ML17328A579

Summarizes 900131 Meeting W/Util Re Small Bore Piping Design Confirmation Program Proposed for Plant.List of Attendees Encl.Basis for Screening Criteria for Valve Eccentricity Objected

ML17328A579
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	02/16/1990
From:	Giitter J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Alexich M INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG
References
NUDOCS 9002230452
Download: ML17328A579 (54)

Text

ny

~

.+e y Docket Nos.

50-315 and 50-316 Nr. Milton Alexich Indiana Nichigan Power Company c/o American Electric Power Service Corporation 1 Riverside Plaza

Columbus, Ohio 43216 February 16, 1990 DISTRIBUTION goDoc et FTQ~

NRC Il Local PDRs PD31 Reading JZwolins ki NRShuttleworth JGiitter OGC EJordan ACRS(10)

SUBJECT:

MEETING WITH INDIANA MICHIGAN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION TO DISCUSS PIPING DESIGN CONFIRMATION PROGRAM SCREENING CRITERIA FOR D. C.

COOK On January 31, 1990, the staff met with Indiana Michigan Electric Power (IMEC) to discuss the small bore design confirmation program proposed for D. C. Cook.

This meeting was a follow-up to the November 8, 1989 meeting with the staff during which the licensee described the small bore piping design basis con-firmation program proposed for D. C. Cook.

During the November 8, 1989 meeting, the licensee agreed to meet with the staff around the first of the year to pro-vide a more detailed description of their proposed screening criteria.

The January 31, 1989 INEC presentation focused on the small bore piping and pipe support screening criteria that would be applied to various field configurations (e.g.,

ceiling-mounted braced cantilever supports) dur ing plant walkdowns.

A list of meeting attendees is provided in Enc'losure 1.

Slides used during the presentation (all non-proprietary) are provided as Enclosure 2.

Outlier con-figurations

( i.e., those that do not meet the screening criteria) would be docu-mented and resolved via detailed analysis or test.

Modifications to the design would be made as appropriate.

The last stage of the proposed confirmation pro-gram includes documentation of conformance and updating of the alternate criteria to reflect lessons learned in the confirmation program.

The staff agreed in principle with the INEC approach to design basis confirma-tion for D. C.

Cook small bore piping.

However, the staff objected to the reference to SHRUG data as a basis for screening criteria for valve eccentricity.

In addition, the staff is not in the position at this time to endorse the use of earthquake experience data in the design basis confirmation screening process.

Sincerely, Originaf fign5fby IA MU

<(9@I MOQ.

AO OO Glfi QO b)U GA etO RCC blA OQ'Q

& Q.Q I.

Enclosures:

As stated cc:

See next page

• See previous concurrence

• PM/PD31: DRSP

• EMEB JGiitter TNarsh 02/

/90 02/

/90 Joseph G. Giitter, Project Manager Project Directorate III-1 Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V Im Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

(~(

• (A)D/PD31: DRSP JThoma 02/

/90

C 0

4p

~C g g K h

ll I I v

J

Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316 Hr. Hilton Alexich Indiana Hichigan Power Company c/o American Electric Power Service Corporation 1 Riverside Plaza

Columbus, Ohio 43216 DISTRIBUTION

~R NRC 5 Local PDRs PD31 Reading JZwolinski HRShuttleworth JGiitter OGC EJordan ACRS(10)

SUBJECT:

HEETING WITH INDIANA HICHIGAN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION TO DISCUSS PIPING DESIGN CONFIRHATION PROGRAH SCREENING CRITERIA FOR D. C.

COOK On January 31, 1990, the staff met with Indiana Hichigan Electric Power (IHEC) to discuss the small bore design confirmation program proposed for D. C. Cook.

This meeting was a follow-up to the November 8, 1989 meeting with the staff during which the licensee described the small bore piping design basis con-firmation program proposed for D. C. Cook.

During the November 8, 1989 meeting, the licensee agreed to meet with the staff around the first of the year to pro-vide a more detailed description of their proposed screening criteria.

The January 31, 1989 IHEC presentation focused on the small bore piping and pipe support screening criteria that would be applied to various field con-figurations (e.g.,

ceiling-mounted braced cantilever supports) during plant walkdowns.

A list of meeting attendees is provided in Enclosure 1.

Slides used during the presentation (all non-proprietary) are provided as Enclosure 2.

Outlier configurations (i.e., those that do not meet the screening criteria) would be documented and resolved via detailed analysis or test.

Hodifications to the design would be made as appropriate.

The last stage of the proposed confirmation program includes documentation of conformance and updating of the alternate criteria. to reflect lessons learned in the confirmation program.

The staff agreed in principle with the IMEC approach to design basis confirma-tion for D. C. Cook small bore piping.

However, the staff objected to the reference to SHRUG data as a basis for screening 'criteria for valve eccentricity.

In addition, the staff is not in the position at this time to endorse the use of earthquake experience data in the design basis confirmation screening process.

Sincerely, cc:

See next page PH/PD3 DRSP

• EHEB

JGY, THar sh 0~ /9 02/

/90

• See previous concurrence Joseph G. Giitter, Project Hanager Project Directorate III-1 Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V 5 Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

(~PD31: DRSP 02/p'/90

0 i

~l pl I

II l

P

C l,~

,.fr

'ocket Nos.

50-315 and 50"316 DISTRIBUTION Docket File

" NRC 8 Local PDRs PD31 Reading JZwolinski MRShuttleworth JGiitter OGC EJordan ACRS(10)

Mr. Milton Alexich Indiana Michigan Power Company c/o American Electric Power Service Corporation 1 Riverside Plaza

Columbus, Ohio 43216

SUBJECT:

MEETING MITH INDIANA MICHIGAN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION TO DISCUSS PIPING DESIGN CONFIRMATION PROGRAM SCREENING CRITERIA FOR D.

C.

COOK On January 31, 1990, the staff met with Indiana Michigan Electric Power (IMEC) to discuss the small bore design confirmation program proposed for D.

C.

Cook.

This meeting was a follow-up to the November 8, 1989 meeting with the staff during which the licensee described the small bore piping des'ign basis con-firmation program proposed for D.

C.

Cook.

During the November 8, 1989 meeting, the licensee agreed to meet with the staff around the first of the year to pro-vide a more detailed description of their proposed screening criteria.

The January 31, 1989 IMEC presentation focused on the small bore piping and pipe support screening criteria that would be applied to various field con-

'igurations (e. g., ceiling-mounted braced cantilever supports) during plant walkdowns.

A list of meeting attendees is provided in Enclosure 1.

Slides used during the presentation (all non-proprietary) are provided as Enclosure 2.

Outlier configurations (i.e., those that do not meet the screening criteria) would be documented and resolved via detailed analysis or test.

Modifications to the design would be made as appropriate.

The last stage of the proposed confirmation program includes documentation of conformance and updating of the alternate criteria to reflect lessons learned in the confirmation program.

Sincerely, The staff agreed in principle with the IMEC approach to design basis confirma-tion for D.

C.

Cook small bore piping.

However, the staff objected to the reference to S(UG data as a basis for screening criteria for valve eccentricity.

In addition, the staff is not in the position at this time to explicitly endorse the use of earthquake experience data in the design basis confirmation screening process.

However, the staff recognizes that IMEC may use earthquake experience on their own prerogative.

Joseph G. Giitter, Project Manager Project Directorate III-1 Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V 8 Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc:

See next page PM/PPP@:DRSP EMEB (A)0/PD31: DRSP JThoma otd<5 /90

<" 02/g/90 02/

/90

%yyvuv4U@

(

P Lk y

~ r 1

1

\\

g

cP.S REMI tl PO IpIp P

l I

O P

.4 0

g

+

~'

+>>*++

UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 February 16, 1990 Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316 Hr. Milton Alexich Indiana Michigan Power Company c/o American Electric Power Service Corporation 1 Riverside Plaza

Columbus, Ohio 43216

Dear Hr. Alexich:

SUBJECT'EETING WITH INDIANA HICHIGAN ELECTRIC POMER'CORPORATION TO DISCUSS PIPING DESIGN CONFIRMATION PROGRAM SCREENING CRITERIA FOR D. C.

COOK On January 31, 1990, the staff met with Indiana Michigan Electric Power (IHEC) to discuss the small bore design confirmation program proposed for D. C. Cook.

