ML20202H399
| ML20202H399 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 07/09/1986 |
| From: | Mckenna E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TASK-03-06, TASK-3-6, TASK-RR NUDOCS 8607160299 | |
| Download: ML20202H399 (69) | |
Text
-
N O $ 1966 Docket No.50-029 i
l LICENSEE: Yankee Atomic Electric Company l
FACILITY: Yankee Nuclear Power Station
SUBJECT:
MEETING
SUMMARY
Re: Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) Evaluation of Yankee Seismic Analysis (NUREG-0825 Section 4.11) and of Yankee Tornado Wind and Missile Analysis (NUREG-0825 Sections 4.5 and 4.8)
A meeting was held from May 19 through 22, 1986 between members of the NRC staff, personnel from the Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC), and their respective consultants at the Yankee site (May 19,1986) and at YAEC Offices (May 20-22, 1986). A list of attendees is provided in Enclosure 1.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss open issues relating to the SEP review of seismic and tornado events at Yankee.
Previous meetings on the meeting on the tornado probabilistic risk assessment (pril seismic review were held on February 24-26, 1986 and A 8-11, 1986. A PRA) evaluation was held on February 4-5, 198,6.
Some of the questions discussed during this meeting had been formally transmitted to the licensee by letters dated March 14, 1986 and April 17, 1986. The remaining questions were provided to the licensee in draft form for discussion at the meeting and were subsequently formally issued to YAEC by letter dated June 6, 1986.
The first day was a plant tour for the staff and the consultants reviewing plant response to both seismic and tornado wind events.
Information, in-cluding photographs and measurements, was taken for the confirmatory seismic analyses. The group also observed structures, equipment and piping for which seismic upgrading has been or will be provided, including block walls, piping in the primary auxiliary building and the new dedicated safe shutdown system and structure, The major topics discussed at the meeting in the licensee's office were:
A.
CriteriaDocument, Revision 3(Seismic) i 1.
Mechanical Equipment 2.
Piping 3.
Pipe Supports B.
BlockWalls(SeismicandTornado)
C.
Tornado Missile Generation 8607160299 860709 DR ADOCK 0000 9
3 The meetings consisted of presentations by the licensee, question and answer sessions and staff audits of calculations.
One of the documents reviewed by the staff for this meeting was a preliminary version of Revision 3 of the licensee's Retrofit Seismic Criteria. The licensee stated that this document would remain a draft while staff review and discussion continued. When final review criteria are established considering staff coments, Revision 3 to the Criteria Document will be formally submitted on the docket. This process will facilitate staff review and licensee changes. The samary reports attached to the meeting summaries provide a record of criteria development.
The block wall discussions for both the seismic and tornado reviews were conducted together. This allowed interaction between staff reviewers on these two reviews and better understanding of the licensee's analysis. The modeling of the walls and some of the criteria are comon for both hazards.
I Also, proposed modifications for block walls were developed for whichever event was more limiting in each_ instance.
l l
The licensee's seismic analysis of walls was performed using the Yankee l
Composite Spectrum earthquake. As part of the confirmatory analyses being done by the staff and licensee for the NRC site specific spectra, analysis of l
the primary auxiliary building, including block walls, is being performed.
l The staff stated that the results of the confirmatory analysis would be used i
to assess the adequacy of block walls at Yankee to withstand the NRC site l
specific earthquake. As for the previous seismic evaluation meetings, the handouts used during the meeting, along with sumary pages of the status of l
questions on the seismic program were assembled in a sumary report i
" Resolution of Pending SEP Issues" (Vol. 3), which is enclosed with this meeting sumary. This report thus provides responses to questions in of the staff's June 6, 1986 request for additional information.
The licensee agreed to respond to the other questions in separate correspondence.
The next meeting on seismic reevaluation will be held June 24-27, 1986 at Cygna offi e s in San Francisco, h/
Eileen M. McKenna, Project Manager Project Directorate #1 Division of PWR Licensing-A
Enclosures:
1.
List of Attendees 2.
Sumary Report (Vol 3) cc's:
See Next Page Office:
LA/ PAD #1 PM/gD1 PD/ PAD #1b/
Surname:
PShuttledr EMc k g
Glear Date:
06/2//86' 07/f/86 y/f/86
7 Mr. George Papanic, Jr.
Yankee Atomic Electric Company Yankee Nuclear Power Station cc:
Mr. James E. Tribble, President Yankee Atomic Electric Company 1671 Worcester Road Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 Thomas Dignan, Esquire Ropes and Gray 1
225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 J
l Mr. N. N. St. Laurent Plant Superintendent Yankee Atomic Electric Company Star Route Rowe, Massachusetts 01367 Chairman Board of Selectmen Town of Rowe Rcwe, Massachusetts 01367 Resident Inspector Yankee Nuclear Power Station c/o U.S. NRC Post Office Box 28 Monroe Bridge, Massachusetts 01350 Regional Administrator, Region !
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Robert M. Hallisey, Director Radiation Control Program Massachusetts Department of Public Hoalth 150 Tremont Street, 7th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02111 1
w MEETING - YANKEE SEISMIC /TORNAD0ES MAY 20-22, 1986 NAME AFFILIATION Eileen McKenna NRC John D. Haseltine Yankee George H. Philley C.T. Main Deb Gustafson C.T. Main Bruce Holmgren YAEC Pei-Ying Chen NRC Vu Con Franklin Research Center I
Mike Nitzel EG&G Idaho Thomas M. Cheng NRC Long C. Shich
/
LLNL Tom N. C. Tsai A
NCT Engineering Darlene Leong CYGNA Larry Shipley
.CYGNA Dom Fucito YAEC Mark Russell EG8G Idaho Ced Child YAEC Bilain Atalay CYGNA T. Y. Wang CYGNA r
Jim Clifford NRC Pepe Vallenas CYGNA Donald Le Francois YAEC Jim Staub YAEC Steve Follen YAEC George Harper YAEC Aly Okaily FRC
\\
i l
I Uf)d x
-u Sf f
E Z
O E
i l u
$n b
!s
!.1 g
q g
hi if z
i l
(4 11 si 2O ti i
el Oz E
?
> web W
E
<&m C
l
!?
4
- u. :s o e
2 e"
o ( 4 A a ifz '"
E
! II 9
\\,
m On,4
_et.
ggm i
e b
3 IO O e
oa o
s gC z
n c
g inm W
l L E.,
a E
g W
g 4
x if l"
g b
r L
f,
!=N
(,
.,J.
2 l.
f l>.
it Jo
~
,2 L
3J 1
uj YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC C0iPANY U.S. NLCLEAR REGULATORY Cat 4ISSION
'I TETING AGEtOA FOR 5
YANKEE NLCLEAR POWR STATION RESOLUTION OF SEP TOPIC III-6
]
a b
MONmY 9:00 A.M.
m Y 19. 1986 LOCATION:
YAfKEE POCLEAR POWER STATION
'l R0WE MASSACHUSETTS
'l TLESMY - WEDfESDAY MY 20-21. 1986
^
LOCATION:
YANKEE AT01IC ELECTRIC C&1PANY 1671 WORCESTER ROAD I
.g ~
FRAMIfG MM. m 01701 SLILTECT:
!l 1.
SEISMIC REEVALUATION AfD RETROFII CRITERIA DOClWIT 2.
MSONRYWALLS
!g 3.
FIRE WATER STORAGE TAtK 4.
t%.70R TCmNICAL EQUIPTtli 5.
STATUS OF C0ffIRMATORY AtMLYSES lg 6.
Sllt%RY REVIEW 0F PRC QUESTIONS: RESOLUTION STATUS THLRSDAY - FRIDAY MY 22-23. 1986 9
11E FOLL0rIING CALCULATIONS ARE AVAILABLE FOR ALDIT AT THIS LOCATI0th l
1.
t%S0tEY WALLS 2.
FIRE WATER STORAGE TANK 3.
OEDICATED SAFE S WIDOWN BUILDING At0 PIPING 4.
9%LL BORE PIPE SUPPORTS
!T
'1
m l
9 ITEM F1A ISSUE
SUMMARY
PERFORM ANALYSES UNDER NRC SPECTRA LOADINGS (FOR THE MAJOR MECHANICAL COMPONENTS).
RESPONSE
SEISMIC LOADS AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR MAJOR I
MECHANICAL COMPONENTS ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA. DCl. REV. 3.
i ACCORDINGLY. THE SEISMIC LOADS ARE DUE TO YCS.
SEE ALSO RESPONSE TO ITEM F18. BELOW.
CONCLUSION:
ANALYSIS UNDER NRC SPECTRA LOADS IS NOT NECESSARY.
n I
~
.I
~I
. l O
I i
- /
l 3
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 i
MAY 19,1986
lIEM F1B I
ISSUE
SUMMARY
SEP (REEVALUATION) GUIDELINE STRESS LIMITS WERE USED UNDER YCS LOADING WHILE INDUSTRY CODES AND STANDARDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED (FOR.THE MAJOR
~
MECHANICAL COMPONENTS).
a
RESPONSE
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR THE MAJOR MECHANICAL COMPONENTS ARE STATED IN PROJECT DESIGN O
CRITERIA.
THE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA. IN MOST CASES. ARE SEP REEVALUATION GUIDELINES.
FOR COMPONENT SUPPORTS THE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ARE INDUSTRY CODES AND STANDARDS.
l I
~
s
\\
,I F
1 Is YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 2
MAY 19, 1986
ITEM F2c ISSUE
SUMMARY
PROVIDE SUFFICIENT DETAIL S0 THAT REFERENCE TO PROPER CODE SECTIONS AND ALLOWABLES CAN BE VERIFIED (FOR THE RPV).
REFERENCES:
(1)
" MAJOR EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION", REV. 1. CYGNA ENERGY D
SERVICES. DATED 5/84.
h (2)
" SEISMIC REEVALUATION AND RETROFIT CRITERIA", DC1, REV. 3, CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES. DATED 4/86 (PRELIMINARY).
RESPONSE
RPV MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND DESIGN CONDITIONS ARE DESCRIBED IN SECTION 2.1 0F REF. (1).
THIS INFORMATION CAN BE USED TO I
DETERMINE THE APPLICABLE ALLOWABLE STRESSES, Sg AND S, FROM U
ASME CODE SECTION III, DIVISION 1. APPENDIX I.
THE ALLOWABLE STRESSES ARE PER SECTION 5.4.2.2 0F REF. (2),
il I.E.,
,g Pg LESSER OF 2.4Sg OR 0.70S, AND U
(Pg + P ) + Pg LESSER OF 3.6Sg OR 1.05S -
=
t U
i r
's YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 3
MAY 19, 1986
, i j
ITEM F2D
[
ISSUE
SUMMARY
JUSTIFY APPLICABILITY OF THE BIJLAARD METHOD FOR THE RPV.
~
RESPONSE
SUBJECT CONCERN HAS BEEN ADDRESSED IN A NEW CYGNA CALCULATION.
SEE CALCULATION BINDER 86064/3F, DATED 4/86.
THE FOLLOWING IS A BRIEF
SUMMARY
OF THE FINDINGS:
l A.
MAIN COOLANT LOOP N0ZZLES I
PARA. 4.5.1 0F WRC-107:,3 < t/Rn = 4.6 < 8:
0.K.
(NOTE:
L = LENGTH OF SHELL:
ALL OTHER NOMENCLATURE AS IN WRC-107)
I II PARA. 4.5.2 0F WRC-107:- LO/R ~= 0.95 > 0.5: 0.K.
I 3
(NOTE:
Lo = ATTACHMENT LOCATION FRCM END OF CYLINDER)
III PARA 4.5.3 0F WRC-107:
l N0ZZLE IS REINFORCED:
0.K.
4 I
I r
I l
1 1!s YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC OUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 4
MAY 19, 1986
e b
ALSO:
LOCAL STRESS CALCULATIONS HAVE BEEN PERFORMED USING WRC-297 APPROACH FOR CONFIRMATION.
THE RESULTS OF THIS CONFIRMATORY ANALYSIS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
MEMBR. KSI (MEMBR. + BENDING)
KSI PART/ADPROACH SI ALLOW.
SI ALLOW.
'T VESSEL /WRC-107 15.85 56 28.16 84 VESSELlWRC-297 15.73 56 26.65 84 h
N0ZZLElWRC-297 3.25 56 17.94 84 IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT
. l 0
WRC-107 & WRC-297 PRODUCE SIMILAR RESULTS FOR THE VESSEL.
[
.l -
0 N0ZZLE STRESSES ARE 0.K.
IV USE OF WRC-107 CURVES:
l
)=0.141 T
6.16 3
f SOLID LINES APPLIED WITHOUT EXTRAPOLATION:
0.K.
!,I r
r
' YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 5
'T MAY 19, 1986 1*
.. = _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[
B.
AT SUPPORT LUGS
[
I PARh 4.5.1 0F WRC-107:
3 < L/Rn - 4.6 < 8:
0.K.
I II PARA 4.5.2 0F WRC-107:
L /Rn = 1.7 >
- 0. 5.
0.K.
O III PARA 4.5.3 0F WRC-107:
N/A - LUG STRESSES CHECKED SEPARATELY IV USE OF WRC-107 CURVES:
O S = 0.017,
- 0.152, T= 7.44 i
2 SOLID LINES APPLIED WITHOUT EXTRAPOLATION:
0.K.
I CONCLUSION:
ALL LIMITATIONS OF THE BIJLAARD METHOD OF LOCAL l
STRESS ANALYSIS HAVE BEENl0BSERVED.
I I
i;I t
c
,b
'i i'
YNPS-RESOLUTIbNOFNRCQUESTIONSONSEPTOPICIII-6 G
'i MAY 19,1986
.1 -
~
[
ITEM F3A 3
}
ISSUE
SUMMARY
CLARIFY WHAT ARS IS USED IN THE EVALUATION (0F THE REACTOR INTERNALS).
Li i
EESPONSE:
THE ARS USED IS THE 3% DAMPING ARS OF THE RSS AT i
EL. 1087'6".
THE GR0bND SPECTRUM IS THE YCS.
.I 1
I
~
.I
.I D
c l
.i
.i s YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 7
i, MAY 19, 1986
w
.-.=:---:--------
E b
ITEM F3B
[
ISSUE
SUMMARY
DR0 VIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION (FOR THE REACTOR INTERNALS):
I ALLOWABLE STRESSES.
L?
II TEST DATA USED, III ALLOWABLES FOR THE BOLTS IF BOLTS WERE USED.
REFERENCES:
(1)
" SEISMIC EVALUATION OF THE YNPS REACTOR INTERNALS", REPORT
'g No. 02-0570-1204, IMPELL CORP.,' DATED 8/84.
(2)
"STRUCTUR AL EV ALU ATION OF RE ACTOR INTERN ALS", C ALCUL ATION I
No. RPVIN-32, IMPELL CORP., DATED 8/84.
l
RESPONSE
l I, III ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR BENDING + AXIAL SEISMIC STRESSES ARE AS FOLLOWS (1,2):
[l LOWER CORE SUPPORT ASSY. CYLINDER,"
2.4SM - Sn = 1.4Sn t
LOWER CORE SUPPORT CYLINDER,
- 22960 PSI D
UPPER CORE SUPPORT ASSY. CYLINDER, (ASSUMING FAULTED CORE BAFFLE, GUIDE TUBES, SHROUD CONDITION & 1.0Sg 7
TUBES, BOLTS FOR NORMAL OPERATING STRESSES)
.s I
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 8
MAY 19, 1986 l
6
l'
(,
FUEL AND CONTROL RODS: Sy = 15000 PSI FOR INCONEL 600 $ECTION 36000 PSI FOR AG-IN-CO
(
SECTION II TEST DATA USED TO QUALIFY FUEL ASSEMBLIES (REF.,3 Or (1))
~
ARE FROM AN EXXON PROPRIETARY REPORT WHICH WILL BE PROVIDED FOR REVIEW WHEN THE NECESSARY PERMISSION IS OBTAINED.
D I
I
~
- I
- I D
1 r
a YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC OUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 9
MAY 19, 1986
[
ITEM F3C
(
ISSUE
SUMMARY
DEMONSTRATE THAT BOTH YCS AND NRC SPECTRA HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND PRESENT RESULTS FOR BOTH CASES (FOR THE REACTOR INTERNALS).
RESPONSE
THE REACTOR INTERNALS HAVE ONLY BEEN ANALYZED UNDER YCS SEISMIC LOADS (SEE ITEM F3A).
ANALYSIS UNDER NRC SPECTRA SEISMIC LOADS IS NOT REQUIRED. SEE RESPONSE TO ITEM F1A.
D
/
.g.
.I
- I D
r e
^
m YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 10
~
MAY 19, 1986
h j
ITEM F3D ISSUE
SUMMARY
CLARIFY WHETHER MAIN COOLANT PIPING WAS USED FOR SUPPORT AND. IF S0. PROVIDE MODELING DETAILS.
r
RESPONSE
4 MASS AND STIFFNESS EFFECTS OF THE MAIN COOLANT LOOPS ARE INCLUDED IN THE ANALYSIS OF THE REACTOR INTERNALS.
THIS IS D
ACCOMPLISHED BY MEANS OF AN "ADLPIPE" ANALYSIS OF A TYPICAL COOLANT L00P (NUMBER 1).
LOOP 1 IS SUBJECTED TO THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: UNIT ACCELERATIONS, DISPLACEMENTS AND ROTATIONS.
THE MASS.
TRANSLATIONAL STIFFNESS AND ROTATIONAL STIFFNESS COEFFICIENTS ARE CALCULATED:
[
(SEE FIGURE NEXT PAGE) g FOR Loop 1:
ACTION MASS / STIFFNESS COEFF.
I 1G IN Y - DIR My = 0.118 K-SEC /IN 2
'I 1G IN X' - DIR M i = 0.301 K-SEC /IN 2
x
[
1G IN Z' - DIR Me = 0.095 V-SEC /IN 2
z I
1 IN. IN Y - DIR Ky = 80.3 K/IN I
1 IN. IN X' - DIR KX.
0.28 K/IN 1 IN. IN 2' - DIR KZ
- 0.41 K/IN 1 RAD IN X' - DIR K
= 7.716 105 K-IN/ RAD 0X 6
1 RAD IN 2' - DIR K02' = 2.276 10 K-IN/ RAD 7
I
'li s
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 11 l
MAY 19,1986 1
~
=-. = ----
[
ASSUMING THAT LOOP 1 IS TYPICAL OF FOUR LOOPS. TOTAL MASS / STIFFNESS COEFFICIENTS USED IN THE REACTOR INTERNALS MODEL CAN BE CALCULATED AS:
'I FOR FOUR LOOPS 2
MVERT. = 4My
= 0.472 K-SEC /If<
2 M
- 2(M ' + M ')
= 0.792 K-SEC /IN AT N0DE 9.
J HOR.
x 7
K
= 4K
= 321.2 K/IN VERT.
y
+ K ')
= 1.4 K/IN EL. 9 TO 100 *
- 2(Kx'2 + K K HOR.
Z I
K
= 2(K R 0x' + K0Z )
= 7.13 106 K-IN/ RAD 0
y SEE FIG. NEXT PAGE.
/
t hl t
r
- .)
)
'I r
A TfI s
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 12
'I MAY 19, 1986 1
~
l
\\
um
[
[
4 h
r e
3 r
g,/
r
. r, 1
a h
LOOP 4 4,
<, =v I
et 4
_.f.
> Kj
~,).#
- EE22 5'H,typ.
f
\\..
1 9
9,,
51 N
,r,,
LOOP 3 5
\\ ayPAss (Colled Bliorth) 9segna WAIN COOLANy popgyg l
c ITE AM ggggg r
f LOCAtson h
Puwe X
h LOOP 2
(
}
Note: All axes xj, zj, i=1,2,3, and 4 are on a horizontal plane.
1 s
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC OUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 13
'T MAY 19, 1986
~
L
~
REACTOR INTERNALS PODEL
{L
_ _ _ - - - -.- - - - -<>s2 as!"~~e Upper Core Lower Core Support l Support Assembly Assembly es, 1r
g_
v os s
IJ Main T
4 P ping W
3V
,?
go
, se g
7 sm e
1 7
7 Y'558I M
, m,l' _,
Supports P
N f
c,<e-~~~d 23 es rg se
'*ar- - - - 3,,,
,,3_,
.e.
mm,4 7f,, r 13ts
<,si I
<Or
~
7T,
>"7 Fuel
. I*
TJ,
," Assemblies 4
2 Y,,
4 3
>s Co;tra._
5 A."
-;;;;'r
- _2 s v,,
u. s*
m, ".
m>1
\\
)T 3
&J j
q Core i
<, LJ_ _ <
,3 4,
Baf fle l
Thermal Shield Shroud /,st Tubes
{
<>2 e
Note:
O
= Fluid coupling element YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 14 MAY 19, 1986
E ITEM F3E ISSUE
SUMMARY
ADDRESS ANY POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF FUEL ASSEMBLY LIFT 0FF.
REFERENCE:
" SEISMIC EVALUATION OF YNPS REACTOR INTERNALS".
REPORT No. 02-0570-1204. IMPELL CORP., DATED 8/84.
RESPONSE
h PARAGRAPH 3.4.1 0F THE REFERENCE STATES THAT THE N0ZZLE INSERTION THROUGH THE SUPPORT PLATES MAINTAINS THE LATERAL ALIGNMENT.
THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH IS AN ELABORATION OF THAT STATEMENT.
I EACH FUEL ASSEMBLY HAS AN UPPER AND' LOWER N0ZZLE.
BOTH N0ZZLES HAVE A CYLINDRICAL PORTION WHICH IS INSERTED INTO FUEL SUPPORT I
BLOCKS ON EITHER THE UPPER OR LOWER CORE SUPPORT PLATE.
THE LENGTH OF INSERTION IS APPROXIMATELY 3 INCHES.
THE LOWER N0ZZLE IS SOLID IN THE VERT.ICAL DIRECTION.
THE UPPER N0ZZLE j
ALLOWS FOR SPRING LOADED VERTICAL COMPRESSION.
WHEN THE UPPER CORE SUPPORT PLATE IS SET IN PLACE. THE UPPER N0ZZLE IS COMPRESSED RESULTING IN A HOLD DOWN PRELOAD FORCE ON EACH FUEL ASSEMBLY.
THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT THE UPPER N0ZZLE CAN BE i
COMPRESSED IS LESS THAN A HALF INCH.
THIS WOULD ALSO BE THE g
GE0 METRIC MAXIMUM FUEL LIFT.
SINCE THIS IS MUCH LESS THAN THE B
3 INCHES OF INSERTION OF THE N0ZZLE IN THE SUPPORT BLOCK. THERE CAN BE NO LATERAL MISALIGNMENT.
CONCLUSION:
FUEL ASSEMBLY LIFTOFF WILL NOT CAUSE LATERAL 3
MISALIGNMENT AND WILL NOT HAVE ANY ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES.
II a
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 15 MAY 19. 1986
[
ITEM F4A ISSUE
SUMMARY
ALLOWABLE STRESSES (FOR THE SG'S) SHOULD BE SPECIFIED.
'T l
REFERENCES:
(1)
" MAJOR EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION", REV. 1. CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES, DATED.5/84.
(2)
" SEISMIC REFVALUATION AND RETROFIT CRITERIA", DC1, REV. 3, CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES, DATED 4/86 (PRELIMINARY).
l
RESPONSE
'l ~
DESCRIBED IN SECTION 3.1 0F REF. (17.
THIS INFORMATION CAN BE SG SHELL SECTIONS' MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND DESIGN CONDITIONS ARE
~
I USED TO DETERMINE THE APPLICABLE ALLOWABL'E STRESSES, Sg AND S '
U FROM ASME CODE SECTION III, DIVISION 1. APPENDIX I.
THE ALLOWABLE STRESSES ARE PER SECTION 5.4.2.2 0F REF (2),
1.E..
}
l Pg LESSER OF 2.4Sg OR 0.70S, AND
=
U
,l (Pn + P ) + Pg LESSER OF 3.6Sg OR 1.05S -
t U
THE SG SUPPORT FRAME ALLOWABLES ARE FOR THOSE FOR ASTM A7 (Fy-g 33 KSI);
SEE TABLE D-1 0F REF (2).
f
{
ij
'I 1
s YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 16 MAY 19,1986
[
ITEM F4C
[
ISSUE
SUMMARY
CLARIFY THE STEAM GENERATOR (SG) SUPPORT FRAME ANALYSIS.
[
REFERENCES:
(1)
" MAJOR EoVIPMENT CUALIFICATION", REV. 1, CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES, DATED-5/84.
(2)
CYGNA CALCULATION 86064/3-F, SET C.
RESPONSE
THE MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF THE SG SUPPORT FRAME IS SHOWN IN THE NEXT SHEET.
THE MOST CRITICAL LOAD l COMBINATION RESULTS FROM WEIGHT + PRESSURE + JET IMPINGEMENT'FROM MS RUPTURE.
THE I
ADEQUACY OF COLUMNS AND BEAMS IS EVALUATED ACCORDING TO EQUATIONS (1.6-1A) AND (1.6-2) 0F AISC, SPECIFICATIONS, RESPECTIVELY.
THE MOST CRITICAL COLUMN RfSULT IS:
1
!l b +
MX BX MY gy F
+
7 i
F
( 1- -4 ) F (1-i
)
g gx F
EX EY THE MOST CRITICAL BEAM RESULT IS:
h.
BX +
= 0.169 < 1.0 0.K.
A BX BY f
1 CONCLUSION:
THE STEAM GENERATOR SUPPORT FRAME IS ADEQUATE.
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 17 MAY 19, 1986
l[
MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR STEAM GENERATOR SUPPORT FRAME AND MOST CRITICAL LOADING l L, 17
't sk
%3
/
s%
1 e
a,,w
%b I
@L
/
L L
.I 6
STEnM CENEmm1CR SU* PORT F AME LOAD COMBINATION: (WT + P) + MS RUPTURE r
j N0DE 45 46 47 48 a
APPLIED F2 (KIPS)
-146.2
-142.6
-137.3
-140.9
.h YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 18 j,
MAY 19,1986
-[
ITEM F40
{
ISSUE
SUMMARY
PROVIDE EVALUATION OF SG (SNUBBERS') ANCHORAGE.
~
RESPONSE
THE SG SNUBBERS AND THEIR ANCHORAGE SYSTEM WERE DESIGNED IN 1980.
THE DESIGN HAS BEEN PERFORMED IN CYGNA CALCULATION BINDER ES0006C, FILE 2/F.
THE RESULTING SUPPORT SYSTEM IS SHOWN IN THE FOLLOWING THREE PAGES.
THE FOLLOWING IS A
SUMMARY
OF DESIGN HIGHLIGHTS:
O THE DESIGN LOAD OF 81 KIPS IN EACH SNUBBER IS ASSUMED TO ACT IN TWO DIRECTIONS SIMULTANE0USLY.
O SUPPORT MEMBERS ARE DESIGNED T0,'ASME SECTION III, ARTICLE NF-3000 DESIGN PROCEDURES FOR CLASS 1 LINEAR TYPE SUPPORTS.
FOR EXTRA CONSERVATISM, ONE-THIRD INCREASE IN I
STRESS ALLOWABLES IS NOT INCLUDED.
.. 0 Sy 0F STEEL IS ASSUMED TO BE 36 KSI.
HOWEVER, DESIGN ALLOWED SUBSTITUTION OF HIGHER YIELD STRENGTH STEEL.
{
0 THE FOLLOWING ARE SOME DESIGN CHECKS:
'I 1 IN. BASE PL. (ITEM NO. 8), T 0.60 IN. < 1 IN.
REo.
(ACTUAL)
D 1-3/8 IN.
WILLIAMS " SPIN LOCK" ROCK BOLTS:
TOTAL CAPACITY - 155 K > 81 K.
a m
6E 3
a,
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 19 MAY 19, 1986
{,
[
STRAP PLATES (ITEM No. 7). FB = 19.8 KSI < p7 KSI COMPRESSION PADS (ITEM No. 14):
}
A.
WEBB CRIPPLING:
No STIFFENER PL. RE0.UIRED, BUT PROVIDE 1/2" STIFFENER PL. (ITEM No. 16)
BOTH SIDES.
3 B.
COMPRESSION:
C.
TENSION:
A
- 3.75 IN 2 < A
= 9.56 IN 2 RE0.
FLG.
= 67 IN.
= 15.5 IN. <LPROV.
D.
WELD:
LREO.
TFNSION STRAP (CLAMP RING) (ITEM NOS. 15 & 19):
- g TREO. = 0.30 IN. <TPROV. [ 1.2 IN.
VARIOUS OTHER WELDS. BOLT PRELOADS (FOR DETAILS SEE I
E20006C, FILE 2/F) HAVE BEEN CHECKED.
VERIFICATION OF DESIGN ADEQUACY AGAINST AS-BUILT SGS' t
GE0 METRY AND FIELD CONDITIONS HAS BEEN PERFORMED.
O THE MAXIMUM LOAD ACTING IN THE SNUBBER WHEN THE SG IS l
SUBJECTED TO YCS LOADS IS 33.4 KIPS.
i CONCLUSION:
THE SG SNUBBER ANCHORAGE SYSTEM CAN SAFELY WITHSTAND APPLIED-SEISMIC LOADS.
I
\\
.h 7
,1 YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 20 MAY 19, 1986
r
{
. ui.
^
l Ii, I!
.q
- ::"i
_c_
.. if I!
b I
~'~
N N
h()
.hhll',il i j I
d
' M l !lI l
'I j,
/@A n,
y, J
.p N-
/
i l
ky jai
..s g
!)
h sf l.
i
.s O
g 6'.
5 4
f g
\\
k l
I i
F:
u
.I li g,
e ii n
l
~
i i i II i
h5 h h i j i i 5 5 7
l l l
' j l' a rl!s.g 5; 8 l i i
i s i s :
a i
i 1
i I3
!illl.i-
.%;g EI l' d i
d e; 7
l e s l i:iljt n8
- ! 8i Ja i id i
i p
,c
- !$' f I !!!!
, ' 'y i i 3j$; [h.
9I.!
{
I I
N' $ d t
i 1
h y i i j ;- g
,1 I l Ws.J Ip: 2 j ]
- d l.
jj il li j j r ;i l I
y, yD' l
5,' si igi. ; i k.i j
W !!
ji l
i' Q
' I ll i r
ji, g 'i j 1
o.3 i
3,'!
s h
j ! !I,lli F
r il ls '
i l i i i
i i i i i i. i i l l i i i i i i i i i i j;;,i.gtig l l j
1 i 'i w
g f. i.!' ll,,,l
~
!$'f;..$ %p I
I I
I if
(@ft:l l llL(lfNi'ij!/
ll11u!
ji i L i:
n
.,.i.i.i.
.i..i.
..3 U TT T
'"~~
..i.i.i...i..i.i.i.
1,:,.:.
v YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 21 MAY 19.1986
[
.. w
.q $
,jk t, e i c, i t.1 4 -t d:a:n
'j e
.L.
i h; e
..3,ee;:
Ap y>1.;i.,;n.ii..!!F:ip!i
- itat
- ..;
I iPd i.
_.....f il,,,
o s,
- r. ! pr' j y l!! 0.,'] p. u'l'j'.',ply;ihh i:ll1jdl 1,
J.Irjje.
l 8! l ?
'i
~;
.P j 'l a
i*[J-----$'lpis;,I
- f a!
J.!['n;it,.ftyitrls-N!
1,.
!,. ' WO.12ifil. I p
$ u.. II P
iJ
.....r.,;m u
\\t
.w.
3 3
(I
- ;. 9/s S
K
., t /-
e eI e.p E;-
l NCtf%se s
t y
f.
' ~
\\
I
}9 t-
- f-r
' s--%a i a w
\\
} 3,.
N. '.t'
- 2.
m[/_M,r t
- --m T
s,.
3I s,
t we._
y 6'
f j
'C'j I
I g
l, 3
_/
h p
t
+x <
y c
t J j;Ili
.O
-r:
/ p i
vil
/
a
'l p
e' g
k :i i
i 5 m_
t 6
3 e r-i t
-T.s 3 n
2 c.
l r
u s
i l
,I o
Il l si,!'
ej s2 h p-m' J
~,
t
- w t
+-
gI
[i aN
~
%. h/h l-iFj D
[
1 o.. g g
l
~
L u
/
. I 1
t l.
N-1-
t Ilp i,
- j' m...
c.
1 v L -.
' ' f y,\\$q,8..
- {
- 'm l
l5
!l
- Aig? l,'i".1 3
[. )
Q
\\y,.
g
[i; si 3,
k s c-1
~
a.
c.
c kil il I
J!
r f.'
5
,s
._. /r,i
/
t s
.-.+..
s g---.--
- l, l
s
._ t q.
..wns
),.
IE Y
p
/[g#,
a-tv,
8-g s
ilI OO 4
'7 II*
j l
T y
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 22 MAY 19. 1986 s
l
)
[
0 eeg e==
e 9H.:}.L
.f l
I I! !
?
t '~
j'it,l !
'1!.bki i
[
hi : ! !
it '- t -
j i'il :
- .94'b)fp J J! si 19.'.;!
ll.!O ii!
! ! 'i ip a t b-E.i -
"':-'i,1
(
i l.,j' i! t'f ut l
..;;ojd a
7,iy !!,j,jlisi
,1ju -l!, ! : ;,
m 6
r 1,
- f. : ;; ;
,tl: :j! i:c'hv' isWun ilg,i.:j i,p: ? I 2 l:. *2 7 z.t
. e : 4>.<11,..T.)'.,
'{
i
-r
.,,aut:n!
n!
t
\\
=
l T d^/. !
<h i \\.
i j
9-g
..p.giv AA 1
'k d-M
\\.
2 s
f i
-o-s er
+'
1
(\\'
g g '1
I j
/
I
[N- - )y
'J 1
5 t
se i
E t
a;;g, '
r J >.
,.i
[g.e /D c.
c.
e x-
'C~f %, c.I; Hl. ?
j
~
Y 9*y
. s N 3-.
I J
I
's I
i I,
e e
7-I lW
}-
i i
!l s
Y
,i!
5 ll F
s'1
. c.
f D ;N n /
[
Al
'l
.t,
=>
, [] '-
u 0
0 N!,!,hii i
e i
I
)llli!li I, N' ll!
D r
r#! $,--
4 j;.
a fg
~.
f Y
i
~
)!,
r,,
,1 A.,,
a-y O
i i
I d"
8 'i
\\1 5
}
,1, s
I a
a i
o
- n..
i1 3 9 e 9 i v.
=
c.
NY,3
.i I,-
?rE I I l l :'?,
- m.
.1 YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC OUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 23 T
MAY 19,1986
l
[
{
ITEM F4E
~
ISSUE
SUMMARY
JUSTIFY APPLICABILITY OF THE BIJLAARD METHOD OF
^
LOCAL STRESS ANALYSIS (FOR THE SG'S).
REFERENCE:
CYGNA CALCULATION BINDER 86064/3F, DATED 4/86.
RESPONSE
l A.
COOLANT INLET /0UTLET N0ZZLES l
On/Dn =
0.28 THESE PARAMETERS ARE OUTSIDE THE D /T
= 15.4 LIMITS OF APPLICABILITY OF BIJLAARD n
g CURVE S ( SEE FIG. A.1 0F WRt;-107).
I FOR'THIS REASON, A FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS WAS PERFORMED
/
(SEE FOLLOWING PAGE).
RESULTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
l VESSEL:
MEMBRANE 16.0 KSI < 42 KSI MEMBR. + BENDING 22.9 KSI < 63 KSI y
N0ZZLE:
MEMBRANE 14.7 KSI < 42 KSI
{g MEMBR. + BENDING 39.6 KSI < 63 KSI i
- I 9
.b 7
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 24 MAY 19,1986
.i -
[
[
[
[
N N
N
/
/
x\\\\
//
NN D
~
~//
y\\
.g
/
w>
lI k
\\
\\
/ji i
y g
f
\\
N f'!
N
'd N
l h
~?
mgy is n
f x MfIl5b.
l
~'u vv 0
w TITLE i
SG COOLANT INLET /0UTLET N0ZZLES LOCAL STRESS ANALYSIS MODEL 7
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC OUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 25 MAY 19, 1986 l
4 I
w-.
9
[
[
B.
MAIN STEAM N0ZZLE l
I og/On = 0.19 -- THESE PAR AMETERS ARE WITHIN B0UNDS
^
Dn/T
= 60.4 0F FIG. A.1 0F WRC-107:
0.K.
't I
~
II PARA 3.5.1 Or WRC-107 - N0ZZLE STRESSES:
~
~!
4 IN. > 1.625 IN. = VESSEL N0ZZLE WALL THICKNESS
=
THICKNESS 0.K.
(l
> 0.75 IN. - PIPE THICKNESS III PARA. 3.5.2 0F WRC-107:
7' 2.86, U = 1.50 2
l CONSERVATIVE DASHED LINES *0F WRC-107 CURVES (FIGS.
SR-1, 2, 3) HAVE BEEN USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REFERENCE PARAGRAPH 0.K.
i c
)
l F
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 26 MAY 19,1986 s
[
C.
BFD N0ZZLE l,
I PARA. 4.5.1 or WRC-107:
3 < L/Rn = 6.9 < 8:
0.K.
II PARA. 4.5.2 0F WRC-137:
LO /R 2.0 > 0.5.
0.K.
g III PARA. 4.5.3 or WRC-107:
N0ZZLE WALL THICKNESS = 3.75 IN. > 0.5 IN. = ATTACHED PIPE THICKNESS:
0.K.
IV USE Or WRC-107 CURVES:
I f = 0.13 T= 15.9 SOLID LINES APPLIED WITHOUT EXTRAPOLATION:
0.K.
CONCLUSION:
SG LOCAL STRESSES ARE LESS THAN ALLOWABLES.
I
.i I
~
I
'I f
0 f.
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 27 l,
MAY 19, 1986
[
[
ITEM F5A
{
ISSUE
SUMMARY
PROVIDE EVALUATION OF PRESSURIZER SUPPORT FRAME.
REFERENCE:
CYGNA CALCULATION 85037/2-F
RESPONSE
FOUR LATERAL BRACES (L3x3x1/4) HAVE BEEN DESIGNED TO REDUCE THE SEISMIC MOVEMENT AS SHOWN IN THE FOLLOWING SHEETS.
THESE NEW BRACES _ARE ATTACHED TO THE LIFTING LUGS OF THE PRESSURIZER.
A
SUMMARY
OF THE EVALUATION OF THE EXISTING AND NEW PRESSURIZER SUPPORTS IS ALSO SHOWN ON THE FOLLOWING SHEETS.
AS SHOWN IN THE
SUMMARY
. ALL SUPPORT ELEMENTS ARE ADEQUATE.
THE g
PRESSURIZER DISPLACEMENTS ARE ALSO VERY SMALL.
/
l.
s CONCLUSION:
THE PRESSURIZER SUPPORT FRAME IS ADEQUATE.
.I i
ti 5
i I
c i
'T
.s YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 28 MtY 19, 1986 fi l
}
[
[
SUMMARY
OF PRESSURIZER SUPPORT EVALUATION - (D + YCS + N0ZZLE LOADS) 1.
NEW L3X3X1/4 BRACES rp MAX. AXIAL ALLOWABLE BENDING STRESS (KSI)
INTERACTION STRESS AXIAL STRESS 00E TO ECCENTRICITIES COEFFICIENT NODES (KSI)
(KSI)
FB FB,
AISC EON (1.6-1A) gg 7
Y h211.212 1.94 11.77 6.3R 0.66 0.425 <1.0
.LO.ll 0 221. 223 4.21 23.95 13.84 1.46 0.718 <1.0
'g (0.K.)
2.
EXISTING 1 3/4"p BOLTS CONNECTI'iG SUPPORT LINES AND FR AME MAXIMUM SHEAR STRESS 3.2 KSI < 10 KSI (0.K.)
MAXIMUM TENSION STRESS = 0.4 KSI < 20 KSI (0.K.)
'I i
k 3.
EXISTING SUPPORT BEAMS BEAM MAXIMUM AXIAL + BENDING MAXIMUM SHEAR NODES SIZE STRESS (KSI)
STRESS (KSI)
- 80. 86 W10X49 20.1 < 26.4 (0.K.)
10.1 < 17.6 (O.K.)
- 96. 97 W12X53 17.6 < 26.4 (0.K.)
8.7 < 17.6 (0.K.)
f a
I YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC OUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 29 MAY 19, 1986
E 3 4.
UPLIFT FORCES AT BEAM STATS (" " FORCE IS COMPRESSION)
's N0DE UPLIFT FORCES (KIPS)
No.
D 3-D YCS NOZZLE LOADS TOTAL 85
-11.2 6.9 0.1
- 4.2 i
89
-19.1 11.7 0.6
- 6.8 93
-16.1 9.9 0.3 5.9 97
-21.9 13.4 0'7 7.8 THEREFORE THERE IS NO UPLIFT AT BEAMS SEATS.
I 5.
TOTAL DISPLACEMENTS - (D + YCS + N0ZZLE LOADS)
DISPLACEMENT (INCHES)
I NooE LOCATION X (E-W)
Y (VERT.)
2 (N-S) 107 TOP OF PRESSURIZER 0.0234 0.193 0.0062,
76 PRESSURIZER AT BEAM SUPPORT 0.0130 0.193 0.0042
[
100 BOTTOM of PRESSURIZER 0.0129 0.194 0.0044 l
6.
MAXIMUM ANCHOR BOLT FORCES AT NODE 212:
TENSION = 4.38 K. SHEAR = 1.91 K INTERACTION RATIO = 0.98 i
g7.
MAXIMUM BASE PLATE STRESS - 7.32 < 21.6 KSI ALLOWABLE.
i l
.A YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 30 i
MAY 19, 1986
[
PRESSURIZER YMa di A
ll
-2 t-A iy[. Y.th U
-c)a====--
!j d.,
g,
y'
.s yd/
9, SUPPORT f
~
4 y
j, LUG u
g I
a s..
2 t-0 j;
i 4
4 r
p yJ ;i
.l p
,< v I,
3
?- 1 g
- 4. -
_.. u..
) n '. - {
7 s
1 8
$ f1 j,
?
,N' s
2 c-i : r f,.
l *y@
'F'[.:===.:--lA ',
g JI:
j g
p g ',
l[..f'%. j
[.1 l.
p
,N e's fj 3
1' I
if 5
6
- is i
,F-s 1
7 i
(
1 a
i S k ! j; ji i
E 31-I!
(!!
IIl F-g 4
n n[
3 u nisc s
i t j
,y: [:,
l tun s
s
.,n !p
[
in:i i':!!i s,
i ;.J i
f f
f
..;,,r.5eA
(_
i 93 ;!
' v.g:: R. 1 e v/,:'.
.N i
I s!;
~
y l'
h j
l
[b
' k y.,
H t
4
'I y
I 1
i r
nj j
c- --4) l:.!
[
i NMkjk
~
2 ruaw y'
r
'.,I,
- Mrm y
p l.[.
Ili
'd kwi c
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 31 MAY 19.1986
q
~
PRESSURIZER SUPPORT MODIFICATION 2
NEW L3x3x1/4 BRACES T
g p
[
~
hh
~
e&
vtr.nt i s
Q
- /
!g"
)
\\
unic i f
n q.
\\I t
/' '
- *
- I. -
~
' y?
't, 2vN
""~//
i j
3
\\
k
-xT. o' iza.K -s
. I
./ -
g.-$
'^C'#
gn,,
,,,.. - 4 l
/
e,- c.e s
,==.s em-1 s.
l W
c
\\
i x
o e
_ _ z, bs' a ='.o*
PL AN - EL.1091'-3k" (q OF PRESSURIZER LIFTING LUG) f YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 32 MAY 19,1986
te PRESSURIZER SUPPORT MODIFICATION (CONT'D) l.'
CONNECTION DETAILS FOR NEW BRACE SYSTEM 3-K
-[.'f'***b K
-* b.'h * -* @
urT~ -
_~-
1 4r Y.n,e7-1 d-
/
U
-- i, r--
['
jM i t_,_
D l
r
@I Is
_.p__
.e s.
i
...p. [ 3
- w= 5,g s -.
a *** ** * '-~
garo6
-.y pp Ic
+. '
+
, C, /@
@N hs.+=.Nv-e
' e a
~
.45 5
_- /--
e,
--,+.,, x y x
3 g
k--.,.
,sem'r g au
~ '
~
],
i
.$$u, Fp
- R,g y
@ce.
. /.
~
o-C" 7.__.._ [,=%g
/n
~
e m v-~liI h
-(!.
.em r..-
X x:
.e ewa,*,
Ca
/i N 22 1
@[
j
- ~ F " >
,_/Y I
7J
,..g.'<..
s i
6 3
.c c,,os r
n~ or y a.e.'?
wus
..,v,..
/
\\
(,.,)m-g- Qa.s.
-c=
,w.,
-r r%
g, J
4 ennemuo
/,
A j
i
., s 5 2 n G)c, ;;-3;2y,,j h
$-=s. zea
- ~-
'A Em E
'B
- ' ~
DETAll DETAll I
F
.1
,j 4
'T, YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 33 MAY 19,1986 3.
/
I 2
PRESSURIZER SUPPORT MODIFICATION (CONT'D)
BASE PLATES FOR NEW BRACE SYSTEM L-Y L
"25
.,w
.c e...
t'%
,e
,e a
- p%
~..
,eiv.g.r..v._9 9g i
g '[I D
\\%?; \\ 'b a
- u. t.,..v.
l it)
\\C? \\ ?
^
.!h!(
'u n
yr
'3
(.,.i 5'
rs n
,. w. s. s..a
~~'
~t E-
@@/
' e -@
.c v. g..a
.. 8-
.....u 10
- Ai **0' L a
/
4 e
(p et. t
.v,
/
,.,v.-
rw 1
- l%.:: "*:,
R~
bQ 'Mt&
' b i x -'
f
- NT L &d.
,4 res.
i et 's ma T cvm t
, b g,.,,_
- p.,
,h*
- D*.T UTf")
~n-
.s..-w..
i N l'e p*Pa.T at6t g i
(
f (C
C' (O
m nae
% e. -,-
i I
' DETAIL DETAll a
1 I
I i
.1 1
.1.
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 34 J-MAY 19, 1986
,__1
E PRESSURIZER SUPPORT MODIFICATION (CONT'D)
BASE PLATES FOR NEW BRACE SYSTEM
~
'T i
.N9.I.fl-1 ALL $1Ett PL Alt $ A'It) $1000 T'JR AL $6 0 A t f $. l(dJt f i HE A51M A36 MATERIAL 2
WEl.Dif fG $ltAL( eE pia ((CODaters watw Awg
,..g N 'T'.4.N Ns'Or.f.[ E C T ROCE S *ilAtt P4 80900 ISI v
3 Att F A $1E t8E #5 $ HALL BE A3?S PDt t$ Att 1* e pot 1$ CD'alEC IW8G t 3
- 3 = tid A'80 S tt f L Pt A 1 t e.
$llAtt 64 AVE DOUBLE Nut $ 'eGuttNED es HAqu
. ALL CC**C RE TE E RPA ttilO's A7 6400$ 5. Hat t et ** ele g
l#L Il
- llW19t BOtt$ O# EOUtW Al f NI$ flat pastJeka.jke gp EMBEDDIAEf 41 LElfG1H Or tut $t got t$ $nAtt sw g',
I 5 A Pt Att 3*m 2'r% = 3* C A's HE U'.t D 10 set ti Act og i.it
.b
- m 2*m 3's 3* AllD $lfftA PL A T E S 4
4
(.
t 5*l.** le N OsttLD *V l'/w O'A a#0t.t A1 'etW'E fle i
- MD fe '/[ DtA 640Lt Al P.%IFt Alt I esO(1 e*. Lac.)
%,,- vm ~, ~,
. I.,-
- 7. t or eastRtar E
-A.
.E
<t e,t.ii v u,.1 <,.,i ci s*
~ e.-
4 e ice tetet eon.*e=N tw ts. inets
~
BILL 05-t /t A T E.R I A L
'.T, 3:1 DL SC R IP TION p,.,L ni
=.A.ms # A s
,g
[.s.nJ
.2 v, :t s. c..,4 > sw, :i A uooo 3
- ';.f S
~N
t * ' S'.**n'
' h c'A "o' t s ;.s.. 9; g
.g v,.tA..
~,..,.,..._..gt_
. N-v i.,,
w.
r 5
2___iL 3 3
)
&gg. -
c.
,2-(
s, o. 5 et i
i i v..$.5 A u c,..
),,,...., fr 6
. w., u.
.<E 1
F c
~ ~.
,,, ~..,,<,.,, - t, L c c. 3 g
., T. 3,~ c n m,, r,c u,.,.,. - A S,s,,,. E l
,,f j
e.
l
.,.. w o
- c. et.uc 2s ~o,,
..,, n As. s a. c.
,,.c ii g c se,t.,
ns a,ert t.
. s, ii 1 p.; e me..n ews. w e s.sg w__.
r.
(
Ot m os $ s h s o.se. n si,s asm na. s t
_ SEC TtON 'i C - Q-tso~ cc*"
}
t t r vat eon L
Loon *NC-s/EST (1TML
~
2 t A. c. A i
l 1
I i
l
.i l
l 6
1 i
1 i
2 l
1 l
l YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 35 7
.A MAY 19, 1986
?
6.
ITEM FSB ISSUE
SUMMARY
STATE INDIVIDUAL LOAD CASES INCLUDED IN THE COMBINED LOADING (FOR THE PRESSURIZER).
REFERENCES:
(1)
" MAJOR EQUIPMENT 00ALIFICATION", REV. 1. CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES. DATED 5/84.
(2)
" SEISMIC REEVALUATION AND RETROFIT CRITERIA", DC1, REV. 3.
i O
CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES, DATED 4/86 (PRELIMINARY).
l (3)
" REEVALUATION GUIDELINE SEISMIC CRITERIA FOR SEP GROUP II PLANTS", REV. 1. NRC, SEPT. 20, 1982.
RESPONSE
THELOADSINCLUDEDINTHECOMBfNEDLOADINGARE DESCRIBED IN REF. (1) AND ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH I
REFERENCES (2) AND (3):
I.E.,
l N0ZZLE LOADS COMBINED LOAD =
WT + P YCS
+
+
t l
THE NOTATION IS THAT USED IN REF. (3) 0 F
1 I
'e YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 36 MAY 19, 1986
.o
~
4
, ITEM F5c (ISSUE
SUMMARY
- JUSTIFY APPLICABILITY OF THE BIJLAARD METHOD FOR THE PRESSURIZER.
- EEFERENCE:
CYGNA CALCULATION BINDER 86064/3F, DATED 4/86.-
- RESPONSE:
A.
SllRGE LINE N0ZZLE h
I D /Dn = 0.12 _ THESE PARAMETERS ARE WITHIN B0UNDS OF n
Dg/T
- 22. 5_
FIG. A.1 0F WRC-107:
0.K.
II PARA. 3.5.1 0F WRC-107 - N0ZZLE STRESSES:
-l -
N0ZZLE WALL THICKNESS = 0.72 IN. > 0.437 IN. - ATTACHED l
THICKNESS: 0.K.
III PARA. 3.5.2 0F WRC-107:
i Y = 3.7, f=2.8.
U = 0.447 n
CONSERVATIVE DASHED LINES OF WRC-107 CURVES (FIGS.
SP-3, 4) HAVE BEEN USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PARAGRAPH 0.K.
r I
,b YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 37 ll' MAY 19, 1986
! [,.
[
[
B.
AT SUPPORT LUGS I
PARA. 4.5.1 of WRL 107:
^
L/Rn = 16.1 > 8 STRESS RESULTS ARE UNCONSERVATIVE,
}
BUT NOT BY MORE THAN 10%.
4 HOWEVER, THERE ARE SUFFICIENT MARGINS (THE SMALLEST MARGIN COMPUTED IS 20.6 KSI ACTUAL VS. 56 KSI J
ALLOWABLE STRESS):
0.K.
b
/R
= 3.0 > 0.5:
0.K.
II PARA. 4.5.2 0F WRC-107:
LO g
l III PARA. 4.5.3 0F WRC-107:
N/A g
IV USE OF WRC-107 CURVES:
- 1 0.033, @2 = 0.211, 7= 7.5
- g SOLID LINES APPLIED WITHOUT EXT,RAPOLATION
0.K.
C.
SAFETY & RELIE'F PIPING N0ZZLES (3 EACH)
I LARGEST Dg/Dg = 0.08 WITHIN BOUNDS OF FIG. A.1 0F
_l D & =-22.5 WRC-107 h
!l II PARA. 3.5.1 0F WRC-107:
N0ZZLES ARE REINFORCED: 0.K.
III PARA. 3.5.2 0F WRC-107:
g A.
SAFETY VALVES PIPING N0ZZLES (2 EACH) 7= 1.06 (USED: 5), f=1.33,W=0.35 r
B.
RELIEF VALVE PIPING N0ZZLE 7= 1.40 (USED: 5), f = 1.5, U = 0.37 IN BOTH CASES, CONSERVATIVE DASHED LINES OF WRC-107 CURVES HAVE BEEN USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PARAGRAPH:
0.K.
1 i
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 38
.i.
MAY 19,1986 s
I D.
AT LIFTING LUGS LOCAL STRESSES DEVELOPED BY THE " SAM ELIMINATOR" LUG FORCES ARE SMALL (< 2 KSI) (SEE P. B-6 TO B-10 OR CYGNA CALCULATION BINDER 85037/2F).
NO FURTHER REVIEW IS,
NECESSARY.
- CONCLUSION:
ALL LIMITATIONS OF THE BIJLAARD METHOD OF LOCAL STRESS ANALYSIS HAVE BEEN OBSERVED.
I l.
A A
4 0
T i
7 e
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 39 MAY 19,1986
f J ITEM F6A
]ISSUE
SUMMARY
- STATE THE EXACT METHOD OF LOAD COMBINATION (FOR THE MAIN COOLANT PUMPS).
REFERENCES:
(1)
" MAJOR EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION", REV. 1. CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES. DATED 5/84.
(2)
" SEISMIC REEVALUATION AND RETROFIT CRITERIA" DC1, REV. 3.
l CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES. DATED 4/86 (PRELIMINARY).
il (3)
" REEVALUATION GUIDELINE SEISMIC CRITERIA FOR SEP GROUP II PLANTS", REV. 1. NRC, SEPT. 20, 1982.
?
/'
RESPONSE
THE METHOD OF LOAD COMBINATION IS DESCRIBED IN REF. (1) AND IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH REFERENCES (2) AND (3):
I.E.,
l COMBINED LOAD =
WT + P YCS' N0ZZLE LOADS
+
+
ll THE NOTATION IS THAT USED IN REF. (3).
I r
.1
'I J
'I 1
7s YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 40 7
MAY 19, 1986
,A -
(ITEMF7AI
}TSSUE
SUMMARY
- SHOW THAT THE PROPER ASME CODE RULES FOR THE APPROPRIATE CLASS OF VALVES WERE USED.
l' i
RESPONSE
ASME CODE ARTICLE NC-3521 HAS BEEN USED TO QUALIFY BODY SECTIONS OF CLASS 1 AND CLASS 2 VALVES.
g t
THE USE IS APPROPRIATE FOR CLASS 2 VALVES.
FOR BODY SECTIONS OF CLASS 1 VALVES, THE ARTICLE CAN ALSO BE USED IF THE SEISMIC STRESSES ARE LESS THAN 20% OF THE ALLOWABLES ACCORDING TO DC-1, g
REV. 3.
THE VALIDATION OF THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE USE OF THE ARTICLE FOR CLASS 1 VALVES IS DEMONSTRATED BELOW BY SHOWING I.
THAT SEISMIC LOADS ARE'LESS THAN 20% OF THE TOTAL LOADS.
VALVE SEISMIC STRESS, KSI
% OF ALLOWABLE l 1.
MAIN COOLANT LOOP SHEAR
= 0.04 VERY LOW ISOLATION VALVES BENDING = 0.05
'I j
2.
MAIN COOLANT PUMP SHEAR
= 0.01 VERY LOW DISCHARGE CHECK VALVES BENDING = 0.05 1
3.
MAIN COOLANT BYPASS
' SHEAR
= 0.20 VERY LOW PIPING ISO. VALVES BENDING = 0.40 4.-
PRESSURIZER SPRAY VALVES l
A.
PR-MOV-191 (1)
B.
HCV - 205 P +Pg = 4.96 6%
g 1
YNPS - RESOLUTION.0F NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 41 MAY 19,1986 A
[
[
5.
MAIN' STEAM (2)
(
NON-RETURN VALVES
} 6.
MAIN STEAM (2)
CODE SAFETY VALVES a 7.
MAIN FEED CHECK (2)
VALVES 8.
CODE SAFETY VALVES (1)
,h 9.
PRESSURIZER
- l l
RELIEF & BLOCK VALVES j
A.
PR-MOV-512 P +Pg = 0.64
/
VERY LOW
!g g
1 B.
PR-S0V-90 (1)
- 10. SAFETY INJECTION (S.I)
LOOP ISO. VALVES P +Pg 2.30 4%
g
. 7
[
VALVES BENDING = 0.24
. [
l
- 12. SHUTDOWN COOLING Pg+Pg = 0.90 VERY Low (
1.5%)
. l ISO. VALVES
- 13. COLD LEG P +Pg = 3.48 6%
g DRAIN VALVES (3)
- 14. CHARGING PRESSURIZER P +Pg - 2.44 41 g
]
SPRAY VALVE (3)
]
a 7
b YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 42 MAY 19,1986 J
mev
--mm s er-r,
,cw,
-~-
e
. 15. PRESSURIZER P +Pg - 1.58 2.57.
n DRAIN VALVE
'l i
NOTES:
(1)
ASME PARA NC-3521 NOT USED TO QUALIFY BODY.
BODY QUALIFIED OTHERWISE.
(2)
CLASS 2 VALVE: USE OF ASME PARA. NC3521 IS APPROPRIATE.
(3)
HSS VALVES QUALIFIED SUBSEQUENT TO ISSUANCE OF l
REV. 1 0F MAJOR EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION REPORT.
CONCLUSION:
ALL (CLASS 1, CLASS 2) VALVE BODY SECTIONS ARE oVALIFIED BY SATISFYING DCf REV. 3 REQUIREMENTS.
I
~
I
- I
~
- I d
T-
'I o
e i9 O
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF' NRC OUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 43
{
MAY 19,1986
[
bITEMF7AII ISSUE
SUMMARY
SHOW THAT SEP REEVALUATION GUIDELINES ARE USED WITH NRC SPECTRA LOADINGS (FOR THE HSS VALVES).
[ RESPONSE:
IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA. DC1.
REV. 3. THE HSS VALVES HAVE ONLY BEEN ANALYZED UNDER YCS SEISMIC LOADS.
THE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ARE SEP REEVALUATION GUIDELINES.
ANALYSIS.UNDER THE NRC SPECTRA SEISMIC LOADS IS NOT NECESSARY.
SEE RESPONSE TO ITEMS FIA AND F18.
CONCLUSION:
ANALYSIS OF THE HSS VALVES UNDER NRC SPECTRA l
SEISMIC LOADS IS NOT NECESSARY.
I.
.I
'I
.I D
r 1
4 1
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 44 MAY 19, 1986
'T ITEM F7B (ISSUE
SUMMARY
REFERENCES:
1 (1)
" MAJOR EOUIPMENT 00ALIFICATION" REV. 1. CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES DATED 5/84.
(2)
" SEISMIC REEVALUATION AND RETROFIT CRITERIA" DC1, REV. 3.
b CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES DATED 4/86 (PRELIMINARY).
l (3)
" REEVALUATION GUIDELINE SEISMIC CRITERIA FOR SEP GROUP II PLANTS". REV. 1. NRC, SEPT. 20, 1982.
I
RESPONSE
THE LOADS INCLUDED IN THE COMBINED LOADING ARE DESCRIBED IN REF. (1) AND ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH I
REFERENCES (2) AND (3):
I.E.,
,l N0ZZLE. LOADS COMBINED LOAD =
WT + P YCS
+
+
!l
{
THE NOTATION IS THAT USED IN REF. (3).
O r
.1
.h l
7
.i YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 45 MAY 19, 1986
.i
~
[
ITEM F70
, ISSUE
SUMMARY
DOCUMENT ADEQUACY OF VALVE HCV-205
}
REFERENCES:
'I (1)
CYGNA CALCULATION 83033/10-F. SET D (2)
CYGNA CALCULATION 86064/3-F, SET 0
RESPONSE
THE DRAWING OF VALVE HCV-205 IS SHOWN IN THE FOLLOWING SHEET.
l ALL THE DIMENSIONS SHOWN IN THE DRAWING WERE OBTAINED FROM WALK-DOWN.
'i THE MAXIMUM VALVE ACCELERATIONS IN THE X','Y(VERTICAL) AND Z DIRECTIONS ARE 1.93G. (1+0.87)G AND 2.37 G. RESPECTIVELY.
THE I
STRESS
SUMMARY
IS AS BELOW:
- I D
r 1
'I
.i
'T i.
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 46
'I, -
MAY 19, 1986
bSECTION*
MAX. STRESS ALLOWABLE STRESS DESCRIPTION (KSI)
(KSI)
REMARKS Pg = 0.54 0.70 Su = 52.85 ASTM-A351 GR. CF8M
~~ YOKE (2-2)*
Pg+Pg = 0.85 1.05 Su = 79.3 (ASSUMED).
Pg = 0.13 0.70 Su = 52.85 ASTM-A351 GR. CF8M BONNET 'l Pn+Pg = 0.45 1.05 Su = 79.3 h
(3-3) l Pg = 0.30 0.70 Su = 52.85 ASTM-A351 GR. CF8M BONNET 2 P +Pg = 1.67 1.05 Su = 79.3 n
g (4-4)
[
lBONNETTO TENSION = 0.82 0.70 Su - 96.6 SIX 3/4" BOLTS AT BODY BOLTS SHEAR
= 0.09 0.42 Su = 57.96 3-3/4" BOLT CIRCLE (5-5)
DIA.
