ML19329E805

Interim Deficiency Rept Re Excessive Stress in Reactor Bldg Spray Piping Supports.Caused by Design Miscalculation.Piping Sys Reanalysis Initiated

ML19329E805
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	04/19/1978
From:	Howell S CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
To:
Shared Package
ML19329E794	List: ML19329E802 ML19329E805
References
HOWE-60-78, NUDOCS 8006170957
Download: ML19329E805 (7)

Text

. - _ _ _ _ - - _ - . --. -

\

l r3 _

q_ _

OOA1.lTY ASSURANCE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT MCAR.1 ,

ggs; ' 22 REPORT NO.

DATE March 21.1978 7220 __

O NO. 4.121. 4.131 .

- JOB NO._

I ' DESCRIPTION (including seferences):

.;

Technical Specification 7220-M-209 states in i III,Section Subsectig the latest EF. ..

" issue of the ASME Boiler and Pre.ssure Vessel Hidland Units C allowable stresses in the Reactor Building Spray Piping Anchors f or 1.and 2. Twenty-six (26) of the R.B. Spray Piping Anchors have been in six (6) on the ring girder of Unit 2;The six (6) R.B. Spray Piping Anchors to be (10) in the done area of Unit 1.

• RECOMMENDED ACTION (Optional)

~

1. Determine if the de, sign io satisfactory as installed.

2. If the design is not satisfactory, determine the cause of the condition.

3. If the design is not. satisfactory, take those steps necessary to correct the discrepancy.

4. Determine and cicarly identify those actions taken to prevent recurrence.

5. The Project Engineer should prepare a report for the Project Manager within i

1. 15 days.

The report should contain all available'information .The together with ais, interim report statement cs to when a complete report vill be issued. "

to clearly address the question of reportability.

]CCNSTRUCTION QA MANAGEMENT .]

REFERREO TO ] ENGINEERING l ISSUED > N w .7/Mf

' 0 838 ojebCJ.4dgineer TIFIED LIENT f/&/"7 T l

~

11 REPORTABLE DISCREPANCY NO x YES -

Proi(ct Manager d DA / j SM 8

W 111 CAUSE CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN

. . gano957 -

. AUTHORIZ.ED BY osie DIST RIBUTION: FORMAL REPORT TO CLIENT p,,,

til Section II Apps,esi r, . e e.ci u.a.,.,

comievre.on paneser ll7,7.7;".;~'" e Con o CORRECTIVE ACTION IMPLEMENTED Pegsenjp , , _ , ,

• "O:0,, *,' 7.% u,,. VERIFIED BY 7 4.*' r,oim on t .ee, o...

L  %

g s m..-..,__

i I

(

. .  ;

. Management Corrective Action Report No. 22 ,

]

March 21,1978 Page 2 I Description (Cont'd.) ,

- located on the ring girder of Unit 1 have not been installed. 3Se sketch numbers for anchors in question for Unit 1 are: 1- 612-1-3* , 4 * , 5* , 6* , 7 *,

8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13*, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18; for Unit 2 are 2-613-1-3*, 4*, 5*,

6*, 7*, 8,- 9, 10,-11, 12, 13*, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. The, asterisks indicate anchors designed for installation on the ring girder.

All sixteen (16) Unit 2 anchors were installed in 1976, early 1977, based on

- the Bechtel approved supplier's Rev. O design, which did not include any reinforcing pads.

The ten (10) Unit 1 anchors located in the dome area were installed, based on -

~

the approved supplier Rev. O design, in early 1977 prior to the lif ting and setting of the Unit 1 dome.

• f ' However, prior to the installation of the remaining six (6) anchors in the y

Unit 1 ring girder area, a revised anchor design was received from the supplier j' which included reinforcing pads. These pads have not been installed pending

~

4 receipt of the pad material. -

. A revirew of the status of the pad material during' the week ending March 13, 1978

questioned the need for.the reinforcing pads, bringing out the fact that the '

j design of the installed hangers may exceed the code allowable stresses. .

l' .

The apparent cause appears to be a deficiency in the supplier design calculations f if the R.B. Spray Piping Anchors are overstressed during operation of the system ,

the performance of the Spray System may be degraded.

e 0

I e a

w 3

,

V i;

W

c

\ \

Bechtel Power Corporation .

U 777 East Eisenhower Parkway .-

c.

l[ ... . dli l'/ 'f;) Ann Arbor. Michigan .

.g .,*.. ;j'j u,nea,m: P.O. Box 1000. Ann Arbor Michigan 48106 I g

W4l.llyagSVfE April 10, 1978 -

i -

, BLC-5804 Consumers Power Company, .

Mr. G. S. Keeley *

. Project Manager -

~

1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 .

Hidland Units 1 and 2 Consumers Power Company Bechtel Job 7220 MCAR-22 INTERIM REPORT 1 Piles'2417/2801

Dear Mr. Keeley:

Atta,ched is Interim Report 1 for the deficiency-described in MCAR-22.

The Interim Report includes a description of the deficiency, a statement of the potential safety implication, a status of the investigation, and the corrective actions that have been initiated.

A Final Report is scheduled for May 31, 1978.

Very truly yours, .

l P. A. Martinez

Troject Manager

) PAM/JMK/pp ,

l. cc: Mr. R. C. Bauman l Mr. W. R. Bird ,

~

Mr. J. L. Corley t - Mr. B. W. Marguglio .

