Text

Insp Rept 50-219/88-15 on 880523-0726.Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Action in Response to Mark I Containment Mod Requirements of NUREG-0661,review of Design Analyses & Plant Unigue Analysis Rept
	ML20151Y308
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	08/15/1988
From:	Chaudhary S, Romney N, Strosnider J; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20151Y279	List: ML20151Y276; ML20151Y286; ML20151Y308;
References
	RTR-NUREG-0661, RTR-NUREG-661 50-219-88-15, NUDOCS 8808260339
	Download: ML20151Y308 (25)
	v • d • e

.. ,. _ . _ _ . _ _ .

-- _- . _ . __

. l

t

-

!

.t !

i

1

I

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I ,

i t

i

,

Report No. 50-219/88-15

4

Docket No. 50-219 i

i

License No. DPR-16

l

l Licensee: GPU Nuclear Corporation [

j .P. O. Box 388

,

Forked River, NJ 08731 ,

i

) Facility Name: Oyster Creek Generating Station :

'

l

j Inspection At: Forked River, NJ; Parsippany, NJ; King of Prussia,.PA

Inspection Conducted: May 23, 1988 - July 26, 1988

4

Inspector: / ~

8//r//4

] 'S' K. Chaudhary, Senior Reactor Engineer, Date

j aterials and Processes Section, EB, DRS !

t

[

f

Awe 8l/fl!$

/ O D. Romney, Civil Engineer, '

Date ;

f tructural and Geosciences Branch, NRR i

! /

Approved By: m uL 8//J~/4/

,

[J.J.Strosnider, Chief, Materials Date !

Processes Section, EB, DRS

(a j

>

.

4 Inspection Summary: Inspection conducted May 23, 1988 - July 26, 1988 i

Inspection Report No. 50-219/88-15

li

,

Areas Inspected: A special announced inspection by one region based inspector

and one NRR civil engineer was conducted at the Oyster Creek Generating Station l

'3 ;

'

and GPU Engineering offices. The inspection covered review of licensee action j

in responso to Mark I containment modification requirements of NUREG-0661. The -

.

inspection included review of design analyses, Plant Unique Analysis Reports,

.! modifications to the torus and torus attached piping, and associated quality {

j

j records. :

)

! '

!

'

8808260339 esos19

PDR

-

!

I

O ADOCK 05000219

i PDC i

.

,

.

2

Results: One violation was identified in that the licensee accepted, under 10

CFR 50.59, piping system stress analyses that indicated calculated stress

levels above the established acceptable levels, Analyses performed subsequent

to the NRC inspection, using more refined techniques, established that the

stress levels were in fact below the acceptable levels. However, the licen-

see's initial acceptance of stresses above the established stress limit without

NRC approval is a misapplication of 10 CFR 50,59, During a meeting on July 26,

1988, in the Region I Office, it was concluded that GPU's technical basis for

accepting the subject overstress condition was valid, but that strict compli-

ance with 50.59 would have required approval by NRC,

I

_ _ ,_ ___-- _ _ __ _

__ ._-

_.

. _ _ -_ .

-

!

'

.

1 .'

OETAILS '

1

4

1.0 Persons Contacted '

GPU Nuclear Corporation ,

A. T. Asarpota, Manager, Oyster Creek Projects

G. Capodanno, Director - Engineering and Design

0 K. Croneberger, Director - Engineering Projects

J. H. Correa, Manager - Piping Engineering

*P. Czaya, Licensing Engineer '

i

1 *W. F. Duda, Project Engineer

'

E. E. Fitzpatrick, Vice President and Director - Oyster Creek

M. J. Higuera, Engineer

P. M. Kasik, MPR - Consultant

M. W. Laggart, Manager - BWR Licensing

R. L. Lorenze, Manager - Oyster Creek Projects 1

i *J. L. Sullivan, Jr., Director - Licensing / Regulatory Affairs !

