ML20091L178
| ML20091L178 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1980 |
| From: | Bates J ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP. |
| To: | Cappucci A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17198A223 | List:
|
| References | |
| CON-BOX-01, CON-BOX-1, FOIA-84-96 80ETEC-DRF-3195, NUDOCS 8406070360 | |
| Download: ML20091L178 (6) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:., mas.ar.- Energy Technology Engineering Center Energy Systems Group P.O. Box 1449 j Canoga Park.CA 91304 46 G13)341 1 Rockwell operated for U.S. Departrnent of Energy International July 30, 1980 80ETEC-DRF-3195 Mr. A. J. Cappucci, Jr. Mechanical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
Subject:
Review of Underground Utilities Section of " Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No.1 - Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No. 1 - Letter Report".
References:
- 1) " Responses to the NRC 10 CFR 50.54(f) Request Regarding Plant Fill for Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Consumer Power Company, Docket Numbers 50-329 and 50-330", Rev. 6, April 1, 1980
- 2) ETEC Ltr 80ETEC-DRF-0123, " Review of Response to 10 CFR 50.54 Request on Plant Fill for Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2", J. O. Bates to A. J. Cappucci, January 17, 1980
Dear Mr. Cappucci:
Per your request, we have reviewed Section g, Underground Utilities, of the subject report and in general concur with the concerns therein. Of the 8 items, (a) through (h), in the subject section the following com-ments are submitted on the 4 considered pertinent to the MEB. ITEM COMMENTS g(a) Methods of measuring in-situ stresses in the pipes should be investigated. Also, local crippling should be noted if visual examination is feasible. g(c) The calculatio'n of the 130,000 p.s.i. stress based on the profile of the 26"-0HBC-54 Line, Figure 19-1 of Reference 1, is correct using the procedure described. However, item 3 of Reference 2 states that thi; method assumes that the curvature is constant over the length i of the pipe and in general, this condition will not be met. I 8406070360 840517 (k { c '- eAhoh PDR FOIA l lf.L / / g-RICE 04-96 PDR J * ',u,, t
f Mr. A. J. Cappucci Jr. 80ETEC-DRF-3195. NRC July 30,1980 4 m ITEM COPNENTS g(c) Cont. In an effort to determine a more realistic stress value for the 26"-0HBC-54 Line, the profile as shown in Fig.19-1 of Reference 1 was analysed by an ETEC in-house piping computer program. The resulting maximum stress from this analysis was 212.200 p.s.i. and occurs at the dip approximately 50 feet from the left side of the diagram. In an attempt to verify l the computer output, a simple hand calculation was made of the' stresses in this area. The maximun stress from these calculations was 193,200 p.s.i. The t j maximum stress in this line per Table 17-2 is 22,000 ~ p.s.i. Since there was such a discrepancy between the ETEC calculations and the applicant's calculations on Line 26"-0HBC-54, the stresses in several other 4 Lines were determined based on the profiles' of Figs. 17-2 and 19-1. These stresses were calculated assuming both fixed end and simply supported end conditions. If a line was attached to a much larger line, heavy I equipment, or clamped in a building penetration, the end would tend to be fixed. The results of this analysis are shown below. The stresses shown are based on an elastic analysis and are not true stresses as in some cases they far exceed the yield stress of the piping material. MAX. STRESS (psi) MAX. STRESS LINE FIG. FIXED SIMPLY SUPPORTED (psi) NO. NO. ENDS ENDS FROM TABLE 17-2 26"-OHBC-54 19.1 212,200 212,200 22,000 8"-IHBC-81 19.1 84,700 85,000 17,700 26"-0HBC-55 17.2 180,000 46,000 27,000 j 20"-lHCD-169 17.2 192,000 192,000 22,000 The stresses shown are the maximum. The stresses in other areas of these lines also exceed those calculated l by the applicant. The. bending stresses shown due to deflection are not-i the only stresses of concern in these lines. The external crushing loads required to cause the pipe deformations l as shown in Figs.17.2 and 19.1, especially in the areas of a sudden change in slope, will be quite high. The applicant's response to Question 34 concerning external ~ loads does not consider the external loads required to deform the pipe as shown in Figs.17.2 and 19.1. In the response to Question 17, the applicant states: " pipe buckling due to compressive loads such as in the case of columns is not possible in this case." This ./ I 9 i \\,/ l lt
Mr. A. J. Cappucci Jr. 80ETEC-0RF-3195 + NRC July 30, 1980 ^ ITEM COMENTS ~ g(c) Cont. in all probability is true, however, it would appear that there is a high probability of local crippling stresses occurring in the large diameter pipes in areas where there is a sudden change in the slope, such as at building penetrations, attachments to heavy equipment, and sharp dips in the pipe profile. More detail is required as to the applicants method of determining settlement stresses in the piping so that the above discrepancies in the stresses can be recon-ciled. Also, justification is required for not con-sidering local-crippling stresses, and crushing loads, required to deform the pipes per Figs.17-2 and 19-1. The comment regarding the Stress Intensification Factor (S.I.F.), i, is not understood. The 52.5 ksi allowable stress in Table 17-2 is independent of the S.I.F. The S.I.F. is applicable only for calculated stresses and has the value 1.0 for straight pipe. However, the S.I.F. may be greater than 1.0 at elbows. ETEC agrees that more than one critical stress location is possible along a given pipeline in the sense that the allowable stress is exceeded. In general, only the maximum stress is of importance if the allowable stress is not exceeded anywhere. However, in this instance, since the calculated stresses are so high, portions of the piping where the allowable has been exceeded are of interest. g(d) This item is concerned with the rattle space at building penetrations. We share this concern. If the piping is hung up in the penetration area causing a sharp change in slope, some very high local stresses could occur causing local crippling or rupture. The pipe is sloping as it enters the building due to the settlement. The question arises as to how this sloping pipe is joined to the piping and/or components inside the building without causing excessive loads. g(e) The implications for Section 3.10 of the SRP should be evaluated. Sincerely yours, n 17.f.% _ h O J. O. Bates, Program Manager i Energy Programs Office Energy Technology Engineering Center ( i cc: Mr. R. J. Bosnak - NRC Mr. H. L. Brammer - NRC
. b Distribution F1TEC LETTER REVIN RECORD Adler, KL Granger, RA _Zweig, HR ._Akamine, KS _ Hall, J _ Zweng, DJ Prepared by:J. M. Bramer(J.0. Bates _ Anderson, WG Haroldsen, 00 X Wieseneck, HC _Archbold, P _Hinze, RB 1 Bramer. JM Typed by: Cecilla Atz, RW Hoffman, NJ 3Aug9, LJ _Holwager, TL Addressee: Mr. A. J. Cappucci Jr. Daker, HS Homer, RS -Balkwill, JK -Hutmacher, ES ] 'NX/Ltr No. : 80 ETII:-DRF-3195 [ Barber,HE ~ Ingle, WB ~ Date: (July 30.1980 _Barrett, EM ~Jassak, RM ~X Bates, JO Johnson, Ron'A _ Blerfreund, AI Karwowski, A DOE Lead Branch: Boise, MW Kern, AO ~ Bryan, RL Klea, JA Completes action in: DRF-Review of Underground Utili- -Budney, GS ~Klein, A ~ ~~
Subject:
ties Section Of " Interagency Burns, WE Larson, DA Leppard, JA Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167 Task el- -Campbell, DR -Mantle, JG
- 4idland Plant Units 1 & 2, Subtask
~ Carpenter, DM ~X_Che n, WP / Marrazzo, NA [ pl - Letter Report." Cleveland, JR McCarty, JW Req. actions ETEC Other None Cochran, JC McDowell, MW _Copeland, LB _Meyer, JH Remarks: Cox, FJ Miller, AE Cusimano, S Miller, NJ _Cygan, R _Naish, RK Rev./ __Darley, DK _Neely, HH Department / Unit Appr. Signature _ Davis, KA Nicholson, JO DeBear, WS Olson, PS _DeMuri, RJ Parks, JC Vice President /1 DeVita, V Penman, RB sy/ / DeWitt, HW Peters, WL Mgr, Facil. Des. X X _17 h j De:otell, ML Pilling, BS _Dewart, WG Polino, DL Mgr, Stress X _ Donohue, HF Poucher, EW _ g _ Douglas, RE Roberts, JK Mge, Test Eng. _ Drazich, NH Rock, WF _Droher, JJ Schmidt, GL _ Eichelberger,RL 1 Schnuestein, RE _ _ Ervin, G _ Shepard, RC Mgr, QA Fenton, RE Shinnaman, S _Fer gu son, E _Skogstad, L Mgr, Construct. Fischer, BE Soucy, RC _ Fletcher, FL _Stafford, KT Mgr, Tech. Serv. _ Forster, EG Stearns, JD I Freede, WJ Sturtevant, WC Mge, Operations i Garland, MD Tabor, W r ]l( 4 i., [kL- _Gaylord, GG Tessier, MJ A/C Coordinator Prog /Proj Mgmt X _ Gilder, TE _ Thompson, EX) x_DRF Control t l _ Gillies, BB Twa, GJ Library Other _ agner, RK _ Prog. Adm. (SS) ) /,/ W l _Glumace, RJ _ eigand, MA _ Purchasing (SS) Bramer, JM X ///b,w l Goggin, DE W I _,Gould, MI Werth, RL Safety (SS) {d 7 Graner, SG _,iese, RW x__With enclosure W l FGR11733.A.174 R EV te.79
Mr. A. J.-Cappucci Jr. 80ETEC-DRF-
- - A NRC I
ITEM COM4ENTS 4 m l g(c) Cont. in all probability is true, however, it would appear l. that there is a high. probability of local crippling stresses occurring in the large diameter pipes in i areas where there is a sudden change in the slope, such as at building penetrations, attachments to heavy equipment, and sharp dips in the pipe profile. More detail is required as to the applicants method of determining settlement stresses in the piping so that the above discrepancies in.the stresses can be recon-ciled. Also, justification is required for not con-sidering local crippling stresses, and crushing loads, required to deform the pipes per Figs.17-2 and 19-1. The consnent regarding the Stress Intensification Factor (S.I.F.), i, is not understood.' The 52.5 ksi allowable stress in Table 17-2 is independent of the S.I.F. The S.I.F. is applicable only for calculated stresses and has the value 1.0 for straight pipe. However, the S.I.F. may be greater than 1.0 at elbows. ETEC agrees that more than one critical stress location is possible along a given pipeline in the sense that the allowable stress is exceeded. In general, only the maximum stress is of importance if the allowable stress i is not exceeded anywhere. However, in this instance, since the calculated stresses are so high, portions of l the piping where the allowable has been exceeded are of interest. 4 l g(d) This item is concerned with the rattle space at building penetrations. We share this concern. If the piping is - hung up in the penetration area causing a sharp change in slope, some very high local stresses could occur causing local crippling or rupture. The pipe is slopping as it enters the building due to the settlement. The question arises as to how this slopping pipe is joined to the piping and/or components inside the building without causing excessive loads. g(e) The implications for Section 3.10 of the SRP should be I evaluated. Sincerely yours, J. O. Bates, Program Manager Energy Programs Office Energy Technology Engineering Center - j i \\ (o C. k = -CM )NM
- s, s _q-i l
- x k
(s ,. = \\ ) 1 \\, T 1
- s.,s,
,x, ] s /dd/1 COMPANY / _b, TO M
- /
yJ 9 ~ 3 s. i 1 s g DATE M [ NO. PAGES (EXCLUDING COVER SHEET) / / s. ~ \\,}.y n ..c s s. ,L p FROM: ENERGY TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERIN6l CENTER, CANOGA PAR,K, CA s 4-7 < PHONE 5XTENSION \\"'s ) "3 s b f$fs> s TELECOPIER NO.: (113) 341-1000 EXT 6349 VERIF[ EXT 6534- ~ WHEN TRANSMITTING'IO THE T.~EC' PLEASE NOTE: OUR MACHINE IS A XEROX ;.1,0, AUTOMATIC., PLEASE SEND AT YOUR 6 MIN /PAGE SETTING. (Formerly Liquid Fual Engineering Center - LMEC) m, g ) vs k' \\ ,s [. ~s,'\\ Q - w g, s,, s. ' s \\ s
- 3.,
/ MTD 3Y .[~A'X N & ~ ) j -s ,~ l ( } g i \\ t 4 ( w g gg \\i ~ q\\ iq A ' NN % S s\\[ s \\ T \\ 's b en 5 '\\'i.I \\ s m' [ \\ s g I \\D l s l* g 3 %s sN.,. s 9 \\\\ k '., \\ \\. Y \\; g. ... s + s 'Ng %4 g 's l s \\., N. - 's 5 ' '*,, l s .~ j ,i,-'" -{' A' .s l w .c 3 'h 4 _-,,..}}