ML20236U187

Summary of 870916 Meeting W/Util in Bethesda,Md Re Proposed & Ongoing Civil & Seismic Programs at Plant.Attendance List & Viewgraphs Encl

ML20236U187
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	11/23/1987
From:	Gears G NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
To:	NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
References
IEB-79-02, IEB-79-14, IEB-79-2, TAC-0015, TAC-0016, TAC-0017, TAC-0019, TAC-0020, TAC-0021, TAC-0022, TAC-0023, TAC-0024, TAC-0158, TAC-0159, TAC-0160, TAC-15, TAC-158, TAC-159, TAC-16, TAC-160, TAC-17, TAC-19, TAC-20, TAC-21, TAC-22, TAC-23, TAC-24, TAC-59517, TAC-59518, TAC-59519, TAC-60867, TAC-60868, TAC-60869, NUDOCS 8712020347
Download: ML20236U187 (78)

Text

'r o p aea k

'o,, UNITED STATES

[ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 74 ;j h . m . * '$ W l3 W l Docket Nos. 50-259/260/296 LICENSEE: Tennessee Valley Authority FACILITY: Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16,1987 BETWEEN i TVA AND NRC CONCERNING THE BROWNS FERRY CIVIL / SEISMIC  !

PROGRAMS (TAC # 60867,60868,60869)  !

On September 16, 1987, a meeting was held in Bethesda between the NRC staff and representatives of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA or the licensee) for the purpose of discussing the the proposed.and ongoing Civil and Seismic programs at Browns Ferry. The meeting provided an opportunity for the NRC staff to have l and overview of the seismic issues and proposed programs at Browns Ferry. In 1 addition the licensee provided detailed descriptions of the Browns Ferry l programs to resolve IE Bulletin 79-02 and 79-14 issues as well as addressing l the issues of secondary containment penetrations which do not meet TVA's FSAR l commitments.

{

l Attachment 1 is the list of attendees. Attachment 2 contains the licensee's i slides and meeting handouts.  !

TVA's presentation included an overview of the following civil / seismic programs:

Torus Modifications-Torus attached piping and torus internal structures Piping and Pipe Supports (IE Bulletins 79-02 & 79-14)

Cable Tray Supports Hvac Ductwork and Supports Control Rod Drive Piping and Supports Small Bore Piping Supports i Drywell Steel Platforms '

Miscellaneous Steel Evaluations  ;

Seismic Class II over I l Secondary Containment Penetrations.

The staff asked whether these topics were the outcome of a generic review of '

the implementation of the Browns Ferry FSAR seismic design criteria. TVA indicated that although these programs were not the specific outcome of a '

generic seismic reevaluation program, the completion of all current TVA programs would assure Browns Ferry compliance with the FSAR commitments or the results of these programs would identify additional problems which would require resolution.

l 8712O20347 871123 i PDR HDOCK 05000259 O PDR 9

1 l

The following areas were identified by the staff as requiring TVA follow-up- '

1. Were weld evaluations included in the program addressing the adequacy of cable tray tray supports? (Tac # 59517,59518,59519) i

2. What is the basis for assuming damping values as high as 10-15% for conduits when test data from other projects and industry sources are in the range of 2-7%? (Tac # 00022, 00023, 00024)  !

3. Will Phase I of the IEB 79-02 and 79-14 program be able to identify multiple deficiencies in adjacent supports for the same system?

(Tac # 00015, 00016, 00017) l 4 What percentage of the Phase II walkdowns and stress analysis i l

problems will be completed for the 79-02 and 79-14 program prior to Unit 2 restart? (Tac # 00015,00016,00017)

5. What is the capacity of the Standby Gas Treatment System to maintain  !

negative pressure within the secondary containment following a Design i Basis Earthquake assuming all non-seismically qualified piping and l penetrations failed except those on the main steam and feedwater systems? (TAC # 00019,00020,00021) l As part of its review effort, the staff agreed to make a determination on the l

acceptability of using the loading combinations applied during the long-term I torus modification program to resolve IEB 79-02 and 79-14 issues. This would be in lieu of current FSAR commitments. The staff also indicated that it would take in consideration the following items: l

1. The appropriate licensing method of revising an FSAR commitment, j (TAC # 00019, 00020, 00021)

2. TVA's interpretation of the SRP 3.7.1 in reference to the use of an i Artificial Time History. The staff will develop specific questions on this issue and provide them to TVA shortly. (TAC # 00158, 00159, 00160)

Due to the complexity of these issues, both staff and TVA agreed that further meetings on each specific area would be required. TVA proposed a prioritization of the above issues and requested that the staff start its review process on 79-02 and 79-14 issues and the containment penetration issue.

The staff agreed to this proposal.

Original signed by:

i Gerald E. Gears, Project Manager TVA Projects Division Office of Special Projects Attachments:

1. Attendees List

2. TVA slides of its presentation cc w/ attachments:

See next page /- ,

OSP:TVA/ lag VAIPM 0 VA/PM T . /P CJamerson dw J g .

G hc(

g/p/87 l /g ll 87 g\/4/87

The following areas were identified by the staff as requiring TVA follow-up:

1. Were weld evaluations included in the program addressing the'ade'quacy of cable tray tray supports? (Tac # 59517,59518,59519)

2. What is the basis for assuming damping values as high as 10-15% for conduits when test data from other projects and industry sources are in the range of 2-7%? (Tac # 00022, 00023, 00024)

3. Will Phase I of the IEB 79-02 and 79-14 program be able to identify multiple deficiencies in adjacent supports for the same system?

(Tac # 00015, 00016, 00017) 4 What percentage of the Phase II walkdowns and stress analysis problems will be completed for the 79-02 and 79-14 program prior to Unit 2 restart? (Tac # 00015,00016,00017)

5. What is the capacity of the Standby Gas Treatment System to maintain negative pressure within the secondary containment following a Design l Basis Earthquake assuming all non-seismically qualified piping and penetrations failed except those on the main steam and feedwater systems? (TAC # 00019,00020,00021)

As part of its review effort, the staff agreed to make a determination on the acceptability of using the loading combinations applied during the long-term z torus modification program to resolve IEB 79-02 and 79-14 issues. This would be in lieu of current FSAR commitments. The staff also indicated that it would take in consideration the following items:

1.

The (TACappropriate licensing)

1. 00019, 00020, 00021 method of revising an FSAR commitment.

2. TVA's interpretation of the SRP 3.7.1 in reference to the use of an 1 Artificial Time History. The staff will develop specific questions on i this issue and provide them to TVA shortly. (TAC # 00158, 00159, 00160)  !

Due to the complexity of these issues, both staff and TVA agreed that further meetings on each specific area would be required. TVA proposed a priorit.zation of the above issues and requested that the staff start its review process on 79-02 and 79-14 issues and the containment penetration issue.

The staff agreed to this proposal.

ar .

er ld E. Ge s, Pr ject Manager TV Projects ivi on fice of Specia Projects Attachments:

1. Attendees List

2. TVA slides of its presentation cc w/ attachments:

See next page

1 e .

i Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant i Mr. S. A. White .

Tennessee Valley Authority , Units 1, 2,:and 3 ,

cc: -l General. Counsel Regional Administrator, Region II Tennessee Valley Authority U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1

. 400 West Summit Hill Drive 101 Marietta Street, N.W.  !

E11 B33 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 -j Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Resident 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. Richard King Mr. H. P. Pomrehn c/o U.S..GA0 Tennessee Valley Authority 1111 North Shore Drive Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Suite.225, Box 194 P.O. Box 2000 Knoxville, Tennessee 37919 Decatur, Alabama 35602 Dr. Henry Myers, Science Advisor Mr. M. J. May Committee on Interior I

. Tennessee Valley Authority and Insular Affairs Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant U.S. House of' Representatives i P.O. Box 2000 Washington, D.C. 20515 Decatur, Alabama 35602 Mr. S. A. White Mr. D. L. Williams Manager of Nuclear Power i Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive 6N 38A Lookout Place W10 B85 -

1101 Market Street l Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 I Chairman, Limestone County Commission P.O. Box 188 Athens, Alabama 35611 l

Claude Earl Fox, M.D.

