ML20044C619

Rev 4 to Design Guide DG-II.20, Civil/Structural Operability Reviews.

ML20044C619
Person / Time
Site:	Brunswick
Issue date:	03/01/1993
From:	CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20044C618	List: ML20044C617 ML20044C619
References
DG-II.20, NUDOCS 9304090308
Download: ML20044C619 (39)

Text

- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ . .

i- .

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY NUCLEAR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DESIGN GUIDE FOR CIVIL / STRUCTURAL OPERABILITY REVIEWS DESIGN GUIDE NUMBER DG II.20 i

Revision Submitted peroved gru =%,

g u

\

9304090308 930301 PDR P

ADOCK 05000324 PDR g gg y g 3(r, / ,1c330ce2.ptutene)

I '

Dctign Guide No. DC-II.20-  !

Civil /Strue. Oper. Reviews i t

LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Pa?e Revision l

l i 4 l ii 4 l 1 4 2 4 ,

3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 l

1 7 4 8 4 ,

9 4 i 10 4 -

11 4 i 12 4 13 4 14 4 15 4 l 16 4 l 17 4 j 18 4 19 4  !

20 4 21 4 22 4 23 4 24 4 25 4 l

l l

I l

l Page II.20-i Rev. 4 (1033D092.FEW/che) l

.l

. . i Design Guide No. DG-II.20 .

Civil /Struc. Oper. Reviews l TABLE OF CONTENTS  !

Page No.

I. INTRODUCTION I A. Purpose 1 B. Applicability 1 II. GENERAL A. References 1 B. Responsibilities 1 C. General Design Criteria 2 III. PRACTICE  !

A. Acceptability 3  :

B. Operability 3 C. Reportability 11 ,

IV. Attachments A. Flow Chart - Procedure to Evaluate 12 Operability of Systems Other than Piping B. Operability Review Cover Sheet 13 __

C. STSI List Fo rmat 14 D. Brunswick STSI Criteria for Existing Pipe Supports 15  ;

r V. Appendices

1. Basis for Recommended Piping 25 Operability Criteria l

1 i

i t

R e ., 4 Pare II.20-il (1033DC72.FEk/:Pe) l l

l  !

i l

4  !

Design Guide No. DG-II.20 I

Civil /Struc. Oper. Reviews  ;

l I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose -

The purpose of this design guide is to establish technical * '

criteria to be followed by Civil Structural Discipline personnel when performing operability /reportability reviews for HNP, BNP, and RNP. These reviews / analyses relate strictly to the structural -

aspects of steel structures / components / piping as related to post-  !

seismic operability inclusive of all other loading conditions. i These criteria are consistent with operability criteria used by i other utilities. Specific seismic input to be utilized for operability reviews of piping at BNP, HNP, and RNP has been ~

provided by Stevenson & Associates, as summarized in Appendix 1, in Sections 0, 4, and 5. i B. Applicability l l

This guidance is applicable to all Civil Structural Discipline ,_

l personnel (direct and contract) involved in nuclear plant steel j structures / components / piping, operability reviews. Deviations from this design guide shall be with the approval of the Chief Civil ..

Engineer only. It is the responsibility of the Responsible Engineer to inform the Project and Principal Engineers of deviations existing in any submitted calculation. Deviation from these criteria for operability shall be individually justified and approved by the Chief Civil Engineer.

II. GENERAL A. References

1. NED Procedure 3.18

2. 10CFR50.72

3. BNP OI-04, 0I-4.1 4 RNP Memorandum RNPD/89-3551, 10/25/89

5. BNP M-20, M-21 Documents

6. ASME Section III, Division 1, Appendix F 2

7. ASMI Section III, Division 1, Appendix N

8. Generic Letter 91-18 E. Responsibilities Lead Engineer Perform appropriate evaluations as directed by the Principal Engineer.

Project Engineer Upon approval of structural operability using either the Specific Analysis or Structural Review Panel method, it is the Project Engineer's responsibility to ensure steps are taken to document the evaluation in accordance with NED Guideline E-4 utilizing the Operability Review Approval Sheet (Attachment B).

Also, the Project Engineer shall be responsible for scheduling plant activities restoring the condition to long-term acceptable status as soon as possible. This time frame is normally within one refueling outage unless specific action is taken in accordance with Generic letter 91-18 (Reference 8).

Each Civil Project Engineer shall track temporary conditions in their associated area and may use previously established Page II.20-1 Rev. 4 003DG92.PD/che) l l

4 1 e .

1

(  ;

• Design Guide No. DG-II.20 ,

Civil /Strue. Oper.-Reviews 1

l methods within plants (such as BNP Facts.

l NED ACRs, etc.). In addition, for BNP the project engineer shall report the I condition to the STSI list coordinator and

! include the STSI list coordinator on the distribution list for the operability 1 l

assessment EER prepared to document the evaluation in accordance with Engineering Procedure ENP-12. However, it is '

l imperative for each area of Civil to ,

l remain aware of the total scope of such conditions uch that possible accumulative affects may be considered in future reviews or re reviews of conditions whose specified time limit is exceeded.

Principal Engineer (Lead Section) Ensure evaluation is performed in I accordance with plant guidance and this document.

Chief Civil Engineer Concurrence with operability /reportability i evaluations. Assists in informing plant of >

l conditions per Reference A.1. l l

C. General Design Criteria l Issues which are identified either by plant personnel or internally through the design process may require operability l review if the condition is considered to deviate from the analyzed l

, design basis. A determination whether operability review is '

l required per 10CFR50.72 will be the joint decision of plant management and NED and should consider such factors as:

• Plant condition at the time the issue is found.

• Whether the issue is covered by other Technical Specification concingencies.

• Required condition of the system in question.

When notified that an operability review is required, the time frame in which the review must be done and the notification process shall be per Reference A.1 (i.e., administrative activities). This design guide establishes technical criteria to be followed in the course of the evaluation consistent with requirements specified in NRC Generic Letter 91-18. As stated in i I

GL 91-18, the use of Probe.bilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) or probabilities of the occurrence of accidents or external events is not acceptable for making operability decisions. The recent issuance of NRC Generic Letter 91-18 gave clear regulatory direction on the expected time a temporary condition is to remain in the field. In keeping with the intent of GL 91-18, future l

civil temporary conditions shall designate a specified time limit on the validity of the evaluation not to exceed the next scheduled RFO. The time limit may be shorter if:

• The condition evaluated is such that design assumptions could change prior to the next RFO. This would include assumptions made on:

• Operating conditions, (temperature, pressure, etc.)

= Corrosion allowances. (including piping, support or support allowances)

Rev. 4 Par (1033,e 11. 20 2 0c92.rtw/cne)

. i Design Guide No. DG II.20 Civil /Strue. Oper. Reviews t

• Fatigue Considerations (structures, piping, or

• supports)

If provisions cannot be insured that these parameters will remain  !

stable until the next RFO, an immediate check on the temporary condition status will be required. If the next RFO is ,

appropriate, list the limit by the RFO number, and the current  !

scheduled date (which is subject to change). Any condition ,

exceeding the specified time limit must be reviewed to verify that 6 i the original evaluation is still valid. Fixes which cannot be i made by the next RFO should be discussed with Engineering and Plant Management and should be brought before the Plant PNSC ,  ;

Committee and the NRC. -

III. PRACTICE The evaluation of an existing civil field condition which does not ~

comply with design consists of three stages: acceptability, operability, and reportability.

