ML103000204

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Document: Design Analysis Minor Revision, Subject: Qualification of Safety-Related Buried Commodities for Tornado Missile and Seismic Evaluation
ML103000204
Person / Time
Site: Salem  PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 05/24/2010
From:
Public Service Enterprise Group, Sargent & Lundy
To:
Office of Information Services
References
FOIA/PA-2010-0334 CC-AA-309-1001-F2, 650-1882, Rev 1A
Download: ML103000204 (8)
v • d • e


Text

IMSTALLED CHANGE,, DOCUMENT PRINTED 20100506 CC-AA-309-1001-F2 Revision 0 Page I of I Design Analysis Minor Revision Cover Sheet Design Analysis (Minor Revision) Last Page No. 6 93 Analysis No.: 1 6S0-1882 Revision: 2 1A

Title:

3 Qualification of Safety-Related Buried Commodities for Tornado Missile and Seismic Evaluation DCP No(s)J 80101381 AD No(s) 1 S02 Revision: 4 1 Revision: 0 Station(s):. Salem Unit No.: 8 Units 1 &2 SafetylQA Class: 9 Safety Related /Q-Listed System Code(s): 10 N/A Is this Design Analysis Safeguards Information? Yes [ No 0 If yes, see SY-AA-101-106, Does this Design Analysis contain Unverified Assumptions? 12 Yes [I No 0 if yes, AT/AR#:

This Design Analysis SUPERCEDES: 13 N/A In its entirety.

Description of Changes (list affected pages): 14 ECP 80101381 replaces in-kind sections of the 4" diameter No. 12 and 14 Auxiliary Feedwater (AF) system headers that are routed underground outside containment from the Salem Unit I Fuel Transfer Tube Area to the Unit 1 Main Steam Outer Penetration Area. The existing 5D bends are replaced by mitered pipe joints and cut elbows. Also, the excavated area is backfilled with flowable fill, a controllable low-strength material (CLSM).

Pages Revised: 88 - 91, 93 Pages Added: 90A Disposition of Changes: ,1 Replacing the excavated soil with CLSM would increase the pipe stress due to soil overburden since the CLSM is denser than the soil. However, since DCP 80101382 reroutes the AF piping in the Fuel Transfer Tube Area above ground, the maximum buried depth of the Unit I AF piping is reduced to 5'-2 1/4" (6' is conservatively used in this calculation). This decreases the pipe stress on the Unit I buried AF piping due to soil overburden.

The conclusion of this calculation that the pipe stress due to soil overburden is negligible remains valid. Also, the replacement of the 5D bends with mitered pipe joints and cut elbows does not impact this calculation since the stress intensification factor is not considered because the pipe is constrained by the CLSM, as stated on page 93.

Preparer: Kyle Spence (Sargent &Lundy) 1112V, Print Name , Stan Name Date Rint Name Method of Review: 17 Detailed Review 0 Alternate Caly ulations [I Testing 0-Reviewer: 11 Justin Kriczky (Sargent &Lundy) - far V"-11c",ky Print Name

) ....

Sign Name Date Review Independent review 0 Peer review []

Notes: 19

( Exera

.o A. a.y e OnlyI...I) I I (For External Analayses Only)

External Approver: =

2 PSEG Reviewer 1 PSEG Approver: -

80101381 R1!

SO2RO I Page 1 of 8

INSTALLED CHANGE DOCUMENT ,

PRINTED 20100506 CC-AA-309 Revision 8 Page 16 of 16 Level 3 - Information Use ATTACHMENT 2 Owners Acceptance Review Checklist for External Design Analysis SAP Standard Text Key "NDAEXT" Page 1 of 1 DESIGN ANALYSIS NO. 6S0-1882 REV: 1A Yes No N/A

1. Do assumptions have sufficient rationale?

Li

2. Are assumptions compatible with the way the plant is operated and with the licensing basis? Li Li El Li
3. Do the design inputs have sufficient rationale? El Li Li
4. Are design inputs correct and reasonable?

Li Li

5. Are design inputs compatible with the way the plant is operated and with the licensing basis? El Li
6. Are Engineering Judgments clearly documented and justified? 11
7. Are Engineering Judgments compatible with the way the plant is operated and with the licensing basis?
8. Do the results and conclusions satisfy the purpose and objective of the Design Analysis? El Li
9. Are the results and conclusions compatible with the way the plant is operated and with the licensing basis? V Li El
10. Does the Design Analysis include the applicable design basis documentation?
11. Have any limitations on the use of the results been identified and transmitted to the appropriate organizations?
12. Are there any unverified assumptions?
13. Do all unverified assumptions have a tracking and closure mechanism in place? M] E] 1
14. Have all affected design analyses been documented on the Affected Documents List (ADL) for the associated Configuration Change?
15. Do the sources of inputs and analysis methodology used meet current technical requirements and regulatory commitments? (if the input sources or analysis methodology are based on an out-of-date methodology or code, additional reconciliation may be required if the site has since committed to a more recent code)
16. Have vendor supporting technical documents and references (including GE DRFs) been reviewed when necessary?
17. Has the Vendor supplied the native electronic file(s)?

DATE: D*-((

PSEG REVIEWER: /4r KUS ign Print / Sign 80101381R1I S02R0 Page 2

INSTALLED CHANGE,, DOCUMENT PPlKITIMFr ?Nl1NNfNc FORM NC. DE-AP.ZZ-0002-2 CALCULATION CONTINUATION/REVISION HISTORY SHEET SHEET PSEGCALCULA~TION CONTINUATION/

6 REVISION HISTORY SHEET CONT'D ON SHEET:

CALC. NO..* 5*0 -/9 -A. REFEFNCE-OR GINAT0%,DATE REV: r /z/56~

/9~F 111 REVIEWER./VERZFIER,DATE _H19~ ~

(ý , GueW e-F 4"'09-kv. Fef-,P W,+-rEg PiPlj,44 C* /9 1*1 ý..)

adD~Fki lY&--9a-Oa/6, 80101381 R1 S02RO Page 3 i /, cje 4Lejed01 S ~~moj 4~k-~PbA 4-9-IF4 7?/" -~&

2ND7 11 F3 A99S?3- P 2.972?q, rsee, h 1 -6 SJif. 6 ALF Note: Calculation 267274F was Voided and Superseded by Calculation 6S0-1 882 Rev. 1.

Revision 2 Nuclear Page 1 of 2.

Nuclear Common Common Page 1 of I Revision 2

INSTALLED CHANGE DOCUMENT PRINTED 20100506 FORM NC.DE-AP.ZZ-0002-2 CALCULATION CONTINUATION/REVISION HISTORY SHEET SHEET :2 SPSi-40 cCALULTION CONTINATION/

REVISION HISTORY SHEET 0 CONT'D ON SHEET: ¶O CALC. NO.: ý

  • 0- / pd I2.

REFERENCE:

OPIGINATORDATE IREV:

REVIEWEP./VEP.IFZER.,DATE 1' ,Drawing M0 Z ? 6Z5,k

-, p djciLý 4-,- ,

1a d-)4wvi 71 A' ~

Pe~ S~.weo~r ~

-e~ ý4 o ep =I frcv 4ocM~ - L9,337 P1 '

~d.4r e-*,c~ =4-~27 k'"

Tro/Fet '1 AhW PPt t,1 / 3tk,- 4- )1/ii -

J4~7'frtv( J-Lnsgwre  := 1 4) 5-0 ý 5 1

-rý ",p cd =7D F "r7"*. 14 a F" J-"

iE"e.-,t'4 td 27.qxJ'PsI*

2-7, q p.0S us~e f**- 2-7,7 Ja"i )- j-, 4 Z- 2. /2 oo 80101381 R1 S02RO 0j Page 4 Revision 2 Page 1 of 1 Revision 2 Coz~non Nuclear Com=on Pagje I of I

INSTALLED CHANGE .DOCUMENT PRINTED 20100506 FORM NC.BE-AP.ZZ-0002-2 CALCULATION CONTINUATION/REVISION HISTORY SHEET SHEET SE '90 C-ALCULA6TION CONTINUATION/

0 REVISION HISTORY SHEET CONT'D ON SHEET:E JL CALC. NO -ý C)-/

REFERENCE:

0R1Gfl.&TOR,DATE V EWEVIR/VRXIIZR, DATE RXV: j Unit 1 Maximum buried depth = 99'-6" - 94'-3 3/4" = 5'-2 1/4", Use 6' for conservatism Flowable Backfill, Controllable Low-Strength Material (CLSM)

Density = 120-135 lb/ft3 (see Material Master 1026607), Use 135 Ib/ft3 for conservatism Unit 2 16, A

67 Af t,.. Fkt-. fr 1,d-i wactt V-c P e)

  • J

(

P 1, ),-.p ýýv (5,5- // 6Ii~e ~4re~ *'

(aevy4elc-j )b&/L A-U' 1/\/, t- A Y,e.', ýo'-Y(2V 6 1-o ,0a kid te -T,*,#)et /e4..-a/i~ /

~/~ttAAi fetiH-1i,' f Yv4C C oJ ,, cl'tA Pic CL.j t f.-t , W - -

80101381 R1 dC"7 i°'-t *'"7<iiiet S02RO Page 5 WILLL 0

Note: The Unit 1 #12 & #14 Aux Feed headers have been rerouted above ground in the Fuel Transfer Tube Area. See DCP 80101382R1 SUP05 & SUP06.

I A

INSTALLED CHANGE DOCUMENT PRINTED 20100506 CALCULATION CONTINUATION SHEET SHEET: 90A CALC NO.: 6S0-1882 REV: 1A CONTINUED ON SHEET: 91 Unit 1 Pipe Stresses due to Soil Overburden Maximum overburden pressure, p = k, x w x h k, = coefficient of pressure at 3rest (lower than kp, passive pressure) w = backfill density = 135 lb/ft h = buried depth = 6 ft Conservatively assume ko = kp = 1+ sjn4 1 - sine Assume (P = 400 for 90-95% relative density compaction 1 + sin4 00 =4 1- sin4 p = 4.6 x 135 lb/ft3 x 6 ft = 3726 psf = 25.9 psi Hoop stress = pd = 25.9 psi x 4.5 in = 173 psi 2t 2 x .337 in The pipe design internal pressure is 1950 psi. The soil overburden pressure is negligible compared to this pressure.

80101381RI S02R0 Page 6

INSTALLED CHANGE, DOCUMENT PRINTED 20100506 FORM NC.DE-AP.ZZ-0002-2 "I CALCULATION CONTINUATION/REVISION HISTORY SHEET SHEET :/

0 P ON r

G- CALCULATION CONTINUATION/

REVISION HISTORY SHEET CONTYD ON SHEET: C ?

CALC. NO. : o50-/ gjH )IEFERENCE_:

4E112?iLc S~sc, d~t K~. ~

- (fý a5e. w e, P, -r / f ,I "-

I - / S 10 14 * ,c ,.;,

yz~w~ )-" - = L, L1 e~

46 16 S(6~5~ 63L /1 5.00 I I 58, -C 397 PSI

-Tf

,, ',s,.*

80101381 R1 S02RO Page 7

'DI'lt .C o, 4/ - t.,

Pikes Revi3iora 2 Coruuon Page 1 of 1 Revision 2 Nuclear NucLear Common page 1 of 1

INSTALLED CHANGE DOCUMENT PRINTED 20100506 C.ALCULATION CONTINUATION/REVISION HISTORY SHEET SHEET 3 0)ICCALCtULATIONCOTNAI/REVISION HISTORY SHEET CONT'D ON SHEET:

C.ALC, NO.:. - RERENCE.:

OP.IGINATOR,OATE REV: S REVIEWER/VERiFIiR, DATE

- k ,,0 IOI 4l t, so /6z *ttL " , q<w P-slue4 AV /- q ¢(

v~t ifmJ 4t sear.

~d-1S02R01 Page 8 of 8

  • t'Ae ,*1P.sJconstrained by the CLSM*at Unit 1and constrained by Sthe soil at Unit 2. 1
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML103000204&oldid=2554707"