ML20205N193

Summary of 860224-26 Meetings W/Util & Consultants in San Francisco,Ca Re Resolution of SEP Topic III-6 Seismic Issues & Generic Ltr 80-11.Util Set Goal of Resolving Open Issues by 860930.W/o Attachments

ML20205N193
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	04/28/1986
From:	Clifford J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TASK-03-06, TASK-3-6, TASK-RR GL-80-11, NUDOCS 8605010535
Download: ML20205N193 (5)

Text

.

APR 2 61986 Docket No.50-029 LICENSEE: Yankee Atomic Electric Company FACILITY: Yankee Nuclear Power Station

SUBJECT:

MEETING

SUMMARY

Re: Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) Evaluation of Yankee Seismic

. Analysis (SEP Topic III-6)

A meeting was held from February 24 through 26, 1986 between members of the NRC staff, personnel from the Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC0), and their respective consultants at the CYGNA Energy Services Offices in San Francisco, California. The meeting was the first of four planned meetings to resolve the SEP seismic issues. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the open issues remaining to resolve the topic, to allow YAEC0 personnel and their consultants an opportunity to present a summary of the work performed to date, and to allow the staff and its consultants an opportunity to identify any additional questions to be answered or work that needs to be completed, by the licensee to resolve SEP Topic III-6. A list of attendees is provided in Enclosure 1.

The meeting agenda is provided as Enclosure 2 (Starting on Page 2 of the CYGNA handouts document).

The meeting was opened by YAECO's Project Manager for Yankee, who provided a summary of efforts to date from the licensee's perspective.

In addition, the Yankee project manager committed to provide whatever resources were necessary to resolve the open issues. YAEC0's stated goal was to resolve the SEP issues as soon as possible, but no later than September 30, 1986. The YAECO project manager stated that the meeting provided a forum to resolve as many of the open issues as possible, but if total agreement were not reached on a particular issue, '

either (1) YAEC0 would coninit to perform the necessary work to address-the open issues, or (2) if an issue were currently unresolvable, the issues should be narrowly focused, and became topics for a future meeting. The YAECO Project Manager provided a discussion of the design j and modification process, and emphasized that resolution of the SEP '

seismic open issues was necessary before final design work or plant l modifications could be completed. j Following this introduction, T. Cheng, the letid staff reviewer for this l SEP topic, introduced the consultants, and provided their areas of expertise. In addition, the staff committed to provide a definitive list of questions on the information covered in the meeting within one to two weeks after the meeting. Due to changes needed in some of the licensee's documents presented at the meeting, this commitment was subsequently changed to provide questions within two weeks of receipt of the revised material from the licensee.

The next portion of the meeting dealt with a detailed summary of past licensee efforts on SEP Topic III-6. The viewgraphs used for the 8605010535 860428 PDR ADOCK 05000029 P PDR

2_

presentation are provided in Enclosure 3 (Page 5 of the CYGNA handouts document). The presentation tied the resolution of the block wall generic '

issue (Generic Letter 80-11) to SEP Topic III-6. The staff agreed that resolution of the SEP topic on block walls would resolve Generic Letter 80-11 for Yankee. The focus of the presentation identified the effort, in terms of t man-hours and funds, expended by the licensee on this issue.to date. The ,

presentation also identified a change in the scope of the systems analyzed by the licensee. Originally, the licensee had analyzed both a hot shutdown scope (those systems required to get to, and maintain, hot shutdown) and a  ;

cold shutdown scope (those systems required to get to cold shutdown).

Systems within the hot shutdown scope were to be seismically upgraded, while ,

those systems within the cold shutdown scope were assumed to be repairable in .

time to get to cold shutdown. In the revised scope, the hot shutdown scope  ;

remained essentially intact. The licensee replaced the cold shutdown scope  !

with a seismically qualified safe shutdown system, comprised of a dedicated diesel generator, primary makeup pump, secondary makeup pump, and associated piping and instrumentation. ,

The next topic provided a discussion of the overview of issues that remain to be resolved for SEP Topic III-6. The handout for this presentation is provided in Enclosure 4 (starting on page 6 of the CYGNA handouts document).

The handout lists questions that had been provided to the licensee in draft form and subsequently formally issued to the licensee by letter dated March 14, 1986 from J. W. Clifford to G. Papanic, Jr. The licensee provided proposed resolutions along with a schedule for addressing each staff question. The licensee's proposed resolutions were evaluated in general during the meeting, and will be evaluated in detail by the staff following the meeting. Any questions raised during the staff's review are to be discussed with the licensee as the review progresses, and any questions and the responses will be provided to the lead NRC reviewer and the NRC project manager. Responses to all of the NRC questions will be provided in future meeting summaries.

