ML080070080
| ML080070080 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 01/02/2008 |
| From: | Kinsey J General Electric Co |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of New Reactors |
| References | |
| MFN 06-119, Suppl 4 | |
| Download: ML080070080 (27) | |
Text
HITACHI GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy James C. Kinsey Vice President, ESBWR Licensing PO Box 780 M/C A-55 Wilmington, NC 28402-0780 USA T 910 675 5057 F 910 362 5057 iim.kinsey~ge.com MFN 06-119, Supplement 4 Docket No.52-010 January 02, 2008 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Subject:
Response to Portion of NRC Request for Additional Information Letter Number 16 Related to ESBWR Design Certification Application - Piping Design - RAI Numbers 3.12-11 S01, 3.12-22 S01 and 3.12-27 S01 The purpose of this letter is to submit the GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) response to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Request for Additional Information (RAI) originally transmitted via the Reference 1 letter and supplemented by an NRC request for clarification in Reference 2. The GEH response to RAI Numbers 3.12-11 S01, 3.12-22 501 and 3.12-27 S01 are addressed in Enclosure 1.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me.
Sincerely, Ja7ZesC. insey*
Vice President, ESBWR Licensing
MEN 06-119, Supplement 4 Page 2 of 2
References:
- 1. MEN 06-103, Letter from U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Mr.
David H. Hinds, Manager, ESBWR, General Electric Company, Request For Additional Information Letter No. 16 Related To ESB WR Design Certification Application, dated March 30, 2006.
- 2. E-Mail from Amy Cubbage, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to GE, dated May 20, 2007.
Enclosure:
1,. Response to Portion of NRC Request for Additional Information Letter Number 16 Related to ESBWR Design Certification Application - Piping Design - RAI Numbers 3.12-11 501, 3.12-22 501 and 3.12-27 501.
- 2. Attachment 1 - Proceedings of ASME-PVP 2007: 2007 ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Division Conference, July 22-26, 2007, San Antonio, TX, USA. PVP2007-26143. "Application of Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1144 Guidelines For Environmental Fatigue Evaluation to a BWR Feedwater Piping System."
- 3. DCD Markups.
cc: AE Cubbage USNRC (with enclosure)
DH Hinds GEHlWilmington (with enclosure)
GB Stramback GEH/San Jose (with enclosure)
RE Brown GEHl\Nilmington (with enclosure) eDRF 0000-0075-9909
Enclosure 1 MVFN 06-119, Supplement 4 Response to Portion of NRC Request for Additional Information Letter No. 16 Related to ESBWR Design Certification Application Piping Design RAI Numbers 3.12-11 S01, 3.12-22 S01 and 3.12-27 S01
IVIFN 06-119, Supplement 4 Page 1 of 8 NRC RAI 3.12-11 DCD Tier 2, Appendix 3D, provides a description of the major computerprograms used in the analysis and design of safety related components, equipment, and structures.
According to this appendix, the quality of these programsand computer results is controlled. The programs are verified for their application by appropriatemethods, such as hand calculations,or comparison with results from similarprograms, experimental tests, or published literature,including analytical results or numerical results to the benchmark problems. To facilitate the staff review of the computer programsused in the ESBWR design, provide the following additionalinformation:
(a) Identify which computer programswill be used during the design certification phase and which programs may be used in the future during the COL applicationphase.
(b) Identify which programs have already been reviewed by the NRC on prior plant license applications. Include the program name, version, and priorplant license application. As stated in SRP 3.9. 1, this will eliminate the need for the licensee to resubmit, in ýa subsequent license application, the computer solutions to the test problems used for verification.
(c) Confirm that the following information is available for staff review for each program: the author,source, dated version, and facility, a description, and the extent and limitation of the program application;and the computer solutions to the test problems described above.
GE Response (a) The programs used in the certification phase are:
PISYS07 It is a computer code for analyzing piping systems subjected to both static and dynamic piping loads.
ANS1713 The program is for calculating stresses and cumulative usage factors for Class 1, 2 and 3 piping components in accordance with articles NB, NC and ND-3650 of ASIVIE Code Section 111. ANS17 is also used to combine loads and calculate combined service levels A, B, C and D load on piping supports and pipe-mounted equipment.
All of the programs in Appendix 3.D.4 may also be used in the future during the COIL application phase.
MFN 06-119, Supplement 4 Page 2of 8 (b) PISYS05 has been benchmarked against NRC piping models. The results are documented in GE report NEDO 24210, dated August 1979 (Reference 3D 1 of Appendix 3D), for mode shapes and uniform support motion response spectrum analysis (USMVA) options. The independent support motion response spectrum analysis (ISMA) option has been validated against NUREG/CR 1677.
The PISYS05 computer program has been reviewed by NRC, and the results are benchmarked with NUREG/CR-6049. PISYS07 USMVA and ISMA analyses are the same as PISYSO5. It has been benchmarked with NUREG/CR-6049.
(c) The computer programs listed in Appendix 3D are available for staff review.
These programs are Level 2 programs. The author, source, dated version, and facility; a description, and the extent and limitation of the program application; and the computer solutions to the test problems are contained in the design record file of each program.
MFN 06-119, Supplement 4 Page 3 of 8 NRC RAI 3.12-11 S01 The issue involves the validation of the PIS YS computer code used for the piping analysis. GE should verify that the PISYS computer code correctly implements the RG 1.92 procedure for mode combinations. In addition, GE should provide a technical justification for accepting the results at those locations that exceed the NUREGICR-6049 acceptance criteria in the PISYS comparison with the NUREG/CR-6049 benchmark analysis.
GEH Response GEH has modified the PISYS program to comply with RG 1.92 Rev. 2, 2006. The new version of the program is PISYSO8. The PISYS08 program has been benchmarked with NUREG/CR-6049. The results are a 100% match with NUREG /CR-6049, except for a few values that are a 99%/ match. There were no locations that exceeded the NUREG/CR-6049 acceptance criteria in the PISYS08 comparison with the NUREG/CR-6049 benchmark analysis. Therefore, the requirements of RG 1.92 Rev. 2 have been met for the double sum of modal results and high frequency modes.
The detailed analysis and comparison are shown in GE-NE-0000-0070-1785-00, (eDRF 0000-0070-1 785) '"PISYS08 for Regulatory Guide 1.9R2 2006 and NUREG/CR-6049," a proprietary document, which is available for viewing in the GEH Washington office."
DCD Impact No DCD changes will be made in response to this RAI.
MEN 06-119, Supplement 4 Page 4of 8 NRC RAI 3.12-22 DCD Tier 1, Section 3.1, "Piping design," states that Class 1 piping systems will be analyzed for fatigue with environmental effects. Provide the analysis and design methods that will be used to perform the fatigue evaluation, including the environmental effects, for the ESBWR Class I piping systems.
GE Response Requirements contained in ASME Ill NB-3653. The load combinations contained in Table 3.9-9, and the plant event cycles contained in Table 3.9-1 of the DCD, define the design conditions that are inputs to the fatigue analysis. Additionally, GE has additional design criteria for carbon steel and stainless steel materials that are intended to address environmental issues that have been applied to prior BWR applications, and are likewise being applied to the ESBWR piping design. Additionally, class 1 piping using a fatigue limit of 0.1 instead of the ASME Code acceptance limit of 1.0 in conjunction with a stress ratio limit of 0.80 for Equations 12 and 13 of the ASME Code in order to limit the number of pipe whip restraints within the containment. DCD paragraphs 3.9.3.3 and 3.9.3.4 will be revised in DOD Revision 2 to reflect this commitment as follows:
"Additionally, a fatigue usage limit of 0.10 is used as a design criteria for all Class 1 piping."
Evaluations have also determined that the ASME Code has conservative methods that provide additional margins. Specifically, the ASME Code adds stresses that include P, Ma, Mb, Mc, OTi, DT2, and Dtab by absolute sum when in actuality the direction and signs of the stresses are different. Reference (1) has performed a detail finite element analysis to compare against the results of a NB-3600 analysis and found that the fatigue usage based on NB-3600 is about 10 times more conservative.
This design criteria that is being used for ESBWR is consistent with the design methods used on previous BWR product lines that have successfully operated for the last 40 years without piping fatigue issues. Data from fatigue usage monitors from operating plants have also confirmed that the design criteria specified by GE in the original plant design was conservative.
The simplified NB-3600 analysis has been used for last 40 years successfully. If newly developed environmental fatigue curves are used, high fatigue usage factors are predicted and pipe break locations will be postulated throughout the plant. The economical cost to the plant is huge, and any gain of safety is questionable.
It is recommended that the environmental fatigue design curves should not be used without substantial simultaneous changes in analytical methodology and the ASME Code.
MEN 06-119, Supplement 4 Page 5of 8 Ref. 1. "Fatigue Usage Factor Evaluation For An Integrally Reinforced Branch Connection Using NB-3600 And NB-3200 Analysis Methods" by Henry L. Hwang, PE, General Electric Nuclear Energy, Jack R. Cole, PE, David M. Bosi, PE, Design Engineering, Washington Public Power Supply System. PVP Vol. 313-2, page 139 through 156.
MEN 06-119, Supplement 4 Page 6 of 8 NRC RAI 3.12-22 S01 The RG on environmental effects in the fatigue calculations of Class I piping will be issued soon. GE committed to implement the criteria for evaluating environmental effects, but will request some relaxation in the pipe break criterion for fatigue usage. GE will provide the results of a study showing the impact of the new environmental fatigue criteria to support its request to relax the pipe break fatigue usage criterion. This item is open pending staff review of the GE submittal.
GEH Response The environmental effects on fatigue in accordance with DG-1144 and NUREG/OR-6909 has been incorporated in GEH piping program ANS17014; however, this incorporation is conditional to the NRC accepting a change from 0.1 to 0.4 fatigue usage as specified in BTP EMEB 3-1 to exempt piping components from pipe break consideration. Since this change has previously been discussed with the NRC staff, GEH will proceed to change DOD sections. 3.6.2, and Table 3.9-9 to incorporate this change.
GEH's study of the impact of implementing the new environmental fatigue criteria is shown in Attachment 1, PVP2007-26143, "Application of Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1144 Guidelines for Environmental Fatigue Evaluations to a BWR Feedwater Piping System". This paper contains a detailed description of the methodology and output comparisons of fatigue usage factor with and without inclusion of environmental fatigue.
DCD Impact DCD Tier #2, Table 3.9-9 will be revised in Revision 5 as shown in the attached markup 1.
DOD Tier #2, Section 3.6.2, will be revised in Revision 5 as shown in the attached markup 2. .
MFN 06-119, Supplement 4 Page 7 of 8 NRC RAI 3.12-27 DCD Tier 2, Section 3.7.3.12, discusses the effect of differential building movement on piping systems that are anchored and restrained to floors and walls of buildings that may have differential movements during a dynamic event. SRP 3.9.2 Section 11.2.g states that the responses due to the inertialeffect and relative displacement for multiply-supported equipment and components with distinct inputs should be combined by the absolute sum method. Provide the combination methods that are to be used in the design of ESBWR piping systems for the inertialresponses and SAM responses caused by relative displacements for all analysis methods (including ISM).
GE, Response DCD Tier 2, Section 3.7.3.12, discusses the effect of differential building movement on piping systems that are anchored and restrained to floors and walls of buildings that may have differential movements during a dynamic event. In general, the piping systems are anchored and restrained to floors and walls of buildings that may have differential movements during a seismic event. The movements may range from insignificant differential displacements between rigid walls of a common building.at low elevations to relatively large displacements between separate buildings at a high seismic activity site, Piping system is different from multiply-supported equipment. For piping system, the induced displacements in compliance with NB 3653 are treated differently than the inertia displacements. The SRSS method is a standard industrial practice to combine the inertial responses and SAM responses caused by relative displacements.
MFN 06-119, Supplement 4 Page 8 of 8 NRC RAI 3.12-27 S01 SRSS combination of the inertial and SAM responses for USM method of analysis is not consistent with the staff position in the Standard Review Plan (SRP). GE should provide additional technical justification for this position.
GEH Response During the NRC audit meeting held between January 9 through January 12, 2007 at San Jose, CA (Reference NRC "Audit Trip Report," ML070930012), the NRC staff found that the SRSS combination for the inertial and SAM responses is acceptable for the piping stress analysis, except for piping support designs. For piping support design, the DCD is being revised to show that the absolute sum method (ABS) is used.
DCD Impact DCD Tier 2, Section 3.7.3.12 will be revised in Revision 5 as shown in the attached markup 3.
MFN 06-119, Supplement 4 Enclosure 1 - Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 1 Proceedings of ASME-PVP 2007:
2007 ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Division Conference, July 22-26, 2007, San Antonio TX, USA.
PVP2007-26143, "Application of Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1 144 Guidelines for Environmental Fatigue Evaluation to a BWR Feedwater Piping System"
MEN 06-119, Supplement 4 Page 1 of 9 - Attachment 1 Proceedings of ASME-PVP 2007:
2007 ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Division Conference July 22-26. 2007, San Antonio, TX, USA PVP2007-261 43 APPLICATION OF DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE DG-1144 GUIDELINES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL FATIGUE EVALUATION TO A BWR FEED WATER PIPING SYSTEM Hardayal S. Mehta Henry H. Hwang GE Energy Nuclear 6705 Vallecitos Road Sunol. CA 94586 ABSTRACT DG2-ll44 to provide ptaidance ib-o usie in derctaisiaing dic Recently puiblish-cl Draft Rcutelatory Guide DO 1144 by thec accept~able fatigue- life of ASME pressýurc boiuidavy NRC provides -,u Itncc fmt me in tkknnminin the icccptable coipnNts ith consideration of LAVR emiviro ninit [171]
faisut life of `'~E roýiur~c budr iontswith The associated detailed --nidaricc documaent i's NL REC 'CR-cidersion t sh 'Ict Water MeaIoMIL P em-rnuoument. 6900)[IS], The NýRC addre!ssed the public cornanexivs and Vs The aalytic;al epeso and. furhri daii .:t provided in expected to issue the fnlversion a~sRegurlitory Guide '07 NUREO;CREQ C0O Ir, th s lpaptC thle euvWome~ntl faiuen \WREG!/CR.6909 adot, theil iote'a fatieul rules tire appled toa BW\R ftcdlvater flie. The p ipenaaterial co-retioal faictor mnethod o ,_.mnethod to acc~osufor dlic is cairbon steel ;SA333: Ga; 6) am-d;te feedwvatcr nozzle ens-irounnaental fatigue eiffects, F. is defined as th matewof amaerial is lowsalloy szeel (SASOS Class 2). Tile transfientst used tati~gue initiation fife in air at room teriperature to that in in dhe evaluation ate based on the thermnal cycle diiaeram of thet reactoriwater at tile service temaperiatutre. The reruators 'nudies piving. The calcutlated f'trigue usage factors inchiding the are miotmandatory., However, the NRC is likely to ask ennviomunenmal etfects are conpared-with taose obtained using applicants for Certification of new reactor &42115~ fortileb thle cumnent A'M\IE Code rules. In both cass te cumnutaive technical approach they plain to followN to ~as fotisue misac factor Ire shown to be lesý thani 1,0, en-vironmnental fiatiene effects.
BACKGROUND & INTRODUCTION This paper d.-scribes the resuilts of tile applicatton of DG-Since the early 1980s the cffec-ts of high merperatilue water 1144, methodology tona BWR plant piping system. The systema onmthe faitiuei cyclic life of light water mector [LWVR] chosecn is feedwvaser apiping inside the containment. TI1ais systerm comuponenits have "beti me~nmsiely dmasas,,Td by nmnaserolis as trPically classified ais Class I per thle ASNIE Code researchers, Peertencei I thoneli 1-5 are some oftl th Classification.
cxamples. TheSuigsu oin Fatigue Swngqli of tithe ASME Boiler & Prvesli d is Cull nt-iv 'a k-ikmm
("ATeelC onl I Code Case that ""010j i deptcoue for ilimomvcstrw the DESCRIPTION OF PIPING SYSTEM reactor Water env11'oimýetstal eftect,ý in thle fatt~lle evalultionl Figurre I schematically shosws the Fecd-wamer piping system.,
conducted pcr the 'Audelines ir Seciom !I! Piateaaphis NB- fte pipina2 systema delivers the 4feedwater to the r eactor It also 3200 and NB3-360fl110]. receieves water froms Res-idual Heat Rtimoval (PT{R,) antd Recently. thle U.S. Nutclear Rea-ulatory Coammission (NRC) Reactor Core Isolarioia Cooling, (RCIC) systems.ý The: portion halspublished for pu~blic comnasent thle Draft Rcenlatory Guidec of the p~iping betweenn tile reacor- nozzle and the header at phe Copyrigb r C 2WX7 by ASINE
MEN 06-119, Supplement 4 Page 2 of 9 Enclosure 1 containment oitetration is, tesisawd to AS24IE Class I cumm [livev fati..teusae factors are- diwcussed Late" in thlis requiiretants piping thickness is per schedule 80, Thle paperalong2 with thle tinvironmecltitl fatigue us ccgf. etolr sýpecified design pressuire and tenmperaturte for this; piping are 1250 psi and 550'F, respectively. The feedwarer temperature ENVIRONMENTAL FATIGUE EVALUATION during normtal operation is 4-10' F. METHODOLOGY Appendix A of Reference IS provides tie, ertatilons to calculate the enrvironmetntal correction factor F,!. Table 3 extracted from PIPING STRESS ANALYSIS BY CURRENT CODE Reference IS shows the equations for carbon and low alloy RULES steels the materials of interest for feedsvater line. The Fltier 2 shows the mlathematical miodel of the feedwater cninulative failouc usage factor. U,,. considerinz tile effects of pipiim2 ssteal, Thet piping nonsinal1 di~amletersi ire 22-inlchtes at reactor coolantt m-istrollients is Calculated as the fokllowing:
the containtunent pentltration (Node 26 at the I ight hand bo:.tolm of Fiogure 2) and 12-inches at. theý point where Itht riselrs connlect thou t end to tlw ee ae noz Xs(odesý 49, 67 Ind S5 iuTFieure 2), where, U, amd Fm are the partial fatigue usage faictor and the enrvironmnental fatigue cotvectiolt factor, resýpectively, for the A complete Class I piping stress analysis, including a fatigue "i"ih load set paitt Thle partial fat~igu usage factor Ui is to be emaluation, was first conducted accordin2 to the rules of based onl air fatigue curves at roomn temmipet antic. The Fat is Paragraph -NB-3600 of ASME Saction 111 t19], A GE defined as the ratio of fatigue life its air at ioomn temperature proprietary comlputer prolgrans. AN'SI [201 ssas used, in the to That ill waqter at tilse service tenipe anttre N:)
anlyis. A key input to the Code fistipts ev~aluatoin is the Reference 1S tlso provides alternating siress (S) versits pressreitepera irv-ut cycles i-oi the vs,ttm, Figture 3 curves for carbon, low alloy andi stainliess steels, Thesie Curv%,es dhows a part of the pressUrel/temperatut e dulty cycle ffor Thle ate dfiffrent than the current S-N cum'--, itt the ASNIE Code.
feedsrater system considered its thisý evaluanion. It defines the For covnec.Table 4 gives the slict.ired values for the expected feedwater temnperature chanotes during the Hot curtent Code carves and thle Refeiecite 1 IS i Standby evecnt, The unumber in each of the dianionds onl thrs figttre repvmresntadeidlodtte I n rIIseload mtate 2S the F.. Calculation for a Load Set prair temiperarture changes fronti 126~C (259'F) to 282%C' (54OTF) in . A review of tile equations in Table 3 indicates, that F,~ is a 10 minutets. The load state 29 is defined as a step drop in ftinctiots of four paraineters; S¶: T5". 01 and et". For the tenilperature fromll 2S2-C to 126,C (259T). In a singele Standby pttrpose of this evaluiation, mlost. Conservative viluies of Slý event these load states occur 2-4times. S'ince ther'e are 166 htot 5
(=0.01:51, W (=Iý1n15,1,) and c (1{000) were assumed.
standby events postuated. 'the snunber of cycles for events' 28 and 29 are (1166x24) or 398)4. The .Appendix A of Reference IS altov.ys th. utse- of average of dth maxitnuims andi ininitmuns tempernatures iii a trainsient Itn For tile load states that involve aI temperature trani.ent. The desernlittation of the appropriate tenipemarure T for the one-dimnitsionat heat tranisfer analyses were conducted to calculation of parameter T*. This approach witas followed in define ktheappiropritie valuesý of temtpel attre pat antetr usdIn this cvahussion as illststratcd by a sample calcutlationi dtesciibed thle fstiout tvaluzation. Specifically. thet qna'rtittes calculated next, were average teniperarures onl each side of a node point JT, onl side A and Tt, onl side B).1AýTj (linear thern-Ld 21radietit) and AT, A part of tile pyartial ctiumulative taugute ts age factor (nt-tonlneai, thermail etradienit, cacltonra Node 0,48 usitig the, csulent A.SN-.E fattigue cturv-es, dissown in Table 2. Tetnmearatre T for itlte calcuilation Taible I Qhow' t Itattial Vmtin2 ofthe load states of F, o the load set pair 282S92(indicated by bold in the table)
(hereinafter called load sets) inforinmaion at Nkvde 048 (at was deItelrinited as follows, As seen in F&igure 3. the inaxununan Feed-water nozzle)t. This, infonnataion is used iti developing the atad iutittimun templjeraitures duringL these nvo load sets aie load set pair information for fatiwiuetsac calculation. A 2S2"'C (5401F) aid 126'C (259WF). resp-ectively. Therefore. the pariali listing of the load set pairs information tot the ,aftne average tevaperartue dusing thle rrtmnsient is' [ 18'26)721 or node is shownr in Table L. The last cohuitn ýhoss s the partial 20PVC (399'F), Thusý. T* = (204-150) or 544, For tme nozzle fatifsic usagte factob. For exanipl~c foi thle load set panr 28-29 side at node 04S. thec iraterial is low alloy steel. The F,ý, for (indicated by bold itnTa ble -2), the calcultate da titiuealteinauing this load set pair is calculated am:
stress is 151 MlPa (columln S froml left sýide) anld the coiresponding partial fiatiguei usage factor is 0.0626 based oil eF, ?2-.~x.055.xlt(2.)xn(.0) thle cun'enat Code faitiue curve for carbon and lowv alloy steels epf0 702~0101x.
tx x4h25576Oýi wNithl tltiniatv Tvcinilc stressý lethans 90 k-,i. Thmecalculated 8,409 Cooy-rittht t?(2007 by ASME
MFN 06-119, Supplement 4 Page 3 of 9 Enclosure 1 Thle partial fatigute usage fietoi for load set pair '-S-29 i~s case of carbon and iloný alloy steel. piping systems, tIle increase shossu -ts 0 On o-` inl Tablel It is rioted that this is based oil the <Iue, to thle tise of F_ ik sign ficaaflv offset by thle advantage cutttrett Code tts.curse Fot the samec level of altvumating gained througah the uisc of air S-N curves Provided in strss ii-Pile ll t'c umbrif vCycleon thel NUP.T/CR-909.Ti'us suouLI not bic the, casýe for tils alloysteei S \cuse2 i e inl NU-RECkCR-6909(se olm 4 steel pipinst systemns "!.ere the iin S-N curves in NURETCi-!
in Table 4) otild be I SOS8-"O This; vwould gsuve air curve partial 6909 predict, higher tisage fiicuot than the Code cre fatigue u-.age of (39641 5 982u)) r 0,0248, It is seen that the ulse of NURE&C- R-6909 ait ftan'ue curve rcesults in a reduction In general one would expect several fold increase in the of better than factor of two reiduction, in the partial fatigue calculated fantige usage factor when) F,,, is used. This wvould us~age value for this load set pair. The partial fatigue mtage for have implications; in terusrs of nuimber of licatious wvhere this load set pair considering environniental fatiorle, effects is hypothetical pipe breaks need to be postulwitM Currently. rthe.
(0. O24SXSAOP9') or 0,20&. NeRC Branch Technical Position M-ED 3- [21 is uised for po~stulation of breaks inl high enecrgy lines, MEB ,-I r-equires A siintihr calculation for F,, onl the safe end side, that is postulation of a break at an intermiediate: locstions if the fatigue carbon steel, Lives a value of '784 1, For the alterntatilag stress usage at a locatioil exceeds 0A1or thle prinnary plus seconda-ry level of 15 1 MPai for this load set pair. the allowable number of stress range exceeds 2.A S,. The calculated priimary pinls cycles onl the low alloy steel S-N7 curve ziven in \UJRFG/CRý secondary stress rangeLis t.ot n'mpactedt by the use of Fe~ but the, 6909 (see coluimn ' in Table 4' ivould bec 570820. This would fatigue usage ifactor is. The use of F, results itnmore locations give air cur-ve partcld ftigtieu usage of (396415 768-10 1 or0,0069. whviere cumiulative fatigule usaoe fac.tor wvould exceed 0. 1. More The use of N7UREGCvC P6909 asir fativue curve for carbon steel break- locationta mecans titole p ipe wship restraint to mecet thle results in a reduiction of an ahuost an order of vna~intilde inl the recluireninent of General Design Ciittrioii 4 of 10CFR5O ['22].
partial fatig-ue uisage valuec for this load set pair. Thet parial Howe."ver. the presenice of mlore ptpe whip re~straints adversely faigue usage for this load set pailr considering ens iloui..naetal affects the ability to condutct piping in-servýice inspections; and fatig-li cffects is (0t0u69x`.S41') or 0,054. It is seen thait at thins have I negantvc ifmpat Oil piping reliability during least for thsloAd set Panr thei tcio inl partial anr tan'nge operation. The 0.1 fatiguie usage threshold was based onl usage thoghne uise of (URG/R-5909 cuirve more than enugaeering jidgmeilet and perhapas can be revised upuvards to offset the increase dule to F,. say 0.4 or 0.6 to avoid this situation. Tile revision could be.
jitstitied through a piping reliability analysis; somewvhat similar A subrovtinie that calculates. cumullative fitattee usiage to that conducted in su~pport of revised Appendix L in ASMIE inchiding2 reactor water effects accordfing to DRC.-l 144. uvas Section NI Code [231.
added to the ANS17 comlptter code used in the, pipuing stress analyses, The calctslaticon resuflts for the subject feedwak~ter piping are discussed in the next section.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS This paper prten~t5s the resuilts of a Cliass I stress analysis of a 3\VR Fcedsývat.-r piping system in which. the etivillomninltal ENVIRONMENTAL FATIGUE EVALUATION RESULTS fatigute effects due to reactor wyater per DG- 1144 were Table. 5 provides a stuninary of the calculated vailue~s of incluided. The materials consýidered were carbon and low alloy ctullularive fatigue us~age iactors at twvo locationis. For thle steels. The tesults showed that there isaamodest inreasme in the fecedwa'ter nozzle location. ulsa~ge factors are providedI fol. both calcuIlated fatigue usage factois but thle values svere fotund to be the nozzle side (low Alloy steel) aiid the safe end side (Carbon acceptable (i.e., less than 1L0). The increase inl fiatige nsage steel). It is seen tiat there is a miodest impact Onlthe calculiated may resutlt inl more locations where CUT- exceeds5 0.1 thereby fatigue isagec factors whenl reactor water envir1ouamental effects resulting in more locations with break postulations atid ire iaciored inl At the safe end location, the redluction is air requirement for installation of pipe -sship r estratints. Ani upwavrd faitiguec usaze thr-outub the usie of NUREG-I/CR-6909 S-N cturves. revision of 0. 1 fatiguec "sisag threshold is recuoimllneided througýh essentially offset the increase due to the usec of F,, a piping reliability study, This papel- lid not incltude stainiless steel piping systemn evaluation wherc the iLSI act of DO- 1144 procedures may result inl a significant, increase in the calculated DISCUSSION cun'tlhatts e fatigue usage tactor.
The inrae inaculated f-aitige usag~e -when cnviromninvtal ftimgnei criecu Ire taken Into accoklitý -was modest for the REFERENCES feedsvater ~it., considered inl this es iluationl, One, of the [I] Hale, D.A., ital."Low Cycle fatigule of Comlmercial reasons is that tile normnal operating teltupeftislre f1or Thle Piping Steels In a BWR P'ianairy Environinnrt," J.
fecdwatiilce tnat40ýC) is comaparative lv lowsei than thce typical Enanittering Materials Technology.Vol 103. pp. IS-operating tensperi'urei for the prisnars piping in LWRs. In the 2ý5.1981.ý Copyright ' 2007 by ASME
MFN 06-119, Supplement 4 Page 4 of 9 Enclosure 1
[2]1 Ranvilath. `-, JNL Kiss, and S.D. Heald. "Fifiii- the 200,5 .ASIF Pre,,sin- V'essels and Piciino Behavior of Carbon Steel Coinnt i Hig~h- Cnenc.July 17-21.1 2005. Densver C0, Paper Tiepeature Water Envirounments." AST\'1 STP 770ý PVP2005-'7 140..
American Society for Testing and NMatert'ilsý pp, 4-',q [14] O'Donnell. XNU_ WX.J. O'Donnell, and T.p. 0 Doninell, 459,1982, *'Propo~sed New Fatigue Desrusn Cutves foro C arbon
[3] Hiyiichi. M. and KR lida. "FatiLgue Srrenjthý Correctin and Low,-Alloy Steels in High Tenmperature XWateiý Factors foi Carbon and Low-Ailloy Steels; 'in Oxven. Proc. of the -2005 ASME pressure Xes5,els and Pipin-Cotaining Hieli-Tcniperatue kWtr.t "I Nulear Conference. July 17-2L. 2005 Denver, COý Paper Emrneerienn Designi. VOL. Ii9 pp,23-306 199 1. PXP-005- 141I0.
[4] S, M'siumd'ir. O.K. Choprat anid X J, Shack, "'interim [15] Nal 'muain' T, M, Higuchi. T. Kusunoki and Y Sugieý Fatigue Designi Curves for Carbon. Low-alloy. and "MME C dson Enviv-roinmental Fatirtie Ev aluation.
Atistcuntic Stainless Steels i s LXX "R Env'otnnents, Proc. of the 2006 ASME pressure Vsesand Piping.
NZUREG'CR-55999. April 1993 Conterence, July 2.3-277. 2006. \"iancouiver, Canadal
[5] \'le1'ta H S. and S.R. Gos'eli n. onin Factor Paper PX P2006-lCPVTl 11-93305.
A~pproasch to Account for XX 71ter Effet,, in PressuIre [16] Lcner tusin Subcommrittee on Nuclear Powxei Bill Vesiel aind piping Fitigue Evaitatons'" Nucleac O DonnellI to Richard Barnes. Chiknman Engint~eriviandlDe'ian. Vol 11p- 1'.998lO Subcommitteie III, doated February 9. 2007, Sub~ject:
[6] Melita. i-is.; -An Update on the Consideraton, of Implemtentation of Febrtuary 1, *07 Plin to Resolve Reactor XWater Effects in Code Fatizue Isniatnton Environmental Fatigue Issue for .Nuvclear Powver Evaluations, for Pressure Vicsse.ls aud Pipin%. AS\IE Plants.
PVP1,ohnne 410-2, pp. 4 5-5, 2i000. [1!] Draft Regulatory~ Guide DO-I 144; Guidelines5 for 7] Higuchi. M_ "Fatigue Cuvvteý an'd Fatigue Design Evaluiating- Fa'r te Analvslv; Incorporating the Life Criteria for Carbon -and Lowx alloy Steels in High Reduction of Metal Components Due to the E ffects of Temaperature Water," AS. IE P P Vol ume "86, pp, Fhe LiI:ht WXater Rector-, Envirks)untent for INew 161-169. 1999 Reactors; US Nucleinl C~~ltr'(owisin July
[S] Higuchi, NL -Reviý-e Propoial ot Fatigue Life 2006, Conrectiona Factor F, for Carbon and Low alloy Steels [1S] Chopra. OXK. atid INJ. Shack-. -Effect of LINVR in L\V'R Enyuronin'ent A.SME PVPT Volumce 410-2. Cwoolat Etivironnients on The Fatieue Life of Reactor 2000. Materials." NURECI/CR-6909, Draft PRepomt February
[9] Hiuetisi. M, Iia. K. Hi-uano' A, Tsunsumi, K, and 2006; Final Report, February 2007.
Sakazuchi. K. "A Proposal of F'ntiue Life Correction [19] "Rute for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Factor F,~ fol Ansteninc StnesSteel,, in L.WR C~omponsents,~ Section III, Division 1, ASME Boiler-XWater Ens ironnicints. ASMEr P\ P Volumse 4.R Ppp, and Pressure VseCodie. American S.ocietv of 10()-117. 200Ž. Mechanical Engineers.
[10] Chopra. O).K, and XVJ. Shack, Envirnomuental Effects [20] piping Stress A~nalysis; Cotinputer Code, ANS17 (GE on Fatigue Crack Initiation ini piping and Pressu;re Proprietary).
Vessel Steel-,.'* NIJREGICR-6717 \IMav 200 1. [2)) Standard Review Plan Section 3,6. of \UREC-IOSM0
[11] Van Der Shiys. WA,, 'P\PC *s Position onl Branch Technical Position \IEB 31. 'Postulted Environmntaill Effects on ftwine Life in LUT, Ruipture Locations, in Fluid Ssstensi Piping. hinide and Applictok "Xedo Research C ouncil Bulletin Outsidle Coittaiinment.- Revis~ion, 2. June 1.9S7.
487. Deceinblý 'i03. [22] 10 CFR Part 50. appendix A. Geneial Design Criterioni
[12]1 H'ipuchi. M_ Hirano, T and Sakagichi. K.. 4. Evrneta n isl Des;ign Basi's" "Eautonfo Fatieue Dain-az OnlOperaIting plant [23] A'Inrerirds Reh/abiiits 1-i sogi'aui: Recommeunded Components in LWVR Water, ASME PVP Volume Miproa'enjents to AS21IE Se.ction .X7A4ppendtd~ L i'MRP-4S0, pp. 129-138, 004, 62), EPPJ. Palo Alto. CA and U$.S departenett of
[1.3) O'Donnell, XX'J WI 0'Doninell. and T.P O'Donniell. Einegy. Washington. D.C.-. 2002.
'Propeo.,e 1 Ne.w Fatigue Desdign (inrve~s for Axeii Stainlessý Stetlsý Alloy 6000 andtAlox S00.' Proc. Oif 4 4~CoDovri.jt C:2007 b 'ASME
MEN 06-119, Supplement 4 Page 5 of 9 Enclosure 1 Table I Example of Load Set Inforination for Node 048 TRANSITION NEAR NODE 048.
33, 7neatLur'a IN2) za) TES DTI
-MŽ71240 144 . Q7 10.
3247752 2 14.79
'24
-177447ZS 215 ZA)
E7952 2243589 28 3984 7, -27788604 42316516 10034U42 133.00 132.00 1.60 74.600 29 3984. 7. -20168404 19521136 -49962788 255.00 261 .00 -8. 90
-43.00 2243509 *116 Wc 31 7.7 E9<197272 -7175757 1 .47,
- 7. -25143124 1" . 01 15S. 1.
- 1. -2013447E - 7M 0. 47
- 1. 372692016
-272175S Table 2 Fatiggue U-sage Calculation Process at Node 048 Using, Currenmt Code Curve TA1t13 I. _:ý.-D 7O3 '2
-SIRES'. RANGE AND 'tATIGUr VUSAGE a K UA4 1z $I 1" z~Ž FE 45 42
. .42 C.S'B5 147. HE.
0.4S4 5 a5a42 212237 44.
- 2 74 7.
55 28 29 303. 85. 71. 28 151. 0.231 0,094 3934. 62894. 0. 062t
'-7. 1%
k1.00 71470.
215 12. 5.40.
BMW.
MUT.
j 41 45 (Copyright -3 2007 by~A~SM'E
MEN 06-119, Supplement 4 Page 6 of 9 Tible 3 F,. Equarious froin Appetidis A of NUREGX'C"R69O9 Thoiin en p0vnvy22w tnol oo.101io fatIO for CabI I see ;Z2;,i~
A ý2,ý
~~~i-(C,6 -0 10~ak WS Tii 4 0'
= x(7 02 - -,101 Sý T
- 74Q .
T C)~ ~Ind tra nsfori~me~d S content, ieilpnpea reý DO -.111, ne. .
ndstIn nvl S n00m < 0.00 1 wt.%)
S, S _ 0_0 i5
. vi (Al:
00 ~DO <0O04 popni C)-' DV 04) ~ o4 Ippj DO 0: ppii S 0 > 1%:'ý)
~~~:~~ 1ý,) 000 <
t lf(I000 ) 0 iR '
6 6Copri~h ©~ 007 by ASME
MFN 06-119, Supplement 4 Page 7 of 9 Table 4 S-N V'alues in Current Code and INIREG/CR-6909 Cycle~s CS/,LAS CS Air LAS/Air SS SS C~urrenit Code 'NUREG/CR-6909 NUTREG!'CR-6909 Cuirent Code NU,7REG/CR-6909
[TUTS<8OKsij ("MRh (MIPa) CMPa) (MPa) 10 3 999.2 5357.5 5467.8 4881.7 599&8.
20 2827.. 3833.7 3882.0 3530.3 4302.6 50 1896.2 2509,8 2)440.9 2378.8 27 51.2 100 1413,5 1820.3 1758.3 1799.6 17.
201068,77 1358.3 1303.2 13591441,1 500 724,0 937.77 903.3 1020.5 97 2.2 1000 572.3 7730.9 717.1 820.5 744.7 2000 441,3 584.O 577.8 668. 590,2 5000 331,0 453.O 435.1 524.0 450.3 10000 262.0 373,0 348.2 441.3 368.2 2.OOE+04 213.7' 304.8 277.9 382.729.
5.00E-04 158.6 237.9 210.3 319.2 235.1 1.OME-05 13-7.9 201.3 171.7 281.3 195.8 2.00E-104 113,8 175.8- 142.0 247.5 168&2
ýý.OOE-05 93.1 153.8 115.8 213.7 142.0 1.00E+06 86.2 142.7 106.2 195.1 126.2 2.0.E-'06 83,.2 138.0 102.5 157.2 113.1 5MOE+06 79.3 131,9 97.8 126.9 102.0 1.OOE+07 76.5 127.6 94.5 113.1 99.3 2.00E+07 73:9 123.2 91.2 104.8 98.71 5.00E-07 7/0.7 117, 87.1 98.6 97.8 1.00F+08 68,3 113.8 84.1 97.2 97.2 1.OOE-09 60.; 101. 75.2 95.8 95.8 1.OOE+10 54.5 89, 66.9 94.5 94.5 L.00E+11 48.3 80.0) 59.31 93.81 93.s Table, -5Current Code and Environmental Fatigue Usage Factors Node 'Location/l.ateria Fatigue Usage by Current Code Fatiaue Usape by I NT-TREC~i/CR-6909 Node 26/Header/CS 0.083 .0.1171 Node,48/"NozzleiLAS 0.085 0.302 Node 48/Safe En&CS 0.05 .06 7 Copyright 10 C 2007 by ASVEE
MEN 06-119, Supplement 4 Page 8 of 9 r
WJnC Figure 1. Scheinatic of Feedwasvet Pipitig Systemn FWCASý- INZ%250 ý 7FF-13 T-721 Figure 2 Matrheinaticad Model of Feedwater Piping Systein Iq S. Copvright !C'2067 by ASME
MEN 06-119, Supplement 4 Page 9 of 9 3ittoA An Extract frcoin Prs itref/Tcinperti't re Cycle Dingrinr for feedwatei' Systei 9 9Copyriglitý Cý -007 by ASMEF
DCD Tier 2 Revision 5 Markups
MFN-06-1 19, Supplement 4 Page 1 of 5 - DOD Markups (No.1) 26A6642AK Rev. 05 ESBVR Desigin Control DocnmneattiTier 2 Table 1.9-9 Load Combinations and, Acceptance Critex-ia for Class I Piping Systens; Conditio Load Comnbiniation for all terins'h j Acceptance
________________j J Crite~ria De,,itr PD WT Eq 9:L ý5Sm NB-3652 Serviceý Level PP. TE, A-T I. T2 .TA-TB. RVI. RVd1 RV.D.
A S, B T-SV. SSEL SSED Eq 12 &, 13 S 24 A~
Fatigutc - NB-3653-S~ervi.:e Level B PP -- WVT 4-(TV) Eq 9 < 1. 1,, buth not PP - WT + (RVI) ~zetrthal 1,5 Q_.
