ML20198Q132
| ML20198Q132 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 05/22/1986 |
| From: | Van Brunt E ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| To: | Kirsch D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| References | |
| REF-PT21-86, REF-PT21-86-192-000 ANPP-36661-EEVB, DER-86-08, DER-86-8, PT21-86-192, PT21-86-192-000, NUDOCS 8606090066 | |
| Download: ML20198Q132 (6) | |
Text
Arizona Nuclear Power Project y
R g
P O. box 52034 e PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85072-2034
]
o<
May 22, 1986 u
EE ANPP-36661-EEVB/LAS/DRT'-92.11]
r4
=-
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region V 1450 Maria lane - Suite 201 Walnut Creek, California 94596-5368 Attention:
Mr. D. F. Kirsch, Acting Director Division of Reactor Safety and Projects Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)
Units 1, 2, 3 Docket Nos. 50/528, 529, 530
Subject:
Final Report - DER 86-08 A 50.55(e) and 10CFR21 Deficiency Relating to Grinnell #2 Sway Strut Clamp Interference File: 86-006-216; D.4.33.2
Reference:
(A)
Telephone Conversation between A. Hon and D. R. Larkin on February 26, 1986.
(Initial Reportability - DER 86-08)
(B)
ANPP-35713, dated March 26, 1986.
(Interim Report - DER 86-08)
(C)
ANPP-36358, dated April 22, 1986 (Iime extension - DER 86-08)
Dear Sir:
Attached, is our final written report of the Deficiency under 10CFR50.55(e) i referenced above. The 10CFR21 evaluation is also included.
Very truly yours F
M mh p E. E. Van Brunt, Jr.
Executive Vice President Project Director EEVB/DRL:kp i
Attachments cc: See Page 2 8606090066 860522 PDR ADOCK 05000528 PI)R q
\\ \\
t
.L&.27
DER 86 Final Report Mr. D. F. Kirsch Acting Director ANPP-36661-EEVB/LAS/DRL-92.11 Page 2 cc:
J. M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.~C. 20555 A. C. Gehr (4141)
R. P. Zimmerman (6295)
Records Center Institute of Nuclear Power Operations 1100 circle 75 Parkway - Suite 1500 Atlanta, Georgia 30339
FINAL REPORT - DER 86-08 DEFICIENCY EVALUATION 50.55(e)
ARIZONA NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT (ANPP)
I.
Potential Problem During the resolution of NCR PA-12132 it was found from a dimensional check that interference could occur between the ears of the ITT Grinnell #2 sway strut pipe clamp and the weld connecting the rod to the swivel bearing paddle.
This interference does not allow the sway strut to have a 10 degree included angle cone of action to the pipe clamp axis as specified in the vendors Load Capacity Data sheets. Original piping design analysis assumed the free strut rotation. The interference induces additional loads that could either rotate the clamp or be transferred to the piping system. Strut clamp rotation to align itself with the strut axis would not be detrimental to the operation of the piping system, but increased pipe loadings require evaluation for effects.
Evaluation ITT Grinnell initially indicated they had experienced problems with 4
- 2 sway strut interference before 1983.
They attributed the condition to excessive length of their pipe clamp ears.
The clamps were later redesigned to shorten the edge distance from the load i
stud center line to the clamp end such that the interference is eliminated.
There are a total of 21 Q class pipe support designs in each Unit j
that utilize #2 sway struts with pipe clamps. Many of these in each Unit are equivalent size Corner and Lada sway struts that are not a part of this DER since they have a shorter clamp ear design that cannot cause an interference. - Eleven of the designs using Grinnell sway struts have pipe deflections that would rotate the sway struts towards the pipe clamp ears.
The results of the investigations are summarized in Attachment 1.
Special Construction Inspection Planning (SCIP) 703.0 was initiated to inspect the 21 Q Class #2 sway struts installed in Unit 3.
Four of these are Corner and Lada. All but one (SG-011-H-018) of the Grinnell sway struts were found to have inadequate clearance to allow (+ or -) 5 degree angular motion.
These are documented on NCR's PA-12132 and PX-12292.
For the 10 Unit 3 Grinnell away struts le. s than +5' angular motion, the pipe motions were checked against the available clearances.
Eight were found to have sufficient clearance to allow unrestricted pipe motion. Sway struts, SI-130-H-002 and SI-072-H-011, had insufficient clearance. The restricted angular motion of each strut was analyzed (Reference B) and in both cases the resulting loads transferred to the piping systems were found to be relatively small and, therefore, acceptable.
i
--e a
,nm,..n-.n.
,r--
-,,e.
-e.
--.,,g...ew,nw,-
emr,a 4 m
w,,,-.,-,--
,w
,.m-p s y w----,v pg.,w-ww,a,-,-x,-
, - - - - - - ~e-e y--,
Final Report - DER 86-08 Page Two In addition to the Q Class applications inspected for SCIP 703.0, all non-Q Class applications in Unit 3 were inspected under SCIP 704.0.
All 11 sway struts have inadequate clearance to allow (+ or
-) 5 degree angular motion.
These are documented on NCR PX-12293.
Nine have pipe motion perpendicular to the clamp ears.
All but one were found to have sufficient clearance to allow unrestricted pipe motion.
