ML20024E468
| ML20024E468 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1983 |
| From: | Hayes G, Lattin N, Demetrius Murray GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024E464 | List: |
| References | |
| 83NED053, 83NED53, NEDO-30159, NUDOCS 8308150090 | |
| Download: ML20024E468 (168) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
4^a; LASALLE COUNTY STATION UNIT 2 NSSS NEW LOADS DESIGN ADEQUACY EVALUATION FINAL
SUMMARY
REPORT "i.S^#3
!!s"AB8FJ" ass!!;
GENER AL $ ELECTRIC
NEDO-30159 83NED053 Class I July 1983 ERM BMB-1354 LASALLE COUNTY STATION LTIT 2 NSSS NEW LOADS DESIGN ADEQUACY EVALUATION FINAL SL?DfARY REPORT
/
fl M.
'b'
/CI/ht-Prepared By: _N.F. Lattin, Manager New Loads M
M46Ih Approved By:
, Mf /
G. L. Hayes, Sr. PJogram Manager New Loads (I
Approved By:
D D. L. Murray\\', Manage!r Plant Mechan % cal L%pign and Analysis l
NUCLEAR ENGINEERING OlVISION
- GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN JOSE. CALIFORNI A 95125 GEN ER AL $ ELECTRIC
NEDO-30159 DISCLAIMER OF RESPONSIBILITY This document was prepared by or for the General Electric Company. Neither the General Electric Company nor any of the contributors to this document:
A.
Makes any warranty or representation, express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this document, or that the use of any information disclosed in this document may not infringe privately owned rights; or B.
Assumes any responsibility for liability or damage of any kind which may result from the use of any inforaiatica disclosed in this document.
ii
~
c.
NEDO-30159 l - +
CONTENTS Page
SUMMARY
xv 1.
INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Equipment Evaluated 1-1 1.2 Evaluation Methodology 1-2 1.3 Loading Combinations and Acceptance Criteria 1-5 l
1.4 Evaluation Results 1-6 1.5 Scope, Interface and Evaluation Highlights 1-7 2.
REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL SYSTEM EVALUATION 2-1 2.1 Equipment Evaluated 2-1 2.2 Load Combinations and Analysis Method 2-1 2.3 Evaluation Results 2-4 2.3.1 Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) 2-4 2.3.2 RPV Internal Components 2-14~
2.3.3 RPV Support Components 2-34 3.
NSSS PIPING SYSTEMS EVALUATION 3-1 3.1 Overview 3-1 3.1.1 Equipment Evaluated 3-1 3.1.2 Load Combinations-and Summation Methods 3-l' 3.1.3 Evaluation Methodology 3-2 3.2 Main Steam Piping System Evaluation Results 3-3 3.2.1 Main Steam Piping 3-3 3.2.2 Main Steam Snubbers
.3-4 3.2.3 Main Steam Safety / Relief (SRV) and Isolation Valves (MSIV) 3-4 l
3.3 Recirculation Piping System Evaluation Results 3-58' 3.3.1 Recirculation Piping 3-58 3.3.2 Recirculation Snubbers.
3-58 3.3.3 Recirculation Suction Gate. Valves, Discharge Gate Valves'and Flow Control Valves 3-59.
3.3.4 Recirculation Pumps and Motors 13-59 3.3.5 Recirculation Pipe Break' Analysis 3-60 l
l APPENDICES A.
REFERENCES
. 'd.-
B.
GENERIC ANALYSES EVALUATED EQUIPMENT AND COMPONENTS
- B-1 1
l o
c i
iii/iv J
3 I.
s.
2
,W' 2,... v5 -
.O
NEDO-30159 TABLES Table Title Page 1-1 NSSS Piping and Equipment Evaluation 1-11 1-2 Load Combinations and Acceptance Criteria for NSSS Piping and Equipment 1-12 2-1 Reactor System Detailed Load Combinations 2-2 2-2 Stress Categories 2-5 2-3 Total Number of SRV Actuations (40 Years) 2-5 2-4 RPV Shroud Support Stress Comparison (psi) 2-8 2-5 RPV Support Skirt Load Comparison Maximum Load vs Designs Loads 2-8 l
2-6 RPV Support Skirt Effective Vertical Load (kip) 2-9 2-7 RPV Support Skirt Stress Comparison (psi) 2-9 2-8 CRD Penetration Stress Comparison at CRD Housing (psi) 2-11 2-9 CRD Penetration Stress Comparison at Stub Tube (psi) 2-11 2-10 Steam Dryer Bracket Load Comparison (kip) 2-12 2-11 Steam Dryer Bracket Stress Comparison (ksi) 2-12 2-12 RPV Stabilizer Bracket Load Comparison (kip / bracket) 2-14 2-13 Core Spray Sparger Stress Comparison (ksi) 2-16 l
2-14 Core Spray Line Stress Comparison (ksi) 2-16 2-15 Steam Dryer Load Comparison (kip) 1 2-17 2-16 Shroud Stress Comparison (ksi) 2-17 2-17 Shroud Head Bolt Stress Comparison (ksi)'
2-18 l
2-18 Core Support Plate Stress Comparison (ksi) 2-19 2-19 Core Support Plate Beam Buckling Load Comparison (kip) 2-19 2-20 Top Guide Beam Stress Comparison (psi) 2-20 V
l L.
NEDO-30159 TABLES (Continued)
Table Title Page 2-21 Control Rod Drive Piston Tube Stress Comparison (ksi) 2-22 2-22 Control Rod Drive Outer Tube Stress Comparison (ksi) 2-22 2-23 Control Rod Drive Cylinder Stress Comparison (ksi) 2-23 2-24 Control Rod Drive Index Tube Stress Comparison (ksi) 2-23 2-25 Control Rod Drive Indicator Tube Stress Comparison (ksi) 2-24 2-26 Control Rod Drive Housing Stress Comparison (psi) 2-24 2-27 Control Rod Guide Tube Flange Stress Comparison (psi) 2-25 2-28 Control Rod Guide Tube Body Stress Comparison (psi) 2-25 2-29 Control Rod Guide Tube Stability Criteria Comparison 2-26 2-30 Jet Pump Stress Comparison (psi) 2-27 2-31 Jet Pump Riser Brace Stress Comparison (psi) 2-27 2-32 Core Differential Pressure and Liquid Control Line Stress Comparison (psi) 2-28 2-33 Fuel Assembly Peak Acceleration Comparison (g) 2-30 2-34 LPCI Coupling Stress Comparison (psi) 2-31 2-35 Orificed Fuel Support Comparison 2-32 2-36 Vessel Stabilizer Stress Comparison (psi) 2-33 2-37 CRD Housing Restraint Beam Load Comparison (kip) 2-34 3-1 Load Combination and Acceptance Criteria for NSSS Piping and Pipe-Mounted Equipment Main Steam - SRSS - Piping 3-5 3-2 Load Combination and Acceptance Criteria for NSSS Piping and Pipe-Mounted Equipment Main Steam - ABS - Piping
_3-6 3-3 Load Combination and Acceptance Criteria for NSSS Piping and Pipe-Mounted Equipment Main Steam - SRSS - Snubbers 3-7 3-4 Load Combination and Acceptance Criteria for NSSS Piping and Pipe-Mounted Equipment Main Steam - ABS - Snubbers 3-8 vi
NEDO-30159 TABLES (Continued)
Table Title Page 3-5 Load Combination and Acceptance Criteria for NSSS Piping and Pipe-Mounted Equipment Main Steam - SRSS - Safety /
Relief Valves 3-9 3-6 Load Combination and Acceptance Criteria for NSSS Piping and Pipe-Mounted Equipment Main Steam - ABS - Safety /
Relief Valves 3-10 3-7 Load Combination and Acceptance Criteria for NSSS Piping and Pipe-Mounted Equipment Main Steam - SRSS - Safety /
Relief Valve Flange Mcments 3-11 3-8 Load Combination and Acceptance Criteria for NSSS Piping and Pipe-Mounted Equipment Main Steam - ABS - Safety /
Relief Valve Flange Moments 3-12 3-9 Load Combination and Acceptance Criteria for NSSS Piping and Pipe-Mounted Equipment - Nomenclature of Loads 3-13 3-10 Highest Stress Summary - SRSS Main Steam Line A 3-15 3-11 Highest Stress Summary - ABS Main Steam Line A 3-16 3-12 Snubber Loads - Main Steam Line A Highest Loading Summary - SRSS 3-17 3-13 Snubber Loads - Main Steam Line A Highest Loading Summary - ABS 3-18 3-14 SRV Accelerations - Main Steam Line A Highest Accelerations Summary - SRSS 3-19 3-15 SRV Accelerations - Main Steam Line A Highest Accelerations Summary - ABS 3-20 3-16A MSIV Loads - Main Steam Line A Highest Loading Summary -
SRSS - MSIV Inlet / Outlet 3-21 3-16B MSIV Loads - Main Steam Line A Highest Loading Summary -
SRSS - MSIV Bonnet 3-22 3-17A MSIV Loads - Main Steam Line A Highest Loading Summary -
ABS - MSIV Inlet / Outlet 3-23 3-17B MSIV Loads - Main Steam Line A Highest Loading Summary -
ABS - MSIV Bonnet 3-24 3-18 Highest Stress Summary - SRSS Main Steam Line B 3-26 vii
NEDO-30159 TABLES (Continued)
Table Title Page 3-19 Highest Stress Summary - ARS Main Steam Line B 3-27 3-20 Snubber Loads - Main Steam Line B Highest Loading Summary -
SRSS 3-28 3-21 Snubber Loads - Main Steam Line B Highest Loading Summary -
ABS 3-29 3-22 SRV Accelerations - Mcin Steam Line B Highest Accelerations Summary - SRSS 3-30 3-23 SRV Accelerations - Main Steam Line B Highest Accelerations Summary - ABS 3-31 3-24A MSIV Loads - Main Steam Line B Highest Loading Summary -
SRSS - MSIV Inlet /0utlet 3-32 3-24B MSIV Loads - Main Steam Line B Highest Loading Summary -
SRSS - MSIV Bonnet 3-33 3-25A MSIV Loads - Main Steam Line B Highest Loading Summary -
ABS - MSIV Inlet / Outlet 3-34 3-25B MSIV Loads - Main Steam Line B Highest Loading Summary -
ABS - MSIV Bonnet 3-35 3-26 Highest Stress Summary - Stress Main Steam Line C 3-37 3-27 Highest Stress Summary - ABS Main Steam Line C 3-38 3-28 Snubbers Loads - Main Steam Line C Highest Loading Summary -
SRSS 3-39 3-29 Snubbers Loads - Main Steam Line C Highest Loading Summary -
ABS 3-40 3-30 SRV Accelerations - Main Steam Line C Highest Accelerations Summary - SRSS 3-41 3-31 SRV Accelerations - Main Steam Line C Highest Accelerations Summary - ABS 3-42 3-32A MSIV Loads - Main Steam Line C Highest Loading Summary -
SRSS - MSIV Inlet / Outlet 3-43 3-32B MSIV Loads - Main Steam Line C Highest Loading Summary -
viii
{
pa.
NED0-30159 TABLES (Continued)
Table Title Page 3-33A MSIV Loads - Main Steam Line C Highest Loading Summary -
ABS - MSIV Inlet / Outlet 3-45 3-33B MSIV Loads - Main Steam Line C Highest Loading Summary -
ABS - MSIV Bonnet 3-46 3-34 Highest Stress Summary - SRSS Main Steam Line D 3-48 3-35 Highest Stress Summary - ABS Main Steam Line D 3-49 3-36 Snubber Loads - Main Steam Line D Highest Loading Summary -
SRSS 3-50 3-37 Snubber Loads - Main Steam Line D Highest Loading Summary -
ABS 3-51 3-38 SRV Accelerations - Main Steam Line D Highest Accelerations Summary - SRSS 3-52 3-39 SRV Accelerations - Main Steam Line D Highest Accelerations Summary - ABS 3-53 3-40A MSIV Loads - Main Steam Line D Highest Loading Summary -
SRSS - MSIV Inlet / Outlet 3-54 3-40B MSIV Loads - Main Steam Line D Highest Loading Summary -
SRSS - MSIV Bonnet 3-55 3-41A MSIV Loads - Main Steam Line D Highest Loading Summary -
ABS - MSIV Inlet /0utlet 3-56 3-41B MSIV Loads - Main Steam Line D Highest Loading Summary -
ABS - MSIV Bonnet 3-57 3-42 Load Combination and Acceptance Criteria for NSSS Piping and Pipe-Mounted Equipment Recirculation - SRSS - Piping 3-61 3-43 Load Combination and Acceptance Criteria for NSSS Piping and Pipe-Mounted Equipment Recirculation - ABS - Piping 3-62 3-44 Load Combination and Acceptance Criteria for NSSS Piping and Pipe-Mounted Equipment Recirculation - SRSS - Snubbers 3-63 3-45 Load Combination and Acceptance Criteria for NSSS Piping and Pipe-Mounted Equipment Recirculation - ABS - Snubbers 3-64 3-46 Load Combination and Acceptance Criteria for NSSS Piping and Pipe-Mounted Equipment Recirculation - SRSS - Struts 3-65 ix
t l
i NEDO-30159 TABLES (Continued)
Table Title Page 3-47 Load Combination and Acceptance Criteria for NSSS Piping and Pipe-Mounted Equipment Recirculation - ABS - Struts 3-66 3-48 Load Combination and Acceptance Criteria for NSSS Piping and Pipe-Mounted Equipment Recirculation - SRSS - Valves, Pumps and Motors 3-67 3-49 Load Combination and Acceptance Criteria for NSSS Piping and Pipe-Mounted Equipment Recirculation - ABS - Valves, Pumps and Motors 3-68 3-50 Load Combination and Acceptance Criteria for NSSS Piping and Pipe-Mounted Equipment Recirculation - SRSS - Flange Moments 3-69 3-51 Load Combination and Acceptance Criteria for NSSS Piping and Pipe-Mounted Equipment Recirculation - ABS - Flange Moments 3-70 3-52 Load Combination and Acceptance Criteria for NSSS Piping and Pipe-Mounted Equipment - Nomenclature of Loads 3-71 3-53 Highest Stress Summary - SRSS Recirculation Loop A 3-73 3-54 Highest Stress Summary - ABS Recirculation Loop A 3-74 3-55 Snubber Loads - Recirculation Loop A Highest Loading Summary - SRSS 3-75 3-56 Snubber Loads - Recirculati,1 Loop A Highest Loading Summary - ABS 3-76 3-57 Suction Gate Valve Loads - Recirculation Lcop A Highest Loading Summary - SRSS 3-77 3-58 Suction Gate Valve Loads - Recirculation Loop A Highest Loading Summary - ABS 3-78 3-59 Discharge Gate Valve Loads - Recirculation Loop A Highest Loads Summary - SRSS 3-79 3-60 Discbarge Gate Valve Loads - Recirculation Loop A Highest Loading Summary - ABS 3-80 3-61 Flow Control Valve Loads - Recirculation Loop A Highest Loading Summary - SRSS 3-81 X
NED0-30159 TABLES (Continued)
Table Title Page 3-62 Flow Control Valve Loads - Recirculation Loop A Highest Loading Summary - ABS 3-82 3-63 Recirculation Pump Loads - Recirculation Loop A Highest Loading Summary - SRSS 3-83 3-64 Recirculation Pump Loads - Recirculation Loop A Highest Loading Summary - ABS 3-84 3-65 Recirculation Pump Motor Loads - Recirculation Loop A Highest Loading Summary - SRSS 3-85 3-66 Recirculation Pump Motor Loads - Recirculation Loop A Highest Loading Summary - ABS 3-86 3-67 Highest Stress Summary - SRSS Recirculation Loop B 3-88 3-68 Highest Stress Summary - ABS Recirculation Loop B 3-89 3-69 Snubber Loads - Recirculation Loop B Highest Loading Summary - SRSS 3-90 3-70 Snubber Loads - Recirculation Loop B Highest Loading Summary - ABS 3-91 3-71 Suction Gate Valve Loads - Recirculation Loop B Highest Loading Summary - SRSS 3-92 3-72 Suction Gate Valve Loads - Recirculation Loop B Highest Loading Summary - ABS 3-93 3-73 Discharge Gate Valve Loads - Recirculation Loop B Highest Loading Summary - SRSS 3-94 3-74 Discharge Gate Valve Loads - Recirculation Loop B Highest Loading Summary - ABS 3-95 i
3-75 Flow Control Valve Loads - Recirculation Loop B Highest Loading Summary - SRSS 3-96 3-76 Flow Control Valve Loads - Recirculation Loop B Highest
'j Loading Summary - ABS 3-97 3-77 Recirculation Pump Loads - Recirculation Loop B Highest Loading Summary - SRSS 3-98 3-78 Recirculation Pump Loads - Recirculation Loop B Highest Loading Summary - ABS 3-99 xi
NEDO-30159 TABLES (Continued)
Table Title Page 3-79 Recirculation Pump Motor Loads - Recirculation Loop B Highest Loading Summary - SRSS 3-100 3-80 Recirculation Pump Motor Loads - Recirculation Loop B Highest Loading Summary - ABS 3-101 xii
,W.f-NEDO-30159 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Title Page 1-1 SRV and LOCA Horizontal (Beam) Model 1-3 1-2 SRV and LOCA Vertical (Beam) Model 1-4 3-1 LaSalle Main Steamline A Node Diagram 3-14 3-2 LaSalle Main Steam Line B Node Diagram 3-25 3-3 LaSalle Main Steam Line C Node Diagram 3-36 3-4 LaSalle Main Steam Line D Node Diagram 3-47 3-5 LaSalle Recirculation Loop A Node Diagram 3-72 3-6 LaSalle Recirculation Loop B Node Diagram 3-87 i
xiii/xiv
r s
SUMMARY
This report presents a summary of the results of the NSSS New Loads Design Adequacy Evaluation performed for the Commonwealth Edison Company on LaSalle County Station Unit 2 by the General Electric Company. The evaluation was
. performed to demonstrate that the GE supplied NSSS safety-related equipment design capability retained positive margins when subjected to combinations of seismic and additional hydrodynamic loadings from site unique reactor building structural responses.
The results of the NSSS New Leads Design Adequacy Evaluation for LaSalle Unit 2 have demonstrated equipment adequacy for all evaluation basis new load combinations. The major scope of the NSSS equipment evaluated includes the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV), RPV internals and supports, in-vessel safety-related instrumentation, and the Main Steam and Recirculation piping systems.
Contained in this report are brief explanations of the scope, methods and results of the evaluations performed. Comparisons of tested or calculated values versus the allowable load or stress values, for the limiting load combinations at the limiting stress points, are shown for each component or piping system.
xv/xvi
~
L L'
L NEDO-30159 1.
INTRODUCTION l
i An NSSS New Loads Design Adequacy Evaluation (NLDAE) was performed for the LaSalle project. The evaluation was conducted to assess the design adequacy of essential NSSS equipment when subjected to various dynamic loads and load combinations. These dynamic loads result from seismic events and/or hydro-dynamic-related phenomena (new loads). Combinations of loads from various events were evaluated against the appropriate acceptance criteria conditions (e.g., normal, upset, emergency, faulted) based upon the expected occurrence frequency for the particular event combination.
E Throughout this summary report, comparisons are made between the calculated "New Loads" and the " Design Basis" loads in order to demonstrate the equipment design adequacy.
In order to clarify the usage of these terms, the following amplification is provided.
The design basis loads include the seismic, pressure, thermal, dead weight and other normal / abnormal loads to which the GE-supplied Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) equipment was originally designed to function.
In addition, the design basis loads include a bounding load margin which encompasses other site-unique load requirements to facilitate multiplant equipment usage.
For the New Loads Adequacy Evaluation, the loads calculated include not only the design basis loads, but also the LaSalle site-unique suppression pool hydrodynamic and annulus pressurization structural system response loads.
These loads were initially compared to the Design Basis in order to demonstrate the new loads design adequacy.
1.1 EQUIPMENT EVALUATED Major equipment groups evaluated include the reactor pressure vessel, RPV internals and supports, in-vessel safety-related instrumentation, and the main steam and recirculation piping systems. The scope of the evaluation extends only to that GE-supplied NSSS safety-related equipment within the reactor building. An itemized list of the equipment evaluated appears in Table 1-1.
The scope of the evaluation performed did not include GE-supplied floor-supported plant equipment nor equipment connected to and supported by piping 1-1
1 1
NEDO-30159 supplied by others. The responsibility for the evaluation of this hardware lies within Commonwealth Edison Company or their agent.
L2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY General Electric, in cooperation with Sargent & Lundy Engineers, evaluated the nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) equipment design adequacy for the original design basis loads in combination with the suppression pool hydrodynamic and annulus pressurization structural system response loads. The load combinations and acceptance criteria used for this evaluation are described in Section 1.3 of this summary report.
The structural system responses for the suppression pool hydrodynamic phenomena were generated by Sargent & Lundy Engineers (S&L). These structural system responses were transmitted to General Electric in the form of (1) response spectra and (2) acceleration time-histories at the pedestal to diaphragm floor intersection and shield wall at the stabilizer elevation.
The response spectra for piping attachment points on the reactor pressure vessel, shield wall, and pedestal complex (above the pool area) were generated by General Electric based on the acceleration time-histories supplied by S&L using a detailed lumped mass beam model for the reactor pressure vessel and internals, to include a representation of the structure (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2 for SRV and LOCA examples). For the evaluation of the NSSS primary piping systems (main steam and recirculation), a combination of the General Electric response spectra and S&L developed response spectra (on the containment wall) was used to obtain the input responses for all attachment points of each piping system.
