ML15198A225

Attachment 2: Calculation CN-MRCDA-15-13-NP, Qualification of Palo Verde Unit 3 Reactor Coolant Pump Replacement Instrumentation Nozzle.

ML15198A225
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	07/15/2015
From:	Lax S E Westinghouse
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML15198A232	List: ML15198A224 ML15198A225 ML15198A226 ML15198A227
References
102-07077-TNW/DCE CN-MRCDA-15-13-NP
Download: ML15198A225 (56)

Text

EnclosureNon-proprietary Documents for Relief Request 53Attachment 2Westinghouse Calculation CN-MRCDA-15-13-NP, Rev. 0,Qualification of Palo Verde Unit 3 Reactor Coolant PumpReplacement Instrumentation Nozzle Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision Shop Order Number Network/Activity PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 NA 143368/0041 1Project Releasable (Y/N) Open Items (Y/N) Files Attached (Y/N) Total No. PagesPalo Verde Unit 3 RCP Replacement Y N Y 55Instrumentation NozzleTitle: Qualification of Palo Verde Unit 3Reactor Coolant Pump Replacement Instrumentation NozzleAuthor Name(s) Signature / Date ScopeSarah E. Lax ElectronicallyApproved* All Except BelowByounghoan Choi ElectronicallyApproved* Section 5.4.1Ya T. Wu Electronically Approved* Appendix BMatthew T. Coble Electronically Approved* Appendix AVerifier Name(s) Signature / Date ScopeGordon Z. Hall ElectronicallyApproved* All Except BelowSarah E. Lax Electronically Approved* Section 5.4.1Earnest S. Shen ElectronicallyApproved* Appendix BAaron E. White Electronically Approved* Appendix APreparerSarah E. LaxSignature / DateElectronically Approved*ScopeNon-Proprietary Class 3ReviewerEarnest S. ShenOwning ManagerJames P. Burke for Carl J. GimbroneSignature / DateElectronically Approved*Signature / DateElectronically Approved*ScopeNon-Proprietary Class 3ScopeNon-Proprietary Class 3*Electronically approved records are authenticated in the electronic document management system.© 2015 Westinghouse Electric Company LLCAll Rights ReservedqElt t.I#Word Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 2Record of RevisionsRev. Date Revision Description0-A 4/14/15 Draft Issue0 4/16/15 Original Issue0 See EDMS This -NP version adds proprietary brackets and the proprietary information has been redacted.4 44 4I 4Trademark Notes:PTC and MathCAD are trademarks or registered trademarks of Parametric Technology Corporation or its subsidiaries in theU.S. and in other countries.ANSYS, ANSYS Workbench, Ansoft, AUTODYN, CFX, EKM, Engineering Knowledge Manager, FLUENT, HFSS andany and all ANSYS, Inc. brand, product, service and feature names, logos and slogans are trademarks or registeredtrademarks of ANSYS, Inc. or its subsidiaries located in the United States or other countries. ICEM CFD is a trademark usedby ANSYS, Inc. under license. CFX is a trademark of Sony Corporation in Japan. All other brand, product, service andfeature names or trademarks are the property of their respective owners.Microsoft, Encarta, MSN, Excel, and Windows are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corporation inthe United States and/or other countries.PIPESTRESS is owned and developed by DST Computer Services S.A.Word Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 3Table of Contents1.0 Background and Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 62.0 Sum m ary of Results and Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 82.1 Instrum entation Replacem ent Half-nozzle .................................................................................... 82.2 Attachm ent W eld Sizing and Qualification .................................................................................. 82.3 Fatigue Usage .................................................................................................................................... 82.4 Vibration Assessm ent ............................................................................................................... 93.0 References ................................................................................................................................................. 104.0 Calculations ............................................................................................................................................... 124.1 Lim its of Applicability .................................................................................................................... 124.2 Open Item s ...................................................................................................................................... 124.3 M ethod Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 124.3.1 Instrum entation Nozzle Qualification ............................................................................ 124.3.2 Attachm ent W eld Qualification .................................................................................... 124.4 Discussion of Significant Assum ptions ...................................................................................... 154.5 Acceptance Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 154.5.1 Instrum entation Nozzle Qualification .......................................................................... 154.5.2 Attachm ent W eld Qualification .................................................................................... 154.6 Input ................................................................................................................................................ 174.6.1 Seism ic and BLPB Response Spectra .......................................................................... 174.6.2 N ozzle M echanical Loads ............................................................................................. 184.6.3 RCP Safe End Applied Loads ........................................................................................ 184.6.4 Pressure and Therm al Transients ................................................................................... 194.6.5 Geom etry ............................................................................................... ............................. 194.6.6 M aterial Properties ........................................................................................................ 195.0 Evaluations, Analysis, Detailed Calculations, and Results ................................................................... 205.1 Comparison of Palo Verde Unit 3 Transients to PLANT X Analysis Transients ...................... 205.2 V ibration Assessm ent ...................................................................................................................... 215.3 Instrum entation Nozzle Qualification ........................................................................................ 225.4 Attachm ent W eld Qualification .................................................................................................. 235.4.1 Nozzle Opening Reinforcem ent Requirem ents .............................................................. 235.4.2 Prim ary Stress .................................................................................................................... 24Word Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 45.4.3 Secondary Stress and Fatigue Evaluation ...................................................................... 326.0 Listing of Com puter Codes Used and Runs M ade in Calculation ....................................................... 33Appendix A : BLPB Response Spectra .......................................................................................................... 37A .1 I Inputs ............................................................................................................................................... 37A .2 M ethod of Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 38A .3 Results ............................................................................................................................................. 39Appendix B : Evaluation of Instrum entation Piping Frequencies ................................................................ 42B.1 M ethod Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 42B.1. 1 Input ................................................................................................................................... 