ML20072K014
| ML20072K014 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/27/1983 |
| From: | Barron L, Flaherty J, Landers D TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072K013 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8307010179 | |
| Download: ML20072K014 (8) | |
Text
-
l WTA mVNE ENGNEERING SEFNICES INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CONTROLLED DOCUMENT ICR No. 5633-1, Rev. 1 Date: 6/27/83
Reference:
RRF No. 5633 138 PMR No. 5633 138 Classification of Item:
Closed vuLcA_
+
Reviewer Signature M
omittee Chairman Signature (
hJd 5 sdus Project Manager Signature
%07%
0 g
A
WTA An(NE ENGNEERNG SSWICES ICR No. 5633-1, Rev. 1 1.0 SUM 4ARY During review of AX-10A-2 and its associated calculation package NP(B)-5X-00.100, TES reviewer generated RRF-5633-138 (September 21, 1982).
This RRF indicated the chart method (contained in NP(B)-5X-00.100) qualifying branch line 2"-WR-31-301-2 was incomplete and incor-rect; and if correctly complated would indicate the branch line failing.
As a
result of RRF/PMR-5633-138, TES issued ICR No.
5633-1 on November 2, 1982 classified as a Finding.
The LILC0/SWEC disposition response received January 15, 1983 indicated the following:
(1) The chart analysis reviewed by TES was improper.
(2) The evaluation of small bore piping not included in the computer model is the responsibility of the Site Engineering Office (SE0).
(3) The identification of support types and locations for small bore piping is accomplished by SE0 personnel using technical design guide EMTG-5A.
(4) A SWEC memorandum dated October 14, 1982 clarified the division of responsibility between SE0 and SWEC Boston office regarding qualification of small bore piping.
(5) Revision 3 of the branch line analysis, issued November 8, 1982, was invalidated since it had not been performed by SEO.
(6) The line was evaluated by SE0 on June 30, 1982 and found acceptable.
(7) A more refined calculation was performed cn November 5,1982 to confirm acceptability.
The calculations of June 30 and November 5,1982, along with other pertinent information, were attached to the response for TES review.
I
~
TM ENGNEERNG SERVICES ICR No. 5633-1, Rev. 1 A meeting was held at SWEC in Boston on Feburary 15, 1983 to dis-cuss outstanding items requiring additional information.
As a result of that meeting TES was supplied with the nonproprietary portion of Design Guide EMTG-5A and three Interoffice Memos / Correspondence which modified the use of, and provided guidance on, EMTG-5A.
These are SBM #6, SBM #3 and EMTG-5 I.O.M. dated July 30, 1980.
Af ter a detailed review of these procedures, TES reissued ICR No.
5633-1 on March 4,1983, classified as an Additional Concern, indicating the following:
(1) Review of SBN #6 a.
This document is reviewed with the understanding that @
is representative of the terminal end of a small bore pipe at a run pipe which this SBM is defined as being applic-able to.
b.
SBM #6 provides concise instructions on the use of EMTG-5A/EMTP.9.5.
c.
The calculation of Relative Thermal Displacements between Points A and B is appropriate.
d.
The calculation of Relative Seismic Displacements between Points A and B is not proper for the condition considered in (a.) above.
It is appropriate to assume that vertical seismic building displacements are in chase within a building.
However, to assume that the piping seismic vertical displacement of the primary and intermediate horizontal structural steel, to which the small bore piping is commonly attached, is in phase with the building
W P W NE l
ENGNEERING SERVICES ICR No. 5633-1, Rev. 1 vertical displacement is not proper and can be unconserva-tive.
This error can result in two situations of concern:
(1) underestimation of the relative seismic dis-placement which results in pipe acceptance since the.
result is less than the 0.35 inches criteria, (2) improper evaluation of lines which do not meet the 0.35 inch dis-placement criteria.
(2) Review of S8N #3 In reviewing SBM #3 the following is noted:
a.
The acceptable shake space spans are based on a maximum stress in a guided cantilever of 13,000 psi for A106, Gr.B and 16,000 psi for A376 and A312.
b.
This stress combined with other assumed stresses equals the allowable SA+ S = 37,500 psi.
Any margin that h
exists would have to be in lower thermal expansion and pressure stresses.
c.
The author states that:
"Eq.
11 includes stress due to anchor movements but only considering one-half the full range, while thermal expan-sion stress is computed using the range of thermal moments."
Industry practice, as TES understands it, is to follow this approach but to also look at the range of seismic anchor displacement alone and to use the worst case.
Concern exists for situations in which the seismic anchor moment range exceeds thermal expansion moment range plus one-half the range of' seismic anchor moment.
- c. - -
.___---____-____-_____-___-____--_---_-_-_a
(
W F W NE ENGNEERNG SBWICES ICR No. 5633-1, Rev. 1 (3) Horizontal Seismic Building Displacements There is concern that horizontal seismic building displace-ments are not being applied in accordance with SWEC design guidance.
SBM #6 is clear in requiring the user to obtain both an X and Z seismic displacement of the building.
However, in reviewing implementation it appears that only one direction of horizontal seismic building displacement is being applied for small bore piping lines -shown on Isometrics P1062-4 and P1081-5.
An interface meeting was held at TES on March 16, 1983 between LILC0, SWEC and TES personnel for clarification of the items reported in ICR No. 5633-1 as Additional Concerns on March 4, 1983. TES summarized these concerns as follows:
a.
Consideration of building and piping seismic vertical displacements as being in phase per SWEC Interoffice Correspondence SBH #6.
b.
For the subject small bore piping calculations for Isometric P1062-4 and P1081-5, only one direction of horizontal seismic building displacement is being applied, instead of both X and Z as required by SWEC procedures.
c.
The consideration of either thermal and \\ seismic anchor displacement or 2xh seismic anchor displacement in satisfying Equation (11).
A second interface meeting was held at TES on March 30, 1983 to further discuss the concern involving building and piping seismic vertical displacements being in phase.
The discussion involved mostly the consideration of piping attached to
W F W NE ENGMEERNG SERVCES ICR No. 5633-1, Rev. 1 horizontal (radial) beams.
SWEC has performed in-house sampling review of primary and intermediate horizontal steel in different buildings.
The SWEC conclusion to this survey of frequencies is that a lower bound of natural frequencies of the steel is 70 hz, therefore the members are rigid, and there is very little difference in amplification and phase angle between the horizontal beams and the building walls.
It was agreed that TES personnel would visit SWEC offices and look at the applicable steel drawings of the SWEC review.
Also, the TES personnel would select some of the drawings for a verification review at TES.
As part of a third interface meeting held on April 8,
- 1983, the following items were discussed relative to ICR No. 5633-1, Additional Concerns:
a.
SWEC/LILC0 have completed a review of all small bore cal-culations with respect to relative displacements.
This review covered small bore calculations performed before and af ter the issuance of SWEC Procedure SBM #6.
SWEC review disposition cover sheets for all calculations will be included with the formal response to this item.
TES requested that complete data be submitted for at least two each of the review packages (before and after SBM #6) along with the formal response.
b.
Further discussion was held on the subject of the con-sideration of seir.mic vertical displacements for building and piping, attached to horizontal beams, being in phase.
A subsequent TES review has indicated that there are loca-tions where the fundamental frequency of horizontal beams is less than 30 hertz.
LILC0/SWEC stated that they will I
WNNE ENGNEERING SERVICES ICR No. 5633-1, Rev. 1 :
i respond to this concern in the formal response to ICR No.
5633-1.
The LILC0/SWEC disposition response to ICR No. 5633-1, Addi-tional Concerns, was received by TES on May 18, 1983.
This response indicated the following:
a.
With respect to building and piping seismic vertical displacements being phase; even for a lower bound of natural frequencies of 20 hz for horizontal structural steel the ratio of beam frequencies relative to the sig-nificant building frequencies (less than 10 hz) would still be small enough to conclude the amplification and phase differences are negligible b.
With respect to horizontal seismic building displacements being applied in both the X and Z directions, SWEC attached to the response 20 review forms, from reconfirma-tion of all small bore packages, executed to ~ assure that the guidance provided in SBM #6 had been uniformly imple-mented.
Four small bore review packages utilizing SBM #6 methodology both before and after the issuance of SBM #6 were also attached for TES review.
c.
With respect to combinations of loadings foi Equation 11 (NC) Code evaluation, the ASME Code does not require Equa-tions 10 or 11 be satisfied by considering the larger of either the full range of thermal expansion in combinatinn with one-half the seismic anchor displacements or the full anchor displacement range.
If it were a requirement the portion cf the allowable set aside for thermal expansion l
would be available for anchor displacement.
w pa pry m ENGNEERNG SERVCES ICR No. 5633-1, Rev. 1 2.0 RESOLUTIDM TES has reviewed the LILC0/SWEC disposition response to ICR No.
5633-1, Additional Concerns, as follows:
(1) TES previously completed an evaluation of the building steel vertical frequencies and agreed the lower bound of natural frequencies for the horizontal building steel was 20 hz.
TES' review of the vertical seismic amplified response spectra also indicated the significant building frequencies were less than 10 hz.
The FSAR, Volume 5, Section 3.7, documents the first vertical mode of the reactor building to be 2.1 hz.
Building frequencies above the 20 hz would cause the beams to move out of phase, however the displacements at these frequencies (as determined by the. amplified response spectra) would be insig-nificant.
(2)
In addition to the four small. bore packages submitted with the LILC0/SWEC response, TES reviewed a random sampling of small bore qualification packages at SE0 on June 22, 1983.
As a result of this review, TES verified that the proper imple-mentation of horizontal seismic displacements, per the criteria of IOC SBM #6, has been accomplished.
(3) TES agrees with the LILC0/SWEC response, that the portion of the allowable allocated to thermal stresses by SBM #3 would be available for full range seismic anchor inovement.
Based on the information obtained through interface meetings and the detailed reviews described herein, of the LILC0/SWEC disposition response, TES is of the opinion that the Additional Concerns presented in ICR No. 5633-1 have been answered to our satisfaction, and that this item can be Close'd.
c
_ - _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _