ML20116J952
| ML20116J952 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1970 |
| From: | GILBERT/COMMONWEALTH, INC. (FORMERLY GILBERT ASSOCIAT |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20116J740 | List: |
| References | |
| GAI-1729, NUDOCS 9608140158 | |
| Download: ML20116J952 (53) | |
Text
!
l
! MAY 20,1970 tO i gal REPORT NO.1729 l
l PROPERTY OF
',, STR'.'CTURAL DEPT. LIBRARY GlLBERT ASSOCIATES, INC.
4 l
l l
I TOPICAL REPORT I
/
DYNAMIC ANALYSES
! OF VITAL PIPING l SYSTEMS SUBJECTED i
l TO SEISMIC MOTION i-I i
1 DR ADOCK 0500 2
,& i ENGINEERS / CONSULTANTS l
- g OO 525 LANCASTER AYENUE, READING, PENNSYLVANIA 196 l i
I - _._ _ _ - . . . _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ - . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - - . - - - - - _ _ __ .__ _ _ _ _ _ . _J
l i
! MAY 20,1970 iO G Al REPORT NO.1729 i
i i
i I i PROPERTY OF
{ STR'.'CTURAL DEPT. LIBRARY i '
GILBERT ASSOCIATES, INC.
i TOPICAL REPORT
,O I DYNAMIC ANALYSES OF VITAL PIPING i
SYSTEMS SUBJECTED i
l, TO SEISMIC MOTION i
i i
DR ADOCK0500g2 ENGINEERS / CONSULTANTS Q O 525 LANCASTER AVENUE, READING, PENNSYLVANIA 196
n f
GAI REPORT NO. 1729 a May 20, 1970 t
TOPICAL REPORT DYNAMIC ANALYSES OF VITAL PIPING SYSTEMS SUBJECTED TO SEISMIC MOTION PROPERTY OF STP'.'CTURAL DEPT. LIBRARY .
GILBERT ASSOCIATES, INC.
l l
l Gilbert Associates, Inc.
525 Lancaster Avenue Reading, Pennsylvania U.S.A.
CC:JD i
i G I L B E R T A S S O CI A T E S. I N C.
Abstract:
This report deals with the approach adopted by Gilbert Associates in relation to the aseismic design of vital piping systems. The " Dynamic Analyses of Vital Piping Systems Subjected To Seismic Motion" is based upon i
a multi-degree of freedom lumped parameter model. '
l Classical normal modes are presumed to exist for the '
slightly damped systems; linear behavior is also assumed. A modal analysis employing the response spectrum method and the approach developed by Biggs and Roesset for coupling the effect of the building are used to determine the total response of the piping. The maximum inertial forces for each mode thus developed are applied as static loads on the system in order to obtain the internal stresses and support reactions using the PIPE STRESS PROGRAM.
The most probable maximum values are obtained by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of the stresses and reactions resulting from all contri-buting modes.
For the Primary Coolant Loop, the building and the loop are coupled in the same model to account for their interaction. In all other respects the analy-l tical approach for this system follows the pattern l
l described above.
G it a E R T A S S O C I A T E S, I N C, I i )
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Pg ABSTRACT i TABLE OF CONTENTS 11 INTRODUCTION 1 THE MODEL 3 SEISMIC INPUT (NOT APPLICABLE TO PRIMARY COOLANT LOOP) 5 PRIMARY COOLANT LOOP 7 THEORY 8 DESIGN SEQUENCE 14 REFERENCES 16 O
FIGURES Figure 1 Amplification Curve 1 for Class 1 Piping Systems igure 2 Amplification Curve 2 for Class 1 Piping Systems APPENDICES Appendix 1 Typical Models and Computer Output for Class 1 Piping System Appendix 2 Supplementary Data for Primary Coolant Loop Appendix 3 Glossary of Terms O
GIL B E RT A S S OCl& TE S. I NC 11
1 INTRODUCTION O This report deals with the approach adopted by Gilbert Associates in relation to the aseismic design of vital piping systems. These systems come under classification I and are defined as follows:
Those systems whose f ailure might cause, or increase the
, severity of, a loss of coolant accident, or result in an uncontrolled release of excessive amount of radioactivity. l Also included in this classification are systems vital to safe shutdown and isolation of the reactor.
Because the f ailure of any system defined above is regarded as unacceptable, the analytical approaches used to evaluate the behavior of the piping during an earthquake are conservative and are as consiscent as possible with the accuracy of the assumptions that must be made regarding the earthquake characteristics.
The aseismic design of the piping is complicated by the necessity to provide enough flexibility to ' satisfy thermal stress requirements; this results in run layouts which are much less than optimum for seismic conditions.
Percentages of critical damping selected follow the recommendations of N. M. Newmark,2 except as specified in the appropriate safety analysis report; the increased damping that would result from the l effects of the bolted and pinned connections of the restraints forming a part of the system is not considered.
G il. B E R T A S S O C I A T E S. I N C.
j \
2 l
Peak responses from earthquake motions in the horizontal and vertical directions are considered to act simultaneously. To get a reasonably accurate estimate of the behavior of the complete system, earthquake 4
motions are applied in three mutually perpendicular directions J
- corresponding to the global axes of each model. Stresses arising i
- from the combination of each horizontal excitation with the vertical are compared, in order to arrive at the maximum values. Typical models and computer outputs are given in Appendices 1 and 2.
O l
l I
v I
G I L B E R T A S S O C I A T E S, I N C.
D i
i 3
i THE MODEL To obtain a model closely resembling the actual system the following 'l factors are considered:
- a. Lumped Masses '
The magnitudes of the lumped masses are obtained as a ,
proportion of the combined weights of the pipe, the l insulation, and the contained fluid. The proportion used !
is the value which gives a frequency of approximately that which would be obtained from the uniform mass system.-
Heavy valves are also considered as masses lumped at their approximate centers'of gravity. Three translational degrees of freedom are selected for each mass.
O b. Pipe Properties The outside diameter, wall thickness, Young's Modulus, and Poisson's Ratio are given for each section. Flexibility and Stress Intensification f actors for elbows are given in accordance with the code.
- c. Anchors (Not applicable to Primary Coolant Loop)
Anchors are assumed at connections to the following:
(1) structures, (2) pieces of equipment, and (3) pipes of much larger diameter than that in the model considered.
O G I L B E R T A S 9 O C I A T E S, I N C.
4 I
- d. Supports ;
i O
V ' Spring hangers and vibration eliminators are modeled as i double acting springs. Even though this may not be precisely correct in the case of the spring hanger, it makes'little difference to the dynamic behavior of the model, since the spring rates are normally quito low.
Hanger rods and hydraulic shock suppressors, are con-sidered as rigid along their longitudinal axes.
Restraining atructures, such as steel frames, are also considered as rigid in a given direction if the movement permitted is of an order approximating the construction tolerances in the support system.
- a. ' Coordinates The global axes correspond as closely as_ possible to the directions of the axes of the majority of the legs of the model in order to resemble the principal axes.
1 O
O C I L B E R T A S S O C I A T E S, I N C.
5 l
SEISMIC INPUT (NOT APPLICABLE TO PRIMARY COOLANT LOOP) f D
The input characteristics applied to the piping systems are a function ~
of the anchor response to the ground motion, The ground motion is expressed by smoothed single degree response spectra applicable to the station site. When the dominant frequencies of the piping system and structure are coincident, or close to each other, the resulting tendency to resonate causes a sharp rise in the acress levels and reaction forces. Crandall and Mark 3 treated the general interaction probic= by considering a two-degree-of-freedom system subjected to white noise input. Penzien and Chopra4 treated the earthquake response of appendages on a structure by a time history approach applied to a two-degree-of-freedom model. Blume5 used both floor response spectra and floor time-history to analyze the behavior of small equipment inside the reactor building. Since there appears V
to be no advantage in any of the above mentioned methods in comparison with that proposed by Biggs and Roesset6, especially in view of the I
uncertainties associated with earthquake behavior, the last named I
method is selected as being the one that will give reasonable results, l besides being the most practical to use.
In the approach of Biggs and Roesset the equipment is assumed to be very small in relation to the mass of the building. For equipment that is very stiff in comparison to that of the building, the input acceleration is essentially the same as the acceleration of the building at the point of attachment. If, on the other hand, the O
G I t. 8 E E T A 5 9 0 C l 4 T E S. I N C.
6 f- equipment is relatively very flexible it behaves as though it is supported directly upon the ground and experiences the ground response only. Between these two limits a resonance effect is experienced between the equipment and the structure. In this region, it is hypothesized that where the ratio of equipment to structure periods is ,less than 1.25 the input to the equipment consists of a series of damped harmonics, each of which corresponds to one of the normal modes of the structure. For equipment to structure period ratios greater than 1.25, the input to the equipment is assumed to be the ground motion as magnified by the structure; the magnification factor is assumed to be the ratio of maximum structural response to ground motion input, when the ground motion input is a pure harmonic with a frequency equal to that of the equipment. This is based upon the f act that most significant harmonic components of the earthquake motion are in near resonance with the equipment. The theoretical amplificatien curves thus derived are modified to provide closer agreement with the El Centro results based on a two-degree-of-freedom model. The curves apply only for the damping values noted.
The amplification curves for the specific damping values of this report are shown in Figures 1 and 2.
A
.,<.......<,.....e l
\
l
7
- !'O PRIMARY COOLANT LOOP Several differences exist between this and the other Class I systems ;
namely:
- a. The reactor, reactor coolant pumps, and s team generator are included in the loop.
- b. The building is coupled in the model.
- c. The loop / building mass ratio is much larger.
- d. A large variation in seismic input exists between the l uppermos t and lowes t support elevations.
For the above reasons a different method from that used for the
, other Class I systems is adopted. The flexibility matrix for tha building is obtained by the STRESS PROGRAM and that for the piring
() by the PIPE STRESS PROGRAM.7'O'9 These two matrices are then combined into an overall matrix by considering rigid connections at the restraint locations. The reactions at these points are then derived as redundant forces by the condition of compatibility of displace-ments10,11 The s.ainder of the analysis is as described in j the Theory. For conservatism the pipi.sg damping ratio is used for the entire model.
V GIL B E RT A S S OCI A TE S,1NC
8 -
THEORY .
! I A glossary of the terms for the following equations has been i
established in Appendix 3. i The equations of motion of a three dimensional piping system subjected to seismic input, may be written as:
Im-] {s} + [C] {Ic} + [K] {x} = - ['as] {y}. (1)
In deriving the above equation and in the following analysis, three assumptions are made as follows:12 ,
- a. The system can be treated as a lumped parameter model,
- b. The system is linear.
- c. Classical normal modes exist.
The mass matrix ['ms) is- diagonal and may include mass inertia terms. {x} is the relative displacement vector and may include l rotations. The dots over the variable indicates time derivatives.
[C] and [K] are the symmetric damping matrix and stiffness matrix respectively, and {y} is the input support acceleration vector.
i The undamped natural frequencies and mode shapes are obtained from the free vibrational, homogeneous equations i
['m-] {s} + [K] {x} = {0} (2) I or
[F] ['ms] {s} + ['Id {x} ='{0}, (3) where [F] is the symmetric flexibility matrix of the system and fis] is the identity matrix. The technique of Jacobian diagonalization is used to obtain all the eigenvalue and eigenvectors simultaneously.
G II. B E R T A S S O C 3 A T E S. I N C.
9 i.
13 Since this technique demands a symmetric matrix operator , and O l
() ouroperator[F]['m-]isnotingeneralsymmetric,atransformation I
{
is required. Let
{x} = ['m 7b {0}. (4)
Substituting equations (4) into equations (3) and pre-multiplying with
['m d b, we have
[I] (fi} + ['Is] {n} = 0, (5) where [h] represents I m-]b [F] ['m-] . [F] is symmetric, so is
[F]. Applying the orthogonal transformation 13,14 *
(n} = [$) {A} (6) to equation (5) and pre-multiplying with [$] , we have ff-]{$}t ['Is] (A} = {0}, (7) 1 whereFf-]is-[$]T[F][$],and[$]T is the transpose of [$].
"i Elementsofbf-]areeigenvaluesof[F];columnsof[$]arethe "i
eigenvectors of [F]. The eigenvectors of the original system of equations (3) are obtained from equations (4)
[$3 = D m-]~b [$]. (8)
Rewriting equations (8) as
[$] = ['m-]b [$], (9)
O G I t. B E R T A S S O C I A T E S, I N C,
10 then the orthogonal conditions are O [$3 [$] = [$] ['m-] [$] = DI.], (10) ,'
I where the eigenvectors are normalized. The eigenvalues are
[' 2 ~] = [$] [F] [$] = [$] D m-] [F] D ms] [$]. (11)
"i I
Let !
< ]
i
{x} = [$3 {A} (12)
We can uncouple equations (3) directly by pre-multiplying it with
[$]T p ,,,3,
[$]T Cm][F]['m-][$]{5}+fI-][y] ['m ] [$] {A) = {0} {
or If-]{}+['I-]{A}={0}.
i (13)
Raleigh15 showed that the sufficient condition fer a damped system to possess classical normal modes is that the damping matrix is a linear combination of the mass matrix and the stiffness matrix.
Caughey 16 pointed out that the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of classical normal modes is that the damping matrix be diagonalized by the same transformation that uncouples the undamped system. With the method of superposition of normal l i
modes, we apply the coordinate transformation (12) to equation (1) !
l and pre-multiply it by [$3T, obtaining
[$]T[m][$3{5}+[$] [C] [$] {i} + [$] [K] [$] {A} =
- [$]T p ,,,] {py, (14)
- C II. B E E T A S S O C I A T E S I N C.
11
! a Considering equations (10), and the orthogonality conditions 10 ',
a
[$) [K) [$) = Iw[.] ['I d = I K is] (15) and proportional damping 10
[C] = (['m-] + a[K], (16) equations (14) are uncoupled as DI d { } + (CD I-] + G IKi -]) {b + D Kt -] {A} =
-[$] Dm ] {y}. (17)
The ith component has the form 51 + (c + ar t) 1 +1 K A1 1 = 4 $ }T 1 D m 4 {y} (1g) f3 Q where {$f } is the transpose of the ith column of [$]. Instead of specifying the proportional constants ( and a, we use the percentage of critical damping which is defined as 3
C C cr
,C+%;
2W (19) g equation (18) becomes 51+ 2Sw Ag g + w hy = -{$ 1
} D md [y (20) furthermore let
{y} = yo {d} f(t) (21)
O G I L B E R T A S S O C I A Y E S. I N C.
12 l
where yo i's the maximum support acceleration, {d} is the earthquake direction vector, and f(t) is the time function for support accel-eration. Define the participation factor Yg as Yi = {$1} fm-]{d), (22) which can be thought as a measure of the extent to which the ith normal mode participates in synthesizing the total loads on the system 10 With the initial conditions as I(0) = A(0) = 0, (23) the solution of equation (20) is 10 Yi I
-0"ift'I)
Ai (t) = + Wg
/t 0
wg /1 - S 2 e f(T) Sin [wi /1-8 2 (t-T)]dT (24) l For small damping ratios wi /1-S2+w. i Let the response spectrum value be17,18 i
T Sa(w1) = [yo /o wt e-0"i(C-I) f(T)Sinwi(t-T) dT] max. (25) l In this analysis, the value of Sa is taken directly from the response spectrum curve. Then the maximum response will be Yi Sa
- (A1) max = gz . (26) i
)
- O l I
G I L B E R T A S S O C I A T E S, I N C.
i
13 Comparing equation (20) with the equation of motion of a single-degree-of-freedom system, the equivalent maximum modal absolute 19 accelerations is
[5g+ Y thof (t)3 = Yisa. (27)
Hence the equivalent maximum modal force will be10,19
{Fi } " Y iSaf m-] {$1 } (28) or
{Fi } = (Ag ),,x[K] {$g). (29)
O O
CIL B E RT A S SOCI A TE S IN C.
. 14 DESIGN SEQUENCE b
The steps to do an analysis of the behavior of a system under earth-quake loading and to complete an aseismic design are as follows:
{ {
)
- a. The system is modeled as described previously, the locations of seismic restraints being established from experience. l i l
- b. The free vibration frequencies and mode shapes are obtained from equations (3).
- c. Participation f actors are calculated from equations (22).
- d. Modal accelerations are obtained by reading the response spectrum l l
curve ordinates corresponding to the modal period. This value is then modified by the amplification curves of Figures 1 and 2 as e
\d described briefly in the Seismic Input and more completely in reference 6.
- e. The modal accelerations are multiplied by the participation f actors for the mode, the mode shape, and the mass at each node, to obtain the inertial forces as given in equations (28). i
- f. The inertial forces for each mode are applied to the piping system to obtain the internal stresses and reactions at each l i support joint by the PIPE STRESS PROGRAM. The effects of shear, axial, torsional, and flexural deformations are included i
l Since the maximum
~
in the generation of the flexibility matrix.
stresses and reactions of all modes do not occur at the same m
G I L B E R T A S S O C I A T E S, I N C.
~
15 I l
time, the most probable maximum. stresses and r'eactions are
[Q \
obtained by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of i the stresses and reactions produced by all the contributing modes. For conservatism this analysis considers all the modes
- in which the modal acceleration values in equation (27) are I greater than 1 percent of the maximum modal acceleration among !
l all the modes. I t !
4
- g. The seismic stresses are combined with other stresses in i
accordance with the codes and compared with code allowables.
1 a
Modifications are made to the seismic restraints if the 4
resultant stress levels indicate such a need, and a rerun is performed.
I e
i e'
! s i
i e
I i
4
- O 4
i
) GILBERT ASSOCI ATE A INC 1
-+
16 l
O REFERENCES
. 1. ASCE Power Division Panel Report, " Safety and Security of Power Supply Nuclear Power Plants and Earthquakes," February 1970, Vol. 96, No. P02,
- 2. Newmark, N.M., Hall, W.J., " Seismic Design Criteria for Nuclear Reactor Facilities" Proceedings, Fourth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile, Jan. 13-Jan. 18, 1969, B-4, pp. 37-44.
- 3. Crandall, S.H., Mark, W.D. , " Random Vibration in Mechanical Systems, Academic Press 1963, Chapter II.
4 Penzien, J., Chopra, A.K. , " Earthquake Response of an Appendage on A Multi-Story Building" Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand, 1965. Vol. II, pp. 476-486.
- 5. U.S.A.E.C. (Division of Technical Information), " Summary of Current Seismic Design Practice for Nuclear Reactor Facilities,"
TID-25021 September, 1967, i
- 6. Biggs, J.M., Roesset J.M., " Seismic Analysis of Equipment Mounted on a Massive Structure," Seminar on Seismic Designs for Nuclear
'O Power Plants, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, March 1969.
j
'7. Orth, Jr. , E.J. , Lewis, J. , General Pipe Stress, Southern Services, Inc., August 1964, Modified by Gilbert Associates, Inc., December 1968.
j 8. Chen, L.H., " Piping Flexibility Analysis by Stiffness Matrix,"
l J. of Appl. Mech., December 1959, pp. 608-612.
