ML18116A388
| ML18116A388 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1979 |
| From: | Neighbors J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908220263 | |
| Download: ML18116A388 (8) | |
Text
..
I Docket No. 50-280 JUL 3 0 1919 L1CtrfiEtt VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY (VEPCO)
FACILITY:
SURRY UNIT NO. l
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING HELD ON JULY [ts ANO 19, 1979 IO REVIEH PIPE STRESS ANALYSIS I
The subject meeting was_held with VEPCO, Stone and.L4ebster 1
(S&W) -and Nuclear Services Corporation (NSC) to review the modi'fications required to pipe supports resulting from pipe stress reanalyses.
A list of attendees who attended one*-or both days is attac~ed (Attachment 1 ).
The fol lowing table lists the supports which we reviewed in detail and.
gives the reason for each modification. Some systems required modifi-cations for more than one.reason, but if seismic stresses were the cause, that reason is listed. These systems were originally analyzed with s11oeK 2.
Problem No.
System Reason for Modification 727 LHSI Seismic 735 HHS!
Modeling 766 CC~l As-Built Verification
& Thermal 481/507 CC~J As-Built Verification
& Reanalysis 480/488 ccw As-Built Veri fica-ti on
& Reanalysis 509 CCvl.
As-Built Verification 605 ccw As-Built Verification 526C CCH
- Seismic Tha following problems -which were previously analyzed with SHOCK ~6were
?'-l ~o -; rev-1,?wed: "... ;_:,::
Problem No.
749 748 System SFPC SFPC Reason for Modification Seismic As-Built Verification
, /
OFP'IC!!:,..
GURNAM!!:i>A ~~~~~~~~::~::~: *.-.i.~.~-~.~... A~.~*~*~*~*.*.~r.. ~~~.. ~~~1.t.~~~1.~~~... r.~~~..... ~h.. P.r.9.~J.~.%........................ :
DAT!!:,..
NllC FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM-0240 u.5.-QOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1970 "205 "700 7 908 2 2~ ~
'3' 1
e Meeting Summary for Surry Unit No. l In addition to reviewing the modifications required in.the above tables, support problems 562-5, 630-1, 636-l and 560-l l/2 were reviewed. These supportsfrequired modification because of increased loading or as-built problems.
At*the time of the meeting, the lieensee had analyzed a total of 80 out of 81 pipe stress problems and 518 out of 1189 supports. These totals, include 63 out of 63 pipe stress problems and 418 out of 991 supports resulting from the previous use of SHOCK 2.
Nineteen of the 63 problems required modifications to supports resulting from seismic stresses or -
other reasons. Nineteen,suppprts required modification because of in-creased foads on the supports.
- The licensee will ppovide a submittal on or about August 1, 1979 surruna-ri zing the resu 1 ts of the ana1.1,ses;;perfor:Jrfid.
Attachments:
- l. List of *Attendees Don Neighbors, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors
- 2. Details of Modifications cc: w/attachments See next page
/
}rf)'............. ~~t.~QQR.. Q.~***.................. :..................................................................................
- !)"' 8URNAMII..
- ** ~.~.~.~.~.. ~.).!.)~.... ~~.!J.f.~.9X.~........... :..,.,.............................. :.................................... **********************
07/
/79
. 07/'};/179 1
, DAT!!..
~
FORM. 318 (9*76) NRCM 0~40 U 0 S 0 GOVERNMENT PRiNTING OP'FICE: 197B - 2GIJ.
- 709
e UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 JUL 3 0 1979 Docket No. 50-280 LICENSEE:
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY (VEPCO)
FACILITY:
SURRY UNIT NO. 1
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING HELD ON JULY 18 AND 19, 1979 TO REVIEW PIPE STRESS ANALYSIS The subject meeting was held with VEPCO, Stone and Webster {S&W) and Nuclear Services Corporation (NSC) to review the modifications required to pipe supports resulting from pipe stress reanalyses.
A list of attendees who attended one or both days is attached (Attachment 1).
The following table lists the supports which we reviewed in detail and gives the reason for each modification.
Some systems required modifi-cations for more than one reason, but if seismic st~esses were the cause, that reason is listed. These systems were originally analyzed with SHOCK 2.
Problem No.
S1stem Reason for Modification 727 LHSI Seismic 735 HHSI Modeling 766 ccw As-Built Verification
& Thermal 481/507 ccw As-Built Verification
& Reanalysis 480/488 ccw As-Built Verification
& Reanalysis 509 ccw As-Built Verification 605 ccw As-Built Verification 526C ccw Seismic The following problems which were previously analyzed with SHOCK O were also reviewed.
Problem No.
Ststem Reason for Modification 749 SFPC Seismic 748 SFPC As-Built Verification 613 ccw As-Built Verification provides details of the modifications for each problem.
