ML20137R045

Requests Addl Info Re Svc Water pumps,motor-operated Butterfly Valves & Piping

ML20137R045
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	11/26/1985
From:	Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Carey J DUQUESNE LIGHT CO.
References
TAC-62893, NUDOCS 8512050415
Download: ML20137R045 (10)

Text

). - -

~

Docket No.: 50-412 OV 2 61985 Mr. John J. Carey Vice President, Nuclear

-Duquesne Light Company Robinson Plaza Building, No. 2, Suite 210 PA Route 60 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15205

Subject:

Request for Additional Information - Beaver Valley Unit 2

~

As part of the Mechanical Engineering Branch Design Documentation Review for Beaver Valley, Unit 2, we have determined additional infomation, delineated in the enclosure, is needed in order to continue our review.

Sincerely,

/s/

George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

l As stated cc: See next page l

DISTRIBUTION pDoctetM1e;50-412 l NRC PDR BGrimes LPDR EJordan NSIC Attorney, OELD i .PRC System ACRS(16)

! LB#3 Rdg l JLee BBuckley BKSingh JPartlow DL:LBf3 Dk :

BBuckley/yt @ ghton 11/sV85 11/p/85 l

l 0512050415 85112642 PDR ADOCh 05

I

-t ' Mr. J. J. Carey Duquesne Light Company Beaver Valley 2 Power Station ec:

Gerald Charnoff, Esq. Mr. R. E. Martin, Manager Engineering Jay E. Silberg, Esq. Beaver Valley Two Project Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Duquesne Light Company 1800 M Street, N.W. Robinson Plaza Building No. 2. Suite 110 Washington, DC 20036 PA Route 60 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15205 Mr. C. W. Ewing . Quality Assurance Zori Ferkin Manager Assistant Counsel Quality Assurance Department Governor Energy Council Duquesne Light Company 1625 N. Front Street P. O. Box 186 Harrisburg, PA 15105 Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 Mr. John J. Carey Vice President, Nuclear Duquesne Light Company Director, Pennsylvania Emergency P. O. Box 4 Management Agency Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 Room B-151 Transportation & Safety Building Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Mr. T. J. Lex Mr. Thomas Gerusky Westinghouse Electric Corporation Bureau of Radiation Protection Power Systems . PA Department of Environmental P. O. Box 355 Resources Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 P. O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Mr. P. RaySircar Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation BVPS-2 Records Management Supervisor P. O. Box 2325 Duquesne Light Company Boston, Massachusetts 02107 Post Office Box 4 Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 Mr. Glenn Walton U. S. NRC John A. Lee, Esq.

P. O. 181 Duquesne Light Company l Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 1 0xford Centre i

301 Grant Street Mr. Thomas E. Murley, Regional Admin. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15279 U. S. NRC, Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 15229 i

C.

.c.

't ' Duquesne Light Company Beaver Valley 2 Power Station Oc:

Mr. E. F. Kurtz, Jr., Manager Regulatory Affairs Beaver Valley Two Project Duquesne Light Company Robinson Plaza Buidling No. 2 Suite #210 PA Route 60 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15205 l

1 i

E

- - ENCLOSURE 5 .

I *t 7 l1' MECHANICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Service Water Pumps

-(1) 2BVS-224, pp.1-28 and 1-29, prescribe certain stress limits; e.g., for (1/2)

~

SSE plus Design loads, the nesbrano stress limit is 1.Os. The Spec., p. 2-3, specifies a design pressure of 130 psig. De Sefsuic Analysis does not ap-Pear to address stresses due to the design pressure of 130 psig. Please pro-vide, in particular for the portion of the pressure boundary at the outlet which appears to be like a sitered joint, your checks made to assure that the stress limits shown on p.1-28 of 2BVS-224 are set.

(2) The hydrostatic test, and its vitness by an Authorised Nuclear Inspector, is deemed to be an important part of assuring pressure boundary adequacy. , To com-plete our audit, please provide the completed form which shows that the test has been run and witnessed.

- (3) The Seismic Report refers to 2BVS-224, Rev. 2,12/9/80. The copy of 2BVS-224 furnished us is Rev. 3,8/27/82, with Addendas 1-4, Addenda 4, dated 2/17/83 Please describe the procedure used to assure that Seismic Reports are appro-priate for current Specifications Motor Operated Butterfly Valves (4) The " Seismic Analysis" refers to " Spec. No. 2BVS-76A". We find no further ref-erence,to that specification in the Seismic Analysis; in particular; it is not included in the references. Please identify the particular 2BVS-76A revision /

addende that you think was used in the Seismic Analysis and explain why you think so.

I t

I

s .

