ML20023D188
Text
.
F.
- 's Commonwealth Edison f f
^
, / ' ')
One First Natenal Ptara. ChicagoJnois
[] / '
\\ g~; " Address Reply to: Post Othee Box 767
\\
Chicago. lihnois 60690 October 27, 1982 PP.lHCIPAL STAFF yNW&to m nt 412h 11//
Ef1F Mr. James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator [
7 ffly n
Directorate o f Inspection and
,p ng,n3 Enq Enforcement - Region III r
3y15E r.T P A
1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission o
nt 799 Roosevelt Road
/
OL IflLE h-Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Subject:
LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2
~
Information Requested by Region III Inspector s
Dear Mr. Keppler:
Recently, your inspectors Mr. R. Lanksbury and Mr. R.
Sutphin requested information from Commonwealth Edison Company Project Engineering Department.
Enclosed please find:
1.
T. E. Watts memo to C. h. S.chroeder dated October 19, 1982, "HVAC Ductwork Design" in response to Mr. Lanksbury 's-questions.
2.
T. E. Watts memo to C. W. Schrdeder dated October 25, 1982, "Sargent and Lundy Project Instruction PI-LS-42, Review o f Q.C Documentation."
Tnese responses are being provided to you informally (i.e.,
not on the LaSalle docket) because the requests for this information were made verbally and were not docketed.
Normally, such information is made availaole at our offices, the site, or the of fices of our Architect Engineer.-
If there are any further questions in these matters, please l
contact this of fice.
Very truly yours,
(].!
ub %,t. j2 7 l Q C. W. Schroeder Nuclear. Licensing Administrator l
1m cc:
R. Lanksbury R.
Sutphin rf NRC Resident Ins.act
- L9CS l
OCT 2 9 22 5332N 8305190353 830311 PDR FOIA PRENDERB2-366 PDR
~
~
(
October 19, 1982
Subject:
LaSalle County Station, Units 1 & 2 HVAC Ductwork Design Mr. C.W. Schroeder:
Attacheo is tne response to questions raised by R. Lanksbury, Region III NRC, concerning the HVAC Ductwork Design.
These questions were raised as a result of the NRC's testing program on HVAC material.
One sample bolt had a brinell hardness which exceeded the ASTM range for A307.
It shoulo be noted that the bolt stresses were conservatively calculated adding the effect of the weights of components to the seismic loadings.
A f. Ell T.E. Watts Project Engineer TEW/bmb/2147L Attachment i
cc:
L.J. Corts (1/1) l O
t l
t l
l
~
(.-
4 g..
CARGENTQLUNDY CN08NCCRS ewicano 8
NR,C REGION TII OUESTIONS ON HVAC SYSTEMS Question 1:
The NRC tested'4' bolts which were 3/8 inch A307 Grade A.
The ASTM hardness requirement is between
~
121 and 241 Brinell.
One of the 4 bolts tested had a hardness of 287 Brinell.
Thechemipalanalysis
~
was OK.
The NRC's lab coul'd not conduct elongation or tensile tests on a 3/8 inch bolt.
What does the 287 Brinell hardness mean?
S&L Response:
With increasing hardness yield and fracture strength increases and ductility decreases.
Increased hard-ness-is advantageous from a strength point of view.
Increased hardness also decreases ductility of the bolt material.
However, as no impact loads are expected on HVAC ductwork, this decreased ductility does not affect the safety of. the bolts.
Hence, increased hardness is beneficial.
Atta*ched is a list of stresses on the bolts,
~
obtained by conservative analysis of typical HVAC ductwork containing components (dampers, registers,.-
i grills,.etc. ).
~
6
,/
O e
.n-
--n,
--e g
e,-
w
---w-
SARGENTO LUNDY CNGINEERD cnscaua Summary of findinga_for A307 bolts used in llVAC Duct.
Companion flange analysis.
Note:
1)
The analysis was conservatively based on highest duct and duct component weights.
2)
Analysis was based on 3/8 inch bolts.
3)
Yield stress for A307 is minimum 36000 psi.