State Health Officer State Department of Public Health State Office Building i Montgomery, Alabama 36130 i

- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ = _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _-____-__0

e ,

ATTACHMENT 1 Attendance September 16, 1987 Name Organization J. D. Wolcott' BFN Licensing John Stang NRC/0SP Gerry Gears -NRC/OSP Thomas M. Cheng NRC/0SP G. L. Paulk NRC/BFNP SRI Al Ignatonis NRC/OSP-Ajoy Banerjee SWEC Don R. Denton TVA/DNE

5. M. Kane TVA/ Licensing Emory F. Thomas Proj. Mgmt/TVA Rick Cutsinger TVA/DNE W. S. Lillte NRC/0SP Steven P. Harris TVA/ Licensing John A. Zwolinski NRC/OSP/TVA M. J. May TVA/ Licensing Claude N. Simms BFN/DNE Andrew Fok Bechtel Patrick Carier TVA/ Licensing T. G. Chapman TVA/BFE R. H. Hermann TVA/BF I

i l

l

. R  ;

'i 1

I i

l TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY l k

l BROWNS. FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT

-1 CIVIL / SEISMIC ' PROGRAMS 1

SEPTEMBER 16, 19s7

)

l i

l l

l

)

e,

il 1

80 4*

l l

8 PARTICIPANTS  !

. NRC TVA i JIM uGLCOTT <Lic.> ,

ROBERT HERMANN

< Prod. Mgat. > GERALD GEARS EMORY THOMAS (DNE> . TOM CHENG CLAUDE SIMMS I DON DENTON ( D N E )'

T- GERRY CHAPMAN (DNE) 1 e.

o ne O

1 i

u------.--._______.____ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1 l

AGENDA SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 WEDNESDAY.

10:30 AM INTRODUCTION. *

,l OVERVIEW OF SEISMIC PROGRAMS 10:4S AM 11:4S AM LUNCH 1:00 PM REVIEW OF CURRENT SUBMITTALS -

CONTROL ROD ORIVE SUPPORTS CONDUITS CABLE TRAYS 2:00 PM TECHNICAL PRESENTATION -

SUPPORTS PIPING AND PIPE & 79-14) i' - <IE BULLETINS 79-02

+ 3: 1S PM TECHNICAL PRESENTATION - I SECONDARY CONTAINMENT' l

PENETRATIONS f

4: 30 PM MEETING CLOSURE .

6 g

/'.

e

SEISMIC DESIGN PROGRAMS SECTION 3:

DESCRIBED IN VOLUME III.

TORUS MODIFICATIONS -

TORUS ATTACHED PIPING TORUS INTERNAL STRUCTURES

• PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORTS (IE BULLETINS 79-02 & 79-14)

CABLE TRAYS SUPPORTS CONDUIT SUPPORTS HVAC DUCTWORK AND SUPPORTS CONTROL ROD DRIVE PIPING AND . SUPPORTS

> c SMALL BORE P I P I NG- SUPPORTS o

DRYWELL STEEL PLATFORMS MISCELLANEOUS STEEL EVALUATION SEISMIC CLASS II OVER I j

• SECONDARY CONTAINMENT PENETRATIONS -,

• = DETAILED TECHNICAL ,

PRESENTATIONS

_ ____ . _ _ . . . -___._________-m _ _ _.- -

e . .

s

.j SEISMIC DESIGN PROGRAMS DESCRIBED IN VOLUME III. SECTION 3:

l TORUS MODIFICATIONS -

l TORUS ATTACHED PIPING TORUS INTERNAL STRUCTURES 1

SUPPORTS j

• PIPING AND PIPE (IE BULLETINS 79-02 & 79-14) '

l l

CABLE TRAYS SUPPORTS l CONOUIT SUPPORTS HVAC DUCTWORK AND SUPPORTS CONTROL ROD ORIVE PIPING AND SUPPORTS 1'

,e SMALL BORE PIPING SUPPORTS i H

DRYWELL STEEL PLATFORMS MISCELLANEOUS STEEL EVALUATION SEISMIC CLASS II OVER I .

• SECONDARY CONTAINMENT PENETRATIONS #.

b 1

.----3

$ I 9

REVIEW OF CURRENT ,

CIVIL / SEISMIC SUBMITTALS u APRIL 8, 1987 SUBMITTAL:

PROGRAMS IN CONOUITS CABLE TRAYS CONTROL ROD ORIVE SUPPORTS PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORTS

( IE BULLETINS 79-02 & 79-14) f','

7e I

l l

s. l e

W 9

1

l . 1

, . J l

CABLE TRAY QUALIFICATION PROGRAM INTERIM QUALIFICATION l

INTERIPl CRITERIA .

PLANT WALKOOWN AND CALCULATION

- MODIFICATIONS 1

SER ISSUED FEBRUARY ' 8 ~7 LONG TERM QUALIFICATION l i

NUREG 1030 METHODOLOGY 1 e P i

d* e

,A s O

l l

l L__________________________________________________________

1 4 v l

l l

1 g

CONDUIT QUALIFICATION PROGRAM l 1 i

INTERIM QUALIFICATION

- INTERIM CRITERIA ,

PLANT WALMDOWN AND CALCULATION

- MODIFICATIONS

- REVIEW AND APPROVE INTERIM QUALIFICATION 1 1

LONG TERM QUALIFICATION  ;

l 1

I -

NUREG 1030 METHODOLOGY

- p ,

i o

I 4

4 l

l o _ ____

0 8 CONTROL ROD ORIVE PIPING HYDRAULIC INSERT AND WITHORAWAL

<CROH> SYSTEM LINES QUALIFICATION PROGRAM

- CAQ .

- CROH, SYSTEM MUST MEET BOTH HIGH RE'QUIREMENTS THERMAL AND SEISMIC

- GAPS BETWEEN PIPING AND SUPPORTS

- TESTING AND I N DU ST R'Y STUDIES P,*

1 I

-. \

O e

e

_ _ _ _ _ _ -_________m_m__m _ _ _ _

1 I

i l

l I

l

. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION i 1

PROGRAM COMPARISON l I

i i

1 i

t I

e 9

k

o .

i i

l

)

EQ Program Comparison

. INCLUDED PROGRAM ELEMENTS AT SON DIFFERENCES MAJOR MINOR NOTES l

Equipment Identification YES NO

( 10 CFR SOA9 List)

Identification of Cateoory and YES NO Operating Times Information Category b(2) Equipment ~ YES N0 Identification Environmental Parameter YES NO Drawings Enviro.nmenta10 qualification YES YES V A Documentation Prokes (ECDP)

Field Verification of installed YES NO 1 Equipment -

,' I Qualification Maintenance Date YES NO Sheets .

l 1

NOTES: A. Some Browns Ferry equipment is qualified to the D0R guidelines due to the age of the equipment and the vintage of the plant.

1 m

N-

~

0

A V E T M G S N T A I E E E R B M O L

S 1 A Y . I A 1 R W 3 E L B T A A M

I S

T I O I N E N I A R S U D N H E S I O T S S

_ D I I A A

_ T WC

_ S C O Y M E E E T T E S C M

_ I T N O D

_ L  : S E A S E

_ D

. I N Y M L

_ B R S S R N L A E A OI O

_ E C A C R

_ C N V D C S T S

_ A O T N A T N T

_ R C A N O N

_ T N N E C E ,

_ E I 1 I M M

_ E E . E Y E D Y D 1 E R L R O O E 3 D I E I C L L B N U T U P L Q A Q T M A I L E U E A E T S A R Q R

_ E

• S N N E l

l N A O S D A

_ I I S A V

- O T A T S T I L T G D C O T N S D N E I S A AI M T T W I S

_ T N D I. A D WE I E T E F M N R N L T E I O S L D I M U I L A N M E QT A T A M R E C I S

- E C O U C

R E S

R N E I P O A T

_ I P

R P

V T

A M

S T

N S E A M

T L I L M E M W O

C S A

A V S T S A

H L T C I

W Y B

E S C L K N O A A R E I T R L N B P O T M C S N O S A C E A L D L P E N I C C I V R N O Y O A D R F F I N P I J L U T O O N N P _

O M F T E _

I O D _

T C T M I _

C O A _

A T N R Y  :

N G L .

