ML20248E366

Forwards Amend 13 to Application for License,Containing cross-references Between PSAR & Suppls 1-11

ML20248E366
Person / Time
Site:	FitzPatrick
Issue date:	01/23/1970
From:	Trosten L LEBOEUF, LAMB, LEIBY & MACRAE, POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK
To:	Bond J, Eliassen R, Gleason J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20248A375	List: JAFP-89-0689, Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in Rept 50-333/89-80.Corrective Actions:Util Established Formal Preventive Maint Program in 1984 Which Includes 600-volt Class 1E Circuit Breakers,Motor Starters & Transformers ML20248E354 ML20248E366 ML20248E368 ML20248E387 ML20248E410
References
NUDOCS 8910050196
Download: ML20248E366 (5)

Text

_.

y .J  :;7 m

law Orrects or N LE BOEUF. LAMB. LElBY & MAC RAE 18 21 JEFFERSON PL Act, N,W.

.. WAS HIN GTON, D. C. 2o o 3 6

.' ARVIN' E.~ UPTON ONE CHABE M ANHATTAN PLAZ A N EW YOR K, N. Y. 40 0 0 5 y E UG E N E 3. T HOM AS. .lm.

. LEON ARD M. TROSTE N wasnimato. ca.theas -

wanwinotoN TELEPMONE .

202 FEotmAL e 0181 January 23, 1970

, Mr. James P. Gleason Dr. Clarke villiams 205: Commonwealth' Building Brookhaven Nationa1 Laboratory 152 6 K Street, . N.Y. . .

Upton, Long Island, N.Y. 11973 washington, D. . C . 20006 Mr. A. A'.: Yells, Chairman Mr.:.J. D.' Bond: Atomic _ Safety and Licensing

% 18700 Woodway Drive Board Panel

• Derwood,. Maryland 20855 U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Dr. Rolf Eliassen Department.of Civil Dr. David B. Hall Engineering. Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Stanford University- P. O.. Box 1663

. Stanford, California 94305 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 Re: AEC Docket No. 50-333 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Gentlemen:

We enclose copies of Amendment No. 13 to the Application for Licenses in the above-captioned proceeding, together with Supplement No. 12 to the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, which are being filed with the Commission

-today. This Supplement contains cross-references between the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report as originally sub-L j mitted.and Supplement Nos. 1 through 11 subsequently filed.

t

, ' 8910050196 890921 1

PDR . ADOCK. 05000333 Q PDR

n-_ -_

t Mr. James P. Gleason, et al Page 2 January 23, 1970 Please note that the supplement consists partly of pages to be inserted in the updated copy of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Reprart which was sent to you recently.

Very truly yours, LeBOEUF, IAMB, LEIBY & MacRAE

/s/ Leonard M. Trosten By Leonard M. Trosten, Partner Enclosures Copy w/o enclosures to:

Secretary, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Dr. Peter A. Morris ,

1.

I l

JAFNPP l l j Question E.1: With respect to the unrestrained locations listed in Table E.2-3, Supplement No. 3 of the FSAR, provide a list of ,

those locations where the cumulative usage factor exceeds 0.20 l and the primary plus secondary stress derived on an elastic basis l is greater than 2.0 Sm under normal reactor operation. Identify  !

and discuss the supplementary protection means such as the i inservice inspection program, the use of energy absorbing structures, and other, to assure that plant safety will not be l adversely affected by breaks at unrestrained high stress creas j which exceed the above criteria.

Response: The Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary piping was J designed and analyzed in accordance with ANSI B31.1.0 " Power j Piping", 1967 Edition with addenda through Winter, 1968. '

Cumulative usage factors and primary plus s econdary stress intensities were not required by this c ode , and thus this information is not available. However, in response to the above question two relatively highly strers locations, (it is noted here that even at these locations, the stresses are substantially below the stress considered for the possibility of crack growth) one on the HPCI line and one on the main steam line, have since been analyzed under normal reactor operating conditions using equation 10, paragraph NB-3651 of ASME Section III. This evaluates the primary plus secondary stress-intensity range.

Cumulative usage factors are also being determined at these locations.

The most highly stressed location tabulated in Appendix E occurs at an elbow on the HPCI line (Table E. 2-2b, HPCI Location 1) .

i I Under normal reactor operation, the primary plus secondary stress derived on an elastic basis is well under 2.0 Sm at this location.

The tee on the main steam line (Table E.2-2A, MS location 6) was also analyzed and it also does not exceed this stress criterion.

This location was examined, since tees frequently are highly stressed.

Based on the small values of primary plus secondary stress-intensity which were calculated, the cumulative usage factors at these two locations are not expected to exceed 0.20 under normal reactor operation. Since these locations were selected to represent highly stressed regions, it is highly probable that the other unrestrained locations listed in Table E. 2-3, Supplement No. 3 of the FSAR are within the specified limits.

Since there appear to be no areas at which the specified criteria are exceeded, plant cafety would not be compromised even if there were no means of supplementary protection. H owev er, the lines in question will be subject to an inservice inspection program in accordance with the provisions ~ of Appendix Fthe of the FSAR. At longitudinal intervals of five years, 8 percent of circumferential welds will be inspected and j every 10 years, l The inspection will include visual

,~

25 percent will be inspected.

l Q.E.1-1 Supplement 5

-' JAFNPP 4

examination of all accessible welds including, if necessary, the use of remote methods as they are developed.

examinations by radiographic and/or ultrasonic techniques will Volumetric h' also be made.

The use of energy absorbing structures in the FitzPatrick Plant i would require the addition of supports and massive energy absorbing panels covering large areas within the envelope of possible pipe impact. The installation of these shields is limited by inadequate space and interferences with existing aystems and components and may degrade in-service inspection.

However, it is felt that the system proposed provides the maximum assurance of protection within the boundary of the existing containment and layout of equipment.

This information supplements the information found in Table E.2-3.,

~

O l

1' u

Q.E.1-2 Supplement 5

\ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

, ----------~._, . . , _ . _ .

tA. orricts or .q,y

, y q LE BOEUF. L AMB, LElBY & M AC RAE ' . .

, , 8.,

1821 JErrERSON PL ACE, N.W. ,.7 '~' ,

WAS H IN GTON, D. C. 2 0 03 6

"~'~~

ARVIN E. U PTON OhE CHASE MahMATTAN PL A7 A CUG E N E B. T HOM AS. JR NEw vomK, N v. sO O Os tEo~Ano u.TaosTru January 2 3, 1970 w.aswwovow me.vares wasMswCTON TELEPMOkt:

PD2 F CDEmAL 8-0111 l

Mr. Asa George ,

Chief Engineer l Power Authority of the State of New York 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 l

Dear Asa:

I enclose stamped copies of the following ciocu-ments which were filed with the AEC today:

e

~

(1) Amendment No. 13 to the FitzPatrick Appli-cation and the accompanying transmittal letter and Certi-ficate of Service; and (2 ) The " Certificate of Compliance" which you executed this Wednesday, and our accompanying letter transmitting the Certificate to the Commission.

I also enclose copies of two letters we sent out today to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board members and others, one transmitting the updated Application under separate cover and the other transmitting Amendment No. 13 with Supple-ment No. 12.

Very truly yours, 1 - -

l Lex K. Larson Enclosures

' .s

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ A