ML20141H140
| ML20141H140 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 04/21/1986 |
| From: | Schimmels J SARGENT & LUNDY, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141H132 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8604240095 | |
| Download: ML20141H140 (35) | |
Text
e e
o 1
Corrected 4/21/86 ED CGHkI.wonoe UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00(gr7(g
,DA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'06 ggq BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
r
' Uf S Urrt
- r JISO Ot5d f( 5 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket
}
- 50-457 ""
s (Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2)
)
TESTIMONY OF JOHN N. SCHIMMELS (Q.A. SUBCONTENTION 10.B.)
(Material Traceability)
Q.1.
Please state your full name for the record.
A.l.
John N. Schimmels Q.2.
Who is your employer and what is your occupation?
A.2.
I am employed by Sargent & Lundy Engineers (S&L) located at 55 East Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois.
I am a Mechanical Project Engineer in the Project Management and Engineering Division of S&L's Mechanical Department.
Q.3.
Please describe your educational background and work experience.
A.3.
I hold a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering (BSME) from Marquette University (1970) and a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering (MSME) from the Naval Postgraduate School (1971).
I served as a Commissioned 8604240095 860421 PDR ADOCK 05000456 T
2-Officer in the U.S. Navy from 1970 to April, 1977.
For five of these years I was assigned to the U.S. Navy Nuclear Power Program, which included service in the eng!neering department of an operating nuclear powered submarine and as an instructor of nuclear plant operators at one of the Navy's prototype nuclear plants in Idaho Falls, Idaho.
I have been employed by S&L in the Project Management and Engineering Division since 1977.
My responsibilities have included the management and/or performance of various aspects of mechanical system design, mechanical equipment specification and evaluation work, and coordination of piping analysis and support design work on several major power plant projects.
I am a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Illinois.
Q.4.
What is your connection with the Braidwood Project?
A.4.
Sargent and Lundy is the architect engineer for Commonwealth Edison's (CECO's) Braidwood Project.
Since December, 1982, I have been assigned to the S&L on-site Braidwood Project Team, and I am presently serving as the Mechanical Engineering Coordinator.
In this capacity, I am responsible for the activities of approximately 350 S&L on-site engineers and designers at Braidwood.
I have
responsibility for planning and overall coordination of on-site mechanical engineering activities, including resolution of mechanical engineering-related field problems and small bore piping analysis and support design activities.
Q.5.
What is the purpose of your testimony?
A.S.
My testimony addresses one aspect of Intervenors' quality assurance subcontention 10.B.
This matter concerns piping material controls at Braidwood.
Briefly, subcontention 10.B. is based on an unresolved item identified by the NRC Staff as a result of inspections conducted during 1983 and 1984.
The NRC Staff questioned the traceability and acceptability of certain piping materials installed by Phillips Getschow Company, (PGCo), the mechanical contrac-tor at Braidwood.
A 100% reinspection of this installed pipe was conducted by CECO under the Braidwood Material Traceability Verification (MTV) Program.
One result of the MTV Program was that 145 of the 25,815 piping items re-examined were cut out and replaced.
My testimony concerns the design significance evaluation that was conducted of these 145 items.
Q.6.
What is a " design significance evaluation"?
f
. A.6.
A design significant condition represents a departure from I
applicable ASME Code design requirements.
An evaluation l
(
of 145 cut-out items for the existence of this condition, if found not to exist, gives assurance that all safety-related functions could have been performed within ASME Code design limits under design loadings and conditions.
(
Q.7.
Please describe the 145 items that were the subject of your evaluation.
A.7.
The 145 piping items included a variety of different types of ASME Class 1, 2 and 3 manufactured piping products that, when assembled, make up an ASME piping system.
These manufactured products are basically categorized as pipe, pipe fittings, radiographic access plugs and piping welded attachments.
Mr. O'Connor's testimony describes what a piping item is under the MTV Program.
These 145 cut-out items include:
53 piping items comprising approximately 134 feet, 2 inches of small bore piping pieces (i.e.,
2-inch and less nominal pipe size) 37 piping items comprising approximately 80 feet, 9 inches, of 3 and 4 inch nominal diameter piping pieces
I 10 items comprising approximately 15 feet, 6 inches of large bore piping pieces (i.e.,
larger than 4-inch nominal pipe size) 19 small bore pipe fittings 19 l-inch radiographic access plugs 1
l l
7 welded piping attachments Q.8.
How many of the piping items were classified as ASME Class 1?
l A.8.
Eight piping items were ASME Class 1.
Seven of the eight 1
I ASME Class 1 cut-out items were one-inch diameter radio-graphic access plugs.
The remaining ASME Class 1 item was l
a section of 2-inch nominal diameter, Schedule 160 stain-t l
less steel pipe, approximately 45-inches long.
The l
remaining 137 piping items consisted of 73 Class 2 items l
l and 64 Class 3 items.
Q.9.
What is the significance of the three ASME piping classifications?
A.9.
These three ASME piping classifications are used to categorize the relative importance of plant piping systems covered under Section III of the ASME Code.
The required classifications for the various plant piping systems which f
I f
reflect their relative importance to safety are defined in accordance with licensee commitments to the NRC.
l l
Class 1 is considered the most rigorous classification and is ascribed to systems which directly maintain the reactor coolant pressure boundary and extensions thereof.
Class 2 is the next classification level and is generally applied I
l to systems essential for maintenance of required ccre l
l cooling and primary containment pressure integrity.
Class s_
3 is the lowest ASME Section III classification and is l
1 generally applied to systems such as equipment cooling systems, which support the other two categories of ASME i
systems.
Q.10.
Why were the 145 items removed from their installed-locations at Braidwood?
A.10.
In conjunction with the MTV Program, PGCo issued a n mber of Nonconformance Reports (NCRs).
Eighty-four (84) of
(
l these NCRs were dispositioned by removing the,145 piping items due to a lack of documented material traceability.
These 145 cut-out items were evaluated by S&L for poten-tial design significance by determining whether the items met ASME Code design requirements and whether the items I
would have been adequate to perform their intended safety function had they not been removed.
__m..
N Q.ll.
Please describe the elements of your design significance evaluation.
I A.ll.
My design significance evaluation consisted of three phares.
In Phase I, data was compiled for each piping item to evaluate it for correctness of critical attributes required by the designer in the installation.
In Phase II, piping analysis stresses were identified at the installed locations of the cut-out items to determine the design margin available as compared with ASME Code allow-able stresses.
In Phase III, a detailed chemical examina-l tion of the material properties of the cut-out items was conducted, where required, to provide assurance that the material met the requirements of the ASME/ ASTM chemical
\\
composition specifications called-out for the particular items tested.
As an additional measure, some of the cut-out items were tested in Phase III to determine mechanical properties, such as tensile strength, yield strength and percent elongation.
l e
0.12.
What was your involvement in the evaluation of the 145 cut-out items?
y A.12.
As S&L's on-site Mechanical Engineering Coordinator, all S&L activities required to be performed to support the design significance evaluation of these cut-out items were performed by me or under my direction.
N
' ^
_g-During the Phase I evaluations, I established the engineering data collection requirements necessary to assess the cut-out items' design conformance.
I also performed a large number of the actual examinations of the cut-out items to collect the engineering data required to establish their conformance to applicable S&L design specifications.
In addition, I performed much of the Phase I engineering evaluation of the da*
collected to determine whether the S&L design requirements for a given cut-out item were met.
For the nine items that were found in Phase I to deviate slightly from S&L design require-ments, I directed the evaluation to assess whether ASME Code design requirements were met.
For all three Phases of the evaluation, I correlated the results into an integrated study and formulated the conclusions of the evaluation.
I authored S&L Report No.
DRF-PMD-01, dated November 13, 1985, entitled " Design Significance Evaluation of Braidwood Material Traceability Verification Program Cut-Out Items" which documents these conclusions.
Q.13.
What was the purpose of the Phase I Evaluation?
A.13.
The basic purpose of Phase I was to determine whether, from a physical inspection of the item, it could be
determined that the correct material had been installed, regardless of the material's apparent traceability shortcomings.
Q.14.
Please describe the manner in which Phase I was conducted.
A.14.
As the PGCo NCR's and associated cut-out items were identified, S&L compiled applicable piping design in-formation for the cut-out items.
This consisted primarily of a Piping and Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID's), piping physical drawings, and Piping Design Tables (PDT's).
These design documents identified the piping nominal size, ASME material specification, pipe schedule or pressure rating and ASME Code classification for systems associated with each cut-out item.
From these documents, S&L es-tablished the critical design attributes for each cut-out item requiring verification.
For pipe and pipe fittings, this included nominal size, wall thickness or pressure rating, and material type.
For radiographic access plugs, this included material and dimensional conformance to the applicable Pipe Fabrication Institute (PFI) Standard ES-16, " Access Holes and Plugs for Radiographic Inspection of Pipe Welds."
For pipe welded attachments, this in-cluded dimensional conformance to design requirements and materials.
For all items, marking of any type, with the method of marking identified, was required to be recorded.
S&L then examined each cut-out item to obtain the engineering data required to verify the established critical design attributes.
Marking on the items identi-fied to be manufacturer's mill markings was recorded for confirmation of attributes such as pipe schedule / pressure rating, ASME/ ASTM material specification and size.
For items which did not exhibit manufacturer's material markings, wall thickness determinations were obtained a
using calibrated digital thickness measurement (DTM) instruments or calibrated micrometers.
In addition, a magnetic determination was made to generally establish whether the item was either carbon steel or stainless steel.
Once all engineering data was collected, S&L ascertained whether the items met S&L design requirements.
Any item failing to comply with S&L design specifications was further evaluated to ascertain whether ASME Code design requirements were met.
Q.15.
What were the results of the Phase I evaluation?
A.15.
Thirty-two of 145 cut-out items met all S&L critical design attributes and they required no further verifi-cation to establish design conformance.
The remaining 113 items required further evaluation under Phases II and III.
11 -
However, 101 of these items met all S&L critical design attributes with the exception of material type, which could not be confirmed due to lack of manufacturer's material marking.
Nine cut-out items varied from these requirements in minor ways.
Three items could not be' evaluated under Phase I because they had been lost.
Q.16.
What is the purpose of the Phase II evaluation?
A.16.
The Phase II evaluation was conducted to determine a piping stress ratio for each cut-out item which would serve as an indicator of the level of performance expected of the cut-out item had it not been removed.
In addition, if considerable margin were found to exist between an item's calculated piping stress and the ASME Code allowable stress, an engineering determination could be made that it was unnecessary to precisely determine the item's mechanical properties (tensile strength and yield strength).
In this situation, mechanical properties could not reasonably vary to an extent necessary to be significant in the determination of the cut-out item's adequacy.
