ML19225D028

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to IE Bulletin 79-07 Re Seismic Stress Analysis of safety-related Piping.Forwards Interim Rept from Consultants/Vendors.No Piping Computer Programs Employing Algebraic Summation Utilized by Consultants/Vendors
ML19225D028
Person / Time
Site: Fermi DTE Energy icon.png
Issue date: 05/30/1979
From: Hines E
DETROIT EDISON CO.
To: James Keppler
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
References
EF2-46-147, NUDOCS 7908030602
Download: ML19225D028 (18)


Text

s.

/ I

%' \

e... s me,

.~. . .

. [><3tncii.t . . . ..

Ecison ..

May 30, 1979 EF2-46,147 Mr. James C. Keppler

~P Regional Director Directorate of Regulatory Operations aegion 111 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137

Dear Mr. Keppler:

Subject:

Detroit Edison Resconse to IE Bulletin No. 79-07 This letter is in response to your IE Bulletin No. 79-07, dated April 14, 1979, which describes seismic stress analysis of safety-related piping.

Enclosed please find an interim response to your inquiry in our memorandum EF2-45,214 of May 25, 1979, advising you of the status of seismic analysis information received from our consultants / vendors.

Please advise us if you have any questions regarding our interim report on this matter.

Sincerely yours, h 4%W 4, RWB/Im Attachments cc: Mr. John G. Davis, Acting Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement Division of Reactor Inspection Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555

"' 07, 7 908080 60 L "440 . 087

Detroit c~ - .. . .

Edison . r . . ' ENRICO FER.'!I UNIT 2 PROJECT '

ENGINEERING May 25, 1979 EC2 - 45214 To: R. W. Barr Project Quality Assurance Director .

206 Engineering Construction-Troy 7 From: F. E. Gregor (/

Principal Engineer - EF2 318 Engineering Construction-Troy ' h

Reference:

lE-Bulletin No. 79-07, dated April 14, 1979

Subject:

Fermi 2 Interie Response to NRC - Bulletin 79-07 We have reviewed the above referenced bulletin and identified six consultants / vendors that have performed seismic analysis of safety related piping systems for the Fermi 2 plant. They are:

1. Stone & Webster Michigan, Inc. , Cherry Hill
2. Sargent & Lundy Engineers. Chicago,
3. General Electric Company. San Jose 4 NUTECH, Inc., San Jose
5. Atomics International, Canoga Park
6. General Electric I5SE, Oak Brook, Illinois Each individual consultant / vendor was requested to respond to the infor ation request of the bulletin. In sur=ary, none of the con-sultants/ vendors utilized piping computer programs e= ploying algebraic (considering signs) summation in perfor=ing response spectrum or time history dynamic piping analyses.

The individual responses are as follows:

1. STONE & WEBSTER MICHIGAN. INC.

A detailed response to item (3) of the bulletin, computer program description end verification, is AAG . 088

Meno to: May 25, 1979 R . 'n'. Barr EF2 - 45213

s. .

being provided in response to the March 13, 1979 Order to Show Cause f or the Surry !.' nits 1 and 2, (see Attachment A). A progran summary and verifica-tion data is given in the FSAR Section 3.13.4.1.

,. 2. SARCENT & LUNDY ENCINEERS The detailed response is provided in Attachment B.

Their programs are also described in FSAR Section 3.13.1.26.

3. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, SAN JOSE The General Electric response is provided in Attach-cent C. A generic submittal to the Coccission in July, 1979 will provide verification data for the FISYS computer program, utilizing five NRC benc.

mark problems.

4. NUTECH , INC.

A complete response is given in Attachment D

5. AT0MICS INTERNATIONAL Telegraphic response was received, stating that the methods in question have not been used in the dynamic analysis of the skid piping for the hydrogen recombiner systems. The complete assembled proto-type skid including the piping within the system have also been successfully subjected to a seismic shaker table test with a response spectra enveloping the applicable Fermi 2 seismic response spectra.

The detailed computer program description and verifi-cation will be submitted within 90 days.

6. GENERAL ELECTRIC I&SE The control rod drive insert and withdraw piping and the scram volume discharge piping were analyzed by CE-I&SE and subcontracted to Teledyne. A detailed response was not received in time and will be provided within 90 days. It was confirmed by telephone, that the methods in question have NOT been used.

440. 089

Memo to: Maj 25, 1979 R. W. Barr EF2 - 45213 In conclusion, we will provide a follow up report sube.itting the detailed responses of two of our consultants / vendors.

FEC/dk cc: W. F. Colbert/E. Lusis/L. Bertani M. G. Sigetich G. Butterworth T. Byrd Docu=ent Control

.J APPROVED h' / 't 6 W. F. Colbert /

Project Engineer Enrico Fermi 2 E 9 f

6

- l C- to: - - - '

s LF.- tani-3 p ~6g' C .- p6 - ! %

-i'

>8 """

i g i C e. :. e Lb c r -

  • L:TJaiber:

l JJcsiglic

!!r . r. Cry or  % ;- 2 .~ , ; < -

Syste.,s Engineer

~T.nr;co Fe r-1 *Jnit 2 i.'.'n.

J' 2000 Second Avenue S C -52C Detroit. *i1 43226 N. ':r. Crer,or:

TASK NO. Oo706 RE." .iSE TO JSMT.C 3ULLETIS 79-07

" ICO FC 's A7n1IC FOh'ER PLA.:7 - UNIT 2

Reference:

DECO Letter ::o. EF2-44,670 datei w : .. - '7-Your referenecd letter requested S&k' response *' . US'::C ;illetin ^^-74 Our respons: is as follows:

Itens 1, 2, an? 4: In response to It ens 1, 2, an:' < . n.) co :t.tcr rM 4 h.:ve been idc ntified by S&b' tb.ic'. uced a. s v t't

. tW -

described in Ite: 1 of the ',ulletin.

Itcr 3: The coeputer program ?.JPIPT., % rsions '2x li' 0.,;i'-

heen used to analyze the safet:-telatcl r t uv. c f t <

f ollouing systc=s of Enrice c r-l-2 :

a. Standby Liquid Control Sys te--
b. Main Stean Drain Syst.-
c. RPV Vent Systen
d. Main Steam Valve Lcc': e Cont r i Lycte-Verification of cenputer progra~s used by St. ' src ' i-addressed in response to the Ar:11 2 AJecn.5- to : c March 13 Order to Show Caur.c for 5arry : nits 1 a, : _.

S6t?'s in-house benchnarkin.- Ifnks all ma in ve rs i r : of

'.UPIPL to Version 0310.

0} (!

$h h l

A

  • s 2.

If you have any questions, pIbase call.

Verj truly yours, N

sf/W C. E. Thorr.es Exoject Enr,ineer ECD:DJR u

092

ATT ACH ME MT@

S A R G ENT & LUNDY ENGINEERM

,co.o..-.................,

5 5 C AST MON ROC STOC CT CHICAGO,lLLINol5 606 03 Tt.c.=c=t - 32-269 2000 CASwE ACQ8f $$

  • SARW% CMicaOO May 15, 1979 Project Nc. 5285-16

.- SLM-1011 The Detroit Edison Company Enrico Fermi - Unit 2 Reply to NRC IE Bulletin No. 79-07 Mr. F. E. Gregor, System Engineer Enrico Fermi - Unit 2 The Detroit Edison Cocpany 2000 Second Avenue Detrcit, Michigan 48226

Dear Mr. Gregor:

We have responded to your request in EF2 - 44, 674, dated May 10, 1979 by Mr. R. F. Scheibe 's letter of May 2, 1979 addressed to Mr. W. F. Colbert. Attached is a copy of Mr. Scheibel's letter and Sargent & Lundy's response.

If there are any questions, please contact me.

Yours very truly,

)hm D. R. Larson Project Manager DRL/dm In du-11cate Attacbent Copies:

W. F. Colbert 1/1 C. R. Seibert 1/1 R. F. Schelbel (1/ )

F. P. Tsai (1/1) 440 093

i * *

.Y <

&&Q

  • g bAROENTS$*1JUNDT 2:n oi.n:s na rh= cts o' entorm :n samocat eses

,,, 5 5 E A S T MONROC ST ACE?

CHiOAGC,tLLf NOf 5 60603

';,,f,, , 7 toto-o=t - 312 263-2000 212 2ss.3s7o caett as:stss - Samo s =.e .c.4 o s May 2, 1979

.The Detroit Edisen Company Reply to NRC IE Bulletin Nu:.ber 79-07 Mr. W. F. Colbert Project Engineer The Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226

Dear Mr. Colbert:

The attached enclosure is in response to NRC IE Bulletin 79 Seismic Stress Analysis of Safety-P. elated Piping.

This is for your transmittal to the NRC.

Please contact us if there are any questions.

- Very truly yours, C

( .-E~~= CLM WD hk R. F. Scheibel Project Director RFS:klm In quadruplicate Encicsure .

Cocies:

/ D . ' R. Larson (1/1)

.. .- -g 440 .094

-e me e -e e.

s '

._ c N GlN E E R S EMD File MO. 017

, emcaco  ;

s 25 PRELIMINARY RI?LY

-TO NRC IE BULLETIN -

NO. 79-07

, April 23, 1979 SEISMIC STEZSS ANALYSIS OF ,

_ SAFETY-RILATED PIPING In IE Bulletin No. 79-C7, dated April 14, 1979 the NRC raised questions concerning the methods of ccmbination of earthquake directional response used for piping analysis for safety related piping systems in both operating nuclear plants and plants under ccas tructic:.. As the result of an investigation of stress analysis performed by an. eastern based AE, the NRC ordered the shutdown of five nuclear stations when it was found that earthquake directional response (X,Y,Z direction) in the piping analyses were added algebraically at the modal level i.e., =oda by mode. This resulted in some cancelling effect.for the signed modal respenses for a given local component of 1 cad. In sc=e cases the calculated piping stresses and restraint and support loads were reportedly underestimated by as much as C01. .

The Dynapipe and PIPSYS programs that Sargent & Lundy used or currently uses for the seismic analysis of piping systems were developed independently of programs used by other AE's nd other programs that'were and are co==ercially available. Therefore, it is unlikely that any similar errors would be repeated in the Sargent & Lundy piping analysis.

Further=cre, the Sargent & Lundy programs werk first with

. each direction of response (X, Y or Z) and combine modal respenses for a given direction per applicshle regulatcry guide requirements. The combined responses for each direction are then added by the SRSS method. Thus the cancelling effect experienced in the piping analysis fcr the plants the NRC shut down dces not occur in the Sargent & Lundy seismic analysis. -

In Bullerin No. 79-07 the NRC requests responses to four . .

specific action ite=s regarding the seismic analysis of safety related piping. These action ite=c along with appropriate respenses are provided in the following: '

(1) .

095 e  %

. 4 es e. a . g . ..

    • N6m+.  %

s -

ed

~s NRC Item (1) Identify which if an.v, of the methods specified below were empicyed er were used in computer codes.for the scismic a:.alysis of safety related piping'in your plant systems (or scrtions and thereof)provide a list of safety affected:

Response Spectrun .Model Analysis:

a.

Algchraic (considering signs) su= ration of th e C o m. 3..- . . .. m, .3 s ,_ ,.._4 a . --_

~. --._.c..___

_ _ . ( . o. . ,

algebraic sumnation of :he maximur .2 ;ec of _

the codirectional responses caused by each of the components of earthquake motien at a particular point in the cathematical codel) .

b.

, Algebraic (considering signs) st==ation of the codirecticnal inter =cdel rescensec (i.e.,

for the number of modes censidered, the maxinun values of response fc each =cde si- ed algebraically). .

Time History Analysis:

A. Algebraic st==ation of the codirectional caximum respcnses or the time dependent responses due to each of the cc ponents of earthquake notien acting sinultaneous.y when the earthquake directional moticas are not statistically independent.

Reply:

The Dynapipe and pip'SYS pregrans used by Sargent & Lundy for the response spectra scismic analysis of safety related piping do not employ algebraic su==2 tion routines for combining responsas, co . .";. ". . . .~ ~. . '. o '.

either internod al cr fer any c:hcr

-'c.......=_. **--~~.~_e'

r. 'u'_'..=*- ' ~. ~. 3 not use the time history methcd for the seistic .

analysis of piping.

NL' Item (2) Provide complete c c=puter program listings for

the dynamic resper se analysis portiuns for tha

'* ccdes which emple;.d the techniquas idancified

, in Item 1 above. - ~

Reply:

None of the computer programs used by Sargent & Lundy for the seismic analysis of safety related piping employ the algebraic techniques described in item (1) , therefore we are not required to submit our computer program. listings. ..- t 440 096 sIt d egy g

, m -

(2) .h: j,t r N

( j 5$%. J)f{<i[W E

.ea 1 y{-,

e . . eg. * **

l

~2l NRC ! ten (3) Verify that all piping corputer programs were checked against ei.;.her piping benchmark problems.. cr cc=:arec to other piping cc puter prc;rans. You are requested to identify the bench. ark pr:blems and/or the c =puter programs ths: were used fer such verificati:.s cr c2::rit

( in detail h w it was determined that these cre:rans yielded app opriate results (i.e., gave results wh::.-

correspended to the correct perfor=ance of their intended methodology).

g Reply:

l The S &L cc=puter program DYMAPI?I (09. 7.0 5 2) and PI?SYS (09.5.065) were used in .einine. seismic analyses. . These programs have a long history of use within S&L -

e.g.,

DYNAPIPE since 1969 and PIPSYS since 1972. They have been validated several times during their long histeri of tse. For the seismic pcrtions of the progrs=, this has been done by checking cc puter results by hand calculations, enecking reruits against public d: rain programs, and by checking results from PIPSYS against DYUAP IPE . Each new versi:n of the program is extensively checked against the cider version thrcugh a series of

~

test problers. The folicwing validatica pr cedure was follcwed in the initial validation:

A. Check A:ainst DYNAL I1 1 (1969) *

. A typical hot reheat t, icing s.ystem was an21'.:ec

. on DYNAPIPI and DYSALt- . The elemen: forces for a specified responsq spectra were compared and were found to be comparable. The frequencies o' modes 1 through 6 were also in c; ' agreement B. Check Against MIC-21 I2)(1969)

In 1963, no public-demain seismic analysis code had the capability of curved elements to =cdel

. pipe elbows. Tc validate this feature of the S&L programs, the piping systen given in 2xample

- . problen No. 2 cf the MIC-21 computer ccde was annly:ed by the S&L program. Seismic analysis was performed using the respense spectrun ne:hcd. Mcmber forces, joint displacements, and joint inertia fcrees e

y. ,e p ., .t. . . . ..a .a .s .-

. --a a_, .u.....%,. . .u. c g , .. ..- g..-=... .....,.

. a. . ..,2s.-

analyzed using the MIC-21 code with a static lea 4 equal to the =cdal inertia-free forces, and jcin:

displacements obtained frem the two codes were ec=parcd and found to be in good agreement.

C'h -

pi M 'fn

.i t M

' 'L t Md

)Cp, i ,..p H (Q" a 1

[ [MN J

-4_47 097 .

3b

~ -

e C. PIPSYS & DYNAP:PE Cercarison (1972)

In 1971, wher the P:PSYS program was deve10,:cd, it was extensively bench- arW 'rai- the DY:!APIPE program. Typical piping systers were run on the two programs and found c 2 : eld the sa. e respenses en the two ecdes. -

D. PI"r S v. e- & D .^. .:_a '1. t _e e..u. . -l. ...._=_4..e.-

. . D .'. . . . f 1 ) = .#.

( .1.c. , 2 )

h. . ,. S .~

,,, . . t , ,

In 1972 the medal periods and ti: 2 history of response to pipe transients using the : dal time histo:1 =ethod on ?!PSYS and DYNAP:PE were chec?.ed against i.ho se obtained frc= DY';A*., and ';ASTP_U: .

Good agreement was obtained in respenses from the four codes.

Rerc ances

1. ICES DYNAL User's Manual, McDonnell-D0uglas Aut0:2: ice
2. MEC-21, 7094, "A Piping Flexibility Analysis Prcgran for the IBM 7090 and 7094," Les Alancs Scian ific Laboratory, University of California, 1964.
3. NASTP.W User's Manual, NASA SP-221.

In addition Sargent & Lundy would welecce a generic review of our piping progran by the NRC Licensing Staff. This review could most effectively be ccnducted in our offices where all'dec=ertation and key personnel would be available to the staff.- .

NRC pg(4) If any of the =ethods listed in iten 1 are identified, submit a plan cf action and an estimated schedule for kh ere *J the re-evaluation Of the caf2ty relatef picing, supp:r s.

6yn-m and eprovide Also uinmentan af estimate fected b.vofthese analv. sis the degree to technic.us:.

which the en m :s

  1. F capability of the plan: to safely withstand a sais=ic

% rid event in the interi 1. 5 i= acted.

L"' 8"7.3

-Reply: , F-

.zk<,_ i.

A None of the conputer prcgrams used by Sargent & Lundy for scismic analysis of safety related piping empicy the algebraic technicues described in iten (1) , '

Ad um therefore, no reanalysis of any safety related piping is necassary.

a eq w'.

. . // AS U A

~ E. B. Branch 1 e- K* Sl"9h Associate, Head n Supervisor Structural Analytical

. Enginecring Mechanics Divisica 4 g g ision (4)

.. ..... - .~..--i .

4.

u u ci.c a n cuenov GENERA! } ELEC1RIC  !

PR OJE C TS DIVI $f 0N 175 C.URTNED sVE. %N ./ lie. OJ L:FCF tJA l ED 3ENEFAL Et!OTAC CCUP&N%' g HC 391, (1CS 925-2MF ls'T 'T / r ' . V. :_ 7.

O[

U May 2n, 157c '

TDEC- 36):

Mr. F. E. Gregor, Sytten Degf r cer e Enrico fed 2 Project  ;

The Detroit Edision Corge.3 Decusentation Conteci - Reu:t 361 20C0 Second Ave.

Detecit, NI 43226 Desr Hr. Gregor:

SU3 JECT: GF RESPONSC TO HAC IE - BULLf7Ih 79-07 Red erence: EFF-44672 dated 5.'10/79 As re4ccated in the refes enecc letter, the GE res onse to itess 1 throup. 4 of IE-Bulictin 79-07 is as follows:

Its 1 & 2 None of the cos:puter codes used for tt,e sef snic onsiysu 1. of pioing sys*.ans i:apertant tc Safety ee;icyed the technicues identit ed in itert Iten 3 The SAP /P!SY3 cenputer pregraes wtN used fo- seisr.ic piping enaiy:is.

A descriptien >< these progrars and the verification procecure is presented below.

SA,D40 Vecificatic,9 ffte E .a.g ggsg_ @ on was ori2i na;1y deveicc*c fe General ilectric SAP 4G, a version of SAPsby F. A. Peterson ard K. J. Bathe of the at Berkele3 Tr.e SAP progran is s genero? pe:pese swt.cture prog used to perfors static ani:

corponents by the finite elesent methed.

b i 40 099

--mmm,--r -mmmmmmy

- 6-CENfA4t h E*tCTRIC Mr. F. E. Gregor Ps::a 2 @,

liay 24, 1979 v ve*1 ficatice Ali GE pro:Jectbnr ve*siens of SAP are n' if'.e d using a special t,e nch sset, proble t. hat exercises a! the irocrtant features of 1.tr procrv The bench urt pret t er. hers been analyzed for %e ef fec .s of cons t.n.* n:

of f ree end, cf stritect ed forces , and is dyr airica)1r analyred t c. rfr e rr-i r L mace shapes and nettzral fre:a;encies using 5 4nr.on 5.nter : s AWii pitgcar . -

ANSYS was also used te predict dyearde respense of the Dench art prot,iem.

' acing tr e respcnse spectra and ti:se Mstcry integration me%ces. T7c predicted f reciucoc ies , mace shapes , anc lodos wd.t's r.;os. pared tc the -

corre>pending 5>.? oredictions The DP prograrx orecteticii nec tc tm cnnsistent witti tJeese of ANSYS before LAP was quait f ted for produr*. ion its e. I .) order te test unique fea.2rrt6 of SAP thet cannet be cosparea to the results of another program, a special prenlen is cov' sed cicie has

! an equiva:ent com;'9ter or naccaily calcu'atea rab.stion. Be#cre any new version of SAP ii, verifisid, for product 1re oppiir.ation, the benen s<iric pretler is etanalyzert to verify that she prograc. chanoes have nct char.ged pretfictiorts or reduced the r accuracy.

8 PI Sh e Veri' cation Peor;ren Deser Jt_i_on DD.YS is a cc:rm.f er pre;rae wecialized T.c ansiyre peng syste.Tr. The P15YS picgrar. pms'ces a nighly fieziole user o-,enies nnut f orna !ce '

piping rystert ordeling. Tne analysis twdules o+ *15rs are .av:en c1rt :.if fers the *>APtG prograry.

Verificat'or Since PISYS enalysis nrodules are istentkai' to SAP 4G. a 5AF Fialysis af a typics1 B).R stear. stoi,N syste:: is arsed as a Dench rLace orobles. for PiSYS ve:ificatfor:. The stear line is ar,aly cd for ;he :_11 er ans sn, ceac weignt, ano e va*iety of dynernic learfs in order to e.xe cise al! tt:e features of P!515. P75f5 was not verif;.sef M a prcr:uction pecgrar, urtdi tf:e predictions of SAF ad PISYS were shcsa to 3c icernica? f or pr:ci.ical purpcses.

Before any new versten of P25YS is verified 'or p eauctfor; at: 21catien.

the bench mark pectigia is rear.e!yzed te veri fv the the prograr enseces have not c!rrr'ged the precfictions or -eda.:eo their eccurscy.

Five liRC benc5 cart oroolens wiil aise he ar.alyzeo as a fut*her ver.* cst w) vf the PI3YS code. This analysh is espec .ed to se cosa!+ta.f anc subnitt.ed to the Co nission for rewi n by Jul 13, 1979.

p.ete 4 No further ea:scanse is regLrired.

fH l00 h

Unhn uduN4L.

\

~

.g y

n v.m . r.m y s ew. g.m. > r. . w , ..g 9

.s.; .. ..u n.

b k

    • 'A G!b E R at (f f LIC1 Aic W F. E. Gregcr p Page 2 . -

Ny N,1979 Pleas = cal! t.' yev have any.ouestic s,

\ery tNly yen *s ,

,. .s j /

.$ . .<cr * %% ,

C. K. .:ciwscn fr-PTCitCt Mat:A*p r

~~

L:araco Fe.~ 2 0,mject C% pats /39?-3? A c:: C. R. Swanscr,. GF. Detr it F. Gregct, Ectscn K . o'. . Kxr.M e . G' S i t.e D. R . Pankra .1, ~,E Lite file: 10.'5/07-15 i

e p.

ab8 a&uuuud o -

.n, , .o . . 10.;1 a

  • e

,. .c s'e . ,

e s *, T 9 4

  • s 1 ( e , -

erem,emestismsgg, guesw..te;ud.ed.w.M. sE:isigg, et'

.-- - - - --- , _ _ _ ~ , . . = __ _ _ _ _ ,. _ _ _ _ _ u;._

. L ATTACHMEN3T @

i Ow 145 M A ATiwat,E, L ANE . s N ;osE. cAu s op a,2 9019 . PqQNE < a;E G.?E Y.

