ML17297B744
| ML17297B744 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1982 |
| From: | Van Brunt E ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| To: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0857, RTR-NUREG-857 ANPP-22101-ACR, NUDOCS 8211010183 | |
| Download: ML17297B744 (23) | |
Text
REGULATORY NFORMATION OISTRI ACCESSION NBR ~ 8211010183 DOC ~ DATE! 82/10/2 FACIL:STN 50<<528 Pala Verde Nuclear Statiani STN 50 529 Palo Verde Nuclear Stations STN 50<<530 'Palo Verde Nuclear Station~
AUTH BYNAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION VAN BRUNTgE,E.
Arizona Public Service Co.
RECIP ~ NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION NOVAKrT HAMI Assistant Oifector far Li 6
NOTAR Unit li Unit 2r Uni~t 3 g ED:
YES Arizona Publi Arizona Publi Arizona Publi censing BUTION SY TEM (RIDS)
DOCKET ¹ 05000528 05000529 05000530
SUBJECT:
For wards response to 820311 ltr re evaluation of cable tray desi'gn 8
820917 ltr re summary af appeal meeting on cable'ray damping values, Submittal satisfactory resolves SER Section 3 ~ 7 ~ 1 DI'STRIBUTION CODE'001 S COPIES RECEIVED LTR
- / 'ENCI
/
SIZE ~
TITLE: Licensing."Submittal:
PSAR/FSAR Amdts 8, Rel.ated Correspondence NOTESStandardized plant ~
Standardized plant.
Standardized plant.
05000528 05000529 05000530 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME NRR/DL/ADL NRR L83 LA INTERNAL: ELD/HDS3 IE/DEP EPOS 35 NRR/DE/AEAB NRR/OE/EQB 13 NRR/DE/HGEB 30 NRR/OE/MTEB 17 NRR/OE/SAB 2Q NRR/OHFS/HFEBO(f NRR/OHFS/OLB 3A
,NRR/DSI/AEB 26 NRR/DS I/CPS 10
, NRR/DS I/ETS8 12 NRR/OS I/PSB 19 SI/RSB 23 00 RM
/MI8 EXTERNAL: ACRS 01 DMB/DSS (AMDTS)
LPDR 03, NSIC 05 COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
1 1
0 3
3 2
2 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 0
6 6
1 1
1 1
1 1
RECIPIENT ID COON/NAME NRR LB3 BC LICITRAtE ~
01 IE FILE IE/DEP/EPLB 36 NRR/OE/CEB 11 NRR/DE/GB 28 NRR/DE/MEB 18 NRR/OE/QAB 21 NRR/DE/SEB 25 NRR/OHFS/LQB 32 NRR/DHFS/PTR820 NRR/DS I/ASB 27 NRR/DS I/CSB 09 NRR/DSI/ICSB 16 NRR/OSI/RAB
?2, NRR/DST/LGB 33 RGN5 BNL(AMDTS ONLY)
FEMA<<REP DIV 39 NRC 'POR 02 NTIS
'OPIES LTTR ENCL 1
0 1
1 1
1 3
'3 1
1 2
2 1
1 1
1 l'
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 2
2 1
1 1
1 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR 55 ENCL 49
ll )>>
)" 11 1 <<)C)c) >>
~) "'~ <,I >)>> )>>>>)
ll Ci>>
1 f
)'
<)~"I r f qc)")
r f a c)')
cl )y
~
C>> F) f) 'g ri>>)0'a
~)I
>> j~
if>>
~
f 1
)
0 FF')
F l~
)F
<<FF1
)if)f c'F) 9 )
l'lf I >>>> 1 all I>>
) J Tgk>>r)a)
),l') ) )!, <<K: ) 1)a
~
)gr.">>
)) r r ', $ C.
q r>> I ) ) iFr r)A f )>
<>") I J "v>>
)w f 'Igq'tp>>111 h 1;))),
)) 3
,n,) f)ofV~r)c,'r )
)
'1 c) f
)
) I ') '
'1 f 'I
'.>c) '1 'i s
')'f')>>i<<f
~J f. >> '1 F ) 0
')
! I)>>k) j l >>)I>>,', Q
) "If")I 1
fl~) g '~ C I' f
l.'r)
'a) 1
~
e q II;~ -),)
) $ c., <<,) ) A
">>f'C
)>>f<>>A Jf J )
'1 C
(~c' fr Il
. Q '
I ~ 1 1
c I,,I 9
~
)
.)q f
))I,'I)Q i,","f ),l')<<
, f ) P ri!F,)b'.,a)>>)
fckf<o to 1.- i t);,1 fs i )
aa
)
<< f I L~"c)ci))
J
),f)I r);
>f+I>>) nf) p~fW ) ~)
I fc 1 lqf,
%r) par
)))
~~Vlcc.'f)') qraO)ZF")-~f )! '; ff,<<) f'I )),.")))) I);V
,;>> )i i-fa ) f; 1';);if>I.',Ic, F)>>! f P
) r')
~ r) r1)) r f >>)>>)>>',
<f)c)AA Sfc,'
i~ '.)
) 'I
,if',j:, ilgI I ) -) 'i
>>! )i, I rhr~
8 i~ Il 't'f( >IhrIg li)p>>
>>>> g())i
)'"
) )
'v" I 1f"'
"Tell~)
f >>l i)!
Filf<'r!")')fr I
1 It I
<1 '1!)>>, i)
>> N) i>> P )
. I I)), I ')
l
) % f l ') I:, n g. $ ',: >>>> I f ) < I
>> ))I~ f ) I)'i% f t!")I >>i f)L
<<c>>
~ ') ll!!f r) ')r) 5 f l'1 )rll>>
~ )! ~'0 fs IJ~'g rlf f I
1 I "L Ij ))'
) I
~ ))4'-If,k ))
)
f
<<If
) f,)l I')Ag I, >>g
~<<I
',J g t< I gglg
)
Jt I
l J.
f ci
)
f r
< fl t ilI
)r
)'4 <<+,>>>>
I ))i f( )
,! III! < ]
l,;,I!<<i X ) <) X
I lr
')
f F>>l <<g
)>>ll)>>1
','t <<t ~,f'"g'- g)'
'r. ) X 7 ~.'" X<')I)
<" )l(~
Ig'~k<
0!) t")
I fl f
l l
Ji I!: lr)8 I ff/f cf'.
) f
<!i HI% 'I
>l Ac,g <<<X))<),.
<<ff I j 'X j
I )X)!'>>
.f )X;; i <<)X):
I )),X)
Ilf
)hw~
')g)r Z)!>>I i "cfX X "" fX))SI:
C )
" >'~X>>
) I,'
(y I.<<F'l)>>i",) f, I
"I)ll 0 cfiir')
f f
cp ">~)X',
P. O. BOX 2I666 'HOENIX, ARI2ONA 8SO36 October 26, 1982 ANPP-22101 ACR/WFQ Mr. T. g Novak Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D. C.
20SSS
Subject:
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) Units 1, 2 and 3
Docket Nos. STN-50-528/529/530 File:
82-056-026; G.1.01.10
References:
1.
NUREG-0857, "Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 and 3. >>
2.
Letter from F. Miraglia, NRC, to E. E.
Van Brunt, Jr.,
- APS, dated March 11, 1982,
Subject:
Evaluation of Cable Tray Design.
3.
Letter from E. Licitra, NRC dated September 17, 1982,
Subject:
Summary of Appeal Meeting on Cable Tray Damping Values.
Dear Mr. Novak:
In Reference (1), Section 3.7.1, the NRC staff documented a concern on the use of high damping values used in the design of cable trays for PVNGS 1-3.
APS responded to these reference (1) concerns in a letter dated December 30,
- 1981, (ANPP-19803).
In response to the APS December letter, NRC concluded, in Refer-ence (2), that the PVNGS cable tray design was acceptable subject to the following conditions:
1.
Cable trays used. at the Palo Verde Plant are of the same material and config-uration as those used in the test program.
2.
No fire proofing spray is used, which is consistent with the test conditions.
3.
Damping values used in seismic analyses of cable trays are limited to 15~,
which is conservatively justified by the tests, instead of the 20'o proposed.
APS and NRC met on August 24, 1982 to discuss these conditions.
As stated in that meeting APS confirmed that the cable trays used ",t PVNGS are of the same material and configuration as those used in the test program and that no fire proofing spray is used, which is consistent with the test conditions.
As a result of the August 24, 1982 meeting and,as reflected in Reference (3), the staff accepted APS'ustification for using 20'o damping in design of the PVNGS cable trays.
- Also, APS agreed to provide the following additional information:
8211010183 821026 PDR ADOCK 05000528 E
r l
T. H. Novak, October;26, 1982 ANPP-22101' ACR/LP'Q Page 2
1.
A discussion of the conservative design parameters used for the Palo Verde Cable Trays.
2.
The results of a confirmatory analysis which compares the stress valves for three typical cable tray configurations (fully loaded with maximum) response spectra and with maximum spans) using IS~~ and 20~~ damping.
This information is provided in Attachment 1.
Ne believe this information adequately responds to your March 11, 1982, letter Reference (2), and the September 17, 1982 meeting
- summary, Reference (3),
so that the SER Section 3.7.1 concern is satisfactorily closed.
Very truly yours, E. E. Van Brunt, Jr.
APS Vice President Nuclear Projects ANPP Project Director EEVBJr/i'IF//sp Attachment cc:
E. Licitra L. Bernabei P. Hourihan C. Bischoff A. C. Gehr
Octobe 6,
1982 ANPP-22101 ACR/VFQ STATE OF ARIZONA
)
) ss.
COUNTY OF MARICOPA)
I, Edwin E. Van Brunt, Jr., represent that I am Vice President Nuclear Projects of Arizona Public Service Company, that the foregoing document has been signed by me on behalf of Arizona Public Service Company with full authority so to do, that I have read such document and know its contents, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief; the statements made therein are true.
p F
Edwin E. Van Brunt, Jr.
1982
~
My Commission expires:
( '-:, '.My Comrnlsslon Expires May 19, 1986 Sworn to before me this ikey day of Qc+4~
,Notary Public
0
'E~
I
'f I g ]ggj gg~g<jd,~>>
g1"'[g+<4/g(J14y )
(Pg~
TTACIHIEiVfI NRC-APS CABLE TRAY APPEAL MEETING ACTION ITEMS Item (1)
Provide a discussion of the conservative design parameters used for the Palo Verde cable trays.
R~es esse:
The PVNGS cable tray design program incorporates the use of sever>l types of standard supports'.
In developing these standard
- supports, many conserva-tive assumptions were utilized to minimize the number of different types of supports.
Several of the conservative design parameters used in the PVNGS cable tray design are discussed below:
Used Peak Accelerations-The PVNGS standard cable tray supports are generally designed using the peak accelerations from the in-structure response spectra (IRS).
Three directional seismic forces/stresses are combined by the square root sum,of the squares (SRSS) method.
b.
Used Maximum In-structure
Response
Spectrum Within Building Zone-Each building was divided into 1 or more zones and all cable tray systems within a particular zone were designed from a single IRS.
The maximum IRS within a building zone is used to design the cable tray supports.
This maximum IRS corresponds to the highest elevation within the building zone.
c ~
Assumed Maximum Number of Cable Trays per Support-The maximum number of cable trays per support, five, was used for the design.
This approach is conservative because only a very small percentage of all PVNGS supports actually have five trays on them with the majority of cable tray supports having between one and three t,rays.
d.
Assumed Maximum Support Spacing-All PVNGS supports are designed for the maximum spacing allowed between supports for the particular building and elevation.
The maximum spacing allowed between cable tray supports is determined from the maximum IRS within a building zone.
As a result, three maximum spacings were selected for the project.
The maximum spacing is 6'-6" everywhere in the plant except for the Control Building above elevation 120 feet where the maximum spacing is 5'-0", and the Auxiliary Building elevation 70 feet and below where the maximum spacing is. 8'-0".
The use of the maximum spacing in the design is conservative because the majority of supports are not at the maximum spacing.
~ t I
e.
Assumed All Trays Were Fully I,oaded (40 Pounds Per Foot)-
All cable tray supports are designed assuming the trays fully loaded (40 pounds per foot).
This design is conservative because the majority of cable trays are much less than fully loaded.
Furthermore, it is highly improbable that a five tray trapeze type support will have all five trays 100/ loaded.
The design damping curve shown in Figure 1 requires the use of damping values less than 20 percent for cable trays less than 50 percent loaded.
A comparison of cable tray design parameters for various loading cases is shown in Table 1.'he results in the table demonstrate that the maximum design load corresponds to the load case with the cable trays ful,ly loaded.