The acceleration time-histories, with the detailed reactor pressure vessel and structure lumped mass beam model, were used to generate the forces, moments and response spectra acting on the reactor pressure vessel (RPV). These forces, moments and response spectra were used by General Electric for the adequacy evaluation of the RPV, RPV supports and RPV internal components. The forces and moments were compared with the design values as the initial step in the adequacy evaluation.
1 1-2
NED0-30159 55 1871.01" 54 1839.73" 53 1774.73" 52,
1741.An" RPV "0" = 998.6" 51,
1714.57" 50 1624.10" o
63 2
57 49 o 17 o 1607.R4" fp
'i
%>48 18 o -1563.6" s
1499.84" 47o 19 o 1440.22" 1402.84" l
45, 1371.10" 44, 22 N
43 1329.82" o 923 29 1358.04" -- o 42" 1288.54" Z
58 "24 3"
g 41< > 925 4
1247.26" o
40,,
g 1205.98" 26 5"
y 1157.85" 39 o o27 6,,
38 o 928 7"
- 90" 37'%>29 80 1047.10"
\\
30 106
- 0" 1041.11" k 31 0
1024.94" 99' 91" 981.24" 59
,32 964.83" 13" 033 14o 934.76" 034 150 -
904.68" 60 874.6"
.p,
. 740.04n K
35 16
_g 6
NOTE: ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN IN THIS FIGURE ARE THE DISTANCES FROM THE BASE-MAT (EL. 673'-4")
Figure 1-1.
Horizontal SRV Model 1-3 O
1966 00 o 13 1440.31 4
1419.79 g 14 1402.93 1371.19
,9
,6 ni 1273.63 o 15 O
120e.07 g
,,, _,,2 1127.47
>16 i8 10 K-11M 07 i
1 1092.19 2
12 1041.20 981.31
'3 914.28 RPV 'O' = 995.00 723.00 gg NOTE: ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN IN THIS FIGURE APE THE DISTANCES FROM THE BASE-MAT (EL. 673'-4")
Figure 1-2.
Vertical SRV Model 1-4
NEDC-30159 The structural system responses for the Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA), annulus pressurization (AP) transient asymmetric pressure buildup in the annular region between the biological shield wall and the reactor pressure vessel, were based on pressure time-histories supplied by S&L.
These pressure time-histories were combined with jet reaction, jet impingement and pipe whip restraint loads for the evaluation. A time-history analysis output produced accelerations, forces and moment time-histories as well as response spectra at the piping attachment points on the reactor pressure vessel, shield wall, pedestal, pressure vessel supports and external components.
1.3 LOADING COMBINATIONS AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA All significant loads were considered, including the original design basis loads, the structural response loads due to suppression pool related phenomena and the dynamic effects on an instantaneous pipe break at the RPV safe end (AP). The load combinations considered as the evaluation basis are listed in Table 1-2.
As an evaluation basis, all dynamic loads were combined using the Square Root of the Sum of the Squares (SRSS) method with the results added to the static loads.
In addition to the design basis load combinations, more conservative load combinations were considered in the evaluation basis.
Specifically, the "0BE + SRV" loads were evaluated against upset criteria (as opposed to emergency criteria, which form the design basis for this load combination). Also, some evaluations were performed combining loads by the absolute sum (ABS) method.
As a supplement to ASME code faulted limits, the NRC has imposed additional criteria to assure the functional capability of piping systems to perform their intended safety function under the stress criteria of limited plastic deforma-tion. Functional capability has been defined by the NRC as the ability of a piping system to deliver rated flow for continued shutdown cooling and heat removal.
The General Electric approach for demonstrating essential reactor component functional capability was to use ASME Service Level D stress criteria and a supplemental evaluation per the deformation and buckling limits of the General Electric Design Safety Standards. The Service Level D stress criteria were 1-5
1 l
NEDO-30159 used to assure adequate strength and tensile load capability with adequate margin to failure through rupture or collapse. For components where deforma-tion or buckling could have been of concern, special evaluations were performed to assure that adequate margin exists for:
(1) the buckling collapse loads defined consistent with ASME Code criteria, and (2) the deformation limits which analysis or tests demonstrate would not result in loss of function.
Similar to ASME Code criteria, different safety criteria were applied for upset, emergency and faulted deformation evaluations. The only NSSS pipe-like components that require functional capability are the core spray lines, spargers and the LPCI couplings.
RPV internal pipe-like components are confined by the reactor vessel and shroud, and their displacement is limited to the displacement of the shroud relative to the vessel. These motions are accommodated by the free travel of the ball joints in the LPCI Coupling and the flexing of the core spray lines.
No core spray line collapse is possible as a result of these small displacements.
Additionally, an analysis of the reactor internal piping components remaining functional during the worst faulted event loads was made to the Rodebaugh criteria. This analysis was performed to provide confirmation within General Electric that the methodology was indeed adequate to demonstrate functional capability. Although they are not required for shutdown cooling and heat removal, the Main Steam and Recirculation piping external to the vessel was also evaluated to assure functional capability, per NED0-21985, Piping Func-tional Capability Criteria.
1.4 EVALUATION RESULTS New Loads Design Adequacy Evaluations were performed for all loading combina-tions for the RPV, RPV internals and associated equipment, in-vessel safety-related instrumentation and the Main Steam and Recirculation piping artd pipe-mounted equipment. The NLDAE also included the more conservative evaluation basis combinations and acceptance criteria.
In some cases, the initial analysis did not prove equipment adequacy. For these components, more detailed analyses were performed.
In most cases these reanalyses succeeeded in demonstrating the equipment adequacy. The reanalysis, including the required modification, demonstrated the equipment adequacy under 1-6
NEDO-30159 all applied loading conditions.
In some cases, modifications were made to original designs to ensure that adequate margins were available; yet, these modifications were not directly required as a result of the LaSalle 2 New Loads evaluations performed.
1.5 SCOPE, INTERFACE AND EVALUATION HIGHLIGHTS Information concerning the general evaluation scope, specific analyses performed and interface items of significance are provided below:
o Ove rview The LaSalle Unit 1 NSSS New Loads Design Adequacy Evaluation evolved through numerous phases due to past uncertainties in defining the loads resulting from specific hydrodynamic events. The results summarized in the LaSalle 1 report (NED0-22133) follow this evolutionary load definition process by representing a compilation of design adequacy evaluations performed in the late 1970's and focusing mainly in 1980, 1981 and 1982. See NED0-22133 for further history summaries.
In total, the summary of the NSSS piping and equipment evaluations contained in this report reflect the incorporation of the progression of input loads as transmitted to General Electric and the analytical techniques improvement.
CRD System Insert and Withdrawal Piping Loads on CRD Housings o
Due to the loads applied by the clamping of the Control Rod Drive insert and withdrawal lines onto GE-supplied CRD Housings, an additional analysis effort was required. The analysis on the CRD Housings was performed with the S&L transmitted loads in conjunction with the static and dynamic loads considered for the LaSalle 2 new loads analysis. The adequacy of the CRD housings was analytically demon-strated when considering all the loads applied.
1-7
o General Analyses of Other Safety-Related NSSS Equipment and Components The equipment and component analyses summarized in this report represent a specific scope of evaluation effort as required due to the magnitude of the LaSalle site-unique loads and/or the design margins available in the equipment procured. Due to the multiplant applicability of a specific amount of GE-supplied equipment and components, generic analyses were performed to verify the design adequacy of other passive and active safety-related items not described in this summary report. These generic analyses demonstrated the equipment or component design adequacy by either:
(1) evaluating for conservative bounding input loads; (2) determining that the equipment was not subjected to non-seismic dynamic loads when performing its essential function; or (3) by demonstrating that capability is proven to far exceed load requirements.
Appendix B lists that equipment and those components applicable to the LaSalle project for which generic analyses demonstrated design adequacy.
o Fuel Lift Analysis At the request of Commonwealth Edison Company, a summary of the Fuel Lift Analysis model, methodology and generic results was included in NED0-21175-3-P.
For this evaluation, the fuel assemblies evaluation, as well as other reactor pressure vessel component evaluations, used the Plant unique fuel lift analysis output load results along with other dynami, loads as input loadings to demonstrate the component's design adequacy.
1-8
NEDO-30159 Table 1-1 NSSS PIPING AND EQUIPMENT EVALUATION o
Reactor Pressure Vessel System B13-D003 Reactor Vessel RPV Support Skirt RPV Shroud Support CRD Penetrations In-Core Housing Penetrations Steam Dryer Brackets RPV Stabilizer Brackets RPV Nozzles B13-D005 Steam Dryer B13-D006 Jet Pumps B13-D007 Jet Pumps B13-D008 Control Rod Drives B13-D010 Control Rod Guide Tubes B13-D012 Control Rod Drive Housings B13-D013 Control Rod Drive Housing B13-D014 Control Rod Drive Housing B13-D015 Control Rod Drive Housing B13-D016 In-Core Housings B13-D017 In-Core Guide Tubes B13-D018 Shroud Head Bolts B13-D021 Differential Pressure and Liquid Control Line B13-D022 LPCI Couplings B13-D023 Core Spray Line B13-D024 Core Spray Line B13-D026 Jet Pump Riser Braces B13-D027 Jet Pump Adapters B13-D030 Orificed Fuel Supports B13-D031 Orificed Fuel Supports B13-D032 Orificed Fuel Supports B13-D033 Orificed Fuel Supports B13-D034 Orificed Fuel Supports B13-D035 Orificed Fuel Supports B13-D036 Orificed Fuel Supports 1-9
NED0-30159 Table 1-1 (Continued)
B13-D037 Orificed Fuel Supports B13-D038 Orificed Fuel Supports B13-D041 Clamps B13-D053 Hexagon Head Bolts B13-D068 Core Suppert Bolts B13-D071 Core Support B13-D074 Top Guide B13-D118 Core Spray Sparger B13-D189 Flanges B13-D191 Dry Tubes B13-D193 Power Range Detectors B13-D212 Seismic Pins B13-D237 Core Spray Line Bracket B13-D277 Holddown Clamps B13-U001 Reactor Vessel Supports B13-U002 RPV Stabilizers B13-U007 CRD Housing Restraint Beam J11-D001 Fuel Bundles J11-D002 Fuel Bundles J11-D003 Channels J11-D004 Channel Fasteners J11-D005 Fuel Bundles o
NSSS Piping Systems B21-G001 Main Steam Piping B21-G002 Main Steam Pipe Suspension B21-G006 Main Steam Pipe Suspension B21-F013 Main Steam Safety / Relief Valves (SRV)
B21-F022 Main Steam Isolation Valves (MSIV)
B21-F028 Main Steam Isolation Valves (MSIV)
B33-G001 Recirculation Loop Piping B33-G002 Recirculation Loop Suspension B33-G003 Recirculation Loop Piping Restraints B33-G006 Recirculation Loop Suspension B33-F023 Recirculation Gate Valves 1-10
NEDO-30159 Table 1-1 (Continued)
B33-F060 Recirculation Flow Control Valves B33-F067 Recirculation Gate V21ves E33-C001 Recirculation Pumps and Motors i
1-11 l
NEDO-30159 Table 1-2 LOAD COMBINATIONS AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR NSSS PIPING AND EQUIPMENT Load SRV SBA/IBA DBA Acceptance y
Case (I)
N (4)
(6,7)
Criteria SRV 1
X X
Upset B 2
X X
X Upset B (5) 3 X
X X
Faulted D (2) 4 X
X X
Emergency C (2) 5 X
X X
X Faulted D (2) 6 X
X X
X Faulted D (2) 7 X
X X
Faulted D (2) 8 X
Normal A 9
X X
Upset B Notes:
(1) See legend at the end of table for definition of terms.
(2) (a) For essential piping systems, faulted allowables are acceptable if functional capability is demonstrated. Essential systems are systems required to mitigate the consequences of the postulated events which cause the loading conditions.
(b) For the reactor vessel and internals, faulted allowables will be used; however, deformation and buckling will be evalu ned.
(3) SBA or IBA, whichever is greater.
(4) SRV, SRV,, SRVLSPA, SRVAE (whichever is controlling) will be used.
3 (5) Not considered in the fatigue evaluation.
(6) DBA includes LOCA through LOCA.
1 7
(7) From rated power initial conditions.
LOAD DEFINITION LEGEND Normal (N)
Normal and/or abnormal loads depending on acceptance criteria Operational basis earthquake loads.
- Safe Shutdown earthquake loads.
- Safety / relief valve discharge induced loads from a single valve, 1
second actuation.
1-12
NEDO-30159 Table 1-2 (Continued)
Safety / relief valve discharge induced loads from two adjacent SRV 2
valves. SRV asymmetric loads.
l SRV
- The loads induced by actuation of all safety / relief valves g
which activate within milliseconds of each other (e.g., turbine trip operational transient). Envelope of SRV Symmetric and Asymmetric loads.
- The loads induced by the actuation of safety / relief valves ADS associated with Automatic Depressurization System which actuate within milliseconds of each other during the postulated small or intermediate size pipe rupture. Envelope of SRV Symmetric and Asymmetric loads.
Safety / relief valve discharge induced loads from Low Setpoint SRV LSPA Actuation.
The loss-of-coolant accident associated with the postulated LOCA pipe rupture of large pipes (e.g., main steam, feeduater, recirculation piping).
- Pool swell drag / fallout loads on piping and components located 1
between the main vent discharge outlet and the suppression pool water upper surface.
Pool swell impact loads on piping and components located above LOCA 2
the suppression pool water upper surface.
Oscillating pressure-induced loads on submerged piping and l
LOCA 3
components during condensation oscillations.
- Building motion induced loads from chugging.
4 Building motion induced loads from main vent air clearing.
LOCA 5
Vertical and horizontal loads on main vent piping.
LOCA 6
Annulus pressurization loads.
LOCA 7
The abnormal transients associated with a Small Break SBA Accident.
The abnormal transients associated with an Intermediate Break IBA Accident.
1-13/1-14
NEDO-30159 2.
REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL SYSTEM EVALUATION 2.1 EQUIPMENT EVALUATED A design adequacy evaluation was performed for the LaSalle Unit 2 reactor pressure vessel system. The following components were evaluated:
Reactor Pressure Vessel RPV Internal Components RPV Support Components 2.2 LOAD COMBINATIONS AND ANALYSIS METHOD The dynamic loads used to perform the evaluation were selected from the load combinations listed in Table 2-1.
These combinations were derived from the load combinations described in Section 1.3 and Table 1-2 to more clearly describe the normal and abnormal pressure differences that coincide with the postulated events. Conservative methods were frequently used in the evaluation in order to simplify or reduce the required analysis effort. For example, in some cases the absolute sum value of the highest load case was compared to the original design load. This highly conservative procedure was used as a means of eliminating the need to assess SRSS loads and nongoverning load combinations and should not be construed as a requirement.
The suppression pool dynamic loads, annulus pressurization, and seismic events impart loads on the containment structures and accelerations on the reactor building equipment. The accelerations on the equipment were based on structural system response data developed using a composite soil-structure 6
interaction model with a representation of the reactor pressure vessel. The resulting accel,eration time-histories were used for a local system analysis.
The local system analysis was based on a composite lumped mass model of the pedestal, shield wall and a detailed representation of the reactor pressure vessel complex. The excitation inputs for the local system analysis were based on acceleration time-histories for the suppression pool hydrodynamic 2-1 l
l
d h
'l Table 2-1 REACTOR SYSTEM DETAILED LOAD COMBINAiTONS REQUIRED LOAD COMBINATIONS:
Condition Loads i
Upset NL + (N-DELTA P) + OBE 1
Upset NL + (U-DELTA P) + SRV Upset NL + (U-DELTA P) + OBE + SRV Emergency NL + (U-DELTA P) + CHG + SRV S)
Faulted NL + (A-DELTA P) + JR + VC + SSE Faulted NL + (A-DELTA P) + JR + AP + SSE NL + (A-DELTA P) + CHG + SRV (ADS) +
Faulted E
Faulted NL + (A-DELTA F) + C07 + SRV LSPA) + SSE Faulted NL + (A-DELTA P) + CO2 + SRV (ADS) +
Faulted NL + (U-DELTA P) + AC + SSE Faulted NL + (A-DELTA P) + JR + SCRAM + SSE Faulted NL + (U-DELTA P) + SRV (ALL)
- 0 Faulted NL + (I-DELTA P) + JR + AP Faulted NL + (I-DELTA P) + JR + VC STEAM DRYER LOAD COMBINATIONS:
Condition Loads Faulted NL + (A-DELTA P) + SSE Faulted NL + (I-DELTA P)
S t
2-2
1 i
NED0-30159 Table 2-1 REACTOR SYSTEM DETAILED LOAD COMBINATIONS (Continued)
DEFINITIONS:
NL - Metal + Water Weight OBE - Operating Basis Earthquake SSE - Safe Shutdown Earthquake CHG - Chugging Loads SRV (ALL) - Safety / Relief Valve Discharge Caused Loads Induced by the Actuation of All Safety Relief Valves. Envelope of Symmetric and Asymmetric loads.
SRV (ADS) - Safety / Relief Valve Loads Associated with the Automatic Depressurization System. Envelope of Symmetric and Asymmetric loads.
N-DELTA P - Normal Delta Pressure Force A-DELTA P - Accident LOCA Delta Pressure Force U-LELTA P - Upset Delta Pressure Force I-DELTA P - Interlock Delta Pressure Force C0 - High Mass Flux Condensation Oscillation Loads 1
CO - L w Mass Flux Condensation Oscillation Loads 2
SRV (LSPA) - Actuation of Lowest Setpoint Group of Valves. Factor of Symmetric, Single SRV loads.
JR - Jet Reaction AP - Annulus Pressurization Loads I
AC - Acoustic Pressure Loads VC - Vent Clearing Loads SCRAM - Loads Produced by the Sudden Shutdown of'a Nuclear Reactor as a Result of the Rapid Insertion of the Control Rods 2-3
=..
i' NEDO-30159 forcing functions, seismic vibratory motions, and pressure time-histories from annulus pressurization due to postulated pipe breaks.
The acceleration time-histories with the detailed reactor pressure vessel and-pedestal shield wall structural lumped mass model were used to generate the forces and moments acting on the reactor pressure vessel, supports, and internal components. The calculated forces and moments were used to perform the adequacy evaluation of the reactor pressure vessel and associated' equipment. As a first step in the evaluation, these forces and moments were compared with the design values.
In cases where the newly calculated load was I
found to be less than the original design basis load, the equipment design adequacy for primary stresses was assured and further stress evaluation was unnecessary. If the calculated loads exceeded the design basis loads, a stress analysis was performed. The resulting stresses were then compared with the stress allowables to determine design adequacy. Stress categories are listed in Table 2-2.
A' fatigue evaluation of the RPV, RPV internals and supports was also conducted for SRV cyclic duty loads. The equipment requiring fatigue evaluations was analyzed for the fatigue usage due to SRV load cycles based upon the loading during SRV events. The fatigue usage factor is the ratio of the number of SRV load cycles to the number of allowable cycles, and the total cumulative usage factor is the sum of all usages calculated for all upset events. The duty cycle basis for this evaluation is described in Table 2-3.
Conservatively, seven stress cycles per SRV actuation were considered for the reactor pressure f
vessel evaluation.
i 2.3 EVALUATION RESULTS
[
2.3.1 Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) i The RPV components discussed in this section are those which are attached to the pressure vessel. They are:
RPV Shroud Support RPV Support Skirt r
l 2-4 L
e NEDO-30159 Table 2-2 STRESS CATEGORIES P = Primary Q = Secondary P3 = Primary membrane PB =, Primary bending Pt = Primary local Qg = Secondary membrane QB = Secondary bending Table 2-3 TOTAL NUMBER OF SRV ACTUATIONS (*) (40 YEARS)
Number of SRVs Lifting Total Number of SRV Simultaneously Actuations 1
2550 2
253 (220) (b) many Total 2803 (2770) (b)
(a) Seven load cycles per actuation.
(b) For vessel and piping.
h 2
l NEDO-30159 CRD Penetrations In-Core Housing Penetrations Steam Dryer Brackets RPV Stabilizer Brackets RPV Nozzles The new loads evaluation of the RPV components was performed by first comparing the calculated new loads to the design basis loads.
If the new loads exceeded the design loads, a stress analysis was then performed, to include a primary stress evaluation and a fatigue evaluation. Table 2-2 lists the stress categories used in then evaluations.
The results of the evaluations of the RPV components are presented in the following subsections.
2.3.1.1 RPV Shroud Support For the evaluation of the RPV Shroud Support, the calculated loads exceeded the design basis loads in the upset, emergency and faulted loading conditions. A stress analysis was performed which demonstrated that the calculated stresses were within the allowable limits when using the SRSS method of summation (Table 2-4).
The maximum cumulative fatigue usage factor was calculated to be 0.89 at the vessel bottom head, which is less than the 1.0 allowable.
2.3.1.2 RPV Support Skirt For the evaluation of the RPV support skirt in the upset and emergency loading conditions, the calculated vertical loads exceeded the design basis loads for the ABS method of summation.
In the faulted condition, the calculated vertical and horizontal loadings exceeded the design basis loads for the ABS method of summation (Table 2-5).
When the loads were combined, however, the effective vertical loads were less than the design basis loads for the ABS method of summation (Table 2-6).
A stress analysis was performed for the faulted loading 2-6
NEDO-30159 condition cases which demonstrated that the calculated stresses were within the allowable limits (Table 2-7).
l 2-7
NEDO-30159 Table 2-4 RPV SHROUD SUPPORT STRESS COMPARISON (PSI)
Calculated Limiting Load Loading Stress Stress Allowable Combination Condition Category (SRSS)
Stress NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset P
17,350 23,300 g
NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset Pg+PB 31,283 34,950 NL + (U-AP) + CHG Emergency P
21,893 28,125 g
+ SRV (gg)
NL + (U-AP) + CHG Emergency Pg+PB 37,M0 42,187
NL + (A-AP) + CHC Faulted P
21,893 28,125*
g
+ SRV g) + SSE NL + (A-AP) + CHG Faulted Pg+PB
+ SRV g) + SSE Maximum Cumulative Fatigue Usage Factor: 0.089
- Faulted stresses are conservatively compared to emergency condition allowable.
Table 2-5 RPV SUPPORT SKIRT LOAD COMPARISON MAXIMUM LOAD VS DESIGN LOADS (ABS)
M V(kip)
H(kip)
(in.-kip x 1000)
Loading Calculated Allowable Calculated Allowable Calculated Allowable Condition Load.
Load Load Load Load Load Upset 6,831.53 6,817 642.5 1,560 116.77 840 Emergency 8,606.03 7830 642.5 3,120 116.77 1,660 Faulted 10,985.36 7830 4,942.9 3,632 311.04 1790.3 2-8 I
NEDO-30159 Table 2-6 RPV SUPPORT SKIRT EFFECTIVE VERTICAL LOAD * (KIP) (ABS)
Loading Calculated Load Allowable Condition (ABS)
Load Upset 8,692.44 20,203.45 Emergency 10,466.94 34,284.18 Faulted 15,941.92 36,360.68 IV,gg = V + 2M/R Table 2-7 l
RPV SUPPORT SKIRT STRESS COMPARISON (PSI)
Calculated Limiting Load Loading Stress Stress Allowable-Combination Condition Catego ry (SRSS)
Stress NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset P
15,477 19,150 g
NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset Pg+PB 21,942 28,725 NL + (U-AP) + CHG Emergency P
24,252 29,425 g
NL + (U-AP) + CHG Emergency Pg+PB 34,996 44,150
NL + (U-AP) + JR + AP Faulted P
24,252 29,425 g
y
+ SSE NL + (U-AP) + JR + AP Faulted Pg+PB 34,996 44,150
+ SSE l
Maximum Cumulative Fatigue Usage Factor: 0.23 at skirt knuckle to bottom head juncture.
l
-* Faulted stresses are conservatively compared to emergency condition allowables.
I 1
4 1
2-9
NEDO-30159 The maximum cumulative fatigue usage factor was calculated to be 0.23 at the skirt to base junction, which is less than the 1.0 allowable.
2.3.1.3 CRD Penetrations The loads on the CRD penetrations are a result of the loads from the upper and lower CRD housings. A stress analysis was performed which demonstrated that the calculated stresses for the penetrations at the CRD housings and stub tubes were within the allowable limits (Tables 2-8 and 2-9).
)
The maximum cumulative fatigue usage factor was calculated to be 0.268 at the CRD Housing Penetrations.
2.3.1.4 In-Core Housing Penetrations a
A load comparison was performed on the in-core housing penetrations, which demonstrated that the combined LaSalle 2 loads were less than the combined loads contained in a previously performed generic analysis. Therefore, the design adequacy of the in-core housing penetrations were verified, using the SRSS method of summation.
2.3.1.5 Steam Dryer Brackets i
For the evaluation of the steam dryer brackets in the loading conditions, the calculated vertical and horizontal loads did not exceed the design basis loads for the SRSS method of summation. However, in the faulted loading condition, i
the horizontal loads exceeded the design basis loads for the' ABS method of summation. The load comparison is shown in Table 2-10.
A stress analysis was 9
also performed for the loading condition cases which demonstrated that the l
l calculated stresses were within the allowable limits (Table 2-11).
J For fatigue, since the calculated loads in the upset condition were less than the design basis loads and the alternating stresses due to the SRV loads did l
l i
l 2-10
NEDO-30159 Table 2-8 CRD PENETRATION STRESS COMPARISON AT CRD HOUSING (PSI)
Calculated Limiting Load Loading Stress Stress Allowable Combination Condition Catego ry (SRSS)
Stress NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset P
11,840 16,660 g
NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset Pg+PB 11, 0
24,990 NL + (U-AP) + CHG Emergency P
13,550 19,992 g
NL + (U-AP) + CHG Emergency Pg+PB 13,200 29,988
NL + (U-AP) + JR
- SCRAM Faulted P
13,550 39,984 g
+ SSE NL + (U-AP) + JR + SCRAM Faulted Pg+PB 13,200 59,976
+ SSE Maximum Cumulative Fatigue Usage Factor: 0.268 at housing.
Table 2-9 CRD PENETRATION STRESS COMPARISON AT STUB TUBE (PSI)
Calculated Limiting Load Loading Stress Stress Allowable Combination Condition Catego ry (SRSS)
Stress NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset P
7,970 20,000 g
NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset Pg+PB
, 00 30,000
(
NL + (U-AP) + CHG Emergency P
8,990 24,100 g
NL + (U-AP) + CHG Emergency Pg+PB 29,640 36,150
NL + (U-AP) + JR + SCRAM Faulted P
8,990 48,000 g
+ SSE
,640 72,000 NL + (U-AP) + JR + SCRAM Faulted Pg+PB
+ SSE Maximum Cumulative Fatigue Usage Factor: 0.183 at stub tube.
2-11
NED0-30159 Table 2-10 STEAM DRYER BRACKET LOAD COMPARISON (KIP)
SRSS ABS V(kip)
H(kip)
V(kip)
H(kip)
Calcu-Design Calcu-Design Calcu-Design Calcu-Design lated lated lated lated Condition Load Load Load Load Load Load Load Load Upset 45.5 93.0 17.9 47.0 49.3 93.0 21.7 47.0 Emergency 56.5 93.0 4.9 47.0 67.2 93.0 6.9 47.0 Faulted 0.0 93.0 46.0 47.0 0.0 93.0 64.3 47.0 Table 2-11
~
STEAM DRYER BRACKET STRESS COMPARISON (KSI)
Stress Categories Primary Local Maximum Shear Primary Membrane Plus Bending Calculated Calculated Calculated Loading Stress Allowable Stress Allowable Stress Allowable Condition (ABS)
Stress (ABS)
Stress (ABS)
Stress Upset 15.48 18.64 0.94 23.3 32.55 34.95 Emergency 15.48 18.64 0.94 23.3 32.55 34.95 Faulted 15.48 18.64 1.29 23.3 32.55 34.95 Maximum Cumulative Fatigue Usage Factor:
0.050 i
i 2-12
NED0-30159 l
I not exceed the fatigue endurance limit, the maximum fatigue usage factor remains less than the 1.0 allowable as documented in the vessel stress report.
2.3.1.6 RPV Stabilizer Brackets The calculated loads on the stabilizer brackets were 1e-n than the design basis loads for all loading conditions using the SRSS and ABS method of summation.
Therefore, no further evaluation was required (Table 2-12).
For fatigue, since the calculated loads were less than the design basis loads, the maximum fatigue usage factor at the bracket to vessel attachment remains as documented in the vessel stress report.
1 2.3.1.7 RPV Nozzles For the RPV nozzles, to include thermal sleeves, where GE-supplied piping and vessel internal components applied dynamic loadings, load comparisons, and in some cases stress analyses, were performed to demonstrate the nozzles' adequacy. Specifically, design adequacy was demonstrated for the following RPV nozzles and thermal sleeves:
Main Steam Nozzles Recire Inlet Nozzle LPCI Nozzle Recire Nozzle Thermal Sleeves Feedwater Nozzle Thermal Sleeve Core Spray Nozzle Thermal Sleeve Differential Pressure and Liquid Control Line Thermal Sleeve w
For the RPV nozzles where S&L supplied piping reaction loadings, if the nozzle allowables, as provided on the vessel loading diagram, were not exceeded, then the adequacy of the nozzles was verified by the vessel stress report.
2-13
h e
NEDO-30159 Table 2-12 1
RPV STABILIZER BRACKET LOAD COMPARISON (KIP / BRACKET)
I Calculated Load i
Loading Allowable Condition SRSS ABS Load Upset 267.7 365.0 480 Emergency 233.2 247.8 5480 Faulted 560.0 703.9 1,324 4
In specific cases, the S&L piping reaction loads on the RPV nozzles exceeded the vessel loading diagram allowables. For these cases,-General Electric conducted analyses using the actual nozzle loads. The design adequacy of the nozzles was analytically demonstrated for the applied loads.
i 2.3.2 RPV Internal Components The RPV internal components discussed in this section are:
Core Spray Sparger Core Spray Line (In-Vessel) Piping Steam Dryer Shroud 1
Shroud Head Assembly Core Support Plate l
Top Guide Y
Control Rod Drives Control Rod Drive Housings Control Rod Guide Tubes g.
In-Core Housings and Guide Tubes Jet Pumps and Jet Pump Riser Braces Core Differential Pressure and Liquid Control Line Fuel-Assemblies L
l 2-14 l
NEDO-30159 SRM and IRM Dry Tubes LPRM Detectors LPCI Couplings Orificed Fuel Supports The new loads evaluation of the RPV internal components was performed by first comparing the calculated new loads to the design basis loads.
If the new loads exceeded the design loads, a stress analysis of the equipment was then performed, to include a primary stress evaluation and a fatigue evaluation.
Table 2-2 lists the stress categories used in these evaluations.
The results of the evaluations on the RPV internal components are presented in the following subsections.
2.3.2.1 Core Spray Sparger The stress analysis performed on the core spray sparger compared the total static and dynamic stresses to the allowable stresses (Table 2-13).
The loads were combined by both SRSS and ABS methods of summation and found to be within the allowable limits for all cases. The governing load case for all loading conditions was the upset condition NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV. _
The maximum cumulative fatigue usage factor was calculated to be 0.20 at the tee junction, which is less than the 1.0 allowable.
2.3.2.2 Core Spray Line (In-Vessel) Piping q
The stress analysis performed on the core spray line piping, to include the clamp and hex head bolt, demonstrated that the calculated stresses were within the allowable limits when using the SRSS and ABS methods of sn==== tion (Table 2-14). The governing load case for all loading conditions was the upset condition NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV.
The maximum cumulative fatigue usage factor was calculated to be 0.969 at the elbow, which is less than the 1.0 allowable.
2-15 t
1 NED0-30159 Table 2-13 CORE SPRAY SPARGER, STRESS COMPARISON (KSI)
Calculated Limiting Load Loading Stress Stress Allowable Combination Condition Category SRSS ABS Stress NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset Pg+PB 6.00 6.56 21.45 Table 2-14 CORE SPRAY LINE STRESS COMPARISON (KSI)
Calculated Limiting Load Loading Stress Stress Allowable Combination Condition Catego ry SRSS ABS Stress NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset P
16.7 20.0 21.45 g
2.3.2.3 Steam Dryer The acceleration comparison performed on the steam dryer demonstrated that the calculated acceleration for the worst case faulted load combinations were acceptable thereby assuring the steam dryer adequacy. The results of the load comparison are seen in Table 2-15.
]
2.3.2.4 Shroud i
The stress analysis of the shroud demonstrated that the calculated stresses were less than the allowable limits using the ABS method of summation. The most highly stressed location was calculated to be at the top guide wedge to shroud junction (Table 2-16).
l 2-16
NEDO-30159 Table 2-15 STEAM DRYER ACCELERATION COMPARISON Limiting Load Loading Calculated Acceleration Combination Condition Acceleration Acceptable Horizontal NL + (A-AP) + SSE Faulted 0.821 1.50 Vertical NL + (I-AP)
Faulted 0.169 0.40 Table 2-16 SHROUD STRESS COMPARISON (KSI)
(At Top Guide Wedges)
Calculated Limiting Load Loading Stress Stress Allowable Combination Condition Category (ABS)
Stress NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset Pg+PB 19.79 21.45 NL + (U-AP) + CHG Emergency Pg+PB 0.72 32.17
NL + (A-AP) + CHG Faulted Pg+PB 18.24 42.90
+ SRV (ADS) + SE Maximun Cumulative Fatigue Usage Factor: 0.70 at shroud cylinder core plate ledge.
r 2-17
NEDO-30159 The maximum cumulative fatigue usage factor was calculated to be 0.70 at the shroud cylinder near the core plate ledge, which is less than the 1.0 allowable.
2.3.2.5 Shroud Head Assembly 4
The stress analysis performed on the shroud head demonstrated that the calculated stresses were within the allowable limits when using both SRSS and ABS methods of summation (Table 2-17).
The most highly stressed location was i
calculated to be at the shroud head bolts.
The maximum cumulative fatigue usage factor was calculated to be 0.273 at the shroud head bolt, which is less than the 1.0 allowable.
2.3.2.6 Core Support Plate The stress analysis performed on the core support plate, to include the core support bolt, demonstrated that the calculated stresses were within the allowable limits as shown in Table 2-18.
Additionally, a beam buckling analysis was performed which demonstrated that the core support plate met the required buckling criteria (Table 2-19).
The maximum cumulative fatigue usage factor was calculated to be 0.745 at the core plate stud which is less than the 1.0 allowable.
Table 2-17 i
SHROUD HEAD BOLT STRESS COMPARISON (KSI)
Calculated Limiting Load Loading Stress Stress Allowable Combination Condition Category SRSS ABS Stress NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset P
9.601 10.89 23.3 g
NL + (U-AP) + CHG Emergency P
5.29 6.07 34.95
- b 3
(ADS)
NL + (A-AP) + CHUG +
Faulted P
17.28 19.71 55.92 g
Maximum Cumulative Fatigue Usage Factor: 0.273 l
2-18
NEDO-30159 Table 2-18 l
l CORE SUPPORT PLATE LIGAMENT STRESS COMPARISON (KSI)
Limiting Load Loading Stress Calculated Allowable Combination Condition Category Stress Stress NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset Pg+PB 18.22 25.35 NL + (U-AP) + CHG Emergency Pg+PB 11.61 38.03
NL + (A-AP) + CHG Faulted Pg+PB 23.20 50.70
- Maximum Cumulative Fatigue Usage Factor: 0.745 at core plate stud.
Table 2-19 CORE SUPPORT PLATE BEAM BUCKLING LOAD COMPARIS0N (1b/ Bundle)
Limiting Load
~
Loading Calculated Allowable Combination
. Condition Load Load NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset 359 366 NL + (U-AP) + CHG + SRV (ADS) mergency 321 500 NL + (A-AP) + CHG + SRV (ADS)
Faulted 620 683 SSE 2.3.2.7 Top Guide The stress analysis performed on the top guide demonstrated that the calculated stresses were within the allowable limits. The most highly stressed beam results are provided in Table 2-20.
?
The maximum cumulative fatigue usage factor was calculated to be 0.23 at the beam slot, which is less than the 1.0 allowable.
2-19
NEDO-30159 Table 2-20 TOP GUIDE BEAM STRESS COMPARIS0N (PSI)
Limiting Load Loading Stress Calculated Allowable Combination Condition Catego ry Stress Stress NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset P
1,566 16,900 g
NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset PM* B 25,272 25,350 NL + (U-AP) + CHG Emergency P
U 25,3 %
g
- b (ADS)
NL + (U-AP) + CHG Emergency Pg+PB 14,152 38,025 (ADS)
NL + (A-AP) + CHG Faulted P
1,43 40,560 g
+ SSE g g) + ERV NL + (U-AP) + CHG Faulted Pg+PB 46,445 50,700
+ SRV S) + SSE Maximum Cumulative Fatigue Usage Factor: 0.23 at beam slot.
2.3.2.8 Control Rod Drives The analysis performed on the control rod drives demonstrated the design adequacy for all loading combinations using the SRSS and ABS methods of summation. A previously performed generic analysis for BWR/4 and 5 control rod drives was used to form the basis for the LaSalle 2 analysis.
4 The maximum combined loads calculated in the LaSalle 2 analysis were less than those calculated in the generic analysis for all components and all load cases.
Therefore, all component stresses for the CRD were less than those calculated in the generic analysis.
As part of the basis for the generic CRD analysis, the CRD was statically and dynamically tested for seismic loads of various amplitudes. Static tests consisted of fuel channel deflections and core support displacements. The CRD housing lower flange was also oscillated up to a 2-inch peak to peak 4
I 2-20
NED0-30159 i
displacement with minimal effect on scram time. During a more recent test, the drive of similar configuration was subjected to a number of biaxial excita-tions. The dynamic test was followed by a hot functional test, with no apparent damage to the CRD. All drive functions remained normal.
Tables 2-21 through 2-25 summarize the points of highest stress of the CRD components. For all components, the emergency condition stresses were not as severe as the upset condition stresses.
In all cases, the maximum cumulative fatigue usage factors were less than the 1.0 allowable.
2.3.2.9 Control Rod Drive Housings The stress analysis performed on the CRD housings demonstrated that the calculated stresses were within the allowable limits when using the SRSS and ABS methods of summation (Table 2-26).
The maximum cumulative fatigue usage factor was calculated to be 0.27 at the lower housing, which is less than 1.0 allowable.
2.3.2.10 Control Rod Guide Tubes The stress analysis performed on the control rod guide tubes demonstrated that the calculated stresses were within the allowable limits when using the ABS method of summation (Tables 2-27 through 2-28).
The control rod guide tube stability criterion, which is the ratio of the applied vertical load over the collapse load, was also evaluated and the criteria satisfied (Table 2-29).
1
- l 2-21 9
HEDO-30159 Table 2-21 CONTROL ROD DRIVE PISTON TUBE STRESS COMPARISON (KSI)
Calculated Limiting Load Loading Stress Stress Allowable Combination Condition Catego ry (ABS)*
Stress NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset P'y + PB
.0**
+ SCRAM NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset PM+ B+0
+ SCRAM NL + (A-AP) + CHG + SRV Faulted Pg+PB 0.2**
+ SSE + SCRAM Maximum Cumulative Fatigue Usage Factor:
0.253 1
- SRSS values are less than the ABS values for the corresponding load combination.
- Primary membrane criteria.
Table 2-22 CONTROL ROD DRIVE OUTER TUBE STRESS COMPARISON (KSI)
Calculated Limiting Load Loading Stress Stress Allowable Combination Condition Category (ABS)*
Stress NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset Pg+PB 32.9 37.3
+ SCRAM NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset P
19.9 25.0 g
+ SCRAM NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset Pg+PB 24.7 26.1
+ SCRAM-i NL + (A-AP) + CHG + SRV Faulted P
20.7 54.0
+ SSE + SCRAM NL + (A-AP) + CHG+ SRV Faulted Pg+PB 38.5.
54.0
+ SSE + SCRAM Maximum Cumulative Fatigue Usage Factor: 0.41
- SRSS values 'are less than the ABS values for the corresponding load combination.
- Primary membrane criteria.
2-22
NED0-30159 l
Table 2-23 l
CONTROL R0D DRIVE CYLINDER STRESS COMPARISON (KSI) i Calculated l
Limiting Load Loading Stress Stress Allowable Combination Condition Category (ABS)*
-Stress NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset P3+PB 17.5 40.8
+ SCRAM NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset P
15.3 27.4 g
+ SCRAM NL + (A-AP) + CHG + SRV Faulted Pg+PB 19.2 58.4**
+ SSE + SCRAM Maximum Cumulative Fatigue Usage Factor: 0.08
- SRSS values are less than the ABS values for the corresponding load combination.
- Primary membrane criteria.
Table 2-24 CONTROL R0D DRIVE INDEX TUBE STRESS COMPARISON (KSI)
Calculated Limiting Load Loading Stress Stress Allowable Combination Condition Category (ABS)*
Stress NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset Pg+PB 32.7 42.5
+ SCRAM NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset P
18.7 28.5 g
+ SCRAM NL + (U-AP) + OBE Upset Pg+PB+Q
.4 6.95
+ SRV + SCRAM NL + (A-AP) + CHG Faulted Pg+PB 29.4 61.56
NL + (A-AP) + CHG Faulted P;g + P B
+ SRV + SSE + SCRAM + JR Maximum Cumulative Fatigue Usage Factor:
- 0 l
- SRSS values are less than the ABS values for the corresponding load combination.
- Primary membrane criteria.
2-23
NEDO-30159 Table 2-25 CONTROL ROD DRIVE INDICATOR TUBE STRESS COMPARISON (KSI) i NL.+ (U-AP) + OBE Upset PM+ B+0
NL + (U-AP) + OBE Upset Pg+PB
NL + (A-AP) + CHG + SRV Faulted P
37.6 40.0 g
Maximum Cumulative Fatigue Usage Factor- 0.093 l
- SRSS values are less than the ABS values for the corresponding load combination.
4 l
Table 2-26
_ _ _.. _ _ _ -. _ _. _ _ _ _.. _. _ _.. _ _.. _... CONTROL ROD DRIVE HOUSING STRESS COMPA Calculated Stress 3
Loading Condition
- Stress Category (ABS)**
Allowable Stress Upset P
15,600 16,660 g
Faulted P
18,980 39,840 g
Maximum Cumulative Fatigue Usage Factor: 0.27
- Emergency stresses are less than or equal to upset stresses.
- SRSS values are less than the ABS values for the corresponding load combina-tion.
0 l
l.
