ML20247M695

Forwards RAI Re GL 96-06, Assurance of Equipment Operability & Containment Integrity During Design-Basis Accident Conditions, Dtd 960930 for Plant,Unit 2

ML20247M695
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	05/20/1998
From:	Harold J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Kinkel P CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC.
References
GL-96-06, GL-96-6, TAC-M96822, NUDOCS 9805260340
Download: ML20247M695 (6)

Text

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - .____ __-______ ._ _ --. _.

j May 20,-1998 l

Mr. Paul H. Kinkel Vice President, Nuclear Power Consolidated Edison Company i of New York, Inc. l Broadway and Bleakley Avenue i Buchanan, NY 10511 l

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO THE GL 96-06 RESPONSE FOR INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NO. 2 (TAC NO. M96822) I aar Mr. Kinkel: l l

Generic Letter (GL) 96-06, " Assurance of Equipment Operability and Containment >

l Integrity During Design-Basis Accident Conditions," dated September 30,1996, included a i l

request for licensees to evaluate cooling water systems that serve containment air coolers to I assure that they are not vulnerable to waterhammer and two-phase flow conditions. l l

Consolidated Edison Company (the licensee) provided its assessment of the waterhammer and l l

two-phase flow issues for Indian Point Unit 2 in a letter dated January 28,1997, in order to i

complete our review of your resolution of these issues, we will require additional information as i discussed in the enclosure. We ask that you provide this information by July 30,1998, in order to support our review schedule for GL 96-06. If you have any question, please call me at l l

301-415-1421.

i I

Sincerely, Original Signed by:  !

Jefferey F. Harold, Project Mancger  !

Project Directorate 1-1 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/11 9805260340 9805-20 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation PDR ADOCK 05000247 P PDR ,

(

Docket No. 50-247

(

Enclosure:

As stated I cc w/ enc!: See next page

. DISTRIBUTION: h, mD Cf' 45 IDodet FNe' J. Zwolinski (A) J. Harold L

~~ 7' GIl pa pO(

PUBLIC PDI-1 R/F S. Bajwa S. Little OGC ACRS 9 1 l

DOCUMENT NAME:G:\lP2\lP296822.RAI 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 FM:PDI 1 , f lE LA:PCl*1 4 N l D:PDi 1 ,ffA l l l l NAME JHaro M [ N" $little M SBeiwa M A DATE 05/70/% ' ' 05/ 2 0/98 05/ )f/98 05/ /98 05/ /98 Official Record Copy

May 20, 1998 5 1 Mr. Paul H. Kinkel Vice President, Nuclear Power Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

Broadway and Bleakley Avenue Buchanan, NY 10511

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO THE GL 96-06 RESPONSE FOR INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NO. 2 (TAC NO. M96822)

Dear Mr. Kinkel:

)

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.

Consolidated Edison Company (the licensee) provided its assessment of the waterhammer and two-phase flow issues for Indian Point Unit 2 in a letter dated January 28,1997. In order to complete our review of your resolution of these issues, we will require additional information as discussed in the enclosure. We ask that you provide this information by July 30,1998, in order to support our review schedule for GL 96-06. If you have any question, please call me at 301-415-1421.

Sincerely, Original Signed by:

Jefferey F. Harold, Project Manager Project Directorate 1-1 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-247

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION:

l Docket File J. Zwolinski (A) J. Harold PUBLIC S. Bajwa OGC

f. PDI-1 R/F S. Little ACRS DOCUMENT NAME:G:\lP2\lP296822.RAI To rec:ive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E"

= C py with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy l 0FFICE PM:PDI 1 , , lE LA:PDI 1 4N l D:PDI-1 ,fff l l I l NAME JHaroRIl/ d 5Little N' SBajwa P A DATE 05/2 0 / 4 05/ dV98 05/20/98 05/ /98 05/ /98 Official Record Copy l

1

• l

• p cero y t UNITED STATES Y

j 2

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 30566-0001

% . . . . . p' May 20, 1998 Mr. Paul H. Kinkel '

Vice President, Nuclear Power Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

Broadway and Bleakley Avenue Buchanan, NY 10511

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO THE GL 96-06 RESPONSE FOR INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NO. 2 (TAC NO. M96822)

Dear Mr. Kinkel:

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.