E M N E L O T V E R M A R C I L T E T I P E T B C C I R R C O E N M E L R

_ E R R O M T O O R P R C O A R C R O C M T O F C E N S C O E R E O G O Y O C C ,

N T T O F A I N L L L W E M P T P A A T A M N E I R X R E A R R D E G L E O O P R T A E' R T O AR V N P E ME T I D T E' B M E N A D E M E R N O U 5 S U R E I P L R I N U h T F S A G V S E E E V P E S D D R E U R A i! I l l' i '  ! ! t

~

(

I 1

l 1

MODERATE i

l ENERGY I l

i

(

LINE BREAK  !

l 1

l -

ANALYSIS l

l COMPARISON

~ .

l l ,

1 1  :

l e>

-- -----4 .. ..,..,.%__. . , _ , _ _ , . , , , , , _

_ .m____..____._-_.___._-._m_.___ __ _-_ .._ _ _

$ e g I

l l

l MODERATE ENERGY LIRE BREAK I

- SCRBFNNEB8510 IDENTIFIED LACK 0F ADEQUATE DOCUMENTATION SIMILAR CONCERNS IDENTIFIED FOR SON & WBN PROGRAM FOR BFN WILL BE SAME AS SON i

e 4

O

- - ...e.- -

l- , , . l l

l l MODERATF ENERGY LINE BREAK (MELB) FLOODING EVALUATION l

.l ISSUE. ,

SCRFBNNEB8513R0 IDENTIFIED THAT BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE DOCUMENTATION CONCERNING THE  ;

EVALUATION OF FLOODING EFFECTS DUE TO MODERATE ENERGY LINE i BREAKS (MELB) OUTSIDE OF PRIMARY CONTAINMENT.

g n l

4

+-er .

4 N

e

-** mere.es -. -, g

4 4 MAJOR ELEMENTS OF BFNP MELB FLOODING STUDY INCLUDED MAJOR ELEMENTS OF MODERATE AT NO MAJOR MINOR NOTE ENERGY LINE BREAK FLOODING STUDY SQN DIFFERENCE CHANGE CHANGE

' REVIEW PLANT ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS' YES X l PROJECT INSTRUCTION FOR FLOODING EVALUATION YES X A DESIGN CRITERIA PREPARATION YES X B IDENTIFICATION OF FLOODING AREAS YES X WALKDOWN TO IDENTIFY FLOOD PARAMETERS YES X 1

IDENTIFICATION OF FLOOD SOURCES YES X l IDENTIFICATION OF SUBMERGED EQUIPMENT YES X l DOCUMENTATION OF DETECTION / ISOLATION METHODS YES X CALCULATION OF LIMITING FLOOD LEVELS YES X

]

IDENTIFICATION OF SAFE SHUTDOWN METHODS YES X NON-SAFE SHUTDOWN LOAD ANALYSIS YES I CRACK EXCLUSION ANALYSIS YES X I STRUCTURAL LOAD ASSESSMENT YES X

~

REFINED STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS YES X ,

1 EVALUATION OF FLOOD EFFECTS FOR EACH ZONE YES X l PREPARATION OF FINAL

SUMMARY

REPORT YES X DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMMENDED CORRECTIVE ACTION YES X VERIFICATION WALKDOWN YES X

~

NOTES:

A. The Project Instruction Will Be Similar For Plant Specific Differences B. The Project Instruction Will Be Similar Except For Plant Specific Differences

t l

RESOLUTION l

- DEVELOP TASK SCOPING DOCUMENT INCLUDE SON ELEMENTS

• DEFINE BFN UNIQUE REQUIREMENTS 1

l 1

l -

- ASSIGN TO TASK PERFORMANCE CONTRACTOR 1

REVIEW FINAL REPORT

' ~

- IMPLEMENT RECOMMENDED CORRECTIVE ACT10NS e

m m w 1

I

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

e

m 9 g a 1 9e

{]

., . .. a L .a .. P.. . 0

~

3E?MC3Y3X:? :?3dG3AM i

. 330WNS FE3RY XUC2A3 ?E.?

4 i

N3C :?33SkrAT::0X BETi3SJA, YJ SK?"EY333 15,1987

n i

)

~ l TECHNICAL ISSUE l

• Problem - TVA's procurement program could allow previously l

qualified equipment to be degraded by purchasing replacement j

components and parts as commercial grade, without documentation  !

of its qualification and without adequate dedication of the items l I

by TVA.

i

• Identifi'ed by - TVA Nuclear Safety Review Staff reports, l 1

1' R-84-17-NPS, I-83-13-NPS, and R-85-07-NPS. NRC Inspection  !

Report 50-327, 328/86-61.

i

!

• BFN problem is identical to Sequoyah.

• Issue covers three major areas:

• Evaluation of previously installed piece parts i

• Evaluation of existing present inventory of piece parts l

for safety-related application

• Procurement process control

- - - - - - - - ~ - - _ _ , _

~

1 l

PREVIOUSLY INSTALLED PIECE PARTS

• Records search to determine piece parts replacement activity completed:

• Approximately 500,000 records searched and sorted from date of unit 2 startup

> Approximately 100,000 records (MRs, TRs, and 575s) applicable to unit 2

• Evaluation of 50.49 equipment established as pre-startup activity:

- Approximately 1,400 components rennited to be evaluated j

• Approximately 1,000 completed to date

> 46 CAQRs issued

• 150 replacement items identified by EQ Project and scheduled for change-out

- Problems mainly due to paperwork

• Scheduled completion date:

• 50.49 equipment - October 1987

- Remaining safety-related equipment - March 1988

. g

. l INVENTORY PROGRAM .

'

• Evaluate present inventory of piece parts for safety-related .

I application .

• Approximately 5,500 inventoried QA Level I/II items to be replaced or evaluated:

t a Estimate a minimum of 500 items will require evaluation

• 50.49 piece parts established as pre-startup activity:

,' s 22 Of 137 items evaluated to date

- Scheduled completion date; a 50.49 piece parts - December 1987 '

m Remaining safety-related equipment - April 1988

• Conditionally released piece parts l

• Approximately 7,500 issues require evaluation - none

- evaluated to date:

a Scheduled completion date is April 1988 1

+.

i I

P30CUREYES" ? ROC 3SS C0Y30L I

1 1

• Ongoing Procurement EG reviews all purchase requests / stock reorders for appropriate QA level. EG defines dedication

' process and initated dedication package for all QA level 11 procurement.

Corporate program for pre-engineered procurement specifications 0

l BROWNS FERRY /SEQUOYAH COMPARISON BFN SQN REMARIG ITEM Piece Part Records search Computer maint- BFN maintenance l

enance program activities not Identification sort computerized 10 CFR 50.49 Pre-startup Pre-startup Seismic Evalu-ation A46 Pre-startup 46 6 Lack of procurement Number of Piece Parts with Pro- paper trail due to blems identified number of years  !

since date of criticality (Sequoyah data is more recent)

Total Number of 1,arger Longer maintenance Items to Evaluate history Inventory Eval-untion Yes Yes Procurement Pro-cess Control Yes Yes I

e ^ b l

J BROWNS FERRY /SEQUOYAH COMPARISON I

ITEM BFN SQN REMARKS Piece Part Records search Computer maint- BFN maintenance identification enance program activities not sort computerized i

10 CFR 50.49 Pre-startup Pre-startup l

l l Seismic Evalu-ation A46 Pre-startup Number of Piece 46 6 Lack of procurement  !

Parts with Pro- paper trail due to blems Identified number of years since dat'e of criticality (Sequoyah data is more recent) ,

Total Number of Larger Longer maintenance Items to Evaluate history l

Inventory Eval-untion Yes Yes Procurement Pro-cess Control Yes Yes .

l 1 .l i

r u- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ __]

oe i sR v

r/

ets pc uri se t a

M g

i n

r

,e yd re t

in p on isi laa u o

vr n g

u eE Qgr p

..i nG u sit r r l t

_ e ee o r

o u

g t Q a .i n n ng o an C l ME ,r o

rt on h

u u

a i so vC

~

s u

s r r - r e e

oe oc

_ e c ey pt

~ g i _

c n v uli l

r a

a

- en S au r ur _

. n t

oNus .

~

~

e a S .o t i

Q cf s eoA _

~

itM l a c c e r S y .i S ny

. i

.. D oi t t n

- i h

- 'il _ l isa _

~

~ a c vu u e Q T e

- iD

~

~

Q c n

- .a r:n

" os e yp ~ v

" t iu .-

ivr r

l a o r

-. es p

uy Q

uG _.

sit

. l

" a

" .e rc Q u

en ga ar m

n us e.

r t o g w a s n n e e t.

t c ic y F A -

,m r n ._

re e e a r ov i

D er ,

o so ir nu vpt r

ig s em pi e

t n s .

j i

S E A st i i

h i

t o in n .

r l

iN l

w N d Q " ., .

