ML17325B349
| ML17325B349 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 11/28/1989 |
| From: | Giitter J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Alexich M AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER SERVICE CORP., INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8912060096 | |
| Download: ML17325B349 (48) | |
Text
~AS AEGIS Wp0
~+a
~0
++*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 November 28, 1989 Docket tlos.
5G-315 and 50-316 t'r. Hilton P. Alexich, Vice President It'diana tiichigan Power Compary c/o American Electric Power Service Ccrporatior, Piverside Plaza
- Colurrbus, Ohio 43216
Dear ter. Alexict:
5 UBvECT: 'UI'it~ARY CF tIEET I l<G MITH At'iE8 ICAN ELECTR I C POl'E'ER TO DISCUSS THE D.C.
COOK CLASS 1
'SPALL BORE PIPING DESIGN CONFIRIIATION PROGRAM On t!cveIrber 6,
.'.989, the staff met with Arrerican Electric Power
!AEP) to describe theiV PVCPOSed Procram fOr CCnfirII.>ng the adequaCy Of their Small bOre PiPirg des".gn.
.A list of meetina attendees is prcvided in Enclosure 1.
Slides used dur',rg tl e pvesentaticn (all non-prcprietary) are provided as Enclcsure 2.
AEP stateo that the ob-:.ectives of their confirmation program are 1) tc confirm and dccurieIIt proper implementatson of the origirc.l alternate criteria (i.e.,
"cookbcck" methco) for D. C. Cool., 2) to verify and document the adequacy of pip'.rc ystems designed to the alternate criteria, 3) to identify and ccrrect deficiercies and 4) to provide clear desigr: procedures for future small bere piping installations.
Confirmatior: that small bere piping was iristalleC in accordarice with tl;e criainal 1+ernate criteria design basi wiI.l be acccmp Iished through 100~ walkdown of accessible small bere piping.
As part of their screening
- process, AEP also proposea to look for situaticns that could lead to piping failures based on earthcuake experierice and test. data (e.g., verificatiori of proper equipIrent arichorage).
AEP also proposed to use earthquake experience arId test data, in part, to analyze the outliers identified through the screening process.
The staff eIvpha ized that the code of record for D.
C.
Cook piping (including pipe supports) i'31.1-1967 and that the AEP design confirmation program must ersure that the pipirg is designed and installed in accordance with this code.
The staff furtl er stated that they do not want AEP to rely on earthauake experience or test data in the process of bringing pipina into conformance with the code.
The staff inaicated that withcut rigorous evaluaticn they were reither ir,'he position to approve nor disapprove the use of earthquake experierce anc test data in evaluating the adequacy of piping design configurations.
The staff also indicated that the proposed screening criteria must be in accordance with the FSAR.
O'Pi206009'6 89ii28 PDR ADOCK 050003i5 P
PDC ol AEP agreed to meet with the staff again around the first of the year (1990) to provide a more detailed description of their'roposed screening criteria.
AEP emphasized that approval of their design confirmation method was needed in a timely manner to support scheduled system walkdowns.
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
See next page Joseph G. Giitter, Project Manager Project Directorate III-1 Division of Reactor Projects IV, V 5 Special Projects DISTRIBUTION
~DDDCKH l.ICEJ NRC 5 LOCAL PDRs PD31 GRAY FILE JSNIEZEK JTHOMA JGI ITTER EJORDAN ACRS(10)
OGC J CL'IF FORD PM/P DRSP JG 1
i /89 (A@031:DRSP 11/p /89 COOK MTG
SUMMARY
l t
l C
I
AEP agreea to meet with tl e staff again around the first of the year (1990) to proviCe a more detai lea description of their proposed screening criteria.
AEP
'emphasized that approval of their design confirmation rethoC divas needed in a
timely. manner to support scheduled system walkdowns.
