ML19208B824

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Supplements 790530 Response to IE Bulletin 79-07, Seismic Stress Analysis of Safety-Related Piping. Forwards Correspondence Re Use of Computer Program for Seismic Analysis of safety-related Piping Sys
ML19208B824
Person / Time
Site: Fermi DTE Energy icon.png
Issue date: 08/22/1979
From: Hines E
DETROIT EDISON CO.
To: James Keppler
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
References
EF2-46-919, NUDOCS 7909210462
Download: ML19208B824 (8)


Text

.

E_dward.. . Hines

> W 2 1 k*

_.m,...~

Ed.ison ms-August 22, 1979 EF2-46,919 Mr. James G. Keppler Regional Director Directorate of Regulatory Operations Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137

Dear Mr. Keppler:

Subject:

Detroit Edison Response to IE Bulletin No. 79-07 This letter supplements our letter of May 30, 1979 on the same subject. With the attached letter by Edison Engineering and the letters, also attached, from two engineering firms we feel our investigation is complete. ,

Please advise us if you have any questions regarding this report or our interim report of May 30, 1979, letter number EF2-46,147.

Sincerely yours, Y l}kd4' ward Hines EH/TCB/hr Enclosure cc: Mr. John G. Davis, Acting Director Office Inspection and Enforcement Division of Reactor Inspection Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 AllG 271979 I53 conv.xy Ja e 7909210 742

. Detroit Edison ENRICD FERMI UNIT 2 PRCUECT DEINEERItE August 21, 1979 EF2 - 46224 RIC~iVED

'Ib: #*

R. W. Barr Quality Assurance p, g. g ,y 206 Engineering Construction-Troy From: F. E. Gregor / \/)

Principal Engineer - EF2 ' 4-318 Engineering Construction-Troy

Subject:

Follw-up Report in Response to IE Bulletin 79-07 Follwing our initial msponse (EF2 - 45214) to the subject bulletin, we received two outstanding replies from engineering firms that have conducted seismic analysis of safety related piping systems.

The responses are as follms:

1. Atanics International Division of Rockwell Canoga Park, California As stated in our mmorandun, EF2-45214, AI did not use any of the unacceptable methods identified in the bulletin.

A detailed response is attached as AttachTent "E."

2. General Electric - I&SE, Oak Brook, Illinois The detailed response confirmed our telephone ommunica-tion that none of the unacceptable methods were used in the analysis of the GD piping. 'Ihe GE-I&SE letter is included as Attachnent "F."

'Ibe above concludes our review and response to Nr'.C Bulletin 79-07.

FED /dk Attach.

cc: W. F. Colbert E. Lusis/L. Bertani M. G. Sigetich G. Butterworth T. G. Byrd  !

Ibcument Control ggQg

o. .~ ~

Atomsco Intemational Division ATIAcHgn=N> =

Energy Systems Group i 8900 De Soto Avenue Canoga Park. CA 91304 Telephone (213)3411000 TWX. 910-494-1237 Rockwell Ter 1810'7 International June 27, 1979 In reply refer to 79ESG-6478 Mr. F. E. Gregor Systems Engineer

- Enrico Fermi-2 Project Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit , Michigan 48226

Reference:

Letter EF2-44673 dated fiay 10, 1979, "Information Request Regarding the Use of Ccmputer Program for Seismic Analysis of Safety Related Piping Systems"

Dear Mr. Gregor:

Subject:

Enrico Fermi Hydrogen Recombiner - Information on Use of Computer Program for Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Piping Systems .

In response to the referenced letter, the following answers are provided:

(1) A Response Spectrum Model Analysis was used, but loads were combined as follows:

N U= I (UI)2 I=1 Where:

U = Response (force, moment, translation, etc.) for a particular degree of freedom N = Number of modee UI = /UIXX/+/UIYY/+/UIZZ/

and:

UIXX = Response in I th mode, x earthquake direction, x spectrum input UIYY = Response in I th mode, y earthquake direction, y spectrum input UIZZ = Response in I th mode, Z earthquake direction, Z spectrum input fg(

se0.1452

79ESG-6478 June 27, 1979 Page 2 7

(2) Computer program listings (using SAP IV) were documented for

- the Fukushima 4 design in the Fukushima 4 stress report (SR-019-120-003). The same stress report is used for the Fermi-2 recombiner and should already be in the possession of Detroit Edison.

(3) The SAP IV Program has been verified by analysis and the verification report will be mailed by July 16, 1979.

(4) None of the methods mentioned in Item 1 of the referenced letter were used.

