ML20205K265
| ML20205K265 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 02/21/1986 |
| From: | Terao D NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM) |
| To: | Shao L NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8602270233 | |
| Download: ML20205K265 (62) | |
Text
,
EM C
UNITED STATES f.
p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g[
g6 j r
wassincros. o. c. 20sss
%*****.l C /rm FEB 211996 Docket Nos. 50-445/50-446 MEMORANDUM FOR:
L. C. Shao, Group Leader, Comanche Peak Task Force FROM:
D. Terao, Piping & Supports Leader, Comanche Peak Task Force
SUBJECT:
AUDIT
SUMMARY
OF SPECIAL TECHNICAL ISSUES On February 11-12, 1986, the NRC staff and its consultants conducted an audit at the offices of Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) in Cherry Hill, NJ. The purpose of the audit was to review the resolutions of the special technical issues. This activity is part of the implementation of the Comanche Peak CPRT Program Plan described in DSAP IX Attachment 2.
A list of attendees at the audit is provided in Attachment 1 to this memorandum.
The special technical issues consist of those external source issues associated with the piping and supports discipline which were previously raised by the Although the third-party (TERA)yle concerns), CYGNA, and the NRC staff.
intervenor CASE (e.g., Walth/Do organization is responsible for the identification, review, and tracking of the resolutions of the external source issues (and this effort is being reviewed by the I&E DAP evaluation team), the implementation of the resolutions for many of the external source issues in the piping and supports requalification program is the responsibility of SWEC.
Additionally, the development of many of the technical resolutions was performed by SWEC and was incorporated into the SWEC Project Procedure CPPP-7,
" Design Criteria for Pipe Stress and Pipe Supports."
The staff audit on February 11-12, 1986, was the first of a series of audits to review the resolutions of the special technical issues. The audit included a j
review of the first 13 issues which have been completed by SWEC. The resolutions of issues have been documented in a SWEC report entitled, " Report on Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation's Evaluation of Generic Technical Issues." Each technical issue resolution is addressed in the report in a separate appendix. The staff was provided a preliminary copy of the appendices for the 13 issues reviewed during the audit and it is attached to this memorandum as Attachment 2.
i i
l
/f 1
8602270233 060221 I l PDR ADOCK 05000445 r
A PDR k
J
FEB 211996 The 13 special technical issues covered in this audit included the following topics:
1.
A500 Grade B Tube Steel (Appendix I) 2.
AWS vs ASME Code Provisions (Appendix H) 3.
Mass Point Spacing (Appendix Q) 4.
High Frequency Mass Participation (Appendix R) 5.
Friction Forces (Appendix G) 6.
Section Properties (Appendix J) 7.
U-Bolt Acting as 2-Way Restraint (Appendix F) 8.
OBE/SSE Damping (Appendix N) 9.
Support Mass in Piping Analysis (Appendix 0)
- 10. Piping Modelling (Appendix Z)
- 11. Support / System Stability (Appendix P) 12.IterativeDesign(AppendixP)
- 13. Fluid Transients (Appendix S)
The agenda of the audit is given in Attachment 3 to this memorandum. The following paragraphs sumarize the issue resolutions and their implementation as discussed during the audit.
1.
A500 Grade B Tube Steel (Appendix I)
Issue Resolution: SWEC stated that the ASME Code Case N-71 is currently being reviewed by the ASME Code Committee to revise the A500 Grade B tube steel yield strength from 36 ksi back to 42 ksi based on TUGC0 and TVA test data. However, in the interim, designs at CPSES will use a yield stress of 36 ksi per N-71-10.
Designs which require 42 ksi to pass will be noted with " confirmation required" in the pipe support calculation index until the revised code case is issued and approved. SWEC does not anticipate that many pipe support designs will need to use the 42 ksi yield strength for adequacy.'
Implementation:
In CPPP-7. Section 4.7.2.1, the use of 36 ksi yield strength for A500 Grade B tube steel is specified. Furthermore, it specifies that if 42 ksi yield stress is needed to qualify the support, then it may be used on a case-by-case basis with confirmation required for each of these calculations.
2.
AWS vs ASME Code Provisions (Appendix H)
Issue Resolution:
SWEC has developed weld design guidelines to assure that AWS and ASME requirements are satisfied. The true effective throat will be used in design of welds.
In addition, welds on angles greater than 135 degrees will not be considered in support designs.
FEB 911996 O Implementation: CPPP-7, Attachment 4-2, Section 8.2 contains the effective throats to be used in skewed fillet welds.
3.
Mass Point 3 pacing (A3pendix Q)
Issue Resolution: SWEC developed guidelines for locating lumped mass points in piping systems. Mass point spacing is a review item in the CPPP-6 pipe stress analysis checklist.
Implementation: The guidelines for locating mass points in the pipe stress analysis is included in Section 3.10.6.1 and Attachment 3-7 of CPPP-7. Mass point spacing is a review item in the pipe stress analysis checklist of CPPP-6 Attachment 9-9.
4.
High Frequency Mass Participation (Appendix R)
Issue Resolution: SWEC conducted a study of seven sample piping stress problems consisting of both large and small bore piping and determined that piping frequencies at CPSES,are generally high due to short support span lengths and that high freqtancy mass correction is required in order to obtain the proper support loads. SWEC developed guidelines for the stress analysts consisting of the following two methods to be used for the seismicanalysisofCPgESpiping:
a)
Seismic amplified response spectra modal analysis with a 50 hz cutoff frequency including missing mass correction as provided in NUPIPE-SW, version 4, level 2, or later shall be used.
b)
A constant acceleration analysis using the zero period acceleration values in all three orthogonal directions shall be performed. The results should be combined with 50 bz results by the square-root-of-the-sum-of-the-squares (SRSS) method.
Implementation: 'SWEC has incorporated the missing mass correction i
capability in NUPIPE-SW, version 4, level 2.
A procedure for the missing mass criteria has been included in the design criteria CPPP-7, Section 3.10.6.8.
To ensure proper implementation of the missing mass I
requirements, a review item was included in the pipe stress analysis checklist (CPPP-6, Attachment 9-9).
5.
Friction Forces (Appendix G)
Issue Resolution: SWEC determined that the friction force imposed on a support by the pipe due to static loadings is the lesser of the friction coefficient times the normal force or the support stiffness times the pipe displacement. Thus, the pipe support engineer is required to calculate both values and to use the lesser value in the support design.
Implementation: CPPP-7, Section 4.7.3 and Attachment 4.7 contain the guidelines to calculate friction forces for all pf pe static displacements.
l 1
FEB 21 M -
6.
Section Properties (A nendix J)
Issue Resolution: SWM determined that A500 Grade B tube steel is cold formed and has a corner radius equal to 2t. A501 tube steel is hot formed and has a radius equal to 3t. The AISC Steel Construction Manual (7th Edition) and WSTI 1984 Design Manual list section properties of hot fomed tube steel (A501). AISC (8th Edition) and WSTI 1974 (Amended) list properties of cold fomed tube steel (A500). The section properties of hot fomed (A501) tube steel is typically less than or equal to the section properties of cold formed (A500) tube steel. SWEC uses the cold formed section properties (A500) from the AISC 8th Edition. Use of AISC 7th Edition and WSTI will result in a conservative design calculation.
s In a related issue concerning flare bevel welds in tube steel designs, SWEC reviewed TUGCO's weld procedure and developed an effective throat for the flare bevel welds to be equal to the thickness of the tube steel (thickness of the thinner part joined) minus 1/16-inch.
Implementation: For the section properties, design criteria CPPP-7 Section 4.3.2.1 specifies that tube steel section properties shall be obtained from the AISC 8th Edition. For flare bevel welds, CPPP-7 Section 4.4 and Attachment 4-2, Section 9.3 specifies the effective throat to be equal to the tube steel thickness minus 1/16-inch.
7.
U-Bolt Acting as 2-Way Restraint (Appendix F)
Issue Resolution: SWEC established that U-bolts on rigid structures which could restrain the piping in two orthogonal in-plane directions will not be used for piping with 8-inch nominal pipe diameters or larger. The U-bolt will be modelled as a 2-way restraint in the pipe stress analysis for piping less than or equal to 6 inches. The U-bolt model will be based on U-bolt stiffnesses in the U-bolt axial and lateral directions developed using the STRUDL computer program. In addition, SWEC established an interaction equation considering moment, shear, and tension in the U-bolt to detennine U-bolt ratings. Based on the above, SWEC established U-bolt allowables per the ASME Code Section III Subsection NF.
Implementation: For allowable loads, the design criteria CPPP-7, -3 contains design curves and tables for various sizes of U-bol ts. For stiffnesses, Project Memorandum No. 19 contains U-bolt stiffnesses to be used in the pipe support requalification effort.
8.
OBE/SSE Damping (Appendix N?
Issue Resolution: SWEC revtewed the staff guidelines in Regulatory Guide 1.61 pertaining to the damping values to be used for piping systems which contain active valves. Although footnote 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.61 addresses active components, SWEC determined that the footnote does not apply to piping analysis because piping systems are not active components.
Piping systems containing mixed sizes (above and below 12-inch nominal pipe size) will be analyzed using the lower damping values of Regulatory Guide 1.61.
Use of higher damping values will be justified on a
FEB 211986
~,
case-by-case basis by evaluationg the composite modal damping. However, in general the SWEC piping reanalysis effort using the response spectrum method of analysis will use the damping values specified in ASME Code Case N-411 which are applicable to all pipe sizes. The use of Code Case N-411 is currently being reviewed by the NRC staff for use at CPSES.
Implementation: CPPP-7 contains guidance for the use of damping values in Section 3.4.5.4.1.
The pipe stress analysis checklist in CPPP-6 contains a review item pertaining to the proper use of damping values.
9.
Support Mass in Piping Analysis (Appendix 0)
Issue Resolution: SWEC will include the pipe support mass in the pipe stress reanalysis of CPSES piping systems. The support masses will be modelled as lumped mass points in the piping analysis model.
Implementation: The support mass will be modelled in accordance with CP)P-7. Section 3.10.4.
A procedure to include the mass of a portion of the pipe support is including in Attachment 3-4 of CPPP-7. Attachment 3-11 contains the procedures for modelling support mass eccentricities. A review item on support mass is included in the pipe stress analysis checklist in CPPP-6.
- 10. Piping Modelling (Appendix Z?
Issue Resolution: Because of the discrepancies noted by CYGNA in their Independent Assessment Program for CPSES, SWEC developed specific checklist items to be verified by the stress analysts and reviewers in the piping analysis model. Revisions and modifications to the piping models are rechecked by the SWEC program. In addition, SWEC requires all engineering mechanics division personnel involved with the pipe stress analysis to be trained in the use of SWEC procedures.
Implementation: Project Procedure CPPP-7. Section 3.10 provides guidance for the proper modelling of piping systems. CPPP-6 Attachments 9-9 and 9-10 provide detailed pipe stress and pipe support checklist, respectively.
The SWEC Engineering Assurance Division performs audits of project activities to verify that all of the procedural requirements are met and that the project work is technically adequate.
- 11. Support / System Stability (Appendix D)
Issue Resolution: SWEC reviewed the issue concerning unstable pipe supports. Based on the staff definition of instability, SWEC will modify all potentially unstable pipe support configurations to provide stability.
The modifications for zero clearnace box frames will primarily consist of either replacing the unstable support with a standard pipe clamp or replace with a rigid frame structure. For U-bolts on single struts or snubbers, SWEC redesign options will include a) cinching the U-bolt or b) replace the U-bolt assembly with a standard clamp. For multi-strutted gang support frames, SWEC will redesign them as a rigid frame. For trapeze strut supports with U-bolts, SWEC redesign options will include
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ FEB 211986 (a) replacing same with a single strut and clamp, (b) replace U-bolt with a strap and add lugs, (c) replace U-bolt with a strap and add axial supports, or (d) redesign as a frame.
For combinations of strut and axially loaded columns, SWEC developed factors to be used to account for buckling instability of the columns.
Implementation: The modifications to be used for potentially unstable supports are included in CPPP-7, Section 4.2.4 and Attachment 4-9 and Project Memorandum No. 008.
A graph to be used for determining the K-effective of a column-supported strut is included in CPPP-7, Attachment 4-9 (page 4 of 4).
12.
Iterative Design (Appendix P) l Issue Resolution: The concerns associated with the iterative process used in the piping and pipe support design were applicable during the construction /as-built phase of CPSES. The SWEC program to reevaluate and requalify all ASME Class 2 and 3 piping and Class 1, 2, and 3 pipe supports has been established to address the technical concerns which might have resulted from the previously used iterative process. The SWEC design ac.tivities are detailed in the design criteria CPPP-7 and the SWEC interfaces with the other design organizations are provided in CPPP-6.
Implementation: The SWEC Project Procedures CPPP-6 and CPPP-7 are issued to SWEC pipe stress and pipe support personnel using a controlled distribution. All changes to the procedures are also controlled.
Personnel performing the requalification effort are trained by project management in the uses of the project procedures and their revisions. The SWEC stress analysis and pipe support design verification of a stress problem is performed in the same office to ensure close comunication.
- 13. Fluid Transients (Appendix 5)
The staff review of fluid transients including the development of the forcing functions was conducted in a separate audit held on February 10, 1986 at the SWEC offices in Boston, MA (see audit summary for the February 10, 1986 audit). The staff is also planning to audit the implementation of the fluid transient forcing functions in the piping stress analysis in an audit to be held during the week of February 24, 1986 at the SWEC office in New York, NY.
Miscellaneous and Preliminary Discussions SWEC discussed its approach to addressing the concerns associated with U-bolt cinching and generic stiffness for pipe supports. Although the resolutions have not been finalized at this time, the approach used by SWEC appears to be reasonable. However, several questions and issues still need to be addressed
6 FEB 2119%
'I by SWEC. The staff will report on the SWEC resolutions to these two issues upon completion by SWEC.
It is anticipated that these two issues will t,e completed in March 1986.
A total of 80 staff hours were involved with this audit.
David Terao Comanche Peak Task Force
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
V. Noonan T. Westerman C. Trammell A. Vietti-Cook G. Mizuno S. Hou J. Fair D. Landers, TES R. Hookway TES W. Chen, ETEC S
m
- FEB 2 21986 ATTACHMENT 1 AUDIT OF SPECIAL TECHNICAL ISSUES ON FEBRUARY 11-12, 1986 Attendance List Name Company Responsibility D. Terao NRC CPSES Task Force B. Hookway TES Staff Audit R. Stuart TES Staff Audit T. Snyder TERA CPRT-DAP Third-Party P. Svensson RLCA Consultants J. Finneran TUGC0 Piping & Supports R. Klause SWEC Project Manager A. Chan SWEC Asst. Project Mgr.
F. Ogden SWEC Senior Mech. Eng. EMD G. Mizuno NRC NRC Staff Attorney W. Chen ETEC Consultant to NRC L. Nieh SWEC Consulting Engineer L. Dietrich SWEC Licensing W. Wang SWEC Mgr, Pipe Stress Section D. Foster SWEC Chief, Eng.-EMD D. Landers TES Staff Audit E. Hee RLCA Consultant to TUGC0 P. Dunlop SWEC Engineering Mgr.-NY
~ ~ -
~
itetc,me-nf 2.
J.O.No. 1545405.05-11H i
Y7liklNARY COP TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPAhT (. U COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION b
REPORT ON STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION'S "
EVALUATION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES APPENDIX D: PIPE SUPPORT /SYSTD1 STABILITY D. C. Foster R. R. Wrucke Chief Engineer Project Engineer - Unit 1 Engineering Mechanics Division C. A. Fonseca Project Engineer - Unit 2 A. W. Chan Assistant Project Manager -
Technical R. P. Klause Project Manager l
l I
J.O.Ns. 1545405.05-11H M, RMNARY CDPY APPENDIX D - PIPE SUPPORT / SYSTEM STABILITY
1.0 Background
t EB 101Es m
CASE and CYGNA identified pipe support configurations installed at CPSES that are potentially unstable, or the buckling capacity of supports were not properly assessed.
1.1 NRC Definition of Stability Stable means that a support cannot shift or move to an unquali-fied position.
Unqualified position means a position other than the position assumed in the piping stress analysis.
1.2 Configurations That Are Potentially Unstable The following are configurations which are potentially unstable because they have the potential to move axially along the pipe and/or rotate around the pipe creating a three pin linkage system.
1.2.1 Zero-Clearance Box Frames Supported by Struts IT
_El l'.E
_.ll x
w
. e m.
m.
(J'h)!I r
i4);;
c::113 : l
~
p.
'J*
L.
_ ~. l L ~. ~.
-.1
~
-- j y
g g
l :-
~
.n..,
tL N M.) : l
.a.
.. ~.
..l SS
.S Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 0370D-1545405-HC4 D-1
J.O.No. 1545405.05-11H l EB 1019t!$
1.2.2 Uncinched and Snug U-Bolts on Single Strut or Snubber Q
saA,s ee.
r n
+ aw 3<
1.2.3 Multi-Strutted Frames, Both Single Support and Gang Support l-I:::
...: I L, f.~.Yl
,i f k),i
' I I iM M
gi y
v v
lI (1.h h2. )li E::
o 0370D-1545405-HC4 D-2
- - - ::. ~; :-
. ~ -.. - -. -.
^
J.O.No. 1545405.05-11H p
~
In addition to stability, the NRC noted that multilI5C 19 R36 strutted frames which have multiple piping systems going through them must be evaluated for the dynamic interactions of the frame and the editi-piping systems.
1.2.4 Trapeze Supports With U-Bolts l
i E --
In addition to stability, the NRC noted the following concerns:
1)
Out-of plane twisting motion when struts are in compression.
2)
U-bolts are not designed for twisting effect -
see generic issue on U-bolt twisting (Appendix X).
3)
Unequal load distribution in struts.
i 0370D-1545405-HC4 D-3
J.O.No. 1545405.05-11H fg
}p 3
f RY.li. l T ill I h1dh a
1.3 Column-Strut Stability FEB 10 ELS d
I, I, Eu I, P
m J
(2)
(1) g' Lt 12 Timure 1 A
0 i
Figure 2 - Member 2 Buckled The concern is that the stability (allowable axial load) of the strut-column configuration must reflect the buck 1-ing capacity of each element and the assembly as a unit.
This topic is discussed in the three CYGNA references (Section 4.0).
1.4 Overall System Stability The h7C staff stated that experienced piping engineers should ensure system stability by reviewing the piping and support configurations.
2.0 Sk'EC's Understanding of the Issues 2.1 Definition of Stability Stable means that a support cannot shift or move to an unquali-fled position.
Unqualified position means a position that exceeds the specified tolerances from the position assumed in the piping stress analysis.
2.2 The following configurations are potentially unstable because they may freely move axially along the pipe and/or rotate about the pipe creating a three pin linkage system and must be assessed in the design:
1)
Zero-clearance box frames supported by struts 2)
Uncinched U-bolts on struts or snubbers 3)
Multi-strutted frames (both single support and gang support) 4)
Trapeze supports with U-bolts (concern of hTC staff) 0370D-1545405-HC4 D-4 L
J.O.N9. 1545405.05-11H mus'EI319l[U$
2.3 The stability assessment of column-strut structures t
reflect the unique load pattern on the column.
a 2.4 overall System Stability The NRC has stated that experienced piping engineers should ensure system stability by reviewing the piping and support configurations.
3.0 SkTC Action Plan to Resolve the Issues 3.1 Definition of stability - accept definition of stability as stated in Section 2.1.
3.2 Modify potential unstable configurations as follows:
3.2.1 Zero-Clearance Box Frames Supported by Struts Mod 1 -
Remove existing box frames, and add a standard pipe clamp (this may require an adjustment of the existing strut).
Mod 2 -
Replace the support with a rigid frame.
3.2.2 U-bolts on Struts or Snubbers Mod 1 -
Cinch the U-bolts.
Mod 2 -
Replace the U-bolt assembly with a standard i
pipe clamp (this may require an adjustment of the existing strut).
3.2.3 Multi-Strutted Gang Support Frames Redesign these supports as rigid frames.
3.2.4 Trapeze Supports With U-Bolts The initial project commitment was to cinch the U-bolt to provide stability and to design the trapeze supports as a rotational as well as a translational restraint.
However, due to the extensive iterative engineering effort required for cinched U-bolt tra-peze analysis, all supports of this nature will be eliminated, if practical.
Supports which cannot be eliminated will be modified to provide axial stability while providing no rotational restraint to the run pipe.
Details of potential modifications are discussed in Appendix L, Axial / Rotational Restraints.
0370D-1545405-HC4 D-5
J.O.Ns. 1545405.05-11H 3.3 Column-Strut Stability I E010 E 3 The equations to evaluate the critical buckling Joad of a
column-supported strut is addressed in Section 4.2.4 and -9 of CPPP-7.
3.4 Review of Overall System Stability SWEC maintains that if each installed support is individually qualified to be stable (in accordance with the definition in Section 2.1), and the system integrity is analyzed for dead-
- weight, thermal, applicable occasional loads (fluid transients),
and seismic excitations in three orthogonal directions to be within the code allowables, then the overall system will be stable.
4.0 List of Relevant Documents 4.1 Affidavit of John C. Finneran, Jr, regarding stability of pipe supports and piping systems, June 17, 1984 4.2 CASE's motions and answer to TUGCO's motions for summary disposition regarding stability of pipe
- supports, Octo-ber 15, 1984 4.3 Testimony of N. H. Williams in response to CASE question of February 22, 1984, to CYGNA Energy Services 4.4 Letter to Mr. J. B. George of TUGC0 from N. H. Williams of CYGNA' in reference to stability of pipe
- supports, February 19, 1985 4.5 Letter to Mr. J. B. George of TUGC0 from N. H. Williams of CYGNA in reference to stability of pipe
- supports, April 30, 1985 4.6 CASE's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, Insta-bility of Supports, dated August 22, 1983 5.0 Implementation of the Resolution i
The procedure for correcting potentially unstable support configu-rations and for the evaluation of the strut-column stability has been added to CPPP-7, Revision 1 in Section 4.2.4 and Attach-m ment 4-9.
Project Memorandum PM-008 issued a specific guideline on the modeling and modification of trapeze supports with U-bolts.
This memorandum will be incorporated in the next revision of CPPP-7.
l 0370D-1545405-HC4 D-6
J.0.Na. 1545405.05-11H P
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY (TUGCO)
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
=-
REPORT ON STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION'S EVALUATION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES APPENDIX F: UNCINCHED U-BOLT ACTING AS A TWO-WAY RESTRAINT D. C. Foster R. R. Wrucke Chief Engineer Project Engineer - Unit 1 Engineering Mechanics Division C. A. Fonseca Project Engineer - Unit 2 A. W. Chan Assistant Project Manager -
Technical R. P. Klause Project Manager
{?}R4 mepth hy,ff billi811t
.1.0.Na. 134s4.0s-iiH
~
i EB ~10 F"4 APPENDIX F - UNCINCHED U-BOLT ACTING AS A TWO-WAY RESTRAINT g,
1.0 Backaround Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE) alleges that U-bolts attached to rigid frames that are analyzed as one-way (vertical) restraints will behave as two-way restraints (vertical and lateral).
They further allege the following:
1.1 Failure to include both the lateral and vertical restraining action of the U-bolts (two-way restraint) invalidates the re-sults -of pipe stress analyses that modeled the U-bolts as one-way restraints.
1.2 U-bolts used for one-way (vertical) restraints on rigid frames will not meet the manufacturer's recossended interaction limits when the lateral loads from thermal and seismic movement are applied.
TUGC0 maintains that the restraining action caused by these limited seismic movement will have no significant adverse impact on the pip-ing analysis and may be beneficial since the additional restraint direction would tend to stiffen the piping system and raise its nat-ural frequency.
TUGC0 argues that this would lower pipe loads on nearby supports.
2.0 SWEC's Understanding of the Issues 2.1 U-bolts on rigid frames will offer some lateral resistance to pipes.
2.2 U-bolts must be assessed for the interaction of lateral, normal, and axial (friction) loads.
3.0 SWEC Action Plan to Resolve the Issue 3.1 In piping analysis, model all U-bolts for pipe sizes 6 in. and smaller on rigid frames as two-way restraints.
l By modeling U-bolts as two-way restraints, the iterative pro-cess will be eliminated, i.e., 1) modeling the bolt as one-way restraints, 2) finding that the movement exceeds the actual gap, and 3) analyzing as a two-way restraint.
3.2 Develop U-Bolt Qualification Guidelines t
3.2.1 Develop STRUDL models of U-bolts to derive the l
stiffness value and resultant loading (soment, shear, and tension) at the attachment to the frame.
Consider friction force acting in the axial direction 0370F-1545405-HC4 F-1 I
F,p!~l,'.I
.P J.O.Ns. 15454.05-llH y
m
@::78 P,,,((Id
{
V....
-i 5
a u g ' i. g t.$
,aa -
H.o
!s of.B ~1 0 ): o~
r of the pipe, and use 0.3 as the coefficient friction applied to static (signed) loads only.
A:
3.2.2 Use the interaction formula developed for circular cross sections to determine U-bolt ratings.
3.2.3 Based on the above, establish U-bolt qualification guideline for insertion into CPPP-7.
3.2.4 Develop stiffness values for U-bolts, considering them as two-way restraints.
3.3 For pipe sizes equal to or greater than 8 in. NPS, replace the U-bolt by a component that complies with the support function.
4.0 List of Relevant Documents 4.1 Affidavit of R. C. Iotti and J. C. Finneran, Jr.,
regarding U-bolts used as one-way restraints acting as two-way re-straints, May 23, 1984 4.2 CASE's answer to Applicant's action for summary disposition of CASE's allegations regarding U-bolts acting as two-way re-straints, August 20, 1984.
5.0 Implementation of the Resolution 5.1 Section 4.2.5.2 and Attachment 4-3 of CPPP-7 provides piping analysis guidance for the proper modeling and analysis of uncinched U-bolts as two-way restraints.
5.2 Project Memorandum PM-019 provides stiffness values of U-bolts, which will be incorporated in the Revision 2 issue of CPPP-7.
0370T-1545405-NC4 F-2
J.0.Na. 15454.05-11H TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY (TUGCO) t, ((B 10 yfj COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 3-REPORT ON STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION'S EVALUATION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES APPENDIX G: FRICTION D. C. Foster R. R. Wrucke Chief Engineer Project Engineer - Unit 1 Engineering Mechanics Division
~
C. A. Fonseca Project Engineer - Unit 2 A. W. Chan Assistant Project Manager -
Technical R. P. Klause Project Manager 9
J.O.No. 15454.05-11H
- n y p
p El h% a.f. *.1 j
I c..
APPENDIX G - FRICTION ONh
1.0 Background
The pipe support designs by ITT-Grinnell and Pipe Support Engineer-ing (PSE) for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station do not con-sider friction loads when the predicted pipe movement is less than 1/16 in.
CASE has alleged that this practice is unacceptable, and that the addition of these loads could result in an overstressed condition for some supports.
TUGC0 contended that there is sufficient conservatism in the exist-ing design such that the increase in support load and resulting mem-ber forces and stresses due to friction would not be significant.
CASE and TUGC0 agree that the force the support will experience for pipe movements less than 1/16 in would be the lesser of the normal load multiplied by the coefficient of friction and the force re-quired to deflect the support a distance equal to the thermal move-ment of the pipe.
The NRC does not believe that there is enough technical justifica-tion for the practice of ignoring friction for small movements.
The NRC believes that for some supports, inclusion of these friction loads could be a significant stress contributor.
An independent review of this issue was done by CYGNA.
They con-cluded that ignoring friction for movement less than 1/16 in, is industry practice and is acceptable.
2.0 SWEC's Understanding of the Issues Friction needs to be evaluated for static pipe movements in the understrained direction, even those less than 1/16 in.
3.0 SWEC Action Plan to Resolve the Issue i
Although SWEC also contends that friction loads for movements less i
than 1/16 in, are insignificant, SWEC has included in the design criteria a requirement that friction loads be considered for signed l
loads (i.e., static and/or steady state loads), regardless of pipe movements.
~
4.0 1.ist of Relevant Documents 4.1 Applicants' reply to CASE's answer to applicants' notion for l
summary disposition regarding consideration of friction forces, September 14, 1984.
0370G-1545405-HC4 G-1 I
L ___ _
J.O.Ns. 15454.05-11H i
4.2 CASE's answer to applicants' reply to CASE's answer to appli-f g
,c,,,
cants' notion for sununary disposition regarding consideration
'iM of friction forces.
4.3 Af fidavit of John C. Finneran, Jr., regarding consideration of friction forces in the design of pipe supports with small ther-mal movements, May 16, 1984.
4.4 CASES's answer to applicants' notion for summary disposition regarding consideration of friction forces in the design of pipe supports with small thermal movements.
4.5 CASES's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (Walsh/Doyle allegations).
5.0 Implementation of the Resolution Section 4.7.3 and Attachment 4-7 of CPPP-7 require that friction be considered in all load cases for signed loads (i.e., static and/or steady state loads) regardless of pipe movement.
0370G-1545405-HC4 G-2
e J.O.Ns. 15454.05-IIH TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY (TUCCO)
E 0 i 0 F"
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION F
REPORT ON STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION'S
EVALUATION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES APPENDIX H: AWS VERSUS ASME CODE PROVISIONS D. C. Foster R. R. Wrucke Chief Engineer Project Engineer - Unit I
' Engineering Mechanics Division C. A. Fonseca Project Engineer - Unit 2 A. W. Chan Assistant Project Manager -
Technical R. P. Klause Project Manager
.a
--,e.%.
J.O.N3. 15454.05-11H PRymLBl eiWARY COW 77) t i
APPENDIX H - AWS VERSUS ASME CODE PROVISIONS t,,1..q 7
Ld
1.0 Background
+<
This subject concerns differences that CASE alleges exist between some weld design requirements in the AWS and ASME codes.
The dif-ferences involve two issues:
welds in skewed T-joints and local stresses at connections between two structural tubing members.
1.1 CASE Concerns CASE contends that it has identified four weld design rules that are included in the AWS Code but not addressed in the ASME Code.
1.1.1 Effective throat for skewed T-joint welds - The con-tention by CASE is that TUGC0 incorrectly accounted for the effective throat of skewed fillet welds.
1.1.2 Skewed T-joint angularity limits - CASE contends AWS specifies limits on skewed T-joints while ASME does not.
1.1.3 Local stresses at structural tubing connections -CASE contends AWS contains design methods for addressing local stresses in structural tubing connections while ASME does not.
1.1.4 Structural tubing connections with Beta equal to 1.0 - CASE contends that AWS contains a design method for addressing web crippling in matched tube steel connections while ASME does not.
1.2 TUGCO's Response TUGCO's response to each of the concerns follows:
1.2.1 The 1974 Edition of the ASME Code contained no explicit requirements in this area; however, through thickness requirement more than offset effective throat reduction.
In addition, a review of 201 support calculations demonstrated that these designs were adegrate when considering effective throat reduction.
1.2.2 CPSES weld procedures are qualified by test; there-fore, the AWS angle limitations do not apply.
1.2.3 Local stresses are addressed on a case-by-case basis.
TUGC0 reviewed 171 supports with D/2t ratio 110 on Unit 1 to address the lecal stress issue.
One support was modified as a result of local overstress.
0370H-1545405 HC4 H-1
J.0.Na. 15454.05-11H l"
S n.au.lMY Wy 1.2.4 ASME does contain guidance for web crippl'ing, and TUGC0 followed that guidance.
c 0 j..' ';13,
1.3 NRC's Position As a result of TUGCO's response, the NRC established the fol-lowing positions on the items as follows:
1.3.1 TUGC0 should provide further evidence that they com-ply with ASE, concerning the effective throats of fillet welds in skewed T-joints.
1.3.2 The AWS Code is identical to the ASE Code. Both the AWS and ASE Codes do not set forth angularity limits when the weld procedures are qualified by test.
1.3.3 TUGC0 should show that the six supports listed by CASE are included in their 171 sample with D/2t 1 10.
1.3.4 TUGC0 should provide further evidence that web crip-pling is checked.
2.0 SWEC's Understanding of the Issues 2.1 ISSUE 1: Skewed T-Joint Welds (Sections 1.1.1 and 1.1.2) 2.1.1 The effective throat of skewed T-joint welds must be properly evaluated in the pipe support design.
2.1. 2 -
CPSES uses qualified welds which obviate the angularity restriction in either AWS or ASE.
2.2 ISSUE 2: Local Stresses at Structural Tube Connections (Sections 1.1.3 and 1.1.4) 2.2.1 Local stress of structural tubing connections must be assessed.
2.2.2 Web crippling of structural tubing connections must be assessed.
3.0 SWEC Action Plan 3.1 ISSUE 1: Skewed T-Joint Weld 3.1.1 Establish guidelines for the evaluation of the effec-tive throat of skewed T-joint welds, and incorporate the guidelines into CPPP-7.
3.1.2 No action required.
3.2 ISSUE 2: Local Stress in Structural Tube Stect Members Addressed in Appendix U.
0370H-1545405-HC4 H2
J.O.N2. 15454.05-1111 iib 1Q -
4.0 List of Relevant Documents 4.1 NRC Staff response to Applicant's motion for summary dispost-tion on AWS and ASF Code provisions on weld diAign dated November 2, 1984.
4.2 Affidavit of David Terao on AWS and ASME Code provisions on weld design dated November 2, 1984.
4.3 CASE's answer to Applicant's statement of material facts as to which there is no genuine issue regarding certain case allega-tions regarding AWS and ASME Code provisions related to deaign issues dated August 4, 1984.
4.4 Affidavit of J. C. Finneran, R. C. Iotti, and J. D. Stevenson regarding allegation involving AWS versus ASME Code provisions Attachments 1 and 2 dated May 15, 1984.
4.5 CASE's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (Walsh/
Doyle allegations).
5.0 Implementation of the Resolution Section 4-4 and Section 8 of Attachment 4-2 of CPPP-7 provide guidance for the design evaluation of skewed joint welds.
h 037011-1545405-11C4 11 - 3
J.O.N3. 15454.05-11H TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPAhT (TUGCO)
'LE' J I COMANCHE PEAX STEAM ELECTRIC STATION REPORT ON STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION'S" EVALUATION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES APPENDIX I: A500, GRADE B TUBE STEEL D. C. Foster R. R. Wrucke Chief Engineer Project Engineer - Unit 1 Engineering Mechanics Division C. A. Fonseca Project Engineer - Unit 2 A. W. Chan Assistant Project Manager -
Technical R. P. Klause Project Manager e
J.O.N). 15454.05-11H
@g,_
~
APPENDIX I - A500, GRADE B TUBE STEEL
1.0 Background
w The designs of pipe supports at Comanche Peak use a design yield strength S of 42 ksi for A500, Grade B, tube steel in compliance with ASME Y Code Case N-71-9.
A later version, ASME Code Case N-71-10, revised the yield strength from 42 ksi to 36 kai.
CASE contends that all designs for tube steel supports at CPSES should be revised to incorporate the lower design yield strengths.
The ASLB requested that TUGC0 demonstrate that adequate safety mar-gins exist in pipe supports with A500, Grade B tube steel.
TUGC0 evaluated a random sample of 182 supports that utilize tube steel and showed that the supports were adequate.
,..p The above.: sample was reviewed by the NRC, and the NRC agreed with TUGCO'ecenclusion that all supports were designed adequately, with the execption of one calculation.
In this calculation a level C load (emergency condition) was conservatively compared to a level B (upset condition) allowable without notice that the level B load was greater than the level C load.
However, the suoport was still determined to be acceptable for the level B load.
To determine whether this condition is an isolated case, another sampling has been conducted by TUGCO, and it has been concluded that this was an isolated case.
2.0 SWEC's Understanding of the Issues Must TUGC0 adopt a later revision of an ASME Code case than the one to which TUGC0 is comitted for the design of tube steel? The later revision reduced the yield strength for A500, Grade B, tube steel from 42 kai to 36 ksi.
3.0 SWEC Action Plan to Resolve the Issues 3.1 Contact ASME NT Code Committee On Wednesday, September 11, 1985, Mr. R. Read (SWEC) contacted Mr. M. Bressler (Chairman of the ASME Working Group on Compo-nent Supports) regarding the revision of ASME Code Cases N-71-9 to N-71-10.
M. Bressler's point of view on these matters is as follows:
3.1.1 ASME NT Code revised the ASME Code Case N-71-9 (42 ksi) to Case N-71-10 (36 ksi) based on the concern that the yield strength in the heat-affected zone at veldments could be slightly reduced.
However, data was not available at the time to quantify the reduction.
The Code Comittee's action was considered conservative.
03701-1545405-HC4 I-1
J.0.Nm. 15455.05-11H EI Bil A Mtf a nns s 3.1.2 The ASME Code Committee is currently evaluating tes't f.C..,. s I data on this issue submitted by TVA and TUGCO. This data is purported to demonstrate that A be yield strength in the heat-affected zone of A500 Grade B tube steel is not reduced below 42 ksi, and a revi-sion to Code Case N-71 is expected.
3.2 Establish Design Guidance Based on the above, SWEC's position is as follows:
3.2.1 In the interest of expediency, confirm the design adequacy.of pipe supports on CPSES using Sy = 36 ksi.
3.2.2 The use of Sy = 42 ksi on a case-by-case basis will be allowed, provided a note that confirmation is required is added to the calculation.
Confirmation will be removed pending the release of a later ASME code case upgrading the yield strength of A500 Grade B tube steel to 42 ksi.
4.0 List of Relevant Documents 4.1 Applicants' reply to CASE's answer to applicants' response to Board's partial initial decision regarding A500 steel dated November 16, 1984 4.2 Affidavit of J. C. Finneran, Jr., regarding CASE's answer con-cerning A500 steel 4.3 Affidavit of W. P. Chen on revised A500 steel yield values dat-ed May 29, 1984 4.4 Applicants' response to partial initial decision regarding A500 steel dated April 11, 1984 4.5 Affidavit of J. C. Finneran, Jr.,
regarding A500 tube steel dated April 10, 1984 4.6 Testimony of N. H. Williams in response to CASE questions of February 22, 1984, to CYGNA Energy Services 5.0 Implementation of the Resolution CPPP-7, Section 4.7.2.1, specifies that the design of pipe supports using A500, Grade B tube steel for CPSES shall be verified for a yield strength of 36 ksi. However, designs that fail at Sy = 36 ksi but pass for Sy = 42 ksi will not be modified and will have their calculations marked " Confirmation Required" pending revision of Code Case N-71 to allow Sy = 42 ksi.
03701-1545405-HC4 I-2
J.O.No. 15454.05-11H p
-,e TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY (TUGCO)
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM EIICTRIC STATION REPORT ON STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION'S EVALUATION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES APPENDIX J: TUBE STEEL SECTION PROPERTIES D. C. Foster R. R. Wrucke Chief Engineer Project Engineer - Unit 1 Engineering Mechanics Division C. A. Fonseca Project Engineer - Unit 2 A. W. Chan Assistant Project Manager -
Technical R. P. Klause Project Manager
J.0.N). 15454.05-11H
' t5010 5 7 APPENDIX J - TUBE STEEL SECTION PROPERTIES
1.0 Background
e CASE raised the following questions with regard to the design of supports that use tube steel: A) are appropriate section properties used to design the tube steel? and B) are flare bevel welds properly designed at CPSES?
1.1 Section Properties The section properties for A500 Grade B cold-formed tube steel used in the pipe support design at CPSES were obtained from three authoritative source documents.
Each source document listed slightly different section properties.
These three source documents are 1) AISC Hanual of Steel Construction, 7th Edition; 2) 1974 Welded Structural Tube Institute (WSTI) Manual of Cold-Formsd Welded Structural Steel Tubing; and 3) AISC Manual of Steel Construction, 8th Edition.
Prior to January 1982, pipe supports were designed using sec-tion properties from Documents 1 and 2.
Both these documents list properties representative of bot-formed tube steel. From January 1982 to the present, section properties were obtained from Document 3, which lists section properties representative of cold-formed tube steel.
The section properties of hot-formed tube steel listed in source Documents 1 and 2 are slightly smaller than the pro-perties for cold-formed tube steel listed in Document 3.
1.2 Flare Bevel Weld The 8th Edition of AISC states that t = 5/16R. The design of flare bevel welds at CPSES has been exImined. NRC/ SIT reported that PSE used te = 0.645t.
After changing criteria, TUGC0 re-ported to CYGNA that PSE used te = t.
CASE contends that flare bevel welds at T-joints cannot be accurately analyzed unless an accurate corner radius is known.
2.0 SWEC's Understanding of the Issues 2.1 Section Properties 2.1.1 The appropriate section properties of the cold-formed tube steel supplied by the vendor to CPSES need to be deter-mined.
2.1.2 The section properties that should be used in design /
assessment of pipe supports at CPSES need to be estab-lished.
2.1.3 The adequacy of pipe supports designed using section pro-perties frose all three source documents needs to be evaluated.
0370J-1545405-HC4 J-1
i J.O.No. 15454.05-11H M.r hL b s, p
j c - oj
\\
q ers t,
i u u%.vu 2.2 Flare Bevel Welds f.C10l$.7 The effective throat of flare bevel welds at CPSES needs to be established.
3.0 SWEC Action Plan to Resolve the Issues 3.1 Sectio'n Properties Review the material manufacturer's dimensional standards for A500, Grade B tube steel supplied to TUGCO.
A survey of the ASTM A500 (standard specification for cold-formed welded and seamless structural tubing in rounds and shapes) was conducted.
The survey includes a 10-year span starting from issue date 1974 through 1984. The survey indi-cated that the standard mill tolerances did not change during this period of time.
Since the fabrication practice for tube steel did not change, neither did the section properties.
It also was confirmed that Welded Steel Tube Institute (WSTI) amended its 1974 issue-(1st Editier ) to agree with the 8th Edi-tion of the AISC.
This amendment is the latest revision to date.
These section properties are representative of cold-formed tube steel.
SWEC resolutions are summarized as follows:
The use of section properties in AISC Manual of Steel Con-struction, 7th Edition, or in the WSTI Manual is conserva-
- tive, since these properties are enveloped by the properties of the cold-formed tube steel.
The use of section properties in AISC Manual of Steel Con-st'ruction, 8th Edition, is appropriate, since it is repre-sentative of the actual cold-formed tube steel used at CPSES.
The 8th Edition of AISC will be used by SWEC in the selec-tion of section properties for structural tube steel.
3.2 Effective Throat for Flare Bevel Weld SWEC reviewed TUGCO's weld procedure and concluded that an ef-fective throat t = t - 1/16 in. is achievable and justifiable.
SWEC will use t' = t - 1/16 in. to evaluate flare bevel welds at CPSES.
4.0 I,ist of Relevant Documenta 4.7 Affidavit of J. C. Finneran and R. C. Iotti regarding CASE's allegation involving section property values, Attachment I dated May 18, 1984 0370J-1545405-HC4 J-2
J.O.No. 15454.05-12H I
4.2 CASE's answer to applicants' statements of material facts as to It'.
.,i[
which there is no genuine issue regarding CASE's allegations regarding section property values, dated August 12, JJ84 4.3 Affidavit of J. C. Finneran, Jr., regarding information related to section property values dated November 9, 1984 4.4 CASE's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law dated August 22, 1983 5.0 Implementation of Resolution 5.1 CPPP-7, Section 4.3.2.1 specifies that for the selection of structural tube steel section properties, the 8th Edition of the AISC steel manual should be used in the design of pipe supports at CPSES.
5.2 CPPP-7,,Section 4.4 and Section 9.3 of Attachment 4-2 specifies that t,= t - 1/16 in.
a 0370J-1545405-HC4 J-3
J.O.No. 15454.05-IIH s
, l s "-
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY (TUGCO)
.i COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION REPORT ON STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION'S EVALUATION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES APPENDIX N: OBE/SSE DAMPING t
D. C. Foster R. R. Wrucke Chief Engineer Project Engineer - Unit I Engineering Mechanics Division C. A. Fonseca Project Engineer - Unit 2 A. W. Chan Assistant Project Manager -
Technical R. P. Klause Project Manager l
l - -..
J.O.No. 15454.05-11H s
APPENDIX N - OBE/SSE DAMPING iD7?,
w
1.0 Background
The NRC's SIT, CASE, and CYGNA alleged that in three situations higher damping values than allowed by Regulatory Guide 1.61 were used in the stress analysis at CPSES.
1.1 NRC SIT Concern SIT claimed that the damping values used in Pipe Stress Pro-blem 1-041 were different than those specified in Regulatory Guide 1.61.
1.2 CASE Concern According to CASE, piping systems containing active valves should use the lower damping f.
-tive components, in accord-ance with footn9te 2 to Tabl of Regulatory Guide 1.61.
1.3 CYGNA Concern CYGNA reported that in certain stress problems, which are com-prised of piping of different sizca, the damping values for the 12 in. or greater piping were used even though the problem con-tained piping smaller than 12 in.
1.4 TUGCO's Response 1.4.1 TUGC0 has addressed the SIT claim and shown that pip-ing analysis in Problem 1-041 was in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.61.
1.4.2 According to TUGCO, the concerns by CASE regarding footnote 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.61 were not applica-ble, since piping systems are not active components.
1.4.3 Use of higher damping for mixed piping sizes is ac-ceptable in accordance with Westinghouse's Topical Report No. WCAP-7921-AR.
CYGNA has concurred with this position.
2.0 SWEC's Understanding of the Issues 2.1 Proper damping should be used in the analysis of piping systems that contain active valves.
Proper damping should be used in the analysis of mixed-size pip-2.2 ing systems.
3.0 SWEC Action Plan to Resolve the Issues l
3.1 Regulatory Guide 1.61 Damping I
N-1 0370N-1545405-HC4 I
. ~,,.. -, _ -, - _ _.
J.O.No. 15454.05-11H W'.i 3.1.1 The design criteria for pipe stress analysis and supports (CPPP-7) specifies the use of Regulatory Guide 1.61 damping.
3.1.2 CPPP-7 also specifies that piping systems containing mixed sizes (above and below 12-in. NPS) either will be conservatively evaluated with the lower damping vslues of Regulatory Guide 1.61 or the use of higher damping values will be justified by the composite modal damping method in acceptance criteria 11.15 of SRP 3.7.2.
3.2 Code Case N-411 Damping Use of the damping values specified in Code Case N411 that are applicable to all pipe sizes has been approved for implements-tion to CPSES by the NRC.
Project Memorandum PM-006 author-ized the use of Code Case N-411 for CPSES.
4.0 List of Relevant Documents 4.1 Affidavit entitled " CASE's answer to applicants reply to CASE's answer to applicants motion regarding alleged errors made in determining damping factors for OBE and SSE loading conditions" dated October 2, 1984, for CPSES Units 1 and 2.
5.0 Implementation of the Resolution 5.1 Regulatory Guide 1.61 damping criteria have been included in CPPP-7, Section 3.4.5.4.1.
Implementation of Code Case N-411 for CPSES requalification was authorized by Project Memorandum PM-006, to be incorporated into the next revision of CPPP-7.
5.2 A review item, pertaining to the proper use of damping values, has been incorporated in the pipe stress analysis checklist of CPPP-6 and 9.
r i
l l
l 0370N-1545405-HC4 N-2
J.O.No. 15454.05-IIH II. C.. l,:,.'
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPAhT (TUGCO)
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT I REPORT ON STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION'S EVALUATION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES APPENDIX 0: SUPPORT MASS D. C. Foster R. R. Wrucke Chief Engineer Project Engineer - Unit 3.
Engineering Mechanics Division C. A. Fonseca Project Engineer - Unit 2 A. W. Chan Assistant Project Manager -
Technical
- h. P. Klause Project Manager
S J.O.No. 15454.05-11H Il w
(([! ' T. t
~ ' " ' "
APPENDIX 0 - SUPPORT MASS w
1.0 Background
The support mass contribution was not always considered in the CPSES pipe stress analysis because it was considered small relative to the total mass of the piping system.
CASE contended that the weight contribution of the support to the piping system is significant and it cannot be omitted from the analysis.
2.0 SWEC's Understanding of the Issue Pipe support mass should be considered in the pipe stress analysis.
3.0 SWEC Action Plan to Resolve the Issue Support mass will be considered in the analysis of all CPSES piping systems.
The procedure for incorporation of the support mass is included in the design criteria for pipe stress and supports (CPPP-7).
4.0 List of Relevant Documents Affidavit entitled CASE'S Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Walsh/Doyle Allegations),Section XIV, Loads Induced on Pipe Affecting Loads on Supports, August 22, 1983.
5.0 Implementation of the Resolution 5.1 The support mass will be accounted for in accordance with
~
CPPP-7, Section 3.10.4.
A detailed procedure for pipe support mass determination and inclusion in the piping system analysis is included in Attachment 3-4 of CPPP-7.
5.2 A review item on support mass is included in the pipe stress analysis checklist of CPPP-6 and CPPP-9.
03700-1545405-HC4 0-1
=.
=
= - - -- - -.--- - -- -. -.
J.O.No. 15454.05-IIH PRettifilNARY COPY e.= n TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY (TUGCO) lid ; L ;;;'2 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION REPORT ON STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION'S EVALUATION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES APPENDIX P: ITERATIVE DESIGN D. C. Foster R. R. Wrucke Chief Engineer Project Engineer - Unit 1 Engineering Mechanics Division C. A. Fonseca Project Engineer - Unit 2 A. W. Chan Assistant Project Manager -
Technical R. P. Klause Project Manager
\\
"4
.e
J.O.No. 15454.05-11H APPENDIX P - ITERATIVE DESIGN d 1. g j w
1.0 Background
CASE's concern is that piping analysis and pipe support design responsibilities were fragmented, and that too much responsibility was delegated to the pipe support vendors and field forces, which may cause inadequacy.
TUGC0 responded to the above concern as follows:
The design process was developed so that Gibbs & Hill laid out the piping satisfying themselves by means of a thermal stress analysis that the pipe routing was practical.
The piping arrangement was then sent to the pipe support ven-dor, who located pipe supports and determined their type (sprios, rigid, constant support, snubber) in accordance with criteria set forth by Gibbs & Hill and in areas that were judged free from interference.
These pipe support locations and types were then used by Gibbs & Hill to perform a complete (thermal, deadweight, and seismic) analysis.
If the results were satisfactory, the support loads were then transmitted to the pipe support vendor to use in the pipe support design.
Support designs were issued for construction.
It was acknowl-edged that even with careful initial design, there is a possi-bility that the pipe support cannot be constructed as designed.
In the cases of unconstructable designs, CMCs were prepared and sent to the vendor for review.
If it was necessary to change the location or type of a support, the proposed design was sent to Gibbs & Hill's Site Stress Analysis Group (SSAG), who decid-ed whether it was necessary to modify the stress analysis.
Once satisfactory solution (support configurations) for all the l
supports on a given piping system had been determined, the fi-nal design was sent to Gibbs & Hill (either New York or SSAG) for final review and as-built stress analysis.
If the pipe stresses were satisfactory, the results of the analysis were sent to the pipe support vendor for final certification that the support designs were adequate.
l-l In conclusion, it can be seen that Gibbs & Hill, the party re-l sponsible for the pipe system design, was involved in the pipe and support design continually from the beginning to the end.
f 2.0 SWEC's Understanding of the Issues The piping design organization must be sufficiently involved during i
the iterative design process (pipe stress analysis / pipe support design / construction /as-built verification) to enable a satisfactory design result.
0370P-1545405-HC4 P-1
[
J.O.No. 15454.05-llH 3.0 SkTC Action Plan to Resolve the Issues III;l?;,'
\\.
This issue of fragmented responsibility will be resolvedjy the in-tegrated design process in the SkTC requalification program.
All ASME Class 2 and 3 piping systems and supports are being requalified by SWEC in accordance with CPPP-7 which provides consistent criteria for both pipe stress analysis and pipe support design.
Each pipe stress problem will be reviewed in accordance with Section 7.3 of CPPP-6 or CPPP-9 as a system by a pipe stress engineer and a pipe support engineer to ensure that the interactions between the pipe and the pipe supports are properly accounted for in the requalification effort.
In addition, the pipe stress analysis and support requalification for a given stress problem will be performed at the same SkTC location.
The only known exception is gang hanger supports, where the associated stress problems are evaluated in more than one office.
In this exceptional case, the support design is coordinated between the offices.
The pipes on the ASME Class I system have been analyzed by Westing-house, while the supports will be qualified by SVEC in accordance with CPPP-7.
The interface and control of data transmittal between Westinghouse and SWEC will be controlled by CPPP-6 and 9.
4.0 List of Relevant Documents 4.1 TES Draft Letter No. 6216-7 dated February 21, 1985, from D. F. Landers to U. S. Noonan, Director Comanche Peak Project, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which transmitted Technical Report No. TR-6216B, Preliminary Consulting Report on Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station - Piping and Support Design 4.2 CASES's proposed findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Walsh/Doyle Allegations) 5.0 Implementation of the Resolution Controlled copies of CPPP-6, CPPP-9, and CPPP-7 are issued to the pipe stress and pipe support supervisory personnel assigned to the SWEC CPSES effort. They form a consistent set of criteria which are being used by all SkTC personnel in the requalification program for CPSES, and its revisions are controlled.
SkTC has an integrated design process and interfaces between all disciplines are controlled.
Personnel performing the requalifica-tion effort are trained by project management in the uses of the applicable project procedures and their revisions.
All other generic technical issues, if any, that may be identified during the requalification process will be brought to the attention of project supervisory personnel for prompt resolution. The results of resolution will be incorporated into the proj ect procedure.
0370P-1545405-HC4 P-2
J.O.No. 15454.05-11H Q
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY (TUSCO)
,t
, 3 ?.
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION v
REPORT ON STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION'S EVALUATION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES APPENDIX Q: MASS POINT SPACING D. C. Foster R. R. Wrucke Chief Engineer Project Engineer - Unit 1 Engineering Mechanics Division C. A. Fonseca Project Engineer - Unit 2 A. W. Chan Assistant Project Manager -
Technical R. P. Klause Project Manager 6
8
.----..n.._..
~ -
J.O.No. 15454.05-11H s, a
- p l l$LL! Nil hlliI u~d i
e APPENDIX Q - MASS POINT SPACING
1.0 Background
[
CYGNA alleged that the Gibbs & Hill procedure for the dynamic lumped mass mathematical modeling for seismic analysis of CPSES piping in the as-built program was not consistently implemented.
More specifically, CYGNA identified instances where Gibbs & Hill violated its own in-house modeling criteria.
2.0 SWEC's Understanding of the Issues Some analyses of CPSES piping did not include mass points between supports in the same direction or between anchors and adjacent supports.
3.0 SkTC Action Plan to Resolve the Issues SWEC guideline for locating lumped mass points in a piping system is included in CPPP-7.
4.0 List of Relevant Documents 4.1 CYGNA Letter entitled Phase 3 Open Items, Mass Participation and Mass Point Spacing, CPSES, Independent Assessment Program, J.0.No. 84042.021, dated February 8, 1985.
5.0 Implementation of the Resolution 5.1 Mass point spacing is a review item in the Pipe Stress Analysis Checklist of CPPP-6 and CPPP-9.
5.2 The guidelines for locating the mass points in the pipe stress analysis have been included in Section 3.10.6.1 and Attach-ment 3-7 of CPPP-7.
0 0370Q-1545405-HC4 Q-1
l[N]ki[jf "[>.l f$/~i u"
3 J.O.No. 15454.05-11H L
i TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY (TUGCO)
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION FEB 10 ',L ';
REPORT ON STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION'S EVALUATION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES APPENDIX R: HIGH-FREQUENCY MASS PARTICIPATION (MISSING MASS)
D. C. Foster R. R. Wrucke Chief Engineer Project Engineer - Unit 1 Engineering Mechanics Division C. A. Fonseca Project Engineer - Unit 2 A. W. Chan Assistant Project Manager -
Technical R. P. Klause Project Manager i
G 4
.w.
J.O.No. 15454.05-11H APPENDIX R - HIGH-FREQUENCY MASS PARTICIPATION FEB1C EL, (MISSING MASS)
A*
1.0 Ba ckgrottnd 1.1 CYGNA's Concern CYGNA questioned the adequacy of the 33-Hz cutoff frequency criteria used in the pipe stress seismic analysis at CPSES.
1.1.1 During Phases 1 and 2 of the Independent Assessment Pro-gram, CYGNA inquired about the 33 Hz cutoff frequency used in the analysis performed by Gibbs & Hill. The questions were addressed directly to the the requirement of para-graph II-A-a-(5) of U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~
Standard Review Plan (SRP), Section 3.7.2, which requires in' esti~gation of a sufficient number of modes to ensure v
participation of all significant modes. The criterion for
~
sufficiency is that the inclusion of additional modes does not result in more than a 10 percent increase in responses.
1.1. 2 -
The same concern resur faced during the Phase 3 Independent Assessment Program by CYGNA in their review of the main steam and component :ooling water systems.
It was discovered that in these systems the mass partici-pation was insufficiently predicted by a cutoff frequency of 33 Hz (typically 10- to 30 percent increase in response resulted with the inclusion of additional modes, some with mass fractions as low as 1 percent).
1.2 TUGCO's Response TUGC0 developed several analyses approaches, and each one will address the high-frequency mass participation, as follows:
l 1.2.1 Run the seismic analysis without a frequency cutoff, j
thereby accounting for all seismic modes and a 100 percent mass participation.
i l
1.2.2 Run the seismic analysis up to a cutoff frequency of l
33 Hz.
In addition, run a static analysis for the ZPA l
(zero period acceleration or acceleration theoretically associated with an infinite frequency).
Compare the two, and use the maximum results.
1.2.3 Use a refined computer program to account automatically for the higher order modes, and account for the total sys-tem mass.
0370R-1545405-HC4 R-1 1
J.0.No. 15454.05-11H PRdmiM. IMRY e
1.3 Gibbs & Hill Evaluation pg. -
Based on these approaches, Gibbs & Hill reanalyzed,J05 of 271 large bore piping stress problems to address the low mass participation fractions.
All supports (total of 5,646) con-tained in the 205 piping stress problems were also checked.
The cenclusion drawn from the reevaluation by G&H was that the effect of mass participation is inconsequential on the existing piping analysis and support designs.
2.0 SkIC's Understanding of the Issue SkIC's cutoff frequency criteria for use in the requalification of piping systems at CPSES must meet the acceptance criteria of SRP 3.7.2, paragraph II-A-a-(5).
3.0 SkTC Action Plan to Resolve the Issue 3.1 Review Typical CPSES Piping Systems SbTC reviewed seismic responses of typical CPSES piping stress problems with maximum cutoff frequencies of 50, 100, 150, and all modes in order to assess the impact of high-frequency mass participation.
The results of this review were used to estab-lish a procedure that addresses the mass participation issue and complies with SRP Section 3.7.2.
3.2 Develop Analysis Guideline SkIC developed two analysis options.
Seismic analysis per-formed by either one of the following methods will address the mass participation issue adequately.
3.2.1 Seismic ARS modal analysis with 50-Hz cutoff frequen-cy, including the high-frequency mass correction, by using NUPIPE-SW V04/LO2 or later issue.
3.2.2 Perform an equivalent static analysis by using the ZPA values in all three directions.
Combine these results by the SRSS method with the results of the seismic analysis with a 50-Hz cutoff frequency that did not include the high-frequency mass correction.
i l
4.0 List of Relevant Documents l
4.1 Question 2, CYGNA Communications Reports, J.O.No. 83090 dated October 5, 1983 l
4.2 CYGNA Letter No. 84042.021, Phase 3 Open Items, Mass Partici-pation and Mass Point Spacing CPSES Independent Assessment Pro-t gram, dated February 8, 1985, J.0.No. 84042 0370R-1545405-HC4 R-2
J.0.Ns. 15454.05-11H 7
4.3 Section 3.7.2, Seismic System Analysis, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
'...c Commission, Standard Review Plan, NUREG-0800, Revision 2, July 1981 5.0 Implementation of the Resolution 5.1 Procedure for the high-frequency mass participation criteria has been included in the design criteria for Pipe Stress and Suppcrts (CPPP-7, Section 3.10.6.8).
5.2 NUPIPE-SW was updated to account automatically for the high-frequency mass correction.
NUPIPE-SW V04/LO2 has been made available to all SWEC stress analysts.
5.3 High-frequency mass correction is included as a review item in the Pipe Stress Analysis Checklist (CPPP-6 and CPPP-9, -12).
. e.
1 0370R-1545405-HC4 R-3
._.. __ _~; ~ ~. - _ _.
J.0.No. 15454.05-1111 AINARY Copy TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY (TUGCO)
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION gg REPORT ON STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION'S' EVALUATION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES APPENDIX S: FLUID TRANSIEhTS D. C. Foster R. R. Wrucke Chief Engineer Project Engineer - Unit 1 Engineering Mechanics Division C. A. Fonseca Project Engineer - Unit 2 A. W. Chan Assistant Project Manager -
Technical R. P. Klause Project Manager t
o 4
~
{f l
If
}
J.O.No. 15454.05-11H
'h j
h i
I APPENDIX S - FLUID TRAN5
1.0 Background
J:{g;..
Fluid transients are occasional mechanical loads that should be con-sidered in stress evaluation of ASME Classes 2 and 3 pifing.
The Gibbs & Hill (G&H) pipe stress analysis for CPSES considered fluid transients on several of the critical systems. The issue of adequa-cy or completeness of the transients that were considered, including the support stability issue (Appendix D), was raised by Teledyne Engineering Services (TES), in a draft letter dated February 21, 1985, from D. F. Landers of TES to V. S. Noonan of the NRC.
2.0 SWEC's Understanding of the Issue s
Fluid transients should be adequately considered in the pipe stress evaluations of critical systems at CPSES.
3.0 SWEC Action Plan to Resolve the Issue Specific fluid transients have been identified by SWEC as summarized in Attachment 1 to CPPP-10.
These transients were identified by SWEC based upon guidance given in NUREG-0578, SWEC's past experience with other PWRs, and by an overall review of the system flow dia-grams. Additionally, SWEC system engineers are reviewing the system operating components which could produce significant fluid tran-sients such as quickly opening or closing control valves, relief valve discharge, or pump startup or trip.
The fluid transients finally being considered will be clearly docu-mented in either an update to the current piping design specifica-tion or in specific system information documents (SIDs) as described in CPPP-10.
Criteria for evaluation of these fluid transient loads are presented in CPPP-7.
The fluid transient analysis is proceeding, and time-history forcing functions are being included in the piping requali-fication program as appropriate.
4.0 List of Relevant Documents 4.1 G&H Specification No. 232S-MS-200, Rev. 4, dated June 29, 1984, Design Specification for all ASME Section III, Code Class 2 & 3 Piping, for CPSES-1 and 2.
4.2 TES draft Letter No. 6216-7 dated February 21, 1985, from D. F. Landers to V. S. Noonan, Director, Comanche Peak Project, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which transmitted Technical Report No. TR-6216B, Preliminary Consulting Report on Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station - Piping and Support Design.
5.0 Implementation of the Resolution CPPP-7, Section 3.4.5.5 requires that fluid transient loadings be considered for each system, as identified in the piping design spec-ification or in the specific SIDs as described in CPPP-10. CPPP-7, 0370S-1545405-HC4 S-1 1
J.O.No. 15454.05-11H n'd l
' -1 gives the proceduros used to evolunte piping fluid transients.
j
~
s..
w
\\
e 0370S-1545405-HC4 S-2
- " ' ~
J.O.No. 15454.05-11H E
i s
Fl! D ;. C,.. :
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPAhT (TUGCO)
COMANCHE PEAX STEAM ELECTRIC STATION REPORT ON STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION'S EVALUATION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES APPENDIX 2: PIPING MODELING D. C. Foster R. R. Wrucke Chief Engineer Project Engineer - Unit 1 Engineering Mechanics Division C. A. Fonseca Project Engineer - Unit 2 A. W. Chan Assistant Project Manager -
Technical R. P. Klause Project Manager t
t
~
~
---.--n
- - ~. -
J.O.No. 15454.05-11H APPENDIX Z - PIPING MODELING FEU.. : '
1.0 Background
CYGNA, in its review of G&H calculations, found instances where in-put parameters were questioned.
CYGNA reported that these dis-crepancies have no significant effect on safety but may be amplified when combined with other findings.
The four issues raised by CYGNA where input parameters were found incorrect in the pipe stress analysis are as follows:
1.1 The wrong pipe wall thickness was used to calculate an allow-able nozzle load.
1.2 Improper stress intensification factor was used in a stress problem.
1.3 Fluid and insulation weights were not included for valves and flanges.
1.4 Valve accelerations and flanges were not always checked in the piping analysis.
2.0 Sk'EC's Understanding of the Issues CYGNA has identified discrepancies in the pipe stress calculation which, by themselves, have a negligible effect on safety, but may be amplified when combined with other findings.
3.0 SkIC Action Plan to Resolve the Issues Project procedures have been prepared to include checklists to ensure that good-quality piping models with all appropriate input are prepared.
Revisions to the piping models are rechecked by the SWEC program.
In addition, SWEC trains personnel in the implementa-tion of the procedures.
This training is further enhanced by daily contact with the experienced on project technical supervision and frequent off project independent evaluation.
4.0 List of Relevant Documents 4.1 Tenera Corporation letter dated October 3, 1985, to J. Finneran of TUGC0 Preliminary List of Piping and Support Issues.
4.2 CYGNA Observation No. P-1-00-01 dated October 6', 1983.
5.0 Implementation of the Resolution Project Procedures CPPP-6, CPPP-7, and CPPP-9 provide guidance for the proper modeling of piping systems.
SkIC Engineering Assurance 0370Z-1545405-HC4 Z-1
J.O.No. 15454.05-11H Procedure EAP 5.3 provides guidance on the preparation and review of i'i'
- ~
calculations. SWEC's approach to calculation verification emphasiz-es design review of calculation results, in addition to a number-by-number check.
The SWEC Engireering Assurance Division performs audits of project activities to verify that all of these procedural requirements are met and that the project work is technically adequate. The combina-tion of the procedures, procedural controls, and the audits provide assurance that calculations are complete and technically adequate.
O e
0370Z-1545405-HC4 Z-2
F I1 f Ph"tinilNARY COPY J.O.No. 15454.05-11H TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY (TUGCO)
[ LED 10 ',;, '
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION w
UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT ON STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION'S EVALUATION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES P. Dunlop R. R. Wrucke Engineering Manager Project Engineer - Unit 1 C. A. Fonseca Project Engineer - Unit 2 A. W. Chan Assistant Project Manager -
Technical R. P. Klause Project Manager
- f 1
~
Pagg
- Eg 3 p..
o 3'
I TITLE PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
LIST OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES 3-4
1.0 INTRODUCTION
5 2.0 GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES S
3.0 ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCESS 5
4.0 REPORT ORGANIZATION 6
5.0 ISSUE PROCESS 6
6.0 ABBREVIATIONS 7
Attachment I TITLE PAGE - APPENDIXES 8
\\
0370-1545405-HC4 2
PRELMARY COPY LIST OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES II.C 10,, ^
Appendix Title A
RICHMOND INSERTS B
LOCAL STRESSES IN PIPING C
WALL-TO-WALL AND FLOOR-TO-FLOOR SUPPORTS D
PIPE SUPPORT / SYSTEM STABILITY E
PIPE SUPPORT GENERIC STIFFNESS T
U-BOLTS ACTING AS A 2-WAY RESTRAINT G
FRICTION FORCES H
AWS VS. ASME CODE PROVISIONS I
A500, GRADE B, TUBE STEEL J
TUBE STEEL SECTION PROPERTIES K
U-BOLT CINCHING L
AXIAL / ROTATIONAL RESTRAlbfS M
GAPS
~
N OBE/SSE - DAMPING SUPPORT MASS IN PIPING ANALYSIS O
~
P ITERATIVE DESIGN Q
MASS POINT SPACING R
HIGH-FREQUENCY MASS PARTICIPATION S
FLUID TRANSIENTS T
SEISMIC EXCITATION OF PIPE SUPPORT MASS U
LOCAL STRESS IN PIPE SUPPORT MEMBERS V
SAFETY FACTORS W
A36 AND A307 STEEL 0370-1545405-HC4 3
PRELIMINARY CaPY Appendix Title c '., ;
X U-BOLT WISTING w
Y VALVE MODELING/ QUALIFICATION Z
PIPING MODELING AA WELDING BB ANCHOR BOLTS CC STRUT ANGULARITY DD COMPONENT QUALIFICATION EE SSER-8 REVIEN "
FF SSER-10 REVIEW GG SSER-11 REVIEW
~
t 0370-1545405-HC4 4
i
PREUMINARY CDPY bi?
i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) has been retained by Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) to requalify the ASME Class 2 and 3 piping and ASME Class 1, 2, and 3 pipe supports for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station - Units 1 and 2.
As part of SWEC's scope, SWEC is re-quired to develop administrative and technical procedures to guide the work.
SWEC is aware of concerns raised by groups external to the TUGCO/ Comanche Peak Project organization. These concerns, classified as Generic Techni-cal Issues, address both technical and administrative matters.
SkIC deemed it necessary and prudent to assess these concerns in the early stages of the project effort to ensure that the affected project proce-dures are complete and properly resolve all of these issues.
This report and its appendixes summarize SkTC's resolution of each issue and the project procedures implemented.
2.0 GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES The issues discussed in this report originated from outside the TUGC0/
Project organization.
They were identified by Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE), an intervenor organization; CYGNA, a consulting firm, originally involved in the project review as consultants to the NRC; and the NRC themselves, through staff reviews and Site Investiga-tionr Team (SIT) reviews.
All issues were discussed in hearings before the Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB).
The concerns, allegations, and evaluations have been documented in corre-spondence, reports, supplemental safety evaluation reports (SSERS), and affidavits and transcripts of testimony before the ASLB.
Tenera has been employed by TUGC0 to review the above documentation and to ensure that all issues / concerns are clearly identified sad resolved.
SWEC will evaluate those issues, both technical and administrative, that affect the pipe stress and pipe support requalification program.
The s, cope of this report is limited to those issues.
3.0 ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCESS For each issue that affect the SWEC requalification effort, SWEC reviewed the associated documentation to gain an understanding of the background.
SWEC then summarized its understanding of the issue.
With the issue thus encapsulated, SWEC developed an action plan to re-solve the issue.
This action plan was then executed and a resolution obtained.
The resolutions are implemented in appropriate SWEC procedures for Comanche Peak.
0370-1545405-HC4 5
PRhillilNiRY Ca?Y 4.0 REPORT ORGANIZATION i.gg. g.
The report consists of both the main report body, which contaigs an over-view of the issue background and resolution process, and separate appendixes for each issue.
Each appendix serves as a report on the issue resolution process for the specific titled issue.
5.0 ISSUE PROCESS The main report body and each appendix will be issued separately, each with its own title and signature page.
An index of appendixes will be issued separately, and it will be updated as the appendixes are issued or revised.
The title page of each appendix will resemble Attachment I and will con-tain the signatures of the Project Engineer - Unit 1, Project Engineer - Unit 2, the Assistant Project Hahager - Technical, the Project Manager, and the Chief Engineer - Engineering Mechanics Division.
t I
l t
I l
i I
l l
l l
0370-1545405-HC4 6
1
I i
b-1 hd 6.0 ABBREVIATIONS The following abbreviations are used throughout the report and its appendixes:
ACI:
American Concrete Institute ASLB:
Atomic Safety Licensing Board CASE:
Citizens Associatio'n for Sound Energy CPPP-6i Comanche Peak Project Procedure No. 6, Pipe Stress / Support Requalification Procedure - Unit No. 1 CPPP-7:
Comanche Peak Project Procedure No. 7, Design Criteria for Pipe Stress and Pipe Supports CPPP-9:
Comanche Peak Project Procedure No. 9, Pipe Stress / Support Requalification Procedure - Unit No. 2 CPSES:
Comanche Peak Steam-Electric Station CYGNA:
CYGNA Energy Services f'c:
Concrete compressive strength (psi)
Fs:
Factor of safety FX:
Force along the X axis FY:
Force along the Y axis FZ:
Force along the Z axis ksi:
Kips per square inch MX:
Moment about the X axis MY:
Moment about the Y axis MZ:
Moment about the Z axis NPSI:
NPS Industries Incorporated - A manuf acturer and supplier of pipe support components as well as a supplier of pipe support engineering services NUPIPE-SW SWEC Piping Analysis Computer Program PSE:
Pipe Support Engineering Group Rl:
Richmond Inserts RLCA:
Robert Cloud Associates SIT:
Site Investigation Team (NRC)
SSER:
Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report SWEC:
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation TES:
Teledyne Engineering Services TERA:
Tenera - A technical consulting fire employed by TUGC0 TRT:
Comanche Peak Technical Review Tea:n (NRC) - Responsible for SSERs TUGCO:
Texas Utilities Generating Company et 0370-1545405-HC4 7
J.O.No. 15454.05-11H i
1:k:'p.:
ATTACHMENT 1 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY (TUGCO)
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION REPORT ON STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION'S EVALUATION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES APPENDIX _:
(Title)
D. C. Foster R. R. Wrucke Chief Engineer -
Project Engineer - Unit 1 i
Engineering Mechanics Division C. A. Fonseca Project Engineer - Unit 2 A. W. Chan Assistant Project Manager -
8 Technical R. P. Klause Project Manager 0370-1545405-HC4 8
l COMANCHE'P5AK' STEAM ELECTRIC' STATION' UNIT #1
~
GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUE
~
(TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1986)
INTRODUCTION A.W.CHAN FRICTION FORCE F.L.0GDEN SECTION PROPERTIES F.L.0GDEN
,o c U-BOLT ACTING AS A 2-WAY RESTRAINT F.L.0GOEN OBE/SSE DAMPING F.L.0GDEN
? CD j
(WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1986)
SUPPORT / SYSTEM STABILITY F.L.0GDEN ITERATIVEDESIGN F.L.0GDEN SUPPORT MASS IN PIPING ANALYSIS W.Y. WANG PIPING MODELING W.Y. WANG CLOSING A.W.CHAN OPEN DISCUSSION 8
GENERIC STIFFNESS
~
S.C.CHEN 0
U-BOLT CINCHING P.SWENSON/F.0GDEN g52ro 4r 6 Tube 3+uA.
Aul3 vs. AsmE thkss PottfT sMctng MS fARTsct Psriod i
9 TITLE:
SWEC'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE:
ISSUE RESOLUTION:
IMPLEMENTATION:
w-l' i
i I
l l
I i
=
w
.se,
..,c._m.-:
..--.. - =-
'm=
w-T7ew wyw-a-wen-v 1
- v wew*
ww-,www vver w y=.e wp
'--t-v -Y-9-WT---'-T=*'-*N'N=D vf-*TWM'=ewr**-+-"M'T'M--w*ww"wvWgrar" v-PWPT'"W't"We*mw w-F"'"-*'WF-