ML20247B310
| ML20247B310 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 03/22/1989 |
| From: | Gears G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TAC-00016, TAC-16, NUDOCS 8903290347 | |
| Download: ML20247B310 (16) | |
Text
imag)y UNITED STATES 3
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
j_
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 March 22, 1989 Docket No. 50-260 LICENSEE:
Tennessee Valley Authority FACILITY: Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING HELD WITH THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ON JANUARY 13, 1989 TO DISCUSS CIVIL / SEISMIC OPEN ISSUES (TAC 00016)
On January 13, 1989, the staff met with the-Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA or the licensee) at the NRC offices in Rockville, Maryland to discuss selected civil / seismic issues needing resolution prior to restart.
Enclosure I lists the meeting. participants. contains the slides used in the licensee presentation.
The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the following BFN civil / seismic open issues:
a.
time history usage for piping / support evaluations; b.
U-bolt lateral load capacities; and c.
rod hanger uplift acceptability.
The staff wished to clarify two points as a result of its meeting with TVA on January 5, 1989.
For the spectra plot comparison which reviews 0-30 Hz curves versus 0-50 Hz curves, the staff would like to see a total set of plots outside of the drywell.
This includes all mass points used to generate amplified response spectra in the horizontal and vertical directions.
From the l
review of this total set of curves, the staff will select the most critical piping problems for TVA to perform analyses to justify its zero-period acceleration (ZPA) definition.
TVA was informed that review of the spectra comparison and selection of criteria cases would be part of the staff's audit during the week of January 23rd.
The licensee discussed its plan for using time history analysis techniques for piping and support evaluations as agreed upon with the NRC staff in the meeting of December 13, 1988.
TVA will only invoke time history methodologies on a Cdse-by-Case basis in areas of high radiation exposure or inaccessibility, and with NRC approval.
TVA will docket the total piping / support time history usage upon program completion, with one sumary submittal listing all individual cases and the corresponding NRC approval date.
Interim meetings decussing case-by-case need will be documented with meeting minutes.
This approach as described was agreeable to the staff.
I g 2ggy %
' f 0
\\
P t
2 The U-bolt lateral load issue was next discussed. TVA proposed to use side-l'oad capacities determined from TVA test results based on a MSS SP-58 factor of safety. These allowables exceed available manufacturer's data and corresponding ASME ratings. The staff noted that TVA's proposed allowables are generally greater than the lateral load capacities used in the industry. The staff asked TVA if it had any reference procedure for load rating using MSS SP-58. TVA indicated that it was not-aware of any specific procedures for developing load ratings by test.
Following a staff caucus, the tentative agreements defined below were reached.
TVA may develop and utilize lateral load capacities for U-bolts provided the following are met:
a.
TVA should use an NF (test) load rating procedure. The NRC stated that the allowables used from the load rating should be consistent with the staff Safety Evaluation Report (SER) dated June 26, 1972. The allowables shall be consistent with current Level C limits for the safe-shutdown earthquake (SSE) load case.
b.
Criteria for the lateral load is based on the lower of the load rated allowable or the 1/8" deflection limit, The interaction formula shall be linear with allowables defined above.
c.
TVA stated that it will consider these criteria for further discussions with the NRC during the 79-14/02 audit of January 23, 1989.
Additionally, TVA clarified the issue concerning U-bolt installation which was first discussed at a meeting in Cherry Hill, New Jersey on November 17, 1988.
U-bolts on hot small bore lines (greater than 200*F) have been confirmed to be uncinched, allowing free axial pipe growth. U-bolts on cold small bore lines can be termed indeterminate.
U-bolts on large bore piping with axial displacement greater than 1/16" were verified to have an installed gap.
U-bolts on large bore piping with predicted movements less than or equal to 1/16" axial are termed indeterminate.
The rod hanger uplift issue was next addressed.
TVA proposed to use non-linear analysis of selected sample problems to demonstrate the acceptability of a limited amount of single acting support uplift.
The staff rejected this proposal for the following reasons, The staff recalls no case where similar uplift criteria for rod hangers a.
had been reviewed and approved at other facilities; b.
TVA has not addressed the dynamic amplification factor resulting from uplift and subsequent impact on the rod hanger load capabilities.
Nor has TVA addressed the potential for rod hanger buckling due to uplift conditions;
_6
^
I f
g e
- (\\ _.
-'The staff stated that in. order.to perform an acceptable non-linear c,
analysis, TVA'would have to address the uncertainty in the dead load and thermal: loads, including. initial fit-up. loads, and to adequately assess all non-linearities in the piping ana tysis. ' For these reasons, non-linear analysis at this, tine is not-a productive use of TVA/NRC resources;~ and -
Base'd on this conclusion,^TVA agreed to discontinue its non-linear analysis studiesson this, issue.
