ML20205M853
| ML20205M853 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 04/11/1986 |
| From: | Schimmels J COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., SARGENT & LUNDY, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205M802 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8604150404 | |
| Download: ML20205M853 (37) | |
Text
- . ._ - - -. . .. . . - . _ -
- April 11, _1986
?ELATQq \'
MVOhv UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS$gN tf[() l l BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LIGENSIN BEARD 9 75 -
In the Matter of ) 4 "a
- /'
/
}
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-456
) 50-457 (Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2) )
i TESTIMONY OF JOHN N. SCHIMMELS *
(Q.A. SUBCONTENTION 10.B.)
(Material Traceability) -
i Q.l. Please state your full name for the record.
A.l. John N. Schimmels t
i O.2. Who is your employer and what is your occupation? )
i A.2. I am employed by Sargent & Lundy Engineers (S&L) located !
l at 55 East Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois. I am a Mechanical Project Engineer in the Project Management and-Engineering Division of S&L's Mechanical Department.
Q.3. Please describe your educational background and work.
experience.
A.3. I hold a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering 1
(BSME) from Marquette University (1970) and a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering (MSME) from the Naval I
Postgraduate School (1971). I served.as a Commissioned i
8604150404 860411 PDR ADOCK 05000456 4 T PDR ..
.m
- a Officer in the U.S. Navy from 1970 to April, 1977. For reflect their relative importance to safety are defined in accordance with licensee commitments to the NRC.
Class 1 is considered the most rigorous classification and is ascribed to systems which directly maintain the reactor coolant pressure boundary and extensions thereof. Class 2 is the next classification level and is generally applied to systems essential for maintenance of required core cooling and primary containment pressure integrity. Class 3 is the lowest ASME Section III classification and is l
generally applied to systems such as equipment cooling systems, which support the other two categories of ASME systems.
Q.10. Why were the 145 items removed from their install locations at Braidwood?
l A.10. In conjunction with the MTV Program, PGCo issued a number l l
of Nonconformance Reports (NCRs). Eighty-four (84) of j these NCRs were dispositioned by removing the 145 piping items due to a lack of documented material traceability.
These 145 cut-out items were evaluated by S&L for potential design significance by determining whether the items met ASME Code design rcquirements and whether the )
items would have been adequate.to perform their intended safety function had they not been removed.
>
- Q.11. Please describe the elements of your design significant evaluation.
A.ll. My design significance evaluation consisted of three phases. In Phase I, data was compiled for each piping item to evaluate it for correctness of critical attributes required by the designer during installation. In Phase II, piping analysis stresses were identified at the installed locations of the cut-out items to determine the design margin available as compared with ASME Code allowable stresses. In Phase III, a detailed chemical examination of the material properties of the cut-out items was conducted, where required, to provide assurance that the material met the requirements of the ASME/ ASTM chemical composition specifications called-out for the particular items tested. As an additional measure, some of the cut-out items were tested in Phase III to determine mechanical properties, such as tensile strength, yield strength and percent elongation. :
l i
1 1
0.12. What was your involvement in the evaluation of the 145 i cut-out items? )
A.12. As S&L's on-site Mechanical Engineering Coordinator, all S&L activities required to be performed to support the design significance evaluation of these cut-out items were performed by me or under my direction.
l l
i
'
- l During the Phase I evaluations, I established the engineering data collection requirements necessary to assess the cut-out items' design conformance. I also performed a large number of the actual examinations of the cut-out items to collect the engineering data required to establish their conformance to applicable S&L design specifications. In addition, I-performed much of the Phase I engineering evaluation of the data collected to determine whether the S&L design requirements for a given cut-out item were met. For the nine items that were found 1 in Phase I to deviate slightly from S&L design requirements, I directed the evaluation to assess whether ASME Code design requirements were met.
a For all three Phases of the evaluation, I correlated the results into an integrated study and formulated the conclusions of the evaluation. I authored S&L Report No.
BRF-PMD-01, dated November 13, 1985, entitled " Design Significance Evaluation of Braidwood Material Traceability Verification Program Cut-Out Items" which documents these l conclusions.
a Q.13. What was the purpose of the Phase I Evaluation?
A.13. The basic purpose of Phase I was to determine whether, from a physical inspection of the item, it could be
1 determined that the correct material had been installed, regardless of the material's apparent traceability shortcomings.
Q.14. Please describe the manner in which Phase I was conducted.
A.14. As the PGCo NCR's and associated cut-out items were identified, S&L compiled applicable piping design information for the cut-out items. This consisted primarily of a Piping and Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID's), piping physical drawings, and Piping Design Tables (PDT's). These design documents identified the piping nominal size, ASME material specification, pipe schedule or pressure rating and ASME Code classification for systems associated with each cut-out item. From these documents, S&L established the critical design attributes for each cut-out item requiring verification. For pipe and pipe fittings, this included nominal size, wall l
thickness or. pressure' rating, and material type. For l 1
radiographic access plugs, this included material and l l
dimensional conformance to the applicable Pipe Fabrication l Institute (PFI) Standard ES-16, " Access Holes and Plugs for Radiographic Inspection of Pipe Welds." For pipe welded attachments, this included dimensional conformance l l to design requirements and materials. For all items, l
i i
- 1 marking of any type, with the method of marking identified, was required to be recorded.
S&L then examined each cut-out item to obtain the engineering data required to verify the established critical design attributes. Marking on the items identified to be manufacturer's mill markings was recorded for confirmation of attributes such as pipe schedule / pressure rating, ASME/ ASTM material specification and size. For items which did not exhibit manufacturer's material markings, wall thickness determinations were obtained using calibrated digital thickness measurement (DTM) instruments or calibrated micrometers. In addition, a magnetic determination was made to generally establish t whether the item was either carbon steel or stainless steel. ;
l Once all engineering data was collected, S&L ascertained whether the items met S&L design requirements. Any item failing to comply with S&L design specifications was further evaluated to ascertain whether ASME Code design requirements were met.
Q.15. What were the results of the Phase I evaluation?
4
- ,, , , , , - ,~ w . - ,
. .- A.15. Thirty-two of 145 cut-out items met all S&L critical design attributes and they required no further verification to establish design conformance. The remaining 113 items required further evaluation under 4
Phases II and III. However, 101 of these items met all S&L critical design attributes with the exception of material type, which could not be confirmed due to lack of manufacturer's material marking. -Nine cut-out items varied from these requirements in minor ways. Three items could not be evaluated under Phase I because they had been lost.
Q.16. What is the purpose of the Phase II evaluation?
A.16. The Phase II evaluation was conducted to determine a piping stress ratio for each cut-out item which would serve as an indicator of the level of performance expected
] of the cut-out item had it not been removed. In addition, t
. if considerable margin were found-to exist between an-item's calculated piping stress and the ASME Code allowable stress, an engineering determination could be made that it was unnecessary to precisely determine the item's mechanical properties (tensile strength and yield strength). In this situation,Jmechanical properties could not reasonably vary to an extent necessary to be i
significant in the determination of the cut-out item's i
i
1
. . i l
l five of these years I was assigned to the U.S. Navy Nuclear Power Program, which included service in the engineering department of an operating nuclear powered submarine and as an instructor of nuclear plant operators at one of the Navy's prototype nuclear plants in Idaho Falls, Idaho.
i I have been employed by S&L in the Project Management and Engineering Division since 1977. My responsibilities have included the management and/or performance of various aspects of mechanical system design, mechanical equipment specification and evaluation work, and coordination of piping analysis and support design work on several major power plant projects. I am a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Illinois.
