IR 05000324/1982033
| ML20027C227 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 09/23/1982 |
| From: | Ang W, Blake J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027C220 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-324-82-33, 50-325-82-31, IEB-79-14, NUDOCS 8210150170 | |
| Download: ML20027C227 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
95 f C UNITED STATES R
'*
,[
pg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
g ),,,,
g REGION il 4'-'-
'c 101 M ARIETTA STREET, N.W.
c'
^
%; u.h 'f
'8 ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30303 o
_
+..**
Report Nos. 50-325/82-31 and 50-324/82-33 Licensee:
Carolina Power and Light Company 411 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC 27602 Facili ty Name:
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324 License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62 Inspection at United Engineers and Constructors, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
ft Inspect r:_ _ _.Ang Date Signed _
W P Approv'ed by:
t'8-6L J B ake, Section Chief Date Signed ec nical Engineering Inspection Branch Division of Engineering and Technical Programs l
'
SUMMARY Inspection on September 1-3, 1982, and September 10, 1982 Areas Inspected This routine, announced inspection involved 17 inspector-hour 3 in The United Engineers and Constructors Design Office in the areas of Seismic Analysis for As-Built Saf ety-Related Piping Systems (IEB 79-14).
Results Of the area inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
l
.
8210150170 820924 PDR AlOCK 05000324 O
PDR l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
Jk
.
-
.
.
REPORT-DETAILS
,
1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- /**A. M. Worth, Principal Engineer J. Gasbarro, Project Engineer j
- S. Zimmerman, Licensing Manager
-
United Engineers and Constructors, Inc. (UEC)
- G. F. Cole, Manager, Nuclear Projects
- /**B. J. Husselton, Project Manager
- /**G. Rigamonti, Chief Power Engineer
- F. A. Cook, Supervisory Power Engineer
- J. C. Fiorello, Supervising Structural Engineer
- M. Konopka, Stress Engineer
- /**R. Harri s, Stress Engineer NRC
- *J. Fa i r, IE
- J. Van Vliet, NRR Licensing Project Manager
- D. Vassallo, Chief, Operating Reactors Branch 2
- D. Terao, Mechanical Engineering Branch, NRR i
- Attended exit interview
.
.
- Attended NRR Meeting
-. s
'
2.
Exit Interview The irspection scope and findings were summarized on September 3,1982, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
The inspectors concerns regarding the operability analysis for pipe suppcrts found to be oriented I
differently fron the piping analysis was discussca. The licensee expressed
'
disagreement with the concern.
A RII/NRR/Licehsee conference call on September 9, 1932, and a meeting in Bethesda, Maryland on September 10, 1982, were held to discuss the disagreement. Unresolved ' Item 325/82-31-01 and 324/82-33-01, Overlap Modeling Technique-used'ir. seismic-analysis, was identified during this inspection. THe 1-icensee had no dissentidg scomment on the Unresolved Item.
3.
Licensee Action an Previous Enforcement Matters
-
'
-
'
'
Not inspected.
'
~~
-
'
N e
. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.=.
_ _ _
_
__
_ _ _. _ _ _
_ _ _ _
29'
.
.
.
\\
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve violations or devia-l tions. New unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed i
in paragraph five.
5.
Seismic Analysis for As-Built Safety-Related Piping Systems (25529)
I An inspection was performed at the licensee's A/E (UEC) Design Office to verify licensee compliance with IEB 79-14 requirements and licensee commit-i ments. On August 14, 1982, UEC reported a potential part 21 reportable occurrence regarding safety related snubbers that were analyzed to be more than the A/E's 15 degree tolerance from the as-installed condition.
Re-analysis for the correct location revealed over-stress conditions.
During the inspection, the licensee reported that all uni-directional supports.inside the containment had been reviewed and had resulted in five
?
pipe supports being identified to be overstressed by analysis in accordance with Brunswick FSAR. However, the licensee further stated that operability
,
analysislof the supports showed that by taking out the conservatism in the analysis, the five supports were structurally adquate and were considered
operable. 'The licensee futher stated that a random 40 percent sampling of uni-directional supports outside the containment showed no overstressed i
,
conditions.
Finally,,he licensee stated that the Plant Nuclear Safety Committee had required the A/E to review the remaining 60 percent of the ury1-directional supports outside the containment to assure that no over-stressed cor.ditions exist; this review was to be done in a prompt manner, but on a not-to-delay plant basis. Since the initial reviews by the A/E appear to isolate the problem to specific piping configurations inside j
'
the containment, and since 100 percent of the uni-directional supports will
,/
be ' reviewed promptly, the inspector had no further question regarding the
)l generic implications of the problem for Brunswick.
