ML19257A897: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
Line 18: Line 18:
=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:*
{{#Wiki_filter:*
e
e ENCLOSURE SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 INAPPROPRIATE SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF UHI PIPING NCR CEB 79-36 10 CFR 50.55(e)
  .  .
ENCLOSURE SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 INAPPROPRIATE SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF UHI PIPING NCR CEB 79-36 10 CFR 50.55(e)
FINAL REPORT Description of Condition The seismic analysis of record for the 12-inch UHI piping in unit 2, from the gas to the water accumulators, is the unit 1 analysis since the piping is opposite hand. However, the building which houses the unit 2 UHI piping is physically different from the unit 1 building.
FINAL REPORT Description of Condition The seismic analysis of record for the 12-inch UHI piping in unit 2, from the gas to the water accumulators, is the unit 1 analysis since the piping is opposite hand. However, the building which houses the unit 2 UHI piping is physically different from the unit 1 building.
This requires the use of a different seismic response spectra in the piping analysis for unit 2.
This requires the use of a different seismic response spectra in the piping analysis for unit 2.

Latest revision as of 23:52, 1 February 2020

Final Deficiency Rept Re Inappropriate Seismic Analysis of Upper Head Injection Piping.Unit 2 Piping Required Different Seismic Response Spectra.Piping Will Be Reanalyzed Using Appropriate Seismic Response Spectra
ML19257A897
Person / Time
Site: Sequoyah Tennessee Valley Authority icon.png
Issue date: 01/02/1980
From:
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:
Shared Package
ML19257A896 List:
References
NCR-CEB-79-36, NUDOCS 8001090362
Download: ML19257A897 (1)


Text

e ENCLOSURE SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 INAPPROPRIATE SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF UHI PIPING NCR CEB 79-36 10 CFR 50.55(e)

FINAL REPORT Description of Condition The seismic analysis of record for the 12-inch UHI piping in unit 2, from the gas to the water accumulators, is the unit 1 analysis since the piping is opposite hand. However, the building which houses the unit 2 UHI piping is physically different from the unit 1 building.

This requires the use of a different seismic response spectra in the piping analysis for unit 2.

This discrapancy'was overlooked in the original seismic analysis.

Safety Implications Had this condition gone uncorrected, the safety-related UHI piping could have been adversely affected during a seismic event.

Corrective t.ction The unit 2 piping will be reanalyzed using the appropriate seismic response spectra. Any required hardware modifications will be com-pleted before unit 2 fuel loading.

1707 282 3 L2-5001099 84l>