A. Acceptability Once the condition is identified. the first issue to be reviewed

• is whether or not the condition is acceptable "as-is' with no l physical modification. This is defined as meeting, j l

e All applicable code allowable stresses (AISC, ACI, AWS, ,1 ANSI, ASMI, etc.). 1

• Expansion anchor Factor of Safety of 4 or 5 as required.

e Use of design basis damping ratio. .i e FSAR and technical specification commitments.

• Utilizing accepted industry practice for analysis.

If the condition meets the acceptability criteria. the analysis may be documented by standard calculation and the plant verbally notified. If the condition does not meet acceptability criteria.,

based on the issue and upon management concurrence, generate an Adverse Condition Report (ACR) per Reference A.1 and proceed to the operability review.

B. Operability Civil / structural operability is defined as the ability of a a structure / component to perf orm its required saf ety function following a design basis event without gross permanent deformation or detrimental effect on adjacent safety-related components / structures. All civil / structural operability reviews shall be documented on EERs for BNP and RNP and on PCRs for HNP.

This evaluation shall contain, at a minimum, all critical assumptions and documentation supporting the operability determination. In addition, for BNP the condition shall be renorted to the STSI list coordinator and the STSI list coordinator shall be included on the EER distribution list. This i shall enable these conditions to be tracked by engineering so that the total scope of such conditions identified will be documented.

Items may be added to the STSI list prior to issuance of the OA EER to facilitate tracking of these conditions and scheduling of required fixes. The STSI list shall have the format as shown in Attachment C and be distributed guarterly. Conditions that require further review or investigation, but are not deemed to be operability concerns based on available inf ormation shall be Rev. 4 Page II.20-3 (1033DC92. PEN /che)

Design Guide No. DC-II.20 Civil /Struc. Oper. Reviews ,

tracked as Engineering Follow-up Items (EFIs). These conditions ,

shall be reported to the STSI list coordinator and issued as an a addendum to the STSI list.

Every effort will be made to field verify critical assumptions made in any operability review. If a structure / component is not accessible due to plant operating status, the assumptions requiring verification shall be clearly noted within the body of --

the calculation and also noted as a required field follow-up as an action item to the EER. The engineer perf orming the evaluation is responsible to ensure this occurs. Also, with the exception of BNP pipe support short term evaluations, under the existing DTOP pro 6 ram, all terrerary cenditions must contain a 10CFR50.59 2 review. The practice of documenting operability reviews on EERs ,

f or BNP and RNP (PCRs for HNP) should insure this practice is followed. These evaluations should now be included in EERs or t PCRs to insure the 10CFR50.59 requirement is met. BNP pipe supports are the only exception to this 10CFR50.59 requirement because STSI allowables contained in this design guide had a 10CFR50.59 review perf ormed on them, and the STSI philosophy was documented by CP&L to the NRC as part of the IE Bulletin 79-14 ,

procedure and in the UFSAR Section 3.9.1.4. -

Historically, operability of BNP pipe supports, evaluated under the existing DTOP program, was determined using the acceptance criteria found in Attachment D. Effective October 21, 1992, all operability evaluations (BNP, HNP, RNP) shall utilize the l

l acceptance criteria found in Section III B.1 unless specifically l

! noted otherwise in this design guide.

This specific operability evaluation may be accomplished in either of two ways:

• Specific analysis or testing using the structural / mechanical acceptance limits established in this guideline, as appropriate. This method is preferred and may be used in all cases.

• A review and approval by an established " Senior Structural Review Panel.' This method may only be used with the ,

concurrence of the Chief Civil Engineer or designee and only l1 under specified conditions.

• Other documented criteria not incorporated into this document may be used if listed by reference in Section II.A.

1. Srecific Analvsis:

a. Structural Items (nonpipe support) l l

This includes :11 component type support systems including cabls tray, conduit, HVAC, miscellaneous ,

equipment, and miscellaneous steel structures. l Specific evaluations of conduit using CDG-013 criteria shall be documented as a Senior Structural Review Panel Evaluation (Section B.2). In general, ,

structural components shall be considered operable if, based on either computer or hand calculations, all material stress limits are less than 1.6 times normal AISC allowables for tension, bending, shear, and co=pression. For shear, an additional check shall be made to ensure the stress limit in shear due to dead wei6ht only does not exceed 1.4 times normal AISC limits in members and bolts.

Re. 4 Page II.20-;

J =

Design Guide No. DG II.20 Civil /Strue. Oper. Reviews Other Provisions:

• The plastic section modulus of steel shapes may be used in calculating material stresses.

• Welding stress limits shall not exceed 1.6 times AISC allowables.

• Factor of saf ety for expansion anchors should be greater than 2. For embedded plate Nelson studs, factor of safety > 1.4 against concrete ultimate capacity shall be maintained.

• Damping ratios may be increased based on-increased stress levels or test data.

• No gross component / structure deformation is introduced resulting in questionable component /

structure perf ormance.

• No excessive deflections are introduced resulting in an unevaluated spatial interaction with adjacent component / structure.

Seismic block wall issues shall be addressed in accordance with approved IEB 80-11 SER and existing calculations.

Equipment foundation issues shall be addressed using standard structural techniques (overturning, anchorage check, etc.) or using approved A-46 Generic Implementation Procedure.

b. Mechanical discipline components / structures (i.e., r piping and pipe supports) in question may be considered operable based on specific computer or hand calculations utilizing elastic analysis techniques provided the following conditions are satisfied:

• The following material stress limits for ductile structural steels are not exceeded unless noted otherwise:

Tensile Stress - shall not exceed lesser of 1.2 Sy and 0.7 Su*

Shear Stress - shall not exceed lesser of 0.72 Sy and 0.42 Su (0.55 Sy for dead weight loads)

Bending Stress -

shall not exceed (f) Sy for compact sections where the plastic shape factor (f) = Z/S Z = plastic section modulus S = elastic section modulus and 1.11 Sy 10.79 - 0.002 (b,/2t,)(Sy)')

for noncompact sections l Compressive Stress - shall not exceed 0.67 times I the critical buckling load determined by a comprehensive stability analysis Weld Stress - 48Su

• Special consideration required for pin-connected members and threaded parts.

Rev. 4 Page 11.20-5

-)

l Design Guide'No. DG-IT.20 Civil /Strue. Oper. Reviews j

~

l

• For bolts in bearing type connections, the  !

following material stress limits are not exceeded:

1 l Tensile Stress shall not exceed lesser of Sy and l

0.7 Su  ;

Shear Stress - shall not exceed lesser of 0.6 Sy I and 0.42 Su  !

l

• For component standard supports, vendor- specified  ;

faulted allowable loads shall be used, if 1 available. Otherwise, normal allowable loads .

shall be increased by the appropriate design '

l factor.

D.F. = 1.2 (Sy/Ft) not to exceed 0.7 (Su/Ft).

where: -

l Sy = material yield stress i Su = material ultimate tensile stress Ft = material allowable tensile stress In addition, allowable load shall not exceed 0.67 times the critical buckling strength of the component.

• Operability of the following components shall be i evaluated against the STSI limits established in Attachment D:

HSSA Snubbers U-Bolts EA3 Off Axis Clamps

• Pipe movements / load directions shall be reviewed -

j to ensure that support function is maintained, for example:

7 spring support shall not top or bottom out no uplift on rods vertical only restraints shall not resist lateral loads i

• Factor of safety for expansion anchors is greater than 2. For embedded plate Nelson studs, factor of safety > 1.4 against concrete ultimate capacity.

• Damping ratios increased based on increased i l

' stress levels or test data. (See Piping Section for acceptable pipe damping ratios for operability.)

1 I

• No gross component / structure deformation is j introduced resulting in questionable i component / structure performance.  !

• No excessive det.ections are introduced ,

resulting in an unevaluated spatial interaction l with adjacent safety-related components / structures.

c. The pirine in question may be considered operable l provided the following conditions are satisfied:

l Rev. 4 Page II.20-6

Desiga Guide No. DC II.20 Civil /Strue. Oper. Reviews

• The following load combination will be used in the evaluation:

Po+D .'

Po + D + DBE,ux and Po+ D + DBE'gu l

P3 = Operating Pressure D = Deadweight -

DBE urx = Maximum resultant loading at a piping location considering all design basis seismic '

inertia analysis case runs DBE',gx = Maximum resultant seismic i anchor motion loading

• For the initial evaluation, the piping shall be judged capable of meeting operability requirements, with a one time occurrence of DBE, if the following eq *tions/ criteria are met:

2 Pb [df / (D -df)) +

[S$ + 4 S'31/2 8 2.0 Sy (1) l' and

[ S'# + 4 S,2)

, t 1/2 8 2 . 0 Sy (la) and ,

I 2

Po [df/(D - df)] + [S$pw + 4 Sal l/2 8 0.9 Sy (Ib) "

I

=

[ (i Arty) 2 +

(i Afte) 231/2 [2,e 1.0) s'3 _

s M.

1. 5

• LEI

+

[ (i ef'*P) 2 (i Ar'3c) 2) 1/2 ,

S'3 = [2 t 1.0]

M' #

S= 22 i

i = Applicable stress intensification factor (1 2 1.0)

M, = Bending moment in plane of member due to absolute summation deadweight and seismic (in-lb)

Rev* 4 Page II.20-7 (103:kC92.PEh/che)

. . j

• , e Design Guide No. DC-II.20' i Civil /Strue.-Oper. Reviews l M, = Bending moment transverse plane of member l due to absolute summation of deadweight and seismic (in-lb)

M, = Torsional moment due to abs. sumnation of deadweight and seismic (in-lb)

M' , = ' Bending moment in plane of member due to seismic anchor motions l

M', = Bending moment transverse plane of member +

due to seismic anchor motions l.

1

! M', = Torsional moment due to seismic anchor l

l motions Z = Elastic section modulus of the pipe (in') 4 ,

d, = Nominal inside diameter of the piping  ;

(in)

D, = Nominal outside diameter of the piping ,

(in)

P, = Operating Pressure (psi) which occurs co- ,

incidently with the DBE S, = Specified minimum material yield stress ;L l (minimum tensile yield) at normal l operating temperature (psi) i l

i 1

=

Do +d i ,

I r, l t = Nominal pipe thickness (in) i

• For any points which exceed Equation (1) above. I acceptance of operability can be demonstrated by meeting the following equation:

1 PS + . 7 5 i H, d 2 . 0 S' [( .75 i) t 1.0] (2) 4t Z and i M '" $ 2. 0 Sy [i t 1. 0] (2a) j ,

, s 1

and j i

Po [df/ (D* - dj)] +

[Slw + 4 Sal i/2 s 0.9 Sy (2b) 2  !

l Mg = (Mlp+Mlt + M: ) */

l l

Rev. 4 Page II.20-8 (103bC72. PEN /ene)

1 l

Design Guide No. DC-II.20 l Civil /Strue. Oper. Reviews M ', =(M'$p+M*$e+M'h l '

i , P , D,, t , M,, M,, M , M ' ,, M ' . M ' ,, S ,, Z defined per above. ,

j e If isolated locations exceed the criteria of l Equations (1) and (2) above, acceptance of operability may be demonstrated by meeting the '

following:

• Demonstrate the locations are in the non-Q portion of the system.

• Demonstrate the piping in the vicinity of the location meet Equations (1), (la), and ~~

(1b) or (2), (2a), and (2b) above.

• Meeting the following equations: ,

F%D, + .25i M, s 3 [( .75 i) e 1.0) (3) 4C Z and iM'8 s 2 . 0 Sy (3a)

Z 5 = the greater of 2.0 S, or .7 S, S, = minimum specified ultimate material strength (psi)

P ,, D ,, t, M , M',, Z, i, S, defined per above.

• Additional operability considerations / requirements:

• For ASME Code defined parameters not otherwise identified herein, the 1975 Edition of the ASME Section III Class 2 - 1975 edition will be used.

• In lieu of minimum material propertier specified by the code, actual material properties as determined by in-situ test may be used, e Dynamic response spectra analysis f or short-term operability evaluations will use broadened response spectra curves with piping equipment damping values of 2% or less of critical damping for RNP. For BNP and HNP, approved pipe damping shall be used. [Ref. Appendix 1.]

• Secondary loads (including SAMs) have been considered in the support design.

• No excessive deflections are introduced resulting in an unevaluated spatial interaction --

with adjacent safety-related components / structures.

Rev. 4 Page II.20-9 (103%G92.P(N/che )

2 -

l ,

Design Guide No. DC II.20 Civil /Strue. Oper. Reviews

b. Other evaluation conditions may be imposed at the discretion of the Chief Civil Engineer. In lieu of A ,

analysis, a test (static or dynamic) may be used and the component deemed operable if the test shows it can meet its intended function following a seismic rent.

L

2. Structural Review Panel This method of evaluation of operability concerns is to be used only with the concurrence of the Chief Civil Engineer Considerations to be addressed when using l4

' or nis designee.

( this method include:

• Complexity of problem being evaluated. ,

• Similarity of the problem with other designs or evaluations.

• Availability of industry data directly relating to the issue.

• Experience of engineers involved with related issues.  ;

The purpose of the structural review method of operability determination is to utilize engineering judgement, experience, and evaluation of only those quality attributes which significantly limit the ability of the structure to function to its design requirements post-earthquake. It will be used as an interim measure only. Long-term acceptability will be based on meeting the design bases defined for the plant.

The method consists of the two primary parts:

a. System Walkdown The system whose operability is in question will be walked down and reviewed by two experienced structural '

engineers. These engineers shall have a minimum five years of nuclear structural engineering experience.

The walkdown shall review and identify critical areas of potential failure and gather enough field data for ,

an evaluation. Examples of critical attributes l include the effects of seismic anchor movements or i spatial interactions as well as anchorage adequacy.

The appropriate Project or Principal Engineer will I outline to the Walkdown Team critical attributes which must be considered but will not limit the Team's judgement.

b. Evaluation and Approval l The evaluation of system structural operability will I I

consist of enough information to convey the logic used to determine that the system will perform all  ;

necessary safety functions post-earthquake. This could be a simple write-up of the conditions considered with simplified calculations on critical attributes. This evaluation will be signed by both Walkdown Team members. The minimum aporaval of the evaluation will be three Civil Discipline supervisory personnel to include the Chief Civil Engineer. -

Page 11.20-10 Rev. 4 (1c330c92. PEN /Che) l

Design Guide No. DG II.20 i Civil /Strue. Oper. Reviews l 4

If the condition does not meet the operability criteria, the following steps should be taken: t

• The Chief Civil Fngineer should be notified for concurrence _

with the evaluation.  :

• Provisions of Reference A.1 should be invoked to notify the t plant to determine responsibility for performing JC0 i (Justification for Continued Operation).

