ML20054H553

Addendum to Independent Design Review,La Salle County Nuclear Station Unit 1, Final Rept

ML20054H553
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	06/18/1982
From:	TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES
To:
Shared Package
ML20054H550	List: ML20054H549 ML20054H553
References
TR-5539-2-ADD, NUDOCS 8206240195
Download: ML20054H553 (21)

Text

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

10

't o

-O

~O O

4 -

o "RTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES O

TECHNICAL REPORT 1ELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTROLLED DOCUMENT ADDENDUM TO C)

DATE G 18 B2.

TR-5539-2, INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW, LASALLE COUNTY NUCLEAR STATION, UNTP 1 FINAL REPORT DATED MAY 28, 1982 O

JUNE 18,1982 m r gggf vJi' T 4 kb OC 000 03 3 P PDR

1 10 COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N ONE FIRST NATIONAL PLAZA

O CHICAGO, ILLIN0IS 60690 1

!O O

ADDENDUM T0 iO l TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 5539-2 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW O LASALLE COUNTY NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1, FINAL REPORT DATED MAY 28, 1982

O i

JUNE 18, 1982 l

1 0

O O

s WTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES 130 SECOND AVENUE WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 02254 O 617-890-3350

10 WTA WE Addendum to ENGeEERNG SERVCES

-TR-5539-2

'O j

O TABLE OF CONTENTS i PAGE O 1.0 GENERAL 1 2.0 RESPONSE TO NRC REQUEST N0. 1 1 3.0 RESPONSE TO NRC REQUEST NO. 9 2 0 4.0 REVIEW 0F PIPSYS RESPONSE SPECTRA DATA FILE 2 5.0 ADDITIONAL REVIEW 0F HIGH ENERGY PIPE WHIP RESTRAINTS 3

!O APPENDIX A - ADDITIONAL REFERENCES TO DOCUMENT LIST APPENDIX B - TRIP REPORT NO. 1472 APPENDIX C - DEVIATION REPORT NO. 21 AND S&L RESPONSE l

l O

O O

O. )

o WTA AWNE ENGNEERING SERVCES Addendum to TR-5539-2 O 1.0 GENERAL This addendum is being issued to clarify four areas in the Teledyne O Engineering Services Final Report TR-5539-2. These areas are as follows:

1. Formally responded to NRC Request No. 1 on page 17 of Final Report.

O

2. Formally responded to NRC Request No. 9 on page 17 of Final Report.

O 3. Review S&L Piping Computer Program PIPSYS response spectra data file to assure that proper spectra are being utilized.

4. Additional review of high energy pipe whip restraints.

O Based on the above, TES has generated one additional Deviation Report.

This deviation became an observation based on subsequent data. This is discussed in Section 5.0 of this Addendum.

O 2.0 RESPONSE TO NRC REQUEST NO. 1 The NRC requested a formal written response to NRC Request No.1 con-O tained on page 17 of the TES Technical Report No. TR-5539-2. This NRC request is taken from Supplement 2 to the LaSalle Safety Evaluation Report.

The NRC Request No. 2 stated that the review include "the classifica-O tion of the system and structures and their components to determine that they have been properly classified per 10 CFR Part 50."

As part of the Independent Design Review, TES reviewed the classifica-O tion of the RHR systems, structures and their components. This review was done as part of Tasks 1 and 7. Based on this review, the RHR system, structures and their components have been properly classified per 10 CFR 50.

O

I O

WTA WNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Addendum to TR-5539-2 0 3.0 RESPONSE TO NRC REQUEST NO. 9 The NRC requested a formal written response to NRC Request No. 9 con-O tained on page 17 of the TES Final Report. This NRC request is taken from Supplement 2 to the LaSalle Safety Evaluation Report.

The NRC Request No. 9 stated that the review include "a determination O of the adequacy and implementation of the design for the LaSalle County Station, Unit 1, based on the Independent Design Review."

TES has reviewed the RHR System, Loop C. This system complies with O the FSAR.

In the process of doing this review, TES has reviewed the overall design process implemented by S&L and Quadrex, including the Quality O Assurance Program, and found that adequate controls were established, implemented correctly and found acceptable.