This meeting was a follow-up to the November 8, 1989 meeting with the staff during which the licensee described the small bore piping design basis con-firmation program proposed for D. C. Cook.

During the November 8, 1989 meeting, the licensee agreed to meet with the staff around the first of the year to pro-vide a more detailed description of their proposed screening criteria.

The January 31, 1989 IHEC presentation focused on the small bore piping and pipe support screening criteria that would be applied to various field configurations (e.g., ceiling-mounted braced cantilever supports) during plant walkdowns.

A list of meeting attendees is provided in, Enclosure 1.

Slides used during the presentation (all non-proprietary) are provided as Enclosure 2.

Outlier con-figurations

( i.e., those that do not meet the screening criteria) would be docu-mented and resolved via detailed analysis or test.

HIodifications to the design would be made as appropriate.

The last stage of the proposed confirmation pro-gram includes documentation of conformance and updating of the alternate criteria to reflect lessons learned in the confirmation program.

-The staff agreed in principle with the IHEC approach to design basis confirma-tion for D. C.

Cook small bore piping.

However, the staff objected to the reference to S(UG data as a basis for screening criteria for valve eccentricity.

In addition, the staff is not in the position at this time to endorse the use of earthquake experience data in the design basis confirmation screening process.

S incere ly,

Enclosures:

As stated cc:

See next page Joseph G. Giitter, Project Manager Project Directorate III-1 Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V 8 Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

~ X 0

t \\

-A C

\\ g f

Nr. Milton Alexich Indiana Michigan Power Company Donald C.

Cook Nuclear Plant CC:

Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 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, Michigan 49106 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspectors Office 7700 Red Arrow Highway Stevensvi lie, 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, Michigan 49106 Special Assistant to the Governor Room 1 - State Capitol 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 Nr. S. Brewer American Electric Power Service Corporation 1 Riverside Plaza

Columbus, Ohio 43216

.0 l

(

I a

~<.,

l ~

tr

Enclosure 1

NAME J.

A. Gavula Duane Danielson Robert Campbell J. A. Kobyra S.

P. Harris Bryan P.'Lauzau Steven J.

Brewer James J. Johnson John 0. Dizon John 0.

Thoma P. T.

Kuo Mark Hartzman Gary Hammer Joseph G. Giitter TITLE Rx Insp.

Section Chief, DRS Vice President Group Manager Vice President Engineer Manager Div. Dir.

Principal Engr.

PDIII-1 Section Chief Senior Mech. Eng.

Mech. Engr.

Project Manager ORGANIZATION NRC/RIII NRC/RIII EQE Engr.

.AEPSL EQE AEPSC - Nuclear Safety 5 Licensing AEPSC - Nuclear Safety 5 Licensing EQE EQE NRC/RIII NRC/EMEB NRC/EMEB NRC/EMEB NRC/PDIII-1

Ef)CLOSURE 2 COOK NUCLEAR PLANT CLASS I SMALLBORE PIPING DESIGN CONFIRMATIONPROGRAM Presented to US NRC Sanuary 31, 1990

Overview Small bore issue at Cook Nuclear Plant Overview of Class I small bore piping design confirmation program Details of small bore confirmation program Original Alternate Analysis Criteria Original attribute screening criteria Screening criteria enhancements Resolution methods

NRC Audit Observations a

Specific small-bore lines have been found deficient Design activities associated with smail-bore piping were not prescribed by documented procedures a

"Alternate Criteria" assumptions required the application of engineering judgment which was not consistently documented nA1128/dccocAS

Cook Nuclear Plant 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 mal 12e/ckcootS

Gook Nuclear Plant Class 1 Small Bore Piping Design Confirmation Program Objectives a

Confirm and document the original "Alternate-Criteria" w

Validate the implementation of piping systems designed to the "Alternate Criteria" a

Provide documentation of the program results a

Identify and correct deficiencies

~

Provide clear design procedures for future installation of small bore piping m@ $28/dec oot3

P

~

I 1

Cy

~ ~

Design Confirmation Program Details Confirmation Procedure Establish technical basis for original "Alternate Criteria" Develop screening criteria and procedure EGE mld128/dec oo%5

