ML18054B120

Forwards Rev 1 to Criteria for Determining Justification for Continued Operation When Encountering Discrepancies in 'As-Built' Safety-Related Piping, Per 891113 Ltr & IE Bulletin 79-14

ML18054B120
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	11/22/1989
From:	Frisch R CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
IEB-79-14, NUDOCS 8911270088
Download: ML18054B120 (11)

Text

I "

consumers Power POWERINli NllCHlliAN'S PRDliRESS General Offices: 1945 West Parnell Road, Jackson, Ml 49201 * (517) 788-0550 November 22, 1989 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 DOCKET 50-255 - LICENSE DPR PALISADES PLANT -

INTERIM OPERATING CRITERIA FOR IE BULLETIN 79-14 REVERIFICATION - REVISION 1 By letter dated November 13, 1989, Consumers Power Company submitted Interim Operating Criteria for resolution of deficiencies found during IE Bulletin 79-14 reverification efforts for NRC review and approval. Subsequent teleconferences between respective members of our staffs have necessitated clarification of the criteria. The Attachment contains the revisions to the criteria as discussed with the NRC staff. Changes are identified by vertical lines in the margins. The entire document is marked as Revision 1 which supersedes the prev~ous Interim Operating Criteria submittal.

<i<~~9f~L Ralph R Frisch Staff Licensing Engineer CC Administrator, Region III, USNRC NRC Resident Inspector - Palisades Attachment 8911270088 891122 PDR G!

ADOCK n~onn?~~

- *- - - F=*[i{: -

OC1189-0010F-NL02 Jtll

'\ \

ATTACHMENT Consumers Power Company Palisades Plant Docket 50-255 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING JUSTIFICATION FOR CONTINUED OPERATION WHEN ENCOUNTERING DISCREPANCIES IN "AS-BUILT" SAFETY-RELATED PIPING REVISION 1 November 22, 1989 9 Pages 0Cll89-0010B-NL02

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING JUSTIFICATION FOR CONTINUED OPERATION WHEN ENCOUNTERING DISCREPANCIES IN "AS-BUILT" SAFETY-RELATED PIPING REVISION 1 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY PALISADES PLANT OC1189-0010B-NL02

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

& SCOPE 1 2.0 CRITERIA . 1

3.0 CONCLUSION

6

4.0 REFERENCES

• 7 OC1189-0010B-NL02 Revision 1

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND SCOPE These criteria a~e intended to provide the operability determination requirements for safety-related piping and associated supports if it is determined that stresses exceed allowables presented in the Palisades Plant Updated FSAR (Reference 1). These criteria permit operation for an interim period only. Modifications will be made which return the system to within FSAR allowables.

These criteria are intended to be used to expeditiously perform necessary evaluations to determine interim operability and not to delay appropriate actions.

2.0 CRITERIA 2.1 Piping bperability Criteria The piping analysis shall be in accordance with ANSI B31.l, 1973 Edition (Reference 2) with the load combination stress limit defined below. The 1973 Edition of ANSI B31.i is judged to be a comprehensive and updated consolidation of all of the requirements of earlier editions of B31.l used at Palisades. This edition constitutes use of a single reference encompassing all licensing requirements and is compatible with current computer software used by Consumers Power Company. The design loading conditions-to be applied in the analysis shall include the Safe Shutdown Earthquake.

OC1189-0010B-NL02 Revision 1

2 Following are the pipe stress criteria for justifying continued operation of the plant:

(Ref. 2 Equation 11)

And

[SLP + SWT + SSSE ~ 2.0 Sy) (Ref. 2 Equation 12)

Where: s1 P Longitudinal Pressure Stress SWT Dead Weight Stress SSSE Stresses Resulting From Safe Shutdown Earthquake Sy Material Yield Stress (Reference 3 Appendices)

Code Case N-411 allows for increased damping values, independent of pipe diameter, for seismic analysis. Therefore, increased damping values, in accordance with Reference 4, will be acceptable when performing these analyses to meet operability. If the piping stress analysis exceed the value of 2.0. Sy , or pipe supports do not meet their operable limits (see Sect. 2.2), then additional iterative analysis of the piping may be required. The iterative analysis may OC1189-0010B-NL02 Revision 1

3 use the knowledge that a support is not capable of with~tanding the loads, and can be removed from the analysis. Where feasible, the I actual support stiffness may be included in the iterative analysis, I along with other refinements. The Code Case N-411 analysis will be I an alternative analysis procedure to that of the original piping seismic design methodology. Analysis employing Code Case N-411 will be performed based upon the requirement of US NRC Regulatory Guide 1.84, Rev. 26. (Reference 5)

I

• 2.2 Pipe Support & Hanger Operability Criteria As a first step in evaluating the support, a linear elastic analysis method will be used to determine the stress and forces in the support members. In addition to the loading in Section 2.1, the support loads must include pipe thermal loads, results of free end thermal displacement and anchor motion. The stresses and forces calculated for each support member shall be compared with the allowables in the FSAR, Chapter 5.10.1.2 criteria for the SSE (Reference 1) combination except as modified below.

OC1189-0010B-NL02 Revision 1

4 A. Structural Steel Tension Ft= l.20sy'but

< 0.70 Su Bending Fb = 1.20 Sy but

< 0.70 Su Shear Fv = 0.72 SY but

< 0.42 Su Compression In accordance with the FSAR I Combined Stress *For axial compression and bending or axial tension and bending, use AISC Paragraph 1.6., (Ref. 6)

Weld Stress In accordance with the FSAR I B. Anchor Bolts Use Factor of Safety of 2 against ultimate tension and shear values.

OC1189-00108-NL02 Revision 1

5 C. Snubbers Hydraulic: Load < manufacturers one time load capacity.

Movement < total travel D. Springs Load within catalog range without bottoming out E. All remaining Catalog Items (eg, struts) I The maximum of the following:

1. Manufacturer's published faulted load rating.

?. When faulted allowables are not given and the factor of safety is specified in the catalog for the normal operating allowable, a design allowable shall be scaled to a safety factor of 2.

I

3. When test data is available, the design allowable shall have /

a safety factor of 2.0.

4. For a simple component item where an analysis can be per- /

formed, the allowable shall be the lesser of 0.5 of the /

ultimate stress or strength, or 1.2 times the yield stress. /

OC1189-00108-NL02 Revision 1

6 .

Where: Ft =Allowable Tensile Stress Fb = Allowable Bending Stress Fv = Allowable Shear Stress Sy = Specified Minimum Yield Stress at Temperature I

Su = Specified Minimum Tensile Stress at Temperature FS = Factor of Safety I

I If a support fails using the linear elastic method, then a more refined analysis may be performed using plastic analysis techniques.

The plastic analysis will follow the design rules of AS-ME Section' III, Appendix F, (Ref. 3). No strain criteria will be employed in these /

analyses. I 3 .0 CONCLUSION If the above criteria cannot be met, reportability per 10 CFR 50 must be evaluated and system operability requirements per Plant Technical Specifications must be evaluated and appropriate actions taken.

OC1189-0010B-NL02 Revision 1

7

4.0 REFERENCES

1. *Palisades Plant Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.

2. ANSI B31.l, 1973 Power Piping Code.

3. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Codes,Section III, 1983 Edition, through Winter 1985 Addenda.

4. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Codes, Case N-411, Dated 9/17/84.

5. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 1.84, Design and Fabrication Acceptability, ASME Section III, Division 1, July 1989, Rev. 26.

6. "Manual of Steel Construction.", American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Seventh Edition, 1980.

OC1189-0010B-NL02 Revision 1