ML20207K858
| ML20207K858 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1986 |
| From: | Mcnutt G, Russell J TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207K654 | List: |
| References | |
| 218.1(B), 218.1(B)-R01, 218.1(B)-R1, NUDOCS 8701090546 | |
| Download: ML20207K858 (16) | |
Text
.
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 218,1 (B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT TYPE:
SEQUOYAH ELEMENT REVISION NUMBER:
1 TITLE:
PIPE STRESS CALCULATIONS l
Thermal Analysis of Piping Subjected to Temperature Less PAGE 1 0F 15 than 120*F REASON FOR REVISION:
To incorporate new information provided by TVA (see App. A).
PREPARATION PREPARED BY:
(S b
/N 84
/ SIGNATURE DATE REVIEWS REVIEW COMMITTE l2 ES?
w
"^
7f&1 ?"U
/2ll SIGNATURE DATE CONCURRENCES
/Z~S~$G
'7]_4:C J
Q10g$k $ho 7
CEG-H:
XPt '
/2-8-M w[bI
/2-17-3C P
SRP:
SIGNATURE DATE p
SIGNATURE
- DATE APPROVED BY-h Yb:
/$-l$-N ufA ECSP MANAGER DATE MANAGER OF NUCLEAR POWER DATE
~
CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY)
- SRP Secretary's signature denotes SRP concurrences are in files.
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 218.1 (B)
REVISION NUMBER:
1
(
l PAGE 2 0F 15 j
1.
CHARACTERIZATION OF ISSUE (S):
Concerns:
Issues:
y SQN-86-002-03 a.
Current operating mode drawings were q
"During the exit interview the not used for all subsequent analyses.
1 CI stated that Operating Mode i
Drawings have not been looked b.
Site group stress analysts were not
]
at for all subsequent analysis.
allowed to evaluate the significance i:
Site group not allowed to eval-of the current operating mode t
uate impact of the correct definitions in the analysis of record.
'Op Mode' in the record analysis.
In the annulus area, the tem-c.
The environmental temperature in the
/
perature can go to 150', however, annulus area may reach 150*F but site f
the site group was not allowed group stress analysts were not allowed j
to evaluate affects on other to evaluate the effect of the environ-p lines."
mental temperature on piping in that area.
(
SQN-86-001-03 "During the exit interview, the d.
The operational mode procedure does 4
CI stated that the procedure for not require evaluation of previously
{'{
operational mode (for piping performed thermal analyses when i
analysis) does not require an thermal conditions change.
i evaluation for thermal condition changes. These should be eval-e.
Not all stress-analyzed piping l
uated on a case-by-case basis.
included a code-required evaluation The procedure should be revised of thermal expansion.
i 1
as needed."
f.
Excessive levels of pipe support l
IN-85-038-001 loads and pipe stress due to b
"The CI stated that large bore thermal expansion have been observed k
pipe is analyzed by ' SAGS' for some piping where the system
- ~
without considering thermal operating temperatures were between effects. The 'T-PIPE' (A tee 40*F and 120*F and no thermal i
connection between small &
expansion evaluation was performed.
large bore pipe) considered thermal effects.
The CI feels the entire large bore analysis should consider the thermal effect in order to be compatible with bore [ sic] 'T-PIPE' analysis."
i e
L G p
0426D-(12/03/86)
j TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 218.1 (B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER:
1 PAGE 3 0F 15 IN-85-039-001 "In violation of ASME, thermal stress was not a consideration on all piping systems for WBNP Unit #1."
IN-85-039-002
" Watts Bar Unit 1, thermal analysis design (pipe stress) of some systems have yielded stress and support loading problems. Several packages for which thermal analysis has been written off completely for temperatures between 40 dg.
F-120 dg. F."
2.
HAVE ISSUES BEEN IDENTIFIED IN ANOTHER SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS? YES X N0 h
Identified by Black & Veatch/TVA Date 07/11/84 Documentation Identifiers:
TVA Task Force for Review of Black & Veatch Findings.
Identified by TVA Date 09/24/84 Documentation I
- ifiers
SQNCEB82 R1 3.
DOCUMENT NOS., TAG NOS., LOCATIONS OR OTHER SPECIFIC DESCRIPTIVE IDENTIFICATIONS STATED IN ELEMENT:
a.
SAGS c.
T-PIPE d.
WBNP Unit #1 04260 (12/03/86)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 218,1 (B)
[
SPECIAL PROGRAM 4
REVISION NUMBER:
1 5
j l
PAGE 4 0F 15 1i 4.
INTERVIEW FILES REVIEWED:
I
}
a.
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Employee Concerns Task Group, Review
]
of ECTG Files - Documentation, Concern IN-85-038-001, B. York
}
(10/14/86) q i
b.
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Employee Concerns Task Group, Review
[;
of ECTG Files - Documentation, Concern IN-85-039-001, B. York r,
(10/14/86) c.
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Employee Concerns Task Group, Review of ECTG Files - Documentation, Concern IN-85-039-002, B. York (10/14/86) d.
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Employee Concerns Task Group, Review r
of ECTG Files - Documentation, Concern SQN-86-001-003, H. Van f
Straalen (10/14/86) e.
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Employee Concerns Task Group, Review of ECTG Files - Documentation, Concern SQN-86-002-003, H. Van Straalen (10/14/86) i J
f.
ERT Investigation Report, Concern No. IN-85-038-001 (07/06/85)
I g.
ERT Investigation Report, Concern No. IN-85-039-001 (07/12/85) 5.
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED RELATED TO THE ELEMENT:
See Appendix A.
- 6.
WHAT REGULATIONS, LICENSING COMMITMENTS, DESIGN REQUIREMENTS, OR OTHER
["
APPLY OR CONTROL IN THIS AREA?
See Appendix A.
7.
LIST REQUESTS FOR INF0P.MATION, MEETINGS, TELEPHONE CALLS, AND OTHER f'
DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO ELEMENT.
I See Appendix A.
+
04260 (12/03/86) 4
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 218.1 (B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER:
1
(
PAGE 5 0F 15
- 8.
EVALUATION PROCESS:
a.
Documented results of interviews with TVA stress analysts on Issues "a" and "b".
b.
Determined maximum annulus temperature for comparison with the value quoted by the concerned individual.
c.
Reviewed design criteria and procedures to determine established requirements.
.d.
Reviewed commitments to perform thermal expansion analysis to determine permitted exceptions, if any, e.
Requested identification of any problems where analysis proved a design previously excluded from expansion analysis was not qualified for pipe stress er. support design, or where constructed piping suffered thermal expansion problems.
f.
Reviewed response to "e" above to address issue "f."
9.
DISCUSSION, FINDINGS, AND CONCLUSIONS:
Discussion:
Issue "a" is that current operating mode drawings were not used for all " subsequent" analyses. Operating mode drawings are a I
relatively new means of distributing and controlling operating mode data for Sequoyah.
The present system operating temperatures and
[
pressures in tabular format for each system operating mode.
The evaluation team selected five sample calculations, for review of thermal operating mode data, while at the Sequoyah site (App. A, 5.cc through 5 99). These calculations were reviewed to determine how operating mode data were controlled both before and after the use of operating mode drawings was instituted.
It was noted that the earlier calculations included the thermal operating mode i
definitions on the piping stress isometric drawings.
The later calculations included separate operating mode drawings. One of the later calculations was further reviewed to determine whether the information on the included operating mode drawing was actually j
incorporated in the analysis. This was verified to be the case.
i i
i 0426D (12/03/86)
E l
l
.TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 218.1 (B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER:
1
!I PAGE 6 0F 15 Issue "b" is that site group stress analysts were not allowed to s
evaluate the significance of the current operating mode definitions in the analysis of record. To address these concerns, the evaluation team individually interviewed four TVA pipe stress analysts assigned to the Sequoyah plant. The individuals selected j
for these interviews were chosen by the evaluation team irom a list a
of Rigorous Analysis Group personnel. The individuals were asked separately whether they knew of any instance where anyone was ever instructed not to use up-to-date thermal operating mode drawings.
All four individuals replied in the negative.