'

R. Stecky, Engineer - Mechanical Components

'C. R. Tracy, Engineering Project Of rector - Oyster Creek

R. W. Wulf, Manager - TMI Projects

] State of New Jersey

i

'

M. Jacobs, Nuclear Engineer - DEP/BNE l

S. Singh, Nuclear Engineer - DEP/BNE i

,

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

t

L. H. Bettenhausen, Chief - Projects Branch 1 l

*C. Cowgill, Chief - Reactor Projects Section 1A l

E. Collins, Resident Inspector, Oyster Creek

A. W. Dromerick, Project Manager, NRR

J. P. Durr, Chief - Engineering Branch

J *S. Hou, Senior Mechanical Engineer, NRR

W. Johnston, Director - Division of Reactor Safety i

1 *J. R. Strosnider, Chief - Material ar.d Processes Section '

J. Wechselberger, Senior Resident Inspector - Oyster Creek

2

(

'.

In addition, the inspector contacted other technical and me.nagement l

personnel as their work interfaced with the scope of this inspection. l

Personnel marked with (*) attended at least one meeting, either entrance, .

interim exit at the plant site, or the July 26 technical meeting at the )

NRC Region I Office in King of Prussia, PA.

2,0 Inspection Purpose an' Scope

The purpose of the inspection was to determine if the licensee had modi-

fled the Oyster Creek Generating Station containtnent consistent with

commitments to NRC concerning Unresolved Safety Issue (USI) A-7 and that

these modifications had been performed using appropriate procedures and

I with an acceptable level of quality. The scope of this inspectica was

defined in the NRC Temporary Instruction (TI) 2515/85. ]

l

t

.. __ . _ _ _ .- _

,

i

l

l .

4

r

,

f

[

L. i

'

! Technical issues in USI A-7 involved suppression pool hydrodynamic loads

] on the Mark-I containments. These hydrodynamic loads were not considered t

in the original design of the containment. The newly identified loads

'

,

affected the torus shell, support structures, internal structures, and !

'

piping attached to the torus (Torus Attachcd Piping, TAP). The issue was .

addressed by a two phased approach consisting'of a Short Term and a Long

Term Program. Licensees with plants having Mark I containments were

required to submit to the NRC a Plant Unique Analysis Report (PUAR) to

provide a basis for the plant specific modifications. For Oyster Creek ,

Generating Station, the NRC staff reviewed the PUAR against acceptance ;

. criteria contained in NUREG-0661, and issued a safety evaluation report ~

j (SER) on January 13, 1984, i

3.0 Review Criteria ,

l

Temporary Instruction (TI) 2515/85 was primarily used to define inspection f

requirements. The NRC staff SER, itcensee PUAR, applicable sections of ,

the final safety analysis report for Oyster Creek, and applicable sections '

of the Code of Federal Regulations were also used to define additional l

l inspection requirements and licensee commitments.

l

4.0 Documentation Review

i

Prior to the inspection, the inspectors reviewed the docket files (50-219) ;

i

for pertinent technical information and related licensing correspondence,

The Plant Unique Analysis Report (PUAR) was reviewed to summarize the :

! licensee commitments. Inspectors also reviewed the FSAR, NRC staff '

! SER's, previous inspection reports, NUREG-0408, and NUREG-0661.

'

During the inspection at the licensee's engineering offices at Parsippany,

N.J., the inspectors reviewed modification design calculations, design and

installation / fabrication drawings and procedures, engineering specifica-

tions, quality assurance and quality control records, and additional

correspondences. (Calculations and other records reviewed for this effort ;

are listed in Attachment I to this report). ;

Information in the documentation reviewed included the methodology,

, acceptance criteria, procedures, specifications, schedule and other pro- r

! grammatic details related to the licensee's approach to resolution of this '

issue and response to the NRC initiatives. In addition to the above, the

inspectors also reviewed photographs of the modifications to the torus.

j

Although the photographs were not a part of the quality assurance record,

or controlled documents, they did provide evidence of the construction

'

process and quality,

i

A chronology of the licensee's effort in resolving this issue is as

follows:

)

i

4

!

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

f

i .' 5

>

I

,

August 1982

!

The licensee's consultant, MPR Associates (MPR) prepared two (2) reports ;

which together constituted the PVAR. These reports were: "MPR-733, PUAR i

for Suppression Chamber and Vent System" and "MPR-734, PVAR for Torus 1

Attached Piping." q

January 1984

The staff issued a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) which reviewed and

accepted MPR-733 and MPR-734. The SER concluded that *.he modifications to

the torus and torus attached piping, as described by MPR-733 and MPR-734, ,

respectively, followed the guidelines and acceptance criteria contained in '

NUREG-0661 and were, therefore, acceptable. i

October 1986

The Commission issued an order that provided the licensee with an extens- i

ion to the date required for completion of the Mark I modifications. This i

order requires that the proposed modifications to the torus attached pip- ,

ing be completed prior to the start of Cycle 12. l

,

December 1987

MPR prepared a report titled MPR-999 Addendum to MPR-734 (PUAR for) !

"TorusAttachedPiping"(MPR-999). This report identified changes to the i

licensee's commitments in their Long Term Program with respect to torus

attached piping. This report, the details of which are discussed below,

was never submitted by the licensee to the NRC staff for review. The

licensee expressed the opinion that the changes to their Long Term Program

and prior commitments contained in MPR-734 were accomplished under the

i

provisions of 10 CFR 50,59 and, thus, did not need to be reported to the i

NRC. J

l

5.0 Torus Attached piping (TAP) !

)

The review of MPR-999 disclosed that the licensee had made changes to I

piping configurations, pipe supports, and analytical methods documented in

I MPR-734 which was the basis for the October 1986 Commission Order. The

changes contained in MPR-999 were not submitted to the NRC for review and

acceptance. The licensee informed the inspector that the changes in I

commitment contained in PUAR (MPR-734) were made under the provisions of

10 CFR 50.59.

MPR-999 identified six piping systems with substantial changes from the

modifications identified in the original submittal in August 1982. The

changed piping systems are: "Torus-to-Reactor Building Vacuum Breaker

Line " Containment Spray Test Return Piping", Core Spray Test Return Pip-

ing," "$RV Discharge Piping," "Torus Level Reference Line," and the

. - - - _ - _ . _ - - . - .

.

'

6 L

t i

l "Nitrogen Purge Line." All of these lines were reanalyzed using the

l Square Root of the Sum of the Squares (SRSS) method and included load

l cases containing more than three dynamic events. A summary of the changes j

are as follows: ;

A. Torus-to-Reactor Building Vacuum Dreaker Line ,

The original modification, described in MPR-734, identified seven~ ;

pipe supports which were to be added. The modification identified- '

'

in MPR-999, indicates that only three ' supports will be added. The l'

analysis'of this line with the three supports added and using the

SRSS method indicates that the maximum stresses are increased, i

although code allowables are not exceeded.

l

B. Containment Spray Test Return Piping

The original modification of this piping system proposed a rerouting

such that it would penetrate the torus through its own nozzle instead

of the vacuum relief piping. The modification identified in MPR-999 ,

indicates that this proposal was deleted. As a result, this line had

j to be reanalyzed with the vacuum relief piping because of-the coupled l

i nature of the piping systemt. The reanalysis, using the SRSS method ;

resulted in an overstressed condition of 3% for the load cases !

'

"N+SRV(NORM)+SSE" and "N+DBA(PS)+SSE+*,RV(DBA)". The overstress

condition occurs at a branch connection to the Vacuum Relief Assembly

for both load cases.

C. SRV Discharge Piping

'

The original modifications contained in MPR-734 identified major

structural modifications to most of the SRV Discharge Pipe ;

restraints. As a result of the reanalysis, described in MPR-999, !

using time history techniques and SRSS method of combining dynamic '

responses no modifications to pipe restraints will be performed. .

D. Torus Level Reference Line i

The original modifications proposed removing this line and were not

previously analyzed. The modifications identified in MPR-999 indic-

ate that this line will not be removed. Consequently, this line was

analyzed for Mark I loads using the Absolute Sum method and was found

acceptable.

E. Nitrogen Purge Line

This line was never analyzed by the licensee in the original

submittal because the loadings were determined to be insignificant.

However, this line was analyzed because of the changes to the Torus-

to-Reactor Building Vacuum Breaker line supports. .This analysis

utilized the SRSS method and resulted in an 8% overstress condition

at a branch connection.

. _ ._ _ .

. <

7

i

1

.

6.0 Torus Structural, Modifications ,

,

The design of the modifications to the torus, torus support structures, .

J

vent headers, vent header supports, downcomers, and SRV Y-Quencher

supports were reviewed. This review included a comparison between design

drawings, project specifications, fabricction and installation specifica-

tions, and project construction photographs. The major torus structural

modifications included: reinforcement of the. torus ring girders, installa- ;

tion of torus support saddles at the middle of each bay, reinforcement at '

torus penetrations, and the installation of shell reinforcement _ plates.

The review of these modifications indicated agreement between the PUAR, ,

project _ specifications, design drawings, fabrication and installation

specifications, and construction photographs.

!_ ,

The major vent header and downcomer structural modifications included: ,

the installation of a vent header deflector plate, installation of

downcomer bracing, reinforcing vent header support columns, and reducing

downcomer submergence to reduce LOCA loads. The review of these

'

modifications indicated agreement between the PUAR, project specifica-

tions, design drawings, fabrication and installation specifications and

, construction photographs.

'

7.0 Review Licensee Administrative Controls, Quality Assurance, and Quality

Control

i The inspector reviewed docurrentation and held discussions with licensee

enginters and management personnel to evaluate the licensee's effort in

,

assuring quality during construction / erection phase of the suppression.

, chamber.

By review of records (incluaing previous NRC inspection reports), the i

inspector determined the following: l

A. The licensee's overall construction QA program was applicable to the

portions of work performed by contractors engaged in Mark I modifi-

,

I

cations.

B. Specific modifications which were performed by Chicago Bridge and

<

Iron Company (CBI) were covered by an approved quality assurance

i program of CBI.

i '

!

The inspector reviewed the licensee and CBI QA records to determine the :

adequacy of scope, and technical and administrative controls exercised- l

over the work, The review covered the areas of welding procedures; NDE

j procedures and results; nonconformance control; qualification and certi- ;

fication of welding, NDE and inspection personnel; certified material test j

i reports; and surveillance reports by licensee QA Personnel. The licensee's

) audit of the CBI quality assurance program was also reviewed for scope, {

1 depth, and any significaat findings. The documents reviewed for this '

) purpose are listed in Attachment I to this report.

j

l

i

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ ____ ____ ____ _ _.___._________ __________________________ _ ____ ___________________._______________I

4

8

Based on the above review and discussion with licensee personnel, the

inspector determined that the administrative controls exercised by the

licensee, and the contractor (CBI) were sufficient to assure proper

implementation of the quality assurance program for this effort. The

contractor held an ASME "N" stamp with an approved QA manual; used

qualified welding and NDE Procedures; had an adequate staff of qualified

craftsmen and inspection personnel; and the licensee's audits and

surveillances verified that the contractor's QA program was effectively

implemented.

8.0 Licensee Meeting on July 26, 1988

On July 26, 1988, the NRC staff and the licensee met at the NRC Region I

Office in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. In this meeting, the licensee

provided additional information which had been developed af ter the NRC

onsite inspection. The licensee presented to the NRC new, more refined

analyses of overstressed lines (containment spray and Nitrogen purge).

These analyses indicated that the stresses were within code allowable for

those lines.

The NRC staff (NRR) indicated that subsequent to the publication of NUREG-

0661, the NRC has accepted the use of SRSS methods for piping analysis on

a generic basis for new evaluations.

The NRC staff informed the licensee that this new information would be

considered in evaluating the status of Mark-I containment modifications

to Oyster Creek Generating Station. Information provided by the licensee

is enclosed with this report (Attachment 2).

9.0 Findings / Conclusions

Based on the above inspection findings and discussions with licensee

personnel, the inspector concluded that the licensee trade significant

changes in the Mark I containment Long Term Program, as originally

described in the Oyster Creek Plant Unique Analysis Report which formed

the basis for the NRC's safety evaluations. The licensee had made changes

in piping configurations, number of supports and their locations, and the

analytical techniques. The stress analysis for the revised piping configur-

ations indicated that two piping lines attached to the containment Torus,

the containment spray test return line and the nitrogen purge line, ex-

ceeded accepted stres. allowables by 3% and 8%, respectively. The licensee l

accepted the calculated overstressed conditions under the provisions of l

10 CFR 50.59. Accepting a reduction in established margins of safety

without NRC approval is an improper use and a violation of 10 CFR 50.59. 1

(50-21.9/88-15-01)

l

i

l

j

!

,

e

,

9

On July 26, 1988, subsequent to the onsite inspection, the licensee met

with NRC at the Region I Office and presented results of additional analy-

ses performed for those piping systems with calculated overstresses.