• Work with the plant to determine if fixes can be made within system LCO (Limited Condition of Operation) window per Technical Specifications.

• Work with other NED discipline personnel to determine if component is necessary for safe shutdown (i.e., Mechanical, Electrical Discipline personnel may determine the component need not operate post-earthquake). This evaluation shall '

4 .

require a 10CFR50.59 review.  ;

• Document operability calculation in accordance with NED Guideline E-4 utilizing the Operability Review Approval i Sheet (Attachment B).

The criteria contained herein are for general conditions. ,

1 Specific criteria cited for specific conditions will supersede  ;

this document.

C. Reportability c

d Reportability calls to the NRC per Technical Specification ,

j guidance and 10CFR50.72 is the responsibility of tbt plant. For  !

l Civil / Stress / Structural items, the plant will requt*,t assistance  !

in determining reportability once an item is determined to be ,

inoperable. Various plant procedures are involved, however, a  ;

typical situation puts the plant in a condition whereby it could '

potentially not shut down safely post-earthquake. Criteria to <

perform reportability evaluations for Civil are as follows.  :

• Advanced evaluation techniques, such as analysis time

~

history, or system analysis (support and piping) may  !

be used to determine the actual mode of failure of the  !

component. ,

• Testing may be used on the component as a whole or critical parts.

Additional criteria may be imposed by the Civil Principal Engineer (

or Chief Civil Engineer as conditions warrant. 4 J

Results of the evaluation should allow determination of whether actual gross structural failure of the component is expected and ,

if that failure would put the plant in an unsafe condition. The i reportability evaluation documentation should include cause, i corrective actions required, and address any similar plant Conditions. ~

1 J

l i

i P

)

i Rev. 4 Page II.20 11 )

Design Guide No. DG-II.20  ;

Civil /Strue. Oper. Reviews ATTACH.ENT A PROCEDURE TO EVALUATE OPERABILITY OF SYSTEMS OTHER THAN PIPING Identifica$on et Start  ; issue by fend Investigatlon or doourrentaton twiew.

1r y

Yes / cond.Jon 1 .A).

arr i criterta?

No

'I n

Prepara design

Stop deficiency reyet.

1r Cortplete dacurrentation Does for operability and Yes te systern Criteria (see schedule actMt;es to  : rneet structural h 111.8).

restors the systern to an operability ecceptable condition. criteria?  !

tb 1r Noti'y the plard of

. Deterrnha ftxes LCO - M to d

• Address sknitar  :

agn 40 condbons (If any) respcnsibility.

1r Critoria (see Section Ill.C).

1st Screen - Declare reportable !!

there is no bereft in ooing the evaluation.

Yes is te 2nd Screen - Do you expect Nath the PM to - condmon - structural failure in any form prepam W rW" '

repnrtabie?

ony conrJdering the local effects of the condition.

3rd Screen - Will the cond! tion prevent safe shutdcwn or endanger the general pubrc (rnechanical.

te electncal systems ceterrrunation).

Rev. 4 Page 11.20-12 (t0330G92.Ptk/che)

Design Guide No. DG II.20 Civil /Struc. Oper. Reviews ATTACHMENT B CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPAhT OPERABILITY REVIEW FOR (Plant)

(System)

EVALUATION ID NUMBER:

SAFETY CLASSIFICATION:

SEISMIC CLASSIFICATION:

t METHOD OF EVALUATION UTILIZED: METHOD 1: SPECIFIC ANALYSIS / TESTING METHOD 2: SENIOR STRUCTURAL REVIEW PANEL WALKDOWN TEAM:

APPROVALS:

Rev. By Checked Proj ect Approved (Method 2 only)

Engineer Principal Discipline Manager r

i J

l Rev. 4 Page II.20-13 ,

O C33DG92. PEW /che) l

a D2 sign Guid2 No. DG-II.20 '

Civil /Struc. Oper. Reviews ATTACHKENT C FORMAT OF STSI LIST ,

Date:

STSI Item: Status:

Contact:

Title:

Unit: System: Iso. No. EER No.:

Cale. No.- Outage Required? (Yes/No):

PMI: PM2: -

Ref.

I

Description:

i l

l 1

l l

Rev. 4 Page II.20-14 (10330G92.Pik/che)

4 Design Guide No. DC II.20 ,

Civil /Struc. Oper. Reviews ATTACHMENT D i Brunswick STSI Criteria for Existing Pipe Supports (Ref. Report No. 7865-007-S-M-021)

• Allowable anchor loads shall be 1/2 ultimate published loads.

Adjustment of published allowable loads for concrete strengths other than those provided by vendor shall be made in accordance with vendor's recommendations.

• Limits provided below shall not be exceeded:

Tension - Yield  !

Bearing - Yield Bending Yield x Shape Factor x [ (F, Allow) 1 *

.6) ,

Shear Yield x .625 ,

Compression - (Yield x AISC) - 21.6 Weld Joints Controlled by Base Metal at Joint Factory Supplied Components 3 x catalog load

• Note: Shape factor used in the above bending equation is the ratio  !

of the plastic section modulus to elastic section modulus.

For example:

~

Plastic Section Modulus ,

gygpg pggCg7 Elastic Section Modulus (Fr Allow)

Also.

(21.6)

Typical Shape Factors Rectangular Shapes (Plates) 1.5 Wide Flange Shapes 1.14 Circular Shapes 1.7

• Hydraulic Snubber Allowable Loads (Bergen Paterson Model *HSSA')  ;

Size w/ Standard w/ Heavy Duty @ Max. Pin to Relief Valve Relief Valve Pin Dim.

Sprine Spring (Model 252) 3 45004 5010# 7*-2" l

-10 15000s 16700# 6'-7"

-20 30000* 334004 6' 4"

-30 450004 50100# 6*-6" l

Rev. 4 Page 11.20-15 (tm.Mm/cse)

Design Guide No. DC-II.20 Civil /Strue. Oper. Reviews

• Strut Allowable Loads (Bergen Paterson Model "RSSA")

Size Allowable Load @ Max. Pin to Pin Dim.

-3 5010A 7'-2*

-10 16700A 6' 7"

-20 334004 6'-4"

-30 501004 6'-6"

• Loose U-Bolt Capacity Loads Stock P P, Pipe Size Dia. Tension Sideload (in.) (in.) (1bs.) (1bs.)

