ML20059M762
| ML20059M762 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1990 |
| From: | Wallace E TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9010050241 | |
| Download: ML20059M762 (17) | |
Text
^ k...-
i 1
TENNESSEE-VALLEY AUTHORITY-CH ATTANOOG A. TENNESSEE 374ot i
5N 157B Lookout Place SEP 281990 l
l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTNt Document Control Desk Washington, D.C.
20555 Gentlement In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-327 l
Tennessee Valley Authority
)
50-328 SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT (SQN) - NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-327/90-18 AND-50-328/90 UNRESOLVED ITEM (URI) 38-12-10
Reference:
TVA letter to NRC dated July 27. 1990. "Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) - NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-327/90-18 and 50-328/90-18" As committed in the referenced letter, the enclosure provides the final report for SQN on the revised reactor coolant loop (RCL) spectra effects.- Based on the results of the review program. TVA considers the effects of the revised RCL spectra to be bounded and no'further evaluations are required.
No commitments are contained in this submittal. Please direct questions concerning this issue to Kathy S. Whitaker at (615) 843-7748.
i Very truly yours.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY b.G.Wallace, Manager Nuclear Licensing and
-Regulatory Affairs r
Enclosure cc See page 2 3mo~
c.2 J p
~9010050241 90092G s\\s PDR ADOCK 05000327 Y
Q '-
PDC An Equal Opportunity Employer
'h, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission ggg cc (Enclosure):
Ms. S. C. Black, Deputy Director Project Directorate II-4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission One k'hite Flint, North
-11555 Rockville Pike kockville, Maryland 20852 Mr. J. N. Donohew Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission One k'hite Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville. Marylar,i 20852 NRC Resident Inspector Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 2600 Igou Ferry Road Soddy Daisy. Tennessee 37379 Mr. B. A. Wilson. Project Chief U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Region II 101 Marietta Street. NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Cenrgia 30323
. 11
~
i-t
%i ENCLOSURE Final Report Revised Reactor Coolant Loop Spectra Effects (B25 900927 009) 9 r
I.
l
4 q
L t
- URI 88-12-10. Revised Reactor Coolant Loon Spectra Effects
- statement of Problem T
URI 88-12 identified an NRC concern with the integration time step interval ust.d in generation of tus-Steel-Containment Vessel (FCV): and Reactor Coolant Loop- (RCL)
. spectra.- In the letter transmitted from TVA to NRC dated July 27, 1990 - (RIMS L44 90 0727 801) all issues related to
- URI;88-12-10 were addressed with the exception of the effect' of the revised RCL spectra on RCL-attached piping and acsociated interfaces, The revised Sequoyah RCL spectra were generated in response
~
to several concerns,: including lack of retrievable calculations supporting the existing spectra, tha unknown damping. values of the existing spectra,_and CAQR SQT 871161.
.i In order to resolve these issue;, revised spectra were developed for the Sequoyait RCL inLspring of 1989 and issued.
i in QIR SQP SQN 89211 R.0 (RIMS B41 89 0614 001).
The-revised spectra indicated increased
- peak responsa as well as
- shifts in peak response frequencies.-
This report. documents evaluations of the impact of the revised'spe.rtra, and the conclusion of these evaluations.
[
Technical Anoroach The impact evaluation of the revised RCL spectra was approached as a three phase process.
First, the RCL-connected piping problems were ranked for severity of impact; second, a worst-case population was formally reanalyzed in order to determine if any spectra-driven hardware mods resulted; and finally a review of unincorporated >open items against the RCL-connected piping analyses was performed to determine if open items exist that could skew the ranking performed in the first step.
i l
w
1 l
Li.
. ~.
v i
- Development of Worst Case Population and Ranking-The first step-in-the evaluatian for impact was performed based'on the change in spectral accelerations at significantly participating modes of each analysis. problem attached to the Reactor Coolant Loop.
For each piping
- problem the existing computer analysis best representing the piping was investigated for significantly participating i
modes.
In most cases the Run of Record, i.e. the most recent formal' reanalysis, was used. _In other cases an existing documented study run more accurately represented the piping system, and was used for the evaluation.
The ratio of the revised acceleration to the old acceleration for participating frequencies in-each direction was 1
. tabulated, and a weighted increase or decrease was 1
determined based on relative values of the participation factors.- An example performed for one analysis problem is shown in Attachmant 1.
The compliation of these evaluations and a dratailed discussion of the evaluation technique is contaired in calculation N2-RCLSPEC-EVAL R.2 (RIMS B87
.l
- 900926 015).
