ML19241A774
| ML19241A774 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1979 |
| From: | Hannon J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Ippolito T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907090374 | |
| Download: ML19241A774 (13) | |
Text
'
f
\\
paarc
+j
,o, UNITED STATES 8
7, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3#
h WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g
May 23,1979 y,,,
DOCKET NO. 50-293 MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas A. Ippolito, Chief, Operating Reactors #3, D0R FROM:
J. N. Hannon, Project Manager, ORB #3, 00R
SUBJECT:
MEETING
SUMMARY
A meeting was held with representatives from Boston. Edison Company (BECo),
General Electric (GE), and Teledyne Engineering Services (TES) in Bethesda, Maryland on May 18, 1979. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the results of seismic piping stress reanalysis done for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS) Unit 1 in connection with IE Bulletin 79-07. A list of meeting attendees and a copy of the BECo. Slide presentations are attached.
BECo indicated that the recirculation system piping and main steam piping located inside the dry well were originally analyzed using algebraic summation techniques. GE had reanalyzed the recirculation piping using PISYS. TES had reanalyzed the main steam piping using STARDYNE. During the review of PISYS results, it was determined that four snubbers in the recirculation system were undersized and would require replacing. As a result, PNPS was shutdown. PISYS was later re-run using as-built data and only two recirculation snubbers were finally declared inoperable (one of the 4 original suspect snubbers and one other.) As previously stated, TES had reanalyzed the main steam piping using STARDYNE. Six main steam snubbers were declared inoperable (not designed to withstand the calculated loads) after review of the STARDYNE results.
BECo has initiated review of all 76 safety related snubbers to verify that they are capcSle of withstanding the calculated loads. This review will include the attachments and structural steel. To date 16 attachment welds in the recirculation system had been identified as requiring rework and structural steel stiffeners were necessary in Main Steam (1), HPCI (1),
RHR (1), and Recirc (4). This review and associated modifications will be complete before the plant is returned to power operation.
SECo stated that 13 of 24 snubbers on the recirculation system had been verified on as built drawings which were used as inputs to the reanalysis.
Six of 12 main steam snubbers had been verified and the remainder would be verified today.
309 240 Q
A Lt n L \\
9 7907090 nil At the conclusion of the meeting the NRC indicated that prior to returning PNPS to power, BECo should document the results of the seismic reanalysis including the fol'.cwing:
- Code verification.
Include a dynamic listing for PISYS and statement of the methodology. used in the STARDYNE load combination processor.
Describe the snubber problems and how they were corrected, including attachment anchors and structural steel.
- Confirm that changes in peak stress locations as a result of the reanalyses will have no adverse effect on the high energy pipe break criteria.
cnfirm that as-built data were used as input to reanalysis codes.
- Describe the results of the piping stress reanalyses under 79-07 and the basis for concluding that the plant can safely be returned to power operation.
The NRC. stat M that IE may be asked to perform a sampling inspection to verify as-built drawings were utilized in the reanalysis.
NRR will continue code verification efforts for PISYS and. STARDYNE. BECo indicated that they would have all required documentation by Monday, May 21,.1979 and expected to be ready to return to power operation by as early as Tuesday, May 22, 1979 but no later than Friday, May 25, 1979.
The NRC will review BECo's documented responses and issue a letter approving the return to power operation, provided it is found to be acceptable.
i
' 6<s-Lt\\LL-
,m
[Woh N. Hanno, Project Manager Ope ating Re, Operating Reactors ctors Branch #3 Division of
Attachment:
1.
List of Attendees 2.
Agenda 309 241
LISTING OF MEETING ATTENDEES NRC J. Hannon M. Hartzman K. Wichman J. Fair J. Martore W. Russell E. Igne R. Bevan K. Herring B. D. Liaw H. Wong B. Grimes T. Ippolito
_GE_
N. Shirley J. Kilty J. Thompson Boston Edison C. Ondash J. Famigietti R. Machon TeledyneEng.Ser) ices J. Flaherty States News Service J. Membrino 309 242
AGENDA
- INTRODUCTION
. OBJECTIVES
- RESULTS OF 79-07 REAtlALYSIS
- REASON FOR TECH SPEC. SHUTDOWN RE0VIREMEllT
- MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY FOR TECH SPEC.