42B.1.2 M odel D evelopm ent ....................................................................................................... 43B.2 M odal Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 45Appendix C : Reference Inform ation ......................................................................................................... .47C.1 Reference [24] ................................................................................................................................. 47C.2 Reference [30] ................................................................................................................................. 48Checklist A : Proprietary Class Statem ent Checklist ...................................................................................... 51Checklist B: Calculation Note M ethodology Checklist ................................................................................. 52Checklist C: V erification M ethod Checklist .................................................................................................. 53Checklist D : 3-Pass V erification M ethodology Checklist ............................................................................ 54Additional Verifier's Com m ents ......................................................................................................................... 55Word Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 5List of TablesTable 4-1: Weld Qualification Material Properties per [6] ............................................................................... 15Table 4-2: Nozzle Mechanical Loads [14] ......................................................................................................... 18Table 4-3: RCP Safe End Applied Loads [9](1) .............................................................................. ............... 18Table 4-4: Half-nozzle Replacement Material Strength Properties ................................................................... 19Table 5-1: Class 2 Piping and Instrumentation Nozzle Modal Frequencies ..................................................... 21Table 5-2: Seismic and Pipe Break Inertial Loads -Global Coordinate System(') ........................................... 22Table 5-3: Adjusted Nozzle Mechanical Loads for Palo Verde Unit 3 ........................................................... 22Table 5-4: Instrumentation Nozzle Load Criteria Evaluation .......................................................................... 23Table 5-5: Nozzle Opening Reinforcement Calculations ................................... ................................... 24Table 5-6: Attachment Weld Input Loads ......................................................................................................... 24Table 6-1: Summary of Computer Codes Used in Calculation ........................................................................ 33Table 6-2: Electronically Attached File Listing ............................................................................................... 34Table 6-3: Computer Code Checklist ...................................................................................................................... 36T able B -1: M aterial Properties ................................................................................................................................ 42T able B -2: Sectional Properties .............................................................................................................................. 42Table B-3: Natural Frequency Data ........................................................................................................................ 45List of FiguresFigure 1-1: Replacement Instrumentation Nozzle Layout ................................................................................... 7Figure 4-1: PLANT X and Palo Verde Unit 3 Instrumentation Nozzle Layout ............................................... 13Figure 4-2: Attachment Weld Layout ..................................................................................................................... 14Figure 4-3: Attachment Weld Design Requirements [6] ................................................................................... 16Figure 4-4: Socket Weld Design Criteria ........................................................................................................... 17Figure 5-1: Instrumentation Nozzle Dimensions ............................................................................................... 25Figure A-i: BLPB Enveloped Response Spectra, Top of RCP Motor, X-direction ......................................... 39Figure A-2: BLPB Enveloped Response Spectra, Top of RCP Motor, Y-direction ........................................ 40Figure A-3: BLPB Enveloped Response Spectra, Top of RCP Motor, Z-direction .......................................... 41Figure B-i: Instrumentation Nozzle and Piping Model ................................................................................... 44Figure B-2: Instrumentation Nozzle and Piping ............................................................................................... 46Figure B -3: V alve w ith T ubing ............................................................................................................................... 46Word Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 61.0 Background and PurposeDuring the 3R18 spring 2015 refueling outage at Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) Unit3, visual examinations of the reactor coolant pump 2A (RCP) suction safe end revealed evidence ofleakage in the annulus between the outer surface of the Inconel 600 instrument nozzle and the bore on thesuction safe end. The most likely location of the flaw(s) is in the primary water stress corrosion cracking-susceptible Alloy 82/182 weld and Inconel 600 instrument nozzle, along their fusion line inside the safeend bore. The Alloy 600 instrument nozzle is attached with a partial penetration weld to the inside of theRCP 2A suction safe end.The purpose of this calculation note is to qualify the structural integrity of the instrumentation nozzlerepair (including the attachment weld), per Section III of the ASME Code [6], for one fuel cycle (18months). The half-nozzle replacement technique will be used, as shown in [3]. The existing nozzle willbe removed and bored into to insert a replacement nozzle, as shown in [3]. The new nozzle will beattached to the RCP safe end with a J-groove weld with fillet weld buildup. This replacement half-nozzleand attachment weld will become the new pressure boundary on the outer surface of the RCP suction safeend. Figure 1-1 shows the layout of the new nozzle design.The Palo Verde Unit 3 nozzle will be qualified by a comparison of the nozzle loading criteria andreconciliation of the applied transients with the PLANT X loadings. PLANT X is a CombustionEngineering-designed plant that is similar in design to Palo Verde Unit 3 and is appropriate forcomparison. Where differences between the plants exist, they are noted and dispositioned herein.A flaw evaluation of the original weld will be documented in a separate calculation note.This calculation note was created and verified in accordance with Westinghouse Level II ProceduresWEC 3.2.6 and WEC 3.3.3, as well as Level III Procedure ES 3.2.1.Word Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA- 15-13-NP 0 7ýFlsr_ )acW-11,LFigure 1-1: Replacement Instrumentation Nozzle LayoutWord Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA- 15-13-NP 0 82.0 Summary of Results and ConclusionsThe evaluations in this calculation note show that the instrumentation replacement half-nozzle and newattachment weld meet all of applicable criteria of the ASME Code [6].2.1 Instrumentation Replacement Half-nozzleThe replacement instrumentation nozzle was qualified by comparison to the equivalent analysis of thePLANT X instrumentation nozzle [1]. The instrumentation nozzle qualification in [1] considered allapplicable nozzle loadings, including transient pressure and temperature secondary stresses.Table 5-4 summarizes the worst-case primary stresses in the instrumentation