ML20203P727
| ML20203P727 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1986 |
| 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-PT21-86-180-000 ANPP-36381-EEVB, DER-86-12, PT21-86-180, PT21-86-180-000, NUDOCS 8605080074 | |
| Download: ML20203P727 (6) | |
Text
.
.,, ~,.
h
,ff Arizona Nuclear Power Project P.o. Box 52034 e PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85072-2034 Q 31q,
ANPP-36381-EEVB/DRL-92.11 April 23, 1986 EE@04 M,ri U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co:mnission Region V 1450 Maria Lane - Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596-5368 Attention:
Mr. D. F. Kirsch, Acting Director Division ci Reactor Safety and Projects Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)
Units 1, 2, 3 Docket Nos. 50-528, 529, 530
Subject:
Final Report - DER 86-12 A 50.55(e) Reportable Condition Relating to Partial Penetration Welded Nozzles File: 86-006-216; 86-026-056; D.h.33.2
Reference:
(A) Telephone Conversation between R. C. Sorenson and D. R. Larkin on March 26, 1986.
(Initial Reportability - DER 86-12)
Dear Sir:
Attached is our fir,al written report of the Reportable deficiency under 10CFR50.55(e) referenced above. The 10CFR21 evaluation is also included.
Very truly yours, p
E M
R E. E. Van Brunt, Jr.
Executive Vice President Project Director EEVBJr/DRL/ldf
' Attachments cc: See Page~2
)
s
's DER 86 Final Report Mr. D. F. Kirsch Acting Director Page 2 cc: Mr. Jim 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 l
r FINAL REPORT - DER 86-12 DEFICIENCY EVALUATION 50.55(e)
ARIZONA NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT (ANPIN PVNGS UNITS 1,- 2, 3 I.
Description of Deficiency The'ASME code (Section III Subsection NB-3337.3) requires that all Class
~
1 nozzles having partial penetration welds must have "substantially no piping reaction" loads imposed on them by the attached piping. This requirement can be met by shimming the nozzles.
During post-review of DCP 1SJ, 2SJ, 3CJ-SB-021 which shimmed certain partial pen' tration welded (PPW) nozzles, it was noticed that some e
similar nozzles, not included in the DCP, wtre not shimmed. Consequently, the above ASME code requirement of having "substantially no piping reaction" on all nozzles with partial penetration velds may not have been satisfied.
l EVALUATION For each unit there are 350 instrumentation PPW nozzles provided by C-E.
for steam generators, pressurizers, safety injection tanks, reactor vessels, reactor coolant pumps, and primary piping. The code states that this type of design is acceptable only when used under load conditions that "substantially no loads" are imposed by the attached piping. The loads _ for this design are due to dead weight and thermal expansion.
Per Availability Data Program (ADP) Information Bulletin 83-03, Combus-tion Engineering (C-E) informed Bechtel that the loads. imposed on some instrumentation nozzle partial penetration velds due to dead weight and thermal expansion maf exceed the limits allowed by the ASME code. The ADP bulletin recommends one of the following means to satisfy the code requirements.
A.
Compare the instrumentation nozzle loads resulting from the as-built configuration with those-loads assumed in the C-E code stress analysis.
B.
Confirm that the calculated stresses due to normal loads at the critical section for partial penetration instrumentation nozzle velds.
comply with the following design requirements:
1.
Class 1 nozzles are acceptable if the calculated stress is less than 10% of yield, or if the calculated stress is less than 20%
of yield and a fatigue evaluation shows a cumulative usage factor less than.l.0.
2.
Class 2 nozzles are acceptable if the calculated stress is less than 20% of yield.
Since the C-E code stress analysis assumed zero load from the connected piping, Alternative B is the only available criteria.
' All of the 350 nozzles with partial: penetration welds' were. analyzed using alternate B criteria. These are identified-in Table 1.
Of the 350 nozzles (per unit), 12 nozzles which had condensate pots on the piping were shimmed previously under DCP 1SJ, 2SJ, 3CJ-SB-021 to isolate the W.-_-____--.-____-.----.-______._,_________--_-_m__.----___
-- aa.
_.--,w___,.
DER 86 Final Report Page Two loading on the partial penetration veld location to an insignificant magnitude. Thus, these required no further evaluation.