SI-246-H0992 is located next to an equipment nozzle, thus it was concluded to rework the strut with a minor clamp rotation rather than analyze the condition.
Units 1 and 2 have completed hot functional testing and no pipe motion restriction was identified which could be attributed to sway strut interference. To assure no potential problem exists, EER 86-XM-018 was issued to evaluate the 14 Unit 1 and 5 Unit 2 Grinnell
- 2 Q Class sway struts.
The results are included in Attachment 1 and documented in Reference B.
All have sufficient clearance to allow unrestricted pipe motion.
l The root cause of the described condition is attributed to improper consideration, by ITT Grinnell, of the clamp design / manufacturing tolerance with respect to the support assembly.
Further investigation by ITT Grinnell revealed that strut angulation
)
problems also existed in other size sway struts prior to 1983. This concern was addressed in a verification program for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units 1 and i. ITT Grinnell concluded through testing that, even with strut angulation restricted to zero degrees, the struts retain their ictended design function and load capacity and do not represent a safety concern, Reference C.
BPC concurs with the Grinnell conclusion and has evaluated it as also applicable to the conditions ar PVNGS.
II.
Analysis of Safety Implication Based on the above findings, this condition is evaluated as not reportable under 10CFR50.55(e) and Eart 21 since, if lef t uncorrected, it would not represent a significant safety condition.
III. Corrective Action NCR's PA-12132 and PX-12292 were dispositioned use-as-is.
To preclude potential future interferences, Specification 13-PM-204 is being revised to require any future installation, replacement, or rework / repair of ITT Grinnel sway struts to include an inspection of the rod end to clamp ear clearance to verify the required agulation before acceptance. ITT Grinnell has been notified (Reference A) of the deficiency of #2 sway struts including the potential reportability implications.
No additional action is required.
Final Report - DER 86-08 Page Three Reference A.
Ietter B/ITT-E-53222, dated April 18, 1986, (MIC No. 531552).
B.
Calculation 13-NC-ZZ-034.
C.
Letter 255431, ITT Grinnell to BPC, May 16, 1986, subject PVNGS Pipe Hangers and Supports Figure 211 Clamp Interference.
Attachments A..
l
ATTACHMENT 1 Q CIASS #2 SWAY STRUTS l
l INSTLD (1) 1 PIPE I PIPE CLAMP l CLEARANCE l 4
^
l l
SWAY STRUT l MOVMT l ALLOWS l
ALLOWS l
l PIPE SUPPORT l
l NORMAL l 5 DEGREES l PIPE MVMT l l
~
l UNIT ~
l TO
' l UNIT l
UNIT l
l l ~1 l 2 l~3 l'
EAR l'll2l3 l l'l 2 l 3 l
i l 13-CH-142-H-004 l Gl Gl G l
l
-l-I-l
-I-l-l l 13-NC-087-H-021 l Ll LlG l
X l
-I-lX l
-l-lX l
I 13-NC-092-H-022 I LiLIG I
X l
-I-IX l
-I-IX l
l 13-SG-008-H-018 l Gl LlG l
X l Xl-lX l Xl-IX l l 13-SG-008-H-019 l GILIG I
I
-l -I-I
-I-I-l l 13-SG-011-H-013 I Gl LlG l
l
-l-l-I
-I-I-l l 13-SG-011-H-018 l Gl Gl G I
X l
Xl X l(2)
I XiXlX l
1 13-SI-070-H-014 l Gl Ll G l
X l Xl-lX l Xl -l X
l l 13-SI-072-H-011 I GIGIC I
X l
XlXlX l
Xl X l(3) l l 13-SI-073-H-002 l Gl GIG l
X l Xl XlX l Xl Xl X l
i l 13-SI-130-H-002 l LILl G l
X l
-l -l X l
- I - l(3) l l 13-SI-178-H-009 i Ll LlL i
1
-l-I-l
-l-I-l l
l 13-SI-194-H-022 l GI LIL I
X l
Xl -I-l Xl - l 1 13-SI-202-H-015 I GILIG l
1
-I-I-I-l
-I-l l 13-SI-202-H-016 i Gl LlG l
l
-l -l
-l
-l -l-l l 13-SI-220-H-005 I LILlG I
X l lX l
-l -IX l
l 13-SI-220-H-015 i GlLIG I
X l
Xl -l X
l Xl-IX l
l 13-SI-220-H-017 l Gl LIG l
1
-l-I-l
-l-I-l l 13-SI-240-H-002 i Ll LIL l
1
-l -I-I
-l-I-l 13-SI-240-H-007 i LILIL I
l
-l -I-I
-l-I-4 l 13-SI-241-H-011 l Gl GIG l
X l
Xl XlX l
Xl Xl X l
(1) G - ITT Grinnell #2 Sway Strut L - Equivalent Corner & Lada Sway Strut l
(2) Adequate clearance for 5 degree agulation (3) Inadequate clearance to allow unrestricted pipe motion.
Installed conditions acceptable per calc. 13-MC-ZZ-034.
4 i
1, j
b l
4
___,.,_.-,______._._________,.,_____._......m_,
-.,_-_-y_,
,._.,,_m.,.,,....,,m
,p....
m_,,_
_ _,,