replacement half-nozzle. Allnozzle stresses are significantly below the allowable ASME Code values.2.2 Attachment Weld Sizing and QualificationThe J-groove attachment weld was designed in accordance with Section NB-3351.4 of the ASME Code[6]. It meets or exceeds all of the sizing requirements shown in Figure NB-4244(d)-1(c). The weld wasqualified under the assumption that the nozzle hole will increase in size due to corrosion over time. Theweld was qualified for the resulting weld throat if the nozzle hole reaches a diameter of [ ]a." inches.The J-groove attachment weld was structurally qualified by considering all applicable loading on theweld, which is now on the exterior surface of the RCP suction safe end. As shown in Section 5.4.2, themaximum stress intensity in the weld is [ ]` ksi for normal operating conditions with operating basisearthquake (OBE), which is below the allowable normal operating stress of 17.0 ksi. Also shown in inSection 5.4.2, the maximum stress intensity for faulted conditions is [ ]c ksi, which is below thefaulted allowable stress of 40.8 ksi.2.3 Fatigue UsageThe replacement instrumentation nozzle and attachment weld were qualified by comparison to the fatigueanalysis in [1]. The maximum fatigue usage in [1] was [ ]"a, which is well below the allowableusage of 1.0. Based on the comparison of plant parameters and nozzle loading, the PLANT X analysis in[1] is applicable to the Palo Verde Unit 3 instrumentation nozzle and attachment weld. Additionally, thePLANT X instrumentation nozzle was designed for the full operating life of the plant, while the PaloVerde Unit 3 instrumentation replacement nozzle and weld need only be qualified for 18 months ofoperation. Therefore, the fatigue usage meets the ASME Code allowable.Word Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 92.4 Vibration AssessmentAn evaluation of the replacement nozzle and attached Class 2 piping has confirmed that there is noconcern for resonant vibration of the replacement nozzle, weld, or attached piping. The lowest naturalfrequency of the Class 2 piping line with the replacement nozzle is [ ]a.c Hz.Word Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 103.0 References1. Westinghouse Calculation Note, CN-NPE-06-XXXX-03, Rev. 1, "- Structural Evaluations of theRCP Pressure Tap Nozzles," April 16, 2015.2. Westinghouse Drawing, 8130-102-2001, Rev. 05, "Pump Casing -'A'."3. Westinghouse Drawing, E-14473-220-001, Rev. 0, "Pump Casing -A Pressure Tap NozzleModification Assembly."4. Westinghouse Drawing, C-14473-220-002, Rev. 0, "Replacement Pressure Tap Nozzle."5. Westinghouse Drawing, E-8111-101-2002, Rev. 00, "Pump Casing -A."6. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Nuclear Power Plant Components, 1974 Editionwith No Addenda.7. Westinghouse Letter, LTR-ME-15-30, Rev. 2, "ASME Code Section XI Reconciliation for ArizonaPublic Service (APS), Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) Unit 3 ReplacementInstrumentation Nozzle," April 16, 2015.8. Westinghouse Design Specification, 14273-PE-480, Rev. 06, "Project Specification for ReactorCoolant Pumps for Arizona Nuclear Power Projects Units 1, 2 and 3," November 11, 2003.9. Westinghouse Design Specification, 14273-PE-140, Rev. 15, "Project Specification for ReactorCoolant Piping and Fittings for Arizona Nuclear Power Project," June 25, 2007.10. Combustion Engineering Design Specification, 00000-PE-140, Rev. 04, "General Specification forReactor Coolant Pipe and Fittings," May 25, 1977.11. Westinghouse Letter, LTR-OA-03-38, Rev. 00, "Adequacy of the Original Palo Verde Units 1,2 & 3Thermal-Hydraulic Design Transients for Application to Palo Verde Units 1,2 and 3 with RSGs andPower Uprate," September 8, 2003.12. Combustion Engineering Design Specification, SYS80-PE-480, Rev. 02, "Specification for StandardPlant for Reactor Coolant Pumps," May 10, 1978.13. Westinghouse Calculation Note, CN-CI-03-53, Rev. 2, "Seismic Analysis of the Reactor CoolantSystem for PVNGS Units 1, 2 and 3 with RSG and Power Uprate," December 14, 2004.14. Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Document, 13-MC-RC-503, Rev. 9, "RCS -RCP PressureDifferential System," October 22, 2010.15. Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Document, 13-P-ZZG-0012, Rev. 48, "Piping MaterialClassification," September 11, 2014.16. BW/IP International, Inc. Drawing, 77540, Rev. N, "Valve Assy 33/4 In. Type 1586 Lb. Globe S.W.Cres."17. Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Drawing, 03-P-RCF-149, Rev. 2, "Containment BuildingIsometric Reactor Coolant System RCP Pressure Differential System."Word Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 1118. Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Document, 13-PN-0204, Rev. 21, "Fabrication andInstallation of Nuclear Piping Systems for the Arizona Public Company Palo Verde NuclearGenerating Station Unit 1, 2 and 3," May 2, 2014.19. Bechtel Power Corporation Drawing, 13-RC-075-HOOA, Rev. 1, "Pipe Support Assembly."20. Westinghouse Calculation Note, CN-CI-03-55, Rev. 0, "Branch Line Pipe Break Analysis forPVNGS Units 1, 2 and 3 with RSGs and Power Uprate," October 17, 2003.21. Westinghouse Calculation Note, V-ME-C-085, Rev. 006, "Branch Line Pipe Break Analysis forPVNGS with Replacement Steam Generator," October 4, 2000.22. Westinghouse Letter, LTR-SST-10-58, Rev. 2, "ANSYS 12.1 Release Letter," October 2, 2012.23. American National Standard, ANSI B16.11 -1973, "Forged Steel Fittings, Socket-Welding andThreaded," 1973.24. CE-KSB Pump Co. Inc Drawing, C-8000-101-2017, Rev. 02, "Wall Static Pressure Nozzle Suction."(See Appendix C.)25. Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2, and 3 Update Final Safety Analysis Report, Rev.17B, January 2015.26. Westinghouse Letter, LTR-SST-13-12, Rev. 0, "Software Release Letter for PIPESTRESS 3.7.0(included in the PepS 4.0 Package) for the Windows 7 System State," November 8, 2013.27. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 1, 1974 Edition Up to and Including1975 Winter Addenda.28. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 1, 1998 Edition Up to and Including2000 Addenda.29. NUS Corporation Design Report, NUS-2058, Rev. 02, "System 80 Reactor Coolant Pump DesignAnalysis Design, Upset, and Emergency Conditions," October 29, 1979.30. Email from Douglas Berg (APS) to Sarah E. Lax (Westinghouse) and James P. Burke(Westinghouse), "Support 3RC075HOOA," April 15, 2015. (See Appendix C.)Word Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA- 15-13-NP 0 124.0 Calculations4.1 Limits of ApplicabilityThe results of this calculation note are only applicable to the loop 2A RCP at Palo Verde Unit 3. Thereplacement nozzle and attachment weld are qualified for 18 months of plant life.4.2 Open ItemsThis calculation note contains no open items.4.3 Method DiscussionThe purpose of this calculation note is to qualify the instrumentation replacement nozzle and thereplacement attachment weld. The nozzle and weld are qualified by comparison to the similar analysis ofthe PLANT X RCP pressure tap nozzle evaluations [1], except for the primary stresses in the attachmentweld. The primary stresses in the weld are calculated by a closed-form solution.PLANT X is a Combustion Engineering-designed plant that is similar in design to Palo Verde Unit 3 andis appropriate for comparison. Where differences between the plants exist, they are noted anddispositioned herein.4.3.1 Instrumentation Nozzle QualificationThe instrumentation nozzle at PLANT X is nearly identical to the replacement nozzle at Palo Verde Unit3. To apply the nozzle qualification from PLANT X to the Palo Verde Unit 3 nozzle, the following itemsare must be reconciled:* instrumentation nozzle geometry* instrumentation nozzle mechanical loads" RCP temperature and pressure transients* RCP seismic spectra and branch line pipe break (BLPB). Note that BLPB is equivalent to a loss ofcoolant accident, the term BLPB will be used herein.