ML20199E130

Rev 1 to Comanche Peak Response Team Action Plan,Item V.C, Design Consideration for Piping Sys Between Seismic Category I & Non-Seismic Category I Bldg

ML20199E130
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	06/26/1985
From:	NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM)
To:
Shared Package
ML20199D912	List: ML20199D907 ML20199D928 ML20199D956 ML20199D983 ML20199D994 ML20199E006 ML20199E012 ML20199E027 ML20199E033 ML20199E048 ML20199E053 ML20199E076 ML20199E102 ML20199E110 ML20199E114 ML20199E130 ML20199E142 ML20199E151 ML20199E163 ML20199E175 ML20199E181 ML20199E187 ML20199E196 ML20199E201 ML20199E216 ML20199E232 ML20199E240 ML20199E249 ML20199E268 ML20199E282 ML20199E295 ML20199E303 ML20199E321 ML20199E325 ML20199E331 ML20199E349 ML20199E358 ML20199E361 ML20199E383 ML20199E389 ML20199E394 ML20199E405 ML20199E412 ML20199E430 ML20199E435 ML20199E529 ML20199E538 ML20199E554 ML20199E560 ML20199E573 ... further results
References
FOIA-86-36 PROC-850626, NUDOCS 8606230196
Download: ML20199E130 (12)

Text

.

COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM ACTION PLAN Item Number: V.c Design Consideration for Piping Systems Between Seismic Category I and Non-Seismic Category I Buildings Revision No.

0 1

[.

Revised to Reflec';

Description Original Issue NRC Consnents Prepared and Recommended by:

/ ',' / q Review Team Leader 4 ihM M

Date 31 8(

f(

I Approved by:

Senior Review Team CMW. b

_ A).

/

pace Nlr/tr 6l26ltf 8606230196 860609 PDR FOIA GARDE 86-36 PDR

Revision:

1 Page 1 of 6 ITEM NUMBER V.c Design Consideration for Piping Systems Between Seismic Category I ard Non-Seismic Category I Buildings

1.0 DESCRIPTION

OF ISSUE IDENTIFIED BY NRC l

In April, 1984 the Comanche Peak Special Review Team'(SRT). formed and coordinated between NRR. IE and Region II and IV, performed a limited revier of Comanche Peak. The TRT. in reviewing the SRT findings in the area of' piping design considerations ~. has i

discovered that piping systems, such as Main Steam. Auxiliary Steaa and Feedvater, are routed from the Electrical Control Building (seismic category I) to the Turbine Building (non-seismic Category I) without any isolation. To be acceptable, each seismic Category

{

I piping system should be isolated from any non-seismic Category I t

piping system by separation, barrier or constraint.

If isolation is not feasible, then the effect on the seismic Category I piping of the failure in the non-seismic Category I i

piping must be considered (CPSES FSAR 3.7B.3-13.1).

For CPSES. FSAR Section 3.7B.2.8 establishes that the Turbine Building is a non-seismic Category I structure and failure is postulated during a safe shutdown earthquake (SSE). The effect of Turbine Building failure on any non-isolated piping routed through i

the Turbine Building from any seismic Category I building must be considered.

In addition, for non-seismic Category I piping connected to seismic Category I piping, the dynamic effects of the non-seismic Category I piping must be considered in the seismic design of the seismic Category I piping and supports, unless TUEC can show that the i

dynamic effects of the non-seismic Category I piping are isolated I

by anchors or restraints. The anchors or restraints used for isolation purposes must be designed to withstand the combined loading imposed by both the seismic Category I and non-seismic Category I piping.