]
For'each problem a listing was created of existing-OBE I
stresses, predicted OBE stresses based on the weighted ratio-
-I discussed above, number of issued post-restart modifications j
designed k, the civil Calculation Reganeration program, and q
-other pertinent data such as pipe size, connection point, I
and line description.
For each problem, the predicted OBE stress was cal'.:u'ated by first ratioing the existing XYoBE -
stress by the maximum of the increeses in the X and Y direction, then ratioing the existing YZOBE stress by the maximum of the increases in.the Y and Z directions', and 4 - j finally tabulating the larger of the two calculated values.
1 The OBE stress was chosen for evaluation due to the smaller-existing design margin in the OBELcase-compared to the SSE case in the ger.eral population.
Additionally, many of the-older analyses were run with no separate SSE' case,'using twice the.5% damping OBE curves for SSE curves.
In this population the revised SSE RCL Spectra would not result in as large a percentage increase in stress due to the larger i
SSE damping values.
l e
, 'y 4.
p l'
+
The-listing of analysis problems created duringEthis phase of the evaluation is shown in Attachment 2.
Descending rankings of analysis problems are presented by-existing OBE-stress, predicted OBE_ stress _after incorporation-of revised RCL spectra,.and the number of Civil Calculation
- Regeneration post-restart modification. designed for each problem.- The tabulations performed by.this conservative method predict Equation ~9U allowables cannot be met with_the revised spectra-in some cases.- Conservatism exists because the relative influence of RCL spectra versus Interior concrete Structure spectra is not considered.
Also, the use of the maximum increase for either of the two considered directions to ratio a bidirectional earthquake stress is j
more severs than a rigorous analysis would show.
3 In addition to increases in piping inertia loading, two other attributes were considered in the development of the worst case' grouping of affected piping-analyses.
The number-of post-restart modifications per problem is presented as a 4
- significant indicator of the general level of design margint in the supports on the analysis.
The ranking of existing i
stress is presented as an indicator of the state of existing design margin in piping stress.
1 Reanalysis to. Evaluate Worst Case Population i
The second step in the evaluation of the-impact of the i
revised RCL spectra was reanalysis of the worst-case -
l population, based on the ranking discussed above.
. Six.
.l piping analysis problems were selected for formal reanalysis by Bechtel North American Corporation (Bechtel) using criteria that embraced the most highly-impacted 1 analyses in each of the major critical categories: existing OBE stress 3
level, predicted OBE stress level, and number of post restart modifications.
In addition,. consideration was given
~
to selecting. analyses of differing pipe sizes, and differing
['
connection points on the RCL.
Reanalysis of-eleven other piping problems were ongoing at the time of publication of the revised. spectra, and the results of these reanalyses t
were also studied for RCL spectra effects.
l 1-
l s,
.,f,
4 Ea,h of.tha six analysis problems. selected for Bechtel's-reanalysis represents other analysis problems based on-similar. geometrical configurations and attachment points:to the=RCL..A listing of the six analysis' problems, and the-
- l analyses considered to be represented by eacn one of these analysis problems is presented in Attachment 3.
The seventeen analysis problems reanalyzed after issuance of the revised RCL spectra embrace either directly or by representation the first twelve analyses ranked by projected OBE stress.
These seventeen analyses also embrace five'of the first seven analyses ranked by existing OBE stress,-and~
six of the first eight-analyses ranked by number of post-restart support modifications.
The seventeen reanalyzed.
i analysis problems are listed in Attachment 4.
The reanalysis of the'six Bechtel problems resulted in evaluationt of approximately~140 supports, and piping of sizes ranging from 3/8" tubing to a 10" Safety Injection
. i line.
Attachments to the Reactor Coolant Pumps, the Steam Generators, and the Hot, Cold and Crossover Legs were l
included within the six problems reanalyzed.
{
The Bechtel evaluatior locumented in their summary report (RIMS B39 90 ubl9 800
'lentified no RCL Spectra driven modifications.
In co.s. action with the Bechtel review, Gilbert /Cormonwealth (G/C) was centracted to~ review the results of the six TVA reanalyses and the five previous G/C reanalyses of RCL-attnched piping syste.ms to determine if there had been any RCL spectra driven modifications.
It Nas determined that only one spectra driven modification had been required.
This modification occurred on; analysis problem N2-68-01R.
This piping problem was reanalyzed under P
the Alternate Analysis Program, for addition of piping previously associated with Alternate-Analysis problems N2-4.3-A-310R and N2-43-A-407R.- Problem N2-68-01R had not been-high in the RCL spectra impact rahking when it did not
. include the' newly added piping.
Investigation of the n;
i combined piping model revealed that if the original analysis JJ had contained the additional piping at the time the ranking was performed, it would have emerged as number one in the ranking by predicted stress, which provides confirmation of the ranking process.
4 m
t., e
_Due to this modification, the population for reanalysis was broadened horizontally to include other-piping-problems
' categorized as_having similar attributes as analysis N2 OlR.
Formal reanalysis-with design of required modifications was performed on N2-43-A-309R,-N2-43-A-96R, and N2-43-A-97R.
Documentation of the review of the reanalyzed analyses is contained:in calculation N2-RCLSPEC-MISC R.0 (RIMS-B87'900926 017).
_These modifications were issued under the Alternate Analysis program.
Problems N2-43-A-309R-and N2-43-A-310R are being worked during the current Unit 2 Cycle.4 Refueling outage.
Modifications required for problem N2-43-A-96R were worked using the Work l
s Request process during the Unit l_ Cycle 4 Refueling Outage.
The modifications associated with. problem'N2-43-A-97R were issued under DCN M03099A and were' implemented during the Unit 1 Cycle 4 Refueling Outage.
In summary, six RCL-attached piping analyses were reanalyzed
]
by.Bechtel without any RCL spectra-driven modifications.
Six additional RCL-attached piping-analysis problems were l
reanalyzed by TVA without any RCL spectra-driven modifications.
Five RCL-attached piping analysis problems i
were reanalyzed by Gilbert / Commonwealth without any RCL
'l spectra-driven modifications, except in the #1 ranked;pir j
analysis by projected stress, as discussed above..
The piping' problems reanalyzed embraced either directly or by representation sixteen of the eighteen highest ranked piping problems by projected stress,-including the top twelve, and thirty-eight of the seventy-eight total rigorous piping analysis problems attached to the RCL.
Evaluation of Unincorporated Open Items Concurrent with the execution of the second phase of evaluation, a review'of unincorporated open items on the qj RCL-attached piping =was performed to determine if any'would impact the ranking of-the piping problems. -This evaluation is documented in calculation N2-RCLSPEC-EVAL'R.2 (RIMS B87 900926 015).
This study concluded that three analysis.
problems, 0600104-07-02, 0600104-07-03, and'0600lb4-09-05 do have unincorporated open items with potential to impact the significant participating modes.
The three problems were re-run, with the applicable open items incorporated in the computer model, and support design calculations were reviewed for the load increases.
PipingLremained within Code qualification limits and supports remained within Design Criteria limits.
These evaluations are documented in i
calculation N2-RCLSPEC-EVAL R. 2 (RIMS B87 900926 015).
's<
Evaluation of tilgtic Anchor Motions (SAMs)
In addition to the effects of increased seismic accelerations, TVA has evaluated revised SAM values that evolved from the revised RCL spectra. -SAMs are input at RCL connections in addition to the acceleration spectra.
Most e
of the SAMs decreased or increased by less than 1/16".
For those RCL node points with increases greater than 1/16" the attached piping has either been formally reanalyzed since the issuance of the revised data or has been evaluated by hand.
The results of these evaluations were that piping components and equipment remain within design criteria limits with inclusion of the revised SAMs.
Additional inforration regarding the SAMs can be found in Revision 1 of calculation N2-CAQR-SQT871161-MISC (RIMS B87 900926 016).
Conclusions The ranking documented in Attachment 2 provides a mechanism for investigating the worst case impact of the revised RCL spectra.
Seventeen of the most highly impacted analyses were formally reanalyzed, the support designs were reviewed, and other interfaces performed for determination of effect.
The analysis which had the #1 ranking by projected stress did require a support modification and the reanalysis population was broadened to incluce all other analyses which resembled that analysis.
The required redesigns for the broadened population were designed and issued, and implementation is scheduled for completion during the Unit-2 Cycle 4 Refueling Outage.
3 In the remaining group of 16 problems of descending rank, no modifications were required due to the revised. spectra.
Unincorporated open items have been investigated and-three analysis problems were found to have open items which could-have an effect on the significantly participating modes, which was the basis of the original ranking.
These three analyses were re-run and the supports reviewed.
The analyses and supports were found to be within acceptable Design Criteria limits without modification.
It is therefore concluded that the remaining lower-ranked analysis problems and their supports will meet Design Criteria limits with inclusion of the revised RCL spectra and cumulative effects of open items.
Based on the results of this review program, TVA considers the effects of the revised RCL spectra to be bounded and no further evaluation to be required.
The revised RCL data will be incorporated in reanalyses as they are performed due to plant modifications or other issues.
