ML20069F481
| ML20069F481 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/17/1983 |
| From: | LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20069F478 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8303230119 | |
| Download: ML20069F481 (17) | |
Text
-
7 y e.
- a . .
r e
MARK II HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS CONFIRMATORY PROGRAM j ADDITIONAL PIPING AND SUPPORT EVALUATIONS SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION - UNIT 1 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY 8303230119 830317 PDR ADOCK 05000322 A PDR
O , . .
TABLE OF CONTENTS fagg
- 1. INTRODUCTION 1
- 2. SCOPE OF REVIEW 3
- 3. EVALUATION FROCEDURE 5
- 4. SIGNIFICANT RESULTS 10
- 5. CONCLUSIONS 12
- 6. REFERENCES 13 J
f I
{
l l
{
,a ,
- 1. INTRODUCTION The objective of the Shoreham Mark II hydrodynamic load confirmatory pro-gram is to evaluate the plant with respect to the final generic Long Term Program (LTP) hydrodynamic load definitions. An evaluation program was performed during 1981 and results were presented in Appendix L of Shore-ham's Plant Design Assessment Report (DAR), Revision 5 (Reference 1). 'Ihe generic LTP load definitions, including NUREG-0808 (Reference 2) for con-densation oscillation (CO) and chugging loads, and NUREG-0802 (Reference 3) for KWU T-quencher load, were implemented. A reactor building structural dynamic analysis was performed to provide the amplified response spectra (ARS) at various structural locations for plant component qualification.
The containment structures, the secondary structures, and representative plant components were evaluated and found to have sufficient design margins to accommodate the load revisions of the Mark II generic LTP load defini-tions. The detailed description of the confirmatory program completed in 1981 as well as the conclusions of the plant evaluation are contained in the DAR (Reference 1).
There are approximately 280 essential piping subsystems (segments of systems subdivided for the purpose of stress analysis, each of which is designated as an AX) and approximately 3000 associated pipe supports in the Shoreham reactor building. The confirmatory program described in the DAR included a complete reanalysis of 30 piping subsystems selected to represent those with minimum overall desien margin of safety.
This report contains the results of an evaluation of an expanded saeple (namely, 67 ' additional subsystems) based on the criterion of expected loading increase which has been performed to address NRC comments on the program described in the DAR (see Reference 5).
These two programs have evaluated two categories of piping subsystems that would be most critically af fected by the generic LTP hydrodynamic loads.
The evaluation therefore provides conclusive analytical results to assure that the program objective of confirming piping and support design adequacy j is achieved.
t 1
l /
5 . *
- 2. SCOPE OF REVIEW The piping subsystems selected for evaluation during the 1981 confirmatcry program were based on the existence of the smallest design margins. It is the purpose of the additional evaluations discussed herein to evaluate
. piping subsystems based on the criterion of largest loading increases expected from the generic LTP hydrodynamic load definitions.
1 The Shoreham containment building is schematically discretized into 18 structural nodes for the purpose of ARS generation. The locations and
, their alphabetical notations are shown in Figure 1.
The peak amplified response spectra (ARS) from the generic LTP loads and the design basis loads are compared at each structural node. Only the peaks in the frequency range above 46 Hz are used since this is the range of the load increases of concern.
A review cf the ARS peaks shows that the three primary containment locations, namely, I
Node H at el 106 ft Node J at el 83 ft '
Node L at el 21 ft have the largest increases. After discussion with NRC staff, it was agreed that a reevaluation of all piping subsystems attached at the three locations of concern would be performed (Reference 5).
j All essential piping subsystems inside the reactor building were reviewed l to identify those affected by response at node H. J, and L. Table 1 shows the ASME III Class 1 subsystems, and Table 2 shows the ASME III Class 2 and 3 subsystems that are affected. An AX is a piping subsystem and the SRV-LOCA curve name includes the alphabetical notations of the structural nodes that affect the subsystem (the numerals indicate the damping values for SRV and LOCA, respectively). For example, curve CGHPQ12 indicates that the piping subsystem is attached at nodes C, G, H, P, and Q and is analyzed for 1 percent damping SRV curves and 2 percent LOCA curves.
Out of a total of 277 AXs in the reactor building, 90 are identified in Tables 1 and 2. Of these, 23 were part of the 30 originally analyzed and were discussed in the DAR. The remaining 67 have been analyzed in this additional evaluation effort.
i 1
l b
l 2
, 4 ,
3, EVALUATION PROCEDURE The characteristics of the Mark II generic LTP hydrodynamic loads are such that the Shoreham containment structural nodes H, J, and L have the most significant loading (ARS) increases. A piping dynamic analysis has been performed for each of the 67 subsystems not analyzed in the DAR to provide quantitative evidence that all subsystems. designed to the design basis loads can accommodate the generic LTP hydrodynamic loads.
The significant increase in the CO load is partially due to the conserva-tive nature of the load definition. The load definition, as prescribed in Reference 2, is a direct application of the 4TCO (Temporary Tall Test Tank Condensation Oscillation) test data to the Shoreham pool boundary. A conservative spatial distribution in conjunction with a synchronized in-phase oscillation are specified. The 4TCO test facility is a full-scale test facility constructed to provide test data to be used for evaluation of all Mark II plants. The pool area per vent for the 4TCO facility is significantly less than that for Shoreham. NUREG-0808 (Reference 2) has acknowledged the conservatiem inherent in the load definition and has allowed credit to be taken for the pool size effect.
A plant unique assessment was performed to quantify an appropriate CO load reduction factor for the Shoreham containment in order to compensate for the pool size ef fe ct. The acoustic model developed for Mark II Improved Chugging Methodology (Reference 6) was used to calculate the Shoreham containment basemat pressure and the 4TCO bottom pressure and hence to arrive at the reduction ratio. 'lhis approach is the same as that previously used for the LaSalle plant (Reference 4). The CO load reduction factor calculated for Shoreham is 0.7.
NUREG-0808 also allows credit to be taken for pool temperature range effect. Shoreham has not elected to take credit for this effect at this time.
A conservatism also exists in the Shoreham confirmatory chugging load. The generic LTP chugging definition, as discussed in Reference 2, prescribes I,
that the average of the seven key chugs and their Isrger-adjacent chugs from the 4TCO data may be used in the chugging source strength definition.
The averaging is appropriate since it accounts for the observed vent-to-vent amplitude variation within a multivent pool chug. Shoreham's con-firmatory chugging load was developed before Reference 2 became available l and only the key chugs were used as the source strength. This is i
acceptable in accordance with Reference 2, since it is conservative. The conservative factor is estimated to be about 30 percent but is retained in the load definition.
As was the case throughout the engineering design process, structural analyses have generally employed simplifying ascumptions that are also conservative in nature. A specific example is the treatment of axisym-metric hydrodynamic loads such as the CO load definition. The support excitation to a piping subsystem that is attached to the containment wall
- is in reality a one-directional radial excitation. Design analyses 3
\
\ s .
e
- i. .
have been generally conservatively performed with the full amplitude of
- radial excitation applied in two perpendicular horizontal directions. The
- chugging load de*inition is not purely axisymmetrical. However, the tangential excitation is almost an order of magnitude smaller than the radial excitation. The design analyses for chugging also employed the same conservative simplifying procedure and applied the full amplitude of radial excitation in two horizontal directions. These substantial conservatisms have been removed in the additional piping dynamic analyses performed and i
discussed herein.
By comparison of ARS peaks, it is observed that the higher acceleration ,
values from the generic LTP loeds occur in the frequency ranges above 40 Hz at certain specific locations on the primary containment wall. The peak accelerations vary significantly between structural nodes. The piping
{ analysis method used by Shoreham is to assume all support points are
- subjected to an envelope of the highest acceleration from individual support points at all frequencies. Results so produced are very r
, conservative. Previous experience indicates that piping response in a
] multiple support system is generally attenuated rapidly outward from a high i excitation source. For a piping subsystem that has a high excitation at one support point and a significantly low excitation at all other support i
points, the high responses are typically observed to occur only on the segments that are within a certain influence zone of the high excitation support point. The precise zone of influence cannot be established without actually performing the piping dynamic analysis. However, for the purpose of screening pipe supports for this additional confirmatory review, it is assumed that the high response will be attenuated beyond two support points from the high excitation support point at the primary containment. I.