* ASME Code year and material properties4.3.2 Attachment Weld QualificationThe attachment weld is also qualified by comparison to the analysis in [1]. However, the attachment weldfor the Palo Verde Unit 3 replacement nozzle is in a different location than the PLANT X nozzle. Figure4-1 shows the location of each weld.Word Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 13........RCP Safe End Centerline.........PLANT X Weld Configuration APS Weld ConfigurationFigure 4-1: PLANT X and Palo Verde Unit 3 Instrumentation Nozzle LayoutThe Palo Verde Unit 3 half-nozzle repair weld is a partial penetration weld on the outside surface of theRCP suction safe end. However, the PLANT X attachment weld is on the inside surface of the RCPsuction safe end. Therefore, the mechanical loading on the weld will be different. A full evaluation ofthe weld primary stresses due to mechanical loads is included in this calculation note. The effects oftransient stresses on the weld are reconciled with the PLANT X evaluation [1]. Because the Palo VerdeUnit 3 nozzle weld is on the outside surface of the RCP nozzle, the impact of the thermal and pressuretransient loads will be less significant than those on the PLANT X attachment weld.The mechanical loads considered in the structural evaluation of the Palo Verde Unit 3 instrumentationnozzle weld are:1. Instrumentation Nozzle Mechanical LoadsThe applied mechanical loads are in the global plant coordinate system. See Section 4.6 for adescription of the nozzle load inputs. These loads are converted into four components (with respectto the instrumentation nozzle): nozzle axial force, shear force, bending moment, and torsion.2. Pressure Stresses Imparted on Weld from RCP Suction Safe End: Hoop, Axial, and Radial SuctionSafe End StressesThe radial stress at the location of the attachment weld will be negligible. Therefore, the maximumhoop and axial stress are applied directly to the weld. Hoop and axial stresses are calculated for athin-walled cylinder according to Equations 1 and 2.PR Equation 1twallPR Equation 2t~axia1 -2 twallIn Equations 1 and 2:P = design pressure (psi)R = suction safe end radius (in)twall = suction nozzle thicknessWord Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 143. Mechanical Loads Imparted on Weld from RCP Suction Safe EndStresses are calculated in the RCP safe end due to applied piping loads. The maximum axial stress isthen added to the axial pressure stress discussed in item 2. Shear and torsional piping loads on theRCP safe end do not impact the attachment weld.4. Blow-off (Thrust) Pressure Load on Instrumentation NozzleThe blow-off pressure is calculated as the force acting on the instrumentation nozzle from the internalRCP pressure projected onto the nozzle.5. Inertial Seismic and BLPB Load on Instrumentation NozzleThe replacement instrumentation nozzle and attached Class 2 piping are evaluated to determine thenatural frequency of the system (see Appendix B). This frequency is compared against themechanical excitation frequency of the pump to ensure that the nozzle and piping will not haveresonant vibration problems. The natural frequency is then compared to the seismic and BLPBspectra at the RCP to determine the inertial seismic and BLPB loads. These loads are added to thenozzle mechanical loads.Figure 4-2 shows the layout of the attachment weld, marked up from the replacement plan drawing [3].The attachment weld is a J-groove weld with additional fillet weld buildup. However, only the grooveweld depth is considered in the structural qualification of the weld. Each of the stresses discussed abovewill be combined to calculate the overall stress intensity in the weld. See Section 5.0 for details.Internal Pressure{a ...f I ax j cWeld Throat ProfileMechanical Load PointFigure 4-2: Attachment Weld LayoutWord Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA- 15-13-NP 0 15In addition to the structural qualification of the attachment weld, it is also shown to meet design-by rulesper the applicable section of [6]. See Section 4.5 of this document for details.4.4 Discussion of Significant AssumptionsThere are no significant assumptions in this calculation note.4.5 Acceptance CriteriaThe ASME Code applicable to the qualification of the replacement instrumentation nozzle and attachmentweld is the 1974 Edition with no Addenda. Reference [7] reconciles the use of the newly procuredreplacement material for evaluation to the 1974 Edition. Reference [7] also addresses the differencesbetween the 1974 Code year and the 1995 Edition with 1997 Addenda, which was used for the PLANT Xevaluation [1].4.5.1 Instrumentation Nozzle QualificationThe acceptance criteria for the instrumentation nozzle listed in [1] are applicable to this calculation note.Per the reconciliation in [7], all allowable stresses are equivalent between the 1974 Code year (used forPalo Verde Unit 3) and the 1995 with 1997 Addenda Code year (used for PLANT X). Therefore, theallowable stress criteria used in PLANT X are applicable to this calculation note.4.5.2 Attachment Weld Qualification4.5.2.1 Structural AnalysisThe acceptance criteria for the attachment weld are twofold. First, the maximum stress intensitycalculated as described in Section 4.3.2 is compared to the primary stress allowable per NB-3221.1. Toconservatively evaluate the weld material, the limiting Sm value between the RCP suction safe end and thereplacement nozzle is used. The applicable Sm values for the two materials are summarized in Table 4-1.The minimum Sm value used for qualification of the weld stress intensity is 17.0 ksi.Table 4-1: Weld Qualification Material Properties per [6]Part Material Sm (ksi) at [ 'a1c 7FRCP Suction Safe End SA-508 Class 1[29] 17.0RCP Instrumentation Nozzle SB-166 (Alloy 690) [4] 23.3Word Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA- 15-13-NP 0 164.5.2.2 Design-by Rules AnalysisAttachment WeldThe second acceptance criterion for the instrumentation nozzle attachment weld is qualification of thedesign-by rules for the attachment weld sizing. Per Section NB-3351.4, this is a Category D weldmeeting the requirements of Section NB-4244(d) for attachment of nozzles using partial penetrationwelds. Therefore, Figure NB-4244(d)-l, applies to this type of attachment weld. Section (c) of FigureNB-4244(d)-1 is the most applicable to this design, as shown here in Figure 4-3.(c)*..THE % tn MIN. DIMENSION APPLIES TO THE FILLET LEG AND THE J GROOVE DEPTH* IF WELD -DEPOSIT REINFORCEMENT IS NOT USED, r, SHALL APPLY TO BASE MATERIAL INSTEAD OFWELD BUILD UP.fiG. NB-4244(d)-1 PARTIAL PENETRATION NOZZLE, BRANCH, AND PIPINGCONNECTIONSFigure 4-3: Attachment Weld Design Requirements [6]The requirement for the size of the weld is that the groove depth be at least 3/4tu, where tn is the nozzlebody thickness. Per [4], tn is equal to [ ]a.c inches [ ]a". Theminimum required depth is then 3/4 x [ ]c inches = [ ]a"c inches. The design weld depth of 1/2inch shown on [3] is greater than the required [ ]a.c inches. The 3/4tn requirement also applies to thewidth of the fillet weld leg, as shown above. The fillet weld length calculated from [3] is [ ]a.C inches(considering the [ ]a.C angle and the [ ]`-inch radius). This also meets the 3/4t. requirement.Figure NB-4244(d)-1, (c) also requires that the total weld size of the groove depth plus fillet leg height bea minimum of 1.5tu. The full weld size shown on [3] is 3/4 inches, which is greater than the required]'-c inches ([ ]"' inches = [ ]a.c inches).Word Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 17Socket WeldThe Class 2 socket weld connecting the instrumentation nozzle to the downstream piping is qualified bydesigning the socket weld according to Section NC-3661.2 of [6]. Because the weld is sized according todesign-by rules, it is qualified within the qualification of the existing Class 2 piping.Section NC-3661.2 of [6] references Figure NC-4427-1, which calls for a fillet weld leg size of 1.09 timesthe piping thickness. However, Arizona Public Service (APS) has requested that the socket weld bedesigned in accordance with [18] using a 2:1 ratio. Using this ratio, the minimum fillet weld leg is 1.09times the piping thickness on the shorter leg and 2.18 times the thickness along the pipe axis. This layoutis shown in Figure 4-4.tn I X = 1 .09 x:tn-for welds to fittingsWELD o or hub thickness2 X for welds to flarhesGAP 11/16" MIN.Figure 4-4: Socket Weld Design CriteriaThe attached Class 2 piping is [ ]axC (see Appendix B). Therefore, the thickness ofthe pipe is [ ]a'c inches. The minimum fillet leg sizes are [ ]aC inches