These calculations utilized more refined models and demonstrated that the

subject piping systems do satisfy allowable stress limits and that safety

of the systems was not compromised.

Based on the review of documentation, inspection of installed ~ hardware,

snd discussion with licensee _ engineers, the inspector determined that

structural modifications to the torus were acceptable. The analysis and

design were in accordance with NRC requirements and licensee commitments.

Sufficient documentation v a maintained to support the acceptability of

the modifications.

10.0 Exit Meeting

An exit conference was conducted by telephone on June 7, 1988, in which

the inspector summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of this inspec-

tion. In addition, an interim exit meeting was conducted by the inspector

on May 27, 1988, to inform the licensee of the preliminary findings of the

inspection, and a technical meeting was held in Region 1 offices on July

26, 1988, to obtain additional information from the licensee regarding the

Mark I containment modification program. No written material was provided

to the licensee during this inspection. The licensee did not indicate

that this inspection involved any proprietary information.

_.- . . - . - - . . - - - . - - - -

. . =

i

-

!

.

-

.

A_gachment 1

'

Documents Reviewed

- Safety Evaluation, Oyster Creek Nuclear Station: l

Torus Support Structure (Mid-Bay Saddles) BA No. 402023 dated 1/12/82. 3

!

'

- Modification Design Description: for Mark I Co,.tainment Torus-to-Drywell i

j Vacuum Breaker, MDD-0C-243A, Rev. O Approval dated 2/26/88. l

!: - Preliminary System Design Description For Reactor Building Penetrations, l

'

SDD-3101B, Rev. O.

- System Design Description For 0. C. Torus Ring Girder Reinforcement, !

SDD-232E, Rev. O.

- System Design Description For Torus Thermowells, S00-232C, Rev. 1. !

- System Design Description For Torus Monorail, S00-243B, Rev. 1.

t

- System Design Description For Vent System Modification,' SDD-232A, '

Rev. O.

'

- System Design Description For Torus Downcomer Bracing, SDD-2320, l

Rev. O. ;

,

- System Design Description For Torus Attached Piping, SDD-0C-104A,

Rev. 1. i

]! ,

- Nuclear Safety Evaluation: I

l

- Core Spray Suction Pipe Strainer Replacement, SE No. 402265-002,

'

Rev. O.

!

- Torus Attached Piping Support, SE No. 402265-003, Rev. 1.

4

i

- 0. C. Torus Vent Header Column Replacement, SE No. 402319-001. i

l

j - O. C. Torus Monorail, SE No. 402319-002, Rev. O, i

1

- Suppression Pool Temperature Monitoring System, SE No. 402256-003, l

,

Rev. 0 (MDD-0C-664A). i

1

- 0. C. Torus Thermowells, SE No. 402256-001. 1

,1 )

l - O. C. Torus Ring Girder Reinforcement SE No. 402023-003.

l

.

4

i

H

l

- 1

_ . . - . - . . . , - . , - . , . . , - , - . ~ . . - _ . - ..-...-_,-,.- . -.. .-

- . - - - -- .

. . .-

.

!

. .

'

Attachment 1 2

[

!

l !

,

!

,

CBI Contract QA Handboek (Manual) Section 21 !

- Proc. Special 81-179: Core Drilling of Base Mat for the Installation of -

4

Torus Mid-Bay Saddle Anchor Bolts. !

] [

F Special 81-182; Moving Saddles, Hoop Straps, and Related ,

, Material in the Torus Room,

i i

, Special 81-123; Installation of Hoop Straps, Mid-Bay Saddles and

1 Related Componants to the Torus.

1 - O. C. Station Procedure. A15H-30265, Torus Attached Piping, Rev. O. *

- 0. C. Station Procedure, 108.4, Control of Plant Modification and Major

.

Maintenance Work in Critical Areas While the Plant is in Operation.

l Rev. 1. .

i

- Structural Weld Record Sheet for MPR-1083-38 from Sheet 1 through Sheat

14.

'

] - O. C. Station Procedure, 700.5.024 Installation of Ramset Triebolt !

] Concrete Anchors, Rev. 5.

l

4

- O. C. Inspection Reports, June, July, August,1987 for TAP. l

1

- 1980 Refueling - Maintenance Outage Report, Vol. I-D, Torus Modifica- I

i tions. ~

'

!