Therefore, a pipe support that is separated from the primary wall attachment point by at least two other supports is assumed outside the influence zone and the high acceleration at the primary wall will not experience a significantly increased support load. In defining the influence zone, a one-directional support oriented vertically or nearly tangentially in the horizontal direction is excluded since such a support is not affected by the predominantly radial excitation of the generic LTP hydrodynamic loads.
i Approximately one-third of the pipe supports within the reactor building are on the 90 piping subsystems affected by the responses at structural nodes H. J, & L. The practicality of the design and construction procedure r is to use an available component which has a capacity which equals or
, exceeds.the exact value arrived at by a calculation. This general practice l has resulted in substantial design margins in a large number of pipe supports. Understanding that the purpose of this additional confirmatory i evaluation is to demonstrate that the pipe supports can accommodate the
} potential load increase due to the generic CO and chugging loads where CO and chugging account for part of the faulted condition loads, it is prudent to review the design margins that existed in the design of these supports.
Since the maximum peak acceleration increase is approximately 1.4 and realizing that the piping respcase is the combination of contributions from all response modes, it is concluded that a factor of 1.4 is appropriate to account for the potential faulted load increase.
4 4
Based on the above discussion, a pipe support that is within the influence zone of the primary containment wall and does not have an apparent design margin of 1.4 on the faulted design load is selectively identified for detailed quantitative evaluation.
Following is a summary of the steps of the piping and support evaluation procedure
- 1. A reanalysis of all 67 piping subsystems to account for the generic LTP SRV, CO, and chugging loads
- 2. A piping primary stress analysis to verify that all piping components meet ASME Code Section III allowables for the faulted condition
- 3. A screening of pipe supports to identify those subject to load increase and having a calculated design margin of less than 40 percent.
- 4. A regeneration of the loads for these pipe supports
- 5. A pipe support reevaluation to verify that all components of these supports can accommodate the reanalyzed piping support loads r
I l
5 L
[", -
a *- . - *
. ..s ~
. s
\
\
- 4. SIGNIFICANT RESULTS ,
, s The results for the 67 AXs selected for review and reanalysis are-presented in this report. A.-
Table 3 summarizes the characteristics of piping subsystems ' cont $1ned in ,
the 67 AXs and presents results for the most highly stressed piping components on each AX. In all cases, the ratios of the calculated' stresses to the allowable stresses for the faulted condition, as u indicated by Faulted Stress Ratio in Table 3, are less than unity. The faultt>d ,
condition stresses are well within ASME Code allowables. \ x s
The 67 AXs analyzed contain a total of 534 pipe supports; I2f these, 77 are spring hangers, which are not affected by the dynamic support of '
the pipe; -
322 are determined to be outside the influence zone of the primary containment vall radial excitations; 95 are determined to be inside the influence zone and .are demonstrated to have sufficient design margins to accommodate a 40 percent increasa in the design basis faulted load condition.
40 are inside the influence zone and are reviewed quantitatively for design adequacy of the support components when subject to-the recalculated loads. o 534 toal scope. -
For the 40 pipe supports which required quantitative- reviews 5 the complete support design process was repeated using the new loads generat'ed from the generic LTP hydrodynamic load definitions. Sufficent margin's wEre fbund.to exist in all of the components within each pipe support. Table 4 provides the list of these pipe supports, the components that are most critical, and the ratios of the calculated stresses to the allowable stresses for the faulted condition. It is noted that several of the supports , hav'e .a new design margin of greater than 40 percent, indicating that 1the new 'suppost load is actually less than the design basis analysis. y.. g ss, \
k
'g g
+ g g c $
~
N-.
k l -
6 x ~
5- g , -
s i 7 I
. - . _ _ _\,_s_ _ _ , . ,
- 5. CONCLUSIONS The Shoreham plant has been evaluated with respect to the Mark II generic LTP hydrodynamic load definition and results were presented in DAR Revision 5. An extensive additional pipe stress and support evaluation program has been completed, in addition to the original program, to cover the plant piping that was determined to be the most affected by the LTP loads. The evaluation results are presented in this report.
In all cases, plant piping and support components that were designed to the original Shoreham design basis load definition were found to have sufficient design margins to accommodate the load revisions of the Mark II generic LTP hydrodynamic loads. This program, therefore, provides positive confirmation of the design adequacy of Shoreham plant piping and supports.
s.
L <
x.
s a
'5'
% -g h
"", s 7
-x, ,
T Nsg
,.n ,,. - - . . _ ,- n. . ~.
- 6. REFERENCES
- 1. Plant Design Assessment Report for SRV and LOCA Loads, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station - Unit 1, Revision 5, December 1981.
- 2. Mark II Containment Program Load Evaluation and Acceptance Criteria, NUREG-0808, August 1982.
- 3. Safety / Relief Valve Quencher Loads Evaluation Report - BWR Mark II and III Containment, NUREG-0802, Draft, November 1981.
- 4. Mark II Containment Lead Plant Program Load Evaluation and Acceptance Criteria, NUREG-0487, Supplement 2, February 1981.
- 5. Letter from J. L. Smith, LILCO to H. R. Denton, NRC.
Subject:
"SER Item No. 1 - Pool Dynamic loads," letter No. SNRC-755, August 20, 1982.
6 Mark II Improved Chugging Methodology, General Electric Report NEDE-24322-P, May 1980.
8
, , , , , , , - - - -,,--,-,v. <- w m, -e, m * ' * * ' =
m e- *=1 w^^' --~-N' ' - --
TABLE 1 ASME CIASS 1 SUBSYSTEMS AFFECTED BY STRUCTURAL NODES H, J, ND L System AX SRV-LOCA Noted if Aanalysed No. No. Curve Name H_ J L_ in the DAR 1G33 1C CGHPQ12 X 1E21 10A ABCHQRS12 X l IN21 30A ACHJQRS12 X X 30B ABCHJ12 X X DAR 30G HJQRS12 X X
-30H ABCHJ12 X X DAR 1E51 2A BCJHQRS12 X X DAR 1E32 60B JQR12 X DAR 60B JQR12 X DAR i 60E JQR12 X DAR 60F JQR12 X DAR IC41 9A BCGH12 X 9B GHPQ12 X 1E41 11G JKRS12 X DAR 1B21 24A ABCDJK12 X DAR 1E11 BA ACDHJK12 X X DAR 8C JKLQRST12 X X DAR 8F HJKLPQRST12 X X X DAR 8H HJKLQRST12 X X X DAR 8L ABCJHGQRS12 X X DAR 8N ABCDJK23 X DAR 1B21 25A JQR23 X 25F CDJKQR12 X i Total 23 13 19 3 15 I
- 1G33 - Reactor Water Cleanup 1E21 - Core Spray IN21 - Feedwater
, 1E51 - Reactor Core Isolation Cooling l 1E32 - Main Steam Leakage Control IC41 - Standby Liquid Control 1E41 - High Pressure Coolant Injection IB21 - Main Steam 1E11 - Residual Heat Removal I
I 9
y <a ,. . .
TABLE 2 ASME lIASS 2 AND 3 SUBSYSTEMS AFFECTED BY STRUCTURAL NODES H, J, AND L System AX SRV-LOCA Note if Analyzed o
N. No. Curve Name H J L In the DAR IM50 524AK JKQRS12 X 524AM JKQRS12 X 524AQ JKRS12 X 524AS CDJK12 X 524AY HJQR12 X X 524U JKRS12 X 524W CDJK12 X 524X CDJK12 X 524Y CDJK12 X 1E51 02C KLST12 X DAR 02D KLST12 X 02G KL12 X 02H KL12 X 02J KL12 X I 1P42 03AD CDJK12 X DAR 03AE CDJK12 X DAR 03AF JKPQRS12 X 03M JKRS12 X 03N JKRS12 X 03T CDJK12 X DAR 03W CDJK12 X DAR IB21 04N ABCHJ12 X X 1G41 07E KLST12 X 07X KL12 X 1E11 08AA KL12 X 08AD KL12 X 08AG KL12 X 08AH H-LP-T12 X X X 08B KLMST23 X 08D H12 X 08E H12 X 08K KLRST12 X 08R KLRST12 X 08S DEKL12 X 08Z KL12 X 1E21 10B ' KLST12 & RST12 X 10D KLST12 X 10G KL12 X 1E41 11A KLST12 X 11B KLST23 X 11J KL12 X 10
~ ** .
