ML20053C680

Forwards Sargent & Lundy Final Supplemental Responses to Teledyne Open Item Repts 21,23 & 24 & Error/Deviation Repts 11 & 17 for LaSalle Independent Design Review

ML20053C680
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	05/28/1982
From:	Schroeder C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
4237N, NUDOCS 8206020459
Download: ML20053C680 (15)

Text

.

-).**

'~

\\ Commonwealth Edison

[

- ) ons First National Plus. Chic!go. Illinois g O '7 Addr:ss Riply to: Post Office Box 767

/ Chicago. Illinois 60690 May 28, 1982 i

Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 Teledyne Open Item and Error / Deviation Reports for the LaSalle Independent Design Review, Supplementa.1 Responses NRC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374 Reference (a):

C.

W.

Schroeder letter to H. R. Denton dated March 16, 1982, " Independen t Design Review Initial Status Report for the Period of February 11 through March 12, 1982."

(b):

C.

W.

Schroeder letter to H. R. Denton dated May 7, 1982, "Teledyne Open Item and Error / Deviation Reports for the LaSalle Independent Design Review."

(c):

C.

W. Schroeder letter to H. R. Denton dated May 13, 1982, "Teledyne Open Item and Error / Deviation Report for the LaSalle Independent Design Review -

Second Transmittal."

(d):

C.

W.

Schroeder letter to H. R. Denton dated May 14, 1982, "Teledyne Open Item and Error / Deviation Reports for the LaSalle Independent Design Review -

Final Transmittal; and 1st Transmittal o f Responses."

(e):

C.

W. Schroeder letter to H.

R. Denton dated May 20, 1982, "Teledyne Open Item and Error / Deviation Reports for the LaSalle Independent Design Review -

Responses to Remaining Items."

(f):

C. W. Schroeder letter to H. R.

Denton dated May 26, 1982, "Teledyne Open Item and Error / Deviation Reports for the LaSalle Independent Design Review -

Supplemental Responses."

(g):

C.

W. Schroeder letter to H. R. Denton dated May 27, 1982, "Teledyne Open Item and Error / Deviation Reports for the LaSalle Independent Design Review -

Supplemental Responses."

M h'l 8206020459 820528 DR ADOCK 050003fg

.)

(t

3. a-

/,

2-May 28, 1982 H..R.

Denton r

Dear Mr. Denton:

Reference (a) provided hou with an initial status report of

~ the Independent Design Review being' conducted at LaSalle County Station.

References (b), (c), ano (d) provided you with three sets of Teledyne Open Item and Error / Deviation Reports.

References (d),

(e), (f), and (g) also transmitted 'our responses and supplemental responses to the Open Item and Error / Deviation Reports.

The purpose i

of this letter is to transmit to y'ou additional supplemental responses.

l s.

L s,.

3 Under separate cover, ;this material is being provided to >

Mr. James G. Keppler.

3 s

tS:

y, If there are any questiobs rega'rding this matter,' please contact this office.

/

^

f It Ve ry bruly yours,

/)

d 5 /2.t/ge.

~C.

W. Schroeder Nuclear-JLicensing _ Administrator 1m

.V N

Attachment r.

cc:

NRC Resident Inspector - LSCS - 1/0 -

J(.

T I

t w#

l

-- m 4237N

~

r r i

' l j

I

'i j, s

5--

l v

.\\-

.0.Tn~,

9 May 28, 1982 Mr. L.0. DelGeorge:

Subject:

Supplemental Response for the LaSalle Independent Design Review Enclosed is the final. group of supplemental responses to the items identified by Teledyne.

These supplemental responses provide additional clarifying information.

You should transmit this information to Mr. Denton and

'OC._

Mr. Keppler.

