ML19289F487
| ML19289F487 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 04/24/1979 |
| From: | Daltroff S PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | Grier B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906110026 | |
| Download: ML19289F487 (4) | |
Text
!
~, _.,
- d.
gt PHILAD ELPHI A ELECTRIC COM PANY
~~
2301 M ARKET STREET P.O. BOX 8699 PHILADELPHIA. PA.19101 (215) 8 48-5o01 SHIELDS L. DALTROFF vics PREslOENT ELECTRec PROQUcTION April 24, 1979 Re:
Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 IE Bulletin: 79-07 Mr. Boyce H.
Grier, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement Region I United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406
Dear Mr. Grier:
This letter is in response to IE Bulletin No. 79-07, which you forwarded to us on April 14, 1979, concerning seismic stress analysis of safety-related piping.
The " Actions to be Taken by Licensees" and our responses are treated sequentially.
Action to be Taken 1)
Identify which, if any, of the methods specified below were employed or were used in computer codes for the seismic analysis of safety related piping in your plant and provide a list of safety systems (or portions thereof) affected:
Response Spectrum Model Analysis:
a.
Algebraic (considering signs) summation of the codirectional spatial components (i.e.,
algebraic summation of the maximum values of the codirectional responses caused by each of the components of earthquake motion at a particular point in the mathematical model).
b.
Algebraic (considering signs) summation of the codirectional inter model responses (i.e.,
for the number of modes considered, the maximum values of response for each mode summed algebraically).
2230 234 790'0110 CXh
aq,
Mr. Boyce H.
Grier Page 2 Time History Analysis:
a.
Algebraic summation of the codirectional maximum responses or the time dependent responses due to each of the components of earthquake motion acting simultaneously when the earthquake directional motions are not statistically independent.
Response
Four organizations have performed seismic stress analyses of safety-related piping for Peach Botton Units 2 and 3.
These organizations and the general scope of their services were:
1.
General Electric Company - Nuclear Steam Supply System 2.
EDS Nuclear, Inc. for Reactor Controls, Inc. - Control Rod Drive Hydraulic Systems 3.
Colt Industries, Inc., Fairbanks Morse Power Systems Division - Diesel Generator Piping Systems 4.
Bechtel Power' Corporation, San Francisco Power Division -
Balance of Plant Piping Systems We have been advised that none of the above organizations employed computer programs which utilized any of the methods specified.
Bechtel has submitted their documented response.
Confirmatory documentation from the other three organizations is expected shortly.
2)
Provide complete computer program listings for the dynamic response analysis portions for the codes which employed the techniques identified in Item 1 above.
Response
The techniques listed in Item I were not employed in seismic stress analyses of safety related piping for Peach Bottom.
3)
Verify that all piping computer programs were checked against either piping benchmark problems or compared to other piping computer programs.
You are requested to identify the benchmark problems and/or the computer programs that were used for such verifications or describe in detail how it was determined that these programs yielded appropriate results (i.e.,
gave results which corresponded to the correct performance of their intended methodology).
2230 235
-n.
Mr. Boyce H.
Grier Page 3
Response
The status of the information requested in Item 3 above is as follows:
1.
General Electric Company - information pending 2.
EDS Nuclear, inc. - PISOL program utilized - verification by NUPIPE, PIPESD, ADLPIPE and ME101.
3.
Colt Industries, Inc. - information pending 4.
Bechtel Corporation as follows:
a.
Computer programs (1)
ME 632
- " Seismic Analysis of Piping Systems" Bechtel Power Corporation (2)
ME 101
" LEAP" - " Linear Elastic Analysis of Pipe" Bechtel Power Corporation (3)
PISOL EDS Nuclear, Inc.
(4)
NUPIPE Nuclear Services Corporation (5)
SAPIPE PMB Systems Engineering, Inc.
(6)
TPIPE PMB Systems Engineering, Inc.
b.
Verification (1)
ME 632 has been verified using PISOL, PIPESD and TPIPE.
(2)
ME 101 has been verified using ME 632, TPIPE and SUPERPIPE (3)
PISOL has been verified using NUPIPE, PIPESD, ADLPIPE and ME 101.
(4)
NUPIPE has been verified using ADLPIPE.
(In the verification, the algebraic summation option in ADLPIPE was not used).
(5)
SAPIPE has been verified using PISOL.
(6)
TPIPE has been verified using PISOL and ME 632.
2230 236
.-.v.
Mr. Boyce H.
Grier Page 4 4)
If any of the methods listed in item 1 are identified, submit a plan of action and an estimated schedule for the re-evaluation of the safety related piping, supports, and equipment affected by these analysis techniques.
Also provide an estimate ot the degree to which the capability of the plant to safely witastand a seismic event in the interim is impacted.
Response
The techniques listed in Item 1 were not employed in seismic stress analyses of safety related piping for Peach Bottom.
We will forward to you the remainder of the information requested in Item 3 above as expeditiously as practicable.
Very truly yours,
~
l
,L~l~
x.,
fc<.
r-cc:
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Division of Reactor Operations Inspection Washington, DC 20555 2230 237