ML18018A723
| ML18018A723 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1983 |
| From: | Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Utley E CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8308300840 | |
| Download: ML18018A723 (17) | |
Text
1
'xe
~"
AUI; g g tg8~
Docket Nos.:
I50-400 "
and 50-401 Mr. E. E. Utley Executive Vice President Carolina Power P Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 4
DISTRIBUTION
~Document: Control-50.=400/401 NRC PDR L PDR NSIC PRC System LB83 Reading JLee BBuckley
- Attorney, OELD
Dear Mr. Utley:
Subject:
Request for Additional Information - Shearon Harris Me have reviewed your submittal dated June 22.,
1983 from Mr. tlcDuffie to Mr. Denton and find that additional information in the area of mechanical engineering is required in order to complete our review.
The specific information required is shown in Enclosure l.
lte request that you submit la)tresponse to the enclosed request in a timely manner to support the target date of November 1983 for the issuance of the SER.
Please advise us as to,when you plan to respond to this request.
If you have any question regarding the request, you should contact the Project Manager.
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
As stated Original signed by:
George W. Knigbton George H. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No.
3 Division of Licensing cc:
See next page
', -,'8308300840 830819
':, PDR ADOCK 05000400 PDR OFF 1CE>
SURNAME/
DATE5 DL
'BBuck1e v/y't "87jg)'8'3"" ""
~
3
~
ti@i0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 hton
'8'3""""
~ ~ OO ~ ~ 1 ~\\ ~ ~i~ 0 ~i~ 0 ~\\ ~ 10 ~
~ 0 ~ ~ 1itO ~ 0 ~ 0 ~
~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 000 NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFl CIA L R ECO 8 D COPY USGPO: 1981~&960
(i X1'y
&,f
Shearon Harris Mr. E.
E. Utley Executive Vice.President Power Supply and Engineering and Construction Carolina Power 5 Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 CC:
George F. Trowbridge,
- Esq, Shaw, Pittman, Potts 8
Trowbridge 1800 M
- Street, NW Washington, D.
C.
20036 Richard E. Jones, Esq.
Associate General Consel Carolina Power 5 Light Company 411 Fayetteville Street Mall
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 M. David Gordon, Esq.
Associ.ate Attorney General State of North Carolina Post Office Box 629
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Thomas S. Erwin, Esq.
115 W. Morgan Street
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. George Maxwell Resident Inspector/Harris NPS c/o U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. Route 1, Box 315B New Hill, North Carolina 27562 Charles D. Barham, Jr.,
Esq.
Vice President 3 Senior Counsel Carolina Power 5 Light Company Post Office Box 1551
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. John Runkle, Executive Coordinator Conservation Council of North Carolina 307 Granville Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Mr. Wells Eddleman 718-A Iredell Street Durham, North Carolina 27705 Mr. George Jackson, Secretary Environmental Law Project School of Law; 064-A University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Dr. Ph!])is Lotchin Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Mr.. Travis Payne, Esq.
723 W. Johnson Street Post Office Box 12643
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Mr, Daniel F.
- Read, President CHANGE
>Post Office Box 524 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Bradley W. Jones, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Richard D. W!ilson, M. D,
'25 Hunter Street Apex, North Carolina 27502 Regional Adminstrator - Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Karen E. Long, Esq.
Staff Attorney Public Staff -
NCUC Post Office Box 991 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Or. Linda. Little Governor's Waste Management Board 513 Albemarle Building 325 North Salisbury Street
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
210. 47 Pum Nozz1 e Loads The Design Specification CAR-SH-M-.,13'.;; rev.8, dated 5/4/83 (6. 1) says that in no case shall the acceptable reactions due to thermal loading plus the seismic loading be lower than:
M
= 250 SN where H
= resultant moment in any direction, ft-lb SH = section modulus of metal pipe connected to pump nozzle, cu in.
The Specification (6.3) indicates that SM is for Schedule 40 pipe;
- hence, for the 14-inch nozzle:
M
= 250x12x61.4
= 184,200 in-lb The Seismic Stress Analysis ME-529 dated 4/14/78'for the Service Water Booster Pump (Hodel 3405L) (4.2) cites a maximum resultant moment for the 1'4" Section of 28,920 in-lb.
(a)
Explain the seeming discrepancy where the Specification requires a
minimum 14-inch nozzle load capacity of M
= 184,200 in-Ib; whereas the Stress Analysis uses about one-sixth of that moment as the maximum load acceptable to the pump manufacturer.
(Also see f210.66) 210.48 Pum Seismic Loads The Design Specification CAR-SH-N-13, rev 8., dated 5/4/83 (Attachment Ho.
5, 4. 1) says that "Static coefficients will be furnished to the Seller at a later date."