1/2 1/4 900 300 3/4 1/4 900 300 1 1/4 900 300 Ik 3/8 2280 740 1% 3/8 2280 740 2 3/8 2280 740

~

24 1/2 4225 1390 3 1/2 4225 1390 34 1/2 4225 1390 4 1/2 4225 1390 5 1/2 4225 1390 6 5/8 6770 2220

8 5/8 6770 2220 ,

9 4

10 3/4 10135 3320 12 7/8 14100 4630 14 7/8 14100 4630 j 16 7/8 14100 4630 18 1 18550 6110 20 1 18550 6110 24 1 18550 6110 30 1 18550 6110 Note: Use straight line interaction for cases with loading in both P i and P u directions.

j Materials: SA-36. SA-307, Cr. B Design Temperature: 650*F Rev 4 Page II.20-16

, (1C330072JEN/che)

s Design Guide No. DC-II.20 Civil /Struc. Oper. Reviews

• Single U-Bolt Capacity Loads (Tight Condition)

System Preload = 20% of Yield Stress Material Allowable Stress, S = 15000 psi Material Yield Stress = 36000 psi Nominal P Tension P, Side P , Axial M , Torsion Pipe Size Load load Load Load (in.) (Ib) (1b) (Ib) (in-lb) 1/2 2192 537 247 252 3/4 2192 487 247 315 1 2192 435 247 395 1 1/4 4950 1059 555 1120 i 1 1/2 4950 995 555 1285 2 4950 907 555 1605 21/2 8810 1671 989 3455 3 8810 1545 989 4207 3 1/2 8810 1472 989 4808 4 8810 1418 989 5409 5 8810 1330 989 6687 6 13800 2110 1546 12440 Notes: 1. Capacity indicated is for the load acting alone.

2. Preload must produce at least 20% yield stress for results to be applicable.

l 1

l l

Rev 4 Pare II.20 17 ,

(10330092. PEN /che) )

i

l Design Guide No. DG II.20 Civil /Struc. Oper. Reviews

• Double U-Bolt Capacity Loads (Tight Condition)

System Preload = 20% of Yield Stress l Material Allowable Stress. S = 15000 psi  !

l Material Yield Stress = 36000 psi l

Nominal P, P, P, Side Load Tens. Load Mm '

Pipe Size Tension Side Axial Couple Couple Torsional (in.) Load Load Load _H, _M, Load (1b) (lb) (1b) dB dB (in-lb) )

(Ib) (Ib) 1/2 4384 1074 494 537 2192 504 1 3/4 4384 974 404 487 2192 630 1 4384 870 494 435 2192 790 1 1/4 9900 2118 1110 1059 4950 2240 _

l 1 1/2 0900 1990 1110 095 4950 2570 2 9900 1814 1110 907 4950 3210 2 1/2 17620 3342 1978 1671 8810 6910 3 17620 3090 1978 1545 8810 8414

' 1/2 17620 2944 1978 1472 8810 9616 4 17620 2836 1978 1418 8810 10818 r

5 17620 2660 1978 1330 8810 13374 6 27600 4220 3092 2110 13800 24880  ;

I 4

Notes: 1. dB = Distance between U-Bolts  !

i

2. Capacity indicated is for the load acting alone

3. Preload must produce at least 20% yield stress for results to be applicable.

l l

1 1

l l

Rev 4 Face II.20-18 (1;130092.PEk/ ne) ,

l l

1

l i

Design Guide No. DC-II.20 Civil /Strue. Oper. Reviews  ;,

Figure 1 of 6 Bergen-Paterson (Standard) EA 3 Clamp PV. Max. Allowable @ 650*F l Nominal Rating STSI*

3k 5010A 10k 16700#

20k 334004 30k 501004

• Values based on maximum capacity of snubber units (HSSA) for level indicated. These allowables are derived from mechanical function of the snubber relief valve spring no increase of allowable for temperature is permitted in excess of these values.

b h l

h .

M7 / b. S,1 /

g__

p*?

[ay .. *~r :

. --. i

- [3

~

n .

l M -

1 l g /

g w =* k i

e: **

oewa s

R -~y--

/

/

-r

. - 1

? _A .

i JLa  !

It d

Rev. 4 Pase II.20 19 (1033D;92. FEN /che)

i -

Design Guide No. DC II.20 Civil /Strue. Oper Reviews Figure 2 of 6 EA-3 Clamp for HSSA-3, RSSA-3 Mf-Pg 4 "

Tl i 1 !B I!

< . ll 8: .

. f:

T  : ' ';

PH Allowable # 650*F (Ibs.)

Pipe R E Stock Size In. In. STSI te b 1 1/2 0.95 4 3/4 5/16 2 590 2 1.19 5 5/16 2 590 2 1/2 1.44 5 3/4 3/8 2 735 3 1.75 6 3/8 2 745 4 2.25 7 3/8 2 1/2 850 5 2.78 7 1/2 3/8 2 1/2 855 6 3.31 8 3/8 2 1/2 860 8 4.31 9 1/2 1/2 2 1045 10 5.38 11 1/2 2 970 12 6.38 12 1/2 2 1/2 1240

- 14 7.0 13 1/2 3 1425 16 8.0 14 1/2 3 1425 ,

i 18 9.0 15 1/2 3 1425 20 10.0 16 1/2 4 1940 l 24 12.0 18 5/8 3 2155 l 5/8 2155 I 30 15.0 21 3 l

36 18.0 24 5/8 4 2955 i i

l Rev 4 Paee 11.20-20 (1C33DC92. FEN /che) i 1

s

• Design Guide No. DC-II.20 '

Civil /Strue. Oper. Reviews Figure 3 of 6 EA-3 Clamp for HSSA-10, RSSA-10 MT-Pg 4 "

Tl i 1  ! R R!

I:

< . ll .

.. il

[  ! I 'l e a 43 PH Allowable @ 650*F (1bs.)

Pipe R E Stock Size In. In. STSI te b 3 1.75 7 3/4 1/2 4 1940 3 1/2 2.0 7 3/4 1/2 4 2020 4 2.25 8 1/4 1/2 4 1940 1

5 2.78 8 3/4 1/2 4 1950 6 3.31 9 1/2 5/8 4 2865 8 4.31 10 1/2 5/8 4 2865 10 5.38 12 3/4 4 3780 12 6.38 13 3/4 4 3780 la 7.0 14 7/8 4 1/2 5425 16 8.0 15 7/8 4 1/2 5425 18 9.0 16 7/8 4 1/2 5425 20 10.0 17 1 5 7790 24 12.0 19 1 5 7790 28 14.0 21 1 1/8 6 11815 30 15.0 22 1 1/8 6 11810 l

Rev. 4 Pace II.20-21 (1033D;72.PEk/che)

s -

Design Guide No. DG-II.20 Civil /Strue. Oper. Reviews Figure 4 of 6 EA 3 Clamp for HSSA-20. RSSA-20 WC-Pg 4

.t o . ll I: .

i. !1 f l 8 'l i.i 4:"3 PH Allowable @ 650*F (1bs.)

Pipe R E Stock STSI Size In. In.

te b 4 2.25 8 1/4 5/8 4 1/2 3350 5 2.78 8 3/4 3/4 4 4165 6 3.31 9 1/2 3/4 4 1/2 4575 8 4.31 10 1/2 7/8 4 1/2 6090 j 10 5.38 12 7/8 4 1/2 5715 l 12 6.38 13 1 5 8210 l l

14 7.0 14 1 5 7790 16 8.0 15 1 5 7790 18 9.0 16 1 1/8 6 11815 1

20 10.0 17 1 1/8 6 11815 22 11.0 18 1 1/8 6 11815 24 12.0 19 1 1/8 6 11815 26 13.0 20 1 1/8 6 11815 28 14.0 21 1 1/4 6 14330 30 15.0 22 1/2 1 1/4 6 13440 33 16.5 24 1 1/4 6 13440 36 18.0 26 1 1/2 6 17630 36 18.0 26 1/2 1 3/4 7 26155 Rev. 4 Page II.20-22 (10330092. FEN /:Pe)

Design Guide No. DG-II.20 Civil /Strue. Oper. Reviews Figure 5 of 6 EA 3 Clamp for HSSA-30, RSSA 30 ME- 1 f%v U

d g

!I E!

. . 1: .

i 1

]f  !, E $, .

Aw ::D '

PN Allowable @ 650*F (1bs.) ,

Pipe R E Stock Size In. In. STSI te b 4 2.25 9 1/4 3/4 5 4565 5 2.78 10 7/8 4 4625 __

6 3.31 11 7/8 5 5570 8 4.31 12 1 5 7130 10 5.38 13 1/2 1 6 8265 12 6.38 14 1/2 1 1/8 6 10280 14 7.0 16 1 1/4 5 9250 16 8.0 17 1 1/4 5 9250 18 9.0 18 1 1/4 6 11330 20 10.0 19 1 1/4 6 11330 22 11.0 21 1 1/2 6 14320 24 12.0 22 1 1/2 6 14320 26 13.0 23 1 1/2 6 14320 __

28 14.0 24 1 1/2 6 14320 30 15.0 25 1 1/2 6 14320 34 17.0 27 1 1/2 7 17000 36 18.0 28 1 1/2 8 19695 38 19.0 29 1 1/2 8 19695 Rev. 4 Pace II.20-23

( t C33;;92.FD/cne)

s Design Guide No. DC-11.20 Civil /Struc. Oper. Reviews Figure 6 of 6 Interaction Curve for Bergen-Paterson (Standard) EA-3 Pipe Clamps bdg ,/

Pv/Pv ,,

e =-

{

e

'. 0 p- . _ . _ , i e

t -

0.9 +

, 9 0.8 s

. N 5

\ .

1 0.7 + i 0.6 I .- -

~

- r .

f.

.";r -

0.5 -- .

/.

- i c)  :

}. , _ ,

l

/ x A, t

tes . - ,

-- ~

0.4 -

- i

,9 3,

__  :. c. _= .ns- -=a.r __

t 0.3 -

-l, i ~

0.2 4 j

< \

0.1 - +

i l, ,

i i_ -. j 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 l l

PH / PH ,,,

1 Note: PH m + PV _ are the maximum capacities of the clamp for the service condition investigated.  ;

Rev. 4 Page 11.20 24 ,

i (1C130C92.PEh/che) <

Design Guide No. DC-II.20  !

Civil /Struc. Oper. Reviews  !

4 l

APPENDIX 1 Basis For Recocnended Piping Operability Criteria  !

(See following.11 pages)  !

I

+

)

i i

i i

I l

F i

i i

Rev. 3 Pace II.20-25 (1C33D:92. FEN /che)

, N=3 it_c::n ta as . ,, ,, , : m -, ,,; c:,:: c:. . ..: l N-10-92 FE 16:25 FAX 10. 2155572205  ?. 03 M -1 O ~

mE s.: x

, aaE - ::

92C1737A  !

REVO RECOMMENDED OPERABILITY REvrew CRITzRzA FOR PIPING SYSTEMS .

SusJECTED TO LEVEL D SERyrcE LOADINGS l FOR CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT'S NUCLEAR power STATIONS l

J Revision 0 ,

Stevenson and Associates July 1992

1.0 BACKGROUND

If a seismic Category I piping system at one of the CP&L Nuclear Power Stations identified in Section 2 is detennined to have an indeterminate seismic design basis, it is subjected to an operability review. The purpose of this review is

)

to evaluate the subject system's structural integrity in the event of a DBE (SSE). In addition the seismic design adequacy of the subject system will be upgraded to the current individual plant design basis and any required in-plant j hardware modifications will be implamented using currently approved construction criteria at the next refueling outage.

l 2.0 SCOPE 2.1 Nuclear Power Station Ooerability This document and the suggested criteria is applicable to the following CP&L I Nuclear Power Stations:

(a) Brunswick Unit il and #2 )

(b) H.B. Robinson l (c) Shearon Harris Unit #1 The analysis methods, procedures, and load combinations for this criteria are .

connon to all the subject power stations, and are given in Section 3.0 and 4.0. l The response spectra input and piping acceptance criteria are unique for each

,power station, and are'given in Section 5.0 and Section 6.0 respectively.

2.2 Specific Aeolicability of the Criteria i

This criteria document is applicable to the evaluation and qualification of tne piping and any piping standard components. While it is applicable to the generation of loadings applied to piping component supports, inline mounted 1

, - ht::, c c::c,ca m. ,,-+, ,,;- ;,, ,,: c m 33 e ;oa :'

E 92 F:..' 15:25 FAX K). 2155572205  ?. D:

M~: .

__ K ,  ;

L _ t ._ ~

j equipment and non-inline equipment, in contact with the piping these items are ,

outside the scope of this criteria document. ,

3.0 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 3.1 Deadweicht l

A deadweight run will be made with all deadweight supports active and the system ,

will be evaluated against specified code limits for deadweight loading. Supports  !

which are non-standard or exceed MSS-SP-58 load capacities and which cannot meet normal AISC code requirements for dead load shall be considered inactive and the deadweight analysis rerun. The deadweight pipe stresses, nozzle loads,- and support loads at a given location will be taken as the maximum of these two runs. ,

3.2 Seismic Runs t

A DBE (SSE) response spectra analysis shall be performed using as input the Power Station's (Plant) specific response spectra as defined for a given power station in Section 5.0. All supports other than spring supports will be assumed active (hangers, U-bolts, stanchiens, snubbers, etc.). For rod hangers the seismic loads will be reviewed and compared to the deadweight loads. For any rod hangers for which the vertical seismic loads exceed the deadweight loads, lift-off could  ;

potentially occur. A second seismic run will be made with any rod hangers, whose  ;

seismic loads exceed the deadweight, removed from the analysis. A downward force equal to the deadweight load may be applied at the removed rod hanger locations. l In addition in this second run, any supports which cannot be demonstrated to '

withstand the DBE (SSE) event shall also be removed from the analysis. The )

piping seismic inertial stresses, nczzle loads and support loads at a given i location will be taken as the maximum of these two runs. l If a computed differential seismic anchor motion exceeds 0.5 inches at equipment nozzles, pipe to branch interfaces, and/or between different buildings, a seismic anchor motion analysis will be done using the methodology defined in the applicable Power Station (Plant) Piping Design Specification. Two base cases will be run: ene with all seismic supports assumed active, and the second with the rod hangers detemined to have potential-lift-off in the seismic inertial l analysis removed from the analysis. In addition, in this second analysis run, any supports which cannot be demonstrated to withstand the DBE event shall also be removed from the analysis. The seismic anchor cotion pipe stresses, nozzle loads and support loads at a given location will be taken as the maximum of the two runs.