- 9. The M.W. Kellog Company, " Design of Piping Systems," Second Edition, i
Chapter 3, Appendix D. John Wieley & Sons, August 1965. )
l 10. Hurty, W.C. , Rubinstein, M.R. , " Dynamics of Structures ," Prentice Hall 1964, Chapters 1 and 8.
- 11. Przemieniecki, J.S., " Theory of Matrix Structural Analysis,"
McGraw Hill 1957, Chapters 7, 8, and 9.
l l 12. Nielsen, N.N., " Theory of Dynamic Tests of Structures," The Shock and Vibration Bulletins, Bulletin 35, part 2 U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington D.C. , January 1966, pp.1-20.
- 13. Hildebrand, F.G. , " Method of Applied Mathematics ," Prentice l Hall 1952.
i G I L B E R T 4 8 5 0 C l 4 T E A I N C.
l i
17
- 14. Lass, H., " Elements of Pure and Applied Mathematics ," McGraw [
Hill 1957, Chapter 1. !
j s :
- 15. Lord Raleigh, " Theory of Sound," Dover Publications , N.Y. ,1945, l Vol. 1. 1 l
- 16. Cauchey, T.K., " Classical Normal Modes in Damped Linear Dynamic j Sys tems," J. of Appl. Mech. , June 1960, pp. 269-271. '
- 17. Alford, J.L. , Hausner, G.W. , Martel, R.R. , " Spectrum Analysis of Strong-Motion Earthquakes," Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Revised August i 1964. '
- 18. U.S.A.E.C. (Division of Technical Information), " Nuclear Reactor and Earthquakes," TID-7024, August 1963.
19 . Biggs, J.M. , " Introduction to Structural Dynamics ," McGraw Hill 1964, Chapter 6.
l
- 20. Clough, R.W., " Earthquake Analysis by Response Spectrum Superpositions," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, July 1962, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 647-660.
I O
O G I L B E R T A S S O C I A T E S. I N C
- t'S kMs4d m- -
O 1
1 t
I t
1 I l i
I i
1 i
l
- (
i GILBERT 4890CI ATE A INC i
.. . . . _ - _ _ . . . . _ . . , _ . . . . ~ . . _ _ . . _ . . . . . . . . _ , - , - -
O O O f .. ..
,,,,, 1 l I8 '
l
LEGEHD:
- I l 11 = STRUCTURAL DAMPlHG RATIO -
,._ ..f f #. = EQUIPMENT DAMPlHG RATIO .;
} ! T = EQUIPMENT PERIOD IN mTH MODE !
[ T.n = STRUCTURE PERIOD lH NTH MODE 16 Aoinn a MAXIMUM MODAL ACCELERATION OF EQUIPMENT I IN MODE = ASSOCI ATE WITH MODE n OF THE l f f STRUCTURE
{
, A n. = MAXIMUM ACCELERATION OF STRUCTURE IN -
MODE a AT POlHT OF EQUIPMENT SUPPORT
- Il i
]'
l 14 I i ,
[ I I !
t p ; ..
m i '
4 10 :
{
- t i 6 [ l , S. = 2% j O q ,I II. = 0.5%
r <
i 1 , I !
l i .i i [ i' i 8 l ,
n j
g p
}
, L .
i I h, a i
! I l..11,; ., ,
l h,.
! , , i i i I h, m : j l; I ! 'i i !
o 1 ll .
W ...l ..; i mE nu i .i y 1 / ! j s, ' l 4 .
-d ;
I' i
..i, Jij t -
i- ! s-.. .. ... ,
i M - !
f, ,,
I g l i I *
"O3
~ ,
j, i g l '
"+...+,4
>0 , . l. !' . . . . .
! , d i
28 -1 c I I l ,
,, d cO= 2 Z zm j l' ,,, ,
on- ,; ,
.."- 1.
C
,m .}}
s m < ! .
m" 0 l l !
h, OO 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 T.mn .n
O O O.
lililits ll lli 11!
lililll I Ill lli .
111llI Ill t llllll1 Ill 1111 1 1 lilll 111 Illill 11111 ill r 11llIl iEl 111 i, llllll llIll lil a lililli lillllilli lllllll lllIlllll 1 e. = 2s ,
lllIll lll1Ellll i
. ,, Illlll lll11llll l111111 ;
5 lilllli
. lilill lillllE eI 1
8 J
'* lillll llllll111 !
- t lllllll i E lgyll LEGEND: #s = STRUCTURAL DAMPING RATIO E T = EQUIPMENT PERIOD IN siTH MODE P I ll 11 Tm = STRUCTURAL PERIOD IN NTH MODE hili! lll I I 'l ^*"" = MAXIMUM MODAL ACCELERATION OF EQUIPMENT ~
l l11lllll lillllllll i 5 U ue l I!!Illi 111 ! I I **"9 = MAXIMUM MODAL ACCELERATION OF EQUIPMENT ,
! i IN MODE m DUE TO DIRECT GROUND MOTION lllllll ;
= / lllllll \ E h '
E R ,,
,, e 1111111llllllllll N ,
- 5 2
- Illllll Illlllllll '
d bh ll11111 ll lilllli i3 " lllll11 ll ll!Illl I E 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 T /T..
I i
l I
i 4
s I
.r 1
i 1
4 4
1 i
4 J
J j
L l.
1 A P P E N D I C E S i
i s
1 i
)
i a
1 i
4
)
I 1
1.
t l
j i
d b *
=s 4
s 1
4
- CiLstaf ASSOCI ATE A INC
O .
8:*,
s E
wy a jr EEg *
'$a a s t Y .a: 4
.:::;= \ . :, y y_*
> ;;*. '. M 4' T
.=
.e.i \ .hg Y
x, s-Cy
- 5
\ 4s :
U
"' c.a ~ -
,* E g
% ' / '////,'
,/
y i
- g w, a 4 .
.r
=
r g
7 / s
- 4' 7g.W .
, V h
/ $
.I $
Ek5 4'
~e s h'
I .f ,
^
.;,p,, - /
O\ \*hhr '
- s r M
- x" i 4 : ?
V a
N
$ w* (I? =
N.
j
~ , 4 ,
\
4 3 *1 '#, u .
k*p
'd
% k s' a O i \
- g 4 e
\y s a a # \
s /
}-f s8:8F
= n= .,,
C'$
g 4
j 't, g ?
?
_ E ~ *a
! s ?
?
\*
4
- y *
- r y b 4 x:5!- s YN is w
=
c= _;
M h k- $>
5 y#m - ,
N- og a
. ~g m O s
\ .50 =
Y.
h g,
d C* u
=*
- 5a5'29a a
a g
h enw N l.5e d
Ge o ?
a< s Od***a motEg& 7i?
E [U ha$ g3 "' -
O E r
= .x;.g 5
ICAL SEggy;C MODEL
- I ^$50CIAygg,,HC. 3 i PIPtNG sy5%
- X - s W a 4.4.a a.i._%.A34 m.&4.-.hh..MM;S sW4..A3 haa. 4, .m., MLA.4
~
O O O LUMPED MASS POINTS - LBS POINT X Y Z 4
B 1363.000 681.000 1363.000 D 2921.000 2921.000 2921.000 E 1605.000 1605.000 1605.000 H 2354.000 1177.000 2354.000 J 2012.000 1006.000 2012.000 L 1509.000 1509.000 1509.000 M 1584.000 1584.000 1584.000 0 2001.000' 2001.000 4002.000
- P 2212.000 1106.000 2212.000 R 1061.000 531.000 1061.000 T 875.000 438.000 875.000 .
V 509.000 509.000 509.000 W 792.000 792.000 792.000 I
e 4
l O' MODE EIGENVALUES NATURAL FREQUENCY I
l J
1 0.35121342-02 0.26855583 01 2 0.74681226-03 0.58239067 01 3 0.54488323-03 J 0.68181792 01 j 4 , 0.36800859-03 0.82964281 01 1 5 0.25749790-03 0.99182098 01 6
7 0.13737954-03 0.98402446-04 0.13578728 02 .
0.16044167 02 ;
8 0.81032622-04 0.17680323 02 0.66115681-04 9 0.19573473 02 l 10 0.59214032-04 0.20682728 02 !
11 0.40219800-04 0.25095750 02 :
12 0.35402093-04 0.26748884 02 l 13 0.22253902-04 0.33737822 02 14 0.20484111-04 0.35165077 02 15 0.17395401-04 0.38159520 02 16 0.12619535-04 0.44802110 02 17 0.11632377-04 0.46664423 02 18 0.70514977-05 0.59934854 02 19 0.54397723-05 0.68238547 02 20 0.47404368-05 0.73098919 02 21 0.44165724-05 0.75731656 02 22 0.41576185-05 0.78054476 02 23 0.34676584-05 0.85467692 02 Os - 24 0.27366780-05 'O.96207356 02 25 0.21587734-05 0.10832198 03 26 0.14405237-05 0.13260501 03 27 0.10181078 05 0.15773325 03 28 0.93194922-06 0.16486331 03 29 0.79616484-06 0.17836869 03 30 0.77633096-06 0.18063283 03 31 0.72435110-06 0.18700171 03 32 0.45347366-06 0.23634374 03 33 0.40799379-06 0.24916862 03 4 34 0.36709935-06 0.26268080 03 l 35 0.24818207-06 0.31947356 03 i
, 36 0.18007323-06 0.37505551 03 37 0.16564499-06 0.39104882 03 38 0.12756259-06 0.44561362 03 39 0.11746171-06 0.46437836 03 I
O ;
O O O RESPCNSE TO EARTilQUAKE FOR MODE la X QUAKE X QUAKE Y QUAKE Y QUAKE Z QUAKE Z QUAKE MASS HODE SilAPE ACCELERATION DISPLACEMENT ACCELERATION DISPLACEMENT ACCELERATION DISPLACEMENT POINT DIR FT/SEC/SEC FEET FT/SEC/SEC FEET FT/SEC/SEC FEET B X 1.0863314-05 1.6408764-03 5.7629782-06 -3.5492330-04 -l.2465383-06 -2.1282007-04 -7.4745266-07 Y -1.4099092-03 -2.1296326-01 -7.4795556-04 4.6064178-02 1.6178357-04 2.7621127-02 9.7009107-05 Z l.1393979-04 1.7210320-02 6.0444955-05 -3.7226104-03 -1.3074307-05 -2.2321618-03 -7.8396517-06 D X 3.3079772-02 4.9966170-00 1.7548790-02 -1.0807735-00 -3.7958217-03 -6.4805635-01 -2.2760609-03 Y -9.5075115-03 -1.4360859-00 -5.0437263-03 3.1062689-01 1.0909633-03 1.8625894-01 6.5416639-04 Z -6.3835933-03 -9.6422584-01 -3.3864906-03 2.0856306-01 7.3250147-04 1.2505915-01 4.3922452-04 E X 5.6095707-02 8.4731164-00 2.9758722-02 -1.8327440-00 ~6. 4 368429-0 3 -1.0989549-00 -3.8596773-03 Y -2.3034260-02 -3.4792674-00 -1.2219654-02 7.5256920-01 2.6431240-03 4.5125759-01 1.5848772-03 Z -9.1919850-03 -1.3884264-00 -4.8763398-03 3.0031809-01 1.0547574-03 1.8007755-01 6.3245652-04 ll X 5.2882456-02 7.9877629-00 2.8054096-02 -1.7277615-00 -6.0681304-03 -l.0360051-00 -3.6385888-03 Y -3.5779386-02 -5.4043870-00 -1.8980933-02 1.1689746-00 4.1055957-03 7.0094372-01 2.4618084-03 Z -2.2999538-03 -3.4740229-01 -1.2201235-03 7.5143480-02 2.6391399-04 4.5057738-02 1.5824882-04 J X 3.9459797-02 5.9603038-00 2.0933387-02 -1.2892200-00 -4.52 79136-G : -7.7304559-01 -2.7150399-03 Y -l.8469375-02 -2.7897531-00 -9.7979872-03 6.0342652-01 2.1193149-03 3.6182825-01 1.2707894-03 Z -2.3055027-03 -3.4824043-01 -I.2230671-03 7.5324772-02 2.6455071-04 4.5166444-02 1.5863061-04 L X 2.2878945-02 3.4558076-00 1.2137260-02 -7.4749482-01 -2.6253021-03 -4.4821487-01 -1.5741908-03 Y -4.6559654-03 -7.0327195-01 -2.4699855-03 1.5211846-01 5.3426046-04 9.1213686-02 3.2035471-04 Z -2.3116086-03 -3.4916271-01 -1.2263063-03 7.5524262-02 2.6525135-04 4.5286063-02 1.5905073-04 M X 6.6723047-03 1.0078350-00 3.5396517-03 -2.1799576-01 -7.6563039-04 -1.3071521-01 -4.5908937-04 Y 5.0946016-05 7.6952685-03 2.7026816-05 -1.6644947-03 -5.8459288-06 -9.9806883-04 -3.5053517-06 Z -5.9013895-04 -8.9139016-02 -3.1306819-04 1.9280863-02 6.7716979-05 1.1561243-02 4.0604639-05 0 X 1.3875668-04 2.0958850-02 7.3610295-05 -4.5334213-03 -1.5921984-05 -2.7183424-03 -9.5471835-06 Y -1.3930262-05 -2.1041313-03 -7.38999I6-06 4.5512582-04 1.5984630-06 2.7290378-04 9.5847471-07 Z l.8793217-05 2.8386685-03 9.9697850-06 -6.1400699-04 -2,1564750-06 -3.6817254-04 -1.2930714-06 P X 5.4061513-02 8.1658565-00 2.8679584-02 -1.7662834-00 -6.2034242-03 -1.0591036-00 -3.7197141-03 Y -2.7973311-02 -4.2252988-00 -1.4839817-02 9.1333658-01 3.2098680-03 5.4801714-01 1.9247097-03 Z -6.3368637-03 -9.5716745-01 -3.3617006-03 2.0703633-01 7.2713937-04 1.2414368-01 4.3600928-04 R X 4.3609344-02 6.5870825-00 2.3134718-02 -1.4247929-00 -5.0040639-03 -8.5433818-01 -3.0005504-03 Y -1.7187249-02 -2.5960911-00 -9.1178204-03 5.6153724-01 1.9721941-03 3.3671048-01 1.1825724-03 Z -6.3293669-03 -9.5603508-01 -3.3577235-03 2.0679139-01 7.2627913-04 1.2399682-01 4.3549347-04 T X 1.9405287-02 2.9311201-00 1.0294487-02 -6.3400436-01 -2.2267084-03 -3.8016342-01 -1.3351850-03 Y -4.4486919-03 -6.7196381-01 -2.3600271-03 1.4534648-01 . 5.1047634-04 8.7153051-02 3.0609321-04 Z -6.3159124-03 -9.5400280-01 -3.3505859-03 2.0635181-01 7.2473525-04 1.2373323-01 4.3456772-04 V X 4.4537618-03 6.7272960-01 2.3627167-03 -1.4551212-01 -5.1105810-04 -8.7252373-02 -3.0644205-04 Y -6.9018063-04 -I.0425006-01 -3.6614021-04 2.2549398-02 7.9196512-05 1.3521131-02 4.7488028-05 Z -6.4399525-03 -9.7273875-01 -3.4163891-03 2.1040441-01 7.3896855-04 1.2616327-01 4.4310233-04 W X 2.9134978-03 4.4007657-01 1.5456080-03 -9.5189025-02 -3.3431663-04 -5.7077502-02 -2.0046385-04 Y -5.5024498-04 -8.3113131-02 -2.9190447-04 1.7977458-02 6.3139244-05 1.0779692-02 3.7859725-05 Z -4.6258264-03 -6.9871953-01 -2.4539968-03 1.5113377-01 5.3080209-04 9.0623242-02 3.1828099-04 X QUAKE Y QUAKE Z QUAKE PARTICIPATION FACTOR . 1.9373764-01 -5.4754673-00 -2.5127583-00 AMPLITUDE, G'S 2.4232292-01 2.7818584-01 2.4232292-01 KINETIC ENERGY, FT-LBS 4.0065283-01
- 1.8745001-00 6.7397166-01
- Results given are for a 0.06 g earthonake.
i i
O DEFLECTIONS IN INCHES DUE TO EARTHQUAKE FOR ALL 39 MODES
- MASS POINT DIR. X QUAKE Y QUAKE Z QUAKE B X 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 Y 0.0124 0.0028 0.0023 Z 0.0014 0.0003 0.0042 D X 0.2740 0.0465 0.0441 Y 0.0794 0.0141 0.0123 l Z 0.0573 0.0105 0.1073 E X 0.4632 0.0775 0.0682' Y 0.1965 0.0390 0.0310 Z 0.0792 0.0136 0.1625 H X 0.4364 0.0733 0.0647 Y 0.3189- 0.0732 0.0687 Z 0.0304 0.0071 0.1671 l
J X 0.3293 0.0556 0.0509 Y 0.1736 0.0450 0.0726 Z 0.0304 0.0071 0.1670 L .X 0.2006 0.0324 0.0333 Y 0.0451 0.0121 0.0487 Z 0.0304 0.0071 0.1667 l[ M X 0.0643 0.0098 0.0134
- Y 0.0019 0.0007 0.0100 Z 0.0138 0.0043 0.0777 l 0 X 0.0012 0.0002 0.0002 Y 0.0004 0.0001 0.0020 Z 0.0002 0.0000 0.0003 P X 0.4463 0.0748 0.0649 Y 0.2442 0.0527 0.0423 Z 0.0557 0.0097 0.1646
! R X 0.3607 0.0619 0.0534 l~ Y 0.1555 0.0371 0.0459 Z 0.0556 0.0097 0.1644 T X 0.1639 0.0324 0.0537 Y 0.0443 0.0119 0.0711 2 0.0555 0.0097 0.1641 l V X 0.0399 0.0093 0.0385. l l Y 0.0170 0.0062 0.0307 j i Z 0.0545 0.0091 0.1120 l l W X 0.0243 0.0042 0.0300 )
Y 0.0130 0.0046 0.0213 Z 0.0386 0.0066 0.0479
- Results given are for a 0.06 g earthquake l l
iO l
~
O O O RESULTS FROM EARTHQUAKE ** IN X-Y* DIRECTION USING MODES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 !! 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 27 28 29 30 31 33 35 36 38 PARTIAL OUTPUT FOR REACTIONS AND STRESS RANGE RESTRAINING REACTIONS AT "T0" END ARE REFERRED TO AT EACH POINT IN BRANCH MOMENTS IN FOOT POUNDS FORCES IN POUNDS STRESS BRANCH POINT ABOUT X ABOUT Y ABOUT Z X Y Z PSI BRANCll 1, FROM Al TO B 1 1 6797. 3505. 30902. 3642.2 3162.7 518.2 2603.
1 2 6797. 3097. 29345. 3642.2 3162.7 518.2 2476.
BRANCH 2, FROM B TO C 2 2 6797. 3037. 29345. 3634.3 3133.3 496.8 2476.
2 3 6797. 3855. 32671. 3634.3 3133.3 496.8 3309.
2 4 6797. 4435. 35457. 3634.3 3133.3 496.8 3583.
2 5 6261. 4435. 29335. 3634.3 3133.3 496.8 2987.
BRANCH 3, FROM C TO D 3 5 6261. 4435. 29335. 3634.5 3133.2 496.8 2480.
3 6 5418. 4435. 16950. 3634.3 3133.2 496.8 1500.
3 7 5211. 4435. 10101. 3634.3 3133.2 496.8 998.
BRANCH 4, FROM D TO E 4 7 5211. 4435. 10101. 2704.8 2835.2 363.1 998.
4 8 4311. 4435. 21186, 2704.8 2835.2 363.1 2174.
4 9 4178. 4435, 25551. 2704.8 2835.2 363.1 2587.
4 10 4178. 4347. 21015. 2704.8 2835.2 363.1 2153.
4 11 4178. 4446. 12920. 2704.8 2835.2 363.1 1168.
BRANCH 5, FROM E TO F 5 11 4178. 4446, 12920. 2064.5 2145.1 538.9 1168.
5 12 4178. 4654. 7966. 2064.5 2145.1 538.9 828.
BRANCH 6, FROM F TO G 6 12 2714. 4519. 4632. 1177.7 1294.2 1076.7 574.
6 13 2714. 3497. 3631. 1177.7 1294.2 1076.7 468.
- Results from Earthquake in X-Z directions are of similar form
- Results given are for a 0.06 g earthquake
O O O RESULTS FROM EARTHQUAKE ** IN X-Y* DIRECTION USING MODES 1 2'3 4 5 6 7 8'9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 27 28 29 30 31 33 35 36 38 SUM OF RESTRAINING REACTIONS AT EACH BRANCH POINT MOMENTS IN FOOT POUNDS FORCES IN POUNDS POINT ABOUT X ABOUT Y ABOUT Z X Y Z A1 6797. 3505. 30902. 3642.2 3162.7 518.2 B 0. O. O. 232.3 41.4 48.5 C 0. O. O. 0.0 149.0 0.0 D 0. O.' O. 1015.9 473.4 782.9 E 0. O. O. 702.1 873.6 272.4 F 0. O. O. 0.0 0.0 0.0 G 0. O. O. 0.0 459.7 0.0 H 0. O. O. 995.9 1486.7 419.3 I 0. O. O. 0.0 381.9 0.0 J 0. O. O. 952.6 869.1 358.4 K 0. O. O. 0.0 245.7 0.0 L 0. O. 0. 648.6 389.7 268.1 M 0. O. O. 401.3 54.3 179.7 N 0. O. O. 1275.0 2018.6 0.0 0 0. O. O. 344.2 95.6 31.1 ,
A2 1038. 2092. 14221. 676.5 1044.2 1688.0 P 0. O. '
O. 954.4 934.1 249.6 Q 0. O. O. 0.0 324.4 0.0 R 0. O. O. 491.5 367.0 120.1 S 0. O. O. 0.0 98.6 0.0 T 0. O. O. 456.9 174.8 99.4 U 0. O. O. 0.0 20.7 0.0 V 0. O. O. 143.2 180.3 60.8 W 0. . O. O. 99.8 220.4 123.9 A3 2289. 14131. 4392. 799.8 566.2 1109.1 MAXIMUM STRESS = 3583. PSI AT POINT 4
- Results from Earthquake in X-Z directions are of similar. form
- Results given are for a 0.06 g earthquake
I I
C\
'N l
l I
l APPENDIX 2 I l
Supplementary Data for Primary Coolant Loop
- I l
l
.fh x 1. Model For Primary Coolant Loop and Secondary Shielding l Wall (Figure) l
- 2. Masses (lb Sec2 /in)
- 3. Eigenvalues and Natural Frequencies (CPS) l I}
(,/
- In other respects the primary coolant loop output will be similar to that given in Appendix 1.
l G I L B E R T A S S O C I A T E S, I N C.
SECONDARY
$MI E L DIN G WALL m' IC6 :
O
.D y .D g
~ \. / , *-. . . . ,
A 2 (11 $)
- D(90 2)
,, DX
~
wy 3 l i
L
@j i
ie b i e
vulb I lIG907Y l 8
. jig.GM y 'A' Z'G" l N ! cM, ,
l
^7 ' 2' $ ; g l ii,i.lo !
JIy CNy GM 8
/N n sh, b Mr90s; ,
'j i e 2 - *
[ ,
3I lDf 90$1 Et910)
Jia
- /
,o' h- / S.
. =*f e
A 3130)
I
'2 e / -
,[ N. J$,
d- Y g
?
E y g
5 () L(91h 5
$ ' C(901)
/
/
B4918 f @ E II M gr 8 9 1F A6 (100) 4W ANCH 0, RIClO MORIIONTAL RE$TR AINTS SETWEEN D AND R b Rf CID W E RTIC AL AND MORI ZON T AL R E$TR AINTS S E T W E EN Jl , GM AN D 1.
1r AII# THE SUILDING l$ REPRE$ENTED SV A CANTILEVER BE AM wiTM $ LUMPED MA$$t$. THE LDOP 11 REPRE.
- $ENTED BY A THREE DlhEN110N AL PIPING $YSTEM (
1 WITM 14 LUMPED MAS $t1. h AND R EP RE$ENT
. ROTATION AL $PRING$ AT THE BU$$$ OF TME E QUIP u f M T.
MODEL FOR PRIMARY COOLANT LOOP catstRT ASSOCIATES. INC. AND SECDHDARY SHIELDING WALL
Masses (1b Sec2 /in)
O Mas s p t. X Y- Z F 108.2
- 108.2 108.2 G 246.0 246.0 246.0 S(GH,JI) 13050.0 13050.0 H 167.0 167.0 167.0
]
P 172.8 172.8 172.8 E 43.4 43.4 43.4 B 2245.0 2245.0 2245.0 D and R 19255.0 2255.0 19255.0 M 103.5 103.5 103.5 N 97.0 97.0 97.0 0 113.0 113.0 113.0
,O- A 2245.0 2245.0 2245.0 K 45.0 45.0 45.0 C 752.0 752.0 752.0 L 104.3 104.3 104.3 J. 340.0 340.0 340.0 i
I 247.5 247.5 247.5 '
- - Q 4230.0 4230.0 T 9950.0 9950.0 U 11850.0 11850.0 i
i C IL B E R T A S S OCI A T E S, IN C
l MODE EIGENVALUES NATURAL FREQUENCY (CPS) 0.18082017-02 0.37428006 01 O 1 2
3 0.17680265-02 0.16227307-02 0.37872286 01 0.39509079 01 4 0.15504531-02 0.40419489 01 .
5 0.33682745-03 0.86719426 01 6 0.21345109-03 0.10893588 02 !
7 0.20608512-03 0.11086560 02 i 8 0.19124061-03 0.11508801 02 9 0.18036737-03 0.11850622 02 10 0.17349764-03 0.12082960 02 11 0.17120118-03 0.12163730 02 12 0.15730647-03 0.12689568 02 13 0.14950265-03 0.13016544 02 14 0.13615374-03 0.13639717 02 15 0.85077956-04 0.17254867 02 16 0.67941388-04 0.19308695 02 17 0.60565678-04 0.20450637 02 18 0.55659914-04 0.21332849 02 19 0.49914218-04 0.22527241 02 20 0.45717065-04 0.23538618 02 21 0.41569301-04 0.24685036 02 22 0.4027S640-04 0.25077413 02 23 0.33093244-04 0.27666261 02 24 0.31111653-04 0.28533732 02 25 0.29711660-04 0.29198240 02 .
I 26 0.27800679-04 0.30185087 02 O- 27 28 0.26147129-04 0.25708560-04 0.31124911 02 0.31389273 02 29 0.23568303-04 0.32783550 02 30 0.23020612-04 0.33171240 02 31 0.12204617-04 0.45557307 02 32 0.12197266-04 0.45571035 02 33 0.91766650-05 0.52538503 02 )
34 0.85242439-05 0.54512010 02 35 0.85056264-05 0.54571637 02 36 0.81652667-05 0.55697403 02 37 0.72874413-05 0.58956628 02 38 0.65912323-05 0.51992168 02 39 0.62577622-05 0.63622481 02 40 0.62198364-05 0.63816158 02 41 0.60974023-05 0.64453678 02 42 0,51900669-05 0.69860816 02 43 0.40207818-05 0.79371553 02 44 0.38766981-05 0.80833083 02 45 0.37203326-05 0.82514306 02 46 0.22441892-05 0.10624057 03 47 0.19303857-05 0.11455079 03 48 0.17458766-05 0.12045182 03 49 0.16220839-05 0.12496358 03 50 0.14233549-05 0.13340237 03 51 0.12422443-05 0.14279619 0':
( 52 0.11698022-05 0.14715124 C, 53 0.91684789-06 0.16621549 03 54 0.85282656-06 0.17234148 03 55 0.78275799-06 0.17988973 03 56 0.76297859-06 0.18220654 03
?
)
i
! i 1
t I. 1 I !
i i
I I
1 i
I l
l l
1 1
l APPENDIX 3 i I
Glossary of Terms l i
- 1. Glossary of Terms
. i 1
4 l
l l
l 1
I
)
1 1
i l
GILBEST ASSOCI ATR A INC
()
g Glossary of Terms: \
i
['m -] Mass Matrix :
5
[C ] Symmetric Damping Matrix
[K] Stiffness Matrix
{x } Relative Displacement Vector l
{x } Relative Velocity Vector
{b} Relative acceleration Vector h) Input acceleration Vector t Time !
[' I~] Identity Matrix
{r} } Transformed Displacement Vector l
[F] Flexibility Matrix !
l
[I] Modified Flexibility Matrix
[' 1 ~] Eigenvalue Matrix
[$] Modified Eigenvector Matrix
[$] Eigenvector Matrix
{d} Earthquake Direction Vector f(t) Time Function for Support Acceleration Yi Participation Factor
{A} Normal Coordinates ,
S Critical Damping Ratio i Sa Response Spectrum Acceleration I T Time C I L R E E T A S S O C I A T E S, I N C.
4 4
1 i i
! PRC# U ENCLOSURE 1 l (Page 3 of 3) a l Crystal River Unit 3 l
', ! Ocerability Concern Resolution Evaluation Report !
j -> ; . r:.- ..scr m:n :r n: ;
- MSH 13B Piping / Pipe Supports l
! MSH 27B i i
~ ' ' ' ' MS 96-MSH 13B/27B
' "'" " 74/pg l 1 l
=__,--.r'=' .
- - - . m
- - 4:: - "'""' ""
l 96 0180 i 1
l 4
Peacnrel Invcived with Preparat1cns .
1
! Pr m '!ame and Title Signature f
hg er b -
~
y I
l 1
Ccncurrerice i
l C erations- '
'*( a O:l % L }!' h -
..' : ;"' 6 I ~. *& !
V '
l / i j teg1reering .. ,
l i :r"se ff. M 4) %%,.,. n;O ^"* u/// I'76 l 1
1 i Licens1rA:) U fr V
-v"'t))! /a .sid.f d?% in in, n ;"' 6 /i L l'iL \
l .y ' ' '
l Plant Review Committee PRC Mtg Number:C16 - D Date:(r/to/fG PRC Chairman b
)
..~ . ..
< i ENCLOSURE 1 l i.
(Page 1 of 3) 1 i
Operability Concern Resolution l "tg b?:t- : esc ;t ce f $$ Neas.3 Arc Tyr 42ds,Arg4 waa,-ja r$44 ,(,
i j
l rn S H - l 5 B - Vt.R:74% Mb & cA.O aaa.$dwrVE 85 s. ,e ;
m 5 4 - 2M G b dJT44d"
- k/4'3 d"0 d5d dN !
l l .
l 1 l JL i
- l " ***'M M5- % - A5 M- 136 /2 76 "'"*"
d I 2'** s'f,5 '
Hai l j 3 :::em aecert %,noer aess :ect g :a:e >
i I Operations (( Conditionally 1
Operable /
j Imediate Potentially
+
Inoperable j Disposition
() Irocerable >
i Risk Level [] Level 1 t i
i [] Level 2 {
level 3 I
,4
((]
[ 1evel 4 I
I 1
l Basis for Immediate Disposition: $64 FTQM4d M-
- s:ci :so'e. crevice *eason'ng d:' :ectston regaroteg saf est sc:t:n 'cr tae :*vt A #"- 'd b"I W I
hofs t.,,,, , $c.) e A (&WV0 *$ 'W'UN A,
2 mww~m voc wr ra n.e-2pst D n 0 n "*--
f, asis for s e kisk Level and Target Date/sus sa.$AWS Wk MTime:
1
.t c m c+:nAlcyl- Nd 1
AICAI -$l 6.5s'4 4 l
5s00 Desired Target Date/ Time: 5'f a % PSAM' Color: IMM j
//
}
l 5500h ;4termej 4g i
- 1 v l Person (s) Providtog Information g A,g PMne gj 7z l 4 tsk Level 1
- Evaluation is to proceed continuously untti the OCR is delivered to the 5500.
Risk Level 2; Evaluation is to proceed on day snif t continuously through the weekends and no hoays.
j- Risk Level 3: Evaluation is to proceed as too priority on day shif t of weekdays only.
4 j 4tsk Level 4: Evaluetton is to be controlled by the Prodlem Report Corrective Action Plan. 4nagers should review the timing of the CAP step for the OCR comeletion and ensure it 's timely l and prcuet.
Y AU. D, t%t$4t.\he1 1 HM%% AM. M W T W ** W 1
CP-150 Rev. 1 Page 19
es. C+ a-
- ner e..e ,.
(Page 2 of 3)
Operability Concerns Resolution Report Checklist
. - .:= t =_-- : . . : : ..:: I j
l cca Number Revtaton cat. ' i
- s. u.nzu..:s : s .
- g. ,,/yg ,
e
- w. 'r ...t , K .1 s- w
.: Descr10 tion and Pur00se
[<; e-;5:~3 : ;! re
- rcee9
- x) .
- ' bms 3rces of :150 very tescr*:ec
's;
. C: ::reat ;!early Cescritec Safety Cl3151ficat10n s
. 2. ../ . ..3 s..e .. 2... . .... ..a...... ~
2.,.. .2.,. .. ,
j 1
- . l
- greeet l'.0?".$1*C
..,..a .... ... 93s15 ..r, .* . 2.
343 ::... a.g..
,2.r,. .. , ..3 .: ., .
3..
,...s -
-s n. .. . .:.
. ..a4 ..
' . ..., ... a ,. .s.er.$ ,.....
s,.
. 1..
- a. .. .., . s ..,
~
. . .. ......s.as..
a.. .
...s.,.. .. r....,
.r. ., ..- .
- s. .3 .e . ,2 .a . 3.3r f. s,.2.,.....
Cesce10t10n Sf I eatified Cancern
- ~4;it
, , t
,, .;";3'".e..../e
.-.a.*
...,a. e.s3.'.
~n s... .e. .......ea.e,.
.. o.e..... .. .. ....:.....s...
.a..
. . . 4.-e .a
.. t. . d . ,... e s. $ g e.t..s * .a.n. *f 3-a.. .. * . .a .- l a.
~
. [mcact An51v515 ind Deliability cop 51derst10Ps l
- 2. . 3.... .,,
. . . a. e. .. .. .,,.. ,. . 3s...a ; ....s.e
. . 5 i
- '3]
, ' 03;; *f : r.cern in ie *1:n 2 : :: 03*i' i;31's: i3:* 3:
- 3#*. ' " e" *. " i !
~ '
l 3
.; ,1..., s...,,,.. s ., .....
'. ... ./ . . .
."/ 3 ) V';3 n ** ... e.. e< . 13'aed 3rG 3ra'j:-* ;
i PSA Evaluetten !
.j ,c; e....,.
e... 2
. ... ..j..
.. .. 3. 5 3 ;
i
- er!:?' !/ Ev3 .3 1:n 1 l Iriae" 43 $n '* st1'l :er'Orm 'ts '.* ti:n 3r: *:m'7 l
'.*/ 31 a nat 3:c1: :-3i e3sares See e:. e: : e 3c'e r s :: :: er- - - -
Its ' ant:1:n"'
E =
- e**. Of 2.31 * * * :3:1:n Oescritec.
- er3 Die. fully cuallf'ed
[*))
g '3 a
'n'3J
- erable but Cegr3:ec
- er3 Die i
3: . 5: 30' n ':P C0ntirued Ocerati n
- "3; [
- 09 Of ! ant 00 erat 10n
- ,a/ aj , aecuire
- :mcensat:ry measures
- .a/SJ ' aetscr5 ;ast1fy1ng 3 Dove 9
- *:rrective
~'
acti:n to Ctt31n Full Ca31?'*:3::On 4 Wr3t nas to te : ne to ::: sin 'all :Lal t P :st* :r?
4 'j
.< 'ahen 'a111 It te 3ccamc11sne:?
l 10.3 "eferences J
j 11.3 attacr ents and Figures i
m Geport writer 04ter ime W
0-
$ // fh /$0 l b
- s
i 1
4
O- Operability Concerns Resolution Report OCR Number: MS 96 MSH 13B/27B Rev. 1 l
i M
Purpose:
This OCR repon is to document the condition and operability status of two Main Steam Hangers. These hangers are tagged MSH-13B and MSH-27B. The concern is that these two hangers were observed to have bent hanger rods. This concern is documented on Precursor Card 96-2535 and Problem Repon 96-0180. This concern also is documented in the Nuclear Shift Supervisors' Log.
The circumstances of discovery are detailed on Precursor Card 96-2535. The hangers were found with bent rods on a routine walkdown by Operations.
-M Safety Classification:
The hangers are located on sections of pipe that are classified by the flow diagrams and analysis isometrics (see Attachments) as Non-safety related, ISI Class 4. and non-seismic (S-III). However. it is recognized that these hangers should be treated as O seismic hangers to insure the integrity of the class break. The class break is currently shown at the isolation valves (MSV-413 and MSV-,14).
M Current Licencine Bask:
Per the drawings listed above, these two hangers are on r: ping qualified to 831.1-1967 piping code. This is required per FSAR Section 1.3.2.12.
M Description of Identified Concern:
1 Two Main Steam Hangers, MSH-13B, and MSH-27B were found on a routine walkdown to have bent rods. Both pipe supports are classified as rod hangers. That is, they are designed only to resist the vertical down load of the piping they are supporting. This type of pipe suppon is not designed for supporting vertical up load. !
lateral load, or axial pipe load. Pipe suppon drawings for these hangers show the rods to be 2" in diameter.
M Imoact Annivsis and Rallahility ConsidaeG.;as:
These hangers are downstream of isolation valves. Failure of these hangers might lead to a Main Steam line break downstream of these valves. Main Steam line failures are dirM in detail in Chapter 14 of the FSAR. This analysis assumes several break locations and the worst scenario is failure of all steam lines outside the O--
1 of 4
O Operability Concerns Resolution Report OCR Number: MS 96 MSH 13B/27B. Rev. 1 Reactor Building. As discussed in FSAR Section 14.2.2.1.5. Case III. this scenario does not result in unacceptable challenges to the safety of the plant.
LQ PSA Evaluation:
The low frequency associated with a seismic event in Florida reduces any concem associated with a seismically induced Main Steam line break caused by failure of these rod hangers. Furthermore. a seismically, or non-seismically, induced Main
. Steam line break is not considered a significant risk contributor to the core damage frequency at CR3.
LQ Ooerability Evaluation:
These two pipe supports are rod hangers. This type of pipe support transfers the vertical down pipe loads using a clamp around the pipe, tied to the supporting structure using round rod tension member.
O A review of the loads associated with these two supports (piping analyses CR-5 ed CR-6) and a check of the suppon members and their associated capacities has 'ceen done (Reference 10.6). It is engineering's position that the hangers will perform their intended vettical load function in their current condition.
As stated above, these two supports are designed to withstand the vertical down load from the pipe. The bend in the rod does not affect this function. The bend will not -
affect the capacity of the rod. If the hanger rods see their design load. then this load would only serve to " straighten out" the rod to its normal position. This is based on the ductile nature of the rod material.
The bent rods are fabricated from carbon steel. The hanger drawings show the rods to be made with ASTM A575 material. The exact grade of A575 material is not specified on the hanger bill-of-material. An inspection of the ASTM shows the majority of A575 grades (8 out of 10) to have a carbon content of less than 0.30%.
Generally, a carbon content of less than 0.30% is considered mild steel and the material can be considered ductile. The two grades of A575 that have carbon content between 0.30% and 0.50% fall outside of the mild steel classification but are still ductile. Reference 10.8 states that steel with higher levels of carbon will see some decrease in ductility. Per, Reference 10.8, the percent ductility at a carbon content of 0.30% is arottnd 30%. At a carbon content of 0.50% the percent ductility drops to around 20%. Tids approximate 10% drop is ductility (for the higher carbon content grades) is still considered acceptable.
2 of 4 i
g Operability Concerns Resolution Report (g OCR Number: MS 96 MSH 138/278. Rev. 1 Based on the above. cold bending at the radius shown by the bent bars does not reduce the load carrying capacity of these rods.
In addition to the above discussion on the rod hangers. a review of the piping and adjacent supports was also done. This review /walkdown found no evidence of damaged pipe supports. No damage to support base plates or grout pads. No indications of anchor bolts slippage or damage. No indication of damaged or overstressed welds.
Adjacent snubbers and spring can components all appeared adequate. The snubber struts appeared acceptable. No evidence could be found of crubber Guid teaks. TN spring cans appeared to have all the travel stops removed. The springs all ;ppeare.i to have adequate travel clearance in both directions.
There were some areas were insuittion was damaged. missing. or not sealed completely. Engineering considers this to be due more to lack of good housekeeping or normal pipe vibrations than to any sort of system failure.
I
(]
The walkdown showed no significant damage to piping, pipe cupports. or other attached smaller piping. Whatever the cause of the bent hanger rods ISISH-138 and 4
NISH-27B) there is no evidence of culateral damq;e to erner .omponents.
J 8 Justification for Continued Goeration:
As stated above, the rod hangers are considered operable for all plant modes. There is no loss of strength in the rods and the rods can perform their design function.
J 9 Corrective Action to Obtain Full Oualification:
The bent rods have been determined to be operable. However, the rods should be replaced simply because it is good work practice to do so.
1ja
References:
10.1 Precursor Card 96-2535 10.2 Problem Report 96-0180 10.3 302-011, Sheet 1, Revision 57 10.4 305-752, Revision 2 10.5 305-753, Revision 1 10.6 CC: Mail's from Joe Lese, dated 5/13/96 O
V 3 of 4
F i
Operability Concerns' Resolution Report !
OCR Number: MS 96 MSH 138/278. Rev. 1 ,
1 10.7 CC: Mail from Ed Morea, dated 5/15/96 l 10.8 " Element of Material Science and Engineering." by Van Vlack. Pages 154 and ;
355 i i
ILS Attachments and Fleures:
l
- 1 11.1 Partial Copy of Drawing 305-752 l 11,2 Partial Copy of Drawing 305-753 11.3 Photographs of two hangers in the as found condition l
l j
l 4 Of J
l CQ I ,s wR BR XB E
? Aryx pa n t //. / @m; sm. u >
a
.l se org ./ SETAILX O g, f- Ms-te-MsH- /19/274 Sg y 4D N
9 s c 31 sa 0
9 s E fyte, si * ,c - '!. "l. d o k*3g' ' , j l
' l' e
" c[
E 'E%, ,# , 4 s.
_w,; ) %,,,s.f. k ssn.n) f,** 5,^ ***,*
90
,[44- %j o (MSH-23D 39 g 3g f<
,rs"%.4 -.,
,cN x N %s, y
- :s n *
~
1, Msw. zs) Js, 6--( e 2~* s .
@ gg l .
"5" "' ) usa.iu a
,, 3 yj
- 0 i , 1.0 M sH-16) { '
N MSH ntl -
.O- ~<
E d,
'A~ E (MsV N E63 'h
,, / .
aq 4
g5a %m.
Fm
- o. W. 'g. i esa s
...e
.s. % ,r
, n e e.,
x%... .N+nm Rg
) g %.
%,, -.okjgeazi9,,,mA
- g a
a 3,
f%ep <_. A s e yE tusay
- E N - s -
N l
g}.y,'.oE,.l- a.
l
~
- N Q i 53 1.i a
)9 .
E .A'A' 8
g>
j w ] %
Q Q ,
%.'s 7:
1
~
owe sos-m d* w%
lo
- cR-r $@
(* l
\. fYf . . ,
n Y,trxNwar =,
M2 4
~ ,...
, Y
- .sw%. a ocg
- tN nf ""
j.
+ew , .
ps.96.p/278 s' $
{
% ([,9 4 j
4 0 0 \ #
Q,*.Ie 44 musH "TW d C, o
i m*
g ,3 3 Q
- Sw 21Q e i
e t/ r -"
- t' 4' A2/esp. .
d - ~ 1
., si '
- - -5
- j, s .ne,a Ek it3331' _ ,e,'#
F~=i i u
@', s' s ugwio) '
6
! 1. , b 4 I
- _wt20 DETAIL 'O' g gg , ,, )
rMS
'{o wp'g - ).y'- y g
1 j (w&M-tS
- i % I *
- / N (us+ ~~
e *
(WSWce - uswitz) ( A 96
'b- / 4 (gep ,g ) r
,ssa 8 '
rg, 4,g,,% .
s, g,',llC ,-tu3 % .cu ss
,p
[ /
7 ~
p M{ (,, , ,, 3 s,sw<n i p. ,
- N . cud d at ) - **
n'
,, s.
'i
~
n, * %,. . . . , . ~ * '
i 74 3
og'fg l
i
- 3, '*
~ ows: MS- 753
. O CR-6 4 5 2
)
, s_h u _ gas,,,e - -
,,i me,s e.,se ----maa---- ,
a trncexcw u. 3 l
l.
ocR: yv. yg.my. gg/,,, ,t ...
O Y .
i q:-
- 7.yg 97
' ' i' -
~
j
' M A s -
,g -
g_g g % @ d-
'O j'
~
l j
NpWy* -} . ,
s -
i h
, t MfM
~
m iO M-T@ .
M- ob if O
- - - - o----m, em,
ENCLOSURE ? Ip3ce
- 9 5' PROBLEM REPORT PR 96 -9dp n,,: 1 l
. PART 1A: IMITIATION fit 10 NANGERS MSN 135 Als MSN-27B BEMT
( covery Method: VISUAL 08SERVAflON Descovery Dere: Occurrence Date & Tirne: Precursor Card Number S,10,9a UNKNOWN Plant Conetson: MCDE 3 OTSG-LLL NORM AL SYSTEM PRESSURE AND TEMP Eguepment Tag Numbertal: HANGERS MSH 138 AND MSH 278 l
Ptsnt Location (Budding) (NTEAMEDIATE ButLDING 119' l Elevation) 119' ( Are . Room)
Description of the Condition / Event: WHILE IN THE INTERMEDIATE BulLDING, AN OPERATCR NOTICE 0 A VERTICAL MANGER ROD ON THE 9-1 STEAM LINE POSSIBLE FROM IMPACT A0A!NST A HORIZONTAL SLPPORT. FURTHER INVESTIGATIO4 REVEALED THAT THE IDENTICAL SUPPORT ONDOWNSTREAM THE B2 OF THE MSIV CF THAT wSv 1APPEARED
.AS T ALSO BENT, BUT NOT TO THE SAME EXTENT. A PRECLRSOR CAf!D WAS WRITTEN AND CCR WAS OENERATED (OCR MS 96 =SM 13d/27B)
I is this problem a Radiological Safety Concern?
[X] NO ( ) YES Inomediately contact HP Servisor for prooer doctamentation.