The next two topics provided a discussion of the outstanding structural and piping issues for the seismic design review of Yankee. the handouts for these presentations are provided in Enclosures 5 and 6 (Starting on pages 33 and 83, respectively, of the CYGNA handouts document). During these presentations, personnel representing the licensee presented their viewpoint, and its basis, of what agreements and commitments had been reached regarding what analyses YAECO needed to perform to provide an acceptable seismic design basis. This desi use of the Yankee Composite Spectrum (YCS) gn basis included in the analyses, using codeallowing allowable limits, and in specific cases, using NRC functionality (SEP) criteria. The NRC identified its position as being represented in the Integrated Plant Safety Analysis Report (IPSAR) section 4.11. The NRC staff stated that the intent of this section was to have the licensee perform the seismic analyses using both YCS and the more conservative NRC spectra with code and SEP criteria, respectively. After identifying these positions, an agreement was reached to have NRC identify specific systems that YAEC0 would then analyze using the NRC spectra. In addition, the staff will be performing confirmatory analyses of these same cases. If these analyses, 1

I

compared to NRC functionality criteria, provide acceptable results, they would serve as confirmatory analysis to validate the YCS spectra to code criteria that has already been completed by YAEC0. If this occurs, no further confirmatory or concurrent analyses will need to be performed.

If the confirmatory analyses do not provide acceptable results, YAEC0 will need to perform additional analyses on the remaining systems that have not been analyzed using the NRC spectra. As a general statement in this discus-sion, the staff stated that any references that YAEC0 desires to use that have not been reviewed and approved by the staff needed to be submitted for NRC review and approval for applicability to Yankee. The confirmatory analysis will serve this purpose for use of the YCS spectra.

In the discussion of piping issues, the staff identified a concern with use of PVRC damping with the YCS spectra. This issue will be addressed in  ;

a future meeting. In addition, initial staff evaluation of the detailed analyses sumary presented by the licensee in Enclosure 7 (entitled "Sumary of work performed to address SEP Topic III-6") resulted in additional questions that were identified to the licensee. These questions will be formally identified to the licensee with the list of questions the staff comitted to provide within two weeks of receipt of corrected copies of Enclosure 4.

Following the discussion of initial staff concerns, the staff and YAECO agreed to a concept in which the staff will issue two SERs related to SEP seismic issues. One SER will address the acceptability of the methods, spectra, and criteria used in analyzing the Yankee seismic design. The second SER will address the audit of the analysis results, and the accept-ability of the actual conduct of the analyses. To this end, a number of the topics identified in Enclosure 4 will have their schedules accelerated to allow completion of the methods and criteria review f_irst.

The final discussions covered a detailed presentation on the history of 1 the Safe Shutdown Scope (SSS), and the current systems included in the SSS. The viewgraphs for this presentation are provided in Enclosure 8 (starting on page 97 of the CYGNA handouts document). The SSS is essentially the systems needed (including the dedicated shutdown system) to obtain and maintain hot, and then to get to cold shutdown.

At the conclusion of the meeting, various comitments and points made during the meeting were sumarized. The staff emphasized that the information discussed at the meetings would have to be formally provided in response to the NRC request for information. Once the staff determined which confirmatory analyses would be needed, the staff would meet with YAECO to ensure consistency i of assumptions. The staff identified the NUPIPE code as the code to be used in i the staff's confirmatory analysis. The staff also noted that additional questions may be generated after detailed review of the viewgraphs and handouts. Those questions were to be provided within two weeks after receipt of the corrected  !

presentation material.

l l

l l

l J

The licensee committed to provide corrected presentation material. In addition, the viewgraphs for the next meeting were to be provided to the staff by March 28, 1986.

The next meeting was scheduled for April 8 through 10 at the CYGNA offices in San Francisco, California. The primary focus of the meeting will be to complete the discussions on methods and criteria. In addition, a plant walkthrough will be necessary during the latter part of the review process. This plant walkthrough will be scheduled at some future date.

,s i

/5 James W. Cli ford, Project Manager '

i PWR Project Directorate #1 Division of PWR Licensing-A

Enclosures:

, As stated cc's w/ enclosures: See next page.

i l

Office: Pg8 PM/PfDJ# PBI h PD/ PAD #

Surname: JC11 Word /jm/tg TCheng CGrimes Glear W Date: 04//f/86 04/4/8604g/86 04/ /86 6

(

r 3

f

-_ -, ~ .

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

=

..a.

. APR 2 8 1988 i

b Local.PDR  !

, PADf1 r/f

. PAD #1 p/f j GLear JClifford

.OELD EJordan.

BGrimes ACRS (10)

NRC Participants J

I i

1 E

I e

i I

}

I I

1 e

.f J

i i

1

=

s ,,

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