ML20127L784
| ML20127L784 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron, Braidwood, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 04/22/1985 |
| From: | Tramm T COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| 9997N, NUDOCS 8506280132 | |
| Download: ML20127L784 (5) | |
Text
r Commonwealth Edison One FirJt National Plaza Chic?go tilsnois Address Reply to: Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 April 22, 1985 r'"
- ~S g g y..".g,g-n e t. " -
~
1_,,,....#. w s.,.c -
.g
- v' ' 4Y 5K i*dj{,[1 ;(
i4:ggpf,gg ;.;;;.;gp,y,, %gg'Wiip
,pj;.g.
~ ~ -
\\
Q,ja w RM.u R Mr. James G.'keppler Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region Ill 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Subject:
Byron Generating Station Units 1 and 2 Braidwood Generating Station Units 1 and 2 Design Concerns l
I&E Inspection Report Nos. 50-454/84-71, 50-455/84-49, 50-456/84-43 and 50-457/84-39 References (a): October 22, 1984 letter from L. O. DelGeorge to J. G. Keppler.
(b): December 11, 1984 letter from T. R. Tramm to J. G. Keppler.
(c): March 15, 1985 letter from J. F. Streeter to Cordell Reed.
Dear Mr. Keppler:
3 This letter provides for the record corrected pages for two letters which were previously supplied by Commonwealth Edison to the NRC. This information relates to the NRC's investigation of design concerns expressed by an Intervenor's expert witness which was documented in reference (a).
These revisions are submitted to fulfill commitments made during the NRC investigation. They contain no new information.
On Thursday, January 31, 1985, Mr. T. G. Longlais of Sargent &
Lundy, met with Mr. J. Muffett of NRC Region III to discuss the support member that was reported to have a slenderness ratio (Kl/r) over 300. Mr.
Longlais stated that based upon further review of hanger number S-2214 on drawing M-1326-4, the revised Kl/r value is 291. This revision was due to the selection of an original K value of 2.0, which ignored the presence of a brace. The brace provides lateral support and a 1.2 value for K is more appropriate. Page 15 of reference (a) has been appropriately revised.
It is enclosed and is labeled " Table 1".
ADDn n 4 1
8506280132 850422 tifn6J lnnr000 PDR ADOCK 05000454 0
PDR s,tw
l
' J.- G. Keppler : April 22, 1985 Also enclosed are revised pages 15 and 16 of the attachment to
' reference ~ (b). Typographical errors have been corrected.
'Please direct further questions regarding these matters to this office.
Very truly yours,.
%/,[ h I
T. R. Tramm Nuclear Licensing Administrator 1m Attachment.
9997N
.i i
e 4
1 r
a l
i f
I.
L 2
. g p :.
TABLE 1
-BYRON - UNIT 1 p
HVAC MEMBER SLENDERNESS RATIO SURVEY n
TENSION SYSTEM (CEILING MOUNTED)
On Drawing Member K1 Serial F"loor Number Hanger Type r
f F
f
-Number Elev.
M-Number 1
2 3
4
((si)
(ksi)
F
~
Al 364-0
' 1311-5 S-322 X
237 1.33 4.27 0.31 rt '
A2 X
237 1.33 4.27 0.31 A3 401-0 1313-3 S-1210 X
212 1.12 5.33 0.21 A4 X
212 1.12 5.33 0.21 A5 401-0 1313-3 S-1211 X
219 0.20 4.97 0.04 m
A6 X
219, 0.20 4.97 0.04 A7 401-0 1313-5 S-1104 X
285 0.47 2.96 0.16 A8 X
285 0.47 2.96 0.16
' A9 401-0 1313-5 S-1108 X
219 1.75 4.98 0.35 A10 X
219 1.75 4.98 0.35
. All 401-0 1313-5 S-1110 X
245 0.29 3.98 0.07 A12 X
245 0.29 3.98 0.07 A13 463-5 1326-4 S-2214 X
291 0.36 1.76 0.20 A14 X
291 0.36 1.76 0.20 NOTE:
Fa is based on 1.6 x AISC equation 1.5-2 All of these hangers are located in the Auxiliary Buidling.
o
. '. ~
j r
s, 4
.e.
Load Direction The most critical applied piping load is a load crea', ting torsion on a member.
The # factor does' not account for this effec.t and thus, separate' hand calculations must be performed i
i to account for this effect.
An applied vertical piping load on a member produces no tor-sion and thus, a load from any tolerance creating torsion changes a torsional stress from 0% to some finite number which theoretically is an infinite percentage increase; whereas, a load from any tolerance causing torsion on a member already designed for an applied piping load that produces torsion will have a substantially lower percentage increase than one with a vertically applied loading producing no torsion.
All 5 factor calculations were performed with the most conser-vative direction of the applied piping load - the direction l
I vertical to the member.
In an actual calculation where the l
actual applied piping load is at an angle to the member, l
l the components of this loading are considered in a manually l
performed detailed analysis.
t I
f.
Load magnitude l
l Various magnitudes of loadings were selected to assure I R
D 15.
7
'j,..-,
r.
1.0 or as close as possible.
This has the same effect
=
R as ensuring that various loading magnitudes were considered.
'i Tables 15.1 and 15.2 summarizes the calculations;p*erformed,,
and a detailed discussion on the results obtained follows.
l r
ur e
g
.4 f
G e
O O
e e
e O
9 5
y..
16.
. - -