and [ a inches. Thefillet sizing of 0.25 inches and 0.50 inches shown in [5] exceed this requirement.Section NC-3661.2 of [6] cites the ANSI Standard B16.11 [23]. However, the dimensional information inB16.11 is not a requirement, as discussed in Section 1.2 of [23]. All dimensions related to the design ofthe fitting (bore depth, diameter, etc.) have been designed on the replacement instrumentation nozzle tomatch the original design [24].4.6 Input4.6.1 Seismic and BLPB Response SpectraThe applicable RCP OBE spectra are included on pages C-107 through C-109 of [13]. The safe shutdownearthquake (SSE) spectra are included on pages C-281 through C-283 of [13].The BLPB spectra for this analysis have been developed, as discussed in Appendix A.Word Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA- 15-13-NP 0 184.6.2 Nozzle Mechanical LoadsThe nozzle mechanical loads were supplied by APS for evaluation of the replacement pressureinstrumentation nozzle, as shown in [14]. These loads are in the plant global coordinate system, where Xis south, Y is vertical up, and Z is west. The nozzle mechanical loads are summarized in Table 4-2. Thenozzle mechanical loads must be converted to the coordinate system of the instrumentation nozzle forevaluation. Per [17], the nozzle is in the horizontal plane, with its longitudinal axis offset 38.67' from theglobal x-axis.Table 4-2: Nozzle Mechanical Loads [141Global Load Normal Faulted[141 (Ibs, ft-lbs) (lbs, ft-lbs)Fx a,cFyFzMxMyMz4.6.3 RCP Safe End Applied LoadsThe RCP safe end applied loads are listed in the Palo Verde piping specification [9]. The pipe section ofinterest is the P-13 connection steam generator 2 to pump 2A. The piping loads are taken from the loadsfor P-4 at point B according to the sign convention shown on Figure 8, Sheet 8 of [9] for P-13. Theseloads are summarized in Table 4-3.Table 4-3: RCP Safe En Applied Loads [9]1)Piping Piping Piping Piping PipingDirection N01(pn NO2('l NO3P NO4(9 N05(IFx (kips) "_a,(Fy (kips)Fz (kips)Mx (ft-kips)My (ft-kips)Mz (ft-kips)Note:(1)a,c(2) Load cases piping N01 through N05 represent various normal operating load conditions combiningthe effects of deadweight, thermal (with and without friction during heatup), cooldown, and fullpower conditions as defined in [9].Word Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 194.6.4 Pressure and Thermal TransientsThe Palo Verde Unit 3 pressure and thermal transients for the RCP are listed in the generic System 80specification [12]. The RCP specification [8] points to reference [11], which states that the originalspectra are applicable for all three units at Palo Verde. The original spectra for the RCP are documentedin the generic System 80 specification [12].The Palo Verde Unit 3 pressure and thermal transient are taken from [12].The design pressure for Palo Verde Unit 3 is [ ]ac psi [12].4.6.5 GeometryThe following drawings are used as input to this calculation note:* [4] -replacement nozzle geometry and material* [3] -replacement nozzle attachment weld layout* [5] -RCP suction safe end sizingThe replacement instrumentation nozzle for Palo Verde Unit 3 is identical to the PLANT X [1] nozzle,except that it is slightly shorter to account for the remnant piece of the original nozzle.4.6.6 Material PropertiesTable 4-4 summarizes the material properties for the replacement half-nozzle and RCP safe end. Theseproperties are taken from the applicable ASME Code year [6], at an operating temperature of [ ] ac F.NoteTable 4-4: Half-nozzle Replacement Material Strength Properties(2)Material Sm (ksi) Su (ksi)SB-166 Alloy 690 23.3 70.0(1)SA-508 Class 1 17.0 N/A -not needede:(1) Material data for Su was in development in the 1974 ASME Code year. The Sm value between the1974 Code year and the PLANT X analysis (to a later Code year) is the same. Therefore, the Su valueof 70 ksi from the PLANT X analysis [1] is used herein. There is sufficient margin in the stresscalculations to justify this value of S,.(2) The strength of the attachment weld is based on the minimum of the material strengths for the RCPsafe end and the replacement instrumentation nozzle. This is a conservative approach for the strengthof the weld.Word Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 205.0 Evaluations, Analysis, Detailed Calculations, and Results5.1 Comparison of Palo Verde Unit 3 Transients to PLANT X Analysis TransientsComputer run 1 shows a detailed comparison of each required Palo Verde Unit 3 transient condition. Anoverall qualitative assessment of the transients, as compared to the applicable PLANT X [1] transients, isincluded herein. The purpose of this comparison is to show that the secondary stress and fatigueevaluations performed for the instrumentation nozzle in [1] are applicable to the Palo Verde Unit 3instrumentation nozzle transient evaluation.Fatigue and primary plus secondary stresses are affected by the following:1. thermal transients2. pressure transients3. number of cycles1. Thermal TransientsThe safe end of the instrumentation nozzle is insulated and the water inside the nozzle opening is trapped.Therefore, heat from the RCP water will be transferred from the inside surface of the RCP suction safeend to the attachment weld region by conduction.During normal operating conditions, the maximum reactor coolant temperature variations (excludingheatup and cooldown) are no greater than [ ]ar OF [12]. Thus, it is expected that temperature variationson the weld region and outer nozzle area for normal conditions are negligibly small and that thecorresponding stress variations are small. The Palo Verde Unit 3 heatup and cooldown transients aresimilar to the PLANT X heatup and cooldown transients, as shown in computer run 1.The Palo Verde Unit 3 upset transients [1"' are generally enveloped by two PLANT X upset transients]ax. The effect of theseupset transients on the weld region will be small.An ASME Section III evaluation only requires a primary stress evaluation for faulted conditions.Therefore, the faulted transient, [ ]a-c, is not evaluated. Only the primarystresses due to pressure and faulted mechanical loads are evaluated.2. Pressure TransientsThe maximum pressure variation during the Palo Verde Unit 3 normal transients is [ a,c psi and themaximum pressure variation for the Palo Verde Unit 3 upset transients is [ ] psi. For PLANT X, themaximum pressure variation is for the upset transient of decrease in heat removal by the secondaryWord Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 21system, [ ]` psi. The difference between the two plants during upset transients is [ ]ac psi.Therefore, the stresses due to this difference are expected to be negligible.3. Number of CyclesThe evaluations in this calculation note are only applicable for 18 months of operation for the Palo VerdeUnit 3 instrumentation nozzle. Based on that short duration, the number of cycles for the Palo Verde Unit3 instrumentation nozzle is much less than that evaluated for the PLANT X instrumentation nozzle forfull operating life (60 years).ConclusionBased on the three justifications above, it is concluded that the fatigue usage factor and the primary plussecondary stress on the J-groove weld and instrumentation nozzle calculated in PLANT X [11 areapplicable to the Palo Verde Unit 3 instrumentation nozzle and new attachment weld for 18 months.]a,c5.2 Vibration AssessmentSection 4.3 of [10] states that the reactor coolant system (RCS) may experience vibratory excitation withfrequencies of:* [ ]a,c CPS -lower range0 [ ] CPS -middle range0 [ `.c CPS -upper rangeThe replacement instrumentation nozzle has relocated the attachment weld; therefore, the naturalfrequency of the nozzle and attached Class 2 piping are evaluated to ensure that neither are within theexcitation ranges. This evaluation is performed in Appendix B.The results of Appendix B are summarized in Table 5-1 for the two-way restraint condition. The casesrun in Appendix B for various valve rotations were run to conservatively address all cases. However theonly case which is directly applicable to the actual valve orientation is labeled "Two-way Restraint."Table 5-1: Class 2 Piping and Instrumentation Nozzle Modal FrequencyMode FrequencyConfiguration Ist (Hz) 2nd (Hz) 3rd (Hz) 4th (Hz) 5th (Hz)Two-way Restraint [ .Note: Value in blue is the natural frequency of the replacement instrumentation nozzle.The first mode is the natural frequency of the piping. This minimum piping frequency of [ ]aC Hz andthe instrumentation nozzle frequency of [ 1a'c Hz are outside of the restricted ranges, which isacceptable to avoid a resonant vibration issue. All other frequencies are well outside of the restrictedranges.Word Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 22The frequency highlighted in blue is the natural frequency of the replacement instrumentation nozzle,]a.c Hz. [ ]a,c Hz is conservatively used in comparing to the applicable seismic and pipe breakspectra for the worst case acceleration of the nozzle. This frequency, [ ]a'c Hz, is used to determine thenozzle inertial loads due to OBE, SSE, and BLPB events. Per [25], the damping ratios to be used for aseismic analysis of small bore piping are 1% for OBE and 2% for SSE. 2% damping is also used for theBLPB response spectra. The response spectra documented in [20] and Appendix A were used to calculatethe inertial loads summarized in Table 5-2. See computer run 2 for calculation of the instrumentationnozzle weight and the center of gravity.Table 5-2: Seismic and Pipe Break Inertial Loads -Global Coordinate SystemC')LoadCaseAcceleration (g's)Force (lbs)x I Y I ZX IY IZOBE a 1SSEBLPBII,Note:(1) These loads are in the global coordinate system and must be rotated to the nozzle coordinates, asdiscussed in Section 4.6.2.5.3 Instrumentation Nozzle QualificationThe closed-form solution for the stress intensities of the PLANT X instrumentation nozzle is shown inTable 6-6 of [1]. This closed-form solution will also be used for the Palo Verde Unit 3 nozzle. Themechanical loads summarized in Table 4-2 for the Palo Verde Unit 3 instrumentation nozzle are used inthe formulas for the external load criteria to evaluate stress intensities in the replacement instrumentationnozzle. Table 5-3 summarizes the nozzle mechanical loads used to evaluate the PLANT X load criteria.Table 5-3: Adiusted Nozzle Mechanical Loads for Palo Verde Unit 3Nozzle Load Normal Faulted(lbs, in-lbs) (Ibs, in-lbs)Total Fat1)(Axial) _Fv(Total Shear)T(Torsion)Mb(Total Bending) Ia,cNote:(1) See Section 5.4.2 for explanation of total axial load.The PLANT X load criteria evaluations for the Palo Verde Unit 3 applied loads are summarized in Table5-4. The formulas in Table 5-4 are taken from Table 6-6 of [1]. This table was developed to calculateload criteria for the nozzle such that it meets all applicable ASME Code criteria based on the variousnozzle loadings.Word Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 23Table 5-4: Instrumentation Nozzle Load Criteria EvaluationStress Intensity (ksi) Loading Criteria (ksi)(')rC Condition= 6.96 Design Pm< [a = 17.64Pm LevelD Pm<[ ]a,c16.18 38.2= 8.97 Design PL + Pb < [ ]a,cPL + Pb== 26.96Pl+Pb Level D PL+ Pb< ]a,c19.71- = 57.8PL + Pb= This row is applicable to the original weld region only; therefore, it is not applicable to the replacementnozzle.Note:(1) Sin, P, and S,, are the same for the Palo Verde Unit 3 and PLANT X evaluations. Therefore, the criteria values havenot changed.The stresses calculated in Table 5-4 are well below the allowable stress values. As described in Section4.3.2, the impact of seismic and BLPB inertial loads is included in the applied loads. The evaluation ofthermal and pressure transients is bounded by the PLANT X analysis [1], as discussed in Section 5.1.]a,c Therefore, the instrumentation nozzle meets all ASME Coderequirements, and no further evaluation is necessary.5.4 Attachment Weld Qualification5.4.1 Nozzle Opening Reinforcement RequirementsASME Section NB-3330 requires reinforcement around any opening. The reinforcement requirement isrelated to the nozzle hole diameter. Since the existing base metal will be exposed to primary water, thebase metal might corrode over time. The reinforcement areas for three different hole sizes are calculatedto determine allowable hole diameters. As shown in Table 5-5, the minimum reinforcement area for eachhole size is greater than the required area of reinforcement.Word Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 24Table 5-5: Nozzle Opening Reinforcement CalculationsSince the hole size is much smaller than suction safe end size, the effect of the opening angle on the areacalculation is negligibly small.5.4.2 Primary StressThe following evaluation considers the applicable loading on the attachment weld to calculate the primarystress intensity. The loads for normal and faulted conditions are evaluated separately, against theapplicable Section III ASME Code allowable stresses. This evaluation includes the effects of mechanicalloads on the instrumentation nozzle, inertial loads due to seismic and BLPB, pressure loads from the RCPsafe and, and mechanical loads from the RCS piping on the RCP safe end.Table 5-6 summarizes the nozzle input loads. These loads are the sum of applied piping loads from Class2 piping, as well as seismic and pipe break inertial loads. To conservatively evaluate the OBE condition,OBE inertial loads are added to the normal condition piping loads. The summed applied loads areconverted to the coordinate system of the nozzle (where Fa is the nozzle axial direction, F, is the squareroot of the sum of squares of the two nozzle shear directions, T is torsion, and Mb is the square root of thesum of squares of the two nozzle bending moments).Table 5-6: Attachment Weld Input LoadsLocal CombinedTotal Input CoordinatesNormal Faulted UnitsFa -lbfFR, lbfT in-lbfMb in-lbfWord Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 25The weld size used in the following evaluations is [ ]a' inches. This size is used instead of the full weldsize of 0.5 inches [3] to account for potential corrosion in the RCP safe end base material. See Section5.4.1 for details regarding this evaluation. The case chosen for evaluation is the middle case, in which thenozzle hole radius is set to [ ]a,c inches. The resulting weld depth with an increased hole radius of]a`c inches is [ ]a"c inches of weld.Figure 5-1 shows the dimensions that are used in the structural evaluation. Computer runs 3 and 4include the full MathCAD input.Sa,cFigure 5-1: Instrumentation Nozzle DimensionsWord Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 26Normal Stress Evaluation:r--\axcWord Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 27acWord Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 28Xa,cWord Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 29Faulted Stress Evaluation:-axc-IWord Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 30a,cWord Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 31ra,cWord Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA- 15-13-NP 0 325.4.3 Secondary Stress and Fatigue EvaluationThe evaluation of secondary stresses and fatigue usage in the instrumentation nozzle in [1] consideredthermal and pressure transients, as discussed in Section 5.1. The only major difference between the PlantX attachment weld and the Palo Verde Unit 3 attachment weld is that the Palo Verde Unit 3 attachmentweld is on the outer surface of the RCP safe end; the Plant X weld is on the inside surface. See Figure4-1. Thermal and pressure transients are less severe on the outer surface of the RCP.As discussed in Section 5.1, the results of the primary plus secondary stress and fatigue usage calculationsin [1] are applicable to the evaluation of the Palo Verde Unit 3 instrumentation nozzle and attachmentweld for 18 months.The total cumulative usage factor on the outer surface of the RCP for the PLANT X analysis is]a.C. This evaluation is based on the full life of PLANT X. The Palo Verde Unit3 replacement nozzle need only be qualified for a single fuel cycle of 18 months. Therefore, the fatigueusage factors for the PLANT X analysis are bounding of the Palo Verde Unit 3 instrumentation nozzle.No further evaluation of the attachment weld is required.Word Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA- 15-13-NP 0 336.0 Listing of Computer Codes Used and Runs Made in CalculationTable 6-1: Summary of Computer Codes Used in CalculationCode Code Code Configuration Basis (or reference) that supports use of code inNo. Name Ver. Control Reference