4.0 LOAD COMBINATIONS 4.1 Pirine load Combinations The following Load Combinations will be used in the piping evaluation 2

i

• irac( c rconsta :ss . m e,-te: ,v:,, ??: ces;; c3 .-

.5  ;

JUL-10-92 FR1 16:27 FAX NO. 2165S72205 P. 05 M ~_ 1 -

an . ,

) ,

L3 -

P, + D + DBE, (4.1) l L2 - DBE' , (4.2)

\

Where:

P, - Maximum Operating Pressure ,

i D - Deadweight DBE , = Maximum resultant seismic inertial loading DBE' , - Maximum resultant scismic anchor motion loading 4.2 Suecort load Combinations ,

The following Load Combinations will be used in determining the loads on piping }

supports: ,

L3 - D + T' + (DBE, + DBE',3)" (4.3)

Where:

i D = Deadweight

)  !

DBE , - Maximum resultant seismic inertial loading DBE'. - Maxic:um resultant seismic anchor motion loading T' - Restraint of free end displacement loads resulting from i normal operating thermal effects 5.0 PLANT SPECIFIC INPUT RESPONSE SPECTRA 5.1 Brunswick Units #1 and #2 A 3-D response spectra analysis will be 1erfomed in accordance with the methodology defined in Section 6.2 of Spectfications BSEP-005-011 (Reference 7.1]. ASME Code Case N-4]l (PYRC damping) damping will be used incorporating the restrictions listed in Attachment 3 of BSEP-005-011 (Reference 7.1]. The applicable DBE spectra will be obtained from BSEP-005-01) using the spectra selection requirements of Section 6.2 cf the reference document [ Reference 7.1].

4 5.2 H.B. Robinson .

The input response spectra for this evaluation shall be floor response spectral curves based on a HOUSNER spectral shape. Floor spectra shall be based on 5.0 percent composite building structural ctmping values with an equipment (piping) damping not to exceed 2 percent critical damping. The term " composite building j structural datping" implicitly conservatively includes SSI effects.

3

• scacx Tea:coica en . ,, -,_,,:33:,3 7 ,;  ::377 c3 ,  ;,3 JiL-10-92 FF.I 16:27 FAX NO. 21E5572205  ?. 05  ;

r1_

X 1 JW . : 7- i The basis and limitations for use of this input spectra is defined in the following document:

" Recommendation for input Floor Response Spectra for Use in Piping System Operability Reviews for the H.B. Robinson )

Reviews for the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Power Stations," l i

Revision 0, Stevenson and Associates, July 1992 [ Reference 7.2) 5.3 Shearen Harris j i

A 3-D Response Spectra Analysis will be done using the methodology specified in  !

Section 3.7 of the Shearon Harris FSAR [ Reference 7.3). This methodology j includes the use of floor response spectra generated from dynamic building i structural models using a ground input response spectral shape based on l Regulatory Guide 1.60 normalized to .159 for the SSE. ASME Code Case N-411 (PVRC damping) damping will be used incorporating the restrictions listed in Reference 7.4. In addition the limitations to the application of Code Case N-411 with respect to the ANS SC-1 systems specified in Section 3.7.1.3 of the FSAR

[ Reference 7.3) shall apply. The applicable . floor response spectra will be obtained from CPL-HNP1-C-001 [ Reference 7.5).

6.0 PLANT SPECIFIC PIPING EVALUATION CRITERIA

) 6.1 Brunswick Unit #1 and #2 6.1.1 Initial Evaluation The piping shall be judged capable of meeting operability requirements with a one time occurrence of the DBE (SSE) if the following equations / criteria are met:  !

P, [d,2/ (D,2-d 2 i )) , [$,2

, 43a)1/2 t

1 2.0 S y (6.1) and

[ S ' ,8 + 4 S ' ,23 1/2 5 2.0 S y (6.2)  !

Where:

S, =

Q12 Z g j g)2 1/2 3 [i 1 1.0)

S, M 2i S', - I(i M'gla . g 4 g, ,)2 1/23 [i 1 1.0) )

Z S', -

J 4

I

& <ta:s :t c:ccita 295 . ,, e, -e:,,:,, ,,; it; a3 ,,-

JJ. '.0-92 ??.i *.E:25 F M. NO. 21655722^5  ?. 07

~ '

.i

__: m E c ;

- 5E 5

:

1 - Applicable stress intensification factor (i 11.0)"'

K, - Bending moment in plane of member due to absolute summation deadweight and seismic (in-lb) 4 - Bending moment transverse plane of member due to absolute summation of deadweight and seismic (in-lb)

M, - Torsional moment due to absolute surmation of deadweight seismic (in-lb)

M', - Bending moment in plane of member due to seismic anchor motions M ' ,, - Bending moment transverse plane of member due to seismic .

anchor motions M', - Torsional moment due to seismic anchor motions 3

2 - Section modulus of the pipe (in )"'

di = Inside diameter of the piping (in)")

D, = Outside diameter of the piping (in)") i P, - Pressure (psi) which occurs coincidentally with the DBE.

5, -

Material yield stress (minicym tensile yield) at normal operating temperature (psi)

t - Nominal pipe thickness (in)") l

"'These properties per USAS B31.1.0 - 1967 (2)This property per Section 6.1.4 j 6.1.2 If Equation 6.1 is Exceeded For any points which exceed Equation 6.1 and 6.2 cf Section 6.1.1 acceptability can be demonstrated by meeting the following equations: l

+ . 75 i M. I 2.0 S, [(.75 i) 1 1.0] (6.3) and 1.2', i 2.0 S r (i 1 1.0] (6.4)

Z M, -

(M,' + 4,' + M,#)"

5

1

~

& . ceu . :t.c=4.ce os, ,s > ,,, m , ,,, .. . . . a . ..e i E_-10-92 F?.: 15:29 FAX O. 2155572205  ?. 05 )

LG-Z _:  ! '

.v;: s : J i

G 6 c; -

M', - (M' ,2 + M' ,2 + M ' ,8 ) "

]

i'3), P , D ,'3), t'3), M,, % , M, , M',, M'm M ' , , S y'3 8 Z'3' per Section 6.1.1 unless otherwise noted.

h (3)These parameters per Section 6.1.4 l

l 6.1.3 Isolated Non-Q Points which Exceed Equations 6.1 to 6.4 l l

If isolated non-Q locat' ions exceed the criteria of equations 6.1 through 6.4, i acceptability may be demonstrated by meeting the following:  ;

3 (a) Demonstrate the locations are in the non-Q portion of the system.

a (b) Demonstrate the piping in the vicinity of the location meet equations 6.1 and 6.2 or 6.3 and 6.4.

(c) Meeting the following equations:  !

+ .751 E 5 3 [(.75 i) 2 1.0) (6.5) and l l

l s 2.0 S y [i 1 1.0) (6.6)

Y - the greater of 2.0 Sy or .7 S, 4

5, - minimum specified ultimate material strength (psi)") ,

1 P , D , t, F , M',, Z, i, S per y

Sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 unless j 4 oI.herwisenoled

")This parameter per Section 6.1.4 6.1.4 Parsmeter Identification For ASME Code defined' parameters not otherwise identified herein, the ASME B &

PV Code Section III Class 2 - 1974 Edition shall be used.

6.1,5 Material Properties

! In lieu of caterial properties specified by the Code, actual best estimate material properties as determined by in-situ test may be used.

