ML20040H155
| ML20040H155 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1982 |
| From: | CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040H153 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202170295 | |
| Download: ML20040H155 (150) | |
Text
_ . . . . .. . -
ZPS-1-MARK-II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 I
WM. H. ZIMMER POWER STATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR UPDATING YOUR DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT Changes to the MARK II DAR are identified by a vertical line in the right margin of the page. To update your copy of the ZPS-1 DAR, remove and destroy the following pages
- and figures and insert pages and figures as indicated.
REMOVE INSERT
, Table of Contents l Page i Pages i and i (Cont'd) l Page 11 Page 11 Page iv Pages iv and iv (Cont'd)
, Page viii Page vili Pages ix through xii Pages ix through xii Page xiii Pages xiii and xiii (Cont'd)
Page xvi Page xvi Chapter 1.0
(])
- Pages 1.0-1 and 1.0-2 Pages 1.0-1 and 1.0-2 Chapter 2.0 Page 2.0-1 Page 2.0-1 Pages 2.1-1 and 2.1-2 Pages 2.1-1, 2.1-2, and 2.1-2a Pages 2.1-3 and 2.1-4 Pages 2.1-3, 2.1-4, and 2.1-4a Pages 2.1-5 through 2.1-8 Pages 2.1-5 through 2.1-9 After Figure 2.1-3 Figures 2.1-4, 2.1-5, l and 2.1-6 Pages 2.2-1 and 2.2-2 Pages 2.2-1 and 2.2-2 Page 2.2-4 Page 2.2-4 Page 2.2-6 Page 2.2-6 Page 2.3-1 Page 2.3-1 j Pages 2.3-3 and 2.3-4 Pages 2.3-3 and 2.3-4 Pages 2.4-1 and 2.4-2 Pages 2.4-1 and 2.4-2 Figure 2.4-3 Figure 2.4-3 Figures 2,4-6 through 2.4-8 Figures 2.4-6, 2.4-7, and 2.4-8 Page 2.5-1 Page 2.5-1 Page 2.5-4 Page 2.5-4 Page 2.6-1 Pages 2.6-1 and 2.6-2, O and 2.7-1 1
8202170293 820216 PDR ADOCK 05000358 A PDR
. -..---.~ .... .-.._._- -. .- . - . . .. . .---.-. - - - - - -
i ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 REMOVE INSERT Chapter 3.0 Page 3.1 Page 3.1-1 Page 3.3-2 Page 3.3-2 After Figure 3.6-1 Page 3.7-1 Chapter 4.0 Pages 4.0-1 and 4.0-2 Pages 4.0-1 and 4.0-2 Chapter 5.0 Pages 5.0-2 and 5.0-3 Pages 5.0-2 and 5.0-3 Pages 5.2-1 and 5.2-2 Pages 5.2-1 and 5.2-2 Page 5.2-12 Page 5.2-12 Figure 5.2-4 Figure 5.2-4 After page 5.4-9 Pages 5.5-1 through 5.5-5 Chapter 6.0 Page 6.1-2 Page 6.1-2 Page 6.3-1 Pages 6.3-1 and 6.3-la O Page 6.3-6 After page 6.3-7 Page 6.3-6 Page 6.3-8 Chapter 7.0 Pages 7.1-1 through 7.1-7 Pages 7.1-1 through 7.1-7a
, Page 7.1-8 Pages 7.1-8 and 7.1-8a Page 7.1-10 Pages 7.1-10 and 7.1-10a Pages 7.1-11 and 7.1-12 Pages 7.1-11, 7.1-12 and 7.1-12a i Pages 7.1-13 through 7.1-42 Pages 7.1-13 through 7.1-52 I Figure 7.1-8 Figure 7.1-8
- Figure 7.1-10 Figure 7.1-10
! Figures 7.1-12 through 7.1-14 Figures 7.1-12 through 7.1-14 l Figure 7.1-30 Figure 7.1-30 Figure 7.1-34 Figure 7.1-34 After Figure 7.1-36 Figure 7.1-37 j Pages 7.2-2 and 7.2-3 Pages 7.2-2 and 7.2-3 Pages 7.2-5 through 7.2-7 Pages 7.2-5 through 7.2-7 Pages 7.3-2 through 7.3-4 Pages 7.3-2 through 7.3-4 Page 7.3-8 Page 7.3-8 l Figure 7.3-2 Figure 7.3-2 i
Pages 7.4-1 through 7.4-3 Pages 7.4-1 through 7.4-3 l Pages 7.5-3 and 7.5-4 Pages 7.5-3 and 7.5-4 l Chapter 8.0
() Pages 8.1-1 and 8.1-2 Pages 8.1-1 and 8.1-2 2
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 REMOVE INSERT Chapter 9.0 Pages 9.1-1 and 9.1-2 Pages 9.1-1 and 9.1-2 Pages 9.2-2 and 9.2-3 Pages 9.2-2 through 9.2-7 Page 9.4-1 Page 9.4-1 Figure 9.4-1 Figure 9.4-1 Chapter 10.0 Pages 10.1-2 and 10.1-3 Pages 10.1-2 and 10.1-3 Chapter 11.0 i
Page 11.0-1 Page 11.0-1 Appendix G Page G-1 Page G-i Appendix H Page H.2-2 Page H.2-2
> (
Appendix I Page I.2-1 Page I.2-1 i
i l
l 1
O 3
l 2PS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 ,
() THE WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION - UNIT 1 MARK II DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.0-1 2.0 ZIMMER EMPIRICAL LOADS 2.0-1
2.1 DESCRIPTION
OF THE ZIMMER EMPIRICAL LOADS 2.1-1 2.1.1 Vent Clearing 2.1-1 2.1.2 Pool Swell 2.1-1 2.1.3 Condensation Oscillation 2.1-1 2.1.4 Chugging 2.1-2 2.1.4.1 Chugging Lateral Loads 2.1-3 2.1.4.2 Chugging Boundary Loads 2.1-3 2.1.5 SRV (Quencher) Loads 2.1-3 2.1.6' Submerged Structure Loads 2.1-4 2.1.6.1 SRV Submerged Structure Loads 2.1-4 2.1.6.2 LOCA Submerged Structure Loads 2.1-4 2.1.7 Load Combinations 2.1-5 fs 2.1.8 Design Changes 2.1-5 0
2.2 PIPING ASSESSMENT - PRESENTATION TO NRC DECEMBER 5, 1979 2.2-1 2.2.1 Comparison of Rams Head Design-Basis Response Spectra and T-quencher Assessment Response Spectra 2.2-1 2.2.2 T-quencher Assessment - Drywell Piping 2.2-2 2.2.2.1 Assessment of Support Load 2.2-3 .
2.2.2.2 Assessment of Drywell Piping Stress Increases 2.2-3 2.2.2.3 Summary of Drywell Piping Assessment 2.2-4 2.2.3 Additional Piping Design Margins Obtnined Using Zimmer Empirical Loads 2.2-4 2.2.3.1 Impact of the Empirical Limiting CO Load Definitions on Drywell Piping Support Loads 2.2-4 2.2.3.2 Impact of Empirical Limiting CO Load Definition on Drywell Piping Stresses 2.2-5 2.2.4 Balance-of-Plant Piping (Outside Containment) 2.2-5 2.2.5 Wetwell Piping Assessment 2.2-6 2.2.6 Final Piping Assessment 2.2-6 2.3 BALANCE-OF-PLANT EQUIPMENT - PRESENTATION TO NRC DECEMBER 5, 1979 2.3-1 i
. ~. ..
l-ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 i-FEBRUARY 1982 i
[
O - r^8ts or courzars (co e a) i i 1
PAGE I
2.3.l' Assessment and Requalification Procedure 2.3-1
} 2.3.1.1 Procedure for Equipment Originally j Qualified by Testing . 2.3-1 i l 1
I f
4 i
i l
i I
l0
,~
i i
1 i
l O
i (Cont'd)
L
+--n-mwo-wv-+--w m ,wrm,w, m~ rrw r, - r, w- e rm - v ena-----e-e r .-m-n--, - - - < - --- ~ . - - ~ < - ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ = - - - - - ~ ~ - ~ - - * - - - ~ = ~ ~ - ~ - ~ - ' - - - - - ~ -
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
()' TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
PAGE 2.3.1.2 Procedure for Equipment Originally Qualified by Analysis 2.3-1 2.3.2 High and Low Frequency Concerns 2.3-2 2.3.3 In Situ Testing 2.3-2 2.3.4 Equipment Foundation Loads 2.3-3 2.3.5 Results of Equipment Assessment 2.3-3 2.3.5.1 Valve Qualification Assessment 2.3-3 '
2.3.5.2 Equipment and Instrumentation Assessment 2.3-3 2.3.6 Balance of Plant Equipment - Final Assessment 2.3-4 (
2.4 STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT 2.4-1 2.4.1 Method of Assessment 2.4-1 2.4.2 Primary Containment 2.4-1 2.4.3 Drywell Structural Steel 2.4-1 2.4.4 Downcomer Bracing System 2.4-1 2.4.5 Pedestal Straps Supporting Piping 2.4-2 2.5 NSSS EQUIPMENT - PRESENTATION TO NRC DECEMBER 5, 1979 2.5-1 O
k- 2.6 NSSS EQUIPMENT - FINAL ASSESSMENT 2.6-1
2.7 CONCLUSION
S 2.7-1 3.0 SRV IN-PLANT TEST PROGRAM 3.1-1
3.1 BACKGROUND
3.1-1 3.2 PURPOSE 3.2-1 t
3.3 TEST
SUMMARY
3.3-1 3.4 TEST MATRIX 3.4-1 3.5 DATA ACQUISITION 3.5-1 3.6 TEST SCHEDULE AND REPORTING 3.6-1 3.7 USE OF ASME CODE CASE N-252 3.7-1 4.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANT 4.0-1 5.0 LOADS CONSIDERED 5.0-1 5.1 ORIGINAL DESIGN LOADS D3 5.1.1 5.1-1 Loads on the Structure 5.1-1 5.1.2 Loads on Piping and Equipment 5.1-3 ii
s t
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 :
- i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
C PAGE 5.3.1.5.5.1 Pool Swell Impact Loads 5.3-9 5.3.1.5.5.2 Pool Swell Drag Loads 5.3-11 5.3.1.5.4 Pool Fallback 5.3-11 ,
5.3.1.5.5 Condensation Oscillatioit Drag Loads 5.3-11 5.3.1.5.6 Chugging Drag Loads 5.3-12 5.3.1.4 Annulus Pressurization 5.3-13 l
5.3.1.4.1 Transient Asymmetric Differential Pressure Events 5.3-13 5.3.1.4.1.1 Acoustic Loading 5.3-14 5.3.1.4.2 Annulus Pressurization - Design Considerations 5.3-14 5.3.1.4.3 Annulus Pressurization - Design Analysis 5.3-15 5.3.1.4.5.1 Calculation of Mass and Energy Flow Rates 5.3-15 5.3.1.4.5.1.1 Comparison of General Electric Analysis to RELAP 5.3-17 5.3.1.4.5.2 Application of Mass-Energy Release to Compute Force-Time Histories of RPV and Shield Wall 5.3-18 5.3.1.4.5.3 Acceleration Time-Histories and
(')
N-Response Spectra Generation 5.3.2 Assessment of NRC Acceptance Criteria - LOCA 5.3-19 5.3-19 5.3.2.1 LOCA Water Jet Loads 5.3-20 5.3.2.2 Pool Swell 5.3-20 5.3.2.2.1 Pool Swell Velocity 5.3-21 5.3.2.2.2 Pool Swell Impact 5.3-21 5.3.2.3 Drag Load Calculations 5.3-21 5.3.2.4 Chugging Lateral Loads 5.3-21 5.3.2.5 Condensation Oscillation Loads 5.3-22 5.3.3 References 5.3-22 5.4 ZIMMER POSITION ON NRC LEAD PLANT ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (NUREG-0487) 5.4-1 5.5 ALTERNATE LOAD DEFINITIONS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS 5.5-1 5.5.1 SRV Load Definitions 5.5-1 5.5.2 LOCA Load Definitions 5.5-2 5.5.3 Load Combinations 5.5-3 5.5.4 References 5.5-3 6.0 LOAD COMBINATIONS CONSIDERED 6.1-1 6.1 CONTAINMENT AND INTERNAL CONCRETE STRUCTURES 6.1-1 6.2 CONTAINMENT LINER 6.2-1 7-)3
\.
e iv
i e
f ' CPS-FSAR ' AMENDMENT 17
[ FEBRUARY 1982 TABLE OF CONTENTS' (Cont 'd )
i i
- f. PAGE 1
] 6.3 OTHER STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS 6.3-1 j 7
a 6.3.1 Load Combinations ~ 6.3-1 i
- j. 6.3.2 Acceptance Criteria 6.3-1 a
4 I
5 i
i 4
i 1
4 I
i i
i 1
!, :O-I i
i l
f 5
I i
l i
5 i ,
!O b
l iv (Cont ' d)
{
l r...__..-__,-._. ---.. - - - - - - -- - - - - - -
. - . - = . - , . .
L ZPS-1-MAPK II DAR- AMENDMENT 17
' FEBRUARY 1982 1
%d' TABLE OF-CONTENTS (Cont'd)
I PAGE 9.0 ~ PLANT '807IFICATIC"S AND FESULTANT IMP 40VEMENTS 9.1-1 9.1 . STT UCTUP AL MCDI FICATIO"9 9.1-1 9.2 B AL ANCL-OF- FliFI (EOP) PI PIEG AMD EOUIPME'IT 9.2-1 9.2.1 FOP Pipino 9.2-1 9.2.1.1 Dryvell Piping 9.2-1 9.2.1.2 Petwell Pirirg 9.2-1 9.2.1.3 BOP Piping 9.2-2 i
4.2.2 Zoui6 ment .
9.2-2 9.2.3 Final Piping and Equipment Assessment 9.2-3 9.3 1FSR PIPI"G AND FOUIP12~ 9.3-1 4.4 SPV DISCHA9GE OUE*7CHED 9.4-1 i
10.0 PLANT' SAFETY MARGINS 10.1-1 10.1 CC"SEPVATISMS IN PLANT 9FSIG:7 10.1-1 10.1.1 4
i
(~)
'- 10.1.2 Concervatisns in Pool Dynamic Loada Structural Ccnservatisrs 10.1-1 10.1-2 1 10.1.3 Mecnanical Ccoservatisms 10.1-2 l
- 10. 1. 3. 1 Conservat.iams in BOP Picing Analysis 10.1-2 10.1.3.2 conscrvatisns ir BC P Equipment 10.'1-4 10.1.4 Conservatism ir "SSS Design 10.1-4
- 11.0 CONCLUSIOMs 11.0-1 AFPF13IX A COMPUTET roCG F A
- -:S A.1-1 l
- APPEMDIT B F3C QUES Tint?S CITH PESPONSFS 8.1-1 4
APPTv7IX C S CI L-ST D UC"I'D. E IF"EFACTION MODEL C.0-1 4
! A?Pr.93II 3 NASS E'!ERGY "ELEASE METHODOLOGY D.1-1 APPE!!DI4 E rdASS OPEPABILITY ACCEPTAMCE F.1-1 APPENDIX F LIFZ INVE"TC RY 303EL - MAI! RTEAM-lit'E P7PTUcrS F.1-1 ATDEN7IX G S'H!MEF 3E3 STF UCTMP E N E~HOOOLOGY G.1-1
' .APPEN7IX % T-OUECCEEP I E EV ALU ATIO" TOF PIPI*'S SYSTEMS 9.1-1 i
viii
, ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 i
FEBRUARY 1982
() THE hM. H. 7IMMER NUCLEAP PCPEP STATION --UNIT 1 NARK II-DESIGN ASSFSSdFNT REPOPT .