O, t
e
- ATTACHMENT 1, Sheet 1 o'f 3 t
SEOUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT
- CALCULATION NO N2-RCLSPEC-EVAL-SHEET 1 OF 3 PREPARED BY,,,
___f _2/ k__
___DATE
_,,,h CHECKED BY
..............._._,.,,___._.....:._._.....,,(,rN_.,
DATE
/
.,,6_2r_d8___n!CROFILMNO:F_/J._-f_6_fA_66-PROBLEM NO SPECTRA - RCL NODE 8Ih2((_ MAX "'8 STRESS RA ' O r _,,, <
SOURCE _M.2,,,{_A__Q $- _@ @,T_ @ % I" @ D C-MAX. PARTICIPATION FACTOR: MPF = __.,
e,, _
_[,,
L CALCULATE LOWEST SIGNIFICANT NODE: LSM=.25(MPF)=_f.,_k LIST ALL SIGNIFICANT MODES IN RCL 2ONE AND COMPLETE THE l
FOLLOW!'IG TABLE CALCULATING A (PVF) PARTICIPATION VARIATION L
FACTOR C(NEW ACCEL),x (PARTICIPATION FACTOR) * (OLD ACCEL)3 X - UTRECTION_
NODF. /FREQ PART. FACT.
OLD ACCEL NEW ACCEL PVF_
l l172
,256 i 3 72
/.2 N
~377 a
1/ /Ur l,
, Ghl
'6:00 2,3 to S
.53 7
+
A / 12A
, 3/ 0
.(s95 3.36l
/,500 DI 15,4 i/ff L/0 n Pr /O o/%5
'I l 24,1
,31i a5&X
~ Oi 9 5
,236 TOTAL i
TPF=/,78 TPVF.y,g CALCULATE THE PERCENTAGE OF STRESS /SUPP RT LOAD DECREASE: (TPVF / TPF)'. FX =_____ /f.,/
INCREASE OR M FX 2,1.10 SIGNIFICANTAND/OR STRESS RATIO },,0.9.
POTENTIAL IMPACT.
FX-1 1.10 AND STRESS RATIO 1 0.9.
MINOR IMPACT ON STRESS AND SUPPORTS FX 1 1.00 NO IMPACT ON STRESS OR SUPPORT LOADS.
~.
4
-9 g
. y, 1
L;.,
4
, ATTACHMENT 1,.
)
Sheet 2 cf 3 SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT CALCULATION NO: N2-RCLSPE -EVAL SHEET 2 bF 3 PREPARED BY:
___DATE: ___(_2./
_ _ h.,
_______, DATE: __,,h_b CHECKED-BY:
____[._k[___.,MICROFILNNOs_
d_'~ ~_h/,,
- [
PROBLEN NO:
. SPECTRA - RCL NODEt h. h. h I [ NAX 9U STRESS RATIO. < [_k_k.,
... source _bl_e__G_6.Qk5.GI$ ~70 le I-Mt DC MAX. PARTICIPATION ' FACTOR: NPF = _.,_.,_a_
.b._h_h'
,[
CALCULATE LOWEST SIGNIFICANT NODE: LSN.25(NPF)._f[_h_O
-t LIST ALL SIGNIFICANT NODES IN RCL ZONE AND-COMPLETE THE a "'
FOLLC;ING TABLE CALCULATING A (PVF) PARTICIPATION VARIATION FACTOR C(NEW ACCEL).x (PARTICIPATION FACTOR)
(OLD ACCEL)]
y,. DIRECTION 1
NODE./FREQ PART. FACT.
OLD ACCEL' NEW ACCEL PVF 3,/ /2,4
,52.I
,)53
- . > 76
/ 20 4/ 14,3
.I00
> 95 0
~,27
/Go i
4/
I G, 'l
, 2 74
,.450
~,34
- 209 9/
24* /
.238
)< 23 9
~ 228 s a4.i<
/// 70,0
,its
, j7 0
, 2 79
,279 7
TOTAL TPF. [ g TPVF=j/ [/ ;
j CALCULATE THE PERCENTAGE OF STRESS / SUPPORT LOAD FY.,___./,, d_I.,____,,__ INCREASE OR DECREASE: (TPV
/ TPF)
=
FY 2,1.10 AND/OR STRESS RATIO 2,0.9. POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT INPACT.
FY 1 1.10 Atg, STRESS RATIO 1 0.9.
MINOR INPACT ON STRESS stD. SUPPORTS FY I 1.00 MO INPAF.T ON STRESS OR SUPPORT LOADS.
i l
'i p.
e s-
- j e
., \\
J, ATTACHMENT 1, Sheet a of 3 1
i SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT CALCULATION NO:=N2-RCLSPEC-EVAL PAGE 3 OF 3 PREPARED BY:
__DATE N
m.
