IR 05000010/1980005
| ML19309F210 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden, Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 04/09/1980 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309F209 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-010-80-05-01, 50-10-80-5-1, 50-237-80-05, 50-237-80-5, 50-249-80-05, 50-249-80-5, 50-254-80-05, 50-254-80-5, 50-265-80-08, 50-265-80-8, NUDOCS 8004280634 | |
| Download: ML19309F210 (3) | |
Text
()
"
Title 4.0, " Review of As-Built Package for Potential Noncon-
.
formance Revision 0, dated October 19, 1979.
Title 5.0, " Engineering Criteria / Procedure for the Application
.
of the Blume Curves Criteria", Revision 0, dated October 19, 1979.
Title 6.0, " Procedure for the Computer Reanalysis of Piping
.
System", Revision 0, dated October 22, 1979.
Title 7.0, " Documentation and Transmittal Procedure", Revision
.
0, dated October 23, 1979.
Title 8.0, " Pipe Support Engineering Criteria /Proceddre for
.
the Review and Resolution of As-Built Deviations", Revision 0, dated October 23, 1979.
2.
Review of Personnel Qualification Although there appeared to be no specific criteria established for the personnel handling the IEB 79-14 evaluation work, the inspector considered the EDS provision met the intent of the quality assurance based on the following reasons:
All personnel involved were EDS employees.
No contracting a.
personnel had been hired for the work.
b.
Specific training and reading assignments were established.
,
Signed certification for each person qualified had been docu-mented in " Project Initiation Checklist" files.
Personnel assigned including Engineer and Engineering Assistants c.
I, II, and III, their position description including " position qualification" requirements were documented in the EDS corporate personnel department files.
3.
Seismic Analysis Evaluation Methods The subject methods utilized by EDS are equivalent to the original licensee FSAR commitments as follows:
Dresden 1 The plant will under go de-contamination. The licensee plans to j
implement IEB 79-14 requirements in the initial information gather-
)
ing stage. However, field inspection and evaluation work should be completed prior to plant startup scheduled for September 1981.
\\
i l
i
!
l l-3-l l
800.4280634 J
L
__
'
_
_
.
(
Dresden 2 and 3 There are three methods used in performing a seismic analysis of piping systems (including hangers, snubbers, etc.):
Mode superposition using a floor response spectra. This was
.
used on the main steam and feedwater lines inside the drywell and the recirculation system lines.
Static analysis using static coefficients. This was used in
.
the analysis of Class 1 piping systems 12" or larger.
Lateral deflection and force evaluation curvers (Blume Curves).
.
This was used primarily for Class 1 instrumentation piping and for making evaluation studies for installed piping systems to determine the capability of meeting Class 1 requirements.
Quad-Cities 1 and 2 Line sizes 10" NPS and larger are given a detailed dynamic
.
analysis using a computer based response spectra method in-corporating a modal analysis technique.
Line sizes 8" NPS and smaller are analyzed by a set of seismic
.
design curves (Blume Curves).
In review of the Blume Curves method, some questionable areas were pointed out by the inspector. Details are discussed in Paragraph 4.
Other analytical methods will be reviewed by the inspector during a future followup inspection.
4.
Blume Curves In discussion with EDS and in review of the FSAR's 8" and below Class 1 piping were evaluated based on the original curves developed by the John. A. Blume and Associates, San Francisco, California.
The curves consisted of:
Natural period as a function of pipe size and span.
.
Deflection as function of pipe size and span.
.
!
Support reaction as a function of pipe size and span.
.
For Dresden 2 and 3, minimum instructions were provided for the original design that was handled by the pipe support vendors.
1-4-
_ _. _...... -..
.
..._ ~
._
_
.
.
%
For Quad-Cities 1 and 2, Sargent and Lundy (S&L) provided additional interpretation and instruction on design considerations such as:
Seismic deflection limited to 2".
.
.
-
Since the curves are based on simply supported beam, to account
.
.
for continuity of the piping across a restraint, the reactions
.
from all piping spans on the same restraint are added.
Reduced span due to concentrated mass (valves and etc.) in
.
between restraints.
Piping above El. 579 ft. restraint load will be multiplied by
.
three to account for amplification.
Since the curves are based on OBE, all deflections, stresses,
.
and reactors as determined from the curves must be doubled to obtain DBE (SSE) valves.
For the IEB 79-14 evaluation work, EDS has adopted S&L instructions and in addition, provided further considerations in the areas of:
Additional weights due to pipe insulations.
.
Weight limitations of piping components, such as valves, in
.
between restraints.
In conclusion, the inspector raised the following questionable areas that will require further address on behalf of the licensee:
How pipe v'ndors can perform the original seismic analysis and a.
restraint design for the Dresden 2 and 3 project based on apparent lack of instructions on bow to utilize the Blume Curves.
b.
The original piping design was based on ANSI B31.1-67 " Power Piping Code".
Whether or not the code established flexibility and stress intensification factors had been taken into consider-ation was unknown.
c.
The present EDS evaluation is limited to those deficiencies and
deviations identified during field verification inspections l
although the criteria of evaluation had been upgraded from the original design considerations.
In conjunction with item a.
,
above, the inspector made request to the licensee that all previously Blume Curves designed Dresden 2 and 3 and Quad-Cities 1 and 2 systems shoold be evaluated by EDS.
Subsequent to the inspection the licensee stated that EDS will check restraint locations to ensure pipe spans are within the rigid sides of the response spectrum curves.
i
-5-