ML20209H012

Summary of 870413-14 Meetings W/Util,Inel & Cygna in Idaho Falls,Id Re Seismic Reevaluation of Piping & Equipment.List of Attendees & Meeting Agenda Encl

ML20209H012
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	04/27/1987
From:	Mckenna E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8705010116
Download: ML20209H012 (8)

Text

'APR 8'71987 DISTRIBUTION

. $ % [Nei M~ D 4 df g, Local PDR PDI-3 Rdg. '

LICENSEE: Yankee Atomic Electric Company'(YAEC) V.-Nerses E. McKenna FACILITY: Yankee Nuclear Power Station M. Rushbrook OGC

SUBJECT:

MEETING

SUMMARY

APRIL 13 AND 14, 1987 ON SEISMIC REEVALUATION OF PIPING E. Jordan ACRS(10)

T. Cheng On April 13-14, 1987 a meeting was held in Idaho Falls. Idaho between members of the NRC staff, representatives of YAEC and consultants. A list of attendees is.provided in Enclosure 1. The meeting agenda is provided in Enclosure 2.

The meeting was requested by YAEC to discuss some specific technical. issues as well as the overall status regarding the seismic evaluation of piping and equipment. In particular, two technical issues regardino the piping analyses were discussed. These were:

1) use of U-bolts as axial restraints

2) adequacy of estimates of non-safety-related piping loads for gang supports At this meeting, alternative approaches to resolve these concerns were discussed. For the U-bolt issue, the staff position is that the assumed capacities be validated by testing. The alternatives are:

1) use available test results if applicable to the bolts being used

2) develop a test program

3) replace the U-bolts For the gang supports, the alternatives discussed were:

1) perform static analysis, using the peak spectral acceleration with a factor of 1.5 as recommended in SRP Section 3.7

2) confirmatory analysis of a few examples to show acceptability of the licensee's approach

3) a similarity argument between the safety-related and non-safety-related piping configurations

4) analysis of non-safety-related piping to determine the loads, then combine them by absolute sum.

One.other issue regarding steam generator leg uplift, was also discussed.

The licensee indicated that they are considering two alternatives:

1) modify support configuration -

2) perform time-history analysis to develop moments as a function of time 8705010116 870427 PDR ADOCK 05000029 P PDR

i.

, The licensee agreed to submit a letter sumarizing the alternatives that they propose to consider to close out these issues so that the staff can finalize its safety evaluation.

The total scope of piping subject to seismic evaluation may be divided into four categories. For piping outside containment, the dedicated shutdown piping in the primary auxiliary building (PAB) was qualified by the confirmatory analysis performed by staff consultants. Some of the new piping installed for the dedicated safe shutdown system was also reviewed by the staff. The remaining l piping outside containment (including the main steam / main feedwater piping) is yet to be analyzed; the criteria will be that already reviewed by the NRC during the previous technical review meetings.

For piping inside containment, the adequacy of the main coolant piping has been demonstrated by the confirmatory analyses. The remaining piping inside containment was then discussed, line by line, at the meeting with particular l

emphasis on the issues discussed below.

Many of the analyses of piping insi& containment were evaluated using the YCS input, PVRC damping and other alterutive criteria. The staff's analysis of the example piping problems has shown that some of the alternative criteria, such as use of 60% of the seismic anchor movement (SAMs), do not provide adequate margin to accomodate the NRC spectra loading.

In addition, a concern was raised regarding the analysis of lines that were branched out from the run piping. The concern was that the input to the branch line may be underestimated as the effects of amplification from run piping were not considered in all cases. This could result when floor response spectra were directly applied at the branch point.

Each of the inside containment piping problems was discussed at the meeting, with piping isometrics, to examine the above issues. The attached table sumarizes the status of each piping problem. Where review of the piping isometric drawings and the method of analysis showed that branch line decoupling is not a concern and the unacceptable alternative criteria were not used, the analysis was considered acceptable. Other comments are provided as appropriate. For example, in the case of instrument tubing, the staff requested that a calculation be provided, so that the staff could evaluate the licensee's analysis method.

The licensee will fomally submit all remaining information needed for the staff's safety evaluation (SE) by April 24, 1987. This will include a sumary of the evaluations and modifications to be completed following iss ance of the SE.

N Eileen McKenna, Project Manager l

Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects, I/II

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/ enclosures:

See next page PD Q3 Q P Djlp EFcYenna MRh }t rook Nefs'es 9 /Q787 87 /p/87

! Mr. George Papanic, Jr.

