ML20071N232
| ML20071N232 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Shoreham |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1983 |
| From: | STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20071N221 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8306060359 | |
| Download: ML20071N232 (87) | |
Text
y _
o e e
J .0.c . . 11600.02 -
REPORT ON THE EFFECTS OF THE DISCPIPANCIES IN THE GHOSH COMPLTER PROGPAM USED BY STONE & WE3 STER ENGINEERING COP 20 RATION AND IN THE LABELLING OF THI ROCKING ACCELERATION LTITS ON THE DESIGN OF SHOREHAM NUCLEAR P0k'IR STATION - UNIT 1 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPAh7 PREPARED FOR LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMDANY BY STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION APRIL 1983
%O f 'n -
- Ej pcon. P3 scuou-d' N~ Approved by
- j // .4 pA o4 '
Engineering Management Pr et Engineer
&fh Chief Engine'er Structural Division f
A
y . . . _
, e
SUMMARY
This report addresses two unrelated potentially reportable deficiencies concerning the development of Mark II loads. They are the discrepancy in the GHOSE program used by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) and the discrepancy in the labelling of rocking acceleration data transmitted to General Electric Company (GE). The discrepancy in the labelling of rocking acceleration units affects only a portion of the GE
. 4 Scope of Work. Seismic analysis are not affected by the above
' discrepancies.
The GHOSE program has been rectified and requalified; and revised confirmatory Mark II loads have been developed. SWEC has performed an assessment of the effects of the revised Mark II loads on the structures, Balance of Plant (BOP) piping and equipment within the reactor building.
SWEC concluded that there are minor differences between the old and the revised Mark II loads, and all structures, BOP piping and equipment have sufficient margins to accommodate the minor differences.
GE has performed an assessment of the Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) using the revised Mark II loads and the proper rocking acceleration unit, and concluded that the original design of the NSSS has sufficient margins to accommodate the revised loads.
Had both discrepancies remained undetected, there would have been no impact on the plant's capability to operate safely or to achieve safe shutdown.
e
~ ..
e o
- TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title h
1.0 INTRODUCTION
. . . .. .... ........ .... 1
'1.1 GHOSH COMPUTER PROGRAM . . . . . .. ........ . 1 1.2 LABELLING OF UNITS . ... ............. 2 2.0 SCOPE. . . ..... . ..... ....... .. .... 3 3.0 OBJECTIVE... ..... .. .... .......... 4 4.0 MARK II LOADS. ............... ..... 5
5.0 CONCLUSION
S. . ... . . . . . . . .... ....... 5 6.0 METHOD OF ASSESSMENT . . . . .... .. ....... 8 6.1 METHOD OF ASSESSMENT FOR STRUCTURES, BOP PIPING AND EQUIPMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..... 8 6.2 METHOD OF ASSESSHENT FOR NSSS. . . . . ...... .. 9 6.2.1 Horizontal Loads for RPV and Piping. . . .. ... .. 9 6.2.2 Vertical Loads for RPV and Piping. . ...... ... 11 6.2.3 Fuel Support Load for Affected RPV Internals . . . . . 12 6.2.4 Floor Mounted Equipment. ... ............ 13 7.0 RESULTS. . . . .. .. .... ............ 13 7.1 ADEQUACY OF LOAD SELECTION . .... ......... 13 7.2 BALANCE OF PLANT (BOP) .. . ........ ..... 14 I
7.2.1 Structures . . ....... ........ ..... 14 7.2.2 BOP Piping . . . . .. ... ....... ...... 14 7.2.3 BOP Equipment. . . . .... ...... ...... . 15 7.3 NUCLEAR STEAM SUPPLY SYSTEM. .. .. ......... 16 7.3.1 Reactor Pressure Vesse;l and Internals. . .. .. ... 16 7.3.2 Piping and Pipe Mounted Equipment. ..... ... .. 17 j 7.3.3 Floor Mounted Equipment. .. . ...... .. .... 18 7.3.3.1 Equipment Qualified by Analysis. . . . . . . . . . .. 18 1 7.3.3.~2 Equipment Qualified by Test. ....... ..... . 19
8.0 REFERENCES
. . .. . . ... ..... ....... . 20 I
i i
1.0 INTPODUCIION This report addresses two distinct unrelated potentially reportable deficiencies: the discrepancies in the GHOSE computer program used by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation and the labelling of the rocking acceleration data transmitted to General Electric Company in the development of the Mark II confirmatory loads. Although the two potential deficiencies are unrelated, they both concern the development of the Mark II confirmatory loads. This report addresses both issues in order to expedite the resolution of these problems.
This report presents the results of SWEC's evaluation of the GHOSH discrepancy and GE's combined evaluation of both potentially reportable deficiencie,s. ,
1.1 GHOSH COMPUTE?. PROGRAM In September 1982, SWEC. discovered a discrepancy in the GHOSH computer program (ST-200) used in the development of Shoreham Mark II hydrodynamic loads. These loads were used by SWEC and GE to qualify the structures, piping systems, and equipment within the reactor building. The GHOSH computer program was not used in developing the seismic response spectra for Shoreham.
Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) was informed of this discrepancy on September 24,. 1982. LILCO informed the Nuclear Regulatory Co:: mission (NRC) of this potentially reportable deficiency orally on September 27,1982 and officially by LILCO letter SNRC-785 to the NRC on October 29, 1982.
1
~-
- a. - . . -
l The GHOSH program is a commercially available finite element program developed in 1969 by Sukumar Ghosh and Edward Wilson (University of California at Berkeley, California, College of Engineering, Report No. EERC 69-10, September 1969) . Although the program has been modified and improved by SWEC, the discrepancy identified in September was within an original unmodified subroutine which sums the stiffness matrices of the subtriangular elements when a triangular element is specified. The program internally breaks each triangular element into three subtriangular elements. The stiffness matrix of the triangular element is formed by s - fag the three stiffness matrices of the subtriangular elements.
However, only one of the subtriangular elements was included during the summation process. Some triangular elements were used in the modeling of the subgrade soil for the analysis of the Shoreham reactor building for Mark II hydrodynamic loads. The containment structure portion of the model s
did not use any triangular elements. The discrepancy has since been rectified, the program has been requalified and an assessment of the effects of the discrepancy has been made.
1.2 LABELLING OF UNITS In late January 1983, during assessment of the revised Mark II loads, SWEC discovered a discrepancy in the labelling of the units of the rocking i
acceleration data and the corresponding response spectra transmitted to GE.
This situation also applied to the transmittals of the old confirmatory ARS in 1981. In the transmittals to GE, the units of the accelerations were specified in g's (g represents the gravitational acceleration equal to 32.2 ft/sec ), whereas some of the plots of the rocking data were labelled in 2
radian /sec . The correct units are g/ft.' GE had utilized the units of radians /see in their Mark II confimatory a talyses. This affected only the GE scope of work because the rocking time history was used only in the evaluation of the Nuclear Steam Supply System. SWEC orally informed LILCO and GE of this deficiency. On February 15, 1983, LILCO orally informed the NRC of this potentially reportable deficiency and officially by letter describing this anomaly on March 18, 1983. GE was requested to reassess the NSSS with the revised Mark II loads and the proper rocking acceleEation time history units.
\
The discrepancy in the GHOSH program could have affected all systems within the reactor building, whereas the discrepancy in the labelling of the rocking data affected only a portion of the NSSS evaluation. GE performed
,the evaluation of both discrepancies simultaneously.
2.0 SCOPE This report consists of an assessment of the effects of the discrepancies in the GHOSH computer program and in the labelling of the rocking acceleration units, used in the evaluation of the confirmatory Mark II loads. NSSS, structures and BOP, piping, and equipment, that could be potentially affected by the change in the hydrodynamic structural responses of the reactor building were reviewed.- GE assessed the effects of the discrepancies on the NSSS and associated piping and equipment which they supplied.
3
SWEC assessed the effects of the discrepancy of the GHOSH program upon structures, and on piping and equipment not qualified by GE.
The GHOSH program was not used in the seismic analysis of buildings.
3.0 OBJECTIVE The objectives are:
- 1. To assess the impact of the discrepancy in the GHOSH program on the design of structures, equipment, the balance of plant (BOP) piping systems and equipment within the reactor building.
- 2. To assess the impact of the discrepancies in the CHOSE program
.and the labelling of the rocking acceleration data on the design of the NSSS.
This report presents findings, the procedures used for the evaluation of the deficiencies, an assessment of the nature of the problem, and conclusions.
4.0 MARK II LOADS The Shoreham design basis Mark II load definitions are in confor=ance with the Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria (LPAC) and NUREG-0487 and ^ its Supplement No. 1( ' } as discussed in the Shoreham Design Assessment Report (DAR) . Ihese loads provide a conservative design basis for the 4
- , , -- < + - - c r
- - : - = - . ._. . . . . -
e s l
design of the plant. In late 1980, under the generic Mark II Long Term Program (LTP), generic Mark II loads were developed. These loads are the condensation oscillation (CO) and chugging loads and they are documented in NUREG-0808(5) . These loads, together with the generic T-quencher safety / relief valve (SRV) discharge loads documented in NUREG-0802(6) ,
constitute what Shoreham refers to as the confirmatory loads. In 1981, a confirmatory program was initiated to evaluate the Shoreham plant design using these confirmatory loads. In general, these confirmatory loads are defined by various sets of pressure time histories on the primary containment boundary. Using these different sets of time histories for each load category, the results from the dynamic analyses of the containment building were enveloped and used in the evaluation of structures, equipment and piping systems.
The confirmatory program was documented in Appendix L of the Shoreham DAR.
The conclusion of that evaluation was that, although there are differences between the design basis loads and the confirmatory loads, the plant has sufficient design margin to accommodate the load revisions.
5.0 CONCLUSION
S The effects of the discrepancy in the CHOSH program, as it affects the l adequacy of the Shoreham plant design, have been evaluated. The results show that there are minor differences between the revised confirmatory ARS and the old confirmatory ARS. These changes are increases or decreases in ARS peaks, someti=es with a small shift in the peak ARS frequencies.
5
e a . !
Bowever, the sh' ape of the confirmatory ARS developed from the old and the revised GEOSH program is essentially the same. The margin between the design basis ARS and the. revised confirmatory ARS is essentially the same as the margin between the design basis ARS and the old confirmatory ARS.
As described in Appendix B of the DAR, there exists a substantial design margin in the reactor building concrete structures for hydrodynamic loads.
In fact, the 1981 confirmatory program found a general reduction in stresses from the design basis loads. The revised confirmatory loads do not affect the original design of the concrete structures. For steel structures, the controlling loads are usually from pipe support reactions with the inertia effects accounting for only approximately 10 percent of the structure's total load. The change in inertia loads from the revised confirmatory load is small, and changes in pipe support reactions are not significant as described in Section 7.2.2. Thus, the revised confirmatory ARS do not affect the qualification of the steel structures.
The confirmatory program demonstrated that for piping systems, where the total response is the result of the contribution of many significant modes over a wide range of frequencies, the occasional small increase of one ARS over another is inconsequential. Because there are only minor differences between the revised and the old confirmatory ARS, and the differences between the old confirmatory and . design basis ARS have already been reconciled and found acceptable, the effects of these minor differences in ARS on pipe stresses and pipe support reactions is concluded to be negligible.
6
3 & .
As shown in Section 7.2.3, the changes between the old and the revised confirmatory ARS are small and their effect is negligible on the design of BOP equipment.
The NSSS including the reactor pressure vessel, the internals, piping, pipe mounted equipment and the floor mounted equipmant has been reassessed i
using the revised Mark II confirmatory loads and the proper rocking acceleration units. When the effects of various loads (seismic, Mark II and mechanical loads) are considered, the discrepancies in the GHOSH program and in the 'labellins of the rocking units do not affect the desigu j of the NSSS. The revised acceleration time histories and BOP response spectra do not change the positive conclusions reached in the Shoreham Mark II Confirmatory Program or the Shoreham As-Built Piping Analysis performed by GE.~
The discovery of the discrepancy in the labelling of the rocking acceleration units prompted a review o'f all the' Mark II confirmatory load transmittals that involved rocking acceleratica data. The review showed that there is no other unit discrepancy and no other rocking acceleration data has been developed or transmitted to any other organization. The nature and the cause of the problem have been reviewed. It was determined that because the unusual units of g/ft were not as physically' meaningful as most other - units in engineering work, the labelling discrepancy was not ;
immediately detected. A commonly used unit for rocking acceleration is in radians /sec and the unit of g/ft was used in this special application.
It has been concluded that no generic problem exists.
i 7
. w 4
Since no significant differences in conclusions were found, had both' errors I remained undetected, there would have been no impact en the plant's capability to operate safely or to achieve safe shutdown.
o 6.0 METHOD OF ASSESSMENT l:
6.1 METHOD OF ASSESSMENT FOR STRUCTURES, BOP PIPING, AND EQUIP' MENT i
Representative sets of the input pressure time histories for ' each type of Mark II loads category (i.e., CO, chugging, and SRV loads) were selected for the structural dynamic analysis and ARS were developed. Enveloping and '
load combination procedures used in the confirmatory program, as described l in the DAR, were used. ARS developed using the revised GHOSH program are termed " revised confirmatory" ARS; the original confirmatory ARS, developed
- in 1981, are termed "old confirmatory" ARS. The design basis ARS developed
- in accordance with the LPAC are termed " design basis" ARS. An assessment
, of the adequacy of all components and structures was made by reviewing the l revised confirmatory ARS 'and the old confirmatory ARS with respect to the design basis ARS.
b i
For the assessment of the structures, the peak ARS amplitudes for the SRV i
and LOCA loads were used for comparison. For the assessment of BOP piping i
and - equipment, ARS developed using various load combinations (i.e., upset i
- and faulted conditions) were compared with those developed in the 4
confirmatory program.
6 E
8
.. _ . .-_ _ . . , _ . , . , , ,_ . . . . _ . _ . . . _ , , . . . . . . _ _ _ , . . . _ . _ _ . _ , . . . _ . . _ . . _ . . , _ _ _ _ , . . ~ . _ _ . , _ _ _ - . . . _ . . _
-......a .
6.2 HETHOD OF ASSESSMENT FOR NSSS Time history analyses were used to evaluate the old Mark II confirmatory loads for the RPV and its internals, using separate horizontal and vertical models. For horizontal excitation, the input time histories consisted of translational and rocking acceleration at the drywell floor and translational acceleration at the stabilizer star truss. For vertical excitation, only the acceleration at the drywell floor slab was used. The forces and' moments from the dynamic analyses were used to evaluate the RPV and its internal components. The analyses also produced the required ARS for the analysis of the NSSS piping and some internal ccmponents.
In the assessment of the revised Mark II loads, the method used was to develop scaling factors based on the old and the revised Mark II loads and apply these scaling factors to the results of the previous analyses.
The following four approaches were used to develop the scaling factors.
(Subsections 6.2.1 to 6.2.4) 6.2.1 Horizontal Loads for RPV and Piping l
The data furnished in Reference 7 are representative sets of the revised confirmatory loads. Using this data, in conj unction with the revised rocking units, time history dynamic analyses were performed. The load I cases used in the dynamic analyses were: SRV single (horizontal); SRV 3 1
! valves (horizontal); chugging (N-S and E-W, horizontal).
\
f l
9 -
/
For each load case the dynamic analyses were performed in the following three steps:
- 1. Acceleration time histories and maximum absolute accelerations for each representative set at each of the dynamic model nodes were generated. Then, the maximum absolute accelerations were enveloped for the representative set for each specific load case.
- 2. For the dynamic model elements, the. procedura described in Step 1 was also followed to obtain maximum enveloped forces and coments for each specific load case.
- 3. Envelopes of the response spectra at the nodes were also generated.
The above procedures were also performed on the old confirmatory time histories for the same load cases and representative traces. This allowed a more direct approach in determining horizontal scaling factors.
These factors were developed from the output of Items 1 and 2 above, using the following relat'ionship:
Horizontal Scaling Factor = enve pe resdts of revised conhaton analysis enveloped results of old conrirmatory analysis An example of the horizontal scaling factors obtained by this method are shown on Tables 2 and 3. These factors were used to assess the adequacy of the RPV and RPV interncis in the horizontal direction.
10
j - :
l l
i Based on the output for Item 3, enveloped plots of the revised confirmatory and old confirmatory ARS were developed for each input node. These plots were used to obtain horizontal ARS scaling factors that were both amplitude and frequency dependent. These horizontal ARS scaling factors were used for the equipment where response spectrum analyses were performed (i.e. ,
piping and RPV subassemblies) . An example showing the results of this method is provided in Figure 48.
6.2.2 Vertical Loads for RPV and Piping For the Reference 7 data, which applied to vertical load cases, no rocking acceleration was involved. Vertical ARS scaling factors were developed to address the GEOSH discrepancy. For these vertical load cases (CO, chugging, SRV valve and SRV valve, SRV 3 7 d1 M ve) vertical ARS scaling factors were developed by comparing the response spectra of the revised confirmatory time histories and the old confirmatory time histories.
As the old confirmatory vertical loads were based on a decoupled linear I
vertical dynamic model, and were also based on single time-history input (ac the p'edestal'-dryvell floor interface), comparisons of the revised 1
confirmatory and old confirmatory ARS were made using the following
- relationship.
l l enveloped revised confirmatory ARS l Vertical ARS Scaling Factor =
enveloped old confirmatory ARS i
Il f
I
~
Table 1 shows examples of vertical ARS scaling factors obtained from this method.
To verify the validity of the vertical ARS scaling factors, a time history analysis for the SRV g g (vertical)~ load case was performed.
Maximum. acceleration, force, and monent vertical scaling factors for each dynamic model location were generated, based on the method described in Items 1 and 2 of Section 6.2.1. These vertical scaling factors based on the more exact time history analysis were found to be less than the vertical ARS scaling factors. An example of the vertical scaling factors, obtained from this method, is shown in Table 1A.
6.2.3 Fuel Support Load for Affected RPV Internals The required input to the fuel support dynamic analysis is at the top of the RPV support skirt. Inspection of the vertical response spectra from the old and revised confirmatory analyses showed minor changes. The fuel support load scaling factors were developed in conjunction with the method described in subsection 6.2.2.
l I
l l The revised confirmatory loads at the top of the RPV support skirt were l
l developed by multiplying the old confirmatory loads at the top of the RPV
, support skirt by the vertical ARS scaling factors. Th'ese loads were i
combined with other loads as dictated by the applicable loading combinations ~ to obtain the revised design loads. These fuel support load scaling factors, as defined,below, were then applied to the results of the old confirmatory analysis.
12 t
e s
- I 1
Fuel Support Load Scaling Factor =,*'
od 6.2.4 Floor Mounted Equipment BOP revised confirmatory ARS were used directly for the assessment of the floor mounted equipment.
7.0 RESULTS 7.1 ADEQUACY OF LOAD SELECTION 2
As discussed in Section 5.0, representative sets of pressure time histories for each type, of, Mark II load were used in this assessment. In order to I
- ascertain that the representative sets of input time histories selected I
were appropriata for each load category', envelopes of the individual old confirmatory ARS using only those corresponding to the input time histories -
selected for this assessment were developed. These ARS were then compared to the old confirmatory ARS developed using the complete sets of the load definition. Figures 1 to 12 show the comparison of these ARS at the top of
- the pedestal, primary containment at el 83 f t and secondary containment at 113 ft, for the Upset and Faulted conditions. The figures show that the set of old confirmatory ARS developed from the selected input time histories used in this assessment are comparable to the old confirmatory ARS used in the confirmatory program, thus confirming that the time histories selected are representative of the confirmatory loads.
13
o .
7.2 BALANCE OF PLANT (BOP) 7.2.1 Structures Figures 13 to 16 show the differences between the peak confirmatory and revised confirmatory ARS values for the SRV and Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) loads. At many locations the peaks are significantly lower. Where the peaks are higher, the increase does not exceed the greater of 0.05 g or 10 percent.
7.2.2 BOP Piping Figures 17 to 28 show typical ARS for the upset and faulted load combinations at typical elevations. There are three curves in each plot; design basis ARS, the old confirmatory ARS and the revised confirmatory ARS. Both the design basis and the old confirmatory ARS are peak broadened.
When the supports of a piping system are located at various elevations, an envelope of the ARS at all support points is used as input to the piping analysis. Typical ARS with this kind of multi-elevation enveloping are shown in Figures 29 to 32.
Fid ures 17 to 28 show that the revised and the old confirmatory ARS .:,r e very similar. The revised confirmatory ARS are substantially bounded by the peak spread old confirnatory ARS with occasional minor local exceedance at isolated frequencies. When the typical ARS at different elevations are 14
e, ,. . .
4
~
enveloped, as they are for the piping analysis, as shown in Figures 29 to 32, the same trend exists. Thus, there is no significant change expected in pipe support loads and pipe stress results between revised confirmatory AES and the old confirmatory ARS.
7.2.3 BOP Equipment The majority of BOP floor mounted equipment is located in the secondary containment, where the response spectra from the old confirmatory loads are almost completely bounded by the des'ign basis response spectra. Appendix L of the Shoreham DAR presents the detailed evaluation program which confirmed that all BOP equipment were qualified for the old confirmatory load with sufficient design margin. Figures. 33 to 36 are secondary containment ARS comparisons (envelope of all elevations) for the Upset and Faulted conditions. The revised confirmatory ARS are bounded by the old confirmatory ARS except in a few isolated frequency ranges with the exceedance being less than 10 percent of the old confirmatory ARS. This is also true for comparisons at each elevation. In all of these cases, the l ARS are still less than the design basis spectra, except for the faulted vertical spectra at 70 Hz. Here the exceedance is by 0.05 g, which is considered negligible.
Figures 37 to 40 (wetwell)' and 41 to 44 (drywell) show the comparison of the primary containment ARS for the Upset and Faulted condition. The revised confirmatory ARS shov small isolated exceedance with respect to the old confirmatory ARS, by less than 10 percent in most cases. In all such l
l l
l I 15
_. ._._ .___ _ _ ...._ .- _ -.~._- -_ -.._ -_ _ _ - - _ _ _ --- - - -
- s. o -
cases, the ARS are still less than the design basis spectra and bounded by applicable test response spectra.
7.3 NUCLEAR STEAM SUPPLY SYSTEM 7.3.1 Reactor Pressure Vessel and Internals Appropriate scaling factors for the fuel support loads, SRV and LOCA loads were applied for each of the RPV and internal components evaluated in the previous evaluation. These scaled up SRV and LOCA loads were then combined into the appropriate category (i.e., Upset, Emergency and Faulted conditions) with other dynamic and static loads such as OBE, SSE, pressure differential (SP) and weight. The dynamic loads were combined by the Square Root of the Sum of Squares method (SRSS) for the appropriate load combinations (e.g. , Normal + Upset + QP + OBE + SRV) . In some cases, a more conservative Absolute Sum (ABS) method was used.
If the revised confirmatory loads (using scaling factors) were equal to or less than the original loads (to which the component was designed) for each category, adequacy was shown. In the cases where the scaled up loads exceeded the design loads, the assessment was conducted at the stress level.
The above methods were not used for the following RPV subassenblies:
i (1) Control Red Drives, (2) Core Differential Pressure and Liquid Control Line, (3) Jet Pumps, and (4) Jet Pu=p Riser Braces. These were analyzed l
using the response spectrum analysis nethod. Using the plots obtained in i
16 l
--- - - ~~
- .. . . __ _ ._ _ . . 1 ..
. ~ .
Section 6.2.1 and scaling factors developed in Section 6.2.2, these RPV subassemblies were assessed and shown to be adequate. This procedure is simil ar to that used for the assessment of Piping and Pipe Mounted equipment (Section 7.3.2).
These assessments demonstrated adequacy for the RPV and the RPV internals previously evaluated in the Shoreham Mark II Confirmatory Program. Since loads used in the assessment affected the upset condition (SR7 load cycles), fatigue was also addressed and found to be acceptable.
As examples, Tables 5 and 6 show stresses calculated for the CRD
' penetration at the stub tube and for the top guide beam. These Tables list stresses calculated using cid confir=atory data, revised confirmatory data and the corresponding allowable stress.
7.3.2 Piping and Pipe Mounted Equipment The piping and pipe mounted equipment assessment utilized horizontal .UtS plots developed in Section 6.2.1, and vertical scaling factors developed in l
Section 6.2.2.
I For each horizontal load case, a comparison of the plots was performed for each load case at each applicable node. The factor used for each piping system (line) assessment was the largest of the factors found from all sample cases, at' all nodes for that particular piping system. The vertical load scaling factors were directly applied.
17
. 1 .
The horizontrl and vertical factors, specifically developed for the main steam and recirculation piping, were conservatively applied to the values calculated in the as-built -stress analysis (References 15 through 20)'.
Table 13 lists the revised confirmatory and allowable moments for the MSIV bonnet, as an example of qualification of pipe mounted equipment.
This assessment showed that all acceptance criteria for the piping and pipe mounted equipment have been met.
Tables 7 through 12 list the highest stresses calculated for each of the four main steam lines and two recirculation lines. Values are presented for the old confirmatory and the revised confirmatory data. The data for the old confirmatory are taken from the Shoreham As-built Piping Stress Reports (References 15 through 20).
7.3.3 Floor Mounted Equipment 7.3.3.1 Equipment Qualified by Analysis The adequacy of the floor mounted equipment was demonstrated by utilizing two approaches.
In the first approach the combined revised confirmatory spectra were compared with the ccabined response spectra to which the equipment had previously been qualified. This method was used for the Control Rod Drive Hydraulic Control Units, Fuel Storage Rack Curtain, Refueling Platform.
Fuel Prep Machine and the Local Panels.
18
-m.- .-y. . . _ , - - - , . _ , - - % -.. . . _ _ .
6 .-
t In the second approach the following two steps vera used.
- 1. Comparisvu of the response spectra at the natural frequencies were n.ade for the old and revised confirmatory loads.
- 2. Using applicable loading combinations, revised design response spectra were developed using the revised confirmatory Mark -Il loads and otiser loads. The revised design response spectra were compared to the old response spectra at the equipment natural frequencies. This method was used for Core Spray Pumps and Motors, Residual Heat Removal Heat Exchangers, Residual Heat Removal Pumps and Motors, Reactor Core Injection Coolant Pump and Turbine, and High Pressure Coolant Injection Pump and Turbine.
Table 4 lists which equipment qualified by the spectra comparison method and which equipment required the more extensive method utilizing new acceleration values.
7.3.3.2 Equipment Qualified by Test The revised confir=atory response spectra were conservatively enveloped and combined with the applicable seismic response spectra to obtain a Required Response Spectra (RRS). This RRS was compared to the Test Response Spectra (TRS) for the equip =ent. For all equipment qualified by test, the RRS was enveloped by the TRS.
19 -
- l e e l
An example of this latter method is shown in Figures 45, A , and 47, the spectra comparisons for the Hydraulic Control Unit. Adequacy has therefore been demonstrated for the floor mounted equipment.
8.0 REFERENCES
~
Utilities" from Roger S. Boyd (NRC), September 1978.
- 2. Mark II Containment Lead Plant Program, Load Eva'luation Report, NUREG-0487, October 1978.
- 3. Supplement No. I to the Mark II Containment Lead Plant Program, Load Evaluation Report, NUREG-0487, September 1980.
- 5. Mark II containment Load Evaluation and Acceptance Criteria, NUREG-0805, September 1981.
- 6. " Safety / Relief Valve - Quencher Leads Evaluation Repots - BWR Mark II and III Containments," NUREC-0802 (Draft).
- 7. Stone & Webster letter CEA-2988, " Revised Mk II Confirmatory Loads,"
December 28, 1982.
r l
20
, j .. . . _ _ ...... _ __. i ._ .__..,__ _, -. _.._._. ....._.- .. -c. ..
/
- 8. General Electric letter RLL-T-353, " Assessment of Revised Mark II Confirmatory Loads," January 21, 1983.
- 9. Stone & Webster letter GEA-3024, "Mk II Confirmation Loads,"
February 8, 1983.
- 10. Stone & Webster letter GEA-3025 " Revised Mk II Confirmatory Loads.:
February 8, 1983.
- 11. General Electric Document 22A6004, " Dynamic Loads Report - SRV."
- 12. Gec. oral Electric Document 22A6005, " Dynamic Loads Report - LOCA."
- 13. General Electric Document 22A6902, " Dynamic Loads Report - Fuel Lift."
- 14. General Electric Docurtant 22A6003, " Dynamic Loads Report - Seismic."
- 15. General Electric Document 22A8484, " Recirculation Piping As-Built Stess Report."
- 16. General Electric Document 22A8485, " Recirculation Piping As-Built Stess Report."
- 17. General E1cetric Document 22A8486, " Main Steam Piping As-Built Stress Report."
21
) ,(
. +< .
,5_J- :
4 ~ . _ _ ,.,_
= - , ; ==..
\.. _
! ll !
l s t. - 4 r
- 18. General Blactric Document 22A8487, " Main Steam Piping As-Built Stress Report."
-L; c.'
? , 19. General Electric Document 22A8488, " Main Steam Piping As-Duilt Stress s ,
Report."
t , ,
1
- 20. - General Electric Document 22A8489, " Main Steam Piping As-Built Stress Report."
r s
-l 21. Lat.ter to NRC from LILCO (SNRC-785), October 29, 1982. -
, i
- 22. Letter to' NRC from LILCO (SWRC-862), March 10,1983
.s -
- +
E l _
b L
l e
P G I i
i 3'
i
!O
-,1 22
, .: 3 l
I 1.4 -
1.2 w 1.0 -
O ~
l Z
9 0.8 D
5
$ O.6 W
P O.4 -
I
/
O.2 -
u s ___(
a0 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
100 10' . 10 go s FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND OLD CONFIRM ATORY ARS.
OLD CONFIRM ATORY ARS FROM SELECTED TIME HISTORIES USED IN THIS ASSESSMENT.
NOTES PEDEST AL AT EL. 90 FT.
HORIZONTAL DIRECTION.
DAMPING a 0.02 FIG.1 COMPARISON OF ARS FOR TRACES USED IN THE ASSESSMENT
) l
\
l I
l 2.s -
2.4 - .
2.0 -
o I
z 91.6 -
!E
= 'T i 3W l
1 .2 - i I I i O
q L l
I i i t o.e -
a t 1
r l
J N/ . ,3 l ,
0.4 -
l$ \
'~- ---~:--------------
o.0 to' 108 10 3 10'
- FREQUENCY IN HZ L5GEND OLD CONFIRM ATORY ARS.
OLD CONFIRM ATORY ARS FROM SELECTED TIME HISTORIES USED IN THIS ASSESSMENT.
I NOTES PEDESTAL AT EL. 90 FT.
I VERTICAL DIRECTION. 1 O AMPING 0.0 2 i
FIG. 2 COMPARISON OF ARS FOR TRACES l USED IN THE ASSESSMENT l l
l
~
i 2.8 -
2.4 -
2.0 -
O I
2 ~
91.6 -
s -
0:
lsJ J
$ 1.2 -
W O.8 -
O.4 -
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I O.O 2 3 10 0 10' 10 10 FREQUENCY IN HZ l
l LEGEND OLD CONFIRM ATORY ARS.
OLD CONFlRM ATORY ARS FROM SELECTED TIME HISTORIES USED IN THIS ASSESSMENT.
NOTES PEDESTAL AT EL.90 FT.
FAULTED-SRSS OF SSE,SRV AND LOCA.
HORIZONTAL DIRECTION.
DAMPING 0.04 l
l FIG. 3 COMPARISON OF ARS FOR TRACES USED IN THE ASSESSMENT
- p --y-w w---,-v-y w ------<-e- - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - , . - - - - - - ---------w, -y,-, , - - -
/
2.8 -
2.4 -
2.0 -
O 8 F 2
0 1.6 -
F
<t C
81.2 -
1]
N l
I
'Hf O.8 -
l O.4 -
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 'I 0.0 0 3 10 10' 10: 10 FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND OLD CONFIRM ATORY ARS.
OLD CONFIRM ATORY ARS FROM SELECTED TIME HISTORIES USED IN THIS ASSESSMENT.
NOTES PEDESTAL AT EL. 90 FT.
FAULTED - SRSS OF SSE, SRV AND LOC A.
VERTIC AL DIRECTION.
DAMPING 0.0 4 FIG. 4 COMPARISON OF ARS FOR TRACES USED IN THE ASSESSMENT
_. _ . : :2. _
s o.
1 l
2.s - ,
l l
2.4 -
10 -
o I
Z O
p 1.6 -
4 E
- IA3 a
~
$ 1.2 -
O 4
- 0. 8 -
O.4 -
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
0.0 jos 0 10' . 10 10 FREQUENCY IN HZ 2
LEGEND i OLO CONFIRMATORY ARS.
> ---- OLD CONFIRM ATORY ARS FROM
- SELECTED TIME HISTORIES 3
USED IN THIS ASSESSMENT.
I
, NOTES PRIMARY CONTAINMENT AT EL 83 FT UPSET-SRSS OF SRV AND OBE.
HORIZONTAL OtRECTION.
DAMPING s 0.02 .
FIG. 5 COMPARISON OF ARS FOR TRACES USED IN THE ASSESSMENT
f 9 .
e 2.8 -
2.4 -
2.0 -
O I
2 O l.6 -
h s
y 1.2 -
e
- 0. 8 -
'"""T
~ '
t F O.4 -
f
\
sd
/ [ '
J u --
' ' I ' ' ' ' 'I ' ' ' ' 'I 00 3 10 " 10' ,
10 10
, FREQUENCY IN HZ I
LEGEND OLD CONFIRMATORY ARS.
OLD CONF 6R M ATORY ARS FROM SELECTED TIME HISTORIES
, USED IN THIS ASSESSMENT.
NOTES PRIM ARY CONTAINMENT AT EL.83 FT.
VERTICAL DIRECTION.
i D AM PlNG 0.02 FIG. 6 COMPARISON OF ARS FOR TR ACES USED IN THE ASSESSMENT i
l l
7.0 -
6.0 -
5.0 -
z '
9 4.0 -
e a:
U
$ 3.0 -
! W 1
i 2.0 -
- J l
1.0 -
Q O.O
' ' ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
0 2 3 10 tO' -
10 10 FREQUENCY IN HZ L55END OLD CONFIRM ATORY ARS.
OLD CONFIRM ATORY ARS FROM SELECTED TIME HISTORIES USED IN THIS ASSESSMENT.
l i
l NOTES PRIM ARY CONTAINMENT AT EL.83 FT FAULTED-SRSS OF SSE,SRV ANO LOCA j
HORIZONTAL DIRECTION.
DAMPING s 0.04 FIG. 7 COMPARISON OF ARS FOR TRACES 0
USED IN THE ASSESSMENT
a ,
2.8 -
2.4 -
2.0 -
0 l
Z O 1.6 -
4
. E i
d 1.2 -
O -
4 ~ - -
1 0.8 -
f c l
/
O.4 ,
0.0 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
10 0 10' 10 8 10 3 FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND OLD CONFIRMATORY ARS.
OLO CONFIRM ATORY ARS FROM
, SELECTED TIME HISTORIES USEO IN THIS ASSESSMENT.
NOTES PRIMARY CONTAINMENT AT EL. 83 FT.
FAULTEO- SRSS OF SSE, SRV AND LOCA.
VERTIC AL DIRECTION.
DAMPING 0.04 FIG. 8 COMPARISON OF ARS FOR TRACES USED IN THE ASS ESSMENT
]
I k
/
1.6 -
I l
I l.4 -
?
l.2 -
i i
1.0 -
O '
i O.8 - ,
u ,
a:
- W J
U O.6 W
O.4 -
t 0.2 -
t
' ' ' ' 'I ' ' ' ' 'I ' ' ' ' ' I 0.0 100 10' 108 103 FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND .
OLD CONFIRMATORY ARS.
OLD CONFIRM ATORY ARS FROM ,
. SELECTED T:ME HISTORIES USEDIN THIS ASSESSMENT.
NOTES SECONDARY CONTAINMENT AT EL.113 FT.
HORIZONTAL DIRECTION.
DAMPING 0.02 FIG. 9 COMPARISON OF ARS FOR TRACES USED IN THE ASSESSMENT
1 I
.- e 2.8 -
2.4 -
2.0 -
o e
t Z
91.6 -
T Ct:
$ t.2 -
W O.8 -
O.4 p -
j I, e
\
g I # # t I ttI i e i e t iEI t i I t t t t tI 100 10' 10 8 10 8 FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND OLD CONFIRM ATORY ARS.
OLD CONFIRM ATORY ARS FROM SELECTED TIME HISTORIES USED IN THIS ASSESSMENT.
NOTES SECONDARY CONTAINMENT AT EL.113 FT.
VERTICAL DIRECTION.
DAM Pl N G s 0. 0 2 F I G.10 COMPARISON OF ARS FOR TRACES USED IN THE ASSES SMENT
1.6 -
l.4 -
l.2 -
I.O -
O e
2 90.8 -
e a:
$ O.6 W
O.4 -
[
A O.2 -
0.0 ' ' ' ' ' '' ' ' ' l ' ' ' ' ' I 100 10' 10 2 go s FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND OLD CONFIRMATORY ARS.
OLD CONFIRM ATOR ARS FROM SELECTED TIME HISTORIES USED IN THIS ASSESSMENT.
NOTES SECONDARY CONTAINMENT AT EL.113 FT FAULTED -SRSS OF SSE, SRV AND LOCA.
HORIZONTAL DIRECTION.
DAMPlNG
- O.04 FIG.11 COMPARISON OF ARS FOR TRACES USED IN THE ASSES,SMENT
2.s -
2.4 -
2.0 -
o I
z 9 f.6 -
D 5 J
$ t.2 -
e o.s -
0.4 O.o 10 8 10: go s 100 FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND CLD CONFIRM ATORY ARS.
OLD CONFIRMATORY ARS FROM SELECTED TIME HISTORIES IJSED IN THIS ASSESSMENT.
NOTES SECONDARY CONTAINMENT AT EL.113 FT.
. FAULTED - SRSS OF SSE, S,RV AND LOCA.
VERTICAL DIRECTION.
DAMPlNG s 0.04 FIG.12 COMPARISON OF ARS FOR TRACES USED IN THE ASSESSMENT
, l l
,i ! t '
, = .
E P
O L
E f V N
~
3 E
' 0
~ 9 V
~
L R
3 A SL 6 T A S
E ST
. 1 D RN
_ ' 2 E P AO
- gKIZ
' 5
- 1
, T N
8 E 2 M 1
N I
T A 3 T
_ ' 8 1
E N
_ E O F C 3 - Y 7 R
. N A O D I N
_ ' 8 T 3 O C
A E G V S N E I P
8 L M
- Ew A D
E%
T 4 1 O
- 7 N
' 3
_ - 1
._ T _
6 N
_ ' 0 E
. 1 M
_ N I
l A _
~ ' 3 T 8 N
~
I ,C O Y
_ ' 7 Y
_ 5 R R A O
_ Y T
~ 1 MI R A _
_ ~
2 R OM P T R
. "I A I F
_ - M N
- ' 8 R O I
F C _
N D
_ - - O E
- - C S
_ 4 2 0 D V I
8 6 O O O 0 L E 0 O R _
- O
. 03N> 4 U n. - _
_ D - _
N E -
G -
E L
l !
- _ _ _ . . _. _. _ __ _.- . ~ _._
! - I J i.6 -
I I 4 .
i
} 1.2 -
l -
o, o 1 m j i w .
! 3 i j j O.8 - p
, x
- w Q.
04 - ___ __-
l --_
1 j ___
! O.0 l 8 21 57 83 106 13 7 8 38 73 11 3 12 8 151 8 21 63 90 l ELEVATION - FEET l w a v j w >
{ v . v v
! PRIMARY CONTAINMENT SECONDARY CONTAINMENT PEDESTAL l
LEGEND NOTE i OLO CONFIRMATORY 40/o DAMPING.
REVISED CONFIRM ATORY FIG.14 PEAK ARS SRV ENVELOPE l VERTICAL i
l
1.5 -
+
i 4
6.0 -
=
1 4
, o 4.5 -
w aJ ;
1 l
y ,
x w 3.0 -
n.
=
f.5 -
- O.0
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " ^~ ' ' ' ' ' '
8 21 57 83 106 137 8 38 73 11 3 128 151 8 21 63 90 ELEVATION - FEET w , w , w i PRIMARY CONTAINMENT SECONDARY CONTAINMENT PEDESTAL LEGEND FIG.15 OLO CONFIRMATORY 40/o DAMPlNG.
REVISED CONFIRMATORY HORIZONTAL 4
,' i e .
0 9
_ L
' 3 A
_ 6 T
. S E
1 D L 2 E P
A
_ C 6 I 8 I T
. R
% GI E
' F V i
1 5
1 T
. N
. 8 E 2 M
. 1
. N I
_ T A 3 T
' 1 E N 1
E O F C
' 3 - Y 7 R N A O D 8 T I
N 3 O
- A C .
E G V S N E PI 8 L M E A v
D 0/o
, 4 7
- ' 3 1
T
_ N 6 E
_ 0 1 M
_ N I
3 A
_ ' T 8 N
_ O C
7 Y
' Y
_ 5 R
A R
O
_ M Y T 1 I R A 2 R OM P T R
_ 1 A I
~ F M N
~ ' 8
_ R O I
_ " F C
_ . f w
_ N D
- - - - - - O E C S 0 0 0 0 O. 0 I 5 3 2 l O D V 4 L E
- O R
_ *OId3J_4>
. t Eh a -
D -
N E -
G -
E L
~ ~ ^ ~
e 1.6 -
1.4 -
'T- -
e.
I 1.2 mp e8 rR j g
, i I I
- Ie-,I l 8 I I
/ i
, 1.0 ,' ,I g [ l
' t / I
'
- I
$ I I I I
~
5 -
' l
=0= : . i. - i
/
/ i l i i j g' , '
- i / i w I ; ! e i i I i I ' t k* i I I I 8 ' O.6 4 -
I '-"#
l f I i I l t
e l
o.4 _
i
/ ! T[\
N J i
i 0.2 -
' . Av.1 0.0 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
10' to' 10 ' IO*
FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND PEAK SPREAD OLD CONFIRM ATORY
--- REVISED CONFIRMATORY
PEAK SPRE AD DESIGN B ASIS NOTES PEDESTAL AT EL. 90 FT. p lg,17 UPSET SRSS OF SRV AND OBE. COMPARISON OF DESIGN BASIS, HORIZONTAL DIRECTION. OLD ' CONFIRMATORY AND i
DAMPING e 0.02. REVISED CONFIRMATORY ARS l
4 2.8 -
2.4 -
2.0 -
o rm i
s \
Z 1.6 -
g l
G I \
w T.,fI I
I 1
i d12 -
, , g y Ih *O I \
< ji
.\ f*
'\
W{ I l \
\
~+ ,I r \
g-g 0.8 I g gg g
I\
f % / g L
0.4 i i N%/ / ' 1--~i~; . _ _ __
' ''I ' ' ' ' 'I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I O.0 tot gos 100 10' FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND PEAK SPREAD OLD CONFlRMATORY f
l --- REVISED CONFIRMATORY
PEAK SPREAD DESIGN 8 ASIS NOTES PEDESTAL AT EL. 90 FT.
VERTICAL DIRECTION.
DAMPING 0.02.
FIG.18 COMPARISON OF DESIGN BASIS,
'OLD. CONF IRM ATORY AND REVISED CONFIRMATORY ARS
2.8 -
2< -
2.0 - ,
j\.
J
- ,- \,
2 o
5
- 1. 6 -
p' _ .
\ -
. .i I. l
. \
12 -
d !
8 i !
< T. - 1 I c-- ,
y j r,
.\ ( l / n .
f i. \* ./I L_/( .
j \._ _ _
0< -
8
%~a L .-- -- - - - - - -
0.0 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
100 10' 102 gos FREQUENCY IN HZ
~
LEGEND PEAK SPREAD OLD CONFIRMATORY
--- REVISED CONFIRMATORY
PEAK SPREAD DESIGN BASIS NOTES PEDESTAL AT EL.90 FT.
FAULTED-SRSS OF SSE,SRV AND LOCA HORIZONTAL DIRECTION DAMPING 0.04 FIG.19 COMPARISON OF DESIGN BASIS,
.0LD CONFIRM ATORY AND REVISED CONFIRMATORY ARS
= * .
~
2.6 -
2.4 -
g-m 2.0 -
,8 l \
o i g I.6 -
I e- - , e
> f f I i i k w l e
,1 1 y' \
- d I.2 -
- I i . I i
\
\ '
U !l, ,
,lI.n./k/? v . \.%',, (- ,- .
0.8 -
g ,
(* 1 O.4 -
0.0 ' ' 'I ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' ' I 100 108 10E 103 FREQUENCY IN HZ l
LEGEND PEAK SPREAD OLD CONFIRMATORY
--- REVISED CONFIRMATORY
PEAK SPREAD DESIGN BASIS NOTES PEDESTAL AT EL. 90 FT.
FAULTED-SRSS OF SSE, SRV AND LOCA VERTICAL DIRECTION.
DAMPlNG 0.04.
FIG. 20 COMPARISON OF DESIGN BASIS,
.0LD CONFIRMATORY AND REVISED CONFIRMATORY ARS
.-w ..
- ^ '~
- , s 4.20 2.8 -
T T l t
- I i g
I I
2.4 - . I l
, i I I I I 2.0 -
l l I 1
I I e i 1
' I !
z -
l t 9 . l.6 7 g i 4
z 1 , I I
1 g
i w J l d 1.2 l l 8
i ,
?
I I m___________
- 1 7 i ,
=
sA \
l I lN .
( e 0.8 e s I
I . d l
l
\'p I
I '
I
.l e -
(
i O.4 -
s O.0
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I 10 0 10 3 8
10' 10 FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND l
PEAK SPREAD OLD CONFIRMATORY
-- REVISED CONFIRMATORY
-- PEAK SPREAD DESIGN BASIS l
I NOTES PRIMARY CONTAINMENT AT EL83FT l UPSET-SRSS OF SRV AND OBE.
l HORIZONTAL DIRECTION.
DAMPlNG 0.02.
FIG. 21 COMPARISON OF DESIGN B ASIS, OLD CONFIRM ATORY AND REVISED CONFIRMATORY ARS w v w--vw-r-wwy'-ge gm-
- -ry7-ww--ey -ww-g eT-e--t'-w* *w---e ve-ew- w-r-'-w' * -m- e e- - --w r----r
s e 1.67 2.0 1.6 -
I I 1 I I I -
I I -
1.4 -
g g l g
I 1 I
I I I
' i 1 I i i.2 -
I i I
- l 1 I I I I I
I i l I
o 1.0
- ?
I l l
l I z J l l
!2 ? I l
O.8 -
l -
5 f. I l
d ----
I i 8 I i
- 0.5 -
I .n ,
t_________._-
u \y
' I '
f -
j\ V.)
o"
-l t - J t O.2
\/ *
, ie iieiit i e iit t t iI e f f ' ' ' ' ' l 8 3 0 10' 10 10 10 FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND PE AK SPREAD OLD CONFIRMATORY
--- REVISED CONFIRMATORY
PEAK SPREAD DESIGN BASIS NOTES PRIM ARY CONTAINMENT AT EL.83 FT. FIG. 22 UPSET SRSS OF SRV AND OBE. COMPARISON OF DESIGN BASIS, VERTICAL DIRECTION. OLD CONFIRMATORY AND DAMPlNG 0.02. REVISED CONFIRMATORY ARS
- -- - _ -._._.__...r,, ,._._,,.;_,,__.c-_. ._._.,,,._._m-. - . _ , - _ _ _ - . . . _ - _-s_. . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . , _ --
= .
T.O -
6.0 -
I'
- \
5.0 -
f, ,
I i
Z 4.0 -
lR l
Q 4
- r -~h
\
h f'l~J ll l id30 ~
f,I I 0
4
' I J l I
2.0 - g 1.0 T '
7\
k f s ih,,s b
l-
'I ' ' ' I O.0
- 103 10' 10 100 FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND PEAK SPREAD OLD CONFIRMATORY
--- REVISED CONFlRMATORY
--~~ PE AK SPREAD DESIGN SASIS NOTES PRIM ARY CONTAINMENT AT EL. 83 FT.
FAULTED-SRSS OF SSE, SRV AND LOCA.
HORIZONTAL DIRECTION.
D AMPlNG : 0.04.
FIG. 23 COMPARISON OF DESIGN BASIS, OLD CONFIRMATORY AND REVISED CONFlRMATORY ARS
2.8 -
2.4 - ,
2.0 -
o ,0 i
/ Ns g I* -
h
!;.~ i
!lj(,\l\g, 5 .i r',\ \
5 i I
d 1.2 -
j . I
- {, I e l
i\
u \
I (
W I i ! U ,
j
/ 's N' '
I
/ \ i I O. 8 -
a v'
k ,
\ I 0.4 ,,
l' yrv- ' -
a
' ' ' l ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' I 0.C 0 10' 10 8 10 3 10 FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND PEAK SPREAD OLD CONFIRM ATORY
--- REVISED CONFIRMATORY
PEAK SPREAD DESIGN 8 ASIS NOTES PRIMARY CONTAINMENT AT EL.83 FT.
FAULTED-SRSS OF SSE, SRV AND LOCA.
VERTICAL DIRECTION.
DAMPlNG 0.04 FIG. 24 COMPARISON CF DESIGN BASIS, i
OLD CONFIR M ATORY AND REVISED CONFIRMATORY ARS
4 1.6 l' .
1.4 -
l8 1.2 -
9 I
, 10 43 I
Z S $.
>- I g0.8 1' 1 ,
y w a b (" 9 4 0.6 - I l
I t i i 1 I
! I i i l O.4 -
g l q
\ T ;
I Ls' (s,/ s i
~'
0.1 -
h t %s / %
N~
QO ' t ' l t ' t 't 'tti i i t t t ftii 10 0 10 8 10 : jo s FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND ,
PEAK SPREAD OLD CONFIRMATORY
--- REVISED CONFIRMATORY
- --- PEAK SPREAD DESIGN B ASIS NOTES SECONDARY CONTAINMENT AT EL. Il3FT.
FIG. 25
,- UPSET-SRSS OF SRV AND OBE. COMP.ARISON OF DESIGN BASIS, HORIZONTAL DIRECTION. OLD CONFIRMATORY AND i DAM PlNG : 0.02 REVISED CONFIRMATORY ARS l
l - . _ _ . _ . - _ . - _ _ - . - .. . - - . - - - . - - - - - - . - - . . . . - , - -
i o e , \
2.8 -
2.4 -
2.0 -
O e-Z l.6 52 -
lii i 5 4' '
d 1.2 U .
U 4 .t 0.8 -
l.i s ,__,
0.4 -
! ,.. ,# ~7t_ ,e
/ % % =m s. ~)
i , *
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' 'I O.0 100 IOi 10a ,
jos FREQUENCY IN HZ
. LEGEND PEAK SPREAD OLD CONFIRMATORY
--- REVISED CONFIRMATORY
PEAK SPRE AD DESIGN B ASIS NOTES.
SECONDARY CONTAINMENT AT EL ll3 FT.
VERTICAL DIRECTION, DAM PlNG : 0.02 FIG. 26 COMPARISON OF DESIGN -BASIS, OLD CONFIRM ATORY ~ AND REVISED CONFIRMATORY ARS
1.6 ,a a
\ <
1.4 -
!I 1.2 -
a I
,, ' t.O ,
I I Z I 9 i .
> \
jO.8 -
"i u ,
o 4 0.6 -
/
Q g
i s
/ .t
' / \
0.4 -
\ g ,k _f ~~N
/ \
k~
% -) 4
- ~
m
\
_ M ._
0.2 -
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ''I ' ' ' ' ' '
0.0 0 8 2 8 10 10 10 10 FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND PEAK SPREAD OLD CONFIRMATORY
REVISED CONFIRM ATORY
PEAK SPREAD DESIGN BASIS NOTES SECONDARY CONTAINMENT AT EL.113 FT. FIG. 27 FAULTED-SRSS OF SSE, SRV AND LOCA. COMPARISON OF DESIGN BASIS, HORIZONTAL DIR ECTION. OLD CONFIRMATORY AND DAMPING : 0.04 REVISED CONFIRMATORY ARS
r s e 2.8 -
2.4 -
2.0 -
O z . l.6 -
I o *.
p I1 4
. X )
W e d t.2 E
4
- I ;
- l. i
' I
'i ' O.8 -
,\ %F]
0.4 - g [~ -- -
' ' 'I ' ' ' ' 'I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 'I 0.0 los gos 10 0 10' ,
FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND PEAK SPREAD CLD CONFlRMATORY
--- REVISED CONFIRMATORY
PEAM SPREAD DESIGN BASIS NOTES SECONDARY CONTAINMENT AT EL.ll3 FT.
y FAULTED -SRSS OF SSE,SRV AND LOCA
~
VERTICAL DIRECTION.
D AMPING .: 0.04.
FIG. 28 COMPARISON 'OF DESIGN B ASIS, OLD' CONFIRMATORY AND REVISED CONFIRMATORY ARS h l -- - -. . . - . _. - _ - , _ , _ _ __ _ _ , _
o e 2.8 -
2.4 -
, 2.0 - 7 O
..J I
h 1.6 4 l e I .
1.2 -
g .,
W , .J 0.8 -
J 0.4 w. ~<*F'
>="T N ,---------1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 0.0 0.05 0.10 0.15 a2O O.25 a30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 PERIOD IN SECONDS LEGEND
-*- PEAK SPREAD SEISMIC (DBE)
UNPEAK SPRE AD REVISED CONFIRM ATORY (S RV)
PEAK SPREAD OLD PARTIAL CONFIRMATORY (SRV) s NOTES ENVELOPE OF SECONDARY CONTAINM E NT - Et.. 151,128 AND 113 FT.
E*W DIRECTION (X AXIS)
DAMPING 0.01 (SRV),
DAMPING 0.01 (DBE)
FIG. 29 COMPARISON OF ARS WITH MULTI-ELEVATION ENVELOPING
e e e
3.5 - ,
3.0 - ,
25 -
i g 2.0 -
I W -
g i.5 -
8 1.0 -
~ ~ ~ ~
7.#
O.5 -
, h .
/
. ,N- /'
_. . A*j/ '
'. ~
~~ , , i e e i e e i O.0 0.05 0.10 0 15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 050 0.0 PERIOD IN SECONDS LEGEND
--- PEAK SPREAD SEISMIC ( DBE)
UNPE AK SPRE AD REVISED CONFIRM ATORY (SRV)
PEAK SPREAD OLD PARTIAL CONFIRMATORY (SRV)
NOTES ENVELOPE OF SECONDARY C,6NTAINMENT - EL. 151,128 AND 113 FT VERTICAL DIRECTION (Y AXIS)
DAMPING : 0.01 (SRV)
DAMPING 0.01 (DBE)
FIG. 30 COMPARISON OF ARS WITH MULTI-ELEVATION ENVELOPING
e 2.8 -
2.4 - ,
2.0 -
.q C e i e h 1.6 Q:
w .
g 8 1.2 l
8 ,
4 0.8 -
O.4 -
/
l _. ._ .-
t t t t I I gg O.0 0.05 0.10 0.15 020 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 PERIOD IN SECONDS LEGEND
PEAK SPREAD SEISMIC (OBE) l UNPEAK SPREAD REVISED CONFIRMATORY (SRV + CHUGGING)
- PE AK SPREAD OLO PARTI AL CONFIRMATORY (SRV + CHUGGING) l NOTES ENVE' LOPE OF SECONDARY CONTAINMENT- EL.151,128 AND 113 FT E-W DIRECTION (X AXIS)
DAMPING : 0.01 (SRV)
DAMPING : 0.02 (CHUGCING)
DAMPlNG 0.005 (OBE)
FIG. 31 COMPARISON OF ARS WITH MULTI-ELEVATION ENVELOPING e
e .
2.8 -
2.4 -
2.0 -
O e
$ l.6 km -
W .
w l.2 -
U U
- 4 0.8 -
- j -----
^*
Q4 -f I W f
/
\ ~./ f--
h -Q,_.Y
~
\
0.0 0.50 O.O COS O.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35. O.40 0.45 PERIOD IN SECONDS LEGEND
' ~~- PEAK SPREAD SEISMIC (OBE)
UNPEAK SPRE AD REVISED CONFIRM ATORY (SRV+ CHUGGING)
PEAK SPREAD CLD PARTIAL CONFIRMATORY (SRV+ CHUGGING)
NOTES ENVELOPE OF SECONDARY C.ONTAINMENT- EL. 151.128 ANO 113 FT VERTICAL DIRECTION (Y AXIS)
DAM PING : 0.01 ( S RV)
DAM PING r 0.02 (CHUGGING )
DAMPING 8.0.005 (OBE)
FIG. 32 COMPARISON OF ARS WITH MULTI-ELEVATION ENVELOPING
s e
/
2.8 -
2.4 -
T l
2.0 ,f
- l O , ?
I g .s -
h st: ;
I l
IAI , i ~
d 5.2 - I I
\ i ; c, 0.8
' Y \
i
\
i
\
e- J \
j - I \
/ m g
' b-0.4 -
,, g
- N w _, _ a.Ak
' ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' 'I O'O 10' 10s 10s 10' FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND PEAK SPREAD OLD CONFIRMATORY
--- REVISED CONFIRMATORY
--- PEAK SPREAD DESIGN BASIS NOTES ARS ENVELOPE SECONDARY CONTAINMENT AT EL.<l75 FT.
UPSET-SRSS OF SRV AND OBE HORIZONTAL DIRECTION.
D AMPlNG
- O.02.
FIG. 33 COMPARISOf4 OF DESIGN BASIS.
OLD CONFIRMATORY AND REVISED CONFIRMATORY ARS
..m- . - - . . . . . .-. . - . _ - , - . . - . _ , _ - . - - - . - ,. . . . , .
1 i
2.8 -
2.4 -
2.0 -
O e
g 1.6 -
P 4 1
<t E ,
i d 1.2 -
u U \
<t .b 7
O.8 -
le l
.i \ -
, , r ,L-y y l
,7 --
O.4 v/ \
/ %**s s-- _-
, ~'___ _ _ _ _ _ _
1 I I I t t f 1l t t I I I I I Il I I l l I I II!
8 3 10' 10' 10 10 FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND PEAK SPRE AD OLD CONFIRMATORY
--- REVISED CONFIRM ATORY
PEAK SPREAD DESIGN BASIS NOTES ARS ENVELOPE SECONDARY CONTAINMENT AT EL< 175 FT.
VERTICAL DIRECTION.
DAMPING 0.02.
, FIG. 34 COMPARISON OF DES:GN BASIS, OLD CONFIRMATORY AND REVISED CONFIRMATORY ARS
e e l
1 i
2.8 - i 2.4 -
s.l 2.0 e
i I o
8 I
z I.6 - .
9 I tiE '\
i 1.2 -
w .
u 1' N l \
~%
r' \
0.8 -
f ,1 x "',-..
w.e A G4 -
,,,,g i iie it tti 1 ' ' ' ' ' I O.0 8 2 10 00 to t 10 FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND PEAK SPREAD OLD CONFIRMATORY
REVISED CONFIRMATORY
PEAK SPREAD DESIGN BASIS NOTES ARS ENVELOPE SECONDARY CONTAINMENT AT EL.<l75 FT.
FAULTED.SRSS OF SSE,SRV AND LOCA HORIZONTAL DIRECTION D AMPlNG s 0.04.
FIG. 35 COMPARISON OF DESIGN BASIS, OLD CONFlRMATORY AND REVISED CONFIRMATORY ARS
2.8 -
2.4 -
2.0 -
O, .b.
y1.6 -
f r *\
w I.I d 1.2 o
f8)
W /
\
O.8 -
/ '\ /
/ '\ ' i /'---# /. g 0.4 l
. / '%. \ _ '
/ --'
O.O 0 8 3 10 10' 10 10 FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND PEAK SPREAD OLD CDNFIRMATORY
--- REVISED CONFIRM ATORY
PEAK SPREAD DESIGN BASIS NOTES ARS ENVELOPE SECONDARY CONTAINMENT AT EL.< 175 FT.
FAULTED-SRSS OF SSE, SRV AND LOCA.
VERTICAL DIRECTION.
DAMPlNG 0.04.
FIG. 36 COMPARISON OF DESIGN BASIS, OLD CONFIRMATORY AND REVISED CONFIRMATORY ARS
I y 4.8 I
l Z PA: 1.9 l
1.4 -
g i
I 1.2 -
i l
1 RP I i
m* J 1.0 -
p l
o ,
f I s ' I Z O.8 -
~f l ,
~
o I i
< l '
x.
f l
- W j 1 I
J 8 I l w 06 J ,_
1 e
0
' Y. I 'l O.4 T 1
\ T~ ~'4 l
Y.5 i.
fs
\ 8
.j%-n.N O.2 -
\. g'( ' ' - - - - -
' ' 'I ' ' ' ' '! ' ' ' ' ' ' I 0.0 2 3 10' 10' 10 10 FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND PEAK SPREAD OLD CONFIRMATORY
--- REVISED CONFIRM ATORY
PEAK SPREAD DESIGN BASIS NOTES ARS ENVELOPE.
PRIMARY CONTAINMENT-WETWELL EL. 8 AND 21 FT.
HORIZONTAL DIRECTION.
, DAMPING : 0.02.
FIG. 37 i COMPARISON OF DESIGN BASIS,
! OLD CONFIRMATORY AND i REVISED CONFIRMATORY ARS
. + )
1 l
1.< -
.i 1.2 -
,f
.. 1 t.0 -
'1 r--) ;
j i l g i r~d \
tv \
I \
i e , I g f' l t
{O.8 p
e f i I I \\
l ? I & ~m J O 's - $
8 . . I \
u . I \
4 ,h I
[ , \
l I I 0.<
\ \j \t f- \
vv&%
()
I L 0.2 -
k- .________. _ _
i ,ii,iivi i i e i istil i e i i is'il gg 3 3o 10 0 10' ,
10 FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND PEAK SPREAD OLD CONFIRMATORY l --- REVISED CONFIRM ATORY
PEAK SPREAD DEstGN BASIS NOTES l ARS ENVELOPE.
PRIMARY CONTAINMENT-WETWELL EL. 8 AND 2i FT.
VERTICAL DIRECTION.
l- DAMPlNG : 0.02.
FIG. 38
[
l COMPARISON OF DESIGN BASIS, OLD CONFIRMATORY AND REVISED CONFIRMATORY ARS 1
1
s s 14.0 -
12.0 -
10.0 -
, O -
I Z 8.0 -
9 P-
~
I s iN d6.0 -
- 8
- /
.- /
4.0 - '
I,,/ /. I
\
I
/ I
/ 1 L
2.0 -
e.
. a- ~ J O.0 10 0' 10' 10 2 ,o s FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND PE AK SPREAD OLD CONFIRM ATORY
--- REVISED CONFIRM ATORY PEAK SPREAD DESIGN BASIS NOTES ARS ENVELOPE.
PRIMARY CONTAINMENT-WETWELL EL. 8 AND 21 FT. '
FAULTED-SRSS 0F SSE,SRV AND LOCA.
HORIZONTAL DIRECTION.
D AMPING
- O.04.
FIG. 39 COMPARISON OF DESIGN BASIS, OLD CONFIRMATORY AND REVISED CONFIRMATORY ARS
- , . . - . - - ,,- , - - - , - ~, , , -
w ,, ,- -
a-- , - - -. - - , - - - - - - - - _ --
3.._. - :- : -
e o
/
2.8 - . .
2.4 -
2.0 -
s 0
1.6 - ,
n I .i .i N
w '
w8 1 .2 l .
o d W
0.8 -
[i t
') / g
~
i r- s s .
/
\/
v
\ g
,a tf'
. ~~ ~i s
r l r s t
' * \
0.4 / .
' ' ' I ' ' ' ' ' I
' ' ' ' ' ' I 0.0 .
10' 40' 40 8 IO' FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND PEAK SPREAD OLD CONFIRMATORY
~*- REVISED CONFIRM ATORY
PEAK SPRE AD DESIGN BASIS NOTES ARS ENVELOPE.
PRIM ARY CONTAINMENT-WETWELL EL. 8 AND 21 FT.
FAULTED - SRSS OF SSE, SRV AND LOCA a
VERTICAL DIRECTION.
DAMPlNG : 0.04 FIG. 40 COMPARISON OF DESIGN B ASIS, OLD CONFIRMATORY AND REVISED CONFIRMATORY ARS
s s
/
o 2.8 -
y 4.2 I
2.4 - I-I I
I 2.0 -
l t
7 21.6 --
! r
( [e T, .l i i l
5 2i 1( [, r' J I
- j 1.2 . l g i u 1 j g l 4 ', i ' - - - - - - -
t u i
t' c-1 1 N-
- I i Ll
( i i __
- ,_! 4 I
O.4 -
- \,
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 'I ' ' ' '
O.O s
10 0 10' 10 3o FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND PEAK SPREAD OLD CONFIMATORY
--- REVISED CONFIRM ATORY
PEAK SPREAD DESIGN BASIS NOTES ARS ENVELOPE.
PRIMARY CONTAINMENT + DRYWELL EL. 57, 83,106 AND 137 FT.
HORIZONTAL DIRECTION.
DAMPING e 0.02. FIG. 41 COMPARISON OF DESIGN BASIS, OLD CONFIRMATORY AND REVISED CONFIRMATORY ARS
_ . . . . . ~ . .-
a s l
2.6 -
l i
I 2.4 -
lr ~ 'I
' I 2.0 -
\
I I I '\
O l I
I i
I hg i ;
I L 5 h1.6 l
8 P l I 4 l.
e ~
T l I
I U 12 -
j
. \. I l to 8
< ll
.1 I
sm I, I
!. I l M O.8 -
I' \, \
__ / )
J l I ,
a '
l__________
- ^ - :j i*'h t _ _ _<
'\ .'
0.0 8 10' 1O' 10 10 FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND PEAK SPREAD OLD CONFORMATORY
--- REVISED CONFIRMATORY
PEAK SPREAD DESIGN BASIS NOTES ARS ENVELOPE.
PRIMARY CONTAINMENT-DRYWELL EL. 57, 83,106 AND 137 FT.
VERTIC AL DIRECTION.
DAMPlNG 0.02. FIG. 42 COMPARISON OF DESIGN BASIS,
' OLD CONFIRMATORY AND REVISED CONFIRMATORY ARS
, _ - - ~ .: ..
4 6 ,
~ '
7.0 -
6.0 -
T.. -
fI 5.0 -
.I\\m\
e (
Z 4.o -
9 4 r-- ,
E . i ' f' {
' I y 3 .0 -
/
t
{
8
- ,W i, I
2.0 -
g h g f.
j.f\.k i irI
( ,
F 1.0 -
, I t - - >f .
' ' 'I 0.0 8 8 10 10 10' 10' FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND PEAK SPREAD OLD CONFIRMATORY
--- REVISED CONFIRMATORY
PEAK SPRE AD DESIGN BASIS NOTE
- ARS ENVELOPE.
PRIMARY CONTAINMENT-DRYWELL EL. 57 83,106 AND 137 FT.
FAULTED SRSS OF SSE, SRV AND LOCA.
HORIZONTAL DIRECTION.
DAMPING 0.04. FIG. 43 l COMPARISON OF DESIGN BASIS,
.0LD CONFIRMATORY AND REVISED CONFIRM ATORY ARS
--- -- -m. ,,--a_--.-m, ---w , ., ->-re-, t- , -,-w ------sag- - , p-, ----,,--p , , - -, --- - --
-~ -
=:-------- ..
2.8 -
2.4 -
2.0 -
r- s . ,
I'
\, , ,
)s\
h" -T l L.;( j! u'\.
F I
l' I I
i
(\.
"i u e '\ '
m -
.i - ,I f3 , l 1,1 8 ii
./ !i /
s ,
< i\
f I, ,r- -i '
t s o.s - ' i j >/ , f I
,; s. L. -----
~
.f
,rsy -
0.4 _/
' ' ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
0.0 3
10* 10' 10' 10 FREQUENCY IN HZ LEGEND PEAK SPREAD Q.D CONFIRMATORY
--- REVISED CONFIRMATORY
PEAK SPREAD DESIGN SASIS NOTES ARS ENVELCPE PRIMARY CONTAINMENT-DRYWELL EL.57, 83.106 AND 137 FT.
FAULTED-SRSS OF SSE, SRV AND LOCA.
VERTICAL DIRECTION.
DAMPING s 0.04 p CO'MPARISON OF DESIGN BASIS, OLD CONFIRMATORY AND REVISED CONFIRMATORY ARS
______m
_ . = .- . - .
s c ,
l 10 0 _
\
I I 10 CD 1
5 -
r e -
h.: .
O
< fg
/
\
' ~
\ 0 11 /
/^sN
\
l\ / s i / s
\ "'# \
g /
N
..,iel i e iie iI i i e i e i ..
. i e
,, i 103 100 101 102 FREQUENCY IN CPS LEGEND TEST RESPONSE SPECTRA
- 1. 4 REQUIRED RESPONSE SPECTR A
REVISED 1.4m RESPONSE SPECTRA NOTES HYDRAULIC CONTROL UNIT ASSESSMENT OF PEVISED MARK JI CONFIRMATORY LOADS FIG. 4 5 TEST RESPONSE SPECTRA AND 1.4 TIMES REQUIRED RESPONSE SPECTRA,Y- AXIS
e a l' .
10 0 ,
10 -
O -
i Z
9 F
s 4 _
5J IAJ _
O 4
1 f%
[ /
/'ss^g N s
- /
s~'
[
e i e i e i i 11 i , , e i i i it i i e i i i ii
,)
101 102 103
- 100 l
FREQUENCY IN CPS LEGEND l TEST RESPONSE SPECTRA L4a RE QUIRED R ESPONSE SPECTRA
REVISED 1.~4 x REQUIRED RESPONSE SPECTR A NOTES DURING THE Call 8 RATION OF THE BARE TABLE IN THE HORIZIONTAL AXIS, IT , J FOUND THAT THE 11 Hz FILTER IN THE ANALYZER WAS INOPERATIVE, SHOWING A NOTCH AT 11 Hz IN THE RANDOM SPECTRUM PLOTS. TESTING WAS CONTINUED WITH THIS FILTER INOPERATIVE.
FIG.46 HYDRAULIC CbNTROL UNIT ASSESSMENT TEST RESPONSE SPECTRA OF REVISED MARK II CONFIRMATORY LOADS AND 1l4 TIMES REGUIRED RESPONSE SPECTRA, X-AXIS
~ ,,
a e 100 ,
~
10 -
O -
I .
2 9
2
".i 14 1 O N V
4 I ~
f
- /
bwgM N N
(#
/
s%
~
e # # ii
, , ,,.I i e i e i i eiI e i 10 3 y 10 8 10 0 101
~
FREQUENCY IN CPS LEGEND TEST RESPONSE SPECTRA l.4x REQUIRED RESPONSE SPECTRA
REVISED 1.4 m REQUIRED RESPONSE SPECTR A i
NOTES I DURING THE CAUBRATION OF THE BARE TABLE IN l THE HORIZIONTAL AXIS, IT WAS FOUND TH AT THE 11 Hz FILTER IN THE ANALYZER WAS INCPEPATIVE, SHOWING A NOTCH AT 11 Hz IN THE RANDOM SPECTRUM PLOTS. TESTING WAS CONTINUED WITH THIS FILTER INOPERATIVE.
FIG.47 HYOR AULIC CONTRCL UNIT ASSESSMENT TEST PESPONSE SPECTRA OF REVISED MARK II CONF;RMATORY LOADS.
RESPONSE SPECTRA, Z - AXIS
e e ,
T O.80 ,
0.60 -
. R e
e Z
O
~
f-~7
$040 -
- g U- I f' i I I O i i o i I j I '
I f ~ ~'t g l I t I [
I i % l I I I
i O.20 -
l I \
/ \
\,u - -
/ W 4
' ' ' ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' '
0 100 101 10 8 FREQUE'NCY IN HZ LEGEND OLD CONFIRMATCRY
REVISED CONFlitMATORY NOTES
. SRV ONE VALVE HORIZONTAL DIRECTION DAMPING = 0.02
' FIG. 48 COMPARISON OF SRV
! ARS FOR TYPICAL PIPING AND RPV SUBASSEMBLIES 4
r e*-tr- t --
e e e v- w - - -
-r--+-- m ---i-* -----1-,--r----- 7 e--w s =-we *- *~~-e- - - - - - - -
- TABLE 1 -
VERTICAL ARS SCALING FACTORS FOR RPV & PIPING C.O. (VERTICAL ONLY)
Frequency Range (Hz) 1-20 20-30 30-200 Scaling Factor 1.0 1.3 1.0
. SRV ALL (VERTICAL ONLY)
Frequency Range (Hz) 2-7 7-11 11-200 Scaling Factor. 1.0 ,1.06 1.0 SRYg y,1,, '(EEM OEY)
Frequency Range (Hz) 2-5 5-8 8-16 16-30 30-200 Scaling Factor 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 SRV3 y,1y, (ERTM OEY) .
- Frequency Range (Hz) 1-6 6-8 8-17 17-20 20-200 j Scaling Factor 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.3 1.0 I
l l
9 e
a e TABLE 1 A SRV-ALL VALVE VERTICAL ACCEL. AND VERTICAL SCALING FACTOR REVISED OLD
. NODE SRV-ALL SRV-ALL NO LOCATION Z Z FACTOR 1 Top Guide 4.79E-01 6.51E-01' O.74 2 Core Plate 2.86E-01 3.17E-01 0.90 3 Yessel Bottom Head 2.57E-01 2.66E-01 0.96 4 Shroud Head 4.77E-01 5.15E-01 0.93 5 Shroud Flange 3.95E-01 4.43E-01 0.89 6 Shroud' Cylinder 3.80E-01 4.18E-01 0.91 7 Shroud support 3.62E-01 3.87E-01 0.94 8 Vessel Cylinder 3.02E-01 3.17E-01 0.95 9 Vessel Cylinder 2.92E-01 3.07E-01 0.95 10 Vessel Cylinder 3.62E-01 2.74E-01 0.95 11 Vessel - Skirt Jct. 2.36E-01 2.46E-01 0.96 11 Shield Wall 2.76E-01 2.86E-01 0.96 13 Shield Wall 2.67E-01 2.80E-01 0.96 14 Shield Wall 2.50E-01 2.64E-01 0.95 15 Shield Wall 2.26E-01 2.36E-01 0.96 16' Top of Pedestal 2.17E-01 2.25E-01 0.96 17 Pedestal 1.96E-01 2.01E-01 0.98 18 Pedestal 1.89E-01 1.34E-01 1.02 Note: Unit = (G) For 2A11 Translation Accelerations
'= Rad /Sec . For All Rotational Accelerations e
- e-- -. - - - - - . - . - , - - - - -
TABLE 2 SRV-1 VALVE HORIZONTAL FORCE AND HORIZONTAL SCALING FACTOR REVISED OLD ELEM SRV-ONE SRV-ONE NO LOCATION V2I V2I FACIOR 1 Fuel 5.94E 03 5.46E 03 1.09 2 Fuel 5.03E 03 4.48E 03 1.12 3 Fuel 2.01E 03 2.31E 03 0.87 4 Fuel 2.60E 03 2.61E 03 1.00 5 Fuel 5.12E 03 4.59E 03 1.12 6 Fuel 4.97E 03 4.37E 03 1.14 7 Guide Tube 4.30E 03 3.25E 03 1.32 8 Guide Tube 2.03E 03 1.65E 03 1.23 9 Guide Tube 3.37E 03 2.24E 03 1.50 10 Guide Tube 3.92E 03 3.64E 03 1.08 11 Guide Tube 7.08E 03 4.31E 03 1.64 12 CRD Housing 8.33E 02 7.50E 02 1.11 13 CRD Housing 4.33E 02 4.29E 02 1.01 14 CRD Housing 1.63E 02 8.94E 01 1.83 15 CRD Housing 4.40E 02 3.97E 02 1.11 16 Separators 1.67E 03 1.77E 03 0.94 17 Separators 4.97E 03 4.93E 03 1.01 18 Separators 4.21E 03 4.20E 03 1.00 19 Shroud Flange 6.15E 03 4.96E 03 1.24 20 Shroud Cylinder 9.27E 03 8.72E 03 1.06 21 Shroud Cylinder 1.02E 04 9.55E 03 1.07 22 Shroud cylinder 1.12E 04 1.05E 04 1.06 23 Shroud Cylinder 1.19E 04 1.13E 04 1.06 24 Shroud Cylinder 1.26E 04 1.19E 04 1.05 25 Shroud Cylinder 1.32E 04 1.25E 04 1.06 26 Shroud Cylinder 1.30E 04 1.29E 04 1.00 27 Shroud Cylinder 1.29E 04 1.35E 04 0.96 28 Vessel Head 8.13E 03 7.93E 03 1.03 29 vessel Head 2.33E 04 2.31E 04 1.01
- 30 Vessel Cylinder 2.37E 04 2.34E 04 1.01 31 Vessel Cylinder 5.26E 04 5.29E 04 0.99 32- Vessel Cylinder 6.46E 04 6.63E 04 0.97 33 Vessel Cylinder 4.18E 04 4.06E 04 1.03 l 34 Vessel Cylinder 2.94E 04 2.90E 04 1.01 l 35 Vessel Cylinder 1.59E 04 1.66E 04 0.95 NOTE
- Unit = Lbs For All Shears & In-Lbs For All Moments In This Table I
e
- , , , , , , , - - , . - - , - - ~
- z. _ - - --
a .
TABLE 3 SRV-1 VALVE HORISONTAL MOMENT AND HORIZONTAL SCALING FACTOR REVISED OLD ELEM SRV-ONE SRV-ONE NO LOCATION M3I M3I FACTOR 1 Fuel 2.60E-15 2.07E-15 1.26 2 Fuel 1.60E 05 1.47E 05 1.09 3 Fuel 2.96E 05 2.68E 05 1.10 4 Fuel . 3.37E 05 2.98E 05 1.13 5 Fuel 2.68E 05 2.29E 05 1.17
. 6 Fuel 1.34E 05 1.18E 05 1.14 7 Guide Tube 2.44E-15 2.00E-15 1.22 8 Guide Tube 2.26E 05 1.70E 05 1.32 9 Guide Tube 2.61E 05 2.25E 05 1.16 10 Guide Tube 1.46E 05 1.36E 05 1.08 11 Guide Tube 4.43E-03 4.80E-03 0.92 12 CRD Housing 3.29E 04 3.39E 04 0.97 13 CRD Housing 9.89E 03 3.03E 03 1.97 14 CRD Housing 1.50E 04 1.20E 04 1.25 15 CRD Housing 1.33E 04 1.20E 04 1.11 16 Separators 1.55E-01 1.39E-01 1.12 17 Separators 6.16E 04 6.55E 04 0.94 18 Separators 5.13E 05 5.13E 05 1.00 19 ' Shroud Flange 6.59E 05 6.57E 05 1.00 20 Shroud Cylinder 7.11E 05 7.22E 05 0.96 21 Shroud Cylinder 7.21E 05 7.43E 05 0.97 22 Shroud Cylinder 9.27E 05 9.39E 05 0.99 23 Shroud Cylinder 1.16E 06 1.13E 06 1.02 24 Shroud Cylinder 1.41E 06 1.32E 06 1.07 25 Shroud Cylinder 1.72E 06 1.50E 06 1.14 26 Shroud cylinder 2.22E 06 1.92E 06 , 1.16 27 Shroud Cylinder 2.57E 06 2.22E 06 1.16 l 28 Vessel Head 4.98E-01 5.36E-01 0.93 29 Vessel Head - 3.46E 05 3.37E 05 1.03 30 Vessel cylinder 9.14E 05 9.00E 05 1.02 31- Vessel Cylinder 1.26E 06 1.24E 06 1.01 32 Vessel Cylinder 9.19E 06 9.22E 06 1.00 33 Vessel Cylinder 1.01E 07 1.01E 07 0.99 i
34 Vessel Cylinder 9.50E 06 9.33E 06 1.02 35 Vessel Cylinder 8.30E 06 8.45E 06 0.98 l
NOTE: Unit = Lbs For All Shears & In-Lbs For All Moments In This Table l
l
\ -
1 L
- a :.. .. .- - . . - .
e e TABLE 4-SHOREHAM EQUIPMENT ASSESSMENT BASED ON REVISED CONFIRMATORY HYDRODYNAMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA o Reactor Pressure Vessel and Internals RPV Support Skirt Using scaling factor method
'RPV Shroud Support CRD Penetrations In-Core Housing Penetrations i Steam Dryer Brackets RPV Stabilizer Brackets Core Spray Sparger
, . Core Spray Line (In-Vessel) Piping
, Steam Dryer Shroud Shroud Head Assembly Core Support Plate Top Guide Control Rod Drive Housings Control Rod Guide Tubes In-Core Housings and Guide Tubes IRH Detectors Orificed Fuel Support 4
RPV Stabilizer Bracket i
CRD Housing Restraint Beam RPV Support (Ring Girder)
Vessel Stabilizer Fuel Assemblies SRM and IRM Dry Tubes Power Range Detectors Control Rod Drives Response Spectrum Analyses method. '
Jet Pumps and Jet Pump Riser Braces Core Differential Pressure and Liquid Control Line o Floor-Mounted Equipment Core Spray Pumps and Motors First Approach RHR Heat Exchangers RHR Pumps and Motors
. RCIC Pump and Turbine HPCI Pump and Turbine CRD Hydraulic Control Units Second Approach Fuel Storage Rack Curtain Refueling Platfors Fuel Prep Machine H21 Local Panels .
e
..c_ _ __
O e g I
TABLE'4 (CONT.)
o NSSS Piping and Pipe-Mcunted Equipment Main Steam Piping Main Steam Snubbers Main Steam Safety / Relief Valves (SRV) .
Main Steam Isolation Valves (MSIV)
Racirculation Piping Racirculation Snubbers Recirculation Suction Gate Valves Recriculation Discharge Gate Valves Recirculation Pump and Motors ~
Condensing Chambers l
l l
l l
l - .. -.
- '--- - ' - - ' - - -- - -- ^
. .- _ . -.= - .,
e e i
TABLE 5 CRD, PENETRATION STRESS COMPARISON AT STUB TUBE (PSI)
Limiting Load Loading Stress Old Confim. Revised Confirm Allowable Combination Condition Category Calc. Stress Calc. Stress Stress NL + (U-f,P) + OBE + SRV Upset Pg 45,100 5,556 20,000 NL + (U-AP) + 03E + SRV Upset Pg+PB 5,100 6,945 30,000 NL + (U-AP) + GG Emergency Pg 45,560 6,000 24,100
NL + (U-AP) + GG Emergency Pg+PB ' ' '
NL + (A-d_P) + JR + AP Faulted Pg 6, M 7,M3 48,000 NL + (A-AP) + JR + AP Faulted Pg+P3 7,070 7,260 72,000
+ SSE TABI.E 6 TOP GUIDE BEAM STRESS COMPARISON (PSI)
Limiti:ig Load Loading Stress Old Confim. Revised Confirm. Allowable i Combination Condition Category Cale. Stress Calc. Stress Stress NL + (U-d_P) + OBE + SRV Upset Pg 860 890 16,900 NL +-(U-AP) + OBZ + SRV Upset Pg+PB 17,280 17,640 25,350 l
NL + (UMP) + GG. Emergency P'g < 6,426 < 6.,889 25,350
+ '
- l. (ADS)
NL +- (U-AP ) + GG Emergency Pg+PB 6, , 9 025
+
Faulted P 3
< 32,310 < 32,310 40,560
+ SRV
1
__.- -, . s tin
.Y
^
~_
TABLE 7 s
HICHEST STRESS
SUMMARY
t SHOREHAM RECIRCULATION LOOP A ,
. HIGIEST CALCULATED STRESS (psi) s. RATIO-ACTUAL /AT.TDWABLE ITEM EVALUATED. OLD CONFIRMATORY REVISED CONFIRMATORY 'OLD CONFIRMATORY REVISED CONFIRMATORY Primary Stress 19,606 19,606 0.78 0.78
~
Equation 9 nl.5S Design Condition "
i Primary Stress 21,312 23,434 0.71 0.82 Equation 9 61.8S,. ;
and 1.5S Service Eevel B Primary Stress <,1,'05 26,839 0.57 0.78 Equation 9 12.253 and 1.8S ServiceEevelC Primary Stress 25,969 27,354 0.52 0.54 Equation 9 53.0S ~ ,
- Service Level D I Sec.ondary Stresses 9,361 9,361 0.19 0.19 Equation 12 13.0S a -
Primary plus Secondary' 39,830 39,830 0.79 0.79 Stresses wif.'hout thermal Expansion Equation 13 63.0S l
- l <
a
x TABLE 8 HIGHEST STRESS SIMfARY SHOEEHAM RECIRCULATION LOOP B HIGHEST CALCULATED STRESS (psi) RATIO-ACTUAL / ALLOWABLE ITEM EVALUATED OLD CONFIRMATORY REVISED CONFIRMATORY OLD CONFIRMATORY REVISED CONFIRMATORY Primary Stress 19,661 ' 19,661 0.78
- 0.78 .
Equation 9 $1.5S Design Condition "
Primary Stress 21,369 24,807 0 71 0.86 -
Equation 9 61.8S *
and 1.5S '
l Service Eevel B Primary Stress 21,319 27,062 0.56 0.79 Equation 9 12.25S" and 1.8S Service Eevel C I l
Primary Stress 23,187 27,930 0.46 0.55 I Equation 9 13.0S "
Service Level D ,
Secondary Stresses 19,129 19,129 0.38 0.38 Equation 12 13.0S, Primary plus Secondary 38,959 38,959 0.77 0.77 Stresses without thermal Expanulon Equation 13 $3.0S, 1
5 TABLE 9 j HICHEST STRESS SUMARY
{
SHOREHAM MAIN STEAMLINE A HIGHEST CALCULATED STRESS (psi) RATIO-ACTUAL / ALLOWABLE ITEM EVALUATED OLD CONFIRMATORY REVISED CONFIRMATORY , OLD'CONFIRNATORY REVISED CONFIRMATORY Primary Stress 16,665 16,665 0.62 0.62 Equation 9 61.5S ,
Design Condition " i l
Primary Stress 19,313 31,484 0.60 0.95 Equation 9 41.8S I and 1.5S ., I S.ervice Eevel B P
Primary Stress 20,509 31,272 0.50 0.76 l Equation 9 52.25S and 1.8S Service [evel C Pricary Stress 26,074 31,566 0.47 0.57
! Equation 9 13.0S
" i Service Level D Secondary Stresses 24,927 24,927 0.43 0.43 Equation 12 (3.0S, Primary plus Secondary 30,927 30,927 0.56 0.56 Stresses without thermal Expansion Equation 13 43.0S,
'1 l
t e
TABLE 10
'i HIGHEST STRESS
SUMMARY
4 SHOREHAM MAIN STEAMLINE B HIGHEST CALCULATED STRESS (psi) RATIO-ACTUAL / ALLOWABLE ITEM EVALUATED OLD CONFIRMATORY REVISED CONFIRMATORY OLD CONFIRMATORY REVISED CONFIRMATORY Primary Stress 17,228 17,228 0.64 0.64 Equation 9 61.5S Design Condition "
0.74 fi Primary Stress 19,464 24,396 0.60 ;l Equation 9 61.8S , jj and 1.5S l l
ServiceEevel8 Primary Stress 19,136 24,225 0.47 0.58 Equation 9 .52.25S
- and 1.8S -
Service [evel C ,
Primary Stress 29,981 29,981 0.54 0.5 3, Equation 9 53.0S, l' Service Level D ,
Secondary Stresses 17,254 17,254 0.30 0.30 Equation 12 13.0S a Primary plus Secondary 29,626 29,626 0.51 0.51 Stresses without Thermal Expansion Equation 13 $ 3.0S m
v?; e- l .
s 9i; m:
4 9
.t TABLE 11 HIGHEST STRESS
SUMMARY
i-SHOREHAM MAIN STEAMLINE C HIGHEST CALCULATED STRESS (psi) RATIO-ACTUAL / ALLOWABLE ITEM EVALUATED OLD CONFIRMATORY REVISED CONFIRMATORY OLD CONFIRMATORY REVISED CONFIRMATORY .
j Primary Stress 17,273 17,273 'O.64 0.64 Equation 9 dl.SS Design Condition " 4
!i l Primary Stress 19,472 23,162 0.60 0.72 I' Equation 9 51.8S
" j!
i and 1.5S Service Eevel B Primary Stress 19,120 23,011 C.47 0.57 4
Equation 9 62.25S
! and 1.8S " .
! Service Eevel C Primary Stress 30,195 30,195 0.55 0.55 g, Equation 9 13.0S l ' Service Level D " ::
E.
- secondary Stresses 15,753 15,753 0.27 0.27 Equation 12 13.0S, Primary plus Secondary 28,787 28,787 0.50 0.50 Stresses without Thermal Expansion Equation 13 13.0S, I
6 1
TABLE 12 '
3 ;
HICHEST STRESS
SUMMARY
l SHOREHAM HAIN STEAMLINE D HIQlEST CALCULATED STRESS (psi) RATIO-ACTUAL / ALLOWABLE ITEM EVALUATED OLD CONFIRMATORY REVISED CONFIRMATORY OLD CONFIRMATORY REVISED CONFIRMATORY Primary Stress 16,930 16,930 0.63 0.63 Equation 9 11.5S Design Condition " .
I, Primary Stress 19,146 25,484 0.59 0.77 ll Equation 9 11.8S and 1.5S '
Service E,evel B.
- Primary Stress 18,885 25,382 0.47 0.61 Equation 9 52.25S and 1.8S Service [evel C Primary Stress 33,323 33,323 0.60 0.60 Equation 9 13.0S ,.
Service Level D "
Secondary Stresses 27,494 27,494 0.47 0.47 Equation 12 $3.0S, Primary plus Secondary 29,467 29,467 0.53 0.53 Stresses without Thermal Expansion Equation 13 $3.0S, ,
'i)
en P TABLE 13 NSIV BONNET LOADS (in-lbs)
Ratio-Actual Revised Confimatory. Allevable Allowable
~ Line A; Inboard 409.135 500,000 0.8183
. Outboard 231,738 500,000 0.4635 Line B; Inboard 445,499 500,000 0.8910 Outboard 324,736 500,000 0.6495 Line C; Inboard 467,699 '500,000 0.9354 Outboard 271,239 500,000 0.5425 Line D; Inboard 433,278 500,000 0.8666 Outboard 245,235 500,000 0.4905
)
1 e
i 9
s e
c0 4. 8 2.- oo - ll
. . . . - .. - e .-
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COM PANY I~141aermurats 4
6'O, SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION
. _ _ - .
- P.O. BOX S18 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD . WADING RIVER. N.Y.11792 October 29, 1982 SNRC-785 Mr. Ronald C. Haynes Office of Inspection & Enforcement Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue .
King of Pruss'ia, PA 19406 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Shoreham Nuclear Power Station - Unit 1 Docket No.'50-322
Dear Mr. Haynes:
On September 27, 1982 we notified Region I verbally of an apparent discrepancy in the GHOSH computer program used to develop Shoreham Mark II response spectra which could be potentially reportable in accordance with 10CFR50.55 (e) . We were informed of this situation by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation on September 24, 1982.
This letter serves as our 30 day written report on this potentially reportable condition.
Description of the Potential Deficiency The GHOSH program is a commercially available finite element program used at Shoreham in the development of the response spectra for Mark II loadings. It should be noted that the GHOSH methodology was not used in developing seismic response spectra for our facility. The problem was first reported to the NRC by Gulf States Utilities who have used GHOSH in calculating Mark II and seismic response spectra.
l The discrepancy occurs in an internal subroutine which calculates l stiffness matrices for triangular finite elements. The program internally breaks each triangular element into three triangular subsections in order to determine the' centroid of the element and thus its stiffness matrix. In performing this function, it has incorrectly ignored the stiffness of two subsections, assigning g ~~
N[ '
Pol m
a.~. i O
SNRC-785 '
October 29, 1982 j/ Page Two
/
7 the stiffness matrix of one subsection to the entire triangular element. This tends to present a lower relative stiffness than actually exists. These triangular elements were used in combin-ation with rectangular elements in modeling of the soil beneath the Reactor Building. No triangular elements were used in the superstructure, thereby reducing the effects of the error.
Corrective Action The problem s.ubroutine has been corrected to include the stiffness matrices of all triangular subsections. We are presently perform-ing study runs to determine the extent of original inaccuracies.
Due to the limited,use of triangular elements in our model, we do not anticipate a significant impact of this error. Our investi-gation is scheduled to be completed by December 30, 1982 at which time we will inform your office of its outcome.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
) --
N.% en M. H. Milliga Project Engineer Shoreham Nuclear Power Station DJH/cmw cc: Mr. Richard DeYoung, Director NRC Office of Inspection & Enforcement Division of Reactor Operators Inspection Washington, DC 20555 Mr. J. Higgins,' Site NRC All Parties O
L
., cor .i3~
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COM PANY
/ SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION P.O. BOX 618, NORTH COUNTRY ROAO e WADING RIVER, N.Y.11792 Direct Dial Number March 18, 1983 SNRC-862 Mr. Ronald C. Haynes Office of Inspection & Enforcement -
Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA. 19406
,Long Island Lighting Company Shoreham Nuclear. Power Station - Unit 1 Docket No. 50-322
Reference:
SNRC-785 from M. H. Milligan to R. C. Haynes, dated 10/29/82, GHOSH Program Potential Reportable Condition
Dear Mr. Haynes:
On February 15, 1983, we notified Region I verbally of an apparent error in the Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) trans-mittal to General Electric Company (GE) of Rocking Acceleration data for the Mark II Confirmatory Program which could be potentially reportable in accordance with 10CFR50.55 (e) . This letter serves as tion.
our 30 day written report on this potentially peportable condi-Description of Potential Deficiency The error consisted of mislabeling of rotational Amplified Response Spectra (ARS) and rotational time history data transmitted by SWEC to GE in April and May of 1981. The Rocking Acceleration data transmitted were labeled radians /sec.2, whereas the correct units were g/ft (
ft. /sec.2) .g representsGE had utilized gravitational acceleration the specified incorrect equal unitstoof 32.2 radians /sec.2 in their Mark II confirmatory Analyses. The hori-zontal and vertical accelerations were transmitted with the correct units, and therefore are not affected.
O 4, p Pne
s _ . . . . - - --
e ~
March 18, 1983 SNRC-862 -
Page 2 Corrective Action '
' GE has been informed of this problem and is presently reviewing the Mark II Confirmatory analyses. Preliminary investigations indicate that there is enough margin in the present analysis to compensate for this error. This rocking acceleration problem is
' being evaluated in conjunction with the GHOSH Finite Element Program anomoly (SNRC-785), since both potentially reportable con-ditions affect the Mark II Confirmatory Program. Our investigation of both concerns is scheduled to be completed by April 1, 1983 at which time a combined final report will be issued to your office.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact us.
Very truly yours, N.w. Q M. H. Milligan I Project Engineer Shoreham Nuclear Power Station DH:mp cc: Mr. Richard DeYoung, Director NRC Office of Inspection & Enforcement .
, , Division of Reactor Operator's Inspection Washington, DC 20555 Mr. J. Higgins, Site Inspector "All parties listed in Attachment 1" l
l 1
.- ,.n. - , , , , . ,-------.----,e-,-._--, ---n-- - - , - - ----.----,--,-~----------e-,-
a . _ - ... _ ._
4 *. gp .
ATTACHMENT l_ -
Lawrence Brenner, Esq. Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Administrative Judge Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Board Panel Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Christopher & Phillips Washington, D.C. 20555 8th Floor 1900 M Street., N.Ws Dr. Peter A. Morris Washington, D.C. 20036 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Marc W. Goldsmith Board Panel Energy Research Group U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4001 Totten Pond Road Washington, D.C. 2055E Waltham, Massachwsetts 02154 Dr. James H. Carpenter MEB Technical Aurociates Administrative Judge 1723 Hamilton Avunue Atomic. Safety and Licensing Suite K Board Panel San Jose, California 95125 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 -
Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea Daniel F. Brown, Esq 33 West Second Street ,
Attorney P.O. Box 398 Atomic Safety and Licensing Riverhead, New York 11901 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Cammer and Shapiro, P.C.
9 East 40th Street Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. New York, New York 10016 David A. Repka, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20555 St, ate of New York
. Department of Public Service James Dougherty i Three Empire State Plaza 3045 Porter Street Albany, New York 12223 Washington, D.C. 20008 i
7 'e **
MAY 191983 DISTRIBUTION FOR BN 83-67 ERRORS IN COMPUTER ANALYSES FOR MARK II CONTAINMENTS (SHOREHAM & ZIMMER)
IDocheniControl$(50-322/358); )
NRC PDR L PDR PRC System NSIC LB#1 Rdg.
JYoungblood LKintner RCaruso MRushbrook EHylton TNovak/MStine , ,
DEisenhut/RPurple MWilliams HDenton/ECase PPAS ASchwencer GKnighton EAdensam RVollmer RMattson TSpeis HThompson Attorney, OELD ELJordan, DE0A:IE JMTaylor, DRP:IE WJDircks, E00 (4)
EChristenbury, OELD JScinto, OELD ABennette, OELD JSniezek, OIE JStone, OIE.
cc: Board / Licensee Service List