4.0 REVIEW 0F PIPSYS RESPONSE SPECTRA DATA FILE O

TES has reviewed the S&L piping computer program PIPSYS response spectra file required for the RHR System, Loop C, subsystems RH-06, RH-11 and RH-07. TES compared the data files required for Service Level B which O consists of Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) and the SRV Envelope of All and Asymmetric Valve Discharges (SRVALL/ASY). The All case includes the ADS case and the justification is given in Reference 22 of Appendix A to the final report.

O In the process of this review TES compared all OBE spectra with one-half percent damping and all SRV symmetric and asymmetric with one percent damping that was used in the evaluation of subsystems RH-06, RH-07 and C RH-11. This was done by comparing the PIPSYS data file for each elevation used against the corresponding spectra curve contained in References 137, 138 and 139.

O

o "MTn m(NE Addendum to TR-5539-2 O In order to compare the SRV envelope spectra contained in the PIPSYS data file, TES combined the SRVALL spectra contained in Reference 138 with the SRV ASY spectra contained in Reference 139 to develop an envelope spectra.

Since each subsystem is located at several elevations, several response spectra are required. An envelope spectra is generated in PIPSYS O which contains the maximum' value for each frequency (or period) based on all elevations used. This is a standard practice and is conservative. TES also reviewed and checked the envelope spectra to assure that PIPSYS did envelope the individual response spectra.

TES also compared the curves submitted in References 55, 56 and 57 with the corresponding curves contained in References 137, 138 and 139.

This comparison showed that the curves were identical.

Based on the review of the OBE and SRV ALL/ASY spectra, the PIPSYS files used for the subsystems RH-06, RH-07 and RH-11 agree with the response spectra generated and contained in References 137, 138 and 139.

5.0 ADDITIONAL REVIEW 0F HIGH ENERGY PIPE WHIP RESTRAINTS A design review of High Energy Pipe Whip Restraints (HEPWR) for the LaSalle County Station (LSCS), Unit 1, RHR Loop C, was performed. The pur-pose of this design review was to determine if the requirements of the LaSalle FSAR for HEPWR were met; this review included review of procedures, the design process, and whether the analyses performed were technically O

adequate.

This additional review applies only to the HEPWR on RHR Loop C. This review encompasses the Design of HEPWR only. TES has previously reviewed O

the criteria, the selection of location and effects of gap on thermal anal-ysis for RHR, Loop C. These were found to be acceptable.

The TES reviewers have become familiar with significant requirements

.O in the LSCS FSAR for HEPWR. Any other specifications or procedures

?

"RTELEDYNE Addendum to TR-5539-2 )

I pertaining specifically to the design of HEPWR were obtained from Sargent and Lundy (S&L) and reviewed.

D Design calculations, reports, computer runs, and any supporting anal-yses were obtained from S&L for each HEPWR on RHR Loop C. These packages were identified and logged on the Document List.

D The TES reviewers have reviewed each package received, determining adequacy based on the requirements identified in the FSAR and procedures.

The TES reviewers have asked S&L personnel for clarification or additional information. The TES reviewers have determined if the "As-Built" config-O urations of the HEPWR are addressed in the S&L design calculations.

Af ter completing the review, the TES reviewers submitted Trip Report No. 1472 to the Project Manager, summarizing any comments or problems 9 uncovered during the design review. This trip report is included in Appendix B.

t The originals of all trip reports and memoranda shall become Project G QA Records.

The review of HEPWR resulted in Error / Deviation Report No. 21, which was class!fied as a Deviation. Based on the S&L response, TES has clas-9 sified this Deviation as an Observation, since this was a departure from standard procedures and practices and does not have the potential for a significant safety impact.

1. Deviation Report No. 21 and the S&L response are contained in Appendix C of this Addendum.

O O

1

o W TnATT(NE Addendum to ENGINEERING SERVICES TR-5539-2 lO o

O O

APPENDIX A O

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES TO DOCUMENT LIST

.O

'O l

O i

i

O 4

0 1___. --_. . _ . _ - _ _ - - - . - _ _ _ _ _ -. - - .__ __- ...- - . - - - .

