|
|
| Line 17: |
Line 17: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:_ Log # TXX-6236 P9 File # 909.5 g-10010 clo 1UELECTRIC U,I."lN.Na,,, February 13, 1987 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 | | {{#Wiki_filter:}} |
| | |
| ==SUBJECT:==
| |
| COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES)
| |
| DOCKET NOS. 50-445 AND 50-446 STATUS OF THE CPSES DIESEL GENERATOR ACTION ITEMS REF: 1) NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT OF THE OPERABILITY /
| |
| RELIABILITY OF EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATORS MANUFACTURED BY TRANSAMERICA DeLAVAL, INC. (TDI),
| |
| DATED AUGUST 5, 1986 (ALSO ISSUED AS NUREG-1216)
| |
| Gentlemen:
| |
| The purpose of this letter is to provide for NRC consideration the results of TV Electric's review of Reference 1 as applicable to CPSES Unit 1. This generic Safety Evaluation Report (SER) provides the NRC staff's evaluation of the TDI Owners Group Program Plan. TU Electric's comments on the SER are categorized as follows:
| |
| o Generic Phase I issues. These are discussed in Enclosure 1 to this letter.
| |
| o Problems of a plant specific nature. These are discussed in Enclosure 2 to this letter.
| |
| o Phase II issues. These are discussed in Enclosure 3 to this letter.
| |
| o Maintenance and Surveillance (M/S) programs.
| |
| These are discussed in Enclosure 4 to this letter.
| |
| It is TU Electric's understanding that generic Phase I issues, problems of a plant specific nature, and maintenance and surveillance programs must be fully addressed as a condition for issuance of an operating license. It is TV Electric's intent that this letter fully address these issues.
| |
| 8702180309 870213 PDR ADOCK 05000445 A PDR 0g 100 North Olhe Street Lit 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 w
| |
| | |
| TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 2 of 2 Other Phase II issues for CPSES Unit I which remain open will be closed out by the first refueling outage. It should be noted that a full Design-Review / Quality Revalidation (DR/QR) program (Phases I & II) in accordance with Reference 1 and this letter will also be implemented for CPSES Unit 2 prior to Unit 2 fuel load. This . letter supersedes all the previous diesel generator responses to-date.
| |
| . Very truly yours,
| |
| [
| |
| W. G. Counsil MCP/mlh Enclosures c - Mr. Vince S. Noonan Mr. Robert D. Martin, Region IV I
| |
| l 1
| |
| m-_____ -
| |
| 4
| |
| | |
| I 1
| |
| i Enclosure I to TXX-6236 l February 13, 1987 Page 1 of 30 ENCLOSURE 1 l
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| ' ~
| |
| Enclesure 1- to' TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Paga 2 of 30 ENCLOSURE 1 RESOLUTION-OF GENERIC PHASE I ISSUES i
| |
| | |
| ==References:==
| |
| ' 1) FAILURE ANALYSIS ASSOCIATES (FaAA) REPORT, FaAA-84-3-14 0F AUGUST 1984, " DESIGN REVIEW 0F CONNECTING RODS FOR TRANSAMERICA DeLAVAL DSRV-4 SERIES' DIESEL GENERATORS."
| |
| ; Phase I of the Owners Group program consisted of identifying and resolving significant engine component problems that had potential generic implications.
| |
| Through an extensive review of.TDI and other engine performance data in both '
| |
| nuclear and non-nuclear applications, the Owners Group identified 16 components with such problems:
| |
| . air start valve capscrews . engine base and bearing. caps
| |
| . connecting rods . engine-mounted electrical cable .
| |
| . connecting rod bearing shells . high pressure fuel injection tubing
| |
| . crankshafts . Jacket water pump '
| |
| . cylinder block . piston skirts ;
| |
| . cylinder heads . push rods
| |
| . cylinder head studs . rocker arm capscrews '
| |
| . cylinder liners * . turbochargers ,
| |
| * Combined with cylinder block in Owners Group evaluations.
| |
| TU Electric's comments and clarifications relative to the generic SER are as :
| |
| l follows: i 1.0 ENGINE OVERHAUL FRE0VENCY (NUREG-1216, Section 2.1.3.1) 4 The NRC Staff has concluded that subject to the following clarifications and exceptions, engine overhaul frequency proposed in Revision 2.of the generic -
| |
| ; DR/QR Appendix II M/S program should be implemented in lieu of -the .5-year frequency endorsed by Pacific National Laboratory (PNL) findings of PNL-5600.
| |
| ; 1.1 PNL Recommendation The Owners Group had recommended an engine overhaul and Backaround: inspection at approximate 5-year.. intervals in the ,
| |
| original version of the DR/QR Appendix II M/S program. This position was endorsed by PNL in PNL-5600. However, since the diese1' engines are relied on to provide only a standby source of power with periodic test requirements of limited duration, actual engine service time will only be a small fraction or what it would be during continuous-duty service. For this reason, the Owners. Group now I
| |
| n
| |
| | |
| Encicsurs 1 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 4 Paga 3 of 30 ENCLOSURE 1 !
| |
| l RESOLUTION OF GENERIC PHASE I ISSUES j l
| |
| proposes in Revision 2 of the DR/QR report that a complete engine overhaul be performed at approximate 10-year intervals, namely, that one engine / unit be disassembled and inspected at the refueling outage l occurring before 10 years and the second engine at I the refueling outage occurring after 10 years. In j addition, the Owners Group now proposes a'one-time. 1 inspection to.be performed at about 5 years. The l one-time 5-year inspection will generally involve i the same components as the 10-year overhaul inspections; however, only a sample of some types of- !
| |
| components (typically 25%) would be inspected.
| |
| 1 NRC Clarification: The staff concurs that there is reasonable' basis to conduct the major engine overhauls at 10-year intervals rather than 5-year intervals as originally proposed because (1) of the comprehensive DR/QR effort conducted for each of the engine components, (2) of the limited number of operating hours for engines in nuclear standby service, and (3) a sample inspection of major engine components will be performed on a one-time basis following 5 years of service.
| |
| CPSES Status: TV Electric inten'ds to conduct engine overhauls at approximate 10-year intervals in accordance with Revision 2 of the DR/QR report. A one-time inspection will also be performed at about 5-years.
| |
| 2.0 AIR START VALVE CAPSCREWS (02-359)
| |
| (NUREG-1216, Section 2.1.3.2)
| |
| The NRC Staff has concluded that subject to the following clarifica-tions and exceptions, the PNL findings and' recommendations of Section 4.1.4.2 of PNL-5600 should be implemented.
| |
| 2.1 PNL Recommendation: PNL concurs with Stone and Webster Engineering Corp 3 ration (SWEC) and the Owners Group that the air start valve capscrews are adequate for service in TDI engines installed at nuclear power plants, provideu that (1) proper capscrew length is verified as part of the DR/QR process for each engine installation and (2)-the capscrews are torqued during initial installation and retorqued periodically in accordance with TDI and SWEC recommendations. PNL recommends that the periodic checks include re-torquing following the first
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| Enclosura 1 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987.
| |
| Page 4 of 30 ENCLOSURE 1 RESOLUTION OF GENERIC PHASE I ISSUES period of engine operation after replacement of the copper gasket, to ensure that no additional gasket creep occurs as a result of the additional-thermal and mechanical stresses.
| |
| NRC Clarification: The NRC Staff has concluded that the torquing recommendation has been incorporated into the DR/QR Appendix II M/S program, Revision 2.
| |
| CPSES Status: The recommended capscrew length has been verified for Unit I along with a recommended gasket change from steel to copper. The capscrews were then
| |
| .re-torqued following engine operation. Periodic re-torquing will be performed in accordance with the DR/QR Appendix II M/S program, Revision 2.
| |
| 3.0 AUXILIARY MODULE WIRING AND TERMINATIONS (02-6888)
| |
| (NUREG-1216, Section 2.1.3.3)
| |
| The NRC Staff has concluded that subject to the following clarifica-tions and exceptions, the PNL findings and recommendations of Section 4.2.4.3 of PNL-5600 should be implemented.
| |
| 3.1 PNL Recommendation: PNL concurs that the existing Class IE auxiliary module wiring and terminations are acceptable at CPSES.
| |
| NRC Clarification: None CPSES Status: No further action is necessary.
| |
| 4.0 CONNECTING R0D BEARING SHELLS (02-3408)
| |
| (NUREG-1216, Section 2.1.3.4)
| |
| The NRC Staff has concluded that subject to the following clarifica-tions and exceptions, the PNL findings and recommendations of Section 4.5.4.2 of PNL-5600 should be implemented.
| |
| 4.1 PNL Recommendation: PNL suggests that consideration be given to increasing oil pressure.
| |
| NRC Clarification: The NRC Staff concludes that this recommendation should be implemented at the utilities' discretion and is not a requirement.
| |
| | |
| Enclosure 1 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987
| |
| .Page 5,of 30
| |
| : ENCLOSURE 1 RESOLUTION OF GENERIC PHASE I ISSUES CPSES Status: TU Electric does not intend to increase the oil pressure.
| |
| , 4.2 PNL Recommendation: Inspect and measure the connecting rod bearing shells to verify lube oil maintenance, which affects wear rate. The visual and dimensional i inspection of the bearing shells should be con-ducted at the fuel outage that precedes 500 hcurs of operation by.at least .the sum of hours of operation in a Loss of Offsite Power / Loss of Coolant
| |
| ; Accident (LOOP /LOCA) event plus the expected hours
| |
| ! of operation between outages.
| |
| . NRC Clarification: The Owners Group is now proposing that these inspections be conducted for all bearings at each 10-year overhaul and a one time sample inspection after approximately 5 years. Subject to'PNL's-l recommendation for a periodic oil contamination analysis, the NRC' Staff concludes that the pro-posed inspection frequency is acceptable.
| |
| : CPSES Status: TU Electric will inspect the bearings in accordance with Revision 2. of the DR/QR Appendix:
| |
| II M/S program. See Enclosure 4.for discussion of 3
| |
| oil contamination analysis program.
| |
| 4.3 PNL Recommendation: Examine the bearing shells radiographically-as part of the DR/QR program. Also, examine all replacement bearing shells in this manner.
| |
| NRC Clarification: The NRC Staff has concluded that this action should be implemented and notes that this latter recommendation has been incorporated into Revision 2 of the.DR/QR Appendix II M/S program, i CPSES Status: The connecting rod bearing shells -for the Unit' 1 diesels have been inspected radiographically as
| |
| ! part of the.DR/QR program. New bearing shells i
| |
| will also be' inspected radiographically per Revision 2 of the DR/QR Appendix II M/S program.
| |
| l 4.4 PNL Recommendation: PNL recommends that an oil contamination' analysis 4
| |
| be performed on a regularly' scheduled basis.
| |
| NRC Clarification: The NRC Staff has. concluded that the Revision 2 of
| |
| . the DR/QR Appendix II M/S program does not 4
| |
| satisfactorily address the.need for periodic oil l
| |
| I k^
| |
| | |
| Enclosura 1 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 6 of 30 ENCLOSURE 1 RESOLUTION OF GENERIC PHASE I ISSUES contamination analysis. The Staff will require that this matter be addressed satisfactorily in the plant specific maintenance program.
| |
| CPSES Status: See Enclosure 4.
| |
| 5.0 QSR-48 CONNECTING RODS (NUREG-1216, Section 2.1.3.5)
| |
| This. component is not applicable to CPSES Units 1 and 2.
| |
| 6.0 DSRV CONNECTING RODS (02-340A)
| |
| (NUREG-1216, Section 2.1.3.6)
| |
| The NRC Staff has concluded that subject to the following clarifica-tions and exceptions, the PNL findings and recommendations of Section 4.4.4.4 of PNL-5600 should be implemented.
| |
| 6.1 PNL Recommendation: The rod eyes and rod eye bushings should be subject to the same inspections recommended for the inline connecting rods (Section 4.3 of PNL-5600).
| |
| NRC Clarification: The NRC Staff has concluded that the recommenda-tions of Section 4.4.4.4.1 of PNL-5600 should be fully implemented.
| |
| CPSES Status: The Unit 1 engines were inspected utilizing the inspection criteria for.the DSRV type engine.
| |
| This included a liquid penetrant test on the surface of the internal diameter of the rod eye bushings. No indications were observed in the l areas within 150 of bottom dead center. However, no visual inspection of the rod eye was performed.
| |
| TU Electric will perform a visual inspection ;
| |
| of the rod eye for the Unit 1 engines using the I criteria established for the in-line connecting ;
| |
| rods at the first major engine disassembly. j 6.2 PNL Recommendation: Rod bow should be within the FaAA recommended limit.
| |
| 1 NRC Clarification: The NRC Staff has concluded that the recommenda-tions of Section 4.4.4.4.1 of PNL-5600 should be fully implemented.
| |
| | |
| Enclosura 1-to-TXX-6236 I February 13,-1987--
| |
| Page 7 of.30 ENCLOSURE 1-RESOLUTION OF GENERIC PHASE I ISSUES-
| |
| .CPSES Status: The Owners Group recommendation for centerline bowing inspection was published after the reassem-bly of the CPSES Unit :1_ engines. Reference.1' indicates that excessive centerline. bow in con-necting rods would result in axial misalignment of-journal bearings and skewing of bearing oil film pressure profile, with pressures being higher on.
| |
| the side where oil film thickness is' reduced. -This.
| |
| would tend.to cause uneven wear of connecting rod bearing shells. The inspection of CPSES Unit I connecting- rod bearing shells, however, revealed x no indication'of= uneven wear.' Further, if- such a condition did exist in a connecting rod, installa-tion' and operational difficulties would have been encountered. TU Electric will verify that the Unit 2 connecting rod bow is within the FaAA recommended limit. If any of these connecting rods are unacceptable, TU Electric will also verify that the Unit I connecting rods are within the FaAA recommended-limit at the first major; engine disassembly.
| |
| 6.3 PNL Recommendation: Inspection of the lower connecting rod assemblies of all reds should include the following:
| |
| 6.3.1 Bolt holes in'the link rod box - All the threaded holes for' the connecting rod bolts should be inspected using'an appropriate nondestructive technique.
| |
| CPSES Status: Eddy current' testing was performed on all the~
| |
| mating threads of the connecting rod boxes of the Unit 1 Train A engine with satisfactory "
| |
| results. The rod' box threads on the Unit 1 Train B engine were not inspected based upon satisfactory results on Train A. TU Electric will conduct an eddy current inspection of the Unit 1 Train B rod box threads when-the connecting rod.
| |
| bolts baseline ultrasonic elongation measurements are taken (see Paragraph 6.3.4).
| |
| 6.3.2 Connecting rod bolts - All. connecting rod bolts should be examined using the wet fluorescent magnetic particle technique (MT). The washers used with the bolts should be examined' visually for signs of galling.
| |
| i . _. _ . . _ . _ - _ _ , . - __ _ . . . _
| |
| | |
| Enclosure I to TXX-6236 -
| |
| February 13, 1987 Page 8 of-30
| |
| ; ENCLOSURE 1-RESOLUTION OF GENERIC PHASE ~I ISSUES CPSES Status: ;The connecting rod bolts on Unit 1 Train A were-inspected utilizing the wet fluorescent MT method i with satisfactory results. .The connecting rnd bolts on Unit 1 Train B were visually inspected based.on the satisfactory results.on Train A.
| |
| . TU Electric will inspect the Unit 1 Train B connecting rod bolts using the wet fluorescent MT method when the baseline ultrasonic measurements' are taken-(see Paragraph 6.4).
| |
| 6.3.3 Connecting rod bolt torque -l All connecting rod bolts 'should be:
| |
| lubricated in accordance with TDI instructions and torqued to the TDI specification.
| |
| l 1 CPSES Status: The Unit I connecting rod bolts were lubricated and torqued per TDI specification using a hy-i draulic torque wrench. See Paragraph 6.4 for a discussion'of ultrasonic measurement of rod bolt
| |
| ; preload.
| |
| 6.3.4 Contact at serrated joint - The contact between mating surfaces
| |
| : of the link rod box should be no less than the minimum specified
| |
| !. by the engine manufacturer. The percentage of contact should i be verified for each joint using an appropriate method (e.g.,
| |
| i " blueing").
| |
| ; CPSES Status: TDI was contacted earlier and TDI responded that i CPSES connecting rod racks were lapped and " blued"
| |
| ! at the factory to. ensure that a minimum of 75.
| |
| percent surface area contact exists between the mating teeth. TU Electric will verify that the contact between the Unit 2 connecting rod rack is no less than~75%. If any of.the Unit 2 connecting
| |
| ! rod rack teeth have unacceptable contact, TU Electric will also verify the contact between the Unit I connecting rod rack . teeth at_ the first
| |
| ! major engine disassembly.
| |
| I 6.3.5 Link rod clearance - Clearance between the link pin and the link-4 rod should be examined. PNL' concurs with FaAA's recommendation i
| |
| that this dimension must be zero when the link rod bolts are
| |
| , torqued to 1050 ft-lb as specified by the manufacturer.
| |
| l
| |
| - - - , - - , - - - - ~ , .,--,--,- ,- ,,, - - - - , ,,.e ,me------m ,----m-, - , , - ,-,-r.- -. - - , , - - . - - - - , , - - - - , + -
| |
| | |
| ^
| |
| Enclosure 1 to TXX-6236
| |
| > February 13, 1987
| |
| ~Page'9 of 30 ENCLOSURE I RESOLUTION OF GENERIC PHASE I-ISSUES
| |
| , CPSES Status: .TU Electric performed a dimensional- verification =
| |
| of the link rod to link pin locating-dowels and counter bores.. Results of this verification show that the dowels are not long enough_ to interfere with proper contact (i.e., zero clearance) between the-rods ~and pins when the bolt torque-is
| |
| . applied. Since excessive dowel ~ length with i respect to the counterbore was found to be the original cause'of past adverse experience with-rod to pin clearances, the above dimensional check l adequately-establishes resolution of this concern l for CPSES Unit 1.
| |
| I 6.4 NRC Evaluation: The NRC Staff has concluded that baseline- +
| |
| i ultrasonic. elongation measurements must be-l performed on the two pairs of bolts above the ,
| |
| l crankpin for all DSRV connecting rods. -
| |
| CPSES Status: Ultrasonic measurement of rod bolt preload was not a requirement when the Unit 1 engines were reas-
| |
| : sembled and was not performed.- TU Electric will record these baseline ultrasonic elongation 3 measurements for the two pairs of bolts above.the I crankpin on Unit 1 prior to fuel load.
| |
| , 6.5 NRC Evaluation: The NRC Staff has concluded that the. periodic maintenance inspection recommended in Section 4.4.4.4.2 of PNL-5600 have generally been incorpo-rated as part of Revision 2 to the DR/QR Appendix II M/S program with the following modifica-tions/ clarifications: ,
| |
| 6.5.1 The NRC Staff has concluded that major overhaul inspections at-
| |
| ; 10-year intervals and a one-time sample inspection after about 5 1- years is acceptable.
| |
| 2 CPSES Status: TU Electric concurs and will comply with Revision 2 of the DR/QR Appendix II M/S program.
| |
| 4 6.5.2 The NRC Staff has concluded that if connecting rod bolt tension is found to be reduced to less than 93% of its . initial value the cause should be determined, appropriate corrective action should be taken, and the interval between checks of bolt tension should i
| |
| be evaluated. The NRC Staff further concludes that only
| |
| , ultrasonic measurements are sufficiently reliable to compare with j this criterion.
| |
| ~
| |
| . CPSES Status: TU Electric will take ultrasonic measurements of bolt tension prior to each bolt disassembly and R following each bolt assembly.
| |
| i l
| |
| i i
| |
| . - - - . - _ _ - - . . . , . . ~ . - _ . , - - , - . - . - - - . _ - . . - - . - . + - - - - , _ . . -_ , _ . - - - . . - - - - _ . - - - . - - - - , , - . - . - _ , _ . - - _ . . - . , - ,
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| Enclosure 1 to TXX-6236 February. 13, 1987
| |
| - Page 10 of 30-ENCLOSURE 1-RESOLUTION OF GENERIC PHASE I ISSUES-4 6.5.3 The NRC Staff'has concluded that, a one-time inspection of the:
| |
| degree of surface contact at the serrated joint and to the zero clearance condition between the link pin and link rod is acceptable. .
| |
| 1 CPSES Status: TU Electric. concurs with this evaluation. See-
| |
| ! previous status for discussion of commitments
| |
| , regarding contact at serrated joint.-(Paragraph
| |
| .6.3.4) 6.6 NRC Evaluatiqil: The NRC Staff has concluded that the pre-service r and inservice inspection method of.the bolt holes in the link rod box shall include either (1) the eddy current; inspection method developed by FaAA i- for threaded carbon steel bolt holes or (2) an alternative method shown to be equivalent to the FaAA eddy current procedure for purposes of discriminating small cracks in the threads. :
| |
| CPSES Status: TU Electric concurs and will use one of these
| |
| ; two methods for inspecting the bolt holes in the link rod box.
| |
| 7.0 DSR-48 CRANKSHAFTS
| |
| ; -(NUREG-1216, Section 2.1.3.8) i This component is not applicable to CPSES Units 1 and 2.
| |
| 8.0 OTHER DSR-48 CRANKSHAFTS
| |
| ! (NUREG-1216, Section 2.1.3.9)
| |
| ! This component is not applicable to CPSES Units 1 and 2. j 9.0 DSRV-16-4 CYLINDER CRANKSHAFT (02-310A)-
| |
| (NUREG-1216, Sections 2.1.3.7 and 2.1.3.10)
| |
| !' The NRC Staff has concluded that subject to the following clarifications-and i exceptions, the PNL findings and recommendations of Sections 4.7.8.3 and
| |
| , 4.7.9 of PNL-5600 should be implemented.
| |
| * i As a-clarification, the crankshafts for the CPSES Unit 1 engines'were specifically reviewed by PNL. Therefore, the recommendations of Section 4.7.9 of PNL-5600 have already been satisfied.-
| |
| ; 9.1 PNL Recommendation: To avoid the effects of the 4th-order resonance,-
| |
| steady operation at speeds more than a few rpm o l below the rated speed of 450 rpm should be avoid-ed.
| |
| l NRC Clarificatiori: None i
| |
| | |
| Enclosure I to 1XX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 11 of 30 .
| |
| . ENCLOSURE 1 4
| |
| RESOLUTION OF GENERIC PHASE I ISSUES-CPSES Status: TU Electric concurs and will incorporate this
| |
| , caution in site procedures.
| |
| i 9.2 PNL Recommendation: Because torsional analyses and torsiograph tests confirm that cylinder imbalance may have a signif-icant effect on crankshaft stresses, appropriate precautions should be taken to prevent sustained engine operation with this condition. Exhaust gas
| |
| '- temperatures should be monitored during engine operation to verify that differences between-individual cylinder temperatures and the average.
| |
| l temperature for all cylinders remain within the range recommended by TDI.- In addition, cylinder firing pressures should be measured no less frequently than the interval recommended by TDI.
| |
| j: It would also be prudent to analyze the trends of '
| |
| i cylinder pressure and temperature measurements to detect changes that might indicate a need for maintenance of fuel injection equipment. Any abnormalities should be corrected expeditiously. ,
| |
| ?
| |
| ; NRC Clarification: The site-specific DR/QR Appendix II' programs, 1- Revision 2, call for monitoring cylinder exhaust i temperatures and pressures for engine imbalance at i each refueling. The Staff notes that cylinder i exhaust temperatures will also be monitored on an i hourly basis (while the engine is running) per Table 1 of the generic DR/QR Appendix II program,
| |
| ; Revision 2. It.is implied in the table that only
| |
| ; maximum cylinder exhaust temperature is of inter-t est (i.e., not to exceed 10500 F). The Staff i concludes that plant-specific-procedures should i
| |
| clarify that the hourly cylinder exhaust tempera-2 tures should also be monitored for engine imbal-l ance.
| |
| CPSES Status: TU Electric concurs and will analyze the i trends of cylinder pressure and temperature j measurements to detect imbalance in accordance j with Revision 2 of the DR/QR Appendix II M/S
| |
| : program and will also monitor the hourly cylinder j exhaust temperatures for imbalance.
| |
| +
| |
| j 9.3 PNL Recommendation: PNL concurs with FaAA's comment that.if an engine
| |
| ; is operated in a severely unbalanced condition, it i may be necessary to reinspect the oil holes for j
| |
| fatigue cracks. The need for immediate inspection should be evaluated by'the Utility, taking into
| |
| , consideration the particular circumstances of the
| |
| ; abnorraal operation. The results of this evalua- s 1
| |
| tion should be subject to NRC review before the j engine is returned to service.
| |
| t
| |
| , , . . . . - . . . _ _. - . . . , , , - - - , . - - _ . . . . - ~ _ . . . - _ , _ . . _ _ . _ , . _ , . . . . , , . , _ , _ . . - . _ - . . - , . . _ . . - . , . . . . _ . , ..
| |
| | |
| : Enclosure 1 to-TXX-6236 1
| |
| -February 13, 1987 l l- Paga 12 of 30 l ENCLOSURE.'1, RESOLUTION OF GENERIC PHASE I~ ISSUES..
| |
| i NRC Clarification: None I CPSES Status: TU Electric concurs'and will evaluate any unbalanced operating condition as to its severity.
| |
| , The Owners. Group is developing a position paper to
| |
| ! define a " severe" 'imbalanced condition. Any.
| |
| ; unbalanced condition evaluated as " severe" will be submitted to the NRC for review prior to returning the engine to service.
| |
| 9.4 PNL Recommendation: During each major engine disassembly and inspec-
| |
| : tion, the oil holes and fillets of the three main i bearing journals '(Nos. 4, 6, and 8) subject to'the i- highest torsional stresses 'should be examined with fluorescent liquid penetrant and, as appropriate,
| |
| ; with eddy current. .The oil holes and fillets in
| |
| , at least three of the crankpin journals No. 3 l ' through 8 also should be examined in this manner. '
| |
| ; HRC Clarification: Site-specific sections of DR/QR Appendix II,
| |
| , Revision 2, M/S programs incorporate the periodic crankshaft inspections recommended by PNL in
| |
| : Section 4.7.8.3 with the exception that the l crankpin and main journals would apparently be
| |
| : inspected only once after 5 years rather than at.
| |
| l 5-year intervals. The Staff believes that the crankpin and main journal inspections should be inspected periodically to ensure that they are i free of abnormal cracking or wear. However, based on the fact that the DSRV-16 crankshafts exhibit somewhat smaller. stresses than the DSRV-48 crank-shafts, the Staff concludes that an inspection ,
| |
| frequency corresponding to the 10-year major engine overhaul schedule would be acceptable for the DSRV-16 crankshafts in lieu of the 5-year interval to be implemented for the DSRV-48 crank-shafts. The Staff will require that such periodic inspections be incorporated as part of j plant-specific M/S programs.
| |
| 4 4
| |
| CPSES Status: TU Electric will inspect the crankpin and main ;
| |
| , journals on a frequency corresponding.to the 10-year major engine overhaul schedule.
| |
| , 9.5 PNL Recommendation: To verify that crankshaft alignment remains within i manufacturer's recommendations, crankshaft
| |
| ! deflection should be measured under both " hot" and l " cold" conditions at each refueling outage.
| |
| i f
| |
| f
| |
| - _ _ _ , . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . . ~ - - - , - _ . . _ , - - -_ _
| |
| | |
| Enclosura 1 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987
| |
| ; Page 13 of 30.
| |
| -ENCLOSURE 1 RESOLUTION OF GENERIC PHASE I ISSUES NRC Clarification: None CPSES Status: TV Electric concurs and will. measure crankshaft web' deflections in accordance with Revision 2 'of the DR/QR Appendix II M/S program.
| |
| 9.6 NRC Evaluation: The NRC Staff has concluded that engine load lidits are.no longer necessary based on crankshaft considerations alone.
| |
| CPSES Status: TU Electric concurs and understands that there is no-load limit on the CPSES engines other than-the manufacturer's rating.
| |
| 10.0 DSRV-20 CRANKSHAFTS (NUREG-1216, Section 2.1.3.11)
| |
| This component is not applicable to CPSES Units 1 and 2.
| |
| 11.0 ENGINE BLOCK (02-315A/315C)
| |
| (NUREG-1216, Section 2.1.3.12)
| |
| The NRC Staff has concluded that subject to the following clarifications and exceptions, the PNL findings and recommendations of Section 4.9.5.2 of PNL-5600 should be implemented.
| |
| 11.1 PNL Recommendation: All blocks of TDI engines at nuclear power plants should be metallurgically examined to ensure that the microstructure is characteristic of typical grey cast iron of the grade specified for the block.
| |
| NRC Clarification: None CPSES Status: The Unit I engine blocks have been metallurgically examined and no degraded microstructure was found.
| |
| 11.2 PNL Recommendation: Cylinder blocks. should be inspected for " ligament" cracks, " stud-to-stud" cracks, and " stud-to-end" cracks as identified in FaAA-84-9-II.I. The inspection intervals should not exceed the -
| |
| intervals calculated using the cumulative damage index model in the subject FaAA report. In
| |
| | |
| . . _ _. . _ _ . . . . - _ _ . _ _ . _ m - -. .
| |
| Enclosure I te TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page - 14 of 30
| |
| - ENCLOSURE 1-
| |
| 'i RESOLUTION OF GENERIC PHASE I ISSUES addition, blocks with "known" or' " assumed ligament" cracks should be inspected at each:
| |
| refueling outage to determine whether.or not j cracks have initiated on the top surface exposed by the removal of two or more cylinder heads.
| |
| i
| |
| : NRC Clarification: The above will. be required as a condition of the.
| |
| j license.
| |
| CPSES Status: The Unit 1 Train A liner landing at cylinders 4R -
| |
| and SR-and the Unit 1 Train B liner landing at
| |
| , cylinders 1R and 4R have linear indications
| |
| ! which have been shown to be. casting induced.
| |
| : Although these indications are not considered i the same as ligament cracks, for the-purpose of determining inspection criteria the right
| |
| ! bank of both Unit 1 engines is considered to ,
| |
| have " assumed ligament" cracks. TU Electric j will inspect the cylinder blocks in accordance with Revision 2 of the DR/QR Appendix II M/S
| |
| {L program which satisfies the above requirement.
| |
| 4 11.3 PNL Recommendation: Blocks with known or assumed ligament cracks j should be inspected following each ' operation in
| |
| , excess of 50% of nameplate load,' to verify the continued absence of stud-to-stud and stud-to-end I cracks. PNL recommends that eddy-current testing or a similarly sensitive nondestructive testing j technique be used to perform these inspections.
| |
| 9 l If a stud-to-stud crack or stud-to-end crack is
| |
| ; discovered, a detailed inspection should be :
| |
| ]
| |
| +
| |
| performed to ensure that the crack extends no more '
| |
| than 1.5 inches in depth from the block top. PNL
| |
| ! recommends further that the engine not be returned ,
| |
| );
| |
| to nuclear service pending further analysis of the crack and its implications for engine reliability.
| |
| The analysis and the conclusions drawn from it should be subject to NRC review before the engine j is returned to service.
| |
| NRC Clarification: Regarding the block inspections to be performed in
| |
| , accordance with FaAA-84-9-11.1, the Owners Group-
| |
| ; has proposed a clarification that (1)-for blocks l with known or assumed ligament cracks, inspections j will be performed for stud-to-stud cracks after
| |
| : 2) these
| |
| ! anyoperationabove50%ofratedload,(dy' inspections may be performed using an ed current i,
| |
| , ., y-,-. c... . - - .,y.,,,-g.~.,., .c.,,-y_,.p.,,-- --- ..ieww --,yee,,,.,. ,,%,%.,g _ny%wy. .-,m-.- -.---, ,e -----. m.--.,w-.w--_w, --w, p,,.-e---e,rsv-rw .,m,. . -.-
| |
| | |
| l ^Enclosuro l'to TXX-6236 FGbruary. 13, 1987 Page 15 of 30:
| |
| l . ENCLOSUR'E 1-RESOLUTION OF GENERIC PHASE I ISSUES probe or a boroscope with heads in place,: and (3) the inspections'are to be performed within 48 hours after engine shutdown.
| |
| The NRC Staff finds these three clarifications-acceptable. The NRC Staff also concurs that there currently exists no analytical basis for operation in' cases where stud-to-stud or stud-to-end cracks exceed 1.5 inches in depth. In addition, the Staff will require as a condition of the license _that it be promptly ' informed of any such cracks, regardless of depth. Further, the engine should not _be considered operable for nuclear standby service until the proposed disposition and/or corrective actions have been approved by the NRC Staff..
| |
| CPSES Status: TU Electric will inspect the CPSES engine blocks in accordance with Revision 2 of the DR/QR Appendix II M/S program,-which incorporates the Owners Group clarifications. The CPSES blocks do-not currently have any stud-to-stud or stud-to-end cracks. If any are discovered during' scheduled inspections, the NRC Staff will be promptly informed and the engine will not be considered coerable until the proposed disposition and/or corrective actions have-been approved by the NRC Staff.
| |
| 11.4 PNL Recommendation: PNL recommends that, at any time a cylinder liner i is removed, the liner landing be. inspected for circumferential cracks. If-a crack is found, its length and depth should be characterized through appropriate nondestructive tests. The character-istics of the crack should be evaluated relative to FaAA's predictions for.circumferential crack behavior. PNL does not recommend' removal of cylinder liners for the sole purpose of this inspection.
| |
| NRC Clarification: The NRC Staff believes that it is prudent to ,
| |
| monitor these cracks at available opportunities should such cracks be known to exist.
| |
| CPSES Status: f.s noted previously, the right bank liner landings of both Unit 1 engines have linear indications. 1 These indications will be inspected when the i cylinder liners are removed forLother purposes.
| |
| | |
| Enc 1csura 1 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987~
| |
| Pagn 16 of 30
| |
| . ENCLOSURE I RESOLUTION OF GENERIC PHASE I ISSUES-As a point of clarification, the concerns related to -
| |
| camshaft gallery cracks were specific to the TDI.in-line engines.- TU Electric does not intend to inspect the CPSES camshaft galleries for cracks.
| |
| -11.5 PNL Recomendation: During any period of continuous engine operation,-
| |
| a visual inspection of the block top should be performed daily under intense light to detect any obvious evidence of cracking. Areas between adjacent cylinder heads should be included in this inspection. In addition, the block top should be inspected visually under intense light during the monthly surveillance testing.,
| |
| NRC Clarification: The Staff believes that these inspections are redundant to inspections that will be performed at periodic intervals and to visual inspections that will be performed for leaks on an hourly basis while the engine is running (see Table 1, DR/QR Appendix II, Revision 2).- Thus, the Staff will not require inclusion of such inspections in plant-specific M/S programs.
| |
| CPSES Status: TU Electric concurs and does not intend to implement the above inspection.
| |
| 11.6 PNL Recommendation: PNL recommends that magnetic particle and eddy ;
| |
| current inspections should be conducted according i to the specifications cited by PNL.
| |
| NRC Clarification: The Staff has not evaluated the specific merits of the PNL recomendation. However, licensees are already required, pursuant to NRC regulations and.
| |
| applicable industry standards, to meet certain minimum standards for nondestructive examination (NDE) inspections of safety-related components.
| |
| The Staff concludes that licensees should consider PNL's recommendations on this matter and incorpo-rate these recomendations.into their program if and as deemed appropriate.
| |
| CPSES Status: TU Electric will consider PNL's recomenda-tions and incorporate them as deemed appropriate.
| |
| 11.7 PNL Recomendation: PNL concurs that the periodic visual inspection of the cylinder liners recomended by the Owners Group is prudent for monitoring wear. PNL also concurs that boroscopic inspection is acceptable if the heads are not to be removed.
| |
| | |
| , _ _ . . . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . ~ _ . . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . . ._ . . _ .-
| |
| I Enclosure 1 to TXX-6236 February 13,.1987 Page 17 of 30 ENCLOSURE 1 I RESOLUTION OF GENERIC PHASE'I ISSUES'
| |
| } NRC Clarification: None 4
| |
| i i
| |
| CPSES Status: TU Electric will inspect the cylinder liners "
| |
| in accordance with Revision 2 of.the DR/QR Appen '
| |
| dix II M/S program. ,
| |
| J-I 12.0 CYLINDER HEADS (02-360A)
| |
| (NUREG-1216, Section 2.1.3.13) 1 The NRC Staff has concluded that subject to the following clarifications and:
| |
| i exceptions, the PNL' findings and recommendations of.Section 4.10.4.3 of PNL- .
| |
| j 5600 should be implemented. +
| |
| 12.1.PNL Recommendation: Liquid penetrant: inspection of valve seating ,
| |
| surfaces; magnetic particle inspection of the fire
| |
| ! deck area,- excluding valve seats; and vitrasonic -
| |
| 1-measurement of the fire deck thickness at six ;
| |
| 1 locations should be performed on all cylinder '
| |
| : l. heads intended fer use on engines in nuclear. ,
| |
| j standby service.
| |
| l
| |
| { NRC Clarification: Based on good operating experience to'date with Group III heads and subject to continued implemen-tation of air roll tests as described in Section 4.10.4.3 of PNL-5600, the Staff finds the proposed 25% sample inspection for Group'III heads be to
| |
| ! acceptable.
| |
| I j CPSES Status: All new cylinder heads have been installed on the i Un_it 1 engines. The recommended liquid penetrant, j magnetic particle, and ultrasonic inspections were >
| |
| ; performed on all these heads.
| |
| i 12.2 PNL Recommendation: PNL recommends that alternative procedures and i
| |
| acceptance criteria be used in future cylinder j head. inspections.
| |
| i NRC Clarification: The Staff has not specifically reviewed the merits i of the PNL recommendations. The Staff assumes-j that licensees will follow appropriate regulatory
| |
| ! and. industry standards in performing NDE inspec-
| |
| ! tions. The Staff concludes that licensees should i consider PNL's recommendations on this matter and incorporate these recommendations if and as appro-l priate.
| |
| I i CPSES Status: TU Electric will consider the recommendations
| |
| ! for future cylinder head inspections and will
| |
| { incorporate.them if deemed appropriate.
| |
| I i I
| |
| i i
| |
| I I .-
| |
| - ~.-_... - . - - - . - - - _._ - ......-. - - - ..- - -- -
| |
| | |
| Enclosure 1 to TXX-6236 Fcbruary 13, 1987 Page 18 of 30 ENCLOSURE 1 RESOLUTION OF GENERIC PHASE I ISSUES 12.3 PNL Recommendation: Cylinder heads with any through-wall weld repair of the fire deck should not be placed in nuclear standby service if the repair is performed from one side only (i.e., " plug weld").
| |
| NRC Clarification: The Staff concurs with this recommendation and concludes it should be incorporated into appropri-ate plant M/S procedures.
| |
| CPSES Status: The cylinder heads at CPSES were not specifically inspected for this type of repair. TU Electric.will review the vendor documentation to determine if any of the Unit I heads have this type of repair. If-this review is indeterminate, TU Electric will then conduct a physical inspection of the heads. Any heads having this type of weld repair will be replaced. TV Electric will also incorporate this recommendation into the appropriate plant M/S
| |
| ; procedures prior to placing the Unit 1 engines in nuclear standby service.
| |
| 12.4 PNL Recommendation: Following each engine operation, the engine should j
| |
| ~
| |
| be air-rolled at least 4 hours, but not more than 8 hours, after engine shutdown. The cylinder cocks should be open for detection of water leakage into the cylinders. A second air-roll should be performed in the same manner approxi-mately 24 hours after engine shutdown. In addi-tion, the engine should be air-rolled shortly before any planned starts. If water or steam is ejected from any of the open cylinder cocks, the corresponding head should be removed and inspected. The cause of the leakage should be corrected before the engine is returned to service.
| |
| PNL notes that the air-start system rolls the
| |
| ; engine much more rapidly than the barring-cser device, and is therefore more effective for
| |
| , detection of water leakage into the cylinders.
| |
| Individual engine owners may choose to bar-over an engine before the engine is air-rolled, to reduce the possibility of engine damage in the event water is present in a cylinder. However,-
| |
| barring-over an engine should not be a substitute for air-rolling it.
| |
| | |
| Enclosure 1 to TXX-6236 i 'Fcbruary 13, 1987-
| |
| , .Page .19 of 30 ENCLOSURE 1 i
| |
| [ RESOLUTION OF GENERIC PHASE I ISSUES i-i NRC Clarification: The post-operational air-roll ' tests may be discon-'
| |
| tinued after the first operating cycle provided (1) all heads are Group-III,-(2) QR inspections have
| |
| [ been completed on all heads, and -(3) Group III i heads continue to demonstrate leak free "
| |
| ; performance. These. air-roll tests should be performed.except in cases where the plant is i already in the action statement of Technical i Specification 3/4.8.1. The engine should not be
| |
| ! intentionally placed in a condition where it .
| |
| ; cannot receive a start signal if the other diesel j or other AC sources are already inoperable. 3 i
| |
| l CPSES~ Status: TU Electric will comply with the above recom-2
| |
| : mendation in accordance with Revision 2 of the DR/QR Appendix II M/S program.
| |
| 13.0 CYLINDER HEAD STUDS (02-315E)
| |
| (NUREG-1216, Section 2.1.3.14) i The NRC Staff has concluded that subject to the following clarifications and j exceptions, the PNL findings and recommendations of Section 4.11.4.3 of PNL-l 5600 should be implemented.
| |
| i
| |
| ! 13.1 PNL Recommendation: PNL concurs with SWEC that studs of both the I straight-shank design and the tapered-shank design are suitable for service in diesel engines at
| |
| ; nuclear power plants. This conclusion is predi-t cated on installation of studs in accordance with i procedures recommended by TDI (see Owners Group 2
| |
| letter 0GTP-301-0-161 from C.-L. Ray to J. Deddens l (Gulf States Utilities) of Sept.' 24,1986).
| |
| l NRC Clarificatioll: The Staff concurs, but notes that DR/QR Appendix i II, Revision 2 does not specifically address ,
| |
| ! installation of studs in accordance with proce-
| |
| . dures identified in 0GTP-301-0-161. The Staff will require that utilities check to ensure that l this point is addressed in plant specific pro-
| |
| ! grams. ,
| |
| l CPSES Status: All studs were replaced with the latest design.
| |
| and installed in accordance with procedures i recommended by TDI. Site procedures also address ,
| |
| i installation of studs in accordance with procedures recommended by TDI.
| |
| i k
| |
| i l
| |
| I i
| |
| | |
| i Enclosure 1 to TXX-6236 ~
| |
| FGbruary 13, 1987 Page 20 of 30 ENCLOSURE 1 4
| |
| RESOLUTION OF GENERIC PHASE I' ISSUES-
| |
| ~
| |
| . 14.0 ENGINE BASE AND BEARING CAPS (02-305A/305C/3050) l (NUREG-1216, Section 2.1.3.15)
| |
| I The NRC Staff has concluded that subject to the following clarifications and
| |
| , exceptions, the PNL findings and recommendations of Section 4.13.4.2 of PNL--
| |
| 5600 should be implemented.
| |
| I' As a clarification, Section 2.1.3.15 of NUREG-1216 references Section l 4.17.4.2 of PNL-5600. TU Electric understands this to be a typographical; error with the correct reference being Section 4.13.4.2 of PNL-5600.'-
| |
| 4:
| |
| 4 14.1 PNL Recommendation: PNL concurs with the recommendations of the Owners i Group for maintenance and surveillance.. ;
| |
| 1 NRC Clarification: Revision 2 of-the DR/QR Appendix II M/S program-
| |
| : l. incorporates PNL's recommendations in Section i 4.13.4.2 of PNL-5600 except as' discussed below. ;
| |
| ; First, the Owners Group is now proposing a visual '
| |
| i inspection'of the base to take place at each 10-year.
| |
| } overhaul rather than 'at each refueling outage as -
| |
| 1 originally proposed by the Owners Group and endorsed
| |
| : by PNL. In addition, the Owners Group is now,
| |
| { proposing that the base be inspected at each of the :
| |
| ! first three refueling outages except in cases where
| |
| { the licensee has confirmed that the base material i
| |
| microstructure conforms to normal Class 40 grey j iron. The Staff concurs with the proposed :
| |
| ; inspection interval in' cases where previous j inspections have shown the bases to be crack free.
| |
| i In cases where cracks have been found to exist'
| |
| , (e.g., certain bearing saddles of the EDG 102 and
| |
| : EDG 103 engines at Shoreham), the Staff believes j that these cracks should be monitored for growth by
| |
| ! magnetic particle or liquid penetrant inspection at i alternate refueling outages as recommended by PNL.
| |
| , If no growth is evident after ten years, these
| |
| ; inspections need only be performed at subsequent
| |
| ; major engine overhauls.
| |
| ;- CPSES Status: For Unit 1 Train A, linear indications were noted
| |
| { on main bearings Nos. 1, 3, and 9. 'The indications on bearing nos. I and 9 were evaluated
| |
| ; as acceptable casting discontinuities. Fracture niechanics analysis on the No. 3 indication indicates that there exists a minimum factor of l safety of 15.8 against growth and propagation.
| |
| i l
| |
| 1 l
| |
| . _ --,_ _ ,_...~. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
| |
| | |
| g
| |
| . Enclosure I to TXX-6236
| |
| ' February 13, 1987-Page ~21 of 30 .
| |
| . ENCLOSURE 1 RESOLUTION OF GENERIC' PHASE I ISSUES Based on this, TU Electric will inspect the
| |
| ~
| |
| indication on the No. 3 main bearing for Unit 1 Train A at every major engine overhaul.
| |
| 14.2 NRC Evaluation: 'The NRC staff has concluded that all TDI Owner Utilities-snould check each engine base for degenerate Widmanstaetten graphite. Should any base be found to contain this degenerate microstructure, this should be reported to the NRC together with a detailed assessment as to the adequacy'of the affected engine base for nuclear standby service.
| |
| CPSES Status: Material testing of the engine base is not a recommendation of the Owners Group and therefore the CPSES bases have not been checked. Based on NUREG-1216, TU Electric will check the engine bases at CPSES for Widmanstaetten graphite prior to fuel load.
| |
| 15.0 FUEL OIL INJECTION TUBING (02-365C)
| |
| (NUREG-1216, Section 2.1.3.16)
| |
| The NRC staff has concluded that subject to the following clarifications' and exceptions, the PNL findings and recommendations of Section 4.14.4.2 of PNL-5600 should be implemented.
| |
| 15.1 PNL Recommendation: PNL concurs with SWEC's recommendations that (1) replacement fuel oil injection tubing be fabricated from SAE-1010 steel rather than SAE-1008 steel because the former is stronger, and (2) the injection tubing should'be shrouded to prevent engine fires'in the event of a tubing leak.
| |
| NRC Clarification: Implementation is recommended but optional.
| |
| CPSES Status: TU Electric has replaced all the fuel oil injection tubing with new shrouded tubing fabricated from SAE-1010 steel.=
| |
| 15.2 PNL Recommendation: All fuel oil injection tubing on each engine should be inspected before the engine is initially-placed in nuclear standby service. Inspection of each tube at both ends within the limitations imposed by tube bends is adequate. FaAA NDT Procedure 11.10 should be used for the inspection.
| |
| | |
| Enclosure 1 to TXX-6236' February 13, 1987
| |
| ~ Page 22 of 30 ENCLOSURE 1 RESOLUTION OF GENERIC PHASE I' ISSUES An alternative procedure may be used if the procedure is verified to reliably detect a minimum
| |
| . flaw size of '0.003 inch' on the inside. surface of -
| |
| the tube. Tubing with flaws deeper than 0.003 inch should be rejected.
| |
| NRC Clarification: None CPSES Status: All Unit I fuel oil injection tubing was inspected to the above requirements.
| |
| 15.3 PNL Recommendation: Fittings for the-injection tubing should be installed and inspected in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
| |
| NRC Clarification: Plant maintenance programs should. include the manufacturer's instructions concerning the installation and inspection of the fuel line fittings.
| |
| CPSES Status: TU Electric will verify site procedures are in compliance with manufacturer's recommen-dations.
| |
| 15.4 PNL Recommendation: Replacement tubing should be examined over its -
| |
| full length prior to bending, and any tubing with flaws deeper than 0.003 inch should be rejected.
| |
| PNL suggests that an eddy-current probe capable of traversing the entire tube bore be used for this examination.
| |
| NRC Clarification: None CPSES Status: TU Electric concurs and in the future will i inspect any new fuel oil tubing by eddy-current along its entire. length. ;
| |
| 15.5 PNL Recommendation: Newly installed injection tubing and fittings should be visually inspected for leaks following-engine operation. PNL suggests that these inspections be performed only after the engine is shut down, and that the ~ inspector look for wet fittings or other signs of leakage. Inspection of the tubes during engine operation may be hazardous because of the high pressure of the fuel within the tube, i
| |
| i f
| |
| i
| |
| ~
| |
| L
| |
| | |
| Enclosure 1 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 23 of 30 ENCLOSURE 1 RESOLUTION OF GENERIC PHASE I ISSUES NRC Clarification: The timing of when the inspections are to be performed is at the discretion of the utility.
| |
| CPSES Status: TU Electric has inspected the newly installed injection tubing and fittings for leaks and intends to perform any additional inspections after the engine is shut down.
| |
| 16.0 JACKET WATER PUMP (02-425A)
| |
| (NUREG-1216, Section 2.1.3.17)
| |
| The NRC staff has concluded that subject to the following clarifications and exceptions, the PNL findings and recommendations of Section 4.15.4.3 of PNL-5600 should be implemented.
| |
| 16.1 PNL Recommendation: PNL has concurred with the findings of the Owners Group and SWEC that the design of the DSRV-16 engine jacket water pump is adequate for the intended nuclear service. PNL also concurs with the maintenance and surveillance recommendations presented in Revision 2 of the DR/QR Report, Appendix II.
| |
| -1 NRC Clarification: None for CPSES CPSES Status: TU Electric has implemented the recommendations of the Owners Group and will maintain the jacket water pumps in accordance with Revision 2 of the DR/QR Appendix II M/S program.
| |
| 17.0 PISTON SKIRTS - TYPE AE (02-341A)
| |
| (NUREG-1216, Section 2.1.3.18)
| |
| The NRC staff has concluded that subject to the following clarifications and exceptions, the PNL findings and recommendations of_Section 4.16.3.3 of PNL-5600 should be implemented.
| |
| 17.1 PNL Recommendation: The DR/QR report for River Bend (TDI OG February 1985) recommends liquid penetrant inspections of type AE piston skirts in the stud boss area, in the rib area near the wrist pin boss, and at the intersection of the rib with the wrist pin boss.
| |
| PNL recommends that these areas be included in the pre-service inspections of all AE piston skirts.
| |
| The inspections should be performed with liquid penetrant and, as appropriate, with eddy current.
| |
| 1
| |
| - , _ _ _ _ ~ , _ _ _ --
| |
| ._m.-._ _ , . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ -_ . _ . - -
| |
| | |
| y
| |
| .Enclosdro 1 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 24 of 30
| |
| ' ENCLOSURE 1 RESOLUTION OF: GENERIC PHASE I ISSUES' s
| |
| Any piston skirts of engines .in nuclear service that have not been inspected in these areas'should~
| |
| be inspected at'the first major engine disassembly.
| |
| NRC Clarification: Quality revalidation inspections will be conipl,eted on all AE piston skirts before' initial plant operation.
| |
| CPSES Status: ' Piston skirt boss' areas on all'32 Type. AE piston skirts received liquid penetrant inspections for mapping -and evaluation.of linear indications.
| |
| Linear indications exceeding the.-liquid penetrant inspection acceptance criteria were noted on piston skirts SR and 6R on Train A and on piston skirt 7L on Train B. The Train A 5R and 6R indications were also eddy-current tested to more.
| |
| sharply determine the depths of the indications.
| |
| The Train B 7L indication visibly extended through ,
| |
| the boss lip. The indications in'all three piston
| |
| -skirts were located in portions of the piston skirt which. serve no structural purpose. - The indications were therefore ground away completely (or to within acceptance criteria for one indication) and satisfactorily ratested with liquid penetrant prior to installation in the engines.
| |
| All piston wrist pins in the CPSES Unit 1 engines were also visually inspected for. signs of motion between the rolled-in plugs and the pin mating '
| |
| surfaces, as well as for signs of scoring, galling, pitting or chipping of chrome plating of the wrist pins. Plugs and mating surfaces were satisfactory in both engines. . Train A wrist pins i all showed slight wear, with 6 pins showing some -
| |
| scoring, galling,' pitting or chrome chipping or -
| |
| blistering. The level of wear found was not measurable, however, the 6 Train A pins described above were replaced because of the conditions found with satisfactory spares that were inspected to the same criteria. One wrist pin from Train B- s.
| |
| was found to have visible scoring which did not. ..; '
| |
| penetrate the chrome plating, and was therefore / '
| |
| considered acceptable for.use as is. All others from Train B were satisfactory.
| |
| In addition to the above, liquid penetrant 7*
| |
| inspection was performed on six wrist pins from L
| |
| ~
| |
| _ .. a
| |
| | |
| Enclosure 1 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 25 cf 30 ENCLOSURE 1 RESOLUTION OF GENERIC PHASE I ISSUES the Train A engine as a further check on chrome -
| |
| plating condition. Two of these were previously rejected because of the visual examination results, and these two were found unsatisfactory-again because of heat checkering of.the chrome surface. The other four were found to be satisfactory by the liquid penetrant criteria, however, two of these were also previously rejected by visual examination. The total of six unsatisfactory wrist pins on Train A were replaced i with satisfactory spares.
| |
| Three Train A wrist pins and one spare were given material properties (comparator and hardness) tests, again, with satisfactory results.
| |
| TV Electric considers the above inspections adequate to verify the absence of pre-existing rejectable flaws in the more highly-stressed areas of the piston skirts, with no further action required.
| |
| 17.2 NRC Evaluation: The NRC staff has concluded that load restrictions on AE piston skirts which were imposed for a few plants are no longer necessary.
| |
| CPSES Status: TU Electric concurs and understands that there is no load limit on the CPSES engines other than i the manufacturer's rating.
| |
| 18.0 PISTON SKIRTS - MODIFIED TYPE AF (NUREG-1216, Section 2.1.3.19)
| |
| This component is not applicable to CPSES Units 1 and 2.
| |
| 19.0 PISTON SKIRTS - TYPE AH AND AN (NUREG-1216, Section 2.1.3.20)
| |
| This component is not applicable to CPSES Units 1 and 2.
| |
| 20.0 PUSH RODS (02-390C/390D)
| |
| (NUREG-1216, Section 2.1.3.21)
| |
| The NRC staff has concluded that subject to the following clarifications and exceptions, the PNL findings and recommendations of Section 4.17.4.3 of PNL-5600 should be implemented.
| |
| 4 0
| |
| \
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| Enclosure I to TXX-6236 February 130 1987 Page 26 of 30
| |
| ; ENCLOSURE 1
| |
| , ' RESOLUTION OF GENERIC-PHASE I ISSUES 1
| |
| i 20.1 PNL Recommendation: Each push rod of the friction-welded design sh'ould i be inspected initially.by liquid penetrant. If this initial inspection was not done prior to
| |
| /; placing the push rods in service, it should-be
| |
| : done at the first major engine disassembly. If the friction-welded push rod has been previously inspected by liquid penetrant, then visual
| |
| ' examination will suffice for future inspections.
| |
| All friction-welded push. rods with cracks should be replaced, preferably with push rods ~ of the same design. ( ->
| |
| I i NRC Clarification: The generic DR/QR. Appendix II M/S program, Revision 2, does not include provision for a
| |
| ; destructive examination of friction-welded push -
| |
| l rods on a random sample from each future manufacturing lot. Because each rod will be
| |
| . ! initially inspected by liquid penetrant, the staff I concludes that the subject destructive examination
| |
| ; should be at the utilities option.
| |
| j CPSES Status: Liquid penetrant: tests were performe'd on all
| |
| : friction welds'in the Unit I push rods, with j satisfactory results. TU Electric does not i
| |
| intend to conduct destructive testing of push j rods.
| |
| 20.2 NRC Evaluation: The generic DR/QR Appendix II M/S program, q l Revision 2, incorporates PNL's recommendations for i pre-service and periodic inservice inspection of 4-push rods. PNL's suggestion concerning radiograph 1 inspections is considered by the staff to be an optional item to be implemented at the Utilities
| |
| : discretion.
| |
| If i CPSES Status: In view of the fact that each push rod of. the friction-welded design will be liquid penetrant L in'spected prior to service, TU Electric does not intend to conduct radiograph inspections.
| |
| : 21.0 ROCKER ARM CAPSCREWS (02-390F)
| |
| (HUREG-1216,Section2.1.3l22)
| |
| The NRC's staif f has concluded that subject to the following clarifications and exceptions, the PNL-findings and recommendations of Section 4.18.4.3 of j PNL-5600 should be implemented.
| |
| 4 I
| |
| : m. . - - - . i. ma - . - - . ..m, 1_ - . , 4 Ji- r i-, , . - - . , - - ,
| |
| | |
| Enclosure I to TXX-6236 February 13,.1987' Page 27 of 30 ENCLOSURE 1 RESOLUTION OF GENERIC PHASE I ISSUES 21.1 PNL Recommendation: Ensure that proper preload recommended by TDI'is initially established and maintained. If the rocker arm capscrews are installed with proper preload, they should not require any maintenance /
| |
| surveillance until they are removed for other reasons.
| |
| NRC Clarification: The NRC staff notes that the generic DR/QR-Appendix II M/S program, Revision,2, addresses the need for verifying proper torquing.
| |
| CPSES Status: CPSES maintenance instructions contain the latest recommended capscrew torquing requirements.
| |
| 22.0 TURBOCHARGERS (MP-022/3)
| |
| (NUREG-1216, Section 2.1.3.23)
| |
| The NRC staff has concluded that subject to the following clarifications and exceptions, the PNL findings and recommendations of Section 4.19.4.3 of PNL-5600 should be implemented.
| |
| 22.1 PNL Recommendation: FaAA recommendations regarding the installation of the drip and full-flow prelubrication system should be implemented.
| |
| NRC Clarification: None CPSES Status: The modification to the turbocharger lubrication system has been completed per the TDI recommendation specified in response to the.10 CFR 21 report of February 15, 1984. TU Electric will also continue to use the full-flow auxiliary lube oil- pump to provide prelubrication of.the-turbocharger prior to p
| |
| ' all planned engine starts except as specified in the Technical Specifications..
| |
| 22.2 PNL Recommendation: FaAA recommendations for maintenance and surveillance, including bearing-inspections and .
| |
| preventive maintenance should be fully' implemented.
| |
| HRC Clarification: The NRC staff finds that the FaAA recommendations are generally included in the plant specific DR/QR reports or in Revision-2 of the DR/QR_ Appendix II- d:
| |
| M,i program.
| |
| .J
| |
| | |
| Enclosure 1 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 28 of 30 ENCLOSURE 1 RESOLUTION OF GENERIC PHASE I ISSUES CPSES Status: TU Electric will comply with Revision 2 of the DR/QR Appendix II M/S program.
| |
| l j 22.3 PNL Recommendation: Exhaust gas temperatures should be monitored to ensure that they do not exceed the Elliott '
| |
| specification of 12000F.
| |
| 4 NRC Clarification: The NRC staff finds the Owners Group proposed alternative of limiting the maximum cylinder .
| |
| exhaust temperature to 10500F to be acceptable.
| |
| CPSES Status: TU Electric wil1 ~ monitor the cylinder exhaust temperature to ensure _that it does not exceed.
| |
| 10500F. If cylinder-exhaust temperatures exceed 10500F, additional monitoring will be performed in accordance with DR/QR Appendix II M/S program, Revision 2.
| |
| ! 22.4 PNL Recommendation: Spectrochemical and ferrographic engine oil analysis should be employed quarterly to further -t expand the preventive monitoring of the turbocharger thrust. bearing. Particular. attention should be paid to copper level. and particulate-size, which could signify thrust bearing
| |
| ; degradation.
| |
| !^
| |
| NRC Clarification: The NRC staff will require each utility to verify this recomendation has been incorporated into the
| |
| ; respective plant specific program.
| |
| ; CPSES Status: TU Electric will comply with the.above j recommendation. See Enclosure 4.
| |
| 22.5 PNL Recommendation: The additional maintenance and surveillance-recommendations identified by the Owners Group in their DR/QR reviews should be implemented. These include (1) using full-flow lubrication during engine coastdown and (2) staking the nozzle ring l
| |
| core plugs to prevent ary movement. -The staking a should be performed duri~g n the next turbocharger.
| |
| overhaul, but no later than the fourth refueling outage for any turbocharger. .;
| |
| NRC Clarification: The NRC staff finds that full-flow lubrication ~ '
| |
| , during coastdown .should be implemented at- the utilities option.
| |
| t 1
| |
| ,,-,,,,------vw,--~%-y--ea,,-yrre..g,v--- rw- +,.vf-4 - , - . - - - -, --r - - . , , , , - - , . , - - - - --w--.-,
| |
| | |
| Enclosure-1.to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 ,
| |
| Pagt 29 of 30 -j ENCLOSURE 1 l
| |
| l
| |
| ; RESOLUTION OF GENERIC PHASE I ISSUES l l
| |
| l CPSES Status: TU Electric does not' intend to use full-flow '
| |
| : lubrication during engine.coastdown and will :
| |
| verify staking of the core plugs no later than the '
| |
| fourth refueling outage.
| |
| 4 22.6 PNL Recommendation: The nozzle ring components and inlet guide vanes should be visually inspected at each refueling outage for missing parts or parts showing.
| |
| distress. If such are noted, the entire ring assembly should be replaced. The frequency of inspections may be relaxed as appropriate.after
| |
| : the causes of earlier failures are firmly
| |
| ! established and corrective actions to. prevent recurrence are implemented.
| |
| NRC Clarification: The Owners Group has proposed .in Revision 2 of the DR/QR Appendix II M/S program that each turbocharger be inspected after approximately 100 hours of 4
| |
| preoperational testing or, alternatively, at the first refueling. Subsequently,' turbocharger nozzle ring components'would be inspected at each nuclear unit on a one turbocharger per refueling
| |
| , outage basis and all would be inspected at each turbocharger overhaul. which is performed at 5 year intervals. ~The staff concludes that the frequency of inspection proposed by the-Owners Group is acceptable. However, the staff will require that plant-specific programs specify that any turbocharger in which nozzle ring anomalies are
| |
| ; found be reinspected at'the next refueling outage.
| |
| The Revision 2 of the DR/QR Appendix II M/S program also specifies that the nozzle ring inspections may.
| |
| be discontinued after nozzle rings of an appropriate redesign have been installed. The staff interprets this provision as applying to the inspection of one -turbocharger per refueling
| |
| ; outage item and not to the turbocharger inspections to be performed at 5-year intervals.
| |
| The staff will require that this point be clarified in plant-specific programs. On this
| |
| , basis, the staff finds the proposed provision "to t
| |
| delete" to be acceptable.
| |
| CPSES Status: TU Electric will inspect the nozzle ring components and-inlet guide vanes in accordance with Revision 2 of the DR/QR Appendix-II M/S a
| |
| e n -,- < ~ ~v - +v --
| |
| | |
| Enclosura 1 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987-.
| |
| Page 30 of 30 ENCLOSURE 1 RESOLUTION OF GENERIC PHASE I ISSUES program. This includes a one-turbocharger per refueling outage inspection, with each
| |
| , turbocharger being overhauled at approximately 5-year intervals. .TU Electric understands that if a new design nozzle ring is installed, the one-turbocharger per refueling outage inspection may be deleted. See Enclosure 4 for additional .
| |
| comments..
| |
| h m-. =-,--- - - - , - - ~ ,
| |
| | |
| Enclosure 2 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 1 of 2 ENCLOSURE 2
| |
| | |
| - Enclosure'2 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Pago 2 of 2 ENCLOSURE 2 PROBLEM AREAS OF A PLANT SPECIFIC NATURE.
| |
| | |
| ==Reference:==
| |
| : 1. NRC letter of February 25, 1986 from S. B. Burwell,
| |
| " Summary of Meeting Between NRC Staff and TUGC0 to Audit the Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generator Reliability Program."
| |
| : 2. PNL-5444, " Review of Design Review and Quality Revalidation Report for the Transamerica DeLaval Diesel Generators at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Unit 1," October 1985.
| |
| Based on a review of References 1 and 2, TU Electric understands that there are' no outstanding problem areas specific to CPSES which have not been resolved. All the open issues applicable to CPSES are generic.and have been addressed in Enclosures 1, 3 or 4 to this letter.
| |
| ,--,e, e c-,,n -rw.. -x .r, , , , . ,
| |
| to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 1 of 15 ENCLOSURE 3
| |
| | |
| Enclesure 3 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 2 of 15 ENCLOSURE 3 RESOLUTION OF OPEN PHASE II ISSUES (NUREG-1216, Section 2.2)
| |
| | |
| ==References:==
| |
| : 1. PNL-5444, " Review of Design Review and Quality Revalidation Report for the Transamerica DeLaval Diesel Generators at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Unit 1," October 1985.
| |
| : 2. PNL-5718, " Review of Transamerica DeLaval Inc. Diesel Generator Owners Group Engine Requalification Program -
| |
| Final Report," December 1985.
| |
| Open Phase II isssues will be closed out by the first refueling outage. The Phase II effort consisted of a DR/QR of a large set of important engine components to assure that their design and manufacture (including specifications and quality assurance) and maintenance (including operational surveillance) are adequate.
| |
| The NRC staff's contractor, PNL, performed a detailed audit review of the DR/QR report for the Comanche Peak Unit 1, DSRV-16-4 engines. This PNL review is documented in PNL Report PNL-5444. PNL found that the DR/QR efforts fully met the intent of the Owners Group Program Plan, which was to establish " reasonable assurance of the ability of the TDI engines to provide reliable backup power supplies for nuclear power plant service."
| |
| PNL found that the Owners Group had adequately addressed the design and/or quality aspects of all the components included in the audit-type review for CPSES. From the PNL review of the adequacy of the Owners Group maintenance recommendations for the audited components, PNL concluded that the maintenance plan as proposed was acceptable. During their review of the Owners Group M/S recommendations for the audited components, the PNL consultants did identify additional areas that, in their engineering judgment, would represent improvements (see Section 4.0 of PNL-5444). Failure to accomplish these additional items would not seriously affect engine operability; however, PNL feels that, on the basis of good engineering practice, the engine owners should incorporate these recommendations into their M/S plans as they apply to the DSRV-16-4 engines. On the basis of the above, the staff concludes that these items should not be required by the NRC staff and that they should be implemented I at the discretion of the individual utilities.
| |
| l l
| |
| i l
| |
| : l. . .
| |
| | |
| , Enclosure 3 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 3 of 15 ENCLOSURE 3 RESOLUTION OF OPEN PHASE II ISSUES (1) The PNL recommendations and suggestions in these additional areas are identified below.
| |
| Part Discussed 10 gr Comoonent Number TER Section li) Recommendation Suaaestion ISll [R]iU (a) Intercooler F-068 5.3 [S] Monitor air temperature
| |
| ' and air and waterside DP for trend analysis (b) Main bearing 02-310B 4.8 [R] Discrepancies noted by shells the Owner Group (0G) in component 02-310B were reviewed and resolved by Failure Analysis Associates. A confirmation review by NRC of this report is recommended.
| |
| (c) Camshaft - 02-350C 5.24 [S] Suggest a redesign to supports, bolting, eliminate use of cotter pins and gears (d) Idler gear 02-355B 5.26 [S] Suggest a redesign to assembly eliminate use of cotter pins (e) Intake and 02-360B 5.27 [R] Valves should be replaced if exhaust valve they show evidence of flaking and less of chrome plating (f) Air ir.take 02-375 5.33 [R] Further incidence of manifold cracking should be investigated thoroughly (g) Intake / 02-390A/B 5.36 [S] Inspect rocker boxes at intermediate and the rocker shaft bolt exhaust rocker at refueling outages shaft assemblies (h) Intercooler 02-436A/B 5.39 [R] In the event of a seismic pipe - couplings event exceeding the Site Seismic Event limit, the couplings should be in-spected and evaluated.
| |
| (i) Miscellaneous 02-810E 5.67 [S] Record jacket water equipment - jacket temperatures daily and water standpipe trend monthly excursions heater above the set point (j) Oil prelube 02-820E 5.71 [S] Maintain records and trend filter DP versus time
| |
| | |
| Enclosure-3 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 4 of 15
| |
| , ENCLOSURE 3 RESOLUTION OF OPEN PHASE II ISSUES Notes: (i) See PNL-5444, Section 4.0, Table 4.1 l
| |
| (ii) PNL recommendations (R] should.be addressed by TU Electric as modification to their M/S plan. The' suggestions [S] are. deemed less important and are provided only for completeness.
| |
| (2) The CPSES status of these recommendations is noted below.
| |
| (a) Intercooler (F-068) - TU Electric will monitor. and trend the exhaust temperature from the cylinders and the. jacket water supply temperature during the monthly surveillance test in accordance with Revision 2 of the DR/QR Appendix II M/S program.
| |
| (b) Main bearing shells (02-310B) - TU Electric understands that no further action is required.
| |
| (c) Camshaft-supports, bolting.and gears (02-350C) --TU Electric does not intend to initiate a redesign to eliminate the use of cotter pins.
| |
| (d) Idler gear assembly (02-3558) - TU Electric does not intend to initiate a redesign to eliminate the use of cotter pins.
| |
| (e) Intake and exhaust valve (02-3608) - TU Electric will inspect the intake and exhaust valves in accordance with Revision 2 of the DR/QR Appendix II M/S program for any abnormal condition. This would include flaking or loss of chrome plating.- The valves will be replaced if they show signs of any unacceptable condition.
| |
| (f) Air intake manifold (02-375) - TU Electric has concluded that the previous cracking was caused by an initial misalignment of the intake manifold elbows. The elbows have subsequently been fitted properly.
| |
| When these elbows are removed in the future, TU Electric intends to inspect them for any abnormal condition as a general work practice and will take the necessary corrective / preventive action.
| |
| (g)
| |
| Intake / intermediate and Exhaust rocker shaft assemblies (02-390A/B) -
| |
| TU Electric intends to inspect the rocker boxes at the rocker shaft bolt holes as a general work practice when other elements of the rocker assembly are inspected-in accordance with Revision 2 of the DR/QR Appendix II M/S program.
| |
| l (h) Intercooler pipe - couplings (02-436A/B) - TU Electric intends to inspect the couplings in the event of a site seismic event as a i general work practice in evaluating the impact of a seismic event.
| |
| (i) Jacket Water standpipe heater (02-810E) TV Electric will record jacket water heat exchanger inlet and outlet temperatures in accordance with Revision 2 of the DR/QR Appendix II M/S program.
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| Enclosure 3 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987
| |
| , Page 5 of 15 ENCLOSURE 3 RESOLUTION OF OPEN PHASE II ISSUES (j) Oil Prelube filter (02-820E) - TU Electric will record prelube oil filter DP in accordance with Revision 2 of the DR/QR Appendix II M/S program.
| |
| (3) The staff and its PNL consultants have concluded that implementation of the Owners Group recommendations in the Phase II reports will be effective in improving and ensuring the design adequacy and quality of the engine components and, hence, the reliability and operability of the TDI engines at the various Owners Group nuclear plants. The staff and PNL have, therefore, concluded that each individual owner should implement all Owners Group recommendations stemming from the plant-specific Phase II evaluations.
| |
| In the process of implementing all the Owners Group recommendations, TU Electric has elected to remove the unnecessary conservatism of the original analysis for 24 components. Specifically, the site seismic response spectra for the CPSES Diesel Generator Buildings with the 5% damping values of ASME Code Case N-411 was used to reanalyze 9 large-bore and 14 small-bore components. This reanalysis was performed by Impell Corporation under the auspices of the Owners Group (Duke / MATS). In addition, the Exhaust Manifold piping (02-380A) was also reanalyzed directly by Duke Power Company. Table 1 to this enclosure gives the status of the CPSES Unit 1 DR/QR recommended modifications and Attachment I consists of supplemental DR/QR reports for CPSES Unit 1.
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| Enc 1csura 3 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 6 of 15 ENCLOSURE 3 jl TABLE 1 I CPSES DR/QR REPORT RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS Sr. No. Component No. Recomended Modifications (1) 02-CFR It is recommended that two-directional supports be added to the Turbo' Thrust Bearing Lube Oil Tubing Line so that the span between supports is limited to.a maximum of 4'6".. Subsequently determined to be adequate as designed and installed (see Attachment 1,
| |
| ~
| |
| Item No. 12).
| |
| (2) 02-307D It is recomended, to prevent overstressing the auxi-liary internal Lube Oil Header. Piping, that all 1/4" U-bolts be replaced with 3/8" U-bolts,. torqued so header is not allowed to move axially. ' Subsequently determined to be-acceptable without modification.
| |
| However, U-bolt nut locking devices are recommended, and will be installed (see Attachment 1,-Item No. 13)..
| |
| (3) 02-316A & B It is recommended that angles be.added on both sides of the U-bolts to accommodate the lateral loads for manifold assembly support JW-PSE-10062. . It is~also recommended that double. nuts be added to the Dresser.
| |
| coupling. -Subsequently determined to be adequate as designed and installed (see Attachment 1, Item No.:3).
| |
| (4) 02-316C It is recommended that on Support TS-1001A-ES-10161, the horizontal unistrut member requires a moment type connection at the attachment to C5x9 to accept cylic horizontal loads. This support has been re-analyzed and will be modified.as recommended in the supplemental report (see. Attachment 1, Item No.14)-
| |
| (5) 02-317A It is recommended that if a leak develops, the style t
| |
| 65 Dresser Coupling be replaced with the Style 90 l
| |
| Dresser coupling. This modification will be- !
| |
| implemented, if a leak develops. !
| |
| -1 (6) 02-317C It is recommended that the existing weld between the engine block and plate for support JW-PSA-10050 to JW-PSA-20059 be increased to 1/4". This modification ~ (
| |
| will be implemented.
| |
| (7) 02-341B It is recommended that a high detergency Series 3 or..
| |
| l better oil such as Mobilgard 412 be used. Mobilgard '
| |
| 412 is being used.for Unit 1. '
| |
| i i
| |
| | |
| __ _.. _ --1
| |
| ' Enclosure 3 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987
| |
| . Page 7-of 15 ENCLOSURE 3 TABLE I CPSES DR/QR REPORT RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS Sr. No. Component No. Recommended' Modifications (8) 02-350C It is recommended that either:
| |
| (1) the number of No. 9167 bolts,. torqued to 70
| |
| ( 20) ft-lbf, be increased from 4 to 6.
| |
| or .
| |
| (2) the initial torque of the No. 9167 bolts' be increased to 80 (+10, -0) ft-lbf.
| |
| TU Electric advised NRC and PNL.in the DR/QR review meeting (July 1985) that visual inspection showed six bolts rather than four in the hub to gear connection.
| |
| PNL concurs with the Owners Group that these ;
| |
| components are suitable for their intended purposes.
| |
| No_further action is required.
| |
| (9) 02-375 It is recommended that the missing U-bolt be replaced and loose nuts tightened. Completed.
| |
| (10) 02-380A It is recommended that four of the twelve slip joints be replaced with 150 lb. slip-on flanges. ~
| |
| Subsequently determined to be adequate as designed and installed. Reanalyzed.by Duke Power Company.(see Attachment 1, Item No. 26).
| |
| (11) 02-435A Modified as per Component 02-316C. [Sr. No. (4)- of Table 1]. ,
| |
| (12) 02-435B It is recommended that support JW-PSVER-10265 be modified to provide restraint against upward movement.
| |
| Subsequently determined to be adequate as designed and installed (see Attachment 1, Item No. 4).
| |
| (13) 02-441A It is recommended that two-directional: supports be added to the following. lines so that the span between i supports is limited to a maximum of 5'6" for 3/8" '
| |
| tubing and 6'0" for 1/2" tubing. Subsequently .
| |
| determined to be adequate as designed and installed !
| |
| (see Attachment 1, Item No. 15). t (14) 02-441C It is recommended that:
| |
| (1) Support GT-PSR-T10200 be_ replaced because of damage.
| |
| (2) Supports SA-PSR-T10050, T10051, T10086, T10088, ;
| |
| and T10089 be modified to provide adequate two- ,
| |
| directional -restraint. l l
| |
| i-l 4 e
| |
| y,-n,,= nome &,-wsy wh Ty e -ww-e-- e-*wyw + g-v% - m-- ---y,w'---,-- -- - -
| |
| 9-- .- +-w i. m--vy-------w
| |
| | |
| Enclosure'3 to TXX-6236 February 13,-1987.
| |
| Page 8 of 15 E ENCLOSURE 3 TABLE 1 CPSES DR/QR REPORT RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS ,
| |
| Sr. No. Component No. Recommended Modifications
| |
| ).
| |
| ; 02-4410 (cont) (3) Supports SA-PSA-10003, 10004, 10005, 10006, 10007, 10011, 10012, 10013, arid 10014 be.
| |
| modified.
| |
| 1 (4) Supports SA-PSA-10002 and.SA-PSA-10008 be modified to provide restraint in the lateral ,
| |
| direction. '
| |
| 1 (5) Supports SA-PSA-10001 and SA-PSA-10009 be modified to alleviate thermal stresses.
| |
| (6) Supports SA-PSA-10000 and SA-PSA-10010 baseplate-be modified to take bending.
| |
| This component has subsequently been reanalyzed and 4
| |
| the following modifications will be implemented (see Attachment 1, Item No. 5).
| |
| 3 02-441C (LB) (1) Slot bolts holes for Supports SA-PSA-10003,-.
| |
| 10004, 10005,--10006, 10007, 10011, 10012, 10013, l 10014, and SA-PSA-10000, and 10010.
| |
| (2) Install locking devices for bolts..
| |
| (3) Increase weld on supports SA-PSA-10012 and 10013.
| |
| ~
| |
| 02-441C (SB) (1) Replace support GT-PSR-T10200 due to damage.
| |
| (2) Modify supports SA-PSR-T10050, T10051, T10086,.
| |
| ; T10088 and T10089 to provide ~ adequate two-directional restraint. ;
| |
| (15) 02-450A It is recommended thatt !
| |
| (1) One support on each of the fuel oil drip headers '
| |
| 4 should be modified to a three-way restraint.
| |
| (2) Each of the supports on the fuel oil drip header !
| |
| crossover pipe (Supports PSVER-10598 and PSR-10597) should be modified.
| |
| Subsequently determined to be adequate as designed and installed (see Attachment 1, Item No.16).
| |
| l (16) 02-450B It is recommended that supports F0-PSR-10597, FO-PSR-
| |
| ! 10598, F0-PSR-10157, and F0-PSR-10587 be modified.
| |
| Subsequently determined to be adequate as designed.
| |
| Installation has been completed (see Attachment 1, Item No. 17).
| |
| I
| |
| _ - . - - , - __.~ ._
| |
| | |
| l Enclosure 3 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 9 of 15 ENCLOSURE 3 TABLE 1 CPSES DR/QR REPORT RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS Sr. No. Component No. Recommended Modifications (17) 02-465A It is recommended that:
| |
| (1) a minimum installation gap of 0.171 in, be included between the. pipe ends at the Dresser coupling.
| |
| (2) a three-dimensional support be added on the riser of the 1-1/2". gear case lube oil line.
| |
| (3) two-directional supports be added to the following tubing lines so that the span between supports is limited to a maximum of 4'6" for 1/4" tubing and 5'6" for 3/8" tubing:
| |
| (a) The 1/4" crossover tube between the north sump large-bore discharge lines.
| |
| (b) The 3/8" tube between the Main Lube Oil Header (crossover) and the large-bore three-way valve.
| |
| Subsequently determined to be adequate as designed and installed (see Attachment 1, Item No. 18).
| |
| (18) 02-465B It is racommended that the plate 1/4"x 1-1/2"x l'2-1/8" long located on Support No. PS-1001A-LO-10519 should be removed and replaced with a two-directional plus an axial restraint or a three-directional restraint at or near the same location. Subsequently determined to be adequate as designed and installed (see Attachment 1, Item No. 19).
| |
| (19) 02-467A It is recommended that a two-directional lateral support be added to the left-bank Turbo Supply Line (3/4" line between the cros'over pipe and cross connection at sight-glass) so that the span between supports is limited to a maximum of 7'6".
| |
| It is also recommended that two Dresser couplings be replaced with 150 lb. slip-on flanges. . Subsequently determined to be adequate as designed and installed (see Attachment 1, Item Nos. 6 and 20).
| |
| 4
| |
| | |
| Enclosure 3 to TXX-6236 Fcbruary 13, 1987 Page 10 of 15 ENCLOSURE 3 TABLE 1 CPSES DR/QR REPORT RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS' Sr. No. Component No. Recommended Modification]
| |
| -(20) 02-467B It is recommended that the torque on 5/8" diameter !
| |
| bolt attaching tubing support to turbocharger support frame be verified to be at least 30 ft.-lb and i periodically checked.
| |
| It is also recommended that supports LO-PSR-10030 and LO-PSR-10032 have angles added to accommodate lateral loads. This component has subsequently been reanalyzed with increased weld on supports LO-PSR-10030 and 10032 being recommended; this modification will be implemented (see Attachment 1, Item No. 7).
| |
| (21) 02-475B It is recommended that grease fittings be added to the- .
| |
| butterfly valve shaft as a design improvement. '
| |
| Completed on Unit 1.
| |
| (22) 02-630C It is recommended that two new supports be added to '
| |
| conduits 6A, 6B, 7A, and 78. This modification will be implemented. -
| |
| (23) 02-695A (1) it is recommended that two-directional supports -
| |
| be added to the following lines so that the span between supports is limited to a maximum of ;
| |
| 4'6".
| |
| l
| |
| . (a) Line E16 between the large-bore connection at the discharge manifold and Bulkhead No.
| |
| 7; (b) Lines E20, E31R, E53, E89 between Bulkhead No. 10 and the first bulkhead connection on the skid;
| |
| ; (c) Lines M1 and M2 between the large-bore -l connection at the filter (inlet and discharge lines) and Bulkhead No.1; (d) Auxiliary Fuel Oil Pump Discharge Pressure Indication Line between Support No. ST-PSR-T10734 and Bulkhead No. 1, including adjacent lines at sump area; '
| |
| (e) Pressure Indication Lines between PS-51, 52, j 53, and 54 and Support No. MX-PSR-T10107.
| |
| Item (1) has subsequently been determined to be l adequate as designed and installed (see Attachment 1, J Item No. 21).
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| '1 Enclcsure 3'to TXX-6236 i February 13, 1987 1 Page 11 of 15 l ENCLOSURE-3 TABLE 1 i CPSES DR/QR REPORT RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS Sr. No. Component No. Recommended Modifications 02-695A (cont) (2) It is further recommended that Support Nos.
| |
| ES-PSA-T10800 and ST-PSR-10734 be modified; this modification will be implemented (see Attachment 1,' Item No. 21). *
| |
| (24) 02-700A It is recommended that an anchor be added to the standpipe fill line so that the Seismic Skid Piping is isolated from the Non-Seismic Off-Skid Piping. In lieu of an anchor, a three-directional restraint-between Seismic and Non-Seismic Piping would be .
| |
| satisfactory. . This modification will- be implemented.
| |
| (25) 02-717C It is recommended that two-directional lateral '
| |
| supports be added to the following lines so that the.
| |
| span between supports is limited to a maximum of 4'6". ;
| |
| (1) The vent ~line between the standpipe and the 3 discharge line of the jacket water keep warm !
| |
| ~
| |
| pump.
| |
| (2) The vent line between the auxiliary jacket pump (large-bore) discharge line and the engine - -
| |
| mounted jacket water pump discharge line.
| |
| In addition,--it is also recommended that: !
| |
| (1) three Dresser couplings be replaced with 150 lb.
| |
| slip-on flanges.
| |
| 1 (2) double-nut two Dresser couplings and replace 3/4" tie rods with 1" tie rods.
| |
| (3) add an East-West restraint above the jacket water inlet manifold.
| |
| -(4) lubricant and torque flange bolts'at support JW-PSA-10251 per DeLaval Instruction Manual.
| |
| Also see component 02-717E. Subsequently determined to be adequate as designed and installed pending CPSES review of increased nozzle loads for large-bore component. - This modification will be implemented if the review shows that the increased nozzle loads are unacceptable (see Attachment 1, Item Nos. 8 and 22).
| |
| | |
| Encl @sure 3 to TXX-6236 FGbruary 13, 1987 Page.12 of 15 ENCLOSURE 3 TABLE 1 CPSES DR/QR REPORT RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS Sr. No. Component No. Recommended Modifications-(26) 02-717E It is recommended that the following supports be modified in the lateral direction.
| |
| (1)_ JW-PSR-10250 (2) JW-PSR-10251 (3) JW-PSR-10252
| |
| -(4) JW-PSR-10253 (5) JW-PSR-10254 (6) JW-PSR-10255 (7) JW-PSR-10256 (8) JW-PSR-10258 (9) JW-PSR-10260 (10) JW-PSR-10261 (11) JW-PSR-10262 (12) JW-PSR-10824 Small-bore components subsequently de'termined to be adequate as designed and installed. Large-bore i components subsequently determined to be adequate as designed and installed with exception of support JW-PSR-10260. This Support will be modified as l recommended in the supplemental report (see Attachment 1, Item Nos. 9 and 23).
| |
| (27) 02-717F It is reconnended that two-directional supports should be added to the following lines so that the span between supports is limited to a maximum of 4'6" for !
| |
| 1/4" tubing and 5'6" for 3/8" tubing.
| |
| (1) Vent-line, west -filter.
| |
| (2) Vent line, east filter. !
| |
| (3) Vent line, prelube filter.
| |
| (4) Vent line,-' prelube strainer.
| |
| (5) Filter, inlet, and discharge pressure indication between the large-bore pipe connection and the first existing support downstream of connection.-
| |
| (6) The keep warm pump discharge pressure indication. i line between the front gauge panel and the first '
| |
| existing support.
| |
| | |
| Enclosure 3 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 13 of 15 ENCLOSURE 3 TABLE 1 CPSES DR/QR REPORT RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS Sr. No. Component No. Recommended Modifications 02-717F (cont) (7) The prelube filter discharge pressure indication line (located midstream between the front gauge panel and discharge line connection.)
| |
| In addition, it is also recommended that:
| |
| (1) two Dresser couplings be double-nutted with 3/4" tie rods replaced with 1" tie rods.
| |
| (2) one Dresser coupling be added to the piping between the lube oil sump tank and the engine pt.op inlet.
| |
| (3) the flange bolts at supports LO-PSA-10204 and LO-PSA-10205 be lubricated and torqued per the DeLaval Instruction Manual.
| |
| (4) a support guide at the 1-1/2" relief valve be added.
| |
| i Subsequently determined to be adequate as designed and installed pending CPSES evaluation of increased nozzle loads for large-bore components. This modification
| |
| * will be implemented, if the review shows that the ,
| |
| increased nozzle loads are unacceptable (see i Attachment 1, Item Nos. 10 and 24). j (28) 02-717G It is recommended that the relief valve be mounted .
| |
| vertically. As noted in the DR/QR report, although :
| |
| not installed according to the manufacturer's ;
| |
| recommendations for vertical mountings, the relief i valves were not installed contrary to the 1974 ASME Code, under which the CPSES diesels were built. Valve orientation does not have to be corrected to meet code requirements, but is recommended to prevent possible valve leakage and/or failure caused by debris ,
| |
| accumulating in the valve. In evaluating this !
| |
| recommended change, TV Electric has determined that '
| |
| extensive piping and support modifications would be i required. Based on the above and the positive service history at CPSES, TV Electric does not intend to mount the relief valves vertically.
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| t Enclosure 3 to TXX-6236 i February 13, 1987 ;
| |
| Page 14 of 15 ENCLOSURE 3 TABLE 1 CPSES DR/QR REPORT RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS Sr. No. Comoonent No. Recommended Modifications (29) 02-717I It is recommended that Tubing Support Nos. ST-PSR-10733 and 10738 be removed and two-directional lateral .
| |
| ~
| |
| supports for each individual tube be substituted.
| |
| It is also recommended that the following supports be modified:
| |
| (1) LO-PSR-10201 (2) LO-PSR-10202
| |
| * (3) LO-PSA-204 (4) LO-PSR-10207 (5) LO-PSR-10208 (6) LO-PSR-10211 (7) LO-PSR-10215 (8) LO-PSR-10212 i (9) LO-PSR-10221 (10) LO-PSR-10222 (11) LO-PSR-10223 (12) LO-PSR-10219 This component has subsequently been reanalyzed with the following recommendations, which will be implemented (see Attach. 1, Item Nos. 11 and 25):
| |
| (1) Modify supports ST-PSR-10733 and 10738.
| |
| (2) Ensure 1/16" clearance at supports LO-PSR-10211 +
| |
| and 10215.
| |
| (30) 02-717M It is recommended that the missing "U" bolt be installed on Support No. F0-PSR-10765. Completed.
| |
| (31) CP-102 Several modifications are recommended. :
| |
| Recommendations to remedy the design and construction deficiencies are organized as follows: -
| |
| (1) Attachment 1 of the DR/QR Report- The recommendations are to be implemented as soon as possible to enable monitoring the diodes, the heat sinks, and the voltage regulator.
| |
| b P
| |
| {
| |
| | |
| Enclcsuro 3 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 15 of 15 ENCLOSURE 3~
| |
| TABLE 1 CPSES DR/QR REPORT RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS Sr. No. Component No. Recommended Modifications CP-102 (cont) (2) Attachment 2 of the DR/QR Report - The recommendations are to be implemented at the first refueling outage of the plant 'or at the discretion of TV Electric, to alleviate the need for additional maintenance procedures of Attachment 1.
| |
| (3) Attachment 3 of the DR/QR Report - The recommendations are to be implemented at the discretion of TU Electric, to enhance the long-term reliability and performance of the voltage regulator.
| |
| As noted in PNL-5444 and at the DR/QR review meeting (July 1985) with the NRC staff, TU Electric intends to implement forced ventilation of the control panel at.
| |
| ; the first refueling outage. That decision is based on a belief that it would enhance reliability, but that it is not necessary. TV Electric will monitor temperature within the cabinet with temperature indicator tape or other temperature measuring devices prior to the completion of this modification.
| |
| TU Electric will also use glyptol lacquer to monitor the tightness of electrical connections and the movement of the adjustable potentiometers on the voltage regulator board.
| |
| TU Electric has evaluated the need to replace the field flashing relays and based on the CPSES DC electrical system, has determined that the field flashing relays are adequate (see SDAR CP-86-15).
| |
| i 4
| |
| f f
| |
| 4 l
| |
| l
| |
| )
| |
| | |
| c ,
| |
| Enclosure 4 to TXX-6236 February 13,.1987 Page 1.of 4 ENCLOSVRE 4 i
| |
| i L
| |
| | |
| Enclosure 4 to:TXX-6236 February 13, 1987-Page 2 of 4 ENCLOSURE 4 ,
| |
| i MAINTENANCE AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM-(NUREG-1216, Section 2.3)
| |
| CPSES will implement a M/S Program incorporating the elements identified in NUREG-1216, section 2.3 as constituting an acceptable M/S program.. These elements include:
| |
| o Recommendations in the TDI Instruction Manual, Service Information I Memos (SIMS), and TDI correspondence on specific maintenance and surveillance issues.
| |
| o Recomendations in Revision 2 of the DR/QR Appendix II M/S program, o Additional items required by the NRC staff as identified in Section 2.1.3 of the NUREG-1216 (See Enclosure 1).
| |
| [ TU Electric provides the following coments as clarifications which are not intended to constitute " exceptions".
| |
| : 1. The Owners Group M/S plan supplements the existing TDI instruction
| |
| . manual. Any previous TDI recommendations which conflict with Owners l Group M/S recommendations will be considered as superseded.
| |
| : 2. In the comments section for a number of components, the Owners Group-M/S matrix recommends completing TDI Inspection and Maintenance
| |
| ,' Record forms as applicable. TV Electric will record and i document the applicable information; however, this information may not be on the form supplied by TDI.
| |
| i i 3. The results and conclusions section of the Owners Group Maintenance and_ Surveillance Matrix states "This maintenance service as specified supersedes previous general maintenance requirements, but.-is -separate and does not supersede Quality Revalidation and/or Modifications
| |
| ;' previously recommended." TU Electric understands that maintenance and surveillance recommendations contained in the DR/QR component reports have been superseded by Revision 2 of the DR/QR Appendix II M/S i
| |
| Report. '
| |
| : 4. NUREG-1216 Subsection 2.1.1, states " Subject to the clarifications _and
| |
| . exceptions discussed in Section 2.1.3 of NUREG-1216, the NRC staff has
| |
| ! concluded that the PNL findings and recommendations in the aforementioned sections of PNL-5600 should be implemented for TDI
| |
| ; engines in nuclear service in addition to the Owners Group findings and recommendations." It is TV Electric's understanding that.
| |
| . compliance with NUREG-1216 Section 2.3 will address the applicable-l maintenance and surveillance type recommendations in PNL-5600. See l Enclosure 1 for comments on Section 2.1.3.
| |
| | |
| f Enclosure 4 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 3 of 4 ENCLOSURE 4 MAINTENANCE AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM (NUREG-1216, Section 2.3)
| |
| : 5. The wording of the turbocharger sample license conditions in NUREG-1216 is different from the wording in the SER transmitted to Mr. W. G.
| |
| Counsil from Mr. V. S. Noonan on August 5, 1986. TU Electric feels the intent of the last paragraph (page B-6) of NUREG-1216 would allow the "one-turbocharger-per-refueling-outage" inspection to be performed in conjunction with a staggered frequency turbocharger overhaul (i.e., all turbochargers overhauled every five years but not necessarily at the same outage). The statement, "...., these inspections should be performed for all turbochargers at each turbocharger overhaul (i.e., at approximately 5-year intervals)." in NUREG-1216 could be misinterpreted to mean that the "one-turbocharger-per-refueling-outage" inspection must be performed on all turbochargers even if only one turbocharger was overhauled in an outage. The following examples describe TU Electric's interpretation of the intent of the requirement:
| |
| EXAMPLE 1:
| |
| In an outage where no turbochargers are scheduled for overhaul, one turbocharger would receive the "one-turbocharger-per-refueling-outage" inspection.
| |
| , EXAMPLE 2:
| |
| In an outage where one turbocharger is overhauled, the turbo-charger overhauled would meet the intent of the "one-turbocharger-per-refueling-outage" inspection.
| |
| EXAMPLE 3:
| |
| In an outage where more than one, but not all (e.g., two or three) turbochargers were overhauled, the turbochargers undergoing an overhaul would receive the "one-turbocharger-per-refueling-outage" inspection end the turbocharger (s) not being overhauled would not.
| |
| EXAMPLE 4:
| |
| In an outage where all turbochargers are overhauled, all turbochargers would receive the "one-turbocharger-per-refueling-outage" inspection.
| |
| Using the above examples, at least one turbocharger will undergo the "one-turbocharger-per-refueling-outage" inspection at each refueling outage. Also, any turbocharger which is overhauled will undergo a "one-turbocharger-per-refueling-outage" type inspection. All the turbochargers will be overhauled at approximately 5-year intervals, but not necessarily at the same outage.
| |
| | |
| y y Enclosure 4 to TXX-6236
| |
| ' February 13,.1987-Page 4 of 4 ENCLOSURE 4 MAINTENANCE AND SURVEILLANCE-PROGRAM-(NUREG-1216, Section 2.3)
| |
| : 6. It is TU Electric's interpretation-that a certified visual inspector (ASME Section XI) is not necessarily required when the_.words " visual, inspection" or " visual check" are used in the Owners-Group Maintenance, and Surveillance Matrix. TU Electric will use certifled inspectors-when the words " visual examination" are used.or when required-by-applicable procedures, programs, standards, or codes.
| |
| : 7. In reference to NUREG-1216 Sections 2.1.3.4' and 2.1.3.23, TU Electric.
| |
| will perform periodic lube oil analysis including spectrochemical and
| |
| ~ ferrographic analysis as specified. The.0wners Group lube oil analysis.
| |
| recommendations for_ all components '(including Phase. I) was compiled -and- !
| |
| placed with component.02-540A " Lube Oil Sump Tank" which is actually.a Phase II component.
| |
| : 8. NUREG-0797, Supplement .6, states ". .. ., the above requirements regarding Maintenance / Surveillance may be revised after staff review of the TDI Owners Group Maintenance / Surveillance plan." TU Electric considers the M/S requirements in the Generic SER as a revision which effectively supersedes the M/S requirements in NUREG-0797, Supplement No. 6.
| |
| : 9. The Owners Group Maintenance Matrix specifies the monitoring of .
| |
| various strainer and filter Differential Pressures (DPs). CPSES'does not currently have _the capability to directly read filter and strainer DP. Available pressure indicators will be utilized to determine DP for all strainers and filters specified pending installation of.DP indication. These pressure indicators may not be located adjacent to the filter or strainer; however, this will. yield conservative DP measurement.
| |
| Changes or revisions to the M/S program will be in compliance with NUREG-1216 section 2.3, with the following clarifications which are not intended to constitute an exception:
| |
| i 1. Changes which do not affect compliance with the M/S program addressed
| |
| ; above are not considered program changes or revisions.
| |
| ; 2. Changes to TDI and TDI subtier vendor / manufacturer recommendations are not considered program changes or revisions by-TV ' Electric. Those
| |
| , associated with the TDI issue are' addressed by the Owners Group DR/QR Appendix II Revision 2 Maintenance Matrix.
| |
| i TU Electric feels that NUREG-1216 provides the necessary controls to ensure-adequate maintenance and surveillance will be-performed on the CPSES diesel t engines. -As a result, TU Electric intends to request a change to the CPSES
| |
| : Technical Specifications which would delete Section 4.8.1.1.2.f.l.
| |
| 1 l :j 1
| |
| | |
| i' E
| |
| . A
| |
| . ~ n Attachment I to TXX-6236 .
| |
| February 13, 1987 ,
| |
| Page 1 of 187 .. %
| |
| '$f
| |
| \ s.
| |
| *.a 2
| |
| i si
| |
| \
| |
| 7 N#
| |
| d' 4 i Sc w '
| |
| ATTACHMENT 1 1,
| |
| w#
| |
| s t
| |
| +
| |
| i g .
| |
| t i
| |
| l l
| |
| * Attachment 1 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Paga 2 of 187 ATTACHMENT 1 TDI DIESEL GENERATOR OWNEFiS GROUP PIPING ANALYSIS
| |
| | |
| ==REFERENCE:==
| |
| : 1) TDI Diesel Generator DR/QR Report - CPSES
| |
| ,The following reports are issued as supplemental component reports to Reference
| |
| >1, and are also applicable to Enclosure 3 of this letter.
| |
| Item Vendor Document Number Sht. Rev. Title 1 02-0630-1344 3 0 Design Criteria for Small Bore Piping, Tubing and Supports for CPSES TDI Diesel Generators 2 02-0630-1345 21 0 Design Criteria for Diesel Generator Large Diameter Piping for CPSES 3 02-0630-1346 3 0 Supplement 1-Jacket Water Inlet Manifold-Component 02-316A&B (LB) 4 02-0630-1347 2 0 Supplement 1-Jacket Water Fittings-Supports Component 02-435B (LB) 5 02-0630-1348 5 0 Supplement 1-Starting Air Manifold-Supports Component 02-441C (LB)
| |
| , 6 02-0630-1349 3 0 Supplement 1-Turbocharger-Lube 011 Fittings-Piping Component 02-467A (LB) 7 02-0630-1350 2 0 Supplement 1-Turbocharger-Lube Oil Fittings-Supports Component 02-467B (LB) 8 02-0630-1351 3 0 Supplement 1-Jacket Water-Pipe, Couplings, Fittings, Orifice, Y-strainers Component 02-717C (LB) 9 02-0630-1352 4 0 Supplement 1-Jacket Water-l Supports Component 02-717E (LB) i s
| |
| t I
| |
| | |
| ' Attachment I to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 3 Page 3 of 187-ATTACHMENT 1 TDI DIESEL GENERATOR OWNE,RS GROUP. PIPING. ANALYSIS Item Vendor Document Number Sht. Rev. Title 10 02-0630-1353_ 3 0 Supplement 1-Lube Oil -
| |
| Pipe and Fittings Component 02-717F (LB) 11 02-0630-1354 4 0 Supplement 1-Lube Oil Supports _
| |
| Component 02-7171 (LB) 12 02-0630-1355 3 -0 Supplement 1-Turbocharger Thrust Bearing Drip Lube-System
| |
| , Component 02-CFR (SB) 13 02-0630-1356 3 0 Supplement 1-Lube Oil Fittings Internal-Supports Component 02-307D (SB) 14 02-0630-1357 4 0 Supplement 1-Jacket Water Inlet Manifold-Vent.Line to Discharge Manifold Component 02-316C (SB).
| |
| 15 02-0630-1358 3 0 Supplement-1-Starting Air Manifold-Piping, Tubing and Fittings Component 02-441A (SB) 16 02-0630-1360 3 0 Supplement 1-Fuel Oil Header Piping and Tubing Component 02-450A (SB) 17 02-0630-1361 2 0 Supplement 1-Fuel Oil Headers-Supports.
| |
| Component 02-450B (SB) 18 02-0630-1362 3 0 Supplement 1-Lube Oil Lines External-Tubing, Fittings, Couplings Component 02-465A (SB) 19 02-0630-1363 3 0 Supplement 1-Lube Oil Lines ' External-Supports Component 02-4658 (SB).
| |
| l _ _
| |
| | |
| Attachment I to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 4 of 187 ATTACHMENT 1 .
| |
| l TDI DIESEL GENERATOR OWNERS GROUP PIPING ANALYSIS Item Vendor Document Number Sht. Rev. Title 20 02-0630-1364 3 0 Supplement 1-Turbocharger-. .
| |
| Lube Oil Fittings-Pipe, Tube, Fittings and Flexible Coupling Component 02-467A (SB) R
| |
| '21 0630-1365 6 -0. Supplement 1-Engine Shutdown Equipment-Tube,. Fittings, & Supports-Component 02-695A (SB) 22 02-0630-1366 3 0 Supplement 1-Jacket Water Piping Component 02-717C (SB).
| |
| I '
| |
| 23 02-0630-1367 3 0 -Supplement-1-Jacket Water Supports Component 02-717E (SB) 24 02-0630-1368 3 0 Supplement 1-Lube Oil-Pipe and Fittings Component 02-717F (SB) 25 02-0630-1369 5 0 Supplement 1-Lube Oil-Supports and Mounting.
| |
| Hardware-Component 02-717I (SB)
| |
| *26 N/A 4 1 Supplement 1- Exhaust
| |
| . Manifold Piping Component 02-380A(LB)
| |
| Reanalysis performed by Duke Power Company.
| |
| : s. - .. . .
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 1 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 5 cf 187 ATTACHMENT-1 ITEM-1 P
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 1 to TXX-6236-February 130 1987 Page 6 of 187 l
| |
| l
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA FOR SMALL BORE PIPING, TUBING AND SUPPORTS FOR COMANCHE PEAX TDI DIESEL GENERATORS Submitted to:
| |
| Texas Utilities Generating Company Glen Rose, Texas Prepared By:
| |
| Impe11 Cc 7 oration 225 Broad dollow Road Melville, N. Y. !1747 Report No. 02-0630-1344 Revision 0-Job No. 0630-083-1642 May,1986 1
| |
| 9
| |
| -~ + -- - -- - , _ . , +
| |
| - - , ,- m~-- , - - - , - - - - -,e - - - - - - - -- -e - .-
| |
| | |
| Attach.-1, Item 1 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 7 of 187 IMPELL CORPORATION REPORT APPROVAL COVER SHEET 1
| |
| l Client: TDI Owner's Group (DUKE /TUGCO) l l
| |
| Project: Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators I Job No.: 0630-083-1642 Report
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| Design Review Criteria for Small Bore Piping, Tubing and
| |
| : Supports for Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators
| |
| : ~
| |
| Report Number: 02-0630-1344 Rev. No.: 0 The work described in this Report was performed in accordance with the Impell Corporation Quality Assurance Program. The signatures below
| |
| , verify the accuracy of this Report and its compliance with applicable i quality assurance requirements.
| |
| * Prepared By:
| |
| / t/ Date: 6h8//d Reviewed By: ~3 u , , } . c., _. . Da,te: 6 '. ' * ''64.
| |
| l Approved By: e irgJ Date: f/J///f Concurrence By: Md b d Date: /0//3 /86 Regional Quality Assurance ri.anager BEVISIONRECORD REY. I PREPARED I REVIEWED l APPROVED l CONCURRENCE I APPROVAL IREVISIONI i l i i l l I I i i l I I I I I I I
| |
| I I I I l l l l l l 1 I I I I I I
| |
| ; I l l I I I I I i l i l i I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
| |
| I
| |
| ;' i I I I I I I I I l i I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l l l l l l l l
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 1 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 8 of 187
| |
| , TABLE OF CONTENTS P. *S*
| |
| 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Purpose 1 3.0 Applicability 1 4.0 Component Review 1 5.0 References 3 9
| |
| l I
| |
| r--, - c. , ,- e -.
| |
| r - - , - , , . - _ - _ -
| |
| | |
| 1 Attach. 1, Item 1 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 a Page 9 of 187 l 1
| |
| | |
| ==1.0 INTRODUCTION==
| |
| | |
| The TDI Emergency Diesel Generator Owners Group requires Design and Quality Revalidation to independently verify the structural adequacy of the small bore piping, tubing and associated supports to withstand the effects of normal operating and earthquake loadings. An initial component review was performed and the criteria for that review is presented in Reference 1. As a result of that review, modifications to various components were.
| |
| recommended in Reference 2. The back-up documentation for the reconmended modifications is provided in the Reference 3 calculations.
| |
| 2.0 PURPOSE .
| |
| The purpose of this report is to provide the criteria to be utilized in an effort to eliminate the need for the reconmended modifications resulting from the initial review, and show that sufficient safety margins already exist.
| |
| 3.0 APPLICABILITY The requirnents of the review contained in this report are applicable to the TDI supplied small bore piping and tubing components listed below.
| |
| ! 02-CFR 02-441C 02-4658 02-717C 02-307D 02-450A 02-467A 02-717E
| |
| ! 02-316C 02-4508 02-695A 02-717F 02-441 A 02-465A 02-700A 02-717I Furtherwore, only those portions of components which were recommended to be modified are addressed.
| |
| 4.'0 COP 90NENT REVIEW 4.1 Small Bore Piping & Supports
| |
| ' In cases where the initial review criteria (Reference 1) did not lead to component acceptability, reduced loadings will be developed using the same methods that were used previously, except that seismic response spectra based on ASME Code Case N-411 (Ref. 4) will be implemented. In the event that
| |
| ;' conservative hand calculations were used for the original review and subsequent hand calculations which utilize the reduced response spectra loading still do not lead to l
| |
| component acceptance, then rigorous computer analysis will be i
| |
| ! performed.
| |
| Similarly, for those small bore piping supports which cannot I. be qualified based on loading which is developed using conservative hand calculations along with the reduced response spectra, then rigorous computer analysis will be performed to develop a less conservative support loading.
| |
| l
| |
| ' l l
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ - _ _ . . _ _ _ . . - , _ , .m -.- - . . . _ . . . ._-,.,r._,..,_ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ , , -, _ . . - ,,
| |
| | |
| Attach. lo Item 1 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 10 of 187 4.2 Tubing and Supports i
| |
| In the initial review of the tubing and supports, a span length criteria (Ref.1) was developed. For those tubing runs l which exceeded the span criteria, supports were recommended to be added; such that the span met the criteria. In order to qualify the tubing runs without the recommended added I supports, less conservative span length criteria will be developed; utilizing the seismic response spectra developed in accordance with ASME Code Case N-411 (Ref. 4). In the event that span lengths still.do not meet the less conservative span length criteria, rigorous computer analyses will be performed to show component acceptability.
| |
| ~
| |
| Similarly, for those tubing supports which cannot be qualified based on loading which is developed using conservative hand calculations, rigorous computer analyses will be performed to develop a less conservative support loading.
| |
| 4 h
| |
| l P
| |
| l i
| |
| )
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| Attach 1 0 Item 1 to TXX-6236 -
| |
| February 13, 1987 Fage 11 of 187
| |
| | |
| ==5.0 REFERENCES==
| |
| | |
| [
| |
| : 1. Stone and Webster Report No 11600.60-DC-02, Rev. O, dated August, 1984. " Engineering Review Criteria Document for the Design Review of the TDI Diesel Small Bore Piping, Tubing and Supports for the TDI Owner's Group."
| |
| 2.
| |
| Stone & Webster Memo No. 6246 from P. Czarnowski to J.
| |
| Kasseyer, dated 8/24/84, re-issued 10/9/84.
| |
| : 3. Stone & Webster Calculations Calculation No. .
| |
| Revision
| |
| ~ (
| |
| l 11600.60-NP(8 )-1010Z8 1 '
| |
| ll600.60-W(8)-1011Z8 1 11600.60-W(8 )-1012Z8 1 11600.60-NP(8)-1013Z8 1 11600.60-NP(8 )-1014Z8 1 11600.60-NP(8)-1020XH 0 11600.60-NP(8 )-1021XH 0 11600.60-NP(B)-1024XH 0 11600.60-NP(8)-1030ZB 1 ll600.60-NP(8)-1031Z8 1 11600.60-W(8)-1034Z8 1 I
| |
| 11600.60-W(8)-1001XH 0
| |
| : 4. Gibbs & Hill Letter No. GTN-71355, dated 3/28/86.
| |
| Response Spectra developed in accordance with ASME Code Case
| |
| " Seismic
| |
| ]
| |
| N-411. "
| |
| 6
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ d
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 2 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 12 of 187 3
| |
| ATTACHMENT-1 ITEM-2
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 2 to TXX-6236 l I
| |
| February 13, 1987 !
| |
| Page 13 of 187 l DESIGN CRITERIA FOR DIESEL GENERATOR LARGE DIAETER PIPING FOR COMANCHE PEAK i
| |
| l i
| |
| Submitted to:
| |
| Texas Utilities Generating Company, Glen Rose, Texas a
| |
| Prepared by:
| |
| Impell Corporation 225 Broad Hollow Road Mel'tille, New York 11747 Report No. 02-0630-1345 Rev. 0 1
| |
| Job No. 0630-083-1642 May, 1986
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 2 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 14 of 187 IMPELL CORPORATION REPORT APPROYAL COVER SHEET
| |
| ] Client: TDI Owner's Group (DUKE /TUGCO)
| |
| Project: Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators Job No.: 0630-083-1642 Report
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| Design Criteria for Diesel Generator for Large Diameter Piping for Comanche Peak Report Number: 02-0630-1345 Rev. No.: 0 _
| |
| The work described in this Report was performed in accordance with the Impell Corporation Quality Assurance Program. The signatures below verify the accuracy of this Report and its compliance with applicable quality assurance equirements
| |
| (
| |
| Prepared By: _ Date: 5/3+' Ed Reviewed By: a ! Date: N*
| |
| Approved By: k D&te: F/(*MG Concurrence By: O Date: /o//3/st.
| |
| Regifnal/)uality Assurance Manager REVISION RECORD REV. PREPARED i REVIEWED l APPROVED l CONCURRENCE l AFPROVAL lREVISIONI I I I I I I I
| |
| I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '
| |
| I I I i i l I I l i l l I I I I I I I I I l i I I I I I I I I I I I I i l l l l l l 1
| |
| | |
| )
| |
| Attach. 1, Item 2 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 f Page 15 of 187 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR DIESEL GENERATOR LARGE DIAETER PIPING FOR COMANCHE PEAK TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PURPOSE 2.0 APPLICABLE CODES 2.1 Diesel Generator Specification Requirements 2.2 Code Requirements 2.2.1 DEMA Standards 2.2.2 American Bureau of Ships Building Codes 2.2.3 ANSI B31.1 and B31.3 2.2.4 ANSI B31.7 2.2.5 ASME Code Section III 2.3 Applicable Code Acceptance Criteria 2.4 Conclusion 3.0 ACCEPTANCE PHILOSOPHY 3.1 Considerations for the Exhaust Manifold 4.0 LOADING CONSIDERATION
| |
| ~
| |
| 5.0 SPECIAL COMPONENT CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Mitered Joints 5.2 Unreinforced Branches 5.3 Pressure Retaining Buttwelds 5.3.1 Weld Penetration 5.3.2 Weld Joint Capacity 5.3.3 Stress Intensification Factor 5.4 Dresser and Compression Couplings 5.4.1 Code Acceptability of Dresser and Compression Couplings 5.4.2 Coupling Strength 5.4.3 Effects of Couplings of Pipe Stress Analysis 5.5 Pipe and Equipment Supports 5.6 Pipe Flanges 5.6.1 Standard Flanges 5.6.2 Nonstandard Flanges !
| |
| 5.6.3 Flange Bolt Pipe Support Attachments 1 5.7 U-bolts
| |
| | |
| ==6.0 REFERENCES==
| |
| | |
| e.. . . .
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 2 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 16 of 187 l
| |
| DESIGN CRITERIA FOR DIESEL GENERATOR ~
| |
| LARGE DIAETER PIPING FOR COMANCHE PEAK 1.0 PURPOSE i
| |
| The purpose of this document is to provide structural acceptance criteria for evaluation of the Transamerica DeLaval Inc. (TDI),
| |
| large diameter, Diesel Generator skid mounted piping at the
| |
| ' Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit No.1, (CPSES). The criteria was based primarily upon the philosophy embodied in industry accepted Codes and Standards for design of nuclear power station piping. Note that this criteria was initially developed in
| |
| . Reference 21 and has been revised to remove conservatisms that existed in th,at evaluation criteria.
| |
| l
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 9
| |
| i i
| |
| 4 i
| |
| , . , . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . _ . ~ . . _ , _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . , , _ _ . _ . _ - . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ , .
| |
| | |
| i Attach. 1, Item 2 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 ;
| |
| Page 17 of 187 i l
| |
| p 2.0 APPLICABLE CODES j 2.1 Diesel Generator Specification Requirements The CPSES Diesel Generator Specification (Ref.1) generically invokes American Nuclear Society (ANS) Safety Class 3 for piped auxiliaries. Specifically, IEEE-Standard 387 Criteria for Diesel-Generator Units Applied as Standby Power Supplies for Nuclear Power Generating Stations-(IEEE Std 387-1977), and i
| |
| ASME Code Section III are specified for on and off engine piping, respectively.
| |
| 2.2 Code Requirements 2.2.1 Diesel Engine Manufacturers Association (DEMA) Standards i
| |
| The DEMA Standard (Ref. 2) extensively covers the detailed performance requirements of systems and subsystems for diesel engine driven electric power generating units, but does not cover analytical j requirements or allowable stresses for piping systems.
| |
| 1 j
| |
| It relies on other Codes for these re does not specifically reference any. quirements but 1
| |
| 2.2.2 American Bureau of Ships Building Code Section 36 of the American Bureau of Ships Building Code (Ref. 3) discusses requirements for pumps and i
| |
| piping systems. This Code presents very few design i requirements, providing specific analytical formulas i
| |
| only for pipe wall thickness versus piping design pressure. The Code makes no specific provisions for analysis for deadweight, thermal expansion, or dynamic
| |
| : effects. Piping materials and allowable membrane sresses are addressed in this Code. For example, ASTM AS3 Grade B and A106 Grade B are approved materials.
| |
| 1 It is noted that this Code provides tabulated membrane j
| |
| stress allowables which are the same as for B31.1 (Ref.
| |
| I
| |
| : 4) and ASE III Class 3 and 2 (Refs. 5 and 6).
| |
| j 2.2.3 ANSI B31.1 and B31.3 l
| |
| The general philosophy of ANSI B31.1 (Ref. 4) and 831.3 (Ref. 7) is to parallel those provisions of Section I
| |
| " Power Boilers" of the ASpil Boiler and Pressure Yessel Code, as they can be applied to piping systems
| |
| ; functioning at elevated pressures and temperatures.
| |
| l These codes are conservative, reflecting the general need for long service life and maximum reliability in l power, chemical, and petroleum refinery installations.
| |
| 1
| |
| : l. .
| |
| Attach. 1, Item 2 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 l Page 18 of 187 B31.1 and B31.3 are quite similar, except that 831.3 allowable stresses are somewhat more permissive than the B31.1 values. Both are all inclusive codes which set forth engineering requirements for design and construction of piping systems. These codes contain basic reference data and formulas deemed necessary for design, including the following:
| |
| (1) Material specifications and component standards which have been accepted for code usage; (2) The designation of proper dimensional standards for the elements comprising piping systems; (3) Requirements for the design of component parts and assembled unit, including necessary pipe-supporting elements; (4) Requirements for the evaluation and limitation of stresses, reactions, and movements associated with pressure, temperature, and external forces; (5) Requirements for the fabrication, assembly, and erection of piping systems.
| |
| (6) Requirements for testing and inspection of elements before assembly 'o'r erection and of the completed systems after erection.
| |
| ~
| |
| 2.2.4 ANSI B31.7 ANSI B31.7 " Nuclear Power Piping" (Ref. 8) was the precursor of ASME III-Class 1 Subarticle NS-3600, which covers ASE Code Class 1 piping design, and embraces the same design philosophy as ASME III-Class 1 (Ref. 9).
| |
| 2.2.5 ASE Code, Section III j
| |
| The ASE Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code provides rules for the construction of boilers, pressure vessels, and nuclear components.
| |
| Section III of this Code addresses nuclear power plant components, and consists of two (2) divisions. Division 2 covers concrete reactor vessels and containments and is not pertinent here. Division 1 consists of the )ollowing subsections:
| |
| NCA General Requirements NB Class 1 Components NC Class 2 Components ND Class 3 Components NE C1 ass MC Components NF Component Supports .
| |
| NG Core Support Structures l Appendices I t .
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 2 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987
| |
| , Page 19 of 187 i ,
| |
| ; Each subsection is divided into articles as follows:
| |
| L Article 1000 Introduction and Scope Article 2000 Material Article 3000 Design Article 4000 Fabrication and Installation Article 5000 Examination Article 6000 Testing
| |
| ; Article 7000 Overpressure Protection j Article 8000 Nameplates, Stamping and Reports
| |
| $ The Code recognizes that various components have 1 different levels of importance associated with the
| |
| ! components' function, as related to the safe operation
| |
| ;~ of the nuclear power plant. The Code Classes thus 3
| |
| permit a choice of rules that provide assurance of
| |
| ! structural integrity and quality commensurate with the i relative importance assigned to the individual items.
| |
| Class 1 components are assigned the highest level of importance. Reactor coolant pressure boundary components are examples of what is normally assigned as 3 ASE III-Class 1. Class 2 components are assigned the
| |
| { next lower level of importance. Nuclear safety related components other than reactor coolant pressure boundary components are examples of what is normally assigned to
| |
| ! ASE III-Class 2. Class 3 components are usually of the same level of importance as Class 2 components, but are assigned to ASE III-Class 3 by virtue of their
| |
| ! moderate normal operating temperatures and pressures.
| |
| ASE Code Section III does not provide guidance in the selection of component classification and places the responsibility of such component classification on the
| |
| ! . , owner of the nuclear power plant.
| |
| { 2.3 Applicable Code Acceptance Criteria i
| |
| l Those portions of the applicable building codes and standards
| |
| ! which refer to structural integrity of the subject piping are
| |
| ; addressed herein. The portions of these codes which provide l
| |
| ! requirements for documentation and other quality assurance 1 l related requirements, as well as adequacy of system design l requirements such as overpressure protection adequacy, are not l l part of this scope.
| |
| l The CPSES Diesel Generator Specification (Ref.1) invokes ANS Safety Class 3 generically, which suggests ASME III-Class 3.
| |
| l (IEEE-387 is specifically called out for on-engine piping,
| |
| ! although it has no structural requirements). The off engine l piping is ASE III-Class 3 which is in agreement with j Reference 1 and is further corroborated by the ASME III Class 3 designations for the lube oil and jacket water heat l l i__
| |
| | |
| Attach. I, Item 2 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 20 of 187 1
| |
| exchangers. This classification is consistent with the l moderate service temperatures and pressure associated with the !
| |
| subject piping. ASME III-Class 3 applies specifically to ,
| |
| nuclear safety related piping, having rigorous analytical i requirements that are acceptable to the nuclear industry and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ANSI B31.1 (Ref. 4) and ANSI 831.3 (Ref. 7), by virtue of their sinfliarity to ASME III-Class 3, are also applicable.
| |
| .! Since ASME III-Class 3 permits qualification to a more strinunt code subsection, it is permissible to provide ASME III-Class 2 ( Ref. 6) or ASME III- Class 1 (Ref. 9) analysis
| |
| ! for this purpose. ANSI B31.7 (Ref. 8) is the predecessor to
| |
| ,, ASME III-Class 1 and is, therefore, similarly applicable.
| |
| ASME III- Class I has considerably higher allowable stresses i for material such as ASTM A106 Grade 8. However, this is applicable only if ASME III-Class 1 stress analysis is
| |
| : performed. Note that ASME III-Class 1 analysis provides design rules for rigorous evaluation of fatigue life and must be used if the piping is justified on that basis.
| |
| 2.4 Conclusion It was concluded that the CPSES Diesel Generator piping design utilizes the philosophy and intent of ASME III-Class 3 design (Ref. 5) to provide analytical justification of piping design acce The other above referenced codes (References 3,4,ptability.6,7,8 4 9) were also judiciously considered where applicable, as described in Section 3.0.
| |
| i 6
| |
| i
| |
| . - . - ~ _ . , ~ . - - . - - , . - - - - . _ - , - _ _ _ _ . . , - _ . . . . - _ - , _ _ - _ . - - . _ _ _ . . . _ . - _ _ _ _ . . - - - . - ~ _ - - - - . . - - , , . , - . . - - - - . _ _ -
| |
| | |
| ' Attach. 1, Item 2 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 2I of 187
| |
| : f. 3.0 ACCEPTANCE PHILOSOPHY l The intent and ;:hilosophy of ASE III Subsection ND design rules for Class 3 Components (Ref. 5) was utilized as the basis of acceptance. The requirements of other codes and standards (Refs.
| |
| ; 4,6 6 The
| |
| ! analys,7,8 is was and 9) were also perfomed considered in steps, for applicability.
| |
| as follows:
| |
| (1) Pipe stress analysis was first performed in accordance with j the design rules of ASME III-Class 3 (Ref. 5), using i conservative assumptions for modelina and stress intensification described in detail in 5.0 (below).
| |
| . (2 ) If this analysis indicated excessive stresses, then the F results were evaluated to determine if relaxing some of the conservatisms could be justified for the particular piping systems being considered.
| |
| l :
| |
| For example, it was, at times beneficial to consider the more l
| |
| 4 rigorous, ASME III-Class 1 analysis in an attempt to justify thermal expansion stresses on the basis of adequate thermal j fatigue life.
| |
| i i
| |
| (3) If pipe stress was still excessive after relaxing
| |
| } conservatisms, support modification was then considered.
| |
| t (4) The applicable piping system was then' re-analyzed to reflect i the above referenced analytical modification. Or, as an alternative, hand calculations were perforged to account _for a highly localized effect.
| |
| l 3.1 Considerations for the Exhaust Manifold
| |
| ! , The exahust manifold piping has operating temperature above
| |
| ,' those classified as moderate. In view of the elevated temperature, AMSE III-Class 2 rules.would normally be used.
| |
| l However, since the design rules for ASME III - 2 and 3 are identical, either may be utilized for the design evaluation.
| |
| * There are additional concerns associated with the exhaust
| |
| : manifold elevated temperature service; specifically, the i
| |
| effect of graphitization and creep on the structural integrity j of the piping. However, based upon data contained in Reference 10, the diesel is predicted to operate approximately '
| |
| 2000 hours during the 40 year plant life, for an average of '
| |
| approximately only 50 hours each year. Thus, the effects of
| |
| ; graphitization and creep are considered negligible since the i high temperature exposure is for a very short duration, permitting steel rehabilitation by creep recovery and preventing the formation of embrittling graphite modules in l chain-like arrays.
| |
| r
| |
| | |
| 4 Attach. 1, Item 2 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 22 of 187 Allowable stresses were developed based upon the criteria set
| |
| ' forth in the ASME Codes for negligible creep and
| |
| , graphitization. The criteria specifies that the allowable stress is based upon a fraction of the minimum yield and ultimate strength of the subject material at the elevated temperature.
| |
| Consistent with the intent and philosophy of the ASME Code, the adoption of an inspection program, which provides a means for identifying the possible degradation of the exhaust manifold components, particularly the welded joints, was reconnended, Ref.11.
| |
| e 9
| |
| l
| |
| ?
| |
| l 4
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1,. Item 2 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987
| |
| , Page 23 of 187 4.0 LOADING CONSIDERATIONS The pipe stress analysis accounts for all loads as defined in Reference 1; i.e., for the effects of deadweight, themel expansion, and earthquake.
| |
| The effects of earthquake were determined by dynamic pipe stress i analysis utilizing appropriate seismic response spectrum envelopes. As noted in the Diesel Generator Specification (Ref.
| |
| Operatin 1)$E (S or D8E)g Basis were Earthquake considered. (0BE) andwith Consistent Safe Shutdown1,Earthquake Reference a three-directional earthquake was assumed. The effects of each of the vertical and two horizontal earthquakes was first detemined by combining across modes by square root sum of squares (SRSS) with
| |
| ,- closely spaced modes considered by the ten percent method. The three directions of earthquake were then combined by SRSS to detemine the seismic results. Seismic spectra was based on j Reference 12.
| |
| Damping values were selected consistent with Reference 21. Also, based upon data provided in Reference 14 and 15, the diesel, its supporting skid, and the auxiliary skid all have first mode natural frequencies in the rigid range of the applicable response '
| |
| spectrum. Therefore, consideration of the dynamic amplification of those components was not necessary and the floor spectra was used for all analyses.
| |
| The analytical piping model for both themal and seismic analyses included the pipe supports, which were modeled as springs whose
| |
| : spring constants were based on the as-built pip,e support I
| |
| configuration. In addition, to more accurately represent both the flexibility of equipment and its dynamic effect on the piping, the equipment was included in the analytical piping model using
| |
| ' cross-sectional properties and component weights derived from the l applicable equipment details. However, if a particular piece of equipment was apparently rigid, based on engineering judgement, then the equipment was not included in the analytical model.
| |
| i l
| |
| l
| |
| _. _ _ _ _ _ . _ ~ _ - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 2 to TXX-6236 j February 13, 1987 -
| |
| Page 24 of 187 5.0 SPECIAL COPPONENT CONSIDERATIONS This section provides discussions relating the analytical considerations of special configurations and components. These
| |
| ! include specialty items such as Dresser and compression couplings, l and pipe flanges; and also includes special configurations such as i
| |
| ; mitered joints, unreinforced branches,. including unreinfomed 1 i lateral connections, and circumferential buttwelds.
| |
| j 5.1 Mitered Joints Mitered joints are pemitted by ASME III-Class 1, 2 and 3 (Refs. 5, 6 4 9), as well as 831.1 (Ref. 4) and B31.3 (Ref.
| |
| ! 7). Flexibility characteristic (h), flexibility factor (k),
| |
| I and stress intensification factor (1), as tabulated in Figure l NC-3673.2(b)-1 and Figure NO-3673-2(b)-1 in Ref. 5 and 6, were
| |
| ; utilized for ASME III-Class 2 and 3 analyses, respectively. '
| |
| ) Furthermore, to assure that the miter joint induced discontinuity stresses were acceptably low, equation 4(c),
| |
| paragraph 304.2.3 of B31.3 (Ref. 7) was evaluated to determine the pressure capacity of the joint as compared with the normal '
| |
| l operating pressure of the pipe in question.
| |
| 5.2 Unreinforced Branches
| |
| ; The use of unreinforced branch connections, including unreinforced lateral connections as used in the SHNPP Ofesel Generator skid mounted piping, is permitted by ASE III-Class I 1, 2 and 3, as well as by B31.1 and B31.3.
| |
| ; Flexibility characteristic (h), flexibility factor (k) and stress intensification factor (1), as tabulated in Figure j ,
| |
| NC-3673.2(b)-1 and Figure ND-3673.2(b)-1.were utilized for j ASME III-Class 2 and 3 respectively.
| |
| ' Additional analysis was performed to confirm that the pipe is "self-reinforcing" and that the rules for metal reinforcement
| |
| ! requirements set forth in the Codes (e.g. ASME III-NC-3643.3, i et. al.) were satisfied. It is noted that since the design- l
| |
| ; pressure was small in relation to the actually furnished pipe I wall thickness, there was considerable excess wall thickness available for self-reinforcing of the branch penetrations.
| |
| ) 5.3 Pressure Retaining Buttwelds Seamless pipe was furnished for the CPSES diesel generator skid mounted piping (Ref. 16). Longitudinal buttwelds were
| |
| ; not used and therefore required no further discussion.
| |
| ; However, circumferential buttwelds were used throughout to
| |
| ; join adjacent piping spool pieces. These welds are discussed j below.
| |
| l l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 2 to TXX-6236 February 13 0 1987 Page 25 of 187 5.3.1 Weld Penetration Considerations Based on Reference 17 full weld penetration was -
| |
| assumed for the ASME specified on-skid piping, and for the non-ASME engine piping weld in the bevel region was l assumed. No weld penetration to the assumed 1/16 inch land was utilized.
| |
| 5.3.2 Weld Joint Capacity Minimum wall thickness recuirements dictated by design pressure (e.g. ASE III-NC-3641.1, Equation (3), et, i
| |
| al. ) must be maintained at the circumferential
| |
| - buttwelds, which join adjacent spool pieces.
| |
| 4 For the CPSES diesel generator skid mounted piping, it was conservatively assumed that the material available for design pressure requirements was equal to the pipe .
| |
| ' wall thickness minus 3/32 inch, to account for the ;
| |
| worst possible minimum weld thickness. Minimum weld ;
| |
| thickness to minimum required pipe wall thickness 4 ratios were detemined for all of the subject pipe
| |
| : sections. The smallest ratio of (tw/tain) was found to be 2.0 (or 2005 of min. required well thickness).
| |
| l Thus, these welds always met minimum Code requirements i
| |
| for pressure dependent pipe wall thickness. This excess wall provides adequate generic margin against !
| |
| : corrosion. More specific data regarding corrosion is provided in the specific component, reports, i
| |
| ' All pipe stress calculations, other than desfjn pressure vs. wall thickness calculations, uti'ized the nominal pipe wall thickness, since a local thinning of
| |
| : the pipe affects its pressure capacity but has a negitgible effect on gross bending stresses. This is i
| |
| consistent with the philosophy of ASME III and ANSI Codes.
| |
| i Applying ~this philosophy to the circumferential welds, i
| |
| it was thus assumed that for deadweight, themal j expansion and seismic loading stress analysis, the available wall thickness was the nominal wall thickness l'
| |
| minus the nominal flat landing of 1/16 inch. The evaluation of stresses at the circumferential butt welds considered this reduction in section.
| |
| If the stresses thus derived were adequately low, then L
| |
| strength capacity of the circumferential weld joints furnished for the subject piping was considered to be <
| |
| adequate.
| |
| i
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ . - ~ . _ _ _ _ _ . - _ - _ .
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 2 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 26 of '187 j 5.3.3 Stress Intensification Factor l The initial analysis utilized a stress intensification factor (SIF) of 1.8, which was the upper limit ,
| |
| 4 specified in ASME III-NO 1974 version including l addenda thru Winter 1976)(Figure NO-3673.2(b)-1 for a l mismatch of an as welded buttweld (which is in excess I of thickness0.1., i.e.[ delta having)a
| |
| /tnJ .ratio of mismatch to pipe wall ;
| |
| c$ $d*S$s$$y b b eke M E $ tE ideta n)
| |
| . is 0.1 or less, then the Code pemits an SIF of 1.0 for l, as welded or flush buttweld. However, since the pipe had independent I.D., 0.D., and out of round
| |
| !' tolerances, it was not possible to determine the actual pipe wall mismatch (delta) between two adjacent spools by visual inspection of the outside of the piping.
| |
| ; Thus the conservative value of 1.8 was utilized, i 5.4 Dresser and Compression Couplings j
| |
| Dresser Couplings (see Figure 1) and Compression Couplings j (see Figure 2) were utilized throughout the CPSES Diesel Generator skid mounted piping. These couplings provide a i flexible, leak proof seal at the pipe'. spool piece interface, without pipe threading, or welding, and do not require precise '
| |
| l spool piece end preparation or precise piping alignment.
| |
| i These couplings have an 80 year record of successful service on all kinds of piping such as water mains, sewage treatment, and water filtration piping, and in all branches of the oil
| |
| : industry, and have been used extensively by TDI for other l diesel generator installations.
| |
| 4 5.4.1 Code Acceptability of Dresser and Compression Couplings ASME III-NC-3649 (for Class 2 Components) and ASME
| |
| , III-NO-3649 (for Class 3 Components) pemit the use of l pressure retaining products not specifically covered in
| |
| } the Code, which are shaped, proportioned, and sized
| |
| : similar to components that have been proven 1
| |
| satisfactory by successful perfomance under comparable i
| |
| service conditions.
| |
| l By virtue of their long record of satisfactory service l for moderate pressure / temperature systems of this type
| |
| ; of application, the Dresser Couplings and the l Compression Couplings meet the intent of ASE-III Class i
| |
| ' 2 and Class 3 (Refs. 5 and 6) and were therefore !
| |
| acceptable components. i
| |
| ! l l
| |
| l __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ .. _ _ _ __. _
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 2 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 27 of 187 5.4.2 Coupling Validation (1) Selection The Dresser Catalog specifies limiting pressures and temperatures for the various couplings. The subject service conditions were evaluated against these requirements and some couplings, because of the gaskets supplied, were slightly marginal with respect to the temperature requirements. For ,
| |
| these couplings, replacement with an u gasket was specified if leaks develop.pgraded
| |
| , (2) Displacement Verification When acceptable piping / pipe support results are obtained, the relative translations and rotations of the joined pipes were compared to the vendor allowables for the coupling to validate the analysis.
| |
| 5.4.3 Effects of Couplings on Pipe Stress Analysis (1) Pressure Effects Pressure integrity of the piping is achieved by wedging the coupling gasket against the outside of the pipe and into the mating fitting (Ref. Figures 1 and 2). However, this configuration permits axial pipe movements of the adjacent pipe spool pieces. Thus, when the pipe is pressurized, it would tend to slip out of the coupling and separate, if some external axial anchorage were )
| |
| ' not also furnished. Pipe supports and terminal end connections were relied upon to prevent slipping. The pipe stress analysis included the effects of these resulting unbalanced pressure forces.
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 2 to TXX-6236 '
| |
| February 13, 1987 Page 28 of 187 (2) Dresser Coupling Stiffness and Load Capacity In Impell's original evaluation of the diesel
| |
| ! generator piping (Ref. 24), Dresser couplings were .
| |
| conservatively considered to have zero stiffness.
| |
| Since the time of that evaluation Impell has perfomed tests on the Dresser Coupling to obtain the stiffness of the coupling. These tests were performed on Dresser Couplings for two inch piping and the results of the tests are summarized in
| |
| *!"r#gehhb"re!
| |
| 1 CNpNng N M !Ia1 expressions were developed to extrapolate from the
| |
| ,, stiffnesses developed for the two inch couplings.
| |
| The stiffnesses for the large bore couplings are developed in Reference 23.
| |
| The Dresser coupling tests were perfomed for i
| |
| certain load ranges, and the Dresser coupling connection remained intact for the full load range
| |
| -l (i.e., the cou failure mode).plings weretonot In order tested ensure to the that the loads j
| |
| on the coupling remain within its load range, Ifmits of coupling loading are estabitshed. These limits correspond to the maximum test loads
| |
| ; imposed on the coupling. . Note, however, that if these load limits are exceeded by a marginal amount, it is not cause for concern as failure is not likely to occur, because as prev,iously stated, the maximum loadings did not cause a failure of i
| |
| the coupling connection.
| |
| (3) Analysis of Piping with Dresser Couplings
| |
| ! The Dresser coupling stiffnesses, which were
| |
| ! develo>ed as discussed above, are incorporated i
| |
| ! into tie piping models and the piping is re-evaluated. Due to the load limits imposed on i the coupling and the non-linearity that exists at
| |
| : couplings which also have tie rods to take an
| |
| ' l j'
| |
| axial tensile load at the connection, the piping i analysis is an iterative process. The analysis steps for couplings with and without tie rMs are i
| |
| discussed below. The analysis procedure is also shown in Figure 3 in flow chart format:
| |
| i l
| |
| i i
| |
| a
| |
| ,I s--e,.r.--y.- - , , - *ww-v.----ye-w+------.- ---c--- m-..-- ,-e----.m ,---,--mw ,,-,w,,_w-----,e----------,i ~ - . , . - + v-- *.--, . . + * +--
| |
| | |
| v . -
| |
| ; Attach. 1, Item 2-to TXX-6236 E
| |
| ^
| |
| February 13, 1987.
| |
| Page 29 of 187 ;
| |
| 1-(3a) Couplings Without Tie Rods "* -
| |
| ~
| |
| Initially, the static load cases (deadweight =
| |
| thermal and pressure unbalance) are analyzed.to i, determine the loading on the coupling. If. the . 'q actual coupling loads are less than the imposed '
| |
| i limits, the static analysis is acceptable. If the coupling loading is greater than'the imposed
| |
| , Ifmits, the static analysis was reanalyzed, -.
| |
| ! removing the axial coupling stiffness and inputting the Ifmiting coupling load in its l place. Essentially, this would simulate coupling
| |
| ; slippage in the axial direction, while maintaining
| |
| ; an axial load equal to the limiting load. This-would then represent the final static loading. ,
| |
| Once the static analysis is complete, a seismic-2 1
| |
| analysis is performed with the axial stiffness of the coupling active again. The combined static j and seismic loading on the coupling is then compared to the limiting coupling loads. If this
| |
| ' combined loading is less than the load limit, the analysis is complete. Those cases which exceed 4
| |
| the load limit are evaluated on a case-by-case
| |
| ! basis. Again, if the load limits were only i marginally exceeded, the connection was still
| |
| ! deemed acceptable due to .the conservatism of the limiting load. -
| |
| i l (3b) Couplings With The Rods .
| |
| The piping analysis steps for couplings with tie rods is similar to the procedure described .in 3a '
| |
| above, except that an additional step is required
| |
| , for the static analysis. The static coupling loads are examined to determine if the coupling is
| |
| ! in tension or compression. If in tension, the
| |
| {
| |
| static analysis is re-run with the coupling axial j stiffness set to the tie rod axial stiffness. If in compression the axial load is compared to the i
| |
| load limit. Depending on whether the axial load i is less or greater than the load limit, the static l analysis is acceptable or must be re-analyzed, as l 1s done for the coupling without tie rods, until an acceptable static analysis is obtained. The j
| |
| seismic analysis is the same as for the couplings
| |
| ! without tie rods (i.e. coupling axial stiffness ,
| |
| j active), conservatively neglecting the effects of i the tie rods. Again, the static and seismic loads "
| |
| l are con 61ned. The tie rods are evaluated for a l
| |
| not tensile load at the connection, and the net I '
| |
| compressive load is compared to the coupling load Ifmit.
| |
| l
| |
| -,.m--g-, , ,wo-~--4,a-----ww,--,,------,..-w,-- - - - , . ,,,,,--m,,.__,.-mm,,,-.m,-
| |
| - ,.w-w,-e,----- --,- ,.- m m-..-vw - ,e,w- -s-s-- -r----,-w,-,.ev.w-,,,e-
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 2 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987-Page 30 of 187 5.5 Pipe and Equipment Supports .
| |
| i Pipe and equipment supports were designed and/or analyzed in accordance with the intent and philosophy of AISC design rules
| |
| , ( Ref. 17 ). In localized areas where AISC criteria was not '
| |
| met, the specific area was evaluated for as-built strength.
| |
| An example of this was that edge distance for a bolt hole through a plate did not meet the distance specified in AISC.
| |
| In this case, the actual pull-out strength was determined and 1 compared with the required capacity using actual pipe support j' loading, rather than bolt load capacity.
| |
| l For qualification of local stresses on the pipe wall due to loading from integral attachments, the methods i Welding Research Council Bulletin No.107 (Ref. presented
| |
| : 18) were in followed. Design and analysis of welding and structural components due to torsional loading was performed in accordance with the formulas and guidelines set forth in Blodgett, " Design of Welded Structures" (Ref.19).
| |
| Where as-built information was not readily available, conservative assumptions were made and later field verified.
| |
| Prior to suggesting any structural modifications to supports, conservatisms used in the analysis were eliminated. The computer program STRUDL was utilized in lieu of hand j
| |
| calculations for the analysis of those supports requiring a j more sophisticated approach.
| |
| ! 5.6 Pipe Flanges -
| |
| l 5.6.1 Standard Flanges l Flanges fabricated to standards listed in ASME III-NC-3132-1 (for Class 2) and ND-3132-1 (for Class 3) l are acceptable for ASE III Class 2 and 3. For these i flanges the established pressure / temperature rating was j first compared with the operating pressures / temperatures to evaluate the flange selection. ,
| |
| 1 Since the operating pressures for the subject piping
| |
| ! systems were modest, the flange had excess capacity to i carry mechanical loads imposed on the flange. This was i
| |
| confimed by conservative hand calculations using technicques outlined in ASE III- Subsection ND 3658.
| |
| 5.6.2 Non-Standard Flanges
| |
| ! At a number of locations within the CPSES Diesel '
| |
| Generator skid mounted piping, square or rectangular,
| |
| ! flat plate flanges were utilized. These flanges were j analyzed as flat plates, using conservative assumptions.
| |
| i
| |
| !i
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 2 to TXX-6236 i
| |
| February 13, 1987 Page 31 of 187 5.6.3 Flange Bolt Pipe Support Attachments t At a number of locations, pipe support plates, ranging i from 1/4 in, to 1/2 in, thick, are connected to piping at piping flanges by means of the flange bolts. From ;
| |
| two to twelve of the flange bolts are utilized in the support to flange connection. Since these bolts have the multiple duty of providing pressure closure and structural continuity between piping spools, as well as servieg as a pipe support attachment, they require special evaluation for adequacy. These flange bolts were evaluated on the following basis.
| |
| 4 If the flange bolts are properly torqued up, providing w ample precompression at the flange / pipe strap, then there is frictional resistance to transmit load. If this frictional resistance capacity is greater than the actual applied force, then the bolt is loaded only in i
| |
| tension. It does not therefore realize any of the transverse load, or accompaaying bending which is transmitted to the flange assembly by the pipe support strap plate.
| |
| The bolt frictional capacity, based on recommended torque values (which yield a specific bolt pretension) i in Apper. dix IV of the TDI Diesel Instruction Manual, was compared to the flange / support connection load.
| |
| The connection was adequate to transfer shear without
| |
| ' bolt bending providing the frictional capacity was at least 1.5 times the shear loading th the connection.
| |
| If this criteria was not met, then higher strength bolts, were specified in order to enable an increase in the bolt torque, which yields a higher bolt pretension and, hence, a higher frictional capacity. The bolt torque specified for the higher strength bolts was
| |
| ' increased enough to obtain a frictional capacity 1.5 times the shear loading in order to keep the loading on ,
| |
| the flange gasket to a minimum. Note that AISC recommended bolt torques were never exceeded when an increase in torque was required.
| |
| 5.7 U-Bol ts In Impe11's original evaluation of the large bore piping, conservative stiffness values were used for U-bolts. For this evaluation, more realistic U-bolt side load stiffnesses were developed (Ref. 25) using a finite element model of the various U-bolt sizes. These stiffness values are incorporated into the piping analysis.
| |
| W 4 4
| |
| [
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 2 to TXX-6236 '
| |
| February 13, 1987 Page 32 of 187 l
| |
| l Allowable U-bolt loads for tension and side load are specified
| |
| , by the U-bolt manufacturer (Grinnell). Based on discussions I with the manufacturer, the method and stress criteria for i determining the allowable loads was obtained. Conservatisms in this criteria were identified, and new allowable U-bolts 4
| |
| loads were established (Ref. 26).
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| ==6.0 REFERENCES==
| |
| | |
| l
| |
| : 1. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Diesel Generator Sets l Specification 2323-MS-34, Revision 1, April 8,1976. ;
| |
| : 2. Diesel Engine Manufacturers Association (DEMA), " Standards and
| |
| . Practices for Low and Medium Speed Stationary Diesel and Gas Engines," 1972. I l
| |
| : 3. American Bureau of Shi Steel Vetsels," 1976. ps, " Rules for Building and Classing i
| |
| 4 American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Document .
| |
| ANSI /ASE B31.1, " Power Piping" (831.1). '
| |
| i
| |
| : 5. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASE) Boiler and Pressure Yessel Code, Section III " Rules for Construction of l Nuclear Power Plant Components," [ASE III) Subsection ND Class 3 Components (ASE III-Class 3)...
| |
| I 6 ASE III, Subsection NC, Class 2 Components (ASE III-Class 2). !
| |
| \
| |
| : 7. ANSI document ANSI /ASE 831.3, " Chemical Plant and Petroleum Refinery Piping" (B31.3).
| |
| . 8. ANSI B31.7, " Nuclear Power Piping" (831.7).
| |
| r
| |
| : 9. ASE III, Subsection NB, Class 1 Components (ASME III-Class 1).
| |
| l i
| |
| : 10. Record of Converation between A. J. Palumbo and A. London, August 14, 1984. !
| |
| l
| |
| : 11. Memo from G. Shears to J. Cadogan August 14, 1984.
| |
| l
| |
| : 12. Gibbs and Hill letter No.- GTN-71355, dated March 28, 1986.
| |
| Seismic Response Spectrum Curves developed according to ASME Code Case N-411.
| |
| : 13. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Seismic Criteria for Equipment Design Specification No. 2323-55-20, Revision 4, August 9, 1976.
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 2 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 33 of 187
| |
| : 14. TDI Letter to Gibbs & Hill Inc. July 12, 1978.
| |
| ( -
| |
| : 15. Gibbs & Hill Letter to Texas Utilities Generating Company Nov.
| |
| 5,1980.
| |
| : 16. Telephone conversation A. Palumbo and M. Lowrey 7/24/84.
| |
| : 17. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) " Specification for the Design Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel !
| |
| for Buildings.g l
| |
| : 18. Welding Research Council Bulleting 107, " Local Stress in l Spherical and Cylindrical Shells due to External Loading," by 1 K. R. Wichman, A. G. Hopper, and J. L. Marshon. l
| |
| : 19. " Design of Welded Structures" by Oner W. Blodgett, The James F. Lincoln Arc Welding Foundation.
| |
| : 20. ASME Code Case N-411.
| |
| : 21. Impell Report No. 02-0630-1231 Rev. A dated August 1984.
| |
| " Design Criteria for Diesel Generator Large Diameter Piping
| |
| ; for Comanche Peak."
| |
| : 22. Impell Calculation DG Coupling, Rev. O, dated April 30, 1985.
| |
| Job No. 0310-055. " Dresser Coupling Test Results."
| |
| : 23. Impell Calculation 0630-083-C-001, Rev. O, dated May 22, 1986. " Dresser Coupling Stiffness."
| |
| : 24. Impe11 Report No. 02-0630-1230, Rev. O, dated September 28, 1984. " Supporting Calculations for the Evaluation of the Comanche Peak Diesel Generator Skid Mounted Large Diameter Piping and Supports."
| |
| : 25. Impell Calculation 0630-083-C-005, Rev. O, "U-bolt Lateral Stiffness."
| |
| : 26. Impe11 Calculation 0630-083-C-011, Rev. O, "U-bolt Tensile Load. "
| |
| r d
| |
| l l
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 2 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 34 of 187 Style 38 and style 40 Coupling Gasket cross section.
| |
| MIDDLE RING m \
| |
| ~*' -
| |
| \ _
| |
| ( This section furnished i
| |
| er Stob 38 and Stob 39 Couplings. l
| |
| : i. '
| |
| j OUTER RIM l
| |
| < l lNNER RIM, l ELLIPTICAL i GASKET REC 5 BOLT HOLE
| |
| ; Cutaway view of Dresser Coupling,
| |
| : showing working principle, and - l
| |
| ; ii!sst, rating shape and relative po- ,
| |
| j sition of component parts. Insets l show details of parts. .
| |
| I l; l
| |
| = --
| |
| : t. w l
| |
| .I 7 , g to -- - . < -
| |
| e .,
| |
| ~
| |
| ~]_3~~l
| |
| ~ ?
| |
| (= ,_ . . t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ __ _: ;
| |
| g l
| |
| -- . n l .
| |
| W
| |
| : i. 1
| |
| ; I j '=
| |
| I. l 7 7
| |
| ,Y , . r .__
| |
| j
| |
| {_..__...__....... 3: -
| |
| l _
| |
| [j .2-_.. T 1 __
| |
| i -
| |
| Longrtudinal section ttrrough Style 38 Couphng l
| |
| l :u FIGURE 1 !
| |
| l l DRESSER COUPLING l
| |
| l L __-_-_ ,i
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 2 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 35 of 187 i
| |
| , e _ --
| |
| ._- ~
| |
| 1_'.
| |
| w_- -
| |
| _m _
| |
| ~
| |
| a) '~ T -
| |
| sq
| |
| & -- . u
| |
| &s- .
| |
| h~ !
| |
| l CASKET RETAMR CW HT m c30DY F8 l A'J Ti 9*
| |
| O l l
| |
| j r-- '
| |
| \ l k il !
| |
| ,_.._c p ,
| |
| a 7a FIGURE 2 COMPRESSION COUPLING l
| |
| 1
| |
| ; l
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 2 to TXX-6236 '
| |
| February 13, 1987 Page 36 of 187 PROCEDURE FOR PIPING ANALYSIS WITH DRESSER COUPLINGS
| |
| \. .
| |
| DOES CPLG HAVE TIE RODS NO YES 1 y RUN D.W. RUN D.W.
| |
| THER & PRES THER & PRES WITH CPLG Kx NEGLECTING IIE ROD (USE CPLG Kx)
| |
| ST AT IC NO AXIAL LOAD CPLG YES AXIAL LOAD NO STATIC ANALYSIS e ON CPLG > IS IN P ON CPLG > r ANALYSIS 0.K. MAX. LOAD COMPRESS MAX. LOAD O.K.
| |
| YES NO YES p o y RUN D.W. RERUN D.W. RUN D.W.
| |
| ('
| |
| THER 1 PRES THER 8 PRES THER & PRES WITH Kx =0, WITH Kx 0F WITH Kx = 0 INPUI MAX LOAD TIE ROD INPUT MAX LOAD 3' 1f f
| |
| STAT IC STATIC STATIC ANALYSIS ANALYSIS ANALYSIS 0.K. O.K. O.K.
| |
| 1 O RUN SEIS RUN SEIS r WITH CPLG (
| |
| WIIH CPLG d-Kx Kx.
| |
| u 1' DISCUSS DISCUSS SEISMIC SEISMIC LOADS ON LOADS ON CPLG W/ PE CPLG W/ PE FIGURE 3 l
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 3 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 37 of 187 ATTACHMENT-1 ITEM-3 i
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 3 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 38 of 187
| |
| , SUPPLEMENT 1 TOI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 Jacket Water Inlet Manifold - Manifold
| |
| ~
| |
| Asserely with Hardware and Coupling and Gaskets (Large Bore Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-316 A & B Prepared By:
| |
| Impell Corporation 225 Broad Hollow Road Melville, N. Y.11747 Report No. 02-0630-1346 Revision 0 Job No. 0630-083-1642 N- '
| |
| May, 1986
| |
| - - -, - - ,--,.e , -. - -
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 3 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 39 of 187 IMPELL CORPORATION REPORT APPROVAL COVER SHEET Client: TDI Owner's Group (DUKE /TUGCO)
| |
| Project: Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators Job No.: 0630-083-1642
| |
| ~ '
| |
| ; Report
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| Jacket Water Inlet Manifold - Manifold Assembly With
| |
| ~
| |
| Hardware and Couplings and Gasket (Large Bore Scope Only) ,
| |
| i Component Part No. 02-316A&B
| |
| , Report Number: 02-0630-1346 Rev. No.: 0 The work described in this Report was perfomed in accordance with the Impell Corporation Quality Assurance Program. The signatures below verify the accuracy of this Report and its compliance with applicable quality assurance r quirements.
| |
| Prepared By: , [. & e - . 'Date: S!50[J/. .
| |
| ' Reviewed By: / Date: 6/30/8h Approved By: , s[ ,.
| |
| Date: 40 O/%
| |
| Concurrence By: k dM 'Date: /o[5/ar.
| |
| Region 10 ality Assurance Manager REVISION RECORD REY. PREPARED ' REVIEWED APPROVED CONCURRENCE APPROVAL lREVISIONI I l l H I I I I I I I
| |
| I I I I i 1 I I I I I I l I I I I I l .
| |
| I I I I I I i i l i I I I i 1 I I I I i l i i l i I l- 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i l t- - _. _ _ -. - - . ._. . . . . .._ . _- ,
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 3 to TXX-6236 -
| |
| February.13, 1987 Page 40 of 187 SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 Jacket Water Inlet Manifold - Manifold Assembly with Hardware and Coupling and Gaskets
| |
| . (Large Bore Scope Only)
| |
| , Component Part No. 02-316 A & B I. INTRODUCTION
| |
| 'The purpose of this supplement is to suranarize the evaluation perforsned to justify eliminating the reconsnended modifications as stated in the original report.
| |
| The jacket water inlet header supply from the lube oil cooler outlet utilizes a six inch diameter dresser coupling to join the on and off engine piping spools. Also provided at this connection are two tie rods, which are attached to the piping on either side of the dresser coupl ing. These tie rods are single nutted such that they take only tensile loads. The piping is supported at two locationq, by supports which utilize U-bolts.
| |
| As a result of.the original evaluation (Ref.1), modifications were recomended in order to satisfy the existing design criteria (Ref.
| |
| 2). The recommended modifications were to add angles to the U-bolt on'one of the supports, such that the angles would take the side loading instead of the U-bolt, and to dcuble nut the tie rods at the dresser coupling connection, replacing the existing 3/4 inch diameter rods with 1 inch diameter rods such that they had both tensile and compressive capabilities.
| |
| II. METH000 LOGY l
| |
| .In the original evaluation the dresser coupling was conservatively I assumed to have zero stiffness. Since the time of that evaluation, I tests were performed on dresser couplings and finite stiffnesses l were developed (Ref. 3). These stiffnesses were incorporated into the re-evaluation of the piping and supports. Additionally, reduced seismic response spectra (Ref. 4) developed in accordance with ASME Code Case N-411, was utilized to reduce the seismic loading on the components. The evaluation criteria was revised to incorporate the above mentioned items and is presented in Reference 5.
| |
| - - - - - - - - e
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Ittm 3 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 41 of 187 III. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Based on this evaluation (Ref. 6), the jacket water inlet piping and supports have been found to be acceptable without modification. All stress levels are well below code allowables (maximum ' stress . ratio of approximately 0.45). Nozzle loads have not significantly i increased from those approved in the original calculation. Relative movements at the Dresser coupling are well within the manufacturer recommended allowables. Loading on the U-bolt supports are also ;
| |
| within the manufacturer allowables.
| |
| The jacket water inlet piping and supports, as designed and installed by Transamerica Delaval, Inc., are adequate to perform their intended design function.
| |
| 9
| |
| \[
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 3 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 1 Page 42 of 187 I IV. REFERENCES
| |
| : 1. " Supporting Calculations for the Evaluation of Comanche Peak Diesel Generator Large Diameter Piping and Supports," Impell Report No. 02-0630-1230 Rev. O, August,1984. Calculation No's CP-JW-001 and JW-PSR-10062.
| |
| : 2. " Design Criteria for Diesel Generator Large Diameter Piping for Comanche Peak," Impell Report No. 02-0630-1231 Rev. A. , August 1984.
| |
| : 3. " Dresser Coupling Stiffness," Impell Calculation 0630-083-C-001, Rev. O.
| |
| : 4. Gibbs & Hill Letter No. GTN-71355, dated March 28, 1986.
| |
| (Transmittal of seismic response spectra curves, developed in )
| |
| accordance with ASME Code Case N-411, for the Safeguards Bullding).
| |
| l S. " Design Criteria for Diesel Generator Large Diameter Piping for Comanche Peak," Impell Report No. 02-0630-1345, Rev. 0, May 1985.
| |
| l
| |
| : 6. " Jacket Water Piping and Supports - Components 02-316A48, 02-717C and 02-717E," Impell Calculation No. 0630-083-JW-001, l Rev. O. I i
| |
| i o
| |
| i N/ I
| |
| | |
| F Attach. 1, Item 4 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 43 of 187 ATTACHMENT-1 ITEM-4 r
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 4'to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 44 of 187
| |
| . StPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 Jacket Water Fittings - Supports (Large Bore Scope Only) -
| |
| Component Part No. 02-4358 Prepared By:
| |
| Impe11 Corporation 225 Broad Hollow Road Melville, N. Y.11747 Report No. 02-0630-1347 Revision 0 Job No. 0630-083-1642 May, 1986 l
| |
| l wi
| |
| | |
| a a a e.w a. a. - -, _.a ~
| |
| Attach. 1, Item 4 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 45 of 187 IMPELL CORPORATION REPORT APPROVAL COVER SHEET Client: TDI her's Group (DUKE /TUGCO)
| |
| Project: Comanche Peak TDI Ofesel Generators Job No.: 0630-083-1642 Report
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| Jacket Water Fittings - Supports (Large Bore Scope Only)
| |
| ~
| |
| Component Part No. 02-435B Report Number: 02-0630-1347 Rev. No. : 0 The work described in this Report was performed in accordance with the Impell Corporation Quality Assurance Program. The signatures below verify the accuracy of this Report and its compliance with applicable quality assurance r ufrements.
| |
| Prepared By:
| |
| * I Date: 5 *!B4 Reviewed By: w/ / Date: 6/h //h Approved By: id %- Dete: #/# #
| |
| Concurrence By: [ ld6 P Date: /o[/1>/sa Ressyaifou.iity Assurance manas.r
| |
| , , REVISION RECORD 2
| |
| REY. 1 PREPARED l REVIEKD l APPROVED l GUKuMMLKE l AFPMUVAL lMLY1510NI I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I
| |
| I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i i l i I I I I I I I I
| |
| ' I I I I I I I I I I i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I i i l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I V
| |
| i ! I' l l
| |
| l^
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 4 to TXX-6236-February 13, 1987 Page 46 of 187 SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 i
| |
| ~
| |
| Jacket Water Fittings - Supports l (Large Bore Scope Only) '
| |
| Component Part No. 02-435B I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this supplement is to summarize the evaluation performed to justify eliminating the reconsiended modifications as stated in the original report. l The jacket water piping support system consists of only one support attached to the large bore piping. This support provides only downward restraint of the piping system. As a result of the original evaluation (Ref.1), a modification was reconnended to restrain upward movement of the piping at the support which was due to a large upward load (approximatey 1300 lbs). This original ,
| |
| evaluation was performed in accordance with Reference,2.
| |
| II. METHODOLOGY .
| |
| A revised evaluation criteria (Ref. 3) was developed, incorporating stiffness values for Dresser couplings (assumed to have zero estiffness in the original evaluation), and reduced seismic response spectra (Ref. 4) which was developed in accordance with ASME Code Case N-411. The piping and supports were then re-evaluated in accordance with the revised evaluation criteria.
| |
| III. RESULTS Ale CONCLUSIONS Based on this evaluation (Reference 5), the jacket water fittin supports have been found to be acceptable without modification.g The -
| |
| calculated upward load at the support (approximately 140 lbs.) is much less than calculated originally. A load of this magnitude will cause negligible upward deflections of the eight inch diameter pi pe. . Additionally, the uplift occurs only for the emergency (deadweight + thermal + SSE) loading coMination. Therefore, it is i
| |
| not necessary to provide upward restraint of the piping at this support.
| |
| The jacket water fittings - supports, as designed and installed by Transamerica Delaval, Inc., are adequate to perform their intended design function.
| |
| 4 s . . _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ - . . _ . . _ . _ . _ _ . . . _ _ . _ , _
| |
| 'I
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 4 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 l Page 47 of 187 IV. REFERENCES
| |
| : 1. " Supporting Calculations for the Evaluation of Comanche Peak Diesel Generator Large Diameter Piping and Supports," Impell Report No. 02-0630-1230, Rev. O, August,1984.
| |
| : 2. " Design Criteria for Diesel Generator Large Diameter Piping for Comanche Peak," Impell Report No. 02-0630-1231, Rev. A., August 1984.
| |
| : 3. " Design Criteria for Diesel . Generator Large Diameter Piping for s
| |
| Comanche Peak," Impell Report No. 02-0630-1345, Rev. O, May 1986.
| |
| 4 Gibbs and Hill Letter No. GTN-71355, dated March 28, 1986.
| |
| (Transmittal of sof tmic response spectra curves, developed in accordance with ASME Code Case N-411, for Safeguards Building.) ,
| |
| : 5. " Jacket Water Piping and Supports - Components 02-4358, 02-717C '
| |
| and 02-717E," Impell Calculation No. 0630-083-JW-002, Rev. O.
| |
| I
| |
| : l I
| |
| i l
| |
| | |
| Attach.1, Itein 5 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 48 of 187 ATTACHMENT-1 ITEM-5 l
| |
| 1 I
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 5 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 49 of 187 i
| |
| l l
| |
| 1 SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAX STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1
| |
| ~
| |
| Starting Air Manifold - Supwrts (Large Bore Scope Onlyh Component Part No. 02-441C r
| |
| Prepared By:
| |
| Impe11 Corporation 225 Broad Hollow Road Melville, N. Y.11747
| |
| ., Report No. 02-0630-1348 Revision 0 Job No. 0630-083-1642 i
| |
| May, 1986 i
| |
| | |
| 'O Attach. 1 0 Item 5 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 50 of 187 IMPELL CORPORATION REPORT APPROVAL COVER SHEET Client: TDI Owner's Group (DUKE /TUGCO)
| |
| Project: Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generatars Job No.: 0630-083-1642 Report
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| Starting Air Manifold: Supports (Large Bore Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-441C Report Number: 02-0630-1348 Rev. No.: 0 The work described in this Report was performed in accordance with the Impell Corporation Quality Assurance Program. The signatures below verify the accuracy of this Report and its compliance with applicable quality assurance requirements.
| |
| Prepared By: bf , Date: 4//o/B(,
| |
| Reviewed By:
| |
| * c- M , Date: I Iffe Approved By: EdPJf. . Date: M Concurrence By: }\dsLf.t<)J Date: Iolisisa, Regional Quality Assurance Manager F
| |
| REVISION RECORD 1
| |
| l IREY. I PREPARED l REVIEWED 1 APPROVED l CONCURRENCE I APPROVAL lREVISIONI I i l i l l I I I I I i l I I i i
| |
| i l I l l i I I I I I I I I I I I t i I I I I I I I l 1 1 I I I 1 I l
| |
| I I I l 1 1 I I I .I I I I I I I I
| |
| ! I I I I I I I I I l i I I I I I I I I I
| |
| - I I i 1 I I I I I
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 5 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 51 of 187 SUPPLEMENT 1 TOI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 1
| |
| Starting Air Manifold - Supports (Large Bore Scope Only)
| |
| )
| |
| Component Part No. 02-441C I i i I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this supplement is to sumarize the evaluation performed to justify eliminating the recomended modifications as stated in the original report.
| |
| i The starting air supports restrain the Component 02-441 A piping. As a result of the original evaluation (Ref.1), support modifications were recommended in order to provide stiffer load paths to accomodate the axial discontinuity loads at Dresser couplings and to relieve expansion. over-constraint in the axial direction due to thermal II. METHODOLOGY .
| |
| In the original evaluation of the piping, conservative analysis techniques were utilized in accordance with the original evaluation criteria (Ref. 2). Less conservative analysis techniques were ,
| |
| ' developed and incorporated into a revised evaluation criteria (Ref.
| |
| 3 ). These techniques include using reduced seismic response spectra (Ref. 4) developed in accordance with ASME Code Case N-411 and incorporating stiffness values (Ref. 5) for the Dresser couplings, which were assumed to have zero stiffness in the original evaluation. The piping was re-analyzed in accordance with the revised evaluation criteria, and new support loads were developed.
| |
| III. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS i
| |
| Based on this evaluation (Ref. 6), the starting air piping supports ;
| |
| are acceptable with modifications. Note that as a result of the ;
| |
| original evaluation most of the supports required a total re-design. As a result of this evaluation, however, the extent of ,
| |
| the modifications has been reduced. It is recommended that the bolt {
| |
| holes at the one bolt connection-(see Figure 1) for supports
| |
| . . , _ . ,_, ,, - _ _ , . . , _ _ _ _ . , _ _ , .m
| |
| | |
| ' Attach.-1, Item 5 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 52 of 187 4
| |
| i SA-PSA-10003,10004,10005,10006,10007,10011,10012,10013, and 10014 be slotted in the piping axial direction to allow for differential thermal expansion. Upon installation, there should not be significant bolt-pretension at the one bolt connections, so that axial loads due to friction do not develop. Since there will be no significant should pretension be provided foratthe thebolt.
| |
| one bolt connections, a locking device Similiarly, it is recommended that the base plate bolt holes for supports.SA-PSA-10000 and 10010 be slotted (see Figure 2) to allow for north-south differential thermal expansion.
| |
| Again, the bolts should not have significant pre-tension and locking devices should be provided for the bolts. Additionally, it is recommended that the welds connecting the piping to the angle for supports SA-PSA-10012 and 10013 be increased as indicated in
| |
| , Figure 3.
| |
| The starting air piping supports, as designed and installed by Transamerica Delaval, Inc. are adequate to perform their intended design function, providing the modifications recossended above are implemented.
| |
| IV. REFERENCES 1.
| |
| " Supporting Calculations for the Evaluation of Comanche Peak .
| |
| Diesel Generator Large Diameter Piping and Supports," Impell Report No. 02-0630-1230, Rev. O, August,1984.
| |
| 2.
| |
| " Design Criteria for Diesel Generator Large Diameter Piping for Comanche Peak," Impe11 Report No. 02-0630-1231 1984. Rev. A., August 3.
| |
| " Design Criteria for Diesel Generator Large Diameter Piping for Comanche Peak", Impell Report No. 02-0630-1345, Rev. 0, May 1986.
| |
| : 4. Gibbs & Hill Letter No. GTN-71355, dated March 28, 1986.
| |
| (Transmittal of seismic response spectra curves, developed in accordance Building). with ASME Code Case N-411, for the Safeguards-
| |
| : 5. " Dresser Coupling Stiffness" Impell Calculation No.
| |
| 0630-083-C-001, Rev. O.
| |
| i 6.
| |
| " Start Air Piping and Supports - Components 02-441A and 02-441C" Impe11 Calculation No. 0630-083-SA-001, Rev. O.
| |
| l I
| |
| | |
| -Attach. 1, Item 5 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 53 of 187 START AIR HEADER SUPPORTS P 3"STALT Alft PIPE -
| |
| k 42vZvVe"'
| |
| , %" @ sot.T i
| |
| )
| |
| ELEVATicQ D 1 7/S" l
| |
| L- m- !
| |
| ._. _ %- l 6ECT I - I d oTE.s:
| |
| \. REF. v%'s PS- t oot A- SA - 10005, l00044, locos, 10006, lo007, l coil,100\2,1001s 4 looI&.
| |
| : 2. GwT 14cLE FoK %'' SoLT ^* *Ho*4 -
| |
| FIGURE 1
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 5 to TXX-6236
| |
| ' February 13, 1987 ,
| |
| Page 54 of.187 2
| |
| SUPPORTS SA-PSA-10000 & 10010 EW4idE ELoc#,
| |
| j g h ! ! /
| |
| I e i l l L ll I -
| |
| ll Y8 @ BOLT (TTh We x2Ax%'m ,i A i p 5 START Aut. am PLAbd
| |
| @ d
| |
| "/lb ( M b- N G (Tt'P)
| |
| --%" Grvr)
| |
| SECT I-I N. LOTE 6 '-
| |
| : 1. FEF. UWG'S PS-lootA- GA- loooo 4 looio, ,
| |
| : 2. SLOT HOLES Fot:. 5/s" SoLT As shd.
| |
| I FIGURE 2 l l
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 5 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 55 of 187 SUPPORTS SA-PSA-10012 & 10013 l l
| |
| l
| |
| - \ /V2 % 4 a m T-42x28%g / Nwueaseto % mas ELEVATtDd - SU PPogrT .6A f!sA- l0012.
| |
| . )
| |
| \ / 6' Lod (n MtvT.
| |
| Yo / \14ctEA$f. To %" Lod 4 L2t2tV4 ELEVATied -
| |
| SUPPoET
| |
| * Ps A-locis d o T E F. t 1.REF. W 85 ?$- loo t A- 6A - 10012 410015,
| |
| : 2. IdcEEASE w/E:.LDS 44 SOW /d.
| |
| FIGURE 3
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Itea 6 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 56 of 187 ATTACHMENT-1 ITEM-6 P
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 6 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 57 of 187
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 C*nerator Large Bore Turbocharger .
| |
| Lube Oil Fitting - Piping (Large Bore Scope Only) t Component Part No. 02-467A l
| |
| i I
| |
| )
| |
| Prepared By:
| |
| Impell Corporation i
| |
| 225 Broad Hollow Road
| |
| ; Melville, N. Y.11747 Report No. 02-0630-1349 Revision 0 Job No. 0630-083-1642 May,1986 1
| |
| I 1
| |
| I -
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 6 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 58 of 187 IMPELL CORPORATION REPORT APPROVAL COVER SHEET Client: TDI owner's Group (DUKE /TUGCO)
| |
| Project: Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators Job No.. 0630-083-1642
| |
| ', Report
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| Generator Large Bore Turbocharger Lube Oil Fitting -
| |
| Piping (Large Bore Scope Only) Component Part No. 02-467A Report Number: 02-0630-1349 Rev. No.: 0 The work described in this Report was performed in accordance with the Impell Corporation Quality Assurance Program. The signatures below verify the accuracy of this Report and its compliance with applicable quality assurance ufrements. '
| |
| Prepared By: )h [ b.- . Date: 6de/B6 Reviewed By: mta // # Date: S/30/g 4 Approved By: fiq Da'te: iMdh-Concurrence By: [M Date: ee/es/sc Regiofal pual1ty Assurance Manager
| |
| ~
| |
| REVISION RECORD REY. I PREPARED l REVIEWED l APPROVED l C0KURREKE l APPROVAL idEVISIONl l 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I i i i
| |
| i l' I I I I I I I I i i i i i I i i i l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i i i l i i I I i l l I I I I I I i i i l l I
| |
| ~
| |
| I I I I I I
| |
| ; l i I I I I ;
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 6 to TXX-6236 l
| |
| , February 13, 1987 Page 59 of 187 ,
| |
| i SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP-COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 Generator large Borek1urbocharger Lube 011 Fitting [ Piping.
| |
| (Large Bore Scopd Only)-
| |
| w- Component Part No. 02-467A I
| |
| I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this supplement is to sunnarize the evaluation performed to justify eliminating the reconnended modifications as stated in the original report.
| |
| This lube oil piping consists of two lines which run from the turbochargers to the ,1ube oil sump tank. The piping is supported by U-bolt supports. Each piping run contains a 2-1/2 inch Dresser-coupl ing. As a resuit of the original evaluation (Ref.1), seismic relative end movements at both dresser couplings exceeded the manufacturer allowable. Therefore, it was recommended to replace the Dresser couplings with slip-on flanges. Modifications were also reconsiended for that supports for this piping. Those modifications are addressed in the supplement for Component No. 02-4678. <
| |
| II. METHODOLOGY In the original evaluation, the dresser coupling was conservatively assumed to have zero stiffness. Since the time of that evaluation, tests were performed on Dresser couplings and finite stiffnesses were developed (Ref. 3). Additionally, seismic response spectra (Ref. 4), developed in accordance with ASME Code Case N-411, were utilized to reduce the seismic loading on the components. The evaluation criteria was revised to incorporate the above mentioned items and is presented in Reference 5. The lobe oil piping and supports were then re-analyzed in accordance with the revised evaluation criteria.
| |
| l f
| |
| pw , m - - - - , .
| |
| y y
| |
| | |
| a Attach. 1, Item 6 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 60 of 187 III. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Based on this evaluation (Ref. 6), the turbocharger lube oil piping has been found to be acceptable without modification. All stress levels are well below code allowables (stress ratio of approximately 0.55). Nozzle loads have not significantly increased from those approved in the original calculation. Relative movements at the Dresser coupling are within the manufacturer recomended allowables.
| |
| The turbocharger lube oil piping, as designed and installed by Transamerica Delaval, Inc., is adequate to perform its intended design function.
| |
| e o
| |
| h l
| |
| )
| |
| l I
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 6 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 61 of 187 IV. REFERENCES
| |
| : 1. " Supporting Calculations for the Evaluation of Comanche Peak Diesel Generator Large Diameter Piping and Supports," Impell Report No. 02-0630-1230, Rev. O, August,1984.
| |
| : 2. " Design Criteria for Diesel Generator Large Diameter Piping for Comanche Peak," Impell Report No. 02-0630-1231 Rev. A., August 1984.
| |
| : 3. " Dresser Coupling Stiffness," Impell Calculation 0630-083-C-001, Rev. O.
| |
| : 4. Gibbs & Hill Letter No. GTN-71355, dated March 28, 1986.
| |
| (Transmittal of seismic response spectra curves, developed in accordance with ASME Code Case N-411, for the Safeguards Building. )
| |
| : 5. " Design Criteria for Diesel Generator Large Diameter Piping for Comanche Peak," Impell Report No. 02-0630-1345, Rev. O. May 1986.
| |
| 6.
| |
| " Lube Oil Piping and Supports - Components 02-467A and 02-4678",
| |
| Impell Calculation No. 0630-083-LO-003, Rev. O.
| |
| s O
| |
| P
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 7 te TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 62 of 187 ATTACHMENT-1 ITEM-7
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 7 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 63 of 187 SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 '
| |
| Turbocharger - Lube 011 Fittings: Sup~ ports (Large Bore Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-4678 a
| |
| Prepared By:
| |
| i Impe11 Corporation i 225 Broad Hollow Road I Melville, N. Y.11747 i Report No. 02-0630-1350 Revision 0 Job No. 0630-083-1642 May, 1986
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 7 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987
| |
| ; Page 64 of 187 IMPELL CORPORATION REPORT APPROVAL COVER SHEET I
| |
| Client: TDI owner's Group (DUKE /TUGCO)
| |
| Project: Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators Job No.: 0630-083-1642 Report
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| Turbocharger - Lube 011 Fittings - Supports (Large Bore Scope Only) Component Part No. 02-4678 Report Number: 02-0630-1350 Rev. No.: 0 The work described in this Report was performed in accordance with the Impe11 Corporation Quality Assurance Program. The signatures below verify the accuracy of this Report and its compliance with applicable quality assurance equirements.
| |
| Prepared By: [ _ Date: 5 c[84 Reviewed By: /7 Date: 5/30/4G Approved By: @ Date: /8/M/h.
| |
| Concurrence By: kM Date: ro/is/m, Reg 1[nall Quality Assurance Manager REVISION RECORD IREY. I PREPARED I REVIEWED l APPROVED l CONCURRENCE I APPROVAL l REVISION l 1 l l l l l l l l 1 l 1 I 4
| |
| { l I I
| |
| I I I I I I -l I
| |
| I I I I l l
| |
| I I I I I l-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l H I l l l l l l l 1 I I I I I I l-1 I I I I
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 7 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 65 of 187 SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROLP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 Turbocharger - Lube Oil Fittings: Supports (Large Bore Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-4678 ,
| |
| l l-i I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this supplement is to sunnarize the evaluation perforined to justify eliminating the recommended modifications as
| |
| , stated in the original report.
| |
| The turbocharger lube oil supports are U-bolt type supports and support the piping from the turbochargers to the lube oil sump tank (Com 1), ponent supports02-467A). As aand LO-PSR-10030 result of the original LO-PSR-10032 evaluation to were reconnended (Ref. be modified by adding angles on the sides of the U-bolts to accommodate the lateral loading and to increase the weld between the two plates such that it extends along both sides of the plate interface.
| |
| i II. PETHODOLOGY -
| |
| In the original evaluation of the piping, conservative analysis techniques were utilized in accordance with the original evaluation criterfa (Ref. 2). Less conservative analysis techniques were devel_ o ped and incorporated into a revised evaluation criteria (Ref.
| |
| 3). The piping was re-analyzed (see Supplement 1 for Component 02-467A) in accordance with the revised evaluation criteria, and new support loads were developed.
| |
| III. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Based on this evaluation (Reference 4), the turbocharger lube oil piping supports have been found te be acceptable with only minor modification. It is recessended that the weld, which connects the i two plates, on supports LO-PSR-10030 and LO-PSR-10032 be increased such that it extends along both sides of the plates' intersection.
| |
| The loads on the U-bolts however, are within the manufacturer {
| |
| allowables. Therefore the U-bolt modification, reconnended originally, is no longer required. ,
| |
| The turbocharger lube oil piping supports, as designed and installed by Transamerica Delaval, Inc. are adequate to perforin their intended design function, providing the modification recommended above is implemented.
| |
| _ ,, . . _ _ . . _ , ~ , _ . _ _ _ _ . , - _ . . , . _ .
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 7 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 ,
| |
| Page 66 of 187 i
| |
| IV. REFERENCES
| |
| : 1. " Supporting Calculations for the Evaluation of Comanche Peak Ofesel Generator Large Diameter Piping and Supports," Impell Report No. 02-0630-1230, Rev. O, August,1984.
| |
| : 2. " Design Criteria for Diesel Generator Large Diameter Piping for Comanche Peak," Impell Report No. 02-0630-1231, Rev. A., August 1984.
| |
| : 3. " Design Criteria for Diesel Generator Large Diameter Piping for Comanche Peak". Impell Report No. 02-0630-1345, Rev. O. May 1986.
| |
| : 4. " Lube Oil Piping and Supports - Component 02-467A and 02-467B", '
| |
| a Impell Calculation No. 0630-083-LO-003, Rev. O.
| |
| /
| |
| e l
| |
| l 1
| |
| - . , , - - -, n,-- ,-- ,- .- - -- -- p - --, - --- - - , , - e,,,, , ,n -,,-- ,-- - ,e.. r -
| |
| | |
| to TXX-6236' Feoruary 13, [8 Pag 2 67 of jg7 ATTACHMENT.1 ITEM-8
| |
| /
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 8 to TXX-6236 '
| |
| February 13, 1987 Page 68 ci 187 t
| |
| . ,, SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 l
| |
| Auxiliary Sub-Base and Oil and Water Piping - Jacket Water:
| |
| Pipe, Couplings, Fittings Orifices, Y Strainers (Large Bore Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-717C i
| |
| Prepared By: '
| |
| I i
| |
| Impell Corporation 225 Broad Hollow Road Melville, N. Y.11747 Report No. 02-0630-1351 Revision 0 Job No. 0630-083-1642 i May,1986
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 8 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 69 of 187 IP9 ELL CORPORATION REPORT APPROVAL COVER SHEET Client: TDI Owner's Group (DUKE /TUGCO)
| |
| Project: Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators Job No.: 0630-083-1642 Report
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| Auxiliary Sub-Base and Oil and Water Piping - Jacket Water P
| |
| Pipe, Couplings, Fittings, Orifices, Y Strainers i
| |
| Large Bore Scope Only) Component Part No. 02-717C Report Number: 02-0630-1351 Rev. No.: 0 The work described in this Report was perfomed in accordance with the Impell Corporation Quality Assurance Program. The signatures below verify the accuracy of this Report and its compliance with applicable quality assurance quirements.
| |
| Prepared By: his 8 he ,_ Date: G Sv!#6 Reviewed By: 47 m Date: S/Mo/e4 Approved By: 7 10 .
| |
| Date: /*/t///4 Concurrence By:
| |
| M Reg 19nallQuality Assurance Manager bd Date: /0[/s 1
| |
| REVISION RECORD REY. PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVEn l C0KURREKE l APPROVAL i REVISIONI I I ! l :
| |
| 1
| |
| ! I I I I I I I I
| |
| i l i l I I I I I I I I I I l I I I ;
| |
| : 1 I l ;
| |
| l l l l 1 i L I I I I I I I I I I l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i l l I I I I I I
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 8 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 70 of 187 i l
| |
| i
| |
| ; SUPPLEMENT 1 I
| |
| , TDI OWNERS GROUP C0fMNCHE PEAX STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 Auxiliary Sub-8ase and Oil and Water Piping - Jacket Water:
| |
| Pipe, Couplines, Fittings, Orifices, Y Strainers 0.arge Bore Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-717C I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this supplement is to summarize the evaluation
| |
| ; performed to justify eliminating the recosumnded modifications as stated in the original report.
| |
| The jacket water piping carries jacket water from the jacket water stand pipe through the jacket water Hamp, the jacket water and lube t
| |
| oil coolers,, and the intercooler to tie jacket water inlet manifold. Dresser couplings are utilized on this piping to '
| |
| ! accosmodate thermal expansion. Also at some of the Dresser.
| |
| l couplings, tie rods, which attach to the piping on either side of the Dresser coupling, are provided. These tie rods are single nutted such that they take only tensile loads. The piping is supported at numerous locations by supports which utilize U-bolts and plates attached to flanges.
| |
| As a result of the original evaluation (Ref.1), modifications were i
| |
| recossended in order to satisfy the original design criteria (Ref.
| |
| 2). The recossended modifications were: to replace three of the ten Dresser couplings with slip-on flanges; to double nut tie rods at two of the Dresser coupling assemblies and replace the existing 3/4 inch diameter rods with 1 inch diameter rods such that they had both tensile and compressive capabilities; and to torque the flange bolts where support JW-PSA-10251 attaches to a flange.
| |
| Modifications were also recommended for the supports of this piping. They are addressed in the supplement for Component 02-717E.
| |
| II. METHODOLOGY
| |
| , In the original evaluation, the Dresser couplings were l conservatively assumed to have zero stiffness. Since the time of that evaluation, tests were perforised on Dresser couplings and 1
| |
| ! finite stiffnesses were developed (Ref. 3). Additionally, seismic '
| |
| . response spectra, developed in accordance with ASME Code Case N-411, was utilized to reduce the seismic loading on the components. The I
| |
| evaluation criteria was revised to incorporate the above mentioned items and is presented in Reference 5.