Yankee Atomic Electric Company Yankee Nuclear Power Station cc:

Mr. James E. Tribble, President Yankee Atomic Electric Company 1671 Worcester Road Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 Thomas Dignan, Esquire Ropes and Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Mr. N. N. St. Laurent Plant Superintendent Yankee Atomic Electric Company Star Route Rowe, Massachusetts 01367 Chairman Board of Selectmen Town of Rowe Rowe, Massachusetts 01367 Resident Inspector Yankee Nuclear Power Station c/o U.S. NRC Post Office Box 28 Monroe Bridge, Massachusetts 01350 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Robert M. Hallisey, Director Radiation Control Program Massachusetts Department of Public Health 150 Tremont Street, 7th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02111

y Table 1 Summary of Analyses of Piping Inside Containment Description Piping Problem Comments Main Coolant Loop 101 Ok by confirmatory analysis 102 Ok by confirmatory analysis 103 Ok by confirmatory analysis 104 Ok by confirmatory analysis Main Steam 001 need to check results with 004 revised vapor container Main Feedwater 021 soil model 024 Main Steam 002 to be reanalyzed for 1.8 003 Sh (CS input)

Main Feedwater 022 023 Shutdown Cooling 121 need to check results with 122 revised VC soil model Pressurizer Safety and Ok Relief Valve (41 ABC)

Safety Injection 201 to be reanalyzed for NRC 207 spectra and DC-1 Rev. 4 criteria l l

RC bypass and vent lines Ok (SP-RCL-1 through 8) ,

SV discharge for RC Ok (U-bolts) loops 1-3 -

(SP-RCL-17 to 19)

Pressurizer wide range Ok level (SP-PZR-3abc)

Pressurizer narrow range Ok level and pressure (SP-PR-4 and 5)

Steam Generator wide Ok range variable leg (SP-SG-17 to 20)

t -

2-Table 1 (continued)

Description Piping Problem Comments Steam Generator wide range Ok reference leg (SP-SG-13 to 16)

Steam Generator differential Ok pressure (SP-SG-21abc)

Steam Generator Vents Ok (SP-SG-5 to 8)

Steam Generator Drains Ok (SP-SG-1 to 4)

Reactor and Pressure Vents Ok Steam Generator Narrow to be reanalyzed; will consider Range Level (SP-SG-22) inertial effects of run piping Pressurizer Spray, Charging -

60% SAMs used in analysis, need to check for 100%

and AuxiliarySP-PZR-7, SV discharge (Spray, RC Loop 4 - modification of support H-1; SP-CH-3 and SP-RCL-20) check adequacy of 6" line i

(U-bolts)

Pressurizer and RCL drain 60% SAMs used in analysis, need (SP-RCL-9 to 16, SP-PZR-1, to check for 100%

SP-DRH-1)

Pressurizer sample and vent -

60% SAMs used in analysis, need (SP-PZR-2ab) to check for 100%

margin considered to address ,

connected piping effects '

Bleed line from HX E-8-1 -

reanalysis for valve changes.

(SP-FB-2ab) branch lines will be included in Bleed line flow (SP-FB-4) analysis Feed & Bleed HX vents - these four problems will be (SP-FB-3ab) analyzed together Feed & Bleed crossconnects Steam Generator Blowdown - reanalysis to be done with (SP-SG-9 to 12) response spectra at branch point Feed & Bleed Drains Charging reenalysis to be done, these two and SI drains (SP-FB-5) Problem 1 problems to be analyzed together Charging through Drainbox Problem 8

O 9

Table 1 (continued)

Description Piping Problem Comments Charging and Bleed Drain and HP reanalysis to be done for valve Sample (SP-CH-lab) Problem 6 changes; these two problems to Hot Bleed to HX E-8-4 be analyzed together (SP-FB-1) Problem 14 RC loop pressure instrument calculation for SI loop 1 flow tubing (SP-RCL-21ab) tubing to be submitted to assess RC loop instrument tubing review approach (SP-RCL-22 LTOP Instrument tubing (SP-RCL-23 I

l

l l

Enclosure 1 List of Attendees April 13-14,1987 Name Affiliation Mark Russell INEL Eileen McKenna NRC Thomas M. Cheng NRC Michael Shulman CYGNA Donald LeFrancois YAEC Dominick Fucito YAEC John D. Haseltine YAEC Bruce W. Holmgren YAEC Darlene Leong CYGNA Nancy Williams CYGNA D. Keith Morton INEL 4

l l

I 1

. l l

l Yankee Atomic Electric Company U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Cygna Energy Services SEP Topic III-6 Piping Meeting Agenda April 13-14,1987 Idaho Falls, Idaho Monday, April 13 Question E23:

Use of U-bolts as axial restraints on small bore piping Question D39:

Small bore piping gang support design criteria Question D23 IV:

Inertia effect of run piping on branch piping Review of all piping in seismic scope Tuesday, April 14 Review of all piping in seismic scope (cont.)

Steam Generator uplift Review of question matrix List of information for the docket

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