J 6

JLt-:C-52 FF.: 16:29 ,

FM Np. 21E55722C5  ?. Cg

5. - Z . _ C -

\ =1-- -

6.2 H_.B. Robinson 6.2.1 Initial Evaluation The piping shall be judged capable of meeting operability requirements with a one time occurrence of the DBE if the following equations / criteria are met:

P, [d,2/(D,2-di a)) , [3,2 , 43,2 31/2 1 2.0 S y (6.7) and

[S ',2 + 4 S ',2]8 1 2.0 5 7 (6.8)

Where:

5, -

If1 (1 2

1. g4 g 32)t/2 [i 2 1.0]

Z S, M '

21 21/2 [$ 3 1,oj S', - ffi M' git. g4 g,a33 Z ,

S', -

i = Applicable stress intensification factor (i 21.0)'5) )

% - Bending moment in plane of member due to absolute sumation deadweight and seismic (in-lb)

M,, a Bending moment transverse plane of cember due to absolute sumation of deacweight and seismic (in-lb)

M, - Torsional moment due to absolute sumation of deadweight seismic (in-lb)

M' , - Bending moment in plans of ember due to seismic anchor motions N' , - Bending moment transverse plane of member due to seiscic l anchor motions l M's

- Torsional moment due to seismic anchor motions I - Section modulus of the pipa (in5)'5) di - Inside diameter of the piping (in)(3) 3 D, = Outside diameter of the piping (in)

• 1 P, = Pressure (psi) which occurs coincidentally with the DBE.

7

.. . ~ mc . - . . yo . . ,. . , . , ,, , ; , u o ,g,,

__ 4-IO.-3?_F_P.J..!E: 30 FAX NO. 2165572205  ?.10 31 - 12 J = E.

~

O x1 _ _

1 5'

- Material yield stress (minimum tensile yield) at normal operating temperature (psi)

t - Nominal pipe thickness (in)'"

'U These properties per USAS B31.1.0 - 1967

("This property per 6.2.4 6.2.2 If Equation 6.7 limit is Exceeded For any points which exceed Equation 6.7 and 6.8 of Section 6.2.1 acceptability can be demonstrated by meeting the following equation:

+ . 75 i M. 1 2.0 S y [( 75 i) 2 1.0] (6.9) and Z Zs 2.0 S y [1 1 1.0] (6.10) I Where:

}

M, =

((8 + Pg,2 + M,3)M M', =

(M' ,' + M ' ,,3 + M',3) W j l

i r>,P,D/I) t'7), ( , ( ,

t

, M,, M' ,, M'e, , M',, Sy cr), 7c7) per Section 6.2.1 (7)These parameters per 6.2.4 6.2.3 Isolated Non-Q Points which Exceed Equation (1) and (2):

If isolated non-Q locations exceed the limits of equations 6.9 and 6.10, acceptability may be demonstrated by meeting the following:

(a) Demonstrate the locations are in the non-Q portion of the system.

(b) Demonstrate the piping in the vicinity of the location mest the li=its of equations 6.9 or 6.10. I (c) Meeting the following equation:

8

~ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _

4

. " XEROX TELE 000tER 295 : '?-"-??; ??: ?? ?? ITT G3 o  : e11 ,

JUL-10-92 FP,1 16:30 FAX N0. 2155572205  ?.11 l 2 2 - Z ._ C ^

?:L a s n3a : ::

s 1 i

+ .751 % s S [(.75 i) 1 1.0) (6.11) r and P

1 '4 1 2.0 S y (6.12) i 5 = the greater of 2.0 5, or .7 S, i 5, = minimum specified ultimate material strength (psi)(') l P

P,D,t,M,, M',, Z,1, S, per Sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 l (8)This parameter per Section 6.2.4.

t 6.2.4 Parameter Identification ]!

For ASME Code defined parameters not otherwise identified herein, the ASME B &

) PV Code Section III Class 2 - 1974 Edition shall be used. ,

j 6.2.5 Material Properties In lieu of material properties specified by the Code, actual best estimate j material properties as determined by in-situ test may be used. j i

6.3 Shearon Harris (Non ANS SC-1 Systems 1  ;

, 6.3.1 Initial Evaluation

+ .751 M. 1 2.0 Sy [(.75 i) 1 1.0) (6.13) and

%Z 5 2.0 S y [i 1 1.0) (6.14) i' where: ,

M, = (M,2 + gr # g,2)in .

M', = (M'j + M ' 3, 2

. g,gryin i = Applicable stress intensification factor (i 11.0)*

f 9

l

'l

it=cx Tea com ca m. ,,_7 ,_ ,-,: ,,: ,, ,,: cc m so 4 .m JUI.-10-32 FRI 16:31 FAX O. 2165572205  ?.12 3G-: O_

L F r r. C P -E .0s-( = Bending moment in plane of member due to absolute sumation deadweight and seismic (in-lb)

% = Bending moment transverse plane of member due to

• absolute summation of deadweight and seismic (in-lb)

M, = Torsional moment due to absolute sumation of deadweight seismic (in-1b) .

M', = Bending moment in plane of member due to seismic anchor motions M' , = Bending moment transverse plane of member due to seismic anchor motions N's

- Torsional moment due to seismic anchor r.otions I - Section modulus of the pipe (in 3

)"'

d, = Inside diameter of the piping (in)(')

D, - Outside diameter of the piping (in))

P, = Pressure (psi) which occurs coincidentally with the DBE.

S'

= Material yield stress (minimg'm tensile yield) at normal operai.ing temperature (psi)(

t - Nominal pipe thickness (in)(')

CThese properties per Section 6.3.2 6.3.2 Property Identification For ASME Code defined parameters not otherwise identified herein, the ASME B&PV Code Section III 1974 Edition shall be used.

For ANS SC-2 piping, specific piping parameters shall be determined from Subsection NC-3600. For ANS SC-3, ANS NNS, and Seismic Category I B31.1 piping, specific piping parameters shall be detennined from Subsection ND-3600.

6.3.3 Material Properties In lieu of minimum material properties specified by the Code actual material properties as determined by in-situ test may be used.

6.4 Shearon Herris (ANS SC-1 Systems) 6,4.1 Evaluation J

The piping shall r-t the operability requirements if the requirements of 10

N 92 ??.I 16:31 FAX NO. 2155572205  ?. :3

% Z.':

_ m m ..

MG_ i' 5

}. Appendix F of the ASME B&PV Code,Section III, 1974 Edition are met.

6.4.2 Material Properties In lieu of material properties specified by the Code actual best estimate material properties as determined by in-situ test may be used.

7.0 REFERENCES

7.1 " Carolina Power & Light Company, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Specification for Seismic Design Criteria" Specification No. BSEP-005-011, Revision 2, dated 22 Septe:nber 1988.

7.2 Letter from Dr. John D. Stevenson and Mr. Timothy M. Adams of SEA to Mr.

H. Lee Williams of CPLL transmitting, 'Recomendations for Input Floor Response Spectra for Use in Piping System Operability Reviews for the H.B.

Robinson Nuclear Power Station, dated 8 July 1992.

7.3 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Updated FSAR 7.4 Letter from George W. Knighton of the NRC to Mr. E.E. Utley of CP&L titled, "Use of ASME Code Case N-397 and N 411 for the Shearon Harris Power Plant Unit fl, dated 28 October 1985.

I 7.5 Carolina Power and Light Company, Specification for Response Spectra for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Specification No. CPL-HNP1-C-001, Revision 0, 29 August 1989.

)

11