S S7rg r in o :n T f oo N

i m *" . ct E aln r

g nf u M o r

ed n

M P p. a O O"u kc e C e oa TNl h p T

A f D E

f DN s , , s s s s s s a UO LS Y e

y e ,

y Y e e y Y e e y Y e

Y e

t C _

S N I __

A Q .

s e F F i t

e t A i l

T i

i b

S S s e l i

s n

EE e g

c a

oo tr p H

T C n f r

s s se ns n N a e 'ri oe n n o e i o

FA h t n

t i ei gi t

l CR o i i

t c

C l i i t OR I b ab d d n t

c c e U e e ss i

n i s nn o e e S SS r u

c 'r n an aa i S S t TS t n eo gp M op gs t

c g e n c a NA u _ ru os es ni e e n c e E r ne ce itr u S i r n m M TY t _.

. s s oR nR e l e a e eD l

v a o e S_A _

l Y

EI M d rd n r n i

e o L L o

_. g n ._. yn u n i g r s -

t n

i g v r p

EA s r .

s a U i t _ n t

i a n 'e . o E

n u m

las _

a _ r i

Ase Eg . C S _. i RQ z . e e

ue yi y a _ ty y y __

y n

O J E in _ n Qit u

t t iu i t

a . i t

i_

t i

t .

a _ ig eD l

aD lam la o t

o ATI g

r n t u u _u u la__

u u MS i

O E S Q Q -

Q Q Q_ .

Q

QUALITY IMPROVEMENT (OI) PROGRAM The GI organization was assigned specific responsibilities which include the following.

O Monitor Quality Performance e Quality Trending Program implemented; l Periodic Repcrts Issued.

e Trend analysis performed routinely (1) to da te) a Work With Line Manaaement to Succort .H l I

Performance Action Teams (5) initiated and typical problems resolved.

e Socket weld fitup conflicts between codes, drawings, and NDE criteria.

e Quality questions (12) concerning RHRSW pump installation resolved.

e Welding problems (Electrical Modifications) resol ved.

e High workplan rejection -- rejection rate has decreased over 50%.

D Root Cause Analysis / Assessment e Eight Root Cause Analysis / Assessments opened, working. l a CA Coer5ticnaj/ Star:::o Re?auiness As.=us :an : '

. in j Plan written and issued. j l

l l

3

s g

got n

S ic g e-T anr ia N lpn s.

r r w m E M

t o

n o dm f r e n at i

s oh a M O iNnl ci de ot r C Oo nl sn ore a

g o T r A D D E _

DN s 3 3 s 3 s s 3 s UO e y

e y

e e y

e e e e_. e n LS C

Y Y Y Y y.V o N I

i t .

c .

A it s

e

)

i n

o il s i t

c e M A

i t

i e b i

s A) eo l

v n l

R i b o ivr G i s p t t

n i

O n s c n o t o e eo i t

R p R rC c c

r s P s s oe A F e n Cc la e

t n

R v e ON io la er n o v e g n

s g

mi i

r r O t p

t c a r SI TT e _ a w_i z id r ._.

e uc _ s p - e e g

d n

T r NC i e n me _. no _

A - rr .

a e r e n

T- cn

. o EA v a eR _ i _. no C o M E R e

O g

r R( . . t

(

s a

c it f

M a /

g-.

a E

LIV c o in- m C

i t

o l

t n n p A k r ET e le b ne m e n

t

c. fo _

C mi om i v

o _ g a n _

e . sn i

r RE i i t n o _

t e c t a i T C _

OR g _

o lari i

r c c t r

JR _an _ p s

o cq u e n

e r

i f o p

R Q

n AO i

. r r _

a e se e o e e A .

io MC M _ R ER .

G C V R C t

,L 7 ~

g1 ' it  ! L

- 1

E;

• W S' , l h i l

\

1 4

i

~

M LDING PROJEET CHARTER  !

)

i EXAMINE THE ORGANIZATIONAL WELDING PROGRAMS IN TVA, DETERMINE ANY REMEDIAL ACTIONS THAT MAY BE NEEDED, AND TAKE THOSE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO ASSURE THAT FUTURE TVA PERFORMED WELDING ACTIVITIES ARE IN ACCORD WlTH TVA'S COMMITMENT TO EXCELLENCE IN ITS NUCLEAR l

PROGRAM.

l I

VERIFY THAT THE TVA PERFORMED WELD 1NG OF STRUCTURES, PlPlNG SYSTEMS, AND OTHER SAFETY-RELATED PLANT COMPONENTS, WHICH ARE CURRENTLY IN PLACE AT TVA'S NUCLEAR PLANTSNE ADEQUATE TO MEET TVA, CODE, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, S

4

m , , , . , . , m c. .

PURPOSE PHASE I THE PRIMARY PURPOSES OF PHASE I ARE T0:

0 ENSURE THAT THE TVA PROGRAM, DESIGN, DOCUMENTS, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES CORRECTLY REFLECT TVA COMMITMENTS AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 0 IDENTIFY AND CATEGORIZE CONCERNS / DEFICIENCIES IN THE WEl. DING PROGRAM 1

PHASE II l

l THE PRIMARY PURPOSES OF PHASE II ARE T0:

0 EVALUATE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROCEDURES 0 VERIFY THAT INSTALLED WELDMENTS MEET REQUIREMENTS OR ARE ADEQUATE FOR SERVICE o CORRECT ANY PROBLEMS, IMPLEMENT CHANGES TO PREVENT RECURRENCE PHASE III i

THE PRIMARY PURPOSES OF PHASE III ARE T0: l 0 EVALUATE PROGRAM MODIFICATION EFFECTIVENESS 0 ISSUE FINAL REPORT DNE4 - 0632

x 5 WELDING PROJECT

~

PHASE I ACTION PLAN 4

1. REVIEW TVA WELDING RELATED REGULATORY COMMITMENTS I

2. VERIFY THAT WRITTEN PROGRAM REFLECTS COMMITMENTS 0 DETERMINE THAT WELDING RELATED COMMITMENTS ARE REFLECTED IN DESIGN OUTPUT i

l 0 DETERMINE THAT CONSTRUCTION AND NUCLEAR OPERATIONS

PROGRAMS AS APPLICABLE REFLECT DESIGN OUTPUT AND QUALITY  !

l REQUIREMENTS

3. ASSEMBLE WELDING PROGRAM QUALITY INDICATORS.(INCLUDING EMPLOYEE WELDING CONCERNS) BY TYPE AND PLANT l

l l 4. ANALYZE AND EVALUATE EFFECT OF QUALITY INDICATORS ON PROGRAMS

5. ISSUE ADEQUACY STATEMENT REGARDING WRITTEN PROGRAMS TO IMPLEMENT / CONTROL WELDING DNE4 - 0632

~ --

FINDINGS OF SEQUOYAH AND BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT PHASE I REPORT SE0110YAH SQN WAS DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED, AND OPERATED UNDER WRITTEN PROGRAMS THAT PROPERLY REFLECT WELDING COMMITMENTS.

BROWNS FERRY BFN WAS DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED, AND OPERATED UNDER WRITTEN PROGRAMS THAT PROPERLY REFLECT WELDING COMMITMENTS.

DNEli - 0632

4;; . .

i 1

WELDING PROJECT I

PHASE II ACTION PLAN

1. PERFORM WELDING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AUDIT - CONSTRUCTION i

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION - OPERATIONS PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

2. PERFORM REINSPECTION 1

3. IMPLEMENT ANY ADDITIONAL REINSPECTION AND DEFICIENCY j RESOLUTIONS (BOTH INDIVIDUAL AND GENERIC CASES) 1 j

4. WELDING PROJECT WILL ISSUE PHASE II REPORT

.=. . . = .