LIST OF TABLES NUMBER ' TITLE PAGE 2.1-1 Plant Mcdifications 2. _1- 7 2.1-2 Structures Assessed by SRSS Load' Combination of Pipiaq Loads 2.1-9 2.2-1 Pipirq Accet ta .c( Criteria 2.2-7 2.2-2 Load Combinations and Acceptance Criteria 2.2-P 2.2-3 Drywell Piping Assessment: Comparison of Piping Support Load Magr.itu-les -
(UP9ET-E) 2. 2- 10 2.2-4 Drywell Pining Aesessment: Comparisor of. Pipir g Support Ioad Magnitudes
(~MEFGENCY-C) 2. 2- 11
. 2.2-5 Drywell Piping Stress Assessment 2.2-12
{ 2.2-6 Piping overetress 2. 2- 13 2.2 Piping Stress Summary 2. 2- 14 2.'2-8 Load Combinat ions Fvaluated for the Wetwell Pipino 2.2-15 2.5-1 Summary of Load Casec for. Equipment
-('
1 for Study Purposes 2.5-3 l 2.5-2 Loa l Case Def initiors 2.5-4 2.5-3 Feview of Previcas Peaults 2.5-5 2.5-4 USSS Safety-P. elated Componi.ats Assessei 2.5-6
- 2. 5- 5 1;SSS Safety-Pelated components Assessed 2.5-7 j 2.5-6 Zimmcr 4ain Steam system Calculated 3nubter Loads 2.5-8 2.5-7 Zimmer Fecirculation System Calculated i
Snubber Loads 2.5-9 2.6-1 NSSS Equipment Final Assessment 2.6-2 l l
I' 3.2-1 List of Equipment Peing Monitored During In Situ SPV Test 3. 2- 2 3.3-1 Test Varrix 3.3-3
- l. 3.3-2 Test Matriv - Definiticr of Athreviations and rootnotes 3.3-5 I 4.0-1 Primary Cont ainment Principal Design Paramete rs ar d Characteristics 4.0-2 5.2-1 SRV Discharge Line Clearing Transient Paramete rization 5.2-15 5.2-2 SUV Eubt le rynamics Parameterizat ion 5. 2- 1E 5.2-3 Transiert Analysis Assumptions 5. 2- 17 5.2-4 Relief Valvc Inputs - Zimmer
. Analysis 5.2-18 5.2-5 Zirmer Tranrients results 5. 2- 19 5.3-1 Acoustic Loadina or. Feactor Pressure Vessel shroud 5.3-23 g~/g s_ 5.4-1 Zimmer Posit ion or. Erc Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria - (NUPEG-04 P7 and NUnrG-0487, Supplement 70. 1) 9.4-2 1 ix l
. , ~ . - . - , . . - . - -
CPS-FSAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
() LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd) i NUMBER TITLE PAGE l 5.5-1 Application of Alternate Load Definitions and Load Combinations 5.5-5 5.5-2 Load Combinations (Non-LOCA) 5.5-6 5.5-3 Load Combinations (LOCA) 5.5-7 6.1-1 Design Load Combinations 6.1-4 6.3-1 Load Definitions and Combinations for Reinforced Concrete (Struc- ,
ture Other Than Containment) 6.3-2 )
6.3-2 Load Definitions and Combinations I for Structural Steel 6.3-5 6.3-3 Load Combinations and Acceptance i Criteria for Downcomer and Downcomer Bracing 6.3-8 6.5-1 Loading Combinations and Acceptance Criteria - Operating Condition
~
Categories 6.5-3 6.5-2 Load Combinations and Allowable Stress Limits for Non-Fluid System Equipment 6.5-5 6.5~3 Load Combinations and Allowable Stress Limits for Active Fluid System Equipment 6.5-6 7.1-1 Dynamic Soil Properties 7.1-15
(~)N 7.1-2 Margin Table for Basemat - Resonant Sequential Symmetric Discharge 7.1-16 7.1-3 Margin Table for Basemat - ADS Valve Discharge 7.1-17 7.1-4 Margin Table for Basemat - Two Valve Discharge 7.1-18 7.1-5 Margin Table for Basemat - LOCA Plus One SRV 7.1-19 7.1-6 Margin Table for Containment - Resonant Sequential Symmetric Discharge 7.1-20 7.1-7 Margin Table for Containment - ADS Valve Discharge 7.1-21 7.1-8 Margin Table for Containment - Two-l Valve Discharge 7.1-22 l 7.1-9 Margin Table for Containment - LOCA Plus One Valve Discharge 7.1-23 7.1-10 Margin Table for Reactor Support -
Resonant Sequential Symmetric Discharge 7.1-24 7.1-11 Margin Table for Reactor Support -
l ADS Valve Discharge 7.1-25 i
7.1-12 Margin Table for Reactor Support -
Two-Valve Discharge 7.1-26 7.1-13 Margin Table for Reactor Support -
i LOCA Plus One SRV 7.1-27 l 7.1-14 Margin Table for Drywell Floor -
l l
() SRV Only and LOCA Plus One SRV ,
7.1-28
[
i
CPS-FSAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
(} LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
NUMBER TITLE PAGE 7.1-15 Margin Table for Drywell Floor Column -
All Valve and ADS Discharge 7.1-29 7.1-16 Margin Table for Drywell Floor Column -
Two-Valve Discharge 7.1-30 7.1-17 Margin Table for Easemat - All-Valve SRV Quencher Discharge 7.1-31 7.1-18 Margin Table for Basemat - ADS SRV Quencher Discharge 7.1-32 7.1-19 Margin Table for Basemat - Asymmetric (Three-Valve) SRV Quencher Discharge 7.1-33 7.1-20 Margin Table for Basemat - Single-Valve SRV Quencher Discharge 7.1-34 7.1-21 Margin Table for Containment - All-Valve SRV Quencher Discharge 7.1-35 7.1-22 Margin Table for Containment - ADS SRV
~
Quencher Discharge 7.1-36 7.1-23 Margin Table for Containment - Asymmetric (Three-Valve) SRV Quencher Discharge 7.1-37 7.1-24 Margin Table for Containment - Single-Valve SRV Quencher Discharge 7.1-38 (3 7.1-25 Margin Table for Basemat - ADS SRV
(_) Quencher Discharge 7.1-39 7.1-26 Margin Table for Basemat - Single-Valve SRV Quencher Discharge 7.1-40 7.1-27 Margin Table for Containment - ADS SRV Quencher Discharge 7.1-41 7.1-28 Margin Table for Containment - Single Valve SRV Quencher Discharge 7.1-42 7.1-29 Margin Table for Suppression Pool Column - Resonant Sequential Discharge 7.1-43 7.1-30 Margin Table for Suppression Pool Column - Single Valve Subsequent Actuation 7.1-44 7.1-31 Margin Table for Drywell Floor - All Valve SRV Quencher Discharge 7.1-45 7.1-32 Margin 73ble for Drywell Floor -
Asymmetric (Three Valve) SRV Quencher Discharge 7.1-46 7.1-33 Margin Table for Drywell Floor - ADS SRV Quencher Discharge 7.1-47 7.1-34 Margin Table for Drywell Floor - Single Valve SRV Quencher Discharge 7.1-48 7.1-35 Margin Table for Reactor Support - All Valve SRV Quencher Discharge 7.1-49 7.1-36 Margin Table for Reactor Support - ADS SRV Quencher Discharge 7.1-50
(~)
7.1-37 Margin Table for Reactor Support -
Asymmetric (Three Valve) SRV Quencher Discharge 7.1-51 xi
CPS-FSAR ' AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
(} LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
NUMBER TITLE PAGE 7.1-38 Margin Table for Reactor Support -
Single-Valve SRV Quencher Discharge 7.1-52 7.2-1 Summary of Containment Wall Liner Plate Stresses / Strains for All SRV Cases (Rams Head) 7.2-4 7.2-2 Summary of Containment Wall Liner Anchorage Load / Displacement for All SRV Cases (Rams Head) 7.2-5 7.2-3 Summary of Containment Wall Liner Plate Stresses / Strains for All SRV Cases (T-quencher) 7.2-6 7.2-4 Summary of Containment Wall Liner Anchorage Load / Displacement for All SRV Cases (T-quencher) 7.2-7 7.3-1 Load combinations and Acceptance Criteria for Downcomer and Downcomer Bracing 7.3-8 7.4-1 RPV Support Skirt - New Loads (SRSS Value) 7.4-2 7.4-2 Forces and Margin Factor for RPV Holddown Bolt 7.4-2 7.5-1
() 7.5-2 7.5-3 Load Combinations and Acceptance Criteria Impact on Piping Supports ABSUM Percent Restraints Bounded for Various 7.5-7 7.5-8 Factors 7.5-9 7.6-1 Dynamic Methods for Zimmer NSSS Assessment 7.6-6 7.6-2 Class lE Equipment Qualification 7.6-7 7.6-3 Class 1F Cont rol Par.els and Local Panels ar.d cacks Scismic Qualification Test Summary 7.6-8 8.2-1 Pool Ten perature Analysis Fecults P.2-12 8.2-2 Imnortant System characteristics 8. 2- 13 9.2-3 Pool Temperature Conditions - Case la A.2-15 8.2-4 Pool Temperature Condit ions - Case 1b 8. 2- 16 8.2-5 Pool Temperature conditions - Case 2a 8. 2- 17 8.2-6 Pool Tempertture Conditions - Case 2b S. 2- 19 8.2-7 Pool Temperature Conditions - Case 3a 8. 2- 19 l 6.2-9 Pool Temperature Ccnditions - Case 3h Q . 2- 20 l 9.2-1 Summary of Equipment Modification:4 9.2-4 l
l
\
l v
xii L
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 THE WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION - UNIT 1
-Q MARK II DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LIST OF FIGURES NUMBER TITLE
- 2.1-1 Zimmer Empirical Limiting CO vs. NRC Criteria 2.1-2 Asymmetric Chugging Load Distribution 2.1-3 Spatial Load Distribution - SRV ,KWU vs. SRV Plant Specific ADS 2.1-4 Vent Exit Component 2.1-5 Vent Acoustic Component 2.1-6 Power Spectral Density of the Nondeterministic Oscillation Content 2.2-1 Response Spectra Comparison - OBE + SRV ALL, OBE +
SRV RH, TQ OBE + SRVTQASY 2.2-2 Response Spectra Comparison - DBE + SRV CO (2-7 Hz) RH vs. SSE +
2.2-3 Response Spectra Comparison - DBE + SRVggg RH vs.
CO(EL) + SSE & SRV gtt TO 2.2-4 Response Spectra Comparison - DBE + SRV CHUG + SRV ALL RH vs. SSE +
2.2-5 Support Load Changes - OBE + SRVggnRH vs. OBE +
SRVALLTQ 0 2.2-6 Rams Head Support Load Changes - OBE + SRVALLRH vs.
OBE + SRVangTO 2.2-7 Drywell Piping Support Load Changes - OBE + SRVggg RH vs. OBE + SRVggyTQ 2.2-8 Drywell Piping Support Load Changes - 1.875(OBE) +
SRVanLRH vs. SSE + CO(2-7) 2.2-9 Support Load Changes - 1.875(OBE) + SRVggn RH vs.
SSE + CO(2-7) 2.2-10 Drywell Piping Support Load Changes -1.875(OBE) +
SRV3ttRH vs. SSE + CHUG + SRV T 2.2-11 Support Load Changes - 1.875(ADS)QOBE + SRVgtn RH vs.
SSE + CHUG + SRVADSTQ 2.2-12 Response Spectra Comparison - DBE + SRV CO(EL) + SRVADSTQ RH vs. SSE +
2.2-13 Drywell Piping Support Load Change -1.875(OBE) +
SRVALL RH vs. SSE + CO(EL) +SRVADS TO 2.2-14 Support Load Changes - 1.875(OBE) + SRV SSE + CO(EL) + SRV TO ALL RH vs.
2.2-15 Drywell Supports Akhklable Design Margin 2.4-1 Drywell Piping Support Load Change - 1.875(OBE) +
SRV RH vs. SSE + CO(EL) + SRV TQ 2.4-2 Suphbht Load Changes -1.875(OBd^)DS+ SRV CO(EL) + SRVALL TQ +SSE ALL RH vs.
2.4-3 Downcomer Bracing Layout 2.4-4 Typical Suppression Pool Section
~S (V 2.4-5 Connection of Bracing To Wall Embedment 2.4-6 Downcomer Bracing Support to Pedestal xiii
.)
.ZPS-liMARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 !
FEBRUARY 1982 !
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont ' d)
NUMBER TITLE 2.4-7 Connection of Bracing to Downcomer 2.4-8 Connection of MSRV Ring Plate 3.3-1 Accelerometer Locations 1
. 1 0
O xiii (Cont'd)
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
('; LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)
U 7.1-26 Containment Wall Post-Tensioning Layout 7.1-27 Containment Wall Feintorcing Layout 7.1-28 Eeactor Support Concrete Plug 7.1-24 Peactor Support - Feinforcing Layout Before Modificatior 7.1-30 Cryvell Floor Peinforcing Layout 7.1-31 Drywell Floor Column Feinforcing Layout 7.1-32 Design Sections - Primary Containment, Deactor Containnent, Feactor Support, and Basemat 7.1-33 Design Sections - trywell Floor 7.1-34 Design Sections Drywell Floor Column 7.1-35 Typical Int (raction Diagram for Basemat 7.1-35 "ypical Interactior Diagram for Cortairment 7.1-37 Drywell Floor 3-D Finite Element Model 7.2-1 l Easemat Lirer Detail 7.2-2 Containment Liner Cetail 7.3-1 Downcomer ir the Suppression Pool 7.3-2 Dovncomer Bracing Layout 7.3-3 Connection of Bracing to Downcomer 7.3-4 Embedment Plate 7.5-1 Emledment Load Change Inside Containment for N + CO (DFFP) + SSE 7.5-2 Emcedment Lcad Change Insiue Containment for 31 + CdUG I,) + SFV SSE 7.5-3 Embed hnt Load Change Inside Containment For 'l + CO (Empirical) + SDNTQ + SSE 7.5-4 Enhedment Load Change Cutside Containment for N + CO (DFFP) + SST 7.5-5 Embedment Lead Chance outside Containment For N + CC (Empirical) + S9VTQ + SSE 7.5-6 Embedeent Load Chance cutside Containment for 11 + CC (Empirical) + S9V79 + SSE 7.6-1 Desigr and Evaluation Flow 8.2-1 Wm. H. 7immer Nuclear Power Statior 8.2-2 Pesidual Eect Removal System 8.2-3 Residual Heat Femoval System Contairment Coolina Mode 8.2-4 Fesidual Heat Pemoval system Shutdown Cooling . Mode 8.2-5 Fesidual Feat Eamoval System Hot Standby Mode 8.2-6 Fesidual Heat Demoval System Low Pressure coolant Injection Mode A.2-7 Feedwater System (FU) 8.2-8 Pool Temperature Response - Case la SOFV at Full Power, 1 FHF Available 8.2-9 Pool Temperature Pesponse - Case lh SCEV at F'111 Power, 2 EHF's Available 8.2-10 Pool Temperature r esponse Case 2a Isolation / Scram, 1RHR Availatle 8.2-11 Pool Temperatura Kesponse - Case 2h Isolation / Scram, 2 FHP's Available d('
xvi
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 198.2
() CHAPTER 1.0 - INTRODUCTION The purpose of this revision of the Design Assessment Report (DAR) is to demonstrate that the Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 (2PS-1) containment can accommodate all hydrodynamic load phenomena associated with the SRV discharge and l LOCA in the BWR Mark II containment, to provide evidence of conformance with the NRC Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria (NUREG-0487), and to provide a response to the formal questions posed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
In the summer of 1979, the Wm. H. Zimmer Power Station (ZPS-1) design and construction status was such that additional load changes requiring plant modifications would seriously impact the construction schedule. To avoid this situation the ZPS-1 "three-j pronged" approach was adopted. The three facets of this approach
! are:
- a. Expedite construction based on conse~rvative loads and upgrade immediately containment capability where possible.
- b. Assess the plant for the Zimmer Empirical Load Design Basis which is expected to bound any future changes in pool dynamic loads.
O c. Confirm adequacy of design with results of the Zimmer l in-plant SRV test and the long-term Mark II program.
The Zimmer empirical loads are described in Section 2.1. This report describes the original design-basis for ZPS-1, subsequent reassessments for revised and newly identified loads, and finally i
the current reevaluation of the design using the Zimmer empirical loads to ensure the adequacy and conservatism of the containment l
f structures, piping, and equipment, l
This report also describes the conformance of the Zimmer design i
to the NRC Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria (NUREG-04 8 7 ) . Sub-section 5.2.3 compares the design-basis T-quencher load with the criteria of NUREG-0487 and Supplement 1 of NUREG-0487.
4 Subsection 5.3.2 compares the design-basis LOCA loads with the criteria in NUREG-0487. The loads defined in the NUREG-0487
! were used for limited components as identified in Section 5.5.
l This report provides the NRC staff with all information necessary to continue and complete the licensing of the Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station as scheduled. All pertinent information related to loads, load specification, load combinations, acceptance criteria, plant modification, plant margins, and confirmation of loads that apply to ZPS-1 has been compiled in this document. In addition, an in-plant SRV test will be performed to confirm the adequacy of loads used for design O assessment.
I
( l.0-1 l
l
_ _ , . . ~ -
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 In this report the individual loads and load combinations that O are being utilized in the reassessment are identified and described in the first four sections. Reports defining the individual loads and providing justification for application to the ZPS-1 containment are referenced rather than repeated. This is consistent with the objective of this report.
The methods used in reevaluating the structures, piping systems, and equipment are described in Chapter 7.0. Fatigue analysis of the downcomers and SRV lines is included in Subsection 7.3.2.
The plant modification and resultant changes that have been completed are described in Chapter 9.0. The plant margins and conservatisms are summarized in Chapter 10.0. To fulfill the requirements of NUREG-0487, a description of the assessments used to ensure functional capability of piping systems is in-cluded in Section E.4 of Appendix E.
The long-term Mark II program is expected to confirm that the plant, as presently designed and constructed, is completely safe and adequate. An assessment using loads derived from results of the 4TCO tests, described in Appendix I, provides additional assurance. However, additional desig.: modifications and plant changes are being implemented to utilize the full containment capability. This ensures that the maximum possible margins are built into the plant, so that if load definitions should change later, they can be accommodated without plant hardware changes. The ZPS-1 plant startup should, therefore,
(]) proceed as scheduled.
O 1.0-2
2PS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 CHAPTER 2.0 - ZIMMER EMPIRICAL LOADS
{
The original design of the Zimmer Power Station was based on loads developed in the Mark II Containment Program as documented in the Mark II Containment Dynamic Forcing Function Report (DFFR, Report NEDO/NEDE 21061-P). Although these loads were felt to be conservative, questions about the adequacy of the loads resulted in replacement of the rams head SRV discharge devices with quenchers in all Mark II plants and led the Mark II program to perform additional full-scale, single-vent LOCA tests (4TCO tests). As a result of these changes, the potential existed for Mark II pool dynamic loads of higher magnitude or altered frequency range.
In the summer of 1979, the status and schedule of construction and design work for the Zimmer . station was such that any further changes in the pool dynamic loads would have a serious impact on the cost and the schedule for operation. It was recognized, at this time, that full results from the various tests would not be available in time for incorporation into the design basis.
Therefore, Zimmer implemented a three-pronged approach to completion of the plant. This approach, although requiring a significant amount of additional design work and significant plant modifications, was felt to be advisable to minimize the risk of delays in plant operation and to maximize the safety of i the plant. l The three-pronged approach was:
- a. Expedite construction based on conservative loads and upgrade immediately the containment capability where possible.
- b. Assess the plant for the Zimmer Empirical Load Design Basis which is expected to bound any future changes in pool dynamic loads.
- c. Confirm adequacy of design with results of the Zimmer in-plant SRV test and the long-term Mark II program.
l This chapter describes the Zimmer Empirical Load and demonstrates the capability of the Zimmer Power Station to accommodate these very conservative loads. This.information was discussed with the NRC at a meeting on December 5, 1979. The remainder of the DAR provides more detail of the design of the Zimmer Plant including the original design methods and design work done subsequent to the December 5, 1979 meeting. Section 5.4 summarizes the conformance of the Zimmer Station to NUREG-0487, the Mark II Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria.
O 2.0-1
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENbMENT17 FE3RUARY--1982
2.1 DESCRIPTION
OF THE ZIMMER EMPIRICAL LOADS -
The Zimmer Empirical Loads constitute a complete Mark II hydro-dynamic load design basis. This design basis was formulated not only to meet or exceed the DFFR and NUREG-0487 (Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria) but to also contain additional conservatism ~
in those areas where uncertainty remained in the Mark II' loads.
Since this approach was formulated in the summer of 1979, certain. '
, loads have been better defined ard load reductions have been justified in some cases. With exceptions identi fied in Section i 5.5 these reductions have not been incorporated into the Zimmer i Empirical Load which ensures the high margin of safety in the design. The following subsections fully define the load and provide documentation of the material presented to the NRC in the December 5, 1979, meeting.
2.1.1 Vent Clearino The vent clearing boundary load used in the Zimmer design is a -
33 psi overpressure (above hydrostatic) applied uniformly below the vent exit and attenuated to zero at the pool surface. Th'is exceeds both the Mark II Owners Group load and the NRC requirements demonstrating an increased safety margin in the Zimmer design.
2.1.2 Pool Swell O
The pool swell methodology used in the Zimmer design meets or exceeds the NRC Acceptance Criteria. In those areas where the Acceptance Criteria were different from the original Zimmer design, the loads have been calculated using both methods and the _
more conservative load used for the design, thereby increasing the design margin. Zimmer has been modified to remove most piping-and structures from the pool swell zone to eliminate pool "
swell loads.
2.1.3 Condensation Oscillation Prior to implementation of the Zimme,r Empirical Load approach, Zimmer had been designed to accommodate the condensation oscillation (CO) load specified in DFFR, Revision 3 ( 3.75~ psi, 2-7 Hz). This load was accepted by the NRC in NUREG-0487.
Certain questions were raised about the adequacy of this load definition because the original 4T tests (GE' report NEDE-13442-01P5/76) were not entir containments. To resolve ~these qu,ely prototypical estions, the Mark of IIMark II Owners Group performed the 4TCO t'est (NEDE-24811-P, 5/80).with conservative single-cell representation of the Mark II drywell and appropriate vent length and geometries. .
Because the schedule for availability of results from the 4TCO-(, tests was not compatible with the design and construction schedule of Zimmer, the Zimmer Empirical CO Load was defined very 2.1-1
. _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _=_
i ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 conservatively based on existing steam condensation data. The
~(]} -
following CO load definition was presented to the NRC at the December 5, 1979 meeting. Since condensation oscillation occurs over a wide range of blowdown conditions, two CO loads were defined. The first is a high mass flux CO load (col) which would correspond to the early portion of a large break LOCA. l The main components of ,his load are defined as:
- a. Sinusoidal Pressure Fluctuations 4.5 psi @ 2-7 Hz 2.2 psi @ 11-13 Hz
'b. Random Pressure Fluctuations Steam Bubble Collapse: 15-50 Hz 1
The 2 to 7 hertz component specified represents an increase of
~-about 20% over the DFFR/NUREG-0487. load. The 11 to 13 hertz component is an additional load to account for any vent acoustic effects. The higher frequency portion of the load is added to
. bound random high frequencies which may appear in test data.
At lower. mass fluxes there may be a possibility of a higher few
~
contribution from the vent acoustic effect with a corresponding
_ - decrease in the' low frequency component. The main coraponents of this second CO load (CO2) are defined as:
- a. Sinusoidal Pressure Fluctuations 2.2 psi 2-7 Hz
[ 3.8 psi 11-13 Hz
- b. Random Pressure Fluctuations s
Steam Bubble Collapse: 15-50 Hz u.
c The 2 to 7 hertz component here is 50% of the low frequency L component used in the high mass flux load while the vent L acoustic amplitude has been conservatively assumed to be even
- higher than the amplitude apecified in the lower 2 to 7 hertz range in the DFFR. 'The Zimmer Empirical Condensation Oscilla-l ,- tion Load used as the design-basis envelopes the above load definition and bounds the requirements of the NRC Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria (NUREG-0487), as demonstrated by Figure
,2.1-1.
l This Empirical Load is comprised of three components: Vent Exit (VE), Vent Acoustic (VA), and Nondeterministic (ND).
l ,
N s
2.1-2 I
~ '
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 The vent exit component, as presented in Figure 2.1-4, is defined
(]} over a frequency, range of 3 to'21 Hz but is extended to 1 Hz to account for 4TCO test facility data. The vent acoustic com-( ponent, shown'in Figure 2.1-5, is at the downcomer natural acoustic frequency which is then widened to a range + 1 Hz of the natural acoustic frequency. The nondeterministic component, shown'in Figure 2.1-6, consists of random frequencies between 15 and 50 Hz.. Two CO loads are defined corresponding to different portions of the LOCA transient:
~
col' = VE+ (0. 2 ) VA+ND CO2 = (0.5)VE+VA+ND In addition'to the loa'ds acting in the wetwell, the drywell
. pressure fluctuates at a value equal to + 10% of the wetwell pressure on,the pool, boundary.
s
~
2.l.4 Chugg'ing e s Chugging loads are divided into two areas. The chugging lateral
. ,~ load is the self: loading of the downcomer vent during chugging and affec,ts the design of the downcomers, bracing, and drywell ,
? floor. The chugging event also generates a hydrodynamic load
, , . which loads the submerged boundaries of the suppression pool.
i.t _
s
._ e e
w*
Ad f .
,4=
' ( q. .'[ -
i 6..
en T +-
'\ '_
.- i y
I #
2.17 2a
' - s, hk.
2PS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
(} 2.1.4.1 Chuagina Lateral Loads Using the Zimmer Empirical Loads Approach, lateral loads are calculated as described in Subsection 5.3.1.1.7. This approach is more conservative than required by the NRC Acceptance Criteria (NUREG-0487). Subsection 7.1.3 describes the additional conservatism added in the method of drywell floor assessment.
2.1.4.2 Chuagina Boundary Loads The chugging load used was the DFFR methodology which meets the NRC Acceptance Criteria (NUREG-0487). The symmetric chugging load is obtained from.the full-scale, single-cell 4T data and conservatively applied with all vents in-phase. An amplitude of
+4.8/-4.0 psi and a 20-30 Hz frequency range is-applied. The asymmetric load utilizes the same frequency range and a maximum magnitude of +20/-14 psi. Again, all vents were assumed to act in phase. The asymmetric distribution is shown in Figure 2.1-2.
2.1.5 SRV (Ouencher) Loads The Safety / Relief Valve (SRV) actuation loads used in the original design of Zimmer.were based on the rams head discharge device. Quencher discharge devices have now been installed to eliminate concerns about discharge into high temperature pools f- and to reduce the magnitude of the SRV loads. The quencher
(,j load definition (Susquehanna DAR) is supported by full-scale, single-cell tests of an actual Mark II quencher. This load is included in the Zimmer Empirical Loads and constitutes the design-basis SRV load for the Zimmer plant. Because this load has been shown to be conservative by comparison to full-scale tests and because it includes a wider frequency range than the original rams head load, the quencher load definition provides a very conservative basis for plant design assessment.
Subsequent to adoption of the Zimmer Empirical Load, information has been provided to the NRC supporting an amplitude reduction of approximately 30% in the quencher load. Consistent with the Zimmer philosophy of retaining the maximum design margin, this load reduction has not been incorporated into the Zimmer Empirical Load, with the exceptions identified for limited components in Section 5.5.
The T-quencher load definition consists of three actual pressure time histories. The amplitude of these data traces are then increased by 50% to ensure conservatism and the frequency range is adjusted to give primary frequencies between 3.4 to 10 Hz.
This load definition provides amplitude which bound both first and subsequent actuation loads.
Since an all-valve case is used as the design basis, the Zimmer design basis will bound an all-
~
valve subsequent actuation case (with all buobles in-phase) although
( >) subsequent a maximum of 5 of the 13 valves are predicted to undergo actuation in the Zimmer plant. The quencher load definitions incorporate a very conservative representation of the spatial distribution of pressure on the boundary of the 2.1-3
~
2PS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
(]) suppression pool. -The Zimmer Empirical Load carries this
-conservatism represent the ADS even further and uses the all-valve case to case. To investigate the conservatism of this approach, a more realistic prediction of the Zimmer ADS load has been formulated utilizing the DFFR methodology to predict the spatial distribution. The conservatism of the Zimmer Empirical Load Approach is demonstrated by this comparison I?igure 2.1-3).
2.1.6 Submerced Structure Loads Submerged structure loads have been calculated using forcing functions consistent with the boundary loads just described. The submerged structure methodology has also been modified to address the NRC Acceptance Criteria (NUREG-0487). This subsection will cover the submerged structure load definitions. The revised methodology is documented in Appendix G.
2.1.6.1 SRV Submerced Structure Loads The actual quencher locations are used to define the position of the SRV air bubbles. The bubble size is conservatively pre-dicted by utilizing the actual plant parameters (such as line length). The bubble pressure and typical load time history are calculated using the quencher correlations in the DFFR (NEDO 21061). The time history is then adjusted to give a frequency
(']
range of 3.4 to 10 Hz. Since the DFFR bubble pressure is derived on the basis of X-quencher and Zimmer has T-quencher discharge devices, an amplitude adjustment factor which is
- equal to or greater than 0.7 may be used with the SRV submerged structure loads. This amplitude factor accounts for the 1
difference between the DFFR and KWU load definitions. Other aspects of submerged structure load calculation, such as, drag coefficients and nodalization of structures, are treated in accordance with NUREG-0487, as explained in Appendix G.
2.1.6.2 LOCA Submerged Structure Loads The water jet, vent clearing, and pool swell submerged structure loads have been reassessed taking into consideration the NRC Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria (NUREG-0487) in both the forcing functions and application methodology. The methodology information in Appendix G is applicable to LOCA submerged
-structures also.
The chugging submerged structure load is derived from the chugging boundary load. This'is described in more detail in Subsection 5.3.1.3.6. The only modification to the chugging load is to address the concerns in NUREG-0487.
The condensation oscillation submerged structure loads have been recalculated to be consistent with the Zimmer Empirical Loads (as
() described in Subsection 2.1.3 and NUREG-0487). A forcing function was derived from the original load specification (23.75 2.1-4
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 a
but additional, lower pressure loads were defined O psi, 2-7 Hz),up to 21 Hz to bound uncertainties in the load definition.
The frequencies above 21 Hz in the boundary load specification result '
from acoustic pressure waves and were, therefore, not included in the fluid drag loads.
f I
O l
I 1
I O
2.1-4a
._-. . , . _ . . _ . . _ _ . - . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . -. _ _ _ _ - . _ . _ . - . ~ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . _ _ - . . .
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 2.1.7 Load Combinations
[]}
The load combinations applicable to the design of the Zimmer Station are listed in Section 6.0. The Zimmer Empirical Loads Approach considers all these combinations. However, to expedite the assessment, some of the loads are combined in a more conservative way than is actually required. In. addition, some of the individual load cases are replaced by more conservative loads to minimize the amount of analysis required.
As described in subsection 2.1.5, the SRV loads are defined with a very conservative spatial distribution. Because of this, the ADS (6-valve) load is almost as large as the all-valve (13-valve) load. Additional margin is built into the design by using the ,
all-valve case to represent the ADS case.
The largest loads generally result from the combination of an earthquake with the ADS discharge and either chugging or con-densation oscillation. This is clearly an event with a very low probability. In spite of this low probability, the very l conservative load definitions described in the section have been combined using the absolute sum method of load combination.
The combination of SRV and'LOCA loads is particularly conservative in the case of the drag loads on submerged structures. The flow fields established by the quencher air 7-)
(_j bubble and the downcomer steam bubble collapse are superimposed as if they each had the worst possible phasing and direction at the same time. Because of the difference in the position, frequency, and shape of the forcing function, it is very unlikely that a significant reinforcement of the flow field will result.
The method of combination used with the Zimmer Empirical Loads is the absolute sum method. The square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method is more appropriate and has been approved by the NRC, but at the time the Zimmer Empirical Load Approach ,
was adopted, the acceptability of SRSS was unclear. Therefore, '
the conservative absolute sum method was used to ensure adequate margins. Exceptions are identified for limited components in Table 2.1-2.
2.1.8 Design Chances In an effort to maximize the design margin, the Zimmer Empirical Loads were defined with sufficient conservatism, that in many cases, the design of the piping equipment and structures approaches the containment and embedment capacity. This approach has required a significant number of changes in the plant. The rest of Chapter 2.0 describes the assessments which were done to redesign or confirm the adequacy of the plant.
O 2.1-5
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 l m A list of plant changes is included in Table 2.1-1. This list U shows that a large number of changes have been made in the wet-well and drywell as well as some changes outside containment.
In the wetwell area, the addition of the bracing and quenchers resulted in the relocation and upgrading of virtually all the piping and supports, such that, the capability has been consid-erably increased. Similarly, the use of the governing building response (containment capability) in the drywell design resulted in a significant upgrading of the structural steel and pipe supports.
O O
2.1-6
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 TABLE 2.1-1 PLANT MODIFICATIONS WETWELL Add 79 embedments in walls and basemat Add 6 pedestal bands for MSRV line supports Add 226 supports for MSRV and non-MSRV lines Upgrade sections of MSRV piping size and wall thickness Replace rams heads with T-quenchers Relocate T-quenchers for better distribution Redesign support steel under drywell floor Remove access hatch grating Relocate DW-WW vacuum breakers Add 13 wall embedments Add downcomer bracing Add structural steel beam in pedestal Reroute all 24 non-MSRV lines Upgrade sections of non-MSRV piping wall thickness Remove all support attachments to columns Remove downcomer bottom flange Fill pedestal with concrete to water level I DRYWELL Upgrade approximately 10% of drywell steel Upgrade embedment capacity Add 15% new snubbers Upgrade 25% of snubbers and rigid struts (Approximately 440 total snubbers and 180 rigids in drywell)
Reinforce HVAC supports I
()
N 2.1-7
i ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 TABLE 2.1-1 (Cont'd)
OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT Upgrade RBCCW Hx supports Upgrade RHR Hx supports Add 10% new snubbers
- Upgrade 20% of snubbers and rigid struts
, (Approximately 470 total snubbers and 600 rigids in Rx
! building)
Upgrade HVAC supports Upgrade cable tray and conduit supports All equipment and foundations Upgrade all reactor building structures O .
O 2.1-8
l
~
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 TABLE 2.1-2 STRUCTURES ASSESSED BY SRSS LOAD COMBINATION OF PIPING LOADS
- a. Downcomers
- b. Downcomer Bracing
- c. Drywell Structural Steel
- d. RPV Holddown Bolts
- e. Downcomer Reactor Loads on the Drywell Floor
- f. Piping and Support Reaction Loads on the Pedestal
- g. Selected Piping and Component Supports
- h. Elevation 520 ft - Tube Steel Under Drywell Floor ,
O 1
l l
l 1
O 2.1-9 i
O O O 6.0 _ Notes Range of the 1. The amplitudes shown are half range FUNDAMENTAL (fj) (one-half of the peak-to-peak values).
50 - 2. fj is the single frequency in the 7 range of the fundamental.
E 4.6 psi E
E 4.0 - -
3 S
<c U
o 3.0 -
$ Range of Second g W HARMONIC (2xfj)
F r
I d
> t! s 2.0 _
! S
$ S 1.6 psi
!U Sz Range of Third A a yE 1.0 - HARMONIC (3xfi )
O E z E M A >
8
=
.N ho$
e f 0.4 psi g i e rvi M Aj 1 6 7 9 14 21 E $ FREQUENCY (HZ) A@
5 E9 3 .2 c EE 2 49*
a _.
8;
~
O O O tiotes
- 1. The amplitudes shown are half range (one-half the peak-to-peak amplitudes)
- 5-
- 2. f y = 1600/(3.4 Ly ), Hz, where m Ly = Total Vent Length, ft S
t 4-d E
N 8 3.
O I 3.0 psi E I E
.E d I r F 5 2_
l
> tf a l 2
- I I
I S M E
" l
$ Sz g
?; 2: Eh 1- '
g 8 z g [
4 M = I R ~
o I n
o i
e m s I i h h$ (fy-l) fy (f y+l) l 5 * $ yy 5 = -!
FREQUEllCY (HZ) EE q0 c: 52 o -z a c _$
<giti
~
O O O Note
- 0. 5.
The power values correspond to the power C associated with a 1 Hz interval.
E m
' O.4.
t' .
E u
_, 0. 3 M
b E s'
-x m 2
9 x I
$ 0.2. 0.18 M,
--s o 5Nx 3
8
- o. ,
=m n z = ,
Em m @ Q 0.1. i 4 dO E Er E l 5 % E ar m a$ 4 I
l 28 r=
.N
$oE :
8 0.02 rm . .m m MZ E 3 a v. 0 $ 1b 1'S 2'O 23 2'S 3'O 3'5 4'O 4'5 5'O Eo i5 FREQUENCY (HZ) AE n'
o --a
= d mO EG zm 1 2 c: o
>x m 'c 5
- z NE ~
~
-4 .
-* e-CD N N
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17-FEBRUARY 1982 i 2.2 PIPING ASSESSMENT - PRESENTATION TO NRC DECEMBER 5, 1979
() The piping analysis for ZPS-1 was originally completed using the rams head response spectra as the design basis. The appropriate l load combinations are defined in Table 2.2-1.
The Zimmer Empirical Loads Approach uses very conservative T-quencher load definitions. The plant had previously been j assessed for rams head loads and has the capability to accomo-4 date those loads. As the associated load definitions and ;
response spectra became available, it became apparent that there :
were some differences between the rams head response spectra '
. and the T-quencher response spectra. The following subsections !
describe two separate evaluations which were performed to com-
, pare the original design basis against 1) the NRC T-quencher loads and 2) the Zimmer Empirical Loads which include more conservative LOCA loads. With the modifications as implemented, I
the Zimmer plant is believed to be more than adequate. Using the Zimmer Empirical Loads for the KWU T-quencher discharge device, a detailed assessment was completed for the loads and load combinations, which meet or exceed those specified in the i l NRC Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria (NUREG-04 87 ) . These load l combination cases are defined in Table 2.2-2 in the column labeled "T-quencher Assessment." Since several of these load combinations are bounded by other load combinations, a notation
- is provided in Table 2.2-2 to indicate this.
! Q The results of the assessment indicated that all of the piping supports designed for rams head loads are adequate for the T-quencher load definitions. Additional design margins have been incorporated in the support design to accommodate uncer-tainties in the LOCA loads. Finally, all safety-related piping l will be evaluated for adequacy using the LOCA load definitions
- from the long-term Mark II program based on the 4TCO test data j
and SRV load definitions, based on in-plant test results in order to confirm the existing design margins.
2.2.1 Comparison of Rams Head Desian-Basis Response Spectra i and T-Ouencher Assessment Response Spectra Figures 2.2-1, 2.2-2, 2.2-3, and 2.2-4, illustrate the typical differences between the rams head (original design basis) response spectra and the T-quencher assessment response spectra.
- It was found that the T-quencher assessment response spectra were
- typically less than the rams head design-basis response spectra
- in all horizontal directions. This is illustrated in Figure i 2.2-3. It was also found that the vertical T-quencher assessment
- response spectra was higher in the low frequency range, i.e.,
below 7 hertz, as illustrated in Figures 2.2-1, 2.2-2, and 2.2-4.
Since the majority of the safety-related piping in the Zimmer plant were designed to be relatively stiff, i.e., with
()
, 2.2-1 i
, 2PS-I-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 fundamental frequencies greater than 7 hertz, it was not expected O that this low frequency content would have significant impact.
i I
The assessment demonstrated that this is the case and is !
explained in detail in later sections.
I 2.2."2 T-quencher Assessment - Drywell Pipino A detailed assessment was made to evaluate the adequacy of the j rams head design basis against the very conservative T-quencher load definitions. This assessment was completed by performing
, analyses of 13 of the 25 major piping subsystems in the drywell.
, The remaining piping subsystems in the drywell were either symmetric to the subsystems analyzed, or their design basis was governed by operating transients. Because of this, it was expected that the T-quencher load assessment would not have a significant impact on these subsystems. A few small diameter piping subsystems (nominal diameter less than 2 inches) and all instrumentation lines were not included in this assessment. All these lines will be included in the final design review of the Zimmer plant.
Both static and dynamic computer analyses were performed on these piping subsystems using te.chniques identical to production piping analysis. Representative piping systems were analyzed for all applicable load cases, and the governing load combinations were tabulated for comparison purposes. The results of these load
({) combinations were compared to the equivalent rams head load combinations in both the support loads and in the piping stresses.
4 In general the results indicated that:
- a. For load combinations currently required by the NRC, the support loads tend to decrease when rams head design-basis loads are replaced by the T-quencher loads.