CHECKED BY:
..............................__.....___.._...E:
k.,
DAT PROBLENNO:_h,_.
_k___,, MICROFILM _NO: h,,
",",_ (( _
SPECTRA - RCL NODE: h _2
[
MAX 9U STRESS RATIO:
SOURCE:,,, M ~f",,6, %,, M T,[:Of f(ol MAX. PARTICIPATION FACTOR: MPF = ___
O[e CALCULATE LOWEST SIGNIFICANT MODE: LSM=.25(MPF)._th,_
LIST ALL SIGNIFICANT MODES IN RCL ZONE A'ND COMPLETE THE FoLLOWING TABLE CALCULATING A (PVF) PARTICIPATION VARIATION F ACTOR C(NEW ACCEL) x (PARTICIPATION FACTOR)
(OLD ACCEL)3 1 - DIRECTION
- r
' MODE /FREQ' PART. FACT.
OLD ACCEL NEW ACCEL PVF
// 3,72
,333
'40#
/, 2 3
/, S '/
t 21
/Gr2.
44l
/. 0 0 2.30
~
4 66 i
kl IX. 4 o ifo 2.
,607 4, / /
- i. O'JY 5./ I 5. 'l atMs
/. 50 n.2, /9
- /2 0 i
'l / W7. i
,MS
, 3 '7 /
,38/
.23'1 y
TOTAL TPF= [ M TPVFaf g i
CALCULATE THE PERCE.NTAGE OF STRE3S/ SUPPORT LOAD INC OECREASE: (TPVF / TPF) = F 2., _ _ _ ],s _.k,,
F2 1 1.10 AB.D/OR STRESS. RATIO ),,0.9.
POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT IMPACT,
,,,_,,,- F 2 i 1. 1 0 AND STRESS RAT 10,<,, 0. 9 MINOR IMPACT UN STRESS AND SUPPORTS
___ FZ 1 1.00 NO IMPACT ON STRESS OR SUPPORT LOADS.
i 9
g -
w
' ~
w
..[
}
1
~
E ATTACHMENT 2 PAGE 1 OF'2.
C y
?. ~
I O<
,or ANALYSIS RCL NODF NUMBER INCREASE MAX MAX ADJUSTED ADJUSTED MAX.ADJ SIZE DESCR!PTION
' UNITS POST-MODS X
Y Z
XYOBE YZOBE XYOBE YZORE OBE O2-62-8R 1262/1266 0
1.27 0.51 9.20 8468 6542 10737 60186 60186 1
92 SEAL LEAK 0FF RCP 4 2
02-68-17R 1212 0
8.11 0.69 19.60 3665 2918 29723 57193 57193 3/8 VOLUME %ENSOR RCL3 1
k2-68-18R 1212 0
8.11 0.69
. 19.50 3665 2918 29723 56901 56901 3/8 VOLUME SENSOR RCL1 1
06C0154-07-02 1229 3@
1.33 4.24 10.13 - 11682 55 %
49532 - 56687 56687
- 112 SG BLOWDO W #2-2 d
C2-62-3R 1262/1266 G
3.67 2.25 5.75 11913@
8739 43721 50249 50249 1
- 2 SEAL LEAKOFF RCP 3 1
0600154-07-03 1212/1229 1
3.06 0.19
'5.90 9387 8280 286 %
48852 48852
~1&2 SG SLOWNDOW #3 2
0600104-13-02F 1212 3 U2 @
5.16 0.94 5.25 8177 7662 42193 40226 42193 4
PRESS SPRAY LINE 1,2 N2-62-7R 1262/1266 e
1.12 1.13 3.79 10347 11076 11651 41978
- 1978 1
0600104-09-11 12065U1,9U2@
3.44 0.48 1.26
'10133
% 50
~34858 12159 34858' 6-St INJ TO MU LEGS 183 1,2 N2-68-20R 1212 0
10.26 0.22 7.13 3064 3089 31437' 22025 31437 3/8 VOLUME SENSOR LOOP 1 2
0600104-09-01 12741 U1,7 U2@
0.93 J 98 2.11 12806@
14631 12550 30871 30871 10 SIS TO COLD LEGS 144 182 2
02-68-21R 1212 0
8.59 0.?1 7.67 2921 2881 25091 22086
?5091
'3/8 VOLUME SENSOR LOOP 3 2
02-62-11R 1262/1266 0
2.40 1.87 1.82 3280$
13779-7872 25078 25078 1 1/2 SEAL W TER INJ TO PUMP 2 2
0600104-0i-04 1212 2
3.65 1.53 1.04 6857 6962 25028 10652 25028 1&2' SG BLOWDO W M 1
02-62-12R 1262/1266 1
1.49
'1.80 1.84 13818@
12491 24872 22983 24872 1 1/2 SEAL WTER INJ TO PUMP 1 2
02-62-5R 1262/1256
~0 3.51 1.00 3.11 6084 7631 21367 23710 23710 1
RCP #1 #2 SEAL LEAKOFF 2
02-68-14 1206 0
4.99 0.25 3.25 4741 4642 23658 15087 23658 1/2' RCL 3 VARIANCE 2
06C3104-13-12 1253 3
0.84 -
1.37 1.39 9475@
16573 12961 23076 23036 2
DRAIN FOR XOVER #4 142 0600104-02-03 1235 0
3.30
'1.35 8.71
- s509 2542 18180 22141 22141 16 FEEDmTEP #2 1
06C3154-08-17 1266 2
2.56 1.69' 2.85 6946 7409 17782 21116 21116 3/4 #1 SEAL BYPASS FROM PUMP 3 2
0600154-08-15 1262/1266 0
1.12 1.18 1.55
~@
13413 6263 20790 20790 3/4 #1 SEAL SYPASS PURP #1 2
0600104 09-10 1206 0
1.85 0.69 1.38
'3-14762 8033 20372 20372 6
INJECTION FROM SI PUMP TO HL2 1&2 0600154-08-10 1253 0
1.54
-1.07 2.65 11 m ~
7579 17487 20084 20084 3
LET DOWN CRotSOVER LEG #3 2
l N2-62-4R 1262/1266 0
2.21 2.22 3.16 8943 0600104-07-01 1212 0
1.30 0.94 2.70 4843
~ 5032 19853 15901 19853 1
- 2 SEAL LEAKOFF RCP #4 -
1 7022 6296 18959 18959
' 1&2 SG SLOWDOW #1 1
02-62-6R 1262/1266 0
1.04 0.99-2.69' 10272 6869 10683 18478 18478 1
RCP #2 #2 SEAL LEAKOFF 2
0600154-09-02
.1274 12 @ - 1.69 1.67 1.43 10205 9888 17226 16513 17226 10 SIS TO COLD LEGS 283 2
0600104-08-03 1262/1266 1
3.52-1.65 1.76-4729 1571 16646 2765 16646 m 1 1/2 SEAL W TER INJECTION PUMP 3 1 0600154-08-16 1262/1266
.0 0.86 1.51 2.01 7724 M 7657 11663-15391 15391 d
3/4 #1 SEAL SYPASS PUMP 2
- 2 0600154-02-02 1229 2
3.11 1.07 4.57 4850 3252 15084 14849 15084 f 16 FEEDWTER M 2
0600104-08-06 1262/1264 0
1.83 1.66 2.59-5744 3 5749 10512 14890 14890 x 11/2 #1 SEAL LEAK 0FF PUMP M -
182-0600104-08-10 1253 1
1.45 1.0P 2.55 10164.M 4511--
14738 11503 14738 to 3
LETOOWN FROM X0VER LEG 3 1
0600154-08-18 1262/1266 0
1.29 1.25 2.68 6680 (a 5418 8604 14515 14515 3/4 #1 SEAL BYPASS PUMP 4 2
0600104-08-16 1262/1266 0
1.64 1.28
-2.01 6962 g, 7083.
11418 14237 14237 j 3/4 #1 SEAL BYPASS PUMP 2 1
0600204-02-01 1235/*229 0
6.16 1.13
. 63 2262. g 1826 13979 8454 13979 4 16 FEEDMTER #1 1
0600154-02-04 1229 1
2.81 1.57 0.72 4943.e 4507 13890 7076
-13890 0
16 FEEDWTER #3 2
0600154-08-13 1262/1266 1
1.46 1.30 1.45 9156 M 5514 13368 7995 13368 G 1 1/2 #1 SEAL LEAKOFF PUMP 2 0600104-02-02 1229/1235 1
3.48 1.85
' 4.M 2720 8 2616 9466 12975 12975 T '16 FEEDWTER #4 2-1 h3/4 #1 SEAL BYPASS FROM PUMP 3 1
l 0600104-08-17 1262/1266 0
2.58' 1.30 1.24 4%1 3
~1714 12799 2228 12799 0600104-02-04 1229/1235 0
6.16 1.26' 5.14
~2059 g 1359 12683 6985 12683 04 16 FEEDWTER #3 1
0600104-08-18 1262/1266
. 0 1.72 1.56 2.12' 7222 3959 12422 8393 12422 3/4. #1 SEAL SYPASS FROM PUMP 4 1
' 0600104-13-02E 1212 3 U2 @
~1.50 1.05-0.47' 7927
.7538 11891 7915 11891 4
PRES $URIZER SPRAY LINE 152 0600104-08-07 1262/1266 -
0 2.99 1.52 3.84 2843 2979 - 11299. 4468 11299 3/4 #1 SEAL SYPASS PUMP 1 1
8501 11439 11439 1 1/2 #1 SEAL LEAKOFF PUMP #1 1;
0600604-08-15. 1262/1266.
0 3.56 0.85 2.19 3174 2040 0600154-07-01 1212/1229 0
1.87
'O.65
- 1.84 3766 -
5848 -
7042 10760 10760
' 182 SG Stone 0Wu #1 2
0600104-07-02 1212 1'
2.04 0.92 0.97 5207 6797 :10622 6593 10622 1&2 SG BlouDouN #2 1-0600154-08-14 1262/1266 1
1.46 1.%
1.79 3400 5233 6664.
10257 10257 1 1/2 #1 SEAL LEAKOFF PUMP #3 2
.i
^
.\\
l
~.
~w
~
,+,
~ _,
w-o e
9
_j ATTACHME*IT. 2
-[-
PAGE 2 OF 2
. tn
'O O
lC M
I De h
A ALYSIS RCL NOCE NUMBER INCREASE MAX MAX ADJUSTED MJUSTED MAX.ADJ SIZE DESCRIPTION AITS -
POST-MODS X
Y Z
XYOBE Y208E XYo8E (208E OBE l
N2-62-13R 1262/1266 0
1.05 1.27' 1.19 7569 7797
% 13 9902 9902 1 1/2 SEAL' m TER INJ TO PUMP 4 2
l 0600104-08-13 1262/1266 1
2.42
- 1. 73 2.47 3910 3%1 9462 9784 978(
1 1/2' #1 SEAL LEAKOFF PUMP 82 1
N2-62-25A 1262/1266 0
2.57 1.95' 2.48 3617 3944 9296 9781 9781 1 1/2 INSTR LINE TO RCP 4 1
0600104-08-11 1262/1274 4U2,3Ut@
1.18 1.36 1.34 7008 6358 9531 8647 9531 3
NORM & ALT CnARG CL 144 1,2-0600104-09-02 1274 6@
0.47 1.23 1.17 7483 3893 9204 4788 9204 10
$1 TO COLD LEGS 213 1
0600104-13-10 1253 2 U2 1.29 1.15 0.90 6942 6222 8955 7155 8955 2
DRAIN MOWER LEG 2 1.2 0600154-02-01 1229 0
1.51 0.78 2.58 5430 3455 8199 8914 C714 16 FEEDW TER i.
2 0600154-07-04 1212/1229 0
1.15 c.74 1.55 7387 2643 8495 4097 8495 182 SG sLOWD0WN 84 2
0600104-13-09 1253 2 U1,2 U2 1.30 1.13 1.01 6330 5627 8229 6359 8229 2
DRAIN FROM NOWER LEG 1 1,7 E2-62-10R 1262/1266 1
0.91 1.28 3.92 5137 1942 6560 7607 7607 1
SEAL W TER INJ TO PUMP 1 2
0600104-08-14 1262/1266 0
2.30 1.42 3.22 3271 2243 7523 7222 7523 1 1/2 #1 SEAL LEAKOFF PUMP S3 1
0600104-08-04 1262 1
0.99 1.27 1.25 5795 5032 7360 6391 7360 1 1/2 SEAL MTER INJ TO PUMP 4 1&2 0600104-08-12 1262 2 U1 1.08 1.28 1.38 5716 4971 7316 6860 7316 1
EXCESS LETDOWN COLD LEG 3 182 0600104-07-03 1212 2
1.74 0.71
-1.27 2779 4855 4835 6166 6166 182 SG BLOWDOWN #3 1
0600154-08-07 1262/1266 0
1.76 0.75 1.64 3453 3754 6077 6157 6'57 11/2 #1 SEAL LEAKOFF PUMP #1 2
0600104-08-01 1262 0
1.40 1.84 1.55 3182 2926 5855 5384 5855 1 1/2 SEAL W TER INJ TO PUMP 1 1&2 0600104-09-06 1274 1 U1,1 U2 0.55 1.11 1.10 5141 3450 5707 3830 5707 1 1/2 90 ROM INJ COLD LEGS 2&3 1,2 0600154-02-03 1229 0
1.51 1.14 2.40 3350 1577 5059 3785 5059 16-FEEDmTER #3 2'
0600104-08-02 1262 1
1.43 0.94 1.02 2403 4955 3436 5054 5054 1 1/2 SEAL W TER INJ TO PUMP 2 182 0600104-13-01 1206/1212 1
2.13 0.93 2.64 1455 1426 3099 3765 3765 14 PRESS SURGE LINE 1,2 0600104-09-05 1274 0
1.39 1.36 1.35.
1752
.2469 2435 3407 3407 1 '/2 DORON INJ COLD LEGS 184 1
0600154-09-05 1274 1
1.37 1.30
'1.35 1763 2454 2415 3313 3313 1 1/2 BORON INJECT 10N TO COLD Le1,4 2 0600154-08-03 1262/1266 0
1.12 1.16 1.71 1712 971 1986 1660 1986
'1 1/2 SEAL WTER INJ TO PUMP 3 2
I 4'
?-
ATTACHMENT 3 REANALYSIO FOR NEW CEQUOYAH RCL CPECTRA
[.
PIPE NUMBER OF ANALYSIS UNIT SIZE ATTRIBUTE SUPPORTS-OTHER ANALYSES' REPRESENTED-0600104-13-12 11 2"
- 1' EXISTING STRESS 8
104-13-12 (U2)'
0600104-09-01 2
10"
- 3 EXISTING P-R MODS 34 154-09-02, 104-09-02,.
- 3 EXISTING STRESS 104-09-01.(U1)
N2-68-17R 1
3/8"
- #2 PROJECTED STRESS 1
N2-68-18R,.N2-58-20R, N2-68-21R 0600154-07-02 2
1",2"
- 4. PROJECTED STRESS 41 154-07-03, 104-07-04,
- #6 EXISTING P-R MODS 104-07-01 0600104-09-11 2
6"
- 2 EXISTING P-R MODS 36 104-09-10, 104-09-11 (U1) 0600104-13-02 2
4"
- 7 EXISTING P-R MODS 26 104-13-02 (U1)-
- 7 PROJECTED STRESS NOTE:
The six problems selected for reanalysis embrace either,directly or by representation the following:
- THE FIRST TWELVE PROJECTED. STRESS ANALYSES.
- #1, #2, #3, #5, AND #7.OF THE EXISTING STRESS ANALYSES
- 3/8",
1",
2",
4",
6", AND 10" PIPE
- EVALUATION OF 146 SUPPORTS
- ATTACHMENTS TO THE RC PUMP, STEAM GENERATOR, HOT-. LEG, COLD LEG, AND XOVER LEG 9
.~.a._.u....-
.w-.
...._.,,_..,--.u..._,
~.. _ _ _.-
m_
l 1
1 J^
- y a
Je ATTACHMENT 4 SEQUOYAH PIPING-REANALYSES SUBSEQUENT TO ISSUANCE OF REVISED RCL SPECTRA-l TVA 0600104-06-01-(Both Units) 0600104-06-02 (Both Units) 0600104-06-03-(Both Units) 0600104-06-04.(Both. Units) 0600104-03-01 0600154-03-01 GILBERT / COMMONWEALTH N2-62-1R N2-62-2R N2-62-3R N2-68-1R
~0600104-08-16 BECHTEL N2-68-17R 0600154-09-01 (Formerly. 0600104-09-01 Unit =2) 0600154-09-11 (Formerly 0600104-09-11 Unit =2) 0600154-13-02-(Formerly 0600104-13-02 Unit 2).
N2-68-26RL.(Formerly. 0600104-13-12 Unit 1).
0600154-07-02 B
=
e
L '
w;
' '~
~.
1 ATTACEMENT.4
'i SEQUOYAH-PIPING REANALYSESL SUBSEQUENT TO ISSUANCE OF REVISED RCL SPECTRA
\\
TVA.
0600104-06-01 (Both Units)'
0600104-06-02-(Both Units) 0600104-06-03 (Both Units) 0600104-06-04 (Both-Units)
-0600104-03"01-0600154-03 01 i
GILBERT / COMMONWEALTH N2-62-1R N2-62-2R 7
N2-62-3R N2-68-1R 0600104-08-16 BECHTEL N2-68-17R
.i 0600104-09-01-(Unit 2)
_0600104-09-11 (Unit 2) 0600104-13-02 (Unit 2) n3
'0600104-13-12 (Unit 1)-
t 0600154-07-02 l'
j.
e B
r i
l l
n..
l 4
l-l' l<
ji
);
- - -