Building - Reactor 1 and 2 Service Level:
Emergency Duct Size Calculated Stress Duct Size Calculated (W X H inches)
(ksi)
(W X H inches)
Stress (ksi) 10 X 6 8.0 30 X 14 7.544 10 X 6 10.0 30 X 20 8.323 12 X 8 9.6 32 X 20 4.633 12 X 10 10.7 36 X 30 9.92 12.X 12 9.6 40 X 20 9.102 14 X 10 10.6 40 X 36 7.995 16 X 16 10.33 42 X 18 7.831 18 X 8 9.76 42 X 36 5.95 18 X 12 9.35 48 X 16 9.76 18 X 14 E.94 48 X 32.
5.002 18 X 18 9.92 60 X 40 2.624 24 X 24 10.05 72 X 60 5.084 24 X 18 8.98 96 X 40 6.44 24.X 20 7.18 26 x 12 8.16.
26 X~14 9.184 26 x.20 9.963 28 X 14 9.512 28 X 20 9.061 e
I r
I r
M y
~
l SARGENT & LUNDY CNGINEERS CHIC AGO 4
'N Building - Auxiliary Service Lovel: Emvorgency y
- x_
Duct Size Calculated' Stress
.s(W-X H inches)
(ksi) 10 X 6 10.414 18 X 8 10.91 20 X 6 6.81 l'2 X 20 10.54 12 X 16 12 X 30 10.91 10.62 14 X 40 6.57 18 X 44 9.31 20 X 16 8.57 12 X 36 9.594 36 X 18 8.41 26 X 20 10.62 24 X 54 8.57 48 X 36 8.82 30 X 28 7.75 30 X 38 9.23 22 X 18 7.71 28 X 70 9.512 72 X 72 5.54 40 9.8 70 g 9.23 e
e is d
S W
e m
-~,.r m,
=,
SARGENT & LUNDY
. ENGINEERS
~
CHIC AGO s
Building - Containment.
Service Level: Emergency e
Duct Size Calculated Stress (W X H' inches)
(ksi) 12 X 24 8.16 32 X 20 8.1 30 X 32 8.364 18 p 9.27 I
f N
e 4
- s s
g l
l l
~
-es..
O g
f" 1
J I
.,-,y..
.. ee
-p.m3
-..,.n, r
e e
e CARGENT & LUNDY E N GIN C E R$
CHICAGO Question 2:*
Wha,t are S&L's design factors for companion flanges and stiffeners?
flanges and stiffeners?
S&L Response:
Between companion flanges and duct sheet metal, the sheet metal is the weaker member.
Stiffeners are not load. carrying members.
They are installed to prevent warping of the duct sheet metal.
The stiffeners are installed to industry practice.
=
G G
1 e
e o
a l
9 e
e f
r e
G e
t e
e e
w
SARGENT Q1. UNDY E N G I N E E 'R $
CH4CAGO Question 3:
Was A500 structural tubing ever added to HVAC Spec?
S&L Response:
A500 tubing was approved for use by Field Change Request (FCR) 34,307.
It will soon be incorporated
h 4
e S
l e-I l
+
M
.+a.
, -, ~.
c-
f bYUG.N October 25, 1982 Suoject:
LaSalle County Station, Units 1 & 2 Sargent & Lunay Project Instruction PI-LS-42 Review of QC Documentation Mr. C.W. Schroeder:
Att. ached is Sargent & Lundy's procedure PI-LS-42 wnich neeas to De transmittea to Ray Sutphin, NRC inspector Region III.
Earlier this year Ray, in the process of reviewing allegations, auditea recoros at Sargent & Lundy..
I contacted Ray after ne finisned his review wnen informed he haa a concern.
Ray inaicatea.tnat altnougn ne had no proolems with the actual processing of QC documentation packages, tnere was no formal procedure covering this process.
Engineering agreed to address Ray's concern anc S&L was instructed to craf t anc issue a procedu_re covering the review of QC documentation.
I have reviewed the final procecure and am satisfied it accresses Ray's concern and will allow him to close his aucit.
Ray has indicated he needs to review the procedure as soon as possiole.
If the formal transmittal is sent to James Keppler, please copy Ray Sutpnin.
9
-t W A T.E. Watts Project Engineer TEW/bmo/2172L Attachment cc:
J.L. Clark (1/1)
N
\\
i