Cook Nuclear Plant Alternate Criteria Technical Basis Criteria a

VSAS B31.1 design a

Pipe Stress

< 1.8Sh a

Conservative value if 15 ksi = Sh a

3 ksi stress allowance for pressure

~

Deflection <

L 360 a

FSAR earthquake component combination mal128/dccoak3

Cook Nuclear Plant Alternate Criteria Methods a

Conservative simple span model used a

Conservative spectra envelope of all elevations {1/2% damped and broadened) a Calculated pipe frequencies were conservatively shifted 10%

a Response accelerations were further increased by 20%

a Span vs stress, displacement and load vrere generated from these conservatively derived accelerations

Cook Nuclear Plant Design Basis Earthquake Response Accelerations (</2% Damping) 3.0 2.0

~

1.0 0.8 t0 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 Design Acceleration Range 120% of Spectral Acceleration Range A

1.1f I

I I

I-I I

I I

Enveloped AuxiliaryBuilding

....:. EI. 650' 0.2 0.15 I

to 1

2 1 ~ 1f to 1 1f 2 I

- Catcutated pipe Frequendes

- Design Spectral Acceleration Frequencies 0.10 05 RSPEC2 CNW 0 20004$ Stlrl00

.06

.08

.15

.2 Period, Sec.

.3

.4

.5

.6 m@126/decoot3

.8 1.0

Cook Nuclear Plant Alternate Criteria Support Spacing vs Pipe Stress 40 1/2 II 3/4 ll 1 II 1-1/2" 2"

30 2O C4 p 10

~r ~

~

Recommended Pipe Span Stress Limit 10 15 20 30 PIPE SPAN (FT.)

350 Cook Nuclear Plant Alternate Criteria Support Spacing vs Support Load SCH 40 PIPE

, 300 cr) 250 200 0

P) 150 100 50

\\

~

~ ~

L

~ 1 L

A ~

2"

.'1-1/2" 3/4 II g/2 II 0

10 15 20 PIPE SPAN (FT.)

25'0

Cook Nuclear Plant Alternate Criteria Resulting Design w

Conservatism on design acceleration is approximately 1.5 a

Conservatism on allowable stress ranges from 1.5 to 3.7 mtl128/dccook3

Cook Nuclear Plant Screening Criteria Original Design Attributes Typical support configurations determined a

Acceptable pipe span and support lengths were developed:

Pipe stress 1.8Sh {B31.1 1967 Catalog support items catalog load rating

)

in effect at time of design Supplemental steel 1-1/3 S AISC Concrete anchor bolts SF = 4 on ultimate Support loads based on original "Alternate Criteria"

Typical "Alternate Criteria" piping System Wall-mounted Braced Cantilever Support t~

g

~f gl

. ~

mal128/deeOO&

Typical "Alternate,Criteria" Piping System Ceiling-mounted Braced Cantilever Support 5i m8 128/dccook3

~

~

~

~

'gl

Cook Nuclear Plant Small Bore Piping Pipe and Support Attribute Screening Criteria 100 SCH 40 PIPE 80

~

P 314" 'tI.'8s.

L2}N2}

60 1/2 II 3/4 II 40 20

~

Reoommended Pipe Spsn Y

Stress Limitfor SIF ~ 1.0 Stress Limitfor StF 1.3

~

L 1-1/2" 2 II 0

10 15 20 PIPE SPAN (FT.)

25 30

Typical "Alternate Criteria" Piping System Wall-mounted Braced Cantilever Support tnl4128/dceookS

4

~ g l

~

~

t

Cook Nuclear Plant Small Bore Piping Pipe and Support Attribute Screening Criteria 80 SCH 40 PIPE 60 L2jX2j 40

~

~

1/2" 3/4 II 20

~

Recommended Pipe Span Y

Stress Limittor SIF 1.0 Stress Limitior SIF 1.3 1-1/20 2n 0

10 15 20 25 30 PIPE SPAN (FT.)

Screening Criteria a

Original "Alternate Criteria" design basis attributes which required application of engineering judgement willbe screened as outliers on a

'ounding cases basis Support of valves Support of riser Multiple component support EQE mkl128/dccook3

L

~

I l

~

Typical Small Bore Pipe Valve Support q ~ 1 3

L C

+~

aEgP p

~

C eW~!

