ML20206G370
| ML20206G370 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 11/04/1988 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206G037 | List:
|
| References | |
| IEB-79-14, NUDOCS 8811220252 | |
| Download: ML20206G370 (3) | |
Text
.
- y s' * % %
UNITED STATES
!y.
l1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.. e W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
& WW'.!
l SAFETYEVALLATIONR;.PCRTBYTHEOFFICEOFSPECIALPROJEC'1 ELEMENT REPOPT 212.2(B) REVISION 1 PIPE SUPPOPT PROGRE l
[
NRC BULLETIN 79-14 ABR PROGRAM f
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY i
SEQUC)AH NUCLEAR PCWER PLANTS UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET N05.: 50-527 AND 50-328 1.
SUS.'E CT Category:
Engineering (20000)
Subcategory:
Fipe Support Program (21200)
F.lement:
NRC Bulletin 79-14 AER Frogram (21f:02)
Conceens:
IN-85 027-001, SQN-86-002-02 The basis for Elerent Report 212.2(E), Revision 1 are the following employee cencerns which question the adequacy of piping analysis oesign documente. tion at TVA plants:
i IN-85-027-001:
l
'VA Program for implementing hRC Bulletin 79-14 inadOquate. Design calculation documentation is lacking, SZ 85-002-OLJ
[
During the exit interview the Ci stated that containment spray line drawings and weld map do not agree with as butits. Alternate analysis was used instead of rigorous analysis, drawing.) were not corrected.
{
l 11.
Surr.ary of Issues The Erployee Concerns Task Group (ECTG) report identified the following four issues from the employee concerns:
c.
TVA program for impleeenting NRC IE Bulletin 79 14 is inadequate.
b.
Nsign calculations that address the resolution of 79-14 program
(
discretancies lack proper decurentation, j
t
+
ca112202,"$ $$ N;327 ppg ADC PDC P
I
._m
=_
_ Centainment spray piping does not reflect "as-constructed"-
c.
configuration in terms of routing as well as weld locations.
l Containrent spray piping was analyzed using Alternate Analysis k
d.
rethod instead of Rigorous Analysis method, III.
EVALUATION I
To address issues a and b. Element Re,~rt 212.2(B), Revisien 1 provided a chronology of TVA's actions in response tc IE Bulletin 79-14 for bothThe e Sequoyah Unit 1 and Unit 2.for the initial Unit 1 IE Bulletin 79-14 program and it w The element repnrt also found that the concern with lack of i
Urit 2 program.
The NRC staff had
- umentation, issue b, was not valid for both units.
previously reviewed TVA's implementation of IE Bulletin 79-14 and closed the l
However, the staff bulletin for Unit 2 in Inspection Report 50-3?a'11-42.
[
i 1
had rot closed the bulletin fer Unit 1, Curing its review of civil calculations TVA determined that a large number of l
TVA rigotously analyzed pf pe support calculations were not retrievable.
i initiated a program to regenerate these calculations. As part of this program, 4
The staff evaluation l
TVA performed additional inspections of pipe supports.
Based on of this progra* is contained in Section 2.3.2 of NUREG-1232. Volume 2.
the results of this program the staff considers the concern raised in issue b j
[
Based on the staff's review of TVA's corrective actions in Inspection the staff corcluded that the issue had been adequately valid.
j Report 50-327, 328/88-12 l
addressed for Unit 2 restart.
1 Element Report 212.2(B) contained a discussion of TVA's corrective actions for deficiencies that had beer identified in the Sequoyah Unit 1 IEj l
Maintenance it.struction SMI-1-317-24 to correct the identified deficiencies program.
{
j The element report concluded that the Unit 1 program had been substantially irproved by TVA's corrective actions and the concern with program inadequacy l
was no longer valid.
TVA provided a final report nn the Unit 1 IE Bulletin 79-14 program to the TVA's final report identified that a hRC in a letter dated August 4, 1988.
corprehensive orogram to review rigorously analyzed piping and generate suppnrt 4
i This program included additional inspections calculations had been performed.
These i
of piping and si ports to Special Maintenance Instruction SMI 0-317 69.
The staff inspectiers were performed after the ECTG report had been coroleted.
l review of tre Unit 1 IE Bul'atin 79-14 program concluded the program was adequate The staff evaluation of the Unit 1 l
to verify the as built piping configuration.
program is the subject of a separate safety evaludtion on Part 2 of the Sequoya r
I
[
Nuclear Performance Plan.
t To address issue c, Ele-ent b rort 212.2(B) provided the results of a review isc~etrics with the which cc~ 3 red ter as-Constructed Contain*ert soray pipingBased on its I
desigr-calculattens. the as-Constructed oipirg configuration #or the contain-reaso'1aM e tc'irranet nent spray syste*. 49 tees with the as-designed configuration, and that field i
F ;
Subsequent welds are apprepriately shown in the as-constructed drawings.
to the ECTG review, the Unit 1 containment spray system received additional inspections. The as-built configu.
as-built review during the S.w!-0-317-69 ratien of piping supports on the containment spray system also received additional review during the staff's Safety System Ouality Evaluation.
Inspection Reenrt 50-327, 328/83-29.
Based on the ECTG review, subsequent TVA j
inspections and the staff's Safety System ',uality Evaluat W. inspectier., the staf f conddes that the concern with adequacy of the as-built configuration of I'
containment : ray system has been adequately addressed for restart.
To address issue d. Element Report 212 2(B) provided the results of a review The ECTG of TVA's use of alternate analysis on the containment spray system.
report concluded that the criteria for using alternate analysis had been ret 7
Concerns with 1"A's use of alternate analysis and the :ncern was not valid.
had also been the sut. ject of a separate evalue son in Element Report 218.4(B),
l In addition, as a result of deficiencies that had been identified Revision 2.
with Iternate a..alysis piping designs and design documentation, TVA initiated 4
i The staff's evaluation of TVA's alternate an alternate analysis program.
Based on i
analysis program is :entained in Sectien 2.4 of NUREG-1232, Vol. 2.
and the staff's review of the implementation of the alternate i
the ECTG review analysis program, the staff cencludes that issue of.TVA's use of alternate analysis for the containrent spray piping has been adequately ad.'tssed fer TVA will perform artditional reviews of alternately analyzed piping
[
restart.
in its Phase !!, post-restar'.. program.
l IV.
Conclusions c
Based on the review of Erployee Concerns Eienert Report 212.2(B), Revision 1; f
l the NRC's inspections of TVA's IE Bulletin 79-14 program; TVA's additional l
as-built reviews for Unit 1; and the staff review of the alternate analysis program, the sta'f concludes that Empicyee Concerns IN-85 027-001 and SON-86 002-02 have been adequately addressed at Sequoyah for restart.
1 r
i l
[
f i
[
i l
i i
i
_