Q.4. What is your connection with the Braidwood Project?
A.4. Sargent and Lundy is the architect engineer for Commonwealth Edison's (CECO's) Braidwood Project. Since December, 1982, I have been assigned to the S&L on-site Braidwood Project Team, and I am presently serving as the Mechanical Engineering Coordinator. In this capacity, I am responsible for the activities of approximately 350 S&L on-site engineers and designers at.Braidwood. I have responsibility for planning and overall coordination of
. . on-site mechanical engineering activities, including resolution of mechanical engineering-related field problems and small bore piping analysis and support design activities.
Q.5. What is the purpose of your testimony?
A.5. My testimony addresses one aspect of Intervenors' quality assurance subcontention 10.B. This matter concerns piping
- material controls at Braidwood. Briefly, subcontention 10.B. is based on an unresolved item identified by the NRC Staff as a result of inspections conducted during 1983 and 1984. The NRC Staff questioned the traceability and acceptability of certain piping materials installed by Phillips Getschow company, (PGCo), the mechanical contractor at Braidwood. A 100% reinspection of this installed pipe was conducted by CECO under the Braidwood Material Traceability Verification (MTV) Program. One result of the MTV Program was that 145 of the 25,815
! piping items re-examined were cut out and replaced. My testimony concerns the design significance evaluation that was conducted of these 145 items.
Q.6. What is a " design significance evaluation"?
A.6. A design significant condition represents a departure from applicable ASME Code design requirements. An evaluation of 145 cut-out items for the existence of this condition, if found not to exist, gives assurance that all safety-related functions could have been performed within ASME Code design limits under design loadings and conditions.
Q.7. Please describe the 145 items that were the subject of your evaluation.
l l
A.7. The 145 piping items included a variety of different types of ASME Class 1, 2 and 3 manufactured piping products l that, when assembled, make up an ASME piping system. l These manufactured products are basically categorized as pipe, pipe fittings, radiographic access plugs and piping welded attachments. Mr. O'Connor's testimony describes what a piping item is under the MTV Program. These 145 I
cut-out items include:
- 53 piping items comprising approximately 134 feet, 2 inches of small bore piping pieces (i.e., 2-inch and less nominal pipe size)
- 37 piping items comprising approximately 80 feet, 9 inches, of 3 and 4 inch nominal diameter piping pieces
-- .~ ee g.y - +
e . _ 11 _
f
- 10 items comprising'approximately 15 feet, 6 inches of large bore piping pieces (i.e., larger than 4-inch nominal pipe size)
- 19 small bore pipe fittings
- 19 l-inch radiographic access plugs
(
- 7 welded piping attachments Q.8. How many of the piping items were classified as ASME l Class l?
A.8. Eight piping items were ASME Class 1. Seven of the eight ASME Class 1 cut-out items were one-inch diameter
- radiographic access plugs. The remaining ASME Class 1 item was a section of 2-inch nominal diameter, Schedule 160 stainless steel pipe, approximately 45-inches long.
The remaining 137 piping items consisted of 73 Class 2 items and 64 Class 3 items.
0.9. What is the significance of the three ASME piping classifications?
A.9. These three ASME piping classifications are used to categorize the relative importance of plant piping systems covered under Section III of the ASME Code. -The required classifications for the various plant piping systems which
=
- A.15. Thirty-two of 145 cut-out items met all S&L critical design attributes and they required no further verification to establish design conformance. The remaining 113 items required further evaluation under Phases II and III. However, 101 of these items met all i S&L critical design attributes with the exception of material type, which could not be confirmed due to lack of manufacturer's material marking. Nine cut-out items varied from these requirements in minor ways. Three items could not be evaluated under Phase I because they had been lost.
Q.16. What is the purpose of the Phase II evaluation?
l A.16. The Phase II evaluation was conducted to determine a piping stress ratio for each cut-out item which would serve as an indicator of the level of performance expected of the cut-out item had it not been removed. In addition, i if considerable margin were found to exist between an item's calculated piping stress and the ASME Code allowable stress, an engineering determination could be made that it was unnecessary to precisely determine the item's mechanical properties (tensile strength and yield strength). In this situation, mechanical properties could not reasonably vary to an extent necessary to be significant in the determination of the cut-out item's
adequacy. Therefore, confirmation of the item's correct chemical composition alone would provide sufficient assurance that the item conformed to S&L material specifications.
Q.17. Please describe the manner in which Phase II was conducted.
A.17. Phase II included a review of the analyzed piping stresses in the regions where each cut-out item had been installed.
Generally, the piping stresses for each cut-out item were extracted from an associated piping analysis and reflect the highest theoretical stress levels that could be achieved during design-basis events, as determined by ASME Code stress equations. In some cases, a simplified analysis was used. These stress values are very conservative, because appreciably lower stress values could have been calculated in many cases, particularly for the piping systems subject to simplified analysis by using analytical input more specific (less enveloping or encompassing) for the individual piping regions of Concern.
Q.18. How were the stresses determined for the 145 items?
A.18. In general, the stresses for the 145 items were extracted from applicable piping analysis stress reports which had been previously completed for the Braidwood piping systems of concern. The piping analysis stress reports contain detailed piping stress information for the various node points which form a computer model of the piping system.
)
For ASME Class 2 and 3 systems (which excludes the 8 Class 1 cut-out items) . ASME Code Section III, Division I, sub-sections NC-3650 and ND-3650 define the piping stress conditions which must be satis'fied. These conditions are embodied in a set of Code equations, commonly referred to as Equations 8, 9, 10, & 11, which j
establish the stress limits for sustained loads, occasional loads such as imposed by seismic events, and thermal loads. The allowable stresses that are calculated are based on the condition specified in each of the Code equations.
One piping item was Class 1, 2-inch pipe. The stress analysis requirements for this item are somewhat more involved. For ASME Class I piping, a somewhat different set of Code equations are applicable as defined by ASME Code Section III, Division I, sub-section NB-3650. These equations, commonly referred to as NB Equations 8 through
14 were used to calculate the allowable stresses for this item.
In general, the piping stresses for the 145 cut-out items were extracted from piping stress analyses previously performed using either an S&L-developed computer program, called PIPSYS, which is a completely validated and NRC benchmarked computer program; a Westinghouse computer l
program similar to PIPSYS, called WESDYN, or an S&L-Simplified Analysis. These analyses for determining piping stresses were used to determine whether the Code stress equations were met. All but 36 of the 145 cut-out items were located in piping systems analyzed by using either PIPSYS or WESDYN methods, which are detailed analyses form which specific piping stress levels are generated.
Thirty-six items were included in piping systems which were analyzed by Simplified Analysis. The Simplified Analysis method refers to an S&L developed computer program, called SMLBOR, which conservatively envelopes the piping design considerations for 2-inch and smaller piping. The SMLBOR program applies S&L developed
" cookbook' rules, which ensure that the piping is I
maintained within ASME Code allowable stress limits.
Specific stress levels are not developed by this program.
, . --+
To determine maximum stress levels for these items, two approaches were taken.
First, if the cut-out was such that a stress intensification factor of 1.0 would have applied per the Code, as is the case for straight pipe, then maximum stresses, if calculated, would be less than 50% of the Code allowable stresses. This is based on the fact that the SMLBOR program incorporates a stress intensification factor of 2.1 throughout the piping system. Thus, a 2.1 l
to 1.0 minimum margin is established for these items.
This represents less than 50% of Code allowable stresses.
Second, if the cut-out item was such that a higher stress i
intensification factor, that is, greater than 1.0, was applicable, hand calculations were performed to determine stress levels.
Finally, all 19 radiographic access plugs, including the 7 ASME Class 1 radiographic access plugs, were generically evaluated for stress levels.
Q.19. What were the results of the Phase II evaluation?
A.19. Under Phase II, 141 of the cut-out items, including all 19 of the radiographic access plugs, (97.2% of the items analyzed) exhibited stress levels less than or equal to
50% of the Code allowable stress. Two items were in the 51-60% range and 2 items were in the 61-70% range. No item was found to have stresses over 66% of the ASME Code
- allowable stresses. The table, which is attached to my testimony as Attachment 10.B. (Schimmels-1), contains a summary of the cut-out items, along with the calculated stress levels.
Q.20. What is the purpose of the Phase III test program?
A.20. The purpose of Phase III was to analyze the material properties of the 113 cut-out items whose material type could not be determined during the Phase I evaluation.
Q.21. Please describe the analyses employed under Phase III.
A.21. In the Phase III analyses, all available cut-out. items for which material type could not be confirmed in Phase I were subjected to analysis of chemical composition. The chemical analyses were performed by Chicago Spectro Service Laboratory in accordance with ASTM A751, " Chemical Analysis of Steel Products." Of the 113 cut-out items in this category, 108 were analyzed. The remaining five cut-out items were lost and are discussed below. In addition, for 16 of the 108 cut-out items which were analyzed, mechanical testing was performed by Taussig
T Associates, Inc., in accordance with ASTM A37D,
" Mechanical Testing of Steel Products."
Q.22. What were the results of the chemical analyses?
A.22. As explained in the testimony of Mr. Reinheimer, the chemical analyses indicated that all of the 108 cut-out items exhibited chemical co'mpositions in accordance with the ASME/ ASTM specifications' required by design.
Additionally, no evidence of any unusual alloying elements was identified. These acceptable chemical analyses were considered to be adequate evidence to demonstrate material specification conformance. This dbnclusion was reached, based on the folloding:
- 1. A survey of ASTM carbon steel and stainless steel piping materials was performed.' From this survey, it was determined,that approximately one dozen carbon steel tubular product ASTM specifications exist to which the chemical composition analysis results could possibly apply. The worst case minimum specified material strength of these possible ASTM specifications represe,nted a 25% reduction in tensile strength and a 1
29% reduction in yield strength <from the as-specified '
condition. For stainless steel items, the chemical analyses could have possibly applied to even fewer ASTM
?
c 1-
materials. For both types specified, TP304 and TP316, the worst case minimum specified material strength of the other possible ASTM specifications represented a 7%
reduction in tensile strength and a 17% reduction in yield strength.
- 2. From the Phase II evaluation, it was determined that large stress margins to Code allowable stresses exist for all the cut-out-item-intended applications. A minimum margin of 34% exists, and 50% or more margin exists in the vast majority of cases.
Given these stress margins, and given the worst case material strength reductions determined from the survey of chemically similar materials, any of these other chemically similar materials would have adequately performed the intended safety function at the location of the cut-out items, had they in fact been inadvertently installed. Thus, the precise determination of material mechanical properties of the cut-out items was not necessary to demonstrate ASME/ ASTM material specification conformance for the purposes of the design significance evaluation.
This assessment is further supported by the fact that, project wide, very few types of carbon steel and' stainless
~
steel piping are specified and very few types of piping have been physically received on the construction site.
Thus, with cut-out item material chemical composition established, it is extremely unlikely that the cut-out items are anything but the as-specified material. An assessment was performed to substantiate this opinion.
This assessment included a survey of ASTM carbon steel or stainless steel piping materials for which the chemical analyses results of Phase III could be applied.
For carbon steel items, among the 108 cut-outs, there existed approximately one dozen carbon steel tubular product ASTM Material Specifications for which the chemical analysis results could have been applied, with the worst case representing a 25% reduction in tensile and a 29% reduction in yield strength that could have been tolerated had such material been installed. For stainless steel items, the chemical analysis results could have applied to even fewer types of stainless steel. For both types specified, TP-304 and TP-316, the worst case represented a 7% reduction in tensile strength and a 17%
reduction i 7 3 ild strength, which, again, could have been readily tale._>cd. Because PGCo uses very few types of carbon steel and stainless steel, it is unlikely that materials other than those considered in the survey of material standards could have been on site. Thus, any of
these materials, even if inadvertently installed, would have been adequate to perform the intended safety function for each cut-out item, that is, maintain pressure boundary integrity given the stresses at its cut-out location.
Q.23. Why were the mechanical tests conducted?
A.23. These tests were performed at the request of the NRC staff to provide them with additional assurance that materials of the cut-out items were as specified. Sixteen of the 108 cut-out items which had been subjected to chemical analysis were subjected to tensile testing. Tensile tests were conducted by Taussig Associates, Inc. in accordance with ASTM A370 to establish yield strength, tensile strength and elongation for each test specimen. The tests found that all test specimens met the tensile test requirements of their applicable ASME/ ASTM specification.
Q.24. Mr. Schimmels, you testified in A.14. that nine cut-out items were found in the Phase I evaluation to vary from S&L specification requirements in minor ways. Please describe how these cut-out items varied from S&L specifications.
A.24. Seven of the nine items were ASME Class 2, 1 inch radiographic access hole plugs. Those plugs, each about the size of your thumb, were used to fill holes in the pipe wall that were made to perform radiography on the
pipe. The plugs are comprised of a round head and a threaded shank. The shank has an unthreaded " neck" region and a threaded lower region. The plugs are threaded into the pipe wall and, once engaged, are welded into place with a 3/8 inch fillet weld.
Although the plugs met S&L's specified thread diameter and thread size, they were found to deviate in minor respects from the specified machined neck dimension and unthreaded region on the plug shank directly below the plug head.
This resulted in a slight reduction of the effective thread engagement of the plug to the pipe wall, i.e., the S&L Specification required 3 full turns of thread whereas the discrepant access plugs had only 1 3/4 - 23 full turns of thread. An engineering evaluation of the discrepant plug dimensions found that for all 7 plugs, pipe pressure boundary integrity would be maintained within acceptable Code allowable stress given existing thread engagement.
In addition, the evaluation indicated that the 3/8 inch fillet weld alone would maintain pressure boundary integrity. Thus, the 7 access plugs were determined to be acceptable for their intended safety function and within ASME design requirements.
The two remaining cut-out items, which varied slightly from S&L specifications were ASME Class _3, 18-inch l
I
. =
diameter pipe stanchions (welded attachments for a pipe support) which were found to have sections of pipe wall slightly below (0.030 inches or 6.1%) manufacturers' minimum mill tolerance. These items were determined to meet ASME design requirements and to be adequate for their intended safety function because S&L's design was based on more restrictive requirements.
Q.25. You testified in A.19. that the Phase II evaluation determined that four of the cut-out items were from piping regions experiencing stress levels between 50% and 70% of ASME Code allowable stresses. Does this pose a concern that these items would not be able to perform their intended safety function?
A.25. No. Two of the four cut-out items are small fittings. In Phase I, both of these fittings were found to carry specified manufacturer's ASME/ ASTM mill markings and fitting ratings, thus providing confidence that the materials were correct. The remaining two items were short spools of pipe, which did not exhibit manufacturers' markings. These two items were chemically analyzed during Phase III and were found to meet the chemical composition of the ASME/ ASTM material specifications required by design. Based on the stress margin available for these.
two items determined in Phase II, it was concluded that material chemical properties alone would adequately demonstrate material conformance, and hence, that the items would perform their intented safety function.
=
- 0.26. Mr. Schimmels, you have also testified that some of the cut-out items were lost during the Design Significance evaluation. How many cut-out items were lost?
A.26. Five out of the 145 total cut-out item population were lost. Three prior to and two subsequent to the Phase I evaluation.
Q.27. Please describe the design significance evaluation performed for the 5 cut-out items that were lost.
A.27. The following chart summarized the final disposition of the five lost cut-out items under the design significance evaluation.
Total Lost Items - 5 Phase III Lost Item Phase I Evaluation Evaluation Final Disposition Traceability later
- 1. NCR 2516 No Phase I No Phase III established Traceability later
- 2. NCR 3300 No Phase I No Phase III established No design
- 3. NCR 3992 No Phase I No Phase III significance Phase I performed, Traceability later
- 4. NCR 3492 no mat'l marking No Phase III established NCR 4756 Phase I performed, Traceability later
- 5. Item 128 no mat'l marking No Phase III established In 4 out of 5 cases, traceability of the item was later established and the items should not have been cut-out.
Consequently, no evaluation for design significance was needed. The fifth item was determined to be adequate to
meet its intended safety function. I will discuss the lost items as they appear on the chart.
- 1. Lost MTV item no. 18, depicted on PGCo NCR 2516, was a 2 by 3/4 inch Socket Weld Reducing Insert (pipe fitting) with a heat number traceable to a 3000 lb. pressure fitting. S&L design required a 6000 lb. pressure fitting at the location of lost item no. 18. PGCo examination of the manufacturer's markings on the fitting had previously indicated that the fitting was, in fact, 6000 lb. The matter was resolved after research indicated that the heat number of lost item no. 18 was applicable to both 6000 as well as 3000 lb. pressure fittings.
- 2. This lost item, a radiographic access hole plug detailed on PGCo NCR 3300, was determined by PGCo to be traceable to a valid heat number as indicated on the Stores Request for the item and need not have been removed.
- 3. Lost MTV item no. 25 was described on PGCo NCR 3992 to be a 3-inch nominal diameter schedule 160 stainless steel piping piece approximately six inches long. S&L's design i specification specified TP 304 stainless steel pipe.
1 Because the item was lost this information could not be j l
confirmed during Phase I. The Phase II evaluation of piping stresses determined that the worst case stress 1
i a .
level for stainless steel pipe was less than 10% of ASME Code allowable stress (90% margin) ; and based on the material standards surveyed, it was determined that any stainless steel pipe material would have been adequate to perform the item's intended safety function. Thus, even if lost MTV item no. 25 was s'tainless steel pipe other than that required by S&L design, it still would have met ASME design requirements and been adequate for its intended safety function.
- 4. PGCo NCR 3492 indicated that the heat number on this lost item did not match the heat number recorded on the Stores Request and, thus, traceability could not be established.
Evaluation of this item in Phase I indicated it was magnetic, a trait characteristic of the S&L specified material. In addition, further investigation by PGCo i
determined that the identified heat number on the item was, in reality, the heat number for the weld rod used to weld the item into the piping system. Therefore, as there were no conflicting heat numbers for this item, the item was traceable based on the-valid heat number from the Stores Request and should not have been removed.
- 5. Lost MTV item no. 128, identified on PGCo NCR 4756, was similar to three other cut-out items all ef which were from the same isometric drawing. The items were removed
- E 6 because no Stores Request existed to confirm a PGCo-vibroetched heat number which appeared on each of the four items. This marking was confirmed for the lost item in Phase I. In addition, evaluation of this item in Phase-I indicated it was magnetic, a trait characteristic of the S&L-specified material. Subsequent to the time the item was lost, a manufacturer's heat number marking was discovered on the three remaining cut-out items which confirmed the vibroetched marking and the traceability of the three remaining items. This information demonstrated the reliability of the vibroetche marking, and thus confirmed traceability of the lost item.
Q.30. What overall conclusion was made as a result of the design significance evaluation?
t A.30. Based on all three phases of the design significance evaluation, all cut-out items were determined to be adequate for their intended safety functions and met all applicable ASME Code design requirements. Therefore, none of the traceability discrepancies that caused the removal of the 145 items was design significant. In addition, all but nine of the cut-out items (93.8%) were found to comply with all critical attributes specified by the more restrictive S&L design requirements. None of the 9 items varied from S&L design requirements in any significant respect.
?
I e e
,t oues" w - e .
m es ==
- o ...s,. ._..a PAGE 1 of LO s
BRAIDWOOD MTV PROGRAM CUT-OUT ITEM f
DESIGN SIGN 3FICANCE EVALUATION -
I PiLTSE 11 PIPING STRESS
SUMMARY
OCCASIONAL LOAD THERMAL THERMAL /
SUSTAINED .