The Seismic Stress Analysis HE-529 dated 4/14/78 (4. 1) says:
"The seismic loadings applied exceed those given by the specification...".
Explain how the statement in the Stress Analysis could be made in view of'he seeming absence of static coefficients "by the specification."
210.49 Purr Pressure Boundar Integrit (a)
What checks were made of the pressure boundaries of the centrifugal pump; e.g., of the casing bolts?
(b)
The Design Specification CAR-SH-M-13, rev. 8, dated 5/4/83 (9. 1) says that."Shop hydrostatic shall be made on all pump casings."
What was the hydrostatic test pressure and why is it not specified in the Specification?
Provide a copy of the NPV-1 data report applicable to the pump covered by the Stress Analysis ME-529 dated 4/14/78.
210. 50 Pump Anchor Bolts The Seismic Stress Analysis ME-529 dated 4/14/78 implies that the anchor bolts are "A-193-B7" bolts.
What is the anchor bolt material and how are'hey attached to the floor?
210.51 (Valve Seismic uglification of Motor 0 erators The Design Specification CAR-SH-M-.:'4f<'rev.
13 dated 1/28/83. (4.2) states that
~ ~
the Seller shall indicate in his 'b'id'package details of how qualification shall be provided and the Seller shall demonstrate the equipment's ability to meet the requirements that the operator shall start, run or stop during specified earthquake loading.
Describe the data furnished by the Seller to assure that the motor operators used on Seismic Category 1 valves meet 4.2d-3 of the Specification.
210.52 (Valve Requirements of S ecificati'on 16. 1 The Specification CAR-SH-M-44 rev.
13 dated 1/28/83 states that Category 2
and 3 valves shall be capable of sustaining several types of thermal trans-ients.
Describe the data furnished by the Seller to assure that Category
/
2 ot 3 butterfly valves meet 16.1g of the Specification.
210.53 Valve Report (JHA-77-99 dated 8/2/78)
P'.aes 2 and 3
Pages 2 and 3 are missing; please supply these pages.
210.54 Valve Re ort. Corres ondence with S ecification The Report JHA-77-99 dated 8/2/78 does not use the same identifications used in the Specification CAR-SH-M-44 rev 13 dated 1/28/83.
Furnish a cross-index between the Specification Category 2 or 3 valves and the Report.
(It seems like there 'is at least one Category 3 valve in the Specification that is not covered by the Report.)
210.55 Valve Re ort Dimensional In ut The procedure in Report JHA-77-99 dated 8/2/78 is incomprehensible without drawings of the valves.
Furnish drawings for the valve identification on Butterfly Valve Data Sheet 5 of 48, P.O.
No.
NY-435082.
The drawings should be in sufficient detail so that we can check the dimensions used in the calculations in the Report for this specific valve.
Ql 4
3
210.56
. Valve Static E uivalent Loads The Report JHA-77-99 dated 8/2/78 (Page 4) cites static equivalent loads and gives the source as "Ref. 1."
Reference 1 (p.
98 of the Report) is:
"Ebasco Spec.,
Addendum F,
Rev.
5, 5-19-77".
Me do not find the cited loads therein.
Is the Report incorrect'?
The Specification CAR-SH-M-44 (rev 13)
(6. ) gives static equivalent seismic loads, without definition as to whether Seismic is SSE or (1/2)
SSE.
Where did the writer of the Report obtain the static equivalent loads cited on p.4 of the Report~
210.57 Valve Shaft Allowable Stresses
.10 of Re ort JHA-77-99 dated 8/2/78 (a)
Mhere did the 95000 (psi?) yield strength for "Type 316 ST.
STL."
come from?
(b)
Material to A-564 Type 630 is furnished with minimum specified yield strengths ranging from 75 ksi to 170 ksi, depending upon
~ the hardening and/or aging treatment.
Where does the Specifica-tion CAR-SH-M-44 rev.
13 address this treatment so that the Report can use a yield strength of 125 ksi?
(c)
Page 93 of the Report shows calculated shaft membrane plus bending stresses of up to 74000 psi.
If failure of the shaft can lead to fai lure of the pressure boundary and if the calculated stresses are mainly due to pressure, the calculated stresses
'are deemed to be excessive.
Mhat are the calculated shaft stresses for the valve identified in Butterfly Valve Data Sheet 5 of 48, P.O.
No.
NY-435082 due to the Design Pressure of 225 psig?
Mhat are the allowable
~
'tresses for design conditions and where are they identified in the Specification?
210.58 Valve H drostatic Tests The Specification CAR-SH-H-44 rev.
13 (8.2) gives hydrostatic test require-
.ments for nuclear safety class valves.
(a)
OoesSection III require a hydrostatic (body) test of 1.5 times the design pressure?
If not, what is your interpretation of the Code hydrostatic test;!requirements for butterfly valves?