The_ Licensee's Operability Analysis for the pipe supports that did not meet F.SAR'= requirements were performed by UEC. An inspection of the operability
_analy-sis for the following pipe supports was performed.
i a.-
' Snubber 2 PSN-035572 - 24" MS piping stress analysis number 14A 2305(y)
'
-
-
b.
Snubber 2 B21-1155-314 - 10" MS Safety Relief Valve Discharge
,
Stress Analysis Number 124-1G73 c.
Snubber 2B21-1155-224 - 10" MS SRV Discharge Stress Analysis Number 124-1073 d.
Snubber 2B21-1155-313 - 10" MS SRV Discharge Stress Analysis Number 124-1057(z)
'. -
,
-
%
%
'
N I
^#
s
~
m
_ _,., - ~ ~
, _ _, -
. _.. _
_
. _... _.,
___ __
_
...
-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
I
.
.
l
l
l l
e.
Strut 2821-5855-304 - 10" MS SRV Discharge i
Stress Analysis Number-187-635 l
l The inspection of the operability analysis revealed that the FSAR piping
'
analysis containing the above pipe supports provided pipe support loads that exceeded allowables.
These pipe supports loads were subsequently re-calculated for short term operability / structural adequacy determination by using the Seismic Response Spectra for two percent SSE piping damping in lieu of h percent OBE and by using the Seismic Resoonse Spectra for the local elevation of the pipe support in lieu of the envelope spectra for the entire piping analysis problem. The licensee was informed that this was not an acceptable operability analysis since it did not take into consideration the effects of the piping above the pipe support for which loads were being generated.
In additions it did not meet currently accepted and approved analytical methods.
Subsequent to the inspection, A conference telephone conversation was held on September 9,1982 between CP&L, UEC, RII, IE, and NRR.
A meeting was also held on September 10, 1982 between CP&L, UEC, RII, IE, and NRR. The conference call and meeting resulted in the following:
A.
The OBE vs SSE question noted above was discussed and determined by IE/NRR to be in accordance with the licensee's commitments.
8.
Subsequent to the inspection the licensee reperformed the operability analysis for stress problem No. 124, MS SRV discharge piping, using a more conservative Seismic Response Spectra but still not using an envelope spectra. The new analysis was presented and discussed during the meeting. The new analysis resulted in increased loads for supports 2B21-1155-314, 2B21-1155-224, and 2B21-1155-313 but, according to the licensee, still within allowables. The new analysis included more of the 24" IPS MS piping and showed the relative effect of the 24" MS piping on the supports for the 10" MS SRV discharge piping. IE and NRR agreed that the new analysis was an adequated operability evaluation allowing temporpry operable classification for the supports.
C.
The licensee also presented the operability analysis for support 2PSN-035572 on stress problem No. 14A, 24" IPS MS piping. Discussions regarding the analysis resulted in an IE/NRR conclusion that the analysis was not representative and the support could not be considered operable based on the analysis.
The licensee committed to repair support Nos. IPSN-D35572 and 2PSN-D35572 prior to start-up of the applicable unit.
D.
The licensee reported that the local spectra (in lieu of envelope spectra) operability analysis technique was only used during IEB 79-14 evaluations, on two other stress problems whose supports were still not repaired. The licensee did not present the analysis for the other two supports for evaluation by IE/NRR during the meeting. Although the licensea was not readily able to identify the stress problem and
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A
.
.
.
.
support numbers, the licensee committed to identify them to RII and repair the items in question prior to start-up of the applicable unit.
During the inspection, it was noted that UEC procedure OEDP-2607 Revision 1, Procedure for Computerized Piping Analysis, allows the use of the overlap modelling technique.
The UEC procedure does not meet the modelling criteria recommended by NUREG/CR-1980 BNL-NUREG-51357.
Discussion with UEC confirmed that the UEC overlap modelling technique was used in Brunswick Stress Analysis Problems. Pending further review by NRR, this was identified as Unresolved Item 50-325/82-31-01 and 50-324/82-33-01,
" Overlap Modelling Technique used in Seismic Analysis."
Pending licensee completion of IEB 79-14 requirements and commitments. the l
bulletin was lef t open.
No violations or deviations were identified.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _