ML20004D885
| ML20004D885 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1981 |
| From: | Colbert W DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| To: | Kintner L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0661, RTR-NUREG-661 EF2-53481, NUDOCS 8106100264 | |
| Download: ML20004D885 (12) | |
Text
O Detroit EdiSCn
=
ENRICO FERMI UNIT 2 PROJECT ENGINEERING Jne 8,1981 EF2-53481 Mr. L. L. Kintner Division of Projecy Management Office of Nuclear Regulation o
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cormaission p
Washmgton, D. C. 20555 e h h
g L:
Dear Mr. Kintner:
JUN 07BP
Reference:
Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit. 2 u m uauross JK co""'" *
NRC Docket No. 50-341 Subj ect:
Supplemental Information of Mark I Interim Plant Unique Analysis N
We have completed the comparison of the Long Term Program (LTP) and Interim Plant Unique Analysis (PUA) leadings, load combinations, and acceptance criteria as discussed in the meeting held with the NRC on May 20, 1981. As requested in subsequent phone conversations with the NRC, the comparison is organized according to NUREG - 0661 (Reference 1).
The loads comparison follows the format of ' the Table of Contents of Appendix A of Ref erence 1.
The load combination and acceptance criteria table follows the format of the table presented in Figure 4.3-1 of Ref=erence 1.
The comparison is contained in the tables attached to this letter.
In order to completely evaluate the information contained in the tables the-reader should ref er to the LTP loads documents and the Interim PUA report since it is not possible to include a complete description of all loading related information in a summary table format. The tables are meant to provide an ~ overall comparisen of the loadings, load combinations, and acceptance criteria which were used in the Interim PUA and those contained in the LTP loads doc-uments.
The tables show that the overall comparison of the LTP and Interim PUA loads and criteria is favorable. It should be understood, however, that a considerable amount of work still remains to com-plete the Final PUA for the LTP loads. The information contained in the tables is based on the data taken directly from LTP loads r
documents, calculations of Fermi unique loads performed to date, other Mark I PUA's and in some cases from preliminary LTP load assessments made since the Interim PUA was completed. Judgements are made in many cases to interpret the available information.
oI 810 e 10 e M
~
gosp A
Y
-. =,.
Hsuo'to: Mr.
L'.' L.'Kintner. June 8, 1981.
Page 2 EF2-53481 l
1 Should you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. D. F. Lehnert l
(313-649-7583).
i
. Sincerely.
ff W. F. Colbert Technical Director Fermi 2 Project i
t i
6 J
i t
t DFL/sim l
P T
1
.,I t
- A '
p c.
6 J
'l i
i N
I
...., _. ~ _
='
- g.,
_ __.. ~
bec:
(with attachments)
T. A. Alessi E. L. Alexanderson R. M. Berg J. H. Casf-11a W. J. Fal. sr F. E. Gr esor E. P. Grif f ing
.J. W.~Honkala W. H. Jens A. K. Lim E. Lusis j
P. A. Marquardt L. E. Schuerman H. Tauber R. A. Vance A. E. Wegela D. F. Lehnert J. W. Nunley Doc. Control i
T. Martin (NUTECH)
O e
s 6
2 e
Table 1 INTERIM PUA AND NU.'EC-0661 !AADS COMPARISON NUREG Load NUREG (LTP)
Interim PUA Comments pf,ect Designation Load Description Load Description containment temperature IsAs vent system and and pressure histo-Geiwell initial and max grams specified for each temps are 70*F, 70*F and containment component 210'F, 210*F, respec-and event.
tively. Vent system and wetwell max pressures IBA: Vent system and are 30.0 psig.
wetwell initial and max temps are 95'F, 95'F and DBA: Vent system and 280'r, 173*F, respec-Getwell initial and max tively. Vent system and temps are 70'F, 70'T and wetwell max pressures 210'F, 110'F, respec.
are 34.7 psig and 32.7 tively. Vent system and psig, respectively, wetwell max pressures The overall effects Containment are 30.0 psig. Effects of LTP and Interim 2.1 Pressurs and DBA: Vent system and of vent system internal PCA loads are ex-Temperature wetwell initial and max pressure included in pected to be about temps are 70*F. 7C'F and loads defined in 2.2.
the same.
292*F, 109'F, respec-Effects of early CBA tively. Vent system and wetwell internal pres-wetwell max pressures sure included in loads are 40.0 psig and 25 9 defined in 2.4.
psig respectively.
Ef-facts of vent system internal pressure in-cluded in loads defined in 2.2.
Effects of early DBA wetwell inter-nal pressure included in loads defined in 2.4.
Transient forces acting Transient forces acting cn the vent system due on the vent system due The overall effects Vent System to pressurization and to press':rization and of LTP and Interin Pressurization momentum change. Force momentum change. Force PUA loads are ex-2.2 and Thrust magnitudes vary through-magnitudes vary through-pected to be about Loads out DBA event. Maximum out FBA event. Maximum the same.
force acting on the vent force acting on the vent line is about 140 kips.
line is about 175 kips.
Transient not vertical Preliminary assess-pressure acting on the Load not specifically ment of poolsuall torus of +8.01 psi defined. The effects of torus shell pres-and -J.99 psi.
The ef-this load are included sures indicate that Net Torus fects of this load are in the pocl swell torus the LTP and Interie 2.3 Vertical Pressure included in the pool sht.. pressure loads dc. PUA net vertical Loads swell torus shell pres-fined in 2.4.
cressures are about sure loads defined in the same.
2.4.
I
Tablo 1 (Continued)
INTERIM PCA AND NUREG-0661 LOAD COMPARISON NUREG Load NUREG (LTP)
Interim PUA Comments
'jff",
Designation Load Description Load Description p
Transient pressure load which acts on the sub-merged portion of the Transient pressure load wetwell and the wetwell which acts on the sub-air space resulting in merged portion of the Torus Pool a not downward then up-wetwell and the wetwell overa11 effect of 2.4 Swell Shell ward force followed by a air space resulting in a the LTP and Interim Pressures quasi-static pressuriza-not downward then upward PUA loads expected tion. Pressure magni-force followed by 4 to be sbout the tudes and distribution quasi-static pressuriza-same, vary circumferentially tion.
Pressure magni-and longitudinally. Max tudes and distribution downward pressure bottom vary circumferential1y center of torus 12.9 psi < and are constant icngi-Integrated pressure re-tudinally. Max downward sults in tne loads de-pressure bottom center of fined in 2.3.
torus 10.5 psi.
Transient impact and dra9 Transient impact loads loads specified for all specified for the vent A preliminary as-components of the vent header, vant line, and sessment of LTP vent system above the pool.
downcomer bracing system. header impact loads Load magnitude, duration,Censtant impact duration has been performed Vent System and time of max impact throughout. Constant sisce the interim 2.6 Impact and vary with location, i.e., 15.1 psi max impact analysis was cum-Drag Loads only portion cf the vent pressure and time of max pleted (see re-system impacted simul-impact used in non-vent sponses to NRC i
taneously. Max equiva-bay, 1.,e.,
vent header questions on in-lent non-vent bay impset impact occurs simultant-terim analysis, pressure about 12.0 psi. ously. Constant 12.4 ps:Apper. dix B).
max impact pressure and variable time of max im-pact used in vent-bay.
Transient impact and Transient impact and drag loads specified for static drag loads speci-miscellaneous struc-fied for misc 411ane-tures above the pool.
ous st uctures above the Loads computed using poolpool. Max impact pres-surf ace velocity pro-sure varies with struc-Kax total integrated Pool Swell files. Load magnitude, ture shape. Constant applied load for LTF Impact and duration, and time of impact duration and time and Interim PUA 2.7 Drag on other nax impact vary with of max impact throughout. loads expected to be Internal location and structure Max impact and drag pres-similar.
Structure 3 shape. Max impact and sures specified for cat-drag pressures specified walk are 38 psi and 7.8 for catwalk are about psi, respectively, with 700 psi and 6.5 psi, re-entire catwalk impacted spectively, with only simultaneously.
Portion of catwalk On-pacted simultaneously.
Tablo 1 (Continued)
Interim PUA and NUREG-0661 Loads Comparison NUREG Lead NUREG (LTP)
Interim PUA Comments g3j"f",
Designati:3 Load Description Load Description Transient impingement load specified for all miscellaneous structures above the pool.
Load magnitudes vary with structure location, shaps, and froth veloe-ities. Froth load spec-ified for two regions.
R3gion I froth veloci-Transient load applied ties are developed using to spray header and mono-Froth fallback load plant unique OSTF films. rail. Constant load mag"are not expected to Froth Impingement Region II froth,veloci-nitude of 7.5 psi speci-hav. 4 significant 2.9 and Fallback ties are developed using fied. No horizontal effect 43 structures Loads pcsi surface velocity froth loads defined.
above the pool. A profiles. Various froth Triangular impulse load comprehensive eval-densities ars specified.
function.
uation of froth loads will be in-Rectangular impulse load Fro.h a lback load functioT. Max non-vent cluded in the Final p
g.
truc-PUA which is now bay catwa'k hanger im-tures above the pool.
pingement rressure about
"" '#"*Y' Constant static pressure 5.3 *41.
Transient fall'of 7.5 psi, back. load seecified for all structures above the pool. Troth fallback pressure on ver.t header
~
about 0.71 psi.
Transient vSlocity and acceleration dzsg load specified for all struc-tures (except the vent system) located between max pool height and ele-vation of downcemer rool exits. Max pool height Load definition not EffectJ of pool 2.9 Fallback computoffrem pool sur-available at the time fallback loads ex-Loads face displacement pro-the interim analysis was pected to be less files. Load magnitude, performed.
significant than duration and start time the effects of vary with structure other elevated location and shape.
structure loads.
Peak pressure for non-vent bay catwalk stringer is about 13.0 psi.
Transient force applied to vent header deflec-tor. Load is one compo-A preliminary as-Vent Header nent of overall vent Vent header deflector s3ssment of LTP 2.10 Deflector Loads system impact loading has been added since the vent header impact and is implicit in the Unterim analysis was loads has been per-J load defined in 2.6.
perf ormed.
formed since the Max force specified for interim analysis vent header deflector was completed (see is 3620. lbs/ft.
responses to NRC questions on inter-im analysis, Appen-dix B).
J
~
i Tablo 1 (Continued)
INTERIM PUA AND NUREG-0661 IDADS COMPARISON NUREG Load' NUREG (LTP)
Interim PUA Comments pf*f*ff",
Desigestion Load Description Load Description IBA: Single harmonic load with peak pressure of +2.0 psi. Select con-troTling load frequency in 6.9 to 9.5Hz range.
A preliminary as-Hydrostatic pressure dis-sessment of LTP Condensation tribution.
Load definition not torus C.O. loads has oscillat'.on availabic at the time thsbeen performed since 2.11.1 Torus Shell DBA: Multiple harmonic interim analysis was perdthe interia analysis Loads loid with varying pres-formed.
aas completed (see sure amplitudes specified responses to NRC from 0.0 to 50.0Hz.
Tuestions on interi Three sets of amplitudes analysis, Appendix A),
specified. Msx summa-tiort of amplitudes equall to +15.4 psi.
Hydro-static distribution.
Multiple harmonic load with varying pressure amplitudes specified from 4.0 to 24.0Hz.
Select controlling fre-quency in 4.0 to 8.CH2 range for first harmonic, Frequency of higher har-Force applied at the monic ultiple of first, end of a downcomer in Two pressure components any direction. Four A preliminary as-specifiels load magnitudes speci-sessment of LTP fied with the maximum downcomer C.O. load; Condensation Uniform: Uniform inter-force ecual to 6.0 kips has been performed Oscillatica nal pressure in all down- (equivalent to a down-since the interim 2.11.2 Downcomer comers. St=mation of comer internal pressure analysis was com-Loads DBA and IBA pressure am-of 26.5 psi). Number of plated (see re-plitudes are 5.5 psi and downcomers loaded speci-sponses to NRC 2.1 psi, respectively.
fled. DBA and IBA loads questions on interir the same, analysis, Appendix Differential: Uniform A).
internal pressure in one downcomer of downcomer pair. Number of down-comers loaded specified.
Summation of DBA and IBA pressure amplitudes are 5.65 psi and 0.6 psi, re-spectively.
The effects of the two pressure cotiponents are combined.
Single harmonic load Loading is not ex-with peak main vent and Load not specificallY pected to have a considered. The effects significant overall vent header pressure of condensation Oscillation 2.5 psi.
Uniform dis-of this load may be in-effect on the vent 2.11.3 tribution. Select con-cluded in vent system system since the Vent System trolling load frequency internal pressure, thrustpressure magnitudes Pressures loads, and downcomer are small and result in 4.0 to 8.0Hz range
!cr DBA and 6.0 to lateral loads which were primarily in 1. cop considered.
stress.
10.0H z range for IBA.
Down cmer internal pressure considered in 2.11.2.
Additional static internal pres-sure of 1.5 psi applied to entire vent system.
Tablo 1
'y (Continued)
INTERIM PUA AND NUREG-0661 LOADS COM'ARISCN
~
Interim PUA Comments Rh Designation Load Description Load Description ne Pre Chug:
SLngle har-monic load with peak pressures of 12.0 psi.
Select controlling load frequency in 6.9 to 9.5 Transient load with [eak A preliminary as-pressures of -2.0 ps andsessment of LTP Ez range. Hydrostatic
+3.5 psi. Chug cycle torus chug loade pressure distribution.
frequency range of 8-30H= bas been perforwed Chugging Asymmetric load als with 1.0 second between since interim analy-2.12.1 Torus Shell 8pecified.
chug cycles. Pressure sis was completed.
Loads distribution approximate-Results show that Post Chug:
Multiple ly uniform. Asymmetric interim support re-harmonic load with vary-1 ad also considered.
actions due to chug ing pressure amplitudes envelope LTP support specified from 0.0 to reactions.
50.0Hz.
Summation of pressure amplitudes equal to 12.5 psi. '!ydrostatic pressure distribution.
Resultant static equiva-lent force applied at theForce applied at the end end of a downcomer in anyof a downcomer in any The overall effects Chugging direction. Magnitu'a of direction. Four load of LTP and Interim 2.12.2 Downcomer the basic load is about magnitudes specified wittPUA loads are ex-Loads 3.0 kips. Plant unique the max force aqual to pected to be about load f actors computed us-6.0 kips. Nwnber of the same.
ing downcomer frequen-downcomers loaded speci-cies. Number of down-fled.
comers loaded specified.
Three types of pressures specified:
Gross Pressure: Tran-sient load with peak vent line, vent header, and downcomer pressure of 22.5 psi, 22.5 psi, and 15.0 psi, respectively.
Load frequency of 0.7Hz.
Uniform pressure distri-bution.
Acoustic Vent Pressure:
Single harmonic load withLoad not specifically Loading is not ex-peak vent line, vent considered. The effects pected to have a header, and downcomer of this load may be in-significant overall pressures of t2.."
si,
'cluded in vent system in-effect on the vent Chugging 13.0 psi, and 23.5 psi, ternal pressure, thrust system since the respectively. Load fre-loads, and downcomer pressure magnitudes 2.12.3 vent Systems quency values from 6.9 lateral loads which were are small and re-Pressures to 9.5Hz.
Uniform pris-considered.
sult primarily in sure distribution.
Acoustic Downcomer Pres-sure: Single harmonic I~caa with peak downcomer c
pressure of 113.0 psi.
Load f requency varies from 40 to 50Hz. Uniforr pressure distribution.
Downcomer loads used to compute hoop stresses only. Effects of three pressure types not com-bined.
~
Tablo 1 (Continued)
INTERIM PUA AND NUREG-0661 LOADS COMPARISCN N E NUREG Load NUREG (LTP)
Interim PUA Comments g
n Designation Load Descriptien Load Description Rafarence Transient load with peak Transient load with peak Assessment of LTP pressures of-15.1 and pressures of -8.0 and SRV torus shell 15.0 psi.
Load func-
+20.0 psi.
Loa.d func-loads will be per-Safety-Relief Va1.ve + ion frequency range tion frequency about formed using alter-t Air Clearin9 2.13.3 about 5.0 to 15.0Hz.
6.0Hz.
Multiple valve nate criteria de-Quencher Discharge Multiple valve and asy-and asymmetric loads fined in NUREG-0661 Shell Pressures mmetric loads defined.
considered. Load distri- (See responses to Load distribution approx-bution approximately NRC questions on Omately hydrostatic.
interim analysial.
Transient velocity and as.eleration drag loads Load not specifically Load af fects a mini-applied to structures in considered in the interirmal number of struc-zone of flow of a down-analysis. LOCA bubble tures. Overall ef-comer during water clear-oscillation loads spect fects on loaded Submerged Structuras ing.
Some effect on fied in 2.14.2 are con-structures expected 2.14.1 LOCA water structures directly ad-sidered. LOCA water jet to be less than ef-Jet Loads jacent to zone of flow.
and LOCA bubble loads do facts of other sub-Pressure magnitudes vary not occur simultaneously. merged structure with structure location loads.
shape. Maximum pres-sures on quencher arm esnimated to be 10.0 psi.
Trar.sient velocity and acceleration drag loads applied to all submerged structures during down-Static drag loads applied comer air clearing.
to all submerged struc-Pressure magnitudes vary tures during downcomer The overall effects Submerged Structure with structbre locations air c? earing. Constant of LTP and Interim 2.14.2 LOCA Bubble and shapos. Multiple pressure magnitudes of PUA loads are ex-Drag Loads bubble ef fects included.
0.9 psi and 10.0 psi act-pected to be about Flow efftets such as ad-ing in the horizontal the same.
jacent structure inter-and vertical directions, ference effects and wall respectively, are speci-effects considered.
Max-fled.
imum pressures on quencher arm estimated to be 4.3 psi.
Transient velocity drag Load rot considered since loads applied to struc-quencher was added since Load affects a mini-tures in zone of flow of interim analysis was com-mal number of struc-quencher holes during pleted. Bubble oscilla-tures. Overall ef-Submerqed Structura quencher water clearing.
tion loads specified in fects on loaded 2.14.3 Quencher Wate'r Pressure magnitudes vary 2.14.4 are considered.
structures exeected Jet Loads with structure location Quencher water jet and to be less than ef-and shape. M.tximum pres-bubble loads do not occur fects of other sub-sures on affected struc-simultaneously.
merged structure tures estimated to be loads.
q less than 20.0 psi.
]
)
T;blo 1 (concluded)
INTERIM PUA AND NUREG-0661 LOADS CCMPARISON
Interim PUA Comments g}'[*f [,
De sigr.ation Load Description Load Description Transient vslocity and acceleraticu drag loads applied to all submerged structures during quench-Static drag loads ap-er air clearing. Pres-plied to all submerged sure magnitudes vary wit? structures during SRV Assessment of LTP structure location and discharge air clearing. SRV sunmerged struc-shape. Load frequency Pressure magnitudes of ture loads will be Submerged Structure varies from 5.0 to 2.0 psi for structures performed using al-2.14.4 Quencher Bubble 15.0Hz.
Multiple bubble near mitered joint and ternate criteria de-Drag Loads effects italuded. Flow 8.0 psi for Lli other fined in NUREG-0661.
effects auch as adjacent structures are specified, structure interference Ur.iform pressure distri-effects and wall effects bution.
considerod. Maximum pressure on quencher arm estbnated to be 15.2 psi.
Harmonic velocity and ac-celeration drag loads ap-plied to all submerged structures. Pressure magnitudes vary with structure location and shape. Multiple down-comer effects included.
Flow effects such as ad-Submerged structure:!
jacent structure inter-are expected to be
' Submerged Structure ference effects and wall Load definition not adequate for LTP 2.14.5 LOCA condensation effects considered.
available at the time loads. Comprehen-Oscillation Fluid-structure inter-the interim analysis was sive evaluation of Drag Loads action effects added, performed.
the loading will be IBA load specified as included in the single harmonic with Final PUA which is frequency range of 6.9 now underway.
to 9.5Hz.
DBA load specified as multiple harmonics with frequency range of 0.0 to 50.0Hz.
Maximum pressure on quencher estimated to be 7.3 psi.
Harmonic velocity and ac-celeration drag loads applied to all submerged s tructures. Pressure magnitudes vary with structure location and shape. Multiple down-comer effects included.
Flow effects such as ad-jacent structure inter-Submerged struc-Submerged Structure ference and wall ef fects Static drag load of 8.0 tures are expected 2.14.6 LOCA Chugging considered. Fluid-struc" psi applied to all sub-to be adequate for Lrag Loads ture interaction effects merged atructures.
Uni-LTP loads. Compre-added. Pre-chug load foon pressure distribu-hensive evaluation specified as single har-tion.
of the loading will monic with frequency be included in the range of 6.9 to 9.5Hz.
Final PUA which is Post-Chug load specified now underway, as multiple harmonics with frequency range of 0.0 to 50.0Hz. Max pres-sure on quencher esti-mated to ba 1.1 est.
4 g
u bC EB X
X X
X X
X X
X C
C C
C C C
C E
D O
O.
O E
C
+
V
)
R 1
S 6
+
6 A
1 0
B l
D e
G w
E S
E R
B X
X X
X X
X X
U l
O C
C C
C C C
C E
D N
oo S
(
P L
P E
T V
L EL EC O
I E
g V
3 a
+
u R
W V
h E
L R
C E
S S
B X
X X
X X
X X
X B
B B
B B
B B
D D
O E
D A
O.
O B
I C
C S
E N
M O
S I
N A
T O
A S
d 1
I I
E l
0 3
N I
7' t
e I
I s
I I
R 0
B A
V w
N 0
(
I I
I s
k S
E M
P i
S B
X X
X X
X X
X A
A A
A A
A A
D O
M s
l O
C O
y A
o C
l B
o DA A
a D
P n
D I
I R
A E
m e
P T
i l
T I
r Q
b L R
a C
e E
g t
+
u 3
T D E
n V
h U
4 M
I R
C E
C S
B X
X X
X X
X X
X A
A A
A A
A A
A N
O A
A A
O.
U T
B P
P I
C E
M C
I C
R A
s s
E d
d T
D l
l N
N e
e I
A W
W
)
t t
b n
n
(
e e
m m
h h
c c
l a
a a
c s
t s
r n
t n
e A
o A
o n
i i
e no e
d t
d t
G i
r n
a n
a t
u a
r a
r a
s t
t n
s S
l e
l e
i e
T a
n a
n b
r N
r e
r e
m P
E e
P e
P o
M n
n c
E C
e t
e t
s C
I I
i L
M G
A G
A t
I t
l E
r l
t e
t n
k s
a l
s o
e e
a e
n t
e g
L s
p r
n A
a p
u v
u g
l o
S w
)
E q
r a
i S
5 i
R l
u t
g U
C s
S h
e a
m t
i
(
c t
k h
r c
s l
g T
r u
u C
l l
e l
r S
a c
e a
a o
O.
r h
U a
a m
a a
D u
s h
e u
o t
E A
l q
i T
R Q
P C
C R
n n
o n
S O
a h
D T
r r
c r
f L
m t
A A
A A
A A
S e
e n
e l
o r
r V
C C
C C
C C
t t
w t
a o
a R
D O
O D
D D
x n
o n
n e
N E
S I
I L
I I
I E
I D
I r
p e
y t
T n
I a
Notes for Table 2 (1)
The nomenclaturo used in the table is equivalent in meaning to that presented in Figure 4.3-1 of NUREG-0661 except as noted.
(2)
The combinations presented in Table 2 are taken from columns 14, 24 and 26 of Figure 4.3-1 of NUREG-0661.
These columns are chosen because they are judged to be the major load combinations.
They correspond closely to the combinations presented in the Interim Analysis.
(3)
The Interim Analysis long term IBA loads were judged to envelop the long term DBA loads.
The IBA load combina-tion shown is used to assess long term DBA effects.
(4)
Local stresses in the torus shell due to internal piping support reactions have been evaluated in the Interim Analysis.
(5)
The Interim Analysis for C.O.
is limited to downcomer lateral loads.
Subsequent to the preparation of the Interim Analysis, a preliminary assessment of C.O.
loads has been performed (Refer to responses to NRC questions on Fermi Interim Analysis, appendix A).
(6)
Vent header deflector has been added since the Interim Analysis was completed (Refer to responses to NRC questions on Fermi Interim Analysis, Appendix B).
(7)
S may be used for S when consider *ing*Pi and P +Pb y
mc i
at penetrations (Reference Interim Report section 4.2 page 4.39).
(8)
Evaluation of primary-plus-secondary stress intensity range is not included (Reference Interim Report section 4.2 page 4.39).
(9)
Service Level applies to SRV discharge or chugging loads only; higher ILmits used fer load combinations (Reference Interim Report Section 4.2 page 4.39).
(10)
When considering the limits on local membrane stress intensity (NE-3221.2) and primary-membrane-plus-primary bending stress intensity (NE-3 221. 3), the Smc value may be replaced by 1.3 Smc (Reference NUREG-0661 page 160).
i I
.