ML20206G480

SER Supporting Element Rept EN 232.2, Carbon Steel Vs Stainless Steel Drain Pipes

ML20206G480
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	11/04/1988
From:	NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
To:
Shared Package
ML20206G037	List: ML20206G034 ML20206G298 ML20206G302 ML20206G306 ML20206G315 ML20206G319 ML20206G325 ML20206G330 ML20206G337 ML20206G344 ML20206G348 ML20206G352 ML20206G358 ML20206G363 ML20206G366 ML20206G370 ML20206G374 ML20206G380 ML20206G385 ML20206G392 ML20206G396 ML20206G404 ML20206G408 ML20206G410 ML20206G416 ML20206G419 ML20206G426 ML20206G429 ML20206G435 ML20206G438 ML20206G447 ML20206G453 ML20206G457 ML20206G459 ML20206G462 ML20206G466 ML20206G472 ML20206G480 ML20206G486 ML20206G497 ML20206G502 ML20206G509 ML20206G519 ML20206G524 ML20206G529 ML20206G534 ML20206G539 ML20206G543 ML20206G550 ML20206G559 ... further results
References
NUDOCS 8811220295
Download: ML20206G480 (2)

Text

.

• f * %9'e, UNITED STATES

.,]if m/.ft' %

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

E w AsHmotok. o. c. rosss 3e

~

% M,1 s,..m StFETY EVALCATION BY THE OFFICE OF SPEI

.,fCTS FOR EMPLOYEE CONCERNS EEOUOYAH NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AhD 2 r

ELEMENT REPOPT EN 232.2 "CARECk STEEL VS. STAINLESS STEEL DRAIN PIPES 1

I.

Subiect Cetace y:

Engineering Sub:e*Agery:

Pdpirg and Valve Design E l er.e - + :

Cerben Steel vs. Stainless Steel Drain Pipes Cencerrs:

IN-85-021-006:

The ficor drain piping is carbon steel and shculd be stainless steel in Reactor Buildings 1 and 2.

IN-55 M7-002:

Secuoyah - Floor drain piping is carbon steel ard it should be stainless steel. Reactor Puilding.

4 j

i 11.

Su : ary of issues j

1.

The reecter building floor drain piping design drerings may have F

reevired the use of carbon steel instead of stainless steel piping raterials.

2.

Cerber stac1 eipo nay hese been installed in the reactor building f

ficer crein systen irstrad of steinless steel as required by the L

design drawings.

!!!. Evalu:tice Steir.less stac1 should be specified rether than carben steel then corrosive I

fluids (such et beric acid sclutions) are being piped or easy cleanup of I

radiclogical contamination is required. TVA's conclusion was that reither i

Su cencern was substaritiated, and both issues identified are irvalid.

t emo 28' The TVA f,uel**r Caf*ty Review Staff (NSRS) conducted an investigation to 1

avaluate the validity of the concerns by reviewing reactor bulding design Oo travirst, Lilis of raterials, relevant installation and inspection records, i

interviewing S U tite parsorrel familiar with the installation procedures, and po visual inspection and magratic testing of accessible erbedded f1ccr dreirage F

g Ph iE rief (d

.q.

3 e,3 4 ". systa. de:4g* drawirgs fee the 4

>.. g:: :. c. -....

mo

• e:tr. ELiicirp sr t*e arrC.as area (cutside of certt.inr+rt) recuira carbon

[

st**1 with cast irre. fittirst.

nside certainrent belew elevatier 738.0 feet,

[

statriess steel riping anc fittiegs are required.

The NSRS investigation veri'ied the use cf stainless steel in erbecced floor drein piping in a

i t

2 4.0 CONCLtiS!ON Based on our review, we have concluded that the concern does rot represent a safety issue and the human factors review of the detailed control room design review prooram together with the testing progran per Regulatory Guide 1.??.

should detect and correct the problem.

The staff finds the employee concern in Element Report EN 22912 to be satisfactorily resolved for Sequoyah.

4 l

l i

i

..