Rev 1 to 'Diablo Canyon Unit 1 IDVP Verification of ... · Diablo Canyon Unit 1 IDVP Verification of Corrective Action Large Bore Piping Program Manager's Preface List of Tables List

'I Robert L. Cloud and Associates, Inc.

Interim Technical ReportDIABLO CANYON UNIT l

IDVP VERIFICATION OF CORMKZKVE ACTION- Large Bore PipingIIR f59, Revision l

Docket No. 50-275License No. DPR-76

1 ~'/63Project Reviewer Date

Technical Review8309300297 830926PDR ADQCK 05000275'R, . PDR

* Project Manager DateApproved P105-4-839-059

PROGRAM MANAGER'S PREFACE

DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - UNIT IINDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM

INTERIM TECHNICAL REPORT

IDVP VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION

FOR LARGE BORE PIPING

This Revision I to Interim Technical Report, ITR-59, is one of a

series of ITRs prepared by the DCNPP-IDVP for the purpose of providing a

conclusion to the program.

This report contains the final results of the IDVP verification ofthe DCP corrective action to qualify large bore piping for both seismicand non-seismic loads. All design reviews, including the completionsample, have been finalized and a site verification of Large Bore pipingmodifications has been performed. The IDVP has verified that the DCP

corrective action for large bore piping is acceptable. The IDVP

verification results in this ITR will also be reported in Section 4.5.2of the IDVP Final Report.

As IDVP Program Manager, Teledyne Engineering Services has reviewedand approved this Interim Technical Report as well as the verificationprocess and results reported therein. The methodology followed by TES

in performing this review and evaluation is described in Appendix F ofthis report.

ITR Reviewed and ApprovedIDVP Program ManagerTeledyne Engineering Services

R. WrayAssistant Project Manager

Diablo Canyon Unit 1IDVP Verification of Corrective Action

Large Bore Piping

Program Manager's PrefaceList of TablesList of Figures

iviiviii

1.0 IntroductionPurpose and ScopeSummary

2.0 DCP Nethodology

2.1 General CAP Methodology

2.2 Specific Methods and Procedures

3.0 Independent Design Review Nethods

3.1 Sampling Criteria3.2 Field Verification3.3 Scope of Review

l-l1-11-2

2-1

2-1

2-2

3-1

3-1

3-3„

3-4

3.3.1 Piping Analysis Review 3-43.3.2 Welded Attachment Analysis Review 3-53.3.3 Completion Review 3-5

3.4 ,IDVP Previous Concerns

3.5 Review Process

4.0 Overall Reviews of DCP Piping Analyses

4.1 DCP Analysis 4-100, Revision 0

4.1.1 Description4.1.2 Scope of Review4.1.3 Results

3-7

3-9

4-1

4-14-14-2

11

4.2

4.3

4 '

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

DCP Analysis 9-108, Revision 0

4.2.1 Description4.2.2 Scope of Review4.2.3 Results4.2.4 EOI Report Issued









DCP Analysis 4A-100, Revision 0




4-34-34-34-4

4-5

4-54-54-5

4-6

4-64-64-6

4-84-84-8

4-94-94-9

4-10

4-104-104-10

4-12

4»124-124-12

4.9

4.10

4.11

4.12

4.13









DCP Analysis 4A-133, Revision 1


4-13

4-134-134-13

4-14

4-144-144-14

4-15

4-154-154-154-16

4-17

4-174-174-17

4-18

4-184-184-18

5.0 Specific Reviews of DCP Piping Analyses

5.1

5.2





5-1

5-15»15-25-2

5-3

5-35-35-4

!

i







5.6 DCP Analysis 4A-ill, Revision 0






6.0 Review of DCP Welded Attachment Analyses

7.0 Review of Completion Samples

7.1 Piping Analyses

7.2 Welded Attachment Analyses

7.3 DCP Final Stress Walkdown

5-5

5-55-55-6

5-7

5-75-75-8

5-9

5-95«95-105-10

5-11

5-115-115-11

5-12

5-125-125-13

5-14

5-145-145-15

6-1

7-1

7-1

7-1

7-1

8.0 Error and Open Item Reports

9.0 Summary of Review Results

10.0 Conclusions

11.0 References

Appendices

Appendix Al — IDVP Overall Checklists 1 6 2

8-1

9-1

10-1

ll-l

A2 — IDVP Welded Attachment Checklist

A3 - IDVP Piping Analysis Completion Review Checklist

A4 — IDVP Wielded Attachment Completion Review Checklist

Appendix B — DCP Stress Equations

Appendix C — Response Spectra Comparisons

Appendix D

Appendix E

— List of IDVP Sample

— EOI Status

Appendix F - Key Term DefinitionsAppendix G — Program Nanager's Assessment

List of Tables

3-1

3-2

6-1

6-2

7-1

7-2

Piping Characteristics-Overall Review Samples

Piping Characteristics-Specific Review Samples

OJelded Attachment Analyses—Sample Characteristics

Welded Attachment Analyses—Review Summary

Review Summary for Piping AnalysisCompletion Samples

Review Summary for Nelded AttachmentAnalysis Completion Samples

List of Figures

Tit~4-14-24-34-44-54-64-74-84-94-104-114-124-135-15-25-35-45-55-65-75-8

Rev. 0Rev. 0Rev. 0Rev. 0Rev. 0Rev. 1

,Rev. 0Rev. 1Rev. 0Rev. 0Rev. 3Rev. 2

,Rev. 1Rev. 1Rev. 1Rev. 0Rev. 1Rev. 2

,Rev. 0Rev. 2

,Rev. 0

DCP 4-100,DCP 9-108 iDCP 1-119 iDCP 2-lllgDCP 9-110,DCP 4-102,DCP 4A-100DCP 8-106iDCP 4-113DCP 2-105,DCP 2-120,DCP 6-101,DCP 4A-133DCP 4-10liDCP 2-114,DCP 7-103,DCP 8-116iDCP 8-117,DCP 4A-111DCP 8-102,DCP 12-101

PipingPipingPipingPipingPipingPipingPipingPipingPipingPipingPipingPipingPipingPipingPipingPipingPipingPipingPipingPipingPiping

ModelhlodelhiodelhlodelModelhlodelhiodelModelModelModelhlodelModelModelModelModelModelModelModelModelModelhlodel

1. 0 INTRODUCTION

This report is one of several interim technicalreports (ITRs) of the Independent Design VerificationProgram (IDVP) for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,Unit 1 (DCNPP-1). It presents the independent designreview of a selected sample of Design Class 1 large borepiping (diameter greater than 2 inches) which was analyzed bythe Diablo Canyon Project (DCP) as part of their CorrectiveAction Program (CAP). This verification of DCP activitieswas performed consistent with the IDVP program outlined inITRs 08 and 035 (References 1 and 2).

The scope of the IDVP verification included the reviewof CAP methodology and application of this methodology asdemonstrated in the DCP piping analyses. As described in thePGandE Phase I Final Report (Reference 3), the DCP CorrectiveAction Program included the complete review and reanalysis ofall Design Class 1 large bore piping. The scope of the IDVPverification does not include piping that was analyzed byWestinghouse Electric Company.

The purpose of this report is to provide assurance,through reviews of procedures and sample analyses, that allprevious concerns as identified in ITRs il2 and 017(References 3 and 4) have been incorporated into the DCPCorrective Action Program, and to verify that the largebore piping analyses meet the licensing criteria.

Through the examination of trends, concerns, andconclusions, this report is intended to provide assistance tothe Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in their review ofDCNPP-1. This report is referenced in the IDVP Final Report.

The IDVP reviewed the CAP methodology and found it to becomplete and thorough and in accordance with all licensingcriteria.

The IDVP reviewed 21 DCP Design Class 1 large borepiping analyses and 23 welded attachment local stressanalyses, chosen as samples from the DCP Corrective ActionProgram.

Differences between the DCP an lyses and the IDVPdetermined information were found. Based on IDVPreviews, two piping analyses were revised by the DCP. Allother differences were resolved either through IDVPengineering judgement or through DCP initiated analysisrevisions.

Based on IDVP reviews, 5 EOIs were issued. Two of theseEOIs noted IDVP generic concerns regarding DCP SIFapplications and valve modeling. These were resolved by theinclusion of specific checks in the DCP final reviewchecklist. The IDVP verified these items through thereviews of completion samples.

The IDVP reviewed 7 piping analysis completion samplesand 4 welded attachment completion samples for verificationof current (June 30, 1983 or later) loading inputs, interfacedata, and criteria. The IDVP verified that all licensingcriteria were met.

llodifications required as a result of the correctiveaction piping analyses were field verified by the IDVP on asampling basis. Three large bore piping modifications wereincluded in the field verification samples.

Based on the above reviews, the IDVP concludes thatDesign Class 1 large bore piping at Diablo Canyon NuclearPower Plant, Unit 1, was designed in conformity withapplicable licensing requirements.

1-2

2 ' DCP [1ETHODOLOGY

2.1

The following general elements were included in theDCP Corrective Action Program:

o Review of DCP criteria for compliance with the FSARand Hosgri Report (References 39 and 40)

o Preparation of detailed procedures,instructions, and Design Criteria lIemoranda(DCl1s) (References 44 to 55) to describe andcontrol the analysis steps and interfaces

o Comparison of as-built conditions with designdrawings

o Review of assumptions, input data, analyticalmodels, computer codes, and calculationtechniques

o Complete reanalysis of all Design Class 1 largebore piping for all applicable load cases, andanalysis of local stresses for all weldedattachments

o Field modifications made, when necessary, tomeet licensing criteria.

The DCP also developed a final design review checklistand a walkdown procedure to ensure that all critical itemswere reviewed before final completion of all analyses.

2-1

2.2

This section summarizes a portion of the detailscontained in the DCP procedures, instructions, and DCHs.Upon review and concurrence by the IDVP, these detailswere incorporated into the IDVP verification process andreview criteria for the sample analyses.

Piping Stress Analysis Procedure P-ll (Reference54) presented: modeling methods for variouscomponents such as valves, use of the DCP NE-101computer program, analysis methods for differentloading conditions, and analysis criteria suchas node point spacing and frequency cutoff criteria.In addition, this procedure included a check forstresses at value nozzles.

2 ~ Design Criteria Hemorandum DCH H-42 (Reference48) provided stress evaluation methods fordifferent types and combinations of loadingconditions (see Appendix B for equations).

3 ~ DCP Local Stress Criteria (Reference 55)included local stress criteria which specifyanalysis methods and procedures for varioustypes of welded attachments. The DCP computerprogram HE-210 (Reference 57), which evaluatesstress intensities based on ÃRC Bulletin 107(Reference 85), was the basis for the localpipe stress evaluation.

4 ~

5.

The FSAR and Hosgri Report set forth acceptancecriteria for thermal, seismic, deadweight,hydrodynamic and pressure loadings.DCHs C-17 C"25, and C-30 (References 49, 50,and 30) were used to obtain spectra curves forthe various earthquakes. Torsional andtranslational spectra were combined. Verticaland horizontal spectra for locations betweenfloor levels were linearly interpolated fromspectra above and below. Newmark and Blumespectra were enveloped to obtain final spectra.

2-2

0

6. DCH C-28 and a DCP memo (References 53 and 52).were used to obtain SAM displacement information.Loadings from seismic anchor motion (SAll)resulting from differential building motions,flexible equipment motion and piping anchordisplacements were included in the piping stressevaluations for DE, and included in support loadevaluations for all earthquake events.

7 ~ DCH I1-46 (Reference 47) provided pressure andtemperature information for different operatingmodes.

8. The DCP design and qualification of Design Class1 piping was based on ANSI B31.1 (Reference 83)and ANSI B31.7 (Reference 84) piping codes. Inaddition, load combinations, stress allowables,stress intensification factors (SIFs)< andmaterial properties were taken from ANSI B31.11973 Summer Addenda (Reference 82).

9. The seismic events evaluated by the DCP were theHosgri earthquake, DE, and DDE. Seismicanalyses were performed using the twodimensional response spectra, modalsuperposition method. Piping configurationswere represented as three dimensional linearelastic models. Two separate analyses wereperformed in which the dynamic response for eachanalysis was calculated based on one horizontalplus one vertical input spectra. The responseon a modal level from each direction was addedby absolute sum. All modal responses were thencombined by SRSS to obtain the final response.The total response was enveloped from the twoseparate analyses.

The dynamic responses were considered for allmodes up to and including the frequency of 33Hertz (Hz) for Hosgri, and 20 Hz for DE and DDE.These rigid cutoff frequencies are consistentwith the definitions stated in the HosgriReport and FSAR.

2-3

ll. Valves with extended masses were modeled toaccount for the eccentricity of the operatormass and included the stiffness of the valvestem. PGandE Drawings 101933 and .102039, andDCP DCh1 ti-58 (References 41, 43, and 46)provided valve information including valvedrawing numbers, valve fundamental frequencies,and valve acceleration limits.

2-4

0-

3.0 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW METHODS

The IDVP reviewed the DCP licensing criteria andall DCP procedures that were relevant to the analysis andqualification of Design Class 1 piping. The review ofthe DCP procedures included items of conformance to licensingcriteria, adequate control of design and interface data, andappropriate guidance for the engineers applying theprocedures.

The IDVP reviewed the CAP plan for identifying all largediameter Design Class 1 piping requiring qualification(Reference 55a). The IDVP verified that linesshown on flow diagrams were correctly incorporated into allIDVP selected sample analyses and, for several systems on asampling basis, that lines were appropriately included inother DCP analyses. In addition, the IDVP verified on asampling basis that all welded attachments were addressed bythe DCP (except for 1 case that was subsequently addressed).

Each IDVP sample was a specific analysis revisioncurrent at the time of selection. In nearly all cases,analyses from the sample were reanalyzed subsequently by theDCP, for changes in inputs, interface data and criteria. Themajority of IDVP samples chosen for review were taken priorto DCP final completion of the piping analyses.

The IDVP selected completion samples for verification ofdesign inputs, interface data, and criteria that were currentas of June 30, 1983 or later. Completion reviews wereperformed for both piping and welded attachment analyses.

The following procedures were used to perform theindependent design review of selected sample pipinganalyses.

3.1

For this review, the IDVP used as the sample spaceTables 2.2.1-3 and -4 of PGandE's Phase I Final Report(Reference 40a) which listed the DCP corrective actionanalyses and their corresponding original design analyses.From the approximately 270 new and revised DCP analysesidentified in these tables, 21 sample analyses werechosen for review to reflect various combinations of thefollowing considerations:

1. - Configuration of pipingo Connected to flexible equipmento With branch lines and/or overlapso With heavy in-line components

(i.e.< remote-operated valves)

3-1

2. Building location and application of spectra

o Piping attached to the containment annulusand/or turbine building

o Piping spans between buildings

o Piping attached to pipeway and/or auxiliarybuilding flexible slabs

3. Characteristics of pipingo High energy lines (design temperature > 200

degrees Fahrenheit and design pressure > 275psig)

4. Groups performing analysis

o DCPo CYGNA (EES)o EDS Nuclear

5. Design analysis resultso High stress ratioo High number of support modifications required.

From the 21 sample piping analyses, 23 weldedattachment local stress analyses were also selected forreview. These welded attachment analyses were selected tocover all major welded attachment types. The followingfactors were also considered when selecting welded attachmentsamples:

o Structural configuration or typeo High pipe stress to allowble ratioo Method of analysis usedo Group performing analysis (including service-

related contractors).Completion samples were also selected for both piping and

welded attachment analyses. Seven piping analyses and 4welded attachment analyses were chosen for a completionreview.

3-2

3 '

The IDVP field verified 14 of the 21 selectedsamples to verify that the DCP analyses matched theas-built conditions.

The field verification process utilized the PGandEwalkdown isometric drawings. Information verified in thefield by the IDVP included pipe sizes and lengths, locationsand sizes of branch connections and components, supports(direction, gap, type), valves (operator type andorientation), insulation, and connected equipment. Thisinformation was then compared with the DCP analysis.

The IDVP reviews noted differences between the fieldinformation and the DCP analysis when they exceeded the DCPIE 79-14 tolerances (Reference 44). The impact of thesedifferences on the DCP analyses was evaluated.

Piping modifications resulting from the DCP CorrectiveAction Program "were field verified by the IDVP on a samplingbasis. The IDVP performed checks on required fieldmodifications and verified the transfer of information betweenengineering and the field. Three large bore pipingmodifications were sampled and these were satisfactorilyverified.

It was noted that modifications to pipe routing werevery small in number and limited in scope. The majority ofmodifications due to the corrective action piping analyseswere related to pipe supports. Support modifications areaddressed in ITR 060 (Reference 4a).

3-3

3 ~ 3

The reviews performed by the IDVP for selected DCPanalyses included both the piping analyses and weldedattachment local pipe stress analyses. The implementation ofDCP methodology and the results contained in these analyseswere reviewed by the IDVP for accuracy and conformance tolicensing criteria. Differences between DCP analyses andIDVP determined information were identified and evaluated.

All review samples were identified by a particularrevision of a DCP analysis. Subsequent DCP analysisrevisions were reviewed by the IDVP only in specificinstances to resolve questions from the review of an earlierrevision or to confirm DCP incorporation of DCN informationin analyses where preliminary information was used. Inseveral cases, the IDVP selected and reviewed DCP "final"analyses. The DCP considered analyses to be final whenno preliminary data was used, documentation was complete, andall licensing criteria were met.

It is noted that small bore vent and drain lines thatare attached to large bore piping are addressed by the IDVPin ITR e61, Small Bore Piping.3.3.1

The IDVP reviews included different levels of detail,that ranged from addressing every item of the IDVP checklist,to focusing on more specific issues. For convenience inpresentation, these IDVP reviews are categorized respectivelyas "overall" and "specific" reviews.

An overall review of a particular DCP analysis .

covers areas of review, from accuracy of computer codingand modeling, to final stress evaluations. DetailedIDVP Checklists (see Appendix A) were developed and usedfor all of these reviews.

The first checklist (Checklist 1) is used for a generalinventory of the completeness and documentation of theanalysis package.

The second checklist (Checklist 2) is used to review allpertinent details of the DCP analysis.

The IDVP performed an overall review on 13 of the 21sample analyses as described in Table 3-1.

3-4

A specific review covers selected areas such as valvemodeling and qualification, SIF application, spectra input,operating modes, flexible equipment, and nozzle loads.Certain areas were selected for specific review based onconcerns previously identified in ITRs 012 and 017(References 3 and 4).

The IDVP performed specific reviews on 8 of the21 sample DCP analyses as described in Table 3-2.

3 ' '

From the 21 piping samples, 23 welded attachmentsupports were chosen for review of the DCP local stressevaluations. These samples represented the major types ofwelded attachments, including those described in the DCPlocal stress criteria (Ref. 55).

The types of welded attachments included:

o Lug (shear, axial, sliding base, elbow lug)o Anchor (stanchions, plate, tube)o Support (stanchion on straight pipe or elbow).

A checklist was developed and used in the review ofwelded attachment evaluations. This checklist (see AppendixA-2) addressed the analysis of welded attachments for bothcomputer analyses and hand calculations. Areas of reviewincluded accuracy of computer input for the DCP computerprograms HE-210 and STANCHION (References 57 and 55),modeling data and method, hand calculations, andstress evaluation.

3 ' '

Completion reviews were performed by the IDVP to verifythe use of design inputs, interface data, and criteria thatwere current as of June 30, 1983 or later. The IDVP selected7 completion samples for piping analyses and 4 for weldedattachment analyses. Completion Review checklists (seeAppendices A-3 and A-4) were used when reviewing thesesamples.

One purpose of the completion sample reviews was toverify that changes in design inputs, procedures and interfaceinformation were properly incorporated by the DCP.

3-5

The other purpose of the completion sample reviewswas to verify any corrective action that was not completedby the DCP as of June 30, l983. For the identified concerns,engineering review was performed covering the specificsubject areas.

For the selected piping analyses, specific engineeringreviews were performed to verify the DCP valve modelingmethod and SIF application. For the selected weldedattachment analyses, specific engineering reviews verifieddeadweight and thermal load combinations across anchors. Ageneral engineering overview for all other areas was alsoperformed.

3-6

3.4

As part of the verification effort on the DCP CorrectiveAction, the IDVP incorporated nine generic concerns and,twospecific concerns identified previously by the IDVP in ITRs012 and 017. These concerns were identified on the basis ofPGandE Open Items and IDVP EOI Reports issued as a result ofcomparisons made between 15 IDVP independent verificationanalyses and PGandE design analyses. The IDVP action withrespect to these previous concerns is given below:

BRIE~1. Verify the new PGandE design review

isometrics. The IDVP requested from the DCPlatest available walkdown isometrics andperformed field verification on 14 of the 21sample analyses.

2. Verify modeling of remote-operated valvesagainst "as-built" conditions and vendor

,documentation. The IDVP selected 30 remote-operated valves for review of DCP modeling,field conditions, and vendor documentation.

3. Verify modeling of flexible equipment. TheIDVP reviewed the modeling of ll pieces offlexible equipment.

4. Verify control of Hosgri response spectra andverify seismic inputs into sample designanalyses. The IDVP performed 10 detailedspectra reviews for DCP Hosgri spectra inputand 4 DCP DE/DDE spectra input. (See Appendix Cfor spectra comparisons.)

3-7

6.

Verify that the ZPA factor applied to supportloads is adequate and correctly implemented.The IDVP reviewed the computer program NE-101and verified that ZPA factors were applied tosupport loads correctly.Verify pipe and component weights. The IDVPincluded this item in the checklist for theIDVP reviews.

7.

8.

9.

Verify that adequate branch line and overlapprocedures are specified and implemented. TheIDVP included this item in the checklist for theIDVP reviews. One overlap sample and twosamples with branch lines decoupled wereselected for review. Branch line locationswere also field verified by the IDVP for the 14field verified samples.

Verify that valve accelerations and equipmentnozzle loads meet their respective allowablevalues. The IDVP selected 30 remote-operatedvalves for verification of accelerationqualification. Qualification of nozzle loadswas performed through a separate DCP process.The IDVP verified the tabulation and DCP reviewand approval of nozzle loads.

Verify that the design analyses utilize stressintensification factors that are correct andconsistent with licensing documents. The IDVPreviewed DCP SIF inputs for all samples.

Verify that schematic drawings are consistentwith the field conditions. The IDVP fieldverified 14 samples for agreement betweenschematic drawings and field conditions.Verify the modeling of standard fittings. TheIDVP included this item in the checklist for theIDVP reviews.

3-8

3.5

By utilizing the review checklists, the IDVP ensured thatitems concerning criteria, methodology, and results wereadequately checked and documented in the IDVP verificationprocess. Items that did not conform to DCP criteria,procedures, or instructions were noted in the IDVPchecklists. The majority of these items were resolved byIDVP engineering judgement or alternate calculations. Insome cases, the DCP provided additional information,clarification, or revisions to the analyses.

Items that remained unresolved were identifiedthrough EOIs. The results of these analysis reviews andoverall conclusions are presented in this ITR.

3-9

No. Rev.

4-100

9-108

1-119(1)

2-111(1)

9-110

4-102(1)

4A-100

CPAnalysis

SystemLocation

ComponentCoolingWater

ReactorCoolant

TurbineSteam Suppl

TurbineSteam Suppl

ReactorCoolant



BuildingLocation

Auxiliary

Containment

Containment

AuxiliaryPipeway

Containment

Auxi1 iary/Turbine

Containment

Piping LineNumber

323, 3288, 106

24

227

593

94, 98, 101, 102,103, 104, 105, 124,146, 314, 316, 317,2277, 3279, 3280,3281, 3282

1657, 3292

Pipe Size(Diameterin inches)

12, 18

28

12, 16, 1820, 24, 30

DesignPressure(psig)

150, 405

2510

1085

1085

2510

150, 405

140, 405

NaximumOperating

Temperature(degrees F)

140

579

567

565

579

120

120, 140

PGandfPipingClass

B, C

AB

A, B

B, C

B/E

8-10 SafetyInjection

Auxiliary 282, 283, 1016, 1978 3, 41979, 2033

2735 110 A/B

4-11 ComponentCooling

'ater

Auxiliary 125, 129, 133, 144,148, 152, 2277,2278, 2279, 3007

4, 8, 10,12, 18, 2

150, 405 110, 120 B, C

(1) Analysis previously analyzed by the IDYP.Table 3-1

Piping Characteristics - Overall Review Samples

Page s of 2

No. Rev.