Included Packages for: !

e

,

1. Torus External Support Top Flange Assembly i

1 2. Torus Vent Header Deflector '

<

3. Torus Downcomer Truncation

4. Clean-up System Relief Valve Discharge Piping

1 '

!

! I

,

i

)

5

1

!

I

4

l

I

- - ~ . .. .. -- _. . - - . - .

_ . .

.

P

e

[ GPUNUCLEARPRESENTATION ;

OYSTERCREEKMARKICONTAINHENTPROGRAM l

RY26,1988

,

l

'

j NRCREGIONI

>

GENDA !

4 ,

^

1. INTR 000CIION/PROGRAMOVERVIEW !

l 11. TECHNICALOVERVIEW !

,

i III. C0ELUsIONs 1,

1

!

I

!

1 ,

! !

l

!

! '

,

i

4

i

2

)

I

!

f

a

,

.

l

INTR 00VCTION

o MEETING CAllE0 AT NRC RE@EST

o PURPOSE

- REVIEW 0YSTER CREEK TORUS-ATTACE PtPING ANALYSi$ AND

M00lflCATION ACTIVITIES UNDER !V W I 10 GRAM

- ADDRESS @ESTIONS RAISE 0 BY hk uddG IMPECTION 88-15,

PARTICULARLYTWOIDENTIFIE0iORUS-AITAC4ESPIPINGLOCATIO

INITIALANALYSISINDICATEDHIN0ROVERSTRESSCONDITIONS.

l

.

MARXIPROGRAMOVERVIEW

o NEWSUPPRESSIONP00LHYDR0DYNAMICLOADSIDENTIFIED l

!

'

- LOCA BLOWDOWN (FROM 1972 T01974 IESIING Of MARK III CONTAINMENl

CONCEPT)

- SRV DISCHARGE (OPERATING E)(PERIENCE AT DOMESTIC AND ff5IGN B

0 NRCREQUEST3MARKILICENSEST0QUANTIFYLOADSANDASSESSEffEC

CONTAINNENTSTRUCTURES-EARLY1975 l

l

0 MARKIOWNERSGROUPFORMED

1

- _ _ _ _ - _

'

.

I

i l

MARKIPROGRAMOVERVIEW(CONT.) i

o SHORTTERMPROGRAM !

O PURPOSE - VERIFY CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY FOR LOCA BLOWDOWN

DISCHARGE (N0 FAILURE) l

0 APPR0ACH

-DETERMINELOADS l

-SATISFYINTERIMACCEPTANCECRITERIA

- IMPLEMENT LOAD MITIGATION, e.g., TORUS-DRYWELL AP

-DESIGN /INSTALLM0DIFICATIONS,e.g.,SRVQUENCHERS l

0 RESULTS

-SATISFIE0INTERIMACCEPTANCECRITERIA

-CONTAINMENTINTEGRITYCONFIRMED

- E)(EMPTION GENTED BY NRC UNTIL COMPLETION Of LONG TERM

o LONGTERMPROGRAM l

0 PURPOSE - RESTORE ORIGINALLY INTENDED SAFETY MARGINS

o APPR0ACH l

-DEVELOPGENERICANDPLANTSPECIFICLOADDEFINITIONS

-DEVELOPANALYSISMETHODOLOGYANDACCEPTANCECRITERIA

.. _ . _ . ._ ..

-_

a

MARKIPROGRAMOVERVIEW(CONI.)

0.RESULTS

-PLANTUNIQUEANALYSISPERFORMED

1

-MODIFICATIONSIDENTIFIEDANDDESIGNED

-REPORTSSUBMITTEDANDAPPROVE0BYNRC

-LASTELEMENTSOfPROGRAMTOBECOMPLETEDDURING12ROUTAGE

l

-l

. _ _ . ,_ _ - - _ . _ . _ . . . . _ _ . _ . . _ . . . - _ , . . _ . _ . _ _ _ . , _ . . . _ . _ , . . . _ , _ - . _ , _ , - . - _ , _ , _ , _ , _ _ . . . , , _ . . . . , _ _

. . . - . . -

.

0YSTER. CREEK

TORUSATTACHEDPIPING

TECHNICALOVERVIEW

0 ORIGINALANALYSIS(1982-84)

,

o 1984NRCSER's

o CHANGESSINCEORIGINALANALYSIS

o DESCRIPTION 0FRE-ANALYSIS

o WORKPERFORHt0SINCENRC1988 AUDIT

1

l

4

l

i

I

4

!