2-24' i
,w-,--
-m..
w
.-m.-
e
l Table 2-27 CONTROL ROD GUIDE TUBE FLANGE STRESS COMPARIS0N (PSI) 1 Calculated Limiting Load Loading Stress Stress Allowable Combination Condition Category (ABS)*
Stress N + (U-AP) + SRV Upset Pg+Pg 6,343 24,000 N + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Emergency Pg+PB
,206 36,000 N + (A-AP) + SSE + JR + AP Faulted Pg+PB 11,166 38,400
- SRSS values are less than the ABS values for the corresponding load combina-tion.
Table 2-28 CONTROL R0D GUIDE TUBE BODY STRESS COMPARIS0N (PSI)
Calculated Limiting Load Loading Stress Stress Allowable Combination Condition Catego ry (ABS)*
Stress 1
N + (U-aP) + SRV Upset Pg+PB 5,704 16,000 N + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Emergency Pg+PB 5,795 16,000 N + (A-AP) + SSE + JR + AP Faulted Pg+PB 9,867 16,000
- SRSS values are less than the ABS values for the corresponding load combina-tion.
- Conservatively compared to primary membrane stress limits for upset service Level B allowable.
J a
2-25
NED0-30159 Table 2-29 CONTROL ROD GUIDE TUBE STABILITY CRITERIA COMPARISON Limiting Load Loading Calculated Allowable Combination Condition Ratio Ratio N + (U-AP) + SRV Upset 0.41 0.45 N + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Emergency 0.42 0.67 N + (A-AP) + SSE + JR + AP Faulted 0.65 0.90
'The LaSalle 2 guide tubes are exempt from fatigue analysis per ASME B&PV Code,Section III, Para NG-3222.4d.
2.3.2.11 In-Core Housings and Guide Tubes The new loads for LaSalle 2 were less than the new loads used to perform a generic stress analysis of the in-core housings and guide tubes. The generic calculated stresses were within the allowable limits and since LaSalle 2 loads were less and the geometry is the same, it is not necessary to perform a detailed analysis for LaSalle 2.
2.3.2.12 Jet Pumps and Jet Pump Riser Braces The stress analysis performed on the jet pumps and jet pump riser braces demonstrated that the calculated stresses were within the allowable limits when using the ABS method of summation (Table 2-30 and 2-31).
The maximum cumulative. fatigue usage factor was calculated to be <0.76, which is less than the 1.0 allowable.
l I
I r
e 2-26
~.
Table 2-30 JET PUMP STRESS COMPARISON (PSI) l Calculated l
Limiting Load Loading Stress Stress Allowable Combination Condition Category (ABS)*
Stress NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset Pg+PB+0 NL + (A-AP) + OBE + SRV Emergency Pg+PB NL + (A-AP) + JR + AP Faulted Pg+PB
+ SRV + SSE Maximum Cumulative Fature Usage Factor:
50.76 j
- SRSS values is less than ABS value for the corresponding load combination.
3 Table 2-31 JET PUMP RISER BRACE STRESS COMPARISON (PSI)
Calculated Limiting Load Loading Stress Stress Allowable
)
Combination Condition Category (ABS)*
Stress NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset Pg+PB+Q 18,641 50,700 NL + (U-AP) + CHG Emergency
.Pg+PB 11,508 38,025
+
(ADS)
NL + (A-AP) + JR + AP Faulted Pg+PB.
42,501 60,840
+ SSE j
Maximum Cumulative Fatigue Usage Factor:
<0.76
- SRSS values is less than ABS value for the corresponding load combina-tion.
L 2-27
NEDO-30159 2.3.2.13 Core Differential Pressure and Liquid Control Line The analysis was performed using a dynamic arialysis program with the response spectrum input from the dynamic new loads. The limiting load cases for cach code condition were selected for evaluation. Hardware was evaluated per ASME Code Section III NB, piping analysis and fatigue evaluation per the ASME code.
- )
The ABS method was used as the limiting method for combining the loads for each load case (Table 2-32).
i The maximum cumulative fatigue usage factor was calculated to be 0.02, which is less than the 1.0 allowable.
J 3
Table 2-32 CORE DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE AND LIQUID CONTROL STRESS COMPARISON (PSI) l Calculated Limiting Load Loading Stress Stress Allowable Combination Condition Category (ABS)
- Stress NL + (U-AP) + SRV Upset P+Q 46,319 54,120 NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Emergency Pg+PB 13,569 36.900 NL + (A-AP) + JR:+ AP Faulted PM+PB 4
35,750 59,040
. + SSE Maximum calculated fatigue usage factor: 0.02 i
- SRSS values are less than ABS values for the corresponding load combinations.
i i
l e
l l
2-28
= -.
NED0-30159 2.3.2.14 Fuel Assemblies The LaSalle 2 fuel assemblies were evaluated for functional adequacy consider-ing the seismic, SRV, and LOCA loadings to include annulus pressurization.
Loading combination criteria were used to determine the maximum combined fuel l
l acceleration profiles for normal, upset and faulted events. The fuel assem-bly fatigue analysis was performed for SRV and OBE+SRV load combinations.
Both the SRSS and ABS methods of summation were used for the functional adequacy and fatigue evaluation.
The method used to demonstrate the adequacy of the LaSalle 2 fuel assemblies was to demonstrate that the LaSalle 2 fuel loadings were less than the veri-fied capability of BWR/2-5 plants.
Normal / Upset Event Results The limiting combination of horizontal accelerations for the normal and upset events was NL+0BE+SRV.
The resulting SRSS and ABS combined horizontal accel-eration profiles were compared to the BWR/2-5 upset design basis profile. The combined accelerations were shown to be less than the design basis accelera-tions over the full length of the fuel. The combination of horizontal and vertical fuel lift accelerations exceeded the design basis accelerations for concurrent horizontal and vertical loading, but were within the verified capability of BWR/2-5 fuel. Based on the above results, all design criteria were met for Normal and Upset events.
Emergency / Faulted Event Results The limiting faulted load combination of horizontal accelerations was NL+S RV+LOCA+0B E. The LaSalle 2 combined horizontal accelerations exceeded the design basis acceleration profile locally at the bottom of the fuel assembly. Since resultant loadings are an integral effect of the accelera-tion distribution, it was acceptable to allow the resultant acceleration distribution to locally exceed the design basis profile.
In this case, the 2-29
=-
NED0-30159 actual component part loadings were compared to the design basis loads. The horizontal component loadings were shown to be less than the corresponding design basis loads.
The limiting faulted load combination of vertical accelerations was NL+SRV+LOCA+SSE. The combined horizontal and vertical accelerations exceeded the BWR/2-5 design basis accelerations; however, the combined vertical plus j
horizontal accelerations were shown to be within the verified capability of the fuel.
j Based upon the above results, all design criteria were met for the faulted event.
Fatigue Analysis Resulto 1
The fuel fatigue analysis was performed for the limiting SRV case and the OBE+SRV load combination. Fuel assembly component loads were determined using an analytical model. The OBE and SRV component loads were combined by both the SRSS and ABS methods. Fatigue capability of the fuel components was determined by exchanging the previously evaluated capability of at least 10 to 150 cycles of peak SSE loading for a larger quantity of cycles of the lower OBE or SRV loads as allowed by the material fatigue curves.
l The fuel component loadings determined from the LaSalle 2 horizontal and vertical OBE and SRV loads were small enough such that less than 20% cumula-tive damage fatigue is predicted to occur over the lifetime of the fuel assembly. Based upon the fatigue analysis, the fuel assembly has adequate fatigue capability to withstand the loadings resulting from multiple SRV actuations and the OBE+SRV event.
l The LaSalle 2 fuel assembly horizontal loadings were shown to be less than I
the BWR/2-5 design basis loads for the limiting normal / upset and faulted Fuel lif t vertical accelerations in combination with the appropriate events.
horizontal accelerations were shown to be less than the verified capability of BWR/2-5 fuel for normal / upset and faulted events. Therefore, all normal,
~
l 2-30 l
l l
NEDO-30159 upset, emergency and faulted design criteria were met for the LaSalle 2 fuel assemblies (Table 2-33).
Eacii component of the LaSalle 2 fuel assembly was demonstrated to have ade-quate f atigue capability to withstand the loadings resulting from multiple SRV actuations over the lifetime of the fuel.
Table 2-33 FUEL ASSEMBLY PEAK ACCELERATION COMPARISON (g)
Calculated Evaluation Acceptance Primary Peak Basis (l)
Criteria Loading Load Type Acceleration Acceleration Acceleration Horizontal Direction:
Horizontal 1.3 G 3.6 G Envelope Acceleration
- 1. Peak Pressure Profile
- 2. Operational Basis Earthquake
- 4. Chugging Vertical Direction:
Vertical 4.2 G 12.0 G
- 1. Peak Pressure
- 2. Safety Shutdown
(
- 3. Safety Relief Valve j
- 4. Condensation l
Oscillation NOTES:
(1) Evaluation Basis Accelerations and Evaluations are contained in NEDE-21175-3-P. The evaluation basis acceleration envelope is defined by a coincident 8G vertical acceleration with the 3.6G horizontal accelera-tion. The 3.6G horizontal value is reduced linearly to zero as the cor-responding vertical acceleration increased from 8 to 12 G's.
(2) The calculated maximum fuel assembly gap opening for the most limiting lond combination is 0.12 inch. This is less than the gap (0.52 inch) required to start the disengagement of the lower tie plate from the fuel support casting.
(3) The fatigue analysis indicates that the fuel assembly has adequate fatigue capability to withstand the loadings resulting from multiple SRV actua-l tions and the OBE+SRV event.
2-31
NEDO-30159 2.3.2.15 SRM and IRM Dry Tubes The analyses performed on the Source Range Monitor (SRM) and Intermediate Range Monitor (IRM) dry tubes demonstrated that the combined loads were less than the load values contained in a previously performed BWR/4 and 5 generic analysis. The combined loads did not result in stresses which exceeded the ASMR Code allowables and therefore the design adequacy was demonstrated.
The maximum cumulative fatigue usage factor was calculated to be less than the 1.0 allowable.
2.3.2.16 LPRM Detectors The analysis performed on the Low Power Range Monitor (LPRM) detector assem-blies demonstrated that the combined loads were less than the load values calculated in a previously performed EWR/4 and 5 generic analysis. The generic BWR/4 and 5 analysis used a combination of test and analysis to qualify the LPRM detectors for loading conditions which exceeded the LaSalle 2 unique com-bined loads. Therefore, the design adequacy was demonstrated.
The maximum cumulative fatigue usage factor for the LPRM assembly was calcu-lated to be less than the 1.0 allowable.
2.3.2.17 LPCI Couplings The stress analysis performed on the LPCI couplings demonstrated that the cal-culated stresses were within the allowable limits using the ABS method of sum-mation. The maximum stress location was at the LPCI ring (Table 2-34).
The maximum cumulative fatigue usage factor was calculated to be less than 1.0.
l l
P 2-32
l l
NEDO-30159 I-Table 2-34 l
LPCI COUPLING STRESS COMPARISON (PSI)
I Limiting Load Loading Stress Calculated Stress Allowable Combination Condition Category (ABS)*
Stress NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset Pg+P3 8,112 25,350 NL + (U-AP) + CHG Emergency Pg+PB 18,869 38,025
+
(ADS)
NL + (A-AP) + JR + AP Faulted Py + PB
+ SSE Maximum calculated fatigua usage factor:
<l.0 2.3.2.18 Orificed Fuel Supports The stress analysis performed on the orificed fuel supports demonstrated that I
the calculated stresses were within the allowable limits using the ABS method of summation (Table 2-35).
The maximum cumulative fatigue usage factor was calculated to be 0.25, which is less than the 1.0 allowable.
Table 2-35 ORIFICED FUEL SUPPORT COMPARISON Limiting Load Calculated Combination Condition (ABS)*, _ _ _
Allowable
~
Upset 1,625**
1,638***
NL + '(A-AP) + JR + AP + SSE Faulted 38,603. psi 43,200 psi 1
. Maximum cumulative fatigue usage factor: 0.25
- SRSS values are less than ABS values for the corresponding load combinations.
- Horizontal load - lbs.
- Values are 44% of load capability as determined by test.
2-33
NEDO-30159 2.3.3 RPV Support Components The RPV support components discussed in this section are:
Vessel Stabilizer CRD Housing Restraint Beam RPV Support Design adequacy of these components was demonstrated by comparing the total dynamic and static loads to the loads for which the equipment was originally designed. By this comparison, it was determined that for the LaSalle 2 vessel
^
stabilizer, CRD housing restraint beam and RFV support (girder assembly) the static and dynamic loads, when combined, were less than the design basis loads for all required load combinations listed in Table 2-1.
The results of the fatigue analyses conducted demonstrated all components ade-quate for cyclic fatigue loading.
4 2.3.3.1 Vessel Stabilizer The stress analysis pe.rformed on the vessel stabilizer demonstrated that the calculated stresses at the yoke were less than the allowable stresses using the SRSS method of summation (Table 2-36).
The ' fatigue analysis performed demonstrated the adequacy of the vessel stabi-lizer for cyclic fatigue loading per AISC criteria.
Table 2-36 VESSEL STABILIZER STRESS COMPARISON (PSI)
Calculated Limiting Load Stress Allowable Combination Condition (SRSS)~
Stress NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset 34,200 36,100 NL + (A-AP) + JR + AP + SSE Faulted 50,300 54,100 2-34
NEDO-30159 2.3.3.2 CRD Housing Restraint Beam The analysis performed on the CRD housing restraint beam demonstrated that the calculated static and dynamic loads were less than the design basis loads using the ABS method of summation (Table 2-37).
i l
l The fatigue analysis performed demonstrated the adequacy of the CRD housing restraint beam for cyclic fatigue loading per AISC criteria.
2.3.3.3 RPV Support The RPV support ring girder loads for LaSalle 2 were less than the loads for LaSalle 1.
It was demonstrated that the calculated static and dynamic loads were less than the design basis loads using both the SRSS and ABS methods for LaSalle 1.
Therefore, the lower LaSalle 2 loads are adequate.
The fatigue analysis perfomed demonstrated the adequacy of the RPV support for cyclic fatigue loading per AISC criteria.
Table 2-37 CRD HOUSING RESTRAINT BEAM LOAD COMPARISON (KIP)
Calculated Limiting Load Loading Load (KIPS)
Allowable Combination Condition **
(ABS)
- Load (kips)
NL + (U-AP) + OBE + SRV Upset 73.49 135 i
NL + (A-AP) + JR + AP + SSE Faulted 96 182
- SRSS values.are less than ABS values for the corresponding load combination.
- Emergency stress is equal to or less than the upset stress allowable.
2-35/2-36 1
3.
NSSS PIPING SYSTEMS EVALUATION 3.1 OVERVIEW A design adequacy evaluation for the LaSalle Unit 2 NSSS main steam and recir-culation piping and pipe mounted equipment was performed. The Unit 2 "as-built" piping and suspension system configurations were verified by Sargent & Lundy engineers and subsequently submitted to GE as input for the stress and analyses performed. ASME Code Certified Piping Stress Reports were prepared and issued March 1983 (References 24 through 29, Appendix A).
3.1.1 Equipment Evaluated The adequacy evaluation performed included the following NSSS main steam and recirculation piping and pipe mounted equipment.
o Main Steam Piping System Piping Snubbers Safety / Relief Valves (SRV)
Main Steam Isolation Valves (MSIV) o Recirculation Piping System Piping Snubbers Suction Gate Valves Discharge Gate Valves Flow Control Valves Recirculation Pumps and Motors 3.1.2 Load Combinations and Summation Methods As a design basis, all dynamic loads were combined using the square root of the sume of squares (SRSS) method. In addition, the absolute sum (ABS) com-bination method was used. The evaluation was performed using the load combinations listed in Tables 3-1 through 3-8 for the main steam system and 3-1
4 4
NEDO-30159 Tables 3-42 through 3-51 for the recirculation system. These load combinations were derived from the more general load combinations listed in
. Table 1-2.in order to more adequately evaluate the induced loads from specific operating transients and postulated plant events.
3.1.3 Evaluation and Methodology the NSSS piping stress analyses were conducted to consider the secondary i
dynamic responses from:
(1) the original design-basis loads including seismic vibratory motions; (2) the structural system feedback loads from the j
suppression pool hydrodynamic events; and (3) the structural _ system loads from i
the LOCA induced annulus pressurization from postulated feedwater, i
recirculation and main steam pipe breaks.
i i
The response spectra for piping attachment points on the reactor pressure vessel,- shield wall and pedestal complex (above the pool area) were generated by General Electric, based upon the acceleration time-histories supplied by Sargent & Lundy Engineers. Containment response spectra were supplied directly by S&L. This combination of General Electric and S&L developed response spectra was used as input responses for all attachment points at each t
piping system.
i Lumped mass models. were developed by General Electric for the NSSS primary piping systems, main steam and recirculation. These lumped mass models i
include the snubbers, hangers, struts and pipe-mounted valves, and represent the major balance-of plant branch piping connected to the main steam and recirculation systems. Amplied response spectra for all attachment points within the piping system were applied (i.e., distinct acceleration excitations
(
were specified at each piping support and anchor point). The detailed models l
were analyzed independently to determine the piping system resulting loads (shears and moments). Additionally, the end reaction forces and/or accelerations for the pipe-mounted / connected equipment (valves and nozzles) were simultaneously calculated.
The piping stresses from the resulting loads (shears and moments) for each load event were determined and combined in accordance with the load combina-l-
3-2 m
-r r
-e
--t-m 7
y-*
=
NED0-30159 j
i tions delineated in Table 1-2.
These stresses were calculated at geometrical discontinuities and compared to ASME code allowable determined stresses (ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Sec. III-NB-3650) for the appropriate loading condition in order to assure design adequacy.
The reaction forces and/or accelerations acting on the pipe-mounted / connected equipment, when combined using the appropriate load combinations, were compared to the equipment allowables to assure design adequacy.
3.2 MAIN STEAM PIPING SYSTEM EVALUATION RESULTS 3.2.1 Main Steam Piping The stress analysis for main steam piping lines A, B, C and D was performed using the verified "as-built" configuration as submitted to GE. The load combinations listed in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 were used as the basis for the evaluation. Stresses were combined using both the SRSS and ABS methods of summation.
Tables 3-10, 3-11, 3-18, 3-19, 3-26, 3-27, 3-34 and 3-35 provide highest stress summaries for the Design Condition and Service Levels B, C and D loading conditions using both the SRSS and ABS methods of summation. The highest calculated stresses were below the ASME Code allowable limits. The stress analysis performed demonstrated that the main steam piping was designed and supported to withstand and applied loads as given in the applicable design specifications. ASME Code certified stress reports were prepared and issued reflecting the results of the analysis performed (References 24 through 27, Appendix A).
The main steam piping system, which is required to function for safe shutdown under the postulated events, was evaluated and preven adequate in meeting the functional capability requirements per NED0-21985, Piping Functional Capability Criteria.
3-3 1
NEDO-30159 Node diagrams for Main Steam Lines A, B, C and D are provided for reference in Figures 3-1, 3-2, 3-3 and 3-4, respectively.
3.2.2 Main Steam Snubbers The analysis performed demonstrated that the calculated loads on the main steam snubbers were below the allowable limits, verifying their capability to meet the design criteria. The load combinations listed in Tables 3-3 and 3-4 were used as the basis for the evaluation. Loads were combined using both i
SRSS and ABS methods of summation.
I Tables 3-12, 3-13, 3-20, 3-21, 3-28, 3-29, 3-36 and 3-37 provide the highest loading summaries for Service Levels B, C and D loading conditions using both SRSS and ABS methods of summation.
Initially, where snubber loads exceeded nominal ratings provided on the suspension purchase part drawings, subsequent snubber acceptability was demonstrated using actual manufacturer ratings based upon test results.
3.2.3 Main Steam Safety / Relief (SRV) and Isolation Valves (MSIV)
The analyses performed demonstrated that the calculated stresses, forces, moments and accelerations on the main steam safety relief and isolation valves were below the allowable limits. The load combinations listed in Tables 3-5 through 3-8 were used as the basis for the evaluation. Loads were combined using both SRSS and ABS methods of summation.
Tables 3-14 through 3-17, 3-22 through 3-25, 3-30 through 3-33 and 3-38 through 3-41 provide the highest loading summaries for the service level loading conditions evaluated using both SRSS and ABS methods of summation.
l l
l l
l l
3-4
Table 3-1 LOAD COMBINATION AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR NSSS PIPING AND PIPE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT MAIN STEAM - SRSS PIPING DESIGN 1
PD + W1
+
OBEI LEVEL B
'l PP + W1
+
SQRT((OBEI
)**2
+ ( TSV
)**2
)
LEVEL B 2
PP + W1
+
SQRT((OBEI
)**2
+ ( RV1
)**2
)
LEVEL B 3
PP + W1
+
SQRT((OBEI
)**2
+ ( RV2I
)**2
)
LEVEL C 1
PP + W1
+
SQRT((CHUGI )**2
+ ( RV1
)**2
)
a.
LEVEL C 2
PP + W1
+
SQRT((CHUGI )**2
+ ( RV2I
)**2
)
LEVEL C 3
PP + W1
+
RV1 LEVEL C 4
PP + W1
+
RV2I LEVEL D 1
PP + W1
+
SQRT((SSEI
)**2
+ ( RV2I
)**2
)
g w.a LEVEL D 2
PP + W1
.+
SQRT((SSEI
)**2
+ ( TSV
)**2
)
8 LEVEL D 3
PP + W1
+
SQRT((SSEI
)**2
+ ( CHUGI
)**2
+ ( RV2I
)**2
)
6 LEVEL D 4
PP + W1
+
COND I
+ SQRT((SSEI
)**2
+ ( RV2I
)**2
)
S LEVEL D 5
PP + W1
+
COND I
+ SQRT((SSEI
)**2
+ ( RV1
)**2
)
LEVEL b 6
PP + W1
+
SQRT((SSEI
)**2
+ ( CHUGI
)**2
+ ( RV1
)**2
)
LEVEL D 7
PP + W1
+
SQRT((SSEI
)**2
+ ( API
)**2
)
h
Table 3-2 LOAD COMBINATION AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR NSSS PIPING AND PIPE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT MAIN STEAM - ABS PIPING DESIGN 1
PD + W1
+
OBEI LEVEL B 1
PP + W1
+
OBEI
+
TSV LEVEL B 2
PP + W1
+
OBEI
+
RV1 LEVEL B 3
PP + W1
+
OBEI
+
RV2I LEVEL C 1
PP + W1
+
CHUGI
+
RV1 LEVEL C 2
PP + W1
+
CHUGI
+
RV2I LEVEL C 3
PP + WI
+
RV1 LEVEL C 4
PP + WT1
+
RV2I LEVEL D 1
PP + W1
+
SSEI
+
RV2I g
wa LEVEL D 2
PP +. W1
+
SSEI
+
TSV g
LEVEL D 3
PP ' + W1
+
SSEI
+
CHUGI
+
RV2I d,
LEVEL D 4
PP + W1
+
COND 1
+
SSEI
+
RV21 S
LEVEL D 5
PP + WT1
+
COND 1
+
SSEI
+
RV1 g
LEVEL D 6
PP + W1
+
SSEI
+
CHUGI
+
RV1 LEVEL D~
7 PP + W1
+
SSEI
+
-m
Table 3-3 LOAD COMBINATION AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR NSSS PIPING AND PIPE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT MAIN STEAM - SRSS SNUBBERS LEVEL B 1
SQRT((OBEI
+
OBED
)**2
+ ( TSV
)**2
)
LEVEL B 2
SQRT((0BEI
+
OBED
)**2
+ ( RV1
)**2
)
LEVEL B 3
SQRT((OBEI
+
OBED
)**2
+ ( RV2I
+
RV2D
)**2
)
LEVEL C 1
SQRT((CHUGI
+
CHUGD )**2
+ ( RV1
)**2
)
LEVEL C 2
.SQRT((CHUGI
+
CHUGD )**2
+ ( RV2I
+
RV2D
)**2
)
LEVEL D 1
'SQRT((SSEI
+
SSED
)**2
+ ( TSV
)**2 LEVEL D 2
..SQRT((SSEI
+
SSED
)**2
+ ( CHUGI
+
CHUGD )**2
+ ( RV2I
+ RV2D
)**2
)
LEVEL D 3
COND I
+
COND D
+
SQRT((SSEI
+
SSED
)**2
+ ( RV2I
+
RV2D
)**2
)
I LEVEL D 4
SQRT((SSEI
+
SSED
)**2
+ ( CHUGI
+
CHUGD )**2
+ ( RV1
)**2
)
2 I
w 4
LEVEL D 5
COND I
+
COND D
+
SQRT((SSEI
+
SSED
)**2
+ ( RV1
)**2
)
h l
LEVEL D 6
SQRT((SSEI
+
SSED
)**2
+ ( API
+
APD
)**2
)
6 LEVEL D 7
.SQRT((SSEI
+
SSED
)**2
+ ( RV2I
+
RV2D
)**2
)
o 8
4
Table 3-4 LOAD COMBINATION AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR NSSS PIPING AND PIPE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT' MAIN STEAM - ABS SNUBBERS LEVEL B 1
OBEI
+
OBED
+
TSV LEVEL B 2
OBEI
+
OBED
+
RV1 LEVEL B 3
OBEI
+
OBED
+
RV2I
+
RV2D LEVEL C 1
CHUGI
+
CHUGD
+
RV1 LEVEL C 2
CHUGI
+
CHUGD
+
RV2I
+
RV2D LEVEL D 1
SSEI
+
SSED
+
TSV LEVEL D 2
SSEI
+
SSED
+
CHUGI
+
CHUGD
+
RV2I
+
RV2D w
z 4,
LEVEL D 3
COND I
+
COND D
+
SSEI
+
SSED
+
RV2I
+
RV2D h"'
LEVEL D 4
SSEI
+
SSED
+
CHUGI
+
CHUGD
+
RV1 LEVEL D 5
COND I
+
COND D
+
SSEI
+
SSED
+
RV1 g
LEVEL D 6
SSEI
+
SSED
+
+
APD G
LEVEL D 7
SSEI
+
SSED
+
RV2I e
l Table 3-5 LOAD COMBINATION AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR NSSS PIPING AND PIPE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT MAIN STEAM - SRSS SAFETY / RELIEF VALVES LEVEL B 1
SQRT((0BEI
)**2
+ ( TSV
)**2
)
LEVEL B 2
SQRT((OBEI
)**2
+ ( RV1
)**2
)
LEVEL B 3
SQRT((0BEI
)**2
+ ( RV2I
)**2
)
LEVEL C 1
-SQRT((CHUGI
)**2
+ ( RV2I
)**2
)
LEVEL C 2
~SQRT((CHUGI
)**2
+ ( RV1
)**2
)
LEVEL D 1
SQRT((SSEI
)**2
+ ( TSV
)**2
)
LEVEL D 2
SQRT((SSEI
)**2
+ ( CHUGI )**2
+ ( RV2I
)**2
)
LEVEL D 3
COND I
+
SQRT((SSEI
)**2
+ ( RV1
)**2
)
2 g
4 LEVEL D 4
SQRT((SSEI
)**2
+ ( CHUGI )**2
+ ( RV1
)**2
)
y LEVEL D 5
.COND I
+
SQRT((SSEI
)**2
+ ( RV2I
)**2
)
9 LEVEL D 6
SQRT((SSEI
)**2
+ ( API
)**2
)
g LEVEL D 7
SQRT((SSEI
)**2
+ ( RV2I
)**2
)
e
Table 3-6 LOAD COMBINATION AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR NSSS PIPING AND PIPE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT MAIN STEAM - ABS SAFETY / RELIEF VALVES
)
LEVEL B 1
OBEI
+
TSV LEVEL B 2
OBEI
+
RV1 LEVEL B 3
OBEI
+
RV2I LEVEL C 1
CHUGI
+
RV2I LEVEL C 2
CHUGI
+
RV1 LEVEL D 1
SSEI
+
TSV LEVEL D 2
SSEI
+
CHUGI
+
RV2I LEVEL D 3
COND I
+
SSEI
+
RV1 Y
LEVEL D 4
SSEI
+
CHUGI
+
RV1 5
h E$
LEVEL D 5
COND I
+
SSEI
+
RV2I LEVEL D 6
SSEI
+
API g
LEVEL D 7
SSEI
+
RV2I y
1 1
~
Table 3-7 LOAD COMBINATION AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR NSSS PIPING AND PIPE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT MAIN STEAM - SRSS SAFETY / RELIEF VALVE FLANGE MOMENTS DESIGN 1
W1 +
TE LEVEL B 1
W1 +
+
SQRT((0BEI
+
OBED
)**2
+ ( TSV
)**2
)
EVEL B 2
W1 +
+
SQRT((OBEI
+
OBED
)**2
+ ( RV1
)**2
)
LEVEL B 3
W1 +
+
SQRT((OBEI
+
OBED
)**2
+ ( RV2I
+ RV2D
)**2
)
LEVEL C 1
. W1 +
+
SQRT((CHUGI
+
CHUGD )**2
+ ( RV1
)**2
)
LEVEL C 2
W1 +
+
SQRT((CHUGI
+
CHUGD )**2
+ ( RV21
+ RV2D
)**2
)
LEVEL D 1
W1 +
+
SQRT((SSEI
+
SSED
)**2
+ ( TSV
.)**2
)
LEVEL D 2
W1 +
+
SQRT((SSEI
+
.SSED
)**2
+ ( CHUGI + CHUGD )**2
+ (RV2I + RV2D)**2) z wa LEVEL D 3
W1 +
+
COND I
+
COND D
+
SQRT((SSEI
+ SSED ) **2
+ (RV2I + RV2D)**2)
M LEVEL D 4
W1 +
+
SQRT((SSEI
+
SSED
)**2
+ ( CHUGI + CHUGD )**2
+ ( RV1 )**2) j LEVEL D 5
W1 +
+
COND I
+
COND D
+
SQRT((SSEI
+ SSED ) **2
+ ( RV1 )**2) w LEVEL D 6
W1 +
+.
SQRT((SSEI
+
SSED
)**2
+ ( API
+ APD
)**2
)
O LEVEL D 7
W1 +
+
SQRT((SSEI
+
SSED
)**2
+ ( RV2I
+ RV2D
)**2
)
l
Table 3-8 LOAD COMBINATION AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR NSSS PIPING AND PIPE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT MAIN STEAM - ABS SAFETY / RELIEF VALVE FLANGE MOMENTS DESIGN 1
W1
+
TE LEVEL B 1
W1
+
+
OBEI
+
OBED
+
TSV LEVEL B 2
W1
+
+
OBEI
+
OBED
+
RV1 LEVEL B 3
W1
+
+
OBEI
+
OBED
+
RV2I
+
RV2D LEVEL C 1
W1
+
+
CHUGI
+
CHUGD
+
RV1 LEVEL C 2
W1
+
+
CHUGI
+
CHUGD
+
RV2I
+
RV2D LEVEL D 1
W1
+
+
SSEI
+
SSED
+
TSV LEVEL D 2
W1
+
+
SSEI
+
SSED
+
CHUGI
+
CHUGD
+
RV21
+
RV2D z
LEVEL D 3
W1
+
+
COND I +
COND D
+
SSEI
+
SSED
+
RV2I
+
RV2D h
9 LEVEL D W1
+
+
SSEI
+
SSED
+
CHUGI
+
CHUDG
+
RV1 LEVEL D 5
W1
+
+
COND I +
COND D
+
SSEI
+
SSED
+
RV1 LE'J6L D 6
W1
+
+
SSEI
+
SSED
+
+
APD U
LEVli D 7
W1
+
+
SSEI
+
SSED
+
RV2I
+
RV2D
NEDO-30159 Table 3-9 LOAD COMBINATION AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR NSSS PIPING AND PIPE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT NOMENCLATURE OF LOADS API
=
Annulus Pressurization Loads (Inertial Effect)
APD
=
Annulus Pressurization Loads (Anchor Displacement Loads)
CHUGI =
Chugging Load (Inertia Effect)
CHUGD =
Chugging Load (Anchor Displacement Loads)
COND I = Condensation Oscillation (Inertia Effect)
COND D = Condensation Oscillation (Anchor Displacement Effects)
OBEI
=
Operating Basis Earthquake (Inertia Effect)
OBED
=
Operating Basis Earthquake (Anchor Displacement Load)
PO
=
Operating Pressure PD
=
Design Pressure PP
=
Peak pressure PPATWS = Peak Pressure Due Automatic Transient Without Scram Event RV1
=
Safety Relief Valve Opening Loads (Acoustic Wave)
RV2I
=
Safety Relief Valve Basemat Acceleration Loads (Inertia Effect)
RV2D Safety Relief Valve Basemat Accelerations Loads (Anchor Displacement
=
Loads)
RV2ADI = Safety / Relief Valve Basemat Acceleration Due to Automatic Depressurization System Valves RV2 ADD = Safety / Relief Valve Basemat Acceleration Due to Automatic Depressurization System Valves (Anchor Displacement Loads)
SSEI
=
Safe Shutdown Earthquake (Inertia Effect)
SSED
=
Safe Shutdown Earthquake (Anchor Displacement Loads)
=
Thermal Expansion TSV
=
Turbine Stop Valve Closure Loads VLCI
=
Vent Line Clearing Loads (Inertia Effect)
VLCD
=
Vent Line Clearing Loads (Anchor Displacement Loads)
WT1 Dead Weight
=
RV2SVI = Safety / Relief Valve Basemat Acceleration Loads Due to a Single Valve Opening (Inertia Effect)
RV2SVD = Safety / Relief Valve Basemat Acceleration Loads Due to a Single Valve Opening (Anchor Displacement Loads) 3-13
e-NEDO-30159 4
A U
Y 093 o Lasut as e 003' 0C40 00$0 X
Z
_3, CC6 o
q R h
C96 0 A *
,,I 9
CC7 SAS44. M-1 i
T I
73 Sah'I.i?p'Tt21 8 114 33 T 72 E2' 7:
42 l 6 I
"l,' I st CCSN yo ::7 4 d 7 gg]
(~*
'^
- c~',
C'6 CCs'ch C2
~
,gg Sa:D ;'6 i
Sadh) gg C200 022 02t 02 na2 024 032 p:2S a
026N SA9
~
031 626 w 333 027 ' f 329 f
es:
Sat TSA2 c$
024 A034 '
NODE DIAGRAM FOR LASALLE-2 MAIN STEAM LINE A FIGURE 3-1 i
3-14
Table 3-10 HIGHEST STRESS
SUMMARY
.SRSS MAIN STEAM LINE A Ratio Identification of Highest Calculated Allowable Actual /
Location of Highest Item Evaluated
- Stress psi Limits psi Allowed Stress Points Primary Stress 24,041 28,725 0.84 Hanger Lug (024)
Eq. 9 < l.5S Design Condifion Primary Stress 24,789 34,470 0.72 Hanger Lug (024)
Eq. 9 = 1.8S & 1.5S Service LeveT B Y
Primary Stress 24,758 43,088 0.57 Hanger Lug (024) z w
Eq. 9 < 2.25S & l.8S h
Servici Level"C Y
Primary Stress 26,578 54,600 0.49 Sweepolet (040)
G Eq. 9 < 3.0S Service Leve? D Primary plus Secondary 50,184 54,600 0.92 Sweepolet (070)
Eq. 10 $ 3.0S,
Secondary Stresses 18,772 53,100 0.35 Elbow (626)
Eq. 12 5 3.0S,
Primary plus Secondary 38,468 54,600 0.70 Sweepolet (040)
Stress without Thermal Expansion, Eq. 13 $ 3.0S, Cumulative Usage Factor 0.15 1.0 0.15 Sweepolet (070)
U $ 1.0
Table 3-11
+
HIGHEST STRESS
SUMMARY
- ABS MAIN STEAM LINE A liighest Calculated Ratio Identification of Stress (psi)/
Allowable Actual /
Location of liighest Item Evaluated
- Usage Factor Limits (psi)
Allowed Stress Points Primary Stress 24,041 28,725 0.84 Ilanger Lug (024)
Eq. 9 < 1.5S Design Condition
~
Primary Stress 25,253 34,470 0.73 Hanger Lug (024)
Eq. 9 = 1.8S & 1.5S Service LeveT B Y
L Primary Stress 26,049 40,950 0.64 Sweepolet (040) w z
Eq. 9 < 2.25S & 1.8S I
Service Level"C Y
Primary Stress 30,760 54,600 0.56 Sweepolet (040) y Eq. 9 5 3.0S g
Service LeveT D l
Primary plus Secondary 52,456 54,600 0.96 Sweepolet (070) l Eq. 10 1 3.0S, Secondary Stresses 18,772 53,100 0.35 Elbow (6:_6)
Eq. 12 1 3.0S,
l Primary plus Secondary 38,468 54,600 0.70 Sweepolet (040)
Stress without Thermal Expansion, Eq. 13 5 3.0S, Cumulative Usage Factor 0.16 1.0 0.16 Sweepolet (070)
U $ 1.0
. ~
Table 3-12 SNUBBER LOADS - MAIN STEAM LINE A HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- SRSS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable-Equipment with Item Evaluated Load (1b)
Limits (lb)
Ratio Highest Loads Level B 22,730 50,000 0.455 SA9 Level C 16,995 66,500 0.256 SA2 Level D 30,630 75,000 0.408 SAI Y
8 6
S 3
Table 3-13 SNUBBER LOADS - MAIN STEAM.LINE A HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- ABS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Equipment with 4
Item Evaluated Load-(lb)
Limits (Ib)
Ratio Highest Loads Level B 32,145 50,000 0.643 SA9 Level C 23,396 66,500 0.352 SA2 Level D-37,982 75,000 0.506 SA9 E
8 6
S 8
1
~ - - - - - _ _.., - - -
~ Table 3-14 SRV ACCELERATIONS - MAIN STEAM LINE A HIGHEST ACCELERATIONS
SUMMARY
- SRSS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Location of Item Evaluated
, Load (lb)
Limits (1b)
Ratio Highest Loads Horizontal Acceleration Level B 1.6917 g 5.0 g
'O.338 SRV Inlet (063) i Level C 2.0776 g 5.0 g 0.416 SRV Inlet (043)
Level D 2.1779 g 5.0 g 0.436 SRV Inlet (043)
Vertical Acceleration Level B 0.7456 g 4.2 g 0.178 SRV Inlet (053)
E Level C 1.1556 g 4.2 g 0.275 SRV Inlet (043) 8 w
Level D 1.4151 g 4.2 g 0.337 SRV Inlet (073)
U.
l Table 3-15 SRV ACCELERATIONS - MAIN STEAM LINE A HIGHEST ~ ACCELERATIONS
SUMMARY
- ABS Highest Identification of
. Calculated Allowable Location of Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads Horizontal Acceleration Level B 2.2264 g 5.0 g 0.445 SRV Inlet (063)
Level C 2.8659 g 5.0 g 0.573 SRV Inlet (043)
Level D 3.4738 g 5.0 g 0.695 SRV Inlet (043)
Vertical Acceleration Level B 0.9518 g 4.2 g 0.227 SRV Inlet (053) g i
Level C 1.5761 g 4.2 g 0.375 SRV Inlet (043) e c5 Level D 1.8272 g 4.2 g 0.435 SRV Inlet (043)
[,
S 8
Table 3-16A HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- SRSS MAIN STEAM LINE A - MSIV INLET /0UTLET Highest Identification of-Calculated Allowable Equipment with Item Evaluated Load (psi)
Limits (psi)
Ratio Highest Loads Stress Due to Axial Force Level A 7,684 15,375 0.500 MSIV Inlet (029)
Level B 7,849 41,000 0.191 MSIV Outlet (033)
Level C 7,830 41,000 0.191 MSIV Outlet (033)
Level D 7,936 41,000 0.194 MSIV Outlet (033)
Stress Due to Torsional Moment u,
2m UI '
Level A 635 15,375 0.041 MSIV Outlet (029)
E Level B 981 41,000 0.024 MSIV Inlet (029) da Level C 959 41,000 0.023 MSIV Inlet (029)
S Level D 1,190 41,000 0.029 HSIV Inlet (029)
Stress Due to Bending Moment Level A 3,101 15,375 0.202 MSIV Inlet (029)
Level B 3,936 41,000 0.096 MSIV Inlet (029)
Level C 4,264 41,000 0.104 MSIV Inlet (029)
Level D 4,854 41,000 0.118 MSIV Inlet (029)
. c.
Table 3-16B HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- SRSS MAIN STEAM LINE A - MSIV BONNET Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Equipment with Item Evaluated-Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads Axial Force (Ib)
Level A 1,503 38,713 0.039 HSIV Bonnet (031)
Level B 2,377 38,713 0.061 MSIV Bonnet (031)
Level C 3,162 38,713 0.082 MSIV Bonnet (031)
Level D 3,713 38,713 0.096 MSIV Bonnet (031)
Bending Moment (in-lbs)
Y Level A 67,985 2,021,373 0.034 MSIV Donnet (031)
S$ '
Level B 362,413 2,021,373 0.179 MSIV Bonnet (031) 8 Level C 599,584 2,021,373 0.297 MSIV Bonnet (031) 1 Level D 787,737 2,021,373 0.390 MSIV Bonnet (031)
{
w
.i
Table 3-17A HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- ABS MAIN STEAM LINE A - MSIV INLET /0UTLET Highest.
Identification of Calculated Allowable Equipment with Ites Evaluated Load (psi)
Limits (psi)
Ratio Highest Loads Stress Due to Axial Force Level A 7,G84 15,375 0.500 MSIV Inlet (029)
Level B 7,917 41,000 0.193 MSIV Outlet (033)
Level C 7,885 41,000 0.192 MSIV Outlet (033) l Level D 8,015 41,000 0.195 MSIV Outlet (033) l Stress Due to Torsional Moment y
w e
O U
Level A 635 15,375 0.041 MSIV Inlet (029)
?
Level B 1,106 41,000 0.027 MSIV Inlet (029)
Level C 1,081 41,000 0.026 MSIV Inlet (029)
U Level D 1,382 41,000 0.034 MSIV Inlet (029)
I Stress Due to Bending Moment Level A 3,101 15,375 0.202 MSIV Inlet (029)
Level B 4,295 41,000 0.105 MSIV Inlet (029)
Level C 4,699 41,000 0.115 MSIV Inlet (029)
Level D 5,388 41,000 0.131 MSIV Inlet (029) 1
l Table 3-17B HIGIIEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- ABS l
MAIN STEAM LINE A - MSIV BONNET Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Equipment with Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads l
Axial Force (lb) l Level A 1,503 28,713 0.039 MSIV Bonnet (031)
I l
Level B 2,638 38,713 0.068 MSIV Bonnet (031)
Level C 3,762 38,713 0.097 MSIV Bonnet (031)
Level D 4,085 38,713 0.106 HSIV Bonnet (031)
Bending Moment (in-lbs) z
[
Level A 67,985 2,021,373 0.034 MSIV Bonnet (031) s-Level B 469,798 2,021,373 0.232 HSIV Bonnet (031) 6 Level C 793,442 2,021,373 0.393 HSIV Bonnet (031)
S Level D 944,195 2,021,373 0.467 MSIV Bonnet (031) g f
REDO-30159 s.. g.4,2. L:5.'
]95~ 9:2\\
Y ts::..t rt e
. 3:
I 092 i
t t;;
1 A
- b1 l
Z
'57
... m. c a
.C.
,2, 1:-.
r l
- (4
- a
- .a
- c:;::: 7:s
- s:
- 2-:.?::: f t E
- ' f
- !::iztI
- i3
,,- f 17 2 62 I
C'." i 34 :
t Y i' 555 -:.-:f ri I i 5-8. -
5
- 60
~ 185
-h2 533....
$Yex...h::?*. H rn W D.....
sc
- 7
- y.
y.<.-
... o,...
c.J.-7--u.7,.
C'....C.
.-*.9 C.. g4.
e Q ".i6 C:25
<jll.2:
.s 0 i?4
-
- 026
.ss C 2 7*.
(27I
$Ih
. ) ~.
23 C
a s..
. s. :
gg.
..e p.
.u.,*..
- .. 6 NODE DIAGRAM FOR LASALLE-2 MAIN STEAM LINE B FIGURE 3-2 3-25
i Table 3-18 HIGHEST STRESS
SUMMARY
- SRSS MAIN STEAM LINE B Highest Calculated Ratio Identification of Stress (psi)/
Allowable Actual /
Location of Highest Item Evaluated
- Usage Factor Limits (psi)
Allowed Stress Points Primary Stress 20,810 28,725 0.72 Hanger Lug (026)
Eq. 9 < 1.5S Design Condifion
~
Primary Stress 21,546 34,470 0.63 Hanger Lug (026)
Eq. 9 = 1.8S & 1.5S Service LeveT B Y
Primary Stress 22,079 40,950 0.54 Sweepolet-(060) g m4 Eq. 9 5 2.25S,C& 1.8S m
Service Level y
g 4o Primary Stress 28,324 54,600 0.52 Sweepolet (060)
U Eq. 9 < 3.0S Service LeveT D Primary plus Secondary 45,342 54,600 0.83 Sweepolet (060)
Eq. 10 1 3.0S,
Secondary Stresses 20,745 53,100 0.39 Elbow (020N)
Eq. 12 5 3.0S, Primary plus Secondary 42,546 54,600 0.78 Sweepolet (060)
Stress without Thermal Expansion, Eq. 13 $ 3.0S, Cumulative Usage Factor 0.08 1.0 0.08 Sweepolet (055)
U i 1.0
Table 3-19 HIGHEST STRESS
SUMMARY
- ABS MAIN STEAM LINE B Highest Calculated Ratio Identification of Stress (psi)/
Allowable Actual /
Location of Highest Item Evaluated
- Usage Factor Limits (psi)
Allowed Stress Points Primary Stress 20,810 28,725 0.72 Hanger Lug (026)
Eq. 9 < 1.5S DesignCondifion
~
Primary Stress 21,839 32,760 0.67 Sweepolet (060)
Eq. 9 = 1.8S & 1.5S Service LeveT B Y
Primary Stress 26,672 40,950 0.65 Sweepolet (060)
N U'
Eq. 9 < 1.85S & 1.5S 8
w Servici Level"C Y
6 S
Primary Stress 33,100 54,600 0.61 Sweepolet (060)
Eq. 9 < 3.0S Service LeveT D Primary plus Secondary 52,453 54,600 0.96 Sweepolet (060)
Eq. 10 $ 3.0S, Secondary Stresses 20,745 53,100 0.39 Elbow, lower riser Eq. 12 1 3.0S, (020N)
Primary plus Secondary 42,546 54,600 0.78 Sweepolet (060)
Stress without Thermal Expansion, Eq. 13 1 3.0S,
Cumulative Usage Factor 0.08 1.0 0.08 Sweepolet (055)
U $ 1.0
I Table 3-20 SNUBBER LOADS - MAIN STEAM LINE B HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- SRSS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Equipment with Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads Level B 16,830 lb 50,000 lb 0.337 SB11
. Level C 19,809 lb 66,500 lb 0.298 SB9 Level D 33,831 lb 75,000 lb 0.451 SB11 W
z b
M 8
=
6 S
t Table 3-21 SNUBBER LOADS - MAIN STEAM LINE B HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- ABS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Equipment with Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads Lev d B 23,514'1b 50,000 lb 0.470 SB11 1 W' 1 C 26,797 lb 66,500 lb 0.403 SB9 Lewi D 44,575 lb 75,000 lb 0.594 SB11
- s t
M 8
tab a
t e
S 3
.~.
Table 3-22 SRV ACCELERATIONS - MAIN STEAM LINE B HIGHEST ACCELERATIONS
SUMMARY
- SRSS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Location _of Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads Horizontal Level B 2.5585.g 5.0_ g 0.512 SRV Inlet (063)
Level C 2.9271 g 5.0 g 0.585 SRV Inlet (063)
Level D 3.0938 g 5.0 g 0.619 SRV Inlet (063)
. Vertical-Level B 1.4531 g 4.2 g 0.346 SRV Inlet (058)
E!
.[
Level C 1.9789 g 4.2 g 0.471 SRV Inlet (058) 8 o
' Level D 2.3215 g 4.2 g 0.553 SRV Inlet (058) h C
1' 1
- L 6
1
(
l l
t.
Table 3-23 SRV ACCELERATIONS - MAIN STEAM LINE B HIGHEST ACCELERATIONS
SUMMARY
- ABS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Location of Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads Horizontal Level B 3.2439 g 5.0 g 0.649 SRV Inlet (063)
. Level C 3.9538 g 5.0 g 0.791 SRV Inlet (063)
Level D 4.8391 g 5.0 g 0.968 SRV Inlet (063)
Vertical Level B 2.0405 g 4.2 g 0.486 SRV Inlet (058) g wa Level C 2.6616 g 4.2 g 0.634 SRV Inlet (058) g Level D 3.8038 g 4.2 g 0.906 SRV Inlet (058) 6 S$
=_.
Table 3-24A HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- SRSS MAIN STEAM LINE B - MSIV INLET /0UTLET Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Equipment with-
-Item Evaluated Load (psi)
Limits (psi)
Ratio Highest Loads Stress Due to Axial Force Level A 7,688 15,375 0.500 MSIV Outlet (031)
Level B 7,794 41,000 0.190 MSIV Outlet (031)
Level C 7,806 41,000 0.190 MSIV Outlet (031)
Level D 7,872 41,000 0.192 MSIV Outlet (031)
Stress Due to Torsional Moment u,;
z Level A 149 15,375 0.010 MSIV Inlet (029)
Ej Level B 375 41,000 0.009 MS1V Inlet (029)
?
Level C 414 41,000 0.010 MSIV Inlet (029) 8 Level D 573 41,000 0.014 MSIV Inlet (029) g Stress Due to Bending Moment Level A 4,306 15,375 0.280 MSIV Inlet (029)
Level B 5,383 41,000 0.131 MSIV Inlet (029)
Level C 5,557 41,000 0.136 MSIV Inlet (029)
Level D 6,376 41,000 0.156 MSIV Inlet (029)
Table 3-24B HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- SRSS MAIN STEAM LINE B -'MSIV BONNET Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Equipment with Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads Axial Force (lb)
. Level A 1,435 38,713 0.037 MSIV Bonnet (032)
Level B 2,619 38,713 0.068 MSIV Bonnet (032)
Level C 3,506 38,713 0.091 MSIV Bonnet (032)
Level D 4,300 38,713 0.111 MSIV Bonnet (032)
Bending Moment (in-lbs) m Level A 68,086 2,021,373 0.034 MSIV Bonnet (032) y w
Level B 312,267 2,021,373 0.154 MSIV Bonnet (032) w Level C 506,541 2,021,373 0.251 MSIV Bonnet (032)
S l
Level D 683,164 2,021,373 0.338 MSIV Bonnet (032) l l
l l
1
Table 3-25A HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- ABS MAIN STEAM LINE B - MSIV INLET /0UTLET Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Equipment with Item Evaluated Load (psi)
Limits (psi)
Ratio Highest Loads Stress Due to Axial Force Level A:
7,688 15,375 0.500 MSIV Outlet (031)
Level B 7,838 41,000 0.191 MSIV Outlet (031)
Level C 7,849 41,000 0.191 MSIV Outlet (031)
Level D-7,920 41,000 0.193 MSIV Outlet (031)
Stress Due to Torsional Moment u,
g e
Level A 149 15,375 0.010 MSIV Inlet-(029) i Level B 465 41,000 0.011 MSIV Inlet (029) 8 Level C 512 41,000 0.012 MSIV Inlet (029)
G Level D 694 41,000 0.017 MSIV Inlet (029)
Stress Due to Bending Moment Level'A 4,306 15,375 0.280 MSIV Inlet (029)
Level B 5,802 41,000 0.141 MSIV Inlet (029)
Level C 6,054 41,000 0.148 MSIV Inlet (029)
Level D 6,848 41,000 0.167 MSIV Inlet (029)
Table 3-25B HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- ABS MAIN STEAM LINE 3 - MSIV BONNET Highest Ideutification of Calculated Allowable Equipment with Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads Axial Force (lb)
Level A 1,435 38,713 0.03/
Level B 2,883 38,713 0.074 MSIV Bonnet (032)
Level C 4,305 38,713 0.111 MSIV Bonnet (032)
Level D 4,608 38,713 0.119 MSIV Bonnet (032)
Bending Moment (in-lbs)
[
Level A 68,086 2,021,373 0.034 MSIV Bonnet (032) h u
Level B 410,617 2,021,373 0.203 MSIV Bonnet (032) d, Level C 667,874 2,021,373 0.330 MSIV Bonnet'(032)
S Level D 807,969 2,021,373 0.400 MSIV Bonnet (032)
NED0-30159
.99?
- 0 : : =
c %s
'I A9 0.57 y
o mr a e 0 $" 0 - aI; 8 0 :54 y7 j f
~: -
if. ;a T3Mr. T3 5:' 4: k:t f)M.i is X
i s, - -
Z i:5 N
%pf., T~e 3L r-C
.? '? Y..'o.',, h.e#
c.,
~
c '.-
5;SA '.
- 5 yee e
C* c' _ ~ 5$<
set:
ge 53
-:2
.s.s.
- r
,ov
]i:5 CTr 02:*. b" ts
\\
02:t 1:
- 2' s:4
- 7:
- 51
- 22 h*22 0 :ss 0 25 M*3
~24 C25p2'
-ss 02n; l
~11
- In n
3:
~
5:'
i.'
yy m
021.; ;
I l
i N0DE DIAGRAM FOR LASALLE-2 MAIN STEAM LINE C I
FIGURE 3-3 l
l 3-36
Table 3-26 HIGHEST STRESS
SUMMARY
- SRSS MAIN STEAM LINE C Highest Calculated Ratio Identification of Stress (psi)/
Allowable Actual /
Location of Highest Item Evaluated
- Usage Factor Limits (psi)
Allowed Stress Points Primary Stress 20,772 28,725 0.72 l
llanger Lug (026)
Eq. 9 < 1.5S I
Design Condition
~
I Primary Stress 21,536 34,470 0.62 Hanger Lug (026)
Eq. 9 = 1.8S & 1.5S Service LeveT B Y
Primary Stress 22,336 40,950 0.55 Sweepolet (040) w6 Eq. 9 < 2.25S & 1.8S 8
Service Level"C Y
6 S
Primary Stress 26,835 54,600 0.49,
Sweepolet (040)
Eq. 9 < 3.0S Service LeveT D i
Primary plus Secondary 54,842 54,600 1.004**
Sweepolet (040)
Eq. 10 1 3.0S, Secondary Stresses 22,769 54,600 0.42 Sweepolet (040)
Eq. 12 5 3.0S, Primary plus Secondary 38,584 54,600 0.71 Sweepolet (040)
Stress without Thermal Expansion, Eq. 13 $ 3.0S, Cumulative Usage Factor 0.17 1.0 0.17 Sweepolet (040)
U $ 1.0
- Per NB-3653.6 Eq. 10 need not be satisfied for all load sets.
Table 3-27 HIGIIEST STRESS
SUMMARY
- ABS MAIN STEAM LINE C liighest Calculated Ratio Identification of Stress (psi)/
Allowable Actual /
Location of Highest Item Evaluated
- Usage Factor Limits (psi)
Allowed Stress Points Primary Stress 20,772 28,725 0.72 Hanger Lug (026)
Eq. 9 < 1.SS Design CondiEion
~
Primary Stress 22,017 34,470 0.64 Hanger Lug (026)
Eq. 9 = 1.8S & 1.5S Service LeveT B Y
z Primary Stress 26,937 40,950 0.66 Sweepolet (040) w Eq. 9 < 2.25S & 1.8S d,
Servici Level *C Y
?
C Primary Stress 31,808 54,600 0.58 Sweepolet (040)
Eq. 9 < 3.0S Service LeveT D Primary plus Secondary 54,842 54,600 1.004**
Sweepolet (040)
Eq. 10 < 3.0S, Secondary Stresses 22,769 54,600 0.42 Sweepolet (040)
Eq. 12 < 3.08, Primary plus Secondary 38,584 54,600 0.71 Sweepolet (u40)
Stress without Thermal Expansion, Eq. 13 < 3.0S, Cumulative Usage Factor 0.17 1.0 0.17 Sweepolet (040)
U < 1.0
- Per NB-3653.6 Eq. 10 need not be satisfied for all load sets.
Table 3-28 SNUBBER LOADS - MAIN STEAM LINE C HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- SRSS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Equipment with Item Evaluated Load (1b)
Limits (Ib)
Ratio Highest Loads
)
Level B 20,212 50,000 0.404 SC11 Level C 15,427 66,500 0.232 i SC9 Level D 34,027 75,000 0.454 l SC11 l
w
=
0 m
-._m_
Table 3-29 SNUBBER LOADS - MAIN STEAM LINE C HIGIIEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- ABS Highe.st Identification of l
Calculated Allowable Equipment with l
Item Evaluated Load (lb)
Limits (lb)
Ratio Highest Loads l
l Level B 28,401 50,000 0.568 SC11 Level C 21,059 66,500 0.317 SC9 Level D 44,199 75,000 0.589 SC11 i
8 8
d, S
1 l
t I
i l
m.
__. ~. __.
Table 3-30 SRV ACCELERATIONS - MAIN STEAM LINE C HIGHEST ACCELERATIONS
SUMMARY
- SRSS-Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Location of Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads
-Horizontal Acceleration Level B 1.6791 g 5.0 g 0.336 SRV Inlet (048)
Level C 1.9057 g 5.0 g 0.381 SRV Inlet (048).
Level D 2.0392 g 5.0 g 0.408 SRV Inlet (048)
Vertical Acceleration Level B 0.7089 g 4.2 g 0.169 SRV Inlet (058) h w
J.
Level C 1.4549 g 4.2 g 0.346 SRV Inlet (058)
?
Level D 1.4792 g 4.2 g 0.352 SRV Inlet (058) g
~
C t
I
l-i i
l Table 3-31 SRV ACCELERATIONS - MAIN STEAM LINE C HIGHEST ACCELERATIONS
SUMMARY
- ABS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Location of Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads
. Horizontal Acceleration Level B 2.1325 g 5.0 g 0.427 SRV Inlet-(048)
Level C 2.6536' g 5.0 g 0.531 SRV Inlet (063)
Level D 3.1933 g 5.0 g 0.639 SRV Inlet (063)
Vertical Acceleration Level B 0.9239 g 4.2 g
-0.220 SRV Inlet (058) g g
4 Level C 1.9548 g 4.2 g 0.465 SRV Inlet (058) g 9
Level D 2.2222 g 4.2 g 0.529 SRV Inlet (058) 6 S
Table 3-32A HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- SRSS MAIN STEAM LINE C - MSIV INLET /0UTLET Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Equipment with Item Evaluated Load (psi)
Limits (psi)
Ratio Highest Loads Stress Due to Axial Force Level A 7,679 15,375 0.499 MSIV Outlet (031)
Level B 7,769 41,000 0.189 MSIV Outlet (031)
Level C 7,782 41,000 0.190 MSIV Outlet (031)
Level D 7,867 41,000 0.192 MSIV Outlet (031)
Stress Due to Torsional Moment g
w Level A 191 15,375 0.012 MSIV Outlet (031)
J, Level B 442 41,000 0.011 MSIV Inlet (029) o Level C 503 41,000 0.012 MSIV Inlet (029) u*
Level D 655 41,000 0.016 MSIV Inlet (029)
Stress Due to Bending Moment Level A 3,984 15,375 0.259 HSIV Inlet (029)
Level B 5,318 41,000 0.130(
MSIV Inlet (029)
Level C 5,205 41,000 0.127 MSIV Inlet (029)
Level D 6,229 41,000 0.152 MSIV Inlet (029) e.
Table 3-32B HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- SRSS MAIN STEAM LINE C - MSIV BONNET Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Equipment with Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads l
Axial Force (lb)
Level A 1,435 38,713 0.037 MSIV Bonnet (032)
Level B 2,272 38,713 0.059 MSIV Bonnet (032)
Level C 2,895 38,713 0.075 MSIV Bonnet (032)
Level.D 3,470 38,713 0.090 MSIV Bonnet (032)
Bending Moment (in-lbs) t Y
Level A 68,086 2,021,373 0.034 MSIV Bonnet (032) z Level B 303,498 2,021,373 0.150 MSIV Bonnet (032)
Level C 449,418 2,021,373 0.222 MSIV Bonnet (032)
?
Level D 613,945 2,021,373 0.304 MSIV Bonnet (032) 8 U.
l l
Table 3-33A HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- ABS MAIN STEAM LINE C - MSIV INLET /0UTLET Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Equipment with Ites Evaluated Load (psi)
Limits (psi)
Ratio Highest Loads Stress Due to Axial Force Level A' 7,679 15,375 0.499 MSIV Outlet (031)
Level B 7,805 41,000 0.190 MSIV Outlet (031)
Level C 7,820 41,000 0.191 MSIV Outlet (031)
Level D 7,925 41,000 0.193 MSIV Outlet (031)
Stress Due to Torsional 2
Moment g
S Level A 191 15,375 0.012 MSIV Outlet (031)
O Level B 542 41,000 0.013 MSIV Inlet (029)
S Level C 613 41,000 0.015 MSIV Inlet (029)
Level D 822 41,000 0.020 MSIV Inlet (029)
Stress Due to Bending Moment Level A 3,984 15,375 O.259 MSIV Inlet (029)
Level B 5,849 41,000 0.143 MSIV Inlet (029)
Level C 5,691 41,000 0.139 MSIV Inlet (029)
Level D 6,961 41,000 0.170 MSIV Inlet (029)
l I
Table 3-33B HIGIIEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- ABS MAIN STEAM LINE C - MSIV B0hTET liighest Identification of Calculated Allowable Equipment with j
Itcra Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads Axial Force (1b)
Level A 1,435 38,713 0.037 MSIV Bonnet (032)
Level B 2,554 38,713 0.066 liSIV Bonnet (032)
Level C 3,439 38,713 0.080 MSIV Bonnec (032)
Level D 3,806 38,713 0.098 MSIV Bonnet (032)
Bending Moment (in-lbs)
Level A 68,086 2,021,373 0.034 MSIV Bonnet (032) e Level B 404,895 2,021,373 0.200 MSIV Bonnet (032) 7 Level C 588,271 2,021,373 0.291 MSIV Bonnet. (032) g Level D 752,252 2,021,373 0.372 MSIV Bonnet (032) g e
1 1
M-
%3 NEDO-30159
,,3, 0004 Y
db LMALLE MS 0 00t
.ci O 006 k
y
^
Z
- S 0 0!*."
3 E
- 009
?
01; J
.!.].
1$oa
- 3 a
a cY 017' M3 0'4 504 O' 0't 0
020 M9 022
=02 02, 023 024 026N 032 426 2. 03I C'O 021'
"' h s'
u 3S N0DE DIAGRAM FOR LASALLE-2 MAIN STEAM LINE D FIGURE 3-4 3-47 14
Table 3-34 HIGHEST STRESS
SUMMARY
- SRSS MAIN STEAM LINE D Highest Calculated Ratio Identification of Stress (psi)/
Allowable Actual /
Location of Highest Item Evaluated
- Usage Factor Limits (psi)
Allowed Stress Points Primary Stress 24,060 28,725 0.84 Hanger Lug (024)
Eq. 9 < 1.5S Design Condition Primary Stress 25,501 34,470 0.74 Hanger Lug (024)
Eq. 9 = 1.8S & 1.5S Service LeveT B Y
Primary Stress 24,906 43,088 0.58 Hanger Lug (024)
M m4 Eq. 9 5 2.25S,C& 1.8S y
oo Service Level y
w S
Primary Stress 26,768 57,450 0.47 Hanger Lug (024)
Eq. 9 < 3.0S Service Leve? D Primary plus Secondary 46,306 54,600 0.85 Sweepolet (060)
Eq. 10 1 3.0S,
. Secondary Stresses 18,947 53,100 0.36 Elbow (093)
Eq. 12 1 3.0S, Primary plus Secondary 34,678 54,600 0.64,
Sweepolet (050)
Stress without Thermal Expansion, Eq. 13 1 3.0S, Cumulative Usage Factor 0.04 1.0 0.04 Sweepolet (040)
U $ 1.0
l Table 3-35 HIGHEST STRESS
SUMMARY
- ABS MAIN STEAM LINE D Highest Calculated Ratio Identification of Stress (psi)/
Allowable Actual /
Location of Highest Item Evaluated
- Usage Factor Limits (psi)
Allowed Stress Points Primary Stress 24,060 28,725 0.84 Hanger Lug (024)
Eq. 9 < 1.5S Design Condition
~
Primary Stress 26,205 34,470 0.76 Hanger Lug (024)
Eq. 9 = 1.8S & 1.5S Service LeveT B Y
Primary Stress 25,444 43,088 0.59 Hanger Lug (024) wa Eq. 9 5 2.25S & l.8S g
Service Level"C Y
g
{
I Primary Stress 27,338 57,450 0.48 Hanger Lug (024) y u
Eq. 9 < 3.0S Service LeveT D Primary plus Secondary 46,306 54,600 0.85 Sweepolet (060)
Eq. 10 5 3.0S, Secondary Stresses 18,947 53,100 0.36 Elbow (093)
Eq. 12 5 3.0S,
-Primary plus Secondary 34,678 54,600 0.64 Sweepolet (050)
Stress without Thermal Expansion, Eq. 13 5 3.0S,
Cumulative Usage Factor 0.04 1.0 0.04 Sweepolet (040)
U $ 1.0
Table 3-36 SNUBBER LOADS - MAIN STEAM LINE D HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- SRSS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Equipment with Item Evaluated Load (Ib)
Limits (lb)
Ratio Highest Loads Level B 25,371 50,000 0.507 SDI Level C 20,047 66,500 0.301 SD1 Level D 48,568 75,000 0.648 SDI T
E 8
8a S
3 i
i L
Table 3-37 SNUBBER LOADS - MAIN STEAM LINE D HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- ABS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Equipment with Item Evaluated Load (Ib)
Limits (1b)
Ratio Highest Loads Level B 35,575 50,000 0.711 SDI Level C 28,313 66,500 0.426 SDI Level D.
57,720 75,000 0.770 SDI w
=
G I
4 Table 3-38 SRV ACCELERATIONS - MAIN STEAM LINE D HIGHEST ACCELERATIONS
SUMMARY
- SRSS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Location of Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads Horizontal Level B 1.9088 g 5.0 g 0.382 SRV Inlet (073)
Level C 2.0477 g 5.0 g 0.410 SRV Inlet (073)
Level D 2.2683 g 5.0 g 0.454 SRV Inlet (073)
Vertical Level B 0.6110 g 4.2 g 0.145 SRV Inlet (073) w~
_4 Level C 1.0403 g 4.2 g 0.248 SRV Inlet (043)
Ei N
Level D 1.1554 g 4.2 g 0.275 SRV Inlet (043) y 80 l
l l
l
Table 3-39 SRV ACCELERATIONS - MAIN STEAM LINE D HIGHEST ACCELERATIONS
SUMMARY
- ABS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Location of
' Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads Horizontal Acceleration Level B 2.5803 g 5.0 g 0.516 SRV Inlet (073)
Level C 2.8595 g 5.0 g 0.572 SRV Inlet (073)
Level D 3.7962 g 5.0 g O.759 SRV Inlet (073)
Vertical Acceleration
-Level B 0.8429 g 4.2 g 0.201 SRV Inlet (073) u, J,
Level C 1.4195 g 4.2 g 0.338 SRV Inlet (043) ll
')
Level D 1.7160 g 4.2 g 0.409 SRV Inlet (073) 8d 13 0;
Table 3-40A HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- SRSS MAIN STEAM LINE D - INLET /0UTLET Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Equipment with Item Evaluated Load (psi)
Limits (psi)
Ratio Highest Loads Stress Due to Axial Force Level A 7,686 15,375 0.500 MSIV Inlet (029)
Level B 7,954 41,000 0.194 MSIV Outlet (033)
Level C 7,824 41,000 0.191 MSIV Outlet (033)
Level D 7,953 41,000 0.194 MSIV Outlet (033)
Stress Due to Torsional Moment T
Level A 607 15,375 0.039 MSIV Inlet (029)
Level B 1,080 41,000 0.026 MSIV Outlet (033) f, Level C 882 41,000 0.022 MSIV Outlet (033) o Level D 1,359 41,000 0.033 MSIV Outlet (033)
Stress Due to Bending Movement Level A 3,118 15,375 0.203 Level B 4,188 41,000 0.102 MSIV Inlet (029)
Level C 4,087 41,000 0.100 MSIV Inlet (029)
Level D 4,981 41,000 0.121 MSIV Inlet (029)
Table 3-40B HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- SRSS MAIN STEAM LINE D - MSIV BONNET Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Equipment with Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads Axial Force (lb)
Level A 1,503 38,713 0.039 MSIV Bonnet (031)
Level B 2,507 38,713 0.065 MSIV Bonnet (031)
Level C 3,407 38,713 0.088 MSIV Bonnet (031)
Level D 4,009 38,713 0.104 MSIV Bonnet (031)
Bending Homent (in-lbs) 4 Level A 67,985 2,021,373 0.034 MSIV Bonnet (031)
E u
Level B 338,065 2,021,373 0.167 MSIV Bonnet (031) y Level C 524,764 2,021,373 0.260 MSIV Bonnet (031) w
' Level D 715,004 2,021,373 0.354 MSIV Bonnet (031)
S
Table 3-41A
~
HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- ABS MAIN STEAM LINE D - INLET /0UTLET Highest Identification of
' Calculated Allowable Equipment with Ites' Evaluated Load (psi)
Limits (psi)
Ratio Highest Loads Stress Due to Axial Force Level A 7,686 15,375 0.500 MSIV Inlet (029)
Level B 8,009 41,000 0.195 MSIV Outlet (033)
Level C ~
7,875
-41,000 0.192 MSIV Outlet (033)
Level D 8,005 41,000 0.195 MSIV Outlet (033)
P Stress Due to Torsional Homent 8
M oI Level A 607 15,375 0.039 MSIV Inlet (029) 8 Level B.
1,255 41,000 0.031 MSIV Outlet (033) da Level C.
996
.41,000 0.024 MSIV Outlet (033)
S Level D 1,495 41,000 0.036 MSIV Outlet (033)
Stress Due to Bending
-Moment Level A 3,118.
15,375 0.203 MSIV Inlet (029)
Level L 4,627 41,000 0.113 MSIV Inlet (029) l Level C 4,490 41,000 0.110 MSIV Inlet (029)
Level D 5,376 41,000 0.131 MSIV Inlet (029) i s
Table 3-41B 2
HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- ABS MAIN STEAM LINE D - MSIV BONNET Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Equipment with Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads Axial Force (1b)
Level A 1,503 38,713 0.039 MSIV Bonnet (031)
Level B 2,813 38,713 0.073 MSIV Bonnet (031)
Level C 4,094 38,713 0.106 MSIV Bonnet (031)
Level D 4,474 38,713 0.116 MSIV Bonnet (031)
Bending Moment (in-lbs)
)
Level A 67,985 2,021,373 0.034 MSIV Bonnet (031) 2i
'd Level B 448,797 2,021,373 0.222 MSIV Bonnet (031) 8 Level C 694,967 2,021,373 0.343 MSIV Bonnet (031) d, Level D 857,850 2,021,373 0.424 MSIV Bonnet (031)
S e
I
NEDO-30159 3.3 RECIRCULATION PIPING SYSTEM EVALUATION RESULTS 3.3.1 Recirculation Piping The stress analysis for recirculation piping loops A and B was performed using the verified "as-built" configuration as submitted to GE. The load combina-tions listed in Tables 3-42 and 3-43 were used as the basis for the cvaluation. Stresses were combined using both the SRSS and ABS methods of summation.
Tables 3-53, 3-54, 3-67 and 3-68 provide highest stress summaries for the Design Condition and Service Levels B, C and D loading conditions using both SRSS and ABS methods of summation. The highest calculated stresses were below the ASME Code allowable limits. The stress analysis performed demonstrated i
that the. recirculation piping was designed and supported to withstand the applied loads as given in the applicable design specifications. ASME Code certified stress reports were prepared and issued reflecting the results of the analysis performed (References 28 and 29, Appendix A).
The recirculation piping system, which is required to function for safe shut-down under the postulated events, has been evaluated and proven adequate in meeting the functional capability requirements per NED0-21985, Piping Functional Capability Criteria.
Node diagrams for Recirculation Loops A and B are provided for reference in l
Figures 3-5 and 3-6, respectively.
3.3.2 Recirculation Snubbers l
l l
The analysis performed demonstrated that the calculated loads on the recirculation snubbers were below the allowable limits, verifying their capability to meet the design criteria. The load combinations listed in l
Tables 3-44 and 3-45 were used as the basis for the evaluation. Loads were combining using both SRSS and ABS methods of summation.
i i
l 3-58
NEDO-30159 Tables 3-55, 3-56, 3-69 and 3-70 provide the highest loading summaries for Service Levels B, C and D loading conditions using both SRSS and ABS methods of summation. Initially, where snubber loads exceeded nominal ratings provided on the suspension purchase part drawings, subsequent snubber acceptability was demonstrated using actual manufacturer ratings based upon test results.
3.3.3 Recirculation Suction Gate Valves, Discharge Gate Valves and Flow Control Valves The analyses performed demonstrated that the calculated accelerations on the_
suction gate valves, discharge gate valves and flow control valves were in all cases below the allowable SRSS limits. The load combinations listed in Tables 3-48 through 3-51 were used as the basis for the evaluation. Accelera-tions were combined using both SRSS and ABS methods of summation.
Tables 3-57 through 3-62 and 3-71 through 3-76 provide the highest acceleration loading summaries for the loading conditions evaluated using both SRSS and ABS methods of summation.
3.3.4 Recirculation Pumps and Motors The analysis performed demonstrated that the calculated accelerations, attachment loads and cyclic loads on the recirculation pumps and motors were below the allowable limits. The load combinations listed in Tables 3-48 and 3-49 were used as the basis for the evaluation. Loads were combined using both SRSS and ABS methods of summation.
Tables 3-63 through 3-66 and 3-77 through 3-80 provide the highest acceleration loading summaries for the service level loading conditions evaluated using both SRSS and ABS methods of summation.
As a result of the recirculation pump and motor analysis performed, one pump motor hardware modification was required. The analysis identified the need to upgrade the load carrying capability of the outer motor lugs on both Loops A and B pump motors by the addition of gussets. A Field Disposition Instruction 1
i l
3-59
NEDO-30159 (FDI) was issued to implement the design modification. The recirculation pump and motor analysis incorporated the pump' motor lug modification. The analysis verified the pump and motor's capability to withstand the applied loads for the loading combinations evaluated.
3.3.5 Recirculation Pipe Break Analysis A pipe break analysis was performed on the recirculation loop pipe whip restraints. As a result of the analysis pipe whip restraints, R3, R4 and R5 were classified as inactive. A summary of the analysis is contained in the issued Pipe Whip Restraint Design Report and the interface control drawing (MPL B33-G003).
1 l
3-60
Table 3-42 LOAD COMBINATION AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR NSSS PIPING AND PIPE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT RECIRCULATION - SRSS PIPING DESIGN 1
PD + W1
+
OBEI LEVEL B 1
PP + W1
+
SQRT((0BEI
)**2
+ ( RV2I
)**2
)
LEVEL B 2
PP + W1
+
SQRT((OBEI
)**2
+ ( RV2I
)**2
)
LEVEL C 1
PP + W1
+
SQRT((CHUGI )**2
+ ( RV2I
)**2
)
LEVEL C 2
PP + W1
+
RV2I LEVEL D 1
PP + WI
+
SQRT((SSEI
)**2
+ ( RV2I
)**2
)
LEVEL D 2
PP + W1
+
SQRT((SSEI
)**2
+ ( CHUGI
)**2
+ ( RV2I
)**2
)
LEVEL.D 3
PP + W1
+
COND I
+ SQRT((SSEI
)**2
+ ( RV2I
)**2
)
LEVEL D 4
PP + W1
+
SQRT((SSEI
)**2
+ ( API
)**2
)
55 O
s 0.;
h i
Table 3-43 LOAD COMBINATION AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR NSSS PIPING AND PIPE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT RECIRCULATION - ABS PIPING DESIGN 1
PD + W1
+
OBEI LEVEL B 1
PP + W1
+
OBEI
+
RV2I LEVEL B 2
PP + W1
+
OBEI
+
RV2I LEVEL C 1
PP + W1
+
CHUGI
+
Rt2I LEVEL C 2
PP + W1
+
RV2I LEVEL D 1
PP + W1
+
SSEI
+
RV2I LEVEL D 2
PP + W1
+
SSEI
+
CHUGI
+
RV2I LEVEL D 3
PP + W1
+
COND I
+
SSEI t
RV2I LEVEL D 4
PP + W1
+
SSEI
+
API g
b6 S
Table 3-44 LOAD COMBINATION AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR NSSS PIPING AND PIPE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT RECIRCULATION - SRSS SNUBBERS
. LEVEL B 1
SQRT((OBE1
+
OBED
)**2
+ ( RV2I RV2D
)**2
)
LEVEL C 1
SQRT((CHUGI
+
CHUGD )**2
+ ( RV2I RV2D
)**2
)
LEVEL D 1
SQRT((SSEI
+
SSED
)**2
+ ( CHUGI
+
CHUGD )**2
+ ( RV2I
+ RV2D
)*k2)
LEVEL D 2
COND I
+
COND D
+
SQRT((SSEI
+
SSED
)**2
+ ( RV21
+
RV2D
)**2
)
LEVEL D 3
SQRT((SSEI
+
SSED
)**2
+ ( API
+
APD
)**2
)
LEVEL D 4
SQRT((SSEI
+
SSED
)**2
+ ( RV2I
+
RV2D
)**2
)
'Y.
5 0
Y 5
8
Table 3-45 LOAD COMBINATION AND ACCEPTANCE CRITE.:'.A FOR NSSS PIPING AND PIPE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT 4
RECIRCULATION - ABS SNUBBERS LEVEL B 1
0'eEI
+
OBED
+
RV2I
+
RV2D LEVEL C 1
CHUGI
+
CHUGD
+
RV2I
+
RV2D LEVEL D 1
SSEI
+
SSED
+
CHUGI
+
CHUGD
+
RV2I
+
RV2D LEVEL D 2
COND I
. +
COND D
+
SSEI
+
SSED
+
RV2I
+
RV2D LEVEL D 3
SSEI
+
SSED
+
+
APD LEVEL D 4
SSEI
+
SSED
+
RV21
+
RV2D Ei w
!s0
s=
' am = 1 sir. -ac -. ax_
=
Table 3-46 LOAD COMBINATION AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR NSSS PIPING AND PIPE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT RECIRCULATION - SRSS STRUTS LEVEL B 1
W1 +
+
SQRT((OBEI
+
OBED
)**2
+ ( RC2I
+ RV2D
)**2
)
+
W2 LEVEL C-1 W1 +
+-
SQRT((CHUGI
+
CHUGD )**2
+ ( RV2I
+ RV2D )*h2
)
. LEVEL D 1
W1 +
+
SQRT((SSEI
+
SSED
)**2
+ ( CHUGI + CHUGD )**2
+ (RV2I + RV2D)**2)
LEVEL D 2
W1 +
+
COND I
+
COND D i
SQRT((SSEI + SSED ) **2
+ (RV2I + RV2D)**2)
LEVEL D 3
W1 +
+
SQRT((SSEI
+
SSED
)**2
+ ( API
+ APD
)**2
)
LEVEL D 4-W1. +
+
SQRT((SSEI
+
SSED
)**2
+ ( RV2I
+ RV2D
)**2
)
w
?
8 5
e
Table 3-47 LOAD COMBINATION AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR NSSS PIPING AND PIPE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT RECIRCULATION - ABS STRUTS LEVEL B 1
W1
+
+
OBEI
+.
OBED
+
RV2I
+
RV2D
+
.W2 '
LEVEL C 1
W1
+
+
CHUGI
+
CHUGD
+
RV2I
+
RV2D
+
TSV LEVEL D 1
W1
. +
+
SSEI
+
SSED
+
CHUGI
+
CHUGD RV21
+
RV2D LEVEL D 2
.W1
+
+-
COND I +
COND D
+
SSEI
+
SSED
+
RV2I
+
RV2D LEVEL D 3
W1
+
' TE
+
SSEI
+
SSED
+
+
APD
+
LEVEL D-4 W1
. +
+
SSEI
+
SSED
+
RV2I
+
RV2D Y
E E
Y w
W e-e
Table 3-48 LOAD COMBINATION AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR NSSS PIPING AND PIPE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT RECIRCULATION - SRSS VALVES, PUMPS AND MOTORS LEVEL B 1
SQRT((OBEI
)**2
+ ( RV2I
)**2
)
-LEVEL C 1
SQRT((CHUGI
)**2
+ ( RV21
)**2
)
LEVEL D 1
SQRT((SSEI
)**2
+ ( CHUGI )**2
+ ( RV2I
)**2
)
I LEVEL D 2
COND I t
SQRT((SSEI
)**2
+ ( RV2I
)**2
)
l l
LEVEL D 3
SQRT((SSEI
)**2
+ ( API
)**2
)
LEVEL D 4
SQRT((SSEI
)**2
+ (,RV2I
)**2
)
E w
b 6s 8
I!
1 5 7m W$
II 22 R
VV O
RR F
+ +
CE R
S O
I EDB T
IIGI I
CEA O
22UEI2 NT M
VVHSPV AN -
RRCSAR 9
TU D
4 PON N
EMO A
3 C - I CET S
++++++
e APA P
l IL M
b DPU U
a N
C P
T ADR I
NI I
NAC S
IGIDII O
E E
EUENEE IGR V
Bl SOSS l
TN L
OCSCSS AI A
NP V
II BP M
111234 OS CS S
DN BCDDDD AO LLLLLL L
EEEEEE VVVVVV EEEEEE LLLLLL yE
Table 3-50 LOAD COMBINATION AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR NSSS PIPING AND PIPE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT RECIRCULATION - SRSS FLANGE MOMENTS DESIGN 1-
.W1 +
+
LEVEL B 1
WT1 +
. TE
+
SQRT((OBEI
+
OBED
)**2
+ ( RV2I
+ RV2D
)**2
)
LEVEL C 1
WT1 +.
+
SQRT((CHUGI
+
CHUGD )**2
+ ( RV2I
+ RV2D
)**2
)
LEVEL D 1
W1 +
+
SQRT((SSEI
+
SSED
)**2
+ ( CHUGI + CHUGD )**2
+ (RV2I + RV2D)**2)
LEVEL D 2
W1 +
+
COND I
+
COND D
+
SQRT((SSEI
+ SSED ) **2
+ (RV2I + RV2D)**2)
-LEVEL D 3
W1 +
+
SQRT((SSEI
+
SSED
)**2
+ ( API
+ APD
)**2
)
LEVEL D 4
W1 +
+
SQRT((SSEI
+
SSED
)**2
+ ( RV21
+ RV2D
)**2
)
2
.t wa
?m
=
W 0;
i s
4 1
W
,m,
l Table 3-51 LOAD COMBINATION AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR NSSS PIPING AND Pit >E-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT RECIRCULATION - ABS FLANGE MOMENTS DESIGN 1
W1
+
TE LEVEL B 1
W1
+
+
OBEI
+
OBED
+
RV21
+
RV2D LEVEL C 1
.WI
+
+
CHUGI
+
CHUGD
+
RV21
+
RV2D LEVEL D 1
W1
+
+
SSEI
+
SSED
+
CHUGI
+
CHUGD
+
RV2I
+
RV2D LEVEL D 2
W1
+
+
COND I +
COND D
+
SSEI
+
SSED
+
RV2I
+
RV2D LEVEL D 3
W1
+-
+
SSEI
+
SSED
+
+
APD LEVEL D 4
W1
+
+
SSEI
+
SSED
+
RV21
+
RV2D z
U b
a o
5
^
NEDO-30159 Table 3-52 LOAD COMBINATION AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR NSSS PIPING AND PIPE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT NOMENCLATURE OF LOADS API
=
Annulus Pressurization Loads (Inertial Effect)
Annulus Pressurization Loads (Anchor Displacement Loads)
APD
=
CHUGI =
Chugging Load (Inertia Effect)
CHUGD =
Chugging Load (Anchor Displacement Loads)
COND I = Condensation Oscillation (Inertia Effect)
COND D = Condensation Oscillation (Anchor Displacement Effects)
OBEI
=
Operating Basis Earthquake (Inertia Effect)
OBED
=
Operating Basis Earthquake (Anchor Displacement Load)
P0
=
Operating Pressure PD
=
Design Pressure PP
=
Peak pressure PPATWS = Peak Pressure Due Automatic Transient Without Scram Event RV1
=
Safety Relief Valve Opening Loads (Acoustic Wave)
RV2I
=
Safety Relief Valve Basemat Acceleration Loads (Inertia Effect)
RV2D
=
Safety Relief Valve Basemat Accelerations Loads (Anchor Displacement Loads)
RV2ADI = Safety / Relief Valve Basemat Acceleration Due to Automatic Depressurization System Valves RV2 ADD = Safety / Relief Valve Basemat Acceleration Due to Automatic Depressurization System Valves (Anchor Displacement Loads)
SSEI
=
Safe Shutdown Earthquake (Inertia Effect)
SSED
=
Safe Shutdown Earthquaic (Anchor Displacement Loads)
=
Thermal Expansion TSV
=
Turbine Stop Valve Closure Loads VLCI
=
Vent Line Clearing Loads (Inertia Effect)
VLCD
=
Vent Line Clearing Loads (Anchor Displacement Loads)
WT1
=
Dead Weight RV2SVI = Safety / Relief Valve Basemat Acceleration Loads Due to a Single Valve Opening (Inertia Effect)
RV2SVD = Safety / Relief Valve Basemat Acceleration Loads Due to a Single Valve Opening (Anchor Displacement Loads) 3-71
1 l
425 ip
'44'-._W s
en se uisi 4M 3
'M W R pn on uis
.',2 a) out os inn k
im a
rium u
n nza
!?,w, g>
a,*
fib o n
unc uM
~,
us
_p I 25 u.
k.
u h7
,7 a n, I
- u. oim m
iizm h
'N
,35
%8 MS 0%
IP,,
1 h
='
k=>
u.4hk i
1*'(i ag o
I
=2;j C
e,,
q b
m is m
' P 5m i.34 e
2a n
se
,iis um IM ua
~ 's y
.r m
=
5=
=
4 tr Figure 3-5.