=*

DNE4 - 0632

'9 c;

9 , 7 fh[ihp PHASE 11 DIFFERENCES I SEQUOYAH BROWNS FERRY 2 UNITS 3 UNITS ITEMS SELECTED FOR REINSPECTION:

333 PROCESS PIPE WELDS 391 PROCESS PIPE WEl.DS AUXILIARY FEEDWATER EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT COOLING WATER DG DIESEL GENERATOR EECW RB REACTOR BUILDING EECW i

CAUSTIC BATCH TANK DIESEL GENERATOR  !

DISCHARGE STARTING AIR {

COMPONENT COOLING RHR SERVICE WATER CHEMICAL AND VOLUME RHR SYS' TEM DRAIN PUMPS CONTROL DISCHARGE q ESSENTIAL AIR DIESEL GENERATOR FUEL- .

l OIL SYSTEM ESSENTIAL RAW COOLING FUEL P00L COOLING SYSTEM WATER INSTRUMENT SENSING LINES STANDBY LIQUID CONTROL l SYSTEM .._. _ ___ _ _. - .

INSTRUMENT SENSING LINES 15 HVAC SPIRAL WELDED 21 HVAC PIPE DUCT WELDS PIPE DUCT WELDS 50 STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS 70 STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS DNEt4 - 0632

. a=

STATUS i

SEQUOYAH BROWNS FERRY PHASE 1 COMPLETE COMPLETE EVALUATION COMPLETE COMPLETE REPORT COMPLETE COMPLETE l

l I

PHASE II COMPLETE COMPLETE AUDIT COMPLETE COMPLETE INSPECTION COMPLETE COMPLETE EVALUATION COMPLETE COMPLETE REPORT C_0MPLET.E._ .

SCHEDULED ISSUE 9/30/8.7

~

DNE4 - 0632

(

. e.

• s

, 1 i #

. NEE. TING O8JECTIVES .

79-14/79-02 PROGRAM BROWNS FEAAY UNI.T 2 t

l

\ -

y O PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND', STATUS PEVIEW OF. DOCKETED MATERIALS ,,

OBTAIN NAC FEEDBACK a

$ 4 6

i

.t p

s E

c .

. C

'O -

O C

CL (0 L.L

~

D O C Z W O

' LO y .. _

O c l--

W Z C C O (.D J O W O.

3 C Z E L.d , CL W O

c. - E O -

> L.L I G -

O (D G s

LD

- O ',.

> W J LL- '

- O Z CL -

W - E O -

E O. J O - '

C O H O O O

e G O D O i

l 0 CD O c _J . - .

O C s o

CL o o o m

b .

~x---___-----__---_----_--..--_._.-_--._

L L

. A - D E

D R .

N .

E A .

V

. O A C E

T E A R

. E A M A E G S T E S D T

._ M Y N A R S A L A

P G I A E E S O S T ) A R S E N B P A M O L A M G 4 C I M N D O I 1 A .

C N

- NG ) I 9 G IN A N I D N M

., 7 I SP N O E T EI A M M R D k HP C- 2 O (

- N 0 C P NI E A .

P I T P .

U S I D N N O 2 S 2S U A C 0 /A [ S S 1L 2 -

R C S 4 9 . O 2 M T I 1 7 H D E -

C GE L N 9 F N NZ B U ( 7 A IY O O PL G)

D IA R P S NS E N PN T IM P ,

A A S R TA O

< I Y S S O AA S E P 0G C '

S E SL E A P P0 S N TA AU SS I S T U PA I T M S 4 S UP L LO I E S T P CR T T E E R 5 E S LG O SE L A LI N SY P P I I EH L B AR A S P P TT U AO U L B O PA 2 4 9 EE C 0 1 N 7 1 SD F 5 AN A 9 9 1 B 3 2 3 1

BU N 7 7

V

• e 4 ,

j W O ~

Z

• G .

O. *

]

O

. U)

W -

. l Q .

W -

l ts O C Z W ,

U)

U) G. C Z J Z O Q. O.

f. - E G H O E a g O .g o J W u. I O c O O o j

C > Z l W O O.

O J H W Z D

J J D

G U) (n c , c La ^

1 C c. O M,_

W U1 I

M H W Z  !

O- E 'O .

W l N D. G H O U) w G- I Z c O y - C - ,

e Z Z H b

~ 3 J O J O - O w.

p O D E M G3

• D .J e W

. O c 4n c

Z W

n' 3 E

J >= W '

G LA. J H - Q.

- C E

, W W -

Z > I

• I l  ; ,

- - - t l

W W W <

(/) U) U) '

c G. G '

Z Z Z G. Q. O.

i

M -

A ,.

R -

G .

O -

R _

P -

s J _

2 ' -

0 /

• l S y -

- _ N I O

9 S N

I T -

t 7 N W A s *

/

4 W

O D

Y c

n S

E Y

EN TA Y

C S I DD .

0 ' _

O D

K C

L U z_n o o -

4'""

E 1

K L

A W

A P

E?

A AP UE LA AC 4

nQ EA U

SF E .n L

A V

L o""

uA L

C E

n e s

u s ;_ '

9 m

. VS EI D

Sl It

_ A N

• T E l i

i I

• L - I 7 T I _ F I

N r

• O C _

Y A

• "' l A _

E

• _

F _

U S ,

N _

W 4 _

O _

R _

B _

I I

_ I I I _

I _

E E

_ S E _ S A S A _ H R _ H P H P _

- P _

l

M R S A E G T 0 U .

A E P B I

P ~

R O 4 T C 1

)

T S -

I A 9

) 4 7 I I

1 T

- F L 9 O E O E 7 S B S E A R A N P H O I e P H C H P S S ( C

( T N R N N A O I W C 1

- P E P S O E A N U R D P U W S O K S D

H E O D C L E T C D N N ) A P S O

' K A A E A

W O N C O P A

L G N U S C A N O D N .

D W

I I E O 4 N E P S F C I 1 E S L I N F O T - G I A P A O A P I A 9 F E P -

7 -

I F X N E C F R T O E G N SW A I F A O t I

I F O TA N -N N S F S O H I N O D P R N D G W O I

W Y K E

W I O W T L F O L S D K D E R AAWO V D D K I N

K D Y L L V P (

O L A T AAW A E A J

W R E L9 9 T I W N A P' 6 I

%

• G - A  % A 0 0 0 N I A 0 T D -

0 0 1 1 I

S H D N U 0 BO N2 6 1 8 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0

~

1

V

$ 4 e

8: .

m

.)

H .

w M .

E O ,

.d a

. . C H

C.

(n Z

Z

, O E

i > O U) -

.C o .

, m .

l & O Z

W O $

'c Z C h s

M a N LLI O $ D H Z - O -

l E C "

g Z'

' .. m 1 d..

H O')

Z O

Z

. g O

O -

U) Z tg s ,

a D - C i H - H W m M

- C g W

p

~

m o Z z p

z

' 2 *

! G D W '"*

k O O .W O "

Z O E *

c. C O *"*

D a a 0- Z O W g J O D k 1 O g O E (O O. Z

• 3 O s.

W W U z W C O C z o *s.

O 3 h O O O W g O Z -

O (n O G tn

> - - .=

O y W M *'* O H O.

m O O C O c o J G U O O C C m o

2 m a y cn g - m .

b a -

, a a w w O u O w &

O 'c tn O

C C

C O

d Z Z G

h W C

H O Q. O' O c Q W. W O W W 'O.

w W W W O O C r a J Q > O O H C

W O C

,j J E ~J '"*

O $ H ' O.

a.

E O

m W

w m

y.

O M

y $

O O

g W

Z

~

w G

1 l

l w o O m ,

CD C 1

' C Z i O* '

k o o O O O

)

c, l

pY t V ,

e i

e i g i a _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _

9 .

t *

~

i .

e 1

}.

COMPLETE PHASE !! STRESS ANALYSES AND SUPPOAT

• l' 4 .

CALCULATIONS FOR SELECTED STAESS PAOBLEMS ,. i

. I 1r.

ASSESS PHASE !! AESULTS j

[

i AGAINST INTEAIM CAITEAIA l i

p

• \

.u,;

If

, l

' i

• IS IT '"

)

NECESSAAY TO No c0NTINJE PHACE I1 l YEs .. AE-EYALUATE PHASE I _

CODE COMPLIANCE l TO ADDAESS PHASE 11

.i ^ AESULTS 1

., y l ' .

i4 , 7 i

' DEVELOP ATTAIBUTES FAOM

'I j ' PHRSE II ASSESSMENT -

\

1

'-a ]'

\-

5 g.

