ML20072U105

Forwards Minutes of 830316 Meeting Between Applicant, Teledyne Engineering Svcs & S&W Personnel Re Review Item ICR-5633-1,per Procedures Defined in Teledyne Concerning Independent Design Review

ML20072U105
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	03/28/1983
From:	King J TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
5633-56, NUDOCS 8304110204
Download: ML20072U105 (3)

Text

- - - "RTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES 133 $ ECONO AkENUE W ALTH AM, M ASSACHUSE TTS 02254 e617,89S3350 TWi t710) 324-7580 March 28, 1983 Mr. Harold Denton, Director 5633-56 g Vp Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

b. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20114

Subject:

Independent Design Review for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station

Reference:

TES Letter No. 5633-43 to the USNRC dated February 11, 1983

Dear Mr. Denton:

In accordance with the procedures defined in the referenced letter we are forwarding a copy. of the minutes of meeting held on March 16, 1983, between Teledyne Engineering Services, LILC0 and Stone and Webster personnel. The purpose of this meeting was for clarification of TES review item ICR No. 5633-1, classified as Additional Concern.

If you have any quastions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Donald F. Landers or the writer.

Very truly yours.

TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES M g Jam . King Ass nt Project Manager JPK/ao Attachment cc:

D. F. Landers (TES)

J. A. Flaherty (TES)

J. H. Malonson (TES)

TES Document Control 1

F304110204 830328 PDR ADOCK 05000322 ENGINEERS AND METALLURGISTS A PDR

'#TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES INTERFACE MEETING FOR CLARIFICATION OF TES REVIEW _

ITEM ICR NO. 5633-1, PART OF INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW FOR SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, HELD AT TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES OFFICES MARCH 16, 1983, 1:30 P.M.

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING (LILCO) TELEDYNE (TES) STONE & WEBSTER (SWEC)

W.J. Museler D.F. Landers R.E. Foley M.H. Milligan J.A. Flaherty R. Hankinson C.K. Seaman J.P. King D.A. Van Duyne E.F. Montgomery G.S. Blanchet E.J. Brabazon L.E. Barron D.T. King D.C. Foster S.J. Yerardi

SUMMARY

TES issued ICR-5633-1 on November 2, 1982, classified as a Finding.

A disposition response from LILC0/SWEC was received by TES on January 15, 1983. At a February 15, 1983 interface meeting TES was supplied with addi-tional information regarding this item. A supplementary response to this item by LILC0/SWEC was received by TES on February 25, 1983. TES reissued ICR-5633-1 on March 4, 1983, classified as an Additional Concern. The pur-pose of today's meeting is for clarification of items in the additional concern.

DISCUSSION:

SWEC personnel gave a description of their small bore piping quali-fication program for Shoreham initiated in June,1982, in accordance with procedure EMTG-5/EMTP 9.5. SWC Interoffice Correspondence SBM #6 was issued on August 18, 1982, giving detailed instrut. tion for determining relative displacements. Additional clarification was provided in Inter-office Correspondence of August 23, 1982. SWEC Interoffice Correspondence SBM #3 was issued July 16, 1982 as a deviation to the EMTP 9.5 procedure.

This document also provides for the following allotments of stresses per categories for small bore piping evaluation to Equation 11, NC-3652.3 of ASME Section III:

'V TELEDYNE Minutes of Meeting ENGINEERING SERVICES March 16, 1983 Deadweight and Pressure 5,000 psi Seismic End Effects 13,000 psi Thermal Expansion 19,500 psi TES personnel described their concerns, as presented in the reissued ICR-5633-1 as follows:

(1) Consideration of building and piping seismic vertical displace-ments as being in phase.

(2) 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.

(3) The consideration of either thermal and ka seismic anchor dis-placement or 2 x P2 seismic anchor displacement in satisfying Equation (11).

RESOLUTIONS SWEC understood TES' concern with respect to vertical seismic dis-placement and would prepare a response, l

l SWEC is reviewing all small bore calculations done prior to the issuance of SBM #6 to assure compliance with that requirement. TES requested that a sampling of small bore calculations done after issuance of SBM #6 aise be performed.

SWEC indicated that using 2 x ak seismic anchor displacement in satis-fying Equation (11) is automatically covered by their criteria. They will demonstrate this in their response.