SUSTAINED LOAD LOAD UPSET EMERCENCY/ FAULTED EXPANSION LOAD _
ITEM NCR ASME DESCRIPTION OF NO. CLASS CUT-OUT ITEM STRESS / ALLOW RATIO STRESS / ALLOW RATIO STRESS / ALLOW RATIO STRESS (PSIl / ALLOW i<ATIO STRESS (PSI) (t) / ALLOW- RATIO NO. (PSI) (t) (PSI) (t) (PSI) (t) (t)
SPF7/42'20 37 7259/4t720 17 39ts/27eep 7 n/a t r-l/eos OrMite* LM Meut7000 12 t 1742m
$227/2150 24 7259/42720 17 39tgmago 7 g/g t y4/406 P!M 5* LM 2006/17900 12 f 17 ens
- 3025/21 5 0 14 4704/42720 11 1603mese 6 m/s 126t/17e00 7 3 1742 np 2 r+405 PIMit' LM 83 5 /10000 # 1tr9smoso of 1251/22500 6 n/a 999/15000 7 4 gott 3 4*4/40 PIM 45" LSE 17329/5tto 45 517/F7400 14 n/a F4/160 PIMit'0' LM 4 2 1/15900 27 10678/t1000 5 5 2073no, t NA/10000 2 445/F7000 t 1511/22500 7 n/a 330/15000 t 6 2005 3 t*-3000e m 90 R l 3054/10000 ft 3090/27000 11 n/a' n/a 3 I-II4*-30000 910 EL 1405/13000 11 y gogge, f n/a afa 1605/13000 11 5054/18000 36 3090/27000 11 3 gogge. 3 3-1/4*-6/90 PIM 4-l/r LSE 6711/10000 37 108 5/ 5 000 30 539/22504 2 n/a ST/13000 7 a31ng 2 12*16*13/4*-30000 SL 9
308 5 / 5 000 30 539/22504 2 m/s 3/4*-38e00 W pLis 9W/t$e00 7 6715/18000 37 10 2131lu, t J
6528/18000 5 13410/ 5 000 37 4906/22504 to n/a 3 6*4/40 PMir LM 2718/15000 11 it 2133n0 7856/36000 ft 742/22504 3 m/s 4*-S/40 PIMI6'-ll* LM 955/15000 6 5 43/18000 to 12 ft33nn 3 I 13337/47720 31 11861/27955 42 n/a r4/405 P! Mar LS$ 1 5 7/17900 7 9001/21360 4 13 214ap 2 l n/a 2907/te000 16 7341/ 5 000 30 16077/375e4 43 3*-5/40 PIMs3'-t* Las 706/15000 5 34 (183nn 2 l 0976/18000 50 14795/ 3 000 41 n/a n/a t 3/4*+30PIM32*LM 21t/130r10 ft IS F163 2110/10000 12 Ft70/27000 8 m/s n/a 660/tS000 4 16 2353ee t 3/4*-6/90 P!Mer LM 2011/18000 !! Mt1/27000 F n/a n/s 624/150n0 4 17 23pe, t 3/4*4/80 P!Mit' L3E 8, 9 n/a t F4/408 PtM14 '6' LSE 1982/18600 to 27!7/2220 ft 3 5 7/44640 3427/28855 it 234mp r13/4* 60000 31 ERE !WM 67 5 /11000 45 11451/10000 64 16338sNe00 45 n/a n/A , ,p 11 2555nne 3 4728/15900 30 12516/19000 && 24575/ 5 160 64 9943 5 400 5 n/a g 20 3511un f F-l/tse PIMi10' LSE tr w 5 39/13000 10 8t88/18000 4 16861/ 5 000 47 3202/22504 15 n/R H- O it 35gge 3 P13/4' 60000W ERE InffY tr asio/116ee 45 10e53i3950 as 4047m600 32 m/s - g r-s/iGO PIMi4
- tos 3r9t /t&400 20 O at est5 t HU
, 03 at I
e &H
! *O C0
=m e e mm-
.____.._.___________.m________m_ -_ _ _ __
e .
- * ~ ~ - .. .y ,&
e ..- . . . . . . . .
PACE 2,of 10 BRAIDWOOD MTV PROGRAM CUT-OUT ITE_M_
DESIGN SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION -
~ NiA5E II. PIPING STRESS
SUMMARY
SUSTAINED OCCASIONAL LOAD THERMAL THERMAI/
LOAD UPSET EMERCENCY/ FAULTED EXPA4SION LOAD _ SUSTAINED LOAD ITEM NCR ASME DESCRIPTION OF NO. CLASS CUT-OUT ITEM STRESS / ALLOW RATIO STRESS /ALLuW RATIO STRESS / ALLOW RATIO STRESS / ALLOW RATIO STRESS / ALLOW RATIO NO.
(PSIl (t) (PSI) (t) (PSI) (t) (PSI) (t) (PSI) (t) 6014/39360 15 9910/27600 X M F4/160 PIM:4*LDS 3313/16400 20 5066/1 5 80 26 23 Nt3 2 li/A 81/ 8 I437/15000 to 2253/18000 13 34 2 /27000 13 24 me 3 P-30000 >45 EL m/t E/8 53te/17000 47 10100/28 47 13500/32040 42 25 Nf30Ent $25 3 3/4*4/160 PM473* LM 83100/32040 42 N/A M 3/4*4/160 PIMg 2'9" LSE 8310/17900 47 10100/28 47 N 23T3n84 la 2 13500/3P040 42 m/t M 3/4*4/160 P!M 10'7* LSS 0310/17900 47 10100/28 47 E7 N73nEffE la 2 M N/A N73aSft la 3 3/4*-4/160 PIM 4'6' LGE 8310/17900 47 1010Ett of 135B0/32040 42 20 N/A N/8 8310/17000 47 10100/21 47 13500/32040 42 29 2g73nSTE la 3 3/4* 4 /160PIMIl*t*LSS t/A N/8 2* 30000 9110 EL N65/15000 5 5502/88000 38 7491/27000 N 30 5 75 3 n/a 8/8 3 2* 3D008 98 90 EL 3B5/15000 3 530/18000 3 665/27000 t 5 29 3 WR R/8 32 2902tsSft 121 3 3/**4/80 PtM 14* LSS 754/15000 5 12M/te 7 14M/F7000 5 n/a N/A P-30000 SI 90 EL 3151/15000 ft 5017/18000 N 3504/r7000 to 33 2917** 3 7T3/27400 29 8/8 3573/16050 22 8479/19260 44 10452/37392 28 34 2919M 3 F4/485 P!Mtit*t/t* LDS 8/8 F4/405 PtMgle-1/2* Ls3 3423/16050 ft 8100/1T60 42 13!97/37392 35 3774/27480 14 35 2919ane t era 2 F4/405 PIM12* LM 3423/16050 23 8100/19260 42 13t??/37N 35 3774/r74eo 14 5 2919nce M
2260/16050 14 Eat 8/1T60 35 7537/37392 ft 8095/27400 22 37 2919e t F4/405 PIMill' LDS H/8 F4/405 PtM139' L36 5 87/16050 16 6600/19 60 34 7872/37M 21 SIO4/274eo 19 N 29tten 2 W8 3*4/4e6 FIM@l/2" LDS Mt?/16050 16 6600/1 9 50 34 M72/37N 28 5 2 4/27480 19 l 39 2919a0 2 l N/#
F4/405 PIM 2*824* LSE M17/16050 16 6600/19 60 34 7972/37M 21 5304/27400 19 40 2919e t m/A W8 22P/21160 le 2%3/439P0 7 41 29BGB 3 3*-5/408 mms 8-13/16* LSS 1500/18300 0 ,
42 2953g 3 3/4*4/00 ptM 5* LSS 5189LIFIE3 SILYSIS I stupLIFIES estv515 i 43 2973 3 F4/80 t14: Y LmS I
' ' 44 2973 3 F4/90PIMgt'LSE 5!wt!FIE3 sesLY515 we I IS 3308/ ten 00 18 5185/270no 19 52a0/22500 23 45 2154 3 tie 8 ene Lis F180/15000
{
1 I
1 eg-- =
l
o .
j I o 4 e
. - a wa-- . . . w Q i
PAGE 3 of 10
- f BRAIDWOOD MTV PROGRAM CUT-OUT ITEM i
DESIGN SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION -
PilASE II PIPING STRESS
SUMMARY
i SUSTAINED OCCASIONAL 1,OAD THERMAL THERMA 1/
l l UPSET EMERGENCY / FAULTED EXPANSION LOAD SUSTAINED LOAD
- NCR ASME DESCRIPTION Or LOAD I ITEM NO. NO. CLASS CUT-OUT ITEM STRESS / ALLOW RATIO STRESb/ ALLOW RATIO STRESS / ALLOW RATIO STRESS / ALLOW RATIO STRESS / ALLOW RATIO l
l f (PSI) (t) (PSI) (t) (PSI) (t) (PSI) (t) (PSI) (t) 46 pgt3.e jfg.-6/90 PM 4* Uns E10/15000 23 5e63/18000 M 5 27/27000 21 we we 3
47 ggqsse 3 yg.-3/90 P!M3 4* Las 3510/15000 23 5e63/18000 M 527/U0e6 F1 m/s u .
1 47 3 /18i00 26 6449/22200 31 18161/44400 25 5021/28125 18 N/A i
48 3027 2 3/4M/160 P!sts P Ups
" 4930/18500 #7 7278/222N 33 12553/44400 28 73eg/20tF5 N mit 3827 2 3/4*-5/160PIMs f* LM
- y-t/4o5 P!Milo-3/4* Ups 3W16400 22 34to/1%ee 47 3646/19 5 0 9 g9eefrsoo 7 we 3tM 2 St 3165 3 4M/40 PIMP 2'y LM 0 % /15000 6 t649/18000 9 F577/D000 le a n/a 605B/18000 34 8452/27000 38 n/a n/a 2 316p k 2 8LAfts.F16* ELM S11E3e $1/15D00 1 53 y4*4 cess appliis 1499/17e00 8 1613/21 3 0 8 gg,t/32040 6 gogg/2582 3 N/A 2 16 2 S4 seitgIn pris (SR2401 tELB ATT 2071/18300 88 539e/21160 25 74:g/wgeo 23 m/s we 3221 3 35 32E6M 4016/tses0 r7 Slas/tanee M 69 4/3 Ease 11 1681/2E5B4 7 we f 6*-S/90 P!Me ir uns 5 39t an 20s/t70e0 31 X52/2tM X 3174/42720 11 M04/27155 1 m/s 2 24*-S/405 PIM IM* UDs SF y-yg3/4* 3 acre at 1957/18300 la 12263/21 % 8 5 201:1/43T0 46 n/a n/a 3318 2 3
- 4.-g/40 p!M 3013/15000 7 2 13/18000 31 7421/r7000 20 n/a n/a 3327 3 l'0* U3s S 4.-5/40 PIM 6. ups 1649/15000 11 M11/18e00 15 3654/F7800 14 n/a n/a IN7 3 60 SIR FID WIS 333s 3 iM/to P!Mit*P UDE El 3334 g.-4/W PMi4* Ups Sim Fin mete!S 3
62 4*-S/40 PIM 6'6' Ups M7/tSoot 14 7401/18000 el 7M9/77000 21 we n/a 3I35 3 l
63 y 4237/16600 M 6414/19E'O N 39s/3ggee gg g33gfgg3, 3 gfg 3343 4 4/160 P!Mst* LM 64 333 P-l/40 PIMi40*ups SIR FIG #eL631 3
65 FM/40 P!Msto-l/P ups SIM FIO meL615 333 3 66 ggfgo pgg;ge im $!R FID 8eL6!S 33E5 3 67 355 gy/go prg;g tg 3:g Fin met 6t!
3 W 9 9
r 9
m-PAGE 4 of 10 I BRAIDWOOD MTV PROGRAM CUT-OUT ITEM l DESIGN SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION -
PiL'SE II. PIPING STRESS
SUMMARY
OCCASIONAL LOAD THERMAL THERMAI/
SUSTAINED EXPANSION LOAD _ SUSTAINED ICAD IAAD UPSET EMERGENCY /FAUI TED ITEM NCR ASME DESCRIPTION OF NO. NO. CLASS CUT-OUT ITEM STRESS / ALLOW RATIO STRESS / ALLOW RATIO STRESS (PSI) / ALLOW PATIO STRESS (PSI) (t) / ALLOW RATIO(PSI) STRESS (t)/ ALLOW RA
' (PSI) (t) (PSI) (t) (t) n/a wg10000 34 m/t e646/15000 38 7954/ tan 00 es
&*-5/120 PIMsS'e= ups 6B 3na 3 N/A 10306 5 000 3 1n4 4574/15000 3 8175/10000 45 69 hat 3 6*-S/129 PIMat*t* L3s m/s 6721/27000 25 m/t 4343/15000 29 6077/18000 34 70 3n22 3 6*+120 PIMi10* LDs E/4 65!8 @ 000 M We 2305/13000 13 4767/18000 26 71 h3: 3 6*4/40 P!Mit*6* Les m/8 7297/77000 FF m/s e?t8/15000 2 6028/18000 33 72 3tse 3 IELN3 STTED0EMT us 3775G000 17 1775mTJ5 6 5e90/e4160 12 We 1575/19400 9 73 3tE5ne 3 F4/405 P1Ms6* Las R/A i1255/77030 42 m/s 23 % /15000 16 7165/18000 40 74 3 4*-S/40 PIM;6* LSE 3n)0 l N/A 6259/19440 R h/A 12338 7 9160 42 l
te*ts 5/40 5T1501!S 441/16200 FF 75 3674 3 l m/R 12308/29150 42 n/a l 44t/16200 27 6239/1%ee 32 76 3n?4 3 LO'S S/40 5720:13 l t/0 10680/t1Me 30 1169 5 955 6 17341/42720 48 I F+160 PIM;S* Las 6800/17900 39 77 3eg7nne 2 l n/a 1
2654/18000 15 u/A 3e16/77000 13 126/15000 0 70 3ees 3 4*-6/406 P1M1 4*4* LSs n/t 775/Z7000 29 t/S 13 5 /13000 to 77X/18000 43 79 3e9ree 2 3/4*-6/e05 PtMar Las 3E67/21900 33 9077/20076 R eeP4/430e0 It N/G 3/t'lltRNE ptAM 2062/10250 !!
to Elsan 3 f 4W2@000 18 m/s
- 4005/14U00 FF n/4 P-30000 90 EL 1585/130n0 11 St 3520** 3 l 7 731/27000 3 g/n 587/19000 3 13E4/22500 l
2*-3g800 45 EL 473/15000 3 02 3!53 3 WS 3990/27000 15 WA 197/t5800 13 3B94/18000 22 43 F9es* 3 1-l/2*-3000 FLEEE WA 3940/F1000 IS m/8 3pt/18000 22 8-l/P-3500 FUDE 1987/15000 13 to 339ase 3 We 3940m000 15 m/s 1 9 7/11000 13 M94/19000 22 95 3 3-1/t*-6/80 PIM;7-t/Z' LSE 3!9ee*
h/8 2310/3 3 60 7 m/E ,
1870/18000 to De0/225E0 9 E 29T** 2 t/2*+160 PIMs4* Las R/S 2705/27000 10 R/G 621/13000 4 1763/14000 to 57 eett 3 F+ee PIMgF L38 n/a een4/r7000 33 m/s 4*+ee PtMg3-3/t* L38 2319/15000 15 3747/18000 ft IB eer 3 4 10209/44400 23 E/B 7470/2F200 34 1849/29 18 PS160 P! Mar Les Im0/te'f00 20 09 ee!5 2 i
. .e
- - -4 . . -
e e
. . - - , - t ..d FAGE $ of LO
+
BRAIDWOOD MTV PROGRAM CUT-OUT ITEM DESIGN SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION -
P kk%SE II P1PIND STRESS
SUMMARY
SUSTAINED OCCASIONAL LOAD THERMAL THERMAI/
- j LOAD UPSET EMERGENCY /FAULTEC EXPANSION LOAD SUSTAINED LOAD ITEM NCR ASME DESCRIPTION OF NO. CLASS CUT-OUT ITEM STRESS / ALLOW kATIO STRESS / ALLOW RATIO STRESS / ALLOW RATIO STRESS / ALLOW RATIO STRESS / ALLOW RATIO No.
(PSI) (t) (PSI) (t) (PSI) (t) (PSI) (t) (PSI) (t) 1577/13000 ti 21BB/ tao 00 17 4570/27000 17 m/s M w 4c3 3 10'4/40 PIM 10' LM St45/isoe0 29 144M/5000 40 n/a n/a 91 4100an i 10*4/40 PIM4 10" LM 1474/13lM0 10 3072/13000 20 6125/18000 34 8333/27000 31 n/a n/a w argtee 3 P-3DoeMD EL 13 4527 2 t*4/160 P!Mit'-10' LM $!RIFitt getV5!5 2437/18000 13 3pe8/t7000 It sta n/a 94 es? 3 X*-tPIt*-30 Doe R 8353/15000 to 15 439 3 t"4/405 PIMat'10* L3E StRIFft1 meLf5!5 3913/20000 N 0687/ 5 000 to 3300/22904 15 N/A 5 4655F80 t 14*-6/ST9 PIM l'7' LM 14 % /83000 le 3 7T6/tetM 20 11 R/G 94 43m 2 P4/405 PIM43'4' LM 615/19400 X13/22000 16 4313/20000 is 4mm 2 3'4/408 P!Ki1" LM 2114/10e00 18 X5/22000 16 4473/utG4 il 172/20105 3i N/A 4400/19120 22 6726/JeoE0 to 4549/27535 16 m/s 99 ese t IW405 P!K;6-t/P LM 2111/16600 13 6726/ 2 060 18 4549/tM55 N/A 100 45m 2 IW406 PIN 6'-4* LSE fit 1/16600 13 4400/11 9 0 22 16 6729/3e60 18 R/R tot 475m t l*4/408 P! Mil 2' L3E !!!!/16600 13 4400/ITNO 22 4549/tM35 16 4549/t455 N/A tot 475 ap t S W ee8P!Est2'4*LSE til1/15600 13 4400/194E0 22 6720/30eEO la 16 44 N/#
183 45m t tweet P!K 4'LSE 541/16MO N 4400/19W0 22 200"5/45120 44 iT67/H255 N/A tot 45m i 1*4/408 P!M 4'LSE 200t/tM00 ft GD4/tt30 30 2945/30oE0 8 573/tM55 t m/t og73/M958 33 143D6/407H 29 13000/4 5 00 33 E/G 305 45 astee5 t P4/140 PM63*7' LsE t*4/485 PIMiS-5/t* Lp5 toes /tesse 5 37P/2250 17 55M/45tM 82 m/s 19est/47005 42 806 475m i 373/gune 17 R.1 19ees/470g5 42 4mm 2 P4/468 PIMill-l/P LSE toos/issoo 5 55M/45tM tt 807 1008/tasse 5 37F/225E0 17 35M/451M 13 n/a 19ees/47005 42 tes 4mm t f*4/488 PfRate-3/4* LSE toNI/tenoo 5 372/2250 17 35M/431M 12 N/A 89408/47085 42 109 emm i F4/408 PfMato-3/4" LSE
!s00/18000 5 772/2250 17 55M/45tM 12 m/t 19 08/47085 42 110 4mm i F-t/40B PtWi4* LSE
- _ ~ -
.m.
6'h q _4er ep =m -mme g ,e .
e o
e m.
ww-
~
Ma
. t i ,
PAGE b of to i
i BRAIDWOOD MTV PROGRAM CUT-OUT ITEM DESIGN SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION -
P iOSE II PIPING STRESS
SUMMARY
SUSTAINED OCCASIONAL LOAD THERMAL THERMAI/
LOAD UPSET EMERGENCY / FAULTED EXPANSION LOAD SUSTAINED LOAD ITEM NCR ASME DESCRIPTION Or NO. CLASS CUT-OUT ITEM STRESS /ALihW RATIO STRESS / ALLOW ratio STRESS / ALLOW RATIO STRESS / ALLOW RATIO STRESS / ALLOW RAT 10 NO.
(PSI) (t) (PSI) (t) (PSI) (t) (PSI) (t) (PSI) (t) i
' 4? san 3 Fe*-5/405 P!sE:3* LM tt45/14200 12 8830/21840 40 10e09/4500 25 75 5 /29850 FF g/g t13 5e5/t5000 25 3028/t0000 33 3029/27000 22 m/t n/a
!!# 4759H t 3*3*I3/4*-Je000 EL 4e24 3 3/4*-5/40$ P! Pest?t0* LM SturtWIG acL6IS 113 ist 4824 3 3/4*4/408 PM 4* LM S:R FID metMIS 4824 3 3/4*-S/40B P! peg 4*4* Ltus Spsty!G meL15!5 113 4e24 3 3/4*4/405 FIDE 35* LM SDPLNIO 8BetMIS 116 117 4e24 3 3/4*4/40B PMi?!!* LM 5!RN!!S metMIS I19 4824 3 3/4*4/40$ P!pt:10-112* LM 5!RIFID matf511 111 4e24 3 3/4*-S/408 P!DE44 *10' LM 5!R FIO lesLYSIS 820 4W4 3 3/4*4/405 P! des 9-3/4' LM $!RIFID acLf5!S 120 4824 3 3/4* 4 /405P!sta!'ll-8/4* LIBS StuplFIG selv5!S 4473 3 3/4* 4 /405PMst*l' LM $1RIF10 melt 5!$
122 f*4/405 P! pest 2* LM 1410/18200 8 7503/213e0 34 34093/4 5 00 34 529/20050 2 m/t 823 522p t 2*4/405 PtpEst4-3/4* LM 2417/14200 13 9875/tt040 43 125e4/43E00 21 2125/20050 8 we 124 SEE6 3 4206/15000 29 6 5 8/18000 46 17054/ 5 000 47 OW/20298 4 mit 125 554 3 4*4/160 ptpEgtN* LM 5817/71 5 0 27 11045/427 3 ft 6eE0/27955 24 n/a 12E Segens a te*4/tes PMatt' LM fes3/t7080 14 r s.
t
9
. . , . , ,M
- PAGE 1 of 10 BRAIDWOOD MTV PROGRAM CUT-OUT ITEM DESIGN SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION -
PiLME 11 PIPING STRESS
SUMMARY
SUSTAINED OCCASIONAL LOAD THERMAL THERMA 1/
UPSET EMERGENCY / FAULTED EXPANSION LOAD SUSTAINED LOAD ASME DESCRIPTION OF LOAD ITEM NCR CLASS CUT-OUT ITEM STRESS / ALLOW RATIO STRESS / ALLOW RATIO S1RESS/ ALLOW ratio STRESS / ALLOW RATIO STRESS / ALLOW RATIO NO. NO.
(PSIl (4) (PSI) (%) (PSI) (%) (PSI) (t) (PSI) (t) we we we we ne atsu Rs u try swas e n/a n/a wn we ne at!In Ris s/n
.. tas INm e l n/a n/a we am n/t 129 18318B t te atIEW Rs n/a we um l em um im isnan e me mIru Rs we we we we we me atrIss Kim d in eine a we we we n/a we ur rinan e me mIIs Ra f w. w. . . .
wt n/a n/a As MIEW RW we we I ID NSW t wa un we we we i in r== i = =IIs sus
- w. = w. =
is r= = i . .II. R. a wt we n/a am e/4 tP FEM 3 W NIEN SUE WG we wt sa n/8 IE 291Dmm g W MIIW RW w# use h/a 5/8 BM 139 Rt$nn a WS MII!E RW wA we wA e/W WA i tos IBM g W EIIM Ris N/A m/t A/S M EZIM pus m/s WA lot 3Nees t N/A N/R R/4 m/G N/8 let 3RRED 3 NG EZIM RW
- w. w. . .
4 its .. i
--.R. -
we n/a n/8 m MIIN pus as we 144 D4 3 we n/a M
- us EIIW sus um we 145 W3m 3 4
4 1
1 t
~we-m
e .
9 e
4
. , yg s
PAGE $ of 10 BRAIDWOOD MTV PROGRAM CUT-OUT ITEM p DESIGN SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION -
'bHASE II PIPING STRESS
SUMMARY
'I e
a
- NOTES:
- 1. SUSTAINED LOAD:
Piping loading condition which considers the effects of pressure, weight and other sustained mechanical loads on piping stresses, per ASME III Subsection NC/ND 3650, piping analysis stress equation (8).
- 2. OCCASIONAL LOAD:
Piping loading condition which considels the ef fects of pressure, weight, other. sustained loads and occasional loads including earthquake and pressure / flow transient - induced loads, on piping stresses per ASME Subsection NC/ND 3650, piping analysis staess equation (9). The occasional loads are defined under differer.t conditions upset, emergency and faulted. Allowable Stresses for these conditions are per the ASME Code.
A. UPSET CONDITIOtt:
Includes Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) and other upset condition transient - induced loads.
B. EMERGENCT/ FAULTED CONDITION:
Includes Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) and other .
emergency / faulted condition transient - induced loads.
For piping analyses performed by Westinghouse, SSE is defined as a faulted condition. For piping analyses performed by S&L, SSE is defined as an emergency condition.
- 3. THERMAL EXPANSION 14AD:
Piping loading condition which considers the effects of thermal expansion on piping stresses per ASME III Subsection NC/ND 3650, piping analysis stress equation (10). Anchor displacement effects due to earthquake are also included where required.
t
- 4. T1ERMAL/ SUSTAINED IDAD:
Piping loading condition which considers the effects of pressure, weight, other sustained loads and thermal expansion on piping stresses per ASME III Subsection NC/ND 3650, piping analysis stress equation (11).
- 5. For ASME Class 1 piping, the stress values and allowables found under OCCASIONA! 14AD are the primary stress intensities as compared to the Code allowables, as determined by Subsection NB3650, equation (9). The stress values and allowables found under THERMAL EXPANSION LOAD are the primary and secondary stress intensities as determined by Subsection NB 3650, equation (10).
. _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . .- . _ _ _ _ . _ ,- _ . _ _ _ ._ _s.-
e =
0 f
e
-~. .,,
t PAGE 1 of to BRAIDWOOD MTV PROGRAM CUT-OUT ITEM
~ DESIGN SIGNIrtdANCE EVALUATION -
' II PIPING STRESS
SUMMARY
{PilASE t
DATI0s The ratio (in t) of calculated piping stress to ASME allowable 6.
piping stress. .
- 7. STRESS / ALLOW Calculated piping stress in the region of the cut-out item / allowable piping stress per ASME III, Appendix I - Design stress Intensity values, allowable stresses, material properties, and design fatigue curves.
- 8. (W):
Calculated piping stresses obtained from utsDTW analysis performed by Westinghouse. .. .
- 9. hand calculation supplementing Calculated stresses obtained with the detailed analysis, e,
Calculated stresses obtained with hand calculation supplementing the simplified analysis.
- 10. N/A not Applicable.
- 11. NCRs non-conformance report.
- 12. SIMPLIFIED ANALYSISs The Subsystems analyzed using the simplified procedures.
l stress levels are less the 50% of the ASME stress allowables, l
Ia based on the inherent conservatism in the analysis. Such conservatisms include uti11:ation of an enveloped response spectra, and damping values, an i=2.1 on straight pipe as well as or. socket welds, and enveloped pressure values. To demonstrate this conservatism, a detailed analysis was performed and 32. The detailed analysis stresses ,
I on item numbers 25-29 are included in the table, and are less than 50% of the applicable ASME stress allowables, i
t
~
mw.. .
~ . p 9 -
, g 4
m a
e 0 e O e
w o
_ e e
e m
m W
M E -
T Y I NR OA TIM UTM O AU
- US T L U AS
- C VS EE M R A ET ~
R CS y G N O AG t i s R CN r e
.m P 1 I P'P g s V !I e s T NP t e
. M G .
I I n
id dr s et a f
o D SI yus n, rs e
w n O roe ded r O NE afs il e u W IGS\ d s sb l t D nee I Si t nal AEF urr oet ow co t a l l
Rb- bws l s u B~ el n f ese rai r gl e e uub w e n sl a l b o spws ea e oe ri o y rsl s ur t l psla te n eab at d o gc ra e ucee emr l adv p i v e
p oi m r u a
_ lCt eo q h
, sl a tf e
_._ sAEv r o e M r dd t c Se nnd d c.As aal as n e e
. nf o e s w r
- cooc reus e .
Sii t d Cht%g ss e i Upa0n sel s Lac 5i er l n. _
- Pro w rt i ot glwo ps f cn
- So ol . e S i gll gd hd em Edueo ne ce re Calbf it nr eg Crp ta ie wa g A d e il d _
dseh mu i sn s ge
= Cesst ic
- Ites ll 8n u m
e Hacen a / o ld
- s P u c r o t c 3 c pa Alatp n e Ra su ar et er Gvl lohohh Oeled Pf TnTt I
Db Astoal abe s
) )
3 RSatb I 2 3 -
1 _
m -
iei .j i ? j6 ib: t! !. , Ii t i . -
$l1.
.