Yj

Cook Nuclear Plant Small Bore Piping Concentrated Weight Attribute Screening Criteria

~ A 16 2" Sch 40 Pipe W, lbs.

C5 G4 GQ tD S4 C4 O

14 12 10

~

~ ~

t ~

~ ~

.-"--" - ~. ~ ~.f W

b~M I.,

25 50 75 100 125 150 I

2 3

4 Span Length I l, ft.

5

l

~,l f'(l, l

~

Cook Nuclear Plant Air-operated Valve Screening Criteria Based on SQUG Data COujzO Z'.

(9llj K0I-K UJ CL0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 III II I

I II 10.0 I

II I

KEY: Number of Valves 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 PIPE DIAMETER(INCHES)

~

~

~

Cook Nuclear Plant Motor-Operated Valve Screening Criteria Based on SQUG Data 40.0 xO 30.0 (9

x 0:0 20.0 CL0 1(330/:.)

1(1208) 1(1000) 1 (200lel) 1 (150//),,...,,,

1(1000:)"',.""."'-.':::.:'.;-::.:."

I;;.:,"';".:.;:.-".,';:;::

2 (100k) 2(2500):

2 (200lmt-) 1('120N);

1(100

'1'-

1(120 5(12

.)1(.-120').

50$),,...

~ Screening Criteria 10.0 KEY: Number of Valves (Operator Weight¹)

0.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 PIPE DIAMETER(INCHES)

Screening Criteria Enhancements Based on Earthquake Experience Data Damage or failure can result when small bore piping has inadequate flexibilityto accommodate seismic displacements of connected large bore piping a

Damage or failure can result when large displacements are imposed on small bore piping by movement of large unanchored equipment a

Interaction damage that may result from impact with other plant features mN1%/dcaxA3

Enhanced Screening Criteria a

Anchor motion checks Confirm anchorage of attached non-seismic equipment Verifymotions in interface regions Verifymotions between uncoupled structures SAM < 1.5Sh a

Checks for interaction SQUG methods m8128(dccook3

Seismic Anchor Motion (SAM)

Back round Original criteria did not address SAM No specific guidance in original codes Current codes assess SAM for OBE only include in Eq. 9 Alternatively include in Eq. 10 or 11 Screenin a

Use Eq. 10 stress allowable for seismic SAMpBE < S~

Where:

Sa = (1.25S~ + 0.25Sh) = 1.5sh for N < 7000 cycles

~

Very conservative screen (DBE <<7000 cycles) mM126/dccook3

10 Cook Nuclear Plant Small Bore Piping Anchor Motion Screening Criteria Sch. 40 Stainless Branch Piping 2

II 1-1/2" 3/4 II 1/2 II too I

~

0.50 I

II I

I J

1.00 SAM < 1.5Sh 1.50 0.25 0.75 Displacement (in.)

1.25

r

~

~ ~

~

~

~

~

~ ~

~

r

~

~

~ r

C" v,)

y

~

Design Confirmation Program Details Perform plant screening 100% walkdown of accessible small bore piping Documentation of "outlier" configurations Resolution of outliers via detailed analysis or test Modifications to system ifrequired Final documentation package tnal IW/dceookS

Gook Nuclear Plant Small Bore Confirmation Program Plant Screening Exceptions "Outliers" Documented Condition Report &

Operability Determination Resolution of Outiiers Analyses or Test Data Plant Modifications Documentation of Conformance mkl12B/dccoo%3

Analysis 'of Outliers a

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

~

Detailed studies and modifications (if required) mal1%/decoct

C 1 ~

~, ~

Design Confirmation Program Details Update "Alternate Criteria" for future vrork Include enhancements from lessons learned in confirmation program Document evaluation procedure EGE m'kll28/dccook3

r~

P 4 ~

c

Conclusions Completion of the Small Bore Verification Program will:

Confirm the original and enhanced criteria arid implementation attributes Resolve all the screening criteria "outliers" Identify and correct any deficiencies Provide an updated "Alternate Criteria" for future work mkl128/dccook3

0 1

Ci' s +W I

T f.