Consolidated Edison Company (the licensee) provided its assessment of the waterhammer and two-phase flow issues for indian Point Unit 2 in a letter dated January 28,1997. In order to complete our review of your resolution of these issues, we will require additional information as discussed in the enclosure. We ask that you provide this information by July 30,1998, in order to support our review schedule for GL 96-06. If you have any question, please call me at 301-415-1421.

Sincerely,

/

d , b' '

Jefferey F. Harold, Project Manager Project Directorate 1-1 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/ll Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation I

Docket No. 50-247

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ encl: See next page

Paul H. Kinkel Indian Point Nuclear Generating

, Consolidated Edison Company Station Units 1/2 of New York, Inc.

cc:

Mayor, Village of Buchanan Charles Donaldson, Esquire' 236 Tate Avenue Assistant Attomey General Buchanan, NY 10511 New York Department of Law 120 Broadway Mr. F. William Valentino, President New York, NY 10271 New York State Energy, Research, and Development Authority Ms. Charlene D. Faison, Director Corporate Plaza West Nuclear Licensing 286 Washington Ave. Extension Power Authority of the State Albany, NY 12203-6399 of New York 123 Main Street Mr. Charles W. Jackson White Plains, NY 10601 Manager of Nuclear Safety and Licensing Mr. Walter Stein Consolidated Edison Company Secretary - NFSC of New York, Inc. Consolidated Edison Company Broadway and Bleakley Avenue of New York, Inc.

Buchanan, NY 10511 4 Irving Place - 1822 New York, NY 10003 Senior Resident inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Administrator, Region i P.O. Box 38 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Buchanan, NY 10511 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. Brent L. Brandenburg Assistant General Counsel Mr. Paul Eddy Consol; dated Edison Company New York State Department of of New York, Inc. Public Service 4 Irving Place - 1822 3 Empire State Plaza,10th Floor New York, NY 10003 Albany, NY 12223 L

l l

l

8 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR RESOLUTION OF GL 96-06 ISSUES AT INDIAN POINT UNIT 2 The following additional information is requested in order to complete our review:

1. 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 altemate met 5odology in detail. Also, explain why this methodology is applicable and gives conservative results for 1r point Unit 2 (typically accomplished through rigorous plant-specific modeling, testing, and analysis).

2. For both the waterhammer and two-phase flow analyses, provide the following i information:

a. Identify any computer codes that were used in the waterhammer and two-phase flow analyses and describe the methods used to bench mark 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).

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 effects of void fraction on flow balance and heat transfer, e the consequences of steam formation, transpod, and accumulation;

• cavitation, resonance, and fatigue effects; and

• erosion considerations.

While the last three items (listed above) are important considerations for assuring i that system integrity will be maintained during two-phase flow conditions, they were not discussed in the licensee's response. Also, NUREG/CR-6031, " Cavitation Guide for Control Valves," may.be helpful in addressing some aspects of the two-phsse flow analyses.

i Enclosure ,

l t - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J

_ _ _____ - _ ___=__ ______ _ _ __ _ _ _ - _ - _ __ _ _ _ __

L .,-

O t ,

, .i l

! d. Confirm that the analyses included 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 f

documented FMEA was not perfortred.

e. Explain and justify all uses of " engineering judgement."

3. Determine the uncertainty in the waterhammer and two-phase flow analyses, explain how l the uncertainty was determined, and how it was accounted for in the analyses to assure l conservative results for Indian Point Unit 2.

l 4. 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.

5. Provide a simplified diagram of the affected system, showing major components, active components, relative elevations, lengths of piping runs, and the location of any orifices and flow restrictions.

l I

l l

l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ ___