ML17258A194
| ML17258A194 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1981 |
| From: | Nelson T LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY |
| To: | Russell W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17258A195 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-A-0415, CON-FIN-A-415 SM81-259-01216, SM81-259-1216, NUDOCS 8110060416 | |
| Download: ML17258A194 (11) | |
Text
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Mr. William T. Russell, Branch Chief Systematic Evaluation Program Branch Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Reg.
Washington D.C.
20555
Dear Bill:
September 30, 1981 SM81-259/0121b FIN A0415 Docket No. 50-244 Zg(g o
0gp
< '/,-7
+lg~
1~o+7 8
o
/~i"( j,~,< K~
I have enclosed a copy of a report addressing resolution of open items for the Ginna plant as a result of the September 9,
1981 meeting at the RG h E offices.
Sincerely TAN/tlm enclosure Thomas A. Nelson Structural Mechanics Group Nuclear Test Engineering Division 9
~ 8 5 s 8i100604ih 8+8930 ADOCYi, 05000244 V~
~ p~~
P,z8"x~.-
N -~r-. -.:,';
",~...~ ~
$ (
~
gQ Q
~
~
~
STRUCTURAL.
IECHAntCS RSSOCl ATES 3645WarrensvilleCenterRoad Cleveland,Ohio44122 (216)991-8842 16 September 1981 Mr. T. A. ¹lson Program Manager, SEP Seismic Peview Nuclear Test Engineering Division Lawrence Livermore Laboratory P. 0. Box 808 Livezmore, California;.94550
Dear Tce:
Attached hereto please find my comments regarding the meeting held at RG&E offices on 9/9/81 to address the unresolved or open items in the mechanical electrical equipment SEP oncerning seismic integrity.
We have also updated Chapter 5 of MJREG/CR-1821 to reflect the resolution of items discussed at the meeting where appropriate.
Please advise if you require any clarification.
Sincerely, DDS:clj Enclosure c.c.
Dr.
Tom Cheng John 0. Stevenson Vice President and General Manager
'e(
RESULTS OF MEETING BETWEEN RG&E THEIR COhSULTANTS AND THE NRC-SEP STAFF (iM3 THEIR CONSULTANTS The following agenda items were discussed with resolution or comments as follows:
A.
Com onent Coolin Surge Tank
- Og The review comments contained in Section 5.3.1.3 of NUREG/CR-1821 were discussed by GAI personnel acting as consultants to RGEE.
Basically, they confirmed that no positive anchorage against sliding currently existed in the longitudinal direction and they provided a stress
- summary, Attachment A which indicated that the horizontal base plate and anchor bolts are over stressed.
They have proposed a solution of adding two additional bolts to each of the two support legs.
This has the effect of reducing bending stresses in the horizontal base plate and helping to carry shear stress.
It was pointed out.during the discussion by Or. Stevenson that the addition of the two new bolts in each saddle would induce loads from restraint of free end displacement due to thermal oradients that currently are not identified in the design of supports and tank.
GAI representatives stated that they had reviewed the effect of the restraint of thermal expansion in the tank and attached pipe and stated that the resultant stresses were quite low.
They have not completed the analysis of their proposed fix but assur d that the acceptable stress limits presented in Attachment A would be met.
Or. Stevenson stated that if the stress limit criteria of Attachment A were met, the resultant design should demonstrate seismic design adequacy.
- However, h'e further stated.
a personal preference that, if at all possible, the modified support system should not provide thermal restraint.
B.
Refuelin Water Storage Tank GAI'has not finished the analysis which is scheduled now for a 1 December 1981 completion.
Or. Stevenson reported the concern and conclusions reached in Section 5.3.6.6 of NBEG/CR-1821, that if the potential amplified response of the tank under impulsive load was considered instead of the assumption of tank rigidity used in the original design, linear elastic analysis would indicate that the tank shell would buckle and the anchor bolts fail.
Results of the GAI analysis..should be available for review by 1 December 1981.
C.
Auxilia
-Buildin Braci Bracing evaluation of the auxiliary building is scheduled for completion by 1 November 1981.
D.
Anchora e of Electrical E'i ment and Internall Mounted Components Dr. Stevenson reviewed typical design fixes supplied by RG&E in response to IhE Bulletin 80-21 concerning anchorage of electrical equipment.
The criteria used in modifying the anchorage as expressed in "Final Report Anchorage and Seismic Support of Safety Related Electrical Equipment" RGAE Project No.
