ML18334A270
| ML18334A270 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 01/31/2018 |
| From: | Johnson E Westinghouse |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18334A291 | List: |
| References | |
| AEP-NRC-2018-66 WCAP-18309-NP | |
| Download: ML18334A270 (74) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:Enclosure 11 to AEP-NRC-2018-66 VVCAP-18309-NP, Revision O Technical Justification for Eliminating Safety Injection Line Rupture as the Structural Design Basis for D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2, Using Leak-Before-Break Methodology" (Non-Proprietary)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 WCAP-18309-NP January 2018 Revision 0 Technical Ju.stification for Eliniinating*Safety Injection Line Rupture as the Structural Design Basis *for D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2, Uslng Leak-Before-Break Methodology @~westinghouse
- This record was final-approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 WCAP-18309.,NP Revision 0 Technical Justification for Eliminating Safety Injection Line Rupture as the Structural Design Basis for D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2,
- Using Leak-Before-Break Methodology January 2018 Author: Eric D. Johnson*
Structural Design and Analysis - II Reviewer: Momo Wiratmo* Structural Design and Analysis - II Approved: Benjamin A. Leber, Manager* Structural Design and Analysis - II
*Electronically approved records are authenticated in the electronic document management system.
Westinghouse Electric Company LLC 1000 Westinghouse Drive Cranberry Township, PA 16066, USA
© 2018 Westinghouse Electric Company LLC All Rights Reserved
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3, lll TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ....................................._................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Scope and Objectives ............................................................................................................ 1-1 1.3 References ...................................................................... :...................................................... 1-2 2.0 Operation and Stability of the Reactor Coolant System ............. ,...................................................... 2-1 2.1 Stress Corrosion Cracking .................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Water Hammer ...................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Low Cycle and High Cycle Fatigue ...................................................................................... 2-2 2.4 Other Possible Degradation During Service of the SI lines .................................................. 2-3 2.5 References ............................................................................................................................. 2-3 3.0 Pipe Geometry and Loading .............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Calculations of Loads and Stresses ....................................................................................... 3-l 3.2 Loads for Leak Rate Evaluation ........................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 Load Combination for Crack Stability Analyses .................................................................. 3-2 3.4 References ............................................................................................................................. 3-3 4.0 Material Characterization ............................................................................................. :..................... 4-1 4.1 SI line Pipe Material and Weld Process ............................................................................... .4- l 4.2 Tensile Properties .................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.3 Reference .............................................................................................................................. 4-1 I 5'.0 Critical Locations ............................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Critical Locations ....................................... , .......................................................................... 5-l 6.0 Leak Rate Predictions ................................................................................................... :.................... 6-1 6.1 Introduction ..................................................*......................................................................... 6-1 6.2 _General Considerations .......................................,.._. ............. :................................................. 6-1 6.3- Calculation Method .......................................................................................................... -..... 6-1 6.4 Leak Rate Calculations .............................................................................................. :.......... 6-2 6.5 References ............................................................................................................................. 6-3 7 .0 Fracture Mechanics Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Global Failure Mechanism .................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Local Failure Mechanism .................................... ~ ................................................................ 7-2 7.3 Results of Crack Stability Evaluation ................................................................................... 7-2 7.4 References .............................................................................. :.............................................. 7-2 8.0 Assessment of Fatigue Crack Growth ................................................................................................ 8-1 8.1 References ..................................................................................................: .......................... 8-1 9.0 Assessment of Margins ....................................................................................................................... 9-1 10.0 Conclusions ......................................................................................................-................................. 10-1 Appendix A: Limit Moment. ................................. .- ....................................................................................... A-1 WCAP 0 l8309-NP January 2018 Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47AM. *( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1 Summary ofD.C. Cook Units 1 Piping Geometry and Normal Operating Condition for the Hot Leg and Cold Leg Safety Injection Lines ........................................................... 3-4 Table 3-2 Summary ofD.C. Cook Units 2 Piping Geometry and Normal Operating Condition for the Hot Leg and Cold Leg Safety Injection Lines .......................................................... .3-5 Table 3-3 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 1 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 1 Cold Leg ............................................................................................................................... 3-6 Table 3-4 Summary of D.C. Cook Unit 1 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 2 Cold Leg ............................................................................................................................... 3-6 Table 3-5 Summary of D.C. Cook Unit 1 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 3 Cold-:beg .....: .....................................*.................................................. '. ................................. 3-7 Table 3-6 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 1 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 4 Cold Leg ............................................................................................................................... 3-7 Table 3-7 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 1 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 1 HotLeg ................................................................................................................................. 3-8
- Table 3-8 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 1 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 2 HotLeg ................................................................................................................................. 3-9 Table 3-9 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 1 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 3 Hot Leg ................................................................................................................... , ........... 3-10 Table 3-10 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 1 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 4 Hot Leg ............................................................................................................................... 3-1 l Table 3-11 Summary of D.C. Cook Unit 2 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 1 Cold Leg ........................................................................... , ................................................. 3-12 Table 3-12 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 2 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 2 Cold Leg ............................................................................................................................. 3-12 Table 3-13 Summary of b.C. Cook Unit 2 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 3 Cold Leg ............................................................................................................................. 3-13 Table 3-14 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 2 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 4 Cold Leg .................................................................... :........................................................ 3-13 Table 3-15 Summary of D.C. Cook Unit 2 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 1 Hot Leg ...................................................................................... :........................................ 3-14 Table 3-16 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 2 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 2 HotLeg *************************************************************************************.:*****************************************3-15 Table 3-17 Summary of D.C. Cook Unit 2 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 3 HotLeg ............................................................................................................................... 3-16
- WCAP-18309-NP January 2018 Revision 0
*** This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIBTARY CLASS 3 V Table 3-18 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 2 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 4 HotLeg ............................................................................................................................... 3-17 Table 3-19 Summary of D.C. Cook Unit 1 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 1 Cold Leg ............................................................................................................................. 3-18 Table 3-20 Summary of D.C. Cook Unit 1 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 2 Cold Leg ............................................................................................................................. 3-18 Table 3-21 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 1 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 3 Cold Leg ............................................................................................................................. 3-19 Table 3-22 Summary of D.C. Cook Unit 1 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 4 Cold Leg ............................................................................................................................. 19 Table 3-23 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 1 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 1 Hot Leg ............................................................................................................................... 3-20 Table 3-24 Summary of D.C. Cook Unit 1 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 2 HotLeg ............................................................................................................................... 3-21 Table 3-25 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 1 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 3 Hot Leg ............................................................................................................................... 3-22 Table 3-26 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 1 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 4 Hot Leg ............................................................................................................................... 3-23 Table 3-27 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 2 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 1 Cold L.eg ............................................................................................................................. 3-24 Table 3-28 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 2 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 2 Cold Leg ............................................................................................................................. 3-24 Table 3-29 Summary of D.C. Cook Unit 2 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 3 Cold Leg ............................................................................................................................. 3-25 Table 3-30 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 2 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 4 Cold Leg ............................................................................................................................. 3-25 Table 3-31 Summary of D.C. Cook Unit 2 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 1 Hot Leg ................................................,. .................. :........................................................... 3-26 Table 3-32 Summary of D.C. Cook Unit 2 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 2 Hot Leg ..... :......................................................................................................................... 3-27 Table 3-33 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 2 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 3
- Hot Leg ...................................................................................................................-............ 3-28 Table 3-34 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 2 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 4 Hot Leg ............................................................................................................................... 3-29 Table 4-1 Material Properties for Operating Temperature Conditions on D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2 SI Lines ....................................................................................................................... 4-2 WCAP-18309-NP January 2018 Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the P~IME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRJETARY CLASS 3 vi Table 5-1 Critical Analysis Location for Leak-Before-Break ofD.C. Cook Units 1 and 2 SI Lines ................................................................................................................................. 5-2 Table 6-1 Flaw Sizes Yielding a Leak Rate of 8 gpm for the D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2 SI lines .......... 6-4 Table 7-1 Flaw Stability Results for the D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2 SI Lil).es Based on Limit Load and EPFM .................................................................................................................... 7-3 Table 9-1 Leakage Flaw Sizes, Critical Flaw Sizes, and Margin for the D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2 SI Lines ....................................................................................................................... 9-2 WCAP-18309-NP January 2018 Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Vll LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3-1 D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2 Typical Piping Layout for SI lines .............................................. 3-30 Figure 3-2 D.C. Cook Unit 1 Cold Leg SI Line 1:-,ayout Showing Weld Locations with Node Points -Loops 1 through 4 ................................................................................................. 3-31 Figure 3-3 D.C. Cook Unit 1 Hot Leg SI Line Layout Showing Weld Locations with Node Points - Loops 1 and 4 ........................................................................................................ 3-32 Figure 3-4 D.C. Cook Unit 1 Hot Leg SI Line Layout Showing Weld Locations with Node Points -Loops 2 and 3 ........................................................................................................ 3-33 Figure 3-5 D.C. Cook Unit 2 Cold Leg SI Line Layout Showing Weld Locations with Node Points-Loops 1 through_4 ................................................................................................. 3-34 Figure 3-6 D.C. Cook Unit 2 Hot Leg SI Line Layout Sho"'.ing Weld Locations with Node Points-Loops 1 and 4 ........................................................................................................ 3-35 Figure 3-7 D.C. Cook Unit 2 Hot Leg SI Line Layout Showing Weld Locations with Node Points - Loops 2 and 3 ........................................................................................................ 3-3 6 Figure 5-1 D.C. Cook Unit 2 Cold Leg SI Line Critical Weld Locations .............................................. 5-3 Figure 5-2 D.C. Cook Unit 1 Hot Leg SI Line Loops 1 and 4 Critical Weld Locations ... .,_, .................... 5-4 Figure 5-3 D.C. Cook Unit 2 Hot Leg SI Line Loop 1 Critical Weld Locations .................................... 5-4 Figure 5-4 D.C. Cook Unit 2 Hot Leg SI Line Loop 3 Critical Weld Locations .................................... 5-5 Figure 6-1 Analytical Predictions of Critical Flow Rates of Steam-Water Mixtures ............................. 6-5 Figure 6-2 ]a,c,e Pressure Ratio as a Function of LID ............................................ 6-6 Figure 6-3 Idealized Pressure Drop Profile Through a Postulated Crack ............................................... 6-7 Figure 7-1 ]",c,e Stress Distribution .................................................................................. 7-4 FigureA-1
- Pipe with a Through-Wall Crack in Bending ................................................. ,..................... A-2 WCAP-18309-NP January 2018 Revision 0
-*This record was final a(:lproved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE The current structural design basis for the D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2 Safety Injection (SI) lines, including the 6-inch and 8-inch lines directly attached to the hot leg piping of the reactor coolant system (RCS) as well as the 10-inch and 6-inch lines attached to the accumulator line piping for injection into the cold leg of the RCS, require postulating non-mechanistic circumferential and longitudinal pipe breaks. This results in additional plant hardware (e.g., pipe whip restraints and jet shields) which would mitigate the
. dynamic consequences of the pipe breaks. It is, therefore, highly desirable to be realistic in the postulation of pipe breaks for the SI lines. Presented in this report are the descriptions of a mechanistic pipe break evaluation method and the analytical results that can be used for establishing that a
..,,,,..., .. ~-~rcum~erential type of break will . not occur within the SI lines. The evaluations consider that
*circumferentially oriented flaws cover longitudinal cases.
1.2 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES The purpose of this investigation is to demonstrate Leak-Before-Break (LBB) for the D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2 SI lines from the hot leg piping of each loop of the RCS through a check valve and up to an isolation valve, as well as the SI lines from the 10-inch Accumulator lines up to the first check valve. Schematic drawing of the piping systems are shown in Section 3 .0, Figure 3-1. The recommendations and criteria proposed in SRP 3.6.3 (References 1-1 and 1-2) are used in this evaluation. The criteria and the resulting steps of the evaluation procedure can be briefly summarized as follows:
- 1. Calculate the applied loads based on as-built configuration. Identify the location(s) at which the highest faulted stress occurs.
- 2. Identify the materials and the material properties.
- 3. Postulate a through-wall flaw at the governing location(s). The size of the flaw should be large enough so that the leakage is assured of detection with margin using the installed leak detection equipment when the pipe is subjected to normal operating loads. Demonstrate that there is a margin of 10 between the calculated leak rate and the leak detection capability.
- 4. Using maximum faulted loads in the stability analysis, demonstrate that there is a margin of 2 between the leakage size flaw and the critical size flaw.
- 5. Review the operating history to ascertain that operating experience has indicated no particular susceptibility to failure from the effects of corrosion, water hammer, or low and high cycle fatigue.
- 6. For the material types used in the plant, provide representative material properties.
- 7. Demonstrate margin on applied load by combining the faulted loads by absolute summation method.
Introduction January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
*** This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
\
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 1-2 This report provides a fracture mechanics demonstration of SI line piping integrity for D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2 consistent with the NRC's position for exemption from consideration of dynamic effects (Reference 1-3). It should be noted that the terms "flaw" and "crack" have the same meaning and are used interchangeably. "Governing location" and "critical location" are also used interchangeably throughout the report.
1.3 REFERENCES
1-1 Standard Review Plan: Public Comments Solicited; 3.6.3 Leak-Before-Break Evaluation Procedures; Federal Register/Vol. 52, No. 167/Friday August 28, 1987/Notices, pp. 32626-32633. 1-2 NUREG-0800 Revision 1, March 2007, Standard Review Plan: 3.6.3 Leak-Before-Break Evaluation Procedures. 1-3 Nuclear Regulato:ry Commission, 10 CFR 50, Modification of General Design Criteria 4 Requirements for Protection Against Dynamic Effects of Postulated Pipe Ruptures, Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol. 52, No. 207/Tuesday, October 27, 1987/Rules and Regulations, pp. 41288-41295. Introduction January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
*** This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 2-1 2.0 OPERATION AND STABILITY OF THE REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM 2.1 STRESS CORROSION CRACKING The Westinghouse reactor coolant system (RCS) primary loops and connected Class 1 piping have* an operating history that demonstrates the inherent operating stability characteristics of the design. This includes a low susceptibility to cracking failure from the effects of corrosion (e.g., intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC)). This operating history totals over 1400 reactor-years, including 16 plants each having over 30 years of operation, 10 other plants each with over 25 years of operation, 11 plants each with over 20 years of operation, and 12 plants each with over 15 years of operation. In.1978, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) formed the second Pipe Crack Study Group. (The first Pipe Crack Study Group (PCSG), established in 1975, addressed cracking in boiling water reactors only.) One of the objectives of the second PCSG was to include a review of the potential for stress corrosion cracking in Pressuri_zed Water Reactors (PWRs ). The results of the study performed by the PCSG were presented in NUREG-0531 (Reference 2-1) entitled "Investigation and Evaluation of Stress Corrosion Cracking in Piping of Light Water Reactor Plants." In that report the PCSG stated:
"The PCSG has determined that the potential for stress-corrosion cracking in PWR primary system piping is extremely low because the ingredients that produce IGSCC are not all present.
The use of hydrazine additives and a hydrogen overpressure limit the oxygen in the coolant to very low levels. Other impurities that might cause stress-corrosion cracking, such as halides or caustic, are also rigidly controlled. Only for brief periods during reactor shutdown when the coolant is exposed to the air and during the subsequent startup are conditions even marginally capable-of producing stress-corrosion cracking in the primary systems of PWRs. Operating experience in PWRs supports this determination. To date, no stress corrosion cracking has been reported in the primary piping or safe ends of any PWR." For stress corrosion cracking (SCC) to occur in piping, the following three conditions must exist simultaneously: high tensile stresses, susceptible material, and a corrosive environment. Since some residual stresses and some degree of material susceptibility exist in any stainless steel piping, the potential for stress corrosion is minimized by properly selecting a material immune to SCC as well as preventing the occurrence of a corrosive environment. The material specifications consider compatibility with the system's* operating envµ-onment (both internal and external) as well as other material in the system, applicable ASME Code rules, :fracture toughness, welding, fabrication, and processing. The elements of a water environment known to increase the susceptibility of austenitic stainless steel to stress corrosion are: oxygen, fluorides, chlorides, hydroxides, hydrogen peroxide, and reduced forms of sulfur (e.g., sulfides, sulfites, and thionates). Strict pipe cleaning standards prior to operation and careful control of water chemistry during plant operation are used to prevent the occurrence of a corrosive environment. Prior to being put into service, the piping is cleaned internally and externally. During flushes and preoperational testing, water ~hemistry is controlled in accordance with written specifications. Operation and Stability of the Reactor Coolant System January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
*** This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 2-2 Requirements on chlorides, fluorides, conductivity, and pH are included in the acceptance criteria for the piping. During plant operation, the reactor coolant water chemistry is monitored and maintained within very specific limits. Contaminant concentrations are kept below the thresholds known to be conducive to stress corrosion cracking with the major water chemistry control standards being included in the plant operating procedures as a condition for plant operation. For example, during normal power operation, oxygen concentration in the RCS is expected to be in the parts per billion (ppb) range by controlling charging flow chemistry and maintaining hydrogen in the reactor coolant at specified concentrations. Halogen concentrations are also stringently controlled by maintaining concentrations of chlorides and fluorides within the specified limits. Thus during plant operation, the likelihood of stress corrosion cracking is minimized. During 1979, several instances of cracking in PWR feed water piping led to the establishment of the third PC-SG The investigations of the PCSG reported in NUREG-0691 (Reference 2-2) further confirmed that no occurrences ofIGSCC have been reported for PWR primary coolant systems .. Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking (PWSCC) occurred in the V. C. Summer reactor vessel hot leg nozzle, Alloy 82/182 weld. It should be noted that this susceptible material is not found at the D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2 SI lines. 2.2 WATER HAMMER Overall, there is a low potential for water hammer in the RCS and connecting SI lines since they are designed and operated to preclude the voiding condition in normally filled lines. The RCS and connecting SI lines including piping and components are designed for normal, upset, emergency, and faulted condition transients. The design requirements are conservative relative to both the number of transients and their severity. Relief valve actuation and the associated hydraulic transients following valve opening are considered in the system design. Other valve and pump actuations are relatively slow transients with no significant effect on the system dynamic loads. To ensure dynamic system stability, reactor coolant parameters are stringently controlled. Temperature during normal operation is maintained within a narrow range by the control rod positions; pressure is also controlled within a narrow range for steady-state conditions by the pressurizer heaters and pressurizer spray. The flow characteristics of the system remain constant during a fuel cycle because the only governing parameters, namely system resistance and the reactor coolant pump characteristics are controlled in the design process. Additionally, Westinghouse has instrumented typical reactor coolant systems to verify the flow and vibration characteristics of the system and the connecting auxiliary lines. Preoperational testing and operating experience has verified the Westinghouse approach. The operating transients of the RCS primary piping and connected SI lines are such that no significant water hammer can occur. 2.3 LOW CYCLE AND HIGH CYCLE FATIGUE The 1967 edition of the B3 l.l Code does not contain an explicit piping low cycle fatigue analysis requirement. The B3 l. l piping complies with a stress range reduction factor to be applied to the allowable stress as a way to address fatigue from full temperature cycles for thermal expansion stress evaluation. The stress range reduction factor is 1.0 (i.e., no reduction) for equivalent full temperature Operation and Stability of the Reactor Coolant System January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
*** This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM._( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 2-3 cycles less than 7000. For D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2, the equivalent full temperature cycles for the applicable design transients are less than 7000, so no reduction is required. Pump vibrations during operation would result in high cycle fatigue loads in the piping system. During operation, an alarm signals the exceedance of the RC pump shaft vibration limits. Field vibration .measurements have been made on the reactor coolant loop piping in a number of plants during hot functional testing. Stresses in the elbow below the RCP have been found analytically to be very small, between 2 and 3 ksi at the highest. Field measurements on a typical PWR plant indicate vibration stress amplitudes less than 1 ksi. When translated to the connecting SI lines, these stresses would be even lower, well below the fatigue endurance limit for the SI line materials and would result in an applied stress intensity factor below the threshold for fatigue crack growth. 2.4 OTHER POSSIBLE DEGRADATION DURING SERVICE OF THE SI LINES The SI lines and the associated fittings for the D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plants are forged product forms, which are not susceptible to toughness degradation due to thermal aging. The maximum normal operating temperature of the SI piping is about 618°F. This is well below the temperature that would cause any creep damage in stainless steel piping. Cleavage type failures are not a concern for the operating temperatures and the material used in the stainless steel piping of the SI lines. Wall thinning by erosion and erosion-corrosion effects should not occur in the SI piping due to the low velocity, typically less than 1.0 ft/sec and the stainless steel material, which is highly resistant to these degradation mechanisms. Per NUREG-0691 (Reference 2-2), a study on pipe cracking in PWR piping reported only two incidents of wall thinning in stainless steel pipe and these were not in the SI lines. The cause of wall thinning is related to high water velocity and is therefore clearly not a mechanism that would affect the SI piping. Brittle fracture for stainless steel material occurs when the operating temperature is about -200°F. SI line operating temperature is higher than 120°F and therefore, brittle fracture is not a concern for the SI lines.
2.5 REFERENCES
2-1 Investigation and Evaluation of Stress-Corrosion Cracking in Piping of Light Water Reactor Plants, NUREG-0531, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 1979. 2-2 Investigation and Evaluation of Cracking Incidents in Piping in Pressurized Water Reactors, NUREG-0691, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, September 1980. Operation and Stability of the Reactor Coolant System January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
*** This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-1 3.0 PIPE GEOMETRY AND LOADING 3.1 *CALCULATIONS OF LOADS AND STRESSES The stresses due to axial loads and bending moments are calculated by the following equation: F M (3-1) cr =-+ A Z where, cr stress, psi F axial load, lbs M moment, in-lbs A pipe cross-sectional area, in2 Z section modulus, in3 The moments for the desired loading combinations are calculated by the following equation: (3-2)
- where, Mx X component of moment, Torsion My Y component of bending moment Mz Z component of bending moment The axial load and moments for leak rate predictions and crack stability analyses are computed by the methods to be explained in Sections 3.2 and 3.3.
3.2 LOADS FOR LEAK RATE EVALUATION The normal operating loads for leak rate predictions are calculated by the following equations: F FDw +Fm+ Fp (3-3) Mx CMx)Dw + CMx)m (3-4) My (MY)Dw + (My)m (3-5) Mz CMz)Dw + (Mz)m (3-6) Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-2 The subscripts of the above equations represent the following loading cases: DW = deadweight TH normal thermal expansion p load due to internal pressure This method of combining loads is often referred to as the algebraic sum method (References 3-1 and 3-2). The LBB evaluations do not include moment effects due to pressure loading since the moment loading is significantly dominated by the thermal loads for normal operation and by the seismic loads for faulted events. The dimensions and normal operating conditions are given in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. The loads based on this method of combination are provided in Tables 3-3 through 3-18 at all the weld locations. 3.3 LOAD COMBINATION FOR CRACK STABILITY ANALYSES In accordance with Standard Review Plan 3.6.3 (References 3-1 and 3-2), the absolute sum of loading components can be applied which results in higher magnitude of combined loads. If crack stability is demonstrated using these loads, the LBB margin on loads can be reduced from ,/2 to 1.0. The absolute summation ofloads is shown in the following equations: F = I Pow I+ IFTH I+ I Fp I+ IFssEINERTIA I+ I FssEAM I (3-7) Mx = I (Mx)ow I + I (Mx)TH I+ I CMx)ssEINERTIAI + I(Mx)ssEAMI (3-8) My= I (My)ow I+ I (My)TH I+ I (My)ssEINERTIAI + I (My)ssEAMI (3-9) Mz = I CMz)ow I + I CMz)~ I+ I CMz)ssEINERTIAJ + I CMz)ssEAMI (3-10) where subscript SSEINERTIA refers to safe shutdown earthquake inertia, SSEAM is safe shutdown earthquake anchor motion. It is* noted that the D.C. Cook piping analyses consider Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) as the seismic criteria, which is equivalent to Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE). The loads so determined are used in the fracture mechanics evaluations (Section 7 .0) to demonstrate the LBB margins at the locations established to be the governing locations. These loads at all the weld locations are given in Tables 3-19 and 3-34. Notes: For the cold leg SI lines, LBB analysis will not be performed at the locations beyond the first check valve. The cold leg SI line check valve, in conjunction with the IO-inch check valve on the Accumulator line, provides protection against break propagation. Any break beyond the second check valve will not have any effect on the primary loop piping system. Similar justification is considered for the hot leg .SI lines, in that LBB analysis will not be performed at the locations beyond the isolation valve. The check valve and isolation valve, in series on the hot leg SI..1j11es, provides protection against break propagation. Any break beyond the isolation valve will not have any effect on the primary loop piping Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018
- WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
*** This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-3 system. Figure 3-1 illustrates the typical layout of the cold leg and hot leg SI lines, showing segments, for D.C. Cook Units 1 and. 2.
3.4 REFERENCES
3-1 Standard Review Plan: Public Comments Solicited; 3.6.3 Leak-Before-Break Evaluation Procedures; Federal RegisterNol. 52, No. 167/Friday, August 28, 1987/N"otices, pp. 32626-32633. 3-2 NUREG-0800 Revision 1, March 2007, Standard Review Plan: 3.6.3 Leak-Before-Break Evaluation Procedures. Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-4 Table 3-1 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 1 Piping Geometry and Normal Operating Condition for the Hot Leg and Cold Leg Safety Injection Lines Minimum Normal Operating Outer Weld Location Wall Loop Segment Diameter Temperature Pressure Nodes Thickness* (in) (OF) (psig) (in) 403F to 402 10.750 0.896 SI-CL-I 120 2,235 398 6.625 0.650
. 1 SI-HIA 181 to 174 6.625 0.650 618 2,235
*.* - --* - *.. ~*-**
SI-HL-II 170F to 152B 6.625 0.650 120 2,235 SI-HL-III 148Xto 132 8.625 0.731 120 2,235 400Nto 400F 10.750 0.896 SI-CL-I 120 2,235 406 6.625 0.650 2 SI-HL-I 511 to 500F 6.625 0.650 618 2,235 I SI-HL-II 500F to 479 6.625 0.650 120 2,235 SI-HL-III 96X to 78 8.625 0.731 120 2,235 158F to 158N 10.750 0.896 SI-CL-I 120 2,235 152 6.625 0.650 3 SI-HL-I 550 to 536F 6.625 0.650 618 2,235 SI-HL-II 536F to 516 6.625 0.650 120 2,235 SI-HL-III 96Yto 78 8.625 0.731 120 2,235 294X 10.750 0.896 SI-CL-I 120 2,235 290 to 284 6.625 0.650 4 SI-HL-I 221 to 214 6.625 . 0.650 618 2,235 SI-HL-II 210F to 190 6.625 0.650 120 2,235 SI-HL-III 148Y to 132 8.625 0.731 120 2,235 Notes: Figure 3-1 shows the piping layout and segments. Figures 3-2 through 3-7 show the weld locations for each line analyzed. Material type is A376 TP316 or A403 WP316. Piping in segment SI-CL-I is IO-inch Schedule 140 and 6-inch Schedule 160. Piping in segment SI-HL-I and SI-HL-II is 6-inch Schedule 160. Piping in segment SI-HL-III is 8-inch Schedule 140. The minimum wall thickness is conservatively based at the weld counterbore and not per ASME Code requirement. Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
*** This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-5 Table 3-2 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 2 Piping Geometry and Normal Operating Condition for the Hot Leg and Cold Leg Safety Injection Lines Minimum Normal Operating Outer Weld Location Wall Loop Segment Diameter Temperature Pressure Nodes Thickness (in) (psig) (in) C°F) 402F to 402N 10.750 0.896 SI-CL-I 120 2,235 400 to 388 6.625 0.650 1 SI-HL-I 181 to 174 6.625 0.650 618 2,235 SI-HL-11 170F to 150 6.625 0.650 120 2,235 SI-HL-111 148X to 132 8.625 0.731 120 2,235 400Nto 400F 10.750 0.896 SI-CL-I 120 2,235 404 to 412 6.625 0.650 2 SI-HL-I 511 to 500F 6.625 0.650 618 2,235 SI-HL-11 500F to 479 6.625 0.650 120 2,235 SI-HL-111 96X to 78 8.625 0.731 120 2,235 158F to 158N 10.750 0.896 SI-CL-I 120 2,235 156 to 146 6.625 0.650 3 SI-HL-I 550 to 536F 6:625 0.650 618 2,235 SI-HL-11 536F to 516 6.625 0.650 120 2,235 SI-HL-111 96Yto 78 8.625 0.731 120 2,235 294X . 10.750 0.896 SI-CL-I 120 2,235 288F to 284 6.625 0.650 4 SI-HL-I 221 to 214 6.625 0.650 618 2,235 SI-HL-11 210F to 188 6.625 0.650 120 2,235 SI-HL-III 148Yto 132 8.625 0.731 120 2,235 Notes: Figure 3-1 shows the piping layout and segments. Figures 3-2 through 3-7 show the. weld locations for each line analyzed. Material type is A376 TP316 or A403 WP316. Piping in segment SI-CL-I is 10-inch Schedule 140 and 6-inch Schedule 160. Piping in segment SI-HL-I and SI-HL-11 is 6-inch Schedule 160. Piping in segment SI-HL-III is 8-inch Schedule 140. The minimum wall thickness is conservatively based at the weld counterbore and not per AS:ME Code requirement. Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-6 Table 3-3 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 1 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 1 Cold Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbt) (in-lbf) (psi) 403F 141,396 52,841 5,937 402 141,558 41,557 5,764 398 49,122 39,885 6,427
- Notes: See Figure 3-2 for piping layout.
Axial force includes pressure. Table 3-4 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 1 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 2 Cold Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbf) (in-lbf) (psi) 400N 140,202 54,708 5,924 400F 140,013 42,332 5,721 406 48,909 40,039 6,419 Notes: See Figure 3-2 for piping layout. Axial force includes pressure. Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRlETARY CLASS 3 3-7 Table 3-5 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 1 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 3 Cold Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbf) (in-lbf) (psi) 158F 141,219 58,379 6,019 158N 141,329 46,611 5,836
... 152 50,225 43,494
- 6,735 Notes: See Figure 3-2 for piping layout.
Axial force includes pressure. Table 3-6 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 1 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 4 Cold Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbf) (in-lbf) (psi) 294X 141,911 59,081 6,055 290 50,808 55,526 7,506 288N 49,051 46,049 6,792 286F 50,410 29,948 5,935 284 50,922 12,978 4,956 Notes: See Figure 3-2 for piping layout. Axial force includes pressure. Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-8 Table3-7 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 1 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 1 Hot Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbf) (in-lbf) (psi) 181 50,846 94,977 9,882 178 49,473 83,849 9,100 174 50,106 51,130 7,184 170F 51,158 44,914 6,897 170N 49,871 36,695 6,297 168F 50,007 52,202 7,241 168N 51,138 64,111 8,050 164F 51,138 100,358 10,230 164N 50,487 94,363 9,816 162F 51,093 106,682 10,607 162N 48,405 106,295 10,363 156F 49,749 6,579 4,475 155 49,319 6,918 4,460 154N 50,310 7,588 4,582 152 50,310 16,016 5,089 148X 90,587 17,215 5,518 148T. 90,133 11,489 5,320 146F 90,116 12,102 5,337 146N 89,976 14,162 5,392 i44F 89,976 16,083 5,450 144N 89,867 16,886 5,468 142F 89,867 15,280 5,420 142N 89,613 16,092 5,430 136 91,242 18,199 5,584 132 89,109 30,612 5,842 Notes: See Figure 3-3 for piping layout. Axial force includes pressure. (' Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
- WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-9 Table 3-8 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 1 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 2 Hot Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbf) (in-lbf) (psi) 511 50,779 98,601 10,095 509 49,495 86,161 9,241 504 50,083 51,618 7,212 SOOF 51,380 52,265 7,357 SOON 49,855 42,744 6,659 498F 50,031 63,717 7,935 498N 51,386 78,002 8,906 494F 51,386 120,520 11,463 494N 50,543 112,699 10,923 492F 51,113 107,055 10,631 492N 48,679 117,568 11,063 490F 48,645 127,090 11,633 490N 48,168 126,369 11,551 484F 49,722 8,962 4,616 484N 50,290 6,341 4,505 482F 50,290 6,073 4,489 480F 49,429 10,833 4,705 480N 49,282 17,127 5,071 479 50,295 21,906 5,442 96X 90,572 22,310 5,672 96T 89,974 19,859 5,564 94F 89,964 20,053 5,570 94N 90,187 19,593 5,568
-H07-299 90,187 17,307 5,499 88F 89,948 13,021 5,356 88N- 89,777 12,367 5,327 86F 89,777 11,782 5,309 86N 90,335 10,566 5,303 84F 89,908 16,337 5,454 78 90,000 18,279 5,518 Notes: See Figure 3-4 for piping layout.
Axial force includes pressure. Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-10 Table 3-9 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 1 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 3 Hot Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbf) (in-lbf) (psi) 550 50,974 75,780 8,738 546 50,363 64,590 8,015 540 50,362 34,384 6,198 536F 51,348 49,662 7,198 536N 49,829 39,890 6,485 534F 50,050 63,896 7,948 534N 51,239 76,634 8,811 530F 51,239 120,089 11,425 530N 50,543 114,398 . 11,026 528F 48,473 76,582 8,581 528N 48,721 82,989 8,987 526F 48,635 121,526 11,298 526N 51,345 120,857 11,480 520F 49,660 10,642 4,712 518F 49,896 9,780 4,680 518N 50,417 10,999 4,796 516 50,417 12,374 4,879 96Y 90,693 12,578 5,384 96T 89,974 19,859 5,564 94F 89,964 20,053 5,570 94N 90,187 19,593 5,568 H07-299 90,187 17,307 5,499 88F 89,948 13,021 5,356 88N 89,777 12,367 5,327 86F** 89,777 11,782 5,309 86N 90,335 10,566 5,303 84F 89,908 16,337 5,454
- 78 90,000 18,279 5,518 Notes: See Figure 3-4 for piping layout.
Axial force includes pressure. Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-11 Table 3-10 Summary of D.C. Cook Unit 1 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 4 Hot Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbf) (in-lbf) (psi) 221 50,888 83,729 9,209 218 49,409 73,134 8,451 214 49,409 41,948 6,575 2IOF 51,111 43,187 6,789 210N 49,869 34,989 6,194 208F 50,010 50,262 7,124 208N 51,062 61,527 7,888 204F 51,062 99,383 10,165 204N 50,493 94,367 9,817 202F 51,044 83,671 9,218 202N 48,794 90,867 9,467 200F 48,747 102,708 10,175 200N 51,117 99,185 10,158 194F 49,616 7,782 4,537 192F 49,410 9,608 4,630 191 50,488 11,173 4,812 190 50,488 18,415 5,248 148Y 90,764 19,399 5,594 148T 90,133 11,489 5,320 146F 90,116 12,102 5,337 146N 89,976 14,162 5,392 144F 89,976 16,083 5,450 144N 89,867 16,886 5,468 142F 89,867 15,280 5,420 142N 89,613 16,092 5,430 136 91,242 18,199 5,584 132 89,109 30,612 5,842 Notes: See Figure 3-3 for piping layout. Axial force includes pressure. Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-12 Table 3-11 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 2 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 1 Cold Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbf) (in-lbf) (psi) 402F 141,460 36,939 5,688 402N 141,520 29,875 5,578 400 50,417 29,028 5,880 398F 49,160 38,047 6,320 396F 49,408 41,113 6,524 396N 50,417 44,269 6,797 392F 50,417 57,042 7,565 392N 49,438 53,217 7,255 390F 50,139 57,111 7,547 388 49,331 61,933 7,770 Notes: See Figure 3-5 for piping layout. Axial force includes pressure. Table 3-12 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 2 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 2 Cold Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbf) (in-lbt) (psi) 400N 140,052 55,872 5,937 400F 139,916 46,864 5,789 404 48,812 44,641 6,688
- 408N 48,813 75,277 8,531 408F 50,287 70,037 8,336 410N 49,290 66,775 8,058 412 50,380 73,888 8,576 Notes: See Figure 3-5 for piping layout.
Axial force includes pressure. Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
*** This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This st.atement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-13 Table 3-13 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 2 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 3 Cold Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbf) (in-lbf) (psi) 158F 141,301 53,876 5,950 158N 141,375 43,159 5,783 156 50,271 41,688 6,630 150F 49,306 50,062 7,054 150N 49,549 45,600 6,806 148F 50,028 43,022 6,690 146 49,131 46,729 6,840 Notes: See Figure 3-5 for piping layout. Axial force includes pressure. Table 3-14 Summary ofD.c.*cook Unit 2 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 4 Cold Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node .. (lbt) (in-lbf) (psi) 294X 141,974 71,479 6,253 288F 50,872 65,276 8,098 288N 48,564 53,459 7,198 286F 50,897 36,806 6,388 284 50,947 16,019 5,141 Notes: See Figure 3-5 for piping layout. Axial force includes pressure. Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP. Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-14 Table 3-15 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 2 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 1 Hot Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress
.Node (lbt) (in-lbf) (psi) 181 51,407 117,539 11,285 178 50,122 103,745 10,350 174 50,123 56,258 7,494 170F 51,130 47,551 7,053 170N 49,891 39,773 6,484 168F 49,987 50,593 7,142 168N 51,100 61,397. 7,883 164F 48,477 98,095 9,876 164N 50,492 92,512
- 9,705 162F 51,098 104,394 10,469 162N 51,142 103,701 10,431 156F 49,722 6,027 4,440 155 49,348 7,126 4,475 154N 50,285 7,805 4,593
- 150 50,285 16,340 5,106 148X 90,561 16,827 5,505
. ;-_..-.--:--"~- *-
148T 90,071 11,259 5,309 146F 90,054 . 11,939 5,329 146N 89,936 14,095 5,388 144F 89,936 16,188 5,451 144N 89,821 16,818 5,464 142F 89,821 16,610 5,458 142N 89,561 17,940 5,484 138F 8S,013 15,678
- 5,330 132 89,077 31,253 5,860 Notes: See Figure 3-6 for piping layout.
