ML19263E795
| ML19263E795 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 06/20/1979 |
| From: | Brown S VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| 409A, NUDOCS 7906250287 | |
| Download: ML19263E795 (2) | |
Text
?
VIRGINI A ELECTRIC AND POWER COMP ANY, RICHMOND, VIRGINl A 23261 June 20, 1979 Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director Serial No. 409A Office of Inspection & Enforcement PSE&C/GLS:mac: wang U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II Docket No. 50-339 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
On May 21, 1979, a report was made under the provisions of 10CFR50.55(e) concerning overweight motor operated valves on the accumulator discharge lines. This was followed by a five day report on May 24, 1979, under the provisions of 10CFR21 stating that the actual weight of the three 12" motor cparated valves (one on the discharge of each of the three accumulators in the safety injection system) is greater than that used by 'Itone & Webster in their original pipe stress antlysis.
It was postulated that this error could r*sult in overstressed piping Jnder Certain seismic loading Ccaditions.
Stone & Webster '.as completed the review of the effect of changing the weight of the Velar / Westinghouse supolied valves (identified as 12GM58FJH) from 3050 pounds to 3950 pounds. The task required a reanalysis of three Class 1 pipe stress oroblems and a review of the revised loadings on the pipe supports, re, actor coolant 1000 nozzles, accumulator tank nozzles, and the accumulator tank supporting structure.
All pipe stresses are within the applicable ASME allowables.
The revised reactor coolant 1000 nozzle loads and accumulator tank nozzle loads were transmitted to Westinghouse and determined to be acceptable. The existing pipe support designs were reviewed using the new loads. As a result, it was necessary to reset three of the spring hangers.
This field work has been completed, and no other modifications to existing supports were required. The accumulator tank supports, an S&W design, were also reviewed and determined to be adequate.
The lines involved were originally subjected to a pipe break analysis.
Each line was rechecked based upon our FSAR docketed approach which determined break locations by stress level. This rupture review indicated that no additional break points were created and no modification of existing restraints was necessary.
j$0/9
$ hl 7 9 0 6 25 0M7 2214 350
n Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director 2
This report shall be considered our final report under the provisions of 10CFR50.55(e).
Should you require further information, please contact this office.
Y truly yours, Nj
/
{il Sakr d.l Brown,';Jr. hAl L L /~\\.
A
/
Senior Vice president - Power Stati/n Engineering and Construction cc: Mr. John G. Davis, Acting Director Office of Inspection & Enforcement Mr. Harold R. Denton, uirector
]ffice of. Nuclear Reactor Regulation 2214 35y