ML20207L204

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Rev 2 to Sequoyah Element Rept, Support Design General,Temp Variation Consideration
ML20207L204
Person / Time
Site: Sequoyah  Tennessee Valley Authority icon.png
Issue date: 12/30/1986
From: Russell Gibbs
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:
Shared Package
ML20207K584 List:
References
220.11-(B), 220.11-(B)-R02, 220.11-(B)-R2, NUDOCS 8701120005
Download: ML20207L204 (10)
v • d • e


Text

TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 220.11 (B)

SPECIAL PROGRAM g REPORT. TYPE: SEQUOYAH ELEMENT REVISION NUMBER: 2 TITLE: SUPPORT DESIGN GENERAL Temperature Variation Consideration PAGE 1 0F 9 REASON FOR REVISION:

1. To address additional information made available by TVA, and to convert to the revised format of element report.
2. To incorporate comments by SRP and TAS, to include TVA's

. corrective action plan information (see Section 10), and to comply with current format.

PREPARATION PREPAR&lf2 V

SIGNATURE

\1- u- sc.

DATE REVIEWS l R W COMMITTE N 13 %_, 1% b

/ ' ~ 'S I G 'DpTE

'^' % d M 9A d ,

SIGNATURE abh

/DA7t CONCURRENCES CEG-H: /2 -//-M l SRP: b Y k h N /2-50 86 l SIGNATURE DATE

/ SIGNAT/Eg DATE

  • SRP Secretary's signature denotes SRP concurrences are in files.

APPROVED BY:

MN A Mtteb - \?/ 3 /S L c,. N/A MANAGER OF NUCLEAR POWER DATE DATE

\MCSPMANAGER CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY)

I h

8701120005 870102 -

PDR ADCCK 05000327 P PDR

TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 220.11 (B)

SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 2 PAGE 2 0F 9

1. CHARACTERIZATION OF ISSUE (S):

Concern: Issues:

IN-85-103-002 a. The expansion of structural l "In several cases, temperature members restrained between variations were not considered two rigid points (such as in pipe / hanger calculations for concrete surfaces) will cause thermal stress. No further additional loading on members.

information available in file.

Construction department concern." b. The thermal expansion of pipe will l impose loads on the pipe supports.

2. HAVE ISSUE (S) BEEN IDENTIFIED IN ANOTHER SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS? YES X NO Identified by Tennessee Valley Authority. Office of Engineerina l (TVA OE)

Date a.10/31/85 : b. 8/28/85  ; c. 12/5/85 h Documentation Identifiers:

a. Problem Identification Report (PIR) No. PIRWBNCEB8536 l (B41 851112 026)
b. Significant Condition Report (SCR) No. SCRWBNCEB8520 l (841 850905 009)
c. Significant Condition Report No. SCRSONCE88510 (841 851205 013)
3. DOCUMENT NOS. TAG NOS.. LOCATIONS. OR OTHER SPECIFIC DESCRIPTIVE IDENTIFICATIONS STATED IN ELEMENT:

None

4. INTERVIEW FILES REVIEWED:

Review of interview files for Concern No. IN-85-103-002 shows the following information:

o Employee Concern Assignment Request (K-form) addressed to NSRS Director f rom ERT Manager, (02/05/86) 0985d (12/08/86)

I L

TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 220.11 (B)

SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 2 PAGE 3 0F 9 o Generic Applicability Determination Change stating that this concern is generically applicable to Watts Bar (WBNP),

Sequoyah (SQN), Bellefonte (BLN), and Browns Ferry (BFN) plants.

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 RE0 VESTS FOR INFORMATION. MEETINGS. TELEPHONE CALLS. AND OTHER DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO ELEMENT.

See Appendix A.

8. EVALUATION PROCESS:

Reviewed design criteria and applicable codes to verify if I a.

consideration of temperature variations is required in the design of structural members of pipe supports.

b. Reviewed design criteria to verify if thermal expansion of l piping is considered in the piping analysis and loads imposed by this expansion are considered in the pipe support design.
c. Determined if SQN adequately addressed the WBNP Problem l Identification Report on this subject.
d. Held discussions with SQN Engineering Design (EN DES) l personnel as required.

k 0985d (12/08/86)

TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 220.11 (B)

SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 2 b -

PAGE 4 0F 9

9. DISCUSSION. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Chronoloav:

05/15/85: TVA receives Employee Concern IN-85-103-002 08/28/85: Significant Condition Report No. SCRWBNCEB 8520 issued by Watts Bar 10/31/85: Problem Identification Report No. PIRWBNCEB 8536 issued by Watts Bar 12/05/85: Significant Condition Report No. SCRSQNCEB 8510 issued by Sequoyah.