I I
J
Docket.Fi 1 e NRC PDR Local PDR NRR Reading ORB1 Reading H. Denton E. Case
- o. Eisenhut G. Zech W. Gammi 11 J. Mill er L. Shao R. Voll mer W. Russell B. Grimes T. J. Carter T. Ippo1 ito R. Reid A. Schwencer D. Ziemann V. Noonan P. Check G. Lainas G. Knighton e Chief, Systematic Evaluation Branch Project Manager DOR Licensing Assistant OELD OI&E (3)
R. Fraley, ACRS (16)
Program Support Branch TERA J. R. Buchanan NRC Participants Mr. Michael W. Maupin Hunton and Williams Post Office Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23213 Swem Library,
College of William and Mary Williamsburg, Virginia 23185 Donald J. Burke U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II Office of Inspection and Enforcement 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 JUL 3 C 197,9
NRC
~Neighbors W. Russell A. Lee G. Thinnes (EG&G)
VEPCO W. Spencer C. M. Robinson J. Daly S&W
~Esieli*onis R. Hankfoson W. Chamberlain B. Crowe K. Reinschmidt A. Mazman P. Pept.
P
- H11 d E. Homer R. s*exton R. Geliaas LIST OF ATTENDEES AT JULY 18 AND 19, 1979 MEETING ATTACHMENT l NSC (Quadrex)
B. Chexal H. Thailer G. Randall EBASCO R. 0 1Neill N. Shah J
e e
ATTACHMENT 2 DESCRIPTION OF MODIFICATIONS Problem 737, LHSI System.
An additional snubber is required because reanalysis resulted in over-stressing a 10~
1x10 11 Tee in a 10 11 1 ine.
This was a modifjcation required for seismic stress reasons.
Problem 735, HHSI System.
A north-south restraint and an east-west restraint were added to reduce stress. This stress difference resulted because the original analyses did not include 2 fT!Otor aperated*valyes*and a s_egment of pipe.
Problem 766, CCW System.
Two horizontal restraints were added to a piping line which not pre-viously modeled.
A piping modification had resul,ted in the disconnection and termination of the line. Also, an axial restraint was deleted for thermal stress considerations.~~
Problem 481/507, CCW System.
Two lateral supports and two horizontal guides were required.
The 1atera1 supports were added to correct as-built configuration and the guides because the reanalysis of the system showed guides had not been installed where needed.
Problem 480/488, CCW System.
Same as problem 481/507.
Problem 509, CCW System.
A vertical restraint was added because of as-built conditions (i.e.
U-bolt was missing on one of three lines.
Problem 604, CCW System.
Two lateral restraints were added to reflect the as-built condition.
Problem 562C, CCW System.
A spring hanger was changed to a vertical restraint and a lateral re-straint was adcled, both for seismic reasons.
Problem 2527/2529, CCW System.
An anchor was moved to eliminate overstress resulting from differential movements between the containment and auxiliary buildings.
This was a modification required because of modeling.
Supports were added on a heat exchanger to make it behave as an anchor as was assumed in original analysis. This is an as-built problem.
- Problem 527C, CCW System.
The same modifications are needed as on problem 2427/2429 for the same reasons.
In addition a vertical restraint is needed in an 18 11 line because the tee was not reinforced as required. This is an as-built problem.
Problem 517, CCW System.
A vertical support was needed to support the dead load in a 26 foot span of 10 11 pipe.
Lateral supports were required in a 6 11 line which was terminated as in problem 766. An east-west lateral restrai'nt was added.
These modifications were added because of as-built problems and to support a dead load which should have been supported originally.
An axial snubber was added as determined by reanalyses.
The following problems were reviewed but are those previously analyzed by SHOCK 0.
Problem 749, SFPC System.
Lateral restraints were added at 3 locations because of siesmic overstress
( 17%).
Problem 748, SPFC System.
A vertical restraint was removed because of a thermal stress resulting from as-built conditions.
Problem 613, CCW System.
An anchor was added for seismic isolation (not for overstress) and a lateral restraint was added because of the as-built configuration.
The following supports were reviewed.
Support 526-5 Increased load on the support resulted in bending of U-bolt in lateral direction on a 10 11 pipe.
Two lateral restraints were added.
Support 630-1 New channels are added to stiffen existing channels because of over-stress. This was an as-built problem.
Support 560-1/2 Loads on this support were not significantly different from original loads, but the welded attachment to the pipe should have had a backing plate. This was an as-built problem.
J
Meeting Summary for Surry Unit No. 1 In addition to reviewing the modifications required in the above tables, support problems 562-5, 630-1, 636-1 and 560-1 1/2 were reviewed.
These supports required modification because of increased loading or as-built problems.
At the time of the meeting, the licensee had analyzed a total of 80 out of 81 pipe stress problems and 518 out of 1189 supports. These totals include 63 out of 63 pipe stress problems and 418 out of 991 supports resulting from the previous use of SHOCK 2.
Nineteen of the 63 problems required modifications to supports resulting from seismic stresses or other reasons.
Nineteen supports required modification because of in-creased loads on the supports.
The licensee will pfovide a submittal on or about August 1, 1979 summa-rizing the results of the analyses performed.
11S & W has not considered closely-spaced modes in the reanalysis, in contrast to what was stated in the docket letter of March 30, 1979.
This matter was discussed in the meeting and was considered technically.
acceptable based on the confirmatory studies performed by EG&G on Maine Yankee and Beaver Valley plants.
11 Attachments:
- 1. List of Attendees
- 2. Details of Modifications cc~
w/attachments See next page
~~.,lit,~
Don Neighbo~ Proje~ Manager Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors