ML20234E133
| ML20234E133 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 06/26/1987 |
| From: | Bailey J GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| GN-1378, NUDOCS 8707070471 | |
| Download: ML20234E133 (14) | |
Text
'
Post Office Box 2625 Birmingham, Alabama 35202
. Tel; phone 205 870-6011-Vogtle Project June 26, 1987' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission File:
X7BC35 Attn:' Document Control Desk Log:
GN-1378 Washington, D.C.
20555 NRC DOCKET NUMBER 50-425 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NUMBER CPPR-109 V0GTLE ELECTRIC. GENERATING PLANT - UNIT 2 l
STEAM GENERATOR SNUBBER REDUCTION AND AUXILIARY LINE PIPE BREAK ELIMINATION PROGRAMS Gentlemen:
During the meeting held in Bethesda on June 4,1987, your staff requested information on test data and stress analysis results for the steam generator upper support snubbers manufactured by Paul Monroe'.
In addition, during a telephone conference held on June 10, 1987 between' Georgia Power Company and-Westinghouse representatives to discuss the Leak Before Break (LBB) application on auxiliary lines, information was requested on pipe rupture in connected lines and longitudinal stresses in the auxiliary lines due to the effects of LOCA and SSE.
Attached is the following requested information:
1.
Attachment A - Paul Monroe test data and stress analysis results.
2.
Attachment B - Information on pipe ruptures in connected lines for the LBB application to auxiliary piping, j
i 3.
Attachment C -
(a) Stress values on the accuniulator, RHR, and surge lines due to effect of pipe rupture in other auxiliary piping connected to= primary loop piping or components.
(Please note that the results are based on Unit 1 geometry and are expected to be'similar or less for Unit 2 due
]
to snubber optimization.)
(b) SSE stress values on the same lines.
(Note that the results are based on Unit 1 geometry and are' expected to be higher for Unit 2 due to snubber optimization.)
i 8707070471 870626 PDR ADDCK 05000425 A
PDR s
a
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission File:
X7BC35 June 26, 1987 Log:
GN-1378 j
Page 2 1
i We hope that this information will be helpful in completing the LBB application to the auxiliary lines.
If you have any questions, please call me.
Sincerely, W
1
~
J. A. Bailey Project Licensing Manager Attachments
)
JAB /KWK/caa
]
Distribution Attached q
xc: NRC Regional Administrator j
NRC Resident Inspector J. P. O'Reilly R. E. Conway L. T. Gucwa R. A. Thomas J. E. Joiner, Esquire B. W. Churchill, Esquire M. A. Miller (2)
G. Bockhold, Jr.
R. Goddard, Esquire D. Feig R. W. McManus Vogtle Project File i
l i
1195V
ammasamsamu-= - -
w.
ATTACHMENT A f
Page I af 3 DATA SLtdMARY We*CC - :
W 7 and Karl P PMil 3sh No. 3$F814M
- i CENTRAL ENC #iEEr
- NG FM.Egse 159
-noe ENGINEER:
3RL I
s.
APPROVED s-n -se
=
y g(g. L L.
. w.,, g c:
, g
+
- r.
..w:
3.
,r...
- c.. -
rre,w.isny ;i 3 4 M r ?,,} +, '..,,f,j} _ t. Z G -g o
..4 &..
4.
Yl +;;
Y$'?[k'h$
.N j
jg
}y14a
~
w.. --
j..
l J
/
'g
%'w,,
Ang Rate ( a, too. un)
Per Pl4H Test Precedure pal)263, Pera. 3.0 g
/
Smut 6er s-w m..
.=.4 a*=<
c<hwim 2 M'OkWLach a.4.000id/me!!
P s99 eres impana 3o45 kiponce.
900
.4131 3017 903 4314 atti 901 6111 3141 903 4167 3200 904 416) 4948 905 4710 SOS) 906 4721 4987 997 4243 3183 Dos tr?s 3013 999 4483 490) 930 4196 4984 til 4133 3074 tit 4152 309) 93) 4ls) 3042 914 4394 4977 935 4160 4931 94 4096 4939 917
- N1
$203 918 til?
4979 l
919-4760 3096 SOD-42)e 3039 921.
4187 3039 992 4300 3323 95-4130 4933 934-4263 3068 Sits' 4337 3063 935 eh I i..
4836 328 304,7 m g,_.90F. gf ;..
- 4,,
i 48S7
'Y sHE Sege y;.. ': - i '.9 7
..,. U ;.Y'
. k.
'i.
- d, e
.r 4.:.
- a. :.. a..
o.
f,,
't
)
[
PhWe 3 af 3
- West, Vagtle 21 Kwl 2 iuvres)
Bleed Rate t AT to***" %
pqw IWil Test Procedre PA13365, f%ra. 6.0 W
Retteet M'oe
.t. ndr*
.. sew *
- r. ate
.I610 inhalm
.1909 inhaan I"
.1932
- 17,10
'a 36 0
.3783
.3630
.3633 903
.3610
.3780 16M 3693 903
.3830
.3678
.1670
.3FF8 9,06
.2020
.I992
,7 gag
.1670
.3632 _
, g gg
.1972 93,
.3390
.7706 933
.1900
.3936 912,
.7130
.2292 933
.1973
.3782 933
.!MS
.383%
pg3
.1978
+3T73 986 3II9
- I'##
pgy
.3856
- 1103 933
.3733
.3032 g;.
~
MM,.J., J
,333p
.3836
'. ;. y. f *
.0
^ j.
.tser A
- gy
,. e.;.gj.fdl.':.:.
gas '-
f,,,
'.;,4w
- .!sst J.' * '
see.
. 3833 a'- Q(A3
' p
-e
.;M
.sprs.. 4.:?.r.;. -
r.
s
'[ $..;.[ y
..sase,.$ '-
' n" : <
-A
.w
.g 9? ~
I I
i STANRAY CORPORATION Remco HydroiilicS Division 934 South Main Street Willits. California 95490 (707)459 5301 1
A-690623 Rev 0 MULTIPLANT 11 1000 Kip Snubber STRESS REPORT i
i e
e
e.
- [ STAT J.' A( C( W C Art J
[h"O
^9~
[
d
. >. i ',i
-,.y n,,
c,a,,,
g M
w.n.ii c...io ~. 99 90 UO4 459 530i eu se u.
su...
g W
f M>
This stress' report of a component support is certified to be in compliance bli-with the requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressore Vessel Code, Section y
lli, Subsection tJF, and demonstrates the design adequacy required by Westinghouse P'
Electric Corporation Equipment Specification No. G-952835, Rev. O.
W Code Effectiveness:
Through Summer 1975 Addenda W
h
. huff
] ht42 &
x
$0 FESS /0g7 g
Regis tered Professional Engineer Reg, tio.
/ 4_ f 9-7 c}<-
u1n k
=
p y
44
-A /,.
p eat.
/
/
f qCHAi
.p
- vp %-
ps p
of c p i
t I
r Prepared By _ Signature 8//p//(,
Date Reviewed by
/0 7 7S Signature
'Date
I
...no.,:,,o i;m.,,c.o t u.
r.,n ~
$, 9 abs'Ar CGii 4:All N 3
g.s (. g, a g
g
.y_
]
- F.... -, i i, k.,,, I
,.--,,j
-,,;, r ~
~ ~... i i > ~E-l -mr 934 sc>uin usin st eet wdids Ca'domia 9990 UO4 449 ' 01 '
Q
=j g
4
SUMMARY
OF DESIGN PARAMETERS i
1 Loads (from
[/)(/6 7[b condition).
6
- 1. Axial load, P=
/X /C lbs,*
i
- 2. Seismic pseudo-static accelerations, Sax =
/0,00 9.*
)
Say =
6,00 9'. *
- 3. Misalignment of 3
- 4. Ambient temperature T=
300 0F.
1 i
Other Design Values.
-l
,OF
- 1. Frictional coefficient in ball bushing l
=
1 60 A
- 2. Ball bushing radius
=
/g, O d in.)*
(Tube I.D.
=
f, dd in )i (Rod 0.D.
=
,{f8 lbs./in.3
- 3. Unit weight of steel
=
sd]8 lbs./in.3
- 4. Unit weight of hydraulic fluid SF 1154
=
- 5. Net seismic pseudo-static acceleration Sa"
/d85 9*
6._ Frictional misalignment moment Mr =
f, f g t/8 in.-lbs.
1
- 7. Fluid pressure, compressive load pc' " d,4 N
- PSI'
(#,78 f psi.
- 8. Fluid pressure,~ tensile load p
=
t
- 9. Allowable stresses or stress intensities are summarized in Table 2 and evaluated in Appendix C.
)
l i
t M.D$1*entt'*:L%sTJggyg M:s e r
- Wu r "~~ mmy -"
,e, 3*
i
/
w.s I., 9,.,r e e e n l l1 ' ise n eil l jo fage g SlANb'" CN N i 1 A. 0'0 0 0 2 3 ljo
'a 3O f
U
- k.
- Id, f. t
- pr s gi,'
r, A t r C**
E r r rs av ATE
, $'sef f i'
+
a %,th wa.n Steeet weents Cautweia 9990 UOF)e59 SW g
[
g
}y j
. [*
i h '._<,.-
p Wi$
i
,.k i
Z.
'4 f
.5 i
27q N
co co m
A 00 lV M
2 y
~
m 8
7s, %-p a
s-m n
H i
m m
2 m
c 00 s
9 R
N
= m
.e e
O U
W t$ 0 I
N en 83 b
%ev o
m b
k b
x g
a s5 8
ep g-6 e
g o
w K
N N
4 N
D N
k{
s
. s N
-J Qg/ff O
Q f
4
-L t
Oy S
O o
R $.l l
N
- r w
k 4
9 a
.m e e
a\\
w s
e i
s s
y
=
I
.t.
D O
2" st" Y
J o
9 N
4 m
w O
'0 -
9 o
og o
DE*
(
up,03.P f
cf d
0 00 q')
M c
9 5.* "
s N
os s
S
-2 i r y
- 4 e
.D La H 3
.5.
~
y o n 7
E 7
?.5 i S
k r.
e
-.J H C
t' O
ci C
H "b
.:t
=
L E'
T E
G "e 7
E "e - E
- I"
- n n 8 m*
b ".9
.E
.5 C"
- <
- j _'a if ); 7 VI L" E L* i i' E L* ~, "o y u,
s id e E
8 r
A A
e.
M J8 J 4446 m :4, 0 5
.E e
2 mcm
.o m
o 5
U i
5 e
a
=
l
Z-R
_ _. ~. _., _ _...
\\-.
\\._
.....-......,,n..,o,....,n.
c.,.,.
s w r e.y < o.n u n < 1
^- c o.o... o a a,. s,
99 ;.,9 3
a -,..s,.......... ci - ~,
- i...,. o.
u
- f g//9/Aj /d/M__
/
u,d..:
<>or>~~
o coneonEnr Eoc^Ti""
""'"""I
^ ' ' ' ' " ' ^ " ' "
"^""
TUBE MEMBRANE
[8j OI 2-7kjooO 6
GC,Y9G
//8,500 7
MEMnRAne s nEunluc 33,997 52,670 7
TnREAD sur.AR TilREAD RELIEF g
rivoT
,7f
/, oo
/0 i
BLIND HEAD SnEAR (3 40
- 2 8 3 9 2 G/,950
//
vfAB7 pg,/go
//
InTERnAE PRES.
22,G7G
- /S3220
/2 n wl Lo^ DING EErnEnT "1" 33,992.
/38,/80
/3 IlEAM THREAD
,ff
/, 00
/3 PISTON-ROD ELEMENT "2" Y$ %
/3O /OO
/
j TnREAD REl,TEF
,63
/,00
/d TilRCAD SilEAR 38 70b 6/j ((O
/b j
CYLINDER-COLUMN
,f/
/, CO
/g R0D HEAD INNER EDGE 33,683
//0,25o 2/
ROD PIVOT PlVOT
,75
/,0 0 2J gg,3y 2 G/,VfD 24 surAR a 40 MEnnunE (OvER Tuns) yf,602 92,/20 2 '/
MEMBRANE 6 BENDING f"/,3 2Y g6 /60 ff cLEyls Pius nl;unina V6 68 2 l0 6 050 El s
/
snEAR 27,S2S 56,880 27 ROD 6 PISTON ROD BI:ARI""
IlEAR T NGS 2.3 507 94000 2e
/
\\
TABLE 3 STRESS
SUMMARY
AnD COMI'ARISON WITH ALLOWADLES
ATTACHMENT B V0GTLE UNIT'2 LEAK-BEFORE-BREAK (LBB) APPLICATION TO AUIILIARY PIPING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: PIPE RUPTURES IN CONNECTED LINES The LBB approach is being applied to three large diameter piping systems:
surge line, accumulator line and RHR line. This approach will justify elimination of the dynamic effects of postulated pipe ruptures in these
-lines.
In addition to the LBB evaluation, structural evaluations of these lines are performed for postulated pipe ruptures in lines connected to unbroken loop. The type of structural evaluation performed is different for different postulated pipe ruptures and is performed to protect ' essential systems, structures and components in accordance with SRP 3.6.2.
The pipe ruptures that are considered for this structural evaluation are postulated in accordance with SRP 3.6.2.
i l
Pipe ruptures are postulated in smaller diameter branch pipe connections to the accumulator and RER line. - There are no branch pipe connections to' the-surge line. SRP 3.6.2 states that at least one break location in the branch
.j pipe at its terminal end is required. In this case, the terminal end is the normally closed valve at considerable distance away, that separates the high energy from the moderate energy portion of the branch pipe.
Stress calculations, due to small diameter pipe breaks, are not. performed for the larger diameter accumulator and RHR line, since structural integrity is assured by SRP 3.6.2 criteria, which is based on test results. These results show that small diameter pipe cannot rupture a' larger diameter pipe by direct impact. In addition, based on Westinghouse pipe break propagation criteria, the affected accumulator or RER line is not required to mitigate.the consequences of the postulated branch line rupture.