ASME-SA-193 GR.B7 i
'gBODY(6-6)
P +P
= 4.96 1.05 Su = 79.3 ASTM-A351 GR. CF8M g
g g
SEE FIGURE, NEXT SHEET.
CONCLUSION:
VALVE HCV-205 IS ADEQUATE.
T YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC OVESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 47 T
MAY 19,1986
[
HANDWHEEL
- u%
L-
) g2d
(
ll f
f 3\\
J 7/1 l
2 2
L-
,]r v
J 3 3 8
b4A7 6 BOLTS,3/4"f,3-3/4"BCD 3%
.l 5
c
/
k 2 *'
M s
I 6
I NOTES:
(1)
FROM VENDOR. THE DIMENSION FROM THE PIPE CENTER-LINE TO THE TOP OF HANDWHEEL IS 17.15".
THE INSIDE DIAMETER OF THE BODY j
SECTION IS 1.33".
THE WALL THICKNESS OF THE g
BODY SECTION IS AT LEAST 0.34".
Ir (2)
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES.
VALVE HCV-205 l
i YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 48 MAY 19, 1986
,b y
,. ITEM F7E ISSLE SLM%RY:
DOCUMENT ADEQUACY OF VALVES A.
PR-F0V-191. AND
[
B PR-SV-181 AND PR-SV-182
{REFEREtCE:
" ANALYSIS OF SEISMIC STRESSES IN CLAMPSEAL VALVES WITH ACTUATOR".
0
--(1)
CONVAL S.0. 8330. CONVAL INC.. DATED 3/26/85.
'h (2) YAEC LETTER. W.F. LUCAS TO D. GRAHAM (CONVAL).
P 439/85. DATED 5/1/85.
(3) CONVAL INC. LETTER., D. GRAHAM TO W.F. LUCAS (YAEC). DATED 5/7/85.
.I~(4)
(
" DESIGN REPORT FOR 3171% PRESSURIZER SAFETi VALVE". DRESSER INDUSTRIES REPORT No. SR-317-19. REV.1. DATED 3/15/84.
g (5) " PRESSURIZER SAFETY AND RELIEF PIPING". STONE AND WEBSTER CALCULATION No.11986.16-NP(B)-01-XE. REV.1. DATED 6/10/83.
l RESPONSE:
ll L
ADEcuacy or VAtyt PR-t0V-191 THE FOLLOWING IS A
SUMMARY
OF REFS. (1, 2. AND 3) WHICH ADDRESS THE
{
QUALIFICATION OF VALVE PR-!0V-191.
I O
AT THE INLET N0ZZLE SEISMIC LOADS: 3G'S IN EACH OF THREE PERPENDICULAR DIRECTIONS.
T 1
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC OUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 49 MAY 19. 1986
E F
ACTUATOR SEISMIC P
LOAD COMBINATION: W L
+
+
+
7 RESULTING MEMBR. + BENDING S.I.
14.063 PSI.
0 ALLOWABLE STRESS = 1.5Sg FOR SA-182. GR.F316 AT 670 F
AT THE YOKE ARMS SEISMIC LOADS: ALONG PIPE AXIS:
1.48G VERTICAL:
1.69G PERP. TO PIPE AXIS: 0.81G ACTUATOR TOROUE LOAD COMBINATION:
M + SEISMIC
+
i RESULTING MEMBR. + BENDING S.I. = 1,7,846 PSI l
ALLOWABLE STRESS = 1.5Sg FOR SA-182. GR. F316 AT 1000F
VALVE-ACTUATOR SYSTEM FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCY = 16.1 HZ "
.t0IE ACTUAL SEISMIC ACCELERATIONS AT ACTUATOR MASS POINT DETERMINED THROUGH CYGNA PIPE ANALYSIS (C'.CULATION BINDER 85037/13F) ARE LESS THAN SEISMIC ACCELERATIONS USED TO QUALIFY THr. INLET N0ZZLE.
THE VALVE-ACTUATOR SYSTEM WAS MODELED TO HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCY f,
0F 16.1 HZ IN THE CYGNA PIPING ANALYSIS 85037/13F.
e i
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 50 MAY 19, 1986
.._--p..-_-.-.._.
17 L
ADEQUACY OF VALVES PR-SV-181 AND PR-SV-182 b
THE FOLLOWING IS A
SUMMARY
OF QUALIFICATION DESCRIBED IN DETAIL IN REF.
(4):
OPERATING LOAD COMBINATIONS:
LC1:
PRESSURE + WT + THERMAL
+ SRSS (SEISMIC. TIME HISTORY)
LC2:
PRESSURE + WT + THERMAL
- SRSS (SEISMIC. TIME HISTORY)
~
LC3:
LC1 + FLOW REACTION FORCE O
LC4:
LC2 + Flow REACTION FORCE SEISMIC LOADS = 2G HORIZ.
1G. VERT. FOR THE VAL E SUPERSTRUCTURE
= FROM S f W PIPING ANALYSIS (5) FOR THE VALVE BODY CRITERIA:
CLASS 1 VALVE CRITERIA 0F THE ASE CODE. SECTION III 1977 l
ED. SUMMER'1978 ADDENDA.
[
RESULTS:
I Allow. STRESS CONDITION /
MAX STRESS AT TEMPERATURE LOAD PART MATERIAL PSI PSI l1.
BODY OUTLET CONNECTION l
A. BOLTING 3A-193. GR.B7 17.939 2S = 59.000 OPERATING g
r tu i
7
.A YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 51 MAY 19, 1986
b B. FLANGE SA-182. GR.F316 18,010 1.5S = 27,000 OPERATING g
SA-182. GR.F316 24,381 Sy = 30,000 GASKET SEATING L.
- 2. BODY INLET CONNECTION A. BOLTING SA-193,GR.B7 32,559 2S = 53,600 OPERATING g
I B. FLANGE SA-182. GR.F316 21,707 1.5Sn = 24,450 OPERATING SA-182. GR.F316 24,141 Sy - 30,000 GASKET SEATING B.BOLTEDBODY 3
BONNET JOINT A. BOLTING SA-193 GR.B7 11,060 2S = 59,600 OPERATING g
~
B. BODY B0WL SA-182,GR.F316 8,661 1.5Sn = 27,000 OPERATING FLANGE I
4.
N0ZZLE SA-182. GR.F347 14,657 Sn = 18.200 INTERNAL PRESSURE j
i
- 5. DISC SA-637,GR.688 P = 46,753 Sn = 51,000 SPRING LOAD n
P +P =59,711 1.5Sg = 76,500 SPRING LOAD g g P = 13,655 Sg 51,000 SYSTEM PRESSURE n
.I P +P =16,797 1.5Sg = 76,500 SYSTEM PRESSURE.
g g l 6.
BONNET LOWER FLANGE A. BOLTING SA-193 GR.87 10,611 Sg = 29,500 OPERATING B. FLANGE SA-105 12,215 1.5Sn = 29.100 OPERATING 29,162 1.5Sg = 34,950 GASKET SEATING
- 8. SPRING ERITUNGSTEN 72,729 0.75Sy=112.125 i
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 52
~
'I MAY 19,1986
b9.
SPINDLE SA-479 GR.347 COMPR.=17,427 Sn = 19,300 VERT. SEISMIC 5G BEND.=6,117 1.5Sg = 30,000 HOR. SEISMIC =5G l.
- 10. SUPPORT Pt.
SA-479. GR.316 12,925 1.5Sn = 27,000 SPRING LOAD
}
ASSEMBLY
'! 11. COMPRESSION SB-164, CLASS A COMPR.=6,290 Sg 21.200 SPRING LOAD l
SCREW BEARING =7,658 Sy = 23,800 b12. SPRING SA-105 BEND. = 12,339 1.5S = 29,100 SPRING LOAD n
WASHERS BEARING = 11,804 Sy = 29,100 h
SHEAR = 1,998 0.6Sg = 11,640 IN SOME CASES THE AB0VE MAX. STRESSES ARE CALCULATED MAKING SIMPLIFYING, CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTIONS.
IN ADDITION TO ABOVE STRESS CHECKS,*REF. (4) SHOWS:
1.
VALVE FUNDAMENTAL FREQ.
50HZ l
2.
REQUIRED PROVIDED A.
VALVE BODY
~
(l THICKNESSES, IN.
[
AT INLET NECK 0.945 1.012 AT BODY B0WL 0.380 0.650 Ig AT OUTLET NECK 0.315 0.650 B.
SHEAR AREA IN THREADS ALONG INNER EDGE OF 7
.]
UPPER FLANGE TO RESIST SPRING FORCE, IN2 2.103 4.653 7,
CONCLUSION:
VALVES PR-MOV-191, PR-SV-181, AND PR-SV-132 ARE l
ADEQUATE TO RESIST THE POSTULATED LOADS.
'9 1
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 53 MAY 19,1986
I ITEM F7F
(
ISSUE
SUMMARY
CONFIRM THE VALIDITY OF ALL ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE EVALUATIONS (OF HSS VALVES).
F"
REFERENCES:
a (1)
" MAJOR E0taipHENT QU ALIFIC ATION" REV.1. CYGN A ENERGY SERVICES. DATED 5/84.
(2)
" MAJOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SAFE SHUTDOWN VALVE b
ASSUMPTIONS", YAEC INTERNAL MEMO FROM R.G. CARTER TO J.D.
HAZELTINE. DATED 6/15/84.
I
(
RESPONSE
1[QUALIFICATIONOFSOMEHS i
ASSUMPTIONS WERE MADE IN THE REV.
VALVES DUE TO MISSING VENDOR INFORMATION.. THE ASSUMPTIONS MADE I
WERE IN MOST CASES. CONSERVATIVE AND IN REV. 1 QUALIFICATION IT WAS SHOWN THAT STRESSES WERE LOW.
I fl SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF REF. (1). THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSUMPTIONS HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY PHYSICAL EXAMINATION DURING THE SPRING 1984 REFUELING OUTAGE.
THE RESULTS OF THAT FIELD l
EXAMINATION ARE IN REF. (2).
f VALVE QUALIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN RE-PERFORMED IN THE LIGHT OF THE INFORMATION GATHERED DURING THE FIELD EXAMINATION.
THE RESULTS 0F THIS REQUALIFICATION HAVE BEEN SUMMARIZED AND PRESENTED IN y'
RESPONSE TO ITEM F7G. HEREIN:
I.E.,
THE
SUMMARY
STRESSES APPEARING IN ITEM F7G INCORPORATE THE FIELD EXAMINATION INFORMATION IN ADDITION TO USING THE SEISMIC ACCELERATIONS FROM
..i LATEST AVAILABLE PIPING ANALYSES.