DCP

AnalysisSystem

LocationBuildingLocation

Piping Lineplumber



HaximumOperating


PGandE

PipingCl ass

2-105

2-120(1)

6-101

A-133

Feedwater

Feedwater

SafetyInjection

ComponentCoolingMater

Auxiliary

Auxiliary

Containment

Containment

476, 563, 568, 571,572

574, 577, 578

3860

2304

3, 4, 6

3, 4

1586

1586

2510

210

110, 120

120

120

132

A, C

A, C

(1) Analysis previously analyzed by the IDVP.

Table 3-1

Piping Characteristics - Overall Review Samples (Continued)

Page 2 of 2

No. Rev.

DCP

AnalysisSystem

LocationBuildingLocation

Piping Linetlumber



MaximumOperating


PGandE

PipingClass

4-101 ComponentCoolingWater

Auxiliary 81, 82, 89, 90, 91,95, 96, 97, 98, 99,106, 116, 117, 126,127, 130, 145, 147,149, 153, 157, 319,322, 1575, 1576,1577, 2280, 2281,2282, 2285, 2369,2399, 2944, 3036,3039, 3284, 3285,3286, 3287, 3292

0.38 to 30 150, 405 120, 124, 130132, 137, 140146, 148, 153175

B,C,E

2-114 Feedwater/Makeup Wate

Auxiliary 330, 488, 489, 558,559, 560, 561, 562,638, 1851, 1862,

'827, 1871, 2804

3, 4, 6,8, 10

150 110, 135 C, CE, E

7-103(1)

ReactorCoolant

Containment 1136, 1137, 1138,1139, 1140, 1141,3488, 3798, 4259,4260

3/4, 1, 2,3

150, 2510 140, 579, 608636

,A,E

8-1 6

8-1 7

A-111

ContainmentSpray

ContainmentSpray


Auxiliary 264

Auxiliary 264, 279, 325, 2519

Containment 2314

255

255, 370

2500

110

110

135

BC

BC, B

(1) Analysis previously analyzed by the IDVP.

Table 3-2

Piping Characteristics - Specific Review Samples

Page 1 of 2

No. Rev.

DCPAnalysis

SystemLocation

BuildingLocation

Piping LineWumber



maximumOperating


PGandEPipingClass

8-102(1)

12-101 0

Chemical 5VolumeControl

ResidualHeat Removal

FireProtection

Auxiliary

Turbine/Auxiliary

4l,, 42, 43, 44, 734,1456,.1971, 1987,1988, 3551, 4296 I

2664, 2666., 2673,2992

4, 6, 8,14

4, 6, 10

150, 210,700

240

115, 175,350

104

BC, B

GG1, Gl,G, E

(1) Analysis previously analyzed by the IDVP.Table 3-2

Piping Characteristics - Specific Review Samples (Continued)

Page 2 of 2

4 ' OVERALL REVIEWS OF DCP PIPING ANALYSES

All DCP calculation packages which form the basis of thereviews presented in this section are listed in Appendix D.IDVP reviews are listed in Section 11.0 as References 5 Ithrough 17.

In several of the following result sections, items arenoted relating to DCP valve modeling and SIF application.These items led to the identification of generic concerns andrespective EOIs as discussed in Section 7.0.

4.1

4.1.1

The piping in DCP Analysis 4-100, Revision 0consists of 12-inch and 18-inch lines in the componentcooling water (CCW) system. These lines carry water fromsupply header B to return header B of CCW pump l-l, throughcontainment penetrations 9 and 14.

The piping contained in the DCP computer model(Figure 4-1) is bounded by containment penetration 14 and thefirst anchor support along the return header B line. It islocated in the auxiliary building between elevations 92 and134 feet. One manual-operated gate valve is included in thepiping model.

4.1.2

In this review, all items from Checklists 1 and 2were verified. In addition, the IDVP alternately envelopedand compared the Hosgri, DE and DDE spectra to the DCPspectra analysis inputs (see Appendix C).

The IDVP also field verified the piping associated withthis analysis.

4»1

The IDVP found the analysis to be in accordance with DCPcriteria and consistent with the IDVP checklists. Thefollowing items were noted and resolved in the review:

1. Valve modeling: The DCP neglected the weight offlange bolts which accounted for 7% of the totalvalve weight.

2. Stress computation: The DCP used a preliminarydesign pressure which was 240 psi (59%) belowthe value given in the subsequent DCP DCM.

Run side section properties were used to computestress at one branch location.

3. Piping geometry: A difference of 1.42 feet wasnoted for the length of a pipe segment.

The IDVP examined the effects of the above items andfound that all licensing criteria were met.

4-2

4.2

4.2.1

The piping system in DCP Analysis 9-108, Revision0, consists of 3-inch piping in the chemical and volumecontrol system of DCNPP-1. The piping line carriesfluid solution from Loop 2 of the reactor coolantletdown line to the regenerative heat exchanger.

The piping contained in the DCP computer model (Figure4-2) runs from the analytical anchor point at the inletnozzle of the regenerative heat exchanger to the firstsupport anchor. It is located in the containment buildingbetween elevations 92 and 106 feet.4.2.2

In this review, all items from Checklists 1 and 2were verified. In addition, the IDVP alternatelyenveloped and compared the Hosgri, DE and DDE spectra to theDCP spectra analysis inputs (see Appendix C).

The IDVP also field verified the piping associatedwith this analysis.

4.2.3

The IDVP found the analysis to be in accordancewith DCP criteria and consistent with the IDVP checklistsexcept for the following item:

1. SIF applications: The DCP used 1.0 for a tapertransition at the heat exchanger nozzle. TheIDVP calculated the SIF to be 1.9.

2. Interference: The DCP did not address theinterference between the regenerative heatexchanger and the pipe (including interferencedue to insulation).

EOI 1138 was issued as a result of Item l. Item 2 wasnot addressed by the interference check in the DCP finalstress walkdown process. However, this item has beenresolved through a subsequent DCP assessment of theinterference. The IDVP verified that all licensing criteriawere met.