8 2 Al/n%r 8.R. Shelton BRS/bmb/1604L l

l l

l l

~

SARGENT O LUNDY ENGINEERS s s E AsT MON ROE $7 tE ET CHIC AGO, lLLINOIS 6 0 603 TELEPHONE 312 269.2000 9

i May 28, 1982 Project No. 4266-24 Commonwealth Edison Company LaSalle County Station - Unit 1 Third Party Independent Review Mr. B. R. Shelton Project Engineering Manager Commonwealth Edison company P. O. Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 l

Dear Mr. Shelton:

Enclosed are 12 copies of Sargent & Lundy's supplemental responses to Open Item Reports 21, 23 and 24 and Error /Devia-i tion Reports 11 and 17.

These responses should complete our review of the Teledyne reports.

i i

It is our understanding that Commonwealth Edison will distribute these simultaneously to Teledyne', the NRC and internally.

[

l Yours very truly, i

k R in:otgjog:3g R. H. Pollock Mechanical Project Engineer i

RHPachm In duplicate Enclosures Copies:

W. A. Chittenden (1/1)

E. V. Abraham (1/1)

G. C. Kuhlman (1/1)

R. J. Mazza (1/1)

E. B. Branch (1/1)

D. C. Haan (1/1)

W. G. Schwartz (1/0)

E. R. Weaver (1/1)

S.

D. Killian (1/1)

A. E. Meligi (1/1) j File 85 l

l

@o Y

I

SARGENTO LUNDY

=

EN GIN EERO CHII AGO OPEN ITEM #21 Supplemental Response We have used the Limit Analysis approach in the analysis of Multi-Loaded Clampsjaccording to this procedure, the yield strength of the material is used as the maximum allowable stress.

The design requirements of Appendix XVII-4000 (and also AISC) includes increasing the load by a factor when using the Limit Analysis method.

This factor is 1.7 for Level A and Level B and 1.3 for Level C.

We instead have used conservative method which would cause our calculated stress to be more than twice i

the actual stress due to the following reasons:

l 1.

One rib only was used as an. active rib while no credit was given to the other rib.

This may double the value of the actual stress.

2.

No credit was given to the strap which may absorb up to 25% of the applied load.

3.

32 ksi was always used as an allowable stress instead of 36 ksi.

These three factors combined if considered would reduce the l

calculated stress by more than half.

This is equivalent

'j to multiplying the load by a factor higher than 2.

O/I 21-1 1

9' CARGENT Q LUNDY ENG1NEERO CHICAGO OPEN ITEM #23 Supplemental Response The removal of snubber RH58-1005S from node point F25A changes the piping span length from 6.61 feet to 9.61 feet of 24" standard schedule piping.

When modeled as a simple-simple beam n.odel, these spans result in first node frequencies of 230 Hz and 109 Hz respectively.

The removal of snubber RIIB9-1002S from node point G69 changes the piping span length from 5.27 feet to 6.94 feet of 14" standard schedule piping.

When modeled as a simple-simple beam model, these spans result in first node frequencies of 253 Hz and 146 Hz respectively.

By reviewing node shape displacements and participation factors of the eigenvalue solution, there is negligable response in these areas of the piping system for the first 30 rmodes.

The firstrmode with a significant contribution in this area occurs at approximately 35 Hz.

Removal of the above mentioned supports will not significantly shift the frequency below this value, because this area of the system is still very rigid without them based on the frequencies given above.

e e

4 CARGENT Q LUNDY ENGINEERS CHICAGO OPEN ITEM #24 Supplemental Response 1'

In order to substantiate the engineering judgement made concerning the impact on dynamic analysis of Chis interference, a dynamic analysis was made for one high frequency load (chugging) and one low frequency load (OBE) with a strut modeled at the location and in the direction of the interference.

Attached is a load comparison between the restraint loads as analyzed and the res traint loads f rom this verification run.

The results indicate that none of the restraints would experience a significant increase in design loads.

One restraint, the Y restraint at NP 155, does have an increase of 19.7% in the OBE analysis, but the same restraint has a decrease of 20% in the chugging analysis, therefore the increase would be cancelled when the loads were combined.

