ML18114A567

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 790419 Meeting W/S&W & Util in Boston,Ma Re Review of Pipe Stress Analyses
ML18114A567
Person / Time
Site: Surry Dominion icon.png
Issue date: 04/24/1979
From: Neighbors J
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
790427, NUDOCS 7905150789
Download: ML18114A567 (7)
v • d • e


Text

,

---~

-~.

APRIL 2 4 1979 Docket LICENSEE:

Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO)

FACILITY Surry;, Unit 1

SUMMARY

OF ~1EETHJG HELD ON 'A.PR IL 19, 19.79 AT _STONE AND WEBSTER TO REVIEW SURRY 1 PIPE STRESS ANALYSES I

Th*e subject meeting was held on April 19,* 1979 at.the Stone (S&:W) Building in Bost.on, Massachusetts with S&H and'VEPCO.

of the meeting was to review the pipe stress analyses which and Webster The purpose

  • had been completed fqr.Surry Unit *l.

A 1 i st of *attendees is attached.

The first topic. of discµssion v,as the *status of the analyses. Nr: Robinson stated that 58 analyses were to be pe"rformed.

ihe analyses incl.ude all systems for which SHOCK II *was used and those SHOCK I systems which have the 6 11 Velan heavt 'lalves.

Five *analyses were comp.lete for pipe stresses only and one of those was complete regarding hangers.

VEPco* v1as asked when responses will.be made to the NRC 1e*tters dated.

April 2*,, 1979 concerning information needed to review the' analyses and the April 13, 1979 1 etter-concerning the soil structure interaction.

Mr. Robinson. stated that VEPCO expects to respond to enclosure 1 of the April 2, 1979 *1etter in just a few days and the April 13', 1979 letter in one to two weeks.

i,Je informed VEl?CO and_ S8M that EG&G, NRG consultants~ wi 11 be performing some independent computer* analyses as* an audit of the S&W analyses.

We requested that VEP.CO and S&W pr-ovi"de the *prop'?r i.nformation to EG&G for the few analyses that EG&G wil 1. perform.

The first two.analyses selected were problems 322A and 1555, mafo

  • steam 1 i ne and 1 mv pressure safety injection 1ine.. Other arn~lyses ir,ay be selected as t!Jey are completed.

A list of the information needed is.attached.

This information will be sent to-EG&G and referenced by 1 etter -to NRt~

. r-I l. I -t. I \\

OirFIClltjll>

  • * **** '. ** ;. ** * * ** * ;. * ** * * ** * * * ** *** ** ** * ;°;*, *.* ( *.
        • ..... : :...... :**... :.:...,.. C. -................... : ;.. ~-...... :...... *:.. :..... ~...... :..........,.................... :................,.....,....... :.:.

'~......................... ****:**********************............................................................. '.................. **********************

MRC FORM 318 (9°76) NB.CM 0240 u._n. GOVl!RN,!tl.llNT P'Rll'~TING OPPICI!*:,197.~ - 26s*- J.G9.

r.

- 2

\\ \\

The five packages provided for review-were (l)\\problem 323A (main steamline lo_op.11.., the complete-package), (2) ptoblem 322A (main steam-line loop B),. (3) problem 334/l, (main steamline \\loop C), (4).problem 1555 (low head safety injection), at~d (5) problem 465 (service water line)"

During review the new pipe stresses and support*. 1 oads determined by rJUPIPE were found to be generally acceptable, except the follo1tling:

l.

Problem 323A - The capacity of the snubber at one of the a(lchor points is rated as 11 kips.

For the reanalysis. however, the new load cal~ulated was 11.4 kips, wh~reas in the old analysis it was about 29 kips. Stone and Webster was requ~sted to clleck this appa ren_t design i neons i stency.

2.

Prob 1 em 1555 - New nozzle 1 oads obtained \\\\lere qreater than old nozzle loads.

Nozzl~ allowable loads were.yet to be specified to check-- the acceptabi 1 i ty of the new nozzle l_oads.

3.

Problem 4.65 - Mew nozzle loads were either greater or less than the old loads.

Like item 2, nozzle allbwable loads were yet to be spe*c; fi ed to check the acceptability of the new nozzle loads.

Stone and Webster stated that among ~8 analyses to be performed, some had calculated overstress. It is expected that.once new floor response curves based on soil-structure interation were adopted, the' level of pipe stresses and support loads would b~ significantly reduced.

In regard to Velan valve weight variation, Stone and Webster had identified six-6 11 safety injection lines (three cold legs and three hot legs) each attached viith two Velan clleck valves.

The preliminary results, according to Stone and Webster, were that some overstress ih piping were calculated.

Concerning *the base plate flexibility, VEPCO stated that a procedure was being established to look into this problem J-\\ttachment:

  • List 6f Attendees Original Signed By J. Do:n Mei ghbors, Project Manager

.Operating Reactors Branch #1

/

~.

0,.F,c11:~ i c:

See next bage

. OR:. Bl.

..... "..... """.... ""................................ kt.................................................................... *...............

Y, 'P **-***.-.................... :................................ ~.gh.b.°.~~.=~.b.................... :,................,......... ~.......... :..........

t

~

I E

i11U;79.*

DAT i>o NJI.C PORM 318 (9-76) NRO.! 0240 U.S. GOVERNMr!!CNT PRl 0

NTING OFF'DCE: t 978 -*20B - 760

I

  • e ***:..,.. '..,,,.,, :.* !I UNITED STATES *.

NUCLEAR REGULATOR:Y:COMMISSIO WASHINGTON, _r;>. C. 20555 Apri 1 24, 1979 Docket No. 50-280 LICENSEE:

Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO)

FACILITY Surry, Unit 1

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD ON APRIL 19, 1979 AT STONE AND WEBSTE~

TO REVIEW SURRY 1 PIPE STRESS ANALYSES The subject meeting was held on April 19, 1979 at the St.one and Webster (S&W) Building in. Boston, Massachusetts with S&W and VEPCO *. The purpose of the meeting was to review the pipe stress analyses which had been.

completed for Surry Unit 1.

Ali.st of attendees is attached.

The first topic of discussion was the status of the analyses.

Mr. Robinson stated that 58 analyses were to be performed.

The analyses include all systems for which SHOCK II was used and those SHOCK I systems which have the 6 11 Velan heavy valves. Five analyses were complete for pipe stresses only and one of those was complete regarding hangers._

VEPCO was a.sked when responses will. be made to the NRC letters dated April 2, 1979 concerning informati-on needed to review the analyses and the April 13, 1979 letter concerning the soil structure interaction.

Mr. Robinson stated that VEPCO expects to respond to enclosure 1 of the April 2, 1979 letter in just a few days and the April 13, 1979 letter i n one to two weeks.

We informed VEPCO and S&W that EG&G, NRC consultants, will be performing some independent computer analyses as an audit of the S&W analyses; We requested that VEPCO and S&W provide the proper information to EG&G for the

.few analyses that EG&G wi 11 perform.

The first tw_o analyses selected were problems 322A and 1555, main steam line and low pressure safety injection line. -Other.analyses may be selected as they are completed.*

A list of the.information needed is attached.* This information will be sent to EG&G and referenced by 1 etter

  • to NRC~

/

e 1 April 24, 1979 I

The five packages provided for review were (1) problem 323A (main stealllline loop A, the complete package), (2) problem 322A (main steam-line loop B), (3) problem 334A (main steamline loop C), (4) problem 1555 (low h.ead safety injection), and (5) problem 465 (-service water line).

During review the new pipe stresses and support loads determined by NUPIPE were found to be generally acceptable, except the following:

l. Problem 323A - The capacity of the snubber at one of the anchor points is rated as 11 kips. For the reanalysis, however, the new load calculated was 11.4 kips, whereas itithe old analysis it was about 29 kips. Stone and Webster was requested to check this apparent design inconsistency.
2.

Problem 1555 - New nozzle loads obtained were greater than old nozzle loads. Nozzle allowable loads were yet to be

    • specified to check the -acceptability of the new nozzle loads.
3.

Problem 465 - New nozzle lioadsiwere either greater or less than the old loads. °Like item 2, nozzle allowable loads

were yet to be specified to check the acceptability of the new nozzle loads.

Stone and Webster stated that among 58 analyses to be performed, some had caltulated overstress. It is*expected that once new floor response curves ba~ed. on soil-structure inter~tion were adopted, the level of pipe stresses and support loads would be significantly reduced.

In regard to Velan valve weight variation, Stone and Webster had identified six-6 11 safety injection.lines (three cold legs and three hot legs) each attached with two Velan check valves.

The preliminary results, according to Stori~ and Webster, were that some overstress in piping were calculated.

Concerning the base plate flexib_ility, VEPCO sta.ted*that a procedure was beiri~ eitablished to look into this problem

Attachment:

List of Attendees cc:

See n~it pa~e C\\, 9~ <'\\,

  • I,J t<k/:J
0. Don Ni~~~-;roject Manager
  • Operating Reactors Branch #1

,l

_A

Distribution:

Docket Fi1es {50-334)

NRC-PDR LOCAL PDR ORB#l Reading NRR Reading C. Kamnerer J. Foucha rd R. Fraley, ACRS(l6)

H.. R. Denton E. G. Case V. Stello R. Mattson R. Boyd R. DeYoung*

D. Eisenhut R. Vollmer B. Grjmes*

R. Denise J. P. Knight A. Schwencer D. Ziemann T. Ippolito R. Reid P. Check G. La inas D. Davis V *. Noonan F. Schauer R. Bosnak L. Heller K. Wichman F. Miraglia W. T. Russell S. Hosford*

J. Fair J. Giannelli P. Riehm M. Hartzman K. Desai

  • A. Lee Receiptionist, Bethesdµ Program Support Staff J. Souder (LPDR Advance Copy)

Project Managers (4) (C. Nelson, J. D. Neighbors, P. Polk, D. Wigginton)

OELD J. Scinto 0I&E(3).

M. W. Peranich, I&E 0SD(3)

S. Showe, I&E E. Jordan, I&E C. Parrish R. LaGrange D. K. Morton K. Herring

~ :\\.

April 19, 1979 Meeting NRC D.Neighbors A. Lee J. Martore D. Bessette (ACRS)

R. Macek (EG&G)

VEPCO C. M. Robinson W. Earl W. Spencer S&W D.King B. Crowe D. Esielionis W. Schulz*

ATTACHMEa.

LIST OF ATTENDEES

e

. e..

a* The following engineeting ~ata is required to perform an ANSI B31. 1 audit calculation:

1.

List of design and operating temperatures ~nd pressore.

2.

Detailed piping drawings and/or isometrics indicating the geometry of the piping system along with all necessary dimensions (including bend radii) and weld locations.

3.

List of nominal pipe sizes, schedules, weights, insulation weights, and materials.

4.

List of pipe support types, locations, stiffnesses, and preloads (spring hanger hot loads).

5.

List of valve locations, weights, lengths, and eccentricities (center of gravity locations)

6.

List of any anchor movements (thermal, seismic, etc.) and locations.

7.

QBE and SSE response spectra.

8.

Description of any special fittings or components present on the piping system.

  • 9.* Stress summary based on Shock II/Nupi pe results.
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML18114A567&oldid=4997285"