EWR-2831 dtd. 12/31/80 appeared quite conservative in that a factor of 1.5 times the peak of the applicable floor spectra was'sed for the design modification.
The RGhE analysis also considered the effect of bolt prying in their reevaluation and redesign.
In general, they used the expedient of providing new anchorage in the form of stick welded angles to the cabinet plate at the base which was then xpansion bolt anchored to the concrete slab rather than evaluating the existing anchorage design and installation integrity.
All int rnally mounted components and devices weiching more than 25 pounds were analyzed as separate assemblies.
Attachment of all internal devices and components were surveyed to assure all indicated attachments in the form of bolts, screws, clips, etc.
were installed.
Dr. Stevenson concurred that the electrical equipment anchorage design and internal mounted devices and components evaluations and modification appeared quite adequate.
However, he'expressed a concern that the load path structural design adequacy between an electrical component or device through the panel frame and bracing to the equipment.anchorage had not been adequately demonstrated as required (see Attachment B).
This was a notable concern in Ginna as compared to Dresden-2 in that Dresden-2 provided upper lateral supports as well as new base supports to the
~ cabinets thereby effectively halving the r action forces and reducing bending moments by a factor of four.
In addition, cabinet fundamental frequencies are increased by a factor of 3 as a result of the upper lateral restraint which in this case should also reduce the inertia loads.
Or. Stevenson suggested that RGhE should structurally evaluate, on g sample basis, electrical panelboards, cabinets and racks to demonstrate their structural design adequacy to the requirements of the AISC Code as modified by the SRP Section 3.8.4 for the load combination which included the SSE.
E.
~t The battery racks are-essentially the same as the Gould racks used on Dresden-2.
Detailed structural analysis of the Gould racks.for Dresden-2 indicate the only area of potential failure is in the wooden battens.
In Ginna the existing racks have been stiffened by an external structural steel bracing system which is independently expansion anchored to the floor.
In Or. Stevenson's opinion the design modification to the racks is obviously capable of carrying currently defined seismic loads.
In general, RGAE has made evaluation of Seismic Category I motor operated valves larger than 2" part of their seismic upgrade program where stresses in piping including the effect of eccentricity are determined to be within code allowables.
The valve assembly.is modeled for analysis as an equivalent tee section.
Dr. Stevenson expressed a concern that it is the smaller diameter piping that is particularly sensitive to eccentric valve laods.
RGhE agreed to review its Seismic Category I 2" and under lines to identify any MOV.
A separate calculation would be performed to evaluate the effect of valve eccentricity on the piping stresses.
To date no additional evaluation of valve operability has been supplied.
See Section 5.3.1.7 of NUREG/CR-1821.
H.
Essential Service Water Pum s
No additional information has been supplied.
Demonstration of functionality during a seismic disturbance is still an unresolved issue.
lS
ANALYSIS REPORT Com onent Coolin Vater Surge Tank (CMST)
Sup orts I.
Analysis Basis A.
todels The CCWST was considered to be an idealized single degree-of freedom rigid body supported by two saddle supports.
The saddle supports were considered to be fixed at the top at the weld
')oint connecting them to the tank body, and pin connected at the base at the anchoz bolts connecting them to the supporting structural steel beams.
B.
Loads The three orthogonal components of SSE seismic loads were de-termined by 1) considering the support system (combined saddle and beam) frequency in each direction, respectively,
- 2) using damping equal to 3Z of critical damping, and 3) interpolating between floor response curves at elevations 271'-0" and 315'-0".
Pressure and temperature loads were determined considering the tank design conditions (section 7.0 of the Design Criteria) and the lateral stiffness of the supporting structural steel beams.
C.
Stresses Stresses were calculated by hand using conventional formulas for stress and strain.
II.
Analysis Results Nomenclature is consistent with the definitions given in section 8.0 of the Design Criteria (unless noted).
Only maximum Actual Stresses resulting from the load combinations specified in the Design Criteria are presented belo~.
Also, only controling Stress Limits are defined.
Com onent/Location Actual Stress KSI Stress Limit KSI A.
Saddle All Vertical'lates 2.
Corner of Outside Vertical Flange Plate 0,
1.16 5;+a', - 32.23 1.5S 21.75 2.25S
~ 32.63 3.