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 8 to TXX-6236 Februry 13, 1987-Page 71 of'187 j i-III. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Based en this evaluation (Ref.'s 6 & 7), the auxiliary sub-base .
| |
| jacket water piping has been found to be acceptable without I
| |
| ' modification. All stress levels are below code allowables (maximum stress ratio of approximately 0.45). Most nozzle loads have not !
| |
| significantly increased from those approved in the original calculation. Those nozzle loads which have increased significantly will be provided for re-evaluation. Relative a:vements at the Dresser couplings are well within the manufacturer recommended allowables. The connection of support JW-PSA-10251 to the flange 1 has been found to be adequate without specific bolt torquing criteria.
| |
| l
| |
| {- The auxiliary sub-base jacket water piping, as designed and installed by Transamerica Delaval, Inc., is adequate to perforia its i
| |
| intended design function.
| |
| ., i i
| |
| l 1
| |
| l l
| |
| 1 1
| |
| i -
| |
| _. .n - - - . . - , - - , - - . , . n-. ,,, ,-.- , . - , - - - - - - , - , ,
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 8 to TXX-6236 February 13e 1987 Page 72 of 187 IV. REFERENCES l
| |
| : 1. " Supporting Calculations for the Evaluation of Comanche Peak Diesel Generator Large Diameter Piping and Supports," Impe11 Report No. 02-0630-1230, Rev. O, August, 1984.
| |
| : 2. " Design Criteria for Diesel Generator Large Diameter Piping for Comanche Peak," Impe11 Report No. 02-0630-1231, Rev. A. , August 1984.
| |
| : 3. " Dresser Coupling Stiffness," Impell Calculation 0630-083-C-001, Rev. O. .
| |
| ~
| |
| : 4. Gibbs & Hill Letter No. GTN-71355, dated March 28, 1986.
| |
| (Transmittal of seismic response spectra curves, developed in accordance with ASME Code Case N-411, for the Safeguards Building.)
| |
| : 5. " Design Criteria for Diesel Generator Large Diameter Piping for Comanche Peak," Impe11 Report No. 02-0630-1345,- Rev. O. May 1986.
| |
| : 6. " Jacket Water Piping and Supports - Components 02-316A48, 4
| |
| 02-717C and 02-717E," !apell Calculation No. 0630-083-JW-001, Rev. O.
| |
| : 7. " Jacket Water Piping and Supports - Components 02-4358, 02-717C
| |
| ._ and 02-717E", Impe11 Calculation No. 0630-083-JW-002, Rev. O.
| |
| O t
| |
| 4 l
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 9 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 73 of 187 ATTACHMENT-1 ITEM-9
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 9 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 74 of 187-
| |
| , SUPPLEE NT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 Auxiliary Sub-Base and 011 and Water Piping -
| |
| Jacket Water: Supports (Large Bore Scope Only)
| |
| , Component Part No. 02-717E Prepared By:
| |
| Impell ' Corporation l 225 Broad Hollow Road '
| |
| Melville, N. Y.11747 i Report No. 02-0630-1352 Revision 0 Job No. 0630-083-1642 May, 1986
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 9 to'TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 75 of 187 INELL CORPORATION l
| |
| REPORT APPROVAL COVER SHEET !
| |
| )
| |
| Client: TDI Owner's Group (DUKE /TUGCO) !
| |
| l Project: Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators l
| |
| Job No.: 0630-083-1642 Report
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| Auxiliary Sub-Base and Oil and Water Piping -
| |
| Jacket Water: Supports (Large Bore Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-717E Report Number: 02-0630-1352 Rev. No.: 0 The work described in this Report was perfomed in accordance with the Impell Corporation Quality Assurance Program. The signatures below verify the accuracy of this Report and its compliance with applicable quality assurance requirements.
| |
| Prepared By: [- ,- ; Date: S <!B4 Reviewed By: $ v/ Date: 6/ //6 Approved By: /t] ,
| |
| Date: /8/lokle.
| |
| Concurrence By: M Date: /o/is/A
| |
| , Regifnal' Quality Assurance Manager REVISION RECORD REY. PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED l CONCURRENCE l APPROVAL l REVISION [
| |
| l l I I I i I I I i i
| |
| I l l l l l 1 i l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I
| |
| l I I I l l l l l l l 1 I l I l l 1 I I l l I I I I I I I I I I
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 9 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 76 of 187 SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1
| |
| ~
| |
| Auxiliary Sub-Base and Oil and Water Piping Jacket Water: Supports (Large Bore Scope only)
| |
| , Component Part No. 02-717E I. INTRODUCTION The punose of this supplement is to summarize the evaluation performed to justify eliminating the recomended modifications as stated in the original report.
| |
| The auxiliary sub-base jacket water supports consist of U-bolt type supports and plates attached to the piping flanges. These supports restrain the Component 02-717C piping. As,a result of the original evaluation (Ref.1), numerous supports were recomended to be modified. These recommended modifications (Ref. 3) primarily involved the reinforcement of support members to provide adequate restraint in the intended direction. In some cases, angles were to be added on both sides of the U-bolt to accommodate lateral loads.
| |
| Other cases required plates to be added at support neu6ers to prevent buckling or torsional shearing. In addition, in order to mitigate the excessive movements at a Dresser coupling, it was recomended that a support be added.
| |
| II. M TH000 LOGY In the original evaluation of the piping, conservative analysis techniques were utilized in accordance with the original evaluation criteria (Ref. 2). Less conservative analysis techniques were developed and incorporated into a revised evaluation criteria (Ref.
| |
| 4). The piping was re-analyzed (see Supplement 1 for Component 02-717C) in accordance with the revised evaluation criteria and new support loads were developed.
| |
| 4 i
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| - Attach. 1,. Item 9 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987
| |
| < Page 77 of 187 III. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Based on this evaluation (Ref. 5 & 6), most of the modifications originally recomended for the auxiliary sub-base jacket water supports have been eliminated. U-bolt loads are within manufacturer allowables, stresses in structural members are within code allowables and the addition of a support to alleviate excessive movements at a Dresser coupling is no longer required.
| |
| There are two recommended modifications, however, for Support JW PSR-10260. These recomendations are:
| |
| : 1) To weld a 2X2X3/8 angle to an existing 3X3X3/8 angle (see-
| |
| - Figure 1). This modification will mitigate torsional shear stress.
| |
| : 2) To investigate the existing 5/8 inch diameter studs, which attach the support to existing structural steel, to ensure -
| |
| that the 5/8 inch diameter threaded studs are high strength (e.g., A449). If not, they should be replaced with 5/8 inch diameter high strength threaded studs.
| |
| The auxiliary sub-base jacket water supports, as designed and installed by Transamerica Delaval, Inc. , are adequate to perform their intended design function, provided the modifications j recommended above are implemented.
| |
| J e
| |
| i I
| |
| i
| |
| }
| |
| . , .,,, _ , ,, .-_._ , . . , ,,,.,. ,, _. __,.n _,, .- -. - - , , - - --%. .- ._w.w.,,,,v---
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 9 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 78 of 187 IV. REFERENCES
| |
| , 1. " Supporting Calculations for the Evaluation of Comanche Peak Diesel Generator Large Diameter Piping and Supports," Impell Report No. 02-0630-1230 Rev. O, August, 1984.
| |
| : 2. " Design Criteria for Diesel Generator Large Diameter Piping for Comanche Peak," Impell Report No. 02-0630-1231, Rev. A., August 1984.
| |
| 3.
| |
| Memorandum from Markovich/G. Shears (Impell) to J. Kamyer (SWEC) " Required Modifications for Yalidation of Impell s Design Review for Impell Report No. 02-0630-1227, Rev. A", dated August 13, 1984.
| |
| 4
| |
| " Design Criteria for Diesel Generator Large Of ameter Piping for Comanche Peak", Impell Report No. 02-0630-1345, Rev. O, dated May 1986.
| |
| : 5. " Jacket Water Piping and Supports - Components 02-316A48 02-717C and 02-717E," Impell Calculation No. 0630-083-J W'001, Rev. O.
| |
| : 6. " Jacket Water Piping and Supports - Components 02-4358, 02-717C and 02-717E", Impell Calculation No. 0630-083-JW-002, Rev. O.
| |
| 4 9
| |
| i
| |
| -- .--- - --- - . - , - - - - . - . - - ~ - . . , - -. - - - - - - . - , - - - = - -.m. , - .,
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 9 to TXX-6236 i
| |
| February 13, 1987 Page 79 of 187 SUPPORT JW-PSR-10260 o
| |
| -( 1 1_ n* a" JW PlPE D T 0
| |
| ,r9 3....
| |
| i
| |
| , u . . .'
| |
| i l
| |
| i EXIST L 3 x313/8 l
| |
| l '
| |
| r==-l nW i i i_________________i L 2x2 x s/g,ps agav_
| |
| ASG (NEW)
| |
| PLAN I I
| |
| - ,I I 7
| |
| 'I l . ,p $
| |
| l ! 'eh I s i I, l l_ 74 y (NEW
| |
| - lIl SECT l-l NOTES:
| |
| _TREFERENCE' DWG. PS-100l A-JW-10260 2.
| |
| FIGURE 1 l
| |
| l l /
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 10 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 80 of 187 ATTACHMENT-1 ITEM-10
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 10 to TXX-6236 !
| |
| February 13, 1987 Page 81 of 187 l
| |
| 'l SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 1
| |
| J 4
| |
| Auxiliary Sub-Base.and Oil and Water Piping - Lube 011:
| |
| . Pipe and Fittings (Large Bore Scope Only)
| |
| , Component Part No. 02-717F j
| |
| l i
| |
| i Prepared By:
| |
| 1 Impe11 Corporation 225 Broad Hollow Road
| |
| ; Melville, N. Y.11747 Report No. 02-0630-1353 Revision 0 Job No. 0630-083-1642 l May, 1986 l
| |
| l i
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 10 to TXX-6236
| |
| . February 13, 1987 Page 82 of 187 IMPELL CORPORATION
| |
| +
| |
| l REPORT APPROVAL COVER SHEET
| |
| ' Client: TDI owner's Group (DUKE /TUGCO)
| |
| Project: Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators Job No.: 0630-083-1642 i
| |
| Report
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| Auxiliary Sub-Base and Oil and Water Piping -
| |
| i-Lube 011: Pipe and Fittings (Large Bore Scope Only) i
| |
| ; Component Part No. 02-717F
| |
| : Report Number: 02-0630-1353 Rev. No.: 0 1
| |
| The work described in this Report was performed in accordance with the
| |
| : Impell Corporation Quality Assurance Program. The signatures below
| |
| ! verify the accuracy of this Report and its compliance with applicable quality assurance re utrements.
| |
| ; Prepared By: [- . Dato: S 3s[44
| |
| ! Reviewed By: h1 e v[., 15 Dete: 5 to /,
| |
| j Approved By: h /L)! Date: AS/ad.
| |
| Concurrence By: M Date: /o//S /w,,
| |
| ; , Regiogal Qaality Assurance Manager
| |
| , REVISION RECORD f
| |
| REY. PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED C0KURREKE APPROVAL liREVISIONI i
| |
| l l I I I I T
| |
| I I I I I I I I I I I I I '
| |
| I I ,
| |
| l 1 1 l l l l .
| |
| I l l ,l i l l l 4 I I I I I I
| |
| ! I I I I I I I I
| |
| : I I I I I I I I I I I l l I
| |
| ', I I I I I I I I
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 10 to TXX-6236 <
| |
| February 13, 1987 l Page 83 of 187 1
| |
| SUPPLEMENT 1 3 TDI OWNERS GROUP 1
| |
| COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 4
| |
| Auxiliary Sub-Base and Oil and Water Piping - Lube 011:
| |
| Pipe and Fittings (Large Bore Scope only)
| |
| . Component Part No. 02-717F I. INTRODUCTION I The purpose of this supplement is to sunniarize the evaluation performed to justify eliminating the recoussended modifications as stated in the original report.
| |
| l The lube oil piping carries lube oil from the lube oil sump tank, through the lube oil pump, cooler, filters and strainers, to the engine lube oil header, and then recirculates .to the lube oil . sump.
| |
| Dresser couplings are utilized on this piping to accomunodate thermal expansion. Also, at some of the Dresser couplings; tie rods, which attach to the piping on either side of the Dresser' coupling, are provided. These tie rods are single nutted such that they take only .
| |
| tensile loads. The piping is supported at numerous locations by supports which utilize .U-bolts and plates attached to flanges. 1
| |
| ! , As a result of the original evaluation (Ref.1), modifications were recommended in order to satisfy the original design criteria (Ref.
| |
| 2). The recommended modifications were: to add a 6" style 38 Dresser coupling between the sump tank and the on-engine pump; to double nut tie rods at two of the Dresser coupling assemblies and
| |
| ; replace the existing 3/4 inch diameter rods with 1 inch diameter rods such that they had both tensile and compressive capabilities;
| |
| , and to torque the flange bolts where supports LO-PSA-10204 and i LO-PSA-10205 attach to flanges.
| |
| Modifications were also recommended for the supports of this
| |
| ; piping. These recommended modifications are addressed in the l supplement for Component 02-717I.
| |
| ; II. METHODOLOGY '
| |
| In the original evaluation, the Dresser couplings were conservatively assumed to have zero stiffness. Since the time of that evaluation, tests were performed on Dresser couplings and finite stiffnesses were developed (Ref. 3). Additionally, reduced seismic response spectra (Ref. 4), developed in accordance with ASME Code Case N-411, was utilized to reduce the seismic loading on the i components. The evaluation criteria was revised to incorporate the 1
| |
| above mentioned itses and is presented in Reference 5.
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, ItGm 10 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 84 of 187 III. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
| |
| : Based on this evaluation (Ref.'s 6 througn 8), the auxiliary l sub-base lube oli piping has been found to be acceptable without modification. All stress levels are below code allowables (maximum stress ratio of approximately 0.98). Most nozzle loads have not -
| |
| ; significantly increased from those approved in the original calculation. Those nozzle loads which have increased significantly '
| |
| will be provided for re-evaluation. Relative movements at the Dresser couplings are well within the manufacturer recomended allowables. The connection of supports LO-PSA-10204 and LO-PSA-10205 to the flanges have been found to be marginal. If '
| |
| 4 sufficient frictional capacity is not provided at the connection.
| |
| the flange bolts may go into bending, resulting in high stresses.
| |
| Therefore, it is recomended to torque the flange bolts at these supports in accordance with Appendix IV of The Delaval Instruction Manual Vol . I for Model DSRV-16-4.
| |
| The auxiliary sub-base lube oil piping, as designed and installed by Transamerica Delaval Inc., is adequate to perform its intended design function, prov,iding the recosumended maintenance described above is adhered to.
| |
| 1 e
| |
| 9
| |
| }
| |
| t l
| |
| e l
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 10 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 85 of 187 IV. REFERENCES
| |
| ~
| |
| : 1. " Supporting Calculations for the Evaluation of Comanche Peak Diesel Generator Large Of ameter Piping and Supports," Impe11 Report No. 02-0630-1230, Rev. O. August,1984. <
| |
| : 2. " Design Criteria for Of esel Generator Large Diameter, Piping for Comanche Peak," Impell Report No. 02-0630-1231, Rev. A., August-
| |
| ; 1984.
| |
| : 3. " Dresser Co"oling Stiffness," Impe11 Calculation 0630-083-C-001, Rev. O. -
| |
| x
| |
| . 4 Gibbs & Hill Later No. GTN-71355, dated March 28, 1986 (Transmittal of seismic response spectra curves, developed in accordance with ASME Code Case N-411, for The, Safeguards Building). '
| |
| : 5. " Design Criteria for Diesel Generator Large D aseter Piping for i Comanche Peak," Impe11 Report No. 02-0630-1345', Rev. O, May 1986.
| |
| : 6. " Lube Oil Piping and Supports - Components 02-717F and 02-717I,"
| |
| Impell Calculation No. 0630-083-LO-001 A, Rev. O. ~
| |
| : 7. " Lube 011 Piping and Supports - Components 02-717F and 02-717I",
| |
| Impe11 Calculation No. 0630-083-LO-001C, Rev. O.
| |
| t
| |
| : 8. " Lube Oil Piping and Supports - Components 02-717F and 02-717I",
| |
| Impe11 Calculation No. 0630-083-LO-002, Rev.-0.
| |
| 1 ,
| |
| s g i* I i
| |
| s . ~ (,
| |
| e l
| |
| t
| |
| _ _ - - - - - - ,,-,,--n._..-.-.-,--..--,mn..--,-._,.,+,,e-. -
| |
| -- .- . . . - - , , ,_ ,,_ . , . - - - - - , - ..-....-n.,a e . , - - - - - - .- - , . , - - , . . . . ,
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 11 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987-Page 86 cf 187 ATTACHMENT-1 ITEM-11 h
| |
| 6
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 11 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 87 of 187 I
| |
| s 4
| |
| , SUPPLEMENT 1 t
| |
| , TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 7.
| |
| t Auxiliary Sub-Base and Oil and Water Piping -
| |
| Lube 011: Supports
| |
| , (Large Bore Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-717I
| |
| />
| |
| Prepared By:
| |
| Impell Corporation 225 Broad Hollow Road Melville, N. Y.11747 Report No. 02-0630-1354 Revision 0 Job No. 0630 583-1642 May, 1986
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 11 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 88 of 187 J
| |
| IWELL CORPORATION
| |
| ! REPORT APPROVAL COVER SHEET Client: TDI owner's Group (DUKE /TUGCO)
| |
| Pro, ject: Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators Job No.: 0630-083-1642 Report
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| Auxiliary Sub-Base and 011 and Water Piping -
| |
| Lube 011 Supports (Large Bore Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-717!
| |
| Report Number: 02-0630-1354 Rev. No.: 0 The work described in this Report was performed in accordance with the Impe11 Corporation Quality Assurance Program. The signatures below !
| |
| verify the accuracy of this Report and its compliance with applicable
| |
| , quality assurance re uirements.
| |
| Prepared By: [. b . Date: s k!B4 ;
| |
| Reviewed By: > I Date: # /q4 Approved By: td Date: /@b Concurrence By: [. Idad/ Date: /0/,e/h
| |
| , Regisnal' Quality Assurance Manager 1 i
| |
| REVISION RECORD l
| |
| L l
| |
| IREV. I PREPARED I REVIEWED I APPROVED l CONCURRENCE I ASPROVAL IREVISIONI I I I I l l l 1 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I L I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
| |
| , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l i I I I I I
| |
| | |
| , Attach. 1, Item 11 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 89 of 187 SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP !
| |
| COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 ,
| |
| Auxiliary Sub-Base and Oil and Water Piping Lube Oil: Supports (Large Bore Scope Only)
| |
| + Component Part No. 02-717I I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this supplement is to summarize the evaluation performed to justify eliminating the reconnended modifications as stated in the original report.
| |
| 4 The auxiliary sub-base lube oil supports consist of U-bolt type supports and plates attached to the piping flanges. These supports restrain the Component 02-717F piping. As a. result of the original evaluation (Ref.1), numerous supports were reconnended to be :
| |
| modi fied. These recommended modifications (Ref. 3) primarily involved the reinforcement of support menbers to provide adequate restraint in the intended direction. In.some cases, angles were to be added on both sides of the U-bolt to accommodate lateral loads.
| |
| Other cases required plates to be added at support members to prevent buckling. In addition, some supports required modification i
| |
| to alleviate thermal expansion loadings on equipment nozzles and a support (guide) was to be added to reduce seismic stresses at the 1 1/2 inch relief valve. Also, in order to mitigate the excessive i movements at a Dresser coupling, it was reconnended that a support i be stiffened.
| |
| ! II. METHODOLOGY In the original evaluation of the piping, conservative analysis techniques were utilized in accordance with the original evaluation i
| |
| criteria (Ref. 2). Less conservative analysis techniques were developed and incorporated into a revised evaluation criteria (Ref.
| |
| 4). The piping was re-analyzed (see Supplement 1 for Component 02-717F) in accordance with the revised evaluation criteria and new support loads were developed.
| |
| l l
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 11 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 90 of 187 1
| |
| III. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS i
| |
| Based on this evaluation (Refs. 5 through 8), most of the modifications originally recommended for the auxiliary sub-base lube oil supports have been eliminated. The only reconnended modification is to provide 1/16 inch clearance in the vertical direction (top side of pipe only) at supports LO-PSR-10211 and LO-PSR-10215. This can be accomplished by double nutting the U-bolt as shown in Figure
| |
| : 1. U-bolt loads are within manufacturer allowables and stresses in structural members are within code allowables. The addition or stiffening of supports, which were previously required to alleviate excessive movements at a Dresser coupling and seismic stresses at the 1 1/2 inch relief valve, are no longer required.
| |
| The auxiliary sub-base lube oil supports, as designed and installed by Transamerica Delaval, Inc., are adquate to perform their intended design function, provided the modification reconsnended above is implemented.
| |
| I l
| |
| I l
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 11 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 91 of 187 IV. REFERENCES
| |
| : 1. " Supporting Calculations for the Evaluation of Comanche Peak Diesel Generator Large Diameter Piping and Supports," Impell Report No. 02-0630-1230, Rev. O, August,1984.
| |
| : 2. " Design Criteria for Diesel Generator Large Diameter Piping for Comanche Peak," Impell Report No. 02-0630-1231, Rev. A., August 1984.
| |
| : 3. Memorandum from Markovich/G. Shears (Impell) to J. Xaveneyer (SWEC) " Required Modifications for Validation of Impell's
| |
| '' Design Review for Impell Report No. 02-0630-1229, Rev. A", dated August 13, 1984.
| |
| 4 " Design Criteria for Diesel Generator Large Diameter Piping for Comanche Peak" Impell Report No. 02-0630-1345, Rev. O, dated May 1986.
| |
| : 5. " Lube Oil Piping and Supports - Components 02-717F, and 02-717I", Impell Calculation No. 0630-083-LO-001 A, Rev. O.
| |
| : 6. " Lube Oil Piping and Supports - Components 02-717F and 02-717I",
| |
| Impell Calculation No. 0630-083-LO-001C, Rev. O.
| |
| : 7. " Lube 011 Piping and Supports - Components 02-717F and 02-717I",
| |
| Impel 1 Calculation No. 0630-083-LO-002, Rev. 0
| |
| ~
| |
| : 8. " Lube Oil Piping and Supports - Components 02-717F and 02-717I",
| |
| Impell Calculation No. 0630-083-LO-004, Rev. O.
| |
| ..m -+- r w p " ' ' "-"P-""" 'P' 'T-
| |
| | |
| Attach 1, Item 11 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Paga 92 of 187 l
| |
| SUPPORTS LO-PSR-10211 AND LO-PSR-10215
| |
| '/16" CL.
| |
| ADD U BOLT 8g 7 ['
| |
| N UTS (2) hf 3 tO s\1 f EXlST. U-BOLT
| |
| 't r'2 W EtlST,' /P_
| |
| L_ _ Y T _ f. g
| |
| ,I i CXIST. NUTS (2)(rYP) il l I l' l l % xlSr.E 3x.sx'/<"rS.
| |
| -O I
| |
| 'r
| |
| . - . . ELE VA TION NOTES:
| |
| : f. REFERENCE DWGS PS-lOolA-LO-10211-2 AND PS-100l A -LO-10215-2
| |
| : 2. DOUBLE NUT U-BOLT AS SHOWN
| |
| - ~ AN D PROVIDE '/ts" CLEARANCE BETWEEN 0-BOLT & TOP OF PIPE.
| |
| 1 FIGURE 1 l
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 12 to TXX-6236 Fcbruary 13, 1987 Page 93 of 187 ATTACHMENT-1 ITEM-12 4
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 12 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 94 of 187
| |
| (
| |
| ~
| |
| SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 Turbocharger Thrust Bearing Drip Lube System (Small Bore Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-CFR Prepared By:
| |
| Impell Corporation 225 Broad Hollow Road Melville, N. Y.11747 Report No. 02-0630-1355 Revision 0 Job No. 0630-083-1642 May,1986
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 12 to TXX-6236 February 13 19870 Page 95 of 187 IMPELL CORPORATION l
| |
| REPORT APPROVAL COVER SHEET I i
| |
| Client: TDI Chmer's Group (DUKE /TUGC0)
| |
| Project: Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators ;
| |
| Job No.: 0630-083-1642 Report
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| Turbocharger Thrust Bearing Drip Lube System i -
| |
| (Small Bore Scope only) Component No. 02-CFR Report Number: 02-0630-1355 Rev. No.: 0 The work described in this Report was performed in accordance with the Impell Corporation Quality Assurance Program. The signatures below verify the accuracy of this_ Report and its compliance with applicable quality assurance quirement .
| |
| Prepared By: -
| |
| Ch Date: 3 30/88 ,
| |
| Reviewed By: ,,,
| |
| Date: 6/ /#6 Approved By: M! -
| |
| Date:- YG Concurrence By: wh b.)J Date: solisla Regipal Quality Assurance Manager
| |
| * REVISION RECORD 4
| |
| l i REY. PREPARED REVIEWED I APPROVED C0 K URREE E l APPROVAL IREVISIONl l l 1 I I i 1 1 I I I I i
| |
| I l l I I I I l I I I l l i 1 -l i I I I I I I I I l
| |
| : l I l i i l l l l I I I I I l
| |
| I I i I I I I I I l 1 1 I
| |
| .i l l I I I
| |
| ' I I I I I I I i l i l I i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I i
| |
| e -a
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 12 to TXX-6236 February 13 1987 0 Page 96 of 187 SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP l
| |
| COMANCE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 Turbocharger Thrust Bearing Drip Lube System (Small Bore Scope Only)
| |
| )
| |
| l Component Part No. 02-CFR l
| |
| l l
| |
| I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this supplement is to summarize the evaluation performed to justify eliminating the recomended modifications as stated in the original report. l 1
| |
| The Turbocharger Thrust Bearing Drip Lube System consists of the l tubing, which provides lube oil to the turbocharger thrust bearing '
| |
| i prior to engine start-up, and the tubing supports.
| |
| As a result of the original evaluation (Ref.1-), modifications were recommended in order to satisfy the existing design criteria (Ref.
| |
| 2). It was recomended to add two-way supports to the tubing, such that spans between supports were limited to a maximum of 4 feet 6 inches.
| |
| II. METHODOLOGY a
| |
| In the original evaluation, conservative maximum span lengtns were
| |
| ! developed for the tubing. These span lengths were based on a stress !
| |
| criteria to satisfy code allowables for dead weight and seismic loads. The seismic loads were based upon the seismic response 4
| |
| spectra provided in Reference 3. For this evaluation, reduced seismic response spectra (Ref. 4), developed in accordance with ASME i l
| |
| Code Case N-411, was utilized to reduce the seismic loading and l thereby increase the maximum allowable span. If the maximum existing tubing span still did not meet this increased allowable span criteria, a rigorous computer analysis was performed to show that the tubing stress is within code allowables. This rigorous analysis incorporated the existing tubing and support configuration. The evaluation criteria utilized for this evaluation is presented in Reference 5.
| |
| i
| |
| , - , ,._.,. - - - . .. . . - . . . , , _ . . _ . . . . - . . - - - _ . . - , ~
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 12 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 97 of 187 III RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
| |
| ' Based on this evaluation (Reference 6), the turbocharger thrust bearing drip lube tubing has been found to be acceptable without modification. Based on a rigorous computer analysis, stress levels are well below code allowables (maximum st ess ratio of approximately .60). Support loads are lower than those approved in the original evaluation.
| |
| The turbocharger thrust bearing drip lube tubing and suports, as designed and installed by Transamerica Delaval, Inc., are adequate to perform their intended design function.
| |
| e
| |
| -- - -- s-sm,a- s
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 12 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 98 of 187 l
| |
| IV. REFERENCES
| |
| : 1. Stone & Webster Calculations 11600.60 - NP(B) - 1001 - XH [
| |
| 11600.60 - NP(B) - 1010 - Z8 .
| |
| : 2. " Engineering Review Criteria Document for the Design Review of TDI Diesel Small Bore Piping, Tubing and Supports for the TDI Owner's Group", Report No. 11600.60-0C-02, Rev. O.
| |
| : 3. Gibbs & Hill Safeguards Building Response Spectra, FSB-2R.
| |
| ~
| |
| : 4. Gibbs & Hill Letter No. GTN-71355, dated March 28, 1966.
| |
| (Transmittal of seismic response spectra curves, developed in accordance with ASME Code Case N-411, for the Safeguards Building).
| |
| : 5. " Design Criteria for Small Sore Piping, Tubing and Supports for Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators". Impell Report No.
| |
| 02-0630-1344, Rev. O. May 1986.
| |
| : 6. " Tubing Qualification", Impell Calculation No. 0630-083-C-003, Rev. O.
| |
| 1 1
| |
| 9 e
| |
| l l
| |
| , c._, ,, . .- -. - , , - - , - , , , , - ,. . ~ , .
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 13 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 99 of 187 ATTACHMENT-1 ITEM-13 l
| |
| l l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| Attach.1, Ittm 13 te TXX-6236 I February 13, 1987 Page 100 of.187 i
| |
| SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 Lube Oil Fittings Internal - Supports (Small Bore Scope only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-307D Prepared By:
| |
| Impe11 Corporation 225 Broad Hollow Road Melville, N. Y.11747 Report No. 02-0630-1356 Revision 0 Job No. 0630-083-1642 May, 1986 1
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 13 to TXX-6236
| |
| * February 13, 1987 Page 101 of 187 IMPELL CORPORATION REPORT APPROVAL COVER SHEET Clitnt: TDI Owner's Group (DUKE /TUGCO)
| |
| Project: Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators Job No.: 0630-083-1642 Report
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| Lube Oil Fittings Internal - Supports (Small Bore Scope Only ) Component Part No. 02-3070 Report Number: 02-0630-1356 Rev. No.: 0 The work described in this Report was performed in accordance with the Impell Corporation Quality Assurance Program. The signatures below verify the accuracy of this Report and its compliance with applicable quality assurance equirements.
| |
| Prepared By: t.4w [ b - Date: M9P!86 Reviewed By: %, / dv Dat':
| |
| e 6/4c///
| |
| Approved By: M ^
| |
| Date: Y#h-Concurrence By: [M Date: lo/IS/E Regional Quality Assurance Manager REVISION RECORD REY. l PREPARED l REVIEWED l APPROVED l C0li,URRENCE APPROVAL lREVI5IONI I I I I I I I I I I I I i 1
| |
| i l I i i i i i i l I i i i i l i i l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I i l i l l I I I
| |
| I I I I I I I I I I I i l i I I 1
| |
| _ . _ _ , _ _ , . . , _ _ . . _ _ . . . . . . , . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . , _ _ , _ , _r_,_-_ ,
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ - . . ~ . . . _ , ..,r _ , _ _ . _ .
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 13 to TXX-6236 -
| |
| February 13, 1987 Page 102 of 187 SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP l COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 '
| |
| Lube Oil Fittings Internal - Supports
| |
| , (Small Bore Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-3070 1
| |
| I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this supplement is to susanarize the evaluation perfonned to justify eliminating the recosamended modifications as stated in the original report.
| |
| The lube oil internal supports restrain the internal auxiliary lube oil header.
| |
| As a result of the original evaluation (Ref.1), modifications were recosumended in order to satisfy the existing design criteria (Ref.
| |
| 2). It was recosumended to replace all 1/4 inch U-bolts with 3/8 inch U-bolts and to torque them sufficiently in. order to provide axial restraint of the auxiliary lube oil header.
| |
| 4 II. ETH000 LOGY In the original evaluation, conservative hand calculations were used to develop the loading on the U-bolts. Also, seismic loads were based on the seismic response spectra provided in Reference 3. For l i
| |
| this evaluation a rigorous computer analysis, utiliz.ing reduced seismic response spectra (Ref. 4) developed in accordance with ASE Code Case N-411, was perfonned to develop the loads on the existing i
| |
| 1/4 inch U-bolts. !
| |
| 1 i
| |
| I y 4 ,-._, - --,.u - , _ + , -. - - . - , , . - --w 9 , , . - - , . -.
| |
| ,..g. , , _ . , _,,,__ -. .,w,._- ,.-99_
| |
| %e,-, , , -
| |
| | |
| Atta'ch. 1, Item 13 to TXX-6236
| |
| * February 13, 1987 Page 103 of 187 III. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Based on this evaluation (Reference 5), the auxiliary lube oil header supports have been found to be acceptable without modification. However, in order to provide axial restraint of the-header, it is recommended that the existing 1/4 inch U-bolts be torqued sufficiently. The calculated axial load at each U-bolt is less then three (3) pounds. This load must be taken by the frictional capacity at the U-bolt, which is approximately three-tenths of the pretension in the U-bolt. Therefore, a pretension of approximately ten (10) pounds is required. Ten pounds i
| |
| of pretension corresponds to less then one (1) inch-pound of bolt
| |
| ~ torque. . Therefore, if the U-bolt nuts are tightened sufficiently, adequate restraint will be provided. Also, so that the pretension is ensured to be maintained. it is recommended that the U-bolt nuts 4
| |
| have suitable locking devices.
| |
| The auxiliary lube oil header supports, as designed and installed by Transamerica Delaval, Inc., are adequate to perform their intended design function provided that the above mentioned maintenance precautions are adhered to.
| |
| W e
| |
| s l
| |
| l l
| |
| l
| |
| , l l
| |
| l l
| |
| \
| |
| i !
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| Attach.' 1, Item 13 to TXX-6236 '
| |
| February 13, 1987 Page 104 of 187 IV. REFERENCES
| |
| : 1. Stone & Webster Calculations 11600.60 - NP(B) - 1030 - ZB 11600.60 - NP(8) - 1010 - 28
| |
| : 2. " Engineering Review Criteria Document for the Design Review of TDI Diesel small Bore Piping Tubing and Supports for the TDI Owner's Group", SEC Report No, ll600.60-DC-02, Rev. O.
| |
| : 3. Gibbs & Hill Safeguards Building Response Spectra, FSB-2R.
| |
| b 4. Gibbs & Hill Letter No. GTN-71355, dated March 28, 1986.
| |
| (Transmittal of seismic response spectra curves, developed in accordance with ASME Code Case N-411, for the Safeguards Building).
| |
| : 5. "U-bolt Qualification for Component 02-3070", Impell Calculation No. 0630-083-C-004, Rev. O.
