ML20197E245

Trip Rept of 851125 Visit to S&W Engineering Corp Re Audit of Nonseismic Piping Effects on Seismic Design Piping. Further Audit of Anchor Designs Required.List of Attendees & Related Info Encl

ML20197E245
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	12/18/1985
From:	Hou S NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM)
To:	Shao L NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM)
Shared Package
ML20197E251	List: IA-86-272, Discusses 851113-14 Audit of Comanche Peak Response Team Const Evaluation Program in Area Re Piping & Pipe Supports. Three Unresolved Items Listed IA-86-454, Submits Update of 860408 Schedule for Remaining Work Needed on Sser 13 for Comanche Peak Program Plan.Related Info Encl ML20197E245 ML20197E254 ML20197E289 ML20198A376 ML20198G456 ML20210A924 ML20210K577 ML20215B696 ML20215B713 ML20215B725 ML20215B728 ML20215B734 ML20215B736 ML20215B741 ML20215B742 ML20215B745 ML20215B749 ML20215B798 ML20215B805 ML20215B808 ML20215B816 ML20215B827 ML20215B835 ML20215B876 ML20215C176 ML20266H095 ML20266H108 ML20266H113 ML20266H148 ML20266H159 ML20266H170 ML20266H176 ML20266H183 ML20266H193
References
FOIA-86-272, FOIA-86-454 NUDOCS 8605150205
Download: ML20197E245 (19)

Text

,

DEC 181985

.i i

Docket Nos.:

50-445/50-446 g.

MEMORANDUM FOR: Larry C. Shao, Group Leader s

Engineering Group

) ~

Comanche Peak Projeix T-

.y.

FROM:

Shou N. Hou Subgroup Leader

.m Mechanical / Piping Engineering Group E

b Comanche Peak Project

.D

SUBJECT:

TRIP REPORT - AUDIT OF SWEC NON-SEISMIC PIPING j&

EFFECTS ON SEISHIC DESIGN PIPING f,?

On Nov r 25, 1985, the staff and its consultant conducted an audit of v

$7 Stone &

bster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) in their New York office.

C; The purpose is to assess SWEC performance to resolve one of the open 4

issues identified by the TRT in Mechanical / Piping area. The issue is related to piping design at the seismic /non-seismic interfaces for f. i ensuring that effects of non-seismic portion to the seismically designed h

portion were adequately considered. The audit effort emphasis is on gain-E:

ing understanding of approaches used by SWEC and on acquiring knowledge 7

about status of progress for resolving the open issue. Persons who

!i participated in this activity are listed in Attachment 1.

The following fy consists of scope and findings of our audit:

,-(

SCOPE OF NRC AUDIT 7.(

We have reviewed Comanche Peak Project Procedures CPPP-10 and CPPP-7, and s

discussed approaches taken by SWEC for identifying seismic /non-seismic t-interfaces as well as ASPE/non-ASME interfaces and decision methods used f

for interface anchors. Also reviewed were three Auxiliary Feedwater flow diagrams to determine if the pipe class change was noted and therefore an i+

'h isolation anchor designed.

FINDINGS OF NRC AUDIT As a result of our audit, the following consists of our findings,

{

conclusions and followup actions:

1.

As indicated in Section 1.2.b of CPPP-10 (Attachment 2) SWEC is i;

required to review flow diagrams and to mark up stress problem boundaries independently for all ASME Class 2 and 3 piping with size A

V 2.5 inches and larger. We found such procedure is acceptable for identi-fying seismic /non-seismic interfaces.

+..

O-OFFICIAL RECORD COPY NdICF

%318(1040P"r**m== s9 y cr-u

DEC i s 1995 L. C. Shao.

2.

As indicated in Attachment 4-10 of CPPP-7 (Attachment 3), three basic design methods are described for the analysis of interface anchors.

We found that these methods appear reasonable. Further audit on their actual applications are needed.

i i

3.

The Piping analysis is proceeding with 55 of 360 large bore piping systems completed. However, to date no interface anchor analysis has been completed. Further audit of these actual anchor designs will be required.

t 4.

Six hours were spent in the SWEC office for this audit. No Region IV action is needed for evaluating this specific issue.

Shou N. Hou, Subgroup Leader Mechanical / Piping Engineering Group Comanche Peak Project

Enclosure:

1.

Attendance List 2.

Sec. 1.2 of CPPP-10

3. -10 of CPPP-7 cc: V. Noonan C. Trammell A. Vietti-Cook T. Westerman, RIV l

V. Ferrarini J. Knight R. BalLard G. Bagchi D. Terao l

DISTRIBUTION:

RMinogue GArlotto Siiou VFerrarini TRT/subj TRT/rdg MISC 10 - hou trip swec i

aev,eay TRT 91_,

,,,,,, TR,T

~~~> v.r...&M.:.t.....n'de......._...................,

w

• • > 12!!.tI.85...........121!.UM..

urc ronu m oo..o. uncu os' OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

~.

ATTACHMENT 1 NRC AUDIT OF SWEC NEW YORK OFFICE ON NON-SEISMIC PIPING EFFECTS ON SEISMIC DESIGN PIPING November 25, 1985 ATTENDANCE LIST R. Klause SWEC K. Y. Chu SWEC C. A. Chu SWEC K. Menon SWEC S. Hou NRC/ Comanche Peak Project V. Ferrarini NRC/ Consultant y

,.._.,-..--r~

--__e.,

y-

-.-,yy

,--.r

..-3

ATTAufMeNT {

CRP-lo of 12 Rev. 0

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) has been contracted by Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) to perform pipe stress requalification of ASE III Class 2 and 3 piping systems on Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES).

As a part of this requalification program, plant and system operating mode conditions prepared by Gibbs &

Hill Inc. (G&H) will be reviewed to confirm the adequacy of data for use in the pipe stress reanalysis.

~

1.1 Purpose The objectives of this procedure are:

a.

To establish a guideline for systematic review and verification of system modes of operation prepared by G&H for CPSES, and b.

To provide a procedure for documenting and control of the results of the review for use in pipe stress analysis during the CPSES requalification effort.

1.2 cope The Scope of Work for the review will include the following:

. Identification of ASE Section III, Code Class 2 and 3 Systems a.

on Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.

b.

Review CPSES system flow diagrams, identify ASE Section III Code Class 2 and 3 piping 21/2 inches and larger, and mark up stress problem boundaries.

This review is performed to ensure that all ASE Section III, Code Class 2 and 3 piping 21/2 inches and larger are included in the pipe stress requalification program.

c.

Review and verify that the system modes specified by G&H in each stress problem adequately consider the effects of all anticipated or postulated plant and/or system operating conditions including exposure to low temperature. This review will be performed on a system basis and the results will be contained in one document titled " System Information Document" (SID).

d.

Provide system

. engineering support to SID-Pipe Stress Coordinator to develop a thermal mode (NUPIPE-NOP-HODE) sketch.

This sketch will reconcile the pipe stress engineer-selected thermal mode (NUPIPE-NOP-HODE) temperatures used in the SW-NUPIPE computer programs with the fluid condition parameter.

i Review system and equipment data provided by G&H for input to e.

the fluid transient analysis.

Fluid transients considered for CPSES are listed in Attachment 1.

00031-1545405-N1 w-

._,--,.y--,,,.,,-,-_,..-.--w.,,,,..,,,.._.--,.y-,,,,v,,m_,-...,.-.,__,.,,,,,,w,w-.,,,,,---w-.w--,w,.

,3,w,-.m

LPFF-/

ATTAcHesNT 3

""' 2

~

Attechm:nt 4-10 Page 1 of 15 DESIGN METHODS FOR INTERFACE ANCHORS

(

SEPARATING SEISMIC AND NONSEISMIC PIPING

1.0 DESCRIPTION

OF THE METHODS 1.1 Protection From Structural Barriers Structural barriers, such as sleeve openings, structural beams, and walls should be investigated to determine whether they can provide seismic load protection for the interface anchor.

The effectiveness of the barrier, however, is directly related to the size of the gap between pipe and bar-rier.

A calculation can be performed, including the gap as a displace-ment loading, in erder to determine the resultant forces and moments on the interface anchor. If the structural barrier does not provide protec-tion for all load directions, it can be complemented by additional re-straints in a manner similar to the method discussed in Section 1.4.

1.2 Zero Cap High-Energy Restraints Zero sap rupture restraints or a combination of rupture restraints can be considered to fulfill the function of an interface anchor.

A method described in Section 1.4 should be used to evaluate the consequence.

1.3 Plastic Hinae Next To Interface Anchor This method considers the plastic hinge occurring on the nonseismic por-(

tion of the pipe immediately adjoining the anchor (see Figure 2).

The plastic hinge moments used in the design of the anchor are given in Tables 1 and 2.

The three components of plastic moments, i.e.,

one torsional and two bendings, will be applied separately in the three local coordinate directions.

The interface anchor design requirements and allowables are given in Section 2.

Although this option is simple in load derivation, the magnitude of the load could be very large.

If the anchor cannot be designed with this method, then the methods given below should be considered.

1.4 Seismic Desian of a Portion of the Pipina on the Nonseismic Side The objective of this method is to design one or a series of restraints on the non-seismic side adjacent to t'he interface anchor for the purpose of reducing the moment loads at the interface anchor (refer to Figure 3).

The detailed procedure is as follows:

Step 1 Establish a portion of the piping which will be seismic-ally analyzed and supported.

The portion of the piping may consist of one or more seismic supports (see Figure 3).

Preferably, the combination of the supports would provide resistance to seismic excitation in three orthogonal directions.

(

4 0305E-15616-HC4

,-,,<-,-,w

,.,m

,.,_,,--,-,,,_,,,-_,,,,e,,

,__,,,,m,.,,e---

r-sw wwe an,--

-w

W Rav. 1 F

Attachm2nt 4-10 Pege 2 ef 15 Step 2 The portion of the piping shall be seismically analyzed by

(

either one of the following methods:

f a.

Nodal analysis using ARS curve, or b.

Use of equivalent static method with the accel-erations equal to 1.5 times the peak G value, unless another value can be justified from the ARS curve for each of the three orthogonal directions.

Step 3 Stresses in this portion of the piping due to sustained and occasional loads (including SSEI) shall satisfy Equation 9 of ASME III NC or ND for I,evel D stress limit using the basic material allowable stress (S ) from ANSI B31.1.

The. thermal stresses of the origina piping system, including the seismically supported portions, shall be reviewed for conformance with the prescribed code equations.

If the flexibility is not adequate, then the support arrangement should be revised.

1 Step 4 In addition, the effect from the remaining portion of the nonseismic piping shall be considered to form a limiting load case for the structural integrity evaluation of the interface anchor and the seismic supports. Point A (refer 1

to Figure 4) is then assumed to form a plastic hinge. The

.(

three components of the plastic moments will be applied separately at Point A in the three local coordinate direc-tions to derive three sets of loads at the supports and the interface anchor.

The three sets of loads shall be combined absolutely with the results from Step 2 to form limiting load cases for the evaluation of the supports and interface anchor (see also Section 2).

Step 5 The support and anchor loads of the seismically supported section can be reduced if the elbow / bend resultant moments have exceeded the plastic limit moments of the elbow / bend.

The value of the reduction factor is as follows:

RF =

< 1, (if RF > 1, no reduction is possible)

RF = Hultiplier used to reduce the interface anchor j

and support loads.

Ma = Resultant moment at elbow / bend obtained from the load combinations in Step 4.

Use maximum j

value if several elbows / bends are within seismically supported region.

, QQ M Y

L y-g,s. &

t 0305E-15616-HC4 i

E

.......,.________..-_._.._____.__.-,,%~

---.,,g.,

.-----.--,.m_-,-y,,,----,w,-

,p y

7,------.-;---y.y-r-.-

3~

myy,,,,mp 9%,m-7---w 9-,-.,.y-

.-,-gr.

,_-.g w

CPPP-7 Rav. 1

. -10 Page 3 of 15 i

O6 ML = 0.8h g D t Sy for b $ 1.45

(

'h 2

=-

{cd<u. t kU k )

2 ML = D t Sy for h > 1.45 h = 4tR dRQL y,,Mr -2d I Y D = 0.D. of elbow / bend (NORE6 cK92.fI)

Y N, k>.(0) t = Thickness of elbow R = Bend radius of elbow or bend 4

1.5 Seismic Desian of Nonseisisic Pipina

~

~~~

A seismic analysis may be performed on the nonseismic side of the piping system.

This method would require that both the piping and supports maintain structural integrity during an earthquake. Piping stresses due to sustained and occasional loads (including SSEI) shall satisfy Equa-tion 9 of XSME III NC or ND for Level D stress limit (See Figure 5). The rod hangers and any other single-action vertical supports can be quali-fled as seismic supports provided the deadweight load exceeds the maximum thermal and seismic uplift loads.

(

The advantage of this method is that the seismic loads on the interface anchor could be smaller in comparison to the loads of other methods. The disadvantage is that engineering and material cost may increase sig-nificantly due to the upgrading of the supports from nonseismic to seismic.

2.0 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR INTERFACE ANCHOR AND PIPE SUPPORTS The interface anchor and supports shall be designed to ensure that the piping system will perform its intended function during normal and upset plant operation.

Since this portion of the piping is non-ASME piping, it does not require to remain functional during an earthquake, and seismic loads need not be considered in the normal and upset plant i

operations.

However, the structural integrity of the interface anchor must be maintained during an earthquake to ensure the safety function of l

the ASME piping.

Since SSE is the most severe earthquake event

)

and envelops the OBE event, the SSE loads shall be considered in combination with other loads for evaluation of the structural integrity of the interface anchor.

On the bases of these requirements, the interface anchor shall be designed to satisfy the following criteria.

2.1 Normal and Upset Plant Operation The design of the interface anchor and the supports on the nonseismic side shall consider the following load combinations for normal and upset plant operations.

0305E-15616-HC4

~

. -. ~,

CPPP-7 Rev. 1 Attechnent 4-10 Page 4 of 15 s

(

1.

DL 2.

DL + THER 3.

DL + THER 1 OCC The allowable stresses shall be as follows:

I Member stress AISC Weld stress AISC Plate bending AISC Hilti-Kwik bolts -4 Richmond Inserts -5 For load combination 3, the allowables may be increased by one-third.

The local pipe stress at integral attachments shall be verified to meet the following requirements:

P + DL i Sh P + DL 2 OCC $ 1.2 Sh j

P + DL + THER 3 SA* h The allowable stress for weld to the run pipe shall be 0.8 S h

2.2 Verification of Structural Intearity 2.2.1 Methods of Section 1.5 (Seismic Desian of Nonseismic Pipina)

Wen this method is used., the seismic loads are determined by computer analysis.

The design of the interface anchor and/or supports on the nonseismic side shall censider the following load combination:

DL i SRSS (SSEI, OCC)

The allowable stresses for supports may be increased by one-third of the values specified in Section 2.1, as in the case of load combination 3.

l The local pipe stress shall be verified to meet the following require-ment:

P + DL i SRSS (SSEI, OCC) $ 2.4 Sh The allowable stress for weld to run pipe may also be increased by one-third of the value specified in Section 2.1.

7.2.2 Methods of Sections 1.3 and 1.4 (Use of Plastic Hinze Moments) l Wen these methods are used, the most severe condition that could possi-bly occur is postulated in order to derive the support loads. The load

(

combination and the allowable stresses are described below:

0305E-15616-HC4

CPPP-7 R2v. 1

- -10 Page 5 of 15 1.

Limit Load Combinations a.

Plastic Hinge Next to Interface Anchor The design of the anchor shall c'onsider the following load combination:

Seismic Side Nonseismic Side DL i SRSS (SSEI, OCC)

Mp or Tp The total moments Mx, My, and Mz to be applied separately to the anchor in the three axes as shown are as follows:

Y Mx - SRSS (Hsx, Tp) t My = SRSS (Hsy, Mp)

Mz = SPSS (Hsz, Mp)

A Q.

X where Msx, May, and Msz are the total 2

/ @'i moments on the seismic side, and Tp, ay, Mp are the torsional and bending plas-tic moments on the nonseismic side from Table 1 or 2.

b.

Seismic Design of a Portion of the Piping on the Non-1.

seismic Side The design of the interface anchor shall consider the fol-lowing load combination by SRSS of the loads from both sides:

Seismic Side Nonseismic Side DL 1 SRSS (SSEI, OCC)

DL 1 SRSS (LL, OCC) where LL represents the combination of the ASME loads and the effect of plastic moments as described in steps 2, 3, and 4 of Section 1.4.

The design of the supports on the seismically analyzed portion of the nonseismic piping shall consider the fol-lowing load combination:

DL i SRSS (LL, OCC) 2.

Allowable Stresses for the Limit Load Combination Since the limit moment of the run pipe is used to derive loads at supports and/or the interface anchor, the allowable stresses for the support Alesign are generally set at 90 percent of the yield strength to provide a sufficient margin to accommodate the potential effect resulting from strain-hardening of run-pipe. The engineer should exercise judgment to ensure that the materials used for anchor design have similar strain-hardening 0305E-15616-HC4

CPPP-7 Rsv. 1 Attechnent 4-10 Pega 6 of 15 k

characteristics as the piping material to guard against u1Ii-mate failure. The allowable stresses given in this section for the limit load condition satisfy this intent for most commonly used pipe support materials.

For any special material, a

factor of 2 to 3 shall be maintained to guard against ultimate failure.

Trunnion and structural members Member stress = 1.5 x normal AISC Code allowables Weld stress

= 0.9 Sy of base material, but not to exceed 0.5 Su of weld material Baseplates

- - - Plate bending --- =

0.9 Sy

~ ~

~ '

• Hilti-Kwik bolts

=

I,ater Richmond Inserts

=

I,ater Weld To Run Pipe 0.9 Sy of the base material (not exceed-

=

ing 0.5 Su of weld material) j

• NOTE:

These allowable loads provide a safety factor of 2 to 3 against ultimate failure.

(

2.2.3 Methods of Sections 1.1 and 1.2 (Structural Barriers and Hith-Eneray Restraints)

When structural barriers or zero gap restraints are used to provide pro-tection for the interface anchor, the Pipe Stress Section shall provide the loads for the supports and the barrier.

The interface anchor and 1

pipe support design criteria for normal and upset conditions are as given in Section 2.1.

The limit loads on the interface anchor and pipe supports shall be combined in the same manner as described in Sec-tion 2.2.2.1(b), and the allowable stresses of Section 2.2.2.2 shall be used. The loads at the structural barrier or high-energy restraint shall be transmitted by the Pipe Support Engineer to the responsible engineer for confirmation of the structural adequacy of such barriers before pro-ceeding with the design of the interface anchor and pipe supports, Assistance from the Division should 'be obtained as needed on a case-specific basis.

)

3.0 EA REQUIREMENTS Pipe stress calculations based on Sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, and 1.5 of this procedure shall be marked as safety-related even though the systems being analyzed may be nonsafety-related.

Since the analysis is performed to eliminate the potentially adverse effects of a nonsafety-related on a' 1

safety-related system or component.

i 0305E-15616-HC4 v

v.

-ww-w,----,

-re,,w,,

,e_ms--,-,-

,,,--,--,,--vw m-m m

_m--

- m

,mw-r-,-----w,,r-----mmw-,,

v

CPPP-7 Rsv. 1

, -10 I

Page 7 of 15

(

4.0 TABLES AND FIGURES 4.1 Table 1 - Values of M and T for SA106GRB at room temperature Table 2 - Values of MP and 7 for SA376 TP316 at room temperature P

4.2 Figure 1 - Definitions Figure 2 - Plastic hinge next to interface anchor Figure 3 - Seismically analyzed portion of nonseismic piping Figure 4 - Application of plastic moment Figure 5 - Seismic design of nonseismic piping Figure 6 - Composite ARS S

(

O e

1 0305E-15616-HC4

-w- - -, - - - - - - - - -

wr-we

,www,-m-w-

---

w--,,-,v--,r-

--+w.-

nw-www-y-,m, wy-r.-,w,-y,--www vv-

-*w-w

CPPP-7 Rav. 1 Attochment 4-10 Page 8 of 15

(

TABLE 1 VALUES OF Mp AND Tp FOR SA106GRB AT ROOM TEMPERATURE NPS wall Mp Tp (in.)

(in.)

(ft-k)

(ft-k) 2 0.154 2.2 2.0 0.218 3.0 2.7 0.343 4.1 3.7 3

0.216 6.8 6.2 0.300 9.0 8.1 0.437 12.0 10.8 4

0.237 12.6 11.4 0.337 17.0 15.4 0.437 21.0 19.1 0.531 24.4 22.1 6

0.280 32.9 29.8 0.432 48.3 43.8 0.562 60.3 54.6 0.718 73.1 66.3

(

8 0.322 64.7 58.7 0.500 96.3 87.3 0.593 112 101 0.718 131 119 0.906 157 143 10 0.365 115 104 0.500 153 139 0.594 179 162 0.719 211 191 0.844 242 219 1.125 304 276 12 0.375 167 152 0.406 180 164 0.500 219 198 0.687 292 264 0.843 349 316 1.000 403 365 1.312 501 454 14 0.375 203 184 0.437 234 213 0.500 266 241 0.750 384 348 0.937 466 423 1.093 531 482 1.406 650 590 0305E-15616-HC4 r

---

r

~w.-

-.--,m,,---w,y,-m,.,

-..,.-,.----..-_-m, y

CPPP-7

~

Rsv. 1 Attechnent 4-10 Pasa 9 of 15 TABLE 1 (Cont)

VALUES OF Mp AND Tp FOR SA106GRB AT ROOM TEMPERATURE NPS wall Mp Tp (in.)

(in.)

(ft-k)

(ft-k) s 16 0.375

.267 242

~

0.500 350 318 0.843 565 512 1.031 674 611 1.218 776 704 1.593 964 875 2.125 1193 1082 18 0.375 340 308 0.500 447 405 0.562 498 452 0.937 796 722 1.156 957 868 1.375 1108 1005 1.781 1366 1239 20 0.375 421 382 0.500 555 503

(

0.593 651 591 1.031 1082 981 1.281 1309 1187 1.500 1497 1358 1.968 1866 1693 24 0.375 610 554 0.500 805 730 0.687 1089 988 1.218 1844 1672 1.531 2254 2045 1.812 2602 2360 2.343 3205 2907 26 0.375

• 718 651 0.625 1174 1064 1.000 1823 1653 1.250 2233 2025 1.500 2626 2382 30 0.375 960 871 0.625 1573 1427 1.000 2453 2225 1.250 3014 2733 32 0.375 1094 992 0.625 1794 1627 1.000 2803 2542 1.250 3447 3126 0305E-15616-HC4

~'

1-'~ ~ ~~ i ~.Z Z Z Z.1 :J'1 1 l

CPEP-7 Rzv. 1 -10 Page 10 of 15

(

TME 2 VALUES OF Mp AND To FOR SA376 TP316 AT ROOM TEMPERATURE NPS twall Mp Tp (in.)

(in.)

(ft-k)

(ft-k) 2 0.154 1.9 1.7 0.218 2.5 2.3 0.343 3.5 3.2 0.436 4.1 3.7 3

0.216 5.8 5.3 0.300 7.7 7.0 0.437 10.2 9.3 0.600 12.6 11.4 4

0.237 10.8 9.8 0.337 14.6 13.2 0.437 18.0 16.4 0.531 20.9 19.0 0.674 24.7 22.4 6

0.280 28.2 25.6

(

0.432 41.4 37.6 0.562 51.6 46.8 0.718 62.6 56.8 0.864 71.7 65.0 8

0.322 55.5 50.3

+

0.500 82.5 74.8 0.593 95.6 86.7 0.718 112 102 O.906 135 122 4

10 0.365 98.4 89.2 0.500 131 119 0.593 153 139 0.718 181 164 0.843 207 188 1.000 238 216 1.125 261 236 12 0.375 144 130 0.500 188 170 0.687 250 227 0.843 299 271 1.000 345 313 1.312 429 339 14 0.375 174 158 0.437 201 182 0.500 228 207 0.750 329 299 0305E-15616-HC4

CPPP-7 R v. 1 Attcchment 4-10' Pega 11 cf 15

(

TABLE 2 (Cont)

VALUES OF Mp AND Tp FOR SA376 TP316 AT ROOM TEMPERATURE NPS twall Mp Tp (in.)

(in.)

(ft-k)

(ft-k) 0.937 400 363 1.093 455 413 1.406 558 506 16 0.375 229 208 0.500 300 272 0.843 484 439 1.031 578 524 1.218 665 603 1.594 827 750 2.125 1023 928 18 0.375 291 264 0.500 383 347 0.562 427 387 0.937 682 619 1.156 820 744 1.375 950 862

(

1.781 1171 1062 20 0.375 361 327 0.500 475 431 0.593 558 506 1.031 927 841 1.281 1122 1018 1.500 1283 1164 1.968 1600 1451 24 0.375 523 475 0.500 690 626 0.687 933 847 1.218 1580 1433 1.531 1932 1752 1.812 2230 2023 2.343 2747 2492 26 0.375 616 558 0.500 813 737 1.000 1563 1417 1.250 1914 1736 1.500 2251 2041 30 0.375 823 746 i

0.625 1348 1223 1.000 2103 1907 1.250 2583 2343 0305E-15616-HC4

. ~.

CPPP-7 R:v. 1 Attechnent 4-10 Pram 12 cf 15 TABLE 2 (Cont)

VALUES OF Mp AND 7p FOR SA376 TP316 AT ROOM TEMPERATURE NPS twall Mp Tp (in.)

(in.)

(ft-k)

(ft-k) 32 0.375 938 850 0.625 1538 1395 1.000 2403 2179 1.250 2955 2680 S

0305E-15616-HC4 r.

-___.s,-.y

.,__.v._

,,,,,_,_-.,,,-_-......,,y_,,

CPPP-7 Rzv. 1 Att chm:nt 4-10 Page 13 of 15 FIGURE 1 DEFINITIONS ASME-CLASS

_1.2.4 R 3 l_

CLASS S CLASS 5 h0N.8El&MIC

" SEISMIC SEISMIC 3

~

~

1. P W INTERFACE ANCMOR DEFINITIONS:

Interface Anchor - Six directional restraint separating the ASE from the non-ASE portions of the piping system Seismic

- Piping is required to meet functio 1 and/or structural integrity during a S event Nonseismic

- Piping not required to be etional or maintain structural integrity during AS event d'.

Class 1, 2, or 3 - ASE Section III piping Class 5

- ANSI B31.1 or other nonnuclear code piping INTERFACE ANCMOR h A/

a

/N ) Mp aj SEJSMIC

'a

(

FIGURE 2 PLASTIC HINGE NEXT TO INTERFACE ANCHOR 0305E-15616-HC4

-+*--er*--

-'- - = -, - - - -

-ewwv-w-

---

,9

---y---

-e-ww--w,,

w v e p-n:

-4,w--

--wwww sw+-==av-s-mw *eNweWwwe*N==WW'w=++'e

+=#*-u=

CPPP-7 Rev. 1 -10 PaSe 14 of 15

(

LOADS APPLIED ON EQUIVALENT ANCHOR SEISMICALLY ANALYZED PORTION OF NON-SEISMIC PIPING

-l-

~

SEIS MIC NON. SEISMIC W/

o

~

B

{\\

INTERFACE

/

j ANCMOR

/

p

\\

/

\\

!\\

l$MICALLY

\\l l

/

St SUPPORTED i

PORTION s

FIGURE 4 APPLICATION OF PLASTIC MOMENT a

A/

'J A

INTERFACE ANCMOR l/

bI I Mpa. Mpy,Mp (APPLIED SEPARATTLY y j IN THREE C00RDINATE DIRECTIONS) 0305E-15616-HC4

-..-.-.. - - - -. - -.--. =-..:..-.....

CPPP-7 Rav. 1

, -10 Page 15 of 15

(

SEISMIC DESIGN OF NONSEISMIC CLASS 5 PIPING 1

i

~

ASME CLASS 5 CLASS 5

=

=

=

=

=

SEISMJC SE15MIC NON.8EISMIC ANCHOR INTERFACE ANCMOR ANCMOR FIGURE 5 (a). CRIGINAL CONFIGURATION SEISMIC SEISMIC SEISMICALLY NON.8EJ5MIC ANALYZED

/

ANCMOR INTERFACE ANCHOR ANCMOR FIGURE 5 (b).

SEISMICALLY UPGRADED CONFIGURATION i

l l

0305E-15616-HC4

.. - - -.... -. - -.. - ~. - - -

1 9

e 7

s.

UNITED STATES fi[ *%

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON t

k

$b S

WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 d'

DEC 181985 Dccket Nos.:

50-445/50-446 MEMORAhbCM FOR: Larry C. Shao, Group Leader Engineering Group Comanche Peak Project FROM:

Shou N. Hou, Subgroup Leader Mechanical / Piping Engineering Group Comanche Peak Project

SUBJECT:

TRIP REPORT - AUDIT OF SWEC NCK-SEISMIC PIPING EFFECTS Oh SEISMIC DESIGN PIPING On November 25, 1985, the staff and its consultant conducted an audit of Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) in their New York office.

The purpose is to assess SWEC performance to resolve one of the open issues identified by the TRT in Mechanical / Piping area. The issue is related to piping design at the seismic /non-seismic interfaces for ensuring that effects of non-seismic portion to the seismically designed portion were adequately considered. The aucit effort enphasis is on gain-ing understanding of approaches used by SWEC and on acquiring knowledge about status of progress for resolving the open issue.

Persons who participated in this activity are listed in Attachment 1.

The following consists of scope and findings of our audit:

SCOPE OF hRC AUDIT We have reviewed Comanche Peak Project Procedures CPPP-10 and CPPP-7, anc discussed approaches taken by SWEC for identifying seismic /non-seismic interfaces as well as ASME/non-ASME interfaces and decision methods used for interface anchors. Also reviewed were three Auxiliary Feedwater flow diagrams to detennine if the pipe class change was noted and therefore an l

isolation anchor designed.

FINDIhGS OF NRC AUDIT As a result of our audit, the following consists of our findings, conclusions and followup actions:

l l

1.

As indicated in Section 1.2.b of CPPP-10 (Attachment 2), SWEC is required to review flow diagrams and to mark up stress problem bounduries independently for all ASME Class 2 and 3 piping with size 2.5 inches ano larger. We found such procedure is acceptable for identi-fying seismic /non-seismic interfaces.

&3 5

l t

L. C. Shao PE r " 5 109'-

2.

As indicated in Attachment 4-10 of CPPP-7 (Attachment 3), three basic design methods are described for the analysis of interface anchors.

We found that these methods appear reasonable. Further audit on their actual applications are needed.

3.

The Piping analysis is proceeding with 55 of 360 large bore piping systems completed. However, to date no interface anchor analysis has been completed. Further audit of these actual anchor designs will be required.

4.

Six hours were spent in the SWEC office for this audit. No Region IV action is needed for evaluating this specific issue.

fI

?

.W.

Shou N. Hou, Subgroup Leader-Mechanical / Piping Engineering Group Comanche Peak Project

Enclosure:

1.

Attendance List 2.

Sec. 1.2 of CPPP-10

3. -10 of CPPP-7 cc: V. Noonan C. Trammell A. Vietti-Cook T. Westerman, RIV V. Ferrarini J. Knight R. Ballard G. Bagchi D. Terao l

l

r s

ATTACHMENT 1 NRC AUDIT OF SWEC NEW YORK OFFICE ON'NON-SEISMIC PIPING EFFECTS ON SEISMIC DESIGN PIPING November 25, 1985 ATTENDANCE LIST R. Klause SWEC K. Y. Chu SWEC C. A. Chu SWEC K. Menon SWEC S. Hou NRC/ Comanche Peak Project V. Ferrarini NRC/ Consultant l

I e

iyTTACHMEt4T 2

CPPP-10 e

of 12 Rev. 0

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) has been contracted by Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) to perform pipe stress Texas requalification of ASME III Class 2 and 3 piping systems on Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES).

As a part of this requalification and system operating acde conditions prepared by Gibbs &

program, plant Hill Inc. (G&H) will be reviewed to confirm the adequacy of data for use in the pipe stress reanalysis.

1.1 Purpose The objectives of this procedure are:

To establish a guideline for systematic review and verification a.

and of system modes of operation prepared by G&H for CPSES, b.

To provide a procedure for documenting and control of the results of the review for use in pipe stress analysis during the CPSES requalification effort.

1.2 cope The Scope of Work for the review will include the following:

Identification of ASME Section III, Code Class 2 and 3 Systems a.

on Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.

(

Review CPSES system flow diagrams, identify ASME Section III b.

Code Class 2 and 3 piping 21/2 inches and larger, and mark up This review is performed to ensure stress problem boundaries.

that all ASME Section III, Code Class 2 and 3 piping 21/2 inches and larger are included in the pipe stress requalification program.

c.

Review and verify that the system modes specified by G&H in each stress problem adequately consider the effects of all postulated plant and/or system operating anticipated or conditions including exposure to low temperature. This review system basis and the results will be will be performed on a contained in one document titled " System Information Document" (SID).

Provide system engineering support to SID-Pipe Stress d.

Coordinator to develop a thermal mode (NUPIPE-NOP-MODE) sketch.

This sketch will reconcile the pipe stress engineer-selected thermal mode (NUPIPE-NOP-HODE) temperatures used in the SW-NUPIPE computer programs with the fluid condition parameter.

Review system and equipment data provided by G&H for input to e.

the fluid transient analysis.

Fluid transients considered for CPSES are listed in Attachment 1.

4 e

00031-1545405-N1

~..

T

• ? !* t

• i MN Attac ent 4-10 l

Page 1 of 15 DESIGN METHODS FOR INTERFACE ANCHORS 1

(

SEPARATING SEISMIC AND NONSEISMIC PIPING l

1.0 DESCRIPTION

OF THE METHODS 3.1 Protection From Structural Barriers Structural barriers, such as sleeve openings, structural beams, and walls should be investigated to determine whether they can provide seismic load protection for the interface anchor.

The effectiveness of the barrier, however, is directly related to the size of the gap between pipe and bar-rier.

A calculation can be performed, including the gap as a displace-ment loading, in order to determine the resultant forces and moments on the interface anchor. If the structural barrier does not provide protec-tion for all load directions, it can be complemented by additional re-straints in a manner similar to the method discussed in Section 1.4.

1.2 Zero Gap High-Energy Restraints Zero gap rupture restraints or a combination of rupture restraints can be considered to fulfill the function of an interface anchor.

A method described in Section 1.4 should be used to evaluate the consequence.

1.3 Plastic Hinae Next To Interface Anchor This method considers the plastic hinge occurring on the nonseismic por-tion of the pipe immediately adjoining the anchor (see Figure 2).

The plastic hinge moments used in the design of the anchor are given in Tables 1 and 2.

The three components of plastic moments, i.e.,

one torsional and two bendings, will be applied separately in the three local coordinate directions.

The interface anchor design requirements and allowables are given in Section 2.

Although this option is simple in load derivation, the magnitude of the load could be very large.

If the anchor cannot be designed with this method, then the methods given below should be considered.

l 1.4 Seismic Design of a Portion of the Piping on the Nonseismic Side The objective of this method is to design one or a series of restraints i

on the non-seismic side adjacent to t'he interface anchor for the purpose of reducing the moment loads at the interface anchor (refer to Figure 3).

The detailed procedure is as follows:

Step 1 Establish a portion of the piping which will be seismic-ally analyzed and supported.

The portion of the piping may consist of one or more seismic supports (see l

Figure 3).

Preferably, the combination of the supports l

would provide resistance to seismic excitation. in three orthogonal directions.

(

030SE-15616-HC4

7_

sssu 1

Attachaznt 4-10 Page 2 of 15 Step 2 The portion of the piping shall be seismically analyzed by either one of the following methods:

(

M a.

Modal analysis using ARS curve, or b.

Use of equivalent static method with the accel-erstions equal to 1.5 times the peak G value, unless another value can be justified from the ARS curve for each of the three orthogonal directions.

Step 3 Stresses in this portion of the piping due to sustained and occasional loads (including SSEI) shall satisfy Equation 9 of ASME III NC or ND for Level D stress limit using the basic material allowable stress (S ) from ANSI B31.1.

The thermal stresses of the origina piping system, including the seismically supported portions, shall be reviewed for conformance with the prescribed code equations.

If the flexibility is not adequate, then the support arrangement should be revised.

Step 4 In addition, the effect from the remaining portion of the nonseismic piping shall be considered to form a limiting load case for the structural integrity evaluation of the interface anchor and the seismic supports. Point A (refer to Figure 4) is then assumed to form a plastic hinge. The three components of the plastic moments will be applied separately at Point A in the three local coordinate direc-tions to derive three sets of loads at the supports and the interface anchor.

The. three sets of loads shall be combined absolutely with the results f rom Step 2 to form limiting load cases for the evaluation of the supports and interface anchor (see also Section 2).

4 t

l Step 5 The support and anchor loads of the seismically supported section can be reduced if the elbow / bend resultant moments i

have exceeded the plastic limit moments of the elbow / bend.

The value of the reduction factor is as follows:

t RF = y

< 1, (if RF > 1, no reduction is possible)

RF = Multiplier used to reduce the interface anchor and support loads.

Ma = Resultant moment at elbow / bend obtained from the load combinations in Step 4.

Use maximum value if several elbows / bends are within seismically supported region.

{

(

l

,#A l

4 p/ Wq ', :i.

i u-e i

M p e^

0305E-15616-NC4

F s

?P-7 hav. 1 -10 Page 3 of 15 NL = 0.8h g Dat Sy for b $ 1.45 (MU

'h O6

=

{cde i k lM k^l 2

ML = D t Sy for h > 1.45 h = 4tR h dRWL/S.d -M/

F D = 0.D. of elbow / bend

( NORE6 [C K -o Ll I )

T N,

.(0) t = Thickness of elbow R = Bend radius of elbow or bend 1.5 Seismic Desian of Nonseisinic Pipina A seismic analysis may be performed on the nonseismic side of the piping system.

This method would require that both the piping and supports maintain structural integrity during an earthquake. Piping stresses due to sustained and occasional loads (including SSEI) shall satisfy Equa-tion 9 of ASME III NC or ND for Level D stress limit (See Figure 5). The rod hangers and any other single-action vertical supports can be quali-fled as seismic supports provided the deadweight load exceeds the maximum thermal and seismic uplift loads.

(

The advantage of this method is that the seismic loads on the interface anchor could be smaller in comparison to the loads of other methods. The disadvantage is that engineering and material cost may increase sig-nificantly due to the upgrading of the supports from nonseismic to seismic.

I 2.0 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR INTERFACE ANCHOR AND PIPE SUPPORTS i

The interface anchor and supports shall be designed to ensure that the l

piping system will perform its intended function during normal and upset plant operation.

Since this portion of the piping is non-ASME i

piping, it does not require to remain functional during an earthquake, and seismic loads need not be considered in the normal and upset plant operations.

However, the structural integrity of the interface anchor must be maintained during an earthquake to ensure the safety function of the ASME piping.

Since SSE is the most severe earthquake event and envelops the OBE event, the SSE loads shall be considered in combination with other loads for evaluation of the structural integrity of the interface anchor.

On the bases of these requirements, the l

interface anchor shall be designed to satisfy the following criteria.

2.1 Normal and Upset Plant Operation The design of the interface anchor and the supports on the nonseismic side shall consider the following load combinations for normal and upset plant operations.

0305E-15616-HC4

~

I s -

p1> 7 Rav. 1 -10 i

Page 4 of 15 t -

1.

DL 2.

DL + THER 3.

DL + THER 1 OCC The allowable stresses shall be as follows:

Member stress AISC Weld stress AISC Plate bending AISC Hilti-Kwik bolts -4 Richmond Inserts -5 For load combination 3, the allowables may be increased by one-third.

The local pipe stress at integral attachments shall be verified to meet the following requirements:

P + DL 5 Sh P + DL i OCC i 1.2 sh P + DL + THER $ SA* h The allowable stress for weld to the run pipe shall be 0.8 S h

2.2 Verification of Structural Integrity 2.2.1 Methods of Section 1.5 (Seismic Desian of Nonseismic Pipina)

When this method is used, the seismic loads are determined by computer analysis.

The design of the interface anchor and/or supports on the nonseismic side shall consider the following load combination:

DL i SRSS (SSEI, OCC)

The allowable stresses for supports may be increased by one-third of the values specified in Section 2.1, as in the case of load combination 3.

The local pipe stress shall be verified to meet the following require-ment:

P +. DL i SRSS (SSEI, OCC) 1 2.4 Sh The allowable stress for weld to run pipe may also be increased by one-third of the value specified in Section 2.1.

2.2.2 Methods of Sections 1.3 and 1.4 (Use of Plastic Hinae Moments),

When these methods are used, the most severe condition that could possi-bly occur is pestulated in order to derive the support loads. The load combination and the allowable stresses are described below:

(

0305E-15616-HC4

?

.fPP-7 Rev. 1 -10 Page 5 of 15

(

1.

Limit Load Combinations Plastic Hinge Next to Interface Anchor.

a.

The design of the anchor shall c'onsider the following load combination:

Seismic Side Nonseismic Side DL 1 SRSS (SSEI, OCC) i Mp or Tp The total moments Mx, My, and Mz to be applied separately to the anchor in the three axes as shown are as follows:

Y Mx = SRSS (Hsx, Tp) b My = SRSS (Hsy, Mp)

Mz = SRSS (Msz, Mp)

A d. _. @I X

where Msx, Msy, and Msz are the total

)

moments on the seismic side, and Tp,

/

Mp are the torsional and bending plas-7 tic moments on the nonseismic side from Table 1 or 2.

b.

Seismic Design of a Portion of the Piping on the Non-seismic Side The design of the interface anchor shall consider the fol-lowing load combination by SRSS of the loads from both sides:

Seismic Side l Nonseismic Side DL i SRSS (SSE1, OCC) l DL 1 SRSS (LL, OCC) where LL represents the combination of the ASME loads and the effect of plastic moments as described in steps 2, 3, and 4 of Section 1.4.

l l

The design of the supports on the seismically analyzed portion of the nonseismic piping shall consider the fol-lowing load combination:

DL 1 SRSS (LL, OCC) 2.

Allowable Stresses for the Limit Load Combination Since the limit moment of the run pipe is used to derive loads at supports and/or the interface anchor, the allowable stresses for the support design are generally set at 90 percent of the sufficient margin to accommodate yield strength to provide a

the potential effect resulting from strain-hardening of run-pipe. The engineer should exercise judgment to ensure that the materials used for anchor design have similar strain-hardening 0305E-15616-NC4

I CPPP-7

.av. 1 -10 Page 6 of 15 characteristics as the piping material to guard against ulti-I mate failure. The allowable stresses given in this section for the limit load condition satisfy this intent for most commonly used pipe support materials.

For any special material, a factor of 2 to 3 shall be maintained to guard against ultimate failure.

Trunnion and structural members Member stress = 1.5 x normal AISC Code allowables Weld stress

= 0.9 Sy of base material, but not to exceed 0.5 Su of weld material Baseplates l

Plate bending 0.9 Sy

=

• Hilti-Kwik bolts

=

I,ater Richmond Inserts

=

I,ater Weld To Run Pipe 0.9 Sy of the base material (not exceed-

=

ing 0.5 Su of weld material)

• NOTE:

These allowable loads provide a safety factor of 2 to 3 against ultimate failure.

2.2.3 Methods of Sections 3.1 and 1.2 (Structural Barriers and Hiah-Energy Restraints)

When structural barriers or zero-gap restraints are used to provide pro-tection for the interface anchor, the Pipe Stress Section shall provide the loads for the supports and the barrier.

The interface anchor and pipe support design criteria for normal and upset conditions are as given in Section 2.1.

The limit loads on the interface anchor and pipe supports shall be combined in the same manner as described in Sec-tion 2.2.2.1(b), and the allowable stresses of Section 2.2.2.2 shall be used. The loads at the structural barrier or high-energy restraint shall be transmitted by the Pipe Support Engineer to the responsible engineer for confirmation of the structural adequacy of such barriers before pro-ceeding with the design of the interface anchor and pipe supports.

Assistance from the Division should ' be obtained as needed on a case-(

specific basis.

3.0 EA REQUIREMENTS Pipe stress calculations based on Sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, and 1.5 of this procedure shall be marked as safety-related even though the systems being I

analyzed may be nonsafety-related.

Since the analysis is performed to i

eliminate the potentially adverse effects of a nonsafety-related on a safety-related system or component.

(

030SE-15616-HC4

PP-7 nev. 1 -10 Page 7 of 15 4.0 TABLES AND FIGURES

(

4.1 Table 1 - Values of M and T for SA106GRB at room temperature P and TP for SA376 TP316 at room temperature Table 2 - Values of MP P

4.2 Figure 1 - Definitions Figure 2 - Plastic hinge next to interface anchor Figure 3 - Seismically analyzed portion of nonseismic piping Figure 4 - Application of plastic moment Figure 5 - Seismic design of nonseismic piping Figure 6 - Composite ARS

(

l l

l l

l l

4 4

0305E-15616-HC4

f CFPP-7 R2v. 1 -10 Fa8e 8 of 15 THE 1

(

VALUES OF Mp AND 7p FOR SA106GRB AT ROOM TEMPERATURE NPS wall Mp Tp (in.)

(in.)

(ft-k)

(ft-k) 2 0.154 2.2 2.0 0.218 3.0 2.7 0.343 4.1 3.7 3

0.216 6.8 6.2 0.300 9.0 8.1 0.437 12.0 10.8 4

0.237 12.6 11.4 0.337 17.0 15.4 0.437 21.0 19.1 0.531 24.4 22.1 6

0.280 32.9 29.8 0.432 48.3 43.8 0.562 60.3 54.6 0.718 73.1 66.3

(

8 0.322 64.7 58.7 0.500 96.3 87.3 0.593 112 101 0.718 131 119 0.906 157 143 10 0.365 115 104 0.500 153 139 0.594 179 162 0.719 211 191 0.844 242 219 l

1.125 304 276 12 0.375 167 152 0.406 180 164 f

0.500 219 198 0.687 292 264 i

O.843 349 316 1.000 403 365 i

1.312 501 454 14 0.375 203 184 f

0.437 234 213 O.500 266 241 0.750 384 348 0.937 466 423 1.093 531 482 1.406 650 590 j

l 0305E-15616-HC4

.. - _. _. - _... -. _. _. -. - _ _ _, ~....,-

rr-i s

.v.

1 -10 Page 9 of 15 TABI.E 1 (Cont) i VALUES OF Mp AND 7p FOR SA106GRB AT ROOM TEMPERATURE I

NPS wall Mp Tp (in.)

(in.)

(ft-k)

(ft-k) 16 0.375 267 242 0.500 350 318 0.843 565 512 1.031 674 611 1.218 776 704 1.593 964 875 2.125 1193 1082 18 0.375 340 308 0.500 447 405 0.562 498 452 0.937 796 722 1.156 957 868 1.375 1108 1005 1.781 1366 1239 20 0.375 421 382 0.500 555 503 0.593 651 591

(

1.031 1082 981 1.281 1309 1187 1.500 1497 1358 1.968 1866 1693 24 0.375 610 554 0.500 805 730 0.687 1089 988 1.218 1844 1672 1.531 2254 2045 1.812 2602 2360 2.343 3205 2907 26 0.375 718 651 0.625 1174 1064 1.000 1823 1653 1.250 2233 2025 1.500 2626 2382 30 0.375 960 871 0.625 1573 1427

(

1.000 2453 2225 l

1.250 3014 2733 32 0.375 1094 992 0.625 1794 1627 1.000 2803 2542 1.250 3447 3126

(

0305E-15616-HC4

CPPP-7 Rev. 1 -10 Pa8e 10 of 15 i

TABLE 2 VALUES OF Mp AND 7p FOR SA376 TP316 AT ROOM TEMPERATURE NPS twall Mp Tp (in.)

(in.)

(ft-k)

(ft-k) 2 0.154 1.9 1.7 0.218 2.5 2.3 0.343 3.5 3.2 0.436 4.1 3.7 3

0.216 5.8 5.3 0.300 7.7 7.0 0.437 10.2 9.3 0.600 12.6 11.4 4

0.237 10.8 9.8 0.337 14.6 13.2 0.437 18.0 16.4 0.531 20.9 19.0 0.674 24.7 22.4 6

0.280 28.2 25.6

(

0.432 41.4 37.6 0.562 51.6 46.8 0.718 62.6 56.8 0.864 71.7 65.0 8

0.322 55.5 50.3 0.500 82.5 74.8 0.593 95.6 86.7 0.718 112 102 0.906 135 122 10 0.365 98.4 89.2 0.500 131 119 0.593 153 139 0.718 181 164 0.843 207 188 1.000 238 216 1.125 261 236 12 0.375 144 130 0.500 188 170 0.687 250 227 0.843 299 271 1.000 345 313 1.312 429 389 14 0.375 174 158 0.437 201 182 0.500 228 207 0.750 329 299 0305E-15616-HC4

CPPP-7 Riv. 1

, -10 Pa8e 11 of 15 TABI.E 2 (Cont)

VALUES OF Mp AND 7p FOR SA376 TP316 AT ROOM TEMPERATURE NPS twall Mp 7p (in.)

(in.)

(ft-k)

(ft-k) 0.937 400 363 1.093 455 413 1.406 558 506 16 0.375 229 208 0.500 300 272 0.843 484 439 1.031 578 524 1.218 665 603 1.594 827 750 2.125 1023 928 18 0.375 291 264 0.500 383 347 0.562 427 387 0.937 682 619 1.156 820 744 1.375 950 862

(

1.781 1171 1062 20 0.375 361 327 0.500 475 431 0.593 558 506 1.031 927 841 1.281 1122 1018 1.500 1283 1164 1.968 1600 1451 24 0.375 523 475 0.500 690 626 0.687 933 847 1.218 1580 1433 1.531 1932 1752 1.812 2230 2023 2.343 2747 2492 26 0.375 616 558 0.500 813 737 '

1.000 1563 1417 1.250 1914 1736 1.500 2251 2041 30 0.375 823 746 0.625 1348 1223 1.000 2103 1907 1.250 2583 2343 0305E-15616-HC4

CPPP-7 Rzv. 1 -10 Page 12 of 15

(

TABLE 2 (Cont)

VALUES OF Mp AND 7p FOR SA376 TP316 AT ROOM TEMPERATURE

~

NPS twall Mp Tp (in.)

(in.)

(ft-k)

(ft-k) 32 0.375-938 850 0.625 1538 1395 1.000 2403 2179 1.250 2955 2680

(

0305E-15616-HC4

CPPP-7 R2v. 1 -10 Page 13 of 15 FIGURE 1 g

DEFINITIONS ASME CLASS CLASS 5 l

CLASS 5

_1. 2.4R 3_ l _

~

hcN.SE!SMIC SEJSMIC l

SEISMIC e

3 5

=

l o--><

a, INTERFACE ANCNOR DEFINITIONS:

Interface Anchor - Six directional restraint separating the ASME from the non-ASME portions of the piping system Seismic

- Piping is required to meet functional and/or structural integrity during a ent Nonseismic

- Piping not required to be etional or maintain structural integrity during ASMf event A=

Class 1, 2, or 3 - ASME Section III piping Class 5

- ANSI B31.1 or other nonnuclear code piping IN*ERFACE ANCMOR)(,

SEJSMIC

'i FIGURE 2 PLASTIC HINGE NEXT TO INTERFACE ANCHOR i

0305E-15616-NC4

I CPPP-7 Rev. 1 -10

• I*

FIGURE 3 LOADS APPLIED ON EQUIVALENT ANCHOR SEISMICALLY ANALYZED PORTION OP NOF-SEISMIC PIPING a-

- l_

SEISMIC

~

~

NON. SEISMIC r

====%

t/

~

o 7

/\\

0 INTERFACE

/

ANCHOR

/ [

\\

/

\\

I s\\l l#/

SEISMICALLY SUPPORTED h

PORTION l

C t

FIGURE 4 f

l APPLICATION OF PLASTIC MOMENT a

A/

=

'J A

INTERFACE ANCMOR

/

bI l Mps. Mpy.Mp3 (APPLIED SEPARATELY q j IN THREE CCORDINATE DIRECTICWS) 0305E-15616-HC4

... - = -. -

1 l

CPPP-7 Rev. I -10 PaSe 15 of 15

(

FIGURE 5 SEISMIC DESIGN OF NONSEISMIC CLASS 5 PIPING

_l CLASS 5 ASME CLASS 5 SEISMIC '

NON. SEISMIC SEISMIC

/\\

W MAFACI ANCMOR ANCHOR ANCMOR FIGURE 5 (a). ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION i

{

l l_

class 5

_ l CLASS 5 ASME l

CLASS 5 SEl5MICALLY

~

NON.SE;SMIC SEISMIC SEISMIC ANALYZED

~

N/

ae A/

p sr i

sr ANCHOR INTERFACE ANCHOR ANCMOR FIGURE 5 (b).

SEISMICALLY UPGRADED CONTICURATION i

030SE-156I6-NC4

e

/

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON 7

g g

g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655 e

%..... *#'e 1

e,

'JAN 3 1986 MEMORANDUM FOR: Larry C. Shao, Manager, Engineering Group Comanche Peak Project Jose A. Calvo, Manager, System /0perational Group Comanche Peak Project FROM:

David Terao, Piping & Pipe Supports Leader Comanche Peak Project

SUBJECT:

INPUT TO SER SUPPLEMENT RELATED TO COMANCHE PEAK CPRT PROGRAM PLAN (REV. 3)

Reference:

Memorandum from L. Shao/J. Calvo to E. Marinos, et al, dated November 27, 1985.

Per the above-referenced memorandum, a draft safety evaluation report relating to the CPRT Program Plan in the piping and pipe support area has been completed and is being submitted for your review. This draft SER includes input from the Teledyne and ETEC consultants. The SER s

input for the piping and supports area covers several sections of the outline and includes the following sections:

Appendix A -

2.0 (partial input) 3.0 (partial input) 4.5 4.6 (partial input) 5.3 (partial input) 5.5 6.0 (partial input)

Appendix B -

4.4 (partial input)

In addition, the list of outstanding and confinnatory items provided below should be included in Sections 4.0 and 5.0 of the main text.

The following items are considered outstanding and require satisfactory resolution in order to reach a final conclusion concerning the adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan in the piping and pipe supports area:

M -riuI c-e r m

?y L. Shao and J. Calvo Jr.,

Ou'tstanding Issues Appendix A 4.5.3 The staff requires a root cause/ generic implication evaluation to be perfomed for all piping and pipe support hardware modifications.

4.5.3 The third-party to complete and provide checklists for the review of piping analysis implementation and support design implementation.

4.5.3 Lack of third-party procedures for the review of the SWEC construction /as-built effort.

4.6 The staff is awaiting the transmittal of the final Cygna report in order to assess the need for additional participation by Cygna.

4 5.3 The staff requires further infomatior regarding the root cause of the errors found in active valves deviating from FSAR comitments and its significance with respect to the adequacy of the design process.

5.5.3 The staff is awaiting the submittal of SWEC Project Procedures CPPP-6 and CPPP-7 for reviewing the resolution of the special technical concerns.

5.5.3 Justification for excluding some Class 5 piping from reanalysis effort.

5.5.3 Justification for lack of interface between Gibbs &

Hill and SWEC in the piping system design.

5.5.3 Small bore piping requalification to addressed in SWEC-Project Procedure CPPP-15 and submitted for staff review.

5.5.3 Justification for excluding some Class 5 pipe supports from reevaluation effort.

5.5.3 The staff is awaiting submittals by the applicant regarding procedures and design criteria for pipe stress and pipe support design.

' 5.5.3 The applicant to justify the as-built tolerances used by SWEC in the CPPP-5 as-built walkdown.

a 5.5.3 The applicant to expand the scope of the stress reconciliation walkdown to reconcile the concerns found in CPPP-8.

4

---,---------.,n,.---,

,. ~,

---

,---w----e.

+

r---

- - - - - - - -- - - +

\\,...

N L. Shao and J. Calvo.

5.5.3 The staff requires further information concerning the adequacy of the piping penetrations and its design consideration in pipe stress reanalysis.

5.5.3 The applicant to justify the differences in tolerances used by the QA/QC Construction Adequacy Frogram and the SWEC as-built walkdowns.

5.5.3 The applicant to provide an evaluation addressing the integration of the various as-built walkdowns and reinspections and their significance on the conclusions regarding the overall plant as-built condition.

6.3 ASME Class 1 auxiliary branch lines to be included in the DAP self-initiated scope of review.

The following items are considered to be confirmatory.and require verification during the implementation of the Program Plan:

Confirmatory Issues Appendix A 4.5.3 The staff will continue to monitor the status of external and source issues identified in the issue tracking system by 4.6 TERA.

4.5.3 The third-party to review Project /SWEC documentation for compliance with ASME Section III, paragraph NA-1140 concerning the use of later Code editions and Code Cases.

4.5.3 The third-party to include a portion of the auxiliary feedwater piping system in their review of the SWEC piping reanalysis effort.

David Terao Comanche Peak Project cc:

E. Marinos S. Hou E. Tomlinson B. Saffell, Battelle-Columbusi J. Nevshemal, WESTEC D. Landers, TES R. Hookway, TES R. Masterson, TES

l OVERSIZE l

DOCUMENT PAGE PULLED SEE APERTURE CARDS i

NUMBER OF PAGES:

ACCESSION NUMBER (5):

7 b i bo 3 6 "R 69 m,4 3 Y9 B96 l

4b7 f

R& T e4 o 3 14 I '+

M 4-

/

r.

\\ /

-s APERTURE CARD /MARD COPY AVAILABLE FROM RECORD SERVICES BRANCH,TfDC FT5 492a3939 I

-..