ML060540498: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 07/25/2005
| issue date = 07/25/2005
| title = Submitter'S Comments on DPO Report
| title = Submitter'S Comments on DPO Report
| author name = Shannon M C
| author name = Shannon M
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-II
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-II
| addressee name = Pedersen R
| addressee name = Pedersen R
Line 9: Line 9:
| docket = 05000269, 05000270, 05000287
| docket = 05000269, 05000270, 05000287
| license number = DPR-038, DPR-047, DPR-055
| license number = DPR-038, DPR-047, DPR-055
| contact person = Pedersen R M OE 415-2742
| contact person = Pedersen R OE 415-2742
| case reference number = DPO-2005-003
| case reference number = DPO-2005-003
| package number = ML060600478
| package number = ML060600478

Revision as of 00:08, 14 July 2019

Submitter'S Comments on DPO Report
ML060540498
Person / Time
Site: Oconee  Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 07/25/2005
From: Shannon M
NRC/RGN-II
To: Pedersen R
NRC/OE
Pedersen R OE 415-2742
Shared Package
ML060600478 List:
References
DPO-2005-003
Download: ML060540498 (1)


Text

From: Mel ShannonTo:Renee PedersenDate: 7/25/05 11:46AM

Subject:

Re: ACTION: DPO-2005-003 Panel ReportRenee, I can say that my concerns have been heard. I would like to stress that I think thelicensee needs to perform the piping inspections (UT NDE for thickness and NDE for cracks) asrecommended in the report. I would like to point out that the whip restraint temperatures were measured at 210 degrees and the feedwater was at 465 degrees (with the insulation package installed) so the use of 200 degrees and 450 degrees in the calculation was not overly conservative as stated in the report. In fact the licensee operated at least one cycle without theinsulation installed which would cause the restraints to be at an even lower temperature. This is just for comment, no other actions are necessary on this part of the issue.For Concern 1, Part C, the report stated that "there is no validity to this concern." Could youhave the team provide a basis for this conclusion?

I can understand the answer if the pipe is allowed to bend and absorb the stress. However in this case, with the piping restrained, and for example equal stress applied to both sides, the stresses should be cummulative. I think that is one of the reasons that licensees are cautioned about welding the restraints directly to the piping. I thought of the problem like this, 1) the lowerthermal expansion of the whip restraint vs the pipe is like tightening up the nut of the whiprestraint. 2) If I tighten up the nut on opposite whip restraints, the pipe does not bend and the stresses from each tightened bolt add to the total stress on the pipe. 3) This would be what would happen to a bolt that was attached at both ends, tightening up the nut on one end 1/2 halfturn would apply a certain stress, tightening the nut on the other end 1/2 turn would cause the stress to double. Am I missing something? If I am wrong you have my appology.Do I need to do anything else?

Thanks for listening to my concern.