ML20210P260

Interim Technical Rept on Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Idvp,Small Bore Piping,Interim Technical Rept 30,Rev 0

ML20210P260
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	09/13/1982
From:	TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES
To:
Shared Package
ML20209B723	List: ML20209B717 ML20209B726 ML20210P155 ML20210P192 ML20210P260 ML20210P450 ML20210P482 ML20210P515 ML20210P536 ML20210P550 ML20210P575 ML20210P591
References
FOIA-86-151 NUDOCS 8702130346
Download: ML20210P260 (17)

Text

' : .* 3*

g ; . .t STAFF REPORT EVALUATION I

REPORT TITLE: INTERIM TECHNICAL REPORT ON DIABLO CANYON UNIT.1 INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION PROGRAM PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC SMALL BORE PIPING g / )' n /

//

ITR 30 REVISION O v f B IOVP DESIGNATION: P-105-4-839-030 ,

ORIGINATOR: Robert L. Cloud and Associates, Inc.

SUBt1ITTED BY: Teledyne Engineering Services INTRODUCTION The Interim Technical Report 30-(ITR 30) was prepared by Robert L. Cloud and Associates (RLCA) for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Independent Design Verification Program (OCNPP-IOVP). The report sumarizes the IOVP review of the methods used to qualify small bore ciping which is not computer analyzed (span rules), and the field verificatic'n of the implementation of these span rules for a sample of small bore systems. The span rules were found to generally satisfy the licensing crite'ria and to be correctly implemented.

SUMMARY

OF REPORT A large number of Design Class 1 piping systems in the OCNPP were qualified using span rules. These rules specify the maximum allowed distance between supports, the span, and provide guidelines for support

~

placement. Two groups of piping were qualified by this method. The first group consisted of field routed piping 2 inches in diameter or smaller, and the second group consisted of office designed piping with g 21 g 6 870203 HOLMESB6-151 PDR ,,

c.. .

g.

[ [, * *

- 2'-' ,

diameters between 2-1/2 and 6. inches. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)

!- -Drawing No. 04943, " Pipe Support. Spans for Non-Analyzed Class I Piping

.Diablo Canyon",1 established the span rules for the second group.

The methodglogy in both sets of span rules involves limiting the seismic' response of piping systems by controlling the length of spans' between, and the placement of, seismic supports. .The methodology is based on enveloped Hosgri floor response spectra with 2". damping and maximum-L L

floor eccentricities. Implementation requires the use of engineering judgement as the rules do not address all possible piping

- configurations. If propeily applied the method yields a fundamental natural frequency in excess of.15 Hz for the piping system under consideration. ,

The verification included a review of the span rules to establish that piping designed to comply with the rules satisfied licensing criteria, and ' field verification of compliance with the rules. In the review, the j parameters to be used for the sample selection were first established.

This included a consideration of pipe size, material properties, design temperatures, pressures and natural frequencies. Next, analyses were l

performed for four small bore piping configurations described in the _

l rules (single span, multiple spans, multiple spans with two changes in direction and an offset case) considering pressure, gravity and seismic loadings and the effects of welded attachments (i.e., lugs installed to provideaxialconstraint). Stresses were then calculated based on 9

b.

f..' . ..

. equation 12 of ANSI 831.1b'1973', and compared to the allowables of for both normal conditions and faulted conditions. Analysis for all possible configurations was not practical. Instead, a representative sample of piping configuration was analyzed. , .

The parameters used in the sample were chosen to minimize the degree of conservatism in the stress results and/or to correspond to the most .

prevalent piping in the field. The parameters chosen and the selection criteria were as follows:

Sample sizes 2" , 3" and 4" because they are widely used.

Schedule 10S and 40 as they gave the lowest natural frequencies.

Allowable stress of 12000 psi and Young's Modulus of 27.7 x 106 psi corresponding to lower strength bound for materials.

Temperatures of 50 psig and 255 psig for 2", 3" and 4" SCH10S pipe respectively and 700 psig and 1085 psig for 2", 3" and 4" SCH 40 l

, pipe respectively corresponding to span rule limitation.

Uninsulated pipe weight corresponding to span rule limitation.

In addition, for the seismic loading, horizontal and vertical envelope spectra were developed considering Hosgri spectra for elevations at or below 140 feet, in the containment and auxiliary buildings, using maximum building eccentricites.

1

p .. . . ,

t j: .

4 l

t

The report provides tabulated . listings of the results of this review.

L i

Pipe stresses for small bore piping met the licensing criteria for normal and Hosgri conditions. Some comparisons'to results presented in the PG&E Hosgri. report showed that the PG&E stress estimates were higher than those calculated in this review. Lastly, frequency estimates below 15 Hz were noted for several span rule configurations.

Field verification for a sample of three runs of small bore piping, each including more than twenty supports, was performed. The verification addressed conformance of as-built conditions to the span rules, documentation of support types, locations and dimensions, and the reasonableness of the IDVP analysis assumptions. The selected piping

was found to be installed in accordance with the span rules. Hcwever, ,

l' pice routing and support configurations were observed on other pipe runs which were not specifically addressed by the span rules and were i presumable designed by PG&E using engineering judgement. The use of engineering judgement by PG&E in applying the span rules will be subjected to further IDVP verification following the Diablo Canyon i Project corrective action program.

Nine error and ocen item reports were issued as a result of the span rule review and field inspection, EDI's 1024, 1043-1048, 1058 and 1059.

Except for E0I's 1058 and 1059 all E0I's were issued to note differences l

l l

l

: s, ,

~

between the field condition and design isometrics. All these were closed as deviations when further review indicated the correct qQantities or dimensions were used in the design analyses. E01 1058 was classed a A/B error and was issued to note the possible exceedance of allowable stresses for certain one or two lug stresses to be below allowables. E01 1059 wts classed an error A/B and was issued to note

.three discrepancies: 1) the PG&E report shows certain pipe stresses above allowables, and some frequencies below 15 Hz, 2) the preliminary Blume report does not address span conservatism as implied in the Hosgri report, and 3) the span tables do not address insulation weight or 6 inch piping. This error was ultimately combined with E0I 1098 as a class A/B error.

Although the span rules generally satisfied the licensing criteria, the following generic concerns were noted:

The span rules do not address insulated pipe.

The span rules do not limit the areas where small bore pipirg is installed and may not satisfy licensing criteria for high seismic response areas.

_ The Hosgri report allows the design of 6 inch pipe by the span rules, but these rules do not address 6 inch pipe.

The fundamental frequency for some span rule configurations are less than 15 Hz.

i I I l

i

e .-

p ,; J *

~

For 3 and 4~ inch pipe, the span rules.do'not limit the. unsupported distance.from_a change of direction containing a axially

' restrained run- of pipe.-

A demonstration of the conservatism of-the span rule approach.was not presented in the B'ume l Report, as implied in the Hosgri-Report. ,

'In addition, the use of engineering judgement,'the verification of maximum vertical and horizontal spans and the field marking of hangers were' items noted. All these items and concerns will be addressed by the DCP corrective action program and verified by- the IDVP.

EVALUATION RLCA itas made a reasonable effort to assess the adequacy of span rule criteria. Conservative assumptions, coupled with acceptable analysis techniques were used to investigate the rules and establish the level of compliance with the licensing criteria. Although every variant allowed by the span rules-was not individually evaluated the bounding' cases developed and analyzed seem appropriate. The IDVP review did reveal and note various deficiencies and omissions in the criteria and has comitted to verify their correction by the DCP corrective action program.

• I The field verification performed was limited in scope and designed to verify the implementation of the span rules for pipe runs which matched span rule configurations. However, as stated in the report, various examples of pipe routing and support configurations not specifically addressed in the span rules were noted and were presumably designed by the use of engineering judgement. The IDVP has committed to verify this use of engineering judgement by PG&E in applying the span rules following the DCP corrective action program.

An area not addressed in this verification was the qualification of the supports used for small bore piping. These supports are also required to carry generic, bounding loads, corresponding to the bounding conditions of the span criteria. The IDVP has committed to address this issue separately during the verification of DCP correcti.ve action orogram.

w e

r .:

<0 m

4m s.

}.

4 9

4 9 0

9 APPEll0!X A

==

= g e

d a

- PROGRAM RESOLUTION :.ERORT

, File No. 1022 2

File Revision No.

1. Resolution .of an: O Ooen Item: O Class Error

2. Incependent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. D Closed Item

5. C' Oeviation .

c. O Open Item with future action by PGLE: Task

3. Date Reported to PG&E 820607 4 Scheduled for TES Semimonthly Report No. 15

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

E011024 Revision 0: PGandE Design Review Isemetric 449317 Ra. vision 3 shows line 1917-4" rigidly restrained by a succort labeled 855 - 40R.