o

'RTF1 FiWNE Addendum to ENGINEERING SERVICES 1R-5539-2

'O ADDITIONAL REFERENCES TO APPENDIX A 0F FINAL REPORT TR-5539-2 l

l 137. S&L Seismic Analysis of the Reactor Auxiliary Turbine Building Com-() plex, Rev. 5. Calculation No. 163 138. S&L Response Spectra for KWU SRV Symmetric Loads, Rev.1. Calcula-() tion No. 165D 139. S&L Response Spectra for KWU SRV Asymmetric Loads, Rev. O. Calcula-tion No. 165E O

140. S&L Response Spectra for KWU SRV Single Loads, Rev. O. Calculation No. 165F

() 141. S&L Response Spectra for Asymmetric Chugging Loads, Rev. O. Calcu-lation No. 165G 142. S&L Response Spectra for Annulus Pressurization Loads, Recirculation C) Line Break, Rev. 2. Calculation No. 165K 143. S&L Response Spectra for Annulus Pressurization Loads, Feedwater Line Break, Rev. 2. Calculation No. 165L O

144. S&L Containment Building Analysis for Condensation Oscillation Loads, Rev. 2. Calculation No. 8.18.0-1

() 145. GE OBE Response Spectra. S&L Letter dated June 16, 1982 (7 pages).

146. S&L, EMD-024663, LaSalle Spectra File Generation Report, pages 1, 2, 14-17. Report dated July 25, 1980.

O 147. S&L, EMD-025250, LaSalle Spectra - Rev. 1 File Generation Report, pages 1, 2 and 21. Report dated September 17, 1980.

A-1

()

O t

SPTELEDYNE l Addendum to ENGNEERNG SERVICES l TR-5539-2 g

O O

O APPENDIX B O

TRIP REPORT NO. 1472 O

O O

O O

1

i C

W P W NE  !

ENGINEERING SERVICES g TRIP REPORT NO. 1472 VISIT TO SARGENT & LUNDI CHICAGO, ILLIN0IS PROJECT 5539 - INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW 0F LASALLE COUNTY STATION, UNIT 1 y,

TO REVIEW THE DESIGN OF HIGH-ENERGY PIPE WHIP RESTRAINTS FOR RHR LOOP C -

JUNE 15 AND 16, 1982 O L. J. Diluna J. J. Rivard Tuesday, June 15, 1982, LJD and JJR arrived at Sargent & Lundy (S&L) g at approximately 10:30 AM. R. Pollock brought us to meet Dinker Shah, John Gray, and Safwat Gibraiel of the Engineering Mechanics Division (EMD). It was explained that EMD provides input to the Structural Design and Drafting Division (SD&DD) concerning location, gaps, and loadings, who, in turn, designs the Pipe Whip Restraints (PWR). We received a copy of EMD Tech-O nical Procedure No. 24 (item 1, Document List). We proceeded to SD&DD to meet S. M. Kazmi and Ranjit Naik. We requested the calculations, "As-Built" drawings, procedures, and computer manuals pertaining to PWR's R32, g R33, and R34, which are located on RHR Loop C inside containment. We received Items 2 through 7 listed in the Document List. The remainder of the day was spent reviewing these documents. On Wednesday, June 16, 1982, LJD and JJR arrived at S&L at 8:30 AM and continued the review until 12:00 noon, when we departed for our return to Boston. A detailed summary O

of this review is included in the following pages.

O

O o

o "RTri Frf(NE Trip Report No. 1472 O Summary of Review of High Energy Pipe Whip Restraints R32, R33 and R34 for LaSalle County Station, Unit 1, RHR Loop C

.O The divisions at S&L most actively involved in the design of PWR's are EMD and SD&DD. EMD provides input to SD&DD in the form of break type, location, pipe data, fluid loads, and gaps.

O The general design approach used by SD&DD is summarized in Item No. 7 of the Document List. The PWR is intended to not inhibit pipe motion in any way during operation of the plant. Thus, a gap is provided between the pipe wall and the PWR ring of sufficient size to allow free motion. If a

" pipe break occurs, the pipe will impact the restraint with energy developed while translating through this gap. If the PWR responds elastically after impact, the resulting force may be very high. Thus, the S&L design philos-ophy is to provide an energy-absorbing structure stressed beyond the n" elastic limit. The design is based on an energy-balance approach: impact energy + external work = internal energy of pipe-restraint-structural

fstem. Some of the restraint design parameters are as follows

a) Due to dynamic loading and strain-hardening, the static yield may be increased by 15%.

b) Strains of up to 0.5 cult are allowable.

U l c) Compressive load up to 0.9 PCr is allowable.

For materials (steel),

v A588 is used, Fy = 50 ksi, Fult = 70 ksi 50 ksi x 1.15 = 57.5 ksi 0.5 cult = 9% strain i.J S&L feels that this material is sufficiently ductile and that it has good impact properties.

.g

o "R TEl.EDYNE ENGtNEERING SERVICES Trip Report No. 1472 l The basic PWR designs used at LaSalle are shown in Figure 3.6-27 of l the LSCS FSAR. PWR's R32 and R33 are a " Type 2" restraint, which is a modified three bar, and R34 is a " Type 4", which is a basic two bar. For I

the Type 2 restraint, the tension-only bars consist of tapered flat plates, and the compression member consists of a honeycomb-material cell located between the pipe ring and a WF section. This honeycomb is a crushable, energy-absorbing material.

O PWR's R32 and R33 are shown on S&L Drawings S-381, Rev. P, and ~5-389, Rev. R. S-381 shows a plan view of R32 and R33, and S-389 shows a common O elevation view (Section D-D) of R32 and R33. S-384 shows a plan'and sec-tion view of S-384. All of these drawings show some "As-Built" dimensions which are denoted by an asterisk next to the dimension. Tnis "As-Built" data is received from FCR's generated by CECO.

O Calculation Volume No. 5 (Document 4 in Document List) represents the original design calculations for PWR's inside containment. Calculations for R32, R33, and R34 were performed in 1976.

O Calculations for R32 are located on pages 141 through 147. These show the size selection of the structural members of the support. Calculations for R33 are given on pages 148-150, and, for design, refer to R31. Calcu-g lations for R34 are on pages 151 and 152, and refer to R26 for design.

Calculation Volumes 727 and 728 represent the "As-Built" analysis for the PWR's inside containment.

O The general procedure used for design is described on page 4 of Vol-ume 727 and is summarized as follows:

O

1. Based on break directions and data supplied by EMD, the capacity of each yielding member is determined, in terms of a force, and a deflection calculated on the basis of allowable strain.

O

o WTpt FrWNE

, Trip Report No. 1472 O

2. The computer progrm PWR is used to determine a P- A curve using "As-Built" gap and dimensions from EMD. This deflection is then compared to the allowable deflection from (1) above. If the O

deflection from PWR is greater than the allowable deflection, shims are recommended to reduce the gap and the energy developed by the pipe.

O

3. Other "As-Built" dimension variations are also reviewed. Volume 728 contains the output of the PWR program.

O The previously described drawings and calculations were reviewed for compatibility. A summary table, in the beginning of Volume 727, was reviewed to determine that the forces and displacements associated with R32, R33, and R34 were acceptable compared to the calculated allowables.

O The forces exerted by the PWR on the building structure are addressed by the SD&DD Specialty Group. A memo from W. L. Fucharski to R. Cheboub, October 28, 1976, giving forces exerted by R34 on the sacrificial shield g wall (340 kips), with azimuths and elevations, is the means by which this data is transmitted to the Specialty Group for evaluation.

The original design calculations for R34 in Volume 5 referenc. PWR R26. A statement is made in the design of R26 that all welds in 9.nsion/

lO compression members shall be full-penetration. It is noted that ua drawing S-384, Rev. R, for PWR R34, that some fillet welds are specified on load-bearing members. These were not specifically addressed in the calcula-g tions. The S&L response to this convent is that the main load-carrying members are full-penetration welded, and that the fillet welds called out are adequate by inspection. For these three supports TES concurs.

Summary

O As a result of the review of the design of PWR's R32, R33, >qd R34 by SD&DD of S&L, the following comment is made:

O

J WTF1 FTVNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Trip Report No. 1472 )

The "As-Built" orientation of the PWR's was not specifically addressed in the "As-Built" calculations originally reviewed by TES. TES reviewed briefly the effect of the dimensional vari-ations shown an the drawings and concluded that these variations had no effect on the capacity of these particular PWR's, R32, R33, and R34. S&L performed calculations as a result of this TES comment, with the same conclusion. A drawing showing an angu-h larity tolerance on the legs of_the PWR was subsequently shown to TES, (Drawing S-388, Rev. K) which had a Detail C, giving a total included angle tolerance between the outer PWR legs, a= +50,

-00 R34 had deviations beyond these tolerances. The "As-Built"

)

variations associated with R32 and R33 were minor compared to R34.