Shear Stress in Vert-ical Flange Plates
- 2. 30 Not defined by ASM code for Class III plate and shell stzuctures, consid-ered acceptable
Component/Location Actual Stress KSI Stress Limit KSI 4.
Shear Stress in Vert-ical Web Plate 0.39 5.
Horizontal Base Plate 6.
Shear Stress in Welds joining Saddle Plates f,+ Oz >> 76.73
>> 33.17
'.25S 32.63 F~
2.25S 36.90 B.
Shear Stress in Weld joining Tank and Saddle 16.14 F
>> 2.25S 36.90 C.
Anchor Bolts 1.
Shear Stress 3
2.
Tension Stress 15.90 ft 21.31 F~ >> 1.6S'6
~ 00 F
>> 1.6(26)-1.8f
>> 12.97 t
v
AmacHnasur 8 '
ATTACHMENT At)C'rlORAGE AND SUPPORT OF SAFETY RELATED ELECTRICAl EQUIPMENT POINTS TO BE ADDRESSED BY SEP
~ LICENSEES IH DECEHSER 31, 1980 SU Bt1I TTAL In orma ion should b
provided not only for the anr.'.iorage of el ctrical equipment bu. also the entire support that provides a load oath (such as bracina and fram s), as well as support for'nternally attached components.
The latter is specially important for cabinet or panel type electrical equipment (such as contnl panels, instrument panels, e.c.)
which has in-ernally support d components.
An example of a potential improperly
'upported internal car.-cnent would be a
h avy component cantilevered o,f a front sheet r,etal panel without additional support to a stronger and stif er loca.ion.
7nese inadequate supports for internal components also should be iden ified and corrected before December 31> 1980.
In order toverify that an anchorage or a support of safety related electrical equipment has ad quate capacity, provide justifica ion by test, or analytical means.
If expansion anchor bolts exis
, justi,i-cation provided previously for IE Bulletin 79-02 can b uiiliz d if applicable.
The acc=p.ance criteria for substantiating these judg m nts should be provided, -his may involve specifying the ac or of sa,ety and allowable stress limits used for d sign and justifying the overturning moment arid shear force used.
5.
Provide a table listing all (to include both floor and wall mounted) safety related electrical equipment in the plant.
For e=-ch piece of equipment provide the in ormation described in the at. ached table (attachr nt 2).
These inves igations os each piece of equipment shou'ld de ermine:
a.
Mhe her positive anchorage or support exists b.
The type o anchorage c.
l(hether in rnally attach d componen.s-are properly supported d.
Identify non-seismic Category I equipment, the dislodgement of which duri ng an earthquake nay be detrimenta1 to. safety rela.ed equipment and render them inoperable.
Inspection of. the anchorages of such non-seis-ic Category I equipment should be conducted.
If positive anchorages do not exist, they should be i,dentified and modifi'ed be ore December 31, 1980.
Mherever modif'.caticns of anchorages or supports are required, these rodifications should be implemented and 'noroughly docum nted.
The seismic design o
cable trays
-,zy be treated as a separate
- problem, because of its complexity.
Each licensee or the SFP Owner's Group. should provide a separat action plan for the resolution of this issue within 30 days of receipt of thYs letter.
ATTACI!ffI!T 2 SI!IPP1RT Of IIIyESTICWTINIOr NICIIO!IAGE AIIO SuPPORT OF SAPETT gUgED ELECTRIC/I. EqUIPIIEIIT A!ID IION-SEISIllC QTEGOIN 1
ITEIIS Tllhf IAT OANGE TIIIS EqU!f'IItIIT Equip.
Na>oo Equip.
ID Syste>a In Mhlch lna ta lled location Type of Bldg. 4 Eley. Anchorage'nternal)y Max Anchorage Ik>dlfled CqT>li>.
!IN'ince Jan. I, lgBO L ID
~ ~
ttachad Co>>>ponents Tyl>e 0 Manu!>pnrI Support Evaluated ll!ltdi%
IIaa>e t
!0
~Su <<rl I Cituf~
'Var Support Eva!uatcd I!on-Selxi>lc Cat I I te>>>s that coul J potcntl ~ l ly I.D. of Doc>N>en t Supporting
Cunclut ion
'EaaePIea of Type of Anchoragel l.
Bolted to Equip>>>e>>t 2.
Bolted to Concrete Mall 3.
Bolted to Concrete Slab 4.
BolteJ to Block Mall 5.
Melded to EaI>edded Channel
~
~ ~