The remaining nozzles were evaluated for the loading imposed upon them from the connected piping. This evaluation is documented in Calculation No. 13-MC-ZZ-033.
After the 12 nozzles were shimmed under DCP SB-021, of the 350 nozzles in each unit, only 3 nozzles did not meet the ASME code and C-E Bulletin 83-03 requirements The following three nozzles in each unit require corrective action in the form of shimming due to high loads imposed by the piping:
A.
Sample lin? to the Hot Leg RC-032-h2" (Root Valve V-213)
B.
Pressure instrumentation line to the Hot Leg RC-032-h2" (Root Valve V277)
C.
Pressure instrumentation line to the Hot Leg RC-063-42" (Root Valve V285)
Units 1 and 2 vere shimmed per EER 86-XM-Oll to meet the ASME code and C-E bulletin 83-03 requirements.
The root cause of this deficiency was an engineering oversight of the ASME Code requirements for partial penetration velded nozzles.
If this deficiency were to remain uncorrected, the potential vould exist for a breach in the RCS pressure boundary. This breach would be detect-able prior to significant failure.
In the event of a significant fail-ure, cold shutdown could be, achieved and boundary dose limits would not be exceeded. Therefore, this condition is not considered to be a signif-icant safety hazard.
II.
Analysis of Safety Implications Based on the above, this condition is reportable under 10CFR50.55(e) because if the deficiency related to the three nozzles identified as exceeding code allovables were to remain uncorrected it could adversely affect the safe operation of the plant.
The project has evaluated this condition as not reportable under 10CFR21.
III. Corrective Action Corrective action is to shim the remaining three nozzles so as to comply with the ASME code requirement. This has been completed on Unit 3 per DCP 3CJ-SB-021 Mod IX.
Corrective action for Units 1 and 2 was completed per EER 86-XM-011.
y_
DER 86 Final Report Page Three REFERENCE 1.
letter V-CE-18051, March 10, 1983, (MIC No. 189909) 2.
Letter V-CE-33555, March 20, 1986, (MIC No. 253791) 3.
EER 86-XM-011 4.
Letter V-CE-18521, June 1, 1983, (MIC No. 209765) 5.
Letter V-CE-33592, March 27, 1986 6.
Letter V-CE-33529, March 12, 1986, (MIC No. 253788)
I
)
F
, e.
s.
TABLE 1 PARTIAL PENETRATION WELDED N0ZZLE LIST
. Component Use Location g
Pressurizer Heater Sheath (1)
Bottom Head ~
36 Heater-Sleeve (2).
Bottom Head
-36 RTD Lower Shell 1
Leval Ind.
Top Head-2' Level Ind.
-Bottom Head 2
Pressure Top Head 2
Steam Generators Inst. Tap Primary Head
.8' Level Ind.
Upper Shell 8
Level Ind.
Conical Section 8
Level Ind.
Inter Shell 8
Pressure Test (5)-
Upper Shell,
,2 Pressure
$econdary. Head 2
Sampling (Tgst 3i conical Section 12 Low Pressure Tap Steam Outlet Nozzle h
React.or Coolant RTD Hot Leg P1 + P10 18 Pipe RTD
- Cold Leg P5,P9,P1h,P18 12 j
Pressure
. Hot Leg P1 + P10 8
Sampling
. Hot Leg P1' ;
Reactor Vessel Monitor Vessel Flange 1
Head nt Top Head 1
CEDM Top Head 97 Instrument (h)
Bottom Head 61 Reactor Coolant Pressure-Suction Suction Nozzle 4
Pumps Pressure-Discharge- ' Discharge -Nozzle 4
I Safety Injection Local Sample Bottom Head h-Tanks Level Tap Shell,
16 Vent Relief Top Head h
Notes:
1.
Seal veld between heater sheath and heater sleeve.
2.
"J" groove veld attaching heater sleeve.to bottom head.
~
3.
Unit.1 sampling nozzle does not have a partial penetration veld.
Sample tube is mounted in what was originally intended as a _ surface-blevdown nozzle.
h.
Analyzed by C-E.
5 Only exists on Unit =1 and was capped off by C-ET
~^
s 2-
- -