05000361/FIN-2012007-10: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{finding | {{finding | ||
| title = Evaluation | | title = Evaluation of Departure of Method of Evaluation for 10 CFR 50.59 Processes | ||
| docket = 05000361, 05000362 | | docket = 05000361, 05000362 | ||
| inspection report = IR 05000361/2012007 | | inspection report = IR 05000361/2012007 | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| identified by = NRC | | identified by = NRC | ||
| Inspection procedure = IP 93800 | | Inspection procedure = IP 93800 | ||
| Inspector = C Thurston, E Collins, E Murphy, J Ortega, | | Inspector = C Thurston, E Collins, E Murphy, J Ortega Luciano, J Reynoso, J Rivera Ortiz, A Johnsonb, Hagarg Werner, J Reynoso, J Rivera-Ortiz | ||
| CCA = N/A for ROP | | CCA = N/A for ROP | ||
| INPO aspect = | | INPO aspect = | ||
| description = The NRR technical specialist reviewed SCEs 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation contained in Engineering Change Packages 800071702 and 800071703 for the Unit 2 and Unit 3 replacement steam generators, respectively, in which SCE determined that the impact of the replacement steam generators on the current licensing basis and any need for NRC approval as required by 10 CFR 50.59. The NRR technical specialist reviewed the SCEs 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation against 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2)(viii) which requires that licensees obtain a license amendment pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90 prior to implementing a proposed change if the change would result in a departure from a method of evaluation described in the final safety analysis report (as updated) used in establishing the design bases or in the safety analyses. Industry guidance NEI 96-07, Revision 1, Section 3.10, Methods of Evaluation, states, Definition: Methods of evaluation means the calculational framework used for evaluating behavior or response of the facility or structures, systems, and components. Regulation 10 CFR 50.59 a(2), states, Departure from a method of evaluation described in the FSAR (as updated) used in establishing the design bases or in the safety analyses means (i) changing any of the elements of the method described in the FSAR (as updated) unless the results of the analysis are conservative or essentially the same; or (ii) changing from a method described in the FSAR to another method unless that method has been approved by NRC for the intended application. Regulation 10 CFR 50.59(d)(1) requires that the licensee maintain records of changes in the facility that includes a written evaluation which provides the bases for the determination that the change, test, or experiment does not require a license amendment.... The technical specialist evaluated SCEs bases for determining that the changes would not result in the departure from the method of evaluation used in establishing the design bases or in the safety analyses. Specifically, the technical specialist evaluated whether the changes involved: (a) changing of any of the elements of the method described in the updated final safety analysis report, which consistent with 10 CFR 50.59 a(2)(i) would be justified by demonstrating that the results of the analysis are conservative or essentially the same; or (b) changing from a method described in the updated final safety analysis report to another method, which consistent with 10 CFR 50.59 a(2)(ii) would be justified by demonstrating that method has been approved by NRC for the intended application. The NRR technical specialist reviewed SCEs 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation and found two instances that failed to adequately address whether the change involved a departure of the method of evaluation described in the updated final safety analysis report. (a) Use of ABAQUS instead of ANSYS: Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Sections 3.9.1.2.2.1.11 and 3.9.1.2.2.2.3 were revised to reflect that the SONGS Unit 2 and 3 original steam generators stress analyses for reactor coolant system structural integrity utilized the ANSYS computer program, whereas the replacement steam generators analyses utilized the ABAQUS computer program. The SCEs 50.59 evaluation incorrectly determined that using the ABAQUS instead of ANSYS was a change to an element of the method described in the updated final safety analysis report did not constitute changing from a method described in the updated final safety analysis report to another method, and as such, did not mention whether ABAQUS has been approved by the NRC for this application. (b) Use of ANSYS instead of STRUDL and ANSYS: Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Section 5.4.2.3.1.3 was revised to reflect that the SONGS Unit 2 and 3 evaluation of tube stress under loss of coolant accident conditions for the original steam generators consisted of a two-step process utilizing the STRUDL and ANSYS computer programs to calculate displacement histories and tube stresses, respectively, while the corresponding replacement steam generators analysis determined tube stresses from blow-down forces using only the ANSYS computer program. While SCEs 50.59 evaluation correctly considered this a change from a method described