L-87-383, Submits Revised Final Rept Re Actions Taken in Response to IE Bulletin 79-02, Pipe Support Base Plate Designs Using Concrete Expansion Anchor Bolts. Bechtel quasi-analytical Method Used for Base Plates W/Eight Bolts or Less
| ML17342A984 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/22/1987 |
| From: | Woody C FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| IEB-79-02, IEB-79-2, L-87-383, NUDOCS 8710270036 | |
| Download: ML17342A984 (17) | |
Text
DOCKET 0 05000250 05000251 NOTES:
REGUL*TORY ORMATION DISTR IBUTION SY M (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR: 871027003b DOC. DATE: 87/10/22 NOTARIZED:
NO FACIL: 50-250 Turkey Point Plant>
Unit 3> Florida Poier and Light C
50251 Turkey Point Plant>
Unit 4> Florida Poujer and Light C
AUTH. NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION WOODY> C. O.
FloT ida Poeer
& Light Co.
RECIP. NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION Document Control Branch (Document Control Desk)
SUBJECT:
Submits revised final rept re actions taken in response to IE Bulletin 79-02>
"Pipe Support Base Designs Using Concrete Expansion
- nchor Bolts. " Quasi-analytical method> developed bg Bechtel> used for base plates N/eight bolts or less.
DISTRIBUTION CODE:
IE11D DOPIER RECEIVED:LTR + ENCL Q SIZE:
I>~
TITLE: Bulletin Response (50 DKT)
RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD2-2 LA McDONALD> D INTERNAL: AEOD/DO*
AEOD/DSP/TP*B NRR/DEST/ADS NRR/DOEA/EAB NRR/DREP/EPB
~RGN2 FILE 01 EXTERNAL:
LPDR NSlC COP IES LTTR ENCL 1
0 1
1
'1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME
'PD2-2 PD AEOD/DSP NRR/DEST/ADE NRR/DEST/MEB NRR/DOEA/GCB NRR/PMAS/ILRB RES/DE/EIB NRC PDR COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR 19 ENCL 18
'0
P. O. BOX
'0, JUNO BEACH, ~L 33408 0420 OCTOBER 2 2 1987 L-87-383 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 Gen tlemen:
Re:
Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-25 I IE Bulletin 79-02 Revised Res onse The purpose of this letter is to submit a revised final report regarding actions taken by Florida Power & Light in reponse to IE Bulletin 79-02 for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.
Our previous reports on this bulletin were dated January 4, l980 (L-80-3) and October l6, l98I (L-8I-45I).
The submittal of this revision was discussed in paragraph 5 of Inspection Report 85-12 as a means to summarize previous reponses and action taken to complete the bulletin.
Should there be any questions on the attached report, please contact us.
Very truly yours, O. Woody roup Vice President Nuclear Energy COW/PLP/gp Attachmen t cc:
Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator, Region II, USNRC Senior Resident Inspector, USNRC, Turkey Point Plant 87i0270036 871022 PDR ADOCK 05000250 8
PDR TCG2/004/I
~I/
i/j an FPL Group company
E-CR"87-002 Revision 1
Page 1 of 14 FLORIDA POWER
& LIGHT COMPANY TURKEY POINT UNITS 3
& 4 FINAL REPORT ON PIPE SUPPORT BASE PLATE DESIGNS USING CONCRETE EXPANSION ANCHOR BOLTS (In Response to NRC IE Bulletin 79-02, March 8,
- 1979, NRC IE Bulletin 79-02 (Revision 1), June 21,
- 1979, NRC IE Bulletin 79-02 (Revision 2),
November 8,
- 1979, NRC Instruction Report Nos.
50-250/86-13 and 50-251/86-13, May 5, 1986.)
E-CR-87-002
.evision 1
Page 2 of 14 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE I.
Introduction II.
Response
To Action Items III. Inspections Due To NRC-Audit Reports 50/250/80-18 and 50/251/80-18 13 ATTACHMENT Exhibit I Turkey Point Units 3
& 4 Systems Covered
FLORIDA POWER
& LIGHT COMPANY
'-CR-87-002 Revision 1
Page 3 of 14 TURKEY POINT UNITS 3
4 F1NAL REPORT ON PIPE SUPPORT BASE PLATE DESIGNS USING CONCRETE EXPANSION ANCHOR BOLTS (In Response to NRC IE Bulletin 79- 02, March 8,
- 1979, NRC IE Bulletin 79-02 Revision 1), June 21, 1979 NRC IE Bulletin 79-02 (Revision 2), November 8,
- 1979, NRC Report Nos. 50-250,251/86-13, May 5,1986.)
INTRODUCTION This report is a final response to NRC IE Bulletin (IEB) 79-02 (including Revisions 1
& 2) for Turkey Point Units 3
& 4.
The information pertaining to Unit 4
supplements the final report previously submitted to the NRC on July 9,
- 1979, under transmittal by Florida Power
& Light (FPL) letter L-79-186.
The information pertaining to the completion of all IEB 79-02 work under the scope of work required by IEB 79-14 supplements the final report previously submitted to the NRC on October 16,
IE Bulletin 79-02 required all licensees and permit holders for nuclear power plants to review the design and installation procedures for concrete expansion anchors used in pipe support base plates in systems defined as Seismic Category I by NRC Regulatory Guide 1.29, "Seismic Design Classification",
Revision 1, August 1973, or by the applicable SAR.
Exhibit I provides the list of systems covered by this response to this Bulletin.
After the submittal of the final report for Unit 4, additional supports with expansion anchors were identified as requiring further evaluation in response to NRC Audit Reports 50 -250/80-18 and 50- 251/80-18.
Inspections and evaluation of the remaining supports was conducted and completed under the scope of work for IEB 79-14
(
Reference:
Section 3.c.(1) of NRC Inspection Report Nos.. 50-250/86-13 and 50-251/86-13, dated May 5, 1986).
A summary of these supports is provided in Section III of this report.
PE-CR-87-002 evision 1
Page 4 of 14 Section II of this report provides responses to action items as presented in Revision 2 of IE Bulletin 79-02.
These responses were previously provided in the initial report submitted under this Bulletin.
in conclusion, this report includes all responses required under IE Bulletin 79-02.
In addition, this report documents the fact that all evaluations, inspections and field modifications resulting from the Bulletin and subsequent NRC audits have been completed.
The only remaining item with respect to anchor bolts is the concern about the use of Wej-It concrete expansion anchors.
This issue has been removed from consideration under IE Bulletin 79-02
.and is being handled as a separate issue under Unresolved Item 50-
- 250, 251/86-13-01, "Adequacy of Design Capacities Used for Installed Wej-It Concrete Anchor Bolts".
See Sections 3.c(3) and 5.a.
of NRC InsPection RePort Nos.
50-250/86-13 and 50-251/86-13, May 5, 1986.
II.
RESPONSE
TO BULLETIN ACTION ITEMS Bulletin Action Item No.
1 Verify that pipe support base plate flexibility was accounted for in the calculations of anchor bolt loads.
In lieu of supporting analysis justifying the assumption of rigidity, the base plates should be considered flexible if the unstiffened distance between the member welded to the plate and the edge of the base plate is greater than twice the thickness of the plate.
It is recognized that this criterion is conservative.
Less conservative acceptance criteria must be justified and the justification submitted as part of the response to the Bulletin. If the base plate is determined to be
- flexible, then recalculate the bolt loads using an appropriate analysis.
If possible, this is to be done prior to testing of anchor bolts.
These calculated bolt loads are referred to hereafter as the bolt design loads.
A description of the analytical model used to verify that pipe support base plate flexibilityis accounted for in the calculation of anchor bolt loads is to be submitted with your response to the Bulletin.
It has been noted that the schedule for analytical work on base plate flexibilityfor some facilities extends beyond the Bulletin reporting time frame of July 6,
1979.
For those facilities for
.which an anchor bolt testing program is required (i.e., sufficient QA documentation does not exist), the anchor bolt testing program should not be delayed.
-CR-87-002 evision 1
Page 5 of 14 Res onse to Bulletin Action Item No.
1 All Seismic Category I'ipe anchor and support base plates using expansion anchor/bolts were reanalyzed to account for plate flexibility, bolt stiffness, shear-tension interaction, minimum edge
- distance, and proper bolt spacing.
Depending on the complexity of the individual base plate configuration, one of the following methods of analysis was used to determine the bolt forces:
a ~
A quasi-analytical
- method, developed by Bechtel, was used for base plates with eight bolts or less.
An analytical formulation has been developed for the base plates which treats the plates as a
beam on multiple spring supports subjected to moments and.
forces in three orthogonal directions.
Based on analytical considerations as well as the results of a number of representative finite element analyses of base plates (using the "ANSYS" Code),
certain empirical factors were introduced in the simplified beam model to account for (a) the effect of concrete foundation and (b) the two-way action of load transfer in a plate.
These factors provided a
way to account for effects of variable parameters such as plate dimensions, attachment
- sizes, bolt spacings, and stiffnesses on the distribution of external loads to the bolts.
The results of a number of case studies indicated excellent correlation between the results of the present formulation and those by the finite element method (using the ANSYS Code).
The quasi-analytical method generally predicts bolt loads larger than the finite element method.
Although the effect of plate'lexibility has been considered explicitly in the quasi-analytical formulation described
- above, the impact of prying action on the anchor bolts was determined not to be critical for the following reasons:
1)
Where the anchorage
'system capacity is governed by the concrete shear
- cone, the prying action would result in an application of an external compressive load in the cone and would not therefore affect the anchorage capacity.
2)
Where the bolt pull out determines the anchorage
- capacity, the additional load carried by the bolt due to the prying action will be self-limiting since the bolt stiffness decreases with,increasing load.
At higher loads the.bolt extension will be such that the corners of the base plate will lift off and the prying action will be relieved.
This phenomenon has been found to occur when the bolt stiffness in the Finite Element Analysis was varied from a
high to a
low value, to correspond typically to the initial stiffness and that beyond the allowable design load.
A computer program for the analytical technique described above has been implemented for determining the bolt loads for
E-CR-87-002 Revision 1
Page.6 of 14 routine applications.
The program requires plate dimensions, number of bolts, bolt size, bolt spacing,. bolt stiffness, the applied
- forces, and the allowable bolt shear and tension loads as inputs.
The allowable loads for a given bolt are determined based on the concrete edge distance, bolt spacing, embedment
- length, shear cone overlapping, manufacturer's ultimate capacity, and a de'sign safety factor.
The program computes the bolt forces and calculates a
shear-tension interaction value based on the allowable loads.
The shear-tension interaction in the anchor bolts has been accounted for by conservatively assuming that the total applied shear is carried by the bolts in accordance with the following interaction formula:
(
)
+ (
)
=
1 0
T 2
S 2
TA SA b.
Where T and S are the calculated tensile and shear forces and TA and S A are the respective allowable values.
For special cases where the design of the support did not lend itself to the foregoing
- method, one of the following standard engineering analytical techniques with conservative assumptions was employed in the analysis:
1)
Conventional rigid plate analysis was performed to determine actual bolt tension load.
An amplification factor of 1.5 was applied to account for base plate flexibilitywith the exception of two bolt and four bolt symmetrical attachments under pure tension.
This amplification fact:or is considered conservative based on the AZSC Manual of Steel Construction, Part 4
(Connections in Tension) and the results of case studies performed by the finite element method to verify the quasi-analytical method.
2)
Conventional rigid plate analysis was performed with the exception that a conservative moment arm equal to the distance between the centerline of bolt and the outer-most face of the welded attachment was used.
Bulletin Action Item No.
2 Verify that the concrete expansion anchor bolts have the following minimum factor of safety between the bolt design load and the bolt
.ultimate capacity determined from static load tests (e.g.,
anchor bolt manufacturer's) which simulate the actual conditions of installation (e.g.,
type of concrete and its strength properties):
a.
Four For wedge and sleeve type anchor bolts, b.
Five For shell type anchor bolts.
The bolt ultimate capacity should account for the effects of shear-tension interaction, minimum edge distance and proper bolt spacing.
-CR"87-002 vision 1
Page 7 of 14 If the minimum factor of safety-of four for wedge type anchor bolts and five for shell type anchors cannot be
- shown, then justification must be 'provided.
The Bulletin factors of safety were intended for the maximum support load including the SSE.
The NRC has not yet been provided adequate justification that lower factors of safety are acceptable on a
long term basis.
Lower factors of. safety are allowed on an interim basis by the provisions of Supplement No.
1 to IE Bulletin No. 79-02.
The use of reduced factors of safety in the factored load approach of ACI 349-76 has not yet been accepted by the NRC.
Res onse to Bulletin Action Item No.
2 A reanalysis of all expansion bolts for pipe anchors and pipe supports for the system presented in Exhibit I was performed for Units 3
and 4
using. the analytical methods described in the response to Bulletin Action Item No.
1.
Less than one percent was found not to be in conformance with the minimum factors of safety of 4 for wedge type or 5 for self-drilling type, as appropriate, and repaired per, response to Bulletin Action Item No.
4.
Bulletin Action Item No.
3 Describe the design requirements if applicable for anchor bolts to withstand cyclic loads (e.g.,
seismic loads and high cycle operating loads).
Res onse to Bulletin Action Item No.
3 The original design of the piping systems considered deadweight, thermal
- stresses, seismic
- loads, and dynamic loads (including steam hammer in the main steam system) in the generation of the static equivalent pipe support design loads.
To the extent that these loads include cyclic considerations, these affects are included in the design of the
- hangers, base
- plates, and anchorages.
The safety factors used for concrete expansions anchors installed on supports for safety-related piping systems were not increased for loads which are cyclic in nature.
The use of the same safety factor for cyclic and static loads is based on the FFTF Tests*.
The test results indicate:
a ~
The expansion anchors successfully withstood two million cycles of long-term fatigue loading at a maximum intensity of 0.20 of the static ultimate capacity.
When the maximum load intensity was increased steadily beyond the aforementioned value and cycled for 2,000 times at ea'ch load
- step, the observed failure load was about the same.
as the static ultimate capacity,
- Drilled-In Expansion Bolts Under Static and Alternating
- Loads, Report
. BR-5853-C-4, Rev.
1, Bechtel Power Corp.,
- October, 1976.
E"CR-87-002 evision 1
Page 8 of.14 The dynamic load capacity of the expansion
- anchors, under simulated seismic
- loading, was about the same as their corresponding static ultimate capacities.
Bulletin Action Item No.
4 Verify from existing QA documentation that design requirements have been met for each anchor bolt in the following areas:
a
~
Cyclic loads have been considered (e.g.,
anchor bolt preload is equal to or greater than bolt design load).
In the case of the shell type, assure that it is not in contact with the back of the support plate prior to preload testing.
b.
Specified design size and type is correctly installed (e.g.,
proper embedment depth).
If sufficient documentation does not
- exist, then initiate a
testing program that will assure that minimum design requirements have been met with respect to sub-items a.
and b.
above.
A sampling technique is acceptable.
One acceptable technique is to randomly select and test one anchor bolt in each base plate (e.g.,
some supports may have more than one base plate).
The test should provide verification of sub-items a.
and b. above.
If the test fails, all other bolts on the base plate should be similarly tested.
In any event, the test program should assure that each Seismic Category I system will perform its intended function.
The preferred test method to demonstrate that bolt preload has been accomplished is using
- a. direct pull (tensile test) equal to or greater that design load.
Recognizing this method may be difficult due to accessibility in some areas an alternative test method such as torque testing may be used.
If torque testing is used, it must be shown and substantiated that a
correlation between torque and tension exists.
If manufacturer's data for the
'specific bolt used is not available, or is not used, then site specific data must be developed by qualification tests.
Bolt test values of one-fourth (wedge type) or one-fifth (shell type) of bolt ultimate capacity may be used in lieu of individually calculated bolt design loads where the test value can be shown to be conservative.
The purpose of the Bulletin is to assure the operability of each seismic Category I piping system.
In all cases an evaluation to confirm system operability must be performed.
If a base plate or anchor bolt failure rate is identified at one unit of a multi-unit site which threatens operability of safety related piping systems of that unit, continued operation of the remaining units at that site must be immediately evaluated and reported to the NRC.
The evaluation must consider the generic applicability of the identified failures.
E-CR-87-002 Revlsion 1
Page 9 of 14 Appendix A describes two sampling methods for testing that can be used.
other sampling methods may be used'ut must be justified.
Those options may be selected on a system by system basis.
Justification for omitting certain bolts from sample testing which are
-in high radiation areas during an outage must be based on other testing or analysis which substantiates operability of the affected system.
Bolts which are found during the testing program not to be preloaded to a
load equal to or greater than bolt design
- load, must be properly preloaded or it must be shown that the lack of preloading is not detrimental to cyclic loading capability.
Those licensees that have not verified anchor bolt preload are not required to go back and establish preload.
- However, additional in'formation should be submitted which demonstrates the effects of preload on the anchor bolt ultimate capacity under dynamic loading.
If it can be established that a tension load on any of the bolts does not exist for all loading cases, then no preload or testing of the. bolts is required.
If anchor bolt testing is done prior to completion of the analytical work on base plate flexibility, the bolt testing must be performed to at least the original calculated bolt load.
For testing
- purposes, factors may be used to conservatively estimate the potential increase in the calculated bolt load due to base plate flexibility. After completion of the analytical work on the base plates, the conservatism of these factors must be verified.
For base plate supports using expansion
- anchors, but raised from the supporting surface with grout placed under the base plate, for testing'purposes, it must be verified that leveling nuts were not used.
If leveling nuts were
- used, then they must be backed off such that they are not in contact with the base plate before applying tension or torque testing.
The Bulletin requires verification by inspection that bolts are properly installed and are of the specified size and type.
Parameters which should be included are embedment
- depth, thread engagement, plate bolt hole size, bolt spacing, edge distance to the side of a concrete member and full expansion of the shell for shell type anchor bolts.
If piping systems 2
1/2 inch in diameter or less were computer
- analyzed, then they must be treated the same as the larger piping.
If a chart analysis method was used and this method can be shown to be highly conservative, then the proper installation of the base plate and anchor bolts should be verified by a
sampling inspection.
The
,parameters inspected should include those described in the preceding paragraph.
If small diameter piping is not inspected, then justification of system operability must be provided.
E-CR-87-002 evision 1
Page 10 of 14 Res onse to Bulletin Action Item No.
4 Design requirements of anchor bolts for cyclic loads have been discussed in the response to Bulletin Action Item No. 3.
A jobsite inspection and testing program provided for verification of expansion bolts for both large bore (greater than 2 inches) and small bore (2
inches or less) pipe anchors and supports for Seismic Category I portions of the Units 3 and 4 systems presented in Exhibit I.
For those supports where it could be established that a tension load on any of.the bolts does not exist for all loading
- cases, then no preload or testing of the bolts was performed.
All
~ inspection,
- testing, evaluating and corrective actions were performed in accordance with written procedures.
These procedures and records of inspection,
- testing, and repairs are available at the Turkey Point Jobsite for inspection.
The program provided that the following information be veri'fied,
- recorded, evaluated and corrected, as required:
1)
Support plate conforms to design details, plate dimensions, plate thickness, and bolt configuration (number of bolts,
- spacing, edge distance, bolt hole size).
2)
Anchor bolt length, diameter, embedment
- depth, type.
3)
Anchor bolt projection.
4)
Nut/thread engagement.
5)
Pins and washers (on wedge type).
6)
Washers (on self-drilling type).
7)
Gap between plate and self-drill anchor sleeve.
8)
Leveling nuts backed off prior to torquing.
9)
Minimum torque achieved equivalent to preload of one-fourth ultimate tension capacity for wedge anchors and one-fifth ultimate tension capacity for self-drilling anchors.
Full expansion of shell (on self-drilling type).
Hangers/restraints were inspected for oversized bolt holes when the magnitude of loads, hanger/restraint configuration, and load application produced combined axial tension and shear only.
All other hangers/restraints including small bore pipe hangers have nominal loads which require minimal bolt to plate clamping capacity or surface contact area.
-CR-87-002 xevision l Page ll of,l4 Al] supports with inaccessible or nonconforming bolts were reanalyzed using one of the analytical methods discussed in the response to Bulletin Action Item No.
1 and repaired in accordance with written procedures.
When
- required, self-
.drilling type anchor bolts were replaced with wedge type anchor bolts.
Bulletin Action Item No.
5 Determine the extent that expansion anchor bolts were used in concrete block (masonry) walls to attach piping supports in Seismic Category I systems (or safety related systems 'as defined by Revision 1 the Bulletin). If expansion anchor bolts were used in concrete block walls:
a.
provide a list off the systems involved, with the number-of
- supports, type of anchor bolt, line size, and whether these supports are accessible during normal plant operation.
b.
Describe in detail any design consideration used to account for this type of installation.
c ~
Provide a
detailed evaluation of the capability of the
- supports, including the anchor bolts, and block wall to meet the design loads.
The evaluation must describe how the allowable loads on anchor bolts in concrete block walls were determined and also what analytical method was used to determine the integrity of the block walls under the imposed loads.
Also describe the acceptance criteria, including the number values, used to perform this evaluation.
Review the deficiencies identified in the Information Notice of the pipe supports and walls at Trojan to determine if a
similar situation exists at your facility with regard to supports using anchor bolts in concrete block walls.
d.
Describe the results of testing of anchor bolts in concrete block walls and your plans and schedule for any further action.