COMPLIANCE
- CONCLUSION 309 243
PILGRIM RECIRCULATION PIPING STRESSES DESCRIPTION
- UPSET STRESS RATIOS
- EMERGENCY STRESS RATIOS OF COMPONENT DAPS PISYS
%CBE DAPS PISYS
% SSE Header Reducer Cross 0.691 0.605 21.5 0.479 43.0 Loop A RHR Return Tee Loop A 0.76 0.595 42.3 0.603 0.543 57.9 Header Reducer Cross 0.696 0.614 25.1 0.497 38.7 Loco B Header Sweepolet Loop B 0.687 0.582 25.1 0.468 38.9 RHR Return Anchor Loop B 0.748 0.511 31.11 0.708 0.433 45.9 RHR Return Elbow Loop A 0.648 0.422 15.9 0.320 26.2 Header Sweepolet Loop B 0.745 0.595 23.9 0.543 0.452 37.1 Header Sweepolet Loop A 0.7 0.500 27.1 0.552 0.412 41.1 RHR Return Anchor Loop A 0.773 0.419 14.4 0.738 0.314 24.0 Pump Inlet Loop A 0.558 0.496 22.7 0.409 0.374 35.6 Pump Outlet Loop A 0.683 0.553 15.8 0.45 0.464 26.2 UPSET STRESS
- STRESS RATIO = 1.2 S h
- STRESS RATIO = EMERGENCY 1.8 S h 309 244
\\
SUMMARY
OF SNUBBER LOADS FOR RECIRCULATION PIPING OF PILGRIM SNUBBER CALCULATED EARTHQUAKE LOAD *l l IDENTIFICATION PI5YS DAPS i
i LOOP SS6 B
12.1 16 SS-8 B
14 1 19 55-10 B
12.0 IB SS-14 B
16.2 28 55-13 B
16.6 25 SS-16 B
13.6 3,7 S5-09 A
11 9 13 55-07 A
13.2 13 SS-05 A
16.7 13 SS-11 A
19.2 18 SS-12 A
19.7 20 SS-15 A
15.0 3.0 B-14 A
8.9 63 B-15 A
5.8 5.2 B-26 A
7.3 3.5 B-29 A
19 1.5 E.262 B
17.2 8
SS-24 B
8.2 14,0 B-263 B
15.0 5.9 SH-1 B
12.3 13 SH-4 B
10.6 8.6 SS-19 B
10.9 14 SS-25 B
9.6 10 SH-2 A
11 3 13 B-104 A
8.0 15 B-105 A
6.7 9.6 55-21 A
16.1 10 SS-26 B
23.2 11 SH-3 A
8.9 13 SS-23 A
17.6 13 SS-20 A
10.5 10 55-22 A
11.7 6.1
- 0SE LOAD IN KIPS 309 245
PILGRIM MAIN STEAM LINE O COMPONENT UPSET STRESS RATIO
- EMERGENCY STRESS RATIO **~
DESCRIPTION DAPS STARDYNE
% SEISMIC DAPS STARDYNE SEISMIC Elbow Before MSIV 0.82 0.51 26.0 0.85 0.36 33 Header Elbow Before SRV 0.75 0.45 16.0 0.75 0.35 20 SRV Sweeplot 0.83 0.934 16.0 0.82 0.83 20
- RATIO = UPSET STRESS 1.2 S h
- RATIO = EMERGENCY STRESS 1.8 Sh 309 246
SUMMARY
OF SNUBBER LOADS FOR MAIN STEAM, HPCI AND RCIC PIPING (INSIDE DRYWELL)
SNUBBER IDENTIFICATION CALCULATED EARTHQUAKE LOAD
- STARDYNE DAPS I
Main Steam SA-1 9.7 20.0 SA-2 8.8 9.4 SA-3 4.2 3.8 SB-1 5.3 8.5 SB-2 7.2 12.0 SB-3 4.7 10.0 SC-1 5.1 85 SC-2 5.6 12.0 SC-3 3.8 10.0 SD-1 13.6 20.0 SD-2 9.6 9.a SD-3 9.2 3.8 HPCI SS-13 4.5 2.7 55-14 3.a 1.1 RCIC SS-15 0.34 0.10 SS-16 0.70 0.10
- CBE LCAD IN KIPS 309.247
PILGRIM STATION UNIT #1 REQUIRED SNUBBER MODIFICATIONS SAFETY RELATED SYSTEMS TOTAL -
INOPERABLE SYSTEM SNUBBERS SNUBBERS Main Steam 12 6
RCIC 2
0 HPCI 10 0
0 RHR 11 0
Feedwater 10 0
Head Spray 2
0 Reci rc.
24 2
RBCCW 1
0 76 8
301 248
PILGRIM STATION UNIT #1 RE0UIRED STEEL MODIFICATIONS SAFETY RELATED SYSTEMS ATTACHMENTS STRUCTUAL STEEL Main Steam 0
1 RCIC 0
0 HPCI O
1 Core Spray 0
0 RHR 0
1 Feedwater 0
0 Head Spray 0
0 Recirc.
16 4
RBCCW 0
0 309 M9
CONCLUSIONS PILGRIM REANALYSIS UNDER BULLETIN 79-0/ HAS BEE" COMPLETED SUBJECT TO FINAL CHECKING.
MODIFICATIONS ARE NECESSARY TO BRING PILGRIM INTO COMPLIANCE WITH TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS.
WHEN MODIFICATIONS COMPLETE PILGRIM HAS NO TECH SPEC RESTRICTIONS FOR STARTUP.
THE HEALTH & SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC IS ADEQUATELY PROTECTED.
309 250
r _
"/PTELEDYNE-ENGINEERING' '.RVICES
~ ~~
~
.y 3.....
{*Tl., ?-C
=.,.
..., n -lyq lLh- $<.k'.ht-3;n QMkh'M}.h.4 T V yq ~ ^ -
.,.l~
^'
,..;%. :.. p:-: -'
. - e
- 7.,.
3-s.:,
'e T...
~ :
_A COMPUTER PROGRAM VERIFICATION STARDYNE SEISMIC ANALYSIS The HP Steam to Reactor Feed Pump Turbine Line was used as a test case
~
to compare the ~results obtair.ed from STARDYNE and AOLPIPE.
This line was used because it was representative in that it included. rigid restraints, spring hangers, tees, and elbows.
The results that were compared are a.
deadweight b.
thermal c.
frequencies
{
d.
selimic The ccmparison of the deadweight runs showed that ADLPIPE is more conservative because it doe; not lump any weight at anchors or restraints resulting in more weight being lumpeu' at an adjacent point, wheres STARDYNE lumps weight at every point. The results for the thermal, frequency, and seismic runs were very close, when "ccmpared.
The results are tabulated in Table 1.
4 e
a 30?
25i s
TABLE 1
~
Q_
~
~
COM?ARIS0N OF RESTPAfNT'L'OADS i Y - 7 M N 'i':'
^ "-
.I.'..--._.'.'_'.'
AND HOMENTS FOR _N0DE 68 *".
O,..;
- i'
_n c
~
i:
THERP[
SEI5MIC
~
DEADWEIGHT NODE STARDYNE ADLPIPE STARDYNE ADLPIPE STARDYNE ADLPIPE 68 F 1
2
.3 320 536 537 y
F 197 199 25 25 21 24 y
F-1 1
375 375 230 232 L
g 2683 3239 1342 1332 2602' 2650 y
.140 1 89 2C?.07 26238 49093 49065 H
1934 1766 2987 3013 5092 5093 7
FREQUENCIES MODE STARDYNE ADLPIPE 1
1.6 1.6
~
2 2.25 2.25 3
2.67 2.67 4
4.12 4.12 5
4.36 4.43 6
6.19 6.18 7
6.97 6.93 8
7.72 7.72
?
9 9.58 9.56 10 12.35 12.31
(
g 309 252
_ _.