PP -- WT -4 (RVi) PressAitt n1or to exzceed Servic~e Level C PP +- WT - (C:HUGI)ý 4- (RV 1 ) 2 ]1"2 Eq 9 :ý2. 25 9,,. bt nott PP +WT - VCHUGI) 2 ;- (R'V'2 ) 2 ]pý2 gre~iter rhani 1 .8 'Sy pressure njot to exceed I,1.5Pý (NB -:3654)
,Sevicc Level D PP WT - [(ssEDk1 +T' ~ Eqlý)!<3.0 S_ but not PP, - WT - l(S"SEIY - (CHt0)Cr) (RV0)"1 1 ' greate titan 210 S,.
2 2 PP \T W -~ [`SSEI) - (C j-i GD - (RV -2I) fr P1esstre n10t to exceed PP - wI-T (SE (C O)NDI)2 (R\ Il 2]'.ý 2.9O Pý (NB-3654)
P P - WVT + RSS.,E T (C ONDI)- (RX t2]
PP - WI - [(SSEI)2 (.API)2f ____
(I) R;iia T'SV tloads are used for NIS Lines~ only (2) RV2 represents RV2 ALL (all valves). RV\,2SV (Sine le Valve) and RtV2 AD (Automatic Depressurization operation)
(3) Fo,-r the SRV discharge pipiun~. all direct loads for SRV anid LOCA loads are evaluiated for submerged piping.ý (4) In conjunction with compliance -with,RG 1.207. the farigrue visage limrit of <0.40 will be used as the criteria for pipin~g locations exempt fromt pipe break consideration.
Where: API = Aunulutis Pressurization Loads (Inertia Effect)
CHUCH = Chugging Load (Inertia Effect)
ONDI =Condensation Oscillation (Inertia Effect)
PD =Design Pressure PP Peak Pressure or the Operating Pressure Associated with that transient RX71 = SRV O~peniing Load~s (Acoustic Wave) 3.ý9-103
MFN 06-119, Supplement 4 Page 2 of 5 - DCD markups (No. 2) 26A6642AJ Rev. 05S ESB%%`R Design Controt Doctimient/Tiet, 2 0 The pressure. 'Water level, and flow; senlsor instrumientation for those. sa fety-rela ted systenis- which are required to finiction following a pipe rulpture, are protected.
- Hi'Th-energy fluid systemn pipe whip res.traitits and protective mleasures are des&igned so that a postulated break in one Pipe could nor. in tRnI lead tO a rupture- Of Other nearby p~ipes or comlponlents. if the secondary rupture couild resulit in consequences that. would be consýidered unacceptable for the initial postuflated break.
0 For any p~ostulated pipe rupture, the structural integrity of the containmient structure is maintained. In addition. for those 'postula0ted ruptures classified as a loss of reactor Coolant, the design lea kti~ghtnes,.s of the Containment fissioni product barrier is maintained.
- Safety relief valves. (SRVs) are located and rest.-rainied -so that a pipe failutre would not prevent depressuriza tion.
- Protection~ for the FMC:RD scramn insert lines,' is not required. because the miotor operation of the FMvCRD canl adequately insert the control rods even with a complete loss of insert lines (Sutbsection 3,6.2, 1 3).
- Thle escape of steani, water. comibustible o1' corros-ive fluids.. gases. and heat in the ev ent.
of a pipe rupture do not preclude:
-accessibilit-y to any areas required to Cope w~ith thle posctullated pip.e rulpture:.
-habitability of the control roomn: or the ability of safety-reIa ted instrumentation, electric power supiplies. colmponents'. and controls. to perform their -safety-r-el~ated funciitionl.
3.6.2 Deterinaiii~tion of Bic~k Loca.tionis adDimicEfetAsoitdwith the PostulAted.1Rup1ture of Piping Information concernin2 break and, crack location criteria and methods of analysis for dynamic effects are lis'cussed ink this, Sutbsection in accordance with NNUREG-0S800 Draft Rev, 2.
April 1996. SRP 3.6.ý2, This includes location criteria and methods of anialysis, needed to ev.ah1Iate thle dynlamlic effects Associated wkith positulated breaks and cracks in htln'L and rtodeiate-energyv fluid systemn piping inside and Outside of the prinlary containment. This minormation pio\ ide's the basis for the requliertemeIt's for the. protection of safetx -related. structures. s\ stenils
,and comnponenits dlefined inl the introduction of SecTion 36. -xwhich include-, meetirig the requirements, of CTDC* 4 as it relates to safety-related stritucres. systems and Components ($sc )
bein! leZ~ nc to accommrodate the dynamic effects ofj01potulatecl pipe rtipnnlr ilchiding postiulatnonl of pipe rupture locations: break anid crack charzactem istics: dytiarniL analy'Ssi' of pipe-
'Xxhip: and jet imlpinigemnent loads.
The plant mneets the relevant requirements of GDC 4 as follows:
(1) Criteria defining pos;tulated pipe rupttiue locationl anld confilgurlationls inside Conlta linment are in accordanlle xvith Branch Technical Positioni (BTP) EMEB 3- t. For the pipinig systeml wvith reactor wa (ter, if the enviromnlenital fati~zue is included inl accordance with RG. 1,.207, thle fatigue. usagt. Iflmit should be < 0.40 as tite criteria instead of <'0, 10 for deterimlirng pipe break locations.
MEN 06-119, Supplement 4 Page 3.of 5 - DCD markups (No. 2) 26A6642AJ Rev'. 05 ESBN-8R Design Control Doctutent/Tier 2
()Protection agi:t ostulated pipe rutipures outside contaimnment is provided in accordance with BTP ESMEB 3 -1.
(3) Detailed acceptance criteria covering pipe-whip dynamic analysis. including determination of the forcing fuinctions of jet thrust and jet impingemient are in accordance with Section HI of SRP 3,6.2, The general bases and assumptions of the analysis are in accordance with BTP EMEB 3- 1.
Piping in Containment Penetration Areas No pipe breaks or cracks are postulated in those portions of piping fromu the containment wall penetration to and inchuding the inboard or outtboard isolation valves which meet the following requirements in addition to the requirement of the ASM_%E Code,,Section III. Subarticle NE- 1120:
0The followingz design stress and fatigue limits are not exceeded:
For ASME Code, Section 111, Class I Piping
- The maximum stress range between any two load sets (including the zero load set) does not exceed 2.4 Sm. and is calculated by Equation (10) in N13-3653. ASIME Code.
Section III. If the calculated iiiaximumtn stress range of Equation (10) exceeds 2.4 5 m*
the stress ranges calculated by both Equation (12) and Equation (13) in paragraph N'B-3653 shall meet the limit of 2.4 S_.
-~ The cumiulati-ve usage faictor is less than 0.1.