D D

D D

D D

o WTA AWNE Trip Report ENGNEERING SERVICES No. 1472 ,O Document List for Review of High Energy Pipe Whip Restraints LaSalle County Station, Unit 1, RHR Loop C Restraints R32, R33 and R34

1. EMD Technical Procedure No. 24, " Analysis of Postulated Pipe Rupture",

September 1976.

O

2. Structural Department Calculation Book, " Containment Pipe Whip Restraints", Volume 727.

3. Structural Department Calculation Book, " Containment Pipe Whip Restraints", Volume 728,

4. Structural Department Calculation Book, " Containment Pipe Whip Restraints", Volume 5.

O

5. S&L Drawings S-384, Rev. R, S-381, Rev. P, S-389, Rev. R.

6. Computer Software Library, PWRRA Users Manual, May 10, 1977, Copy 2.

O

7. " Analysis and Design of Pipe Whip Restraints", SD&DD Report No. 8, January 1975.

O

8. S&L Drawing S-388, Rev. K (Tolerance on Angularity).

O 0h m

.ba~A

[ L. J. Diluna June 18,1982

'O LJD:jej O

1 l

G TN Addendum to N TR-5539-2 O

APPENDIX C DEVIATION REPORT NO. 21 AND S&L RESPONSE O

G Q

O O

O I

SeTn m(NE I ENGNEERING SERVICES  ;

l O 1 Project 5539 - LaSalle Independent Design Review - RHR System I

~

Date: June 17, 1982 g Error / Deviation Report No.: 21 Classification of Finding: Deviation

Reference:

RHR, Loop C, Subsystem RH-06 n Statement: The "As-Built" configurations (drawings) of the three High v

Energy Pipe Whip Restraints (HEPWR) were not specifically addressed or referenced in the "As-Built" calculations. F Based on a review of dimensional variations shown on the draw-ings against the "As-Built" calculations, TES concludes that

_ these variations have no effect on the capacity of the HEPWR V R32, R33 and R34.

Conclusion:

There is no objective evidence that "As-Built" dimensions which are outside the specified tolerance ranges for the HEPWR were reviewed.

.O lO

~O O

By h)

(i.A.Flaherty d T Project Manager

O

O CARGENT O LUNDY E N GIN E E RS CMICAGO June 17, 1982 g

Error / Deviation Report No. 21 Classification of Finding: Deviation g

Reference:

RHR Loop C Subsystem RH-06 Statement: The as-built configuration (drawings) of the three high energy pipe whip restraint (HEPWR) were not specifically addressed or referenced in the as-built calculations.

O Based on a review of dimensional variations shown on the drawings against the as-built calculations, TES concludes that these variations have no effect on the capacity of the HEPWR R32, R33 and R34.

conclusion: There is no objective evidence that as-built

() dimensions which are outside the specified tolerance ranges for the HEPWR were reviewed.

O RESPONSE Pipe whip restraints have been reviewed and analyzed for as-built gap and "L 2" dimension (distance between restraint and elbow) ,

O since these parameters effect the design significantly. This reanalysis has been documented. The restraints were also reviewed for the as-built leg length and angularity for out of O tolerance conditions. However, this review was primarily based on engineering judgement and not formally documented because the variations do not have significant effect on the restraint O design.

O E/R 21-1 0

O .

CARGENT Ct LUNDY EN GIN E E R S CHICAGO O

A rereview has been performed on all the pipe whip restraints for the as-built configurations and has been properly docu-O mented. All restraints have been found to be acceptable.

In order to prevent recurrence on future projects, we will O rereview the matter of objective documentation regarding design judgements and retrain all required personnel by July 15, 1982 and appropriately change the necessary design standards by O September 30, 1982. It should be noted that only R-34 was outside of installation tolerance. R-32 and R-33 were installed within tolerance as per drawing S-388 and therefore do not require an evaluation.

O O

'O O

O E/R 21-2 0