The design based on the assumption that the cable trays are fully loaded results in the upper bound deflection and consequently, the lower bound frequency when compared to actual installed loads.
For cable tray systems less than fully loaded, the frequency will increase resulting in a lower acceleration value.
The simultaneous use of the design parameters described in items a through e
above normally results in a very conservative design.
Item (2)
Provide the results of a confirmatory analysis which compares the stress values for three typical cable tray configurations (fully loaded with maximum response spectra and with maximum spans) using 15/ and 20/ damping.
~Res oese:
The selection of the three typical cable tray configurations and conditions for which calculations were generated was made after a careful and thorough analysis of the following factors:
a.
Support type The two support types
- chosen, trapeze and wall-mounted, (refer to PVNGS Types 1 and 2, respectively, shown in Figures 2 and 3) are typical of the majority of cable tray supports used in the plant.
b.
In-structure response spectra - The IRS for Control Building elevation 180 feet was selected because it has the highest accelerations of any building at any elevation.
Calculations were performed for both the trapeze and wall-mounted support type using this IRS.
However, since the maximum spacing allowed between cable tray supports for that building and elevation is 5'-0", another case was done for the trapeze support for the Control Building at elevation 120'-0", where the maximum spacing allowed is 6'-6".
The following assumptions and conditions were. used to generate calculations for three typical cable tray configurations for the comparison of 15 and 20 percent damping values:
a.
Calculations were based on SSE.
4 I
~ r b.
All cable trays were assumed 100$ loaded (40 pounds per foot).
c ~
Actual accelerations were calculated based on frequencies.
The lowest frequency for the three typical configurations is 9.5 cycles/sec (period of approximately
.1 sec) based on cable trays 100$ loaded, with the exception of the trapeze support type in the longitudinal direction where peak accelerations were used.
This point is to the left of the peak on the acceleration vs. period curves.
Cable trays less than 100$
loaded would have higher frequencies (lower periods) and therefore have accelerations equal to or less than the 100% loaded case.
'I d.
The maximum support spacing was used.
e.
The maximum number of cable trays per support, five, was used, in the calculations.
f.
Calculations were based on criteria that allow longitudinal braces at every other support.
The three cases of cable tray supports and conditions for which calculations were generated are described in Figures 4, 5, and 6.
The calculated member stresses and their combined stress in Table 2.
In evaluating the results given in Table 2, is the combined stress ratio.
The maximum difference in ratios for 15 and 20 percent damping values is less than ratios are tabulated the key parameter the combined stress 20 percent.
f' 1
28 24 20 50%TO FULLY LOADEDTRAY D
A P
I 12 G
(%)
8 7%
UNLOADEDTRAY& CO NDUIT 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 INPUT FLOOR SPECTRUM ZPA (g) 0.7 0.8 0.9 DAMPING AS A FUNCTION OF INPUT ZPA" NFROM BECHTEL DESIGN GUIDE C2.7, SEISMIC CATEGORY I CABLETRAYAND CONDUIT RACEWAYSUPPORT SYSTEMS Figure l
f
Table 1
COMPARISON OF CABLE TRAY DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR VARIOUS LOADING CASES CONTROL BUILDING AT ELEVATION l80 FT POUNDS PER FOOT PVNGS LOADING CASE EQUIVALENT TEST LOADING CASE(I)
DAMPING VALUE (%)
PEAK ACCELERATIONtg)
EQUIVALENT PEAK LOAD ACCELERATON(II)
EQUIVALENT LOAD VERTICAL DIRECTION HORIZONTAL DIRECTION 40 l00% LOADED 80%
LOADED 20 5.IO l244'/FT 1.65 25 62% LOADED 50% LOADED'0
'3.10 78@/FT I.65 41</FT 20 l5 50%
LOADED 38% LOADED UNLOADED 40%
LOADED 30% LOADED UNLOADED 17 l5 5.40 5.80 68 +/FT 574/FT 58+/FT l.75 l.90 2.70 35@FT 29+FT 24+/FT (I) 50LBS PER FOOT WAS USED IN THE CABLE TRAY TEST PROGRAM FOR TRAYS I00%
LOADED
I t
-:PVNGS CABLETRAYSUPPORT TYPES PVNGS CABLETRAYSUppORT TYpES p
/El ncxr rn
/
/~~RSE
&as(~
yQ A
/ /
I
/./
I
~
~
/ /
LCRh5I7ZCViVAL~
(~ ae eeoi) o TC7P g 5077ghf PLAN FRONT wmaec.~ ance(cmar)
V/BY4-4
~ -mn mKFaoeE 7
C L'OC/S CJOY SCCA 70 4M OEIVPICXbCCW ave grc~r~
TYPICALTRAPEZE-TYPE TRAY SOFFAclT TYPEQI
~f, M7TF.
