ML20244D936

Summarizes 890602 Telcon Between Util,Mpr & NRC Re SEP Topic III-6, Seismic Design Considerations

ML20244D936
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	06/05/1989
From:	Nagai Y GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
To:	Dromerick A, Jasani K, Lipinski R GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., NRC
References
TASK-03-06, TASK-3-6, TASK-RR NUDOCS 8906200075
Download: ML20244D936 (2)

Text

__

h ,# NRCKLOCACPDRs

~

Nuclear memorandum Decfef 50 S# W

Subject:

TELEPHONE CONVERSATION RECORD Date: June 5, 1989 RE: SEP SEISMIC PIPING ANALYSES From: Y. Nagai Licensing Engineer Location: MCC-E2 C320-89-166 To: Distribution On June 2,1989 a telephone conference was held among GPUN, MPR and NRC representatives concerning SEP Topic NO. III-6 " Seismic Design Considerations".. participants in the conference were:

NRC R. Lipinski GpVN K. Jasani - Engineering Mechanics R. Zak - Engineering Mechanics Y. Nagai - BWR Licensing MpR P. Kasik Question No. 1 Mr. Lipinski questioned the significance of seismic anchor motions (SAMs) for the Oyster Creek Liquid Poison and Core Spray piping. This questier, was originally raised by a draft TER prepared by an NRC contractor which was transmitted to GPUN on January 9, 1986. GPUN letter dated Jun9 24, 1986 provided a response to the question by stating that SAMs were judged to be not significant for both Liquid Poison and Core Spray piping. The response also stated that "the portion of the Liquid Poison and' Core Spray piping analyzad (by MPR) are anchcred to either the reactor building vtructure or drywell structure at essentially the same elevation. Both of these structures are supported from the same foundation mat. Thus, significant anchor displacunents betwean the veneter building and dryws11 ctructure are not expected". Mr. Lipinski wanted to know how " insignificant" the SAMs were for these piping system.

Mr. Kasik stated that although the MPR analyses did not incorporate SAMs (since they were judged to be negligible), they did consider thermal relative For example, the TRDs were 1.6 inch in the vertical l displacements (TRDs).

direction and .3 inch in the radial direction for the Core Spray piping and therefore, the TRDs were judged to significantly exceed any SAMs. This judgement regarding SAMs was later confirmed by the results of Oyster Creek floor response spectra work performed by URS/ John A Blume Associates in 1986. The results showed maximum SAMs (absolute values) are 1 to 5 mils and 15 to 90 mils for vertical and radial displacements, respectively. Mr.

Lipinski agreed that these values indicate that Reactor Bldg./Drywell SAMs are not significant.

oFok 8906200075 DR 890605 ADOCK 05000219 N 064s (os-as)

PDC

)c

~

page 2 l 1

Question No. 2 ,

- Mr. Lipinski asked how GPUN resolved Material Nonconformance Reports (MNCRs) )

for Main Steam and Feedwater piping syst4ms. More specifically Mr. Lipinski i wanted to know if any of the MNCRS affected the results of previous analyses l performed by MPR for these piping systems. j i

Y. Nagai stated that all of the MNCRs have been closed out. Prior to the  !

close-out, the effect of the deviations for these piping systems were  ;

evaluated by MPR. The evaluation concluded that the deviations have no l effect or only a negligible effect on the results of the piping systems. Y. j Nagai also indicated that these findings were documented by GPUN letters to '

the NRC dated July 1,1985, October 28, 1985, March 19, 1986 and MPR letter to GPUN dated December 11, 1986. It was noted that the July 1,1985 and ,

March 19, 1986 letters also forwarded copies of the MNCRs and marked-up j drawings. Y. Nagai prom! sed to transmit copies of the letters referenced above to assist Mr. Lipinaki's expedited review.

s /

) P 4E4

< Y. Nagai Distribution A. Dromerick - NRC K. Jasani - Mechanical Analysis Manager P. Kasik - MPR R. Lipinski - NRC M. Laggart - Manager BWR Licensing S. Tumminelli - Manager Engineering Mechanics R. Zak - Engineer 1.

l l

__ ..__ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ . _ _