ML20051N758
| ML20051N758 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 05/13/1982 |
| From: | Schroeder C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 4111N, NUDOCS 8205170364 | |
| Download: ML20051N758 (25) | |
Text
'
N Commonwealth Edison
// 1
.) one First N;tionst Plata. Chicgo, Ilknois p
k-
~7 Addr:ss RIply to: Post Office Box 767
(
,/ chicago, lihnois 60690
]
Ma y 13, 198 2 RECEIVED MAY14199g, 5 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director J
Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation y
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission v
Washington, DC 20555 m
Subject:
LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 Teledyne Open Item and Error / Deviation Reports for the LaSalle Independent Design Review - Second Transmittal NRC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374 Reference (a):
C.
W. Schroeder letter to H. R. Denton dated March 16, 1982, " Independen t Design Review Initial Status Report for the Period of February 11 through March 12, 1982.
(b):
C.
W. Schroeder letter to H. R. Denton dated May 7, 1982, "Teledyne Open Item and Error / Deviation Reports for the LaSalle Independent Design Review."
Dear Mr. Denton:
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with controlled copy #8 of:
TES Proj. No. 5539-8 Date:
5-11-82 Open Item and Error / Deviation Report for the LaSalle Independen t Design Review, Second Transmittal o f Reports Under separate cover, controlled copy #9 is being provided to Mr. James G. Keppler.
This report has also been provided to our Architect Engineer (Sargent and Lundy) for preparation of responses to open items and findings.
If there are any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office.
Very truly yours, I
5/l3/ e, z_
C. W. Schroeder Nuclear Licensing Administrator 1m Attachment cc:
NRC Resident Inspector - LSCS - 1/0 001 Sh AlllN 820517O % 9 i
p
May 13, 1982 Mr. L.0. DelGeorge:
Subject:
Teledyr.e Open Item and Error Deviation Reports (Second Group) for the LaSalle Independent Design Review
Reference:
May 11, 1982 transmittal of J.A. Flaherty to B.R. Shelton Enclosed are copies of the subject report which you should transmit to the NRC.
I am in the process of having the items identified in this report reviewed by Sargent & Lundy.
I will provide you with a copy of their response for transmittal to the NRC as soon as it is complete.
I have made distribution of the ten copies as follows:
Copy #
Recipient 6
B.R. Shelton 7
L.0. DelGeorge 8
H. Denton (NRC)"'
9 J. Keppler (NRC) 10 R.J. Mazza (S&L) 11 R.H. Holyoak 12 T.E. Watts 13 C. Reed 14 J.J. Maley 15 B.B. Stephenson You will be provided with any changes that may occur to this report as a holder of a controlled document.
You should feel free to copy any portions of this document for your use or other distributions, but it is your responsibility to keep those recipients current as required.
bh S/g B.R. Shelton BRS/bmb/1498L
"#TELEDYNE TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTROLLED c
DOCUMENT Tf a '3osem ~ m c~ue TES PROJ. NO.
-b L
L wattwAu. urssacaustris c22s4 d'//
- b
^
min e9o33sa Twwtoi a24-7 sos DATE May 11, 1982 5539-8 Mr. Brent Shelton Project Engineering Manager for LaSalle County Station Comonwealth Edison One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60690
Subject:
Open-Item and Error / Deviation Reports for the '.aSalle Indepen-dent Design Review
Dear Mr. Shelton:
Enclosed are Open-Item and Error-Deviation reports.
This represents the second transmittal of Open-Item and Error / Deviation Reports.
The numbering in this package is a continuation of the first.
Due to a typing backlog, not all of the reports are finished.
TES will transmit on Wednesday the rest of the reports.
There are eight reports lef t to be finalized.
This will complete all Open-Item and Error / Deviation reporting.
Attachment 2
contains seven Error / Deviation reports and Attachment 3 contains eleven Open-Item reports.
The Open-Item reports list those items which require further clarification from S&L.
All Open-Items and Error / Deviations reports have been reviewed by the Project Review Internal Committee.
The definitions used for this project are given in Attachment 1 to this letter.
In accordance with the TES Project QA Program, this letter with attachments has become part of the TES Project QA Records and is therefore a controlled document.
In order to maintain the independence on the project, any and all comments should be transmitted to TES in a controlled manner, care of TES Document
-Control.
Distribution of this letter with enclosures is as follows:
Copy 1 Record copy - TES Document Control Copy 2 J. A. Flaherty - TES Project Manager.
Copy 3 L. J. Diluna - TES Assistant Project Manager 91GINEERS AND METALLURGISTS
WTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Mr. Brent Shelton May 11, 1982 5539-8 Page Two Copy 4 N.
S.
Celia - TES Project Review Internal Committee Chairman Copy 5 D. Messinger - TES Project Quality Assurance Engineer Copies 6-15 B. R. Shelton - Commonwealth Edison Company Copies 16-20 TES Document Control If you require additional copies, please let us know.
Sincerely, TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES
$ =':
James A. Flaherty, P.E.
Manager, Engineering Design and Testing JAF:jej enclosures i
"RTA AWNE ENGINEERING SERVCES ATTACHMENT 1 For clarification, the following definitions are being used for the subject project:
Open-Item:
A possible error or inconsistency that has not been verified or fully understood, and its signif-icance assessed. An Open-Item can become an Error, Deviation or a Closed Item, but cannot remain an Open-Item in the TES Final Report.
Error:
An incorrect result that has been verified as such.
It may be due to any of several reasons:
Math Mistake Omission of Data Use of Inappropriate Data Deviation:
Not an error in analysis, design or construction, but a departure from standard procedure (s).
Closed Item:
An Open-Item which, after further review, can be closed.
Prior to completion of the Independent Design Review, all Open-Items must be defined as an Error, Deviation or Closed Item.
Observation:
An item that does not impact the adequacy of the design or QA process but which the reviewer feels is a departure from standard practices which he is accustomed to.
Potential Finding:
An item which the reviewer and TES Project Manager feel could have an impact on the adequacy of the design or QA process.
A Potential Finding can become an Error, Deviation, or an Observation, but cannot remain a Potential Finding in the TES Final Report.
All Potential Findings and Open-Items will be submitted to the Project Review Internal Committee for disposition.
1
'#PTF1 pnYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES l
\\
ATTACHMENT 2 ERROR / DEVIATION REPORTS FOR PERIOD THROUGH MAY 11, 1982 i
4
"#PTA AWNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Project 5539 - LaSalle Initependent Design Review - RHR System Date: May 11, 1982 Error / Deviation Report No.:
12 Classification of Finding:
Error
Reference:
S&L Seismic Qualif: cation of Residual Heat Removal Pump / Motor - Calculation No. CQD-000264 Statement:
The FSAR Table 3.9-23 specifies E12-C002 RHR pump as ASME Code Class 2.
The limits specified in the
- FSAR, paragraph 3.9.3.2.1.1, are based on Class 2 allowables.
The above-referenced calculations use Class 1 allowables and stress limits.
Nowhere in the design process or design documentation is the use of Class 1 allowables or stress limits acceptable for the evaluation of a Class 2 component.
Section III of the ASME Code allows the Owner to upgrade a component to a higher Code classification (i.e., from Class 2 to Class 1) if all requirements of the higher classification are met.
Basically, this would require upgrading Material, Fabrication, Examination and Testing as well as Design.
The Design Report supplied by the manufacturer is for a Class 2 pump (Section VIII, Division 1).
==
Conclusion:==
The use of Class 1 allowables and stress limits for the evalu-ation of a Class 2 component does not meet the requirements of-the ASME Code and the FSAR.
By 1
By
,6d N. S. 'CM
. A. Flaherty V Project Review Comittee Chairman Project Manager
"MTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Project 5539 - LaSalle Independent Design Review - RHR System Date: May 11, 1982 Error / Deviation Report No.:
13 Classification of Finding:
Error
Reference:
S&L Seismic Qualification of Residual Heat Removal Pump / Motor - Calculation No. CQD-000264 Statement:
The calculated local membrane stress, o L, in the discharge nozzle adjacent to the stuffing box exceeds the code allowable stress as follows:
oL Limit Service Level 43,600 psi 1.65 S = 28.900 psi B
43,600 psi 1.8 S = 31,500 psi C
In the referenced stress report, S&L used Class 1 code allowble stress values.
Per the FSAR, the RHR pump is a Class 2 component.
