ML20202H968: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot change)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 13: Line 13:
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
| page count = 5
| page count = 5
| project = TAC:M99948
| stage = RAI
}}
}}


Line 83: Line 85:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - LARGE BORE PIPING CALCULATIONS (TAC NO. M999dB)
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - LARGE BORE PIPING CALCULATIONS (TAC NO. M999dB)
Describe any assessment or piping system analysis that may have been performed to addr64s the concerns identified in the Wais Report. Specifically, describe examples of evaluations that you performed to determine that, notwithstanding the Wais findings, the 3                    piping systems are still capable of performing their safety functions.
Describe any assessment or piping system analysis that may have been performed to addr64s the concerns identified in the Wais Report. Specifically, describe examples of evaluations that you performed to determine that, notwithstanding the Wais findings, the 3                    piping systems are still capable of performing their safety functions.
: 2. On Pcce 2 of Attachment D to your letter dated November 10,1997, you indicated that                  ,
: 2. On Pcce 2 of Attachment D to your {{letter dated|date=November 10, 1997|text=letter dated November 10,1997}}, you indicated that                  ,
specific portions of piping systems have been requalified or evaluated in the recent past.
specific portions of piping systems have been requalified or evaluated in the recent past.
You also stated that while a numoer oi code compliance issues have been identified over the years, subsequent assessments and analyses have not identified a piping syctem ihat was incapable of meeting its design basis requirements. Furthermore, some of the qualification efforts addressed issues that are similar to those discussed in            f the Wais Report. You also stated that no iten,s were found to represent an operability                ,
You also stated that while a numoer oi code compliance issues have been identified over the years, subsequent assessments and analyses have not identified a piping syctem ihat was incapable of meeting its design basis requirements. Furthermore, some of the qualification efforts addressed issues that are similar to those discussed in            f the Wais Report. You also stated that no iten,s were found to represent an operability                ,

Latest revision as of 17:01, 7 December 2021

Forwards Request for Addl Info Relating to Large Bore Piping & Pipe Support Calculations
ML20202H968
Person / Time
Site: Crystal River Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 12/02/1997
From: Raghavan L
NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To: Richard Anderson
FLORIDA POWER CORP.
References
TAC-M99948, NUDOCS 9712110009
Download: ML20202H968 (5)


Text

. __. _ _ _ _ . . _ __ _. __ _ .. . _. _.

December 2, 1997 Mr. Roy A. Anderson Senior Vice President Nuclear Operations Florida Power Corporation ATTN: Manager, Nuclear Licensing Crystal River Energy Complex (SA2A) 15760 W Power Line Street Crystal River, Florida 34428-6708

SUBJECT:

CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION -

LARGE BORE PIPING AND PlPE SUPPORT CALCULATIONS (TAC NO. M99948)

Dear Mr. Anderson:

The purpose of this letter is to request additional information (RAI) relating to large bore piping and pipe support calculations. This request was discussed with your staff in a telephone conversation on November 26,1997. The enclosure provides the detail for the requested information.

We request your response as soon as possible so that we can scheduo our review effort consistent with your restart plan, if you have any questions, please writa or call me at (301) 415 1471.

- Sin $ rely,

/S/

L. Raghavan, Project Manager Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/Il Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-302

Enclosure:

RAI cc: See next page yQ l l Distribution ~

Docket File K. Manoly PUBLIC CR 3 r/f R. Wessman J. Jaudon, Reg, ion il ghh kIJ gly' ','] pt!)pty ~

B. Boger J. Zwolinski ACRS OGC DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ CRYSTAL \99948REV.RAI ,

To receive a copy of this document, Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with cttachmenWlosure "N" = No copy OFFICE PDi l-)@ l PDII 3/PM l PDII-3/LA , e I n, PDil 3/D .) lE l WAME SFlan #rn LReghavan V BClayton // iHebdon U DATE 11/ 3 /97 11/ h /97 IN v/97 11/')? /97 11/ /97 11/ /97 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 9712110009 971202 PDR ADOCK 05000302 P PM ,

y pa atg p i UNITED STATFS g } NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGToN, D.C. 2000H001 o

%, , December ?, 1997 Mr. Roy A. Anderson Senior Vice President Nuclear Operations Florida Power Corporation ATTN: Manager, Nuclear Licensing Crystal River Energy Compiex (SA2A) 15760 W Power Line Street Crystal River, Florida 34428-6708

SUBJECT:

CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION -

LARGE BORE PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORT CALCULATIONS (TAC NO. M99948)

Dear Mr. Anderson:

The purpose of this letter is to request additional information (RAl) relating to large bore piping and pipe support calculations. This request was discussed with your staff in a telephone conversation on November 26,1997. The enclosure provides the detail for the requested information.

We request your response as soon as possible so that we can schedule our review effort consistent with your restart plan. If you have any questions, please write or call me at (301) 415-1471.