Also attached for your information is a comparison of frequencies, maximum deflections, and participation factors.

l e

e e

L

CAR 2ENT O LUNDY E N olNG E DO CHICAGO OPEN ITEM REPORT No. 24 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE Impact Loads and Additional Stress on Pipe In order to substantiate by calculation the engineering judgement used to neglect the impact effects, a calculation was performed to determine the interaction force between the pipe and the slab and to evaluate the resulting stresses in the pipe.

The calculated equivalent static load from impact is approximately 5,000 lbs.

This load will create local stresses at the location of impact and global stresses throughout the span.

The local stresses from a 5,000 lb. load are negligible; the stresses along the span will increase by no more than 30% of the dynamic stress in the pipe.

The highest stress point in the span is at the top of the riser.

Adding 30% of the combined stress (including pressure) at this point results in a new Service Level B and C stress of 15,350 and 16,200 psi respectively, still well below the Code allowable of 18,000 and 27,000 psi.

O/I 24-1

caici ror R.9-t1 tAra 4nAr4 ca. No.

SARGENT >~ LUNDY Ches art Aa Q Rev.

Date p

a NGINeeft!.

~

C " 'C ^ C' Safety-Related Non-Safety-Related Page

/

of D

,', \\

DataE br L

Chent [,@. [n Prepared bf i

s t_

(

' /., -}

Reviewed by Date Froject 1 i

Proj. No. d 1 [., [g.- AO Equip. No.

Approved by Date

- ~ - - ' - ~

c

.1 c e,-

. o n :=,. e

. g

.<_, eW '"e * % >c t e M.M6d 5

% i ?s. e a e-i w

tu z

u l-scu;-i

~

\\._--.

~ O c rA N N. tb..C D

'3 MN6b. -.. _ -

a AD W V

O N. c =.--

g p' y cp o g @-

y y 3 -.St Q r4r-Q \\p y O ep

~

a}

t

.3 4 x _*.

,A,,, g-D

. O - ; 7 o-1

.)

i g

s_.1 t

1.

g.. n.

I:

. *. i. _. i _ *_...

9 t \\ -Q Q-h.. -b fg C y % 3 r. \\;) $

h h-S 9

/

~ l,

$, ;0 N. _~. -- A cJ tfi y.

.r

.4 N. 7 P.

gp r.. r..

c C g \\/.1 4

,v,

,.j_

p.

L i

i 1

1 T '-

f

-.- i

- ' '. I y

_,,,,, g ?

g _O g

_ y g

g c4

_g - w, y i

u. g o

O O O fO O

'- w '

f o

?G

'N's 4 s O O fO ?O o

• -

• O '

w o

7 N 7'T*u W r* w' 3 7 j?.9 vA C ' $* d' _s W i 2--

N W t--

A -

-D

[ ~9 T7 I-' D :I-J 1-T,4 - - - '

5M y d NN to ccgoo o b3 in $ cc d -' -

a$.N o O $ o \\n $ g3 g ia f ~&

t gg.79 g a - n i

e, v.g n e o n.- c.a __ _. g e. 8 -

p c u w n

n e

- - - n.

g - -

y 3_ d,

'k @d h h N 3 -t* E 'M c DMNpc-MoOOMD 0

v 7'

-M O.3 b. f,$. %.ta rd s O O. G ra C-

.3 g is- #,o c0 r-7'-

~

a.

O ta,

O.

O c.)

O O.

O.

o.

.3

_w 3.-

V

=

3*

s.. s..

e

• ~ s

- o s

s., I. c ~* I. o e

k.

l t

I i

1 8

!. _.'.I

___.I._I.__.-.._1._._..__..

3 o,eae#Xs m r, e e co 3 c.G-O V. 0 a f f 'eqt t w) u O

O A di

'sg N

}-

p.

E w-- CO ~~ s'O.

U,' Dce "\\ S '.,' - O.D g I

4 O t*3

.s.

'2

' ~.' \\' t e

o

\\

b<

I 1

1

\\

\\

J s

~

u A

O

\\'

e4 N

p m.

. __,o m.3

.~

g 6

. \\n. T -

M g

i i

g

~t N,

. -- }

I.

e

~

)

' e t

4

~~~P--

0 1

~ ~O O &

.0 Q

-'l t'd ~O.-

~O O "O'" ~O E

'n'2*

~~'

O QQ

-*b { f O,

'O.

?

2.Q Q

O 3

s i

i i

i i <

...i.

i. i N ; __ D s 5 i T <5'* N.T T C 7 k 9ea - <a s $ c~-

• N 3 y ~ o....\\0 to

-- p d 7. ea in a ---- A m c,a :-) n, tJ hju v.:s i

s i

i i

i N to,.

- --- o s i i

i N

Ed Ib o

.. i a,v, r i_ c_- r s m.m o,a., s e %

Q C0 x @ c r,e %- g.m.-

Q

.a c

m.e a

M. o

_ g 3., c_- _s_.;, 9 3 3

.,, _ g u

3 r

yg5 g e

~

s,

. ~ o. e c. -: -e -; 9 -: eexewee9ee e

j

.ON@C

' I' #' I"*i

1. ~ #J f* )

^

u.)

S c',

- N PA T ID 3 I ' ::P.; f --

-NNm ca C % :;- W q Cv

.[

+

I

~~

---

~ ~

4 1

Catrs For 2 N "l l DN/L_m m r

/ 3 3~-

_C_ alc. No.

SARGENT :LUNDY

.w:,u r.c Safety-Related Non-Safety-Related Page 7 of T

C " 'C #"

Client [. l~,

4 Prepared byb /q. 'h'C '.P.',,.

DateC 2f !? ?_

Project ig, c, _- }

Reviewed by Date Proj. No. li 'L (, /., - O,3 Equip. No.

Approved by Date p_..;

._.2 _. u

. q _. _._ _ 1. _ _ _..

_ p.g_p q

_. -. _ _ _ _, _ 4._

_ _.. t. __, _. a m 2. _ ;

4... _..._ a h _ {.

).b f

l 1

i lleosi_. INP G. Dina, dew LOAD. QW LDAD

_. / > 1 Q. M C _._.

. ;._, _. _ t._. _. _ L_

_j L. _ u...

i

._ac 'A.

P.,.

K..

26 n2

!zhE86

-1%

_JL _ '

5.

B.

.4366

' 93El

.. E %, -_.

__ Z o.

.R.

y 27 blo 30:19

__. ; S 4 _.

._ 30

.R.

'/;

..327%.._

_!_..MA 1. _ __ _ _. - 2. "A '

_ 33

.S 1;

9227.

l %24

- 7. "A

...It03 5-E 3707.

S 0 2.2..

3 %._

. n%

- 2. "/o 5DA 1

E 7603 391_..

..S._

_y...

1266

.9 % N

+ Z. 5.'%

p.

._ en 2_. _..5-

. -. X. _..

75'18

.. _12%

. +. 4. i "4. _..._...

s E'? 2.

-.S.

?

_._512.!S Sof)

_..t 1. '). */u_. _

3>. 0.. %...

. $s h S.

. F.

92f/

SW)_

+

.5.

f.

'52.62.

_ 512 lo _..

. I. 9 %

_l 0 *6

-.5 Y

E16/

39 %

.14.0 A - _ _ _

mS9

+.2."4.

..l o c) 5 7no ti s 5

x.

7076 764

- io.o %.

?

12 5.

R.

Y

.61%

AM

- 2A. o %

5 5.

E ZM7 34zl

+ 2. 2. s -

12.%

i 13 6 R

N 2271.

2 2. i'l

.t 2.5 %.

1 140A

.s X.

E71.

MM

- 1z. 0 %.. _

i

.W)

Ps

.7 3100

... M 2.'s 1 %) %.

iss R

y 79 %

66 %

+ 19. 7 %

i 16sA 5

K 72.38 662.S

..+ 9. z %

. Ti l 5

. iL.

111H

..\\ 2A 7 L 6 4 %. - _ _.

• 19 4 R

Wos c

1E6 5.

)'

12.202 It 6%

- Il. E.l V

.112.

5 3f92 6tli 414,0 %

192..

5 p'-

52t 2 751")

- Eo o %

-.18 2-R

'd

. )'t b) o 212nb

- 34. 0 %

e

-.i

. e ap -

e _-m e ew.-e

7 Cales. For 2 N - 11 SARGENT 1.LUNDY

~

D/ p ? ', = _,

"Of Cate. No.

~ ~

l R ev.

Date CNDNIHZ-

/

Safety-Related Non-Safety-Related Page 3 of 6

"'C^*

C I

\\

DateT/?!, /

Client (f,Cn Prepared by* hl., '.'.f.;

t' 1 I

Project I, '. 4, - )

Reviewed by Date Proj. No. /1 2. L $ - 00 Equip. No.

Approved by Date

_%or

. _. 5.

.t.._.. A 555

@lY1

. 3 C- 0 2b..__.

-20 C '

R

'/

--. 5193 SM

. 85%.--

ant R

y

. 3% E8: - J 'f10.t. -..

2.4%

-_2.r7

_.S.

2-

... _349 7._

.19r.1.

. n.4 1

_22.oE

_ -. 5.

>L. : _

. I 2.3 '2.o.

t 2ef _ __ _ _O $ %

_2.2_#4,

B.

Y; 6706!

!R60h3.i__-

Z..2 70.__ i.._

223 5

A-m 3a o.

wm3

..-J.4 %

2. m

.s.

2l

._E339

5.T74

. l. 6 %.._.._.

_ _J

'I

. 4L l.. j i

I i

i l

l l

I

-_ 4,_...l 1

l l

[

t t

i l

i i

I j

i i

i l

i

-4.-.

--_-e

--*---em r- -

- + - - - - * - - - - - - - - - -

g 9

.__u_.___-

t i

.---.4 l

i n

+ - -. - - - - - ----

g M

O

- - - ' - ~

' - ~

' " ~ -

~~

-- ~ ~-^~~ ~ '~~~~~~~~~

0 g

2 4

m.,

-.-._-.9mehaea e

rm~w.

-w.e

-,6

.%,,,-w.

e p.

g

.-.g--

-., g

- een m

eeeom*ee4-q.e

• -_._e*

N.

I

>-%,,q.

4 y

e g

.O-*

"~O w

e asuehNm W w mMawa me e e.

-N-ee.eme_.*

• h_

"#6*+4 W

caict ror N-d he dt, r un k.

r Calc. No.

SARGENT ' l. UNDY n,.,

o,,,

CNGIN Z 54

/

Saf ety-R elated,

Non-Saf et,-R ela ted Page2f of [

C"C^"

O Client M I'_

(n Prepared b DateE/r / / 7

[

. t f. i t r..... (

j

.q e

1 Reviewed by Date Proget la (a Proj. No. il p [. (, - 00 Equip. No.

Approved by Data f

t 7

~I!;

j c.uustweecactJT LLohDs._ __._._.i...___l i

IdenE.

Tec biacc deuaLn=3.

ott Lono _ ' yo cpAcc _._

t i

zoA '

A X'

tz914 1304)'

t Y,

~

- Z 'l %

.A-.

.5 E..

21.'? )

2% %.

.. =.5 % -

_.7 o R.

Y 3ro'/

3 5 22.._.. _

. 3D R.

y

.. 42 A1

.i439L.___.-

.l I /k -.. _ _.

._.33 5

E 30.14

! Bt'#)

- I,8 'N tMS

-B '/i 406 5

2-1414!

9A 5

9 nl#1 1758

- 1. I 1 _

B7)

.5 Y

W l9 2466 to %

. 3l2 S

C 2559 IEb7

. 5 '/c 672 5

'2:

. 3020

.10 0 0 _..

t '7 k.. ___.

.5.

4 34tB 39 T)

+

3 '/o.

h

5.

E 1962.

192/p t

1f4.

l.0 %

5.

Y

-.2260 11 M1

+ ~1.1 %

)09 s.

c.

4236 6114

+.t.C %

i 116 5

x 3e C 1074

+. 7 "/u

]

l a6 A

.y

. Milo n8%

+- 7 2. %

12 2 s

a 222l z2c3

+io%

i L PE -

R Y

15 1..

J662

.-.-N o %

i

! lea 5

K 2A7) z712-

- 9.z %

.l.5 %

3 M7 R.

Y.

19 7 s' zocq iss R

y zs4s-3 61 zo o %

165A

