ML17300A959
| ML17300A959 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1987 |
| From: | Haynes J ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.D.1, TASK-TM 161-00398-JGH-B, 161-398-JGH-B, TAC-61841, NUDOCS 8708100425 | |
| Download: ML17300A959 (42) | |
Text
REGULA INFORMATION DISTRIBUTIO YSTEM (RIDS)
AUTH. NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION HAYNESI J. G.
Arizona Nuclear Power Prospect (formerly Arizona Public Serv REC IP. NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION Document Control Branch (Document Control Desk)
SUBJECT:
Foreards response to 870323 request for addi info re summary evaluation reot on pressurizer safety vale discharge piping'er NUREG-0737'tem II. D. 1. Seismic design of discharge piping considered in original pipe design effort.
DISTRIBUTION CODE:
A046D COPIES RECEIVED: LTR I
ENCLI SIZE:
TITLE:
QR Submittal:
TMI Action Plan Rgmt NUREG-0737 Sc NUREG-0660 ACCESSION NBR: 8708100425 DOC. DATE: 87/07/30 NQTARIZED:
NO DOCKET 0 FACIL:STN-50-528 Palo Verde Nuclear Stationi Unit i. Arizona Pub li 05000528 STN-50-529 Palo Verde Nuclear Stationi Unit 2i Arizona Pub li 05000529 STN-50-530 Palo Verde Nuclear Stationi Unit 3i Arizona Pub li 05000530 NOTES: Standardized plant. M. Davis'RR: iCg.
Standardi zed plant. M. Davisi NRR: iCg.
Standard i z ed plant. M. Davis> NRR: 1Cg.
05000528 05000529 05000530 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD5 LA LICITRAiE INTERNAL: ACRS AEOD/DSP/TPAB NRR/DEST/ADE NRR/DREP/EPB ILRB REG FI E
01 DE/EIB EXTERNAL'PDR NSIC COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
0 1
1 10 10 1
1 0
1 1
1 1
1 1
RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD5 PD DAVIS> M AEOD/DOA ARM/DAF/LFMB NRR/DEST/ADS NRR/DREP/RPB OGC/HDSi RES DEPY GI NRC PDR COPIES LTTR ENCL 5
5 1
1 1
1 0
1 0
1 1
0 1
1 1
NOTES'OTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR 34 ENCL 29
Ply
~f t
Arizona Muciear Power Project P.O. BOX 52034
~
PHOENIX, ARIZONA85072-2034 July 30, 1987 161-00398-JGH/BJA U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention:
Document Control Desk Washington, D.C.
20555
Subject:
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)
Units 1, 2 and 3 Docket Nos.
STN 50-528 (License No. NPF-41)
STN 50-529 (License No. NPF-51)
STN 50-530 (License No. NPF-65)
Response
to NRC Request for Additional Information on Item II.D.l of NUREG-0737 File:
87-A-056-026
References:
(1)
Letter from E.
E.
Van Brunt, Jr.,
- ANPP, to G
W. Knighton, NRC, dated January 31, 1983 (ANPP-22867).
Subject:
Response
to the Requirements of Item II.D.1 of NUREG-0737.
(2)
Letter from E.
A. Licitra,
- NRC, to E.
E.
Van Brunt, Jr.,
ANPP, dated March 23, 1987.
Subject:
Performance Testing of Relief and Safety
- Valves, Item II.D.1 of NUREG-0737 Palo Verde, Units 1, 2 and 3.
Dear Sirs:
In response to the requirements of item II.D.l of NUREG-0737, ANPP provided a
summary evaluation report on the pressurizer safety valve discharge piping at PVNGS.
This report was provided to the NRC by Reference (1).
The NRC Staff has requested (Reference (2)) additional information on the subject report.
The attachment to this letter provides the requested additional information.
If you have any additional questions on this
- matter, please contact Mr. W. F. Quinn of my staff.
Very truly yours, JGH/BJA/dim Attachment J.
G. Haynes Vice President Nuclear Production cc:
0.
M. De Michele E. E.
Van Brunt, Jr.
J.
B. Martin R. P.
Zimmerman (all w/a)
G.
W. Knighton E. A. Licitra A. C. Gehr 87palpp425 8
0
~
~
c>
~
The load combinations used to qualify the safety valve discharge piping and supports did not consider earthquake loads.
Justify not using seismic loads or reanalyze the piping and supports including this type of load'eismic loads were considered in the evaluation of the piping and supports.
- However, the seismic loads were considered separately from safety valve discharge loads.
The load combinations used to qualify the safety valve discharge piping and supports are based on EPRI guidelines.
"EPRI PWR Safety and Relief Valve Test Program Guide for Application of Valve Test Program Results to Plant-Specific Evaluations" Interim Report, March 1982 Revision 1,
Research Project
- V102, defines the EPRI recommended load combinations.
These guideline recommendations are to evaluate safety valve discharge forces separately from earthquake loads for all Level A,
B, and C
loading conditions.
This evaluation, therefore, considered only safety valve discharge loadings and normal operating loads.
The seismic design of the discharge piping was considered in the original pipe design effort and is excluded from the safety valve evaluation effort.
The structural analysis information provided by APS was insufficient to allow evaluation of the structural analysis.
Please provide information on lumped mass
- spacing, structural model stiffness,
- damping, frequency response cutoff
- value, actual maximum stress values as icompared to allowables, allowable support loads as compared to predicted loads and information on the time step used in the structural analysis.
ANPP Response The STRUDL code does not generate uniform mass spacing.
The full consistent mass matrix is calculated by the code and then reduced to the mass point locations and directions selected by the analyst.
The mass point locations and directions are chosen to accurately represent both the natural frequencies of the structure and the response to the imposed
- loadings, see attached Figures 1 through 5.
The piping runs were modeled using standard piping elements.
The piping supports were modeled using stiffness values supplied by Bechtel.
Where gap sizes at supports were provided the actual gaps were used.
Where they were not provided,, estimated gap sizes" were used.
Nonstandard components,
- such, as,,
the pressurizer, were modeled in detail using combinations of piping and/or beam elements.
The time history analysis was performed using a direct integration
- code, CEDAGS, therefore, there is no frequency res'ponse cutoff value.
Calculated stress values vs allowables are 1'isted in Table l.
V tI I
i I
I t
CEDAGS constructs a
damping matrix as a
combination of the mass and stiffness matrix.
The analyst selects the coefficients in the combination to control the damping.
The damping vs frequency curve for this analysis is shown below.
C fy DhNf)~~
z 0
I lo Xo 3o +o gb
/OOO fg.eau,f ~cy (ctt)
For the region of maximum interest, 10 to 100 Hz, the damping is less than 1X, which is very conservative for this type of loading.
H The integration time step used in CEDAGS was
.0001 sec.
The forcing function time history data used a time step of.001 sec.
TABLE 1:
STRESS VALUES FOR PIPING COMPONENTS (LEVEL C)
COMPONENT NUMBER COMPONENT DESCRIPTION STRESS (PSI)
ALLOWABLE (PSI)
RATIO 1
l6" SCH 160-Pipe I
2 l6" SCH 160-Elbow I
3 l8" SCH 20-Pipe I
4 l8" SCH 20-Elbow I
5 I10" SCH 20-Pipe I
6 l10" SCH 20-Elbow I
7 J18" STD Wall-Pipe I
8 ll8" STD Wall-Elbow I
9 I8" X 10" RED. Small Il8" X 10" RED. Large I
10 l18" X 10" SWP (Branch)
(Run) 12,402 20$ 214 12 $ 555 19,806 16,736 19,497 14,179 16,918 16,635 13,675 26,296 17$ 888 31,860 31,860 33,840 33,840 33$ 840 33,840 33$ 840 33$ 840 33,840 33$ 840 33$ 840 33$ 840 0.38 0.63 0.37 0.58 0.49 0.57 0.41 0.49 0.49 0.40 0.77 0.52
H 1
N
LIEF 8 10
+ PK 4RKL FIGURE 1
SOIO Rica Bio 91 10 qP o
q>~4 pP BlGQ 91 CcQ 81'1 St &0 8coa L(.