Issue "c" is that analysts were not allowed to evaluate the effect of an environmental temperature of 150'F on piping in the annulus area. The " maximum abnormal" temperature of the annulus is predicted by TVA to be 120*F; the maximum accident condition I
temperature is predicted by TVA to be 134*F (App. A, 5.v).
Thermal l
expansion stress analysis of piping is not performed for accident (faulted) condition -temperatures ( App. A, 5.bb). Therefore, only the 120 F abnormal environmental temperature should be considered for thermal expansion analysis of annulus area piping containing stagnant fluids.
. h J
Issue "d" is that an unspecified " procedure for operational mode (for piping analysis)" is inadequate because it does not require F.
evaluation of previously performed analyses when thermal conditions
[
' change.
The procedure that appears to be questioned is Section No.
SQN-RAH-207 of the Sequoyah Rigorous Analysis Handbook (App. A, i
5.q).
Section 1.6 of that document states, in part: "SQEP e
Mechanical will obtain, document, and issue design and operating V
modes in accordance with Mechanical Design Guide DG-M5.1.1.
Issued j
design and operating modes are required for all new analyses and g
reanalyses."
b L
y br iI f
ie 0426D (12/03/86) c
\\
l
i TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 218.1 (B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER:
1 PAGE 7 0F 15 A nonconformance report related to this issue, NCR SQNCEB8205, Ril (App. A, 5.u),.was prepared on 12/21/84 and identified the following nonconformances:
"1.
The operating conditions used in piping analysis are based upon data requested from organizations outside of CEB. The thermal design basis ' source' data is not in all cases identifiable as being current, valid data and in some cases is not available.
"2.
No engineering procedure exists to control revisions to this data, i.e., assurance that the analysis is still valid for current operating conditions.
"3.
Also, piping analysis has been done by CEB personal services contractors who have assumed that the data previously shown on the piping isometrics is still valid. They have signed off on the analysis checklist, item III, Checklist 1 - Geometry Check, 3.
Isometrics, i (check that design and operating Q
mode table is shown and correct) without verification that indeed it is still current and valid data."
Under " Action Required to Prevent Recurrence," TVA has made the following commitment: "SQEP/ Mechanical will document the detailed op modes for all new analysis or reanalysis using an auditable procedure." The evaluation team has observed that operating mode drawings are now used to define new or revised operating condition data at Sequoyah. These drawings are design documents (see App. A, 5.aa) which require control as per NEP 6.1 (App. A, 5.t).
Therefore, the control of operating mode data at Sequoyah is now adequate.
For an indeterminate time (see App. A, 7.g, item 2) before operating mode data were issued on operating mode drawings, the Rigorous Analysis Group included a tabulation of operating mode data used in analysis on the analysis isometric drawings.
These drawings were signed by, among others, a member of the Mechanical Engineering Branch which is the branch responsible for defining operating modes. Where it was implemented, this procedure would have provided reasonable assurance that correct operating mode data were used for analysis.
O I
Prematurely closed but later reopened as NCR SQNCEB8501 (App. A, 5.r) 04260 (12/03/86)
O TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER:
218.1(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER:
1 t
PAGE 8 0F 15 Concerning the validity of calculations incorporating operating mode data before the implementation of thermal operating mode drawings, TVA has said "... the judgment was made within 30 days of the nonconformance report date that no significant changes were overloo':ed" ( App. A, 5.u). The judgment was based upon the following rationale (see App. A, 7.j, item 1);
a.
Availability of operating modes and design transients for
[ Watts Bar] has resulted in a better understanding and better analysis of [Sequoyah] systems than would normally be expected for that vintage plant" (quoted from App. A, 5.u, Att. 8, para. 3),
b.
... the controlling equipment for these [i.e., operating mode] data was firmed up very early, and significant changes have been evaluated" (quoted from App. A, 5.u, Att. 8, para. 4),
c.
"In an effort to further ensure operating mode adequacy for
[Sequoyah], a commitment was made to review any discrepancies a
determined by the [ Watts Bar] sampling program for their effect on [Sequoyah] operm 'ng modes,... Only one problem was. located for [ Watts Bar]... The problem was determined i
to be qualified for [Sequoyah].... Therefore, the adequacy of the consideration of [Sequoyah] operating modes has been assured" (quoted from App. A, 5.u, Att. 8, para. 5, 6).
The evaluation team considers (a) and (b) above to be valid points. However, these arguments are not, in themselves, sufficient to assure that operating mode data used for analysis were current.
The evaluation team has reviewed the Watts Bar sampling program cited in (c) above. This program was found to be applicable to Sequoyah because both Sequoyah and Watts Bar piping were designed i
by the joint Sequoyah/ Watts Bar project (SWP, see App. A, 7.1 and App. A, 5.mm). This project was in existence from about September of 1973 to about April of 1983 ( App. A, 7.o) so the Watts Bar operating modes would have been controlled similarly to Sequoyah through the time the above NCR was prepared (R0 prepared in 1982) and nearly to the time when the sample was selected (prior to February 17, 1984, see App. A, 5.nn). The evaluation team has noted that the sampling program included acceptance criteria which could have permitted exceeding code stress limits. The sampling program results are considered valid by the evaluation team because 0426D(12/03/86)
j TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER:
218.1 (B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM l
REVISION NUMBER:
1 b'
PAGE 9 0F 15 j
code stress limits were never actually exceeded for any of the sample problems (see App. A, 5.mm). The sampling methodology used was reviewed by the NRC and the results accepted "... [o]n the basis of the licensee's affirmation of acceptable piping stresses...." The evaluation team believes thermal operating modes were adequately defined for piping analyses performed at Sequoyah before the use of operating mode drawings was instituted.
Issue "e" is that not all stress-analyzed piping included evaluation of thermal expansion. This issue is addressed for Alternate Analysis by Sequoyah Elc7ent Report 218.4(B). Further discussion here pertains only to Rigorous Analysis. TVA has stated that all Rigorous Analysis piping is analyzed for thermal expansion regardless of operating temperatures (see App. A, 7.c; App. A, 7.f). TVA procedures are consistent with such statements (see App. A, 5.b).
Issue "f" is that excessive levels of pipe support loads and pipe stress due to thermal expansion have been observed for some Watts Bar piping where the system operating temperatures were between
@4 40*F and 120 F and no thermal expansion evaluation was performed.
On the basis of the evaluation of issue "e" above, this concern relates only to Alternate Analysis piping. The adequacy of Alternate Analysis piping, including consideration of pipe stress and support loads, is addressed by the TVA Alternate Analysis Review Program ( App. A, 5.11). That program is reviewed in Sequoyah Element Report 218.4(B) so evaluation of.this issue for l
Alternate Analysis piping is deferred to that report.
l Findings:
a.
Five calculations were reviewed for incorporation of thermal operating mode data. Of these, one revised calculation was i
reviewed to verify that the information on the current i
operating mode drawing was actually incorporated into the calculation. The verification was successful.
b.
Four site group stress analysts were confidentially interviewed. All four indicated that they were not aware of any instance where anyone may have been instructed not to use up-to-date thermal operating mode drawings.
0426D(12/03/86)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 218.1(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER:
1
(.
i PAGE 10 0F 15 c.
The highest environmental temperature in the annulus applicable to analysis of piping and pipe supports is 120*F, not 150*F as claimed by the concerned individual.
d.
The current means of distributing and controlling operating l
mode data is through the use of-operating mode drawings, i.
These drawings are official design documents which are required to be kept current. This means of distributing and controlling operating' mode data is adequate. While_there was no formal means of distributing and controlling operating mode data prior.to the institution of operating mode drawings, the operating modes considered in analyses.were frequently written on the piping isometric drawings which were signed by, among others, a member of the Mechanical Engineering Branch (MEB) which is the branch responsible for defining operating modes. Where.it was implemented, this -
,'~
procedure would have provided reasonable assurance that-correct operating mode data were used for analysis.
i A sampling program was conducted at the Watts Bar plant to
.a verify the adequacy of thermal operating modes used in W
analysis. The results of that program are applicable to the Sequoyah plant and indicate that thermal operating modes used for analysis are adequate.
e.
It is known that TVA excludes piping with. operating temperatures below 120*F from analysis for Alternate Analysis piping. However, any concern related to Alternate Analysis piping is addressed in Sequoyah Element Report 218.4(B).. It is believed that this exclusion was the basis of the employee concern. TVA has stated that Rigorous Analysis piping does not exclude consideration of piping operating below 120*F, and TVA procedures are consistent with that statement.
f.
Issue "f" relates only to Alternate Analysis piping. The adequacy of Alternate Analysis piping, including 1-consideration of pipe stress and support loads, is addressed l
by the TVA Alternate Analysis Review Program.
==
Conclusions:==
a.
The concern that current operating mode drawings were not used, for subsequent analysis, in all instances where they were available is not valid.
O 0426D(12/03/86)
t TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 218.1 (B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 1
('
PAGE 11 0F 15 b.
The concern that stress analysts were not allowed to evaluate the significance of the current operating mode definitions in the analysis of record is not valid.
c.
The concern that annulus area piping has not been evaluated for an environmental temperature of 150 F is not valid.
d.
The concern that an operating mode procedure does not require an evaluation of thermal condition changes is not valid as it pertains to the present since the control of operating mode data is now governed by the engineering-change-notice process.
It is valid as it pertains to the time before operating mode data were issued on design documents such as operating mode drawings. However, the operating modes used for analysis are adequate.
e.
The concern that not all stress analyzed piping included a code-required evaluation of thermal expansion, as the concern relates to Rigorous Analysis, is not valid. Consideration of this concern, as it pertains to Alternate Analysis, is deferred to Sequoyah Element Report 218.4(8).
g f.
The concern that excessive levels of pipe support loads and pipe stress due to thermal expansion have been observed for some piping where the system operating temperatures were between 40'F and 120 F and no thermal expansion evaluation was performed, as it pertains to Rigorous Analysis piping, is not valid. Consideration of this' concern, as it' pertains to Alternate Analysis piping is deferred to Sequoyah Element Report 218.4(B).
- 10. CORRECTIVE ACTION:
No corrective action required.
i 0
0426D (12/03/86)
^
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER:
218.1(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER:
1 PAGE 12 0F 15 APPENDIX A 5.
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED RELATED TO THE ELEMENT:
a.
TVA written reply to RFI 512(08/25/86) b.
TVA, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Detailed Design Criteria for Detailed Analysis of Category I Piping Systems, No.
SQN-DC-V-13.3 (03/10/75) R3 (08/13/84) c.
TVA, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Detailed Design Criteria for Analyzing Pipes with Rigid Attachments to the Containment Vessel, No. SQN-DC-V-13.3.1 (07/26/79), R2 (12/27/83) d.
TVA, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Detailed Design Criteria for Alternate Piping Analyses and Support Criteria for Category I Piping Systems, No. SQN-DC-V-13.7 (04/01/73), R2 (10/04/84) e.
EDS Nuclear, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Alternate Criteria for Piping Analysis and Support, R1 (06/75) f.
TVA, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Earthquake and Dead Load Design Data for Small Diameter Carbon Steel and Aluminum Piping (05/18/74) 9 TVA, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Final Safety Analysis Report (excerpts provided in reply to RFI 512) h.
TVA, examples of Alternate Analysis typical support drawings provided in reply to RFI #SQN-512 i.
TVA, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Alternate Analysis Manual, Documentation of Alternate Analysis Packages, SQN-AA-002, R0 (06/28/86) j.
Evaluation Sheet, TVA Task Force for Review of Black and Veatch Findings, R3, pages 1-4, 7 (07/11/84) k.
Engineering Change Notice Cover Sheet, ECN No. L6251 (12/20/84) 1.
Engineering Change Notice L6570 (06/26/86) m.
Problem No. N2-62-3A, 4A, & SA, R1 excerpts (01/26/86)
O 04260 (12/03/86)
)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 218.1 (B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER:
1 PAGE 13 0F 15 1
APPENDIX A (Cont'd) n.
Mechanical Design Guide DG-MS.I.1, pages 1-8 (08/11/76) o.
Engineering Procedure EN DES-EP 4.02: Engineering Change Notices - Handling, R13 (06/07/83) p.
Nuclear Engineering Procedure, NEP-5.1, R0: Design Output (07/01/86) q.
Sequoyah Rigorous Analysis Handbook, SQN-RAH-207, Rl:
Operating and Design Modes (09/18/86) r.
TVA memo from R. O. Barnett to C. A. Chandley: Seq uoyah Nuclear Plant - Operating Modes - Mechanical Design Guide MS.l.1 and NCR SQN CEB 8501 (06/05/86, NCR attached) s.
Office of Engineering, OEP-ll, Change Control, (04/20/85) t.
Nuclear Engineering Procedure NEP-6.1, R0: Change Control g}
(07/01/86) u.
TVA memo from R. O. Barnett to J. P. Vineyard: Seq uoyah Nuclear Plant - NCR SQN CEB 8205, R1 - Operational Modes Data is Questionable (12/26/84, NCR attached) v.
Environmental Data, Environment-Harsh, Annulus Area, Drawing No. 45 47E235-47, R3 (04/15/86) w.
Sequoyah Rigorous Analysis Handbook, SQN-RAH-401, Rl:
Analysis Checklist (11/15/85) x.
"Our First Response," Report No. IN-85-039-001 (no date) y.
Corrective Action Response Evaluation ("NSRS Reply"), Report No. IN-85-038-001, IN-85-039-001 (08/05/85) z.
Response to Corrective Action Response Evaluation for Employee Concern No. IN-85-038-001 and IN-85-039-001 ("Our Revised Response," no date) aa.
TVA memo from J.P. Vineyard to E. Gray Beasley: Assessment of Adequacy of Corrective Action for Black and Veatch Task Force Category II - Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Unit 1 and Unit 2 (03/20/85) 0 04260 (12/03/86)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 218.1(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER:
1 PAGE 14 0F 15 APPENDIX A (Cont'd) bb.
TVA reply to RFI SQN-704 (11/13/86) cc.
TVA Calculation N2-62-3A through SA, R3 (11/12/82) dd.
TVA Calculation N2-70-R2, R3 (05/05/86) ee.
TVA Calculation N2-78-5A, R1 (10/30/85) ff.
TVA Calculation N2-70-20A, R0 (02/17/81) gg.
TVA Calculation N2-67-4R, R2 (10/17/84) hh.
TVA Calculation N2-26-A-301A, R0 (09/14/86) 11.
Alternate Analysts Review Program, Program Description, SON-AA-001, Rev. 0 (07/07/86) jf.
USA Standard Code for Pressure Piping, USAS B31.1.0-1967, ASME kk.
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Sampling Program for Review of Operational Modes Data Used in Rigorously Analyzed Piping, EN DES-SEP 82-15, R2 (05/31/84)
Analysis, CEB-84-02, R1 (08/08/84) [ Watts Bar] Piping Review of Operational Data Used in 11.
mm.
Review of Operational Modes Data Used in [ Watts Bar] Piping) nn.
Analysis, TVA Report No. CEB-84-02 (02/17/84), R1 (03/08/84 oo.
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Sampling Program for Review of Operational Modes Data Used in Rigorously Analyzed Piping, R2 (05/31/84) 6.
WHAT REGULATIONS, LICENSING C0Pf1ITMENTS, DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OR OTHER APPLY OR CONTROL IN THIS AREA?
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Chapter 50, Appendix B O
0426D(12/03/86)
e s.-
l
~.
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 218.1 (B) it SPECIAL PP.0 GRAM i
REVISION NUMBER:
1 b
PAGE 15 0F 15 1
[
f 7.
LIST REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION, MEETINGS, TELEPHONE CALLS. AND OTHER DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO ELEMENT.
fi a.
Meeting, C. Constantine, TVA, S. Chitnis, D. Mohanty, J.
j Blanco, R. Wilkinson, Bechtel (06/24/86)
I b.
Meeting, W. Kagey, TVA, and J. Blanco, R. Wilkinson, Bechtel (08/12/86) g f
I
[
d.
e.
}
f.
I i
h.
[]
i.
Telecon, R. Wilkinson, Bechtel, to W. Kagey, TVA (11/05/86)
~
i:
i
' k.
Telecon, K. Seidle et al, TVA, to S. Chitnis and
[
R. Wilkinson, Bechtel (11/25/86) 9 m.
Telecon, J. Whittemore, TVA to R. Wilkinson, Bechtel (12/02/86) y p.
Telecon, S. Chitnis, Bechtel,to K. Mogg et al., TVA, (12/04/86) t i
0426D-(12/03/86) h I
()
REFERENCE
- ECPS120J-ECPS121C TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY PAGE 87 FREQUENCY
- REQUEST OFFICE OF NUCLEAR PDHER RUN TIME - 12:57:19
-()
ONP - ISSS - RHM EMPLOYEE CONCERN PRDGRAM SYSTEM (ECPS)
RU!: DATE - 12/02/86 LIST OF EMPLOYEE CONCERN INFORMATION I
CATEGORYs EN DES PROCESS & OUTPUT SUBCATEGORY: 21801 THERMAL ANALYSIS OF PIPE SUBJ TO TEMP < 120F
()
S GENERIC KEYHORD A H
APPL QTC/NSRS P
KEYHORD B CONCERN SUB R PLT B B SF H INVESTIGATION S
CONCERE KEYHORD C NUMBER CAT CAT D LOC FLQB REPORT.
R DESCRIPTION KEYHORD D
)
IN 038-001 EN 21801 N HBN NNYY IN-85-038-001 SR THE CI STATED THAT LARGE BORE PIPE I DESIGN PROCESS 1
T50020 REPORT S ANALYZED BY " SAGS" HITHOUT CONSIEE DESIGN CHANGES I
RING THERMAL EFFECTS. THE "T-PIPE" ENGINEERING l
()
(A TEE CONNECTION BETHEEN SMALL & LA TERMINATIONS I
RGE BORE PIPE) CONSIDERED THERMAL EF l
FECTS. THE CI FEELS THE ENTIRE LARG i
E BORE. ANALYSIS SHOULD CONSIDER THE
()
THERMAL EFFECT IN ORDER TO SE COMPAT IBLE HITH BORE "T-PIPE" ANALYSIS IN 039-001 EN 21801 N HBN NNYY IN-85-039-001 SR IN VIOLATION OF ASME, THERMAL STRESS DESIGN REVIEW
()
750014 REPORT HAS NOT A CONSIDERATION ON ALL PIPI STANDARDS NG SYSTEMS FOR H5NP UNIT 01 SYSTEMS PIPE
() - IN 039-002 EN 21801 N WBN NNYY LR HATTS BAR UNIT 1, THERMAL ANALYSIS D DESIGN REVIEN T50030 REPORT ESIGN (PIPE STRESS) 0F SOME SYSTEMS STANDARDS HAVE YIELDED STRESS AND SUPPORT LOAD SYSTEMS ING PROBLEMS. SEVERAL PACKAGES FOR PIPE
()
HHICH THERMAL ANALYSIS HAS BEEN HRIT TEN OFF COMPLETELY FOR TEMPERATURES BETHEEN 40 DG. F-120 DG. F. __,
()
SQN-86-001-003 EN 21801 N SQN NNYY SS DURING THE EXIT INTERVIEW, THE CI ST REPORT ATED THAT THE PROCEDURE FOR OPERATIO NAL MODE (FOR PIPING ANALYSIS) DOES HDT REQUIRE AN EVALUATION FOR THERMA
()
L CONDITION CHANGES. THESE SHOULD 5 E EVALUATED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.
THE PROCEDURE SHOULD BE REVISED AS NEEDED.
)
SQN-86-002-0C3 EN 21801 N SQN NNNY SS DURING THE EXIT INTERVIEH THE CI STA K-FORM TED THAT OPERATING MODE DRAHINGS HAV E NOT BEEN LOOKED AT FOR ALL SUBSEQU
()
ENT ANALYSIS. SITE GROUP HOT ALLOWE D TO EVALUATE IMPACT or THE CORRECT "0P MODE" IN THE RECORD ANALYSIS. I N THE ANNULUS AREA, THE TEMPERATURE
()
CAN GO TO 150 DEGREES H0HEVER, THE S ITE GROUP HAS NOT ALLOWED TO EVALUAT E EFFECTS ON OTHER LINES.
O 5 CONCERNS FOR CATEGORY EN SUBCATEGORY 21801 O
()
Nl L
A