current calculation1 Microsoft N/A N/A Microsoft Excel is general purpose software forExcel spreadsheet applications. Microsoft Excel is not verifiedand validated for use in safety- or non-safety-relatedapplications; therefore, all calculations performed byMicrosoft Excel are verified per the requirements ofWEC 3.2.6 and WEC 3.3.3, as well as Level IIIProcedures ES 3.2.1.2 MathCAD N/A N/A MathCAD is general purpose software for mathematicalapplications. MathCAD is not verified and validated foruse in safety- or non-safety-related applications;therefore, all calculations performed by MathCAD areverified per the requirements of WEC 3.2.6 and WEC3.3.3, as well as Level III Procedures ES 3.2.1.3 ANSYS 12.1 [22] ANSYS is a general purpose finite element code that issuitable for the analyses contained in this calculation.The analyses include a heat transfer and stress analysis todetermine loads at various points within the system.ANSYS is a commercially available, general-purposecomputer code, verified and controlled in theWestinghouse computer system.4 PIPESTRESS 3.7.0 [26] General purpose code developed for use with piping fornuclear application. The program has a built-in functionthat computes resultant loads.56789101112131415Word Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 34Table 6-2: Electronically Attached File ListingacWord Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 35a,cWord Version 6.2

/Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 36Table 6-3: Computer Code Checklist(Completed By Author)No. Self Review Topic Yes No N/A1 Are macros, scripts, calculational worksheets, or single-application programs used in the Xanalysis?2 Have the requirements in WEC 3.6.1 and WEC 3.6.6, if applicable, for the documentation Xand qualification of the macros, scripts, calculational worksheets, or single-applicationcomputer programs been met?3 Has the range of use for the macros, scripts, calculational worksheets, or single-application Xprograms been verified and documented in the calculation note?4 Have all macros, scripts, calculational worksheets, or single-application program limitations Xbeen identified and documented within the calculation note?5 In the case of finite element analysis models, scripts and macros: Are there any commands Xor element type limitations identified that apply to this analysis?6 In the case of finite element analysis models, scripts and macros: Have macros X(e.g., ANSYS APDL) used in the analysis, been documented in accordance with WEC 3.6.1and WEC 3.6.6?,cWord Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA- 15-13-NP 0 37Appendix A: BLPB Response SpectraThis appendix describes the generation. of BLPB response spectra for the RCP.a,cA.1 InputsThe acceleration time-history data are from [21]. []axcWord Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 38ra,cA.2 Method of EvaluationIW a,cWord Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 39A.3 ResultsThe enveloped response spectra are generated for all damping values. These results are electronicallyattached in computer run 5. The 2% BLPB enveloped response spectra are shown in Figure A-1 throughFigure A-3./- __1 axcKJ2Figure A-i: BLPB Enveloped Response Spectra, Top of RCP Motor, X-directionWord Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 40r_1, a cFigure A-2: BLPB Enveloped Response Spectra, Top of RCP Motor, Y-directionWord Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 41acFigure A-3: BLPB Enveloped Response Spectra, Top of RCP Motor, Z-directionWord Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 42Appendix B: Evaluation of Instrumentation Piping FrequenciesThe purpose of this appendix is to calculate the frequencies of the instrumentation nozzle with theattached pipe.B.1 Method DiscussionThe instrumentation nozzle and piping PIPESTRESS model [26] is developed based on the geometric andmaterial information presented in [3, 4, 14, 16, and 17]. The applicable ASME Code years are [27] forthe piping and [28] for the instrumentation nozzle.B.1.1 InputMajor geometric input of the piping model is taken from [3, 4, 16, and 17]. Per [4], the material of theinstrumentation nozzle is SB-166 Inconel 690. The material of the piping is SA-312 TP304 per [14]. Thematerial properties used in this analysis are listed in Table B-1. The section properties of the model areshown in Table B-2.Table B-I: Material PropertiesI Modulus (10' psi) I 70*F I 200'F I 300'F I 400'F I 500'F I 600OF I 650OFl ISB-166 Inconel 690 30.3 29.5 29.1 28.8 28.3 28.1 27.85SA-312 TP304 28.3 27.7 27.1 26.6 26.1 25.4 24.8Table B-2: Sectional PropertiesCross- Outside Thickness Mass Densitysection Diameter (in) (in) (lbs/ft) Description1 a___Instrumentation Nozzle2 Instrumentation Nozzle with Larger Outside Diameter3 Piping without Insulation4 Piping with InsulationWord Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA- 15-13-NP 0 43B.1.2 Model DevelopmentThe PIPESTRESS model is developed based on [3, 4, 14, 16, and 17] and is shown in Figure B-1.axWord Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA- 15-13-NP 0 44-a,cFigure B-i: Instrumentation Nozzle and Piping ModelWord Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 45B.2 Modal AnalysisA modal analysis is performed for the instrumentation nozzle with the piping. The frequencies for threedifferent configurations (two-way restraint configuration, two-way restraint with 450 valve stem rotationconfiguration, and -450 valve stem rotation configuration) are listed in Table B-3. The first significantmodes for the piping are highlighted in yellow. The first significant modes for the nozzle are highlightedin blue.Table B-3: Natural Frequency DataConfgurto nModeConfiguration 1st (Hz) 2nd (Hz) 3r' (Hz) 4 (Hz) (Hz)-~I I I',cWord Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 46-,aCFigure B-2: Instrumentation Nozzle and Piping-'a,cFioure B-3: Valve with TubingWord Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 47Appendix C: Reference InformationC.1 Reference [24]Word Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 48C.2 Reference [301/I-a-,,cWord Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 49axcWord Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 50/-a,cWord Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 51Checklist A: Proprietary Class Statement ChecklistDirections (this section is to be completed by authors): Authors are to determine the appropriate proprietary classification oftheir document. Start with the Westinghouse Proprietary Class 1 category and review for applicability, proceeding toWestinghouse Proprietary Class 2 -Non-Releasable and finally to Westinghouse Proprietary Class 2 -Releasable. Theproprietary classification is established when the first criterion is satisfied.Westinghouse Proprietary Class 1D] If the document contains highly sensitive information such as commercial documents, pricing information, legalprivilege, strategic documents, including business strategic and financial plans and certain documents of the utmoststrategic importance, it is Proprietary Class 1. Check the box to the left and see Appendix B of Procedure 1.0 inWCAP-72 11, Revision 5, for guidance on the use of Form 36 and the distribution of this document.Westinghouse Proprietary Class 2 -Non-ReleasableReview the questions below for applicability to this calculation, checking the box to the left of each question that isapplicable. If one or more boxes are checked, the calculation is considered a Westinghouse Proprietary Class 2 -Non-Releasable document. See Appendix B of Procedure 1.0 in WCAP-72 11, Revision 5, for guidance on the use ofForm 36 and the distribution of this document.F- Does the document contain one or more of the following: detailed manufacturing information or technology,computer source codes, design manuals, priced procurement documents or design reviews?F] Does the document contain sufficient detail of explanation of computer codes to allow their recreation?D] Does the document contain special methodology or calculation techniques developed by or for Westinghouse usinga knowledge base that is not available in the open literature?