Very truly yours, -

R. J. Cardenas Project Manager BWR Recombiners Atomics International Division Energy Systems Group geg:3/1-2 s

l$b

IN STALL ATION AN D 84 b b, , ( [ h { { '[j j C

. SERVICE ENGINEERING GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY. 814 CoMYERCE DR., OAK brook. ILL. 60521 D1V1SION August 7,1979 cc: D.L. Rybarik 2 . .,- --- -

A- , I p\IeuL i . ,H l 6 t___.' s s

Mr. F.E. Gregor System Engineer Femi 2 Project Detroit Edison 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, MI 48226

SUBJECT:

Information Request Regarding the Use of Computer Program for:

Seismic Analysis of Safety Relateo Piping Systems.

REFERENCES:

Detroit Edison letter EF2-45219, 5/29/79, W.F. Colbert to V.J. Bain.

Dear Mr. Gregor:

Pursuant to your letter on the above Subject, G.E.-ISSE submits the followirig responses:

Teledyne Engineering Services (TES) performed the seismic analysis of CRD Hydraulic piping for Enrico Fermi Unit 2 and the attached information is intended to assist DECO in responding to USNRC IE-Bulletin 79-07 dated April 14, 1979.

Essentially, TES did not use any of the methods listed in USNRC IE-Bulletin 79-07.

The methods used by TES on the Femi plant are described in Attachment 1.0.

The computer program used on Fermi 2 was ADLPIPE, which is commercially available through CBC. TES cannot send a Fortran listing of the ADLPIPE program iFince it is proprietary to Arthur D. Little.

A comparison analysis of ADLPIPE and TMRSAP is given in Attachment 2.0. This com-parison is done for the method used by TES running earthquake directions separately and combining outside the program.

We hope that this information will assist you and DECO in the preparation of DEC0's response. If you have any questions concerning this, please contact the writer.

Sincerely,

f. D"*D U

V.J. ain O ~ ' ~

Service Manager-Construction Central Nuclear Service Operation

~D) I A

v. "l

. a 5

VJB:kkk -

Attachments SS@

ATTACHMENT 1.0 TES SEISMIC ANALYSIS METHOD Piping systens were analyzed for each of three orthogonal component response spectra (two horizontal and one vertical) separately. The recre-sentative maximum value of the three moments M , M y , and M, at any point in the piping system subjected to each of the three indepeEdent spatia'l compqnent resconse spectra was obtained by taking an SRSS summation of the medal responses for all significant modes of the syste1. Ma thena tical l y, this is expressed as follows:

N 1/2 M

3 = } k=1 kMjl I (1) where M, is the representative maximum value of moment, j is the moment component direction k, y, or z. Mj is the peak value of moment compcnent k

due to the k th mode, and N is the number of significant modes.

The combined effect of the three spatial components of earthcuake was detemined subsequently by the following procedure The representative maxi-mum values horizontal of the codirectional components moments of earthquake (either M x,by were combined M[he SRS5 method andand M,) from the t this SRSS value then added absolutely to the representative maximum value of the codirection moment for the vertical component of earthquake. Mathe-matically, this is expressed as M

J"((M)X+(M) j j + (Mj)y (2) where E j is the total seismic moment componentx 3 , y N or Ez ' (M j)X,Y,Z are the representative maximum values of codirectional moments (SRSS values) for each of the X, Y, Z earthquake directions, respectively. Since all tems are SRSS values, they all possess a positive sign. This is basically the equation givert in the methods reports (References 1 and 2) for the plants in question.

The only alternative to any of the steps described above that TES used in the piping seismic evaluation in some of the plants was a slightly conser-vative but more expedient method to evaluate stress in Class 2 and 3 piping systens. This alternative consisted of taking the representative maximum

. values (SRSS of modes) of the fix , My and M., moments and combining then by the SRSS method to determine the ASME Code' resultant moment Mg for each spatial component of earthcpake. The total resultant moment RB was tnen detemined by combining the individual resultant mcments for each spatial

~

lT[

390.tsi+

'HW H M - -,. _ M - WWM

TES Seismic Analysis Method Page 2 component of earthquake in a similar manner as described above in Equation 2.

IIB* l (MB) +(M)l B + (M3}Y (}

Again, all terms on the right side are SRSS values and hence are positive.

~

0ne can see from the above procedures that there are no algetraic s:.mma-tions involved which could lead to unconservative results.

G 4

m D

d O

e 8902$

6

ATTACHMENT 2.0 COMPARISON ANALYSIS Comparison of ADLPIPE and TMRSAP Seisnic Stresses for PIPDYN Manual exmnple oroolan that is also used in SAP IV Manual.

X - Direction Seisnic Spectral Loading, 831.1 Stress Summary Mode Intensification ADLPIPE THRSA)

Nwnber Comoonent Factor Stress, osi Stress, si 3 Run 1.00 411 4C9 3 El bow 2.00 1122 114' 4 El bow 2.00 1105 1105 4 Run ' ,

1.00 3 97 395 8 Branch 1.00 896 39 9 Run 1.00 537 537 9 El bow 2.71 1448 1452 p

oe _I g

o JU L d1j r ilk rda rr 3

[q o 330 m

- , - - -