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 14 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 105 of 187 ATTACHMENT-1 ITEM-14 a
| |
| 1 1
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 14 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 106 of 187 l
| |
| l l
| |
| SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 Jacket Water Inlet Manifold - Vent Line To discharge Manifold (Small Bore Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-316C l
| |
| i Prepared By:
| |
| Impe11 Corporation 225 Broad Hollow Road Melville, N. Y.11747 Report No. 02-0630-1357 Revision 0 l
| |
| Job No. 0630-083-1642 1 l
| |
| May, 1986 ,
| |
| | |
| o Attach. 1, Item 14 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 ;
| |
| Page 107 of 187 IMPELL CORPORATION REPORT APPROVAL COVER SHEET l
| |
| i l
| |
| Client: TDI Owner's Group-(DUKE /TUGCO)
| |
| Project: Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators Job No.: 0630-083-1642 Report
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| Jacket Water Inlet Manifold - Vent Line to Discharge Manifold (Small Bore Scope only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-316C -
| |
| Report Number: 02-0630-1357 Rev. No.:'O The work described in this Peport was performed in accordance with the Impe11 Corporation Quality Assurance Program. The signatures below verify the accuracy of this Report and its compliance with applicable quality assurance requ roments.
| |
| Prepared By:
| |
| h lr- c, - Date: 5/3 86 Reviewed By: g[fi / .Date: f/3 '/M Approved By: M Date: /"IfM i
| |
| Concurrence By: ** M Date: /o//> /s Regiorral (uality Assurance Manager REVISION RECORD i
| |
| i REY. PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED l CONCURRENCE I APPROVAL l REVISION l
| |
| - I I I i 1 1
| |
| I I I I i
| |
| I I i I
| |
| l l l l l f I I I I I l i I l l I I I I I I I I I I i l I I i l i I I i i i i I I i l i i I I I I i l I i i I ,
| |
| I I I I i 1 i i l 1 1 1 I I I I I
| |
| | |
| Attach.~1, Item 14 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 108 of 187 SUPPLEENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 Jacket Water Inlet Manifold - Vent Line To Discharge Manifold (Small Bore Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-316C 2
| |
| I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this supplement is to summarize the evaluation performed to justify eliminating the recossended modifications as stated in the original report.
| |
| The jacket water inlet manifold vent line to the discharge manifold, which provides continuous venting of the jacket water inlet manifold, consists of tubing and its supports.
| |
| As a result of. the original evaluation (Ref.1), modifications-were l recommended in order to satisfy the existirig' evaluation criteria (Ref. 2). It was recommended to provide a moment type connection at the attachment to the C5x9 for support ES-T10161. This support
| |
| * utilizes a P-2785 unistrut clamp to connect a P4100 unistrut to a CSx9 channel.
| |
| IJ. ETH000 LOGY As the recommended modification was a result of support function rather than exceeding a stress or load criteria, the support was i simply re-examined for its restraint capabilities.- '
| |
| l i
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 14 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 109 of 187 III. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Based on this evaluation (Reference 3), the jacket water inlet manifold vent tubing and supports are acceptable with minor modification. Upon examining the direction of loading and the restraint capabilities of support ES-T10161, it is reconnended that the support be modified as shown in Figure 1. This modification is recommended due to inadequate moment capabilities of the P-2785 unistrut clamp. This modification is further justified by the fact that the Unistrut catalog (Ref. 4) states that the P-2785 clamp should be used in pairs.
| |
| The jacket water inlet manifold vent tubing and supports, as designed and installed by Transmerica Delaval, Inc., are adequate to perform their intended design function providing the modification recommended above is implemented.
| |
| 4 O
| |
| O i
| |
| i 1
| |
| i f
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 14 to TXi-6'236 February 13, 1987 Page 110 of 187 IV. REFERENCES l.
| |
| Stone & Webster Calculations 11600.60 - NP(8) - 1001 - XH 11600.60 - NP(8) - 1013 - Z8
| |
| : 2. "En T0!gineering Review Criteria Document for the Design Review of Diesel Small Bore Piping, Tubing and Supports for the TDI Qvner's Group", SWEC Report No. 11600.60-DC-02, Rev. O.
| |
| 3.
| |
| " Evaluation of Tube Supports - Components 02-717I, 02-695A,
| |
| . 02-316C", Impell Calculation No. 0630-083-C-012, Rev. O.
| |
| 4 Unistrut Geners1 Engineering Catalog No.10.
| |
| O e
| |
| I i
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| Attac'h. 1, Item I4 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 111 of 187 s
| |
| \
| |
| SUPPORT ES-PSR-T10161 Y Ex1%T. Penco uviSTEv t-l il l Exist. P-zqas 1l w /"u" souT l s
| |
| -Veh. i" w s;
| |
| SCEO w/woT Nj '
| |
| P 2 & 4,5(ws.w)
| |
| RNO LOCK WASHER (NEW) ,
| |
| s
| |
| , I m s sss , s s s
| |
| - 1 -
| |
| Wa" *2' CAP sceau ev.ssr. c.sm.9 Y4 f= _
| |
| .9) ND LOCK WASHER I
| |
| ~
| |
| :l i Przez.(uec) 'l
| |
| _A .
| |
| PL.AN M o7Ei5 l l- DIZtw 'lf tj Ot A. Ho45 ;=ce. 5/g"4 j
| |
| CAPSCE.EwJS % irAQui2.5o. ]
| |
| 2- eEFEEE6 % T5- tml A g. I 101 del .
| |
| FICURE 1 L_ _ -._--_ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ . . . _ _ _ ._
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 15 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 112 of 187 ATTACHMENT-1 ITEM-15 9
| |
| | |
| Atta'ch. 1, Item 15 to TXX-6236 -
| |
| February 13, 1987 ,
| |
| Page 113 of 187 t, -
| |
| w t
| |
| > -y/.
| |
| h w
| |
| SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNEP.S GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 b
| |
| . I Starting Air Manifold - Piping, Tubing and Fittings (Small Bore Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-441A s-.
| |
| t y Prepared By:
| |
| I Impell Corporation.
| |
| 225 Broad Hollow Road Melville, N. Y.11747,' ,
| |
| Report No. 02-0630-1359 yn Revision 0 s- .
| |
| \
| |
| Job No. 0630-083-1642
| |
| , 7 May, 1986 l
| |
| -- - - --w w y w- 's n
| |
| | |
| _._ 7
| |
| - - O. ittach. 1, Item 15 to TXX-6236 ,
| |
| Mf(bruary 13, 1987 Ppge 114 of 187-
| |
| : IMPELL CORPORATION REPORT APPROVAL COVER SHEET !
| |
| i q Client: TDI Owner's Group (DUKE /TUGCO)
| |
| .oroject: Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators Job No.: 0630-083-1642 Report
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| Starting Air Manifold - Piping, > Tubing and Fittings
| |
| ,s (Small Bore Scope Only) Component No. 02-441 A x- -
| |
| 4 Report Number: 02-0630-1358 '
| |
| Rev. No.: 0 The work described in this Report web performed in accordance with the Impell- Corporation Quality Assurance.P4 gram. .The signatures below
| |
| ! verify the accuracy of this Report and its compliance with applicable ''
| |
| . quality assurance requirements.
| |
| Prepared By: [ ;= , ' Dots: S 3s B4
| |
| ' Reviewed By: v- / Deb:-- 6/3 '//6
| |
| ) Approved By: -
| |
| to: /#/l#M6, Concurrence By: 4)J - s0 ate: /o/,5 /ss
| |
| { Regiondl Q0ality Assurance Manager s x '
| |
| ! ~
| |
| REYISION RECORD. '
| |
| ; , ,t <
| |
| ; , \. S i
| |
| ,s .
| |
| [
| |
| l 2 REL l - PREPARED l REVIEWED l APPRQVLD cl 4Um,UMMLNLL l ArrMUVAL IMtV1510Nl
| |
| : ~
| |
| ,/ V i '
| |
| 'l 'l l l -l
| |
| ;s I- l- 1 I l' I I I 2
| |
| ~ l '
| |
| I j- I yl. I ,1 I I
| |
| . . I ' I' - II g%s, l i I
| |
| 1 I .I I
| |
| * I I
| |
| , I i - I -
| |
| l :l I I i j ;t i t i l ;
| |
| ! I i l I i i i i I
| |
| .I , I . I I i 1 l
| |
| l ,
| |
| l ? l ~N 1 I i i 'I I I i l
| |
| -4.
| |
| s s
| |
| ?
| |
| "fi lI w '
| |
| : s. I l l l l ,
| |
| n y x s
| |
| : s. ,
| |
| ;\
| |
| u t
| |
| r
| |
| \" 'j 's
| |
| ' c l' s b _.
| |
| ')
| |
| -~
| |
| | |
| Attach. I',' Item 15 to TXX-6236 l February 13, 1987 Page 115 of 187 l
| |
| SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP I
| |
| , COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 Starting Air Manifold - Piping, Tubing and Fittings (Small Bore Scope only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-441 A 4
| |
| -m I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this supplement is to summarize the evaluation perfomed to justify eliminating the recommended modifications as stated in the original report.
| |
| The starting air manifold tubing provides starting air from the manifold to various equipment and also carries air pulses from the distributors to the air start valve of each cylinder.
| |
| As a result of the original evaluation (Ref.1), modifications were reconnended in order to satisfy the existin'gi design criteria (Ref.
| |
| _ 2). It was recommended to add two-way supports to the tubing, such that spans between supports were limited to a maximum of 5 feet 6 ,1 inches for 3/8 inch tubing and 6 feet 0 inches for 1/2 inch tubing. '
| |
| II. METHODOLOGY
| |
| ' In the original evaluation, conservative maximum span lengths were developed for the tubing. These span lengths were based on a stress criteria to satisfy code allowables for dead weight and seismic
| |
| ' loads. The seismic loads were based upon the seismic response spectra provided in Reference 3. For this evaluation reduced seismic response spectra (Ref. 4), developed in accordance with ASE Code Case N-411, was utilized to reduce the seismic loading and thereby increase the maximum allowable span. If the maximum
| |
| ' existing tubing span still did not meet the increased allowable span criteria, a rigorous computer analysis was perforised to show that the tubing stress is within code allowables. This rigorous analysis incorporated the existing tubing and support configuration. The evaluation criteria utilized for this evaluation is presented in Reference 5.
| |
| l l
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 15 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 116 of 187 III. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS e
| |
| Based on this evaluation (Reference 6),- the starting air manifold tubing has been found to be acce The maximum existing span length (5'ptable 6") forwithout the 1/2modification.
| |
| inch tubing is within the revised maximum allowable span (6'-5"). Based on a rigorous computer analysis, stress levels for the 3/8 inch tubing are well below code allowables (maximum stress ratio of approximately 0.30). Support loads are lower than those approved in the original evaluation.
| |
| The starting air manifold tubing, as designed and installed by '
| |
| Transamerica Delaval, Inc., is adequate to perform its intended
| |
| . design function.
| |
| 9
| |
| *w m - .. , . - - - -. -- , y - . _ , . - --, ---.-. - ,-<e
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1 0 Item 15 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 117 of 187 IV. REFERENCES i
| |
| : 1. Stone & Webster Calculation 11600.60 - NP(8) - 1001 - XH
| |
| : 2. " Engineering Review Criteria Document for the Design Review of TOI Diesel Small Bore Piping, Tubing and Supports for the-TDI Owner's Group", Report No. 11600.60-0C-02, Rev. O.
| |
| : 3. Gibbs & Hill Safeguards Building Response Spectra, FSB-2R.
| |
| 4 Gibbs & Hill Letter No. GTN-71355, dated March 28, 1986, 1 (Transmittal of seismic response spectra curves, developed in accordance with ASME Code Case N-411, for the Safeguards Building).
| |
| : 5. " Design Criteria for Small Bore Piping, Tubing and Supports for Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators". Impell Report No.
| |
| 02-0630-1344, Rev. O, May 1986..
| |
| : 6. " Tubing Qualification" Impell Calculation No. 0630-083-C-003, Rev. O.
| |
| I O
| |
| l l
| |
| I I
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 16 to TXX-6236 February 130 1987 Page 118 of 187 ATTACHMENT-1 ITEM-16 a
| |
| | |
| Attach.'1, Ittm 16 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 119 of 187 SUPPLEMENT 1 o
| |
| TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1.
| |
| Fuel Oil Headers - Piping and Tubing (Small Bore Scope Only) ,
| |
| Component Part No. 02-450A Prepared By:
| |
| Impell Corporation 225 Broad Hollow Road Melville, N. Y.11747 Report No. 02-0630-1360 Revision 0 Job No. 0630-083-1642 May, 1986
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 16 to TXX-6236 February-13, 1987 Page 120 of 187 IMPELL CORPORATION REPORT APPROVAL COVER SHEET Client: TDI kner's Group (DUKE /TUGCO)
| |
| Project: Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators Job No.: 0630-083-1642 Report
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| Fuel Oil Headers - Piping and Tubing (Small Bore Scope only) - Component Part No. 02-450A Report Number: 02-0630-1360 Rev. No.: 0 The work described in this Report was performed in accordance with the Impell Corporation Quality Assurance Program. -The signatures below verify the accuracy of this Report and its compliance with applicable quality assurance re frements.
| |
| ; Prepared By: , m Date: 4!9 8[a Reviewed By: v / [ Date: S!f!8d Approved By: 47 -
| |
| D' ate: /*//08b I Concurrence By: A [ k)O Regiona' Quklity Assurance Manager Date: /o/** /h REVISION RECORD IREY.
| |
| 1 I PREPARED I REVIEWED i APPROVLD l GUKURKLKL i AFFKUVAL lKLY1510Nl 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
| |
| I 1 I I I I I i T 1 I
| |
| 1 i i i i I I i i i
| |
| l I I I I
| |
| ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i ! I I
| |
| I ,
| |
| I I
| |
| I I I I I I I I I I I I i 1 1 I
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 16 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 121 of 187 SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 Fuel Oil Headers - Piping and Tubing (Small Bore Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-450A o
| |
| I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this supplement is to summarize the evaluation performed to justify eliminating the' reconnended modifications as 4
| |
| stated in the original report.
| |
| The fuel oil headers consist of piping and tubing which supplies each cylinder with fuel oil, provides recirculation of fuel oil through the injection pump, and drains unused fuel back to the day tank.
| |
| As a result of the original evaluation (Ref.1), modifications were reconnended in order to meet the existing evaluation criteria (Ref.
| |
| 2). It was recomunended to modify one support to, be a three-way restraint is provided. on each of the fuel oil headers such that axial restraint It was further recommended that each of the supports on the fuel oil drip header crossover pipe be modified. One was to be modified to a three-way restraint and the other to a two-way restraint.
| |
| II. METHODOLOGY In the original evaluation, this piping and tubing was evaluated t using conservative hand calculations. The response spectra which !
| |
| was used to develop the seismic loading is identified in Reference
| |
| : 3. For this evaluation less conservative rigorous computer analysis l was used to develop the loading on the piping anJ its associated I supports. Additionally, seismic rraponse spectra (Ref. 4),
| |
| developed in accordance with ASME Code Case N-411, was utilized to
| |
| ) reduce the seismic loading on the components. The evaluation criteria was revised to incorporate the above mentioned items and is presented in Reference 5.
| |
| l l
| |
| y- ,- , -,---,w,, - . , --, -
| |
| | |
| ' Attach. 1, Item 16 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 122 of 187 III. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Based on this evaluation (Ref. 6), the fuel oil drip header piping has been found to be acceptable without modification of the supports. All stress levels are below code allowables (maximum stress ratio of approximately 0.94). For the evaluation of the
| |
| , supports for this piping, see Supplement 1 for Component 02-4508.
| |
| The fuel oil piping and tubing, as designed and installed by Transamerica Delaval, Inc., is adequate to perfom its intended design function.
| |
| f e
| |
| I t
| |
| r - --, - - - - . , - -
| |
| a- ., . . , - e an , - - - - , ,, --o,- .-,, , , - ~ - - - - , , .
| |
| | |
| l
| |
| ~ Attach. lo Item 16 to TXX-6236 )
| |
| February 130 '1987 j Page 123 of 187 IV. REFERENCES i
| |
| : 1. Stone & Webster Calculations 11600.60 - MP(B) - 1021 - XH f
| |
| : 2. " Engineering Review Criteria Document for the Design Review of TDI Diesel Samil Bore Piping, Tubing and Supports for the TDI Owner's Group",'SWEC Report No. 11600.60-DC-02, Rev. O.
| |
| : 3. Gibbs & Hill Safeguards Building Response Spectra, FSB-2R.
| |
| : 4. Gibbs & Hill Letter No. GTN-71355, dated March 28, 1986.
| |
| ~ (Transmittal of seismic response spectra curves, developed in accordance with ASME Code Case N-411, for the Safeguards Building).
| |
| : 5. " Design Criteria for Small Bore Piping, Tubing and Supports for
| |
| : Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators". Impell Report No.
| |
| 02-0630-1344, Rev. O, May 1986.
| |
| : 6. " Piping Qualification Component 02-450A", Impell Calculation No. 0630-083-C-013, Rev. O.
| |
| O r
| |
| 4 l
| |
| l
| |
| : l
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 17 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 124 of 187 ATTACHMENT-1 ITEM-17 a
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 11 to TXX-6236
| |
| . February 13, 1987
| |
| - Page 125 of 187
| |
| ;. SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAX STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT l -
| |
| Fuel Oil Headers - Fuel Oil Supports" (Small Bore Scope Only)
| |
| , Component Part No. 02-4508 l l
| |
| l l
| |
| l
| |
| ; Prepared By:
| |
| Impell Ce noration 225 Broad Hollow Road i
| |
| Melville, N. Y.11747 Report No. 02-0630-1361 Revision 0 Job No. 0630-083-1642 May, 1986
| |
| | |
| d Attach. 1, Item 17 to TXX-6236
| |
| ' February- 13,'1987 -l Page 126 of 187 i l
| |
| l IMPELL CORPORATION REPORT APPROVAL COVER SHEET f
| |
| I Client: TDI Owner's Group (DUKE /TUGCO)
| |
| Project: Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators 4
| |
| Job No.: 0630-083-1642
| |
| ; , Report
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| Fuel Oil Header - Fuel Oil Supports (Small Bore Scope Only) Component Part No. 02-4508 i
| |
| j Report Number: 02-0630-1361 Rev. No.: 0- 1 The work described in this Report was perfor1med in accordance with the Impell Corporation Quality Assurance Program. The signatures below verify the accuracy of this Report and its compliance with applicable
| |
| , quality assurance requirements.
| |
| Prepared By: s Date: 6984 Reviewed By: [i I Date: $/f85 Approved By: [L e $te: dde/h j Concurrence By: Mb 6d Dato: /c/o /s RegionaY Quality Assurance Manager l REVISION RECORD l REY. I PREPARED l REVIEWED l APPROVED l CONCURRENCE l APPROVAL lREVISIONI' i l i I I I I I I I I I I I -l I i
| |
| i l
| |
| ' l I I I I I I I I I I I I I i l i I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I ,
| |
| : 1 I I I I I
| |
| ! I I I I i l l l
| |
| : I I I I I I .
| |
| i i l i I I I I i
| |
| l i !
| |
| i l i I l
| |
| : I l' I I I I l l l I I I I I i i
| |
| __ _ , ., ,,.-_...__,--m _.,, .. c. . . . . , , _ _ . . _ _ _ _ , _ . _ _ , _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ - . _ _ - . _ _ . - . _ _ _ . _ . - . _ _ , . . . _ _ _ .
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 17 to TXX_6236 February 13, 1987 Page 127 of 187 SUPPLEMENT 1
| |
| , , TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 Fuel Oil Headers - Fuel Oil Supports (Small Bore Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-4508 I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this supplement is to sumnarize the evaluation
| |
| ; performed to justify eliminating the reconnended modifications as stated in the original report.
| |
| i The fuel oil supports restrain the Component 02-450A piping and tubing. As a result of the original evaluation (Ref.1) supports FO-PSR-10597,10598 and 10587 were reconnended to be modified to provide additional restraint for the fuel oil piping. Also, support i
| |
| FO-PSR-10157 was recommended to be modified due to high stresses in the support and the insufficient restraint capabilities of a one bolt connection.
| |
| 4 II. METHODOLOGY In the original evaluation of the piping, conservative analysis techniques were utilized in accordance with the original evaluation criteria (Ref. 2). Less conservative analysis techniques were deveload and incorporated into a revised evaluation criteria (Ref.
| |
| ' 3). T1e piping was re-analyzed (see Supplement 1 for Component s 02-450A) in accordance with the revised evaluation criteria, and new support loads were developed.
| |
| III. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Based on this evaluation (Reference 4 and 5), the fuel oil supports have been found to be acceptable with only minor modification.. It is recommended that the 31/4 x 1 1/4 x 1/4 inch plate for support l F0-PSR-10157 be welded to the intake manifold support bracket. Note that in the original evaluation, modifications were also recommended l for the 31/4 x 11/4 x 1/4 inch plate itself. However, based on this evaluation, the modification is no longer required. The original recommended modifications for the remaining supports are no longer required as a result of the Component 02-450A piping
| |
| ' evaluation. This evaluation shows that additional restraint of the piping is not necessary. Note, however, that two supports require work in order to achieve the as-designed condition. Support
| |
| ; FO-PSR-10597 is missing the u-bolt and therefore one should be
| |
| !. installed. The u-bolt for support FO-PSR-10598 is not completely installed, therefore, the installation should be completed.
| |
| : The fuel oil piping and tubing supports, as designed and installed l by Transamerica Delaval, Inc. are adequate to perform their intended design function, providing the modification and maintenance items
| |
| ___ y econagnded above are implemented. _ _
| |
| | |
| J
| |
| ^
| |
| Attach. 1, Item 17 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 128 of 187 IV. REFERENCES
| |
| : 1. Stone & Webster Calculations 4
| |
| 11600.60 - NP(B) - 1021. - XH 11600.60 - NP(B) - 1011 - ZB
| |
| . 2. " Engineering Review Criteria Document for the Design Review of
| |
| ' TOI Diesel Samil Bore Piping, Tubing and Supports for the TDI Owner's Group", SWEC Report No. 1120.60-0C-02, Rev. O.
| |
| : 3. " Design Criteria for Small Bore Piping, Tubing and Supports for Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators". Impell Report No.
| |
| 1 02-0630-1344, Rev. O. May-1986.
| |
| . 4. " Piping Qualification - Component 02-450A", Impell Calculation No. 0630-083-C-013, Rev. O.
| |
| : 5. "FO-PSR-10157 - Component 02-4508", Impell Calculation No.
| |
| 0630-083-C-009, Rev. O.
| |
| k I
| |
| ~
| |
| l e
| |
| )
| |
| I I I !
| |
| l i
| |
| t i h 1
| |
| t
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 18 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 129 of 187 ATTACHMENT-1 ITEM-18
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, It:m 18 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 130 of 187
| |
| . SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 i
| |
| Lube Oil Lines External: Tubing, Fittin C (Small Bore Scope Only) gs," ouplings
| |
| , Component Part No. 02-465A i
| |
| Prepared By:
| |
| Impe11 Corporation 225 Broad Hollow Road Melville, N. Y.11747 Report No. 02-0630-1362 l Revision 0 Job No. 0630-083-1642 l May, 1986
| |
| | |
| __ 7 Attach. 1, Item 18 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 131 of 187 IMPELL-CORPORATION
| |
| : REPORT APPROVAL COVER SHEET Client: TDI Owner's Group (DUKE /TUGCO)
| |
| Project: Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators Job No.: 0630-083-1642 Report
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| Lube Oil Lines External: Tubing, Fittings, Couplings (Small Bore Scope Only) Component Part No. 02-465A
| |
| ! Report Number: 02-0630-1362 Rev. No.: 0 1
| |
| The work described in this Report was performed in accordance with the Impell Corporation Quality Assurance Program. The signatures below verify the accuracy of this Report and its compliance with applicable
| |
| ; quality assurance requirements.
| |
| Prepared By: -- m Date: S/3, of Reviewed By: 1/ / Date: /30/M M ##Mb Approved By: , Date:
| |
| , Concurrence By: [Md Date: 18/'* /ac.
| |
| Regional Quality Assurance Manager REVISION RECORD REY. I PREPARED l REVIEWED l APPROVED l GUNGUMMLNGL l AFPMUVAL lMLV151 UNI i l i I I I I I I I I I I I I I
| |
| I I I I I I I I
| |
| I I I i'
| |
| l I ,
| |
| I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I <
| |
| i i l I I I I I l l I I I I I I l
| |
| l 1 I I I I I I I I I I I l
| |
| . I I I l I I I I i
| |
| .m. , c . - . - --~_-.--~r . - - - . , . . . . - . . . . - _ _ , - - _ , . . . . _
| |
| .m. , ,,,. . , _ _ , ..-.___..,_..._.._.-_._.____..-_-,-.___,.m-r_ , _ _ . , . . - - . -
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 18 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987-Page 132 of 187' SUPPLEMENT 1 I l
| |
| TDI OWNERS GROUP 1
| |
| COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 Lube Oil Lines External: Tubing, Fittin (Smal1 Bore Scope Only) gs, Couplings Component Part No. 02-465A i
| |
| I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this supplement is to summarize the evaluation performed to justify eliminating the recommended modifications as stated in the original report.
| |
| The lube oil lines external consist of piping and tubing and provide
| |
| ; lube oil to various equipment. ,
| |
| As a result of the original evaluation (Ref.1), modifications were 3 recommended in order to. satisfy the existing design criteria (Ref.
| |
| 2). It was recommanded to add two-way supports to the tubing, such that spans between supports were limited to a maximum of 4 feet 6 inches for 1/4 inch tubing and 5 feet 6 inches for 3/8 inch tubing.
| |
| Also, it was recommended to add a three-way restraint to the 1 1/2 l
| |
| inch gear case lube oil line.
| |
| II. METHODOLOGY :
| |
| i In the original evaluation, conservative maximum span lengths were developed for the tubing. These span lengths were based on a stress criteria to satisfy code allowables for dead wei@t and' seismic loads. The seismic loads were based upon the seismic response spectra provided in Reference 3. For this evaluation reduced seismic response spectra (Ref. 4), developed in accordance with ASME Code Case N-411, was utilized to reduce the seismic loading, thereby increasing the maximum allowable span. If the maximum existing tubing span still did not meet the increased allowable span critaria, a rigorous computer analysis was performed to show that 4
| |
| the tubing stress is within code allowables. The rigorous analysis incorporated existing tubing and support configurations. The evaluation criteria utilized for this evaluation is presented in
| |
| . Reference 5.
| |
| j i
| |
| k i
| |
| ,_,----,-w, --,--,,----nnn,_,,, - , - , , . . ., - _ ,, ,,,-,---.,..,,._n,,m..- .,...n-,.,,-.,,,w-,-,,-,.
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 18 to TXX-6236 -
| |
| February 13, 1987 Page 133 of 187 III. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Based on this evaluation (Ref. 6 & 7), the lube oil lines (piping and tubing) have been found to be acceptable without modification.
| |
| The maximum existing span (5'-6") for the 3/8 inch tubing between the main L.O. header and the large bore three-way valve is within the revised maximum allowable span (5'-8"). Based on a riSorous computer analysis, stress levels for the 1/4" crossover tube between the north sump large bore discharge lines are below code allowables (maximum stress ratio of approximately 0.96 utilizing conservative local stress concentration factorsl. Support loads are lower than those approved in the original eval uation. Based on a rigorous computer analysis, stress levels for the 1 1/2 inch gear case lube oil line are below code allowables (maximum stress ratio of approximately 0.90).
| |
| The lube oil lines external piping and tubing, as designed and installed by Transamerica Delaval, Inc., are adequate to perform their intended design function.
| |
| 4 e
| |
| i o
| |
| 4 l
| |
| 1 i
| |
| , - - - , , - - - - , , -.----,,-m,-, , ~ , . -- r- - - - , ---,-e--n-, --e -- -~ - - - - - - - - - - e w e e - ~
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 18 to TXX-6236 -
| |
| February 13, 1987 Page 134 of-187 I V .~ REFERENCES
| |
| : l. Stone & Webster Calculations 11600.60 - NP(B) - 1001 - XH 11600.60 - NP(B) - 1020 - XH
| |
| : 2. " Engineering Review Criteria Document for the Design Review of TDI Diesel Small Bore Piping, Tubing and Supports for the TDI Owner's Group", SWEC Report No. 11600.60-DC-02, Rev. O.
| |
| : 3. Gibbs & Hill Safeguards Building Response Spectra, FSB-2R.
| |
| ~
| |
| : 4. Gibbs & Hill Letter No. GTN-71355, dated March 28, 1986.
| |
| (Transmittal of seismic response spectra curves, developed in 4
| |
| accordance with ASME Code Case N-411, for the Safeguards Building).
| |
| : 5. '" Design Criteria for Small Bore Piping, Tubing and Supports for l' Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators". Impell Report No.
| |
| 02-0630-1344, Rev. O, May 1986, i 6. " Tubing Qualification" Impell Calculation No. 0630-083-C-003, i
| |
| Rev. O.
| |
| 7 " Piping Qualification - Component 02-465A", Impell Calculation No. 0630-083-C-006, Rev. O.
| |
| ~
| |
| t j
| |
| I I
| |
| i
| |
| (
| |
| t
| |
| - . _ . - - _ . _ . - _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . , _ , - . - - . _ - . - - , _ _ _ _ _ , . _ _ _ - - - - - - _ . _ - - - - _ . , ~ _ - _ . - . _ _
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 19 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 135 of 187 ATTACHMENT-1 ITEM-19 a
| |
| e
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 19 to TXX-6236
| |
| * February 13, 1987 Page 136 of 187
| |
| ~
| |
| SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 Lube Oil Lines External: Supports (Small Bore Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-465B Prepared By:
| |
| Impell Corporation 225 Broad Hollow Road Melville, N. Y.11747 Report No. 02-0630-1363 Revision 0 Job No. 0630-083-1642 May, 1986
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 19 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 137 of 187 IMPELL CORPORATION REPORT APPROVAL COVER SHEET Client: TDI Owner's Group (DUKE /TUGCO)
| |
| Project: Cumanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators Job No.: 0630-083-1642 Report
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| Lube Oil Lines External - Supports (Small Bore Scope Only) Component Part No. 02-4658 Report Number: 02-0630-1363 Rev. Nc.: 0 The work described in this Report was performed in accordance with the-Impell Corporation Quality Assurance Program. The signatures below verify the accuracy of this Report and its compliance with applicable quality assurance quirements.
| |
| Prepared By: k ,= , Date: S/30/Ag Reviewed By: t, / Date: Yis f6 Approved By: /d W Da'te: /c/gM -
| |
| Concurrence By: k. M Date: /o/t ) /o6 Regiq/lal pual1ty Assurance Manager
| |
| ; REVISION RECORD 4
| |
| s IREV. l PREPARED l REVIEWED l APPROVED l CONCURRENCE I APPROVAL IREVISIONI i l I i i l i I l l l l l l l
| |
| ' l l l l l l 1 1 I I I I I I I I l l I I I l 1 l l !'
| |
| I I I I I I l l I I I I I I I I I
| |
| > I I I I I I I
| |
| : I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
| |
| ' I l l I I l
| |
| | |
| Attach.'1, Item 19 to'TXX-6236 February- 13, 1987 Page 138 of 187 i
| |
| SUPPLEMENT 1 TOI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 Lube Oil Lines External: Supports (Small Bore Scope only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-4658 I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this supplement is to summarize the evaluation performed to justify eliminating the recossended modifications as r
| |
| stated in the original report. .
| |
| The lube oil lines external supports provide restraint for the Component 02-465A small bore piping / tubing.
| |
| As a result of the original evaluation (Ref.1), a modification was recommended in order to satisfy the existing evaluation criteria i
| |
| (Ref. 2). It was recommended to remove the existing 1/4 inch plate (Support LO-PSA-10519) and replace it with a 3-way restraint.- The primary reason for this recommended modification was due to the slenderness ratio (KL/r) exceeding 200.
| |
| II. ETH000 LOGY
| |
| , In the original evaluation, conservative support loads were developed, utilizing the response spectra provided in Reference 3 ;
| |
| for the seismic loading. Also, in developing K1/r, the factor K was
| |
| * conservatively taken as 2.1, which is the recommended design value for a cantilever. Based on the support configuration, it is i
| |
| sufficient to use a factor K of 1.0, which corresponds to the !
| |
| recommended design value for a pinned-pinned beam. This results in
| |
| ! a K1/r of approximately 156. Additionally, a less conservative support load was developed; utilizing rigorous computer analysis ,
| |
| along with a reduced response spectra (Ref. 4) which was developed in accordance with ASE Code Case N-411.
| |
| i d
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| Attach. lo Item 19 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 139 of 187 III. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Based on this evaluation (Reference 5), the lube oil ifne's external supports have been found to be acceptable without modification. As stated above, the Kl/r factor was reduced to a value of 156, and the load on support LO-PSA-10519 was reduced utilizing rigorous computer analyses and reduced response spectra. As a result, the stress levels in the support are well below code allowables (maximum stress ratio of approximately 0.50).
| |
| The lube oil line's external supports, as designed and installed by Transamerica Delaval, Inc. , are adequate to perform their intended design function.
| |
| O 9
| |
| | |
| Attach. I' Item 19 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 140 of 187 ,
| |
| IV. REFERENCES
| |
| : 1. Stone & Webster Calculations 11600.60 - NP(B) - 1010 - Z8 11600.60 - NP(B) - 1030 - ZB
| |
| : 2. " Engineering Review Criteria Document for the Design Review of.
| |
| TDI Diesel Small_ Bore Piping, Tubing and Supports for the TDI Owner's Group", SWEC Report No. 11600.60-DC-02, Rev. O.
| |
| : 3. Gibbs & Hill Safeguards Buf1 ding Response Spectra, FSB-2R.
| |
| : 4. Gibbs & Hill Letter No. GTN-71355, dated March 28, 1986.
| |
| (Transmittal of seismic response spectra curves, developed in accordance with ASME Code Case N-411, for the Safeguards Building).
| |
| : 5. "LO-PSR-10519 - Component 02-4658", Impell Calculation No.
| |
| 0630-083-C-007, Rev. O.
| |
| 9 i
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 20 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 141 of 187 ATTACHMENT-1 ITEM-20 f
| |
| | |
| O
| |
| * Attach. 1, Item 20 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 142 of 187
| |
| ~.
| |
| ~~
| |
| SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 i
| |
| Turbocharger Lube Oil Fittings: .
| |
| 7 Pipe, Tube, Fittings And Flexible Coupling (Small Bore Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-467A Prepared By:
| |
| i
| |
| ~
| |
| Impell Corporation 225 Broad Hollow Road Melville, N. Y.11747 i
| |
| Report No. 02-0630-1364 Revision 0 Job No. 0630-083-1642 May,1936 -
| |
| l l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 20 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 143 of 187
| |
| ; IMPELL CORPORATION =
| |
| REPORT APPROVAL COVER SHEET Client: TDI Owner's Group (DUKE /TUGCO)
| |
| Project: Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators Job No.: 0630-083-1642 Report
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| Turbocharger Lube Oil Fittings: Pipe Tube, Fittings And Flexible Coupling (Small Bore Scope Only) _
| |
| Component Part No. 02-467A Report Number: 02-0630-1364 Rev. No.: 0 The work described in this Report was performed in accordance with the Impell Corporation Quality Assurance Program.. The signatures below verify the accuracy of this Report and its compliance with applicable quality assurance req f rements.
| |
| Prepared By: A l; - Date: E !8[
| |
| Reviewed By: , / Date: MdO/M Approved By: [M Date: N/N i Concurrence By: M Date: m/o/se Regional Q6ality Assurance Manager l
| |
| I
| |
| , REVISION RECORD !
| |
| REY. PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED CONCURRENCE l APPROVAL lREVISIONI I I l
| |
| ; 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
| |
| : I I I i
| |
| l i 1 I I I i l I I
| |
| ! I I I I i
| |
| i l I I I I i i I I I I I l i I I I I I
| |
| | |
| - -Attach. 1, Item 20 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 144 of 187 SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 Turbocharger Lube Oil Fittings:
| |
| Pipe, Tubes, Fittings and Flexible Coupling (Small Bore Scope Only)
| |
| ~
| |
| Component Part No. 02-467A I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this supplement is to sunniarize the evaluation performed to justify eliminating the reconmiended modifications as stated in the original report.
| |
| The turbocharger lube oil fittings consist of piping and tubir.g l which provide lube oil to the turbocharger.
| |
| As a result of the original evaluation (Ref.'l'), modifications were i
| |
| recommended in order to satisfy the existing design criteria (Ref.
| |
| 2). It was recommended to a add two-way lateral support to the 3/4 i inch diameter tubing, such that the span between supports was
| |
| , limited to a maximum of 7 feet 6 inches.
| |
| IJ. METHODOLOGY i
| |
| In the original evaluation, conservative maximum span lengths were
| |
| ; developed for the tubing. These span lengths were based on a stress
| |
| ' criteria to satisfy code allowables for dead weight and seismic loads. The seismic loads were based upon the seismic response 4
| |
| spectra provided in Reference 3. For this evaluation reduced seismic response spectra (Ref. 4), developed in accordance with ASME Code Case N-411, was utilized to reduce the seismic loading and l thereby increase the maximum allowable span. If the maximum i existing tubing span still did not meet this increased allowable
| |
| ! span criteria, a rigorous computer analysis was performed to show i that the tubing stress is within code allowables. This rigorous
| |
| : analysis incorporated the existing tubing and support
| |
| ', confi guration. The evaluation criteria utilized for this evaluation is presented in Reference 5.
| |
| i l
| |
| - .,. _ , ,. - , ,- ' ' " ' ' " ' " ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ " ' ' ' ~
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 20 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 145 of 187 III. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 4
| |
| Based on this evaluation (Reference 6), the 3/4 inch diameter tubing has been found to be acceptable without modification. The maximum existing span (6'-9") is less than the revised maximum allowable span (7'-11") for 3/4 inch diameter tubing. A rigorous computer analysis was not required for this evaluation. Support loads and ,
| |
| loads on equipment are lower than those approved in the original evaluation.
| |
| 1 The turbocharger lube oil fittings, as designed and installed by Transamerica Delaval, Inc., are adequate to perfom their intended design function.
| |
| h I
| |
| o i
| |
| f 1
| |
| i I
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 20 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 146 of 187 IV. REFERENCES
| |
| : 1. Stone & Webster Calculation 11600.60 - NP(8) - 1001 - XH
| |
| : 2. " Engineering Review Criteria Document for the Design Review of TDI Diesel Small Bore Piping, Tubing and Supports for the TDI Owner's Group", Report No. Il600.60-DC-02, Rev. O.
| |
| : 3. Gibbs a Hill Safeguards Building Response Spectra, FSB-2R.
| |
| : 4. Gibbs & Hill Letter No. GTN-71355, dated March 28, 1986.
| |
| (Transmittal of seismic response spectra curves, developed in accordance with ASME Code Case N-411, for the Safeguards Building).
| |
| : 5. " Design Criteria for Small Bore Piping, Tubing and Supports for Comanche Peak TDI Ofesel Generators". Impell Report No.
| |
| : 02-0630-1344, Rev. O, May 1986.
| |
| : 6. " Tubing Qualification", Impell Calculation No. 0630-083-C-003,
| |
| ; Rev. O.
| |
| O o
| |
| 1 I
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 21 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Paga 147 of 187 ATTACHMENT-1 ITEM-21 e
| |
| J e
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Ittm 21 to TXX-6236
| |
| - February 13, 1987 Page 148 of 187 i
| |
| SUPPLEMENT 1 1
| |
| TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 4
| |
| k 4
| |
| Engine Shutdown Equimnt - Tubing, Fittings* a Supports (Wil Bore Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 0?-695A Prepared By:
| |
| Impe11 Corporation 225 Broad Hollow Road Melville, N. Y.11747 i
| |
| Report No. 02-0630-1365 Revision 0 Job No. 0630-083-1642 l May, 1986
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 21 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 149 of 187 IMPELL CORPORATION REPORT APPROVAL COVER SHEET Client: TOI Owner's Group (DUKE /TUGCO)
| |
| Project: Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators Job No.: 0630-003-1642
| |
| ,, Report
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| Engine Shutdown Equipment - Tubing Fittings and Supports
| |
| , (Small Bore Scope Only) Component Part No. 02-695A Report Number: 02-0630-1365 Rev. No.: 0 i
| |
| The work described in this Report was performed in accordance with the i
| |
| Impell Corporation Quality Assurance Program. The signatures below verify the accuracy of this Report and its compliance with applicable quality assurance req f rements.
| |
| Prepared By: .- - Date: $!30!84 Reviewed By: 4./ / Date: 6 30/#$
| |
| i Approved By: __
| |
| b . Date: /dVd/4 Concurrence By:
| |
| Regiorft1 Qua~ ity Assurance Manager IM Date: -
| |
| so/5/es.
| |
| i REVISION RECORD REY. I PREPARED REVIEWED l APPRDVED l CONCURRLNCE l APPROVAL lRLVI51 UNI I l i I i i I l l I I I I l
| |
| : I l l l l l l 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '
| |
| I I I I I I I I i l ll H I I I I I I I I I 1 l I I I I I I
| |
| i I I I i 1 u i
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 21 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 150 of 187 SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 Engine Shutdown Equipment - Tubing, Fittings & Supports (Small Bore Seope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-695A
| |
| ~
| |
| I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this supplement is to summarize the evaluation performed to justify eliminating the recomended modifications as l stated in the original report.
| |
| The engine shutdown equipment tubing and its supports maintain the capability to effect engine shutdown.
| |
| As a result of the original evaluation (Ref.1), modifications were rgeomended in order to satisfy the original design criteria (Ref.
| |
| : 21. It was recomended to add two-way supports to the tubing, such that spans between supports were limited to 'a maximum of 4 feet 6 inches. It was further recomended that supports ES-PSA T10800 and ST-PSR-10734 be modified.
| |
| l II. METHODOLOGY In the original evaluation, conservative maximum span lengths were
| |
| , developed for the tubing. These span lengths were based on a stress
| |
| , criteria to satisfy code allowables for dead weight and seismic '
| |
| loads. The seismic loads were based upon the seismic response spectra provided in Reference 3. For this evaluation reduced seismic response spectra (Ref. 4), developed in accordance with ASME Code Case N-411, were utilized to reduce the seismic loading and thereby increase the maximum allowable span. If the maximum existing tubing span still did not meet the increased allowable span criteria, a rigorous com> uter analysis was performed to show that i the tubing stress is witiin code allowables. The rigorous analysis incorporated the existing tubing and support configuration. The evaluation criteria utilized for this evaluation is presented in Reference S. i Note that a large number of tubing runs exceeded the newly developed maximum span criteria. Therefore, rather than perfoming rigorous analyses for all these tubing runs, a representative sampling (approximately 35 percent) was chosen. The tubing runs that were i
| |
| not rigorously analyzed were then qualified based on the results of the sampling,which was analyzed.
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 21 to TXX-6236 i February 13, 1987 Page 151 of 187 III. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Based on this evaluation (Ref. 6), the engine shutdown equipment
| |
| ! tubing has been found to be acceptable without modification. Based on rigorous computer analysis of a representative sampling of tubing i runs, stress levels are below code allowables (maximum stress ratio of approximately 0.96 utilizing conservative local stress 3 concentration factors). Support loads are lower than those approved
| |
| ; in the original evaluation. Note however, that support evaluations
| |
| ; (Ref. 7 and 8) indicate that modification is required for supports
| |
| ~ ES-PSA-T10800 and ST-PSR-10734. The recossended modifications are detailed in Figures 1, 2 and 3. ES-PSA-T10800 requires modification
| |
| ~
| |
| in order to complete the support connection. Note that as a result of the original evaluation, the 4x2x 1/4 inch angle (see Fig.1) also required modification. However, based on this evaluation, the 4x2x 1/4 inch angle has been found to be acceptable. ST-PSR-10734 j requires modification due to inadequate restraint capabilities in j the event of cyclic loading.
| |
| 1 j The engine shutdown equipment tubing and supports, as designed and i installed by Transamerica Delaval, Inc., are adequate to perform their intended design function, providing the recomunended j modifications indicated above are implemented.
| |
| 1 I
| |
| 1
| |
| -I
| |
| )
| |
| 4 i
| |
| I i.
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| {
| |
| , Attach. 1, Item 21 to TXX-6236 '
| |
| February 13, 1987 .
| |
| Page 152 of 187 1 l IV. REFERENCES
| |
| ]
| |
| j 1. Stone a Webster Calculations i 11600.60 - NP(8) - 1001 - XH 11600.60 - W (8) - 1013 - Z8 j 2. " Engineering Review Criteria Document for the Design Review of i
| |
| TDI Diesel $ mall Bore Piping, Tubing and Supports for the TOI Owner's Group", Report No. 11600.60-DC-02, Rev. O.
| |
| : 3. Gibbs & Hill Safeguards Building Response Spectra, FS8-2R.
| |
| . 4. Gibbs & Hill Letter No. GTN-71355, dated March 28, 1986.
| |
| ! (Transmittal of seismic response spectra curves, developed in accordance with ASME Code Case N-411, for the Safeguards Building).
| |
| 5
| |
| " Design Criteria for Small Bore Piping, Tubing and Supports for Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators". Impell Report No.
| |
| , 02-0630-1344, Rev. O. May 1986.
| |
| : 6. " Tubing Qualification", Impell Calculation No. 0630-083-C-003, Rev. O.
| |
| : 7. "ES-PSA-T10800 - Component 02-695A", Impell Calculation No, j 0630-083-C-010, Rev. O. ~ ~
| |
| s' j 8. " Evaluation of Tube Supports - Components 025 717I, 02-695A &
| |
| i 02-316C", Impell Calculation No. 0630-083-C-012, Rev. O.
| |
| o l
| |
| 1
| |
| +
| |
| 1 i
| |
| ! i l
| |
| -- -p.. we--we,,v-c+-.+e-----,--,w--, ---e- --
| |
| w., , , . - - - - e c. - -+ .- ,-----4,e- ---y, e.,#.. ,. . , .._.--.y.-r.-----em,m.--,e..,, --- ,, .----.w.,- - - - -
| |
| | |
| .y. - - -
| |
| Attach. 1, Item 21 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 153 of 187 SUPPORT ES-PSA-T10800 A "_'".
| |
| ' (RE6 q7Tu Ses .. '
| |
| l Q Tu ngs,
| |
| ~gl_
| |
| l CXIST L A x2 <h i
| |
| [
| |
| +
| |
| l il i*l '//6 / 'NEW
| |
| 'l .
| |
| 1 T.
| |
| Ii
| |
| .J .
| |
| L' _J CXIST '/I6" THK. FiL ELEVATION NOTES:
| |
| '"\. . REl~ERENCE DWqr. TS-100lA ES -
| |
| 10800 1
| |
| FIGURE 1 l
| |
| | |
| 4 Attach. 1, Item 21 to TXX-6236 4
| |
| February 13, 1987 i Page 154 of 187 l SUPPORT ST-PSR-10734 g N g E41ST;..Sx3* V4 T.S.
| |
| I I i
| |
| 'f ,l Y ' D l 1 ,N El l l l ll
| |
| = lT I1
| |
| /= lL
| |
| =g ' 'l
| |
| : _- . _i_j. ,
| |
| I
| |
| , 5/gxti/4." q . l : P-looE uoT% w/SPEt%
| |
| CAP' stew.J w/LocX il ('M 2. F4 ACES)
| |
| ; WASHER MP. P. PLACES) 'l 1
| |
| im exter. Pioco coisTe.uT
| |
| ! ~
| |
| . ELEVA TION J
| |
| l t
| |
| i W CTES:_
| |
| l i- ostu._7/id' oi A. soues ia j SmS* IM T.5. A% EEQ'O.
| |
| j 2.- EJF. move EwiST icq P- 2M&S
| |
| ; vonST1E.uT CLMP, i
| |
| s-esses,x.m m q.rs-iociA-
| |
| ; sr io? p - i , osc.r. 2. - z_.
| |
| i FIGURE 2 l
| |
| l 1
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 21 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 155 of 187 4
| |
| t
| |
| , SUPPORT ST-PSR-10734
| |
| . NOTCH Pl. ATE RS REQ'D ' .
| |
| .5" . 'S" \"
| |
| TECLERW *EXISTIN(r STEEL
| |
| ) as, p.noco :'y
| |
| ' ' ~
| |
| .. CORNER RADIUS T '
| |
| ,] --> ,
| |
| : ,$, 1 l i l<_ _ _ - -> t x k ,
| |
| i e
| |
| mW E
| |
| i (2) R. t Va'e 4."4 L'
| |
| %m As z.sq'o.(ASG) I L C2 -- -~ 2 '
| |
| l --
| |
| ; 4 (TYR 2 PLFCE;.h ,/aV : : W ST* " *
| |
| * p'5/id (REE)
| |
| ! ELE /ATION
| |
| . (1) We"
| |
| * 2'/t.' wuq
| |
| __ _ w eres.w w/ wor j;yp D LOCX WASHERS Q lme e;;; : *s h f iiF j -
| |
| 1
| |
| ; , y _ :- ,
| |
| =
| |
| i;
| |
| = 74^ (T /$
| |
| \*/ef..'(REE)
| |
| Sac:r. I I 1
| |
| A Menus- - '
| |
| l- om.iu ?/id' oia. mue.5, wo e. 3/e." l soLT5 As esc'o.
| |
| 2.- EEVcvE Ext ST1 R9 P I %5 uvisTEuT ( uA m P.
| |
| l 3 - ears? =< ve ooq w_ -ioo i A- sT-
| |
| ! 10 7 3 4 - t , SE4.T. 5 - 5 .
| |
| i FIGURE 3 4
| |
| ,'.)
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 22 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Pag:2 156 of 187 ATTACHMENT-1 ITEM-22 1
| |
| e
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 22 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 157 of 187
| |
| . SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAX STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 Auxiliary Sub-Base and Oil and Water Piping Jacket Water Piping (Small Bore Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-717C Prepared By:
| |
| Impe11 Corporation 225 Broad Hollow Road Melville, N. Y.11747 Report No. 02-0630-1366 Revision 0 Job No. 0630-083-1642 May, 1986
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 22 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 158 of 187 IMPELL CORPORATION REPORT APPROVAL COVER SHEET Client: TDI Owner's Group (DUKE /TUGCO)
| |
| Project: Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators Job No.: 0630-083-1642
| |
| , Report
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| Auxiliary Sub-Base and Oil and Water Piping -
| |
| Jacket Water Piping (Small Bore Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-717C Report Number: 02-0630-1366 Rev. No.: 0 The work described in this Report was performed in accordance with the Impe11 Corporation Quality Assurance Program. The signatures below verify the accuracy of this Report and its compliance with applicable quality assurance requ rements.
| |
| Prepared By: s'' w b. b .__ Date: 8S
| |
| ~
| |
| Reviewed By: hv /$ Date: 6/10/N Approved By: W ^- - Date: /We//b Concurrence By: .hd Date: 10/0M Regional / Quality Assurance Manager j REVISION RECORD i
| |
| ; REY. PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED CONCURRENCE APPROVAL REVISIONl 1 l I I I I I I I I
| |
| ! I '
| |
| l l l 1 i i i I l 1 I I I I l -l
| |
| ! I !
| |
| I I I I I
| |
| ! I l i I I l l j
| |
| I I I I I 1 i i l 1 J l I l l '
| |
| l I I I I I i
| |
| . . _ _ . . . - _ . . - _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ . , _ . _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ , ~ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . - - . . _ _ . _ _ _ .
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 22 to TXX-6236'~
| |
| February 13, 1987 Page 159 of 187 1
| |
| SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAX STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1
| |
| { Auxiliary Sub-Base and 011 and Water Piping i
| |
| Jacket Water Piping (Small Bore Tubing Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-717C 1
| |
| 4 I. INTRODUCTION
| |
| } The purpose of this supplement is to sunuiarize the evaluation
| |
| ! perfomed to justify eliminating the recosamended modifications as stated in the original report.
| |
| 4 The auxiliary sub-base jacket water tubing provides continuous jacket water venting of system high points.
| |
| 1 As a result of the original evaluation (Ref.1), modifications were reconsiended in order to satisfy the existing evaluation criteria s
| |
| ' (Ref. 2). It was recossended to add twc-way supports to the tubing, j such that spans between supports were limited to a maximum of 4 feet
| |
| ] 6 inches.
| |
| II. ETH000 LOGY In the original evaluation, conservative maximum span lengths were developed for the tubing. These span lengths were based on a stress criteria to satisfy code allowables for dead weight and seismic loads. The seismic loads were based upon the seismic response spectra provided in Reference 3. For this evaluation reduced I
| |
| seismic response spectra (Ref. 4), developed in accordance with ASE Code Case N-411, was utilized to reduce the seismic loading and thereby increase the maximum allowable span. If the maximum existing tubing span still did not meet the increased allowable span
| |
| ; criteria, a rigorous computer analysis was performed to show that the tubing stress is within code allowables. The rigorous analysis
| |
| ! incorporated the existing tubing and support configurations. The l evaluation criteria utilized for this evaluation is presented in Reference 5.
| |
| l Note that a large number of tubing runs exceeded the newly developed maximum span criteria. Therefore, rather than perfoming rigorous analyses for all these tubing runs, a representative sampling (approximately 35 percent) was chosen. The tubing runs that were not rigorously analyzed were then qualified based on the results of the sampling which was analyzed.
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 22 to TXX-6236
| |
| . February 13, 1987 Page 160 of 187 III. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Based on this evaluation (Ref. 6), the auxiliary sub-base jacket i water tubing has been found to be acceptable without modification. .
| |
| Based on rigorous computer analysis of a representative sampling of '
| |
| tubing runs, stress levels are below code allowables (maximum stress ratio of approximately 0.96 utilizing conservative local stress concentration factors). Support loads are lower than those approved in the original evaluation.
| |
| The auxiliary sub-base jacket water tubing. .as designed and installed by Transamerica Delaval, Inc., is adequate to perform its !
| |
| , intended design function.
| |
| i l
| |
| t i
| |
| t i .
| |
| I i
| |
| f i i i
| |
| i
| |
| . i
| |
| ! +
| |
| l I
| |
| I t
| |
| f l l t
| |
| i a w.
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 22 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 161 of 187 IV. REFERENCES
| |
| < l. Stone & Webster Calculations L ,
| |
| 11600.60 - NP(B) - 1001 - XH 11600.60 - NP(B) - 1024 - XH
| |
| : 2. " Engineering Review Criteria Document for the Design Review of TDI Otesel Small Bore Piping, Tubing and Supports for the TDI Owner's Group", SWEC Report No. 11600.60-0C-02, Rev. O.
| |
| : 3. Gibbs & Hill Safeguards Building Response Spectra FS8-2R.'
| |
| 4 Gibbs & Hill Letter No. GTN-71355, dated March 28, 1986.
| |
| (Transmittal of seismic response spectra cLrves, developed in accordance with ASME Code Case N-411, for the Safeguards Building).
| |
| : 5. " Design Criteria for Small Bore Piping, Tubing and Supports for Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators". Impell Report No.
| |
| 02-0630-1344, Rev. O. May 1986.
| |
| : 6. " Tubing Qualification" Impell Calculation No. 0630-083-C-003, Rev. O.
| |
| O k
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Ite 23 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 162 of 187 ATTACHMENT-1 ITEM-23 1
| |
| l l
| |
| l 1
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 23 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 163 of 187 I-.-
| |
| ~
| |
| SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAX STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 Auxiliary Sub-Base and Oil and Water , Piping Jacket Water: Supports (Small Bore Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-717E Prepared By:
| |
| Impell Corporation 225 Broad Hollow Road Melville, N. Y.11747 Report No. 02-0630-1367 Revision 0 Job No. 0630-083-1642 May, 1986
| |
| | |
| .ittach. 1, Item 23 to TXX-6236 February 13,-1987 Page 164 of 187.-
| |
| IMPELL CORPORATION REPORT APPROYAL COVER SHEET
| |
| , Client: TDI Owner's Group (DUKE /TUGCO)
| |
| Project: Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators 4
| |
| Job No.: 0630-083-1642 Report
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| Auxiliary Sub-Base and Oil and Water Piping -
| |
| ~
| |
| Jacket Water Supports (Small Bore Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-717E Report Number: 02-0630-1367 Rev. No.: 0 The work described in this Report was performed in accordance with the i Impell Corporation Quality Assurance Program. The signatures below l verify the accuracy of this Report and its compliance with applicable
| |
| : quality assurance requirements.
| |
| Prepared By: [ . Date: Sdc B4 i
| |
| Reviewed By: w Date: 53 /8 '
| |
| Approved By: [d Date: /VM/7(e i ,
| |
| Concurrence By: !M bd Regional Quality Assurance Mausger Date: /*/0 /m-REVISION RECORD i
| |
| REY. PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED CONCURRENCE APPROVAL REVISION i
| |
| i l I I Il I I
| |
| i I i l i I I l
| |
| : l' l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
| |
| , I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I i
| |
| l i I I I I l 1 1 I I I I I I I ,1 1
| |
| 1 1 I I I I ll 1 I I I I I I I i
| |
| , - - - , . - - - - , , _ , _ , . , , , , - , - - - - , - , , , - - , , , , , , , , . , , . . , . , . , . . , , , , , , , , , , , ,,a,,,,_,,w_,,,,,._.,,,-. ---,,___,,_.-,,,n. .,.,n . , . . . , . _ , . , , . - . _ , , , . , , _ . .
| |
| | |
| l Attach. 1, Item 23 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987-Page 165 of 187 i
| |
| ! SUPPLEMENT 1 TOI OWNERS GROLF COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 Auxiliary sub-Base and 011 and Water Piping Jacket Water Supports (Small Bore Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-717E
| |
| ! I. INTRODUCTION ,
| |
| l The purpose of this supplement is to summarize the evaluation l performed to justify eliminating the recommended modifications as ;
| |
| j stated in the original report.
| |
| The auxiliary sub-base jacket water supports provide restraint for
| |
| ; the Component 02-717C small bore piping and tubing.
| |
| As a result of the original evaluation (Ref.1), a modification was
| |
| ! reconmended in order to satisfy the existing evaluation criteria '
| |
| 4 (Ref. 2). It was recommended to modify the existing 1/4 inch plate and weld for Support JW-PSA-10824. The primary reason for this recossended modification was due to the slenderness ratio (KL/r) j exceeding 200 and large plate bending stresses. ,
| |
| II. ETH000 LOGY In the original evaluation, conservative support loads were i developed, utilizing the response spectra provided in Reference 3
| |
| { for the seismic loading. Also, in developing K1/r, the factor K was
| |
| ; conservatively taken as 2.1, which is the recommended design value for a cantilever. Based on the support configuration, it is
| |
| ! sufficient to use a factor K of 1.0, which corresponds to the
| |
| ! recommended design value for a pinned-pinned beam. This results in 5
| |
| a K1/r of approximately 130. Additionally, a less conservative support load was developed; utilis;ing rigorous computer analysis along with a reduced response spectra (Ref. 4) which was developed
| |
| , in accordance with ASE Code Case N-411.
| |
| ! l 1
| |
| i i
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| Attach. I, Item 23 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 166 of 187 III. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Based on this evaluation (Reference 5), the auxiliary sub-base jacket water supports have been found to be acceptable without modification. As stated above, the K1/r factor was reduced to a i value of 130 and the load on support LO-PSA-10824 was reduced; i
| |
| utilizing rigorous computer analyses and reduced response spectra.
| |
| As a result, the stress levels in the support are well below code allowables (maximum stress ratio of approximately 0.03).
| |
| The auxiliary sub-base jacket water supports, as designed and installed by Transamerica Delaval, Inc., are adequate to perform their intended design function.
| |
| 1 e
| |
| f I .
| |
| 1 i l l
| |
| i I
| |
| I l I
| |
| | |
| l
| |
| ' Attach. 1, Item 23 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 167 of 187 I
| |
| IV. REFERENCES
| |
| : 1. Stone & Webster Calculations 11600.60 - NP(B) - 1014 - ZB 11600.60,- NP(B) - 1034 - ZB
| |
| : 2. " Engineering Review Criteria Oocument for the Design Review of '
| |
| TDI Diesel Small Bore Piping, Tubing and Supports for the TDI Owner's Group", SWEC Report No. Il600.60-DC-02, Rev. O.
| |
| : 3. Gibbs & Hill Safeguards Building Response Spectra, FSB-2R.
| |
| : 4. Gibbs & Hill Letter No. GTN-71355, dated March 28, 1986.
| |
| (Transmittal of seismic response spectra curves, developed in accordance with ASE Code Case N-411, for the Safeguards Building).
| |
| : 5. "JW-PSA-10824 - Component 02-717E", Impell Calculation No.
| |
| 0630-083-C-008, Rev. O.
| |
| 9 o
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 24 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 168 of 187 ATTACHMENT-1 ITEM-24 a
| |
| | |
| - Attach. 1,- Item 24 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 169 of 187
| |
| , SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 1
| |
| Auxiliary Sub-Base and Oil and Water Piping tube 011: Pipe /Fittin s (Small Bore Scope Onl )
| |
| Component Part No. 02-717F Prepared By:
| |
| Impell Corporation 225 Broad Hollow Road i Melville, N. Y.11747
| |
| )
| |
| Report No. 02-0630-1368 Revision 0 Job No. 0630-083-1642 May, 1986
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 24 to TXX-6236
| |
| . February 13, 1987 ,
| |
| Page 170 of 187 )
| |
| l IMPELL CORPORATION
| |
| ,- REPORT APPROVAL COVER SHEET i ,
| |
| Client: TDI Owner's Group (DUKE /TUGCO)
| |
| Project: Comanche' Peak TDI Diesel Generators Job No.: 0630-083-1642
| |
| , Report
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| Auxiliary Sub-Base and Oil and Water Piping -
| |
| Lube 011 Pipe / Fittings (Small Bore Scope Only) i Component Part No. 02-717F Report Number: 02-0630-1368 Rev. No.: 0 The work described in this Report was performed in accordance with the Impell Corporation Quality Assurance Program. The signatures below verify the accuracy of this Report and its compliance with applicable i
| |
| quality assurance requirements.
| |
| Prepared By: % 5 , Date: I f4 Reviewed By: / Da'te: Ido/d Approved By: /6
| |
| { Date: /c)ftP9A Concurrence By: M Date: /8//5/N Regional (uality Assurance Manager REVISION RECORD 4
| |
| REY. PREPARED 1 REVIEWED APPROVED l CONCURRENCE l APPROVAL lREVISIONI j l l i I
| |
| ^ I i l i I I I I I I l
| |
| I I I I I l l l l l l l l I I I I i I I I I l ,
| |
| I I l 1 I I I I I I I -1 I I l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l l 1 1 I I I I I I 1
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 24 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 171 of 187 SUPPLEMENT 1 TOI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 Auxiliary Sub-Base and Oil and Water Piping Lube Oil: Pipe / Fittings (Small Bore Scope Only)
| |
| . Component Part No. 02-717F I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this supplement is to summarize the evaluation performed to justify eliminating the recomended modifications as stated in the original report.
| |
| The auxiliary sub-base lube oil piping and tubing provides draining
| |
| ~
| |
| and venting capabfif ties for various equipment.
| |
| As a result of the original evaluation (Ref.1), modifications were recomended in order to satisfy the existing design criteria (Ref.
| |
| 2). It was recommended to add two-way supports te the tubing, such that spans between supports were limited to a maximum of 4 feet 6 inches for 1/4 inch tubing and 5 feet 6 inches for 3/8 inch tubing.
| |
| II. METHODOLOGY 1
| |
| In the original evaluation, conservative maximum span lengths were developed for the tubing. These span lengths were based on a stress criteria to satisfy code allowables for dead weight and seismic loads. The seismic loads were based upon the seismic response spectra provided in Reference 3. For this evaluation reduced seismic response spectra (Ref. 4), developed in accordance with ASME Code Case N-411, were utilized to reduce the seismic loading and thereby increase the maximias allowable span. If the maximum existing tubing span still did not meet the increased allowable span criteria, a rigorous computer analysis was perfonned to show that the tubing stress is within code allowables. This rigorous analysis incorporated the existing tubing and support configuration. The evaluation criteria utilized for this evaluation is presented in Reference 5.
| |
| Note that a large number of tubing runs exceeded the newly developed maximum span criteria. Therefore, rather than performing rigorous analyses for all these tubing runs, a representative sampling (approximately 35 percent) was chosen. The tubing runs that were not rigorously analyzed were then qualified based on the results of the sampling which was analyzed.
| |
| L__ _____ _ - _ __- - - - - - - - - - " ~ ~ ~ '
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 24 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 172 of 187 III. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
| |
| (
| |
| t Based on this evaluation (Ref. 6), the auxiliary sub-base lube oil tubing has been found to be acceptable without modification. Based ,
| |
| on rigorous computer analysis of a representative sampling of tubing runs, stress levels are below code allowables (maximum stress ratio of approximately 0.96 utilizing conservative local stress concentration factors). Support loads are lower than those approved in the original evaluation.
| |
| The auxiliary sub-base lube oil tubing, as designed and installed by Transamerica Delaval, Inc., is adequate to perform its intended design function.
| |
| e 9
| |
| we l
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 24 to TXX-6236
| |
| * February 13, 1987 Page 173 of 187 IV.. REFERENCES
| |
| ( l. Stone & Webster Calculation 11600.60 - NP(B) - 1001 - XH -
| |
| : 2. " Engineering Review Criteria Document for the Design Review of TDI Diesel Small Bore Piping, Tubing and Supports for the TDI Owner's Group *, Report No, 11600.60-0C-02, Rev. O.
| |
| : 3. Gibbs & Hill Safeguards Building Response Spectra, FSB-2R.
| |
| : 4. Gibbs & Hill Letter No. GTN-71355, dated March 28, 1986.
| |
| (Transmittal of seismic response spectra curves, developed in accordance with ASME Code Case N-411, for the Safeguards Building).
| |
| : 5. " Design Criteria for Small Bore Piping, Tubing and Supports for Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators". Impell Report No.
| |
| 02-0630-1344, Rev. O, May 1986.
| |
| : 6. " Tubing Qualification", Impell Calculation No. 0630-083-C-003, Rev. O. ,
| |
| O a
| |
| Y
| |
| , I ,
| |
| i E s
| |
| e 4
| |
| f
| |
| . ,. - , . . , .- , - -- ~,. - . . , . , , ,
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 25 to TXX-6236 February 130 1987 Page 174 of 187 ATTACHMENT-1 ITEM-25 I
| |
| l 1
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 25 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 175 of 187 1
| |
| l l' \
| |
| SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 Auxiliary Sub-Base and Oil and Water Piping Lube Oil
| |
| ~
| |
| Supports and Mounting Hardware (Small Bore Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-717I l
| |
| Prepared By:
| |
| Impell Corporation 225 Broad Hollow Road Melville, N. Y.11747 Report No. 02-0630-1369 Revision 0 Job No. 0630-083-1642 May, 1986
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 25 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 176 of 187 IMPELL CORPORATION REPORT APPROVAL COVER SHEET Client: TDI Owner's Group (DUKE /TUGCO)
| |
| . Project: Comanche Peak TDI Diesel Generators i
| |
| Job No.: 0630-083-1642 .
| |
| Report
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| Auxiliary Sub-Base and Oil and Water Piping - Lube Oil
| |
| ~
| |
| Supports and Mounting Hardware (Small Bore Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-717I Report Number: 02-0630-1369 Rev. No.: 0 -
| |
| 1 :
| |
| 4 The wcrk described in this Report was performed in accordance with the Impell Corporation Quality Assurance Program. The signatures below i
| |
| verify the accuracy of this Report and its compliance with applicable i quality assurance equirements.
| |
| Prepared By: by , Date: 6 8!84 i Reviewed By: A , Date: 6/3.//f Approved By: /d Date: /vde//G, Concurrence By: [. Md Date: /0//S[ss Regional Quality Assurance Manager
| |
| , REVISION RECORD REY. PREPARED- REVIEWED APPROVED CONCURRENCE
| |
| ' APPROVAL lREVISIONI l
| |
| I I l l l l 1 I I I
| |
| )
| |
| I
| |
| ! I I I I I l l l l l I I I I I I l !
| |
| I I l l I I I I
| |
| ! l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5 l I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I i
| |
| . , . . - ~ - - . _ _ _ . - , .- , _ _ . - - _ - ~ , . - . . _ . - _- , . . _ . . _ . . _ . - . _ _
| |
| .____.._....,__.._,____..__.__---___.[
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 25 to.TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 177 of 187 SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 Auxiliary Sub-Base and Oil and Water Piping Lube Oil Supp(orts Small and BoreMounting Hardware Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-717I I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this supplement is to summarize the evaluation performed to justify eliminating the recommended modifications as stated in the original report.
| |
| The auxiliary sub-base lube oil supports provide restraint for the Component 02-717F small bore piping and tubing.
| |
| As a result of the original evaluation (Ref.1), modifications were recommended in order to satisfy the existing evaluation criteria (Ref. 2). It was recomended to remove supports ST-PSR-10733 and ST-PSR-10738 and add two-way lateral supports in their place. The main reason for these modifications is inadequate restraint capabilities.
| |
| II. METHODOLOGY As the recommended modifications were a result of support function rather than exceeding a stress or load criteria, the supports will simply be re-examined for their restraint capabilities.
| |
| | |
| Attach, 1, Item 25 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 178 of 187 III. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Based on this evaluation (Reference 3), the auxiliary sub-base lube oil supports are acceptable with minor modification. Support ST-PSR-10733 consists of a 1/2 inch tubing clamp which restrains two 1/4 inch diameter tubing (see Figure 1). The 1/2 inch tube clamp has a 1/4" opening, where, during a seismic event, one or both of the tubes could escape. Therefore it is recommended to replace the 1/2 inch clamp with two 1/4 inch tube clamps. Support ST-PSR-10738 consists of a 1/32 inch thick strap surrounding a 3x3 tube steel and 3
| |
| two 1/4 inch diameter tubes (see Figure 2). This type of restraint is inadequate in the event of a seismic condition due to its one ,
| |
| directional lateral restraint. Therefore it is recommended to
| |
| '~ remove the existing strap and replace it with two 1/4 inch tube clamps.
| |
| The auxiliary sub-base lube oil supports as designed and installed by Transamerica Delaval, Inc., are adequate to perform their intended design function providing the modifications recommended above are implemented.
| |
| i F
| |
| 1 I
| |
| 1
| |
| \
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 25 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 179 of 187 IV. REFERENCES
| |
| : 1. Stone & Webster Calculations 11600.60 - NP(B) - 1010 - ZB 11600.60 - NP(8) - 1030 - ZB
| |
| : 2. " Engineering Review Criteria Document for the Design Review of TDI Diesel Small Bore Piping, Tubing and Supports for the TDI Owner's Group", SWEC Report No. 11600.60-0C-02, Rev. O.
| |
| : 3. " Evaluation of Tube Supports - Components 02-717I, 02-695A, 02-316C", Impell Calculation No. 0630-083-C-012, Rev. O.
| |
| O s"
| |
| 9
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 25 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 180 of 187
| |
| : n. SUPPORT ST-PSR-10733
| |
| .Y7.". Tu eE clam '
| |
| (EXIST)
| |
| . 2) /' 4"DIA. TUBES Il
| |
| =
| |
| g - -
| |
| /
| |
| ' SKID
| |
| . FRAMINQ,
| |
| ~
| |
| ~~ [LEVATION bdoTits:
| |
| 1- T.EFEEuAXE Dug, TS loot A-sT-lo?a5 2.- REMOVE EXIST /NQ YL" TUBE
| |
| ~~' ~ CL ANP AND REPL ACE WITH
| |
| ~
| |
| ^" 7WO P2.006 '/4" 770BE Cl AHftr.
| |
| ' D/?/Lt. AAID TAP NEW V4" BOL.T /NTO SKID /~RAMINQ
| |
| ~~~ AS REQ'p, FIGURE 1
| |
| -- .. -~- , ..
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 25 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 181 of 187 4
| |
| ( SUPPORT ST-PSR-10738 NNNNNNNNNNNNNN
| |
| \
| |
| \
| |
| >\ [g .
| |
| N \
| |
| \ \
| |
| N \
| |
| \ av.isr: s = ST.S.
| |
| s N
| |
| : N N l s -
| |
| N N \
| |
| N N NNNNNNNNNNNNNN\
| |
| l (4 '/4 eta.,use.s
| |
| , PLN V tw kJoTv.5:
| |
| I- EEFElitID4CK pq "T%- lCucI A- ST'- i 10756.
| |
| 2- REMOVE EX/ STING '/32." STRAP AND REPLACE WITH TWO P2006 %"
| |
| TUBE CLAMPS. DR/LL MND TAP
| |
| '/4" BOLT INTO 3x 3 TS. AS REQ'O.
| |
| FIGURE 2 i
| |
| 4
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 26 to TXX-6236 February 130 1987 Page 182 of 187 ATTACHMENT-1 4
| |
| ITEM-26
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, item 26 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 183 of 187 SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 REVISION 1 Exhaust Manifold Piping (Large Bore Scope Only) i Component Part No. 02-380A Performed By:
| |
| Duke Power Company Management and Technical Services October 31, 1985
| |
| _._._m_ ._-,, _ _ _ _ , , . , , , , , _ _ , , , . . - .
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 26*to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 184 of 187 SUPPLEMENT 1 TDI OWNERS GROUP COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 Revision 1 Exhaust Manifold Piping (Large Bore Scope Only)
| |
| Component Part No. 02-380A i
| |
| I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this supplement is to summarize the evaluation performed to justify eliminating the recommended modifications as stated in the original report.
| |
| The exhaust manifold piping contains a sliding span of pipe with a slip joint at each end. These slip joints allow movement along the pipa axis. As stated in the o'riginal calculation (Reference No. 1), in a linear elastic analysis using simplified boundary conditions, this type of component is unstable. Therefore, the original report recommended replacing one slip joint at the end of the sliding. spans with a slip-on flange in order to analyze the manifold using normal linear elastic ~ i analysis methods. The prese~nt exhaust manifold was not shewn to be i deficient in the original analysis. I II. METHODOLOGY The effects of dead weight loads and thermal movements on the sliding span of pipe were e. valuated using conventional techniques (Reference No.
| |
| 2.
| |
| 'ev)aluated.To account for the seismic loading, several bounding cases were These cases were developed using the sections of pipe connecting to each end of the sliding span. Each section was analyzed with and without the weight of sliding span lumped at the end (see Figures 1 and 2).
| |
| It is expected that friction from the seals in the slip joints will provide sufficient force (approximately 142 lb.) to move the sliding span along with the adjoining pipe during a seismic event while allowing relative thermal movements. The seismic displacements and rotations at the slip joint are negligible (displacements approximately .1 inches, rotations approximately .015 radians). Even if the friction force is inadequate to keep the sliding span moving with the adjoining pipe sections, restraining devices are provided to prevent separation of exhaust piping. The gap associated with the slip joint at both normal operating and ambient temperatures is much larger than the total relative movements of the adjacent piping. Therefore, no significant impact between the sliding span and adjacent piping will occur.
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1 0 Item 26 to_TXX-6236
| |
| - February 13, 1987 Page 185 of 187
| |
| , III. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Based on this evaluation (Reference No. 2), the exhaust manifold piping has been found to be acceptable without modification. All stress levels remain well below code allowables (maximum stress ratio of approximately 0.4). Nozzle loads are not significantly increased from.those approved in the original calculation. Relative movements at the slip joints are very small and the restraining devices are adequate to prevent any lock up or separation of the exhaust piping.
| |
| The exhaust manifold piping as designed and installed by Transamerica Delaval, Inc. is adequate to perform its intended design function.
| |
| +
| |
| l I
| |
| l I
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| Attach. 1, Item 26 to TXX-6236
| |
| ; February 13, 1987 t
| |
| Page 186 of 187 i
| |
| IV. . REFERENCES )
| |
| 1.
| |
| " Supporting Calculations for the Evaluation of Comanche Peak Diesel Generator Large Diameter Piping and Supports," Impell Report No.
| |
| 02-0630-1230, Rev. O, August, 1984. Calculation No. CP-EM-001, 2.
| |
| " Qualification of the Diesel Generator Exhaust Manifold Assembly,"
| |
| Duke Power Company, Calculation No. CNC-1206.02-50-0001, Rev. O.
| |
| 3.
| |
| " Supporting Calculations for the Evaluation of Catawba Generator Skid Mounted large Diameter Piping and Supports," - Impell Report 1 No. 02-0630-1251, Rev. O, September, 1984 Calculation No.
| |
| CA-EM-001.
| |
| I i
| |
| l i
| |
| e l
| |
| 1 1
| |
| -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - __ ---]
| |
| | |
| Attach 1, Item 26 to TXX-6236 February 13, 1987 Page 187 of 187 FIGURE 1 EXHAUST MANIFOLD PIPING SLIP JOINTS SLIP ) IOINT j TURBO-7 ' CHARGER
| |
| / ' -
| |
| CONN.
| |
| n SLIDING SPAN O O O O O
| |
| O o O O O CYLINDER CONN l
| |
| FTGURE 2 SLIP JOIN 1 CONFIGURATION j CAPSCREW
| |
| ; r,
| |
| _ ;;;;;;;& 7_ ------ .
| |
| 1 1 L,' _ >
| |
| I FLOW ---
| |
| y__
| |
| m 1 7/8 MAX
| |
| ~-ne, , , , - , -
| |
| --w-}}
| |