JOINTS MASS JOINTS MASS O'OINT DIRECTION MASS JOINT DIRECTION 8080
- 8120 8072 8100 8150':
8060 8130 8050 8075 8105 8165 X
X Y
Y Y
Z Z
XY XY XZ XZ 8180 8025 XZ XYZ
0
(
- '/0 "pic P1'ohmic FIGURE 2 pO 9o'ceOR 60Q3 Ct tO IO
$'g
~who l2.
4o1BS allo g
Z38o 4~
~ JOINTS g MASS JOINTS MASS JOINT DIRECTION 6115 6030 6025 6040 6045 6135 6150 6090 6110 X
Z XY XY XY XZ XZ YZ YZ
LimK 4 LO" RPK MODBI FIGURE 3 403 Wl Q R2EssllR.>GER 4i8o gl5 4'l7
~r >r l90~~~
42.L 42iO I
I I
4cd8 150 4I2.
4I35 420 4IW I
I I
Lwz Z.
0 JOINTS NSS JOINTS NSS JOINT DIRECTION MASS JOINT OIRECTION 4030 4120 4150 4050 4100 4130 4060 4160 4085 4135 4205 4220 4025 4040 4180 40BO XY XZ XZ XZ YZ YZ
'YZ XYZ
Li~z yg "~<a ~ouzo.
0
/
o c
FIGURE 4 goo7 o
Ill(rio) ah ZtIL X?II l74I (l)o)
~gS LEAL z5>I PI 55 2IRO 2<ZQ ptlO Z3'2 Rio5 zalO ZZ$'I t.o5l iCO 20&
qP oo Z
~ JOINTS pf MASS JOINTS 25 10 MASS JOINT DIRECTION NSS JOINT DIRECTION MASS JOINT DIRECTION 2020 2060 2240 2010 2070 2250 2320 2340 2355 2300 2400 2050 2350 2100 2140 "080 2105 2135 Y
Y Z
Z XY XY XZ XZ XZ 2160
~~60 2280 2290 2030 2130 2220 2300 2410 XZ XZ XZ XZ YZ YZ XYZ XYZ XYZ
Zrnre Ia8 za " Pad'~aZC FIGURE 5 m
/l9lbg RE&LIPJm Qo
~ID Q%/
i30 4>
31M 3>l V
O Si40 SLM
~
'OI!'!TS X I1RSS JOINTS MASS 'JOINTS DIRECTION MASS JOINTS DIRECTION 3030 3080 3170 3070 3050 3130 3060 3120 3075 3135 3160 3025 3049 3110 130 XY XZ XZ YZ YZ XYZ XYZ
In the January 31, 1983 submittal, the support numbering used in Figures 5-3 and 5-7 does not correspond to that used in Tables 5-1 and 5-2.
Please provide a consistent set of sketches completely describing the model used.
ANPP Res onse In the January 31, 1983 submittal, Figures 5-3 through 5-7 show the schematics of the five lines modeled using CE's support designations.
Tables 5-1 and 5-2 report the analysis results using Bechtel's support designations.
The attached revised Figures 5-3 through 5-7 show the support locations and give correspondence tables between CE and Bechtel support designations.
(
FIGURE 5-3 19,21 16,18 13 CE Bechtel Support Support Type Qirection 14 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 17 18 19 35 36 33 34 32 31 29 30 28 26 27 25 23 23 23 21 21 21 STP X.
SNB Y
SPR Y
STR Z
STR X
SNB Y
STR Z
SPR Y
SPR Y
SNB Z
STP X
SNB Y
SNB X
STR Z
SNB Y
STP X
STP Y
STP Z
STP X
STP Y
STP Z
Reactor Orain Tank
~
Gapped Support Joints Line 002 -
18
.'nch Header
FIGURE 5-4 Pres urixir 26 00 270o 22 23 24 180o 28 29 CE Support Bechtel Support Type Oirection 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 16 15 15 18 14 12 11 17 STP STP SllB STP StlB SllB SNB StlB X
z V
X
.7 Y
7.
