ML20213D401
| ML20213D401 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Sequoyah |
| Issue date: | 10/28/1986 |
| From: | TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082401853 | List: |
| References | |
| 220.11-(B), 220.11-(B)-R01, 220.11-(B)-R1, NUDOCS 8611120065 | |
| Download: ML20213D401 (9) | |
Text
.
ys.'
- a TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 220.11(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT TYPE:
SEQUOYAH ELEMENT REVISION NUMBER:
1 TITLE:
SUPPORT DESIGN GENERAL Temperature Variation Consideration PAGE 1 0F 8 REASON FOR REVISION:
1)
Additional information made available by TVA.
2)
To convert to the revised format of element report.
PREPARATION PREPARED BY:
}
Y IO/3l86 i
SIGNATURE /
/
DATE V
REVIEWS PEER:
SIGNATURE DATE W/
b) $h SIGNATURE DATE CONCURRENCES N. L
/d-9-8 C 8611120065 861105
(
DR ADOCK 0500 9
CEG-H: N N. F d
/C. lo frl.
p o
SRP:
SIGNATURE DATE SIGNATURE DATE APPROVED BY:
ECSP MANAGER DATE MANAGER OF NUCLEAR POWER DATE CONCURRENCE (FINALREPORTONLY)
o TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 220.11(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER:
1 PAGE 2 0F 8 1.
CHARACTERIZATION OF ISSUE (S):
Concern:
Issues:
IN-85-103-002 1.
The expansion of structural "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."
2.
The thermal expansion of pipe will impose loads on the pipe supports.
2.
HAVE ISSUE (S) BEEN IDENTIFIED IN ANOTHER SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS? YES X NO Identified by TVA OE Date
- a. 10/31/85 ;
- b. 8/28/85 ;
c.
12/5/85
- p.,
Documentation Identifiers:
(,
a.
Problem Identification Report No. PIRWBNCEB8536 (841 851112 026) b.
Significant Condition Report No. SCRWBNCEB8520 (B41 850905 009) c.
Significant Condition Report No. SCRSQNCEB8510 (B41 851205 013) 3.
DOCUMENT NOS., TAG NOS., LOCATIONS, OR OTHER SPECIFIC DESCRIPTIVE IDENTIFICATIONS STATED IN ELEMENT:
None 4.
INTERVIEW FILES REVIEWED:
Per TVA review of interview files, no additional information, other g
than 'K' form and generic applicability sheet, is contained in this file ( App A.7.d).
0985d (10/01/86)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 220.11(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER:
1 PAGE 3 0F 8 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 INFORMATION, MEETINGS, TELEPHONE CALLS, AND OTHER DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO ELEMENT.
See Appendix A.
8.
EVALUATION PROCESS:
([h a.
Revient design criteria and applicable codes to verify if L-temperature variations are required to be considered in the design of structural members of pipe supports.
b.
Review design criteria to verify if thermal expansion of piping is considered in the piping analysis and loads imposed by this expansion are considered in the pipe support design.
c.
Determine if SQN adequately addressed the WBNP Problem Identification Report on this subject.
d.
Discuss with SQN EN DES personnel as required.
9.
DISCUSSION, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Discussion:
The concerned individual's reference to "tnermal stress" could 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.
0985d(10/01/86)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 220.11 (B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER:
1 PAGE 4 0F 8 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 design for the following conditions:
(i) Normal plant operation and shutdown (ii) Postulated high energy pipe break accident The SQN pipe support design criteria and manual (Appendix A, 5.b & h) do not require consideration of these loads for pipe b
support design. Consequently, SQN pipe supports with structural members restrained between two rigid points (if any) have not been designed to account for temperature variations.
This was verified by discussion with SQN EN DES pipe support personnel.
g At WBNP a Problem Identification Report (Appendix A, 5.g) was 2
written on this subject. As a result of this PIR, WBNP called for a six-part corrective action plan as quoted below:
"1.
Review and identify all pipe support designs restrained betw el concrete surfaces with no allowance for thermal movement of the support structure.
2.
Determine the maximum differential 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 possible, after review of the overstressing and/or failure modes determined in step 2, develop justification for acceptability of each overstressing and/cr potential failure.
4.
Modify design criteria WBN-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."
0985d(10/01/86)
e TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 220.11 (8)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER:
1
(
PAGE 5 0F 8 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.ll 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.i, 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.
d 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 concurrs with the SQN approach to comply 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 temperature variction is significant. A review of such supports located in high-temperature zones (such as inside containment, steam tunnel, etc.) is prudent.
0985d (10/01/86)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 220.11(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER:
1 PAGE 6 0F 8 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. Therefore, from the standpoint of loads imposed upon the supports as a result of thermal expansion of the pipe, the concern is not valid.
Findings:
a.
The concern is valid for the issue of lack of consideration for temperature variation in the pipe support design.
However, the concern is not valid for the issue of not considering the pipe expansion imposed loads on pipe supports.
b.
The proposed SQN corrective action plan to WBNP PIR will A
adequately address the temperature variation issue for pipe G
support design.
(
==
Conclusion:==
The statement of concern is valid for itea (a) in the Discussion above and the evaluation team concurs with SQN proposed coriective 2Ii action plan. With regard to item (b), 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 similar WBNP piping and pipe support calculations.
i 1
i 3
4 0985d (10/01/86)
i TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 220.11(8)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER:
1 L
PAGE 7 0F 8 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,"
(09/4/86) 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 #S01860205 934) b (02/5/86) 9 Problem Identification Report No. PIR WBNCE88536, (10/31/85) h.
Pipe Support Design Manual (PSDM) i.
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) k.
Final Draft of Nuclear Performance Plant (NPP), Volume II, Revision 1, (07/14/86) 1.
Engineering Report, Rev. 4, (Doc. #S56 860813 842) (08/11/86) d 6.
WHAT REGULATIONS, LICENSING COMMITMENTS, DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OR OTHER APPLY OR CONTROL IN THIS AREA 7 a.
Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of design criteria listed above as item 5.a.
b.
Article NF-3121.ll and note 6 of Table NF-3523(b)-1 of ASME Code listed above as item 5.c.
0985d (10/01/86)
m m z:, w.r y,, 6
~ +sm.9 pa
- ma TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 220.11 (8)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER:
1 y
PAGE 8 0F 8 y
c.
Section 5.4 of design criteria listed above as item 5.1.
d.
Section 5.3 of design criteria listed 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) 9 Discussion with SQN EN DES personnel, (08/20-22/86)
- u..
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) g m
0985d (10/01/86)
ECTG C.3 Attachment A Page 1 of 1 Revision 2 - A V
ECSP CORRECTIVE Action Tracting Document (CATD)
INITIATION 1.
Imediate Correctiie Action Required: K Yes O No 3.
CAID No. 710 l%- SGN -Of
%. No
/
/
2.
Stop Wort Recomended: O Yes II b 4
INITIATION DATE
/
/
5.
RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION:
DN E
/
6.
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION:
QR O NQR LO ADIUG h u t.
To TEMPsa.NYut.E han t ne-rr e s)$
oM POPE So PP o t.T STR0cruR4L M w B E.4 %
- 5 MOT couti; Dse aO to W12:.e.L M sh A m g,/t.
- S E s s te hs u s.ts SE,W asM
- 1. E.tG eo Perufs.
AS R 9 Q0e R.%D RY ST90c40 t?.A l D6 StG-A) det TG,# e A 5 GM - D C - V-1 3.3. I REV4 -
O /.h O ATTACliMENTS.
k 7.
PREPARED BY: NAME (fddMDA A/f MM DATE: W/6/Bfs #[h 8.
CONCURRENCE: CEG-H h FC M W DATE: (o lo-tf-
~
9.
APPROVAL: ECTG PROGRAM MGR.
- DATE:
CORRECTIVE ACTION g~
10.
PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN:
O ATTACHMENTS 11.
PROPOSED BY: DIRECTOR /MGR:
DATE:
12.
CONCURRENCE: CEG-H:
DATE:
SRP:
DATE:
ECTG PROGRAM MGR:
DATE:
VERIFICATION AND CLOSEOUT 13.
Approved corrective actions have been verified as satisfactorily implemented.
SIGNATURE TITLE DATE
%