2M

.l' (5) We have fond no obvious timin between h Seismic Analysis and h valve identifications given in 2BVS-764. The Stone & Webster cover sheet appears to have a timin by the S&W Equip. I.D. Code; 2SWSaMOV107. This would seem to imply that Spec. pages 1-12 and 2-6 are applicable to the particular valve cov-ered by the Seismic Analysis. In this particular case, the tie-in indicated by the S&W cover sheet appears to be appropriate. However, in general, how  ;

1 do you make sure that a Seismic Analysis is applicable to a specific valve (s) identified in the valve specification?

(6) The Seimic Analysis, p.11, shows a valve torque of 21068 in-lb. How does this torque correlate with the torques shown on p. 2-6 of 2BVS-76A7 (7) The Stress Analysis, p.17, appears to ignore the stem shear stress due to the specified (2BVS-76A, p.1-12) differential pressure of 153 psi. If this is true, why was it ignored?

i (8) The drawing with the Stress Analysis indicates the stem is reduced in diameter and is keyed at the connection with the actuator. How was this addressed in i

the Seismic Analysis 7 i

(9) Page 3 of the Stress Report shows a column headed " Allow Stress". A footnote seems to indicate that the listed allowable stress is 1 5 times the allowable stress listed in ASME Section III for the particular satorial/ temperature in.

volved.

(a) Describe the correlation between the allowable stresses given on p.1-54 of '2BVS-76A with those used in W Seimic Analysis.

(b) Provide the specifics of the allowable stress of 52500 for the valve stem; i.e.,natorialidentification,toeperature,Codeeditioq/ addenda, Code l

Table neber.

q .

3 et 7 ,

t' ,

(10) Addende B of the Stress Analysis states that "... modified bracket by isn-creasing width from 3.25' to 8" long". The stress Analysis does not say that the valve drawings were changed to reflect the analytical change. Please fur =-

nish the appropriate drawings that will provide assurance that the analytical change was incorporated into the valve construction.

(11) The Seismic Analysis does not cover the analysis of the bolted-flanged joint connecting the valve to the piping. This is acceptable provided the adequacy of the joint is checked as some part of the evaluation. To oceplete our audit on this aspect, please provide the docuentation (perhaps a Pipe Stress Calcu,-

lation package) which includes evaluation of the flanged joint for the valve covered by the Seismic Analysis.

1 (12) The Seismic Banctional Procedure includes a fms, " Seismic Functional Test

' Record". Pleasin provide a completed form for the valve covered by the Seismic Analysis.

Piping (13) Minism wall thickness of girth butt welds:

1 2BVS-939, p. b11, appears to define and control minimus thickness of ff old 2BVS-58, p.1-53, appears welds by the 8t,' shown on STD-SP-1056-1-5 and 5. 1 to similarly. define and control minism thickness of g,og, volds.

l (a) Is our interpretation correct? l (b) What are the minism wall thicknesses used for pipe with disseter greater l

l than 24 inch?

(c) Do the minism wall thicknesses apply to plate-pipe; e.g., SA1557 (d) Please provide docusentation (e.g., shop travelers with minimus allowahle and minism measured wall thicknesses entered thereon) which demonstrates the control of minimum well thicknesses at (a) shop welds, (b) field welds.

I l

l

- J 4 et 7 t" -

, 1 I

8 sFor attachments which are designed by the Seller, (14) 2BVS-59, p.1-16, states:

i the seller shall be responsible for determining that the design assures tot-al stress levels within oods allowable values not only in the support parts, Because we  ;

but also in the piping to which the support parts are attached *.

' are not sure what is meant by ' code allowahle values' in the piping, please provide examples of this detemination for (a) nonintegral attachment and (b) integral attachment.

(15) 2sys 939A, Pipe Classes This document is deemed to be significant because it appears to be the major and, in many cases, the g pathway through dich the compliance of Beaver Valley piping with the very important requirements of Code N#NC/D3640 are checked.

(a) As a coment (no response needed), the " Memo describing how anzimus D sign conditions are determined for Pipe Classes" would be clearer if the relative simple equations used to detemine P bye a quation (4) of h3641' were written out. Eq. (4) of W3641 depends upon which Code Editioq/

Addenda is being used and there is a minor ambiguity in the Code defini-tion of "da. (Are diameter tolerances to be included?)

(b) Applying the sorceorrosion/ erosion-allowance equation for P l

P=2St,/(D,-2yt) g I

to Pipe Class 151 for 42-inch, 3/8 inch nominal vall, SA155 Crede C55, Class 1 pipe, gives P = 2x13,W.365/(42-0.82.365) s 240 poi l

This calculatsd allowable pressure, even with sero corrosion / erosion al-

. Your com-1 lowance, is less than the 275 poi shown in the Class 151 Table.

monts on this calculation are requested.  !

i

6 .

l 5 of 7 (c)543641.2 is on straight pipe under external pressure. How is this Code requirement checked? For example, 2BVS-76&, p.1-26, indicates a posai-bility of a 45 poi pressure existing inside contaissent, which implies a Possibility of a 45 psi external pressure on piping inside cont =1=ent.  ;

2BV.M39A, for Class 151, includes pipe up to 42-inch size with 3/% inch wall. The Code allowable external pressure for that pipu is about 15 psi.