Therefore, confirmation of the item's correct chemical composition alone would provide sufficient assurance that the item conformed to S&L material specifications.
Q.
Q.17.
Please describe the manner in which Phase II was conducted.
A.17.
Phase II included a review of the analyzed piping stresses in the regions where each cut-out item had been installed.
Generally, the piping stresses for each cut-out item were extracted from an associated piping analysis and reflect the highest theoretical stress levels that could be achieved during design-basis events, as determined by ASME Code stress equations.
In some cases, a simplified analysis was used.
These stress values are very con-servative, because appreciably lower stress values could have been calculated in many cases, particularly for the piping systems subject to simplified analysis, by using analytical input more specific (less enveloping or en-compassing) for the individual piping regions of concern.
Q.18.
How were the stresses determined for the 145 items?
A.18.
In general, the stresses for the 145 items were extracted from applicable piping analysis stress reports which had been previously completed for the Braidwood piping systems of concern.
The piping analysis stress reports contain detailed piping stress information for the various node points which form a computer model of the piping system.
For ASME Class 2 and 3 systems (which excludes the 8 Class 1 cut-out items), ASME Code Section III, Division I, Subsections NC-3650 and ND-3650 define the piping stress conditions which must be satisfied.
These conditions are embodied in a set of Code equations, commonly referred to as Equations 8, 9, 10, & 11, which establish the stress limits for sustained loads, occasional loads such as imposed by seismic events, and thermal loads.
The allow-able strasses that are calculated are based on the con-dition specified in each of the Code equations.
One piping item was Class 1, 2-inch pipe.
The stress l
analysis requirements for this item are somewhat more involved.
For ASME Class 1 piping, a somewhat different set of Code equations are applicable as defined by ASME Code Section III, Division I, Subsection NB-3650.
These l
l equations, commonly referred to as NB Equations 9 and 10 were used to calculate the piping stresses for this item.
l l
In general, the piping stresses for the 145 cut-out items i
were extracted from piping stress analyses previously performed using either an S&L-developed computer program, called PIPSYS, which is a completely validated and NRC benchmarked computer program; a Westinghouse computer program similar to PIPSYS, called WESDYN, or an S&L-Simplified Analysis.
These analyses for determining 4
I
~ -.. -.. _ _.. ~... _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _.. _.. _,..., _. _ _.. _
piping stresses were used to determine whether the Code stress equations were met.
All but 36 of the 145 cut-out items were located in piping systems analyzed by using either PIPSYS or WESDYN methods, which are detailed analyses from which specific piping stress levels are generated.
Thirty-six items were included in piping systems which were analyzed by Simplified Analysis.
The Simplified Analysis method refers to an S&L developed computer program, called SMLBOR, which conservatively envelopes the piping design considerations for 2-inch and smaller piping.
The SMLBOR program applies S&L developed " cook-book" rules, which ensure that the piping is maintained within ASME Code allowable stress limits.
Specific stress levels are not developed by this program.
To determine maximum stress levels for these items, two approaches were taken.
First, if the cut-out was such that a stress intensifica-tion factor of 1.0 would have applied per the Code, as is the case for straight pipe, then maximum stresses, if calculated, would be less than 50% of the Code allowable stresses.
This is based on the fact that the SMLBOR program incorporates a stress intensification factor of 2.1 throughout the piping system.
Thus, a 2.1 to 1.0
minimum margin is established for these items.
This represents less than 50% of Code allowable stresses.
Second, if the cut-out item was such that a higher stress intensification factor, that is, greater than 1.0, was applicable, hand calculations were performed to determine stress levels.
Finally, all 19 radiographic access plugs, including the 7 ASME Class 1 radiographic access plugs, were generically evaluated for stress levels.
Q.19.
What were the results of the Phase II evaluation?
A.19.
Under Phase II, 141 of the cut-out items, including all 19 of the radiographic access plugs, (97.2% of the items analyzed) exhibited stress levels less than or equal to 50% of the Code allowable stress.
Two items were in the 51-60% range and 2 items were in the 61-70% range.
No item was found to have stresses over 66% of the ASME Code allowable stresses.
The table, which is attached to my testimony as Attachment 10.B. (Schimmels-1), contains a summary of the cut-out items, along with the calculated stress levels.
Q.20.
What is the purpose of the Phase III test program?
A.20.
The purpose of Phase III was to analyze the material properties of the 113 cut-out items whose material type could not be determined during the Phase I evaluation.
Q 21.
Please describe the analyses employed under Phase III.
A.21.
In the Phase III analyses, all available cut-out items for which material type could not be confirmed in Phase I were subjected to analysis of chemical composition.
The chemical analyses were performed by Chicago Spectro Service Laboratory in accordance with ASTM A751, " Chemical Analysis of Steel Products."
Of the 113 cut-out items in this category, 108 were analyzed.
The remaining five cut-out items were lost and are discussed below.
In addition, for 16 of the 108 cut-out items which were analyzed, mechanical testing was performed by Taussig Associates, Inc., in accordance with ASTM A370,
" Mechanical Testing of Steel Products."
Q.22.
What were the results of the chemical analyses?
A.22.
As explained in the tentimony of Mr. Reinheimer, the chemical analyses indicated that all of the 108 cut-out items exhibited chemical compositions in accordance with the ASME/ ASTM specifications required by design.
Addi-tionally, no evidence of any unusual alloying elements was l
1 1
)
identified.
These acceptable chemical analyses were considered to be adequate evidence to demonstrate material specification conformance.
This conclusion was reached, based on the following:
From this survey, it was determined that approximately one dozen carbon steel tubular product ASTM specifications exist to which the chemical composition analysis results could possibly apply.
The worst case minimum specified material strength of these possible ASTM specifications l
represented a 25% reduction in tensile strength and a 29% reduction in yield strength from the as-specified condition.
For stainless steel items, the chemical analyses could have possibly applied to even fewer ASTM materials.
For both types specified, TP304 and TP316, the worst case minimum specified material strength of the other possible ASTM specifications represented a 7%
l reduction in tensile strength and a 17% reduction in yield strength.
- 2. From the Phase II evaluation, it was determined that large stress margins to Code allowable stresses exist for all the cut-out-item-intended applications.
A
minimum margin of 34% exists, and 50% or more margin exists in the vast majority of cases.
Given these stress margins, and given the worst case material strength reductions determined from the survey of chemically similar materials, any of these other chemi-cally similar materials would have adequately performed the intended safety function at the location of the cut-out items, had they in fact been inadvertently in-stalled.
Thus, the precise determination of material mechanical properties of the cut-out items was not necessary to demonstrate ASME/ ASTM material specification conformance for the purposes of the design significance evaluation.
This assessment is further supported by the fact that, project wide, very few types of carbon steel and stainless steel piping are specified and very few types of piping have been physically receited on the construction site.
Thus, with cut-out item material chemical composition established, it is extremely unlikely that the cut-out items are anything but the as-specified material.
Q.23.
Why were the mechanical tests conducted?
i l
l
A.23.
These tests were performed at the request of the NRC staff to provide them with additional assurance that materials of the cut-out items were as specified.
Sixteen of the 108 cut-out items which had been subjected to chemical analysis were subjected to tensile testing.
Tensile tests were conducted by Taussig Associates, Inc. in accordance with ASTM A370 to establish yield strength, tensile strength and elongation for each test specimen.
The tests found that all test specimens met the tensile test requirements of their applicable ASME/ ASTM specification.
Q.24.
Mr. Schimmels, you testified in A.15. that nine cut-out items were found in the Phase I evaluation to vary from S&L specification requirements in minor ways.
Please describe how these cut-out items varied from S&L specifications.
A.24.
Seven of the nine items were ASME Class 2, 1 inch radiographic access hole plugs.
Those plugs, each about the size of your thumb, were used to fill holes in the pipe wall that were made to perform radiography on the pipe.
The plugs are comprised of a round head and a threaded shank.
The shank has an unthreaded " neck" region and a threaded lower region.
The plugs are threaded into the pipe wall and, once engaged, are welded into place with a 3/8 inch fillet weld.
Although the plugs rect S&L's specified thread diameter and thread size, they were found to deviate in minor respects from the specified machined neck dimension, the unthreaded region on the plug shank directly below the plug head.
This resulted in a slight reduction of the effective thread engagement of the plug to the pipe wall, i.e.,
the S&L Specification required 3 full turns of thread whereas the discrepant access plugs had only 1 3/4 - 2) full turns of thread.
An engineering evaluation of the discrepant plug dimensions found that for all 7 plugs, pipe pressure boundary integil.ty would be maintained within acceptable Code allowable stress given existing thread engagement.
In addition, the evaluation indicated that the 3/8 inch fillet weld alone would maintain pressure boundary in-tegrity.
Thus, the 7 access plugs were determined to be acceptable for their intended safety function and within ASME design requirements.
The two remaining cut-out items, which varied slightly from S&L specifications were ASME Class 3, 18-inch diameter pipe stanchions (welded attachments for a p support) which were found to have sections of pipe wa slightly below (0.030 inches or 6.1%) manufacturers' minimum mill tolerance.
These items were determined to meet ASME design requirements and to be adequate for their
t.
t intended safety function because S&L's design was based on more restrictive requirements.
Q.25.
You testified in A.19. that the Phase II evaluation i
determined that four of the cut-out items were from piping regions experiencing stress levels between 50% and 70% of ASME Code allowable stresses.
Does this pose a concern that these items would not be able to perform their intended safety function?
A.25.
No.
Two of the four cut-out items are small fittings.
In i
Phase I, both of these fittings were found to carry specified manufacturer's ASME/ ASTM mill markings and fitting ratings, thus providing confidence that the i
materials were correct.
The remaining two items were I
short spools of pipe, which did not exhibit manufacturers' j
markings.
These two items were chemically analyzed during 4
Phase III and were found to meet the chemical composition of the ASME/ ASTM material specifications required by design.
Based on the stress margin available for these two items determined in Phase II, it was concluded that material chemical properties alone would adequately demonstrate material conformance, and hence, that the items would perform their intented safety function.
Q.26.
Mr. Schimmels, you have also testified that some of the cut-out items were lost during the Design Significance evaluation.
How many cut-out items were lost?
l f
-4.--,....~,,
o.-m..m_,_m..,-,-e,..-m____.-,_. ~.,. _
._-,m.__.-,c_,
,,.,,_-.--,._e-..___..m.mm_...,
---_---,--.,ym_,.i
A.26.
Five out of the 145 total cut-out item population were lost.
Three prior to and two subsequent to the Phase I evaluation.
Q.27.
Please describe the design significance evaluation performed for the 5 cut-out items that were lost.
A.27.
The following chart summarized the final disposition of the five lost cut-out items under the design significance evaluation.
Total Lost Items - 5 Phase III Lost Item Phase I Evaluation Evaluation Final Disposition Traceability later
- 1. NCR 2516 No Phase I No Phase III established Traceability later
- 2. NCR 3300 No Phase I No Phase III established No design
- 3. NCR 3992 No Phase I No Phase III significance Phase I performed, Traceability later
- 4. NCR 3492 no mat'l marking No Phase III established NCR 4756 Phase I performed, Traceability later 5.
Item 128 no mat'l marking No Phase III established In 4 out of 5 cases, traceability of the item was later established and the items should not have been cut-out.
Consequently, no evaluation for design significance was needed.
The fifth item was determined to be adequate to 4
i l
J I
o
1 4
f 23 -
l meet its intended safety function.
I will discuss the I
lost items as they appear on the chart.
1, '
1.
Lost MTV item no. 18, depicted on PGCo NCR 2516, was a 2 j
by 3/4 inch Socket Weld Reducing Insert (pipe fitting) with a heat number traceable to a 3000 lb. pressure i
i fitting.
S&L design required a 6000 lb. pressure fitting
[
i at the location of lost item no. 18.
PGCo examination of the manufacturer's markings on the fitting had previously
^
indicated that the fitting was, in fact, 6000 lb.
The I-matter was resolved after research indicated that the heat number of lost item no. 18 was applicable to both 6000 as well as 3000 lb. pressure fittings.
I l
2.
This lost item, a radiographic access hole plug detailed j
on PGCo NCR 3300, was determined by PGCo to be traceable l
I i
j to a valid heat number as indicated on the Stores Request i
l for the item and need not have been removed.
{
l l
3.
Lost MTV item no. 25 was described on PGCo NCR 3992 to be i
i l
a 1-inch nominal diameter schedule 160 stainless steel 1
i piping piece approximately six inches long.
S&L's design l
l specification specified TP 304 stainless steel pipe.
l Because the item was lost this information could not be j
t f
confirmed during Phase I.
The Phase II evaluation of I
i 1
piping stresses determined that the worst case stress
[
1 i
O.
level for stainless steel pipe was less than 10% of ASME Code allowable stress (90% margin); and based on the material standards surveyed, it was determined that any stainless steel pipe material would have been adequate to perform the item's intended safety function.
Thus, even if lost MTV item no. 25 was stainless steel pipe other than that required by S&L design, it still would have met ASME design requirements and been adequate for its intended safety function.
4.
PGCo NCR 3492 indicated that the heat number on this lost item did not match the heat number recorded on the Stores Request and, thus, traceability could not be established.
Evaluation of this item in Phase I indicated it was magnetic, a trait characteristic of the S&L specified i
material.
In addition, further investigation by PGCo determined that the identified heat number on the item was, in reality, the heat number for the weld rod used to weld the item into the piping system.
Therefore, as there were no conflicting heat numbers for this item, the item was traceable based on the valid heat number from the Stores Request and should not have been removed.
5.
Lost MTV item no. 128, identified on PGCo NCR 4756, was similar to three other cut-out items all of which were from the same isometric drawing.
The items were removed
25 -
because no Stores Request existed to confirm a PGCo-vibro-etched heat number which appeared on each of the four items.
This marking was confirmed for the lost item in Phase I.
In addition, evaluation of this item in Phase I indicated it was magnetic, a trait characteristic of the S&L-specified material.
Subsequent to the time the item was lost, a manufacturer's heat number marking was dis-covered on the three remaining cut-out items which con-firmed the vibroetched marking and the traceability of the three remaining items.
This information demonstrated the reliability of the vibroctche marking, and thus confirmed traceability of the lost item.
Q.28.
What overall conclusion was made as a result of the design significance evaluation?
A.28.
Based on all three phases of the design significance evaluation, all cut-out items were determined to be adequate for their intended safety functions and net all applicable ASME Code design requirementa.
Therefore, none of the traceability discrepancies that caused the removal of the 145 items was design significant.
In addition, all but nine of the cut-out items (93.8%) were found to comply l
with all critical attributes specified by the more l
l restrictive S&L design requirements.
None of the 9 items varied from S&L design requirements in any nignificant respect.
e n..
Pact of to a
BRAIDtsOOD MTV P90 CRAM CUT-OUT ITEM
'btstGM $1GNIFICAdCE EVALUATION =
~ E EIPitsG STRE55 SUMetART 3
~
' M4E SU$7AINED OCCA5100BAL 1.0AD Tite hetAL TlitsstA!/
3733:
IsCR ASME DESCRIPTIDs1 CF LOAD UPSET E8er DGranCY/P Aut.TED EIPAms toes LOAD _
M laBED LOAD suo.
seo.
C1JLSS CUT-OL'T ITEM STitE5b/AL14)w DAT10 ETWE55/ ALLOW IRATIO ETWESS/ ALLOW RAT 10 STRESS /ALLOtf AATIO.. - _/ALLau RATIO (P5tl (tl (PSIl ill IPSI) Ett (Psgi (el (Psti (ep t
r @esseMsis" tan pushit vem at Wrfierine ;f 379Batr8se IP steseries i
ne a
gym i
3*M #MW LSE PemaMM St Trfitt Be M M6 II piemus f
we j
g gwg r.e....,* i-
.m,..e Mvei.e i.
.,0.,-
si
.uris.
6 3
t e*4aB F1sted!* Las MtDee F
SIR /tause e InfetFMES of 18815 35 6
ge 4
py, t
F4 tate #M at*e" LSE 4 Flit?suo #7 tab %f9mm B
' TN9f Es48 45 st7ervese se we 3
gryg.
6 zum 3
r"-Dune *
- E lunnisse e
manasse #
4e:<tiene t
sminess t
we i
g 3
3-6M*-muse t 9 R nedPktione le 1sts/sasse a Weense H we me f
geys 3
3-6/e*4 s DM6 6 etr* tas sediLe gisse 33 3sen/nese a Sns/FMus 89 se me 3
gegne 9
83 aus I
Ll'E*13/**-Esse m 9Wisisse 7
671Wnesse.
BGS/ Base B
$7tryDL P
ge f
3(e* Base t 44 9strtisse 7
EFl%lesse 3F les/ Base N
$ntgun f
og se eg3 e 3
- 6...e..,
._ e.
j 3
4*4esptut N-st*t35 15s tissu Raytesse M 3Embehome 8f Igi/2 fist 3
swa 6
If M33as 33 g:ges F4ese D1staP L35 l& FelDe 3
tuRrF158 4 B11Deef4e 3B taatsFFW5 et me t
g te tsage i
P+es PM 67-l* LM 73bt tides 1
FW7'lasse 36 F3stimage M ste aggryggyge g3 g
..* 4....r t=
eii,nses a n,i i
.se
.e
,e a
p.
a to e
- 480** r tss 66* nsas rim <wase is tive<rms a
gt RE>e 2
&#*4 # 83so # LSE W rise 4
foll/18Ese il 3 ell /f4Ee I
E9 are is gyg se i
F4re. Paut.e*6* tas tenittende se FPtP/R3e 32 SAftenbee S,
pr7m 9
ge 31 EW5e.
3 I"Ik'* 488s8 m W3f IEEft 67 Es IDue SS ti.51118se p 863md asse e5 em se y
25tt ee I
F *l44PM689"t35 472e< tTese B
886/14e 46 fe53d B640 m
gebarrtese em o
C/l ft 3
r:1. name a sur svar afwisses is siunaise e6 sesuinses e7 sertarise n
me O rr W CD 3:
as, a
sei n, e
r wiseria.. tse n,m.so a
sam,tsee e5 iar Sene a ea.retsas a
me ><- 00
- IIo to rt 8
>~' w
- O U2
^
-+
e o n; g n-lle a sssss: s s s s sea s s s s s s s 5" it 4
e W)-
'k a
e z : a e e e e
d Sj:
g s
!g !:
sss ssssss5 5
gs g
a 9
9 5
t A
5 t~
esgj!
c : * *
- s 3 a - -
a a a c c c c e
i IIIIII 1
i!!!!!!lll{EEI!EI*l!A!$$i!$hI P :
o!!E r
sis d
b xlfg8 E
a e 2 2 2 2 2 2 a
~s s s a e a A a s s
E jj a
5 I
6:
!!l1iii11j!!i!!Illi y;:
- !=;
lt
- * =
- i n i t!!stllt i
n a
s 0
I
[xg E.5,2 l
ar 2
.o e E E j3l:
jE e
2 : 2 2 2 e c
=c c z s s : -
e s l II zw w
i I!!!!!!!!!!55555Ii!!!!5 Id 5"5]:Elilii!!183i82iaitit!!!!
!F E 3 2:
8 !
R I I g
- EI{E 3
hh!*!si!!I8 I
s t t
- s t J
g.
D - [- E [- d d ~ d h-a-
g :-
h-i g ih. -
9-A -
g e
[
s EIEIIIEEg EI[!!!l![a [![f g s a.
g-r
- a f f f f f f f 5ii!
Eh I[5 5
t 5. + 4 4 + 4 @ W 4 s 4
- v f
5 L L a 3 a 3 A L L a L A A A A 4 h h k a L L s
==
es se es as me am
=
se se se me sw so e
ao ao es as
- e m
esses e
EEEEI E
j j 9
9 9 9
- 8 i I E E E E E E E E ;e )e e e i )e )e i E E E E i W
n e e e e a s a a a a a a a a a a : : 3 3 : e
e P
M I
4 c p-NO le gslj ssss: sss
- i sis s:
i
~
N f
-=
o
,o A
l f'
O
= e e
e s
3 g g
ig3=: ss; Isagsg i
l
=
g.
1 s
f a
=
s e.-
i c :
2-e's a c e. -
=
-a
= c v. s c e t g:-
Ii1IiiiiiIiiii Ii l
Ehg=E iiil1E!li11il1 El er a SV :
- C 5.gl A e g. !
a p gg gg
=-.-c
... - e gl5A 8,.
3
[
t!!!!!ga3-3ljjli !jjjj l9ilslIll2 l
di$
!ll5i E
19.!g[4:
B I
h55 a
ga;:
gg
:.=
==
=
=
s,
t zw w
14 a c IIIIIIIi!II5IIC 8 518 m: s
!.5
!5!! !!!!!E5i!Iiiii5!Ii!!!!
2 l
G E
I R
lE'e*ta!g68 3 3 !
ti
? ! E t 's 1 :
t
??*a 35 a.
. i *- s,II'gls-g_ ;.,,
6 r
6 5
..5
!??!!3.lg!E,1m.. s. ! ? & I i ! 3 !. ! 3 5 *
--e-
,, ia EEEEE IEEEI i
Eg lg u u - -
, s..
- . a u..
u.
se se as as an at as og en se
=
n se
=
m se em se a
a
=-
1 Ei i i inaa!AEII$BBAABBER3a
[i e 2 s a a = a a a a a a a 3 2 3 2 2 e 2
.g o
gt:
s:
i"-
sI ssI I I sssssssssssss g!
O a
's
.Wi a g; a a e a c a
,,s
= c =,. e e e
.,, n y
as
=
E is t=
IIIIII1 lll1i!l1iiIll1li tIeii!
ein1_lIii=1ie iiiE
- 3 5
as e
g i-
==
s3 3 I s E s s s a s s *i 3 sssssse t
=
ga.
g t
1 I
ggg sg; l
9 a
? %
8 o
g;g.8-l~gg_:
c
- e c a s s a e n
=s a = a n 2 e c e e a did *t
!!!!Ii!!I!lIiiiiiIiIIi Ai
!!E 1!ii1t9it11!a181441ei!
.=
as
}
Fio O
- 2j g
l
>tt ESt a
- = = = s - e e g;z;:u 3=
=.c
= = -.
= = -
,=
1IIII1Ii5IIIC3IIIIIIII E33l 32':
IF' $3kE i555!5!i!iiii55iiiiIsi 5
'r.
x
!$6
!!!!3 I E
e-tcl<!ff,6 5
t i s yl!s s
t cc a., II*i!! I EEIi,[!,Ia E E i, t,a v. 5 I I & - 6 + e1 Eg E
s s s s, s,,+ e
- 6
+ + #
w, e
3 3_ 6 A e a a 5. 5 g
s s s s W 6
.k k u. a i
gm
................. = =
a
= *
)
}
i o
Ei Ii12IIiiiIII$$RlI5IIIV gg E
b b$E' le g:
IsI s
ssI ssssI ssF3g3y gs.1 igs;s
- L-E IEE l
i 9
o a
n s s s.
4, w
90-e e 2
f
=
5 5 5 is 11111111[155 3 55 5
g=s 19511111 1
Egg E
es
^
2 8 8 2 8 :
s
-t s a a a s s a s s g
hh
!!!!!!!!!.!!!!Ii i niiiiiii!
g i
sg :E e
1.s e
e
~{*
g!y)g:a:
e c =
=
= = = = =...=====
561
! !=EI!!iijistffllIlllilttilt 1!l,I,!IIiiiii*8 ll j!C
=
ny E
I L5i:
a
.!.~
4;;
= s e s
s
= = = = = = n a
!!!.Hh a
I!!!!!!11111!!!5 Ii!!I
!!8" [S !E iii!!!isii!!!ii i!ti!
4 I!
h as I6 ?5 h
ii?
h II'l!gs'sEh;44
,s as h h s
e s +. s e
- ti
-e
.! E!EEIEEEEE!!EIE E
G5 v v v, v g a v l 11 1 g
nyv51g y
=
+.
+
+
. +
8 h k 6 o
.6 6 6 _ - t -
.6 6 6 6 6 6 V:
S v
e
.........l.....
vi silsiniceeeeeeeeeeeee p
ii h -------
'f.
a S g-33 It ga !
5 5 3 5 5 5 1 1 o
n O
.O s-i
-.. a 4
a L
g a$ "~
3! '
I g
l 8
"E:3:
R R
g g-og C
SS a e a c 2 a gjg 4
!I IIIi H :
hs 1I ii1!
og;
$W' C d.
i ti,") g!
a gf 33
- a a e e c g'i$:S II 3
iiIIIIIIIIl$l!
8,.
lIj I
E'f:"
g*
aj" t
IIIIIIIIII O
Be
-y k O 'l I
n
- CZ i
I
[5El 3
g>z :wl.,w 32
- = c =
=c 1 3, $, a. c 3d:
?_
J G. G. G. C. C. 9 9 5 g c.
p, g J_ p_
l i-4 2-13:'
j s t E ( 5 ( 5 t sy asl1 4
4-c a a a a a. a a a a g
0 X
I h 54 Ih!i'!!kI._E.Iy E
U
- h 5 -
5 s
E.h 5 8 4h
- v. E t
- t t ss s 7., i t-EIEEEEEEEEEEgiii
=$
I i V f V I T T I I V
.( + a 9 5 3 y WY
+3 4 a + a #
+
@ d d e
g g g
E b 4 E E E E E E E E L A sI
{a I
a e
a-
! ; i i i i i i i i i i i 8 i !-
W8 e
hg sasasas3 ssseassa
_._V
k' EE 51 3 1 15I I 15 5 3 5 55 5533
! !1l 52 E '
O.
'S
-w l o
l y
.a$
!!ll 3333 333 3 3115 311 1555 5" 4-hc:!
e2 I-l l
t 3 1 1 3 3 51 I s3 3 3 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 l
Qll si s-l Sg d
b J'I*
i z
5 o
"ll:"h
- ;1 *.
I i
E N
'I EdB EE!
- i s ss s: I ssssI ssss
- Le
= :. -
=y 10:2 5
'r:
a hN.
1
&l*l**
1*
a g'5" gj!i jj]!_
sssssssssssssssssss 3
e 0
0 li
!!!!!3 233333333!3!
!~
lililllillililillil h(
I E E I E S B B B B B B B B B B B B E 85 ll i
a*
8 5 8 9 9 3 3 5 3 8 9 8 9 5 3 a D 9
W8
!!l6ii11EEEEEEA2Iif hi saseeeeaeeeeeaat aaa
=. _
p Fact 3 of 10 BRAIDes000 MTV PROCRAM CUT-OUT ITEM
(*5 IGM'sI' miFI(*JscE'Eii ALUi?Ioes -
~
- G
' haAAr it ' ripia.d ETRES$' EUsetAtf e
~ ~
DOTE 5 s.
1.
SUSTAINED 14 ads P ap tog loading condition which considere the ef f ect s of preneure, weight and other sustained mechanical loads on piping stressee, per asME III subsection IeC/WD 3650, piping analyste strese equattom (83.
2.
OCCAstonAL laADs Ptping Roading condit tee which consider e the ef fects of pressure, weaght, other sustained loads and occasional loede including earthquate and pressure / flow transtant - induced loads, on paptag stresses per ASM Subsection WC/RD 3650, piping analyste strees equettaa (99.
The occasional loads are detined under different conditicaos espeet, emergency and feelted. A!!owable Stresses for these condattoos are per the A&ME Code.
A.
UPSET CGrDITION:
Includes Operating Beste Earthquake GOSE) and other upset condattom tremetent - Andeced loads.
B.
EMEDGENCY/ FAULTED CONDITION:
Includee Safe Shutdowse Earthquake (SSE) and other emergency /f aulted condition tremetent - induced loads.
For piping analyses performed by meetinghouse. SSE as defined as a toutted condition. For pipang analyses performed bT $6L, SSE to def &ned as en weergency condation.
3.
THE3nA3. EIFAJes!Ou I4 ads Paping toeding condation which considers the effects of thermal espanaton on piping stresses per ASME III Subsection NC/MD 3650. piping analysis st ress equat non 610).
Anchor displacement ef f ects due to earthquate are also included where required.
4.
THE3RAL/SUSTAIEED LCADs Piping loadang condition which considere the offects of preneure, wenght, other amatained loads and thermal espanoton on paping stresses per ASME III Subsection NC/mD 3650 papang analyste strese equatton (Ill.
S.
For AsME Close 1 piping. the strees values and allowables found under OCCASIOmAL LGAD are the primary strese intenettaes as compared to the Code ellowables. as deteransed by 5 tecction st16SO, equatton t99.
The strees welues and allowables found under TMEAMAL EEPAN510ss LOAD are the pramary and secondery st re e s ant en e t t ne e s e det e rm ined by Sut,sec t aon MS 3650, equation 1100.
-mee.
~..-
Pact 1 of to SRAIDWOOD MTV PROGRAM CUT-OUT ITEM DESIGN SIGNIFICANCE EVAI,UATION =
~ pst i1~pl>TuriRTEss suMidaT P
l 6.
The ratio (in 48 of calculated piping strees to ASME allowable RATIO:
piping strees.
STRESS / ALLOWS 7.
Calculated piping strees in the region of the cut-out1 - Design item / allowable piping strees per ASME III. Appendis stress Intensity values, allowable stressee, matettal properttee, I
and design fatigue curves.
Calentated piping stresses obtained from WESDYN analyste performed IWie O.
by temotinghouse.
9.
hand calculation supplementing Calculated stresses obtained with the dete11ed analysis, Calculated stresses obtained with hend calculation' suppirmenting e.,
the simplified analysis.
10.
W/A Not App!! cable.
11.
NCRs Non-conformance report.
SIMPLIFIED ANALYSIS:
12.
The Subsystems analysed using the elsplified procedures.
stress levels are less the 50% of the ASME stress allowables, Such based on the inherent conservation in the analysis.
conservatisme include utilisatson of an enveloped response spectra, and damping values, an i=2.1 on otraight pipe so i
well as on socket welde, and enveloped pressere values.
f To a detailed analysis was performed demonstrate this conservat t om, on item numbers 25-29 and 32.
The detailed analyste stresses are included in the table, and are less than 50% of the applicable ASME strese allowables.
e e
e
1ll e
0 1
fo 0
1 4
EC e.
A P
ME T
v I
NP OA TI m UTm OAu
- Us TL UAs CVs EE M
a AEt RCs GN y
OAc t
RCN i
s r
s e
s V I7P TN t
e n
dr s f
MGIT id et a o
DSl n,
rs w
~
yus e
n O N'E roe ded r
K af s il e
u Dls t G d
s sb l t
AEM d
nee na l I
urr ow a l
R D' oet cot l
bws l
s u
B el n f
eee rai t gl e
e uub w
e n
sl as l b o
spwo ea e oe ri o y
rsl s ur t l
psl a t e n
eab at d o
gc ra e uceo emr e
l adw p i
v p ot
- a. r u
a lC' o q h
sl e
- f e
sAEv r
o e Mr ad t
c Se nnd c.As aa l d
as n e
e nf o es w r
cooc re e
s Sii us t d
Cht%g ss e i
Upa0n sel s
Lac 5i er l n.
Pro w rt i ot_
gl wo psf cn So ol e
S i gll gd hd em Edueo ne ce re Calbf it nr eg Crp ta ie wa A
d e il d
g deeh mu i en Cesst i c s ge It es ll 8n u Hacen a / o ld Pucrotc3c pa Al at p n e
Ra su ar et er Gvl l ohohh Oel ed Pf TnTt I
abe DL s
A6toa
)
)
)
R5atb 1 2
3 3
1 l
.1 4
$4 s,,
k (!
l ll l'