. _ _ . . - . _ . - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - . _ . - _ _ . _ . - - . . , . . . . . _ , ~ ~ _ _ - . . _ . , - . . .

l

t

.

0YSTERCREEK

TORUSATTACHEDPIPING

TECHNICALOVERVIEW

ORIGINALANALYSIS(1982-1984) !

'

0 ORIGINALANALYSISDESCRIBE0INMPRREPORTS:

l

MPR 733 "PLANT UNI @E ANALYSIS REPORT OF THE TORUS S

CHAMBERFOROCNGS", AUGUST 1982. l

MPR 734 "PLANT UNI @E ANALYSIS REPORT - TORUS ATTACHED PIPING

'

AUGUST 1982.

MPR 772 "PLANT UNI @E ANALYSIS REPORT - SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT"l

1983.

I

o TORUSATTACHEDPIPINGANALYSISHETH000 LOGY: 1

MPR 734 DYNAMIC LOADS ANALYlED BY TIME HISTORY OR RESPOl

ABSOLUTESUMUSEDTOCOMBINELOADS

MPR 772 DYNAMIC LOADS ANALYZED BY TIME HISTORY

S@ARE-R00T-SUM-0F-THE-S@ ARES ($RSS) USED

.

.- . . -. .. - ..

.

l

l ORIGINALANALYSIS(1982-1984)(CONT.)

o TORUSATTACHEDPIPINGANALYSISBASEDON:

1) MODIFICATIONSTHATHADBEENCOMPLETEDASOFTHESUBMITTALD

2) MODIFICATIONSTHATWEREPLANNEDTOBECOMPLETEDSUBSEQl

THESUBMITTALDATE.

3) BESTAVAILABLEINFORMATIONREGARDINGPLANTCONDITIONWHII

TOBEVERIFIEDASACCESSWASAVAILABLE.

,

l

,

- , - , -

l

.

0YSTERCREEK

TORUSATIACHEDPIPING

l

TECHNICALOVERVIEW

1984NRCSER's

o NRCSER'sCONSIDERED:

P0OLDYNAMICLOADS(BROOKHAVENTER)

STRUCTURALREVIEW(FRANKLINRESEARCHCENTERTER)

!

0 NRCSER'sISSUEDJANUARY13,1984

0 BOTHNRCSER'sCONCLUDED:

"...THESTAffHASCONCLUDEDTHATTHEGPUNCPVARANALY

vEairIES - C . . IC S.H.

RESTOREDTHEORIGINALDESIGNSAFETYMARGINTOTHEMARKI!

CONTAINHENT AT THE 0YSTER CREEK PLANT.

THIS ACTION

COMPLETESTHESTAff'SREVIEW0FTHISISSUE."

,

4

0YSTERCREEK

TORUSAITACHE0 PIPING l

TECHNICALOVERVIEW

CHANGESSINCEORIGINALANALYSES

o

)

THERMAL MI)(ING AND LOCAL TEMPERATURE INDICATION MODIFICATIONS

(APPROVEDTHROUGHNRCSERDATEDOCTOBER1,1986).

o PLANSTOREPLACECONTAINMENTPURGEANDVENTISOLATIONVALVESCANCELLEDi

(APPROVED THROUGH NRC SER DATED OCTOBER 10,1986).

o AS-BUILTVERIFICATIONOfCORESPRAYTESTRETURNPIPINGANDSRV(EMRV

DISCHARGEPIPING.

o CANCELLED PLANS TO CUT E CAP TORUS LEVEL INSTRUMEN! LINE

i

0 E MM@@ E @ %,M4E-M-6 %M6 W,0 @MW M

METHODOLOGY (NRCGENERICSERDATEDMARCH19,1983) I

o REANALYSISDONEANDDOCUMENTEDINMPR999TOREFLECTAB0VECHANGES

l

I

'

0YSTERCREEK

TORUSAITACHEDPIPING I

TECHNICALOVERVIEW

DESCRIPTIONOfRE-ANALYSES

o VACUUMRELIEFPIPING

'

RIGIDFLOORSUPPORTMODIFIEDIN1987

THREEADDITIONALSUPPORTSADDEDIN1987 ;

RE-ANALYSISSHOWEDACCEPTABLESTRESS

o CONTAINMENTSPRAYTESIRETURNPIPING

INCLUDESEfFECTOfTORUSWATERCLEAN-UPCONNECTIONS

'

MODIFIEDONESUPPORTIN1987

RE-ANALYSISSHOWEDONELOCATIONWITH6OVERSTRESS,J"ME0

AMPTABLEBASEDONKNOWNANALYSISCONSERVATISM

o CORESPRAYTESTRETURNPIPING

MODIFIE0ONESUPPORTIN1987

RE-ANALYSISSH0WEDACCEPTABLESTRESSINREMAININGSUPPORTS

_

. l

'

.

1

0YSTERCREEK l

l

TORUSATTACHEDPIPING

TECHNICALOVERVIEW

DESCRIPTIONOFRE-ANALYSES (CONT.)

l

o SRV(EMRV)DISCHARGEPIPING j

RE-ANALYSISSHOWEDACCEPTABLESTRESSINSUPPORTS

o SMALLBOREPIPINGANDCORESPRAYSUCTIONSTRAINERS

RE-ANALYSISOFTORUSLEVELREFERENCELINESH0WEDACCEPTABLESTRES

RE-ANALYSISOFNITR0GENPURGELINESHOWED8%OVERSTRES$; JUDGED

ACCEPTABLEBASEDONKNOWNANALYSISCONSERVATISM

o BASISFORCONCLUDINGACCEPTABILITY0FOVERSTRESSLOCATIONS:

-PEAKBROADENING(+/-10%)USEDINRESPONSESPECTRUMDYNAMICLO

-RESPONSESPECTRUMANALYSISMETHODWASUSEDWHICHWASKNOWNT0GIVE

SIGNIFICANTLYHIGHERRESULTSTHANTHEMOREACCURATETIMEHISTOR

. METHODFORMARKILOADINGS(301ORMOREBASEDONATYPICALPIPING

SYSTEM)

__

-

.

0YSTERCREEK

TORUSAIIACHEDPIPING

TECHNICALOVERVIEW

WORKPERFORMEDSINCETHEflRC1988 INSPECTION

0 DOCUMENTSASSOCIATEDWITHTORUSATTACHEDPIPINGPROJECTRE-REVIEWE0

N0OTHERCALCULATEDOVER$TRESSESIDENTIFIEDWHICHHAVENOTBEEN

REVIEWE0ANDAPPROVE0BYllRC.

o ADDITIONALANALYSISDONETOCONFIRMENGINEERINGJUDGEMENTOf

ACCEPTABILITYOf0VERSIRESSLOCATIONS:

- DETAILED TIME-HISTORY ANALYSIS PERFORME0 FOR 8% OVER$ T

INNI!ROGENPURGELINE

STRESSES ARE SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN ALLOWABLE (~501)

- CONTAINMENT SPRAY TEST RETURN LINE SUPPORT FLEXIBILITY M

REALISTICALLY (ANALYSISMETHODOLOGYSAMEASMPR-999)

STRESSESARELESSTHANALLOWABLE

.

'

CONCLUSIONS

l

0 LONGTERMPR0GPMWILLBECOMPLETEDURING12R(T0RUSBULKTEMPERATU

MEASUREMENT)

0 10CFR50.59REVIEWSBASEDONSUPPORIABLEENGINEERINGJUDGEMEN!

APPROPRIATECONSERVATISMISCONSIDEREDACCEPTABLE

- IIME HISTORY ANALYSIS FOR N PURGE LINE PERFORMED AND CO

2

l

REASONABLENESS 0FENGINEERINGJUDGEMENT !

0 N0UNAPPROVEDCALCULATEDOVERSTRESSCONDITIONSEXISTONTORUSATTA

PIPING l

l

0 WILL SUBMIT MPR REPORT 999, REV.1 AND REV. 2 WITH THE N PURGE LINE

TIMEHISTORYANALYSISINCLUDEDFORNRCINFORMATION l

l

0 IMPLEMENTATION 0FALLTORUSATTACHEDPIPINGMODIFICATIONSUNDER50

l

ISCONSIDEREDTOBEAPPROPRIATE

ML20151Y308

Text

Navigation menu

Search