Gerald E. Gears, Project Manager TVA Projects Division Office of Nuclears Reactor Regulation Enclosbres:
1.
Attendance List
'2.
TVA Slides cc w/ enclosures:
See next page Distribution Docket File NRC PDR Local PDR Those'on Attached List 1
1 L
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE OFC :NRR:TVA/LA* :NRR:TVA/PM* :NRR:TVA/BC* :TVA:A P NAME :MSimms
- GGears:as
- DTerao
- SBla DATE :3/17/89
- 3/17/89
- 3/21/89
- 3/4)/89 I
L __:
a 3
c.
'The staff stated that in order to perfonn an acceptable non-linear analysis..TVA.would have to address the uncertainty in the dead load and thermal loads.: including initial fit-up~ loads, and to adequately assess all non-linearities in the piping analysis.. For these reasons, non-linear analysis at this time is not a productive use of TVA/NRC resources; and Based on this conclusion, TVA agreed to discontinue its non-linear analysis studies on this issue.
Gerald E. Gears, Project Manager TVA Projects Division Office of Nuclears Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
- 1. ' Attendance List 2.
TVA Slides cc w/ enclosures:
See next page Distribution Docket File NRC POR Local PDR Those on Attached List l
.0FC-:NRR:TVA/LA :N :TVA/PM
- NRR:TVA/BC :TVA: AD/P NAME :MSimms A GG
- DTerao
- SBlack
_ _ _ _ _ :. _ _... J.".. _.J.I_.._-:...l._____:..........-_:.........__:...........:......___._
DATE:3/}/ /89
- 3/g /8
- 3/S /89
- 3/ /89
L
~
- Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant cc:
General Counsel
. Regional Administrator Region II Tennessee Valley Authority U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I
400 West Summit Hill-Drive' 101 Marietta Street, N.W.
E11 833 Atlanta, Georgia 30323' Knoxville,~ Tennessee 37902 Resioent Inspector / Browns Ferry NP Mr. R. L. Gridley _
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tennessee Valley Authority Route 12. Box 637 SN 157B Lookout _ Place Athens, Alabama 35611-Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801-Mr..C. Mason-Dr. Henry Myers, Science Advisor Tennessee Valley Authority Committee on Interior Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant
. and Insular Affairs P.O. Box 2000 U. S. House of Representatives Decatur, Alabama -35602 Washington, D.C.
20515 Tennessee Valley Authority Mr. P. Carier Rockville Office Tennessee Valley Authority' 11921 Rockville Pike Browns' Ferry Nuclear Plant Suite 402 P.O. Box 2000 Rockville, Maryland 20852 Decatur, Alabama 3E602 Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley, Jr.
Mr. D. L.-Williams Senior Vice President, Nuclear Power Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive 6N 38A Lookout Place W10 B85 1101 Market Street Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 Chairman, Limestone County Commission P.O. Box 188 Athens, Alabama 35611 Claude Earl Fox, M.D.
-State Health Officer State Department of Public Health State Office Building Montgomery, Alabama 36130
.a
h 4
' ENCLOSURE 1-ATTENDANCE LIST JANUARY 13, 1989 Name.
Affiliation.
lW. A. Massie TVA
.H. Roger-Gavankar TVA P. A. Gilbert TVA K.'S. Seidle TVA J.. K. McCall TVA Patrick Carier.
TVA Gerry Gears NRC John R. Fair NRC Thomas M. Cheng NRC David Terdo NRC H. B. Bounds TVA Wyn Evans SWEC Bob Pierson-NRC Suzanne Black NRC 1
1 i
l l
l L__----_-_-----_--------_-_
., CIVIL / SEISMIC OPEX ISSUES JANUARY 13,1989 8:30 AM i
AGENDA ITEMS MEETING LOCATION: NRC WHITE FLINT OFFICES
- 1. REVIEW PREVIOUS MEETING ACTION ITEMS
- 2. LIST OPEN ITEMS & PRIORITIZE THEM
- 3. TIME HISTORT USAGE FOR PIPING /5UPPORT EVALUATIONS
- 4. U-DOLT LATERAL LOADS j
- 5. UPLIFT ON ROD HANGERS - INTERIM REPORT
- 6. AUDIT SCHEDULES
- 7. AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING l
TVA ATTENDEES H.B. BOUNDS P. P. CARIER
]
ROGER GAVANKAR t
P.A. GILBERT J. McCALL W. A. MASSIE l
E. S. SEIDLE
1 TIME HISTORY USAGE FOR
)
PIPING / SUPPORT EVALUATIONS i
APPROACH e
Run analysis using ARS o
Determine modifications (Based on Operability Criteria) o Determine location of modifications o
Estimate man-rems o
If location is inaccessible or if dosage is ercessive, run Time History using Long Term Design Criteria o
Evaluate results o
Time History shows modification reductions in the area of concern.