S in cere ly,
Enclosure:
As stated
,J Jose'ph G. Giitter, Project tianager Project Directorate III-1 Division of Reactor Projects IV, V 5 Special Pro"'ects cc:
See next page
Mr. Milton Alexich Indiana Michigan Power Company Donal d C.
Cook Nucl ear Plant CC:
Regional Administrator,= Region III U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen El lyn, Illinois'0137 Attorney General Department of Attorney General 525 West Ottawa Street
- Lansing, Michigan 48913 Township Supervisor Lake Township Hall Post Office Box 818
- Bridgman, Michigan 49106 Al Blind, Plant Manager Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Post Office Box 458
- Bridgman, Michi gan 49106 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspectors Office 7700 Red Arrow Highway Stevensvi1 le, Michigan 49127 Gerald Charnoff, Esquire
- Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037 Mayor, City of Bridgman Post Office Box 366
- Bridgman, Michi gan 49106 Special Assistant to the Governor Room 1 - State'apitol Lansing, Michigan 48909 Nuclear Facilities and Environmental Monitoring Section Office, Division of Radiological Health Department of Public Health 3500 N.
Logan Street Post Office Box 30035 Lansing, Michigan 48909 Mr.
S.
Brewer American Electric Power Service Corporation 1 Riverside Plaza
- Columbus, Ohio 43216
ENCLOSURE I NAME Hark Hartzman Steve Harris Shou-nien Hou Jim Johnson Dan Guzy David Terao John R. Fair John Stana Karl J. Toth Dilip Vadodaria Amiya K. Dey Gus Giese-Koch Steve Ere>;er
~ames A. Kobyra J.
A. Gavula Duane Danielson Joseph G. Giitter Ted Su 1 1 iva n TITLE Sr. tiech.
Ena.
Sr.
Mech.
Eng.
Section Leader Branch Chief Sr.
t~ech.
Eng.
Backup Pt'I Licensing Nuclear Enaineerirg AEPSC Design Geophysici t Manager HS&L Group ttanaaer Reactor Inspector Section Chi~ef Project Hanaaer Section Chief ORGANIZATION NRC/NRR/EHEB EQE NRC/NRR/EHEB NRC/RES/SSEB YiRC/TVAPD/EB NRC/TVAPD/EB ttRC/NRR/DRSP AEPSC AEPSC AEPSC tIlRR/DET/ESGB AEPSC AEPSC NRC/RIII NRC/RIII NRR/lsRC NRC/NRR/EHEB
F21CE.OSURF.
2 D.C. COOK CLASS I SMALLBORE PIPING DESIGN CONFIRMATIONPROGRAM
'resented to US NRC November 8, 1989 mM121/dccook2.
Overview Small bore issue at D.C. Cook Overview of Class I small bore piping design confirmation program Overview of Earthquake experience and tests D. C. Cook comparisons a
. Details of small bore confirmation program Related experience mkl121/dccook2
NRC Audit Observations a
Specific small-bore lines have, been found deficient
~
Design activities associated with small-bore piping were not prescribed by documented procedures "Alternate Criteria" assumptions required the application of engineering judgment which was not consistently documented
Current Piping Design Practice a
Code and regulatory methods result in very conservative designs EPRI earthquake experience data study NRC/EP Ri seismic test programs a
Small bore piping has less impact on overall plant safety than large bore
D. C. Cook Small Bore Design Basis a
Piping systems were designed using field rules - "Alternate Criteria" Limitations on temperature, pressure, and size Limitations on free spans a
Application of rules required engineering judgement for special conditions Support of valves
= Support of risers Multiple components at short intervals mk1121/ckcook2
D. C. Cook Small Bore Design Basis Design rule are appropriate for small bore piping systems a
Design rules are cost effective and result in adequate system designs.
a Proposed program willprovide thorough documentation for the original "Alternate Criteria" implementation mM12 I/dccook2
D.C. Cook Class 1 Small Bore Piping Design Confirmation Program Objectives a
Confirm and document the original "Alternate Criteria" Implementation a
Validate the adequacy of piping systems designed to the "Alternate Criteria"
~
Provide documentation of the program results
~
Identify and correct deficiencies a
Provide clear design procedures for future installation of small bore piping mkl12'I/dCcaok2
Class I Small-bore Piping Design Confirmation Program Overview a
Field screen small-bore piping systems Field screening willincorporate:
Original "Alternate Criteria" design attributes augmented by Current knowledge of failure modes from earthquake experience data and NRC/EPRI seismic test programs Issues identified from field screening willbe resolved by:
Earthquake experience and test data Detailed analysis Design modifications mLtI21/dccool 2
I
EQE Earthquake Experience Data Base a
18 strong-motion earthquakes Many strong aftershocks Magnitudes of 5.4 to 8.1 Different source characteristics Average PGAs of 0.10g to 0.85g Durations up to 50+ seconds a
More than 100 facilities 35 power plants with 85 units
- Constructed on soft soils to rock a
Hundreds of structures Wide diversity of structural types and design criteria
~
Thousands of pipe runs, cable trays, conduit, tubing, and related components a
Thousands of equipment installations Ages from 1930s to new
Data Base Site Ground Motion Envelope D. C. Cook Design Basis by Large Margins U)
CO Q)
Q)
CJO 2.00 1.80 1.60--
1.40 1.20--
1.00-0.80-
- -i i 0.60- -'
~
I 0.40-LLOLLEOPUMPING PLANT, 1985 CHILE EQ.
NEAR FIELD SITES, 1983 COALINGAEQ.
SYLMARCONVERTER STATION, 1971 SAN FERNANDO EQ EL CENTRO STEAM PLANT, 1979 IMPERIALVALLEYEQ.
AVERAGE OF DATABASE SPECTRA D.C. COOK DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE l
-'. I I':I
~.
~
'kkk
~ ~ ~....,.
~
~ ~ ~
~
~ ~
~
0.20 -:
0.00 0.0 EQE 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Frequency(Hz) 25.0 30.0 35.0 mkt121/dCamk2
Piping, Valves, and U-bolt Type Supports on Small Bore Lines at the Valley Steam Plant Approx. 0.30g PGA during the San Fernando EQ mL1121/dccook2
Rod Hangers and Light Steel Section Supports on Small Bore Piping at Sylmar Converter Station Approx. 0.5g to 0.75g PGA during the San Fernando EQ
\\
w/
c fiji<<>>
i'GE mu > g I/dccooN I
Typical "Alternate Criteria" Piping and Support at D. C. Cook. Constructed of Steel Angle Section and U-bolts to Pipe m%1 12 I)dec ook2
Typical "Alternate Criteria" Piping and Support at D.C. Cook. Constructed of Steel Angle Section and Anchored to Ceiling Embedded Unistrut mkt I2 ) /dccook2
t
A Broad Range of Horizontal Support Spacing in Data Base Small-bore Piping Exists Without Inertia Induced Failures 100 80 70 60 g 3/4 inch g 1 inch EI i-i/2 1nch Q 2 inch Count 30 20 10 0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41 A 51-60
>60 Horizontal Support Spacing (ft). All Types m@12 l/dccook2
Examples of D. C. Cook Field Rule Applications Requiring Engineering Judgement D. C. Cook Small Bore Valve and Component Station
~ +
mktl21/dccook2
EQE Piping Earthquake Experience Data Comparisons A
(
Unrestrained valve station on small bore piping system at Las Ventanas Power Plant subjected to approximately 0.25g PGA during the Chile Earthquake, 1 985.