1r l 4

.~.

f AE-E'.'ALUATE PHRSE I F0Q ,

5 AFPLICA8LE ATTAIBUTES .

j* .

's y 1 e' '

ASSESS PHASE !! AESULTS

/ AESTAAT 11001FICATIONS [ OUI AED AGAINST INTEAIM CAITEAIR FCG INTERIM CA!TERI A UNIT 2 (CY 5) 40N GOING) j.

p.

<*, j

. J

. \

l l

.: i.-m -  :--?;;

• . .*. "--~ . .

,7

^

?

f E* ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ '

COMPLETE PHASE II.CALCS AND l l

PHASE !!! MODIFICATIONS 1 l

1 1 .' \ . . .

l

- EXT AESTART N _.

UNIT 2 (CY p C .

i Q

u____._

.o: a 10 I

E I

. O 1 i

? J 4

3 s-m O *O G O O Z

z - > -Z Z O

. oJ O GG Q O

.J 8 J- - I

- - w - U 1

D D Z U m f m m w m O G J G d hJ J OG J O J O ')

- ([)

O r w 3 - =w 0- 3w O-O J > e w e x e 4

NO O O

, > 4 03 O -

CC i

& l g

, 0) . G.

w W a a ..

w r e W Y e e u) = wO = - .

O - O O E a u. E -

w .

_i w w O = -

J O * ' -'

Y

• O O

• O J I w a E

o Eg3 w

d [- E-r

._; E = W Ew d a A &

c -

& 3 O e H W D O .

E w w I W ]

y&8aJ WG

> > z e ,

e a a z e - Z p (/) O') w 3 W W Q Z @ l E

sm s $O O$,g

=

m W*2W Ca=w h

a

- a n ,. m w e I

i l- .

l

a ,

11 ,

4 l

{

' SELECTION BASIS __ {

l 1

(

l 0 SAFE SHUTDOWN 0 PIPE SIZE

• 1 r'

• i

\

\

P' '

0 TEMPERATURE ag 0 LOCATION i

/

0 PIPING CONFIGURATION ,

I 1

. ,'c l

O SUPP0AT TYPES O STAUCTUAAL ATTACHMENTS s

s

4 a 12 .

i 9 4 A

G J

G 1 W e  !

r ~

C G E W W H .G Q (O - D

. W - C. O p (o (o O W ^ i

~

J ~C O

• W C CD H O .  ;

1. I V H C C i

i O F Z O CL ,,

- CL O C) ~

O E 03'

~

CO

' OD Z O

D Ld (0 - .

LL '

(O O H -

O .6 'G LL o O ,,

y O - O -

g 2 g W H W - - -

~

" (O - CL Q

> - W - O y J W a E C - .i 4

i i

s l

i

[ ~

E w

+

- h

• M Y A R

~ A ,

O G

0 .T S m

' A IO e

P HR N -

' N A E A T L _

EN S L P m A P ME E 1

- IC N H O U E P E T CN _

O CN S L S -

I -

E LE S NO -

T 3 NO A I AI AI R MS P R MS U I0 I

D C4 N RI A R O RI G OV C F OV E I9 I FE FE C F1 RR -

S S N, RR O I S -

E R TF E E O E D P L D I P. P RO 3 T 3 A R R M U C -

A P A FE I AE I AE M EM R EM R OI S LU T C LU G L CL 2 -- S CL O E I UO E

- T E UO R SN S NV m -

D NV P UI -

I M ,

B U

S  :

. 7 1

7 7 7 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 -

Y E E Y R L T N G A P U A U U P A A A M A J D J m

0 0 0 0 O O m t1 l l

w

~

ES M GE U AK R RA T

, 2 . EU Y. C 0 ' VQ R E 9

. AH L'OGP 7 z " T ATNS i

RNR ISI

& g 9 r EOA CIPR 1 2 o 0 N E IHOE F LN 4 . H - SD IEES 1 O 0 2 UE4 TMVU 3 OS 9 /

2 HAF "BO RINO ATEH 7 -

R

_ O F

S )

T E N S E A N B O P

MM N ES GE EO U G AK OMC R I RA RI T S EU TTS C - E E VQ N s

D AH EENGP

" T CK(NS A

L z RNR I~

C A EOA LUYPR I

N g 9 i

r N E EQROE HOLN M I o D SD S G 1 2 H UE4 0TTES 4RSVU I

2 OS I

R 0 0 3 HAF

" BO 1EHEH 9AINO E O /

S 2 Y

R R

E F )

E S S N S .

( T W E R 0 N E B E A O BO I D V B T T M

A N U A E R E N T L O C -

E P E S

- C M P I C O S S A C '

YN Y D N ROCL N E G OIIA

• U K I TTMN O . A S SOSA R U E IMI H TSE EM G

Q D H

K T E EU T A R A

T MPRS E I INOY P E S TIFS 1

2 3 4

15 .

BFN PIPING j

- SEISMIC ANALYSIS -

i i

ORIGINAL 79-14/02 DESIGN BASIS _ CRITERIA

1. PIPING DAMPING O.5%(SECT C.3.2.1) 0.5%

j OBE

~ 1%

DBE 1%

SRSS P

2. DIRECTIONAL SRSS(SECT C.3.2.1)

COMBINATIONS SRSS.

3. MODAL COMBINATIONS SRSS(SECT C.3.2.1) .

2OHZ(SECT C.2.1) 2OHZ' ,..

4. RIGID RESPONSE 0.07 9-OBE 2/3HORIZION'AL

5. VERTICAL GROUND RESPONSE RESPONSE SPECTRA O.139-DBE SPECTRA (ALL ELEVATIONS)

DETERMINE DETERMINE

6. HORIZONTAL BY DYNAMIC BY' DYNAMIC

' RESPONSE ANALYSIS SPECTRA ANALYSIS FROM. GROUND FROM GROUND RESPONSE SPECTRA RESPONSE SPECTRI 3

9 48

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ - _ . - . - ________________--_____J

S

~ T I S -

2 M T - 2 I L O 22 22 > 21 1 L S 1 B 2 F S S 2 2 S S / F 6 YS A 2 S S F F/

/ C / 3

- AEA 0 H F F

/ C C S I

C S E C ATS C /

C C S S I A I R N N S I A R U E A S I

I A

A 3 T H A P

_ FDN /

S A 0 6 3 6

. R A E A A T 0 5 .

1 1 1 A .

1 P G SS 0 P

1 1 MR E A NNO P T A U P

_ WI T S N B 0A G U S

9N I

_ I S BBM D E N L D D D I O D E L L D C I T T L Y E E A E E D I I 4

~a AGN J Y L R '

Y Y S i E O A R ~S F I

D @ I E E

_ D A, EOL 'G N

R O

y A Y I S

H O

S H - O S

8 H - R D T

S S

_ S T I P

S. O +

A 2 .

E E UA0 I O A S 1

. 1 L R P . S ( B P

1

+ A S AP U ~

W O N I S L O L

R & A S E G L A TN E E E E A P e B B I I

I P

B B D D+ R E S H 0 0+ + E AIP N P T+ P

+

P+ ,P P

+ H T E A

O +

C

+ P + H W W T I

I T + WW T D D + M H W D D +

N 'E A

N W

D T D C S + Y I GAH I B Y R S

+ Y + R A I P M Y R R Y Y A Y Y A B O Y A A A D S 4 R R D Y A Y A M A ON C

R D A A N -

E1 G R D A N A N M M O C M I C y

- M OC C N I S

D9 7 N M OC I E A R E

_ I I I I

R A E G P P S D L A E R E P P S

/ P S T R 2 A A P S E E O

0 M S M A

- L .

P E 9 O U 7 N

S l E ]0 T A s I

M y U+1 N .

I

+ HO I_

1 " N [E Y

- YSS R A lU ]0 RE D F*1 A N

- I ATRS o -

N +_ O 0_

O [E [E E C FDN E .

A S ij 0H D

- 1 nL ,

SS I

+ 9 +O E I .

- R Y NNO Y +_' il S

W I T

R A

OA M RN I I

R BBM P O .