O TVA/NRC discussions on acceptability on a case by case basis o
Docketing process
~ U-BOLT L ATERAL LOADS APPROACH Consistent with MSS SP-58 requirements, the following steps were followed.
e Testing was performed on U-bolt sizes and configurations representative of ALL field installations.
e
- Test Loads were reduced to account for statistically signi-j ficant number of specimens to assure 90s confidence level.
- Further reduction was made to account for lower bound of the minimum tensile strength of the U-bolt material.
J Factor of Safety equal to 5 was applied to the above Test Loads to establish basic M55 SP-55 load rating based on ultimate strength.
e Independently, deflection of the U-bolt was limited to 1/8 inch.
e The following interaction equations are used for U-bolt evaluation:
(1) Pactual/Pallow + Vactual/Vallow I 1.0 l
(2) Vactual Vallow A 1.0
- over and above the MSS SP-58 requirernents
- (load corresponding to 1/6 inch deflection)
~
UPLIFT ON ROD HANGERS
-I:STERIM REPORT-APPROACH J
Design Criteria Issue To perform a static analysis with the support re-moved by applying the upiirt load as a force If the upward deflection is 6 5/32 inch, the rod hanger is acceptable.
If the deflection exceeds 5/32 inch, the rod hanger will be modified.
TVA agreed to present their justification for this approach at a later date.
STATUS Currently, a study is being performed by running e
two non-linear analyses.,
In these analyses, the rod hangers will be modeled to be restrained in one direction and allowed to be unrestrained in the opposite direction.
This study will be used to show that limiting the rod hanger uplift to 5/32 inch used in our linear analy-sls is a valid approach.
i We will provide the NRC with updates every two weeks Final presentation the end of February e
_____.q 1
, s WR TICA L 5
LOA CING 1
A-i 4
HORIZON TA L L LCAOING i
I I
I l Me" $
C
]
C
~
u NUT 3 S W gg Ld:KED IN PostToet WITH AN AM90VED LOCKIMg Ogygg
' ! INSTALLATION CON 0lTION l SLACX NON-AX1AL SUPPORT f
sN ON
=+
)
l ks. +-
})
l 8~
r~n if1 h=
rn i I n-1 9
1 8
L_J L_J
)
\\i l_
t t"
INSTALLATION CCr4DITION 3 INSTALLATION CONDITICW 2 STIFFENED NON-AXlAL SUPPORT (W/SH IM}
STIFFENED NON-AXIAL SUPPORT
'I
_Tx
. ))
l
~
r n r
I r
1 L_a u_a lJ L
SPACER PLATE OF, TAIL Tigure 1 U-BOL7 INSTALLATIONS.
4
---_-~.--_---_--_________---_-__a--_-_--_.
-CIVIL / SEISMIC OPEN ISSUES AUDIT ITEMS CEB-1 AUDIT OF IEB 79-14 PROGRAM - SCHEDULED 1/23 - 2/3/89 CEB-7 DESIGN CRITERIA AND PERCENT OF WORK COMPLETED FOR MISCELIMEOUS STEEL SUPPORT FRAMES (MSSF)
CEB-9 IMPACT OF NEW ARS ON 01HER CIVIL / SEISMIC PROGRAMS CEB-10 ASSUMPTION OF RIGID LOWER PLATFORMS IN THE HORIZO!UAL DIRECTION CEB-11 EQUIVALENT STATIC' ANALYSIS OF DRYWELL PLATFORMS CEB-14 THERMAL EFFECTS ON DRYWELL PLATFORMS CEB-17 ENO MOMENTS ON PLATFORM RADIAL BEAMS - SUPPLY CALCULATIONS CEB-18 EVALUATION OF EMBEDMENT PLATE ANCHORS OF DRYWELL RADIAL BEAMS CEB-19 CRITERIA USED FOR PLATFORM CLIP ANGLES CEB-20 MODIFICATION LIST OF PLATFORM BEAMS - TVA REVISE CEB-21 SUPERSEDED PAGES OF PLATFORM DESIGN CALLS - TVA AMEND CALCULATIONS CEB-22 REVIEW OF DESIGN CRITERIA BFN-50-C-7100 THROUGH 7300 CEB BUCKLING OF HVAC DUCTWORK CEB-28 USE OF FACTOR 1.33 TO INCREASE STRESS ALLOWABLE CEB-29 MODELING OF HVAC SUPPORTS - REVISE CALCULATIONS CEB-30 WELDING ALLOWABLES FOR HVAC SUPPORTS - REVISE OPERABILITY CRITERIA CEB-31 BUCKLING OF CONDUIT ROD SUPPORTS CEB-32 EVALUATION OF SUPPORT R0D HANGERS FOR CONDUIT CEB-33 EVALUATION OF CONDUIT SUPPORTS l
1 1
[
n-
~
.j 1
^
^
CIVIL / SEISMIC OPEN ISSUES CRITERIA' ITEMS.
- 1. ;ZPA DEFINITION i
- TVA' SUBMITTAL OF SPECTRA CURVES TO 50Hz
- 2., ' ARS IMPACT EVALUATION t
j..:
. 3..
USE OF NF SNUBBERS AND ALLOWABLES-r 4.
.. UPLIFT ON ROD HANGERS:
5.-
U-BOLT LATERAL LOADS 6.
PLATFORM THERMAL. GROWTH I'
'7.
MSSSP-58 DEFINITION-8.
CLARIFICATION OF EMERGENCY DESIGN CONDITION ALLOWABLES.
9.
SEISMIC INSTRUMENT TUBING PROGRAM fl0; PRIMARY. SYSTEM QUALIFICATION USING TIME HISTORY
'11.
-DESIGN CRITERIA DOCUMEVTS (BFN 50-C-7103 AND 7104) VS LICENSING BASIS
.12. -
CONDUIT ALLOWABLES (INTERIM)
- 13... ~JCO/PRA USAGE FOR PACKAGING MODS POST RESTART 14.
TVA JUSTIFICATION FOR SCHEDULING TORNADO EVALUATION POST RESTART-15.
CONDUIT BUCKLING EVALUATIONS 16.
FLEXIBLE CONDUIT-PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
'17.
PIPING AND SUPPORT OPERABILITY CRITERIA (BFN-50-C-7303) 18.
MODIFICATIONS COMPLETE STATUS AND AUDIT FINDINGS STATUS OF CIVIL / SEISMIC PROGRAMS.'
l._
- 2. 5 l
g l
9, %,
g kp t
+
%%sf
~
s
\\
tfl O
+
Nk ha*
gy 9
+
ggg D
o
+
s b
b i
Om Y
CER
{ 'Qg R
g a
.. b t:
+
s N h u ta g a b E s
~~
+
- 4 b25$
e
+
=
~
m E3: 38
'o*
Az.
+
g "f h Y
+
E emz
+
y A>1 8t
+
z=a
+
m
> $ z.
+
ma g
E J
+
3 WHA g
A.J E"
+
M ED z1 m
+
g
. z 3 9"*
1 O
8 m
+
1 0
i i
O
%I 0
N k
8 i
+
9 k
+
o o
++b U)
+
q
- b. b b. b. $ b. b. b. (In b b. b b. b. ' b. b. co 4
I CD CD CD.. G)... CD CD CD (D (D (D (D envmN - e cn a n. e n e m N
-t w
.e e
.-s w w eO O C O m ad C
)
d d>2, 9a t
d
~
~
4908 En E ?
ti m
- a W J N.],$
g
+
i e. : d 1;5,y$0ii'ER 3
1 n t e.. u
+
36
'N tio i
+
h, 3 s v6 s.
44
+
Q 3."Es%
mm so
+
e m
b
+
3.2 e-m
- a. s 5
i
+
5"E C
3
+
4 e
I*n:
.f*
I !.
.g
+
e8-I?in
+
llll3 M w
d o
4N
+
s
+
+
A e
4 k
A A
,S e
E E. 3 3
3 E
E, 3
E I
e s
in n
~
ed C G O m ad 5
+-
..w,-
(
lk
- ~
k DISTRIBUTION FOR MEETING
SUMMARY
DATED:. March 22, 1989 W'
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant,-Unit 2*
Facility:
Decketr=Eile,.
'NRC PDR Local PDR Projects Reading ADSP Reading.
. D. Crutchfield ~
B..D..Liaw S. Black R. Pierson-G. Gears D. H. Moran M. Sims F. McCoy J. Rutberg J. Fair T.~Cheng D. Terao j-ACRS-(10)~
-GPA/PA GPA/CA (M. Callahan) (5)
S. Varga E. Jordan B. Grimes P. Gwynn J. Scarborough G. Marcus T. Elsasser L. Norrholm C. Ader.
BFN Rdg. File
- cc:
Licensee / Applicant & Service List 4
- i