==
Conclusion:==
The use of Class 1 allowable stress values is unconservative.
In addition, the Level C allowable stress is multiplied by a higher ratio for Class 1 versus Class 2.
For Class 1, the user can use the higher of 1.8 Sm or 1.5 S.
The Class 2 y
allowables only allow the use of 1.8.
By By
[d N. S. 't Ih
/
. A. FYaherty (
Project Review Comittee Chairman Project Manager
"A'Ts 1 mYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Project 5539 - LaSalle Independent Design Review - RHR System Date: May 11, 1982 Error / Deviation Report No.:
14 Classification of Finding:
Deviation
Reference:
S&L Report No.
EMD-4266-1PC0012, Revision 1, Penetration St'ress Analysis Repnrt, RHRS/LPCI Line.
State.nent:
The referenced stress report is for a Class 1 component.
The report contains a design certification statement but does not have a professional engineer's signature.
==
Conclusion:==
A professional engineer's signature is required per Sec-tion III of the ASME Code.
%.d.dlnYL C/11 By By_ N.S.' M Q.A.F14herty M Project Review Committee Chairman Project Manager
"#PTF1FnYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Project 5539 - LaSalle Independent Design Review - RHR System Date: May 11, 1982 Error / Deviation Report No.:
15 Classification of Finding:
Error
Reference:
RHR Subsystem 1RH-64, QUAD Report 1-80-171, Revision 0, and Addendum A to Revision 0 Statement:
The above-referenced system is a branch line attached to RH-07.
In the analysis only displacements were considered.
Rotations from RH-07 were not used in the analysis of RH-64.
==
Conclusion:==
Rotations could have an effect on the loads and stresses in the branch line.
Justification was not given for ignoring them.
B'
=,8 By N. S. Ce J. A. Flahe'ty
(~
r Project Review Committee Chairman Project Manager
"#PTF1 mYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Project 5539 - LaSalle Independent Design Review - RHR System Date: May 11, 1982 Error / Deviation Report No.:
16 Classification of Finding:
Error
Reference:
RHR Subsystem 1RH-64, QUAD Report 1-80-171, Revision 0, and Addendum A to Revision 0 Statement:
Thermal mode 2 defines the entire subsystem at 1700F.
This corresponds to the main line (RH-07) mode where the temperature of the line is defined as 2120F.
==
Conclusion:==
The temperatures used for analyzing and evaluating the branch and main lines should be consistent or justification should be given that the choice of temperatures is conservative.
By @
By N. S.
. A. Flaherty T
Project Review Conmittee Chairman roject Manager i
"RTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVCES Project 5539 - LaSalle Independent Design Review - RHR System Date: May 11, 1982 Error / Deviation Report No.:
17 Classification of Finding:
Deviation
References:
1)
G.E.
System Design Specification for the Residual Heat Removal System, Document No. 22A2817, Revision 3
- 2) S&L Piping Design Specification for LaSalle County Station, Unit 1, Revision 3 Statement:
In reviewing the above-referenced documents and their refer-ences, it is very difficult to ascertain what Service Level (or Operating Condition) is assigned to specific thermal con-ditions for a system.
The only reference to the operating condition category is to Plant Operating Conditions.
==
Conclusion:==
There is no documentation which defines the Service Levels for the RHR system in the LPCI mode.
S&L and/or G.E. should have defined this in the design documentation.
Justification should have been given for the choice of Service Level chosen and how functional capability was met.
By d lz By M-N. S. E u J. A. F1afterty' 7 Project Review Comittee Chairman Project Manager
"RTri FrVNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Project 5539 - LaSalle Independent Design Review - RHR System Date: May 11, 1982 Error / Deviation Report No.:
18 Classification of Finding:
Deviation
Reference:
S&L Piping Subsystem Stress Report RH-11 Statement:
The riajority of the piping of subsystem RH-ll is specified as Class 2.
However, there are no Class 2 (NC-3600 of Code) stress evaluations presented in the report.