Axial force includes pressure. Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 \VC'AP-18309-NP Revision 0
*** This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRJETARY CLASS 3 3-15 Table 3-16 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 2 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 2 Hot Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbf) (in-lbf) (psi) 511 51,173 114,587 11,089 509 50,116 100,647 10,163 504 49,458 53,095 7,249 SOOP 51,388 52,236 7,356 SOON 49,830 43,232 6,687 498F 50,049 64,943 8,010 498N 51,380 78,882 8,958 494F 51,380 120,987 11,491 494N 50,555 113,270 10,959 492F 51,124 106,824 10,618 492N 50,858 117,484 11,237 490F 48,660 127,460 11,657 490N 48,165 127,132 11,597 484F 49,722 8,637 4,597 484N 50,276 6,088 4,489 482F 50,276 5,914 4,478 480F 49,469 10,444 4,685 480N 49,296 16,302 5,023 479 50,281 20,151 5,335
)
96X 90,558 20,439 5,614 96T 89,894 19,177 5,539 94F 89,885 19,530 5,550 94N 90,238 19,017 5,553 90F 90,238 18,921 5,551 88F 90,144 11,703 5,327 88N 89,910 10,609 5,281 86F 89,910 10,418 5,275 86N 90,180 10,042 5,279 H06-299 89,852 13,396 5,362 78 90,205 14,979 5,429 Notes: See Figure 3-7 for piping layout. Axial force includes pressure. Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-16 Table 3-17 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 2 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 3 Hot Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node ()bf) (in-lbf) (psi) 550 51,346 - 88,378 9,526 546 49,230 75,253 8,563
--- 540 50,346 32)59 6,063 536F 51,368 48,905 7,154 536N 49,832 38,947 6,429 534F 50,047 64,236 7,968 534N 51,267 77,430 8,861 530F 51,267 121,932 11,538 530N 50,545 116,043 11,125 -
528F 48,469 78,623 8,704 528N 48,736 85,323 9,129 526F 48,650 123,071 11,392 526N 51,367 122,526 11,582 520F 49,593 10,438 4,695 518F 49,627 10,029 4,673 ' 518N 50,453 12,290 4,876 516 50,453 14,469 5,008 96Y 90,730 14,827 5,454 96T 89,894 19,177 5,539 94F 89,885 19,530 5,550 94N --- 90,238 19,017 5,553 90F 90,238 18,921 5,551 88F 90,144 11,703 5,327 88N 89,910 10,609 5,28-I 86F 89,910 10,418 5,275 86N 90,180 10,042 5,279 H06-299 89,852 13,396 5,362 78 90,205 14,979 5,429 Notes: See Figure 3-7 for piping layout. Axial force includes pressure. Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
---~---
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-17 Table 3-18 _Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 2 Normal Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 4 Hot Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbf) (in-lbf) (psi) 221 51,356 93,826 9,855 218 49,415 80,624 8,902 214 50,163 37,535 6,371 210F 51,132 44,426 6,865 2ION 49,855 35,917 6,249 208F 50,023 50,461 7,137 208N 51,087 62,028 7,920 204F 51,087 101,028 10,266 204N 50,509 95,889 9,910 202F 51,074 89,179 9,552 202N - 50,762 96,683 9,978 200F 48,750 104,373 10,276 200N 51,139 100,307 10,227 194F 49,973 7,815 4,568 192F 49,411 9,623 4,631 192N 50,492 11,124 4,810 1-188 50,492 19,368 5,305 148Y 90,769 19,842 5,608 148T 90,071 11,259 5,309 146F - --
- 90,054 - 11,939 5,329 146N 89,936 14,095 5,388 144F 89,936 16,188 5,451 144N 89,821 16,818 5,464 142F 89,821 16;610 5,458 142N 89,561 17,940 5,484 138F 88,013 15,678 5,330 132 89,077 31,253 5,860 Notes: See Figure 3-6 for piping layout.
Axial force includes pressure. Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
*** This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-18 Table 3-19 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 1 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 1 Cold Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbt) (in-lbt) (psi) 403F 141,892 179,151 7,956 402 142,077 164,448 7,730 398 50,921 157,807 13,668 Notes: See Figure 3-2 for piping layout. Axial force includes pressure. Table 3-20 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 1 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 2 Cold Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbt) (in-lbf) (psi) 400N 142,223 183,518 8,037 400F 142,400 168,062 7,799 406 51,240 162,347 13,967 Notes: See Figure 3-2 for piping layout. Axial force includes pressure. Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-19 Table 3-21 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 1 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 3 Cold Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbf) (in-lbf) (psi) 158F 142,168 235,243 8,854 158N 141,990 203,960 8,353 152 50,834 190,576 15,632 Notes: See Figure 3-2 for piping layout_ Axial force includes pressure. Table 3-22 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 1 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 4 Cold Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbf) (in-lbf) (psi)
*294x 142,497 109,287 6,871 290 51,391 106,093 10,596 288N 51,085 96,236 9,978 286F 50,951 80,705 9,032 284 51,863 67,914 8,338 Notes: See Figure 3-2 for piping layout.
Axial force includes pressure. Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- .This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon'its vaHdation)
\VESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-20 Table 3-23 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 1 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 1 Hot Leg
- Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbf) (in-lbf) (psi) 181 51,396 236,587 18,445 178 50,955 222,790 17,579 174 50,901 172,702 14,562 170F 51,911 97,101 10,097 170N 50,774 83,873 9,209 168F 50,374 92,879 9,717 168N 51,636 99,827 10,239 164F 51,341 119,428 11,394 164N 50,828 116,217 11,158 162F 51,471 154,640 13,522 162N 51,525 154,330 13,508 156F 51,419 41,947 6,740
.. 155 51,330 56,352 7,599 154N 52,302 52,526 7,448 152 52,292 75,804 8,848 148X 92,558 86,547 7,726 148T 93,990 86,014 7,789 146F 93,965 88,645 7,867 146N 93,348 111,220 8,517 144F 93,343 152,278 9,760 144N 94,240 172,198 10,413 142F 94,225 173,692 10,457 142N
- 92,710 141,507 9,399 136 93,358 106,468 8,374 132 92,704 115,447 8,609 Notes: See Figure 3-3 for piping layout.
Axial force includes pressure. Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-21 Table 3-24 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 1 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 2 Hot Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbf) (in-lbf) (psi) 511 51,358 242,447 18,795 509 50,971 231,313 18,093 504 50,923 178,790 14,930 SOOP 52,122 104,804 10,578
\
SOON 50,891 89,945 9,583 498F 50,514 103,751 10,383 498N 51,897 114,808 11)61 494F 51,542 138,845 12,578 494N 50,899 134,131 12,242 492F 51,488 150,114 13,251 492N 51,462 159,665 13,824 490F 51,499 171,561 14,542 490N 51,767 174,832 14,761 484F 50,071 16,290 5,086 484N 51,033 19,495 5,357 482F 51,027 20,548 5,420 480F 50,330 21,314 5,409 480N 51,000 28,613 5,903 479 51,000 36,092 6,353 96X 91,269 36,826 6,150 96T 92,202 113,064 8,510 94F 92,191 115,326 8,577 94N 91,208 102,308 8,129 H07-299 91,188 81,280 7,491 88F- 92,1-20 91,964 7,866 88N 91,706 88,649 7,743 86F 91,639 97,989 8,022 86N 91,654 86,656 7,680 84F 92,846 46,951 6,543 78 90,958 64,533 6,971 Notes: See Figure 3-4 for piping layout. Axial force includes pressure. Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation) .
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-22 Table 3-25 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 1 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 3 Hot Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbf) (in-lbf) (psi) 550 51,593 240,235 18,681 546 51,229 216,269 17,209 540 51,171 171,146 14,491 536F 52,217 107,015 10,719 536N 50,921 92,504 9,740 534F 50,543 111,613 10,858 534N 51,836 120,710 11,511
- ,:~,,,,_;._ *, '53DF 51,504 143,183 12,836 530N 50,962 141,958 12,718 528F 51,599 115,786 11,196 528N 51,309 127,870 11,899 526F 51,407 177,463 14,890 526N 51,769 182,247 15,207 520F 52,118 23,588 5,693 518F 50,567 19,945 5,346 518N 51,113 45,145 6,907 516 51,105 75,601 8,738 96Y 91,376 81,843 7,519 96T 92,202 113,064 8,510 94F 92,191 * *115,326 8,577 94N 91,208 102,308 8,129 H07-299 91,188 81,280 7,491 88F 92,120 91,964 7,866 88N 91,706 88,649 7,743 86F 91,639 97,989 8,022 86N 91,654 86,656 7,680 84F 92,846 ' 46,951 6,543 78 90,958 64,533 6,971 Notes: See Figure 3-4 for piping layout.
Axial force includes pressure. Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0 .*** This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-23 Table 3-26 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 1 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 4 Hot Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbf) (in-lbf) (psi) 221 51,468 234,437 18,322 218 51,041 217,436 17,264 214 50,987 168,947 14,343 210F 51,905 98,298 10,169 210N 50,801 85,362 9,300 208F 50,401 94,785 9,834 208N 51,598 101,127 I 10,314 204F 51,292 121,062 11,488 204N 50,872 119,443 11,356 202F 51,478 128,025. 11,922 . 202N 51,288 139,402 12,591 200F 51,339 152,541 13,385 200N 51,491 154,_903 13,540 194F 51,721 16,930 5,260 192F 51,387 28,263 5,914 191 51,749 41,533 6,742 190 *. 51,739 94,322 9,916 148Y 92,006 106,550 8,301 148T 93,990 86,014 7,789 146F 93,965 88,645 7,867 146N 93,348 111,220 8,517 144F 93,343 152,278 9,760 144N 94,240 172,198 10,413 142F 94,225 173,692 10,457 142N 92,710 141,507 9,399 136 93,358 106,468 8,374 132 92,704 115,447 8,609 Notes: See Figure 3-3 for piping layout. Axial force includes pressure. Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-24 Table 3-27 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 2 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 1 Cold Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbt) (in-lbf) (psi) 402F 142,272 186,610 8,088 402N 142,122 167,777 7,784 400 50,990 164,003 14,046 398F 50,906 79,898 8,980 396F 51,057 78,610 8,915 396N 50,900 77,904 8,860 392F 50,865 103,989 10,426 392N 50,509 103,782 10,384 390F 50,781 108,618 10,697 388 51,047 114,834 11,093 Notes: See Figure 3-5 for piping layout. Axial force includes pressure. Table 3-28 Summary of D.C. Cook Unit 2 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 2 Cold Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbf) (in-lbf) (psi) 400N 142,665 229,125 8,776 400F 142,671 201,525 8,339 404 51,524 189,824 15,643 408N 51,372 130,827 12,082 408F 50,718 129,303 11,937 410N 50,961 129,945 11,995 412 51,306 135,107 12,334 Notes: See Figure 3-5 for piping layout. Axial force includes pressure. Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-25 Table 3-29
- Summary of D.C. Cook Unit 2 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 3 Cold Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbf) (in-lbf) (psi) 158F 142,515 276,095 9,514 158N 142,214 243,066 8,980 156 51,090 235,969 18,383 150F 50,972 117,263 11,233 150N 50,679 117,315 11,212 148F 50,575
- 124,252 11,621 146 51,246 129,438 11,988 Notes: See Figure 3-5 for piping layout.
Axial force includes pressure. Table 3-30 Summary of D.C. Cook Unit 2 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 4 Cold Leg Weld Location
- Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbf) (in-lbf) (psi) 294X
- 142,710 126,196 7,147 288F 51,609 118,683 11,371 288N 51,812 107,590 10,720 286F 51,674 90,266 9,667 284 52,214 67,672 8,352 Notes: See Figure 3-5 for piping layout.
Axial force includes pressure. Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added*by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-26 Table 3-31 Summary of D.C. Cook Unit 2 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 1 Hot Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbt) (in-lbf) (psi) 181 52,192 288,856 21,654 178 51,311 268,518 20,359 174 51,016 193,759 15,838 170F 51,981 109,528 10,851 170N 50,749 95,873 9,928 168F 50,334 99,233 10,096 168N 51,639 103,828 10,480 164F 51,274 123,698 11,645 164N 50,892 120,666 11,431 162F 51,535 168,720 14,374 162N 51,559 168,758 ' 14,379 156F 51,289 37,504 6,462 155 51,170 49,694 7,185 154N 51,925 46,119 7,032 150 51,915 74,882 8,761 148X 92,182 79,741 7,499 148T 93,376 68,413 7,222 146F 93,353 69,602 7,257 146N 93,009 85,005 7,704 144F 93,001 121,875 8,820 144N 93,838 139,550 9,402 142F 93,820 149,270 9,695 142N 92,168 123,274 8,817 138F 93,185 88,104 7,808 132 92,707 106,504 8,339 Notes: See Figure 3-6 for piping layout. Axial force includes pressure. Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This.record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-27 Table 3-32 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 2 Faulted Loads and Stresses for
- SI Line to Loop 2 Hot Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbf) (in-lbt) (psi) 511 51,890 280,839 21,148 509 51,237 263,700 20,063 504 , 51,021 188,612 15,529 SOOP 52,210 110,594 10,934 SOON 50,890 95,640 9,926 498F 50,493 109,017 J0,698 498N 51,934 118,607 11,393 494F 51,560 142,341 12,790 494N 50,933 137,653 12,456 492F 51,525 153,238 13,442 492N 51,479 166,255 14,222 490F 51,545 180,534 15,086 490N 51,808 185,315 15,395 484F 50,180 15,866 5,069 484N 51,096 19,658 5,372 482F 51,078 21,432 5,478 480F 50,292 22,414 5,472 480N 51,043 29,615 5,967 479 51,043 37,398 6,435 96X 91,315 38,171 6,193 96T 92,030 124,115 8,835 94F 92,019 125,845 8,886 94N 91,273 111,297 8,405 90F 91,261 72,981 7,244 88F 93,068 88,978 7,828 88N 91,869 88,845 7,758 86F 91,827 107,406 8,318 86N 92,520 105,222 8,290 H06-299 92,489 52,818 6,701 78 - 91,008 67,429 7,062 Notes: See Figure 3-7 for piping layout.
Axial force includes pressure. Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation) -
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-28 Table 3-33 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 2 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 3 Hot Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbf) (in-lbf) (psi) 550 52,154 262,513 20,067 546 51,453 236,528 18,446 540 51,238 171,927 14,543 536F 52,250 112,160 11,031 536N 50,888 97,253 10,023 534F 50,488 116,111 11,124 534N 51,878 124,720 11,756 530F 51,540 148,615 13,166 530N 50,985 146,608 12,999 528F 51,647 125,244 11,769 528N 51,382 138,602 12,550 526F 51,479 188,600 -- 15,566 526N 51,806 194,538 15,950 520F 52,308 24,770 5,779 518F 50,194 18,533 5,231 518N 51,068 45,104 6,901 516 51,063 79,207 8,952 96Y 91,336 85,935 7,640 96T 92,030 124,115 8,835 94F 92,019 125,845 8,886 94N 91,273 lU,297 8,405 90F 91,261 72,981- 7,244 88F 93,068 88,978 7,828 88N 91,869 88,845 7,758 86F 91,827 107,406 8,318 86N 92,520 105,222 8,290 H06-299 92,489 52,818 6,701 78 91,008 67,429 7,062 Notes: See Figure 3-7 for piping layout. Axial force includes pressure. Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
- WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-29 Table3-34 Summary ofD.C. Cook Unit 2 Faulted Loads and Stresses for SI Line to Loop 4 Hot Leg Weld Location Axial Force Moment Total Stress Node (lbf) (in-lbf) (psi) 221 52,162 258,524 19,828 218 51,335 238,590 18,561 214 51,066 169,236 14,367 210F 51,969 103,092 10,463 210N 50,837 89,464 9,550 208F 50,436 96,334 9,930 208N 51,657 102,815 10,420 204F 51,333 124,048 11,671 204N 50,912 122,433 . ii,539 202F 51,529 138,325 12,546 202N 51,304 149,320 13,189 200F 51,377 156,054 13,600 200N 51,542 157,825 13,720 194F 51,444 18,730 5,345 192F 51,062 23,137 5,579 192N 51,531 33,933 6,267 188 51,520 85,439 9,364 148Y 91,787 90,431 7,801 148T 93,376 68,413 7,222 146F 93,353 69,602 7,257 146N 93,009 85,005 7,704 144F 93,001 .* 121,875 8,820 144N 93,838 139,550 9,402 142F 93,820 149,270 9,695 142N 92,168 123,274 8,817 138F 93,185 88,104 7,808 132 92,707 106,504 8,339 Notes: See Figure 3-6 for piping layout.
Axial force includes pressure. Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0 . *** This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
\
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-30 Cold Leg Safetv Injection (through the Accmnulato.r li1le):
.. - +<}-- -r- --1<:J-Bot Leg S~fetvinjecfion:
t10 a>
.-J
~ ...----t::::._
$1-Hl'...-IIJ Figure 3-1 D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2 Typical Piping Layout for SI lines (Note: division between evaluation segments SI-HL-I and SI-HL-II occurs shortly beyond the check valves, where the temperature transition occurs, as defined in the piping analyses)
Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-31 Figure 3-2 D.C. Cook Unit 1 Cold Leg SI Line Layout Showing Weld Locations with Node Points - Loops 1 through 4 (Note: gray lines represent the Accumulator lines which are evaluated in a separate report) Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-32 LOOP 1 HOT UC LOoP _. HOTl.£G Figure 3-3 D.C. Cook Unit 1 Hot Leg SI Line Layout Showing Weld Locations with Node Points - Loops 1 and 4 Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-33 LOOP 2 HOTL£G Figure 3-4 D.C. Cook Unit 1 Hot Leg SI Line Layout Showing Weld Locations with Node Points - Loops 2 and 3 Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-34 Figure 3-5 D.C. Cook Unit 2 Cold Leg SI Line Layout Showing Weld Locations with Node Points - Loops 1 through 4 (Note: gray lines represent the Accumulator lines which are evaluated in a separate report) Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on .1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-35 _... \_
- RC-HOT LEC LOOP~
Figure 3-6 D.C. Cook Unit 2 Hot Leg SI Line Layout Showing Weld Locations with Node Points - Loops 1 and 4 Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3-36 Figure 3-7 D.C. Cook Unit 2 Hot Leg SI Line Layout Showing Weld Locations with Node Points - Loops 2 and 3 Pipe Geometry and Loading January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 4-1 4.0 MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION 4.1 SI LINE PIPE MATERIAL AND WELD PROCESS The material type of the SI lines for D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2 is either A376 TP316 for seamless pipes or A403 WP 316 for fittings. This is a wrought product of the type used for the piping in several PWR plants. The welding processes used are Shielded Metal Arc Weld (SMAW) and Submerged Arc Weld (SAW). In the following sections the tensile properties of the materials are presented for use in the Leak-Before-Break analyses. 4.2 TENSILE PROPERTIES Certified Materials Test Reports (CMTRs) with mechanical properties were not readily available for the D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2 SI lines. Therefore, ASME Code mechanical properties were used to establish the tensile properties for the Leak-Before-Break analyses. For the A376 TP316 (seamless pipe) and A403 WP316 (wrought fittings) material types, the representative properties at operating temperatures are established from the tensile properties given by Section II of the 2007 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Code tensile properties at temperatures for the operating conditions considered in this LBB analysis were obtained by linear interpolation of tensile properties provided in the Code. Material modulus of elasticity was also interpolated from ASME Code values for the operating temperatures considered, and Poisson's ratio was taken as 0.3. The yield strengths, ultimate strengths, and elastic moduli for the pipe material at applicable operating temperatures are tabulated in Table 4-1. 4.3 REFERENCE 4-1 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section II, 2007 Edition through 2008 Addenda. Material Characterization January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
. WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPIUETARY CLASS.3 4-2 Table 4-1 Material Properties for Operating Temperature Conditions on D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2 SI Lines Operating Ultimate Yield Elastic Modulus Segment Temperature Strength Strength (psi)
(OF) (psi) (psi) SI-HL-I 618 71,800 18,756 25,210,000 SI-CL-I SI-HL-II 120 75,000 28,960 27,992,308 SI-HL-III - Material Characterization January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added.by the PRIME.system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 5-1 5.0 CRITICAL LOCATIONS 5.1 CRITICAL LOCATIONS The Leak-Before-Break (LBB) evaluation margins are to be demonstrated for the critical locations (governing locations). Such locations are established based on the loads (Section 3.3) and the material properties established in Section 4.2. These locations are defined below for the D.C. Cook SI lines. Critical Locations for the SI'lines: All the welds in the SI lines are fabricated using the Shielded Metal Arc Weld (SMAW) or Submerged Arc Weld (SAW) processes. The pipe material type is A3 76 TP316 or A403 WP3 l 6. The governing locations were established on the basis of the pipe geometry, welding process, material type, operating temperature, operating pressure, and the highest faulted stresses at the welds. Table 5-1 shows the highest faulted stress and the corresponding weld location node for each welding process type in each segment of the hot leg and cold leg SI lines, enveloping both D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2. Definition of the piping segments and the corresponding operating pressure and temperature parameters are from Table 3-1, Table 3-2, and Figure 3-l. Figures 5-1 through 5-4 show the locations of the critical welds. The weld naming convention used in this report is as follows:
<analysis node number> _U<Unit 1 or 2>L<Loop 1/2/3/4>
"L14" indicates the piping where SI lines from Loop 1 and Loop 4 have joined together.
Critical Locations January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 5-2 Table 5-1 Critical Analysis Location for Leak-Before-Break ofD.C. Cook Units 1 and 2 SI Lines Operating Operating Maximum Welding Weld Location Segment Pipe Size Pressure Temperature Faulted Stress Process Node (psig) (OF) (psi) 10-inch SAW 2,235 120 9,514 158F U2L3 -SI-CL-I SMAW 2,235 120 18,383 156 U2L3 6-inch SAW - 2,235 120 12,082 408N U2L2 SMAW 2,235 618 21,654 181 U2Ll SI-HL-I 6-inch SAW 2,235 618 11,031 536F U2L3 SMAW 2,235 -- 120 15,950 526N U2L3 SI-HL-II 6-inch SAW 2,235 120 15,566 526F U2L3 SMAW 2,235 120 9,399 142N U1Ll4 SI-HL-III 8-inch I SAW 2,235 120 10,457 142F U1L14 Critical Locations January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
*** This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM._(_This statement was added by the PRIME-system upon its validation)
- WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 5-3
.Critical Location:
Segment SI-CL-I 10-inch SAW weld Critical Location: Segment SI-CL-I 6-inch SMAW weld Critical Location: Segment SI-CL-I 6-inch SAW weld Figure 5-1 D.C. Cook Unit 2 Cold Leg SI Line Critical Weld Locations Critical Locations January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 5-4 Critical Location: Segment SI-HL-III 8-inch SMAW weld Critical Location: Segment SI-HL-III 8-inch SAW weld Figure 5-2 D.C. Cook Unit 1 Hot Leg SI Line Loops 1 and 4 Critical Weld Locations Critical Location: Segment SI-HL-1 6-inch SMAW weld ITO Figure 5-3 D.C. Cook Unit 2 Hot Leg SI Line Loop 1 Critical Weld Locations Critical Locations January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 5-5 Critical Location: Segment SI-HL-II 6-inch SAW weld Critical Location: Segment SI-HL-II 6-inch SMAW weld Figure 5-4 D.C. Cook Unit 2 Hot Leg SI Line Loop 3 Critical Weld Locations Critical Locations January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the.PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 6-1 6.0 LEAK RATE PREDICTIONS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is to discuss the method which is used to predict the flow through postulated through-wall cracks and present the leak rate calculation results for through-wall circumferential cracks. 6.2 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS The flow of hot pressurized water through an opening to a lower back pressure causes flashing which can result in choking. For long channels where the ratio of the channel length, L, to hydraulic diameter, DH, (L/DH) is greater than [ t'c,e 6.3 CALCULATION METHOD The basic method used in the leak rate calculations is the method developed by [
]a,c,e The flow rate through a crack was calculated in the following manner. Figure 6-1 (from Reference 6-2) was used to estimate the critical pressure, Pc, for the SI line enthalpy condition and an assumed flow.
Once Pc was found for a given mass flow, the [ ]a,c,e was found from Figure 6-2 (taken from Reference 6-2). For all cases considered, [
]a,c,e therefore, this method will yield the two-phase pressure drop due to momentum effects as illustrated in Figure 6-3, where P0 is the operating pressure. Now using the assumed flow rate, G; the frictional pressure drop can be calculated using (6-1) where the friction factor f is determined using the [ rc,e The crack relative roughness, E, was obtained from fatigue crack data on stainless steel samples. The relative roughness value used in these calculations was [ rc,e The frictional pressure drop using Equation 6-1 is then calculated for the assumed flow rate and added to the [ ]a,c,e to obtain the total pressure drop from the primary syst~in to the atmosphere.
Leak Rate Predictions January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
*** This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM,. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3
- 6-2 That is, for the SI lines:
Absolute Pressure - 14.7 = [ J"'c,e (6-2) for a given assumed flow rate G. If the right-hand side of Equation 6-2 does not agree with the pressure difference between the SI line and the atmosphere, then the procedure is repeated until Equation 6-2 is satisfied to within an acceptable tolerance which in tum leads to a flow rate value for a given crack size. For the single phase cases with lower temperature, leakage rate is calculated by the following equation (Reference 6-4) with the crack opening area obtained by the method from Reference 6-3. Q = A (2gAf>/kp)°- 5 ft3/sec; (6-3) where, L'.lP = pressure difference between stagnation and back pressure (lb/ff), g = acceleration of gravity (ft/sec2), p = fluid density ~t at~ospheric pressure (lb/ft\ k = friction loss including passage loss, inlet and outlet of the through-wall crack, A= crack opening area (ft2). 6.4 LEAK RATE CALCULATIONS Leak rate calculations were made as a function of crack length at the governing locations previously identified in Section 5.1. The normal operating loads of Table 3~3 through Table 3-10 (for Unit 1), and Table 3-11 through Table 3-18 (for Unit 2), were applied in these calculations. The crack opening areas were estimated using the method of Reference 6-3 and the leak rates were calculated using the formulation desc-{ibed above. The material properties of Section 4.2 (see Table 4-1) were used for these calculations. The flaw sizes to yield a leak rate of 8 gpm were calculated at the governing locations and are given in Table 6-1 for D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2. The flaw sizes, so determined, are called leakage flaw sizes. The D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2 RCS pressure boundary leak detection system meets the intent of Regulatory Guide 1.45 and meets a leak detection capability of 0.8 gpm. Thus, to satisfythe margin of 10 on the leak rate, the flaw sizes (leakage flaw sizes) are determined which yield a leak rate of 8 gpm. Leak Rate Predictions January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 6-3
6.5 REFERENCES
6-1 [
]a,c,e 6-2 M. M. El-Wakil, "Nuclear Heat Transport, International Textbook Company," New York, N.Y, 1971.
6-3 Tada, H., "The Effects of Shell Corrections on Stress Intensity Factors and the Crack Opening Area of Circumferential and a Longitudinal Through-Crack in a Pipe," Section II-1, NUREG/CR-3464, September 1983. 6-4 Crane, D. P., "Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance Coefficient," Flow of Fluids through Valves, Fittings, and Pipe by the Engineering Division of Crane, 1981, Technical Paper No. 410. Leak Rate Predicti.ons January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved 6n 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 6-4 Table 6-1 Flaw Sizes Yielding a Leak Rate of 8 gpm for the D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2 Sllines Welding Weld Location Leakage Flaw Size Segment Pipe Size Process Node (in) IO-inch SAW 158F U2L3 5.25 SI-CL-I SMAW 156 U2L3 4.14
, 6-inch SAW 408N U2L2 3.66 SMAW 181 U2Ll 2.93 SI-HL-I 6-inch SAW 536F U2L3 3.96 SMAW 526N U2L3 3.06 SI-HL-11 6-inch SAW 526F U2L3 3.10 SMAW 142N U1L14 5.00 SI-HL-111 8-1nch SAW 142F U1L14 5.01 Leak Rate Predictions January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
- WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 6-5 a,c,e N-
*~*
STAGNATION ENTHALPY no2 Btu/lbt Figure 6-1 Analytical Predictions of Critical Flow Rates of Steam-Water Mixtures Leak Rate Predictions January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 6-6 a,c,e LENGTH/DIAMETER RATIO (L/0) Figure 6-2 [ J3*c,e Pressure Ratio as a Function of LID Leak Rate Predictions January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 6-1 a.c.e [ Figure 6-3 Idealized Pressure Drop Profile Through a Postulated Crack Leak Rate Predictions January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0 .... This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 7-1 7.0 FRACTURE MECHANICS EVALUATION 7.l GLOBAL FAILURE MECHANISM Determination of the conditions which lead to failure in stainless steel should be done with plastic fracture methodology because of the large amount of deformation accompanying fracture. One method for predicting the failure of ductile material is the plastic instability method, based on traditional plastic limit load concepts, but accounting for strain hardening and taking into account the presence of a flaw. The flawed pipe is predicted to fail when the remaining net section reaches a stress level at which a plastic
- hinge is formed. The stress level at which this occurs is termed as the flow stress. The flow stress is generally taken as the average of the yield and ultimate tensile strength of the material. at the temperature of interest. This methodology has been shown to be applicable to ductile piping through a large number of experiments and will be used here to predict the critical flaw size in the SI line piping. The failure criterion h~.been obtained by requiring equilibrium of the section containing the flaw (Figure 7-1) when loads are applied. The detailed development is provided in Appendix A for a through-wall circumferential flaw in a pipe with internal pressure, axial force, and imposed bending moments. The limit moment for such a pipe is given by:
] a,c,e
[ where: r* The analytical model described above accurately accounts for the piping internal pressure as well as imposed axial force as they affect the limit moment. Good agreement was found between the analytical predictions and the experimental results (Reference 7-1 ). For application of the limit load methodology, the material, including consideration of the configuration, must have a sufficient ductility and ductile tearing resistance to sustain the limit load. Fracture Mechanics Evaluation January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
*** This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 7-2 7.2 LOCAL FAILURE MECHANISM The local mechanism of failure is primarily dominated by the crack tip behavior in terms of crack-tip blunting, initiation, extension and finally cracks instability. The local stability will be assumed if the crack does not initiate at all. It has been accepted that the initiation toughness measured in terms of Ire from a I-integral resistance curve is a material parameter defining the crack initiation. If, for a given load, the calculated I-integral value is shown to be less than the Ire of the material, then the crack will not initiate. Stability analysis using this approach is performed for a selected location. 7.3 RESULTS OF CRACK STABILITY EVALUATION A stability analysis based on limit load was performed. Shop welds and field welds for the SI lines of D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2 utilize the SMAW or SAW weld processes. The "Z" correction factor (References 7-2 and 7-3) are as follows: Z = 1.15 [1.0 + 0.013 (OD-4)] for SMAW Z = 1.30 [1.0 + 0.010 (OD-4)] for SAW where OD is the outer diameter of the pipe in inches. The Z-factors for the SMAW and SAW were calculated for the critical locations, using the pipe outer diameter (OD) for each respective segment of the SI lines. The applied faulted loads of Table 3-19 through Table 3-26 (for Unit 1) and Table 3-27 through Table 3-34 (for Unit 2) were increased by the Z factor and critical flaw size was calculated by flaw stability under the respective loading conditions for each governing location. Table 7-1 summarizes the results of the stability analyses based on limit load for the governing locations on D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2. The associated leakage flaw sizes (from Table 6-1) are also presented in the same table. Additionally, elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) I-integral analysis for through-wall circumferential crack in a cylinder is performed for select locations using the procedure in the EPRI Fracture Mechanics Handbook (Reference 7-4). Table 7-1 shows the results of this analysis.
7.4 REFERENCES
7-1 Kanninen, M. F., et. al., "Mechanical Fracture Predictions for Sensitized Stainless Steel Piping with Circumferential Cracks," EPRI NP-192, September 1976. 7-2 Standard Review Plan; Public Comment Solicited; 3.6.3 Leak-Before-Break Evaluation Procedures; Federal RegisterNol. 52, No. 167/Friday, August 28, 1987/Notices, pp. 32626-32633. 7-3 NUREG-0800 Revision 1, March 2007, Standard Review Plan: 3.6.3 Leak-Before-Break Evaluation Procedures. 7-4 Kumar, V., German, M.D. and Shih, C. P., "An Engineering Approach for Elastic-Plastic Fracture Analysis," EPRI Report NP-1931, Project 1237-1, Electric Power Research Institute, July 1981. ,, Fracture Mechanics Evaluation January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 7-3 Table 7-1 Flaw Stability Results for the D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2 SI Lines Based on Limit Load and EPFM Welding Weld Location Critical Flaw Size Leakage Flaw Size Segment Pipe Size Process Node (in) (in) 10-inch SAW 158F U2L3 14.47 5.25 SI-CL-I SMAW 156 U2L3 8.28(!) 4.14 6-inch SAW 408N U2L2 8.46 3.66 SMAW 181 U2Ll. 6.31 2.93 SI-HL-I 6-inch SAW 536F U2L3 8.22 3.96 SMAW 526N U2L3 8.03 3.06 SI-HL-II 6-inch SAW 526F U2L3 7.67 3.10 SMAW 142N U1L14 12.20 5.00 SI-HL-III 8-inch SAW 142F U1L14 11.36 5.01 Note: 1 Based on the methodology in Section 7.2 Fracture Mechanics Evaluation January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
*** This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation) .
- WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 7-4 Neutral Axis Figure 7-1 [ ]8,c,* Stress Distribution Fracture Mechanics Evaluation January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 8-1 8.0 ASSESSMENT OF FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH The fatigue crack growth (FCG) analysis is not a requirement for the LBB analysis (see References 8-1 and 8-2) since the LBB analysis is based on the postulation of a through-wall flaw, whereas the FCG analysis is performed based on the surface flaw. In addition Reference 8-3 has indicated that, "the Commission deleted the fatigue crack growth analysis in the proposed rule. This requirement was found to be unnecessary because it was bounded by the crack stability analysis." Also, since the growth of a flaw which leaks 8 gpm would be expected to be minimal between the time that leakage reaches 8 gpm and the time that the plant would be shutdown; therefore, only a limited number of cycles would be expected to occur.
8.1 REFERENCES
8-1 Standard Review Plan; Public Comment Solicited; 3.6.3 Leak-Before-Break Evaluation Procedures; Federal RegisterNol. 52, No. 167/Friday, August 28, 1987/Notices, pp. 32626-32633. 8-2 NUREG-0800 Revision 1, March 2007, Standard Review Plan: 3.6.3 Leak-Before-Break Evaluation Procedures. 8-3 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 10 CFR 50, Modification of General Design Criteria 4 Requirements for Protection Against Dynamic Effects of Postulated Pipe Ruptures, Final Rule, Federal . RegisterNol. 52, No. 207/Tuesday, October 27, 1987/Rules and Regulations, pp. 41288-41295. Assessment of Fatigue Crack Growth January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
*** This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIBTARY CLASS 3 9-1 9.0 ASSESSMENT OF MARGINS The results of the leak rates of Section 6.4 and the corresponding stability evaluations of Section 7.3 are used in performing the assessment of margins. Margins are shown in Table 9-1 for the governing locations on D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2. All the LBB recommended margins are satisfied. In summary, margins at the critical locations are relative to:
- l. Flaw Size - Using faulted loads obtained by the absolute sum method, a margin of 2 or more exists between the critical flaw and the flaw having a leak rate of 8 gpm (the leakage flaw).
- 2. Leak Rate -A margin of 10 exists between the calculated leak rate from the leakage flaw and the plant leak detection capability of 0.8 gpm.
- 3. Loads - At th_e critical locations the leakage flaw was shown to be stable using the faulted loads obtained by the absolute sum method (i.e., a flaw twice the leakage flaw size is shown to be stable; hence the leakage flaw size is stable). A margin of 1 on loads using the absolute summation of faulted load combinations is satisfied.
Assessment of Margins January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
*** This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added _by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 9-2 Table 9-1 Leakage Flaw Sizes, Critical Flaw Sizes, and Margin for the D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2 SI Lines Critical Leakage Welding Weld Location Segment Pipe Size Flaw Size Flaw Size Margin Process Node (in) (in) IO-inch SAW 158F U2L3 14.47 5.25 2.8 SI-CL-I SMAW 156 U2L3 8.28(!) 4.14 >2.Q(l) 6-inch SAW 408N U2L2 8.46 3.66 2.3 SMAW 181 U2Ll 6.31 2.93 2.2 SI-HL-I 6-inch SAW 536F U2L3 8.22 3.96 2.1 SMAW 526N U2L3 8.03 3.06 2.6 SI-HL-II 6-inch SAW 526F U2L3 7.67 3.10 2.5 SMAW 142N U1L14 12.20 5.00 2.4 SI-BL-III 8-inch SAW 142F Ul114 11.36 5.01 2.3 Note: 1 Margin of2.0 is demonstrated based on the methodology in Section 7.2 Assessment of Margins January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 10-1
10.0 CONCLUSION
S This report justifies the elimination of SI line breaks from the structural design basis for D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2 as follows:
- a. Stress corrosion cracking is precluded by use of fracture resistant materials in the piping system and controls on reactor coolant chemistry, temperature, pressure, and flow during normal operation.
Note: Alloy 82/182 welds do not exist at the D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2 SI lines.
- b. Water hammer should not occur in the SI line piping because of system design, testing, and operational considerations.
- c. The effects of low and high cycle fatigue on the integrity of the SI line piping are negligible.
- d. Ample margin exists between the leak rate of small stable flaws and the capability of the D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2 reactor coolant system pressure boundary leakage detection systems.
- e. Ample margin exists between the small stable flaw sizes of item (d) and larger stable flaws.
- f. Ample margin exists in the material properties used to demonstrate end-of-service life (fully aged) stability of the critical flaws.
For the critical locations, postulated flaws will be stable because of the ample margins described ind, e, and f above. Based on loading, pipe geometry, welding process, and material properties considerations, enveloping critical (governing) locations were determined at which Leak-Before-Break crack stability evaluations were made. Through-wall flaw sizes were postulated which would cause a leak at a rate often (10) times the leakage detection system capability of the plant. Large margins for such flaw sizes were demonstrated against flaw instability. Finally, fatigue crack growth assessment was shown not to be an issue for the SI line piping. Therefore, the Leak-Before-Break conditions and margins are satisfied for D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2 SI line piping. It is demonstrated that the dynamic effects of the pipe rupture resulting from postulated breaks in the SI line piping need not be considered in the structural design basis ofD.C. Cook Units 1 and 2. Conclusions January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
*** This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 A-1 APPENDIX A: LIMIT MOMENT
] a,c,e Appendix A: Limit Moment January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 A-2 Cl) cS.,-------------------------, cg Figure A-1 Pipe with a Through-Wall Crack in Bending Appendix A: Limit Moment January 2018 WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0
- This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)
WCAP-18309-NP Revision 0 Proprietary Class 3
**This page was added to the quality record by the PRIME system upon its validation and shall not be consid.ered in the page numbering of this documenl**
Author Approval Johnson Eric D Jan-17-2018 14:48:08 Reviewer Approval Wiratmo Mamo Jan-17-2018 15:32:24 Manager Approval Leber Benjamin A Jan-18-2018 09:38:47 Files approved on Jan-18-2018
*** This record was final approved on 1/18/2018 9:38:47 AM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)}}