WITH REFERENCE TO THE
SUMMARY
STRESSES PRESENTED UNDER ITEM F7G. IT IS APPARENT THAT YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NPC 00ESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 54 MAY 19,1986
,e
[
l.
THE ORIGIN AL ASSUMPTIONS WERE V ALID AND/0R CONSERV ATIVE. AND THE VALVES ARE STILL QUALIFIED.
I.
CONCLUSION:
ASSUMPTIONS MADE IN CHAPTER 7 0F REF. (1) HAVE BEEN
{
VERIFIED THROUGH A FIELD EXAMINATION AND T,HE HSS VALVES REMAIN QUALIFIED.
B
'I I
~
- I I
1 1
I r
1 I
,5 a
i YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 55 MAY 19. 1986
[
ITEM F7G b
ISSUE
SUMMARY
CONFIRM THE ADEQUACY OF ALL HSS VALVES ON THOSE SYSTEMS WHICH HAVE RECENTLY BEEN REANALYZED.
'7
^
REFERENCES:
1 (1)
CYGNA CALCULATION 86064/3-F, SET D D
(2)
CYGNA CALCULATION 85037/1-F h
(3)
CONVAL INC., REPORT, S.O. 8330, 3/26/85. AND CONVAL.
INC., LETTER, D. GRAHAM TO W.F. LUCAS (YAEC), 5/7/85 (4)
" DESIGN REPORT FOR DRESSER 31719A PRESSURIZER SAFETY
- l VALVE", DRESSER INDUSTRIES, REPORT No. SR-317-19.
3/15/84 I
RESPONSE
ACCORDING TO THE RESULTS OBTAINED FROM THE LATEST PIPING ANALYSES THE STRESSES DEVELOPED
. I IN THE MOST CRITICAL VALVE SECTIONS ARE SHOWN IN THE NEXT SHEET.
ALL STRESSES ARE SMALLER THAN THE ALLOWABLES.
il l
CONCLUSION:
ALL HSS VALVES ARE ADEQUATE.
D r
9 i
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 56 MAY 19, 1986
E
[
t%X'.' STRESS ALLO @BLE
[
VALVE SECTION (KSI)
(KSI)
]1.MAINCOOLANTLOOP MOTOR TO YOKE BOLTS TENSION = 9.90 Sy = 25 ISOLATION VALVES BONNET TO BODY BOLTS TENSION = 20.37 S
22.8 y
]_
" 2. MAIN COOLANT LOOP PUMP BONNET TO BODY BOLTS TENSION = 16.16 S = 60 y
DISCHARGE CHECK VALVES YOKE Pn+P a 10.85 3.6Sg = 62.6 l3.MAINCOOLANTBYPASS g
PIPING ISOLATION VALVES YOKE 6g+ (B = 17.85 1.5S = 28.2 l4.PRESSURIZERSPRAYVALVES (K)V-191 CONTROLS)
~
- 5. MAIN STEAM UPPER STRUCTURE TEN $ ION =44.4 S = 87.0 y
NON-RETURN VALVES TO BONNET BOLTS SECTION THRU. BONNET 7 + (B = 3.19 1.8S = 31.5 3
T
- T = 0.87 1.8S = 31.5 6A. 2 1/2" X 6" MAIN STEAM BONNET M
B ll CODE SAFETY VALVES BONNET TO BODY BOLTS TENSION = 1.78 Sy = 87.0 i
( g+ (B = 3.05 1.8S = 31.5
- g68.6"x8"MAINSTEAM CODE SAFETY VALVES
- 7. MAIN FEED CHECK VALVES BONNET 7g+ (g = 18.08 1.8S = 31.5 BONNET TO BODY BOLTS TENSION = 16.84 Sy = 91.5 1
P +Pg 59.71 1.5Sn = 76.5
- 8. CODE SAFETY VALVES DISK n
j PR-SV-181 & 182 SUPPORT PLATE Pn+Pg = 12.93 1.5Sn = 27.0 E'
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 57 li-MAY 19, 1986 le a
?
l1
[-
[
MAX. STRESS ALLQ4ABLE VALVE SECTIOJ (KSI)
(KSI)
[
OPERATOR TO BONNET BOLTS TENSION = 4.72 0.7Su 105
{ 9. PRESSURIZER RELIEF AND BLOCK VALVES BONNET OPEN SECTION P +P = 13.1 3.6Sn 59.8 ng (PR-M)V-512 GOVERNS) l OPERATOR TO YOKE BOLTS TENSION = 14.21 S
82.8 l10.SAFETYINJECTIONLOOP y
P +Pg = 28.48 3.6Sn 62.6 ISOLATION VALVES YOKE n
l11.SAFETYINJECTIONLOOP COVER TO BODY BOLTS TENSION = 5.67 S = 82.8 y
ISOLATION CHECK VALVES PIN SECTION Pn+Pg = 26.83 1.5S 26.85 y
'I 1.2. SHUT 00WN COOLING OPERATOR TO YOKE BOLTS.i. TENSION = 13.18 Sy = 82.8 ISOLATION VALVES Y0hE Pn+Pg = 6.08 3.6Sn = 62.64
- 13. COLD LEG ORAIN VALVES OPERATOR TO YOKE BOLTS TENSION = 17.71 0.7Su = 105 YOKE Pn+Pg 21.0 3.6Sn 59.8
+
l 14. CHARGING PRESSURIZER OPERATOR TO YOKE BOLTS TENSION = 5.86 0.7Su 105 Pn+P = 26.92 3.6Sn = 59.8 SPRAY VALVE YOKE g
ll t!
f.
1 l
'T A
(ii YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 58 li:
MAY 19. 1986 le.
{
- [
'L f%X. STRESS ALLOWABLE
[
VALVE SECTION (KSI)
(KSI) i,
- 15. PRESSURIZER ORAIN OPERATOR TO YOKE BOLTS TENSION = 10.17 0.7S = 105
^
U l
VALVE' YOKE P +P = 10.92 3.6Sg = 59.8 ng
)
NOTE:
- DENOTES VALVES QUALIFIED SUBSEQUENT TO ISSUANCE OF REV. 1 MAJOR EQUIP QUALIFICATION REPORT. WHILE THE QUALIFICATION OF THESE VALVES WILL BE DESCRIBED IN DETAIL IN THE NEXT REVISION OF THE REPORT THE STATUS OF THESE I
VALVES' MOST CRITICAL SECTIONS ARE AS DESCRIBED ABOVE.
!I ll I
i l
9 11 l'l O
b i
I i
\\
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC OVESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 59
[, *,
MAY 19, 1986
i V
ITEM F8A ISSUE
SUMMARY
CLARIFY THE RESULTS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT PRESSURE STRESSES ARE INCLUDED (FOR THE HEAT EXCHANGERS).
i
REFERENCE:
" MAJOR EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION", REV. 1. CYGNA j
ENERGY SERVICES, DATED 5/84.
RESPONSE
SECTION 8.3 0F THE REFERENCE STATES THAT PRESSURE LOADING HAS g
BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE COMBINED LOADING.
ALSO EVALUATION RESULTS REPORTED IN SECTION 8.5.3 AND TABLE 8.5 0F THE REFERENCE INCLUDE CONSIDERATION OF PRESSURE STRESSES.
l, NOTE THAT SECTION 8.5.3 0F THE REFERENCE STATES THAT EVALUATION IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEP REEVALUATION GUIDELINES WHICH IN TURN AND (P +Pg) INCLUDE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM REQUIRES THAT P g
g PRESSURE STRESSES.
CONCLUSIONS:
PRESSURE STRESSES HAVE BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN THE EVALUATION OF HEAT EXCHANGERS.
rI 0
F 1
'i i
l
.1 e YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 60 1
1*
MAY 19, 1986
{
[
JTEM F88_
ISSUE
SUMMARY
CLARIFY WHETHER ANY OF THE RECOMMENDED SUPPORT MODIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED FOR THE HEAT EXCHANGERS AND. IF S0. PROVIDE DETAILED INFORMATION OF THE MODIFICATIONS.
T
REFERENCE:
" MAJOR EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION". REV. 1. CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES. DATED 5/84.
g
RESPONSE
A MODIFI. CATION TO THE HEAT EXCHANGERS' LOWER SUPPORTS. SHOWN IN IIG. 8.12 0F THE REFERENCE (SEE ALSO NE,XT SHEET). HAS BEEN PROPOSED.
THIS OR A SUBSTITUTE MODIFICATION THAT WILL PERFORM THE DESIRED FUNCTION WILL BE INSTALLED DURING THE
!l 1987 OUTAGE.
l I
.I i
r i
I
.1
,i l,a,
YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 61 j.
MAY 19, 1986
\\
[
>r e s
,,,>s..
MILT 2 so:.T ITYP.)
I* - t- - - - - - - -
.d L-g, 3 *a 4 *m0 '-F"Q
.1mmum 4
2 3,2
~~----~~m 4l 1 -4g---
I I
r
- 4*
20*
4*-
/
- C;AP A-
/
26 2 6* (;AP B
PIECE OT 3-Br.AM SIZES To BE VERITIID IN TIILD
/
a
- L.
I,3/s' x 3* x 2'6' (TYP.)
s.
- SE2n P2.ATES To CREATt 2 /8* GAP
'. ' J. '.. l! * -)-l, sImEx 2-ar.An AxD top 3 t.
.. es.
- ,,s,
. l ll.' - ;
2/2. mzz.T m i-so:.T iTrP.i g,.,,
xxxznun omr.onr.n 2.Ew:Tm 2/2-m I
SEL" TION A-A I
PDTENTIAL M301FICATIONS FOR LOWER SUPPORT OF HEAT EXCHANGERS POTERTIAL t0DIFICATIONS FOR LOWER SLPPORT OF HEAT EXCHANGERS
' t.
',o YNPS - RESOLUTION OF NRC QUESTIONS ON SEP TOPIC III-6 62
~
MAY 19, 1986
(__
'?
p JUL 0 91986
~..
Distribution Copies:
/
~
E,, SBChet fle(D$1 t
NRC PDR
/
1 Loca1 PDR
. j -'
PAD #1 r/f
?
I PAD #1 s/f-Glear
^ ' _
'EMcKenna OELD EJordan BGrimes ACRS(10)
NRC Participants s.
.?
l b
p
, 4 5
5 h
/
,F" A
D F
Je d
E l+
tt i
1, a
a
$s 4'
d'
(
~
l i
p' y
e 4
e e.
0-y
- _ _ _ _ - _ _.