Tne cualification analysis shows this restraint to be labeled 855

- 40V. Several lines are supported by-this restraint:

5 rigidly and cne by a spring hanger. ,

'. :-:; tm :.es:luti:r ts:

Tnis item will be covered by a review cf the 79-14 .:rogrim.

7  :: ential Progran 7,es:lution .

e::rt si;nec :j Edward Denisen/R.L.C.A. on 5/20/32 Ig;e 'iame/Or;aniz1: 1:n Ca:e

i. S';rature: $d f' C% (A:ce:ved/ Program Manager)

., PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT File Revision No. 5

~ ' .'} - 1. Resolution of an: g Open. Item: O Class Error z.

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. O Closed Item

b. W Deviation

'c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task J,g.1]j ,_, -

3. Date Reported to PG&E o .>m ., o 4 Scheduled for TES Semimontnly Report No. Aueust

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

PG&E Design Review Iso' metric 446548 Revision 8 shows support - 512/7R on line 2047 and support 512/6R on line 2048. RLCA field verification showed suoport 512/8R on line 2047 and support 512/7R on line 2048.

Revisons 0-3 of E0I 1043 incorrectly noted lines 3674 and 1478 instead of 2047 and 2048.

P105-4-432-073 PG&E 512/8R Support Analysis P105-4-432-031 PG&E 512/6R Support Analysis P105 4 432-030 PG&E 512/7R Suppcrt Analysis P105 4-591.5-053 RLCA Field Notes

f. ?roges: Res: 1utien is:

The RLCA field notes agree with the PG&E support analyses.

The PG&E Design Review Isometric does not agree with the field configuration.

Deviation 7 Potential Program Resolutten .

Report signec by Ecnard Cenison on 820717 iygt i.ame!Qegantutton Gate

3. Signatsre: ^, '[ C -

r t. > a t. r (Accroved/Progra' Manager)

' 1 File No. 1044 m-File Revision no. 5 i

1. Resolution of an: [2 Open item: . O Class Error

. "'s '2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. $ll Closed Item

b. O Deviation

c. O Open Item with future action by PGLE: Task

3. Date Reported to PG&E 820811

~

4. ' Scheduled for TES Semimontnly Report no. August

.5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

Lines 56-3674-2, 56-1478-2, 56-3673-2, and S6-1477-2 are shown on PGandE 79-14 Design Review Isometric 446548 Revision 8 to have no supports.

RLCA field verification found the lines to contain marked supports with the exception of line S6-1478-2 which contained one unmarked support..

. 7105-4-591.5-053 RLCA Field Notes.

P105-4-454-225 PGandE Isometric H8-386 (Revision 2-1/22/79). This isometric shows all the supports not shown on drawing 446548-8. It also shows the unmarked support on line $6-1478-2 as support number 512/31.

P105-4-1044-005 PGandE response to E0! 1044 (Fray to Denison 4/5/82):

" Details of small bore- (58) lines including support type and location, are shown on SB hanger isos, not on design review isos." Lines 3674, 1478,1477, and 3673 are small bore lines.

9

f. Program Resolution is:

The isometric provided by PGandE shows the s'upp' orts that are indicated my RLCA field notes. PGancE I&E 79-14 effort wnich resulted in the drawing ahich nas the subject of the original E0! did not include lines below 2S* in diameter.

e

/. Ib :':St1 4 7 Prograni Resulution .

, P.c::tre siO Md by E. Denison (RLCA) on 820717 sype w etaripnsis: son

• as:e

'. 1 % ;re:

%F[m- 4/ 820811 (Ap;: roved / Program M:.ager)

_ - m_m . .m . .. m _ m . _.., .< - . . . . =

PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPCR7 fI H-Ff1e Nn. was

~j, '

File Revision No. -

') '

1. Resolution of an: g Open item: O Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. O Closed Item

b. Q Oeviation

c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task 7nt31 .

3. Date Reported to PG&E o9n79o

4. Scheduled for TES Semimentnly Report No. ...-..e.

5. Resolution based on, the following documentatrstr' PG&E Design Review Isometric 446548 Revision 8 shows support 99/9R, located on the portion of line 52 designed by spacing tables, to be a Y, I restra int. RLCA field verification and the PG&E support analysis show this support to be a X, Y, I restraint.

P105-4-620-395 RLCA Information Request r156 (3/31/82 line 52 Isometric).

P105-4-610-186 PG&E Cover Letter DCVP-RLCA-53 (line 52 Isometric).

P105-4-454-219 PG&E Isometric 446548 Sheet 3 Revision 8 p105 4 432-062 PG&E Support 99/9R Analysis Revison 1 12/5/77. ,

RLCA verified line.-

RLCA verified Line 52 is succorted by 99/9R as an X, Y, Z nestraint, witn PG&E and TES participation on 7/14/82 in response to PG&E Resolution Sheet, 820621.

i. Pr:9Pim Resolutien is:

The PG&E Isometric does not reflect the field condition.

Sucport analysis 99/9R reflects the field condition with respect to the directiens of restraint fcr line 52. ,

Ceviatien a

7. Po:ential Program Re:C lu tion .

Report signed by e .a,.3 nanie n on 920717 iype 4ame/Gegan u ttien S. Signnare: Wg _ m % g- Po m vad/P m ge n .%n g r) cat.'

.. . PROGRAM RE50t.i1 TION REPORT

.a . File No. e nu File' Revision No.

j)

1. Resolution of an: n Open Item: O Class Error

2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

. I a. O Closed Item

. b. n Deviation ~

i C. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task 70132

3. Date Reported to PG&E opn7eg 4 Scheduled for TES Semimontnly Report No. - anco e *

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

The dimension between support 99/7R location C, and the elbow at support 99/9R on line 56-52-3 is shown as 3 feet 8 on the PG&E Design Review Isometric 446548 Revison 8. RLCA field inspection showed this dimension to be 3 feet. This difference exceeds the 79-14 tolerances.

o

~. Proget:5 Resolutien is: -

The field dimension of 3 feet is acceptable according to the spacing taoles. This dimension is shown incorrectly on the PG&E drawing.

Deviation.

au. .

e

7. Po:ential Program Resolution .

Recort signed Dy e s.o ,. 4 ne aiena on 820717 s pe 44me!'arida l2ition Jate

3. IigdAIJre: MF_ -

Pa s -> t r ( Accr0vec/Progr49 Manager)

- r

~

n-

022.441E

.',

. 7:::; RE'024 s

~ \ Files 'io . 1047 f

[

~

c Fjle AsvisicnT.',;oj _ 5 , [

1. Resolutien of)an: 2 Open Item: C. Class ErrerL ' '

d i

2. Indecencent Design 'terification Program Resolution is asi J / + -

C- a. O Closed Item "

b. 0 0eviaticn -

=

../

c. Q Open ' Item with future action by PG&E: Task  !" ./

Oate Reported to PG&E 821005 #

3.

4 Scheduled fer TES Semimontnly Report No.- October '/ *:

5. Resolution based on the following documentation: -

(s O

/ L Small Bore Piptog j (- y s/ #35 E01 1047 Rev is ion3 : Lines 32,1550 and 30 are shown on PG&E desigri review isometric 447115 Revision 6 to have no supports. RLCA field' inspection showed these line segments s to have untagged suppcrts. ,

l, . .-

s .,e n .

0105 4-591.5-138 RLCA field notes. - (

P105-4-454-287, 289 and 290 small bore isometrics H8-223 (Revision 5 1/19/82), HC8-228 (Revision 5 11/14/79) and H08-230 (Revision 3 11/7/79). ,

P105-4-1047-010 PG&E ref. pense to E01 1047 (Fray to Cenison 7/20/82):

" Details of small bore lines, including sucport type and location, are shown on small bore isometrics not large bore design review isorrutrics."

Lines 32,1550 and 30 are small bore lines.

'e ke (

5. Progrsm Resolutten is: .

The small bore isometrics supplied by PG&E show the suopcrts indicate'd by RLCA field notes. This E01 is therefore closed. -

4

', l a ,

?

~

4

,. 4 tent tal Program Resoluticn Raccet signed ty Edward Denison on 820911 .

. Ty pace >

3. Signature: I'./.F # pe l dame - /ceganization82100m ,(Acproved/ Program Manag summe - _ m e* . - em> e ammume <e so me . ...o * . e .ee s ee e*e emme ene sum een en - **- e .e ab *a- -. * .

b

m -

g~

5 ;,- y, . , - - , '

n, ' ,

)

so- . PROGRAM RESOLUTION REPORT I

,, File No. 1048 F File Revision No. 2

1. - Resolution of an: 3 Open Item: C' Class Error -l

' . d it 2. Independent Design Verification Program Resolutien is as:

a. 2 Closed Item

,%. b. O Oeviation -

Task 3 Date Reported to PG&Ec. 820610 O Open Ites with future action by PG&E:

4 Scheduled for TES Semimentnly Report No. 15

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

• s ' '

Line S6-52-3 -- ?G&E Design Review Isdmetric 446548 Revision 3 shcws the

'b unrestrained EW pipe span through support 99/10lR to be 11 feet 9 anc 7/3

'" 4~ inches. RLCA field inspection showed this span to be 12 feet 2 inches.

Soth of these spans are larger than allowed by PG&E Orawing' 049239 Revision 3.

Line S6-52-3 has been rigorously analyzed not designed by spacing rules.

Oesign Analysis 9-23 covers Line 56-52-3. Therefore this item is a closed item. ;' .

y k

\

l -

. s (t

1

i.  :-:g s.rAaso Nti:. is:

• ';P 0:7mlett n Re:cet issued as ?.ev. 3. .

s -

( , 'lu

(

(

7 Potential F cgrim Resciuticn . -

Ee: Ort signed ty E. Cenison/RLCA en 320510 T 1:n Gate

,, 3. Signature:. / ,,,f M

/, .ype 44me/Geganiza:

. '/.::r:,ec/Pr::ra , Manacari

, '.h PROGRAMRkbOLul10Mker'lki

. .O -

f File No. 1058

/. >

File Revision No. 5

'1. Resolution of an: 0 Open Item: C' Class Error

2. Independent Cesign Verification Program Resolution is as:

, a. O Closed Item >

b. O Deviation '

c. O Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task '

3. Date Reported to PG&E apoopt

4. Scheduled for TES Semimentnly Report No. October

5. Resolution based on the following documentaticn:

n *

~

Small Bore Piping-Load Combin.ations at. single lug design locations were found to exceed the allowable criteria in several cases. For two lug design, all met criteria except 4 inch 105. Both cases were analyzed

. assuming, worst case seismic loads. Application of the PG&E spacing rules-for, small bore piping may lead to cases where lug, sti esses exceed the

~

.- allowable.

n, 4

N 7

Program Resolution is:

6.

Based on PG&E P-esentations . ( August 6, 19&ii and August 25.1982) of their Internal Technical Program of Piping, this File combines with Files 961,1021,1059, and 1098 into one Error Class A or 3 File.

~

FiTe 1098 includes all concerns of these Files and has been designated ss an Errors Class A or B.

,g

7. Potential Program Resolution Report signed by owq no nien me r 2 on c20913 T

1. ype Name/Crganization i

Date

, S. Signature: J e f*2 ~ nenf (Acproved/ Program Manager) i

_ - _ . . .. . s. ,

4 hh

'y$1e No. 1059

^ l,,

• 2,1 File Revision No. 5

1. Resolution of an: Q Open Item: O Class Error

2. Indelendent-Design Verification Program Resolution is as:

a. G Closed Item

c. b. 0 0eviation

c. Q Open Item with future action by PG&E: Task

3. Date Reported to PG&E 820921

4. Scheduled for TES Semimontnly Report No. n m n.

5. Resolution based on the following documentation:

Small Bore Piping - The PG&E Small Bore Report (11/17 A.G. Walther) noted overstress in the 24 inch 540 pipe. The Hosgri Report cites the 1969 .

Blume Report as showing span conservatisms. The preliminary Blume Report does not address this item. The span tables do not address insulated pipe. (The Hosgri Report cites hot piping supported by span tables.)

L, s

a

'5. Program Resolution is:

Sased on PG&E Pres'entations (August 6,1982 and August 25, 1982) of their Internal Technical Program of Piping, this File combines with Files'961, 1021,1058, and 1098 into one Error C1 ass A or S File.

File 1098 includes all concerns of these Files and has been designated as an Error Class A or 3.

.i.

1 0

7 Potential Program Resolution Report signed by Edward Denison/RLCA on 820913 _,

T Date t .a.

3. Signature: 22#g_< ype Name/Crgan1Zation rz o n , (Approved / Program Manager) l-