For the piping system with reactor water, if the enx'irormuental fatigue effect is included in accordance with RG 1,.2077 the fatigne usage limit should be :ý 0.40 as the criteria instead of,-" 0. 10 for determining pipe break locations.
The maxinmun stress as calculated by Equation (9) in NB-365_2 under the loadings resulting fr-om a postulated piping, failure beyond those portions of piping, does not exceed the lesser of 2.2 5 Sý and 1.8 S, except that. following a failure outside contaiinment, the pipe between the outboard isolation valve and the first, restraint may be permitted higher stress. provided a plastic hinge is not formed and operability of the valves with such stresses is assured in accordance with the requiiremnent identified in Subsection 3.9.3. Primary loads include those that are deflection limited by whvip restraints.
ASME Code Section Ill Class I Piping in Areas Other Than Containment Penetration With the exception of those portions of piping identified above, breaks in ASME Code.
Section HLI Class 1 piping are postulated at the following locations in each piping and branch rttn:
- At. terminal ends.
- At intermediate locations whAere the inaximiunn stress range as calculated by Equation (10) in NB1-3653. ASMIE Code.Section III exceeds 2.4 Sm. and either Equation (12) or Equation, (13) in Paragraph NB-3653 exceeds 2.4 S,.
- At intermediate locations where the cumulative usage factor exceeds 0.1. As -a result of piping reanalysis caused by differences, between the design configuration and the as-built confliguration, the highiest stress or cumiulative usagae fatctor locations may be shifted; 3.6-S
MEN 06-119, Supplement 4 Page 4 of 5 - DCD markups (No. 2) 26A6642AJ Rev. 05 ESBNNR Desigu Control DocuinenilTier 2 however,, the initially determined intermediate break locations need not be changed unless one of the following conditions exists:
- Thle dynamic effects fr~omi the new (as-built) intermediate break location,', are not mitigated by the original pipe whip restraints and jet shields.
-A chan'ge is required in pipe parameters. such as major differences in pipe s-,ize, wall thickness, and routing.
For the piping system With reactor water, if the environmental fatigue effect is included in accordance with RG 1.207. the fatigue usage limit should be -- 0.40 as the criteria. instead of K0. 10 for determining pipe break locations.
3.6.2.1 Criteria Used to Define Break and Crack Location anid Configuration The following subsections establish thle criteria for the location and configuration of postulated breaks and cracks.
Definition of High-Energy Fluid Systems Higgl-ener-gy fluid systems.- are defined to be those systems or portions of systems that, (hiring normal plant conditions (as defined in Subsection 3.6.1.1)., are either in operation or are maintained pressurized uinder conditions where either or both of the following are met:
" nmaximum operating tenmperature exceeds 93. 3'C (200'F); or
" niaxiurnu operating pressure exceeds 1.9 MVPaG (275 psig).
Definition of Moderate-Energy Fluid Systems Moderate-ener~gy fluid .systems are defined to be those systems or portions of systems, that, during- normal plant conditions (as defined in Subsection 3.6. 1.1). are either in operation or are maintained pressurized (above atmospheric pressure) under conditions where both of the following are met:
0 maximum operating, temperature is 93.3'C (1-00'F) or less; and 0 miaxuiniun operating pressure is 1.9 MPaG (275 psig) or less.
Piping systems are classified as moderate-enemgy systems w.hen they operate as high-energy piping for only short operational periods in perfoirting their system function but, for the niajor operationial period. qualitý7 as mioderate-energy fluid systems. An operational period is considered short if thle total fraction of time that the system operates within thle pressure-temperature conditions specified for highi-energyfluid systems is less than 2%of the total timie that the system operates as a nioderate-eniergy fluid system.
Postulated Pipe Br-eaks and Cracks A postulated pipe break is defined as a sudden gross failure of the pressure boundary either in the form of a complete circumferential severance (guillotine break) or a sudhen longitudinal -split without pipe severance,. aiid is postulated for high-energy fluid systems only. For moderate-energy fluid systems-. pipe failures are limited to postulation of cracks in piping and branch rims; these cracks affect the surrounding en-virounmental conditions only and do not result in whipping of the cracked pipe. High-energy fluid systems, are also postulated to have cracks for 3.6-9
MEN 06-119, Supplement 4 Page 5 of 5 - DCD Markups (No. 3) 26A6642AJ Rev. 05 ESB'%NVR Desi-gn Contr~ol Doeminen,itTiei' 2 In place of the response s;pectrium analysis. the ISMV timle history mnethod of -analys4is is used for mnulti-supported systemns sub~jected to distinct support motions. in which case both inertial and relative displacement effects are already inc ludled.
- 3. 17.3. 10 Use oif Equivalent Vertical Static Factors Equivalent vertical static factors are used when the requiremients, for the static coefficient mnethod in .Subsection 3.7.2.1.3 are satisfied.
- 3. 7.3.11 Torsionial Effrcts of Eccentric.3Masses Torsional effects of eccentric miassesi are included for subsystemis similar to that for the piping systemlS dli'scussed in Subsection 3.7.3.3 .1.
- 3. 7 .3.12 Effect of Differentialt Buildingq Movemients In miost case~s, subsystems are anchored and restrained to floors anid walls of buildings that may have differential movements clurinz a s'eismnic event. The movements inra range froml insielnificant cliffecrential disp laceinents between rigcid walls of a commnon building at low elevations to relatively large displacements between separate buildings at a high seismlic activity
'site.
Differential endpoint or restraint deflections cause forces and mioments to be induced into the system. The stress thus produced is a secondary stress. It is justifiable to place this stress, which results' froml restraint, of free-end displacement. of the system., in the secondary stress category because the stresses are self-limiting and,. when the stresses exceed yield strength. mninor distortions, or de formlat ions wxithlin the systeml satisfy the condition wvhich caused the stress to occur, For the piping stress analysis-. SRSS combination for the inertial and the SAM (Seismnic Anchor Motion, incluiding Effect of Differential Building Movements) responses is, acceptable. For the piping. support design. the absolute suini mnethod (ABS) is used.
- 3. 7.3.13 Seismic Catiegory I Buried Piping, Conduits and Tunnels There is no directl1y buried Seism.iic Category I (C-1.) piping or conduits that are dlirectly buried underarotunl.
Fire Protection Systemn (FPS) yard piping with a C-I classification are installed inl co 'ered reinforced conicrete trenchies near surface with remiovable covers to facilitate mnainitenance and inspection acce-.ss There are C-I conduits in four electrical duct banks from the CB to the RB, Tlte duct banks, are instaalied in clo(.sed concr~ete trenches co-,vered with. backfil.11.
There are no C-I tunnels in the ESBVVR desigzn. The access, turnnel (AT). which includes wý%alkways between and access to RB, CB. Turbine Bu1ilding (TB), and Electrical Building (EB) is clas'sified Seismlic Category II (C-IT). Since C-LI structures are designed to the samne criteria as' trucuresthere is no inlipact to actjacenit C-I stru~ctures, C-I 3.7-24