ML20236C385
| ML20236C385 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1987 |
| From: | Terao D NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8710270130 | |
| Download: ML20236C385 (8) | |
Text
--
l ~~~'t
.j l
UNITED STATES d
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
og g-g 3
E WASHINGTON, D. C 20665
- J k **
p October'16,.1987 Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 APPLICANT:
Texas Utilities Electric Company (TU. Electric).
FACILITY:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,. Units 1 and 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF SEPTEMBER 22-24,.1987, AUDIT -.' IMPLEMENTATION
-0F PIPE DESIGN CRITERIA On September 22-24,1987, the NRC sta'ff.and its consultants conducted a followup audit at the offices of Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation-(SWEC) in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. The purpose of the audit was to continue the review of the adequacy of the implementation of design criteria developed'by SWEC for the resolution of generic technical issues associated with the design of large bore piping and pipe supports at the Comanche. Peak Steam-Electric.
Station (CPSES). The, followup audit was a continuation'of an audit previously held on September 2-4, 1987 at SWEC (Cherry Hill).
The piping generic technical issues selected for audit were obtained from a 24,1987.gdPipe'SupportGenericIssues report entitled., "Large Bore Pipe Stress
' The issues selected, the extent of Report," Revision 1 dated July their. implementation reviewed by the staff,-and the status of our review of the issues'were discussed in the exit meeting and are summarized below.
In.
addition,'the staff discussed the status of audits'related to (1) piping FSAR.
changes, (2) fluid. transients, and (3) concrete anchorages. A list of the attendees at the exit meeting are provided'in the enclosure.
A.
Implementation of Pipina Generic Technical Issue Criteria (1) Axial / Rotational Restraints - The staff selected two supports from a
'l main steam piping system which provided an axial and rotational restraint to the piping. The modelling of the two supports in the pipe stress analysis were reviewed by the staff to ensure compliance with the modelling procedures specified in CPPP-7, " Design Criteria for Pipe Stress and Pipe Supports," Revision 3 dated February 23, 1987. The staff did'not identify any open or unresolved items in the implementation of this issue.
I i
I 1/
The report - also referred to as the Piping GIR - was transmitted to the NRC in a letter from W. G. Counsil to USNRC dated August 3, 1987.
8710270130 871016 PDR ADOCK 05000445-A PDR a
)
~
,s
-.2 --
October 16, 1987
~
(2). Richmond Inserts - The -staff selected a~ feedwater." ganged" support :
located inside containment which' consists of 19 individual pipe-supports on a long tube steel frame attached to the containment wall with Richmond inserts. ;The' staff reviewed the support' calculations-to verify that-: the' maximum _. lengths. of :the tube steel frame were'in compliance with Attachment 4-5 of CPPP-7. The staff-found that: the support-. requires modifications in order to. satisfy the'CPPP-7 requirements.. The support was-transmitted =by SWEC to the.CPSES sita group'for modifications. The staff will continue to review this issue and the modifications to be made 'to the feedwater. support when -
completed.. This is considered to be an unresolved item.
1 The staff also selected three (3)l additional-s'upports which utilized Richmond inserts for compliance with other CPPP-7 design criteria.
related to Richmond inserts. The staff is continuing its-review of.
the-implementation of this. issue.
(3) Pipe Sup) ort Generic Stiffness - As 'a' continuation from the previous audit, tie staff selected three (3). additional' supports from a main steam system to verify that the appropriate support stiffnesses.were used in the piping stress analysis.
The staff did not identify any
.open or unresolved items in the implementation of this. 4 sue.
(4) U-Bolts Acting As Two-Way Restraints-- As-a: continuation from the
~
previous audit, the staff selected two (2) U-bolt supports from the component cooling water system to confirm that the modelling of'the-supports.in the piping stress analysis was proper. The staff did not'-
identify any open or unresolved-items inlthe implementation of this issue.
(5) Strut / Snubber Angularity - As a continuation.of the previous ~ audit, the staff selected two (2) additional supports.from the containment spray system to review the modelling of,the support angularity'in the piping stress analysis.
The staff is continuing its review of. this issue and will verify the as-installed support angularity. in the CPSES plant.
(6) Mass Point Spacing - The staff selected two piping stress problems to t
verify the implementation of the mass point spacing criteria specified in CPPP 7.
The staff did not' identify'any' open or-unresolved items.
(7)
Local Stress in Piping - The staff selected a support with an:
4 1
opposing double trunnion on a pipe elbow te review the adequacy of j
the local stress calculation. The staff is continuing its review of this issue, q
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L
k i
e
. October 16, 1987 (8) OBE/SSE Damping - The staff selected'a containment spray system to verify the correctness of the damping values used in the pipe stress analysis. The damping values for OBE and SSE loadings were found to be in conformance with ASME Code Case N-411.
The staff did not iden-tify any open or unresolved items.
(9) Fluid Transients - The staff selected four (4) piping stress problems which include an analysis for fluid transient loadings.
The staff reviewed the stress problems to ensure that the fluid transient forcing functions were input properly in the piping stress analyses.
The staff did not identify any open or unresolved items.
B.
FSAR Review The staff ioentified a concern regarding the stress intensification factor (SIF) used to evaluate the piping stress at locations of excessive radial weld shrinkage with weld overlay reinforcement.
The applicant referenced 1
a report by E. C. Rodabaugh and S. E. Moore entitled, " Stress Intensification for Girth Weld Joints Including Weld Shrinkage and Mismatch and Tapered Wall Transitions," NUREG/CR-0371 dated 1978 as the basis for the SIF. The staff is continuing its review of this issue and will further address the applicability of the Moore and Rodabaugh report 3
i to this issue.
C.
Fluid Transients The staff discussed the results of an audit held at SWEC (Boston) offices on September 21-22, 1987. The purposes of the audit were (1) to review the status of previous staff audits conducted in March 1986, (2) to review the types of transients applicable to CPSES piping systems, (3) to establish the method of application of transient forcing functions in the piping stress analyses, and (4) to followup on the staff review of the CPRT third-party (TENERA) engineering evaluation on fluid transients.
As a result of our review of responses to previous staff audits, the staff finds two remaining open items identified from our review of two chemical and volume control piping systems (Calc Nos. F-15 and F-16).
Both piping calculations consist of pipe runs with relief valves located within their analytical boundaries.
In Calc No. F-15, the inlet lines from the main header to the relief valves are approximately 75 feet in length.
The staff raised a concern regarding the potential water column separation and resulting waterhammer effects in the lines..i second concern raised by the staff for Calc Nos. F-15 and F-16 was related to the consequences of the pressure drop in the long inlet lines affecting the ability of the relief valves to perform their intended function. These two items are considered to be open. The staff will continue to review the resolutions to these items and our findings will be provided in a future safety l
evaluation.
w_ - -- - -
i
- 4..
October 16, 1987 In our review of the types of transients applicable.t'o CPSES, the. staff reviewed the process used by SWEC to determine whether a fluid transient-analysis is required for a piping system.. The staff also' discussed the differences in the fluid transients considered at CPSES compared to other.
similar nuclear plants. As a result of our review, the staff did not identify any open or unresolved issues.
The' staff review of the method'of application of transient forcing function was included in our review'of the implementation of.the issue resolution related to fluid transients.
This was discussed previously in Item A.9 of this audit summary.
The staff discussed the SWEC resolutions to the issues raised by the CPRT third-party (TENERA) review of. fluid transients.. The SWEC resolutions are documented in'a' Project Memorandum PM-178. The staff is continuing its review of the.TENERA issues and will further discuss the acceptability of PM-178 with TENERA. The staff will report its findings in a future safety evaluation.
D.
Concrete Anchorages The staff discussed the results of an audit held at SWEC (Boston) offices-on September 21, 1987.
The purposo cf the audit was to discuss the items l
from the Cygna Civil / Structural Review Issue List related to concrete anchorages. The staff identified three documents for further review.
The documents are:
(1) 2323-SS-30 (Revision 3) specification for structural.embedments (2)
DBD-CS-015 design basis document for qualification of embedments in concrete (3) test data used to develop the various exponents in the interaction equations for concrete anchor bolts.
The staff is continuing its review of concrete. anchorages used at CPSES and L
will report its findings in a future safety evaluation.
A total of 114 hours0.00132 days <br />0.0317 hours <br />1.884921e-4 weeks <br />4.3377e-5 months <br /> were. involved with the audits at SWEC (Boston) and SWEC (Cherry Hill) during the week of September 21,-1987.
1 A
MW David Terao, Mechanical Engineer Comanche Peak Project Division Office of-Special Projects
Enclosure:
l List of Exit Meeting Attendees cc:
See next page i
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station W. G. Counsil Texas Utilities Electric Company
' Units 1 and 2:
cc:
Asst. Director for Inspec. Programs Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.
Comanche Peak Project Division Ropes & Gray U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 225 Franklin Street '
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
.P. O. Box.1029 Granbury,' Texas 76048-Robert A.':Wooldridge, Esq.
- Regional Administrator, Region IV Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels &
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wooldridge 611 Ryan: Plaza Drive, Suite-1000 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Arlington, Texas 76011' Dallas, Texas ~ 75201
'Lanny A. Sinkin Mr. Homer C.'Schmidt Christic Institute Director of Nuclear Services 1324 North Capitol Street Texas Utilities Electric Company Washington, D.C.
20002 Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Ms. Billie-Pirner Garde,.Esq.
Dallas, Texas' 75201 Government Accountability Project-Midwest Office Mr. Robert E. Ballard, Jr.
104 East Wisconsin Avenue Director of Projects Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 Gibbs and Hill, Inc.
11 Penn Plaza New York, New York 10001 David R. Pigott, Esq.
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 600 Montgomery Street l
l Mr. R. S. Howard San Francisco, California 94111.
i Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Suite 600 1401 New York Avenue, NW 4
Renea Hicks, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20005 l
Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Robert Jablon P.'0. Box 12548, Capitol Station Bonnie S. Blair Austin, Texas 78711 Spiegel & McDiarmid 1350 New York-Avenue, NW Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President Washington, D.C. 20005-4798 l
Citizens Association for Sound Energy 1426 South Polk George-A. Parker, Chairman-Dallas, Texas 75224 Public' Utility Committee Senior Citizens Alliance Of i
Ms. Nancy H. Williams.
Tarrant County,.Inc..
CYGNA Energy Services 6048-Wonder Drive-2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 390 Fort Worth, Texas 76133 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 i
7-W. G. Counsil Comanche Peak Electric Station Texas Utilities Electric Company Units 1 and 2 l
cc:
Joseph F. Fulbright Fulbright & Jaworski 1301 McKinney Street Houston, Texas 77010 Mr. Donald R. Woodlan Texas Utilities Electric Company Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Mr. Jack Redding c/o Bethesda Licensing Texas Utilities Electric Company 3 Metro Center, Suite 610 i
Bethesda, Maryland 20814 William A. Burchette, Esq.
Counsel for Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell Suite 700 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Washington, D.C.
20007 James M. McGaugby GDS Associates, Inc.
Suite 450 2525 Cumberland Parkway Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Administrative Judge Peter Bloch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Elizabeth B. Johnson 1
Administrative Judge Oak Ridge National Laboratory P. O. Box X, Building 3500 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom 1107 West Knapp Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Administrative Judge 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 J
n --
~ - -
4 -
EXIT' MEETING SEPTEMBER'24', 1987-AUDIT
SUMMARY
- IMPLEMENTATION.0F PIPING; DESIGN; CRITERIA
~ S..-Genca
- R..Klause-T.. Leonard C.~ Morris F.-Ogden I
l TeledyneEngineeringServices(NRCconsultantsl B. Hookway G. Moy L. Semprucci NRC D. Terao l
4 l
1 1
l l
j l
..l
-,4.
1 1
i 1
n-
+
- TUEC Audit Sumary
- - L 5.
- Octob'erL16 ;1987.
0 of 9/22-24 2
c M kitfEilesl..- n,.,n m)Ed6
,- m (50s445/446 DISTRIBUTION:
.CPPD-Reading LOSP Reading'.
JKepple~r/JAxelrad
-CIGrimes PFMcKee.
-;AD for Projects JELyons :
-RFWarnick I
MMalloy s
'AVietti-Cook CPPD LA OGC-Bethesda FMiraglia-
-EJordan l
- JPartlow-NRC Participants ACRS(10) l L
4 f
A i
$h I
P lf :AD/TP: PPD --
0FC
- GPPD-
- .,L....
__.f.....
.NAME' :DTerao: sam etti-Cook ~ :MMalloy
- JEL s'
DATE i 10/(p/87
': 10F7/87 i1077 /87
- 10/9 /87-(
- j q
y
')