==
Conclusion:==
Report RH-11 should state that those portions of the subsystem not Class A (or 1) meet the requirements of the applicable subsections (i.e., NC-3600) of Section III.
i
[j4,*
By
, 6-By e
N. S. Celia J
A. Flaherty
(
Project Review Comittee Chairman
.roject Manager l
"M TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES ATTACHMENT 3 OPEN-ITEM REPORTS FOR PERIOD THROUGH MAY 11, 1982
'# TF1FnYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Project 5539 - LaSalle Independent Design Review - RHR System Date: May 11, 1982 Open-Item Report No.:
12
Reference:
S&L Report No.
EMD-4266-1
- PC0012, Revision 1, Penetration Stress Analysis Report, RHRS/LPCI Line Statement: The Design Specification for the penetration assembly (DS-PA-01-LS) is incomplete.
Piping loads on the penetration assembly are not included in Appendix A of the specification.
The piping stress analysis for the piping subsystem Rl!-11 shows maximum shear loads and torsional moments at anchor M-12 in excess of those applied in the penetration stress analyses.
Request:
S&L is requested to supply information justifying choice of moments and forces used in the analysis.
S&L should also define when Appendix A of the Design Specification will be updated.
By By h. 6 k N.S.L M, A. Flaherty C
Project Review Cormittee Chairman oject Manager
'#PTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Project 5539 - LaSalle Independent Design Review - RHR System Date: May 11, 1982 Open-Item Report No.:
13
Reference:
S&L Report No.
EMD-4266-1
- PC0012, Revision 1, Penetration Stress Analysis Report, RHRS/LPCI Line Statement: The above-referenced stress report is for a Class 1 component.
The Stress Report has not been certified by the Owner that a review has been conducted in accordance with NA-3260 of the ASME Code,Section III.
Request:
Comonwealth Edison is requested to supply certification if it exists or justification why it does not exist at this time.
By By
.O -
f N.S. D a hJ.A.Flaherty V
Project Review Committee Chairman Project Manager
~
"#TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Project 5539 - LaSalle Independent Design Review - RHR System Date: May 11, 1982 Open-Item Report No.:
14
Reference:
S&L, RHR, Loop C Subsystem RH-06, Revisions 3 and 5 Statement: There is no discontinuity temperature difference (T -Tw) value t
input for lugs at support RH-53-100C.
This point is modeled as node 25 in the comparable PIPSYS computer run and shows a T -Tg, discontinuity value (from AXTRAN computer run) input.
A Request:
S&L is requested to supply the AXTRAN computer program user manual and computer runs which will explain the above condi-tion.
By W By
, d. h N. S. W J.
F1aberty D
Project Review Committee Chairman Pro ct Manager
"RTF1 FrWNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Project 5539 - LaSalle Independent Design Review - RHR System Date: May 11, 1982 Open-Item Report No.:
15
Reference:
RHR Subsystem 1RH-64, QUAD Report 1-80-171, Revision 0, and Addendum A to Revision 0 Statement:
There is an orifice flange at node 206 of the piping mode? and flanged connections for valves.
Calculations are not contained in the above-referenced report for flanges in general.
Requestion: S&L is requested to submit data substantiating that the flanges were analyzed, evaluated and meet the requirements of NC-3647.
By N Mg[
By 3,4 N. S.'C M C #
J. 8 Flaherty
(
Project Review Committee Chairman Pro' ct Manager
"M TripnYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Project 5539 - LaSalle Independent Design Review - RHR System Date: May 11, 1982 Open-Item Report No.:
16
Reference:
RHR Subsystem 1RH-64, QUAD Report 1-80-171, Revision 0, and Addendum A to Revision 0 Statement: Sheet 12 of 20 of the referenced report, " General Notes" indi-cates that valve loads and accelerations are within code allow-ables.
There is no evidence of how these were checked, such as Quadrex Form SA-7A, " Acceleration of Inline Components".
Request:
Was the above-stated form transmitted to S&L?
How was it determined that loads and accelerations are within code allow-ables?
I By M By
, 8. N N. S. Ce
. FlahIr't'y ("~
Project Review Committee Chairman r ject Manager
'#PTFIFrVNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Project 5539 - LaSalle Independent Design Review - RHR System Date: May 11, 1982 Open-Item Report No.:
17
Reference:
S&L Piping Subsystem Stress Report RH-11 Statement: The above-referenced stress report is for a Class 1 component.
The stress report has not been certified by the Owner that a review has been conducted in accordance with NA-3260 of the ASME code,Section III.
