ML20236E350

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Rev 0 to Civil/Structural Design:Feedwater Heater Monorail Hanager Design, TVA Employee Special Program Element Rept
ML20236E350
Person / Time
Site: Sequoyah  Tennessee Valley Authority icon.png
Issue date: 12/06/1986
From: Nirodh Shah
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:
Shared Package
ML20236E191 List:
References
215.10(B), 215.10(B)-R, 215.10(B)-R00, NUDOCS 8710290183
Download: ML20236E350 (7)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:-- _ _ - . e, 2TVA'ENPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: . 215.10(8) SPECIAL PROGRAM [^ REPORTcTYPE:. SEQUOYAH ELEMENT REVISION NUM8ER: 0 a TITLE:- CIVIL / STRUCTURAL DESIGN- 

                               'Feedwater Heater Monorail Hanger Design                    PAGE 1 0F 7               ,

REASON FOR REVISION:- 

                                                                                      -.=

PREPARATION 

                ' PREPARED BY:

17 7 hhkO s t. et/ se, 

                                                                                                          ' OATE SIGNATURE (

REVIEWS _ h REVIEW COMNITT kk ) ],$ Ah06 

                             /                 flGNATURE         (f "                 )                      DATE TAS:                                                                                                      .

SIGNATURE DATE CONCURRENCES k /2 ~ M I O2$0183e71023 DOCK 0500g7 , J SP.P : DATE SIGNATURE DATE SIGNATURE l 

        ,          APPROVED BY:

ECSP MANAGER DATE MANAGER Of NUCLEAR POWER DATE l CONCt'RRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY)

t- . 

  ;                                                  TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS          REPORT NUM8ER: 215.10(B)

SPECIAL PROGRAM [! REVISION NUMBER: 0 l- , r . 

                                      ~ ~ '

PAGE 2 0F 7-p _1 . - CHARACTERIZATION OF ISSUES: Concern: s 1Ls_ue: LDA-85-001 . Tae structural integrity of hangers 

                        " Structural integrity of the                 for the feedwater heater monorails is feedwater heater. monorail-                   questionable.

hangers."

2. HAVE ISSUES BEEN IDENTIFIED IN ANOTHER SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS 7_ YES X NO Identified by TVA and Impe11 Corporation Date 08/13/85 and 08/16/85 Documentation Identifiers:

TVA memo f rom V. R. 'Defenderfer to SQN Project Files, [B25,850813 019], "SQN - Design Review of Turbine Building Feedwater Heater Replacement " Impe11 Corporation letter from S. F. Strang to R. O. Barnett (Impell/TVA-85-594), " Personal Service Contract No.*TV-65378A, SQN-Design Review of Honorail Structure "

3. DOCUMENT N05.. TAG NOS. LOCATIONS OR OTHER SPECIFIC DESCRIPTIVE

_ IDENTIFICATIONS STATED IN ELEMENT: 

                                  -The concern addressed hangers for the feedwater heater menorails which are located in the turbine building.

{

4. INTERVIEW FILES REVIEWED: f The expurgated interview file for concern LDA-85-001 was reviewed.

The file contains the K-form, SQN plant operation impact evaluation, and the generic applicability sheets. The file also has a hand written statement documenting a meeting of 08/06/85 l between the two concerned employees and the cognizant design engineer. In the meeting, the engineer explained the design approach and the details of the monorail hangers. The statement concluded that the two employees expressed their satisfaction with , the explanation and that the concern could be considered closed i (App. A, 7.c), 3 l 

                                       ~
                .04790 - 12/01/86

n 

                         .                                                                                      I 1,.

i TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUM8ER: 215.10(B) SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION IRMBER: 0 ) i FAGE 3'0F 7 s .yf/ l

5. DOCUMENTS RrVIEWED RELATED TO THE ELEMENT:

See Appendix A. l

6. WHAT REGULATI0t:S. LICENSING COMITMENTS. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OR OTHER APPLY OR CONTROL IN THIS AREA?

See' Appendix A. a

7. LIST RE00ESTS FOR INFORMATION. MEETINES. TELEPHONE CALLS. AND OTHER DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO ELEMENT.

See_ Appendix A. i

8. EVALUATION PROCESS:
a. Obtained and reviewed copies of monorail drawings and calculations.
b. Performed a plant walkdown reviewing the subject components,
c. Obtained reports of other independent structural reviews.
d. Determined that monorails weie load-tested and obtained related documentation.
9. DISCUSSION. FINDINGS. AND CONCLUSIONS:

Chronolo_gy The concern was expressed orally: On or before 08/05/85 The concerned employees met with the design engineer: 08/06/85 j TVA independent review was completed: 08/13/85 t Impe11 review was completed: 08/16/85 s Monorail load-test was performed: Od/25/85 K-form was dated: 06/17/86 i 04790 - 12/01/86 ___z___._____ j

TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 215.10(B) SPECIAL PROGRAM c REVISION NUMBER: O . - A q '. , . PAGE 4 0F 7 m j Discussion: , TVA decided to replace a total of 12 out of 42 feedwater heater's in 1 late 1984 on both of the SQN units because of mechanical problems encountered. The feedwater heater replacement involved moving large, heavy (89,000 lb) equipment over long distances through  ; confined spaces. The replacement, therefore, required additional n.onorails at various locations in the turbine building to transport the heaters. 3 l TheSQNturbinebuildingisnotaCatTgoryIstructure,and,in i accordance with TVA Design Standard C1.2 2, the subject monorail  ! girders, hangers, and braces are non-Category I nonsafety-related  ! components whose failure will not jeopardize the function of any Category I structure, system, or component ( App. A. 6.b). The governing design document for these steel components is AISC specification as stated in TVA DS-C1.6.1 ( App. A 6.c). The AISC' specification covers design, f abrication, and erection of structural steel, c The evaluation team reviewed the feedwater heater drawings i furnished by both the original supplier and the new supplier (App. A, 5.d and 5.e) and confirmed that the correct lifting weights were used in the design calculations. The design calculations and drawings were reviewed for assumptions, logic, , analysis, code interpretations, member selections, connections, and clarity of presentations (App. A, 5.a, 5.b, and 5.f). The evaluation team found the design documents well organized, 

             -               complete, and meeting the AISC requirements. The monorail beams supporting the trolleys are 24" deep beams and the hangers are l                             5" x 3" double angles. The hangers, being tensile members, are expectecly smaller in size than the beams, which are primarily bending members. Nevertheless, the evaluation team determined that the monorail hangers are designed with an adequate margin of                      -

i safety. The team also performed a field walkdown of the as-built , installation including connections (App. A, 7.b). The installation appeared satisfactory. This replacement operation was also reviewed independently and in detail by a TVA structural engineer in August 1985 because of its q critical nature ( App. A. 5 9). The report, based on the review of engineering design calculations and drawings, stated, "The hoist support system consisting of monorail beams and vertical, lateral, and longitudinal load carrying members was well conceived and designed."  ; Hereover, during the same month,.another design review was performed by Impell Corporation at the request of TVA. Impell also  ; f determined that the monorail structure is adequate and safe,  ! [  ! 0479D - 12/01/86 4 l

m, 

                                                                                                                  ]

y- , 

                                                                                                                  })

M TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT; NUMBER:i 215.10(8)L SPECIAL. PROGRAM [ , REVISION, NUMBER:1,0 . - 

' %. -.. -                                                                      PAGE.5 0F 7                       .;

y lc 

                               .provided the monorai's are operated within the limitations
                               .specified on the design drawings:( App. . A, 5.h).' ~

q Subsequently,Lthe SQN site director requested a monorail load' test prior.to lifting tAe heaters to ascertain the soundness of the. system design. The test was performed on 08/25/85 and in-accordance with ANSI B30.11-1980 procedure using a concrete beam- 

                               . weighing'125,000 lb (40 percent heavier than.the largest heater).

The. test load was transported by. trolley-for-the full length of the; , monorail system. The test was considered successful by visual l

observations (App A,- Cc).

Following -the test, the feedwater heaters were replaced successfully. The subject employee concern was reporte'd during erection 'of -the. system on or before 08/05/85-{ App. A, 7.d), and, apparently, . because of the relatively slender appearance.of the hangers a supporting the'large monorail beams. < subsequently, as stated in . Section 4,-the concerned employees: discussed this~ issue with the' i design engineer,: understood the design concepts, and expressed  ; 

                                'their satisfaction with the hanger design.

FinAjg: n , The evaluation team found the hangers for' the feedwater heater mviorails.in the turbine building structurally adequate for the , rated load.- This was confirmed by other reviews, the load' test, 

                                                ~

and, ultimately, by the successful heater replacement operation.-. .

Conclusion:

1 The evaluation team concluded that the issue of the. hangers for the feedwater heater inonorails being structurally' inadequate is not valid, and the as-built installation conforms to the AISC and TVA i design requirements.

10. CORRECTIVE ACTION:
                                -No Corrective action is required.
                                                                                                                  -i l

i" . 04790 - 12/01/86

n. -

TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT WUMBER: 215.10(B) SPECIAL PROGRAM i , REVISION kWM8ER: 0-

ci.
        .J [                                                                             PAGE 7 0F 7 APPENDIX A (Cont'd)                                    "
6. WHAT REGULATIONS. LICENSING COMMITMENTS. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS O'd OTHER APPLY OR CONTROL IN THIS AREA?
a. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), j
                                               " Specification for the Design,. Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings," effective 11/01/78
b. TVA Civil Design Standard 05-C1.2.2, " Classification of Structures, Quality Levels of Structural Materials, and Related Quality Assurance Responsibilities of the Design Engineer," (12/12/83) '
c. TVA Civil Design Standard DS-C1.6.1, R1, " Structural Steel Design Scope," (06/05/81)
d. TVA Civil Design Guide DG-C1.6.4, " Design of Structural Connections," (05/09/84)
e. TVA Civil Design Guide DG-C1.6.7, " Design of Structural Steel
             .                                 Members (Building, Miscellaneous, and Supplemental Steel),"

(05/09/84) 8

f. American National Standard ANSI 830.11-1980, " Monorails and.  !

Underhung Cranes" i 

                     /.           LIST REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION._ MEETINGS.-TELEPHONE CALLS. AND OTHER, DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO ELEMENT.
a. RFI SQN #539, (08/25/86)
b. Walkdown in the Sequoyah Turbine Building, by the evaluation team on 09/18/86
c. Review of ECTG Files, Documentation for Concern LDA-85-001, (10/31/86) .
                                                                                                                      )
d. Telephone call from N. Shah, Bechtel, to J. Bajraszewski, TVA,10M 409 (11/17/86) i
                                                                                                                    ?
         >- J
                                     ~

04790 - 12/01/86 

                         ,,                                                           .-                          .}}
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20236E350&oldid=3179977"