpin, ChairTnan
=
Town of Kensington, New Hampshire Durham Board of Selectmen 1
RDF 1 Town of Durham East Kingston, New Hampshire 03827 Durham, New Hampshire 03824 Charles Cross, Esq.
Chairman, Board of Selectmen Shaines, Mardrigan and Town Hall McEaschern South Hampton, New Hampshire 03827 25 Maplewood Avenue Post Office Box 366 Mr. Angie Machiros, Chairman Portsmouth, NH,03801 Board of Selectmen for the Town of Newbury Newbury, Massachusetts 01950 Mr. Guy Chichester, Chainan Rye Nuclear Intervention Ms. Rosemary Cashman, Chainnan Comittee Board of Selectmen c/o Rye Town Hall
)
Town of Amesbury 10 Central Road Town Hall Rye, New Hampshire 03870 Amesbury, Massachusetts 01913 Jane Spector Honorable Ricnard E. Sullivan Federal Energy Regulatory Mayor, City of Newburyport Comission Office of the Mayor 825 North Capital Street, NE City Hall Room 8105 Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950 Washington, D. C.
20426 Mr. Donald E. Chick, Town Manager Mr. R. Sweeney Town of Exeter New Hampshire Yankee Division 1
10 Front Street Public Service of New Hampshire Exeter, New Hampshire 03823 Company 7910 Woodmont Av.enue Mr. William B. Derrickson Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Senior Vice President Public Service Company of New Hampshire Post Office Box 700, Route 1 Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874
o ATTENDEES Fire Protection Review Meeting on Alternate and Safe Shutdown Capability April 1, 1984 l
V. Nerses NRC/NRR/DL/LB#3 R. Anand NRC/NRR/ASB
' J. S. Wermiel NRC/NRR/DSI/ASB C. D. Grieman UE&C Supv. Elect. Engr.
R. E. Sweeney NHY, Bethesda Office Mgr.
S. F. Kobylarz UE8C (WNP#1), observer David D. Maidrand YNSD, Asst. Pro., Mgr.
George.P. Semienko YNSD, Mech. Egnineer l
l 1
l l
1 m
1
\\
l
+.
@2 0\\
o
}
MEETING StW.ARY DISTRIBUTION j
Docket No(s):50-443/444 NRC PDR Local PDR NSIC PRC System LB3 Reading Attorney, OELD GWKnighton Project Manager VNerses JLee NRC PARTICIPANTS V. Nerses R #aand J. S. Wenniel s
i bec: Applicant & Service List 1
i
2-1 I
The staff agreed to formally submit the recent request for additional information that was verbally discussed with the applicant.
/S/
Victor Nerses, Project Manager l
Licensing Branch No. 3 I
Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated cc: See next page l
l I
/es ton fg/85 f//[,,/85 j
\\
l