C L u~eS meW~
7D WYCE$%'PACVh6 C7V dLlXi4 ECEVATlC7W TYRCAL WALL"MOUNTEDTYPE TRAY SUPPORT TYPE Figure 2
Figure 3
I
CXACSLA8 ORSTEEL tW Q7C SLAB>
CRSTEEL M G48LE TR4Yp PlOO/ TYP
~ERSE ass p~)
/
I AOCY TYP
~TR4hSVERSE BR'PCS)
/
yQ CASE I CONTROL BLDG EL 180 FT MAX SPACING BOWN SPT 5s 0
LONG BRCG EVERY OTHER SPT TRANSVERSE BRCG EVERY SPT Figure 4 CASE II CONTROL BLDG EL. 120 FT
,MAX. SPACING BTWN SPT
=. 6'-6" LONG.
6 TRANSVERSE BRCG EVERY OTHER SPT Figure 5
VERTC4L JOKE'(pggg)
CASE III CONTROL BLDG EL. 180 FT MAX. SPACING BOWN SPT = 5'-0" LONG. BRCG EVERY OTHER SPT VERT. KNEE BRCG EVERY SPT Figure 6
l 1
Table 2
COMPARISON OF CAICULATED STRESSES AND COMBINED STRESS RATIOS Case Hember Damping Valve aDL (k@i) aSV (ksi) aST (ksi) aSL (ksi) bDL (ksi) bsv (ksi) fbST fbSL Comb.
Stress
"(ksi)
(ksi)
Ratio Vertical 15>>
20%
0.43 0.43 0.80 0.78 1.23 2.22 1.08 1.23 1.91 1.08 2.01 1.95 3.81 31.02 1.15 3.80 26.61 0.99 15>> '.11 0.20 0.09 0.00 2.64 4.88 0.00 17.45 0.67 Horizontal Long. Brace Transv.
Brace Vertical Horizontal Long. Brace Transv.
Brace Vertical Horizontal Long. Brace Vert. Brace 20>>
15>>
20>>
15%
20>>
15%
20>>
15%
20>>
15>>
20%
15>>
20>>
15>>
20>>
15>>
20>>
15%
20%
15%
20>>
~ O.ll 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 0'6 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 1.57 1.57 0.00 0.00 3.60 3.60 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.78 0.21 0.20 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.46 4.24 3.92 0.00 0.00 9.73 F 00 0.00 4.86 0.00 3 10 0.00 0.00 3.10 0.00 0.00 2.13 1.47 1.42 2.03 1.22 1.42 0.16 0.00 3.43 0.15 0.00 3.43 0.00 4.14 0.00 0.00 3.44 0.00 5.37 0.00 0.00 5.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 F 00 0.15 0.85 4.72 0.15 0.85 4.72 0.00 2.42 0.00 0.00 2.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 2.64 0.00 5.67 0.00 4.75 0.00 0.00 0.00
~0.00 2.11 1.98 5.14 4.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.75 11.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.97 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.31 6.59 26.53 1.03 6.28 22.07 0.88 0.00 14.93 0.62 0.00 12.41 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 10.34 0.35 0.00 10.34 0.35 0.00 8.72 0.89 0.00 8.72 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0 ~ 17 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.67 WKRE f DL f SV f STf f L = Axial Stress Due to Dead Load, Vertical Seismic, Transverse Seismic, Longitudinal Seismic Respectively.
AND fbDL, fbSV, fbST, fbSL = Bendin8 Stress Due to Dead Load, Vertical Seismic, Transverse Seismic, Longitudinal Seismic Respectively.
aDL aSV aST aSL AND COHBINED STRESS RATIO =
a
+
bDL bsv bST bSL
( ).0 Fb x 1.6
i,