[] Does the document contain any cost information or commercially or legally sensitive data?M Does the document contain negotiating strategy or commercial position justification?F] Does the document contain Westinghouse management business direction or commercial strategic directions?n Does the document contain third party proprietary information?FD Does the document contain information that supports Westinghouse patented technologies, including specialized testdata?FD Does the document contain patentable ideas for which patent protection may be desirable?Westinghouse Proprietary Class 2 -ReleasableF1 If the calculation note is determined to be neither Westinghouse Proprietary Class 1 nor Westinghouse ProprietaryClass 2 -Non-Releasable, it is considered Westinghouse Proprietary Class 2 -Releasable. Check the box to the leftand refer to Appendix B of Procedure 1.0 in WCAP-7211, Revision 5, for guidance on use of Form 36 and thedistribution of the document.Word Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 52Checklist B: Calculation Note Methodology Checklist(Completed By Author)No. Self Review Topic Yes No N/A1 Was the latest version of the calculation note template used? X2 Is all information in the cover page header block provided appropriately? X3 Are all the pages sequentially numbered, and are the calculation note number, revision number, and Xappropriate proprietary classification listed on each page? Are the page numbers in the Table ofContents provided and correct?4 Does this calculation note fulfill the customer requirements? X5 Is the Summary of Results and Conclusions provided in Section 2.0 consistent with the purpose stated Xin Section 1.0 and calculations contained in Section 5.0?6 Is sufficient information provided for all References in Section 3.0 to facilitate their retrieval (e.g., from XEDMS, SAP, CAPs, NRC's ADAMS system, open literature, etc.), or has a copy been provided inAppendix A?7 Are Section 4.2 and the open items box on the calculation note cover sheet consistent and, are all open Xitems documented in Section 4.2 tracked in an open items database and include an estimated scheduleddate for closure?8 Are all computer outputs documented in Table 6-2 and consistent with Table 6-1? X9 Are all computer codes used under Configuration Control and released for use? X10 Are the computer codes used applicable for modeling the physical and/or computational problem Xcontained in this calculation note?11 Have the latest and/or most appropriate versions of all computer codes been used? X12 Have all open computer code errors identified in Software Error Reports been addressed? X13 Are the units of measure clearly identified? X14 Are approved design control practices (e.g., Level 3 procedures, guidebooks, etc.) followed without Xexception?15 Are all hand-annotated changes to the calculation note initialed and dated by author and verifier? Has a Xsingle line been drawn through any changes with the original information remaining legible?16 Was a Pre-Job Brief held prior to beginning the analysis? X17 Was a Self Check performed prior to submitting the analysis for Peer Checks and/or final verification? X18 Was a Peer Check performed to review inputs documented in Section 4.6 prior to performing analyses? X19 Was a Peer Check performed to review results before documenting them in Section 5.0? X20 If required, have computer files been transferred to archive storage? Provide page number for list of Xfiles if not included in Table 6-2. Page21 If applicable, have the results of any previous assessments on the analysis of record been incorporated Xin this calculation note?22 If this calculation note requires a change to a safety analysis database (e.g., SAIK), has the change been Xsubmitted such that the database will be updated?23 If this calculation note used FEA methods, were the guidelines discussed in WCAP-16904-P used? X24 Has an editorial review been performed on this calculation note? X25 Are all trademark symbols and the trademark attribution statement correctly identified in the calculation Xnote?If 'NO' to any of the above, provide page number of justification or provide additional explanation here or on subsequent pages.Word Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 53Checklist C: Verification Method Checklist[Completed By Verifier(s)]Initial IfVerification Method (One or more must be completed by each verifier) Performed1 Independent review of document. (Briefly explain method of review below or attach.) SEL, GZH,AEW, ESS2 Verification performed by alternative calculations as indicated below.!)a. Comparison to a sufficient number of simplified calculations which give persuasive supportto the original analysis.b. Comparison to an analysis by an alternate verified method.c. Comparison to a similar verified design or calculation.d. Comparison to test results.e. Comparison to measured and documented plant data for a comparable design.f. Comparison to published data and correlations confirmed by experience in the industry.3 Completed Group-Specific Verification Checklist. (Optional, attach if used.)4 Other (Describe)(1) For independent verification accomplished by comparisons with results of one or more alternate calculations or processes,the comparison should be referenced, shown below, or attached to the checklist.Verification: The verifier's signature (or Electronic Approval) on the cover sheet indicates that all comments or necessarycorrections identified during the review of this document have been incorporated as required and that this document has beenverified using the method(s) described above. For multiple verifiers, appropriate methods are indicated by initials. Ifnecessary, technical comments and responses (if required) have been made on the "Additional Verifier's Comments" page.Additional Details of Verifier's ReviewThe 3-pass methodology has been used throughout.Word Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA- 15-13-NP 0 54Checklist D: 3-Pass Verification Methodology Checklist[Completed by Verifier(s)]No. 3-Pass Verification Review Topic Yes No N/AFirst Pass1 Were the general theme, scope of document, and scope of review clear? XSecond Pass2 Do the references appear to be documented correctly? Is there enough information present to Xensure the referenced document is retrievable?3 Do the acceptance criteria seem appropriate? X4 Does the technical content of the calculation note make sense from a qualitative standpoint and Xare appropriate methods used?Third Pass5 Do the results and conclusions meet the acceptance criteria? Do the results and conclusions Xmake sense and support the purpose of the calculation note?6 Has the technical content of the document been verified in adequate detail? Examples of Xtechnical content include inputs, models, techniques, output, hand calculations, results, tables,plots, units of measure, etc.7 Does the calculation note provide sufficient detail in a concise manner? Note that sufficient Xdetail is enough information such that a qualified person could understand the analysis andreplicate the results without consultation with the author.8 Is the calculation note acceptable with respect to spelling, punctuation, and grammar? X9 Are the references accurate? Do the references to other documents point to the latest revision? If Xnot, are the reasons documented? Are the references retrievable?10 Are computer code names spelled correctly? If applicable, are numerals included in the official Xcode name as appropriate?11 Has the calculation note been read word-for-word, cover-to-cover? X12 Have all differences between the documented and the verifier-calculated results been resolved, Xjustified if applicable, and documented?If 'NO' to any of the above, provide page number of justification or provide additional explanation here or on subsequent pages.Word Version 6.2 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLCCalculation Note Number Revision PageCN-MRCDA-15-13-NP 0 55Additional Verifier's CommentsThe signatures of the Author(s) and Verifier(s) on the cover page (or Electronic Approval) indicate acceptance of thecomments and responses.No. Verifier's Comments Author's Response (If Required)Revision 0-ANone None RequiredRevision 0As per mark-up All comments have been addressed1 44 41 44 44 44 4i i4 44 44 44 4________________________________________ -_______________________I_______________Word Version 6.2