LaSalle Recirculation Loop A Node Diagram l
i l
-e,
Table 3-53 HIGHEST STRESS
SUMMARY
- SRSS RECIRCULATION LOOP A Highest Ratio Identification of Calculated Stress /
Allowable Actual /
Location of Highest Item Evaluatedh Usage Factor Limits Allowed Stress Points Primary Stress 16,813 asi 25,005 psi 0.65 Reducer (242)
Eq. 9 < 1.5S DesignCondiIion
~
Primary Stress 19,055 psi 28,596 psi 0.67 Snubber Lug (090)
Eq. 9 = 1.8S & 1.5S Service Leve? B'
- Y Primary Stress 20,367 psi 34,315 psi 0.59 Snubber Lug (090) w Eq. 9 < 2.25S & 1.8S m
- U Service Level"C Y
y u
Primary Stress 26,415 psi 50,010 psi 0.53 Snubber Lug (090)
S Eq. 9 < 3.0S Service LeveT D Secondary Stresses 30,743 psi 50,010 psi 0.61 Sweepolet (410)
Eq. 12.< 3.0S, Primary plus Secondary 42,025 psi 50,010 psi 0.84 Sweepolet (310)
Stress without Thermal Expansion Eq. 13 < 3.0S, Cumulative Usage Factor 0.28 1.0 0.28 Sweepolet (410)
U < 1.0
l Table 3-54 l
lIIGIIEST STRESS
SUMMARY
- ABS RECIRCULATION LOOP A liighest Ratio Identification of Calculated Stress /
Allowable Actual /
Location of liighest Item Evaluated
- Usage Factor Limits Allowed Stress Points l
Primary Stress 16,831 psi 25,005 psi 0.67 Reducer (242)
Eq. 9 < 1.SS Design CondiI' ion Primary Stress 23,341 psi 28,596 psi 0.82 Snubber Lug (090)
Eq. 9 = 1.8S & l.5S Service LeveT B Y
Primary Stress 24,952 psi 34,315 psi 0.73 Snubber Lug (090) e g
m Eq. 9 < 2.25S & 1.8S f
i 5
Service Level *C Y
w Primary Stress 33,393 psi 50,010 psi 0.67 Snubber Lug (090) e Eq. 9 < 3.0S Service LeveT D Secondary Stresses 30,743 psi 50,010 psi 0.61 Sweepolet (410)
Eq. 12 5 3.0S, Primary plus Secondary 42,025 psi 50,010 psi 0.84 Sweepolet (310)
Stress without Thermal l
Expansion i
Eq. 13 < 3.0S, Cumulative Usage Factor 0.30 1.0 0.30 Sweepolet (410)
U $ 1.0
Table 3-55 SNUBBER LOADS - RECIRCULATION LOOP A HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- SRSS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Equipment with Ites Evaluated Load Limits
' Ratio Highest Loads Level B 31,772 lb 50,000 lb 0.635 SA65 Level C 41,026 lb
_66,500 lb 0.617 SA65 Level D 54,003 lb 75,000 lb 0.72 SA65 5
w4 8
6 u
s a
l
Table 3-56 SNUBBER LOADS - RECIRCULATION LOOP A HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- ABS Highest.
Identification of Calculated Allowable Equipment with Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads Level B 44,687 lb 50,000 lb 0.894 SA65 Level C 55,171 lb 66,500 lb 0.830 SA65 Level D 75,929 lb 75,000 lb Nom SA65
-91,000 lb Test 0.834 w
E
?
8 G.-
I n
Table 3-57 SUCTION GATE VALVE LOADS - RECIRCULATION LOOP A HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- SRSS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Location of Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads i
Acceleration Horizontal 5.45 g 10.6 g 0.514 Operator j
Vertical 1.11 g 4.0 g 0.277 Operator l
1 w
z
=0
Table 3-58 SUCTION GATF VALVE LOADS - RECIRCULATION LOOP A HtGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- ABS
-Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Location of Item Evaluated Load Limits.
Ratio Highest Loads Acceleration Horizontal 6.80 g 10.6 g 0.642 Operator Vertical 1.36 g 4.0 g 0.340 Operator Y
z 0
?
8 C
l t
l l
l
.~
Table 3-59 DISCHARGE GATE VALVE LOADS RECIRCULATION LOOP A HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- SRSS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Location of Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads Acceleration
-Horizontal 5.77 g 7.7 g 0.749 Operator Vertical 0.77 g 4.0 g 0.192 Operator 55 Y
8 a
S c
-Table 3-60 DISCHARGE GATE VALVE LOADS - RECIRCULATION LOOP A HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- ABS Highest
. Identification of Calculated Allowable Location of Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads Acceleration Horizontal 9.46 g 7.7 g 1.23*
Operator Vertical 1.25 g 4.0 g 0.311 Operator Yg M
8 6
S M
- This is a passive valve and is not required to meet ABS limits (see Table 3-59).
Table 3-61 FLOW CONTROL VALVE LOADS - RECIRCULATION LOOP A IIIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- SRSS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Location of Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads-
-' Acceleration Horizontal 2.16 g 9.0 g 0.240 Body Vertical 1.91 g 6.0 g 0.319 Body T
g a
8 8
Table 3-62 FLOW CONTROL VALVE LOADS - RECIRCULATION LOOP A IIIGIIEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- ABS liighest Identification of Calculated Allowable Location of Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads Acceleration Iforizontal 3.62 g 9.0 g 0.402 Body Vertical 3.26 g 6.0 g 0.544 Body u
b
$s 0;
1
1 l-Table 3-63 RECIRCULATION PUMP LOADS - RECIRCULATION LOOP A HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- SRSS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Location of Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads Acceleration Horizontal 0.65 g 4.5 g 0.144 Pump CG Vertical 1.18 g 3.5 g 0.338 Pump CG 8
e:
a S
3
l l
Table 3-64 i
l RECIRCULATION PUMP LOADS - RECIRCULATION LOOP A HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- ABS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Location of Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads l
Acceleration Horizontal 1.08 g 4.5 g 0.240 Pump CG Vertical 2.02 g 3.5 g 0.578 Pump CG
=
Y 8
?
6 S
I i
l I
Table 3-65 RECIRCULATION PUMP MOTOR LOADS - RECIRCULATION LOOP A HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- SRSS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Location of
. Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads __
Acceleration
.l Horizontal 1.31 g 4.5 g 0.291 Motor CG Vertical 1.21 g-3.5 g 0.346 Motor CG 5
u 6
V
=
i C:
^
l I
l Table 3-66 RECIRCULATION PUMP MOTOR LOADS - RECIRCULATION LOOP A HIGIEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- ABS I
l Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Location of Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads Acceleration Horizontal 2.21 g 4.5 g 0.492 Motor CG f
Vertical 2.07 g 3.5 g 0.591 Motor CG s
.C l
l l
?t A..
h R
' ' '4 ts 'i i
c.
$e k
k Eb f
4 p.,<5 sJ b=
e'\\
-rad.
g
\\
n; W,~
m
\\
.h a
-- i%
F
=
N r
=
Y S'
k_
u tbeef 1e da i
i T~
frq gi :
Arci j
s a 's t -
=
m-
,,AI y
, m
=
a 3
in f
Sk
>N rwp Si l
3 - 15 7
- ,.; e,,
t
,, ; n;
~
.a.
l Table 3-67 IIIGHEST STRESS
SUMMARY
- SRSS RECIRCULATION LOOP B liighest Ratio Identification of Calculated Stress /
Allowable Actual /
Location of liighest Item Evaluated
- Usage Factor Limits Allowed Stress Points Primary Stress 17,616 psi 25,005 psi 0.70 Snabber Lug (S7)
Eq. 9 < 1.5S Design Condition
~
Primary Stress 19,722 psi 28,596 psi 0.69 Snubber Lug (87)
Eq. 9 = 1.8S & 1.5S Service LeveT B Y
Prir.ary Stress 19,257 psi 34,315 psi 0.56 Reducer (242) 2 T
Eq. 9 < 2.25S & l.8S Service Level"C Y
?
E Pris.ary Stress 29,637 psi 50,010 psi 0.59 Snubber Lug (87) 0, l
Eq. 9 < 3.0S Service LeveT D 1
Secondary Stresses 31,310 psi 50,010 psi 0.63 Sweepolet (410)
Eq. 12 $ 3.0S, Primary plus Secondary 41,845 psi 50,010 psi 0.84 Sweepolet (310)
J Stress without Thermal Expansion Eq. 13 $ 3.0S, Cumulative Usage Factor 0.30 1.0 0.30 Sweepolet (410) l U _< l.0
~f ll equations used are from ASME B&PV Code, Sec. III - NB-3650.
A l
d Table 3-68 IIIGHEST STRESS
SUMMARY
- ABS RECIRCULATION LOOP B Highest Ratio Identification of Calculated Stress /
Allowable Actual /
Location of Ifighest Item Evaluated
- Usage Factor Limits Allowed Stress Points Primary Stress 17,616 psi 25,005 psi 0.70 Saubber Lug (87)
Eq. 9 < 1.5S Design Condition
~
Primary Stress 23,833 psi 28,596 psi 0.83 Snubber Lug (87)
Eq. 9 = 1.8S & 1.5S Service LeveT B Y
Primary Stress 20,250 psi 34,315 psi 0.59 Reduc *r (242) z c,,
k Eq. 9 < 2.25S & 1.8S 9
Service Level"C Y
?
c$
Primary Stress 33,747 psi 50,010 psi 0.67 Snubber Lug (87)
C; En. 9 < 3.0S Se'rvice LeveT D Secondary Stresses 31,310 psi 50,010 psi 0.63 Sweepolet (410)
Eq. 12 < 3.0S, Primary plus Secondary 41,845 psi 50,010 psi 0.84 Sweepolet (310)
Stress without Thermal Expansion Eq. 13 < 3.0S, Cumulative Usage Factor 0.32 1.0 0.32 Sweepolet (410)
U < 1,0
l s
' - ~
,.: 2. 7.
Table 3-69 SNUBBER LOADS - RECIRCULATION LOOP B HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- SRSS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Equipment with Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio liighest Loads Level B 27,647 lb 50,000 lb 0.553 SB29 Level C 30,740 lb 66,500 lb 0.463 SB29 Level D 44,584 lb 75,000 lb 0.594 SB29 z
8 6
S l
i 5
1
l1 8d, ? U fo hs ntd oia i wo t
L at cnt 999 i es 222 f me BBB i ph SSS ti g nui e qH dE I
o 520 i
622 B
t 768 a
P R
000 OS OB LA N -
UM 7
CU e
bbb RS l
lll 3
I b s CG at 000 e
EN wi 000 l
RI om 0, 5, 0, b
D li a
- A lL 065 T
O A
567 SL DAT OS LE H RG EI BH BU d
N t e bbb S
st lll ead hl a 446 guo 561 i cL 2, 3, 5, Hl a 811 C
346 de t
BCD au lll l
eee a
vvv v
eee E
LLL me t
I
[
^z_
h e
~
9
{
I J
Table 3-71 SUCTION GATE VALVE LOADS - RECIRCULATION LOOP B HIGHEST LOADING SbM1ARY - SRSS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Location of Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio liighest Loads Acceleration Porizontal 6.01 g 10.6 g 0.567 Operator vertical 1.06 g 4.0 g 0.266 Operator w
8 l
~
6 S
l Table 3-72 SUCTION GATE VALVE LOADS - RECIRCULATION LOOP B HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- ABS l
l Highest Identification of l
Calculated Allowable Location of l
Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads l
Accelecation Horizontal 9.50 g 10.6 g 0.896 Operator Vertical 1.70 g 4.0 g 0.425 Body V
5 8
o
?
8 0
p.
- T
l 1l l
E86s0 fo s
nfd ooa i
o t nL ao cit it s rr f ae oo i ch tt t og aa nLi rr e
H ee d
pp I
OO B
POO L
o 09 i
95 N
t 62 O
a I
R 00 TS AS LR US CR -
I CY ER RA 3
M 7
- M e
gg U
l s 3
SS bt 70 D
ai e
AG wm 74 l
ON oi b
LI lL a
D l
T EA A
d G
t e R
st gg A
ead H
hl a 13 C
guo 30 S
i cL I
Hl 51 D
a C
l d
a e
tl t
n na a
o oc u
i zi l
t it a
a rr v
r oe E
c HV l.
n e
e c
t c
I A
Y%
ll
l Table 3-74 DISCHARGE GATE VALVE LOADS - RECIRCULATION LOOP B HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- ABS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Location of item Eva g ted Load Limits Ratio liighest Loads Acceleration IIcrizontal 8.51 g 7.7 g 1.11*
Operator Vertical 1.75 g 4.0 g 0.438 Operator Y
5 6;
o 7
8
- This i:: a passive valve and is not required to meet ABS limits.
1 l
l l
u Table 3-75 FLOW CONTROL VALVE LOADS - RECIRCULATION LOOP B HICIIEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- SRSS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Location of Iten Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads Acceleration Horizontal 1.20 g 9.0 g 0.133 Body Vcrtical 2.09 g 6.0 g 0.349 Body l
z u
M b
8 e
6 S
8
t Table 3-76 FLOW CONTROL VALVE LOADS - RECIRCULATION LOOP B HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- ABS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Location of Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads Acceleration Horizontal 1.98 g 9.0 g 0.220 Body Vertica) 3.55 g 6.0 g 0.592 Body l
Y z
2 B
?
1 8
0; e
t
(
Table 3-77 RECIRCULATION PUMP LOADS - RECIRCULATION LOOP B HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- SRSS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Location of l
Item Evaloated Load Limits Ratio liighest Loads Acceleration Ibrizontal 0.82 g 4.5 g 0.182 Pump CG Vertical 1.05 g 3.5 g 0.300 Pump CG E
T 8
6 S
8 1
Table 3-78 RECIRCULATION PUMP LOADS - RECIRCULATION LOOP B HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- ABS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Location of Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads Acceleration Horizontal 1.36 g 4.5 g 0.302 Pump CG Vertical 1.79 g 3.5 g 0.511 Pump CG T
z 8
9
?
m W
lil l
lI 28aS$
fo s
nfd ooa i
o t nL ao cit i t s GG f ae CC i ch t og rr nLi oo e
H tt d
oo I
MM B
POO L
N o
26 O
i 60 I
t 33 T
a A
R 00 LS US CR RS I
C -
ERYRA 9
M 7
SM e
gg DU l s 3
AS bt 55 O
ai e
LG wm 43 l
N oi b
RI lL a
OD l
T TA A
d T
t e A
st gg L
ead U
hl a 37 C
guo 60 R
i cL I
Hl 11 C
a E
C R
l d
a e
tl t
n na a
o oc u
i zi l
t it a
a rr v
r oe E
e HV l
m e
e cc BA a8
.ll
.-.-na...i.i--i...i---
I Table 3-80 RECIRCULATION PUMP MOTOR LOADS - RECIRCULATION LOOP B HIGHEST LOADING
SUMMARY
- ABS Highest Identification of Calculated Allowable Location of Item Evaluated Load Limits Ratio Highest Loads Acceleration Horizoatal 2.71 g 4.5 g 0.602 Motor CG Ve rt ical 1.83 g 3.5 g 0.523 Motor CG l
l
)
Y E
5 8
6 Y
S G
N a
APPENDIX A REFERENCES This appendix contains the major Sargent & Lundy Engineers transmitted structural response inputs which constitute the data base for the LaSalle 2 NSSS New Loads Design Adequacy Evaluation.
In addition, S&L transmitted interface loads used in the performance of specific analyses are referenced. The major General Electric references provided in this appendix consist of the dynamic loads reports used as inputs to perform the NSSS piping and equipment adequacy evaluations, in addition to the NSSS Piping and Pipe Mounted Equipment design reports resulting from the analyses of the Main Steam and Recirculation Piping Systems.
References to specific input data, reference documents, test reports, detailed calculations, methods and results of the analyses and evaluations performed are contained in the Design Record Files maintained by the General Electric Company.
A.1 SARGENT & LUNDY SEISMIC DATA 1.
OBE and SEE Building Response Spectra, Horizontal 3/11/82 (N-S, E-W).
Including Soil Structure Interactions (SSI).
2.
OBE and SSE Building Response Spectra, Vertical.
8/8/73 Including Soil Structure Interaction.
3.
OBE and SSE Horizontal Seismic Analysis. Reactor, 11/17/75 Auxiliary and Turbine Building Model. SSI Time-History at Base Slab.
(Ref. Only) 4 4.
OBE and SSE Vertical Seismic Analysis. Pedestal -
11/25/75 Sacrificial Shield Model, SSI Time-History at Base Slab.
S.
Seisuic Analysis for Unit c (Horizontal Excitation).
3/11/82 Response Spectra and Vessel / Vessel Internal Forces.
A-1
NEDO-30159 6.
Horizontal Seismic Analysis. Acceleration Time-3/19/82 History. Peak Accelerations. Response Spectra Assessment Results. Horizontal.
7.
Horizontal Seismic Analysi.. Response to GE 2/25/82 3/31/82 request.
A.2 SARGENT & LUNDY POOL HYDRODYNAMIC DATA 8.
Transmittal of Revised Calculated Pressures on the RPV 5/9/77 and Sacrificial Shield Due to Postulated Pipe Break Within the S.S. Annulus.
9.
Chugging Response Spectra +20/-4 psi, 20-30 Hz.
4/20/78 Retransmitted on 4/29/80.
10.
SRV/ Chugging Time-Histories. KWU SRV Asymmetric, 2/26/80 Single and Symmetric / ADS and Symmetric Chugging Acceleration Time-Histories. Tapes retransmitted on 3/4/80.
11.
CO Vertical Unwidened Response Spectra.
2/28/80 12.
Chugging Horizontal Acceleration Time-Histories.
4/11/80
- 13. KWU SRV Asymmetric and Single Valve Horizontal 4/18/80 Acceleration Time-History.
14.
Clarifications to SRV/LOCA Hydrodynamic Input 5/20/80 (reply to GE 5/1/80 letter).
15, 4TCO Symmetric Chugging Acceleration Time-History.
2/27/81 16.
4TCO Symmetric Chugging Response Spectra on 6/11/81 Containment Wall (6 locations).
s A-2
NEDO-30159 A.3 SARGENT & LUNDY TRANSMITTED INTERFACE LOADS 17.
(Deleted) 18.
Loads on CRD Piping.
2/26/82 A.4 GE DYNAMIC LOADS EVALUATION REPORTS 19.
Dynamic Loads Report - Seismic 23A1312, REV. 0 20.
Dynamic Loads Report, Safety Relief Valve 23A1313, REV. 0
- 21. Dynamic Loads Report - Loss-of-Coolant Accident 23A1314, REV. 0
- 22. Dynamic Loads Report - Annulus Pressurization 23A1315, REV. 0
- 23. Dynamic Loads Report - Fuel Support Vertical 23A1316, REV. O Load A.5 GE NSSS PIPING SYSTEM DESIGN REPORTS
- 24. Main Steam Piping and Equipment Loads Design 23A1451, REV. O Report - Line A
- 25. Main Steam Piping and Equipment Loads Design 23A1452, REV. O f
Report - Line B
- 26. Main Steam Piping and Equipment Loads Design 23A1453, REV. O Report - Line C I
- 27. Main Steam Piping and Equipment Loads Design 23A1454, REV. O Report - Line D
- 28. Piping, Recirculation Piping and Equipment 23A1449, REV. C Loads Design Repcrt A-3
NEDo-30159 29.
Piping, Recirculation Piping and Equipraent 23A1450, REV. O Loads Design Report
?
t s
u A-4
NEDO-30159 APPENDIX B GENERIC ANALYSES EVALUATED EQUIPMENT AND COMPONENTS The following active and passive safety-related equsyment and components were generically analyzed to demonstrate design adequacy:
B13-D009 Control Rod B13-D020 Head Cooling Spray Nozzle B13-D040 Access Hole Cover B13-D055 Cap Screw B13-D056 Cap Screw B13-D058 Consumable Insert B13-D060 Consumable Insert B13-D061 Shroud Backing Ring B13-D065 Keeper B13-D066 Bolt B13-D067 Top Guide Wedge B13-D069 CRD Housing Lateral Restraint B13-D085 Consumable Insert B13-D091 Peripheral Fuel Support B13-D093 Access Hole Cover B13-D094 Adapter Ring B13-D096 Jet Pump Instrumentation Penetration Seal B13-D098 Consumable Insert B13-D182 Plug B13-U004 CRD Housing Support 8
1 l
\\ !
B-1/B-2 L. _..