2.0 ACTION IDENTIFIED BY NRC Accordingly. TUEC shall provide analysis and documentation that the piping systems routed from seismic Category I to non-seismic Category I buildings meet the stated FSAR criteria.

t i

,.n.-----

I Revision:-

1 Page 2 of 6 4

ITEM NUMBER V.c (Cont'd)

3.0 BACKGROUND

3.1 Information Supplementina NRC Description of Issue TUGC0 couaitted in the FSAR ti provide isolation between seismic Category I piping system and non-seismic piping systems by using anchors or seismic restraints. The methods used to implement the FSAR commitaant differ depending on such parameters as pipe size. location with respect to seismic buildings and location of isolation valves.

Some piping systems have active valves installed at or near the boundary between the seismic and non-seismic portions of the piping run.

Furthermore, it is common practice to install an anchor or soment restraint directly to the Category I building structures or indirectly through intervening steel structures.

Other piping systems are seismically isolated by using an anchor, acaent restraint, or a series of supports. The anchors and acaent restraints are designed for the combined load imposed by the piping on each side of the device. The seismically qualified portion has a calculated set of loads.

The loads from the non-seismic piping are estimated, Where a series of supports is used to isolate the piping, two approaches were employed for determining the loads. First, for larger piping, the practice is generally to locate additional supports in the non-seismic portion of the system and extend the piping model to include that additional section of piping. The additional supports in the extented region (i.e. non-seismic portion) are designed to carry those loads.

Secondly, for small bore piping, loads are estimated based on a presumed span in the non-seismic piping which would establish a simply calculated fundamental frequency that maximizes the seismic response.

In the specific situation, first identified by the TRT a portion of auxiliary steam system piping was routed from a seismic Category I building to a non-Category I building. The piping in question was all non-nuclear safety (NNS) piping (i.e. non-Category 1 piping); however, the piping was classified as high energy piping. The FSAR provides an optional criteria for evaluation of postulated pipe ruptures which can be applied to high energy NNS piping which is seismically analyzed. That option was selected for the noted portion of auxiliary steam piping resulting in a seismic analysis. As initially configured, the support system included an ar.chor to isolate the seismically analyzed portion from the portion which extended into the non-Category I building. At a later date, the device was deleted to l

.-w--.,%---

___.,.e.-,

,.,_,.m

_..-%._,-,--._,,,,,,,w.,..-__--.e,,y-

.--,,----,---e--.--

Revision:

1 Page 3 of 6 ITEM NUMBER V.c (Cont'd) 3.0 BACKGROUND (Cont'd) alleviate thermal expansion stresses in a portion of the piping. The requirement to retain the seismic isolation was not clear, because none of the piping was Category I.

Although the specific issue raised by the TRT deals with Catego:y I' systems, based on the situation discussed above the scope of the issue is considered to include any piping system with a seismic analysis boundary. This includes a seismic class change from Category I to non-Category I, but also includes any system in which the seismic model is terminated within a piping run or branch.

3.2 Preliminary Determination of Root Cause and Generic Implications The preliminary reviews conducted to date have not identified a root cause to this item. Because of the nature of this action plan, the Design,d.squacy Program, and the Project Piping and Supports ProE m (see 4.1 below). root cause and f

generic implications will c : be identified as part of this c

l action plan. Where appropriate, they will be addressed during implementation of the Design Adequacy Program.

4.0 CPRT ACTION PLAN 4.1 Scope and Methodology The Project Piping and Supports Program (PPSP) together with the Design Adequacy Program (DAP) includes provisions for significant piping re-analysis and associated support requalification.

As such, it is prudent to address the major concerns of issue V.c within the PPSP and DAP. The scope of this action plan will therefore be limited to the following activities:

4.1.1 Idantification of all Unit 1, 2 and common, piping which has a seismic /non-seismic interface.

4.1.2 A review and discussion of the events related to and the reasons for the auxiliary steam pipe situation on which this issue is based.

4.1.3 Recommendations to the PPSP and/or the DAP based on 4.1.1 and 4.1.2.

Specifically, these will address any potential implications which should be considered during the PPSP and DAP implementation.

4 m

- - - - _ - - - ~ -

Revision:

1 Page'.

4 of 6 ITEN KUMBER V.c (Cont'd) 1 4.0 CPRT ACTION PLAN (Cont'd) 4.1.4 Preparation of Rosalte Report incorporating 4.1.1 and 4.1.3.

The work scope for item 4.1.1 is separated into two groups:

Safety related (i.e. ASME Class 1, 2 or 3) piping which a.

is not high or moderate energy, and which was initially within the scope of the CPPE organization on site.

b.

All other piping.

"his distinction is made because of the division of responsibility for qualifying the piping. Group (b) is

ypically large bore piping with some small bore (2" and under) piping which is high or moderate energy.

It is the piping initially within the Gibbs & Hill scope offsite. The number of piping runs in group (a) is very large, and the subset which includes seismic to non-seismic interface is also substantial. Group (b) has approximately 300 piping runs per

}(/

Piping with seismic to non-seismic interfaces is a unit.

small subset of the approximately 300 piping runs.

Item 4.1.1 will include:

Category I piping entering a non-Category I building Piping with a class change from Category I to non-Category I in the piping run Piping runs with attached piping (i.e. small branch 4

runs) which have a class change NN3 piping runs which have a portion which is seismically analyzed to postulate breaks 4.2 Participants Roles and Responsibilities The organizations and personnel that will participate in this j

effort are described below with their respective scopes of work.

I 4.2.1 Comanche Peak Project Engineering 4.2.1.1 Scope Identify seismic piping systems with non-seismic ir.terfaces for site scope.

c.

Revision:

1 Page 5 of 6 ITEM NUMBER V.c (Cont'd) 4.0 CPRT ACTION PLAN (Cont'd)

Review and provide comumentary on auxiliary steam pipe situation.

Assist in preparation of Recults Report including reconstendations to, the PPSP ar.d/or the DAP.

l 4.2.1.2 Personnel Mr. C. Moehlman Project Mechanical Engineer Mr. H. Harrison Technical Services Supervisor 4.2.2 Gibbs & Hill, Inc., New York, New York 4.2.2.1 Scope Assist CPPE in identifying seismic piping systems with non-seismic interfaces (for specific scope of piping analysis problems).

Assist CPPE in review of auxiliary steam pipe situation.

4.2.2.2 Personnel i

Mr. H. Mentel Applied Mechanics Supervisor 4.2.3 Third-Party Overview 4.2.3.1 Scope Evaluate commentary on auxiliary steam pipe situation.

Prepare Results Report including recomunendations to the PPSP and/or the DAP.

4.2.3.2 Personnel Mr. H. A. Levin TERA CPR1/ Structural Review Tesa Leader m

Ravision:

1 Page 6 of 6 ITEN NUMBER V.c (Cont'd) 4.0 CPRT ACTION PLAN (Cont'd)

Dr. J. R. Honekamp TERA TRT Issues Manager Mr.' P. Streeter TERA Senior Mechanical Engineer Dr.' C. Mortgat TERA Senior' Structural Engineer 4.3 Personnel Qualification Requirements Participants in the implementation of this action plan meet the personnel qualification requirements of the Program Plan or the CPSES Quality Assurance Prograu as applicable.

4.4 Standards / Acceptance Criteria Compliance with FSAR Section 3.7B.3.13 will be assessed during PPSP and DAP implementation.

Recommendations to the PPSP and/or the DAP associated with compliance will be identified as part of this action plan.

5.0 SCHEDULE Identification of Piping Population:

Completed l

Review of Auxiliary Steam Pipe Situation 06/28/85 Results Report:

07/08/85 1

1

CPSES/FSAR The pertinent quality assurance requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 are applied to all activities affecting the safety-related I functions of these structures, systems, and components as shown in Table 17A-1.

3.2.l.1.1 Seismic Category I Structures 1.

Containment Buildings including internal structures 2.

Safeguards Buildings including diesel generator room and emergency switchgear room 3.

Auxiliary Building 4.

Electrical and Control Building 5.

Fuel Building 6.

Service Water Intake Structure 7.

Safe Shutdown Impoundment Dam 8.

Refueling Water Storage Tanks and Associated Piping Tunnels 9.

Reactor Makeup Water Storage Tanks and Associated Piping Tunnels

(

18 10.

Condensate Storage Tanks and Associated Piping Tunnels

(

3.2.1.1.2 Seismic Category I Mechanical Systems and Components 7

All, or portions, of the following mechanical systems or components are seismic Category I as described in Appendix 17A and Table 17A-1:

l k

A E NOMENT 18 APRIL 21, 1981 3.2-2 3

(.

CPSES/FSAR i

a

(.

)

17A SYSTEM NO.

SYSTEM 1.

Reactor Coolant System (RCS)

2.

ChemicalandVolumeControlSystem(CVCS)

+

~3.

Boron Thennal. Regeneration Subsystem (BTRS) 4.

Safety Injection System (SIS) 5.

Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System 6.

Baron Recycle System (BRS) 7.

Containment Spray System (CSS) 7

('

8.

Containment Isolation System

'9.

Combustible Gas Control System 10.

Component Cooling Water System (CCWS) 11.

Station Service Water System (SSWS) 12.

Main Steam, Reheat and Steam Dump System 4

?

13.

Auxiliary Feedwater System 14.

Steam Generator Feedwater System 15.

Diesel Generator, Fuel 011, and Auxiliary Systems 16.

Spent Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup System d

3. 2 -3 JANUARY 31, 1980

_m-

t.-

CPSES/FSAR

{17.

1.iquid Waste Processing System (LWPS)

"18.

Gaseous Waste Processing Syston (GWPS) 20.

Demineralized Water Makeup System

.'2,1.

Vents and Drains System 22.

Containment Ventilation Systems 23.

Control Room Air-Conditioning System 24 Safeguards Building HVAC System 25.

Fuel Building Ventilation System 7

26.

Diesel Generator Building Ventilation System 27.

Uncontrolled Access Area Ventilation System 28.

Primary Plant Ventilation System 29.

Auxiliary Building HVAC System 30.

Service Water Intake Structure Ventilation System 31.

Chilled Water Systems 32.

Process Sampling System 33.

Fuel Handling Equipment 34.

Containment Equipment JANUARY 31, 1980 3.2-4 k

i i

CPSES/FSAR

(-

35.

Miscellaneous Handling Equipment 40.

Plant Gas System 7

42.

Tornado Venting Components

45. ' Potable and Sanitary Water System 12 9

49.

Pipe Whip Restraints 3.2.1.1.3 Seismic Category I Electrical Systems and Components All, or portions, of the following electrical systems or components are seismic Category I as described in Appendix 17A and Table 17A-1:

17A SYSTEM NO.

SYSTEM

(

37 Electrical Equipment 38.

Radiation Monitoring System 41.

Instrumentation and Control Equipment 3.2.1.1.4 Structures and Systems of Mixed Category None of the plant structures are classified as partially seismic Category I.

The boundaries of seismic Category I portions of systems are shown on the piping and instrumentation diagrams in appropriate sections of the FSAR.

3.2.1.2 Seism,1c Category II 12 Those portions of systems or components whose continuec function is not required but whose failure could reduce the functioning of any seismic Category I system or component required to satisfy the requirements of

(

M%

• 6

, e h

e e

ao 6o fdV f 5;rfe4W Yo ckye TA~,.

71-S~y hr oms ~

5++/

9

.T lt$7

/ish w/ pi>Wr/O A 0"% N*y i

C beh-meIAua

- cPPe r

G.k Keller

&Pr e M 've

/ ben w o no (y ec c a f Ops

~ ~ - ' ' ' ' *

.=%.

.,e=

>***"*~~*=~~**-.mem.~..

.n p--

_. -. - -