Attachnents: 3 pages.

i

?;

h i

l U -

4+%%l

\

+ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3)

$s& 4 NNNN 1.0 '#L4DM 5 2 Ea u ElE

' IH2 1.8 l 1.25 1.4 11.6 I_

4 6" M',CROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CH ART 4%# 4

• ?;f5;,'  %+h4 5,,///7y <,p

i. 1

. _:_=, .m,m=x..=r .

a r 6

++/ _ EE _ _

TEST TARGET (MT-3)

%*4 I.0 l& M Bhh m m En 5

ll $ E b!b l l.8 l 1.25 1.4 1.6  !

l MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART l

1. 4 # ' 4%

4

+%fA)f 5,;////; c 4+M<

4

,  ;

.-- $ = - =.-.a.=. -

1 i.

Attccheznt to BLC-5bu4

,Pcg2 1 ef 3

'~~

T Bechtel Associates ProfessionalCorporation .

SUBJECT:

MCAR # 22 (Issued 3/21/78)

• i . ..

.I t

INTERIM REPORT # 1 f

' 'DATE: April 5,1978 ,

PROJECT: Consumers Power Company Midland Plant Units 1 & 2 -

Bechtel Job 7220 Description of Discrepancy local pipe stresses may potentially exceed ASME Section III . Code allowables near the anchor points in theA reactor total of building 32 anchor spray headers points (16 per located unit) in the reactor building dome.

have this potential overstressed condition.

Potential Safety Implication A potential safety problem could exist if the overstressed piping deformed "  ;

' plastica 11y and impeded reactor building spray flow following a LOCA or-MSLB. Until a final analysis confirms that existing design is adequate,

' this deficiency should be considered potentially reportable.

Investigation

• ~ This condition exists because ITT Crinnell's original anchor design did not use a reinforcing pad to distribute the loading into the piping.

The 1976 analysis used by Grinnell in designing these d anchors d ate.

indicated However, i

i

.that the original design, without reinforc ng pa s was a equ in early 1977, Crinnell advised that they were having difficulty with

'other anchor designs where large loads were involved. As a result of several meetings between Grinnell and Bechtel, guidelines for des'ign of .

pipe, anchors including a reinforcing pad concept were estab

' not advise that these anchorsCrinnell might be has ef since fected.usedBechtel'did not question these guidelines,

o. -the validity of the design.

b supported-by a three dimensional finite element analysis, in the design of all other Grinnell designed piping anchors in the Mid. land plant.

- Thus, only the spray piping anchors have this original design. .

d '

\ . , .

.~ . 7 - e , ,,,-,,.y .,._. _. ,,

l E 4!tcchmntt BLG-5ba '

- * ** ' ' . . . Tage 2 of 3 ' , .

.~t.-'

BECllTEL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

• . ~.

w 1he Unit 2 dome anchors were installed in late 1976 basically in accor-3 dance with Crinnell drawings except that minor modifications The Unit vere I domemade

- to the Level 1 approved-Grinnell hanger sketches.The Grinnell sketches were anchors were installed in June / July 1977.

revised to show the minor modification required for installation and ^

sent to Grinnell for concurrence, but contrary to the provisions of aGrinnell did not prov 14, 1977, Bechtel letter to Grinnell dated March ecmments on the field sketches until October 7, 1977, at which time they At this

. advised that the R. B. spray anchors required a revised design. I point no action was taken by Bechtel. .

~ '

Simultaneously with the above in April 1977. Grinnell revised their These revised

- sketches (Unit I and' 2) to incorporate a reinforcing pad. ,

aketches were received by Bechtel in June 1977. i

.  ;

The Unit 2 drawings were returned

• to Grinnell carrying an approval Level 9 (revision unacceptable) since the Unit 2 anchors were already installed.

The Unit I drawings were returned to Grinnell carrying an approval Level 1 (revision acceptable) based on the belief that they were not yet Grinnell did not resubmit the Unit 2 drawings, nor did they installed.

provide the reinforcing pad material for the Unit 1 anchors.

Corrective Action The following actions have been initiated in resolving this situation:

1. prinnell has agreed to recheck their analysis for these specific .

anchors to ensure that previous analycis is technically correct.

~ 2. Bechtel has initiated a reanalysis of the piping system in order to '

define specific loading for each of the subject anchors hich (previoua was

, loading for these anchors was Thisbased on the worst reanalysis case w will include:

applied to all anchors).

• a. Review loading as result of water hammer effect, (present design carries large margin for this) b.

Final thermal loading informrtion (this is now available from .

FSAR, LOCA, and MSLB data)

~"

c. Final seismic response data 3.' Th'e results of the analysis in 2 above (in the form of unique load sheets for each anchor) will be forwarded to Grinnell for reanalysis of each individual anchor. '

4. .

A review of the methods used to ensure timely response by Crinnell y and' resolution of Grinnell comments on changes to Grinnell hangers 1

- required to f acilitate installation has been initiated.

I

. p

.i

e. m- - ? , ..- -- - ..

- - _ .~ .

• I -

e A,[techeintthBLC-5

('I. . . . - e-

. . ,,, , a ,

[BECHTEL ASSOCI.ATES PROFESS 101'AL CORPORATION

' He reanalysis within Bechtel is expected to be complete by ?!ay 15, .

.1978. The. reanalysis by Grinnell will then take approximately 1 week. ,,

We review of procedural metteds associated with revised hanger drawings will be completed by April 21, 1978. -

,e Submitted by: r-

.{i'

~

Approved by: [ "M "%

Concurrence by: .

e

~ -

9

. . l 9

$;

L .

t

. l 9

4 .

. .