TABLE 2 (Continued)
System AX SRV-LOCA 'Noted if Analyzed No. N'o . Curve ITame H J L I the DAR IC11 12D CDHJ12 X X 12E CDHJ12 X X 12F HJQR12 X X 12G HJQR12 X X 12H HJQR12 X X 12J HJQR12 X X 12K HQR12 X 12L JKRS12 X 12N HJQR12 X X 12S CDHJ12 X X 1G11 18AE DEKL12 X 18M BCDKLG12 X IB21 24E ABCDJ12 X DAR 24C ABCDJ12 X 24D ABCDEFJKLM12 X X DAR 24E ABCDJ12 Z DAR IT24 84C KLRS12 X IT23 99A KL12 X 1E51 99C KL12 X 1E11 99D KL12 X 1Z91 99F KL12 X IT48 132A JKLRS12 X X 132C KLQRS12 X 132D JKLQRST X X 132E JKRS12 X 1E32 60D JQR12 X Total 67 9 35 33 8 1M50 - Reactor Building Air Cooling, Purge and Heating IE51 - Reactor Core Isolation Cooling IP42 - Reactor Building Closed Loop Cooling Water IB21 - Main Steam 1G41 - Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup IE11 - Residual Heat Removal 1E21 - Core Spray 1E41 - High Pressure Coolant Injection IC11 - Reactor Control Rod Drive 1G11 - Radwaste Equipment Drains 1T24 - Primary Containment Inerting IT23 - Drywell Floor Seal Pressure Monitoring 1Z91 - Instrumentation and Control IT48 - Primary Containment Air Control 1E32 - Main Steam Leakage Control 11
, .e ,
TABLE 3 CONFIRMATORY BOP PIPE STRESS
SUMMARY
ASME Pipe Fundamental Piping Eaulted System AX Code Size Frequency Node Component Stress No. No. Class (inches) (Hz) Number Type Ratio 1G33 1C 1 6 8.2 197 REDUCER 0.47 1E51 20 2 8 7.8 5 ELBOW 0.23 2G 2 6 33.2 5 RUN 0.41 2H 2 8 20.0 115 RUN 0.40
, 2J 2 2 41.5 125 RUN 0.29 1P42 3AF 3 10 5.1 135 RUN 0.37 i 3M 2 4 13.1 5 RUN 0.36 l 3N 2,3 4,6 -8.0 55 RUN 0.24 1B21 4N 2 3/4 10.1 17 RUN 0.64 1G41 7E 2 10 11.4 592 TEE 0.33 7X 2 10 7.2 6 ELBOW 0.33 1E11 8AA 2 16 6.7 1 RUN 0.47 8AD 2 20 13.0 6 ELBOW 0.78 8AG 2 10 55.9 7 RUN 0.37 8AH 2 6 21.4 632 TEE 0.21 8B 2 20 6.6 237 TEE 0.35 8D 2 12 6.7 1 RUN 0.51 8E 2 12 10.7 5 RUN 0.34 8K 2 16 7.6 35 TEE 0.47 8R 2. 8 8.7 177 TEE 0.27 8S 2 6 6.3 5 ELBOW 0.21 8Z 2 16 39.0 3 ELBOW 0.18 1C41 9A 1 1 1/2 4.7 15 RUN 0.44 9B 1 1 1/2 6.3 552 RUN 0.47 IE21 10A 1,2 10 4.9 8200 RUN 0.69 10B 2 14 12.3 160 TEE 0.21 10D 2 3 7.8 65 RUN 0.30 10G 2 12 9.8 8 ELBOW 0.46 1E41 11A 2 16 6.0 65 RUN 0.40 11B 2 18 8.0 84 TEE 0.36 11J 2 18 18.6 70 ELBOW 0.34 1C11 12D 2 1 5.1 79 RUN 0.37 l 12E 2 1 5.3 1 RUN 0.34 l
12F 2 1 7.8 45 REDUCER 0.22 12G 2 3/4 2.0 260 RUN 0.27 12H 2 1 3.8 280 RUN 0.58 12J 2 3/4 4.2 31 RUN 0.42 12K 2 3/4 3.9 118 RUN 0.45 l
12L 2 2 5.5 5 RUN 0.24 12N 2 1 4.6 125 RUN 0.28 l
12S 2 3/4 5.1 79 RUN 0.32 1G11 18AE 2 4 5.6 5 RUN 0.20 18M 2,3 3 5.1 11 ELBOW 0.22 1
l 12
4 et ,
TABLE 3 (CONT'D) l i
ASME Pipe Fundamental Piping Faulted System AX Code Size Frequency Node Component Stress No. No. Class (inches) (Hz) Number Type Ratio 1B21 24C 2 24 7.4 645 TEE 0.47 IB21 25A 1 24 4.9 435 RUN 0.50 25F 1 3 5.5 488 RUN 0.52 IN21 30A 1 20 7.0 3540 REDUCER 0.48 30G 1 20 8.3 107 RUN 0.77 1E32 60D 2 3 5.5 6540 RUN 0.51 IT24 84C 2 18 5.3 385 RUN 0.25 IT23 99A 2 1 20.7 280 RUN 0.25 1E51 99C 2 1 1/2 100.0+ 5 RUN 0.13 1E11 99D 2 2 100.0+ 5 RUN 0.21 1Z91 99F 2 1 100.0+ 25 RUN 0.07 IT48 132A 2 4 4.8 57 RUN 0.95 132C 2 6 3.3 53 RUN 0.94 132D 2 6 5.7 162 RUN 0.43-132E 2 6 4.9 199 ELBOW 0.35 1M50 524AK 2 4 5.8 8055 REDUCER 0.52
- 524AM 2 6 16.2 510 REDUCER 0.37 524AQ 2 4,8 6.1 179 REDUCER 0.45 524AS 3 3 17.3 190 RUN 0.25 524AY 2 6 5.6 40 ELBOW 0.49 524U 3 4 6.1 120 RUN 0.28 524W 2 2,3,4 5.2 350 RUN 0.35 524X 2,3 4 5.1 210 RUN 0.39 524Y 2 2,3,4 6.3 460 RUN 0.40 13 4
I
~ .. . .
TABLE 4 CONFIRMATORY BOP PIPE SUPPORT
SUMMARY
System AX Pipe Support Component Faulted No. No. No. Type Stress Ratio 1G33 1C PSA 010 Anchor Bolts 0.61 1E51 2D PSR 049 Weld 0.67 1E51 2H PSR 039 Anchor Bolts 0.45 IP42 3AF PSR 070 Anchor Bolts 0. 64 1P42 3AF PER 071 Strap 0.66 1P42 3AF PSP. 130 ileid 0.88 1P42 iM PSA 087 WeL3 0.74 1P42 3M PSA 096 Weld 0.97 1P42 3N PSA 314 Base Plate 0.84 IP42 3K PSR 479 Anchor Bolts 0.89 1E11 8B PSR 097 Wald 0.53 1 Ell .
8D PSA 002 Weld O.89 IE11 8E PSA 011 Wald 0.88 IE11 8K PSR 069 Weld 0.77 1E11 8K PSR 070 Tube Steel 0.85 l 1E11 8K PSR 071 Weld 0.90 1E11 8R PSA 309 Weld 0.66 IE21 8K PSR 025 Weld 0.58 IE11 8S PSA 222 Base Plate 0.78 IE11 8S PSA 225 Weld 0.98 1E21 10A PSR 030 Weld 0.92 1E21 10A PSSP 806 Snubber Capacity 0.54 IE21 11A PSA 016 Weld 0.70 l
l 14 l
m -= . . .
TABLE 4 (CONT'D)
System AX Pipe Support Component Faulted No. No. No. Type Stress Ratio IE11 11B PSR 004 Anchor Bolts 0.97 1C11 12L PSA 108 Weld 0.66 1C11 12N PSA 006 Anchor Bolts 0.99 1N11 25A PSSP 841 Weld 0.57 IB21 25F PSR 905 Weld 0.30 1B21 25F PSA 890 Weld 0.95 1G33 30A PSSP 242 Snubber Catiacity 0.70 IN21 30G PSA 481 Weld 0.84 IN21 30G PSR 499 Strut Capacity 0.53 IT48 132A PSR 075 Anchor Bolts 0.65 IT48 132C PSR 067 Anchor Bolts 0.76 1T48 132D PSA 027 Weld 0.84 1T48 132E PSR 017 Adapter Plate 0.27 1T48 132E PSR 019 Anchor Bolts 0.72 1T48 132E PSR 025 Anchor Bolts 0.92 IT47 524AK PSR 079 Weld 0.72 1P42 524AM PSA 544 Anchor Bolts 0.82 l
15 1
,