ML19323H628
| ML19323H628 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry, North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 06/06/1980 |
| From: | Sylvia B VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| To: | Clark R, Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006130334 | |
| Download: ML19323H628 (18) | |
Text
.'
VruoxxzA ELucruxc ann Powna COMPANY Hacnwown.VinotwrA 20 c 61 June 6, 1980 Mr. Harold R. Denton. -Director Serial No. 510 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation NO/JTR:sev Atto:
Mr. Robert A. Clark, Chisf Docket Nos. 50-280' Operating Reactors Branch No. 3 50-281 Division of Licensing 50-338 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co mission 50-339 Usshington, D.C.
20555 License Nos. DPR-32 DPR-37 NPF-4 NPF-7
Dear Mr. Denton:
NORTH Anna tmIT 1 HULTIPLE STRUCTURP. ARS CONCERN Licensee Event Report, LER/R0 _80-034/01T-0 submitted by. the Virginia Electric and Power Company informed the UFC that several lines in the lov head and high head safety injection. systens ins talled 'at North Anna Unit I had not been analyzed for the effects of! flu'id temperature below 70*F.
The subject lines transport water from the Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) to the Reactor Coolant System cold legs during the injection phase of the - Emergency Core Cooling Systen (ECCS) operation.~. Under certain conditions, these lines would be exposed to temperatures in'the 40-50*F range. 'To verify adequate design of the pipe supports 'and equipment nozzles / supports int the affected piping sec-i i
tions,- the pipe stress ~ analyses were rerun using the revised temperature -
conditions.
Review of the new nozile loads ' on the lov head safety injection pumps revealed.the load on pump 1-SI-P-1B exceeded the pump vendor's allowable load.
In order to reduce nozzle loads to within the allowable, it was neces-sary to modify the function.of some supports on the affected lines.
During discussions of this problem with the NRC staff on-Nay 30, 1930, the-NRC expressed a concern regarding-the~ Amplified Response Spectra'(ARS) curves used as a basis of analysos when a piping syste:n is subjected to core = than one ~ARS such as when the piping system traverses multiple building structures and contains piping supports from both structures.
The original design basis selection of ARS for application to. bounded piping ' problems was based upon a ;
i case by case. evaluation process.
This evaluation considered the ' potential ~
sets of response spectra which might be applicable to the piping, the particu-lar geometry and support configuration 'of the piping itself, and the analyst's' knowledge and experience of anticipated 'or predicted piping responses'.. This selection by its nature, involved a conparison of the ARS curves themselves.
g Our_ ovaluation..during the past several days, hus confirred that this:Judgmen-P.
tal selection process was applied on a wide ' cale, was effective, and produced.
s g
1:
conservative results when compared with the -licensing requirements.. We believe
\\
i THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS -
80_06130334I
.P0OR.QUALITV PAGES yx
Mr. liarold R. Denton, Director that this was a reasonable and proper design basis for this era plant.
Regu-latory guidance in this area was not available until 1975 and there were no FSAR questions or coweents on this iten following the TSAR subnittal of 1973.
Our efforts since Pay 30 have included a cospilation and examination of all pipe stress probices botveen buildings as well as ' those pipe stress problens involving piping runs between the containtrent internal and external s t ruc-tures.
Some stress analyses vero perforced by consultants other than Stone 6 Webster (S&W) under contract to S6U.
These problems are also part of the exanination. Attachment 1 provides a list of the 68 stress problems involved.
In order to deterraina the ef fect of using an enveloped ARS curve on the piping systens and supports outside of the containment, several saeple stress pro-blema on key safety-related. systens were reanalyzed using an onveloped curve.
The probicas were representative since at 1 cast one problem was reanalyze.1 for each building cochination traversed by a critical system.
Additionally, an evaluation was made of other key piping runa outside of containment as well as key piping runs inside of containment with supports on both the containreent internal and external structures.
This evaluation considered the actual ARS curves used, nodes of response, frequencies of systens, and the resulting responses.
The results of this evaluation and reanalysis are suo:narfred in.
To date, this ef fort has found no system, piping supports, or norries that are not operable.
Following our telephone discussions of June 3,1930,- and acknowledging our obligation to continue our ef forts in this area, we propose a nulti-phase- (
plan to address !!RC concerns.
The sequence of events includes detailed engi-nearing review of all piping prob 1ces subject to potential effect of core than one set of response spectra (Phase I), and calculational evaluation of these problens or of those localized problem areas, where necessary, to demonstrate suitability of design (Phase II).
Phase I The effort designated as chase I consists of an engineering review and evaluation of all problems identified. in Attachment 1 not already so evaluated (Attachment 2),; thus cospleting 'all { piping problens subject to the original expressed concern.
This effort vill commence 1: media tely.
piping located both inside and outside of containment will be included.
Additionally, this effort will also include an evaluation of the sultiple ARS effect on small bore' piping systems. This effort will then provide a couptchensive assessment of the effect of potential enveloping procedures should they be applied to the unit.
The evaluation vill consider 'the original design basis, i.e.,
design basis code allowables, original support design loads and material allow-ables, vendor equipment allowables, design margin, etc., as a neans to deterrine potentist effect of enveloping criteria.
1:esults of the evaluation vill be categorized 'ao follows:
Category A probicas consist of those which the evaluation has indicated
- vould not be subject to increased responses beyond the capability of the piping, piping supports and equipment nozzles, and are thus' not in doubt
l 2]l W : y;.l
'r,,
q;"
)
' J.
"Mr." Harold itoDonton, Director. 6;,
4 4
as far as adequacy, of the piping or nupports is concerned. :Problens falling into this category will require no additional effort beyond the documented engineering evaluation activity.
~
' Category B probicas will consist of' those probleco where the engincoring; cvaluation' indicates that a determination cannot be cada without further, more detailed evaluation' and/or analysis which will be done in Phase -It.
Phase I can be accoeplished ' in approxinately one conth. Our anticipated completton datu is July 15, 1980.
Phase II 9
The evaluation procedet required for Phase II problems would ' typically consist of a computer. reanalysis of the problem and detailed evaluation of pipe stresses, support loads and equipment norzles.
Support evalua-tions and possible. reanalyuce of existing designs would bc donc as vc11 as reevaluation of the resulting equipacnt loads against existing vendor supplied 411ovabics.
Potentially, it eay ha necessary to submit revised equipment loads to vendors for a determination of acceptability.
Where necessary, ' th'e. detalled evaluation procedure would be supplemented by additional engineering _ studies, or evaluations, which would provide justification of ' the original designs.
Such additional studies night include, but not be licitied to..the introduction of Independent Support Methods of'ARS (utilizing. _ for example. the NUPIPE-CDC program).in order to calculate the multi-support ef fec t on a particular problem.
In any.
event, the phase II effort would justify the' existing plant _ piping de-signs against.a potentially imposed enveloping ' criteria for selecting
' amplified response spectra ~ on an engineering basis.
At this time, it is. dif ficult to predict ' the excet ' number of probices.
falling into the Phase II effort,. but we believe that a minimum of two months would be required for Phase.II.
Therefore, our" target date for.
coupleting Phase' II in September 15. 1980.
j If f at any time during the detailed Pha'se I and:II effort, results obtained -
]
clearly show that a design of"a particular piping system or support c.annot be justified against the concept of nultiple structure AES input, the systen will i
, be reviewed per Technical Specif1 cations requirements and appropriate action'-
l taken.
l As _ the rebult of cultiple structure APS concerns on 1: orth - Anna 1,.we havo~
reviewed the situation with regard to our other operating plants, Surry Unitsi 1 and 2'and North fnna 2.
('
In - the seismic _ analysis tof. Category I piping for Surry Units 1 and 2 'where j'
the piping is within one building, the ARS of the. casa point above the hident l
i
'_e evat on of the support point of the piping was used.. Where the piping is' '
supported by._two separate buildings, it was analyzed - for the envolore of the
.AES of the appropriate. elevations of the two buildings.
For the containment
- Y r
g
, (.5.
y'
~
'f
[
,s 1((
+
'd' T
4 j
t s
i
- ,v,,., 3,. 4 -.
7,
.e 4
e s
S o
.c-T o
s dh)
^y 4
Mr. Harold R. Denton, Directors:
-4 2-c s
s a.
n building, the'~1nternal structure and the containment 4shell were treated as two, separate buildings and the enveloping procedure applied for th'e purpose of' the
[
response spectra analysisfof, piping.-
q 3
4.
l
On Ndrth Anna Unit,2, the ~same approach was used as on North Anna, Unit 1.l < Due
[
"to the2 similarity; of. the units. and the design methods 'used,. the iconclu'sions l
resultina from the evaluations completed thus far on Unit I apply to Unit 2.
If in' the detailed Phase I andiPhase'11 effort on Unit,1 discussed, above a
'/'
. design of a piping -system or; support. cannot be justified against. the '. concept of multiple structure ARS, the..systen will-be ~ promptly evaluated on Unit 2 in this, regard and the Unit 2 Technical Specification will be followed.
q
. s.
- Eit.
- Piease let us, know 'if you 'have any questi5ns or comments on the above. As we T.O proceed, we would. be, happy' to-d'iscuss oureprogress on this. natter with you ;at
- -l any time.
In any event,- we plan to.. sub'ait ' a final detailed report 'upon con-l yg pletion'of this offort.
t
,n
+
L
,i' Very truly'yours, e,
- e v-4 a
M m
v y ;;
- 5. R[ Sylvia
~
' Manager - Nuclearr0perations.
1:
I JTR/amv:C4 t
I At tactusents
/
cca Mr..B.0J.)Youngblood,' Chief
- +
Licensing. Branch No.-l' s
- Division of Licensing v
'y Mr. S.:A. Varga, Chief
/,
Operating. Reactors Branch No. :1 x
L r
Division of Licensing -
,*r o
as Mr. James P. O'Reilly.i.,' Director mn M
L..
- Office 'of Inspection and Enforcement i1 Region-11,
f;' a :f T(
7~..,, ;
, c.
c t.
.~
x
~-J
.g ;,
.; ;t i
tA, Ei N
[s.
+
(
-?
s G:
_ [ #'
.y8
.,t n], l.-.;
'f y'
s:
.a n
m
, i ',
!#1
...e 1 -
\\
s g
2'
+
~~
s
- /~
,y~
, '.s ;,
5 (,'
I' 3,
' se
'jw, f.
s '
s
.k3 s
y
- ,a e
-y.
Ol.;.
s*
e f
p?
3 5 -
f i
- w
' f
.a. t >
=
6 s
s a.
" t 8'
3
&,'-',,j j_
.y 3
4
, ~ - p f :.19~ n+ q-3.,. y, r,
%,eg;5 3 m;t
.f 1
a; 5J;,
, y,, de d be i nc 9. * ;t i-
.' y ;r w'
' ( ;. 8 3
' ; i f, -.,
- }; ;;7
=
.4g -
'49' 3
?'.
,, +
.,. N h f.
2*
s.
i s 'I d
t a
(
.-4
?
, I ?,[ f,:; ',
.,.q,
.l'
.. ) 'u 44
-h ; th;l M 'l^* j,0
'-"5
(, y lf ^k[%,Y. ' 7.i '. j Q y,5
'. ~ - )
- y ~ q
~
- u y'
4 ~
y
~
.e) <
.s..... ~,,3( y; -
. * ),
, ' j,E'. q f.
v7.
a 1 ;g
,r
( y.
o r-4e f.3,-
,s
'(.
-1
..a y y,;,- ( gg:, t
__ 3;.
+;
- q.
t3,-
.4,
-_ p,.-. S*g
...y, s 6h,,,
t
-l
,3
.t,
s,-
+. L-4s
+
, :.. s -
(
)
ATTACHMENT 1 LIST OF MULTI-STRUCTURE PROBLEMS NORTH ANNA UNIT 1 Problem Analysis ARS No.
System Funetion Buildings Responsibility Curve Used 101A-Main Steam Main Steam to Turbine Containment-MSVH-Service S&W Containment 101B Main Steam Main Steam from "A" Containment-Internal / External S&W Internal Generator 101C Main Steam Main Steam from "B" Containment-Internal / External S&W Internal Generator 101D Main' Steam Main Steam from "C" Containment-Internal / External S&W Internal Generator 102A
' Feedwater Feedwater to "A" Steam Containment-Internal / External S&W Internal Generator 102B Feedwater Feedwater to "B" Steam Containment-Internal / External S&W Internal Generator 102C Feedwater Feedwater to "C" Steam Containment-Internal / External S&W Internal Generator 102D Feedwater Feedwater to Generators Containment-MSVH-Service S&W Containment
'103B Component Cooling Supply to "B" RHR Heat Containment-Internal / External S&W Internal Exchanger 103C Component Cooling Return from "A" RHR Heat Containment-Internal / External S&W External Exchanger 103D Cogonent Cooling Return from "A" RCP Containment-Internal / External S&W Internal
ATTACHMENT 1 (Continued)
LIST OF MULTI-STRUCTURE PROBLEMS NORTH-ANNA UNIT 1 Problem' Analysis ARS No.
System.
Function Buildings Responsibility Curve Used 103E' Component Cooling Return from "B" RHR Containment-Internal / External S&W Internal Heat Exchanger 103F Component Cooling Return from "C" RCP Containment-Internal / External S&W Internal 103G Component Cooling Supply to "B" RCP Containment-Internal / External S&W Internal 103J Component Cooling Supply to "A" RHR Heat Containment-Internal / External S&W Internal Exchanger 103K Safety Injection Cold Leg Injection Containment-Internal / External S&W Internal 103R Safety Injection Cold Leg Injection Containment-Internal / External S&W Internal 103AC Safety Injection Hot Leg Injection Containment-Internal / External S&W Internal 103AE Safety Injection llot Leg Injection Containment-Internal / External S&W Internal 103AM Component Cooling Supply to "C" RCP Containment-Internal / External S&W Internal 103AN
. Component Cooling Supply to "A" RCP Containment-Internal / External S&W Internal 103AP.
- Component Cooling Return'from "B" RCP Containment-Internal / External S&W Internal 104A.
Low Head' Safety Pump' Discharge to Containment-Safeguards S&W
- Containment /
Injection Containment Safeguards
- Used containment horizontal and safeguards vertical
I ATTACilMENT 1 (Continued)
LIST OF MULTI-STRUCTURE PROBLEMS NORTH ANNA UNIT I Problem Analysis ARS
'No.
System Func t ion Buildings Responsibility Curve Used 104D Recire. Spray Outside Pump A Containment-Safeguards S&W Containment Discharge 104F Residual. Heat-Pump Back to RWST Containment-Safeguards S&W Containment Removal after an Outage 104G Quench Spray Flow to Spray IIcader-Containment-Safeguards S&W Containment B Pump 10411 Quench Spray Flow to Spray IIcader-Containment-Sa feguards S&W Containment A Pump 105F Service Water Supply Recire. Spray Containment-Internal / External S&W Internal IIcat Exchanger 105G-Service Water Return from Recire.
Containment-Internal / External S&W Internal Spray Heat Exchanger 105H Service Water Flow from the Contain-Containment-MSVH S&W Containment ment Recire. Spray Heat Exchanger 105J Service Water Flow to the Containment Containment-MSVH S&W Containment Recire, Spray Heat Exchanger 107B Safety Injection Lou Head to High Head MSVH-Safeguards S&W MSVH Cross Connect
ATTACHMENT I (Continued)
LIST OF MULTI-STRUCTURE PROBLEMS NORTil ANNA UNIT 1 Problem Analysis ARS No.
System Function Buildings Responsibility' Curve Used 107C Quench Spray Pump Discharge to MSVH-Safeguards S&W MSVII Containment-B Pump 107D Quer :h Spray Pu:np Discharge to MSVH-Safeguards S&W MSVH Containment-A Pump 111B Safety Injection I.ow IIcad to liigh flead MSVII-Auxiliary S&W Auxiliary Cross Connect A Pump 111C-Safe ty.Inj ec tion Low IIcad to High IIcad MSVII-Auxiliary S&W MSVII Cross Connect B Pump-RWST Suction 111N
_ Safety Injection lloc Leg Injection Containment-Auxiliary S&W Containment 111Q Safety Injection Discharge of Boron Containment-Auxiliary S&W Containment Injection Tank
.111S Safety Injection llot Leg Injection Containment-Auxiliary S&W Containment 1145 Quench Spray "B" Pump Discharge Containment-Internal / External
';&W External to Spray Header 114D Recirc. Spray "D" Heat Exchanger Containment-Internal / External S&W External to Spray Header 114E Quench Spray "A" Pump Discharge Containment-Internal / External S&W External to Spray Header A
~#
m ATTACllMENT 1 (Continued)
LIST OF MULTI-STRUCTURE PROBLEMS NORTH ANNA UNIT 1 Problem Analysis ARS No.
System Function Buildings Responsibility Curve Used 114F Recire. Spray "A" Outside Pump to Containment-Internal / External S&W Internal
"')" Heat Exchanger 114G Recire. Sprav "B" Outside Pump to Containment-Internal / External S&W Internal "C" Heat Exchanger 114K Recire. Spray "B" Cooler to Spray Containment-Internal / External S&W External Header 114L Recire. Spray "A" IIcat Exchanger Containment-Internal / External S&W External to Spray IIcader 114M Recirc. Spray "C" Heat Exchanger Containment-Internal / External S&W External to Spray Header 118A Component Cooling Supply to RCP C Containment-Auxiliary S&W Envelope 118B Component Cooling Supply to RCP A and B Containment-Auxiliary S&W Auxiliary 118C Component Cooling Supply Header to Containment-Auxiliary S&W Auxiliary Containment 118D Component Cooling Return Header to Containment-Auxiliary S&W Auxiliary Containment
'118E
. Component Cooling Return from RCP A and B Containment-Auxiliary S&W Auxiliary 118F Component Cooling Return from RCP C Containment-Auxiliary S&W Auxiliary u --
ATTACl! MENT 1 (Continued)
LIST OF MULTI-STRUCTURE PROLLEMS NORTH ANNA UNIT 1
-Problem Analysis ARS No.
System Func t ion Buill.ings Responsibility Curve Used ll8G-Component Cooling Return from Recire.
Containment-Auxiliary S&W Auxiliary Air Cooling 11811 Component Cooling Supply to Recire.
Containment-Auxiliary S&W Auxiliary Air Cooling Il8K Component Cooling Main Supply to Unit 2 Containment-Auxiliary S&W Auxiliary Containment 118N Component Cooling Main Return from Unit 2 Containment-Auxiliary S&W Auxiliary Containment
'121A Component Cooling Supply to Fuel Pool Fuel-Auxiliary S&W Fuel IIcat Exchanger 121B Component Cooling Return from Fuel Pool Fuel-Auxiliary S&W Auxiliary IIcat Exchanger 121E Containment Vacuum Line to Air Ejector Containment-Auxiliary S&W Containment Used in Startup SSR Seal Injection Injection to "A"-RCP Containment-Internal / External Contract Envelope of
-SA-7223 Interior SSR-7 Seal Injection Injection to "B"-RCP Containment-Internal / External Contract Envelope of SA-7209 Interior SSR-7 Seal Injection.
Injection to "C"-RCP Containment-Internal / External Contract Envelope of SA-7198' "C" RCP Interior NS
a ATTACHMENT 1 (Continued)
LIST OF MULTI-STRUCTURE PROBLEMS NORTH ANNA UNIT 1 Problem Analysis ARS No.
System Function Buildings Responsibility Curve Used SSR-7
' Seal Injection Manifold to "A", "B" Containment-Auxiliary Contract Containment SA-7236 "C" RCP SSR-8 Seal Return Combined return "A",
Containment-Internal / External Contract Envelope of
'SA-7217 "B", "C" RCP Interior SSR-8 Seal Return Combined return "A",
Containment-Internal / External Contract Containment SA-7234 "B", "C" RCP SSR-11 Charging Piping upstream of Containment-Internal / External Contract Envelope Regenerative Heat Exchanger SSR-14 Letdown Piping downstream of Containment-Internal / External Contract Envelope Regenerative Heat Exchanger i
ATTACHMENT 2 SAMPLE PROBLEMS OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT STATUS AS OF JUNE 6, 1980 Problem No.
System Status 104A Safey Injection One of six initial sample problems outside the containment.
Roran problem with envelope curves.
Preliminary review shows all pipe stresses and pipe supports and equipment loads are such that system operability is maintained.
104D Recirculation Spray One of six initial sample problems outside the containment.
Reran problem with envelope curves.
Preliminary review shows all pipe stresses, pipe supports and equipment are within allowables.
105J/1051I Service Uater Problem No. 105J was one of six initial sample problems outside the containment.
Review of system frequencies show that the curve used in analyses envelopes the other possible curve for all system frequencies.
Therefore, no computer re-analysis with an enveloped ARS was required.
The same evaluation results apply to Ptoblem No. 105H.
107B Safety. Inj ec tion One of six initial sample problems outside -the containment.
Reran problem with envelope curves.
Preliminary review shows all pipe stresses and pipe supports loads are such _that systen operability is maintained.
111C Safety Injection One of six initial sample problems outside the containment.
Reran problem with envelope curves.
Preliminary review shows all pipe stresses and pipe supports loads are such that system operability is maintained.
ATTACHMENT 2 (Continued)
SAMPLE PROBLEMS OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT STATUS AS OF JUNE 6, 1980 Problem No.
System Status 111Q Safety Injection One of six initial sample problems outside the containment.
Reran problem with envelope curves.
Preliminary review shows all pipe stress and pipe supports are within allowable.
J
9 el,eef rehAt en h -
h azhh o oh c abi ce e
t nI t t t ti h
ur r
t r
y a
h
.tdd sf o
yt ryw n l e f
n e 5.f t
obi eb osus se e
ih x6 n
n zieoa eh r
t e edi e
H t t we ut e
f sec gd aa r
l h
iwe onti e9 t cnc ar T
h oiv mt i i o n vo t apc if e
cdi i f
l esxe co xnt f
t l
reeh s
f x
a eiat o e z
f o ar t
yea un v
H e
s e
nt e er eob re s
ht i
a r oic b u 0
t n
e i sr c
1 ct t
rb u
e e t
e o
i d o a
et u ep t e n
cf nen s l th c f
ub p l
a e n
i t n e i
e ot rioe db h v e
ua d m n rl v ni t
o i nnt t ei u s u
u tb c r
k si m
s ais n vf os rc qe airs c
on r ext ee f
el f o e
ceo p
t e f petd s o
d a h onl d
al aoe t
zs mhe cmr d
n r eb g! ey ei a
t l i
dl r b
chetei ee ae ri nI t n h
gs s
ot ofi nwl x n d
t ao t
s u
pe mct og e
ge l
o s o e
t ih na i
s n
e ua w
i p pt e,i t
a i rt l t
l re eo e e S
t t e cg ps l p f
ih r
a s
s I
o o vt ye S
oot sn e e D
nt n a
b p
i ef n cais e
ch L
ed gf e
s r
rs nt B
eo
,t m
e s h
s s 'e a e e
O u
sca d m i
t miod p
d e
qe R
eed na a
e n e
poo r r o P
eh sjn ae h l
t o
st e mt o e
rt ab u t
f w e f
T cuf ys i
es r v
N s
l t
t e os e e s
n E
0 red a a
h i uh s e l e
)
M 8
e m
n r c nT a s t
e e at ii ehd o
ap d
N 9
eee rslh e
d a g
i t o t
rvt
,n nm n
s n cd n nl e
I 1
u A
h uycT
.af o
n e o e e e
t n
T e e i
e ro s e si mv i
N 6
c s rp e
u ut ru ns a n e
u t
O e
e q
s d e wh ob rt t t ewop s eee n
n C
E h e et chepa n rvu ud w
ocn o
N t h i
Tnt u e v
uti sho f rq f e C
E U
t
(
D J
a a r m nr ver p u
s I
f c rt n eit ere 2
S F
of esi s or p
m c n u
r s
e i
m N
O o een a
s n
d r
e e e t
t e t
T I
rs el t d al i d e,
s v
h sh N
S nuegan e
a etl c e
s r c
E A
oth no l
n l cai yt i yu a
M i ct mrc i srsiimm s
s e
c c
l S
S t u ae aeel adi s t n l
C T
U rrt et e t d tl t eni eae ee A
L T
not ut xh eoxaerie hh u hh T
U A
I psb set D mefd pms Tt q Tt T
S T
A E
S R
NO I
TAULAVE no i
t r
m c
e e
e t
t m
j a
s a
r n
W y
e e
I S
t t
e S
a y
c w
t i
n d
e v
i e
f r
a e
a e
M F
S S
.o N
m BCD' ABC K
G e
1 1 1 ~
222 3
5 l
000' 000 0
0 b
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 or P
i e
4 et h -
eeee h -
h -
h -
ra ce d vbl ce ce ce uh ur or b.
ur ur ur t t sf mul i e sf sf sf c
cl ss um se isn se se se 1
r e eh ew oo eh eh eh t t ut h, pp ut ut ut s s l
yt s
l l
l y
ar l
n e
ar ar ar r s vo n
or r o
f o rie vo vo vo i
oth f
f f
l e
f f
f f
f ct a o e o e o e r
p o e t
no d ei t
v al u o
v v
v p
er er er n
er h af em i
b u t i b u b u b u e
c t
h t t f c
c c
eh o
n o
o o
o t
d u
h t e e
t e t e t e et b t
l t
sa l
l l
db o
e e db d b db f.
yo e ni a pd pr ni ni ni c
eo a us us us b
r us i
et l os o s os su os d s cee f o f o f o d at f o n
eec p
i nevh p
p p
t ru d
opnt d
d d
ca r nr px e n r n r n r e
t ae ms e n
ae ae ae f
s h
ee i
h h
h s
f n d
t l re t
t t
d e
d d
d u
ai l o
b r
t o
o o
e s
e e
e od a u w
w w
t a
w r e is a
yen e e e e e e e e S
t l rr ih ps x
ih ih ih s
M S
l ee vt a
ee vt vt vt e
E awt e
e e v
e e
e s
L i
x rs h
a ue r
rs rs rs rs B
t s e
t c e
e e
e e
O n e p
n cs p
p R
es e e
i s
e ep e
r r o c
f e
r o r o r o P
t nh l
l l
r e
el e
oo t e
ot nl w e i at w e e
w w e T
p p v
n v
v v
c s N
sy n
s a i
n n
n E
0 eeb s e e cd t s e s e s e
)
M 8
w e
e e
b r e
i a r d
d N
9 d
i of o o
i i
s i
e I
1 e
cd n e l cd n cd n cd n mil v u
A dl t
n e o n
n eo n eo n e o l ai n
T e si g
y e si e si e si i
N 6
ud c u ut ei el u ut u ut u ut l
t O
oox a h e q
s q
s q
s q
s h s n
C E
cme ee e t
cTv eee ee e eee o
N rvu o
i rvu rvu rvu C
E U
s ee f rq hL t
f rq f rq f rq
(
D J
ehb u
f t a
u u
u 2
S F
o y
m cn oi I
d t
.l cn e
.d e
m i
m c n cn i
w i
m i
N O
m l
eR e
e e
t t e w
d t e t e s t e T
I n
s u o sh ed e n s
s e
i sh sh N
S l
e e
sh E
A ab yt i e s yt e
i r
i yt i yt M
r d
s v
u a i
s s
s c
r t e c
c c
e H
S S
ekl t n r u nv t n t n t n C
T l
vau eae cti r eae eae eae t
A L
T eeo hh u coau hh u hh u hh u T
U A
S pc Tt q Aonmc Tt q Tt q Tt q T
S T
A E
S R
NO I
TAULAVE y
y y
y m
y a
y a
a a
e a
r a
r r
r t
r p
r p
p p
s p
S p
S S
S y
S S
S h
e h
e e
e c
r c
r r
r n
i n
i i
i e
c e
c c
c u
e u
e e
e Q
R Q
R R
R
.o N
m B
D E
K L
M e
4 4
4 4
4 4
l 1
1 1
1 l
1 b
1 1
1 1
I 1
or P
ATTACHMENT 2 (Continued)
EVALUATION RESULTS - LINES OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT STATUS AS OF JUNE 6, 1980 Problem No.