Discussion:

The concerned individual's reference to " thermal stress" could ij relate to: a) The load in the pipe support structural members due to restrained thermal expansion,

/. and/or b) The load imposed upon the pipe support by thermal expansion of the pipe.

b a. Restrained Thermal Expansion of Structural Members:

The design criteria for reinforced concrete, structural steel

) and miscellaneous steel, (Appendix A, 5.a) requires

. consideration of thermal loads for Category I structure 1 design for the following conditions:

(i) Normal plant operation and shutdown

(ii) Postulated high energy pipe break accident u, The SQN pipe support design criteria and manual (Appendix A,

~l 5.b & h) do not require consideration of these loads for pipe i support design. Consequently, SQN pipe supports with 3 structural members restrained between two rigid points (if any) have not been designed to account for temperature

.3 variations. This was verified by discussion with SQN EN DES pipe support personnel.

, At WBNP a Problem Identification Report (Appendix A, 5.g) was written on this subject. As a result of this PIR, WBNP called for a six-part corrective action plan as quoted below:

l "1. Review and identify all pipe support designs restrained 4 between concrete surfaces with no allowance for thermal movement of the support structure.

0985d (12/08/86)

)

k.

~ '

TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 220.11 (B)

SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 2 PAGE 5 0F 9

2. Determine the maximum dif ferential temperature that can be experienced without exceeding the current criteria requirements for the support configuration. Compare the temperature with the maximum environmental temperature conditions to determine supports that will not meet criteria requirements.
3. If possibic, after review of the overstressing and/or failure modes determined in step 2, develop justification for acceptability of each overstressing and/or potential failure.
4. Modify design criteria W8N-DC-40-31.9 and other criteria, as required to reflect any general acceptance developed above.
5. Revise the designs of all identified supports that can not be justified in step 3.
6. All design work to be completed per ECN 6056."

5 ( The SQN initial response (Appendix A, 5.d) to the generic condition evaluation (Appendix A, 5.e) was to address this issue for a typical (standard) conduit support.

Subsection NF of the 1983 edition of the ASME Boiler and

$ Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 1, Article NF-3121.11 states that evaluation of thermal stresses in the support is not required. However, SQN has initiated a review of pipe supports (Appendix A, 5.1, 7.h, 7.1, and 7.j) in their proposed corrective action plan as summarized below:

?

  • o The temperature variation consideration will be

, addressed for " Typical" and " Engineered" pipe supports where applicable, o SCR SQNCEB 8510 will be revised to indicate this review.

o The subject SCR will be closed prior to restart of SQN.

The evaluation team concurs with the SQN approach to comply l with the temperature variation consideration of the Structural Design Criteria ( Appendix A, 5.a) for those pipe support design features where a structural member is restrained between two rigid points. Such a design feature will experience considerable thermal loading if the j (\- temperature variation is significant. A review of such l supports located in high-temperature zones (such as inside containment, steam tunnel, etc.) is pruder.t.

l l-L 0985d (12/08/86) a

~

TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 220.11~(B)

SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 2

(~ PAGE 6 0F 9

b. Thermal Pipe Loads Imposed on Support:

The SQN procedures and criteria for piping stress analysis and pipe support design require the inclusion of thermal loads for systems requiring thermal analysis. The implementation of this requirement was observed by the evaluation team during the evaluation of element nos. 220.3, 221.2, 221.10, and 222.2.

Findings:

a. The lack of consideration for temperature variation in the SQN pipe support design would cause additional loading on members restrained between two rigid points.

The proposed SQN corrective action plan to WBNP PIR will adequately address the temperature variation issue for pipe support design.

b. The pipe expansion imposed loads on pipe supports are g considered in the SQN pipe support design.

E ..

Conclusion:

f The statement of concern is valid for item (a) in the Discussion above and the evaluation team concurs with SQN proposed corrective action plan. With regard to item (b), the statement of concern is l not valid as there is evidence to indicate that thermal piping loads were considered. This conclusion is based on statements in the design criteria that thermal loading must be considered and by examination of SQN piping and pipe support calculations. l

[ 10. CORRECTIVE ACTION

! In its corrective action plan (CAP) (App. A, 5.m), TVA will identify steel structures with design features that restrain thermal growth. These structures will be evaluated for the maximum differential temperature experienced by them. The structural t

! design will be modified if:

a. The ultimate design capacity of the concrete structure (the fixed points) is exceeded, or
b. The steel structure is overstressed and this overstressing cannot be justified.

ba The evaluation team concurs with this CA'.

0985d (12/08/86) i

~

TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 220.11 (B)

SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 2 0-PAGE 7 0F 9 APPENDIX A

5. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED RELATED TO THE ELEMENT:
a. Design Criteria - SQN-DC-V-1.3.3.1, revision 4, " General Design Criteria for Additions after November 14, 1979 -

Reinforced Concrete, Structural, and Miscellaneous Steel,"

(09/4/84), R0, (08/11/80) l

b. Design Criteria - SQN-DC-V-24.1, Rev. O, " Location and Design of Piping Supports and Supplemental Steel in Category I
  • Structures," (06/23/86)
c. ASME B&PV Code Section III, Division 1, Subsection NF,1983 edition, " Components Supports"
d. Significant Condition Report - SCR SQN CEB 8510, (12/5/85)
e. Significant Condition Report - SCR WBN CEB 8520, (08/28/85)

.- f. Failure Evaluation / Engineers Report, (Doc #S01 860205 934)

C3 (02/5/86)

g. Problem Identification Report No. PIR W8NCE88536, (10/31/85)
h. Pipe Support Design Manual (PSDM)
1. CEB-80-5 (EDS Report #0600105-01 Rev. 1, June 1975)
j. Design Criteria CEB 76-5 Rev. 3 " Alternate Criteria for Piping Analysis and Support," (06/13/83), R0, (12/15/81) l
k. Nuclear Performance Plan (NPP), Volume II, Revision 1 (07/14/86) i
1. Engineering Report, Rev. 4, (Doc. #S56 860813 842) (08/11/86)
m. TCAB 003, Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for Element 220.11(8),

(11/07/86)

6. WHAT REGULATIONS. LICENSING COMMITMENTS. DESIGN REOUIREMENTS OR OTHER APPLY OR CONTROL IN THIS AREA?
. a. Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of design criteria listed above as item 5.a.
b. Article NF-3121.11 and note 6 of Table NF-3523(b)-1 of ASHE Code listed above as item 5.c.

0985d (12/08/86) i

TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 220.11 (B)

SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUM8ER: 2 h' PAGE 8 0F 9

c. Section 5.4 of design criteria listed above as item 5.1.
d. Section 5.3 of design criteria itsted above as item 5.j.
7. LIST REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION. MEETINGS. TELEPHONE CALLS. AND OTHER
DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO ELEMENT.
a. RFI #SQN-520, (08/28/86)
b. RFI #SQN-529, (09/04/86)
c. RFI #SQN-600. (09/29/86)
d. RFI #SQN-607, (10/02/86)
e. RFI #SQN-613, (10/03/86)
f. TVA Transmittal #102, (08/29/86) 4
g. Discussior with SQN EN DES personnel, (08/20-22/86)
h. Telecon between TVA and Bechtel, IOM #264 (09/22/86)
1. Telecon between TVA and Bechtel, IOM #268 (09/24/86)
j. Telecon between TVA and Bechtel, (10/03/86) 1 i

k E

'h i

f 1

u, i

i 0985d (12/08/86)

TVA EMPl.0YEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 220.11 (B)

SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 2

{:: PAGE 9 0F 9 CATD LIST The following CATO identifies and provides corrective action for the findings included in this report:

22011 SQN 01 (11/04/86)

.i i

l 1

0985d (12/08/86) i

- m_.. _ -w.=_ . .com m-- w-m . -

3

.. y - yQA , _
' "-h91./( .

%^;.}-g, , *..

.i..

y, 7,g.s.;

~ ' ' '

iii ;%;

til .

3

  • e REFERENCE - ECPS120J-ECPS121C TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY PAGE -

94 FREQUENCY - REQUEST OFFICE OF NUCLEAR PONER RUN TIME - 12:57:19 ONP - 1555 - RHM EMPLOYEE CONCERN PROGRAM SYSTEM (ECPS) RUN DATE - 12/02/46 LIST OF EMPLOYEE CONCERN INFORMATION .

CATEGORY: EN DES PROCESS & QUTPUT SUBCATEGORY: 22011 TEMPERATURE VARIATION CONSIDERATIONS S GENERIC KEYHORD A H APPL QTC/NSRS P KEYWORD 8 CONCERN SUB R PLT BBSH INVESTIGATION S CONCERN KEYWORD C

.g NUMBER CAT CAT D LOC FLQB REPORT R- DESCRIPTION KEYWORD D IN 103-002 EN 22011 N HBN YYYY SR IN SEVERAL CASES, TEMPERATURE VARIAT DESIGN REVIEH T50263 REPORT IONS HERE NOT CONSIDERED IN PIPE /HAN STANDARDS GER CALCULATIONS FOR THERMAL STRESS. ENGINEERING

) NO FURTHER INFORMATION AVAILABLE I HANGERS N FILE, CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT C9N CERN.

) 1 CONCERNS FOR CATEGORY EN SUBCATEGORY 22011 3

)

1

)

a 2

5

)

\

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20207L204&oldid=3047658"