'T C 3 AGN I

Y ,l DDA 5 . LD R r y - 0 '-

1 AR A A E N EOL D ig r

ov

+_

o

- O-8 O I Y

S T N e el E' URO O C

P E P APU S X I E S

R &

E G

TN :s l

/

I I ,

E' AIP P E B !r_

S- NHS8nEDL -

I C D ," _ 0-E 1

. o, Y I

, l '

I NES , l H

S DL

}2 GAH E T_ 9 0 '- E

- I Y B 0~ 2. R I I

P R O  % 1_

, E 1OY S

, l '

4 A '

E1 M I - i' '

H D97 -

R W 8-S DL -

P

" 0 E D 0 .R1

_ / - E~ 1OY 2

0 4~

S p' i' S

_ T

_ 9 S E

L

_ 7 O R

P h G sB T

AR N OO I

PH P PC

_ I UN P SA i

^

S.

- S

. E A

.. C T

S

@ C C s C C C S 'S , i S -

E S S S I I A l L

T I I A A A B

_ R A A 3 AE

_ Y O P

- 0 6 3 6 WA

. AS 5 0 . . . .

OU N6 1

LT O3 RITM @P . . 1 1 U 1 1 1

LR EI S S AA SC U E N FL R LP R O H H AM PH S T P E y A S S IE S 8 RT ER SE I P

S S + 2

- . - E NRT S A 1 1 TN EG AG L WS HI B S A DDGN -

CE W ANA P I ID S

B S I C C S

C S

AT L BR A NP S S I I

T ODE T R

I A A =

ATH I

O P

A

- - 0 - 5 2 S H

A C 0 .

NA P .

' 1 U 1 l

DITB T R S EMA O AS y ) H -

SC S FE H S

5 S H S O

UGU NA P

I S

+

. + "

2 O P 1 A -

/

I y A / S H -

ADA T S - S S H (

S I D 8 ON 2 2 RLA 1 1

1 ETA R TOA P S ,

P F I

E E E E AUS S H B B B D

B D

C D N

O P T+

0 0

+ + I + E R

N I

+ P P P P P+ U E T + + + H + H S A NA A W H W W W T D D +

W W T+

D D S E

U S

GGN N I

D T D R S I I B Y + Y P EA M Y + Y SP I O A R Y Y A

+ R Y Y A R G P N

EP C Y A Y A R R D R D R D R R D I

• D G A N A N A A N Y A A N T U N MO MO M M O C MI M O C R I I C I C I I C N I A

D L R E R E R R E E R R E E X A A P S P S T P P S G P P S P R O H E A O H L A S E O P M N U E O!

,4 , . , ,

e B7 u

% - )

i l

I

-=

aw- o,! 1 $$I

~"

1 1  :

E t@w s- >

wid+5A f

9 . 5 I O &

1 ou

.:51 Y>S" S l I ,i 1 EW2 l

' d@+O5A i 8"' 4  !

E$+ - x

+l

' Iw wl 6e 2E 5 i

GE W ' Q , - ,

- -oGo ks U$i #.N E 1 L1 -  !

h 1 5 '" aeE., l m '

5 5

(f) M +

^ ' Iwi 9 zW t

35 o i

l OCco3 2 a a g O EE T- oi .'

• i!l s oo \

.. o.

C I/ u~

_d ' },

e ~

, .. . wo o.- Wp * -

EP'8 d hC U) o m a &gg it l

n@ '

x  ! Eww I w .

D e@ w>

z '

. g gr -

l

~  !

a $@ sg .'-

, l f W Ga ,--, g a

.s.

1- og 2* ,

-Goeu w , =M- .

e

' m j>

l _jl w igl i ' m g ,w o U a

Q a m '

6- e ,

g Z r--s 5 y7 E v3 g I Zq IhI s 2 .t; E .f_

CC ( $ W h '

u

'i*-8.F 2? E gg

-3 >

g U) S Q{

wa g

s Q

- r

-s s a E

a e-u <"

.,E .

4 2

• i mi a c 7,g8g~

+

o 2

&J e m  ;

z d

- en e

.z- G b

~

O A h

C &

&c C. g tesa @smoi C @ .

. . l 18'- ,

's.  !

i l

MODIFICATION PRIORIT.IZATION PLAN _ - j 7S-02/7S-14 PHASE II .

- CALCULATIONS l

\ v l

l IS A NO COMPLETE-MODICATIO __

=-DESIGN BASIS .

j EQUIRED? CALCULATIONS 0

,4 - ,

, y ,

o, , '

' BFN PIPE SUPPORT ..

j AESTAAT YEs OPERABILITY - i l SCREENING CAITERIA -

l NPP-VOL 3 , CRITERIA 1

s. .

i y

A DOES THE

- MOD NEED NO rPOST RESTART TO BE INS- MODS TALLED NOW  :

l l

INSTALL MOD PRIOR l

TO RESTART OR DURING OPERATION l

19 ,

~

SUMMAAY PIPE SUPP0AT OPERABILITY CRITERIA

• LOAD COMBINATIONS:

1 PIPE SUPP0AT MODIFICATIONS TO BE EVALUATED l l FOR EMEAGENCY LOAD CONDITION ONLY.

l f l LINERA SUPP0ATS: i I

MEMBER STRESS IS THE LESSEA 0F 1.2 SY & 0.7 SU

<* FOR TENSION & FLEXUAE. AND 0.9 PCA FOA MEMBEAS 1

P IN COMPRESSION.

STANDARD COMPONENTS:

MEET FAULTED ALLOWABLES IN DESIGN CAITEAIA.

+-.

NON-STANDAAD COMPONENT'SUPPOAT BOLTING .-

ALLOWABLES STRESS IS MINIMUM SPECIFIED IN YEILD STAESS.

CONCAETE EXPANSION ANCH0AS:

SAFETY FACTOR MUST BE EQUAL TO OR GAEATEA THAN 2.0.

1 i

20 -

SUMMARY

PIPE SUPPORT OPERABILITY CRITERI A i

(CONTINUED) t SPAINGS:

MUST NOT EXCEED LIMITS OF TAAVEL.

' GAP BETWEEN PIPE & SUPPORT:

MAY BE AS MUCH AS 0.50 IN. (EXCEPT WHEN ADJACENT

)e t

TO EQUIPMENT).

i

• LOAD SHAAING: l y

I LOAD MAY BE REDISTRIBUTED T.O ADJACENT SUPP0ATS: '

EFFECT ON PIPING STAESS MUST BE CONSIDERED.

yI 2 PIPING SYSTEM OPERABILITY (JUSTIFICATION FOA CONTINUED OPERRTION):

I

-ASSUME PIPE SUPPOAT FAILS

-PAIMARY STRESS IN PIPING NOT TO EXCEED 2 SY

-ADJACENT PIPE SUPP0ATS MEET OPERABILITY CAITERI A

• THESE CASES WILL BE USED ON A LIMITED BASIS 1

t.__._______._____ ______________.___..-_._.___________.___.___$_____

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

21 t

I SUMMAAY NAC AESPONSES/ FEEDBACK.

USE OF AATIFICIAL TIME HISTOAY c.- FOA PIPING.

o

, 3-PHASE PLAN AND SCHEDULE FOA IMPLEMENTATION FOA -

]

79-02 AND 79-14 PROGAAM. ..t' o

USE OF ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT IN ,

LIEU OF COMPLETE CALCULATION DOCUMENTATION. /// NME E-

A b q e

s e

BRO LJ N S FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT 1

e SECONDARY CONTAINME T PENETRATIONS SEISMIC DESIGN  !

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

' SEPTEMBER 1G, 1987

= -

4 t

0

4 CURRENT BFN FSAR:

THE DESIGN- ' BASIS FOR THE SECONDARY' 1/4" CONTAINMENT IS TO MAINTAIN FOR THE DESIGN BASIS I NEGATIVE PRESSURE FOR WHICH IT MUST BE ACCIDENTS FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM IS A THE STANDBY GAS TREATMENT I SYSTEM SEISMIC CLASS THE FSAR STATES THAT:

IN ADDITION, HAVE SEISMIC CLASS I' ALL PIPING WILL(BOTH ESSENTIAL AND )

PENETRATIONS NONESSENTIAL)

WILL HAVE ALL NONESSENTIAL OR PIPING 6 i' . LOOP SEALS, d ISOLATION. VALVES l

l 1

I l

$?

~

]

l l

l l

l ISSUE  !

IN ALL CASES, IMPLEMENT ,

TVA~ DID NOT, FOR NONESSENTIAL f THE FSAR. COMMITMENT DESIGN .A N D ISOLATION j

PIPING SEISMIC FEATURES i

l i j l

l N

[',

~

I I

0 l

l j

PURPOSE OF SECONDARY CONTAINMENT PURPOSE LIMIT THE RELEASE O,F ENVIRONMENT AFTER:

SOLE TO THE RADIOACTIVITY LOSS OF COOLANT ACCIDENT f FUEL HANDLING ACCIDENT i

CONTAINMENT METHOD NEGATIVE INTERNAL BUILDING PRESSURE PRESSURE GRADIANT FROMHIGHER LESS CONTAMINATED AREAS TO

- CONTAMINATED AREAS (SGTS)

STANDBY GAS TREATMENT SYSTEM I bw a

I e

o e

e--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _- _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ . - . -

.i PLAN FOR RESOLUTION .

IN-LEAKAGE DETERMINE TOTAL EXPECTED AREA FOLLOWING A DBE 1 I

TREATMENT DEMONSTRATE STANOBY GAS 1/4" NEGATIVE SYSTEM CAN MAINTAIN EXPECTED POST-DBE 1 PRESSURE WITH MAXIMUM AREA IN-LEAKAGE 1

TREATMENT DEMONSTRATE STANDBY GAS SYSTEM CAN FfAINTAIN NEGATIVE PRESSURE l WITH MAXIMUM POSSIBLE POST-DBE l IN-LEAKAGE AREA r

e I/

1 e

C l

I 1

I h

l

3

)

I 1

FOLLOWING A DBE l IN-LEAKAGE AREA ASF + PF, WHERE:  ;

AREA - NA +

IN-LEAKAGE }

j NA = IN-LEAKAGE AREA UNDER AS NORMAL MEASURED BY j

OPERATING CONDITIONS INSTRUCTIONS (sis > ]

SURVEILLANCE IN-LEAKAGEOF AREA CREATED BY ASF =

FAILURES ANNULAR SEALS AROUND PIPES AT THE SECONDARY CONTAINMENT PENETRATION

( FAILURES IN-LEAKAGE AREA CREATED BY l PF =

SIDES OF OF PIPING ON BOTH WALL SECONDARY. CONTAINMENT

}

I i

l

• l l

l l

)

POTENTIAL IN-LEAKAGE PATHS i

.1 . SECONDARY CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE -

SEISMIC CLASS I Z. HVAC OUCTS -

SEISMI,C CLASS I

3. HATCHES / DOORS / EQUIPMENT LOCKS -  !

l SEISMIC CLASS I

\

4. CABLE TRAYS -

INTERIM ACCEPTANCE l USING A-4G

5. CONOUIT - SEISMIC CLASS I, G. SMALL BORE PIPING ( 1/2" TO < Z 1/2">

7. LARGE BORE PIPING - l A. ESSENTIAL -

SEISMIC CLASS I (79-14)

,./ B. NON-ESSENTIAL -

PROGRAM TO DETERMINE EXPECTED IN-LEAKAGE

/

SUMMARY

NO EXPECTED INCREASE IN IN-LEAKAGE FOR  !

ITEMS 1 ,2,3,4,S AND 7A l PROGRAMS UNDERWAY TO ESTIMATE .

IN-LEAKAGE FOR OTHER ITEMS f-l l

IN-LEAKAGE PATH ,

EXPECTED PERFORMANCE SEISMIC CLASS I -

NO INCREASE IN-LEAKAGE '

EXPECTED FOLLOWING A DBE '

NON-SEISMIC CLASS I -

ONLY A SMALL, ACCEPTABLE- INCREASE IN TOTAL IN-LEAKAGE EXPECTED  ;

j p

i s.

+

I i

'l

. . 4 PIPING PLAN FOR NON-ESSENTIAL DETAILED FIELD EVALUATI.ONS COMPARISON SEISMIC EXPERIENCE DATABASE l

FRAGILITY ANALYSIS ..

OF EXPECTED POST-DBE ,

DETERMINATION AREA f IN-LEAKAGE OF SECONDARY CONTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION EXPECTED POST-DBE INTEGRITY WITH IN-LEAK, AGE AREA l

i l9 80 i

I

'O e

+. .

DETAILED FIELD EVALUATIONS i'

t PIPING GEOMETRY SEAL GEOMETRY DESIGN CONCEPT, SPECIFICATIONS,

' CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS  !

1 1

FIELD EVALUATIONS COMPLETED:

AND l

~

WORST CASE NON-SEISMIC PIPINGSELECTED SYSTEMATICALLY H

,e PENETRATIONS .I

~30% OF ALL PENETRATIONS EVALUATED

~

1 l

de e

l 4

I

. o EXPERIENCE DATABASE COMPARISONS SEISMIC COMPARISON OF BFN PIPINGOFPENETRATIONS I

PERFORMANCE SIMILAR TO SEISMIC HAVE EXPERIENCED CONFIGURATIONS WHICH )

EARTHQUAKES e INTO CLASSIFY PIPING AND PENETRATIONS THREE CATEGORIES: I

- HIGH SEISMIC MARGIN l

1

- REQUCEO SEISMIC MARGIN LOWEST SEISMIC MARGIN j J

l 4

4 l

1 I

M$

4 e

• l l

l l

9 I

' r)

THREE CATEGORIES p

HIGH SEISMIC MARGIN ~ -

NO INCREASE IN POST-D'GE IN-LEAKAGE AREA EXPECTED REDUCED SEISMIC MARGIN - ,

CALCULATIONS USE CONSERVATIVE BOUNDING TO DETERMINE EXPECTED POST-DBE IN-LEAMAGE AREA LOWEST SEISMIC MARGIN -

BEST CONSERVATELY ESTIMATED

f. USE ANAYSIS METHOD TO CALCULATE FRAGILITY IN-LEAKAGE AREA EXPECTED POST-DBE 4

,9' i

0 k

^;.

t

1. /

i 1

i

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

. s .',

/

> .c t

5 r ,

., p/

1' r

j.

FRAGILITY ANALYSIS -

USE: .

f i,

- FIELD EVALUATION DATA ,

1

- SEISMIC EXPERIENCE DATABASE UNCERTAINTIES f

i BOUNDING CASES -

IDENTIFY TO USE SOUNDING CALCULATIONS MARGIN /

ITEMS IN THE LOWEST SEISMIC i CATEGORY l j

DEVELOP F8MILY OF FRAGILITY CURVES' FOR I MARGIN CASES LOWEST SEISMIC -

1 i .

l l .

4 dee l

I t

l

's k

\ 4

, 5*

i.

l 1

f 1

I s

.* s ., .,

1, ", i 7

47 .

a l l 4

CALCULATIONS CONCLUSION FROM .

CALCULATE TOTAL EXPECTED POST-DBE IN-LEAVAGE AREA: ,

AREA NA + ASF. + PF IN-LERMAGE 1 5

t i

IN-LEAKAGE AREA TO COMPARE TOTAL STANOBY GAS TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS i

EXPECTED CONCLUSION:

A DBE TOTAL IN. LEAKAGE AREA FOLLOWING OF THE WILL BE WI< THIN THE CAPABILITY STANDBY- G A'S TREATMENT SYSTEM se de o

.- l.

a t

. l

/

%M~- .. :L_ _ ___._ __ ._.

4 '

e LICENSING ACTION 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION PROPOSE FSAR AMENOMENT r

)J 44 .

e e

[ tg ~ - ;

$c-MT DISTRIBUTION FOR MEETING

SUMMARY

DATED: November 23, 1987 .

Facility: Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3*

EDidstiEile NRC PDR Local PDR Projects Reading J. Keppler/J. Axelrad

.1 S. Ebneter/S. Richardson -

G. Zech )

G. Gears J. Stang V C. Jamerson B. Hermann OGC-Bethesda F. Miraglia )

E. Jordan j J. Partlow l ACRS (10)

Hon. M. Lloyd Hon. J. Cooper j Hon. D. Sundquist Hon. A. Gore Dr. Henry Myers Mr. R. King, GAO i P. Gwynn- l C.. Miller l T. Elasser l J. Heltemes G. Felgate C. Ader F. Combs TVA-Bethesda l T. Rehm J. Clifford l J. Rutberg

. i

• Copies sent to persons on facility service list

____._._._._.____.______________._________m_d