Request:
Comonwealth Edison is requested to supply certification if it exists or justification why it does not exist at this time.
4 i
1 N. S. Celia
'~
By
, k' k By
/M' U.A.Flaherty V Project Review Committee Chairman Project Manager
~
I
"A'TF1FnYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES d
Project 5539 - LaSalle Independant Design Review - RHR System Date: May 11, 1982 Open-Item Report No.:
18
Reference:
S&L Piping Subsystem Stress Report RH-11 Statement:
Table 2.1 of the above-referenced report specifies an allowable stress intensity value, Sm = 17,700 psi for the Design Bases Conditions listed for the Class 1 line IRH538-12.
Summary 18,110 psi for the Table 4.1 of the same _ report lists Sm
=
Emergency and Faulted coiiditions.
Request:
S&L is requested to explain the difference in the value of Sm chosen.
Is it due to temperature difference between conditions?
By 7[. M. b/g By
, [.
~_ o N. S. Celia (Jj A. Flaherty Q
Project Review Cormiittee Chairman 7eoject Manager k
gh e
'RTA AVNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Project 5539 - LaSalle Independent Design Review - RHR System Date: May 11, 1982 Open-Item Report No.:
19
Reference:
S&L Piping Subsystem Stress Report RH-ll Statement:
In the piping subsystem RH-06 report, Table 2.4 presents the Furictional Capability Criteria for the Class 1 portion of this subsystem.
There is no equivalent table it.
the RH-ll report for the Class 1 portion of the subsystem.
Request:
S&L is requested to explain why Functional Capability Criteria is not given in Report RH-11.
I l
l 1
i l
l By M
. [M/4 '
By
. 4f. h N. S. Celia A. Flaherty d
~
~
Project Review Committee Chairman
.roject Mcnager
'#PTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Project 5539 - LaSalle Independent Design Review - RHR System Date: May 11, 1982 Open-Item Report No.:
20
Reference:
Multiload Pipe Clamp Calculations for Subsystems RH-06 and RH-11, Calculations EMD-031579 and CQD-001853 Statement: Teledyne Engineering Services has reviewed the special clamp designs as referenced above.
Based on this review several questions were raised and additional data is required.
Request:
S&'t is requested to supply the MLC user manual.
What does the MLC program calculate?
Does it evaluate primary stresses in the clamp and bolt?
How does the program account for the angle Y in the analysis and evaluation?
M.M. % M-By
,8 By N. S. Celia
@.A.Flaherty V
Project Review Committee Chairman 7roject fianagar
'#TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES Project 5539 - LaSalle Independent Design Review - RHR System Date: May 11, 1982 Open-Item Report No.:
21
Reference:
Multiload Pipe Clamp Calculations for Subsystems RH-06 and RH-11, Calculations EMD-031579 and CQD-001853 Statement: When using the patch plate design sheets, the applied snubber or strut load can be How is this accounted for in the design sheets? Can the stress from the moment term M ' or M "
y y
be plus or minus depending on which patch piste is being evaluated?
Request:
S&L is requested to answer the above questions.
In addition, does proced;re EMD-007975 describe the use of the patch plate design?
The reference for allowable stress given on pages 10, 16, 28, 35 and 48 is not given.
Please supply.
Also, is the allowaoie stress 21,000 psi er 32,000 psi?
By ?l Y DA'S'/S By d'
N. S. Celia
[.]A.Flaherty J Project Review Committee Chairman Rc6 ject Manager
'RTF1FnYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES 1
Project 5539 - LaSalle Independent Design Review - RHR System Date: May 11, 1982 Open-Item Report No.:
22
Reference:
Multiload Pipe Clamp Calculations for Subsystems RH-06 and RH-11, Calculations EMD-031579 and CQD-001853 Statement: For support RH53-15505, the original load as given on the draw-ing was input to the MLC computer code.
This value is 46518 pounds as shown on page 29.
However, a subsequent run used a reduced load of 43628 pounds on sheet 39.
Request:
S&L is requested to supply justification for this change.
In addition, why was the original load used for the patch plate aesign?
l By $.
. W / gie-By
, h.f N. S. Celia
'J A. Fla'herty 6 Project Review Connittee Chairman roject Manager