ML20046B228
| ML20046B228 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1993 |
| From: | Dromerick A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | J. J. Barton GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20046B229 | List: |
| References | |
| IEB-79-02, IEB-79-14, IEB-79-2, TAC-M68217, NUDOCS 9308030355 | |
| Download: ML20046B228 (5) | |
Text
~
^
- p. ~u
- f..
- 4 1-G UNITED STATES 5
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k.....,#
l wAssinovow, o.c. 2osswooi
+
July 13,1993 Docket No. 50-219 Mr. John J. Barton Vice President and Director i
GPU Nuclear Corporation i
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Post Office Box 388 Forked River, New Jersey 08731
Dear Mr. Barton:
SUBJECT:
COMPLETION OF MODIFICATIONS REGARDING IEB 79-02 " PIPE SUPPORT BASEPLATE DESIGNS USING CONCRETE EXPANSION ANCHOR BOLTS" AND IEB 79-14 " SEISMIC ANALYSIS FOR AS-BUILT SAFETY-RELATED PIPING SYSTEMS" (TAC NO. M68217)
By letter dated September 19, 1988, GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN) summarized the progress made in meeting design criteria in accordance with IE Bulletins 79-14 and 79-02,-your intentions to use the new seismic floor response spectra to evaluate 28 supports not qualified by previous criteria, and a proposed program for resolving the issues associated with IE Bulletins 79-14 and 79-02.
In its Safety Evaluation transmitted by letter dated October 17, 1988, the
[
staff concluded that GPUN's program was acceptable for 693 of 721 supports (except the 28 supports mentioned above), pending inspections and upgrades.
In NRC Inspection Report 50-219/89-01, dated February 9, 1989, the staff concluded that for items other than the 28 supports, GPUN's actions were acceptable.
In both the letter of October 17, 1988, and. Inspection Report i
50-219/89-01, the staff stated that acceptance of the 28 supports was interim, pending resolution of the issue of seismic floor response spectra.
i In a Safety Evaluation dated March 18, 1992, the staff found that the new site specific spectra is acceptable. Subsequent to the approval of the site i
specific spectra, GPUN decided to evaluate and modify the supports and support j
anchorages using the original Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) commitment.
With respect to IEB 79-14, GPUN in a letter dated January 29, 1993, stated 1
that the 28 supports were evaluated for the original design basis Housner i
spectrum provided in the Oyster Creek FSAR.
In a letter dated November 1, 1989, GPUN stated that the dynamic analysis was based on 0.5% damping. 'This value was also specified in the original FSAR criteria. GPUN further indicated that in their letter of September 19, 1988, they indicated that 28 supports remained to be upgraded. However, GPUN's further evaluation of these supports revealed that 13 of the 28 supports did not require modifications due to the following reasons:
[%,
[88*2888Hs8?fg3, MC HIE CENTER COPY
_3 Mr. John J. Barton July 13, 1993 Eight of the 28 supports did not require modifications because:
(1)
Some were physically removed.
(2) Some were cold systems that had high design temperature. Once the design temperature was corrected, there was no need for the modification.
(3) Some were modifications for seismic uplift which were actually not required.
These were on systems analyzed for the Mark 1 Program.
(4) Some were required in anticipation of heavier valve installations which did not occur.
Five of the 28 supports did not require modification because additional analysis with reduced conservatism, yet still meeting applicable codes, eliminated the need for the modification.
The remaining 15 supports have been upgraded to comply with IEB 79-14.
The staff has reviewed GPUN's information and finds it acceptable.
Based on this, the staff considers matters related to IEB 79-14 resolved.
With respect to IEB 79-02, the staff concludes that the pipe-support anchorages of the safety related piping at Oyster Creek meet the criteria provided in IEB 79-02 and are acceptable.
This is based on the review of the previous efforts (before 1987) by GPUN to resolve this issue, the review of the inspection report prepared by the Region I stsff related to the inspections and upgrades of the anchor bolts at the site, and GPUN's statements regarding the factors of safety in GPUN's letter dated June 4, i
1993. Therefore, the staff considers IEB 79-02 resolved. Our. Safety Evaluation regarding this issue is enclosed.
The staff, however, may audit the calculations and quality assurance documents j
related to resolution of the above matters sometime in the future.
j Based on the above, the staff considers TAC No. M68217 closed.
It should be noted that for any future modification or upgrade activity, the use of site specific spectra, or the spectra from the FSAR should be consistently applied
l
~
^
Mr. John J. Barton July 13, 1993
[
]
to the entire process, i.e., seismic input for one location using site specific spectra and for another location based on the FSAR criteria is not acceptable.
i Sincerely, Original signed by:
Alexander W. Dromerick, Senior Project' Manager Project Directorate I-4 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
Enclosure.
Safety Evaluation cc w/ enclosure:
See next page Distribution:
. Docket File,
NRC & Local PDRs PD I-4 P1 ant SVarga JCalvo SNorris ADromerick j
~
JfRogge, RI HAshar i
orncE LA:PDI-4 PM;PDI-4,'l D:PDI-4 NAME SNo 81T ~
[DrNriN:cn JStNy-o~
) /.l3/93 9 /f3/93 l/M/93
/ /
/ /
DATE OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Document Name: G:\\DROMERIC\\M68217.PS l
.]
1
F Mr. John J. Barton July 13,1993 to the entire process, i.e., seismic input for one location using site specific spectra and for another location based on the FSAR criteria is not acceptable.
Sincerely, d
/
d7 Alexander W. Dromerick, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-4 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Safety Evaluation cc w/ enclosure:
See next page I
i i
.a s F
Mr. John J. Barton Oyster Creek Nuclear GPU Nuclear Corporation Generating Station l
CC:
Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire Resident Inspector Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2300 N Street, NW.
Post Office Box 445 Washington, DC 20037 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 Regional Administrator, Region I Kent Tosch, Chief U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New Jersey Department of 475 Allendale Road Environmental Protection King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415 BWR Licensing Manager Trenton, New Jersey 08625 GPU Nuclear Corporation 1 Upper Pond Road i
Parsippany, iiew Jersey 07054
~
Mayor Lacey Township 818 West Lacey Road Forked River, New Jersey 08731 Licensing Manager Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Mail Stop:
Site Emergency Bldg.
Post Office Box 388 Forked River, New Jersey 08731
?