ML20206G370

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
SER Supporting Element Rept 212.2(B),Rev 1, Pipe Support Program,Nrc Bulletin 79-14 Abr Program
ML20206G370
Person / Time
Site: Sequoyah  Tennessee Valley Authority icon.png
Issue date: 11/04/1988
From:
NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
To:
Shared Package
ML20206G037 List: ... further results
References
IEB-79-14, NUDOCS 8811220252
Download: ML20206G370 (3)
v • d • e


Text

. .

  1. y s' * % % UNITED STATES

!y. l1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

. .. e W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 WW'.! .

l SAFETYEVALLATIONR;.PCRTBYTHEOFFICEOFSPECIALPROJEC'1 ELEMENT REPOPT 212.2(B) REVISION 1 PIPE SUPPOPT PROGRE l

[

NRC BULLETIN 79-14 ABR PROGRAM f

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY  :

i SEQUC)AH NUCLEAR PCWER PLANTS UNITS 1 AND 2 ,

DOCKET N05.: 50-527 AND 50-328

1. SUS.'E CT Category: Engineering (20000)

Subcategory: Fipe Support Program (21200)

F.lement: NRC Bulletin 79-14 AER Frogram (21f:02)

Conceens: IN-85 027-001, SQN-86-002-02 The basis for Elerent Report 212.2(E), Revision 1 are the following employee cencerns which question the adequacy of piping analysis oesign documente. tion

! at TVA plants:

i '

IN-85-027-001:

l

'VA Program for implementing hRC Bulletin 79-14 inadOquate. Design calculation documentation is lacking, ,

SZ 85-002-OLJ [

During the exit interview the Ci stated that containment spray line drawings and weld map do not agree with as butits. Alternate analysis

' was used instead of rigorous analysis, drawing.) were not corrected. {

l 11. Surr.ary of Issues The Erployee Concerns Task Group (ECTG) report identified the following four ,

issues from the employee concerns:

c. TVA program for impleeenting NRC IE Bulletin 79 14 is inadequate. ,
b. Nsign calculations that address the resolution of 79-14 program (

discretancies lack proper decurentation, j t

+

ca112202,"$ $$ N;327  !

ppg ADC PDC P I

._m . . =_ _

l

! c. Centainment spray piping does not reflect "as-constructed"- '

configuration in terms of routing as well as weld locations.  :

l

d. Containrent spray piping was analyzed using Alternate Analysis k rethod instead of Rigorous Analysis method, III. EVALUATION I To address issues a and b. Element Re,~rt 212.2(B), Revisien 1 provided a  ;

chronology of TVA's actions in response tc IE Bulletin 79-14 for bothThe e  !

Sequoyah Unit 1 and Unit 2.for the initial Unit 1 IE Bulletin 79-14 program and it wa  ;

Urit 2 program. The element repnrt also found that the concern with lack of i

umentation, issue b, was not valid for both units. The NRC staff had '

previously reviewed TVA's implementation of IE Bulletin 79-14 and However, the closed staff the l i

bulletin for Unit 2 in Inspection Report 50-3?a'11-42. [

1 had rot closed the bulletin fer Unit 1,  !

l ,

i Curing its review of civil calculations TVA determined that a large number TVA of 4

rigotously analyzed pf pe support calculations were not retrievable. ,

initiated a program to regenerate these calculations. As part The of this staff program, evaluation  ;

l TVA performed additional inspections of pipe supports. Based on j

of this progra* is contained in Section 2.3.2 of NUREG-1232. Volume 2.  !

the results of this program the staff considers the concern raised in issue b [

valid. Based on the staff's review of TVA's corrective actions in Inspection the staff corcluded that the issue had been adequately  !

j Report 50-327, 328/88-12 l

- addressed for Unit 2 restart.

1 Element Report 212.2(B) contained a discussion of TVA's corrective actions for l deficiencies program.

that had beer identified in the Sequoyah Unit 1 IEj  !

j Maintenance it.struction SMI-1-317-24 to correct the identified deficiencies The element report concluded that the Unit 1 program had been substantially

{

irproved by TVA's corrective actions and the concern with program inadequacy was no longer valid. l

' TVA provided a final report nn the Unit TVA's 1 IE Bulletin 79-14identified final report program to thea that  ;

4 hRC in a letter dated August 4, 1988.  !

corprehensive orogram to review rigorously analyzed piping and generate suppnrt i calculations had been performed. This program included additional inspections These i of piping and si ports to Special Maintenance Instruction SMI 0-317 69.The staff  ;

inspectiers were performed after the ECTG report had been coroleted. l review of tre Unit 1 IE Bul'atin 79-14 program concluded the program was adequate  !

to verify the as built piping configuration. The staff evaluation of the Unit 1 l

I r program is the subject of a separate safety evaludtion on Part 2 of the Sequoya[

Nuclear Performance Plan. '

t To address issue c, Ele-ent b rort 212.2(B) provided the results of a review isc~etrics with the  !

I which cc~ 3 red ter as-Constructed Contain*ert soray pipingBased on its  ;

desigr- calculattens. the as-Constructed oipirg configuration #or the contain-reaso'1aM e tc'irranet ,

nent spray syste*. 49 tees with the as-designed configuration, and that field i

F

Subsequent welds are apprepriately shown in the as-constructed drawings.

to the ECTG review, the Unit 1 containment spray system received additional as-built review during the S.w!-0-317-69 inspections. The as-built configu. .

ratien of piping supports on the containment spray system also received '

additional review during the staff's Safety System Ouality Evaluation.

Based on the ECTG review, subsequent TVA

'. Inspection Reenrt 50-327, 328/83-29. j inspections and the staff's Safety System ',uality Evaluat W. inspectier., the I staf f conddes that the concern with adequacy of the as-built configuration of '

containment : ray system has been adequately addressed for restart.

To address issue d. Element Report 212 2(B) provided the results of a The review ECTG of TVA's use of alternate analysis on the containment spray system.

report concluded that the criteria for using alternate analysis had been ret 7 Concerns with 1"A's use of alternate analysis  :

and the :ncern was not valid. l had also been the sut. ject of a separate evalue son in Element Report 218.4(B),

Revision 2. In addition, as a result of deficiencies that had been identified 4

with Iternate a..alysis piping designs and design documentation, TVA initiated i

' an alternate analysis program. The staff's evaluation of TVA's alternate Based on i analysis program is :entained in Sectien 2.4 of NUREG-1232, Vol. 2.

i the ECTG review and the staff's review of the implementation of the alternate ,

analysis program, the staff cencludes that issue of.TVA's use of alternate ,

' analysis for the containrent spray piping has been adequately ad.'tssed fer [

restart.

TVA will perform artditional reviews of alternately analyzed piping in its Phase !!, post-restar'.. program. l IV. Conclusions c Based on the review of Erployee Concerns Eienert Report 212.2(B), Revision 1; f l

l the NRC's inspections of TVA's IE Bulletin 79-14 program; TVA's additional as-built reviews for Unit 1; and the staff review of the alternate analysis program, the sta'f concludes that Empicyee Concerns IN-85 027-001 and  :

1

  • SON-86 002-02 have been adequately addressed at Sequoyah for restart. r i

l [

f i  !

[

i l

i i  !

i

- - - _ .

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20206G370&oldid=3324221"