ML20154B683

120-Day NRC Rept as Required by NRC Bulletin 88-005

ML20154B683
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	09/09/1988
From:	Douin D, Eidem M, Skiles J OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT, SARGENT & LUNDY, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20154B664	List: ML20154B661 ML20154B683
References
88-32, IEB-88-005, IEB-88-5, NUDOCS 8809140078
Download: ML20154B683 (28)

Text

- -.

=

4 J

OPPD ENGINEERING STUDY O-I I

)

88-32 i

i

{

J l

]

120 DAY NRC REPORT j

i i

AS REQUIRED l

j 1

1 j

BY j

i NRC BULLETIN 88 05 Prepared By:

MJWY v 4 h~-tf I

i D. 5. Doutn (54L) ~

Reviewed By:

l 5

i i,o sb N Y tLAfI :f3 4

L.~5k11es (54L) 1 l

I I

Approved By:

W.d W M. E. Elden (OPPD) l 1

f l,

i l

SARGENT & LUNDY PROJECT NO. 7751-10

!O j

8809140078 800909 j

PDR ADOCK 05000285 G

PNU

- --,- ~,_.- -._- --.. _,. -.

OPPD Engineering Study 88-32 S&L Project No 7751-10 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 Scope.....................................................

1 2.0 Applicaotitty.............................................

1 3.0 References................................................

1 4.0 General....................................................I 5.0 Document Review............................................I 5.1 Modification Request Records..............................

2 5.2 Quality Assurance Purenase Orders....................... 2-3 5.3 Revi ew of Pu rc ha s e r s...................................... 3 6.0 Testing...................................................

3 6.1 Ma t e r i a l T es t i n g.......................................... 3 6.2 M i c r o 0u r T e s t............................................. 3 6.3 Eq u ot i p T e s t.............................................. 4 7.0 Results...................................................

4 7.1 Engineering Evaluation / Analysis...........................

4 7.2 Conclusions...............................................

4 Attachments 1.

Material Data Information 2.

Taussig Hardness Test Report No. 82138 3.

S&L Evaluation of Teussig Test Report No. 82138 4

Engineering Evaluation of Flanges to Establish Minimum Requirements t

OPPD Engineering Study 88-32 S&L Project No:

7751-10 4

1.0 Scope This report addresses all documentation review actions requested in support of resolution of NRC Bulletin 88-05 by Omaha Public Power t

District's Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station - Unit 1.

l l

2.0 Appilcability

)

i i

This report applies to review of documentation, material tests, evaluations, and engineering analysis activicies assuciated with t

flanges and tittings supplied by West Jersey Manuf acturing Company l

I (WJM), as identified in NRC Bulletin 88-05.

i l

j 3.0 References j

NRC Bulletin 88-05, dated May 6,1988 t

NRC Bulletin S8 4 5, Supplement 1, dated June 15, 1988 l

NRC Bulletin 83-05, Supplement 2, dated August 3,1988 i

OPPD Modification Request Records l

OPPD Quality Assurance Purchase Orders i

WJM - Identified Material Data Information (CMTR's)

Orr MicroDur/ Spectrograph Testing Report j~

Taussig Equotip Test Report No. 82138 Sargent & Lundy Evaluation of Taussig Test Results j

Sargent & Lundy Engineering Analysis of Flanges 4.0 General j

Circumstances which led to the issue of NRC Bulletin 88-05 involved

[

three material suppliers providing alleged f alse te, ting information i

concerning material supplied to the nuclear power industry. As a result, all holders of operating licenses or construction permits for

{

nuclear power plants were requested to take actions to determine if j

the suspect material had been received, perform tests on identified t

s'3spect materi.nl and assure the identified suspect material complies t

with ASME Code and design specifications or replace the material.

I j

OPPD retained the services of Sargent & Lundy Engineers to coordinate j

j all activities in support of compliance with NRC Bulletin 88-05.

,(

1 Sargent & Lundy identified three programatic activities to comprise

(

)

the appropriate 4ction necessary for compliance with NRC Bulletin l

88-05 These are document review, material testing, and engineering evaluation.

The remainder of this report focuses on the details of i

I each of the three activities.

l I

l 5.0 Document Review

o I

1 A

i i

L OPPO Engin ering Study 88-32 S&L Project No:

7751-10

\\

I 5.1 Modification Request Records 5.1.1 The records review process included two types of OPPD documents; modification request records (MRR) and quality assurance purchase orders.

Purchasers identified in NRC8 88-05 were also contacted to I

augment the review process.

]

5.1.2 Mooification request records are engineering modification change

(

paaages wnich contain design, construction, procurement and l

2 equipment records.

Flange and fitting material purchase orders with i

)

certified mill test reports are included or referencea within the MRR j

package.

E l

MRR's totalling 17,673 were initially identified as the documents j

requiring disposition.

This initial list conststed of all MRR's from l

1973 (Fort Cainoun startup year) through 1988 wnich also included two l

1 fossil-fuel plants. A computer search reduced the population to j

2,3d7 MRR's.

This list included Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station MRR's j

for both safety and non-safety related applications.

A comparison j

was tnen made to verify output data between the first and second list l

to ensure the MRR's shown on the first list were also included on the l

second list.

j i

After the computer search was completed, a manual screening process 4

followed based on word association taken from the MRR computer l

O generated list description column.

Flange, fitting, piping, valves, l

pumps, heat exchanger, containment penetration, equipment and

)

applicable plant system identifier terms wer1 used to manually screen j

the list.

From this process, 435 relevant MRR's were identified and j

reviewed individually to determine whether flange or fitting material q

was supplied by piping Supplies Incorporated (PSI), West Jersey Manuf acturing Company (WJM) or Chews Landing Metal Manuf acturers

(

Incorporated (CLM).

The MRR review did not identify any suspect j

l material based on NRCB 88-05.

5.2 Quality Assurance Purchase Orders i

l

}

5.2.1 ine second type of document search, quality assurance purchase orders, was done by Fort Calhoun Nuclear Statiot. Quality Assurance.

1 5.2.2 The computers data base was used to identify safety related purchase j

orders from 1976 through 1988 j

j A word search approach using flange, fitting, carbon, and stainless as the identifying word description was used.

This process produced i

170 purchase orders for further screening.

I l

i i

a 3

i l

l

OPPO Engine: ring Study 88-32 S&L Project No 7751-10 The 170 purchase orders were then reviewed and resulted in identi-fying Chicago Tube & tron (CT&l) which appeared in NRC Bulletin 88-05.

L CTll was previously identified by 0 PPD during an inf ormal review.

)

Detail of further action is in the following section (5.3),

j 5.3 Review of Purchasers I

1 5.3.1 OPPD perf ormed a cursory review of purchasers identified in hRC8 q

38-05.

It was identified as a cursory review oecause it was the first action taken by OPPD Production Engineering and was considered

informal, i

l 5.3.2 Af ter reviewing NRC Bulletin 88-05, it was noted that Chicago Tube a 1

f ron (CTLI) was listed.

CTal was contacted to identify tne purchase

]

order numbers under wnich WJM supplied flanges.

Two purenase orders showing (4) 1 1/2", (2) 1" and (4) 10" SA-105 flanges were identified l

i i

as the only material WJM supplied to Omaha Public Power utstrict, See I.

These flanges were installed in the Waste Gas Disposal System (1 1/2" and 1") and Electrical Penetration E-11 through j

Containment (10").

Other purchasers f rom the bulletin list were also r

{

contacted which did not lead to identifying additional purchase j

orders.

p f

6.0 Testing 6.1 Material Testing t

6.1.1 After the WJM-supplied material was identified and subsequently l

3 located in the plant, testing was initially performed by Orr

[

l Metallurgical Consulting Service. Inc. and Taussig Associates.

I I

6.2 MicroDur Test l

6.2.1 Initial testing was performed by Orr Metallurgical for informational

[

purposes only. Orr Metallurgical performed tests using the MicroDur method to determine hardness. Orr Metallurgical also tested for

)

manganese content using a Portaspec portable x-ray spectrograph.

)

6.2.2 The Orr Metallurgical hardness test (MicroDur ultrasonic hardness l

tester) measures hardness test in Vickers hardness values.

The x-ray i

i j

spectrograph used to determine manganese content, is accomplished by I

analyzing the characteristic lines of elements emitted when bombarded

]

by radiation, f

4 l

6.2.3 The results of both informational tests, described above, resulted in j

anomalous values and were disregarded.

,O l

l J

I OPPD Engineering study 88-32 i

S&L Project Not 7751-10 4

6.3 Equotip Test 6.3.1 Final testing was performed by Taussig Associates using the Equotip hardness testing method as identified by the NRC and NUMARC.

See Attacnment 2 for test results.

Taussig Associates performed hardness l

tests in accordance with an approved procedure.

t 6.3.2 The test results showed that the (4) 1 1/2" and (1) 10" flanges were i

Delu tne minimum tensile stregtn rer,uirements per SA-105 material scecification (70,000 PSI minimum).

The flanges approximate values i

ranged from 65-6d 000 PSt.

These values based on design, service conditions and present operating conditions are within acceptaole ranges.

See Attachment 3 for S&L evaluation.

1 7.0 Results l

7.1 Engineering Evaluation / Analysis l

7.1.1 Two flanges were deemed inaccessible and were not tested.

S&L demonstrated the acceptability of these flanges using the lowest

[

j reported tensile strength value reported to data in the industry (42 l

l KSI).

In addition, S&L performed calculations based on actual test results, for the accessible flanges, taken f rom the Taussig report, which showed the acceptabi!itj of these flanges (See Attachment 4).

t l

7.2 Conclusions 7.2.1 Based on all tett data and location of accessible and inaccessible i

j flanges, no further corrective action is required.

The lower than minimum values for the flanges are well within factors that ensure i

the material is acceptable for its intended service.

}

l 4

?.2.2 Unless otherwise directed by the NRC, this report completes OPPD actions, associated with NRCB 88-05. Supplement 182. Based on the action taken to date, the installed material will not be replaced and therefore the 60 day report required by the bulletin, is not

required,

)

j i

i i

I i

i

!O 4

I

-. - - _ = _ _ _ _ = - _ _ - -

i i

1 ISC MLETiet IID. SS-0S 1

80ATUtl ALS DATA IEEF(NEATISI i

meestA PUBLIC PteEft 0151RICI ATTADGENT I FOti CADENSI selCLIMi STATSWI Iself I

$Pic Offet QTY t-lesSTALLED-3 ASSIE SYSTEse

, sw is Asst DI ApaE1554 00B00 844fitIG T1PE ASiel/A5 FEE GIADE E WISME SEAf/ TOT DATE E EBf "WM D AOC IGN WE 'Asmri cts FEST taCATHBt j

l A,0,C,0 FC53 9.3 Fig.

ISO Se IOS 40 W34 N86973 110882 4

0 4

Cfil Z

Y weste Gas Dispossi l

40 W JM se86041 110882 2

0 2

Clie 2

Y Waste Gas Disposal i

I E.F FC58 1.0 Fsg.

ISO SW 105 I

i 40 use E40 822882 2

O I

I Cf14 2

Y E-Il Penetration /

I G,H

1. CSI 10 Fag.

ISO mas 105 Containment j

40 W D4 Bil 822882 2

0 1

1 Cla8 2

Y E-fl Penetration /

)

G,H FCSI 10 Fsg.

130 BL 105 Cuntainment i

1 5 if GEse l

l '/MP

- tot ter Dost gnatton Taman f rom $amples in Attactsment 2 Testlag Roseits PLANT

- FCSI - Fort Calhoun Stetton - Unit I C0804

- Coenodify frP*

• A 4T iedG Flange Pressure Rating Certified Mill Test Report 04TR i

Accessible (f or fe ting)

ArX:

e Citi - Chicago Tute & tron a $0UNCE 1

4 i

i i.

3 1

--.--.----------,----,------rn.

--.--e,

,.----------,-w

.--,,.-.n

.\\

j e,

d 4

u. L. '..

i

^

Metallurgical Engineers 7s3cnema;e non e seca.c.mmswi = ' 312 676 2tm I

j

)

l Report tio. 82138/ August 24,1988 Omaha Public Power District I

1623 Harney l

Omaha, tJ E A8102

)

l Ati'ention:

Mr. Tom Blair O

I 1

I i

l SUBJ ECT OPPD Engineering Study 88-32.

Equotip Hardness Testing of Eight (8)

Flanges at Omaha Public Power District, Fort Calhoun Power Station.

j I

i I

O Omaha Public Power District Report No. 82138 Page 1

Background:

t Hardness testing was performed on eight (8) flanges at the Port l

l Calhoun Power Station in compliance with NRC Bulletin $88-05 The eight samples included four (4) 1-1/2", and two (2) l' ASME 4

SA-105 flanges identified in PKS Drawing WD-4303 sheet 1 of 5.

In addition, two (2) 10" ASME SA-105 flanges were identified in Graver Drawing 6003773.

The testing was performed in accordance with Taussig Associates Procedure Q. A.H.

1.81, revision 0, dated 7/28/88.

The flanges were further identified as follows:

I ttaterial Stamped Sample Type / Grade Identification Location A

SA-105 WJ 1-1/2" 150 Par South of Valve FCV-GDKH 105 532A B

SA-105 WJ 1-1/2" 150 Near South of Valve FCV-GDKH 105 532A O

i C

SA-105 WJ 1-1/2" 150 Far South of Valve WD-GDKH 105 165 I

D SA-105 WJ 1-1/2" 150 Near South of Valve WD-l GDKH 105 165 1

j E

SA-105 GDEL SA-105 South of Valve WD-157 l

B16.5 CL. 2 l

l r

SA-105 GDEL SA-105 Above valve WD-156 l

j B16.5 CL. 2 i

G SA-105 10" WJ 150 SA-105 Electrical Penetration l

E-40 STD. CL. 2 E-11 1

l

]

H SA-105 10" WJ 150 SA-105 Electrical Penetration B-11 STD. C1. 2 E-11 l

j j

We were requested to perform the aforementioned test to determine i

the hardness and approximate tensile strength of the flanges.

4

!O i

I r

3 Thussig

Attachnont 2 i

O Omaha Public Power District Reporc No. 82138 Page 2 Test Results:

Hardness Testingt i

Prior to testing the paint was removed and surf aces prepared with

)

a hand grinder equipped with 60 and 100 grit paper.

The hardness tests were performed on the outer diameter of the eight (8) flanges utilizing a

calibrated Equotip Hardness Tester.

The calibration of the hardness tester was checked in accordance with Taussig Associates Procedure O. A.H.

1.81, revision 0,

dated 7/28/88.

A minimum of five impressions were taken on each flange.

The "L" values were documented and corrected for the angle of the indenter during the test and temperature of the l

flange.

The high and low readings were deleted and an average was calculated from the remaining values.

After testing the calibration of the Equotip Herdness Tester was rechecked to assure accuracy of the readings in compliance with the Taussig j

procedure.

The "L"

value results were then converted to equivalent Brinell hardness and approximate tensile strength in accordance with ASTM A370.

The test results are shown in Tables l p)

I and II.

(

Conclusions i

Based upon the preceding test results, the converted approximate i

tensile strengths indicate that the flanges identified as A

1 through D, and G would not meet the minimum tensile requirement l

(70,000 psi) of ASME SA 105 Sect.

II 1980 edition.

The 4

)

approximate tensile strength of flanges E, r,and H would meet tbs 1

af orementioned requirement.

l l

Respectfully submitted, 1

l TAUqSIGASSOCIATS, INC.

C k e.

W 1

Thomas C. Raleigh Staf f Metallurgical Engineer i

i i

l

1 s

Attachmont 2 l

i i

l i

l l

t l

l J

Table I 1

1 i

4 j

Raw Equotip Hardness Reluits f

Raw Sample L-Values j

A 395, 400, 3f3 389, 393, 313 4

i B

389, 378, 393 390, 401, 404 i

i C

406, 394, 393 l

408. 394, i

l D

393, 399, 395 i'

405, 401 E

402, 462, 468 i

I 460, 455, 440 r

430, 406, 431 413, 427, 430 1

0 403, 404, 406 398, 407 H

425, 425, 422 424, 420 O

in linants

a i

l i O

{

Table 17 l

i Corrected Hardness / Tensile Results Test j

Test Angle /

Temperature /

Average Brinell Approximate i

Correction Correction Corrected Hardness Tensile Strengtrl l

Sample Factor Factor L-Value (BHN)

(PSI)

J j

A 45'/-6 90*/+6 394 136 66,000 f

i B

45'/-6 90'/+6 393 135 65,000 I

f C

45'/-6 90'/+6 398 138 67,000 l

l 0

45'/-6 90*/+6 398 138 67,000 i

i t

E 90'/-11 90*/+6 449 176 86,000 I

\\

?

r 90*/-11 90'/+6 425 158 80,000 I

I G

0 75*/0 404 143 68,000 H

0 75'/0 424 157 77,000 1

}

i f

i i

1 I

l l

O 1

i 5

lim!s

i OAROENT C LUNDY INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM ATTACHMENT 3 p,

E.

Fernandez - 28, X8690 p i, Auaust 25. 1988 i

7751-10 Project No.

Dept JDis. Services / Quality Control Division spee. No.

File No.

Page No, 1 0f 1 Gient OPPD Stn.

Pt. Calhoun Unit 1

1 Subject Evaluation of T3ussic ReDort No. 82138 1

for OPPD Engineering Study 88-32 To:

D.

S. Douin

- 28 28 CC:

J. L. Skilos l

j Per your request, I have reviewed Taussig Report No. 82138 concerning hardness testing of eight (8) flanges at the Omaha Public Power 1

District (OPPD), Fort Calhoun Power Station, per NRC Bulletin #88-05.

l The material for these flanges were reportedly ASME SA105.

Hardness l

tests were performed to obtain the correlating approximate tensile I

strengths to determine if they meet the 70,000 psi minimum tensile

(

requirement of ASME SA105.

J l

The results of the test indicate, the approximate tensile values of

(

i samples E, F, and H met the specified minimum tensile requirement, however, approximate tensile values of samples A through D and G did l

)

not meet the required minimum tensile strength.

The approximate 4

l tensile values obtained for samples A through D and G were between 1

2,000 to 5,000 psi below the minimum tensile strength of ASME SA105.

i i

l The design pressure for these flanges (Samples A thru D and G) was reported to be 150 psig for samples A thru D and 60 psig for sample G 4

at the design temperature of 200 F.

The maximum allowable pressure for

)

ASME SA105 at a temperature of 200 F is 260 psig for sample A thru 0 i

and 230 psig for sample G as identified in ANSI B16.5.

j 1

Since the design pressure is significantly below the maximum allowable j

l preasure for the material and that tensile strength is directly propr.rtional to the maximum allowable pressure, it is my opinion that 1

flan las identified as samples A thru D and G are acceptable, based on i

a the reduced tensile strength, for use under these design service l

conuitions.

j l

l EF/gs I

1i O 1

l l

1 st eer ai n

I. - -

. -. - - - ~... -. _... -.

4 J

5ARGCNT & LUNDY ATTAChttE!47 4 j

cNoistems l

C=icaoo I

f SAFETY-RELATED l

1 Calc. fio.: ES-88-32 l

Acc. iio.: EMD 065135 Paga 1 Rev.: 01 i

A i

l 1

i E!iGliiEER!tiG AtiALYSIS l

f 10 liiCH 150s Ut4USED C0t4TAltiMEf4T pef 4ETRAT10ti FLAf4GES Atl01 INCH A!10 l'a If4CH 1508 GAS WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM FLA!iGES r

l OPPD EtiGifiEERitiG STUDY ES-88 32 i

AUGUST 25, 1988 i

O i

J l

i i

QttAHA FUSLIC ?0WER DISTRICT I

FORT CALHOU4 - Uti!T 1 PROJECT NO. 7751-01 1

i

)

I i

j

's 1

O SARGENT L LUNDY ENGliEERS E*51'.EEPING !'ECHANICS O!V!510N 1

I SICNATURE PAGE & Rt. VISIONS StM.ARY

~~'

Analysis Analysis

Analyst, f fgp FreparcJ Ry Revtewed By Appreevnt H++

Arreggion Stacss ke p..r t Strege Reggs t t Stress Repr.tt n..

Date

^

Frrpa r n! fly Revtrw.,1 HV Approve.f Ry

!I'-

~b*

IitD t.4991 (38-01-88 J. J. Patel R J1ahendrana than R.Ma hendraru than J. J. Patel M. O. Callatwi.

R.Mahendranathan

[3 83-32

.~

i 3[s]

pal e: ShST 8/5/fg nte:;[27,[3r__.

7-2 I-n fia t e:

... t,

7 /17 [ 4 Date:

este:

l't. SIMtANY k-l*el-s)

.r&$01

$ I' '~ (, )$

$~! '

Nr $C A * ' 'b. Ss.

_i tilb-:r%135 08-23-88 R.flahendranathan

'J.' T. }atel R.Mahendranathan R Jtahendrana than J.'J_ Patel

11. O. Callahan f

~

L5-ha-32 Date: F/2 5/M Dat e: V!.*; f Date:.i ';!i j Dat e: f[Ji/tY Date:* I M s[n [it pote:

[

3iE SIN 9tARY l

Pcvised to incorporate the test results for 8 flanges. Revised pages: 1.2.3.10,11,12.13,14 j

l t

l

_.4

)

i i

1 1

setc:

notc:

Datc:

satc:

pa t c -

is ec:

JfE SUP9tARY l

I Calc. Flo.: ES-88-37

SARGENT & LUNDY ENGINCLMS C=ic aoo l

Cale. No.: ES-88-32 l

Acc. No.: EttD-065135 l

Page 3 Rev.: 01 TAB.L_E OF CONTENTS I

I t

I rage 'n.

l i

1 1

l Ittle Page.........................................

c Signature Page......................................

a' title of Ocntents l

4 l

1.

pur:ese............................................

45 l

l 2.0 I np u t a nd A s sump ti o n s...............................

5 l

3.0 Approach............................................

t 4.0 Analysts 4.1 Calculation of Pressure Rating Itargin..........

5 4.2 Calcula tien of f tinimum Wall Itargin.............

67 S9 4.3 Stress (neck at Hub Weld Point.................

1 4.4 External Moment Load en Flange.................

10 i

4.5 Functional Capability..........................

11 11 5.0 Hardness Test Results..............................

12 6.0 Required ttargi n....................................

t 13 f

7.0 59nmary of Results................................,

13 3.0 Conclusions and Recomrendations.....................

I4 3.0 Teferences 15/ FINAL 10.0 'evieaar's Cracklist.

9 1

5 ARGENT & LUNDY CNoaNEERS

.a.ao Calc. No.: ES-88-32 Acc. No.: EMD 065135 Page 4 Rev.: 01 l

1.0 Purcose i

T-e rarecse of ints calculation is to evaluate tre acceptability of oipe flanges in response to 'AC Eulletin dS-C5.

This calculacien accresses

ctantial ateri st ceficiencies related to the flanges listed telcw.

J J

4 0 SA-105/RF,5W. Fig. 1.5"/' "' Waste Disposal System (Gas) 2 0 S A 105/RF.5W. Fig.1.0"/aos Waste Otsposal System (Gas) 2 SA 105/RF.WN,F19,10"/150s Unused Containment Penetration a

1 j

2 ? SA 1CS/RF SLO. Fig, 10/150s Unused Containment Penetratton 1

i 0,0

!ncut and Assucottens (1) Pressure anc Temperature Inout The maximum pressure and temperature infomation was obtained from the controlled ccpy of USAR, and is summarized below.

Cont ainrent (USAR Page 5.4.1) 60 psig Cest n Pressure 305'T Mix Cesign) Accident Tee.perature Waste Disposal System (Gas) i Max Operiting iceperature 140' F "e5tgn Te perature 200'F t

Hax Operating Pressure 100 psig Cesign Pressure 150 psig l

(2) Associated Piping l

i Containeent Penetration j

Per Graver Tank and Manufacturing Ccepany Orawing L24065. Rev. 02.

i the penetration is blind flanged at both ends and is not used.

I I

Penetration schedule at weld point is Schedule 40.

Waste Disposal System (Gas) per Piping specification Class 152 of Contract 763, the piping is SCPedule 40.

l l

1

l SARGENT & LUNDY ENGINECRS Cascaoo O

Calc. No.: ES-88-32 Acc. No.: EMD-065135 Page 14 Rev.: 01 9.0 a f e rance s 1.

ASME Boiler ind prassure Code 5 action !!!.1983 Edi tion, includino up to sue.rer 84.

2.

ANSI B16.5 1981 Edition 3.

For- 'alhoun USAR 4.

Pl!D Diagram 1140iM98. Rev 40 5.

Cont ict 763 Pipe Specification Class 152 6.

Graver Tank and Manuf acturing Company Drawing L24065. Rev. 2 7.

NRC Bulletin 88-05 and Supplement 1 8.

Taussig As;mciates Inc. Report No. 82138. August 19. 1988 l

O t

I O

SAAGENTO LUNDY cNoINttas

<=icaGo Calc. No.: ES-88-37 V

Acc. No.: E!!D-065135 Page G Rev.: 0.'

l 4.2 Calculation of Pice Minimum Wall Margin

' e -int un (requirec) v..sil inickness is calculated usicg NC/NO-3641.1 r tre A5ME.cce.

00-

+A

n requirea

=

0 unused penetration of containment l

A

=

1 0 for socket of SW flange; no fluid flow at tre socket inside diameter (Waste Disposal) t Do = Outside diameter of pipe or outside diameter of socket for SW flange.

Design Pressure P

=

1 0.4 per NC/ND 3641.1 r

y

=

l 17500 psi per Appendix ! of AStiE Code Section !!!

5

=

0.375 of riminal thickness tm available

=

i 10" WN Penetration Flange t

i 10.75 in, 0

=

3 t

60 psig P

=

0.0184 tm

=

required

.365 x.875 Actual tiiminum Wall

=

.319 inch

=

94'.

Wall Thickness Margin

=

10" BLD Flange Minimum wall cneck is for hoop stress and is not applicable for blind flanges.

O

S ARGENT & LUNDY ENoaNtERS C iC &CO Calc. No.: ES-88-32 Acc. No.: EMD-065135 i

Page 7 Rev.: 01 l

1(." 5'A Flange 150 i. 2.513 g

i A,o rea

(17500 ' O.4x1~:0) 1 0.011 inen j

=

3 Per ANs! S16.5 ncminel wall thickness of hub

, ((2.56 2(,53

.69) tan 7*) - 1.95)

I

=

i 1

.282 I

=

1 i

.282 x.875 l

Actual minimum wall thickness

=

.246 inch

=

Minimum wall tnickness margin

.246

.011 l

=

246 95, 4

J 1;' SW Flange l

I 150 4 1.908 i

+ 0

=

t*

2(17500 + 150x.4)

I Required

.008 inch

=

t Per ANS! B16.5 nominal wall th3ckness of hub l

3 ((1.94 2(.69. 56) tan 7*) - 1.36)

=

'[

.274 inen

=

1 0.274 x 0.875 Actual mall tnickness

=

0.239 inen

=

239

.003 I

uini v wall ta.ickness ravgin

=

.239 a

l 96's i

t l

J l

S ARGENT & LUNDY CNoeNEEAs GaiCaco I

( 'l)

Calc. No.: ES 88 32 Acc. No.:

EMO-065135 Page 8 Rev.: 01

• 2 Stress (*ect it t*e Hub Weld Point

't t e ::1nt t*e "ub eets t*e rice, t t is treated 35 a tire section are : ec6 ec >;ainst t*e associated pipe to calculate t*e asa11able ir ;; r.

S e ci:e tiress equatten can ta empressec in t*e follcwing general ?crm:

9xAt iy-. < S 2

Ag Pressure 0

A1=

Insice Area of Pipe Moment M

=

Section Modulus 2

=

Ag = uetal Area of Pipe Socket Welded Flance tietal area of pipe ( A ) is ccept *.

against retal area of socket.

Also, 2

section nodulus of pipe is compai, against the section modulus of socket.

Based on t*e comparison. it is cbs'rved that the socket is stronger than the pipe. Generic margins ere calculated.

Wald Neck ind Blind T'anges Since the above flanges are located on an unused penetration moment, tern is :ero, and as a result no stress check is required.

1 15 Incn 150s Fiante 2.56 2(.88.69) tan 7' Outsice cia eter of socket

=

2.513

=

1.95 inch Inside ciameter of socket

=

8 8

-}- (2.5138-1.95 ) = 1.973 in "etal area of socket

=

Sectten ~cculus cf socket (2.513' 1.95')/(2.313/2)

=

e-I

.993 in)

=

)

(h I

1 l

l

$AQGENTO LUNDY cN0 Nttas I

cmcao;

(")

Calc. No.: ES-88-32 l (/

Acc, No.: EMD-065135 l

Page 9 Rev.: 01

.200 in;

e t 31 ' re.) cf Scn. 40 Pire

=

.2262 in' Iecte n ":calas '

Tire

=

1.973.e00 59%

=

=

Metal Area Margin 1.973

.993.3262 o 7,.

sectien Modulus Margin

=

.993 i

59%

r Minimum Generte Stress Margin

=

1 l

1 Inen 150s Flange 1.94-2(.69.56) tan 7*

Outside diameter of socket

=

I 1 908 inch

=

1 36 inch Inside diameter of socket

=

8 i

l i (1.9088 1.36 ) = 1.406 in t'etal area of socket

=

4 i (1.980'-1,36')/(1.908/2)

Section modulus of socket

=

64

,506 in'

=

s 8

i 430 in

!!etal area of Sen. 40 Pice

=

,1328 in' i

Section moculus of pipe

=

(Scn. 40) 1.406.49 i

i 651

=

=

Metal area margin 406 i

.506.1328

= 74%

Section medulus cargin I

=

.506 65%

"intre,;eneric stress argin

=

S ARGENT & LUNDY cuoiscras

m c a s.o Calc. tio.

ES-88 32 i

Acc. fio.: Eft 0-065135 Page 10 Rev.: 01 i

j i

4.4 External f ccent Load en Flanca iinc.e t-a '. ' 4 inc 10" BLD flingas ara located cn an unused cana.tration.

t ere,re c'

crant teacs en tram.

s i rasult, ra recent v ;k is l

.acuirne.

Since tne 1 1.icn and l'3 inen flanges are located on small bore piping

[

system, no moment load infomation is available at the flange location.

It is consarvativaly assumed that all moment are such that the stresse'J will te at tra allcwabla limits.

Since the piping is cold (less than 150*F) tre trerril ~crents are ignored.

Based on the above. the morents are as

~

• oll:ws:

l Servica Level A

=

x c 3

j i

i Service Level B 1.2 Sn x Z

=

I Service Level C 1.8 Sn xI i

2.4 Sn xZ Service Level D

=

1 flo te:

It is conservatively assumed that an i value less than 1.33 and Sn of 15000 psi for oice was used in the original design.

l I

l j

Cesign Basis 411cwable fiorents

• ne ::ce cesign tasis illcwaela ~crants ara as follcws. All ncrenclatura l

are per f4C-3656.

l Service L* vel A 3125 CA 5 /36

=

by 4

t j

5ervice Level B 6250 CA 5 /36 by

=

(11250A3 - (-/16) Of P e') C (5 /36) service Level C/D f

y Calcalatien of sce.eit -argin l

li, inen 150+

1 inch 1504 l

Of 2.83 inen inen C

3.38 inen 3.12 incn s

i l

l 1 13 % 4 it' I019 K 4 IrCh

'50 150

)

SARGENT &L.UNOV ENGlNttAS c=icaco Calc. No.: ES 88-32 Acc. No.: Ef t0-065135 Page 11 Rev.: 01 t

Using the above design basis margins are calculated.

The margins are I

t)::ulatec telca.

i r:n 150-j I

Jesyn t'ar;tn I

Service Level A 6 0',

2 Service Level B 76'.

Servie.e Level C SO.

Service Leval 0 7 3'.

1 Min. "c ent 'isrgin 6 0'.

1 i

13 inen 150 l

Design 3 rc3 Service Level A 2 2'.

i Service Level B 53" Service Level

5 9 ',

i Service Level 0 4 6'.

1 I

itin. :to ent Margin 22%

4.5 Functions) Cacability d

Since tre 10 te;n flanges c: rot pass ficw. no functional capability check is needed.

The stress equaticn is of the same forft as the stress crect. ecuation and as a result, tee margin calculated for stress can be

f conservatively usec for functional capability creck.

j i

s 5.0 Hardress Test i<sults 4

ine subject flarges mere testec ey Taussig Assectates Inc.

The results of tr.e t

tests are su*r aritac telow.

l Appromirate Tensile j

Sample Mantification Location 5trength esi

)

i A

WJ 1 :.' !!O Far Scutn of isive 66000 I

GDKk 105 FCV 532a

i~

'.o r but* :f val.a H:03 i

I i;o 105

:V -il2t.

WJ 1 '

'i; Far 5:y;* ;+ Valve (7000 f

U n ;;5

.$ D - 16 5

]

t 1

150

'# 3 r i; W i".

J'

'es}Ve 67CCO i

f

v. y

,r ;;i WD le

i l

I

SAGGENT o LUNDY tNotNtLms

[

secaGo

\\ ()

Calc. No.: ES 88 32 L-Acc. No.: E!O 065135 Dace 10 Rev.: 01

-oproximate Tensile 1

4-cla

ent

• 4 :iti:n Lecitien strength - est l

E 3EL L'.

1;5 icutn cf Valve 36000 v.e.i....

40 157 (1 1rcel l

F GDEL SA 105 Above valve 80000 B16.5 CL 2 WO-156 (1 inen) 3 10" WJ 150 S A 1;5 Electrical Penetratien E-11 68000 E ;0 5T0. i:L. ;

(Outsice)(Weldne:k) i 10" WJ 150 5t 105 Electrical Penetration E 1; 77000 n

Bil SiO. CL. 2 (Outsica)(Bline) t e

Cre 10 inen weldneck fiance and ene 10 inch blind flange inside centainment are inaccesstele anc are trerefore not testec, j

6.0 Required _ tia rgin ine require 1 rargin is tae ;ercent reduction in material strergtn properties.

I Tre relevant material strengtn properties are:

(a)

Tenstl* st'*n9tn at Ambient Temperature (b)

Tensile strength at 0* sign Temperature I

(c)

Viele strengtn at Ambient Tercerature

[

(d) ytelo strengtn at 0* sign Temperature h

One pair of 10 inen flanges on tme inside of unused electrical penetration is f

inaccessible and tnerefore was not tested. Other flanges were tested for Tne narcaess values were correlated to estimate tre tensile strengtn I

nareness.

N3 otFer test results are available, ire #0llowing at rcom tercerature.

assurotions were used to estimate other relevant material strengtn procerties.

l (a)

Tee WJ'l sucoliec flange naterial procerties change with tennerature I

i in tra same anner 45 5A 105 material, (b) ine percent reduction in yield strength is tre same as the percent f

recstti;n in terstle strength.

Even tneugh there is no correlation between yielc strengtn and tensile strength, the cata reporsed f

inrev;n INPO retmork incicates that tre cercent recuction in yield l

strerita 35 1 wer taan trat of tenstle strergtn.

Trerefore, tre

~

40C'ie 455.~0t1Cn 11 sCn$erV311Ve.

E!!aC On *Pe J Oie. tre recWirAC ~3rgin 15 !"# OerCent reQg;t1Cn in tenstle itr et ;t At

c-te+;erttore.

I'e +ecstrec ~1nt a5 tensile strengtn is 70 kst, l

l 1

l I

S A AGCNT O LUNDY csoisccas cmcaco Calc. No.: ES-88-32 Acc. No.: EMO-065135 Page 13 Rev.: 01 l

_ _ _.. _ _ fi ma m einu

'.'31 ua c acor ted

?ercant ;*cuction) i L, O m a 65000 est 3.

1 SW Flange 80000 psi 0;

I l

10 WN Flange (Outside) 68000 psi 3 ',

l 10 5'JJ Tlan;e fat',3ce) 77000 osi 0-l

0 hi. Flange (Insice)

• iot Testec' 404 10 BLO Flange (Irside)

Not Tested

• 4 0',

• Tenstle strengtn was assumed to be equal to the lowest value reported 5 far (42 ksi).

i 7,0 Sumrary of Resalts Tre design r.argins calculated so f ar are sumarized below, f

10" 150s 10' 150*

1Y 150, 1" 150s Blind Flange

't Flange SW Flange SW Flange I n s t ce, Outstce Inside Outstee Pressure Cating 745 7 4 ',

74$

74'.

4 2'.

4 2 *.

94'.

94 ',

9 5 '.

96'.

flin, Wall check 59';

65';

nub Stref.s Check 22'.

6 0'.

Merent L ad 5 9',

6 5'.

Functional CapabtIity 3

l

'4i n t rue. A w a t l a bl e Operability tiargin 74 74.

7 4'.

7 4'.

2 2'.

4 2*-

Eeau1'ed "argin 401 0.

4 0',

3';

S '.

O';

I Cnj)ys),on5Jn.dRece-reedatteM 8.0 1

Caseo en tre analysts trere is suf fletent "argin in the original cesign to i

; w t f r tre 1:sar ar,erial strengtn of t*e tested flanges, Tre inaccessible f

vges tm a

Jes';n 3r;te.

f 'I n r. t ; *. 15 *1g*er te3n tre secuired Pargin of

!)

i5 i result, t*ere are to strengtn ccncerns reldted to leaving the flanges e

lu e ' ceti n:al..

i l

I ll

=

t r

SARGENTCrLUNDY

[

ENGINEERS CMicAco i

()

i Calc. No.: ES-88-32 I

Acc. No.: EMD-065135 Page 14 Rev.: 01 l

9.0 References I

a 1.

ASME Boiler and Pressure Code Section III 1983 Edition, including up to l

Summer 84, 1

{.

2.

ANSI B16.5 1931 Edition

{

3.

Fort Calhoun USAP.

I 4.

P&ID Oiagram 11405M98, Rev. 40 r

5.

Co9 tract 763 Pipe Specification Class 152 4

2 6.

Graver Tank and Manuf acturing Company Drawing L24065 Rev. 2 I

7.

N!.C Bulletin 88-05 and Supplement 1 j

I 8.

Taussig Associates Inc. Report No. 82138, August 19, 1988 i

I l

i 0

I l

I I

4 i

a j

1 i

lO i

4 4

l

._.,,-..,.,.-_-..-,..,, _., - __,--,m_--.-ye_mm,

-nm,n % - m-g.