4-3

4.2.4

EOI 1138 was issued as a result of the SIFdifferences found at the pipe-to-regenerative heat exchangerinterface. The DCP applied an SIF of 1.0, while theinterface was determined by the IDVP to be a taper transitionjoint for which an SIF of 1.9 is required. A DCP reanalysisusing more appropriate loadings resulted in acceptable stresslevels. This EOI was resolved as an Error Class C.

4-4

4.3

4.3.1

The piping in DCP'nalysis 1-119, Revision 0consists of a main steam line in the turbine steam supplysystem. The 28-inch line carries steam from a steamgenerator to the turbine-generator unit through containmentpenetration 6.

The piping contained in the DCP computer model(Figure 4-3) is bounded by the outlet nozzle of steamgenerator 1-2 and containment penetration 6. It is locatedin the containment building, with attachments to both theinterior and exterior structures, between elevations 129 and180 feet. No valves are included in the piping model.

4.3.2

In this review, all items from Checklists 1 and 2were verified with the exception of flued Qead loadqualification. In addition, the IDVP alternately envelopedand compared the Hosgri, DE and DDE spectra to the DCPspectra analysis inputs (see Appendix C).

The IDVP also field verified the piping associatedwith this analysis.

4.3.3

The IDVP found the analysis to be in accordancewith DCP criteria and consistent with the IDVP checklists.The following item was noted and resolved in the review:

l. Pipe weight: A 2000 pound flow element (weightequivalent to a pipe length of about 2.7 timespipe diameter) was not included in the DCP model.

The IDVP examined the effects of this item and foundthat all licensing criteria were met.

4.4

4.4.1

The piping in DCP Analysis 2-111, Revision 0consists of a 4-inch line in the turbine steam supplysystem. The line carries steam from a main steam lead to anauxiliary feedwater pump turbine, where the steam powers theturbine.

The piping model (Figure 4-4) is bounded by an anchorsupport and an analytical anchor at the branch connectionpoint where the 4-inch line was analytically decoupled from a28-inch line. The pipe section is located inside theauxiliary building. The portion attached to the containmentexterior structure spans between elevations 117 and 123 feet,and the portion attached to the auxiliary building is atelevation 117 feet. Included in the piping model are oneremote-operated valve and one check valve.

4 '.2In this review, all items from Checklists 1 and 2

were verified. In addition, the IDVP alternatelyenveloped and compared the Hosgri, DE and DDE spectra to theDCP spectra analysis inputs (see Appendix C).

The IDVP also field verified the piping associatedwith this analysis.4.4.3

The IDVP found the analysis to be in accordancewith DCP criteria and consistent with the IDVP checklists.The following items were noted and resolved in the review:

1. Loading inputs: The DCP applied auxiliarybuilding SAN displacements at Support 11-93SL.This support was field verified by IDVP to beattached to the containment exterior building.Pressure effects, and thermal anchor motions attwo supports were not considered in the DCPanalysis.

4-6

0

2. Piping geometry: The IDVP found that in theDCP analysis the location of Support ll-93SLdiffered from the as-built condition by 3 feet2-3/16 inches.

The straight pipe between the elbows at nodes 15and 23 was analyzed 4 feet 3 inches shorter thanthe dimension field verified by the IDVP.

3. Pipe weight: The DCP included water weight forthe steam line, causing a 38% increase in pipeweight.

These items were addressed by the DCP through a revisionto the analysis. The IDVP verified that all licensingcriteria were met.

4-7

4.5

4.5.1

The piping in DCP Analysis 9-110, Revision 0,consists of a 3-inch line in the chemical and volumecontrol system of DCNPP-1. The piping line carries fluidsolution from Loop 2 of the reactor coolant letdown line tothe regenerative heat exchanger.

The piping contained in the DCP computer model (Figure4-5) is bounded by two anchor supports and is located insidethe containment interior structure on elevation 101 feet 6inches. No valves are included in this model.

4.5.2

In this review, all items from Checklists 1 and 2 wereverified. In addition, the IDVP alternately enveloped andcompared the Hosgri spectra to the DCP spectra analysisinputs (see Appendix C).

The IDVP also field verified the piping associated withthis analysis.


l. Piping geometry: A 3-foot differencewas noted for elevation of Support 10-17SLbetween information provided by the supportdrawing and that used in the DCP analysis.A 1-foot difference between IDVP fieldinformation and DCP input for one pipe segmentwas also noted.

2. Mass point spacing: A mass point between twohorizontal supports was not modeled in the DCPanalysis.

3. Loading inputs: Two thermal load cases werenot considered by the DCP.

The IDVP examined the effects of the above-describeditems and found that all licensing criteria were met.

4-8

4.6

4.6.1

The piping in DCP Analysis 4-102, Revision 1consists of the supply header lines in the componentcooling water system. The 12- to 30-inch lines carry waterfrom the CCW heat exchanger to various equipment for heatremoval purposes.

The piping model (Figure 4-6) consists of supply headersA, B, and C, and is bounded by CCW heat exchanger outletnozzles l-l and 1-2, residual heat exchanger nozzles 1-1 and1-2, containment penetrations 10, ll, and 13, and threeanchor supports. The piping is located in both the turbineand auxiliary buildings, between elevations 94 and 136 feet.Included in the model are three remote-operated valves andseven manual-operated valves.

4.6.2

In this review, all items from Checklists 1 and 2 wereverified. The IDVP also field verified the piping associatedwith this analysis.

4. 6. 3 ERRU~

The IDVP found the analysis to be in accordance with DCPcriteria and consistent with the IDVP checklists. Thefollowing item was noted and resolved in the review:

1. Piping geometry: The DCP coded one portion of20-inch diameter pipe 3 feet shorter and anotherportion of 12-inch diameter pipe 4 feet longer,than indicated by IDVP field verification.

The IDVP examined the effects of this item and foundthat all licensing criteria were met.

4-9

4 '4.7.1

The piping in DCP Analysis 4A-100, Revision 0consists of 4-inch lines in the CCN system. These linescarry water from the excess letdown heat exchanger to returnheader C of the CCW heat exchanger through containmentpenetration 23.

The piping contained in the DCP computer model (Figure4-7) is bounded by the flued head at containment penetration23 and the outlet nozzle of the excess letdown heatexchanger. It is located inside the containment building andis attached to both the annulus structure and the interiorconcrete structure between elevations 90 and 109 feet. Onedrain valve and one manual-operated angle valve areincluded in the piping model.

4.7.2


4.7.3

The IDVP found the anaysis to be in accordance with DCPcriteria and consistent with the IDVP checklists. Thefollowing items were noted and resolved in the review:

1. Valve modeling: The DCP neglected the weightof the flanges attached to Relief Valve RV-52.This resulted in a 9% difference in the totalvalve weight.

2. SIF application: An SIF of 1.8 was not appliedat a butt weld on straight pipe near Support57N/72R. A SIF of 2.1 was also not applied forthe socket weld at a sockolet.

3. Loading inputs: DCP pressure and temperatureinputs (based on preliminary design data) wereup to 59% lower than values provided in thesubsequent DCM.

4-10

4. Interference: Pipe deflection at Support57N/61R (Y restraint) exceeded support clearancein the 2 direction.

Items 3 and 4 were resolved through a DCP analysisrevision with appropriate loading inputs and with Support57N/61R active in both Y and 2 directions. The IDVP verifiedthat all licensing criteria were met.

4-11

4.8

4.8.1

The piping in DCP Analysis 8-106, Revision 1consists of 3- and 4-inch lines in the safety injectionsystem. These lines carry fluid solution from the boroninjection tank, through containment penetration 34, to thecold legs of the reactor coolant loops.

The piping model (Figure 4-8) is bounded by the outletnozzle of the boron injection tank and the flued head ofcontainment penetration 34. It is located in the auxiliarybuilding flexible slab area between elevations 76 and 109feet. There are two remote-operated valves and six manual-operated valves included in the model.

4.8 'In this review, all items in Checklists 1 and 2 were

verified. The IDVP also field verified the piping associatedwith this analysis.

4.8.3


1. SIF application: An SIF of 1.0 was applied atthe pipe flued head interface, where an SIF of1.9 was appropriate for a taper transitionjoint. SIFs of 2.1 were not specified for allapplicable socket welding locations.

2. Interference: The DCP did not address theunintentional restraint found by the IDVP on thevertical portion of the 3/4 inch vent line.

Item 2 was resolved by the inclusion of an interferencecheck in the DCP final stress walkdown process. The IDVPexamined the effects of the above-described items and foundthat all licensing criteria were met.

4-12

4.9

4.9.1

The piping in DCP Analysis 4-113, Revision 0 consistsof 4- to 20-inch lines in the CCW system. These lines carrywater from the CCW supply header C to the reactor coolantpumps, seal water heat exchanger, and the letdown heatexchanger. They are located in the auxiliary buildingbetween elevations 86 and 110 feet.

The piping model (Figure 4-9) is bounded by the fluedhead at containment penetration 19, four anchor supports, andthe inlet nozzles of the seal water heat exchanger and the let-down heat exchanger. Included in the piping model are oneremote-operated valve and four manual-operated check valves.

F 9.2

In this review, all items from Checklists 1 and 2 wereverified. The IDVP also field verified the piping associatedwith this analysis.

4.9.3

The IDVP found the analysis to be in accordance with DCPcriteria and consistent with the IDVP checklists. The followingitems were noted and resolved in the review:

1. Support modeling: Support 55S/64R was modeled asa rigid + Y-directional support, whereas theIDVP field verification found it to be a gravitysupport.

2. Valve qualification: The gravity effect (lg)was not included in the accelerationqualification for Valve FCV-356, which has ahorizontally mounted valve stem.

3. SIF applications: SIFs applied at a 20-inch x2-inch connection, and at a butt weld on straightpipe were up to 40% lower than SIFs calculatedby the IDVP.

4. Loading inputs: The design pressure(preliminary) in one of the lines was 57% lowerthan the subsequent DCN value.

Item 1 was resolved through a DCP analysis revision as aresult of a DCP internal support review. Support 55S/64R wasmodified to be a + Y direction support. The IDVP verifiedthat all licensing criteria were met.

4-13

0

4.10.1

The piping in DCP Analysis 2-105, Revision 0consists of 3-, 4-, and 6-inch lines in the feedwatersystem. These lines carry water from the feedwater pump l-ldischarge to the steam generators.

The piping model (Figure 4-10) is bounded by the outletnozzle of the auxiliary feedwater pump and two anchorsupports. It is located in the auxiliary building betweenelevations 102 and 130 feet. Two remote-operated valves andtwo manual-operated valves are included in the model.

4.10.2


4.10.3


1. SIF applications: The DCP applied an SIF of 1.0for three branch connections. The required SIFswere determined by the IDVP to be 1.628, and1.07.

The DCP did not apply a taper transition SIF(1.9 maximum) to a flange/pipe interface.SIFs for butt welds on straight pipe were alsonot considered by the DCP.

2, Loading inputs: The DCP vertical Hosgri spectra(based on preliminary data) was found to belower than that determined alternately by theIDVP using subsequent DCll values.

Item 2 was resolved through a DCP analysis revision thatincorporated DCh values. The IDVP verified that alllicensing criteria were met.

4.11.1

The piping in DCP Analysis 2-120< Revision 3consists of 3- and 4-inch lines in the feedwater system.These lines carry water from auxiliary feedwater pump 1-3 tothe feedwater line which connects to the secondary side ofthe steam generator, for heat removal purposes.

The piping model (Figure 4-11) is bounded by threeanchor supports and is located inside the auxiliary buildingbetween elevations 116 and 130 feet. Included in the pipingmodel are two remote-operated gate valves, two manual-operatedvalves and two check valves.

4.11.2

In this review, all items from Checklists 1 and 2 wereverified, excluding detailed geometry input. The IDVP alsofield verified the piping associated with this analysis.

It is noted that this sample analysis was initiallyselected and reviewed by the IDVP at a Revision 0 level. TheIDVP later selected and reviewed this same analysis at aRevision 3 level as'a "final" analysis. The DCP consideredanalyses final when preliminary design data were not used,appropriate approvals and documentation were complete, andall licensing criteria were met. The results presented belowrepresent the combined IDVP review of both analysisrevisions.

4.11.3

The IDVP found the analysis to be in accordance with DCPcriteria and consistent with the IDVP checklists. Thefollowing item was noted and resolved in the review:

l. Valve modeling: The weights for Valves LCV-113and -115 were modeled 45% low for valve bodiesand 8% low for valve operators. In addition,minor differences in the DCP eccentricitycalculations were noted.

The IDVP examined the effects of the above-describeditem and found that all licensing criteria were met.

The above item noted in EOI 1135 contributed to theidentification of the generic concern with valve modeling(see below).

4.11.4

EOI 1135 was issued as a result of the weightdifferences found for Valves LCV-113 and LCV-115. Itaddresses the differences noted for the DCP valve modelswhere valve body weights were 45% (56 pounds) below requiredand the valve operator weights were 8% (ll pounds) belowrequired. This specific EOI was resolved as an Error Class Cthrough revision of the DCP analysis. In addition, IDVPconcern regarding DCP valve modeling was resolved throughIDVP reviews of completion samples.

4-16

4.12.1

The piping in DCP Analysis 6-101, Revision 2consists of 4-inch lines in the safety injection system.This line carries fluid solution from a safety injection pumpto the reactor coolant system hot leg. It provides coolingto the reactor coolant system in the event of a coolant orsystem line break.

The piping contained in the DCP computer model (Figure4-12) is bounded by a flued head at containment penetration77 and an anchor support. It is located inside thecontainment building at elevation 105 feet. The piping modelincludes no valves.

4.12.2


It is noted that this sample analysis was selectedand reviewed by the IDVP at a particular revision level fromDCP "final" analyses. The DCP considered analyses to befinal when preliminary design data were not used, appropriateapprovals and documentation were complete, and all ~ licensingcriteria were met.

4.12.3

The IDVP found the analysis to be in accordance with DCPcriteria and consistent with the IDVP checklists except forthe following 3 items:

1. Interference: The pipe deflection during athermal accident mode exceeded clearanceavailable at Supports 40/21R and 40/22R.

2. Support modeling: Support 10/44SL was modeledwith an eccentricity from process pipe OD of4.25 feet instead of 4.5 inches.

3. Load summary: The coordinate system wasincorrectly shown on the flued head loadsummary.

Item 1 was resolved by the inclusion of an interferencecheck in the DCP final stress walkdown process. Item 2 wasresolved .through a DCP analysis revision. Item 3 wasresolved since flued head load directions in this case didnot affect qualification. The IDVP examined the effects ofthe above-described items and verified that all licensingcriteria were met.

4. 13

4.13.1

The piping in DCP Analysis 4A-133, Revision 1consists of 4-inch lines in the CCN system. These linescarry water from a reactor. coolant pump to the return headerC line of the CCt< pumps.

The piping contained in the DCP computer model (Figure4-13) is bounded by two anchor supports and is located insidethe containment building between elevations 107 and 116 feet.No valves are included in the piping model.

4.13.2

In this review, all items from Checklists 1 and 2 wereverified.

It is noted that.„this sample analysis was selected andreviewed by the IDVP at a particular revision level from DCP"final" analyses. The DCP considered analyses to be finalwhen preliminary design data were not used, appropriateapprovals and documentation were complete, and all licensingcriteria were met.

The IDVP found the analysis to be in accordance with DCPcriteria and consistent with the IDVP checklists. Thefollowing item was noted and resolved in the reviev:

o SIF modeling: The SIFs for intermediate buttwelds on straight pipe vere not considered.

The IDVP examined the effect of this item and found thatall licensing criteria vere met.

4-18

16-lOSL47'38'IH)

FE 70ORIFICE 27 19'(H)FLANGE g Gp

55FENETRATtpN p ~G'p

l4 45

40

16 1SL

30

16.9S L25

20

LEGEND

t NODE POINT

SNUBBER

SPRING HANGER

RIGID RESTRAINT

ANCHOR

1

9

102A 55S-41A

aA 1

Figure 4-1

DCP 4-100, Rev. 0

Piping Hodel

63-76 V

C(~ 7g

4-

9%

7" 5 3

56N-29R

45'" 56N-3QR

45'H

N»IV

171 33'46"

58V.31R

yO6'0

C7n

gO C

ECl 00v Q

OCL lD IQ < h)

41'3 f56N 34R

27

15 IH)

56N 33R 1

, 56N-32R15 6)

5

EGEND

RIGID RESTRAIN T

IO ANCHOR

SNUBBER

SPRING HANGER

56IV.55A31

22 308

180

790

760270

150

7025- 76SL275

1032-2SL

9'27 H

1-K15-227-28-

740

UO

110R(GID RESTRAINT

220

6

10

0 2 3Rt> ANCHOR

7022-3R

7022-7V 905 32 SNUBBER

2080 SPRING HANGER

50

1022-2V70X

Figure 4-3

DCP 1-119, Rev. 0

Piping Model

N».

SCEEEN'D

RIGID RESTRAINT

ANCHOR

SNUBBER

SPRING HANGER

I

(Z)

~ I

3-27IIlf) I)

II)II

40

139

42

V111 77-4

172 74036

77-92SL

32

7 K74 593 43ZC

11-3SL

12

3-29R 89

77-SSL

7 7-27R

71-97SL 3-30A

7ie

2 g,lll7 ~

11-2SL

3-33R

3-28V

72 7-24R

19 783-43R

22 2023

11-93SL

)6g,.ia CONT ON

ANALYSIS99/I

5/-/3R

5/-/2R 9O

/20/8'O'(H)

5/-/4RIO-77SL t

5/-/5eGO

IS'0YH

/4'24'4 6" (H)

5/-/IR

8075

/O-/7SL N>.

RIGID RESTRAINT

ANCHOR

SNUBBER

„6py6

45TH)

5/-/OR

SPRING HANGER

45 (H)E(

55

IO~SL

5/-9R

IO-/5SL5/-8R

45 4p

rO-~-25

IO-ICUSL

5/-7R

5/-6R

/5 /O

3'-6".

N

33'3"5w

56N-44A

(p. ~ ~~~a9

Documents

Rev 1 to 'Diablo Canyon Unit 1 IDVP Verification of ... · Diablo Canyon Unit 1 IDVP Verification of Corrective Action Large Bore Piping Program Manager's Preface List of Tables List