ML20212H072
| ML20212H072 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 01/13/1987 |
| From: | TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212G828 | List: |
| References | |
| 220.3(B), 220.3(B)-R02, 220.3(B)-R2, NUDOCS 8701210273 | |
| Download: ML20212H072 (16) | |
Text
'
~
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 220.3(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT TYPE: SEQUOYAH ELEMENT REVISION NUMBER: 2 i
I
! TITLE: SUPPORT DESIGN GENERAL Design of Supports PAGE 10F 15 REASON FOR REVISION:
- 1. TVA coments incorporated.
- 2. To incorporate coments by SRP, TAS, and TVA; to include TVA's corrective action plan information (See Section 10); and to comply l with current format.
PREPARATION PREPARED BY:
( , _ ,
l(tAA L&l I2 8 6
/ 'SIw ATURE DATE
, REVIEWS REVIEW COMMITTE .
SICHATURE '
}Yf1)i1. '
I2-bl~0fo DATE
. A I
TASgy bYrr SIGNATURE
/ -/f-DATE l
CONCURRENCES
?? ci L L.s /-s17 l CEG-H: (2WO l-( -b 7 SRPtht;w,gkfs/Aff /-l3-i7 SIGNATURE DATE SIGNAL y f ~ DATE 7PPRDVED BY:3
\
M % d it 85-87 .
m ECSPMkNAUER DATE' MANAGER OF NUCLEAR POWER DATE i CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT OhlY)
- SRP Secretary's signature denotes SRP concurrences are in files.
0701210273 070115 PDR ADOCK 05000327 P .._P@R,_.
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 220.3(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 2
( PAGE 2 0F 15
- 1. CHARACTERIZATION OF ISSUES:
Concerns: Issues:
00-85-00E-008 a. Seismic supports are' designed "Sequoyah seismic supports are inadequately.
not designed properly. They are rigid and will break loose b. They are too rigid and will break during a seismic event and will loose during a seismic event and fall down and damage other will fall on other equipment and equipment, as well as failing damage it.
to support their respective components. CI has no further c. Pipe support designs are not information. Construction ccnstructible.
Department Concern."
- d. Seismic support design criteria are IN-85-886-001 nonexistent.
"TVA designs were not developed well enough to be constructible The following issues from these
- 1) Design changes are still concerns are addressed in other being instituted in areas where reports:
there should have been minimal '
changes especially in area of Design changes take place in areas conflicts between TVA and of conflict between TVA and vendor Vendor Drawings. 2) Engineering drawings (addressed in Sequoyah design criteria is often non- Element Report 204.4).
existent, particularly for Seismic Hanger design. Many Design and acceptance criteria design criteria or acceptance are still being changed (addressed criteria are still being changed. in Sequoyah Element Report 201.3).
This is generic concern. Any further infomation would divulge confidentiality.
Construction dept. concern. CI has no further information."
i l
a 02ND - December 31, 1986
o TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 220.3(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 2 I PAGE 3 0F 15
- 2. HAVE ISSUES BEEN IDENTIFIED IN ANOTHER SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS? YES X N0 o , Identified by Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) - Sequoyah (SON) - Nuclear Safety Review Staff (NSR5)
NSRS Report No. I-86-131-SQN, (for pipe supports), (3/6/86) o Identified by Generic Concern Task Force Generic Concern Task Force Employee Concern IN-85-886-001, R1, (6/6/86)
- 3. DOCUMENT NOS., TAG NOS., LCCATIONS, OR OTHER SPECIFIC DESCRIPTIVE IDENTIFICATIONS STAltu IN ELEMENT:
TVA and vendor drawings 4 INTERVIEW FILES REVIEWED:
Review of interview files for concerns 00-85-005-008 and IN-85-886-001 shows the following information:
Concern: 00-85-005-008 o K-forms: 001 through 014 o NSRS Reports: I-86-131 -SON (00-85-005-008)
I-86-110-SCN (00-85-005-009)
I-85-968-SCN (00-85-005-002) e General Applicability Determination Change from G. Mchutt o Summary of Employee Concerns, investigated concerns o Concern -014, Emplo.yce Concern Assignment Request o File Screening Sheet which states that Employee Concern Task Group (ECTG) is to investigate and resolve this concern o Attachments B-2 and B Preliminary Evaluation ,
0396D - December 31, 1986
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 220.3(B)
SPECIAL. PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 2 PAGE 4 0F 15
~
f Concern: -IN-85-886-001 o K-form 001 and two hand written pages.
o Form "D" is not in the file; however, the evaluator has determined that this concern is applicable to all plants (WBN, BLN, BFN, and SQN)
E. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED RELATED TO THE ELEMENT:
See Appendix A.