Res onse to Bulletin Action Item No.
5 A field walkdown of all Turkey Point Units 3
4 concrete block walls has been completed to determine the extent to which expansion bolts were used to attach piping supports for Seismic Category I systems.
Results of this walkdown verified that no expansion bolts were used to support any Category I system piping off block walls.
Bulletin Action Item No.
6 Determine the extent that pipe supports with expansion anchor bolts used structural steel shapes instead of base plates.
The systems and lines reviewed must be consistent with the criteria defined in Revision.1 of the Bulletin. If expansion anchor bolts were used as described
- above, verify that the anchor bolt and structural steel shapes in these supports were 'included in the
I
.E-CR-87-002 evision 1
Page 12 of 14 actions performed for the Bulletin.
If these supports cannot be verified to have been included in the Bulletin actions:
a
~
b.
provide a list of the systems involved, with the number of
- supports, type of anchor bolt, line size, arid whether the supports are accessible during normal plant operation.
provide a detailed evaluation of the adequacy of the anchor bolt design and installation.
The evaluation should address the assumed distribution of loads on the anchor bolts.
The evaluation can be based on the results of previous anchor bolt testing and/or analysis which substantiates operability of the affected system.
c ~
Describe your plans and schedule for any further action necessary to assure the affected systems meet Technical Specifications operability requirements in the event of an SSE.
Res onse to Bulletin Action Item No.
6 Structural steel shapes were used to a minor extent instead of base plates for pipe supports with expansion anchor bolts.
The anchor bolts and structural steel shapes in these supports were included in the actions performed under Revision 1
of the Bulletin.
For analytical methods
- used, refer to Part b of this report's response to Bulletin Action Item No. l.
-CR-87-002 evision 1
Page 13 of 14 III. SUKfARY OF REMAINING INSPECTIONS
. As noted in the Introduction to this report, some supports with expansion anchors were identified as requiring further inspection or evaluation as a result of a previous audit conducted by the NRC.
A summary of these suppor'ts is provided below:
A total of 135 supports on Turkey Point Unit 3
were identified as requiring inspection based on a comparison in the scope of inspections previously performed with the scope of Seismic Category I systems defined under IE Bulletin 79-14.
total of 26 supports on Seismic Category I systems shared by Turkey Point Units 3
4 were identified as requiring inspection based on a similar comparison in scope.
" 2)
The and 14.
A total of 234 supports on Turkey Point Unit 4
were identified as requiring further inspection based on a review
. of previous inspection documentation for these supports.
expansion anchors for these remaining supports were evaluated reported as an integral part of the work under IE Bulletin 79-This approach is justified based on the following reasons:
The Seismic Category I systems associated with these supports were designed for Safe Shutdown Earthquake loads equivalent to three times the Operating Basis Earthquake.
.Current state of the art indicates that loads based upon two times the Operating Basis Earthquake would be conservative.
In
- addition, the probability of a seismic event was considered remote since the Turkey Point site is located within Zone 1
on the Seismic'robability Map specific'd by ANSI A58.1, 1972.
2)
The occurrence of a
seismic event would only require 25 percent of the anchorage capacity of the bolts in the remaining supports.
3)
The IE Bulletin 79-14 program included evaluation of all seismic Category I large bore and dynamically analyzed small bore piping supports and associated expansion anchor bolts based upon as-built conditions.
This program provided for inspection, evaluation or repair of the:
expansion anchors based on final verified loads.
The inspection and evaluation for all of the above supports has now been completed.
VL/PIPESUPP.RPT0001
EXHIBIT 1 E-CR"87-002 Revision 1
Page 14 of 14 TURKEY POINT UNITS 3
AND 4 SYSTEMS COVERED BY SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM IN RESPONSE TO NRC IE BULLETIN 79 02 I MARCH 8 i 1979 g REVISION 1 i JUNE "2 1 i 1979 AND REVIS ION 2 i NOVEMBER 8 i 1979
~
1.
Residual Heat Removal/Low Head Safety Injection System 3.
Containment Spray System 4.
High Head Safety Injection System 5.
Chemical and Volume Control. System 6.
Post-Accident Containment Vent System 7.
Main Steam System 8.
Auxiliary Feedwater System 9.
Feedwater System 10.
Component Cooling Water System 11.
Intake Cooling Water System 12.
Diesel Generator Fuel Oil System 13.
Containment Isolation System VL/PIPESUPP. RPT0001