in the FSAR to another method, the 50.59 evaluation did not mention whether the method has been approved by NRC for this application. | | description = The NRR technical specialist reviewed SCEs 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation contained in Engineering Change Packages 800071702 and 800071703 for the Unit 2 and Unit 3 replacement steam generators, respectively, in which SCE determined that the impact of the replacement steam generators on the current licensing basis and any need for NRC approval as required by 10 CFR 50.59. The NRR technical specialist reviewed the SCEs 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation against 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2)(viii) which requires that licensees obtain a license amendment pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90 prior to implementing a proposed change if the change would result in a departure from a method of evaluation described in the final safety analysis report (as updated) used in establishing the design bases or in the safety analyses. Industry guidance NEI 96-07, Revision 1, Section 3.10, Methods of Evaluation, states, Definition: Methods of evaluation means the calculational framework used for evaluating behavior or response of the facility or structures, systems, and components. Regulation 10 CFR 50.59 a(2), states, Departure from a method of evaluation described in the FSAR (as updated) used in establishing the design bases or in the safety analyses means (i) changing any of the elements of the method described in the FSAR (as updated) unless the results of the analysis are conservative or essentially the same; or (ii) changing from a method described in the FSAR to another method unless that method has been approved by NRC for the intended application. Regulation 10 CFR 50.59(d)(1) requires that the licensee maintain records of changes in the facility that includes a written evaluation which provides the bases for the determination that the change, test, or experiment does not require a license amendment.... The technical specialist evaluated SCEs bases for determining that the changes would not result in the departure from the method of evaluation used in establishing the design bases or in the safety analyses. Specifically, the technical specialist evaluated whether the changes involved: (a) changing of any of the elements of the method described in the updated final safety analysis report, which consistent with 10 CFR 50.59 a(2)(i) would be justified by demonstrating that the results of the analysis are conservative or essentially the same; or (b) changing from a method described in the updated final safety analysis report to another method, which consistent with 10 CFR 50.59 a(2)(ii) would be justified by demonstrating that method has been approved by NRC for the intended application. The NRR technical specialist reviewed SCEs 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation and found two instances that failed to adequately address whether the change involved a departure of the method of evaluation described in the updated final safety analysis report. (a) Use of ABAQUS instead of ANSYS: Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Sections 3.9.1.2.2.1.11 and 3.9.1.2.2.2.3 were revised to reflect that the SONGS Unit 2 and 3 original steam generators stress analyses for reactor coolant system structural integrity utilized the ANSYS computer program, whereas the replacement steam generators analyses utilized the ABAQUS computer program. The SCEs 50.59 evaluation incorrectly determined that using the ABAQUS instead of ANSYS was a change to an element of the method described in the updated final safety analysis report did not constitute changing from a method described in the updated final safety analysis report to another method, and as such, did not mention whether ABAQUS has been approved by the NRC for this application. (b) Use of ANSYS instead of STRUDL and ANSYS: Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Section 5.4.2.3.1.3 was revised to reflect that the SONGS Unit 2 and 3 evaluation of tube stress under loss of coolant accident conditions for the original steam generators consisted of a two-step process utilizing the STRUDL and ANSYS computer programs to calculate displacement histories and tube stresses, respectively, while the corresponding replacement steam generators analysis determined tube stresses from blow-down forces using only the ANSYS computer program. While SCEs 50.59 evaluation correctly considered this a change from a method described in the FSAR to another method, the 50.59 evaluation did not mention whether the method has been approved by NRC for this application. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 20:47, 20 February 2018
| Site: | San Onofre  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000361/2012007 Section 4OA5 |
| Date counted | Jun 30, 2012 (2012Q2) |
| Type: | URI: |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | NRC identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 93800 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | C Thurston E Collins E Murphy J Ortega Luciano J Reynoso J Rivera Ortiz A Johnsonb Hagarg Werner J Reynoso J Rivera-Ortiz |
| INPO aspect | |
| ' | |