Sincersly, k

L. Raghava6, Project Manager Project Directorate ll 3 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-302

Enclosure:

RAI cc: See next page

4

., . s Mr. Roy A. Anderson CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT NO. 3 Florida Power Corporation

] ,

CC:

5 Mr. R. Alexander Glenn Mr. Robert E. Grazio. Director

] Corporate Counsel Nuclear Regulatory Affairs (SA2A)

Florida Power Corporation

' Florida Power Corporation MAC ASA CrystalRiverEnergyComplex P.O. Box 14042 -

15/60 W. Power Line Street j St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 4042 Crystal River. Florida 34428 6708 Mr.' Charles G. Pardee. Director Senior-Resident Inspector F Nuclear Plant Operations (NA2C) Crystal River Unit 3 Florida Power Corporation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

- Crystal River Energy Complex 6745 N. Tallahassee Road 15760 W. Power Line Street Crystal River. Florida 34428 4

Crystal River. Florida 34428-6708 i Mr. John P. Cowan Mr. Bruce J. Hickle. Director Vice President. Nuclear Production 4

Director. Restart-(NA2C) (NA2E) 1 Florida Power Corporation Florida Power Corporation-Crystal River Energy Complex Crystal River Energy Complex 15760 W. Power Line Street 15760 W. Power Line Street-i Crystal River. Florida 34428-6708 Crystal River. Florida 34428-6708 Mr. Robert B. Borsum Mr. James S. Baumstark

!. Framatome Technologies Inc. Director. Quality. Programs (SA2C) i- 1700 Rockville Pike. Suite 525 Florida Power Corporation i Rockville. Maryland 20852 Cr stal River Energy Complex 15 60 W. Power Line Street Mr. Bill Passetti Crystal River. Florida 34428-6708

Office of Radiation Control *

, - Department of Health and Regional Administrator. Region II i Rehabilitative Services U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

< 1317 Winewood Blvd. 61 Forsyth Street. SW., Suite 23T85 '

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0700 Atlanta GA 30303-3415

Attorney General Mr. Kerry La"lis i Department of Legal Affairs U.S. Nuclear i
egulatory Commission

. The Capitol 61-Forsyth Street. SW., Suite 23T85 ,

j Tallahassee Florida 32304: Atlanta, GA 30303-3415 4

Mr, Joe Myers. Director Division of Emergency Preparedness Department of Comunity Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive

- Tallahassee. Florida 32399 2100 Chairman Board of County Commissioners

- Citrus County

-110 North Apopka Avenue Iverness. Florida 34450-4245 .

---,-~n.,,v, ,-. y m, , .,a n_..,,,,n. , . , , , , , ,- .--,-.,,,,-,,,-w -

,,-.,-,,,-.,,,,-,,.y .-,-,- ,,m,,-- .- .---.-e ,. . ,

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - LARGE BORE PIPING CALCULATIONS (TAC NO. M999dB)

Describe any assessment or piping system analysis that may have been performed to addr64s the concerns identified in the Wais Report. Specifically, describe examples of evaluations that you performed to determine that, notwithstanding the Wais findings, the 3 piping systems are still capable of performing their safety functions.

2. On Pcce 2 of Attachment D to your letter dated November 10,1997, you indicated that ,

specific portions of piping systems have been requalified or evaluated in the recent past.

You also stated that while a numoer oi code compliance issues have been identified over the years, subsequent assessments and analyses have not identified a piping syctem ihat was incapable of meeting its design basis requirements. Furthermore, some of the qualification efforts addressed issues that are similar to those discussed in f the Wais Report. You also stated that no iten,s were found to represent an operability ,

concem and, where code compliance concems were identified, they were promptly corrected. Discuss the basis for your assertion that no items were found to represent an operability concern. Your discussion should ba supported by examples of assessments or analyses of piping system in the as-found condition (and as corrected, if appropriate) relating to any of the aress identified below, a.

Modeling of rod hangers in the piping seismic analysis, and potential for uphn, '

b. Effects, on the pressure boundary integrity of piping, of the combined effects of primary stresses and secondary stresses, due to integral attachments.

c.

Capacity of non-stsr'dard anchors against the seismic loads indicated by existing analyses,

d. Safety margins for uncinched U-bolts, used as two-way restraints, against publishec design values for U-bolts under biaxial (tension / shear) loadings.
e. Effects of snubber activation on supports consisting of dual snubbers.
f. Consistency of damping values used in 'a-3 seismic piping analyses with those specified in the FSAR.
g. Reliability of supports involving strut' snubber angularity.
h. Impact of CR 3 overlap criteria on il/l concem.
l. Modeling of spring hangers in the seismic piping stress analysis.

t:nclosure l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ ---J

t J. Use of axial trunnion supports on elbows, which may induce local stresses on the pipe as a result of friction developing between the contact surfaces.

k. Modeling of valves in the seismic p' piny stress analysis, and the determination of valve accelerations used in seismic qualification.
l. Consideration of seismic anchor motions (SAMs),

i a

4 9

% t'!" 5 e

Enclosure i

+