ML17317B400
| ML17317B400 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1979 |
| From: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Dolan J INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17317B401 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908030554 | |
| Download: ML17317B400 (9) | |
Text
U 1 s I.r l UU 1. I UII Docket Files 50-315 J.
Buchanan and 50-316 V. Noonan g g 1979 NRC PDR (2)
R.
LaGr:ange Local PDR NRR Rdg ORB1 Rdg D. Eisenhut R.
Vol lmer Li. Gammill H. Russell B. Grimes Rr. John:E.
Dolan, Yice President Indiana and Ptichigan Electric Companj Indiana and tiichigan Power Company Idyf m Pos't pffice Box 18 Bowling Green Station Rew Yore llew Yore Ipppa ACRE (18)
Tera
Dear lir. Dolan:
This letter is submitted fn response to your letters dated April 24, t>ay 4, and June 20, 1979 which provided documentation on the results of the seismic piping stress reanalysis for the D.
C.
Cook Power Station, Unit Nos.
1 and 2
in connection with IE Bulletin 79-07.
'I Docket Hos.
5 n
I 1
I I
./8+ $
A copy of'ur evaluation addressing this matter is enclosed.
Sincerely, Original Signed Qy A. Schwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 01 Divfsi on of Operating Reactors Enolosure:
Safety Evaluation Report cc w/enclosure See, next page Me have reViewed your reanalysis techniques and the results of the reanalysis and find then acceptable.
In subsequent dfscussfdns with Mestfnghouse on computer 'code verification, Westinghouse has agreed to Solve a set of benchmark problems using HESTDYN and to provide the N!RC a problem f'r confirmatory analysis.
For computer code verification, we find this acceptable.
OFRICd+
OUItNAMd~
OATd~
DBR:ORBl DI<i99fAt9n;J
.06/..../.7.9.........
..DOR:..ORB'.l......... NOJt.;N.............
.Ale]7eacer.....RLaGrange.......
..OS/..../79.:........O6./...../.7.9.'.........
DOR'EB..
VNoanan...,
06/..../.7.9.
NRC PORN 318 (9 76)'RCM 0240 4 II e OOVORNMONY rRINYINO ORRICNI I ass aa ~
1 ~ e
IE f
1(
~p,R AE0(,
'Ip, O
~y 1~
++**+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR R EG ULATORY COMMISS ION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 June 22,.1979 0
Docket Nos.
50-315 and 50-316 Mr. John E. Dolan, Vice President Indiana and Michigan Electric Company Indiana-and Michigan Power Company Post Office Box 18 Bowling Green Station New York, New York 10004
Dear Mr. Dolan:
This letter is submitted in response to your letters dated April 24,"
May 4, and June 20, 1979 which provided documentation on the results of the seismic piping stress reanalysis for the D.
C.
Cook Power Station, Unit Nos.
1 and 2
in connection with IE Bulletin 79-07.
We have reviewed your reanalysis techniques and the results of the reanalysis and find them acceptable.
In subsequent discussions with Westinghouse on computer code verification,'estinghouse has agreed to solve a set of benchmark problems using WESTDYN and to provide the NRC a problem for confirmatory analysis.
For computer code verification, we find this acceptable.
A copy of our evaluation addressing this matter is enclosed.
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
Safety Evaluation Report cc:
w/enclosure See next page r
A. Schwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch fl Division of Operating Reactors
. 0
Mr. John Dolan Indiana and Michigan Electric Company Indiana and Michigan Power Company 2
June 22, 1979 cc:
Mr. Robert W. Jurgensen Chief Nuclear Engineer American Electric Power Service Corporation 2 Broadway Hew York, New York 10004 Geral d Cha rnoff, Esqui re Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 Citizens for a Better Environment 59 East Van Buren Street Chicago, Illinois 60605 Maude Reston Palenske Memorial Library 500 Market Street St. Joseph, Michigan 49085 Mr. D. Shaller, Plant Manager Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant P.- O..Box 458 Bridgman, Michigan 49106 Mr. R.
Masse Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant P.
0.
Box 458 Bridgman, Michigan 49106
0"
DONALD C.
COOK NUCLE+ PLANT UNITS 1
AND 2 REVIEW OF PIPING REANALYSIS PER IKE BULLETIN 79-07 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT ENGINEERING BRANCH DIVISION OF OPERATING REACTORS INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND In their April 24, 1979, response to ILE Bulletin 79-07, American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEP) identified 24 lines that had originally been analyzed using an earlier version of the WESTDYN computer program that incorporated an algebraic sum of intramodal responses to seismic loadings.
- However, 19 out of these 24 lines had subsequently been reanalyzed using absolute summation or SRSS method.
By letter dated May 4, 1979, the licensee (AEP) reported that a further check of their records showed that 23 of the 24 lines had previously been reanalyzed.
In response to NRC questions discussed during telephone conversations, AEP supplied supplemental information on this subject in a letter dated June 20, 1979.
DISCUSSION The licensee identified the only line that had not been seismically reanalyzed was the 14" pressurizer surge line.
This line has the same geometry on both
- units, but in opposite hand, therefore, only one stress analysis was necessary, AEP has stated that a reanalysis of the surge line in the "as-built" condition has been completed and the results show all piping stresses remain below their allowable values, as specified in the FSAR's.
Additionally, the pipe supports meet FSAR criteria and the nozzle loads have been found acceptable.
This piping run was reanalyzed by Westinghouse using their current. version of WESTDYN which combines the intramodal responses by absolute summation.
The licensee's response to IEE Bulletin 79-04 also states that no VELAN swing check valves are in this piping.
IhE Bulletin 79-02 was not addressed at this time.
The licensee has stated that the reanalysis has no effect on pipe break criteria since break locations were not postulated based on stress levels.
EVALUATION The reanalysis technique employed was a
lumped mass response spectra modal analysis.
This dynamic analysis procedure is an acceptable method..The absolute combination of responses in two directions is consistent with the Staff Position and, therefore, is also acceptable.
Results of the reanalysis show that the pipe stresses are below their allowable
- values, as specified in the
Also, Westinghouse has determined that the new nozzle loads imposed by the 14" surge line on the pressurizer are acceptable since they are bounded by the loads previously used in the stress analysis of the pressurizer
nozzle.
Therefore, we find the results of the reanalysis acceptable.
Since the supports involved do not utilize concrete expansion anchor bolts, the licensee did not need to consider IKE Bulletin 79-02.
Further, their response concerning I&E Bulletin 79-04 states that no YELAN swing check valves are in these lines.
The reanalysfs has no effect on the Cook 1 or 2 pipe break criteria.
Code Verification The computer listing of the dynamic portion of WESTDYN which performs the response spectrum analysis and modal combinations has been reviewed by the staff; statements regarding the intramodal and intermodal combinations have~-
been verified and found acceptable.
In addition, Westinghouse has also committed to solve a set of benchmark problems and to provide the NRC a
problem for confirmatory analysis.
They have agreed to submit this commitment in writing to the NRC by June 26, 1979.
Me find this response acceptable.
CONCLUSION Based on the discussion and evaluation presented
- above, we conclude that the requirements set forth in I&E Bulletin 79-07 are satisfied.
Date:
June 22, 1979