ML19241B211

Discusses Areas to Be Covered in Interim or Final Rept on Seismic Pipestress Reanalysis,Including Stresses Due to Seismic Anchor Movements,Support Stiffness Accountability & Criteria for Pipe Support & Design

ML19241B211
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	05/25/1979
From:	Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Dunn C DUQUESNE LIGHT CO.
References
TAC-11431, NUDOCS 7907130123
Download: ML19241B211 (3)

Text

M

/?[$

f[pn AfCog)g UNITED STATES yDe h

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

J*

C WASHING TON, D. C. 20555

k. N

%, N.....f May 25, 1979 Docket 50-334 Mr. C. ft. Dunn, Vice President Operations Division Duquesne Light Company 435 Dixth Avenue Pittsburgh, Per.nsylvania 15219

Dear Mr. Dunn:

During the previous meetings in Boston with Duquesne Light Company and Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, members of the NRC staff have indicated that certain areas should be discussed in an interim or the final report on the seismic pipestress reanalysis for the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit tio.1.

These areas are listed as follows:

1.

Indicate whether both OBE and DBE seismic stresses always include stresses due to seismic anchor movements (if any) and show how they are combined; e.g., sum of the absolute values.

Is anything being donc differently now than was done in the original SH0CK 2 analysis? Your answer should include an explanation of the second paragraph of page B. 2-2 of the FSAR.

2.

State how support stiffness is being accounted for in the current reanalysis effort and whether anything different from the original analysis is being done in this re.spect.

3.

Provide the acceptance criteria used in the design of the pipe supports, including weld and bolt sizing criteria, and indicate any deviations from criteria originally used (eXCEpt criteria established in addressing I&E Bulletin 79-02). Also, state your intention to ccmply, prior to facility startup, with I&E Bulletin 7s-02 for all cases where leading on a pipe support increases as a result of the piping reanalysis.and the support re-evaluation indicates that any part of the support is not within the applicable acceptance criteria.

6

.a l

]

7907130 @

M Mr. C. N. Dunn Duquesne Light Company May 25,1979 4.

Discuss the impact the current piping stress reanalysis effort has on the FSAR pipe break criteria.

Irficate whether postulated pipe break locations could or have change (d) as a result of the reanalyses and, if so, what you propose to do in the event a break lccation previously not designed for must be postulatei.

If you have any questions on the above, please let us know.

D. G. Eisenhut, Deputy Director Division of Operating Reactors 3

/

i,,

J Mr. C. fl. Dunn Duquesne Light Company May 25, 979 cc:

Gerald Charnoff, Esquire Mr. James A. Werling Jay E. Silberg, Esquire Plant Superintendent Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge Beaver Valley Pcwer Station 1800 M Street, NsW.

P. O. Box 4 Washington, D. C.

20036 Snippingport Pennsylvania 1S077 Karin Carter, Esquire Special Assistant Attorney General Bureau af Administrative Enforcement 5th Floor, "tecutive House Harrisburg, dennsylvania 17120 Mr. J. M. Cumiskey Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation P. 3. Box 2325 Boston, Massachuoetts 02107 Mr. J. D. Woodwar-R & D Center Westingnouse Electric Corporation Building 7-303 Pi tt-burgh, Pennsylvania 15230 8.

,o.ies Memorial Library 66;.-ranklin Avenue Aliquippa, Pennsylvanin 15001 Mr. Jack Carey Technical Assistant Duquesne Light C0mpany P. O. Box -

Shippingpcr', Pennsylvania 15077 Mr. R. E. Martin Duquesne Light Ccmpany 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, iennsylvania 15219 Mar.in Fein Utility Counsel Ci ty of Pittsburgn 313 Ci ty-County Buil ding oittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 bJ6 35I