Re@irement(s) Violated: NONE i sociated/Related Doctaments: N/A Isumediate Actions Taken: NOTIFIED SHIFT MANAGEMENT AND DESIGN ENGINEERING l
Originator: RAWLS, R.E Date: 5/29/96 l PART 15: EVALUATION 1 / // . l This PR mas been evaluated f or operability (SS(2 Signature]: [ 7[ systern/Trem safety Function Lost: th
[ ] KN0bal 081 ( ) SUSPECTED DSI [ X ] Not a DSI Severity Level:
h No YES X Part 2 required if YES REPORTA8LE:
X TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION VIOLATION:
UNPLANNED RELEASE: X Recomumendations for Resolving the Problem: MODIFY OR REPLACE MANGER Recommended Responsihje _OpMign: A/ @ Responsible Manager: NASEDA
^ Shift Manager: [@f/ gQJ PR lasue Date: ggy pg 1/96 / RET: Life of P' ant RESP Nucrear Ocorators 900 973
- mJ a %s.:::
- u .e
, PROBLEM REPQRT PR 96-0180 Page n i
/~ ^ ' DART 3 4 SECTION A: PROBLEM INVESTIGATION AND CAUSE ANALYSIS k .) Method of Performing Cause Analysis: [ ] Structured Analysis (X) Deductive Logic g) CHEtn ALL cees rNM APPLT, AND FILL W CME COPE 5:
Human performance
( ) Verbal Consnunication ( ) Work Organization / !,
[ ] Written Communication Planning I ] Change Management
( ) Training / Qualification ( ) Resource Management
[ ] Work schedule
[x] Work practices 55Z** I ] Environmental l[
[ ] Supervisory Methods conditions
[ ] Managerial Methods [
[] Interfece Design or j Equipment condition g
Eautement Performance (x) Plant / System Operation p22**
C ] Maintenance / Testing I ] Design
[ ] Equipment Spec / Mfg and ( ) External Construction Config/ Analysis
- ' Bending of existing i structural c:morent due ,
to unantic Wated !ca:Ing y ,
f' (34) Pr1 mary Cause(s): I The primary cause of the two bent hanger rods is buckling or bending in the rods due to excessive, or inapprcpriate The hanger rods are primarily designed to withstand only vertical dead load. , l:acs. l loading, or lateral loads. They are not designed to withstand ve-ticat o The exact cause of the bent rods cannot be determined at this point. Engineering believes the primary cause of the r:cs !
bsnding items areisdiscussed from upliftfurther on theonpipe, or by some sort the continuation page. of rigging off of the rod hangers that caused bending in the rods. Pese f
The piping analysis shows these two hangers to be basically deadweight rod hangers.
waight, thermal, and Seismic loads existing on these supports. There is e an uplift seismic load conponentThe current ana in tae analysis.
However, o an unanalyzedthis is load due case.
to an abnormality in the analysis technique used. Any uDlift load that caused the bent r cs culd be L e Continued:
I (3b) Secondary Cause(s):
see section 3a.
(3c) Contributing Factor (s) : i See Section 3a. l H1 SUPPORTING INFORMATION (IF APPUCABLE):
LER No 1 l PROCEDURE Not l WR No:
OTHERg I
(5) Previous 51m11ar Events / Conditions None (6) Manufacturer / Nameplate Data:
n/a (7) Nonconforming Equipment / Material Disposition:
, [ ] N/A (no nonconfomnq ecutoment or material involved) ( ) Accept-As Is* [ ] Repair *
( ) Other (describe): (x) Rework
- Engineering Justification and Approval Required for these Dispositions (obtain docunentation and attach) g {3) Maintenance Preventable Functional Failure (MPFF):
( ) No I ] INITIAL I ] REPETITIVE b%
RET Life of plant kESP. Nuclear Jperations G M 6 .* i;
i i
t%e.: ster 2 laa ge 5 : 4 5; 1
PROBLEM REPORT PR E . 0180 i PART 3a: CONTIMJATION SHEET Thsre are two main possibilities for the bent rods. The first possibility consicered is that some sort of system transient 1
crused a large vertical up load that then caused the rod to buckle in compression. This system transient may have been the ;
risult of a waterhamer, steamhaniner, cycling of the MSIV's, cycling the governor valves, or even a turbine trip.
Any one of the load sources mentioned above might have Caused the pipe to jump up. However, an inspection of adjacent pipe supports, attached piping, and other componentt show no other collateral damage. Also, no reports of recent waterma*1mer or st amhansner events have been reported to NED on this section of piping. A section of this piping was subjected to atermarvner sIveral years ago. The piping und supports were inspected at that time. These hangers were not damaged by that past event. l Th3 results of a transient load due to valve cycling is consioered to have less of an impact of the supports than a transieat due to waterhansners or a turbine trip.
)
l Oro of the steps taken to verify if the rods bent due to a transient load was to examine the adjacent piping, pipe sucoorts, tnd other attached components. A walkcown was done that found no evidence of damaged pipe supporto. No damage to support case i
plates or grout pads. ko indications of anchor bolts slippage or damage. No indication of damaged or overstressed .eles, i
, 1 l
Snubbers and Spring Can components or. supports near the bent rods all appeared adequate. The snubber struts appeared l
ceceptable. No evidence could be found of snubber fluid leaks. The spring cans appeared to have all the travel steps remosec. . j' i
Th3 springs all appeared to have adequate travel clearance in both directions. j i i i !
ThIre were some areas were insulation was damaged, missing, or not sealed completely. Engineering consicers this to =e cue { ;
ore to lack of good housekeeping or normal pipe vibrations than to any s:,rt of system f ailure, f j I i ThIrefore, if the cause of the bent rods was due to some sort of transient load, no evidence could be found that .ould *cicate ! j a corgern for the remainder of the system. l Th3 other main possibility for the bent rods is related to.some sort of maintenance activity. Such as vertical uplift teacs being placed on the pipe during maintenance activities on the adjacent isolation valves, if sufficient forr.e as applied . nite trying to remove the operator, and the operator stuck, then the force would apply uplift to the pipe. This uplift mignt
- ave beIn enuugh to buckle to rods. l Related to maintenance activities causing the bent rods is that some lateral, or bending, load was applied to the rocs. This load may be due to some type of temocrary " rigging" load applied to the rod, just above the turnbuckle. The exact source of tha rigging lead cannot be determined.
8:nding of these hanger rods is considered an isolated case. There is no evidence this is a generic concern or trat otrer hingers require investigation.
l It should be noted; that the Safety Class and 151 Class of these supports is not currently specified in the CR3 Configuration Management System (CMIS). The Seismic Class is established as Class 111, or non seismic (this is in agreement with tre oicing citssification). The safety classification and the ISI classification needs to be better established to insure proper ev Lustion,of the significance of these and similar supports during maintenance activities. A CMIS code key should be developed. It would identify pipe supports, supporting nonsafety piping, that are required to ensure the integrity of safety r3 Lated piping.
'v ' b W kET U f t Of Plant RLLP . %c r ear F M ' A * * .75 I
l I
E T LCSL.;E I .; ige - ;f 3 l PROBLEM REPORT PR 96-0180 j
C Page _
,,AT 3 SECTION B: Correct 1ve Action Plan (CAP) { i o> Corrective Action Plan: SCHEDULED ACTIONS ASSIGNED CRGANIZATICN/ hDIV![UAL CCMPLETION
- 1. Complete Operanslity Concern Resolution (OCR) Completed NED Structural, A. Petrowsky l 1
- 2. Replace bent hanger rods on MSH 13B and MSH 278.
- G ;; . m pip;ng , , -
Ma. v . .~. ny g waintenance, Seledel-Je mpoell/4.V,en' eed
, i.m 4 3. Complete piping class break review and revision of support safety, NED Structural, J
j !$1, and seismic classifications. This is necetsary to assure 12/1/96 A. Petrowsky that supports in vicinity of class breaks are correctly classified !
to preserve the integrity of the class break.
)
Structural Design Supervisor to review current training program NED Structural Design
< 4.
- for rigging and provide comments to training. this will be 10/1/96 Supervisor, A. Petr:.suy
- accomplished by auditing training class on rigging.
I Maintenance to develop appropriate " Study Books" on rigging Maintenance, 5.
practices. This is to ensure rigging off of piping, conduits, and 12/1/96 Jerry Campoett supports is done so no damage results from the rigging. Reference g[
Problem Reports recently issued that indicate damage to plant components might have been due to rigging. For example, this j Problem Report (96 0180); Proolem Report 96 0155, "RWM 66A
' Embedded Plate Concrete Spalling;" Problem Report 96 0101,aRW Spool Piece (RW 56) Lower Flange Aligriment Rejection." l ll V)
/
(2) ADDlIIONAL CAP INFOP#.ATION: None
.h Developed Dy <;nnt & pgro: C. Glenn Pugh Date:
9} Respon51 Die Organ 1zation Approval Dy (priet a sign):
36 h*MSc.W
[
of y- -
4//////
Date:
m NSM CAP Concurrence: (print & sign):
R ,
n' ' t 1 IARi'3C: FINAL P,EVIEW 0F COMPLETED CORRECTIVE ACTIONS BY THE TTG J tomments:
(2) TTE final Package Review wrint s sigrot . ,Date:.
RET. Life of Plant RESP Nucteer operations 901 ::5 ': 9 :)
, OWHEN %g COMPLETE. TRANSMIT TO TTG.
l O
l PRC Addition to PR 96-0180 The normal process for processing operability concerns was not followed in this case, j The normal process is to write a problem report, develop a CP-150 OCR, and then make an operability determination. In this case, the operability determination was made first, then the OCR, and now the problem report. An investigation needs to be l performed on the use of this process and ensure th individuals involved understand the process. The NSS involved has already been coached on the use of the process.
t b-}0 .vb n l
I G.b. Halnon PRC Chairman f/h4/ (.
Nfd s' f6 y J. #6 N & 15 <~ A p
& Y a as 3 y M z : " s K- 4 m n AWA M & m&L
.uZ i ~ ." aa ax 7-nu v 4 /9 .. :. z : - 4 6 l
- o. sm '
% ceneut .
n /i a
(.
Y, 'W N l
- J(
t b
4
.