Design For Inertia Loads is Overemphasized in Current Piping Design a
Piping in conventional facilities has minimal seismic design a
Flexible piping in conventional power facilities is subjected to higher inertia loads than nuclear piping a
Welded steel pq)ing in convention'al power plants exhibited no inertia-induced failures, with the possible exception of heavily corroded or eroded fittings
Real Issues Fram Earthquake Experience a
Damage or failure can result when small bore piping has inadequate flexibilityto accommodate seismic displacements of connected large bore piping
~
Damage or failure can result when large displacements are imposed on small bore piping by movement of large unanchored equipment a
Interaction damage to fragile vents, taps, and drains may result from impact with other plant features mkl121/dccooA2
NRC/EPRI Piping and Fitting Dynamic Reliability Program Conclusions and Recommendations a
Failure mode is fatigue ratcheting, not plastic collapse at 15 to 30 times code allowables Cross-section plastic collapse (ASME equation 9) was not observed
~
ModifyASME code to Eliminate seismic inertial stress from equation 9 Allow6Sm for fatigue evaluation
~
Simplifycode requirements, move to design by rule versus current design by analysis mkl12 I/dccooKP
Design Confirmation Program Details
~
Confirmation Procedure Preliminary in-plant screening Develop screening..criteria and procedure
~
Perform plant screening 100% walkdown of accessible small bore piping Documentation of "outlier" configurations Resolution of outliers via experience data, test, or detailed analysis Modifications to system ifrequired Final documentation package
~
Update "Alternate Criteria" for future work Include enhancements from lessons learned in confirmation program Document evaluation procedure
A Plant Screening Exceptions "Outliers" Documented Resolution of Outliers Experience or Test Data AnalYses Evaluation to interim Acceptance Criteria Plant Modifications
'LNIWIW IIW I1000 0 lOtu40 Documentation of Conformance nht I 2 I/dion'k2
Screening Procedure Confirm original "Alternate Criteria" Design Basis Attributes Verify B31.1 recommended vertical support spans Verifyrecommended "Alternate Criteria" horizontal spans Verifysize, temperature, and pressure applicability Pipe Dia.
3/C" 1-1/2 2
B31
~ 1
~San 7$
9>
10'ecommended Horizontal S an 11'5'8'
Screening Procedure Enhance screening to encompass current.
knowledge of piping earthquake performance Checks for anchor motion Checks for interaction mls $21/dccookP
Screening Procedure
~
Anchor motion checks Verifyanchorage of;terminal equipment Verifymotions in interface regions Glass 1 analyzed lines Non-safety related lines Verifymotions between uncoupled structures mkl121/dccook2
('r
Anchor Motion Checks I
$I
~+4 VEIIT TO ATMOS
$4$$ll$
Verifysample of non-seismic piping interface dispfacements tC%4%$ I V 'I/
2 PC$ IN$
XAAO$
=+
42T
$ $$ ~ l$$
URIC ACID ~
fILTER tLIIIIT IIO.2 )
S.C.H ZOC IE (NEAT TRACED)
XAAIO$
CAT TPlACI$IO
'S10$ % CCRC Verifynon-seismic equipment ancllorage TO UNI'f N$ $.
bORON TARIFF,SKF fff/Cat+M~N/4 PCAAIM 1
2OTAI$A2Ch
'!(:
$4III t$$~
e PM $$$
IIOTE. MUST BE IIISTALLEDfrRTC4.
RUN OF PIPE EIAEECl~+
EC$c ATa74 4
TO CHARQIIIC SfCPS RERE PUHP5 SEE I
DAC2;St2LG/4 ALIEOtNTE IORATION I%AT fc$~"$
3 C
I-
@~i PC$ 4$$ $
$c$ ~I&4
$4$
~I BORC ACIDBLENDER 2'OP 2I
- SC2 IURIT IIe2)
(CAT TRAQD)~2' l ~~l.f AAC Lines Analyzed Uncs Yiw X Non seismic Lines Verifysample of anatized piping interface displacemenls mAI12 I/dccoo$ 2
e Typical Displacement Estimation Chart SAM DEFLECTION WITH INERTIA ALLOWABLEOFFSET VS. SUPPORT SPAN 22 20 18 V) 16 14 u.
12 m
10 0
8 6
>k 1/2" sch 80 O 3/4" sch 80 0
1" sch 80 A 2" sch80 21/2" sch 80
-2
~
0 0
SALOUwlDAN 1 l0003$ 1020$ 9
'I 12 16 20 EFFECTIVE SPAN LENGTH (FEET) 28 32 m@121/dccook2
~ ~
~
~
~
~
A A
~
~
~
~
~
~
%&HWHW l
Screening Procedure a
Original "Alternate Criteria" design basis, attributes which required application of engineering.
judgement willbe screened as outliers on a bounding cases basis Support of valves Support of riser Multiple component support mklI2 I/dccook2
~
g o
Example of Screening Criteria for Valve Support Distance Valve-to-Horizontal-Support Spacing vs. Pipe Diameter CD CD O
CL CL D
(0 Ct$
ON IOx0 CD CD E0 CDO 6$
CO O
31-35 26-30 21-25 16-20 11-15 6-10 0-5 46
,jM.SC>>>>c>>
32 KEY Range of Spacings in Data Base Plant Number. of Pipes Detailed Stress
'nalysis Range
-Screening Criteria Conservative Chart Limits PIPES SCC27 01 Pipe Diameter (inches) nk1121/dccoolP
Example of Screening Criteria for Valve Size and Eccentricity c'?
'.,:,. ReCOmended ttmttS On Operetpr heipht VS. pipe diameter.
50.0 O
40.0 tKU UJ KEY: Number of Valves (Operator Weightft)
Earthquake Experience Valve Data 30.0 K
0 Screening
>0 0 Criteria 10.0 1(150 1(450 1 400 f.:-:.';::<<,jl 120, 2(300$ )':."1 200 l(330t )6(20M)~l?3 100 1(400').-'.!,I(300
) >kern 1 10 1(120 5(12 lf 10'.
04hf) lf;:
%c 00+'er,"'. >MY'""c?
1208)'.="'i=
.0IM!k,
?C
'.9 ip>
?~?c?:;+.,",p+
@"'+'PAP?'~
1(1200)
I;::::.".:i:.'.'::1(tI00r 1(1000)1(2000)2(20QP)."'.~-;
"."';:4 1(150N,,, r,...,:,.,,
'.".-..'".;+-.,!~;: 2)
I""';l,'-,'::e::,j~"'."':':.-3.:(120';~~~',;-;,:.=":"
0.0 0.0 1.0.2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 PIPE DIAMETER (INCHES) mkl $ 21/dccookt?
~
4 l
r
~
Analysis of Outliers
~
Analysis of outliers grouped to envelope parameters Differential motions between structures and systems Unsupported masses Span between supports Supporttypes Elevations in plant a
Dynamic analysis of systems to show compliance with license basis or operability criteria
~
Detailed studies and modifications {ifrequired)
Related Experience
~
Browns Ferry Secondary Containment Piping Category I piping penetrations, on non-seismically designed piping systems Walkdown screening using earthquake experience data Detailed analysis of sample outliers Modifications and tests as required NRC review
~
Sequoyah Alternate Analyzed Piping Category I(L) piping design and documentation issues Walkdown screening using earthquake experience data
- Detailed analysis of sample outliers Modifications as required NRC review
Related EQE Projects (Cont.)
~
Millstone Ill Large and Small Bore Piping Walkdown screening using earthquake experience Bounding sample analysis NRC review
~
Beznau Small Bore Piping Seismic reverification of Class 1 primary coolant system small bore lines using earthquake experience methods HSK review High Flux isotope Reactor Small Bore Piping Seismic reverification of primary coolant piping using earthquake experience methods DOE review.
Related EQE Projects (Cont.)
a Comanche Peak Large and Small Bore Fire Protection Systems,
~
Seismic evaluation of non-safety systems using earthquake experience methods EQE mit I21/dccook2
pe,
~ ~-,',v I
r-
~
~
~r