I. ,

>2y 18, 1979 DET-01-199

__Mr. F. E. Gregor Detroit Edison Company 333 Engineering Construction - Troy 2000 Seconda Avenue Detroit MI 48226

Subject:

Response to NRC IE Bulletin 79 Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Piping for Enrico Fer=i Atomic Power Plant , Unit 2.

References:

1. Seismic Stress Analysis of Safety-Related Ploina, NRC IE Bulletin 79-07, datec April 14, 1979.
2. PISTAR Verification Recort, NUTECH Topical Report IR-76-001, Revision 0.

3 PISTAR User 's Manual NUTECH Topical Report TR-76-002, Revision 1.

4. Pressure Vessels and Picine, 1972 Cocouter Program Verification, Ine American Society of Meenanical Engineers, 1972, 72-94235.
5. A:;SYS Engineerine Analysis User's thnual Swanson Analysis Systems , Inc., 1975.
6. Enrico Fercio Power Plant, Unit 2, Pri=ary Containment Stress Report for Pool Swell and Safetv/ Relief Valve Discharze Loa c s , NUIECh Report DET-01-157 (in preparation).

Dear Frank:

In response to the Detroit Edison letter of thy 10, letter EF2-44671, the following information is provided concerning analysis of safety-related piping perfor=ed by NUTECH for the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2. NUTECH performed seismic analysis for the following safety-related piping within the suppression chamber:

o Vacuum Breaker Pneu=atic Piping o HPCI Turbine Exhaust Piping o RCIC Turbine Exhaust Piping o HPCI Condensate Line o RCIC Condensate Line o RHR Test Line o Core Spray Test Line AA0 102

T-F. E. Gregor tby 18, 1979

_ DET-01-199 The results of these analyses are documented in Reference 6.

NUTECH's piping program PISTAR was used to perform the analysis.

PISTAR is a NUTECH proprietary computer progra= developed to perform the analysis of power piping. The progra= is based on the well-known computer program, SAP-4, developed at the

-University of California at Serkeley. Complete user documentation for PISTAR, which includes a user's =anual (Reference 3) and verification report (Reference 2), is available.

The concerns addressed in the NRC Bulletin (Reference 1) involved methods used in perfor=in6 seismic analysis of safety-related piping. Specifically, the NRC is concerned with the =ethods used in combining the codirectional and modal responses due to earthquake =otion, using either response spectru= or time-history techniques. A description of the response spectrum tect.nique used in the analysis of the safety-related piping previously listed is given below. No seis=ic analysis was performed usin6 time-history techniques and therefore this option need not be discussed.

Response to each item listed in Reference 1 is given below:

Ite= 1- The combination methods used in perforcing the seis=ic analysis of the safety-related piping listed above was Square-Roo -Su=-of-the Squares (SRSS) method for both the co-directional responses, and =odal responses due to earthquake motion.

Item 2: A complete listing for the dynamic response analysis portion of the co=puter progra= is required to be submit:ed to the NRC only if direct combination of codirectional or modal responses due to earthquake cotton was used. Since the SRSS combina:icn method was used, the listing of the program will not be submitted to the NRC at this time.

Item 3: The response spectrum analysis technique e= ployed in PISTAR was verified using the ANSYS computer program (Reference 5). Proble: No. 6, as defined in Reference 4, was solved on both PISTAR and ANSYS to verify the SRSS combination techniques. The FISTAR Verification Report (Reference 2) provites more detailed information on the progra verification and is available upon request.

Item 4. No reevaluation of the safety-related piping listed above is required since the SRSS co=bination method was used.

440 ;g3 MM

D

[e Mr. F. E. Gregor -3 May 18, 1979 DET-01-119 If you have any other questions concerning this matter, please don't hesitate to call either of the undersigned.

Very truly yours ,

~

TFaJ. R. Arterburn, P.L.

Engineer A. B. Higginbotham, .E.

Project Engineer AEH/JRA:ba cc: 'W . F. Colbert D. F. Lehnert File 50.301.0001 440 104 nutech