- 6. WHAT REGULATIONS, LICENSING COMMITMENTS, DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OR OTHER APPLY OR CONTROL IN THIS AREA?
See Appendix A.
- 7. LIST REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION, MEETINGS, TELEPHONE CALLS, AND OTHER DISCUSSIONTTfELATED TO ELEMENT.
See Appendix A.
P. EVALUATION PROCESS:
- a. Reviewed NSRS report to determine the scope of the employee concern.
- b. Peviewed pipe support design reiteria and a sample of support calculations to verify seismi: design adequacy.
- c. Reviewed seismic support criieria to determine rigidity requirements.
- d. Reviewed sample of pipe support drawings for constructibility.
030fD - December 31, 1986
220.3(B)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT htMBER:
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 2 PAGE 5 0F 15 ,
- 9. DISCUSSION, FINDINGS, AND CONCLUSIONS:
Chronology:
03/75: CEB-SQN-100 (CEB 80-75), " Guidelines for Design of Component Supports for TVA Class A Through D," issued by Civil Engineering Branch (CEB) 08/75: Detailed Design Criteria WB-DC-40-31.9, " Location and Design of Piping Supports and Supplemental Steel in Category 1 Structures," issued by Division of Nuclear Engineering (DNE) 07/85: TVA receives Employee Concern IN-85-886-001 10/85: NSRS Report No. I-85-131-SQN, " Seismic Supports Are Not Designed Properly Because They Are Rigid," issued.
11/85: TVA receives Employee Concern 00-85-005-008 06/86: Generic Concern Task Force Investigation Report for Employee Concern IN-85-886-001, " Design Drawings Not
' Constructible, Design Criteria Nonexistent," R1, issued Discussion:
The concerned individual (CI) stated in his concern that Sequoyah (SON) seismic supports are not designed properly; they are rigid I and will break loose during a seismic event. In his concern, the CI did not specifically indicate the commodities (such as cable trays, conduits, piping, etc.) for which seismic supports were not i
designed properly. The NSRS issued Investigation Report I-86-131-SON to address this concern. Review of the NSRS report I indicates that the employee concern is for pipe supports. The evaluation team also considers it appropriate to address seismic l supports for piping systems in this report.
l- a. Issue "a" states that the seismic supports are not designed adequately. To assess this, the seismic design requirements of the pipe support design criteria were evaluated, and seismic support calculations were reviewed to verify that design requirements were implemented. The SQN pipe support design criteria ( App. A, 5.a, 5.b, and 5.c) were evaluated, and it was determined that they do address the following seismic design requirements:
039fD - December 31, 1986
- - _ - - . - _ . . . - _ - - - - - . _ - _ _ _ _ ~ . . - _ - - . - - - _ .
- t TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NLMBER
- 220.3(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM i REVISION NUMBER: 2 PAGE 6 0F 15
(
o Design loads and load combinations (i.e., seismic loads l with other design loads) o Applicable codes and allowable stresses o Rigidity requirements Fifteen calculations for seismic supports ( App. A, 5.f) were randomly selected .from various piping systems for review to ascertain that seismic requirements were implemented in pipe support designs. The evaluation team made the following observations:
Support Mark No. Observations 2-MSH-315/903 Support calculations are incomplete 2-MSH-348/902 and appear to be supplements to the 2-RCH-302/905 original calculations. They. only 1-UHIH-130/908 document Ek DES justification for the 2-SGBH-290/904 changes.
2-CSH-5/9
- 1-CCH-470/909 Bolts and base plate calculations do
- 1-SIH-437/7 not consider base plate flexibility and
- 1-AFDH-329/906 prying action. This may have been addressed in SQN response to NRC IE Bulletin 79-02, but this is not documented in the calculations.
For 1-AF0H-329, computations for fillet weld between bar (item 7) and process pipe are not documented. It seems engineering judgment may have been used for sizing of this weld.
The weld is judged acceptable by the evaluation team, since design loads are small. All other seismic design requirements are properly addressed for these three calculations.
1-CVCH-100/901 Support configuration does not match the STRUDL model used in the calculation. It appears that calculations are not updated to agree with the current support configuration.
s 039(0 - Occcmber 31, 1986
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 220.3(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 2 PAGE 7 0F 15 Support t' ark No. Observations 1-AF0H-328/906 Calculation for this support is comon with support 1-AFDH-329. _The calculation for added components such as channels for support 1-AFDH-328 is not perfomed. However, this support is judged acceptable by the evaluation team, since design loads are small.
