ML20058E811

Forwards NUREG-0808 Evaluation,Supporting Justification for Selection of Piping Subsystems.Sample Used to Evaluate Loads Conservative.Info Should Close SER Issues 1,28 & 32

ML20058E811
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	07/09/1982
From:	James Smith LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
RTR-NUREG-0808, RTR-NUREG-808 SNRC-714, NUDOCS 8207300208
Download: ML20058E811 (8)

Text

.

,*% Am w m vW.# errant LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY FLCO!

SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION P.O. BOX 618, NORTH COUNTRY ROAD + WADING RIVER, N.Y.11792 m u_m%. -

.ma July 9, 1982 SNRC-714 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 NUREG-0808 Load Evaluation Justification of Selected Piping Subsystems Shoreham Nuclear Power Station - Unit 1 Docket No. 50-322

Dear Mr. Denton:

An evaluation of the effects of the hydrodynamic LOCA loads dis-cussed in NUREG-0808 on Shoreham piping, equipment, and struc-tures was performed and results were presented in Appendix L of Revision 5 to the Shoreham Design Assessment Report in December, 1981.

This evaluation concluded that shoreham's safety-related structures, systems and components are capable of accommodating these loads.

In recent communications between NRC, LILCO and S&W personnel, the NRC has expressed interest in learning more about the basis for the selection of the 30 piping subsystems which were analyzed to evaluate the effects of these loads on Shoreham reactor building piping.

The location of these subsystems relative to areas of largest structural dynamic response was identified as being of specific interest.

As described in DAR Revision 5, these 30 piping subsystems are located throughout the reactor building and were selected on the basis that in general they had the minimum design margin avail-able to accept potential increases in dynamic loads.

This was based on the fact that they comprised the subset of plant piping that had been designed using a "T-Quencher" SRV load definition as opposed to the more conservative "Ramshead" SRV load definition used for the majority of Shoreham piping.

Of these 30 piping subsystems, 28 are attached to the primary h@

containment which has substantially higher dynamic response than does the secondary containment, as can be seen in DAR Revision 5, figures L-13 through L-24.

A review of these figures also shows that the greatest response occurs on the wetwell wall.

The figures presented for the wetwell (elevation 21 ft.) are the maximum calculated building responses.

Figures presented for the drywell (elevation 106 ft.) are considered representative, but the general trend is for increasing response with decreasing elevation.

In fact, at an elevation approximately 20 ft. lower 8207300200 020709 PDR ADOCK 0S000322 E

PDR FC 8935

I SNRC-714 July 9, 1982 Page Two' in the drywell, the response is nearly as large as in the wet-well.

(Compare figures 1 and 2, attached, to DAR figures L-16 and L-22, copies also attached).

The peak amplified response spectra (ARS) values for " Basic Condensation Oscillation", the controlling load, are 8.5 g's in the wetwell at an elevation of 21 ft. and 7.5 g's in the drywell at 83 ft. for 2% damping.

Of the 28 piping subsystems analyzed that were attached to the primary containment, 3 were located such that the input spectra included the wetwell at elevation 21 ft. and 22 others had the drywell spectra at elevation 83 ft. included as input.

The remaining 3 were located higher in the drywell.

This sample, therefore, had 25 of the 30 total piping analyses performed using the very largest calculated spectra or spectra within about ten percent of this amplitude.

On this basis it is concluded that the piping sample used to evaluate the effects of the NUREG-0808 loads was conservative in two major regards.

First, the piping was generally that with the lowest design margin and second, these lines'were subject to dynamic loads resulting frcm the most severe structural dynamic responses.

This information should be sufficient to completely close Safety Evaluation Report issues numbers 1, 28 and 32.

Should you have any questions, please contact this office.

Very truly yours,

%-Qm J.

L. Smith Manager, Special Projects Shoreham Nuclear Power Station RWG/ law Attachment cc:

J.

Higgins David Terao - Mechanical Engineering Branch All Parties b

1 l

l NUREG 0808 LOAD EVALUATION JUSTIFICATION OF SELECTED PIPINGi SUBSYSTEMS An evaluation of the effects of the hydrodynamic LOCA loads discussed in NUREG 0808 on Shoreham piping, equipment, and structures was performed and results were presented in Appendix L of Revision 5 to the Shoreham Design Assessment Report in December,1981. In recent cosannications between NRC, LILCO, and S&W personnel, the NRC has expressed interest in l

learning more about the basis for the selection of the 30 piping subsystems which were analyzed to evaluate the effects of these loads on Shoreham reactor building piping. The location of these subsystems relative to areas of largesh structural dynamic response was identified as being of specific interest.