We do not find any restriction or warning that this pipe may not be suit-able for use inside containment.

(d) Tab 3es for Pipe Classes 302 and 601 do not invoke the use of B16.9 for butt veld and fittings. Accordingly, fittings purchased to meet the re-quirements of these two Tables would not provide fittings in accordance with NC-3649. While most of the Pipe Class Tabl,es include a heading "Not applicable for ASME III", Pipe Class Tables 302 and 602 do not have that heading. Your explanation as to why B16.9 is not invoked in Tables 302 and 602 is requested.

(16) Conformance to ANSI B16.9, Your Piping Date Iten 7 involves a purchase order for elbows; Item 8 involves a purw chase order for a tee. Keither of these purchase orders invoke 316.9. For Item 7, the inclusion of 'I/R' appears to provide sufficient assurance that

!!O-3649 has been not. However, it is not apparent that the too in Iten 8 neotn the requirements of !!C-3649.

l The center-to-end dinension of the 10!TS no is Ei ven as 8-9/32". The centor-to end dimension of a B16.9 10NPS toe is b1/2". Accordingly, the too has non-standard dimensions. From the standpoint of meeting the pressure-design re-quirements of NO-3649, this is not necessarily a trivial deviation because it controls the space available to provide reinforcement of the opening.

SA-403 says: " Fittings different from these standards (e.g., D16.9) may be

l 6 of 7 9

furnished in accordance with 39.8 39 says that, if so furnished, they must be marked with 39. We see no evidence that 39 was invoked in the P.O. or the tee is so marked.

However, even if the tee were marked S9 in formal compliance with SA403, the While B16.9 also perw requirements of No-3649 would not necessarily be met.

mits non-standard dimensions (with the WP marking deleted), it does not waive the requirement of Par. 9, Design Proof Test. Ris is the significant differ-ence between B16.9 and SA403 (or SA234) from the standpoint of adequacy of pree.-

sure design. Note that the Code Dimensional Standard Table invokes ANSI B16.9; no,t,SA403 or SA234.

In view of the preceding, we requires (a) A list of butt welding end teos used, or to be used, in Beaver Valley Code

,l Class 1, 2 or 3 piping that have dimensions not in accordance with B16.9.

which demonstrate that each of these teos (b) Data meets(calculations or tests)/NC/ND-3640, the requirements of NB as appropriate.

(17) 0--ins LWies in Piping Data, Item 8 (a) The package includes Custom Alloy sheets for two toes which, seemingly, differ in Heat Code (D-7110, D 9983) and end bevels. Which one of these teos is actually the tee described by the NPP-1 foris?

De (b) The shop fabrication sheet shows two " Min. walla, 0.319" and What is the significance of these minimm wallet (18) C.Juss of Hydrostatic Tests by ANI We see no mention 2BVS-920, pp.1-114 and 1-115, discusses hydrostatic tests.

of the witness of these tests by the ANI as required by the Code. This also seems to be the case with your psamp specification and your valve specificatioc.

Please describe the procedure you have that assures that the ANI will be noti-fied of a pending hydrostatic test and that he is present during those teste to the extent required by the Code.

7 of 7 e'

(19) The f-faster we note that 25 6 45, p. 12, discusses the dependones of f on am ber of se eles. Your Stress Aanlysis Data Paekage IB6-100A lists a number of system oon-ditions but we find no indication that any consideration was given to this Code requirement. For example, P. 6 of W 100A describes "a large tempern-ture sving" with no indication of how masy times this might occur. Please identify that portion of your specifications which provides the basis for the 30,!1 including the staber of times the "large temperature swing" occurs.

(20) SIF for branch connections Your Pipe Stress Omiculation, I99E, on p. 8 states: ,

j "At points 41, 45, 56 and 35, (Pt. of intersection with amm11 bore piping), '

the stress intensification factor for the rssa pipe is assumed to be 1.5.

This is conservative. " ,

) On p. 36 of I99E, the SIF for point 6 is appropriately calculated by the Code equation:

SIFz09(R/T) c0.9(1.25/0.375)2/3=2.009 ,

For points 41, 45, 56 and 35, the code equation gives:

SIF = 0.9(1.6/0.300)2/3 s 2.747 Noting that the Code SIF is 1.8 times as high as your assumed 1.5, what is the basis for your 'This is conservative 87

?

(21) The steam generator blow-down line covered by Stress Analysis Data Package IB(-100A would seem to be potentially subject to water hammer and erosion of valves and piping. Please describe how these aspects were considered in your evaluations.

r

..s e

i

.' ' ~ ~ " " ~ - ~-w* _.w-_,p, , , , _ _ _ _ __