ML19329E805
| ML19329E805 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 04/19/1978 |
| From: | Howell S CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19329E794 | List: |
| References | |
| HOWE-60-78, NUDOCS 8006170957 | |
| Download: ML19329E805 (7) | |
Text
. - _ _ _ _ - - _ -.
\\
l r3 q_
OOA1.lTY ASSURANCE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT MCAR.1 ggs; '
22 REPORT NO.
O NO. 4.121. 4.131 DATE March 21.1978 7220 JOB NO._
I ' DESCRIPTION (including seferences):
Technical Specification 7220-M-209 states in Section i
III, Subsectig the latest issue of the ASME Boiler and Pre.ssure Vessel C Hidland Units allowable stresses in the Reactor Building Spray Piping Anchors f or EF.
Twenty-six (26) of the R.B. Spray Piping Anchors have been in 1.and 2.
six (6) on the ring girder of Unit 2;The six (6) R.B. Spray Piping Anchors to be (10) in the done area of Unit 1.
- RECOMMENDED ACTION (Optional)
Determine if the de, sign io satisfactory as installed.
If the design is not satisfactory, determine the cause of the condition.
~
1.
If the design is not. satisfactory, take those steps necessary to correct the 2.
3.
discrepancy.
Determine and cicarly identify those actions taken to prevent recurrence.
The Project Engineer should prepare a report for the Project Manager within 4.
i The report should contain all available'information together with a 5.
.The interim report is, 15 days.
statement cs to when a complete report vill be issued.
to clearly address the question of reportability.
QA MANAGEMENT
.]
REFERREO TO
] ENGINEERING
]CCNSTRUCTION w.7/Mf ISSUED N
' 0 838 ojebCJ.4dgineer f/&/"7 T l
TIFIED LIENT 11 REPORTABLE DISCREPANCY d
~
NO x YES DA / j 8
Proi(ct Manager W
111 CAUSE CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN gano957 AUTHORIZ.ED BY osie DIST RIBUTION:
FORMAL REPORT TO CLIENT p,,,
til Section II Apps,esi r,
e e.ci u.a.,.,
comievre.on paneser ll7,7.7;".;~'"
CORRECTIVE ACTION IMPLEMENTED e Con o Pegsenjp
- "O:0,, *,' 7.% u,,.
VERIFIED BY o...
7
% s 4.*'
r,oim on t
.ee, L
g m..-..,__
i I
(
Management Corrective Action Report No. 22
]
March 21,1978 Page 2 I Description (Cont'd.)
located on the ring girder of Unit 1 have not been installed. 3Se sketch numbers for anchors in question for Unit 1 are:
1-612-1-3*, 4 *, 5*, 6*, 7 *,
8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13*, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18; for Unit 2 are 2-613-1-3*,
4*,
5*,
6*,
7*, 8,- 9, 10,-11, 12, 13*, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.
The, asterisks indicate anchors designed for installation on the ring girder.
All sixteen (16) Unit 2 anchors were installed in 1976, early 1977, based on the Bechtel approved supplier's Rev. O design, which did not include any reinforcing pads.
The ten (10) Unit 1 anchors located in the dome area were installed, based on -
the approved supplier Rev. O design, in early 1977 prior to the lif ting and
~
setting of the Unit 1 dome.
f
' However, prior to the installation of the remaining six (6) anchors in the Unit 1 ring girder area, a revised anchor design was received from the supplier y
j' which included reinforcing pads. These pads have not been installed pending receipt of the pad material.
~
4 A revirew of the status of the pad material during' the week ending March 13, 1978 questioned the need for.the reinforcing pads, bringing out the fact that the '
j design of the installed hangers may exceed the code allowable stresses.
l The apparent cause appears to be a deficiency in the supplier design calculations f
if the R.B. Spray Piping Anchors are overstressed during operation of the system the performance of the Spray System may be degraded.
e 0
I e
a w
3 V
i; W
\\
c
\\
Bechtel Power Corporation c. :.... dli l'/ 'f;)
U 777 East Eisenhower Parkway l[
Ann Arbor. Michigan
.g
.,. ;j'j u,nea,m: P.O. Box 1000. Ann Arbor Michigan 48106 g
W4l.llyagSVfE April 10, 1978
, BLC-5804 i
Consumers Power Company, Mr. G. S. Keeley Project Manager 1945 West Parnall Road
~
Jackson, Michigan 49201 Hidland Units 1 and 2 Consumers Power Company Bechtel Job 7220 MCAR-22 INTERIM REPORT 1 Piles'2417/2801
Dear Mr. Keeley:
Atta,ched is Interim Report 1 for the deficiency-described in MCAR-22.
The Interim Report includes a description of the deficiency, a statement of the potential safety implication, a status of the investigation, and the corrective actions that have been initiated.
A Final Report is scheduled for May 31, 1978.
Very truly yours, l
P. A. Martinez Troject Manager
)
PAM/JMK/pp l.
cc: Mr. R. C. Bauman l
Mr. W. R. Bird Mr. J. L. Corley
~
t Mr. B. W. Marguglio i
Attachnents:
3 pages.
?;
h l
i U
4+%%l
$s&
+
4
\\
IMAGE EVALUATION NNNN TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0
'#L4DM ElE 5 2 Ea IH2 u
1.8 1.25 1.4 11.6 I_
4 6"
M',CROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CH ART 4%
4
- ?;f5;,'
%+h4 5,,///7y
<,p i.
1
. _:_=,.m,m=x..=r
a r
6
++/
%*4
_ EE _ _
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
I.0 l& M Bhh 5
En m m ll
$ E b!b l l.8 1.25 1.4 l
1.6 MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART
- 4 4+M<
4%
+%fA)f 4
4 5,;////;
c
.-- $ = -
=.-.a.=.
1 Attccheznt to BLC-5bu4 i.
,Pcg2 1 ef 3 T
Bechtel Associates ProfessionalCorporation
'~~
SUBJECT:
MCAR #
22 (Issued 3/21/78) i...
.I t
INTERIM REPORT #
1 f
'DATE:
April 5,1978 PROJECT:
Consumers Power Company Midland Plant Units 1 & 2 Bechtel Job 7220 Description of Discrepancy local pipe stresses may potentially exceed ASME Section III. Code allowables near the anchor points in the reactor building spray headers located in the reactor building dome.
A total of 32 anchor points (16 per unit) have this potential overstressed condition.
Potential Safety Implication A potential safety problem could exist if the overstressed piping deformed "
' plastica 11y and impeded reactor building spray flow following a LOCA or-MSLB. Until a final analysis confirms that existing design is adequate, this deficiency should be considered potentially reportable.
Investigation
~ This condition exists because ITT Crinnell's original anchor design did not use a reinforcing pad to distribute the loading into the piping.
The 1976 analysis used by Grinnell in designing these anchors indicated i
d d
ate.
- However,
.that the original design, without reinforc ng pa s was a equ in early 1977, Crinnell advised that they were having difficulty with i
As a result of
'other anchor designs where large loads were involved.
several meetings between Grinnell and Bechtel, guidelines for des'ign of pipe, anchors including a reinforcing pad concept were esta
' not advise that these anchors might be ef fected. Bechtel'did not question Crinnell has since used these guidelines,
-the validity of the design.
supported-by a three dimensional finite element analysis, in the design o.
b of all other Grinnell designed piping anchors in the Mid. land plant.
Thus, only the spray piping anchors have this original design.
d '
\\
.~.
7 e
,,,-,,.y
l 4!tcchmntt BLG-5ba E
- * ' '... Tage 2 of 3 '
BECllTEL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
.~t.-'
~.
w 1he Unit 2 dome anchors were installed in late 1976 basically in accor-dance with Crinnell drawings except that minor modifications vere made The Unit I dome 3
to the Level 1 approved-Grinnell hanger sketches.The Grinnell sketches were anchors were installed in June / July 1977.
revised to show the minor modification required for installation and ^
sent to Grinnell for concurrence, but contrary to the provisions of aGrinnell did not prov 14, 1977, Bechtel letter to Grinnell dated March ecmments on the field sketches until October 7, 1977, at which time they At this
. advised that the R. B. spray anchors required a revised design.
point no action was taken by Bechtel.
~
I Simultaneously with the above in April 1977. Grinnell revised their These revised sketches (Unit I and' 2) to incorporate a reinforcing pad.
aketches were received by Bechtel in June 1977.
i The Unit 2 drawings were returned
- to Grinnell carrying an approval Level 9 (revision unacceptable) since the Unit 2 anchors were already installed.
The Unit I drawings were returned to Grinnell carrying an approval Level 1 (revision acceptable) based on the belief that they were not yet Grinnell did not resubmit the Unit 2 drawings, nor did they installed.
provide the reinforcing pad material for the Unit 1 anchors.
Corrective Action The following actions have been initiated in resolving this situation:
prinnell has agreed to recheck their analysis for these specific anchors to ensure that previous analycis is technically correct.
1.
Bechtel has initiated a reanalysis of the piping system in order to
~ 2.
define specific loading for each of the subject anchors (previoua hich was
, loading for these anchors was based on the worst case w This reanalysis will include:
applied to all anchors).
Review loading as result of water hammer effect, (present
- a.
design carries large margin for this)
Final thermal loading informrtion (this is now available from b.
Final seismic response data
~"
c.
Th'e results of the analysis in 2 above (in the form of unique load sheets for each anchor) will be forwarded to Grinnell for reanalysis 3.
of each individual anchor.
A review of the methods used to ensure timely response by Crinnell and' resolution of Grinnell comments on changes to Grinnell hangers
- 4..
y required to f acilitate installation has been initiated.
p
.i e.
m-
- ?
.~.
I
('I A,[techeintthBLC-5 e
.... - e-
,,,, a,
[BECHTEL ASSOCI.ATES PROFESS 101'AL CORPORATION He reanalysis within Bechtel is expected to be complete by ?!ay 15,
.1978. The. reanalysis by Grinnell will then take approximately 1 week.
We review of procedural metteds associated with revised hanger drawings will be completed by April 21, 1978.
,e Submitted by:
r-
.{i'"M
~
Approved by: [
Concurrence by:
e
~
9 9
L t
l 9
4
.