As described in DAR Revision 5, these 30 piping subsystems are located throughout the reactor building and were selected on the basis that in general they had the minir.us design margin available to accept potential increases in dynamic loads. This was based on the fact that they comprised the subset of plant piping that had been designed using a "T-Quencher" SRV load definition as opposed to the more conservative "Ramshead" SRV load definition used for the majority of Shoreham piping.

Of these 30 piping subsystems, 28 are attached to the primary contain-ment which has substantially higher dynamic response than does the secondary containment, as can be seen in DAR Revision 5 figures L-13 through L-24.

A review of these figures also shows that the greatest response occurs on the wetwell wall. The figures presented for the wetwell (elevation 21 ft) are the maximum calculated building responses. Figures presented for the drywell (elevation 106 ft) are considered representative, but the general trend is for increasing response with decreasing elevation. In fact, at an elevation approximately 20 ft lower in the drywell, the response is nearly as large as in the wetwell. (Compare figures 1 and 2, attached, to DAR figures L-16 and L-22, copies also attached.) The peak ARS values for

_ _ _ _ _ _ ~,

" Basic C.O.", the controlling load, are 8.5 g's in the wetwell at an elevation of 21 f t and 7.5 g's in the drywell at 83 f t for 27. damping.

Of the 28 piping subsystems analyzed that were attached to the primary contairunent, 3 were located such that the input spectra included the wetwell at elevation 21 f t and 22 others had the drywell spectra at elevation 83 ft included as input. The remaining 3 were located higher in the drywell. This sample, therefore, had 25 ofi_the 3_0 total piping analyses performed using the very largest calculated spectra or spectra within about ten percent of this amplitude.

On this basis it is concluded that the piping sample used to evaluate the effects of the NUREG 0808 loads was conservative in two major regards.

First, the piping was 'denerally' that with the lowest design margin and second, these lines were subject to dynamic loads resulting from the most severe structural dynamic responses.

f l'

f

]

i T

l

+*""

W pm.

-==.

m

@MMMi QmR.N' W.

m

+---

m i :

l

+---

i y----.

w i

l me=m, Y

O y

i p

g

((

W '

I puSWMMMi A,e muu$uulMRBIumu>

W E====,

g 4---,

Q L

_S m-i I.

=e-p==i g

"9'""""'

y.,

i 1

LJ -

l '

I W [ :

==#-hepp.

)

6IHlMEElll W i 1

1.

=$==m t

I I

I :

24

+--+-.

e 1

t i

W3 !

e em N

T--

.'7' m

e 1

N M I i 1

J, r_d"1 F"*

LJ

. 1 i e-7-

.3

! [

lVJ F W

l'T11 I.

fT1

..m I

i 1 arm

_-u

- -m t

R -

. En,)

""" W

--- na" l

-F f%d Z

, [,a wd b4 li i

' [D 7

P"T s um 6.

l

• T e-u 7

f"l

[

i.

t W

bed i

1. 'r l

, IDL 11.

t TJ J 8't i.

r' 1 j

i i

==us tM a

se ke.,4 T

a W -

g

. I.

Cg,

)i n nr

- 1 yy,

e

_- " L i2-.

-===

s i

LM.

e i

- mue i

I C

es m

- W

-- VJ N O O "5

'"" 1 l

[

bem m

" we ee

==e p-e "FI

. 21

'E

'E' 2

I l

._na.

- y at L h__

I I

W f%a vs I

I_J

>I*

I' T"

T" T"

"W 3

I e

d

T T n

u ri

_ -_=

G O 3 I

and 1Jl.J w

"M i

f 7

M M M Y'

t I

i C D C

"'3 N

esusa p1".a...

p pm w

=

.J "r

PT" T

'T"

. Ie. a e J a J N4 - fil.

i -

W i

i i C

J J

_1 til _ hl 1

I W

. I :. w

==

.e n2 -

~ =

'6 P.

L U

_l R

1 Lr Lr I.11 I

T 1.-

. 1 '

=

.w r,_

c E=3 ry m.

I I

f -

_ =

mc=

= -

w m.

I I

I

%d

-. 1 i L

=7

' "4e W

p.e BJ M W ~

ff!

L&2 I

I l

' I ' n iia i m E O O "3

"JE L

I I

W ~ i e

e e

1

. f.

l I W

l !

O O O N.

rYT ~ Ls a

ih

'I i

' J._ : L H_

Z G

[

. Mi-I t

ZI _ -

I t

11

. be 1

I l

i I

n.Jos a W. se I

l l

e-4..N I e 1 I he.=

s===

a 1

"E 1 _

m a

i

~

d'3

• 8" 8"*

W i

i pa

, e-o 3 -

I I

! r_J C LJJ s

a 2

M.

I-

gm

, t e i

i h.

LJ.

l.

W l

I -

e a

T L

f'

' V e#

i i

1.

I~

Q

.w 7

M I

7 L1 i

! I !

Iu

• O 2"

[

I I"'*

I-I

. LA.

e-*e LA.

T I

i 2"

. e u "E! -

"']

1 E

'- w a

f./1.

./

~_ _ - -

Ji * '

W ~ i y gp w_w

. ; i w,

M W

1

, l ;

ma-wi e

.L i

L T _

G a

&I

. ;Al I

I -

z-w I

a i

w n "El _

i i

i ?

'h-j,

si.

='3 I

N-g' m

f

}

{ 96 6 W

i 1

1 U

. I w-e i

.t i

1 W

3,: - - -.

'_md' a

, OI_M w

- ~

La1

'd 6

tJLJ 21.

.. Llu 3.

Lid F

Lld 6 JL1 ' t I;

. 7 L' LJ r 6

n.

k nR 1.

n_l t t "* " R RLh~

1 - ~

l k

f b e I! el fj [ _ [ W I I

__I ! L 1.L._

, i I

I T a

i

h 4

'2 0

O 2

2

'0 t

C 2

J

'0

~

]

E I

h D.

a

'0 E

D ll

~

l 1

1

(

B T

I S.

MS d

I.

'I I

H f

F ET F

I

'0 I

E.

i l

yM _.

p V

E C l_

O G f.

H H

L

]

] 1 (

r 1

J O

1.

'0 1

N E

E R I

S H

U lE l

0 $.

l Fl T

t I

A' 1

I 1

W 0

E 0

!S D

1 d

n

'1 O

1 R

P

'D I E

J b 4

i a

E S..

P E

c J]

C

(

0 0 0 0 L

N O

L.1 E.

h h N h A

A lI u

R l

F

l_

i l I I l

(

fi P P P P U

Q R a

M M N N T

'l 3 I R AAR R

E l.E

'D '

C C N

R 8

i R

F

,l F

. 4 0

O H

L 1

T I

E l LL I

gI'I C.

l L.

C C C 0 i R 5 E 5 5 E

'0 l

l.

I I

0 C 0 0 P

I N.

I 5

l 0 0 0 0 1

1

.i 1 2 2 4 0

rE 0 C 0 0 0

l l

3 H

E 1

C.

l C 0 0 t C

t t 1

H 1 5 0

E

n

'0 HR" d

F 1

+

1 L..

d i 4 l l

l l

s' 4

i l

i E

( (

t_

I 1 :

l.

C e'

C.

N S

l k

'C Dl.

D l

l fl t i I h

. G.

2 f0 -

C.

Pli j

..k

'0 l

\\

l 1

5 :i 1

l.

)

O

: f 8g i.

c'j c0 C

d

/

C.

J l

(

1 :

gg c

c i

LE b L.l0i o

i g I

l t O i

1 1

O O

O.

12.00 10.0 0 8.00 o

f z

Af 9

e 6.00 V

l[

s j

I l u

e 4.00 g4' n'

i i

i 2.00 O.oo O.oo 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 PERIOD IN SECS LEGEND o.olo OSCILLATOR DAMPtNG O.o20 OSCILLATOR DAMPING 0.o30 OSClLLAToR DAMPlNG FIG. L - 16

---

o.o40 OSCILLATOR DAMPING FINAL GENERIC C.O.(8ASIC)

WETWELL -EL. 21' HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRA FoR EoUIPMENT WITH A NATURAL PERIDO WITHN fl5 OR -15 PERCENT OF RESONANCE PERIOD, USE PEAK VALUES.

SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT I PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS

9.00 7.50 1

6.00 o

I zo t

l l

< 4.50

/ 3 y

g l

r 1,

g a

3.00 Y

!j L50 ll ll 0.00 O.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 i

PERIOD IN SECS l

I LEGEND O.010 OSCILLATOR DAMPING l

0020 OSCILLATOR DAMPlNG QO30 OSCILLATOR DAMPING FIG. L -22 0.040 OSCILLATOR DAMPING FINAL GENERIC CHUGGING WETWELL - EL. 21'

" b EQUIPMENT WITH A NATURAL PERIOD WITHIN HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRA F

SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-UNIT I l

+15 OR -15 PERCENT OF RESONANCE PERIOD, USE PEAK VALUES, PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV AND LOCA LOADS REVISION 5-DECEMBER 1981 i

~