(b)
Specification 8.2a: - Is the pressure rating of 100F the same as the Oesign Pressure?
If not, what is the pressure rating of 100F?
Provide a sample record of the performance of the seat tightness test.
5
210.59 Pi in S ecification Loadin Combinations and Stress Limits-Where does the Specification CAR-SH-M-30 rev.
16 dated 4/18/83 define the loading combinations and associated stress limits for:
(a)
Class 1 Piping, and (b) for Class.2 or 3 Piping?
210.60 Pi in S ecification CAR-SH-M-30 rev.
16
, Corrosion and Erosion Allowances Where are corrosion/erosion allowances specified?
If not specified, how are the requirements of NB/NC/ND-3640 evaluated?
210.61 Pi in S ecification CAR-SH-M-30 rev.
16 Out-of-Roundness In 12.01a and 12.02a, there is a requirement:
"The degree of out-of-roundness shall be such that there will be no decrease ic:"lexibilityor increase in stress over the allowable stress for the design conditions."
(a)
How is assurance obtained that this requirement is met?
(b)
Is an increase in flexibilitypermitted?
(c)
What is the "allowable stress for the design conditions" ?
210:62 Pi in S ecification CAR-SH-M-30 rev.
16 Minimum Wa'll Thickness There are several. places where minimum wall thickness is specified; e.g.,
II, 2.15 "weld end preparation...
does not encroach on the minimum wall of fittings..."
II, 11.
"The wall thickness after machining or grinding shall not be less than the minimum wall thickness specified by the Pipe Code and/or Piping Line List.
Appendix A of the Specification, "Pipe Codes",
does not identify any "mini-mum wall thickness" (or even a nominal wall thickness) and the Piping Line
Lists (at least those furnished for Service Mater, Unit 1) do not specify minimum wall thickness.
However, our major concern is with:
II, 5.03 "In no case shall tiimming of the inside diameter result in wall thickness less than the minimum required for the service conditions outlined in the Pip'ing Line List of this. specification."
As indicated by guestion PI-2, we have not found any indication of what corrosion/erosion allowance is used in evaluating the adequacy of piping.
- However, assuming that A = 0.0625" for the line identified as "3SM8-87 SA" (8 inch nominal size, Sch.
80, nominal thickness of 0.500 inch, SA106 Grade 8 material),
the "minimum required wall thickness for the service conditions" is either:
t = 130x8.625/(2(15000
+ 52))
+ 0.0625 = 0.100 inch for "service condition" = "maximum operating",
or t = 150x8.625/(2(15000
+ 60)) + 0.0625
= 0.105 inch.
for "service condition" = "design."
Mhere is the cited minimum wall of II, 5.03 of the Specification used
- and, where used, what i-factor for girth butt welds is used?
210.63 Pi in Stress Anal sis Data References to S ecification The Stress Analysis Data package (16 pages) appears to be a summary of the status of the design of the piping covered by Calculation No. 8050-1.
Me have been unable to find any references to "Design Specification" CAR-SH-H-30.
Mhy has the Design Specification seemingly been ignored in this package?
210.64 Pi in Stress Anal sis Data ND-3640 Re uirements Me have not found any indication that the requirements of ND-3640 of Section III have been considered.
How is assurance obtained that the requirements of this
important part of Section III have been met?
(A reply is expected that addresses assurance of adequate pressure design for all Section III piping; not just the piping covered by Calculation No. 8050-1.)
210.65 Pi in Stress Anal sis Data Allowable Flan e Moments The Stress Analysis Data package contains sheets showing moments from Calculation No. 8050-1 and "Allowable l1oment"; presumably in units of ft-lb.
The allowable moments of 32285 an'd 64570 apparently were calculated by Eqs.
(12) and (13), NC-3658.3 of the present Section III.
Eqs.
(12) and (13) can be used only if the flanged joint uses high strength bolts.
(a)
What is the basis for the 99214 allowable moment?
(b)
Where does the Specification CAR-SH-H-30 rev, 16 assur e that high strength bolts are used in the flanged joints?
4,
~
210.66 Pi in Stress Anal sis Data.
Loads on Pump Nozzles The Stress Analysis Data package contains sheets showing loads from Calculation No. 8050-1 and allowable resultant forces and moments.
However, there is no check of combination of thermal, weight and either OBE or DBE. It would seem that pump nozzles could be subjected to a combination of these loads.'hy.are no combined load checks made?
(See also (210.47) 210. 67 Pi in Com uter Out ut 8050-1 Allowable Stress f = 1. 0 The allowabl.e stresses agree with generally acepted Section III allowables for Class 3 piping, provided f is equal to unity.
Mhere does the Specifica-tion provide the basis for using f = 1.0?
210.68 Pi in Com uter Out ut 8050-1 i-factor for Meldolets Apparently, the i-factors for Weldolets were calculated by the equation:
i = 0.9[R/(3. 3T)]
This formula is not now and never has been in
Section III.
Provide the basis for the i-factor used for Meldolets, (The response should be cognizant that tests on full outlet Meldolets are not representative of the reduced out].'ebs, involved; and tests with moment applied to the branch are not repr.es'entative of moments applied to the run..)
210. 69 Pipin Com uter Out u't(8050-1)
Loadin Combinations The computer output gives stresses for ification CAR-SH-H-30 rev.
16 give the Cases to run and how to evaluate them?
210.70 Pi in Computer Out ut 8050-1 11 "Cases."
Mhere does the Spec-.
analyst instructions as to which See also f210.47.
Seismic In ut Data
'here does the Specification CAR-SH-M-30 rev.
16 give instructions on how
'o select the specific seismic input data for piping system analyses?
Appendix F, "Seismic Consideration For Mechanical Equipment" is included in the Specifi'cation but we have not seen any reference to it i'n the text of the Specification.
For example, Appendix F "'s not referenced in 3. of Part I or in 23.01 or 23.03 of Part II.
- Further,
- 2. of Appendix F says that:
"Safe shutdown earthquake loads for all equipment (except as noted in the specification) are obtained from the attached Floor Response Spectra Curves for Horizontal and Vertical Excitation."
The "attached" curves are labeled "Typical... Spectra" and, despite what Appendix F says, we assume that these are not the spectra used in, for example, Calculation No. 8050-1.
A 210.71 Pi in Su ort S ecification A licabilit of Section III The first sentence of 22.05 in Specification CAR-SH-M-30 rev.
16 is:
"All V
supports and hanger components shall conform to the requirements R/2 of the ANSI Code for Pressure
- Piping, B31. 1, and ASME Section III, as applicable,...".
What are the applicable requirements of Section III?
Identify by Edition/
Addendum date and Section III heading identification; e.g.,
NC-3674 (1971).
210.72 Pioin Su oort S ecification Sup lementar Steel Versus Auxiliar Su ortin Steel Par.
- 22. 05 of the Specification CAR-SH-M-30 rev.
16 states that "supplementary steel" shall be in accordance with AWS Dl. 1, etc.
Par.
- 22. 16 states that "auxiliary supporting steel" shall be designed on the basis of the allowable stresses as per the AISC specification, etc..
What are the definitions of "supplementary steel" and "auxiliary supporting steel?"
210.73 Pi in Su ort S ecification CAR-SH-M-3( rev.
16
- 22. 14 When shear lugs or fabricated lugs are
- used, how are the stresses due to these attachments evaluated?
See NC3645 (1971) and (1980).
210.74 Pipin Su ort S ecification CAR-SH-M-30 rev.
16 (22.08)
The. first sentence reads:
"The supporting force required and movement at each hanger location shall be determined by Seller through methods of calculation reviewed by Purchaser".
This appears to be contradictory to other portions 'of The Specification where the Purchaser (Ebasco) apparently calculates the forces and movements at each hanger location.
What is the intent of the quoted sentence?
210.75 Pi in Su ort S ecification CAR-SH-M-30 rev.
16 23.03 The first two sentences read:
"Unless otherwise
- noted, the seismic analysis is based on the 1/2 Safe Shutdown Earthquake.
Unless noted differently in the analysis, the forces imposed on restraints by the Safe Shutdown I
10.
C 4
4 Earthquake (SSE) are twice the magnitude of those for the 1/2 SSE".
Calcula-tion No. 8050-1 provides data for OBE and DBE; e.g.,
Cases 10 and 200.
Under what circumstances are the provisih1j'j's of the quoted sentences applied?
\\
id}
210.76 Pi in Su ort Ber en-Pate'rson Han er Sketches The form sheet used by Bergen-Paterson appears to be inappropriate; various lines are marked out and relabeled in an inconsistent and partially illegible manner.
The first two lines of loads (with one exception) agree with Calculation No. 8050-1, Case 41 or Case 1.
Some of the other entries agree with Calculation No. 8050-1, Cases 10,
- 200, 11 or 12.
Our copy of Calcula-tion No. 8050-1 is identified as Rev.
2, 5/5/81, which is apparently the same as used by Bergen-Paterson.
Explain the relationship "between the Bergen-Paterson loads and those given in Calculation No. '8050-1.
Having obtained loads from somewhere, Bergen-Paterson presumably combines them in some manner and applies some criteria to select or design the support.
Mhere does Specification CAR-SH-M-30 rev.
16 pr'o;cribe these load combinations and criteria.
If not contained in the Specification, describe the loading c'ombinations and criteria used for Shearon-Harris supports of Section III Class 1,
2 and 3 piping.
11
E'.
~*
F