.5 X

322)

W36

+21 %

_n)

.5 2.

4.L'53 J916.._ -

_. 7 (o.*l fM..._ -._ _

IS '/

R 20/7 I? 6 5

Y 4760 6012-

-21 %

v its s

2-etes ztu

- 21 %

19 2.

5 y

5SPo 5424

+ 1.o T

.19 7_.

R.

Y 652.3 (A 75

-b5%

c.ici.Fo,211.y~~tsanx1n.[i.wii care. no.

SARGENT1LUNDY

.. ~, ~.... _

Rev.

Date N

Safety-Related Non-Saf ety-R elated Page I of I C " 'C ^ "

2.f,.I.f2 cirnt 7"_, @,

[., o Prepared by 3 bL Date 7

1 Project l A e., - )

Reviewed by Date Date Proj. No. d 2. h la - Q3 Equip. No.

Approved by i

. %ot E

E

. Abb3

. @3 h667 2.,7ff.

To6.

it.

N

. 21Z 9> D. __ __.._ u f6'7 6 _ _

. 2 e

./0."o.

2Pl.

R.

..Y..

2%2...

= n2f 2 1 L._._ _5

..~ib.

_ -. _ 3-M Q -..

_:_ m o._._

- L_ 6 _./o

_22.0 GE _

S,.

4014_!_._! 61 bc

_ _.. _.3AA%

i

_n#d s

Y Ml4

&L,3

-I I %

_2. m.

s -

2cs1 zon.

. 5 %._._.

b ?A.....

_n'L.

S.

'W 6I b3

{ L 2..\\ ). -. -

M,------

l

.___.-'-t-

• t i

i i

t 1

l j

i 4

9

' ' ~ ~~I j

I s

{

..__.a.-e

._.g 4-e e

z

?

8 n

~

• ^

- ' ~ ~ -

~ ' ~ ~~

^ ^ ~ ~ ' -

- ' * - ' * ~ -

O

~~

' O E

2

-e.,

4

-4

=

m-,.as e

u.=.eu

(

. g l

~

J

9 i

CARGENT O LUNDY

~

ENGINEEDO C HIC 4GO ERROR / DEVIATION REPORT No. 11 Supplemental ~ Response The 1-1/2" sockolet added at N.P.

120 has not met the require-ments for examination of NB-2500, but meets the reduction in design stress of NB-3673.1.

This sockolet is the same one that was added in ECN M-110-LS and is a B. F. Shaw Standard 72.1 which is attached to the piping using a full penetration weld.

The 3/4" sockolet that was plugged per ECN M-110-LS is also a B.

F. Shaw Standard 72.1 and meets the requirements of NB-2500.

4 E/D 11-1 S

i

CARGENTQ LUNDY E N GIN E E RO CHICAGO ERROR / DEVIATION REPORT NO. 17 Supplemental Response Each load resulting from a thermal flexibility analysis is included in all the load combinations applicable to the system, regardless of the Service Level associated with the combination.

This means that all thermal modes used in the Structural analyses are com-bined at every applicable Service Level.

The program then selects the highest positive and highest negative combined load from all the combinations for each Service Level.

These design loads are then transmitted to the restraint designer.

He then selects hardware comparing the design load to the hardware allowable load for each applicable Service Level.

i l

i e

m

, - _