X
~
Gaooed Suopor. Joints SV1 - Line 004 -
10 Inch Oischarge Pipe
FIGURE 5-5 Pmssuri zer 270o 40,41 43 Z
CE Suoport 40 41 42 43 44 Bechtel Suooort llll 12 14 15 Type Direction STP STP SNB STR S!iB SV2 - Line 103 - 10 Inch Oischarge Pipe
~
Gapped Support Joints
FIGURE 5-6 30 31,32 270 Pressurizer 180o 33 34 CE Bechtel Support Support Type Direction 30 31 32 33 34 13 SNB 15 STP 15 STP 12 SNB 11 SNB Y
X Z
Z X
Sy3 Line 006 - 10 Inch Oischar,e Pipe
~
Gaoped Suooor-. Joints
FIGURE 5-7 35,36 00 270 180 Pressurizer 37 38,39 CE Bechtel Support Support Type Direction
'5 36 37 38 39 14 STP 14 STP 12 SiHB 11
~
Gaooed Suoport Joints SV4 - Line 008 - 10 inch Discharge Pipe
1, 4
f
uestion The January 31, 1983 submittal by APS only stated that the supports loads had been evaluated and are within the load capability of the appropriate support system.
No additional information was provided to allow an adequate review of the piping support analysis.
Provide at least the following information.
A.
Identify the structural code governing the support design.
Explain how the design load was determined.
State whether a support was designed for the highest load selected from the load combinations representing the various service conditions (i.e.,
- normal, upset, emergency, and faulted) using the basic (design or normal condition) allowable stress (or manufacturer recommended maximum load),
or the support was designed by considering the service conditions individually using the allowable stress applicable to each service condition.
In this case, the support was designed by using an allowable
- stress, KS, where S is the basic allowable stress and K
1 for normal conditions, and K~ 1 for the rest of the service conditions.
B.
Provide the load combination equations and allowables considered in the support evaluation.
Indicate whether the same set of load equations and allowable stresses were used for upstream and downstream supports.
C.
Present a table listing the worst case load (or stress) in each support compared with the applicable design load (or allowable stress),
and indicate the associated load combination equation.
Also, indicate in the table the support
- number, support
- type, and support location with respect to the piping model (i.e.,
node number).
D.
Indicate newly added supports or modifications.
Update the support sketches if required.
ANPP Res onse A.
The structural code governing the support design for the line downstream of the safety relief valves is AISC.
Design loads for the supports are determined from the maximum of two combinations which are presented in the response to item B below.
B.
Combination 1 TH + DW + SSE + SAM Combinati'on, 2TH + DW + RVC "I
TH = Loading resulting from piping thermal expansion DW Piping dead weight SSE
= Safe shutdown earthquake (ine'rtia portion)
SAM Earthquake (anchor point displacement SSE)
RVC Relief valve closed system.
j rJ H
t
~l
The maximum loads from the above combinations are compared to the load capacity of the component supports.
The resulting stress in the pipe wall adjacent to integral attachments,
Specific allowable loads and stresses for the subject supports are delineated in Tables 2 and 3 below.
The same load equations were used on all supports downstream of the safety relief valves.
No supports are used upstream of the safety valves.
Tables 2 and 3 list the requested information regarding worst case loads and stresses.
Table 2 includes those supports with designs limited by component support allowable loads.
Table 3 includes the remaining supports where designs are limited by stress allowables for pipe wall, AISC welds, NP welds, or structural members.
There are no new supports which have been added since the previous submittal.
Therefore, no update to the support sketches is required.
.16-,
1 k
H TABLE 2:
SUPPORT
SUMMARY
COMPONENT LIMITED DESIGN ITEM SUPPORT NO.
ISO D.P.
DIREC (1)
SUPPT TYPE (2)
MAXIMUM SUPPORT LOAD (LBS)
TOTAL COMPONENT LEVEL C ALLOWABLE LOAD (LBS)
I 3
4 5
7 8
9 13 14 15 23 24 27 30 32 34 35 39 40 41 WORST CASE LOAD:
13-RC-002-H019 13-RC-002-H035 13-RC-002-H036 13-RC-002-H034 13-RC-002-H032 13-RC-002-H031 13-RC-002-H026 13-RC-002-H027 13-RC-002-H025 13-RC-004-H014 13-RC-004-H013 13-RC-004-H017 13-RC-006-H016 13-RC-006-H011 13-RC-008-H013 13-RC-008-H012 13-RC-103-H014 13-RC-103-H015 13-RC-103-H013 COMPONEN 278 27A 274 27C 26C 269 267 267 26A 56 56A 51 68A 166 37A 234 34 34A 31A T SUPPORT Y
SPR Z
STR X
STR Z
STR Y
SPR Y
SPR X
SNB Z
STR Y
SNB Z
SNB Y
SPR X
SNB Y
SPR X
SNB Y
SPR Y
SNB X
STR Z
SNB Y
SPR 1,134 21,138 13,219 9,628 3,769 1,630 10$ 647 26>242 9$ 785 9,905 1,044 9,182 634 4$ 202 543 14,542 8,628 3,445 368 2 $ 210 24,840 18,840 18$ 840 5,200 2$ 210 13,170 32$ 640 20,100 11,695 4$ 670 11,696 2,460 11,696 3 $ 325 20,100 18,840 20,100 2,060 1
r' V
TABL'E 3:
SUPPORT SUISfARY STRESS LIMITED DESIGN ITEM I
1 2
6ll 17 25 26 29 33 37 SUPPORT NO.
WORST CASE STRESS:
13-RC-002-H017 13-RC-002-H018 13-RC-002-H033 13-RC-002-H030 13-RC-002-H023 13-RC-004-H012 13-RC-004-H011 13-RC-006-H015 13-RC-008-H014 13-RC-103-H011 ISO D.P.
PIPE 278 278 27B 69B 44 53 51A 168 24A 30 DIREC (1)
WALL AT X
Y Y
X XYZ Y
Z XZ XZ XZ SUPPT TYPE (2)
LUG STP SNB SNB STP STP SNB SNB STP STP STP MAXIMUM STRESS IN MEMBER OR WELD (PSI) 20,546 16,346 25,499 16,679 18,022 25,826 21,926 20,462 26,769 15,429 ALLOWABLE STRESS (PSI) 28$ 800 28$ 800 32,256 32,256 32,256 32,256 32,256 32,256 32,256 32,256 IWORST CASE STRESS:
20 J 13-RC-004-H016 I
IWORST'CASE STRESS:
21 I 13-RC-004-H015 I
IWORST CASE STRESS:
12 13-RC-002-H028 16 13-RC-002-H024 18 13-RC-002-H022 19 13-RC-002-H021 22 13-RC-004-H018 28 13-RC-006-H013 31 13-RC-006-H012 36 13-RC-008-H011 38 13-RC-103-H012 IWORST CASE STRESS:
10 I 13-RC-002-H029 I
I j
XZ NF WELD 58 I
Y STRUCTURAL BE STP SNB NDING SNB SPR SPR STP STP SNB SNB STP SNB 268 45 92 101 56B 169 66A 225 31 Y
Y Y
XYZ X
Y Z
XZ Y
STRUCTURAL SHEAR 69A I
Z I
SNB I
I 20,540 3,300 11$ 040 13,390 10,200 17$ 260 9,200 11,250 16$ 840 6,050 13,900 12$ 090 21,000 9,570 19,140 19,140 19$ 140 19,140 19,140 19,140 19,140 19$ 140 19,140 12,740
TABLES 2 6 3 NOTES:
1.
Directions as shown on Figures 1 through 5
and on Figures 5-3 through 5-7:
North is in the minus X direction.
2.
Type:
STP Stop SNB Snubber STR Strut SPR Spring t
~
II l
l