In order. to protect essential components, a structural evaluation is performed by determining the hinge location in the branch pipe and reviewing the path of the. whipping pipe. If needed, pipe whip restraints are designed to protect essential components.
Pipe ruptures are also postulated in surge, accumulator and RHR auxiliary piping which are connected to the primary coolant loop piping and components.
In the event there is a postulated rupture in one of these lines, the integrity of other auxiliary lines has been demonstrated. A structural-analysis of the primary coolant loop is performed for the postulated auxiliary line and displacements are determined at the_ primary loop branch nozzle locations for the intact lines. These displacements are' then used to perform a structural analysis of each of the intact lines. A stress evaluation of the resultant moment loadings is performed in accordance with Equation 9 of the ASME Code. The loading combination considered is_ pressure, deadweight, and-the square-root-sum-of-the-squares combination of SSE and auxiliary line pipe rupture. The stress limit is 3.0 S.
1195V 1
~
I ATTACHMENT B V0GTLE UNIT 2 i
LEAK-BEFORE-BREAK (LBB) APPLICATION TO AUXILIARY PIPING j
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
PIPE RUPTURES IN CONNECTED LINES (Cont'd)
Pipe ruptures in connected lines to RHR and accumulator lines are evaluated to protect essential systems, structures and components, as required in SRP
)
3.6.2.
In this evaluation, a through-wall flaw is not postulated in the accumulator lines or RHR line, since this would be postulating a double failure which has an extremely low probability of occurrence. Therefore, pipe rupture loadings should not be included in the LBB evaluation.
{
i The technical justification for the LBB approach, as outlined in NUREG-1061, i
requires that flaw stability will be demonstrated for a large postulated through-wall flaw by using normal plus SSE loadings. The draft revision of GDC-4 dated July 1986 also requires that normal plus SSE loadings be used in demonstrating flaw stability. This technical basis is consistent with Vogtle j
applications which need not include consideration of pipe rupture loadings, j
because of the following conservatism-i 1.
Fatigue crack growth analysis is performed to ensure that a through-wall flaw will not develop during the plant lifetime. The postulated through-wall flaw is, therefore, a failure of very low probability.
2.
The size of postulated through-wall flaw is selected such that the leak rate is detectable with a margin of 10 with respect to the leak detecting capability.
3.
A margin of a factor of square root of 2 en applied normal plus SSE moment is demonstrated for the stability of leakage size flaw. The probability of exceeding this load during the plant lifetime is very low.
I i
1195V i
1
]
1 y..,.
e,
.j
.j
- ATTACHMEtTT C -
AUXILIARY PIFING LONGITUDINAL STRESSES
')
1 l
EliB Acetm dater.
Surge Location SSE LOCA SSE LOCA SSE-LOCA 1
-3.45 31.78 5.79 24.39 7.37 21.92
.j 2
1.68 28.48 6.65 22.05 5.87-17.95' 3
1.13 14.82 6.66 34.50 3 70 3.17
.I 4
1.48 31.87 8.77 30.65 1.48 5.29 g
5 1.54 17.89 2.28 12.36 2.45 3.45 1
NOTES:
- 1) Locations:
a) RHR-branch connection,1st elbow,1st tee,1st valve, intermediate 4
point ~
b) Accumulator - branch connection,1st elbow,-1st valve,1st valve second weld, 1st tee i
c) Surge - branch connection,1st elbow,1st elbow second weld, 2nd l
elbow weld, 2nd elbow second weld I
- 2) The above stresses are based on a sample of the following controlling postulated pipe rupture cases:
a) Surge line - branch nozzle b) RHR - branch nozzle c) Accumulator - branch nozzle
- 3) Longitudinal stress is calculated using the following equations:
S=h+I T
X b
1 l
)
F
= axial force i
b
= bending moment l
A
= pipe cross-sectional area
{
2
= pipe section modulus S
= longitudinal stress l
- 4) The above stresses are recalculated in accordance with ASME III Eq. 9
{
and are shown to meet the Code limit of 3.0 S. This ensures the i
integrity of these lines for the combination 6f pressure, deadweight, SSE and pipe rupture loadings.
]
- 5) The above pipe rupture stresses, which are calculated using a conserva-tive elastic dynamic analysis, need not be included in the LBB 3
evaluations of the surge, accumulator, and RHR lines due to the
{
conservatism discussed in Attachment B.
- 6) The above stresses are based on Vogtle Unit 1 geanetry. Stress calculations are not finalized and will be available at a later date for j
Unit 2.
The Unit 2 geanetry has fewer snubbers and this is expected to I
lead to lower LOCA stresses and higher SSE stresses.
j I