2-RHR-449/904 Calculations for shear stress and buckling for the frame members are not performed. All other seismic design requirements are addressed.
I i
- 2-FPCH-6/2 All seismic design requirements are
- 1-SGBH-262/903 properly addressed. Base plate
- 1-RCH-106/909 flexibility and prying action are i
considered.
The six pipe support calculations (identified above with *) l were considered acceptable, and seismic design requirements were properly addressed in their calculations. Of the remaining nine calculations, six calculations were incomplete, and three calculations had discrepancies as indicated in the above tabulation. The six incomplete calculations are partial calculations performed after the original calculations to technically justify TVA changes in the support design. The original calculations were performed i
by TVA's contractor and are not in 50h records. TVA's assumption is that the original calculations are adequate.
' The evaluation team is unable to verify this assumption.
- b. Issue "b," that seismic supports are too rigid and will fail under seismic loading, has been addressed in hSRS Report I-86 -131 -SCN. This report concludes that:
i "In seismic analysis of piping systems,
- supports (including snubbers) are assumed to be absolutely rigid (zero deficction under load). The support loads are developed based j
on an amplified respense of the flexible piping. As long as supports are 'more rigid'
, (have higher frequencies) than the piping or i the dominant seismic frequencies, the zero 03900 - December 31, 1986
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NIMBER: 220.3(B)
~
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 2 PAGE 8 0F 15 L
deflection assumption in the analysis does i
not cause a significant error in support load f calculations. . . . [lhe supports are designed taking into account the above described support load,] and the-flexibility of the support is maintained by limiting support deflection to 1/16 inch under the design load."
Therefore, the supports being too rigid does not cause excessive seismic loading on them. They are not likely to >
break loose or fall during a seismic event, as they are designed to carry the seismic load.
- c. Issue "c" states that the pipe support designs were not developed well enough to be constructible. Two likely conditions causing nonconstructible support designs are:
o Incomplete drawings issued to Construction o Installation interference with other commodities and plant features The issue of incomplete drawings has been addressed in Sequoyah Element Report 222.3, which reviewed 34 pipe support i drawings to verify the following:
l o Welded connections have the required weld symbols Itens specified in the bill of materials are correct o
and complete o Sufficient dimensional information is included for use
! by Construction o Design details are presented with sufficient clarity o Degree of completeness for other miscellaneous items (location plan, load or movement information, clearances, etc.) is adequate o Detailing method for welds is properly considered i
N9(D - December 31,19M
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 220.3(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 2 PAGE 9 0F 15 Observations made in Sequoyah Element Report 22E.3 were:
missing weld size and welds; improper weld details, i.e., wrong weld symbols; and various minor discrepancies such as an item missing in the bill of materials, wrong hanger mark, no orientation and location for item, and missing north arrow for plan views. These missing items do not demonstrate that the supports cannot be constructed. However, they indicate that construction of these supports may have been delayed until this missing information was previded or approved by Engineering.
This was verified by a walkdown of a sample of supports as described in Sequoyah Element Report 222.3.
It is possible that some supports could not be installed during construction because of interference with other commodities.
Such interference problems are common during the course of the design and construction of nuclear power plants. Modification of a support design caused by interferences does not indicate a lack of constructibility in the initial design.
To evaluate constructibility of the original design, the following support drawings were reviewed:
2-SGBH-70 (2-H47-70)/R0 2-CCH-374 (2-H10-374)/R0 1-FPCH-527 (1-H50-527)/R0 2-SGBH-72 (2-H47-72)/R0 2-CVCH-813 (2-H34-813)/R0 Four of the five support drawings were found constructible per Revision 0, and no change in configuration was observed when compared with final revisions. Support drawing ( ANCHCR)
(2-CCH-374) was modified in Revisions 1 and 2 because of interference with plant features. This indicates that in general, the original designs issued to Construction were constructible.
- d. To determine the validity of issue "d," that seismic support design criteria are nonexistent for SQN support designs, Sections 6.1 and 8.0 of Design Documents ( App A, 5.b and 5.c),
issued in 1975, were reviewed. These documents provide the seismic design requirements for pipe supports.
0296D - Decenber 31, 1986 s
220.3(B)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER:
SPECIAL' PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 2 i PAGE 10 0F 15 In June 1986, Generic Concern Task Force (CCTF) investigation report IN-85-886-001 concluded that no seismic design criteria exist. This conclusion was based on the design criteria SQN-DC-V-24.1 ( App A, 5.a) in progress during the time of the CCTF investigation. However, the 1975 detailed design criteria ( App A, 5.b, and 5.c) were followed by SQh to design seismic supports prior to the issuance of the new design criteria SQN-DC-V-24.1. This new document consolidates other design criteria that have been used for SQN support design.
Findings:
- a. The SQN pipe support design criteria adequately address the seismic design requirements. Some calculations for seismic supports were observed to be incomplete (they were supplements to the original calculations), and some calculations lacked documentation of engineering judgmert used. The supports with complete calculations were found to be adequately designed for seismic design requirements.
- b. The issue that seismic supports are too rigid has been addressed in NSRS Report No. I-86-131-SQN. The supports being too rigid does not cause excessive loading on them.
- c. Pipe support designs are found to be constructible by reviewing the initial designs,
- d. SQN seismic support design criteria have existed since August 1975.
Conclusions :
- a. The SQN design criteria for pipe support design are adequate for addressing seismic design requirements, but implementation of the criteria could not be verified for all pipe support designs within the sample, since some of these calculations were partial calculations performed by TVA as technical justification for design changes. Therefore the concern is valid only for the implementation of SQN design criteria.
02960 - December 31, 1986
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 220.3(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 2 P/GE 110F 15
- b. The concern that seismic supports will fail because they are too rigid is not valid.
- c. SON pipe supports are constructible: therefore, the concern is not valid. r
- d. The concern about seismic support design criteria being i nonexistent is not valid, as these criteria have been in existence since 1975.
- 10. CORRECTIVE ACTION:
In its corrective action plan (CAP) ( App. A, 5.1), TVA commits to perform calculations for the observations noted in nine pipe supports identified in the Element Report. These calculations will demonstrate that the seismic design criteria have been properly implemented in SQN pipe support designs. The evaluation team concurs with the CAP.
(
i i
i 3
i i
03900 - December 31, 1986 ;
4
. j TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 220.3(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAN REVISION NUMBER: 2
[ PAGE 12 0F 15 APPENDIX A E. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED RELATED TO THE ELEMENT:
- a. Detailed Design Criteria SQN-DC-V-24.1, " Location and Design of Piping Supports and Supplemental Steci in Category 1 Structures," R0, (6/23/86)
- b. CEB-SQN-100(CEB-80-75), " Guidelines for Design of Component Supports for TVA Class A through D " R3, (1/15/81), R0, (03/10/75) ,,
y
- c. Detailed Design Criteria WB-DC-40-31.9, " Location and Design of Piping Supports and Supplemental Steel in Category 1 Structures," R6, (2/10/86), R0, (08/29/75)
- d. Detailed Design Criteria SCN-DC-V-2.14 " Piping System' Anchors Installed in Category I Structures," R0, (06/30/86) ,
- e. Pipe support drawings (Rev. 0):
\
2-9GBH-70 (2-H47-70) 2-CCH-374 (2-H10-374) 1-F PCH-527 (1-H50-527) 1-SCBH-72 (2-H47-72) 1-CVCH-813 (2H34-813)
- f. Pipe Support Drawings and calculations:
SUPPORT Lalc. -
Sheet No. Mark ho. Rev. Rev.
2-HI-315 2-MSH-315 903 0 2-HI-348 2-MSH-348 902 0 1 -H10-511 1-CCH-470 909 0 1 -H20-451 1-SIH-437 7 0 1-H3-367 1-AFDH-328 906 0 1-H3-369 1-AFDH-329 906 0 1 -H34-100 1 -CVCH-100 9 01 0 2-H36-302 2-RCH-302 905 0 1 -H45-130 1-UHIH-130 S08 0 2-H47-290 2-SGCH-290 904 0 2-H50-6 2-FPCH-6 2 0 2-HC3-449 2-RHR-449 904 1 1 -1t47-202 1 -SGB H-262 903 0 1-H26-106 1 -RCH-106 909 4 2-H21 -6 2-CSH-b 9 0 039CD - December 31, 1986
=
i* l 3,. .
, .TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 220.3(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM
.)
REVISION NUMBER: 2 :
PAGE 13 0F 15 APPENDIX A (Cont'd)
- g. NSRS Report No. I-86-131-SON, " Seismic Supports Are Not Designed Properly Because They Are Rigid", (10/28/85)
- h. Generic Concern Task Force investigation report for Employee
- Concern No. IN-85-886-001, " Design Drawings Not Constructible; Design Criteria Nonexistent," R1, (6/1/80)
- i. TCAB-035, Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for Element 220.3(B),
(12/18/86)
- 6. WHAT REGULATIONS, LICENSING COMMITMENTS, DESIGN REQUIREMENTS, OR OTHER APPLY OR CONTROL IN THIS AREA?
- a. Detailed Design Criteria SQN-DC-V-24.1, " Location and Design
, of Piping Supports and Supplemental Steel in Category 1 Structures," R0, (6/23/86)
CEB-50N-10C(CEB-80-75) " Guidelines for Design of Component 7 ( b.
Supports for TVA Class A through D," R3, (1/1g/81) i c. Detailed Design Criteria WB-DC-40-31.9 " Location and Design of Piping Supports and Supplemental Steel in Category 1 Structures," R6, (2/10/86),
- d. Detailed Design Criteria SQN-DC-V-2.14, " Piping System Anchors Installed in Categery I Structures," R0, (06/30/86)
J
- 7. LIST RE0 VESTS FOR INFORMATION, MEETINGS, TELEPHONE CALLS, AND OTHER DISCUSSIONS RELAltu TO ELEMENT:
- a. RFI #SQN-515 (8/24/86)
- b. RFI # SON-546 (9/09/86)
- c. RFI # SON-549 (9/09/86)
- d. RFI (SON-640 (10/16/80) i
- e. RFI
- SON-602 (11/5/86)
- f. RFI #SCN-694 (11/5/86) 03960 - December 31, 1986
O e.
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS
- ~
REPORT NUMBER: 220.3(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 2
( PAGE 14 0F 15 APPENDIX A (Cont'd)
- g. RFI # SON-719 (11/17/86) ;
- h. Telecon between N. A. Liakonis, TVA, and S. Chitnis, Bechtel, IOM #430, (12/01/86) l i \s 6
l l
! 039fD - December 31, 1986 I
t ,., .
, TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT hlMBER: 220.3(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 2
/ PAGE 15 0F 15 CATD LIST The following CATD identifies and provides corrective action for the findings included in this report:
220 03 SQN 01 (12'/17/86)
, i
\
l J
t f
039ED - December 31, 1986
n.
(em
~
us
> e REFERENCE - ECPS120J-ECPS121C TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY PAGE -
92 FREQUENCY - REQUEST OFFICE OF NUCLEAR POWER RUN TIME - 12:57:19 l DNP - ISSS - RHM EMPLOYEE CONCERN PROGRAM SYSTEM (ECPS) RUN DATE - 12/02/86 LIST OF EMPLOYEE CONCERN INFORMATION CATEGORY: EN DES PROCESS & OUTPUT SUBCATEGORY: 22003 DESIGN OF SUPPORTS
) S GENERIC KEYHORD A H APPL QTC/NSRS P KEYHORD B.
CONCERN SUB R PLT BBSH INVESTIGATION S CONCERN KEYHORD C ..-
)
NUMBER CAT CAT D LOC FLQB REPORT R DESCRIPTION KEYHORD D IN 886-001 EN 20103 S HBN YYYY SR TVA DESIGNS HERE NOT DEVELOPED HELL DESIGN REVIEH T50157 EN 20404 REPORT ENOUGH TO BE CONSTRUCTABLE: I) DESIG DESIGN CHANGES i
I EN 22003 N CHANGES ARE STILL VENING INSTITUTE- ENGINEERING D IN AREAS HHERE THERE SH0t!LD HAVE B HANGERS EEN MINIMAL CHANGES ESPECIALLY IN AR EA 0F CONFLICTS BETHEEN TVA AND VEND I OR DHGS. 2) ENGINEERING DESIGN CRIT
'ERIA IS OFTEN NON-EXISTENT, PARTICUL ARLY FOR SEISMIC HANGER DESIGN. MAN Y DESIGN CRITERIA OR ACCEPTANCE CRIT
-) ERIA ARE STILL BEING CHANGED. THIS IS GENERIC CONCERN. ANY FURTHER INF
- ORMATION HOULD DIVULGE CONFIDENTIALI TY. CONSTRUCTION DEPT. CONCERN.
) 00 005-008 EN 22003 N SQN YYHY SS SEQUOYAN SEISMIC SUPPORTS ARE NOT DE NONCONFORMANCE T50224 K-FORM SIGNED PROPERLY. THEY ARE RIGID AND DESIGN PROCESS HILL BREAK LOOSE DURING A SEISMIC E ENGINEERING I VENT AND HILL FALL DOWN AND DAMAGE D- SUPPORTS THER EQUIPMENT, AS HELL AS FAILING T 0 SUPPORT THEIR RESPECTIVE COMPONENT S. CI HAS NO FURTHER INFORMATION. C I ONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT CONCERN. ND FOLLON UP REQUIRED 2 CONCERNS FOR CATEGORY EN SUBCATEGORY 22003 l
1 h
t.