System Status 101A Main Steam The three main steam leads 'are treated individually for seismic analy-sis and as a joint problem for thermal expansion and for combined loads analysis.
The leads are very similar but not exactly identified in geometry and in location of pipe supports.
Reactor containment external ARS were used in the analysis.
Review of one of the three leads shows that 2 modes fall into areas subject to increased accele-ration due to MSVH peaks and loads vill therefor: increase.
Prelimi-nary review of the potentsal increases indicates that the system will maintain operability.
Review of the two remaining leads is continuing.
102D Feedwater The three feedwater 1 cads outside of containment are treated indepen-dent for seismic analysis and as a joint problem for thermal expansion for combined loads analysis.
The 1 cads are very similar but not exactly identical in geometry and in location of pipe supports.
Reac-tor containment external ARS were used in the analysis.
Preliminary review indicates that the load increases are expected but the system is complex and the effect of such increases cannot be reasonably determined.
Priority effort is underway to complete this more detailed review.
104F Residual Heat Removal The containment building external structure ARS was used for analysis.
The responses of the modes which are not enveloped by that ARS are not expected to increase suf ficiently so as to significantly increase total response.
Changes in support loads av.d stresses are expected to be minimal.
e e
~
ATTACilMENT 2 (Continued)
EVALUATION RESULTS - LINES OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT STATUS AS OF JUNE 6, 1980 Problem No.
System Status 104G
-Quench Spray The containment external structure ARS was used for the analysis.
Although some modal response could increase as a result of the appli-cation of enveloped ARS, the low level of response in the present analysis indicates that total support loading would not increase significantly and that stress '.c iels would remain acceptable.
104H Quench Spray The ARS used for the analysis is for containment external structure.
This problem was rerun, using an ARS envelope of the containment and Safeguard building.
As a result, the maximum stress increased mini-mally while the increase in resultant support loads - was well within acceptable margins.
107C-Quench Spray All supports except the last anchor on the Safeguard wall are connected to the Main Steam Valve House.
The present analysis uses the Main Steam Valve House ARS, but review of potential changes due to use of an enveloped curve indicates that expected changes are minimal.
'107D Quench Spray All supports except the last anchor on the Safeguard wall are connected to the. Main Steam Valve House.
The present anlaysis uses the Main S'. cam Valve House ARS, but review of potential changes due to use of an enveloped curve indicates that expected changes are minimal.
i I
.J
ATTACl!Ml:NT 2 (Continued)
EVALUATION RESULTS - LINES OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT STATUS AS OF JUNE 6, 1980 Problem No.
System Status 111B Safety Injec.t lon Both the Valve House and the Auxiliary builiing ARS were separately used for analysis.
The results from the more severe Valve IIouse curve were used for all supports except for two located at the opposite end of the system away from the Valve House anchor.
Since only the anchor is located in the Valve House, the system response is controlled by the Auxiliary building.
Wh ile further evaluation of a possible curve enveloping will be required, it is expected that supports would be within the functional range and stresses will be within faulted limits.
111N Safety Injection The system is bounded on one end by an anchor attached to the Reactor Containment external structure and on the other end by a containment penetration.
Since there are no other supports and since the contain-ment external structure ARS was used in the analysis, no enveloping of ARS is required.
e 9
9 e