- b. The loads that did increase were all associated with
~
small diameter (nominal O.D. less than 4 inches)
' piping systems and even these load increases were all within the rating of the snubber load capacity.
l c. The load increases were primarily due to the l increases in the lower frequency range of the response spectra.
- d. The impact of the piping stresses was insignificant.
- e. The impact of the Zimmer Empirical CO Load was significant on the piping systems. This impact was due to the larger amplitude in the higher frequency of the Empirical CO Load response spectra. In
./ addition, the load combination with the CO Empirical l-2.2-2 i
2PS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 r~ could be resolved by using slightly more refined analysis (3 / techniques.
2.2.2.3 Summary of Drywell Pipino Assessment As reviewed in Subsections 2.2.2.1 and 2.2.2.2, the rams head -
design basis results were compared to the load combinations in the NRC acceptance criteria using the KWU T-quencher load definitions. The results of this assessment clearly indicate that the Zimmer design, based on rams head loads, is adequate for the Zimmer Empirical Loads.
2.2.3 Additional Pipino Desian Margins Obtained Usina Zimmer Empirical Loads.
As discussed earlier, the DFFR condensation oscillation load was defined only in the 2 to 7 hertz frequency range. As described earlier, in order to obtain additional design margins, a new empirical limiting steam condensation oscillation load was selected. The impact of this Empirical Limiting Load definition was compared to the original design-basis load definition.
Because of this, a criteria has been proposed for the Zimmer Power Station to upgrade the piping support design in order to accommodate the conservative Empirical Condensation Oscillation Loads. This upgrading was accomplished by selecting an Empirical Limiting CO Load with a modified high frequency content. The same piping systems that were assessed for the KWU T-quencher
(]) load, as described in Subsection 2.2.2, were also assessed for the Empirical CO Load. In the assessment, the load combination
. of CO (EL) + SSE + SRV T-quencher was compared to the rams head design-basis emergency load combination of 1.875 OBE + SRV 3g rams head. In this assessment, which is discussed in the following subsection, the impact of the bounding Empirical Limiting CO Load was identified on both the support loads and on the piping stresses. The impact of this load combination is shown by the response spectra comparison in Figure 2.2-12.
2.2.3.1 Impact of the Empirical Limitina CO Load Definitions on Drywell Piping Support Loads As can be seen in Figures 2.2-13 and 2.2-14, the Empirical Limiting CO Load definitions did have an impact on the piping support loads. While not all loads did increase, it was felt that in order to account for the uncertainties in the high frequency range it was necessary to increase all the loads on the drywell supports. These increased loads were evaluated against the existing support design to determine whether they could be accommodated. If required, these supports were upgraded to a larger size. The resulting design margins available in the drywell supports after the loads were upgraded is illustrated in Figure 2.2-15. Because of this upgrading, all drywell supports O. will accommodate the Zimmer Empirical Load Criteria and have 2.2-4
1 ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY'1982 !
2.2.5 Wetwell Pipino Assessment Extensive modifications were made to the piping in the wetwell- i area including pipe rerouting for the following reasons:
- a. insta11htion of T-quencher,
- b. addition of downcomer bracing, and l
- c. reduction of stress of wetwell columns.
The changes involved consisted of:
- a. rerouting of all the wetwell piping,
- b. replacement of the rams head with T-quencher discharge devices,
- c. upgrading of the piping wall thicknesses to accommodate new loads, ,
- d. addition of 226 wetwell supports, and
- e. relocation of'the T-quencher for better load i distribution.
The wetwell piping is beinq evaluated for the load combinations
(]) defined in Table 2.2-8. Since the piping is essentially being redesigned for the 2.immer Empirical Loads, including the Empirical CO Limiting Load definition, no problems are expected in this area.
2.2.6 Final Piping Assessment See Subsection 9.2.3.
i i O 2.2-6 P
w-r-s-.---+r ,,,_,,e - ,----,,w,, .-e,-, -w--+-- w-w------ - - - , - - - , - - -
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 2.3 BALANCE OF PLANT EQUIPMENT - PRESENTATION TO NRC DECEMBER 5, 1979 An assessment of safety-related balance of plant equipment has
, been performed to evaluate the impact of the Zimmer Empirical .
Loads. The results of this assessr.ent were presented to the NRC i Staff on December 5, 1979, and are summarized in this section.
- 2. 3.'1 Assessment and Recualification Procedure j The balance of plant equipment was originally qualified by a program of dynamic testing, analysis, and a combination of test i and analysis. This assessment was performed by evaluating the new loads against the design-basis loads included in the existing l qualification documentation.
! 2.3.1.1 Procedure for Eauipment Oriainally Oualified by Testina
- a. New required response spectra curves were generated by combining the individual response spectra to i obtain one set of curves for each new loading combination.
r b .. The design-basis curves were coepared against the new i curves.
[}
- c. Where the new curves exceed the design-basis curves, i requalification will consist of additional analytical
, work to supplement the testing in order to demonstrate adequacy.
i d. If additional analytical work is not possible or fails to satisfy the acceptance criteria, additional testing will be performed. Limited scope testing, to supplement existing tests, will be considered before ,
complete requalification testing.
- e. If qualification cannot be adequately demonstrated, the component will be modified or replaced.
2.3.1.2 Procedure for Eauipment Oriainally Qualified by Analysis
- a. .New required response spectra curves were generated by combining the individual response spectra to -
obtain one set of curves for each new loading combination.
- b. Based upon the nature of the new curves, the validity i, of the model and methodology used in the original qualification was checked.
] (])
1
! 2.3-1
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 impedance testing, selected pieces of equipment will be. tested as installed to determine their natural frequencies and mode shapes. ;
To accomplish this, the equipment will be excited at as many locations as necessary. The input will be of sufficient intensity as to excite all significant modes in the frequency range of 1 to 100 hertz. The response will be measured at locations deemed necessary to detect natural frequencies and mode shapes.
2.3.4 Eauipment Foundation Loadi j The equipment foundation loads for all balance-of-plant equipment (safety-related and non-safety-related) located in safety-rclated r structures have been recalculated and the adequacy of equipment anchor bolts or welds, equipment foundation, and floor slab has been demonstrated.
2.3.5 Results of Equipment Assessment 2.3.5.1 Valve Qualification Assessment ,
Of the 572 safety-related valves affected by the new SRV and LOCA loads, 143 were studied to evaluate the impact of the new loads.
The basis of this study was to compare piping accelerations against the accelerations for which.the valves were qualified. t Cases where the piping accelerations exceed the valve qualified
(]) accelerations have been identified as requiring further action.
It is important to point out'that this does not imply that the valve is inadequate, but rather that the. existing documentation does not demonstrate its adequacy. The results of the study are summarized below:
NUMBER NUMBER FURTHER VALVs TYPE ACCEPTABLE ACTION REQUIRED Manual Operator 55 16 Motor Operator 20 23 Air Operator 2 8 Check 7 5 Relief 6 1 TOTAL 90 53
! 2.3.5.2 Equipment and Instrumentation Assessment 7
A total of 130 pieces was studied for the various loading
- combinations using both the absolute sum method and the square root of the sum of the squares method. The basis of this study i is discussed in Subsection 2.3.1. The results are summarized below:
I(:)
2.3-3 i
2PS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY'1982 COMBINATION METHOD O NUMBER NUMBER WHICH NUMBER WHICH NUMBER MAY REQUIRE MAY REQUIRE IN LOAD COMBINATION ACCEPTABLE REANALYSIS RETEST PROGRESS ABS SRSS ABS SRSS ABS SRSS N+0BE+SRV 126 128 2 0 0 0 2 N+0BE+SRVAgy 128 128 0 0 0 0 2 126 2 2 0 0 2 N+SSE+CO(DFFR def.) 126 N+SSE+SRVADS+CO (Zimmer empirical) 100 110 21 11 4 4 5 N+SSE+SRVADS+CHG 104 110 17 11 4 4 5 N+d(SSE):+(AP)2 130 130 0 0 0 0 0 2.3.6 BALANCE-OF-PLANT EQUIPMENT - FINAL ASSESSMENT See Subsection 9.2.3.
l (2) i l
O 2.3-4
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 2.4 STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT O~
The Zimmer Empirical Loads have been used to assess the struc-tures and components in the reactor building of the Wm. H.
Zimmer Power Station. This assessment includes the primary containment, drywell structural steel, drywell floor, reactor pedestal, the downcomer and downcomer bracing system, pedestal straps supporting MSRV and non-MSRV piping, and the suppression pool columns. Only if the structures listed are not found adequate for the conservative Zimmer Empirical Load then a reassessment is made for the NRC Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria (NUREG-0487 and its two supplements) .
2.4.1 Method of Assessment The assessment was done in accordance with the load combinations listed in Chapter 6.0. These load combinations were considered conservatively, as explained in Subsection 2.1.7. Exceptions of limited components to the ABS load combination are listed in Table 2.1-2.
2.4.2 Primary Containment The assessment of containment and internal concrete structures indicates that the containment wall, the basemat and the suppression pool columns are adequate for the Zimmer Empirical
() Load. The drywell floor and the reactor pedestal design is adequate to meet the Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria (NUREG-04 87 and its two supplements).
2.4.3 Drywell Structu'ral Steel Piping support loads, based on formal analysis, were used to assess the drywell structural steel.
Approximately 30% of the beams, beam connections and beam supports required reinforcement to accommodate design loads.
The piping reaction loads were combined by the SRSS method.
2.4.4 Downcomer Bracing System The Zimmer Empirical Loads contain increased low frequency loads in both the SRV and condensation oscillation loads. This change had a significant effect on the original unbraced down-comers which had a relatively low natural frequency. In order to accommodate the Zimmer Empirical Loads and also to conform to the NRC Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria, a bracing system has been designed and installed near the pool surface. The bracing system is shown in Figures 2.4-3 and 2.4-4. This system required significant changes in the suppression pool, including additional embedments in the containment wall (Figure x 2.4-5), installation of beams in the pedestal for bracing
% supports (Figure 2.4-6), and re-routing of wetwell piping.
2.4-1
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
(') A typical detail of connection of bracing to downcomer is shown in Figure 2.4-7.
2.4.5 Pedestal Straps Supporting Piping The Safety Relief Valve (SRV) piping required complete re-routing when the rams heads were replaced by quenchers. The quenchers were rearranged from the original rams head positions to minimize containment loads and maximize pool mixing. Installation of the bracing required additional re-routing of the SRV and other piping in the suppression pool. Post-tensioned straps, as shown in Figure 2.4-8, were installed around the pedestal at the required elevations and the pipe supports were connected to these straps.
1 (
4
)
l
(
2.4-2
AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 O i.o.
MM (AIDS GR CHTM)
, f 4 Y I
,AN -
W ase b k
--.q ; ---- , , I r X '+ - ; .n' o V'
O a ,,,.
-- r ..
so4Mr l {
cN n{ -
p.a
.w e
WM. H. ZM804ER NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UMf71 MARM 11 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT FIGURE 2.4-3 DOWCOMER BRACING LAYOUT
AMENDilENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 l80*
TYPICAL BR ACING MEMBER 8*9 X XS l ~D' PIPE ( A.lO6 GR. C)
V I+ } M~
a.:* *ll l ~ ,s I l I
..e i> i A >\
,e .
it ,
.t -
-{p - ,!
4 1F STUDS (TYP.)
AV e
34 V
- _ ~ 3 V
- W 36 m 260
- '. e-p N, ,
- [t 1 , TYP.) /4g \1F/ (TYP.) ~ l-~i ,'
,.~ I
/ 7.
W/ TTTTTT-i s T T'.
T. x i@ $$ @9$$9$p V 7 C $???OC $0 N*
- g . t
./ . A._ @/ .
i --: n ,-
Id
- r- - - - r- -. TYP.\
oVg A *
- r T
/
= 4 SPLICE It.. - - - - -- --
's Q ,s e O_
n.s'. s ,2. 9 b Lt. W 3 6 l E i> EL.496*.0" e
O g5' -
._1t_ _ -l t . -
v * '
- a. .
O N*.'
l i
- i l ..* l.-l
- i i ~
]
g s,
/ \ / \
O' WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 MARK 81 DESIGN AS S ESSM ENT REPORT FIGURE 2.4-6 DOWNCOMER BRACING SUPPORT TO PEDESTAL
A!!EllDt1ENT 17 s'S XXS PIPE (T YP. )
(AIO6 GR.C )
O x N
N s.
- t. 3/4' s 3j4" CLOSURE It..
(TYP.) ((
+- :
+
f
+
- m
~ 7/ ' \
/
PLAN I
I /2
- LU G t.. T. B B. DOWNCOMER AT 60' SPACING , g O (
. i I
I /2* GUSSET ~ O O l RING lt.'S. "
I - - - - - ---~~ -i Q';
i l? '~ _._
I T. 2 _^ Z ~ I ;i 2Z23 o r '
+
i MASTERFLOW , .3
[ ik i
t i i GROUT APPROX l , 1 32' HIGH.
27'O PIPE SLEEVE f
i.
_ _ _ _ x::: %'
l , _ __,_ , , _
(ThlCKNESS = 3/4*) i LJ L; i Y i i
's 4 l
l SECTION WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT 1 i
MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSM ENT REPORT Q FIGURE 2.4-7 CONNECTION OF BRACING TO DOWNCOMER l
l
i
. - SYMMETRICAL O t. AMEN 0 MENT 17
- 2k2 9 BOLT A.540,GR. 821,823, FEBRUARY 1982 824 OR B24V CLASS I W/HEAWY HEX NUT A 194 O j
- a. 4 <* scr.aa.r> . i < 4 - si7, oR. r >
.-.--.-J g L-.__.
J y ._ _. _ __
1 Y2
'12 _
-by . .__ . _ _v_ L_. . ..g...g -
\ =-
i
~ ~
SN~ ,
, 4 ~4. ' n /SMAW ,'.j
~m[L'.
}** ,
h \EllOl8. M (TYP.) g .. -
.*'- 6 4 4 4* T i I
e R.. I /2 "a l'-6' .# -
N
~
Nf
-r PLAN O
__2* BENT 4 - [' , e ... d. 12"= 20* (S . S.)
e . ., SHIM R..e 2'-O, o.c.
i.' a ' '.9. p !,
p.-
yo. '
I
- .* l l
REACTOR --f l
PEDESTAL ,. [ STRAP
- s .s .
I e.< . .4 . t
- .p .. , ,. ;j A. *3, , '"4 I SECTION WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT 1 MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT FIGURE 2.4-8 CONNECTION OF MSRV RING PLATE l
1
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 2.5 NSSS EQUIPMENT - PRESENTATION TO NRC DECEMBER 5, 1979 The NSSS equipment was originally designed for pressure loads, thermal loads, and seismic loads. Significantly, after the original design was completed, pool dynamic loads were identified. These loads were associated with SRV and LOCA phenomena. New building response spectra and LOCA response spectra were generated, as well as dynamic loads associated with annulus pressurization. The NSSS equipment and piping were reassessed for the combined effect of the original and additional new loads. These were presented to the NRC in November 1978.
Data became available in 1979 from domestic and foreign tests for which the applicant made a decision to upgrade the plant design basis as weil as update the reassessment to reflect the installation of SRV T-quenchers. The results of the preliminary reassessment for the combined SRV T-quencher loads and Zimmer Empirical CO Load for the NSSS were also presented with the BOP assessment on December 5, 1979.
Table 2.5-1 summarizes the three different cases evaluated assuming various acceptance criteria and method of load combination (SRSS and Absolute Sum-ABS). Table 2.5-2 is a summary of load case definitions used in developing Table 2.5-1.
Table 2.5-3 briefly summarizes the results cf previous assessments for SRV rams head and earlier LOCA defined loads.
Tables 2.5-4 and 2.5-5 summarize the results for the RPV, FDV .
service equipment, and NSSS safety-related components, respectively. The preliminary assessments show that the RPV and RPV service equipment can accommodate the most current KWU, SRV T-quencher loads, and the Zimmer Empirical CO Load in both Case A & B combinations. The only overload identified for the RPV internals is the top guide hold-down latch for which a fix is in process. NSSS instrumentation and floor mounted equipment is being evaluated. It is expected that additional dynamic analysis will demonstrate adequacy for the increased loads. In addition, as noted in Table 2.5-5, the ECCS pumps will be modified to l
provide additional margin A preliminary assessment of the reactor recirculation, piping, main steam piping, and associated pipe mounted equipment is summarized in Table 2.5-5. The conclusion reached is that these components can accommodate the conservative Zimmer design loads.
Tables 2.5-6 and 2.5-7 list the main steam and recirculation system snubbers, rating, previous governing load combination, and previous and current margin.
In summary, the NSSS systems design adequacy has been updated to reflect the final design and to provide increased margins. The evaluation was made using conservative criteria as applied to load definitions and acceptance criteria. Corrective action is
() being taken to increase design margin for the ECCS pump / motors 2.5-1
y.
s ZPS-17-MARK II DAR ; AMENDMENT 17 s
. FEBRUARY 1982 -
\ ' -
TABLE 2.5 .
~ '
-O LOAD CASE' DEFINITIONS '
e ,, ,
% k
"' ~
t ,
Structural Response to SRV Discharge- ,
Acoustic Load Due to SRV Discharge - '
Acoustic Load Due'to Turbine Stop Valve' Closure, 3
4 4
LOSS OF COOLANT ACCIDENT (LOCA) v-
] .
. .-, a .
Small/Large/Intermdiate Breaks 4
~
J For Small/ Intermediate SRV ADS , ._
Chugging ~
y f Condensation Oscillation ,
1 Vent Clearing ,
~
O
^
~
- ~ '
ANNULUS PRESSURIZATION (NP) -
Annulus Pressurization
- Jet Loads ? '
w
./ .
I l
^
) .Y N
f ,
, , w
. g
/ #
- g
~'
, m_
w -
___9
> g p .s m.m*.'-'
% . n ;
O
- - - v
- n I ."
s 2.5-4 ; ; -
' ~
.x y -
,s , ~-
. ~ - - - - ---
r - - - -
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 i
2.6 NSSS EQUIPMENT - FINAL ASSESSMENT Section 2.5 summarized the NSSS equipment assessment completed
. in December 1979 and presented to the NRC on December 5, 1979.
_ The assessment was based on the data available up to December
~
1979.and the status of reanalysis using the Zimmer Empirical Loads as'well as the SRV T-quencher load definitions.
Reanalysis continued subsequent to the 7ecember 5, 1979 meeting using Zimmer unique dynamic loads to document the adequacy of structures, systems, and components for the Zimmer Empirical Loads and NRC acceptance criteria. The reanalysis for the NSSS equipment has been completed and design reports issued documen-ting the results.
h' ave besn implemented Table 2.6-1 those beyond summarizes theto committed modifications which at the December 5, 1979 presentation.
Based on the reanalysis of the Zimmer NSSS equipment for the Zimmer Empirical Loads and SRV T-quencher load, the Zimmer plant meets or exceeds the load definitions summarized in the NRC Mark II Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria, NUREG-0487.
s .
L 0: ~ .
e p %"
J o
o l
- W
/
2.6-1 I -
.c _, _ _- - -- -
, , --n
~
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 N, '
FEBRUARY 1982 I ,
' TEBLE 2. 6-1
,' NSSS EQUIPMENT FINAL ASSESSMENT
.- 1
, RPV
~
/ Top Guide Holddown Latch Modification incorporated J '~~ -
Other Internals' No change
, RPV Shell.and Skirt' .-
No change RPV Servi'cing E(kuipment No change h,' - FLOOR-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT 4 "
ECCS Pumps / Motors No change
.'m
-[_'
RHR Heat Exchanger High strength support bolts s <
MSIV Leakage Con, trol Blower- Larger support bolts NSSS Instrume'ntation No change
't Of er 1=o Ano >1rE-nounTEo Eau PMEaT f Recirculaticin Piping 4 additional snubbers
/- 7 Recirculat'on i Pump and Vaiv'es No change Main Steam Piping y l . No change
,?' I
, i f Main Steam Safety Relief Valves No change
. -:. Main Steam Isolation Valves No change so 4
4 e
F o l 2.6-2
- 1. .-. .. . . . .
2PS-1-MARK II DAR -AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 CONCLUSIONS Q 2.7 The Zim.ner Empirical Load provides a conservative basis to continue the construction and licensing of the Zimmer Power Station. The approach taken includes adequate conservatism to accommodate any load increases which may be required due to test data or other information which is not now available.
As a result of the conservative approach taken, extensive modifications and additions have been made to the wetwell, drywell, and reactor building. In many cases, this has resulted in an upgrading of the plant capability and that of the containment itself. This work was undertaken with the purposes of avoiding costly and time consuming delays in the plant operation and to ensure that the plant design is as safe as possible.
This chapter demonstrates that the Zimmer Empirical Load Approach is an adequate basfL to allow the continued construction and licensing of the Zimmer Power Station and has sufficient conservatism to account for any uncertainty in the load.
()
O 2.7-1
\
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 CHAPTER 3.0 - SRV IN-PLANT TEST PROGRAM
3.1 BACKGROUND
The Wm. H. Zimmer Station - Unit 1 was origina'ly designed l with rams head type safety / relief valve (SRV) discharge devices. After new pool dynamic loads were identified, the plant designs were reevaluated and modifications implemented.
After a large portion of the reevaluation effort had been completed, a decision was made to replace the rams head SRV l discharge devices with T-quencher duvices. This decision was based upon tests that indicated that the T-ouencher exhibits better steam condensation stability at higher pool water temperatures than the rams head devices.
It is also expected that the T-quencher discharge will result in loads considerably below the loads used to assess the plant (Zimmer Empirical Loads) . The results of the test will serve to quantify this conservatism.
O i
3.1-1
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
() The test matrix is shown in Table 3.3-1 and the definitions of abbreviations and footnotes are shown in Table 3.3-2.
Figures 3.3-1 through 3.3-10 show the actual sensor locations.
Figure 3.3-1 illustrates the accelerometer locations. The suppression pool pressure sensors are shown in Figure 3.3-2.
Figure 3.3-3 illustrates the suppression pool temperature sensors. Figure 3.3-4 shows some of the SRV discharge line temperature and pressure sensor locations. The suppression pool strain gauge locations appear in Figure 3.3-5. Figure 3.3-6 illustrates the locations of the SRV discharge line level sensors. Figures 3.3-7 through 3.3-10 show sensor locations on various submerged structures in the suppression pool.
4 O
O 3.3-2
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
() 3.7 USE OF ASME CODE CASE N-252 Low energy capacitive discharge welding in accordance with ASME Code Case N-252 dated, November 19, 1979, " Low Energy Capacitive Discharge Welding Method for Temporary or Permanent Attachments to Components and Supports,Section III, Division 1, and XI" will be used to install strain gages and thermocouples for the SRV in-plant test. This is in compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.147 (Revision 0). The specific application, materials to be joined, and the minimum thickness of the material to which the strain gage or thermocouple will be attached are as follows:
MINIMUM BASE APPLICATION TO BE JOINED MATERIAL THICKNESS Strain gage attach- STRAIN GAGE FLANGE- 0.090 in.
ment welds and cable SA 240 type 304 holddown clip welds. stainless steel, Thermocouple cable SA 106 Grade B or holddown clip welds. SA 516 Grade 60 steel.
HOLDDOWN CLIP -
ASTM A-240 type
{) 321 SS BASE MATERIAL-SA 240 Type 304 stainless steel, Type 316L stainless steel, SA 106 Grade B, or SA 516 Grade 60 steel.
l t
I 3.7-1 l
l
2PS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
(]) CHAPTER 4.0 - GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANT The Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, employs a GE-BWR/5 housed in a Mark II type containment structure (see Figure 4.0-1). The unit has a rated core thermal power level of 2436 MWt. The Mark II primary containment is a steel-lined, post-tensioned concrete pressure-suppression system of the over-and-under configuration. Pertinent physical data on the containment is summarized in Table 4.0-1. The pressure-suppression design incorporates a total of 88 downcomers with a submergence of 10.1 feet below the low water level of the suppression pool.
The stea.t generated in the nuclear boiler is directly used by the Westinghouse main turbine-generator unit. The main turbine is an 1800 rpm, tandem-compound, four-flow nuclear steam unit. The
' nuclear boiler has 13 safety / relief valves to limit pressure buildup in the system as required by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. The valves are mounted on the four main steamlines upstream of the inboard main steam isolation valves and are located in the drywell portion of the primary containment. Six of the 13 safety / relief valves are part of the automatic depressurization system (ADS) which is designed for pressure relief following an intermediate line break. The discharge lines ftom all of the safety / relief valves are routed into the suppres-sion pool.
Each discharge line terminates with a T-quencher s_) discharge device. Each quencher is located approximately 3.5 feet above the top of the suppression pool basemat; this is equivalent to a submergence of approximately 18.5 feet below the pool low water level.
As a result of the reassessment of the Wm. H. Zimmer Power Station to the bounding pool dynamic loads, many changes have been made to the structure, piping, and equipment. Some of the more significant modifications are:
- a. Installation of quenchers and associated MSRV line rerouting.
- b. ' Addition of downcomer bracing.
- c. Filling of pedestal with concrete to elevation 497 feet 6 inches.
- d. Additional supports and restaints for wetwell and drywell piping.
These modifications are listed and explained more completely in Chapter 9.0. -
O 4.0-1
4 ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
-V/~). TABLE 4.0-1 PRIMARY CONTAINMENT PRINCIPAL DESIGN PARAMETERS AND CHARACTERISTICS I. DESIGN PRESSURES A. Containment Internal Design 45 psig-Pressure B. Containment External Design' +2 psig
, Pressure r
C. Drywell Floor Differential Design Pressure
- 1. downward 25 psi
- 2. upward 9 psi 4
II. VOLUMES A. Maximum Dryw' ell Free Air Volume. 180,000 ft 3
,em; .
\) MAXIMUM MINIMUM B. Suppression Chamber Free Air Volume 96,300 ft 3 94,000-ft 3 C. Suppression Chamber Water Volume' 95,300 ft 3 93,000 ft 3 ,
III. DOWNCOMER SUPPRESSION VENTS A. Number of Downcomers 88
- B. Internal Diameter 2.0 ft C. Wall Thickness (Nominal) 0.5 in.
, D. Material SA 516 Grade 60 E. Length
- 1. unembedded length 33 ft 6-3/4 in.
t l 2. total length 37 ft 3-3/4 in.
I
- _ - 3. submergence depth 10.1 ft
)
. IV. SAFETY / RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE LINES A. Number of Discharge Lines 13 4.0-2
._ . ~ - _ - . . -.
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
()
- 3. Air clearing loads:
a) on submerged structures; b) on containment structures; and c) on piping, equipment, RPV, and internals.
- 4. Pool swell loads:
a) drag loads, b) impact loads, and 4
! c) fallback loads.
- 5. Condensation oscillation loads:
a) on submerged structures; b) on containment strtrtures; and c) on piping, equipment, RPV, and internals.
I
- 6. Chugging' loads:
a) on submerged structures; 1
b) on containment structures; and c) on piping, equipment, RPV, and internals.
- 7. Downcomer lateral loads
a) static equivalent load, and b) dynamic load.
- 8. Loads on drywell floor:
a) downward differential p. essure, b) upward differential pressure, and c) loads due to forces on downcomers.
- 9. Annulus pressurization:
a) on sacrificial shield, and b) on piping, equipment, RPV, and internals.
5.0-2
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 The original design loads are always considered to occur in
{'} combination, as appropriate, with the pool dynamic loads. It should be noted that these pool dynamic loads are relatively small compared to the original containment and reactor pressure vessel (RPV) design basis. Therefore, the original design contains adequate margin to accommodate these pool dynamic loads.
These conservatisms are discussed in' Chapter 10.0 of this report.
These additional pool dynamic loads are significant, however, when compared to the original design basis for the downcomer piping, and equipment. Therefore, design modifications have been implemented in these areas which will allow these addi-tional loads to be safely accommodated by meeting all code requirements. These modifications are discussed in Chapter 9.0 of this report.
l O
O 5.0-3
2PS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 o .
(_) 5.2 SAFETY / RELIEF VALVE (SRV) LOADS - PRESENT DESIGN LOADS (T-OUENCHERS)
Actuation of safety / relief valves (SRV) produces direct transient loads on components and structures in the suppression chamber region and the associated structural response produces transient loadings on piping systems and equipment in the containment region and reactor building. These transient SRV loadings are discussed in the following subsections.
Prior to actuation, the discharge piping of an SRV line contains atmospheric air and a column of water corresponding to the line submergence. Following SRV actuation, pressure builds up inside the piping as steam compresses the air in the line. The resulting high-pressure air bubble that enters the pcol oscillates in the pool as it goes through cycles of overexpansion and recompression. The bubble oscillations resulting from SRV actuation and discharge cause oscillating pressures throughout the pool, resulting in dynamic loads on pool boundaries and submerged structures. These dynamic loads cause a dynamic structural response sufficient to affect piping systems and equipment in the containment and reactor buildings. The assessment of the affected systems for these responses is discussed in Chapter 7.0.
Steam condensation vibration phenomena can occur if high-(~T
'l pressure, high-temperature steam is continuously discharged at high-mass velocity from rams head devices into the pool, when the pool is at elevated temperatures. This phenomena is mitigated by installing quencher discharge devices and main-taining a low pool temperature as discussed in Chapter 8.0.
The characteristics of the SRV actuation load vary depending on the piping configuration and the discharge device (rams head or quencher) located at the exit of the SRV line. Typically, the quencher device produces lower dynamic leads. Zimmer Power Station used a bounding load calculated for a rams head device as an original design basis for structures, equipment, and piping systems. A bounding quencher load is now used. To provide '
increased plant safety margins for containment SRV loads and to increase the threshold temperature limit for steam condensation vibration, SRV quencher devices are installed in the plant.
Pool temperature transients for several postulated cases involving a stuck-open SRV are presented in Section 8.2. The calculated maximum pool temperature for a rams head device was found to be a few degrees below the threshold temperature limit for steam condensation instability.
In order to increase the margin between the calculated maximum temperature and this threshold temperature limit, it was decided to install a quencher device having a higher suppression pool
()
fx 5.2-1
2PS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
(') temperature limit as reported in NEDE 21078, October 1975, rather than to perform additional testing with the rams head discharge device. The quencher device provides an additional benefit, since the peak pressure amplitude of the containment structural loads due to the oscillating air bubble are reduced below the corresponding design-basis values for the rams head device.
Therefore, it was concluded that a quencher discharge device not only provides an increased margin for the threshold pool temperature limit, but that the plant will generally experience lower loads than those used in the rams head design basis.
The quencher device being used is the two-arm "T"-quencher developed for the Mark II Susquehanna Plant by KWU. This device has been tested in a full-scale, single-cell facility as reported in Chapter 8 of the Susquehanna Design Issessment Report. The test facility is prototypical of the Susquehanna plant.
Parameters were varied to include a range of initial conditions and the longest and shortest lines of Susquehanna. The tests were conducted to duplicate expected operating conditions including first and subsequent actuations. The geometry and initial conditions tested closely simulate those for the Zimmer Power Station. These tests showed that the device will condense steam without significant loads at pool temperatures up to and even above 2000 F. In addition, the tests showed that the actual quencher loads are conservatively bounded by the design loads 7s given in Chapter 4 of the Susquehanna DAR. Since 2PS-1 is being
(_) assessed for these design loads in addition to the rams head loads, this demonstrates again the conservatism of the ZPS-1 design.
Quenchers with four arms (X-quenchers) have been installed and tested at Caorso, a Mark II plant in Italy. This test included single valve first and subsequent actuations, multiple valve actuations (up to eight valves), and an extended blowdown thermal mixing test. The results of these tests are reported in NEDE 25100P, " Mark II Containment Supporting Program Caorso Safety Relief Valve Discharge Tests, Phase I Test Report" (May 1979),
and by GE letter MFN-090-79 (L. J. Sobon to J. F. Stolz, March 1979). The measured loads were much less than those predicted by the analytical models in DFFR. The increase in load between single and multiple valve discharge was less than predicted. The extended blowdown indicated good mixing with a final bulk to local temperature differential of about 100 F.
In the following subsections several current licensing issues are discussed and the methods used to predict loads for the ZPS-1 plant design reassessment are summarized.
5.2.1 Design-Basis SRV Loads - Rams Head The original design basis for reassessment of the atructure,
(~)' attached piping systems, RPV, and equipment was based upon
'- dynamic loads calculated for a rams head discharge device. The 5.2-2
2PS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 t[) 5.2.2.2.1 Sinole Valve
' The load distribution on the containment walls for a single valve actuation is shown in Figure 4-26 of the Susquehanna DAR. This load is better described as a subsequent actuation of a single valve.
5.2.2.2.2 Asymmetric SRV Load The asymmetric quencher load is defined as a three-valve discharge rather than the two-valve discharge used in the rams head asymmetric load. Although this condition is not realistic it gives a maximized asymmetric distribution as depicted in Figure 4-25 of the Susquehanna DAR.
5.2.2.2.3 Automatic Depressurization System (ADS)
Figure 4-27 of the Susquehanna DAR shows the ADS pressure distribution. This distribution was constructed by combining single valve discharge loads at typical quencher locations. This would yield the expected distribution of more or less evenly spaced peaks but because of a conservative increase in the azimuthal angle of the single valve load, this results in an I
almost uniform distribution. For additional conservatism, the all valve distribution is'used in most cases.
() 5.2.2.2.4 All Valve Discharge .
The all valve T-quencher discharge case is defined as the single valve discharge load applied uniformly throughout 3600 The physical interpretation of this load would be a subsequent actuation of all valves with all bubbles entering the pool simultaneously and oscillating in phase.
5.2.2.3 Quencher Boundary Loads The above described quencher load definitions have been applied to the suppression pool wetted boundaries to assess the structure, piping, and equipment. This assessment is documented in Chapter 7.0.
5.2.2.4 Quencher Submerced Structure Loads Submerged structure loads are affected by geometric changes in the pool because these loads are local loads. The change in discharge device location was assessed by using the existing submerged structure methodology with pressure amplitude, frequencies,.and bubble locations appropriate to the KWU quenchers. The bubble pressure amplitude is determined for both first and subsequent actuation using the correlation in NEDO 21061, Revision 3 (DFFR). An amplitude adjustment factor to
() account for the difference in rams head and X-quencher devices is used as described in Subsection 2.1.6.2. The bubble fre-quency range is reported in Subsection 5.2.2.1.
5.2-12
(6 AMENDMENT 17 p 1 0 : '. ' . FEBRUARY 1982
- J L
'[ s e, U
d ,~
PEDESTAL i ,'. 'i CONTAINMENT
_ y, -
\ .',
~3 "'.
3 -
f, V 7.5 l 9
_,/ f- SRV b /
e 2 ( DISC 9ARGE 7.5 /
LINE g/
M /M 7.5, 3 n ,,
7 - ZONE NUMBER ir N 3.5'
, [, 4 '
[ ; .
5J 6 ..j ;
T ~
q w
13.5' = ' BASE MAT 22.33' =-
31.1 7 ' =
40' =
PEDESTAL RADIUS-13.5 FEET CONTAINMENT RADIUS-40.0 FEET P0OL DEPTH-22.5 FEET SUBMERGENCE DEPTH-13.5 FEET NOTE: DRAWING NOT TO SCALE.
wM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT I MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT
(] FIGURE 5.2-4 CROSS SECTION OF SUPPRESSION P0OL NID DEFINITION OF SUPPRESSION CHAMBER WALLS' LOADING ZONES
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
(-)
v 5.5 ALTERNATE LOAD DEFINITIONS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS Since the original formation of the Zimmer design basis, the NRC has relaxed some of the requirements for Mark II hydrodynamic load definitions. Additional test data has also become available which supports modification of some of the loads. The original design basis based on Zimmer Empirical Loads provides a conserva-tive design basis. The purpose of this section is to identify those reduced loads and load combinations used for components which could not accommodate the conservative Zimmer Empirical Load. The alternate load definitions and combinations are not used for any portion of the Zimmer design except for specific components noted in Table 5.5-1.
5.5.1 SRV Load Definitions In NUREG-0487, Supplement 1, the NRC accepted a reduction in the amplitude of the KWU T-quencher load for first actuation cases. The original load definitions, as documented in the Susquehanna DAR, employed a set of time-histories with the amplitudes increased by a factor of 1.5 for all discharge cases.
The NRC allowed this factor be changed to 1.1 for all cases except subsequent actuation. The NRC specifically approved use of the 1.1 factor for the all-valve, ADS, asymmetric and first actuation cases.
() Application of this load reduction to Zimmer is complicated by the predicted five-valve multiple subsequent actuation (MSA) case. This case was originally not a design controlling case because the 1.5 amplitude factor was applied to the all-valve case. Because of the very conservative geometric distribution used with the T-quencher load definitions, the multiple subse-quent actuation becomes the bounding symmetric load if the amplitude multiplier on the all-valve case is reduced to 1.1.
After investigation it has been determined that the all-valve case with an amplitude multiplier of 1.31 would yield the same symmetric results as the MSA case with a 1.5 multiplier. In addition, the conservatism of the asymmetric distribution is sufficient to ensure that the maximum asymmetric loads from both first and subsequent actuation cases are bounded by the asymmetric case with a 1.1 multiplier.
A summary of the revised SRV load magnitudes is provided in the load combination Subsection 5.5.3.
5.5.2 LOCA Load Definitions Recently, test data became available from the 4TCO (full-scale single-vent) steam condensation tests. These tests were more prototypical to Mark II plants in geometry and blowdown transients tested than the original data base. The 4TCO tests provided
{ } more realistic Condensation Oscillation (CO) and Chugging Loads.
5.5-1
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
,m Load definitions have been developed from this data (Subsection
() 5.5.4) and used to generate response spectra. In many cases, these loads are less than the original design-basis loads (Appendix I) . Both the design-basis and the 4TCO LOCA loads are considered adequately conservative design bases. However, the 4TCO loads are not direct replacements for the Zimmer design-basis load. The design-basis loads are empirical loads formulated to bound potential load changes. In comparison to the actual data, it appears the CO load was excessively conser-vative while the design-basis chugging load was too restricted in its range. Analysis of structures and components listed in Table 5.5-1 was performed with the 4TCO CO and chugging loads.
5.5.3 Load Combinations Only the applicable substitutions are listed. It should be noted that these substitutions are different for cases involving LOCA loads than those without. Also the factors listed for the SRV loads are revised amplitude factors for the original T-quen-cher load definition. A factor of 1.5 was used for all original cases. Therefore, any factor less than 1.5 is a load reduction.
Tables 5.5-2 and 5.5-3 list the alternate loads available for the various load combinations.
5.5.4 References
(^h
- 1. General Electric Company and S. Levy, Inc., " Condensation Oscillation (CO) Load Data for LaSalle," July 1980,
- 2. Creare (Report No. TN-322) and S. Levy, Inc., (Report No.
SLI-8075-1), " Chugging Loads for Assessment of the 4TCO Data," September 1980.
l l
l
(~)
LJ 5.5-2
l t
f ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 l
- FEBRUARY 1982 TABLE 5.5-1
{} :
APPLICATION OF ALTERNATE LOAD DEFINITIONS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS .
i The following components utilized the load definitions and combina-tions contained in Section 5.5.
I COMPONENTS NSSS:
Core Support Plate (RPV Internals)
Top Guide (RPV Internals)
BOP:
Drywell Floor Reactor. Pedestal 1
2 1
'l i
, 5.5-3
. . _._~ . _
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 1
TABLE 5.5-2
{}
LOAD COMBINATIONS (NON-LOCA)
DESIGN-BASIS LOAD REVISED LOAD All-Valve (1.5) All-Valve (1.31)
Asymmetric (1.5) Asymmetric (1.1)
Low Setpoint Actuation Low Setpoint Subsequent (1.5) Actuation (1.5)
Low Setpoint First Actuation (1.5)
Single-Valve (1.5) Single-Valve Subsequent Actuation (1.5)
Single-Valve First Actuation (1.1 ) -
i t
i l
O
, 5.5-4 i
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
< ( TABLE 5.5-3 LOAD COMBINATIONS (LOCA)
SRV LOAD **
LOCA LOAD
- SYMMETRIC COMPONENT ASYMMETRIC COMPONENT CO-l*** Low Setpoint Single-Valve (1st Actuation) (1st Actuation)
CO-2 ADS Asymmetric Low Setpoint Single-Vent (Subsequent (Subsequent Actuation) Actuation)
Chugging ADS Asymmetric Low Setpoint Single-Valve (Subsequent (Subsequent Actuation) Actuation)
()
i i
l
- LOCA loads may be design basis or 4TCO, out CO-1, CO-2, and vertical chugging must be from the same data base.
- All SRV loads use 1.1 factor except subsequent actuation loads which use 1.5 factor.
(]}
- CO-1 and CO-2 are defined in Subsection 2.1.3.
5.5-5
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
[]} SRV-Single Actuation of one valve.
The LOCA loads are denoted by PA and PB in the load combination table and represent three possible pipe break accidents:
- a. DBA - design-basis large break accident
- b. IBA - intermediate break accident
- c. SBA - small break accident.
Wherever applicable the following loads associated with LOCA are included whenever Pg or PB occur in the load combinations:
- a. LOCA pressure
- b. accident temperature
- c. pipe break reactions
- d. vent clearing and pool swell
- e. condensation-oscillation
- f. chugging.
(["3
' Even though the SRV and LOCA loads used for design are bounding loads as discussed in Subsection 5.2.1.3, additional load factors are applied to these loads (see load combination in Table 6.1-1) to assure conservatism.
The load factors adopted are based upon the degree of certainty and probability of occurrence for the individual loads as discussed in the DFFR. The relation between the different times of occurrence of various time-dependent loads as presented in the DFFR were combined and accounted for to determine the most critical loading conditions. In any load combination, if the effect of any load other than dead load (such as thermal loads) reduces the net design forces, it is deleted from the combination to maximize the design loads.
The reversible nature of the structural responses due to the pool dyanmic loads and seismic loads is accounted for by considering for each the peak positive and negative magnitudes of the response forces and maximizing the total positive and negative forces and moments governing the design.
Seismic and pool dynamic load effects are combined by summing the peak responses of each load by the ABS method with the exception of AP + SSE case where SRSS method is used. This is conservative, and the SRSS method is more appropriate, since the s
peak responses of all loads do not occur simultaneously. However,
~ except for limited components as noted in Table 2.1-2, the con-servative ABS method is ued in the design 6.1-2
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
~
6.3 OTHER STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS
((~-) ,
l 6.3.1 Load combinations The load combinations, including pool dynamic loads considered l in the reassessment of concrete structures (other than contain-ment and internal concrete structures) such as shear walls, slabs, beams, and block walls are shown in Table 6.3-1.
l l
The lead combinations, including pool dynamic loads considered in the reassessment of steel structures such as framing, contain-ment galleries, embedments, hangers for cable trays, conduits, and ducts are listed in Table 6.3-2 and the downcomers and downcomer bracing system are listed in Table 6.3-3.
For concrete structures, the peak effects resulting . rom seismic and pool dynamic loads were combined by the conservative ABS method, even though the SRSS method is more appropriate, since the probability of all peak effects occurring at the same time is very small.
Likewise for steel structures, except for limited components as noted in Table 2.1-2, the peak effects resulting from seismic and pool dynamic loads were combined by the ABS method.
6.3.2 Acceptance Criteria The acceptance criteria used in the reassessment of reinforced concrete structures other than containment and internal concrete structures are the same criteria defined in Subsection 3.8.4.5 of the ZPS-1 FSAR and are identified in Table 6.3-1 for each -
load combination. The stresses and strains are limited to those specified in ACI 318-1971. As indicated in Table 6.3-1, working stress design is used for load combinations 2 through 6.
The ultimate strength design of ACI 318-1971 is used for extreme environmental category load combinations 7, 8, and 9. As stated in the FSAR, when a LOCA occurs outside the containment, as in load combinations 10, 11, and 12, yield line theory is used to design reinforced concrete walls and slabs. The masonry walls are designed per the SEB Interim Criteria for Safety-related Masonry Wall Evaluation, Revision 1, dated July 1981, except as follows:
I
- a. Load combination Table 6.3-1 is used for combining the effects of different loads.
- b. An allowable stress of 12 psi for tension perpen-dicular to bed joint is permitted.
l
()
6.3-1
- r
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 For steel structures, stress and strains in accordance with the O 1969 itse spectrications are used ter lo d combinations 2 throu9n 6 defined in Table 6.3-2. For load combinations involving abnormal or extreme environmental loads, as in load combinations 7 through 12 of Table 6.3-2, the steel stresses were conservatively limited to 0.95 F ., y O
I O
6.3-la
. , . . . _ . _ , _ . - . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . , -, . _ . , . , _ . . ~ _ _ _ _ _ - ~ . . - , . _ _
.O O O 3 TABLE 6.3-2 (Cont'd)
NOTES: a. Loads not applicable to a particular structure or-system are deleted.
- b. If for any combination, the effect of any load other than D reduces the load, it is deleted from the combination.
- c. For SRV, the resultant effects for both horizontal and vertical components shall be determined by combining the individual effects by the square root of the sum of the squares.
m
- e. Plastic section modulus of steel member shapes is used for stress y computation for load combinations 11, lla, llb, 12, 12a, and 12b. y m f. Conduit hangers, electrical cable tray hangers and HVAC hangers have been designed for load combinations 3, 11, lla, 11b, 12, 12a and 12b only. R I H m g. SRSS pipe support loads are used for the design of drywell structural H steel. o EB
! Bi!
y CD m
a w
O O O1 TABLE 6.3-3 LOAD COMBINATIONS AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR DOWNCOMER AND DOWNCOMER BRACING LOAD NRC LOAD COMBINATION T-QUENCHER ASME STRESS CASE (NUREG-04 87 ) DESIGN-BASIS
- CRITERIA 1 N+SRV N+SRV B (UPSET)
X 2 N+SRV +OBE N+ '(SRV) 2 + (OBE) ' B' (UPSET)
X x
\ $-
3 N+SRVX+SSE N+ '(SRV) 2 + (SSE) 2 C (EMERGENCY) 4i 3
4 U (SRV) 2 + (CHUG) 2 -
N+SRVADS+IBA(SBA) C - (EMERGENCY) 5 N+SRVADS+0BE+IBA (SBA) N+ (SRV) 2 + (OBE) 2 + (CHUG) 2 C (EERGMCY)' y.
o 6 E+IBA (SBA) N+ '(SRV) 2 + (SSE) 4 (CHUG) 2 N+SRVADS+ C (EMERGMCY) .$-
3 7 N+SSE+DBA N (SSE) 2 + (CO) 2 C -(EMERGENCY) 8 N N .A (NORMAL) j 9 N+OBE N+0BE B (UPSET) y z
10 N+SRVX+SSE+DBA -
CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ONLY JUSTIFICATION PROVIDED
~BY GE.
h2
$h" m
l
2PS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 f3 J CHAPTER 7.0 - REEVALUATION AND DESIGN ASSESSMENT 7.1 CONTAINMENT AND INTERNAL CONCRETE STRUCTURES The containment and internal concrete structures were reevaluated for the pool dynamic loads to insure structural adequacy.
Dynamic structural analyses using finite-element models were performed for the reevaluation. Details of the analyses and reevaluation are summarized in this section.
7.1.1 Structural Analysis for SRV Loads The structural response of the reactor containment to the dynamic safety / relief valve (SRV) discharge loads was determined by a detailed dynamic analysis of the system, including the effects of soil structure interaction. The structure was analyzed by a finite-element model which was subjected to the SRV load time histories described in Chapter 5.0, and the dynamic response was obtained by numerical integration of the governing differential equations. The SRV discharge cases were analyzed separately and the results were used to check the structural integrity in combination with all other simultaneous loads in accordance with the applicable load combinations (Section 6.1).
For the purpose of analysis, the containment structures were modeled by axisymmetric finite elements (Figure 7.1-1). The
(') structural model includes the basemat, primary containment, reactor pedestal, drywell floor, the reactor pressure vessel (RPV), the foundation soil, and the fluid in the pool. The fluid was simulated as described in Reference 2. Also included in the model were the suppression chamber columns, RPV stabil-izer truss, and refueling bellows, as well as the containment building and spent fuel pool slab. Different material proper-ties were used to describe the different characteristics of the various components.
The RPV was represented by shell elements. Drywell floor l support columns were modeled as orthotropic shell elements.
Containment building walls and spent fuel pool slab were included as axisymmetric shells to account for their mass and stiffness contribution. "
The soil was modeled by axisymmetric solid finite elements in nine horizontal layers to the bedrock level at elevation 400 feet. The dynamic strain-dependent stiffness and damping characteristics of the soil were used to determine a stable set of material properties for the soil elements. Refer to l
Table 7.1-1 for the factors to be used on the modulus and damping curves of Figures 7.1-2 and 7.1-3, respectively.
O G
7.1-1
l ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 The containment structure model was analyzed by the Sargent &
(~T
'wJ Lundy version of the finite-element computer program DYNAX (Appendix A, Section A.1). This program was suitable to analyze axisymmetric shells and solids subjected to arbitrary static or dynamic loads.
SRV discharge loads were specified by individual time history variations for the pressure Fourier harmonics in nine zones along the containment basemat and reactor support._ Figure 7.1-4 shows the zones used to define the various pressure time-histories. These SRV discharge loads depend upon the devices used at the' discharge end of the SRV lines. Two cases of SRV l
loading, rams head loading and T-quencher loading, were considered.
Rams Head Loading Typical pressure time history plots for the rams head discharge case, which is described in Subsection 5.2.1, are shown in Figure 7.1-5 and 7.1-6 for Zone 4 on the basemat due to reson-ant sequential discharge of all valves and asymmetric discharge, respectively.
Different pressure time histories for the various zones and the various harmonics were, therefore, used to represent the pressure fluctuations on the suppression pool walls. The effect of the varying circumferential and meridional pressure distributions was
() accounted for in this manner.
The dynamic response of the structure to the hydrodynamic pressure loads was then determined by direct numerical integration of the governing differentiai equations. The response time histories were thus established and the time-wise maximum values were obtained at each element or node location.
The acceltration response time-histories were then used to determine the response spectra at the desired locations and direction using the computer program RSG (Appendix A, Section A.5).
The resulting structural responses to the various SRV loads were combined with the other appropriate loads as per the load combinations shown in Table 6.1-1. The margin factors from these load combinations are presented in Table 7.1-2 through 7.1-16.
T-quencher Loading Typical pressure time histories for the T-quencher are described in Subsection 5.2.2.
The method of direct integration is not suitable for the T- l
(] quencher case because the frequency of the dynamic load is a v variable and can assume any value in a defined range. Therefore, a dynamic analysis was performed in the frequency 7.1-2
2PS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
() domain rather than in the' time domain. The method of such an analysis is known as the " Fourier Transform Method" or "Frequer.:y Response Method." Essentially this method is analogous to the influence line method used in static analyses.
The dynamic response of a particular component k (acceleration, force, displacement) can be expressed as:
Rk (u) = T k (u) F (u) in which Rk (u) = structural response of the kth component, Tk (u) = transfer function of the kth component, and F (u) = Fourier transform of the external load.
It should be noted that all quantities in the above equation are scalars and are only functions of the harmonic frequency.
Transfer function, also known as complex frequency response function Tk (u) by definition, is the response of the kth component for unit harmonic load of frequency w. The transfer function is dependent upon the structural properties (mass, l p) stiffness, damping) alone and is thus unique for-a given
\_ structure.- This is analogous to an influence line which is the response of a component (moment, shear) due to an applied unit load to the structure.
The external load which is usually expressed in the time domain can be expressed in the frequency domain also, using " Fast Fourier Transform" algorithm. Using this algorithm, a given function can be transformed from time domain to-frequency domain and vice versa.
The analysis was performed in the following steps:
- 1. The containment structures were modeled by axisymmetric finite elements. The containment structural model was analyzed by the Sargent & Lundy version of the finite-element program DYNAX which was capable of analyzing axisymmetric shells and solids subjected to arbitrary symmetric and asymmetric static or dynamic loads. The symmetric and asymmetric SRV loads were applied as Fourier sine and/or cosine harmonics for each case. A bank-limited white-noise time history was used for the analysis. The Fourier transform of such a. time history has a constant magnitude at all values within the frequency range (0 to 45 hertz) of interest.
() 2. The. response (force, moment, acceleration, etc.) time histories obtained from the above white-noise analysis were l
stored in electronic files.
7.1-3
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17
~
-G .
FEBRUARY 1982'~ -
. ~ - y
() 3. The transfer functions of the response were(obtained by the
_ computer program FAST.. -
From Equation (1) -
.- - I, e l
Rk( I ' \ ," -
I
k I" ) " p (e) in which R s k(w) (was theFFourier tra'nsform._of the responses saved in step 2) and (m) is the F.ourierftsansform of the' ,
white noise load used in step (1) 'of the above. .
- 4. . For steady-state solution of the harmonic load,,by.defini'-
tion from Equation (1) , the transfer function itself was the response. -
~
For SRV loads with variable frequency, the transfer functions _ .,
were scanned in the frequency range of the loading. The -
responses were then obtained as the product of the transfer <l
. functions and the Fourier transforms of the load, using , -
the FAST program. Response acceleration time histories were further input into RSG program,to generate response spectra.
In order to consider.a conservative frequency content, three KWU time history traces reported in the SSES DAR
() were expended into longer and. shorter time history dura-tions by multiplying the time scales by a factor of 2.0 and 0.9, respectively. In addition, the pressure scales were multiplied by a factor of 1.5 for each of the three traces.
The resulging structural responses to the various SRV T-quencher loads were combined with the other appropriate loads as per the load combinations shown in Table 6.1-1.
The margin factors from thece load combinations are presented in Table 7.1-17 through 7.1-24.
7.1.2 Structural Analysis of LOCA Loads The analysis of the structure for the LOCA loads was performed as a set of analyses covering each LOCA related phenomenon
~.
O
- 7.1-4 _
.-.r . , - -
w y - - . g a --
g-. 9w.y w. y,-o., p+, w ., Ms.,- a 4i.y-.m.
. ~ -. . ~_. .
7 ._ , 7 . - -
i e
- t. . ,
I'
- s ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 l-.
e~ ~;
- separately. The methods used for each analysis are summarized in-the'following for the LOCA-induced loads of vent clearing, pool. swell chugging,'and condensation oscillation.
I* - i.l.2.1' Vent' Clearing Analysis
~
s 4 ' ' The de'scription of vent clearing load for analysis is presented in Section 5.3 and in DFFR Section 4.2. The spatial distri-4 butions of the LOCA vent clearing load on the wetted surface b
L' of'the suppression pool are shown in Figure 7.1-17 for the ram's head case and in Figure.7.1-8 for the T-quencher case.
'The magnitude'of the load for T-quencher case is 33 psig below
.thelvent exit attenuated linearly to zero at the pool surface.
! The model used in the analysis of the vent clearing loads was the earlier version of the one described in Subsection 7.1.1.
The model'used in this analysis is -shown in Figure 7.1-9. This
. model.was similar to the one used in Subsection 7.1.1 but
~
- _ excluded nodes and elements for the fluid in suppression pool.
[i '~
l 1
l The contai.nment' structure was analyzed for the effects of the s vent clearing ~ load statically using Sargent & Lundy's axisym-metric' finite-element computer program DYNAX. 'See Appendix A, Section A'.1 for a description of the computer program.
' .The resulting structural response to the vent clearing load is
, combined with the other loads as per the load combinations shown in Table 6.1-1.
7.1.2.2 Pool Swell Analysis h The postulated pool swell phenomena induced loads are described s, .in Subsection.5.3.1.3.3 and in DFFR Subsection 4.2.4.4.
sing the model described in Subsection 7.1.2.1, the containment
- j. structure was analyzed for two load cases for the LOCA pool i swell' load,-the symmetric and the asymmetric loads.
For the symmetric load, the loading was applied over the entire 360* of the containment wall. The pressure' history of the
- drywell and wetwell air. space is given in Figure 7.1-10. Curve A i.
I a
~. -
k
- k. . \
l - _ 7.1-5 4
\ \ ,
l, -
?
, - a r__ -, ~, . --__m . . . - . ..m. .=~ , . _ . . , . _ .. - _ _ - - . - - . . . _ . . -
y c
S 2PS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 J FEBRUARY 1982
~
j ..s
[, ) of this figure applies to the drywell, and Curve B applies to the b portion of the wetwell wall which is above the pool water surface. The LOCA-pool swell portion of these curves ends at time 2.'.97 seconds.
.The p'eak wetwell air space pressure during this event was
'23 psig, while the peak drywell pressure was 21 psig.
For the portion of the wetwell walls which is below the water surface, the load definition is given in Figure 7.1-11. This load was 22 psig at the basemat level which decreased linearly to 16 psig at the elevation of the vent exit, and then increased linearly to 23 psig at the maximum pool swell elevation.
1 For the asymmetric load, the peak drywell pressure of 4.2 psig was applied uniformly over the entire drywell.
Figure 7.1-12 shows the pressure distribution of the pool swell asymmetric load for the wetwell.
l_ The asymmetric pool swell load of 4.6 psig was applied over a l sector of 1800, in addition to the hydrostatic load.
The containment structure. was analyzed for the effects of the
, pool swell loads statically using Sargent & Lundy's axisymmetric finite-element computer program DYNAX. See Appendix A Section
-( ) A.1 for a description of the computer program.
t The spatial pressure load distributions in the circumferential direction were represented by using Fourier harmonics.
The resulting forces and moments on the structure's design sections were obtained directly from the DYNAX computer output.
The resulting structural responses to the pool swell loads were combined with the other appropriate loads as per the load combinations shown in Table 6.1-1.
7.1.2.3 Condensation Oscillation Analysis x Following the pool swell transient, steam flows through the main vent system into the suppression pool, where it condenses.
Evaluation of the steam-condensation phase of the 4T test results revealed the existence of a dynamic load during high and medium f- steam mass flux into the suppression pool. This load, called
! condensation oscillation (CO), is a low-amplitude, symmetric, l sinusoidal pressure fluctuation occurring over a range of L frequencies.
l
- The ZPS-1 containment was assessed for the following CO load L
definitions:
I Y .. 7.1-6 j~ .,
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
(~ ) The spatial distributions of the condensation oscillation loads k/ are shown in Figure 7.1-13 for rams head design basis and in Figure 7.1-14 for T-quencher design basis. The load consisted of 1 13.3 psig acting at a frequency 10 to 15 hertz for the rams head case and i 3.75 psig acting at a frequency 2 to 7 hertz on the basemat, containment, and reactor pedestal for the quencher case.
The structural model described in Subsection 7.1.2.1 was used for the rams head design basis, and the one described in Sub-section 7.1.1 was used for the T-quencher design basis.
The load was assumed to be harmonic in time, and only the steady-state response was considered as being of interest. For this purpose, frequency cesponse variations were determined for all response components of interest using the computer program FAST, Appendix A, which obtained the complex frequency response by calculation of the discrete Fourier transform of both load and response. The relevant frequency range on the frequency response was considered in evaluating the structural response.
The resulting structural responses to the condensation oscilla-tion loads were combined with the other appropriate loads as per the load combinations shown in Table 6.1-1. The margin factors are presented in Table 7.1-2 through 7.1-24.
()
/
In addition to the above CO load (2 to 7 hertz), an empirical limiting CO load was also considered in combination with the T-quencher design-basis loads for the ZPS-1 containment assess-ment. This load is a best estimate of the conservative load specification which resulted from the full-scale condensation oscillation test to be conducted in the 4T facility. All the details for this load are described in Chapter 2.0.
This ZPS-1 empirical CO load was incorporated for the T-quencher design basis. The spatial distributions of this load are shown in Figure 7.1-14.
The resulting structural responses to this empirical CO load were combined with the other appropriate loads as per the load combinations shown in Table 6.1-1. The margin factors for these load combinations are presented in Table 7.1-25 through 7.1-28.
The CO load based on the Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria (NUREG-0487, Supplement 2) was also considered for the assess-ment of the containment structures. The load is described in Appendix I. The structural model, described in Subsection 7.1.1, was used. The resulting responses to this CO load were used only for the drywell floor, the reactor pedestal, and the RPV internals.
/"s J
7.1-7
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 For the assessment of the drywell floor and the reactor pedestal,
(]) the forces due to this co load based on the Lead Plant Accep-tance criteria were combined with the other appropriate loads as per the load combinations shown in Table 6.1-1. The margin factors for these load combinations are presented in Tables 7.1-31 through 7.1-38.
7.1.2.4 chugging Analysis The chugging loads used in the analysis are described in Section 5.3 and presented in Figure 7.1-15. The finite-element model used in the analysis is described in Subsection 7.1.2.
O r
i l
7.1-7a l
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
's The method used for T-quencher loading described in Subsection (J
\ 7.1.1 was used for the chugging load due to the variation of frequency of the load.
The typical pressure time history is shown in Figure 7.1-16.
The resulting structural responses to the chugging loads are combined with the other appropriate loads as per the load combinations shown in Table 6.1-1.
The chugging load based on the Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria (NUREG-04 87, Supplement 2) was also considered for the assess-ment of the containment structures. The load is described in Appendix I. The structural model, described in Subsection 7.1.1, was used. The zesulting responses to this chugging load were used only for the drywell floor, the reactor pedestal, and the RPV internals. .
For the assessment of the drywell floor and the reactor pedestal, the forces due to this chugging load based on the Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria were combined with the other appropriate loads as ner the load combination shown in Table 6.1-1. The margin factors for these load combinations are presented in Tables 7.1-31 through 7.1-38.
7.1.3 Effects of Downcomers on the Drywell Floor O The downcomer vents are now subjected to a variety of submerged structure dynamic loads resulting from SRV and LOCA loads. By assuming, conservatively, that the maximum responses from the various dynamic loads occur simultaneously and in the same direction, the magnitude of the resulting moments and forces being transmitted to the drywell floor becomes significant with respect to the known existing loads on the design sections. Even though the downcomers are braced at elevation 496 feet in order to reduce loads on the drywell floor, the analysis that is summarized in this subsection proves that the drywell floor has maintained its structural adequacy despite the addition of new s loads.
The loads on the downcomers resulting from submerged hydrodynamic forces are described in Subsection 5.3.1.1.7.
In addition to the pool dynamic loads on the downcomers, the seismic loads were also considered in the analysis. These considerations assumed that all of the downcomers were loaded equally, simultaneously, and in the same direction by using the response spectra generated from the various loads on the drywell floor and performing a modal analysis.
The drywell floor is modeled as a thin elastic circular plate r with a circular hole in the' middle. The slab is assumed to be (3> fully restrained at the pedestal and containment walls and simply i supported at the columns. The model of the drywell floor is shown in Figure 7.1-17.
7.1-8
(
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
('T The locations of the downcomers lie along four rings at radii V 18 feet 3 inches, 22 feet 3 inches, 30 feet 9 inches, and 35 feet
~
3 inches.
A concentrated radial or circumferential moment, in the form of Fourier harmonics, is applied at a point on each one of the downcomer rings.
i Figure 7.1-18 shows the circumferential distribution of floor moments induced by a concentrated radial moment applied at radius 22 feet 3 inches. For computational convenience, the ordinates are normalized to make the induced radial moment equal to unity.
l
($)
t
{
l l (1) 1 7.1-8a l .- - - - _ . _
2PS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
() #
44n
= normalized radial moment along the radius through the point where M is applied; en
= normalized radial moment along the n th ring 340n due to M 4n' 8 = normalized radial moment along the n th ring 40ne due to Meni 8
00n0
=
nggmalized circumferential moment along the n ring due to Men; and a
04ne
=
nogmalizedcircumferentialmomentalongthe nt ring due to M4n-The absolute values of the moment coefficients are used to account for the random direction of the downcomer lateral loads and to obtain the absolute maximum values of m and m e f r design 4
assessment.
Figure 7.1-22 shows the variation of radial moment at critical design Section 2 (see Figure 4-10 of Reference 1)'as the number of loaded downcomers is increased from 1 to 88 (all). The maximum design moment of 52 ft.k/ft occurs when all the downcomers are loaded simultaneously with 8.8 kips each.
The conservatism included in the design assessment of the drywell floor is best illustrated by a comparison of Figures 7.1-22 and 7.1-23. Figure 7.1-23 shows the plot of the design radial moment at Section 2 versus the number of downcomers loaded as per Figure 4-10a of DFFR (Reference 1), Proprietary Supplement Revision 2, which defines the probable load on multiple downcomers as decreasing with increasing number of loaded downcomers. The maximum moment thus obtained is only 29 ft.k/ft, whereas a conservative value of 52 ft.k/ft is obtained by the bounding load definition used in the 2PS-1 drywell floor design assessment.
The assessment of this subsection was based on rams head design basis.
The assessment for the T-quencher design-basis is based on the SRV and LOCA loads described in Subsections 5.2 and 5.3, re-spectively, and modified to take credit of the NRC Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria (NUREG-0487 and its two supplements) . The details of alternate loads and load combinations used for the assessment are described in Subsection 5.5.
The forces in the drywell floor due to the SRV and LOCA boundary loads are obtained from the structural analyses described in Subsections 7.1.1 and 7.1.2, respectively.
() The analysis of the drywell floor for the reactions resulting from the application of the submerged structure loads on the downcomers is described herein.
7.1-10
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
() The drywell floor is represented by a three-dimensional finite-element model. The model includes 18 suppression pool columns supporting the drywell floor slab. The slab and the columns are modeled as quadrilateral plate elements and beam elements, respectively. The slab is assumed to be fully restrained at the pedestal and containment walls and the columns are considered fully restrained at the basemat junction. The model of the drywell floor is shown in Figure 7.1-37. The Sargent & Lundy program, SLSAP, was used for the analyses of these static loads.
Nodal coordinates are given at the locations of all 88 downcomers.
The design reaction forces at each downcomer are computed based on the load combinations in Table 7.3.1. The reaction load at each downcomer location is applied in different combinations in meridional and the circumferential directions.
For each element, the maximum value of each meridional and cir-cumferential force (shear, axial, and moments) components occurring in any combination is obtained. The design foce at each of the design sections is obtained by enveloping the resulting maximum forces in elements along all aximuthal directions.
7.1.4 Desian Assessment Marcin Factors 7.1.4.1 Critical Desian Sections
(]}
The primary containment and internal structures have been checked as to the structural capacity to withstand the dynamic loads due to SRV discharges and LOCA in addition to the other appropriate loads described in the FSAR. The methods of analysis used have been described in the preceding subsections, and the design load combinations are given in Table 6.1-1. The structural capacity acceptance criteria are the same as in the FSAR, for which all design sections have been evaluated using the computer program TEMCO (described in Appendix A.7).
O 7.1-10a
2PS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 O Figure 4.0-1 shows a cross section of the primary containment and (
internal structures. Figures 7.1-24 through 7.1-31 illustrate the reinforcing steel and prestressing tendon layout. Figure 7.1-29 shows the reinforcing in the pedestal prior to modification. Details of the concrete-filled portion of the pedestal are shown in Figure 7.1-28.
Figures 7.1-32 through 7.1-34 show the design sections in the basemat, containment, reactor support, drywell floor, and drywell -
floor column considered for structural assessment. Figures 7.1-35 and 7.1-36 give typicel design section capacity interaction diagrams of the basemat and containment for the T-quencher design basis.
7.1.4.2 Desian Forces and Marcin Factors The design forces in the critical design sections were obtained by combining with the ABS method the peak effects of all the loads according to the load combinations defined in Table 6.1-1.
The material stresses in the critical design sections were obtained using the computer program TEMCO described in Appendix A.
Margin factors, defined as the ratio between the allowable stress and the actual stress in the section, were computed for each design section. If any of the loads (such as temperature) other than dead load reduced the design forces, it was deleted from l the load combination to obtain the most conservative margin factor. .
Margin factors for the basemat, containment wall, reactor support, drywell floor, and the drywell floor column are reported in the following tables:
RAMS HEAD DESIGN BASIS ,
- a. Basemat Tables 7.1-2 through 7.1-5
- b. Containment wall Tables 7.1-6 through 7.1-9
- c. Reactor support Tables 7.1-10 through 7.1-13
- d. Drywell floor Table 7.1-14
- e. Drywell floor column Tables 7.1-15 and 7.1-16 These tables give the calculated design margin factors for the load combinations, including each of the four modes of SRV discharge for which the structures were analyzed (resonant
(~') sequential symmetric discharge, ADS, and two valves) and LOCA k- hydrodynamic effects combined with the single-valve discharge case.
7.1-11
2PS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
() The forces of reactor support margin factor were obtained by analysis using the model described in Subsection 7.1.2.1.
Margins shown in Table 7.1-14 for loading conditions da, Sa, and 7a on the drywell floor are for the LOCA effects, including the lateral loads on the downcomers. As per DFFR Subsection 4.4.6.6, a net upward load of 9 psid acting on the drywell floor has been considered.
Margins shown in Table 7.1-14 for loading conditions 1, 2, 3, and 6 on the drywell floor are for the all-valves discharge loading l which clearly governs the design of the drywell floor rather than the asymmetric two valve discharge loading.
Loading conditions 4, 5, and 7 in Table 7.1-14 include all loads resulting from a small pipe break combined with the loads due to the discharge of all 13 SRV's. This was done for reasons of analytical expediency, since the discharge of all 13 SRV's transmits significantly more energy to the drywell floor than the 6 valve ADS discharge. Since 2PS-1 can take this higher loading case, the actud3 loading from the ADS valves was not considered.
For the drag loacs on the downcomer, the maximum load described in Section 5.2 was used for all loading combinations which include SRV. loads irrespective of the discharge mode (ALL, ASYMMETRIC, or ADS).
T-OUENCHER DESIGN BASIS LOAD COMBINATION WITH NRC CO LOAD (DFFR)
- a. Basemat Tables 7.1-17 through 7.1-20
- b. Containment wall Tables 7.1-21 through 7.1-24 LOAD COMBINATION WITH EMPIRICAL LIMITING CO LOAD
- a. Basemat Tables 7.1-25 and 7.1-26
- b. Containment wall Tables 7.1-27 and 7.1-28
- c. Supression Pool Column Tables 7.1-29 and 7.1-30 Since the drywell floor and the reactor pedestal could not accommodate the conservative Zimmer Empirical Loads, these structures were assessed for the NRC Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria (Reference 3). The NRC accepted loads and load com-binations considered for the assessment are described in Section 5.5.
O a
7.1-12
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 l FEBRUARY 1982 l
(} LOAD COMBINATION WITH LEAD PLANT ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA LOADS
- a. Drywell Floor Tables 7.1-31 through 7.1-34
- b. Reactor Pedestal Tables 7.1-35 through 7.1-38 Tha margin factors were calculated as results of the assessment based on the NRC acceptance criteria (modified for the T-quencher).
i All the margin factors were greater than 1.0.
t j
l 3
O 7.1-12a
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1962 These safety margins are in addition to the overload factors used O- in the load equations given in Table 6.1-1 and the caterial understrength factors built into the allowable stress criteria.
Therefore, the safety margins between the actual internal. moments and forces and the ultimate strength of the structures are considerably higher than those given in Tables 7.1-2 through 7.1-38. I As stated in FSAR Table 3.8-3, if in any load combination, the effect of any load (such as temperature) other than dead load reduces the design forces, it will be deleted from the combination. Safety margins are thus calculated with and without temperature load, and only the smallest margins obtained are given in Tables 7.1-2 through 7.1-38.
O l
l l
l l
O l
7.1-13
i ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
() 7.1.5 References
- 1. " Evaluation of Fluid ~ Structure Interaction Effects on BWR Mark II Containment Structures," NEDE-21936-P.
- 2. A. J. Kalinowski, " Transmission of Shock Waves into Submerged Fluid Filled Vessels," ASME Conference on FSI Phenomena in Pressure Vessel and Piping Systems, TVP-TB-026, 1977.
- 3. Mark II Containment Lead Plant Program Load Evaluation -
Report, NUREG-0487, October 1978, Supplement No. 1, September 1980, and Supplement No. 2, February 1981.
O 1
i i
I 1
l O
I 7.1-14 l
t
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
() TABLE 7.1-1 DYNAMIC SOIL PROPERTIES
- OVERBURDEN FACTOR ON ELEVATION SOIL PRESSURE DAMPING (ft) om' (KSF) CURVE 466-469 5.18 1.0 463-466 5.42 1.0 460-463 5.66 1.0 456-460 S.94 1.0 448-456 6.42 1.0 440-448 7.06 1.0 430-440 7.78 1.0 420-430 8.58 1.0 400-420 9.78 1.0
{}
- These values are to be used in conjunction with Figures 7.1-2 and 7.1-3 for the average shear modulus and damping curves.
(
7.1-15
O O O TABLE 7.1-2 MARGIN TABLE FOR BASEMAT - RESONANT SEQUENTIAL SYMMETRIC DISCHARGE (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC EURCES)
'. s STRESS COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FAC'IOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 1.8 2 4.0 3 1.5 2
>- 2 2.3 1 3.3 3 2.4 3 $
3 1.9 1 3.3 3 w 1.2 2 H I
s 4 NA NA NA NA NA NA m B 4a NA NA NA NA NA NA N 5 NA NA NA NA NA NA Sa NA o
NA NA NA NA NA $
6 1.9 1 3.3 3 1.3 2 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA l
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 NOTE: RAMS HEAD DESIGN BASIS nu Co t
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress $$
- Refer to Figure 7.1-32 NA = Not Applicable k$
P
' $U
~
O O O TABTE 7.1-3 MARGIN TABLE FOR BASEMAT - ADS VALVE DISCHARGE (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)
STRESS REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR COMPONENT LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL s SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION EQUATION
- N. FAC'IUR NA NA NA NA NA NA 1
2 NA NA NA NA NA NA y w
3 NA NA NA NA NA NA d a '
1.3 1 2.2 3 1.2 3 7
W 4
. f 4a NA NA NA NA NA NA y 1.3 1 2.4 3 1.3 3 [
5 NA NA NA NA NA NA E Sa :o NA NA NA NA NA NA 6
1.3 1 2.3 3 1.3 2 7
NA NA NA NA NA NA 7a t
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 NOTE: RAMS HEAD DESIGN BASIS i:
$8
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress g es
- Refer to Figure 7.1-32 NA = Not Applicable $4 i
I l
O O O .
TABLE 7.1-4 MARGIN TABLE FOR BASEMAT - TWO-VALVE DISCHARGE (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC M RCES)
STRESS ,
OMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FAC'IOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION t
1 2.5 2 4.5 3 1.8 2 2 2.3 1 3.6 3 2.6 3 y en 3 1.9 1 3.0 3 1.4 2 E a
H 4 1.3 1 2.2 3 1.2 3 b
4a NA NA NA NA NA NA Q 5 1.2 1 2.3 3 1.4 3 U Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 1.9 1 2.9 3 1.4 2 7 1.3 1 2.3 3 1.3 2
. 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA em
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 NOTE: RAMS HEAD DESIGN BASIS SS
$z i ** Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress g d
- Refer to Figure 7.1-32 *H 4 NA = Not Applicable E"
O O O TABLE 7.1-5 MARGIN TABLE FOR BASEMAT - LOCA PLUS ONE SRV (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)
STRESS COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA y m
3 NA NA NA NA NA NA d 7 4 NA NA NA
- NA NA NA
- h 4a 1.4 1 2.1 3 1.2 3 5 NA NA NA NA NA NA U Sa 1.3 1 2.2 3 1.2 3 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7a 1.3 1 2.2 3 1.2 3 58
- Refer to Table 6.1-1
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress NOTE: RAMS HEAD DESIGN BASIS $b l
- * *Re fer to Figure 7.1-32 NA = Not Applicable gg mw
O O O
., TABLE 7.1-6 MARGIN TABLE FOR CONTAINMENT - RESONANT SEQUENTIAL SYMMETRIC DISCHARGE (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)
STRESS COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FAC'IOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FAC'IOR SECTION 1 103.9 13 3.4 1 1.7 6 2 8.5 9 2.8 13 1.3 6 y en y 3 4.8 11 2.7 1 1.3 6 4 4 NA NA NA NA NA NA o" h 4a NA NA NA NA NA NA @
5 NA NA NA NA NA NA U Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 4.6 11 2.7 1 1.3 6 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA -
7a NA NA NA NA NA NA i ==
- Ref er to Table 6.1-1 NOTE: RAMS HEAD DESIGN BASIS Ej
$g
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress
- Refer to Figure 7.1-32
/
e NA = Not Applicable $"
l I
l
O O O TABLE 7 .1-7 MARGIN TABLE FOR CONTAINMENT - ADS VALVE DISCHARGE
, (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)
STRESS COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FACTOR MARGIN CRITICAL SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA y y 3 NA NA NA NA NA
?
. NA P 7 4 '
4.0 10 2.9 12 1.6 6 4a NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 3.7 11 2.9 13 1.6 6 U Sa NA U NA NA NA NA NA y 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 3.3 11 2.9 13 1.6 6 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA em
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 NOTE: RAMS HEAD DESIGN BASIS
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress KZ
- Refer to Figure 7.1-32 d e
NA = Not Applicable g[
w >
O O O.
TABLE 7.l-8 MARGIN TABLE FOR CONTAINMENT - TWO-VALVE DISCHARGE (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)
STRESS COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CCNCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FAC'IOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 4
4 1 NA NA 3.6 1 1.3 6 2 8.6 11 2.8 13 1.3 6 y m
y 3 4.8 11 2.8 1 1.3 6 E h 4 4.0 10 2.9 13 1.6 6 U h 4a NA NA NA NA NA NA @
5 3.7 11 2.9 13 1.6 6 [
Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA $
- o 6 4.4 11 2.8 1 1.3 6 7 3.3 11 2.9 13 1.5 6 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA i
Nh i8
^
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 NOTE: RAMS HEAD DESIGN BASIS $$
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress M$
H
- Refer to Figure 7.1-32 NA = Not Applicable $U w
O O O TABLE 7.1-9
~ . _ MARGIN TABLE FOR CONTAINMENT - LOCA PLUS ONE SRV (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)
STRESS l COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FACMR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACMR SECTION 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA , NA NA NA NA y
=
3 NA NA NA NA NA NA E H 4 NA NA '
NA NA NA NA 4a 3.5 10 2.8 13 1.3 6 g 5 NA NA NA NA NA NA U Sa 6
3.7 NA 11 NA 2.8 NA 13 1.4 6 f
NA NA NA 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7a 3.2 13 2.8 13 1.4 6
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 NOTE: RAMS HEAD DESIGN BASIS $
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress $$
- Refer to Figure 7.1-32 kg NA = Not Applicable g E"
O O O TABLE 7.1-10 MARGIN TABLE FOR REAC'IOR SUPPORT-RESONANT SEQUENTIAL SYMMETRIC DISCHARGE (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)
STRESS
! COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR LOAD -
COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FAC'IOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 4.4 9 11.9 9 3.0 9 2 2.5 6 6.6 9 1.7 9 y m
y 3 1.3 7 4.8 9 1.7 9 E 4 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4a NA NA NA NA NA NA @
5 NA NA NA NA NA NA U Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 1.1 7 4.6 9 1.8 9 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA
==
CO
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 NOTE: RAMS HEAD DESIGN BASIS bb
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress 5
- Refer to Figure 7.1-32 L "4
NA = Not Applicable
O O O TABLE 7.1-11 MARGIN TABLE FOR REACTOR SUPPORT - ADS VALVE DISCHARGE (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)
STRESS COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR LOAD COMBINATION .s MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION * -
FACTOR SECTION FAC'IOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA y
' m a
3 NA NA NA NA NA NA b
'e 4 1.3 1 4.0 2 1.6 9 E h
- 4a NA NA NA NA NA NA g 5 1.2 2 4.4 2 1.7 9 U Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA $
- o 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 1.01 7 4.4 2 1.7 9 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA
==
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 NOTE: RAMS HEAD DESIGN BASIS
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress hh
@z
- Refer to Figure 7.1-32 8 g
NA = Not Applicable wH eo
O O O TABLE 7.1-12 MARGIN TABLE FOR REACTOR SUPPORT 'IMO-VALVE DISCHARGE (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC EVRCES)
, STRESS NCOMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR LOAD \
COMBINATION \ MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION_
FACTOR SECTION 1 5.3 9 12.1 9 6.5 9 2 2.4 6 6.7 9 2.8 9 y m
3 1.5 4 5.5 8 2.7 9 4 I 'P 4 1.3 1 4.1 2 2.2 9 lE*
4a NA NA NA NA NA NA ,
5 1.2 2 4.6 2 2.2 9 [
Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA $
l 5 6 1.19 7 4.7 9 2.6 9 .
l 7 1.0 4 4.5 2 2.2 9 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 NOTE: RAMS HEAD DESIGN BASIS h l
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress KZ
- Refer to Figure 7.1-32 d r
NA = Not Applicable g[
ro
_ - _______ _ - _ - _ __ _ - _ - -- ~- ._ _ . . . -. -_. _ .
O O O TABLE 7.1-13 i
, MARGIN TABLE FOR REACTOR SUPPORT - IDCA PLUS ONE SRV (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)
STRESS COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR i LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FACTOR MARGIN CRITICAL SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA a 3 NA NA NA NA E
NA NA l w 4 s 4 NA NA NA NA '
NA NA
! 4a 1.3 2 4.1 2 1.8 1 x
5 NA NA NA i
NA NA NA H Sa 1.15 2 3.4 5 1.8 1 g 6
w NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7a 1.06 2 3.2 5 1.8 1 J
I
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 NOTE: RAMS HEAD DESIGN BASIS E$
! ** Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress $$
- Refer to Figure 7.1-32 NA = Not Applicable kg H
$U 1
O O O TABLE 7.1-14 i
MARGIN TABLE FOR DRYWELL FLOOR - SRV ONLY AND LOCA PLUS ONE SRV (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)
STRESS COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FACMR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FAC'IOR SECTION ,
1 3.6 3 6.4 3 7.1 1 2 5.7 3 5.2 3 10.8 4 y w
3 4.4 3 4.2 3 a
10.9 4 4 e 4 1.8 3 4.0 3 4.1 '
6 b
4a 1.5 2 1.6 1 3.3 1 g 5 3.3 1 6.4 1 4.7 6 [
Sa 1.7 1 1.4 1 2.7 3 $
- o 6 9.7 6 7.7 3 11.7 4 7 2.4 3 6.5 3 5.3 6 l 7a 1.4 2 1.5 1 2.1 2 88
> 3:
- Ref er to Table 6.1-1 NOTE: RAMS HEAD DESIGN BASIS $@8
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress g
- Refer to Figure 7.1-33 es
O O O TABLE 7.1-15 MARGIN TABLE FOR DRYWELL FLOOR COLUMN - ALL VALVE AND ADS DISCHARGE s
IDAD COMPONENT AXIAL COMPRESSION MOMENT- SHEAR LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- MARGIN CRITICAL FACTOR SECTION FAC'IOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 1.40 1 1.10 1 1.22 1 2 1.94 1 1.25 1 1.41 1 t4 3 1.84 1 1.10 1 1.25 1 E i
." 4**** 2.26 1 1.90 1 2.09 1 Y
,M 4a NA NA NA NA NA NA $
5**** 2.46 1 1.71 1 1.90 1 N
5a NA s NA NA NA NA NA g 6 1.78 1 1.28 1 1.46 1 5 7**** 1.78 1 1.49 1 1.43 1 7a <
NA NA NA NA NA NA t
cn trj
- Refer to, Table 6.1-1 NOTE: PAMS HEAD DESIGN BASIS
- Margin Factor = Ultimate L0ad/ Actual Load @$
- Refer to Figure 7.1-34 y@
<z
- ADS Discharge Case .g 8
NA = Not Applicable gH
. u I ,
s s
_ _ _ v -
7' '
> \ ,. p. ,
O .
O .
l C a TABLE 7.1-16 MARGIN TABLE FOR DRYWELL FLOOR COLUMN - TWO-VALVE DISCHARGE .
N.s '
N~N LOAD '
COMPONENT AXIAL COMPRESSION MOMENT LOAD SHEAR '
N _
COMBINATION '-,s MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN EQUATION
- CRITICAL 'MAIiGIN CRITICAL FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION <
1 1.98 1 1.87 1 2.09 -
11 ,-
r ,
2 2.26 1 2.15 1 2.42 ,
l'~,
3 2.14 1 1.71 1 1.93 ,1 m f 4 2.26 1 2.24 1 0
2.51 1 7 '
g 4a NA NA NA NA NA NA-5 2.15 1
- 1.94 1 2.20 1 Sa NA NA NA U
NA NA NA a 6 2.08 1 >
1.93 1 , 2.20 1
- 7 2.08 1 1.69 1 1.58 1 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 NOTE: RAMS HEAD DESIGN BASIS
- Margin Factor = Ultimate Load / Actual Load @@
- Refer to Figure 7.1-34 >g NA = Not Applicable <=
8 Uw
y -
c r ,; q 9 / "
, p ,
N.] ,
L.) ~
~
(j'.
.s TABLE 7.1-17 i
MARGIN TABLE FOR BASEMAT - ALL-VALVE SRV QUENCHER DISCHARGE (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)
STRESS COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION -
FAC'IDR SECTION 1
~
1.20 2 3.55 3 2.'35 3 2 2.20 12 2.95-
\
3 3.t2 9 3 y
- n 3 1.61 2 2.38 3 1.59 2 d.
d 4
4a NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA fm NA NA' NA NA g H
5 1A NA NA NA NA NA o Sa tM NA NA NA NA NA 6 1.69 2 2.40 3 1.60 2 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA s:
- Refer to Table 6.1-1
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress NOTE: LOAD COMBINATION WITH $$
NRC CO LOAD (DFFR) %$
- Refer to Figure 7.1-32 -
NA = Not Applicable -
$[
u
o O O TABLE 7.1-18 MARGIN TABLE FOR M SEMAT - ADS SRV QUENCHER DISCHARGE (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)
STRESS COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- MARGIN CRITICAL x FACTOR SECTION FAC'IOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA y y 3 NA NA NA NA NA
?
NA y 4 1.20 2 w 2.18 2 1.64 3 9 w
N3 4a M NA NA NA NA NA NA g H
5 1.09 2 2.04 2 1.27 3 e Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 1.11 2 2.08 2 1.25 3 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA y 55
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 NOTE:
55 LOAD COMBINATION WITH K$
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress NRC CO LOAD (DFFR) H
- Refer to Figure 7.1-32 $U NA = Not Applicable h*
O O O i
TABLE 7.1-19 MARGIN TABLE FOR BASEMAT - ASYMMETRIC (THREE-VALVE) SRV QUENCHER DISCHARGE (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRFNGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)
STRESS COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION LOAD CONCRETE COMFRESSION -SHEAR COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FAC'IOR - SECTION 1 1.47 2 3.78 3 2.43 3 2 2.37 3 t4
' 3.08 3 3.42 3 $
I y 3 1.89 3 2.46 3
{
1,59 2 Y 4 1.59 2 2.88 2 1.73 $
- e 3~
4a NA NA NA NA NA NA [
5 1.40 2 2.57 2 1.32 3 $
Sa :c NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 1.88 3 2.47 3 1.60 2 7 1.39 2 2.58 2 1.28 3 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA y E5
- Refer to Table 6 .1-1 NOTE:
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress LOAD COMBINATION WITH k %.
- Refer to Figure 7.1-32 NRC CO LOAD (DFFR) F' NA = Not Applicable $C
O O O TABLE 7.1-20 MARGIN TABLE FOR BASEMAT - SINGLE-VALVE SRV QUENCHER DISCHARGE (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)
\ STRESS COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION LOAD SHEAR COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- s FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 N NA NA NA NA NA NA $
3 NA NA NA NA NA NA [
Y 4 NA NA NA NA 9
NA NA %
4a 1.37 2 2.48 2 1.59 3 [
5 NA NA NA NA NA NA Sa 1.20 2 2.23 2 1.24 3 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA-7a 1.20 2 2.25 2 1,21 3
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 NOTE: 5$
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress LOAD COMBINATION WITH $g
- Refer to Figure 7.1-32 NRC CO. LOAD (DFFR) g 8
NA = Not Applicable es C
to '8
O O O-TABLE 7.1-21 MARGIN TABLE FOR CONTAINMENT - ALL-VALVE SRV QUENCHER DISCHARGE (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)-
STRESS COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL ***- MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FACTOR SECTION FAC'IOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 83.02 1 2.68 1 1.55 13 2 6.46 9 13 2.64 2.26 6 s y 3 3.01 11 2.63 13 5
2.23 6 4
4 NA NA NA NA NA NA m h x
4a NA NA NA~ NA NA NA
- 5 H NA NA NA NA NA NA g
Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA N 6 2.70 2.64 13 6 11 2.23 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA es
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 NOTE: LOAD COMBINATION WITH
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress NRC CO LOAD (DFFR) <z
- Refer to Figure 7.1-32 g 8-NA = Not Applicable - g[
w
_ _ . . _ - .. .~
(D wi ~
, TABLE 7.1-22 MARGIN TABLE FOR CONTAINMENT - ADS SRV QUENCHER DISCHARGE (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)
\ STRESS
\ COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR LOAD COMBINATION x MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN. CRITICAL EQUATION
- FAC'IOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION~
l NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA y m
P 3
4.
NA 1.62 NA 10 NA 2,64 NA NA NA f
1 6 13 1.93 12 $
4a NA NA s
NA NA NA NA s H
5 1.45 12 2.64 13 1.99 12 a 5a NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 1.29 12 2.64 13 2.05 12 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA as
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 NOTE: LOAD COMBINATION WITH %ga
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress NRC CO LOAD (DFFR) k
- Refer to Figure 7.1-32
- NA = Not Applicable Us 7
y -
l o o O j
TABLE 7.1-23 MARGIN TABLE FOR CONTAINMENT - ASYMMETRIC (THREE-VALVE) SRV QUENCHER DISCHARGE (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)
STRESS COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL EQ UATION* FAC'IOR MARGIN CRITICAL SECTION FACTOR SECTION FAC'IOR SECTION 1 NA NA 2.86 1 1,81 13 2 9 6.73 2.65 13 2.25 6 y m
3 2.95 11 13 2.64 2.24 6
" f, 4 1.72 10 2.68 13 2.25 12 W %
" x 4a NA NA NA -NA NA NA g H
5 1.82 9 2.67 13 2.30 12 o 5a NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 2.85 13 11 2.65 2.23 6 7 1.67 12 13 2.67 2.53 6 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA y 5
i 85
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 EM
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress NOTE: LOAD COMBINATION WITH NRC CO LOAD (DFFR)
H
- Refer to Figure 7.1-32 NA = Not Applicable $C N
O O O TABLE 7.1-24 MARGIN TABLE FOR CONTAINMENT - SINGLE-VALVE SRV QUENCHER DISCHARGE (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)
STRESS COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR -
LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN EQUATION
- FACTOR CRITICAL SECTION FACTOR SECTION FAC'IOR SECTION 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA w
2 NA NA NA NA NA NA w
3 NA NA NA NA NA NA {$
e 4 NA NA NA NA w
NA NA y m 4a 1.55 10 2.37 1 2.0 2 U S NA NA NA NA NA NA Sa 1.62 12 2.42 1 2.07 2 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7a 1.40 12 2.44 1 2.13 1
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 NOTE:
s"
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress LOAD COMBINATION WITH $$
NRC CO LOAD (DFFR) *< g
- Refer to Figure 7.1-32 s NA = Not Applicable
$[
w f
[ O O O. .
TABLE 7.1-25 MARGIN TABLE FOR BASEMAT - ADS'SRV QUENCHER DISCHARGE j (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES) .
4 STRESS ,
COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR LOAD N .r COMBINATION N MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FAC'IOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION l 1 NA NA NA' NA' NA NA l ,
2 NA NA NA NA NA NA y m
3- NA NA NA NA NA NA E se s>
4 1.28 2 2.23 2 1.61 3' E N
- 4a NA NA' NA NA NA NA s H
5 1.15 2 2.08 2 1.26 3 e
- o j Sa NA NA NA NA. NA NA 1
6 .NA NA NA NA NA NA i 7 1.16 2 2.12 2 1.23 3
) 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA t
$5
{
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 NOTE: LOAD COMBINATION WITH i ** Margin Factor.= Allowable Stress / Actual Stress EMPIRICAL LIMITING 8
- Refer to Figure .7.1-32 CO LOAD *$p NA = Not Applicable p ,
i i
1
O O O TABLE 7.1-26 MARGIN TABLE FOR BASEMAT - SINGLE-VALVE SRV QUENCHER DISCHARGE (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)
STRESS COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FACTOR MARGIN CRITICAL SECTION FACTOR SECTION FAC'IOR SECTION 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA.
2 NA NA NA NA NA NA y m
y 3 NA NA NA NA
' NA NA A
- s A g 4 NA NA NA NA NA NA l o
4a :n 1.28 2 2.27 2 l'.51 3 s H
5 NA NA NA NA NA NA e 5a 1.14 2 2.08- 2 1.20 3 6 NA NA NA NA 'NA NA 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7a 1.15 2 2.10 2 1.17 3 y ss
- Ref er to Table 6.1-1 NOTE:
%M -
LOAD COMBINATION WITH k$
- Margin Factor = Allowable' Stress / Actual Stress EMPIRICAL LIMITING H
- Refer to Figure 7.1-32 NA = Not Applicable CO LOAD $C N
I
i o o O TABLE 7.1-27 MARGIN TABLE FOR CONTAINMENT - ADS SRV QUENCHER DISCHARGE (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES) i STRESS COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION LOAD SHEAR COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
y 3 NA NA NA 'S NA NA NA y 7 4 1.54 10 2.64 13 1.93 12 v
D g 4a #
NA NA NA NA NA NA H H
5 1.41 12 2.64 13 1.99 12 e Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 1.26 12 2,64 13 2.06 12 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA 85 BM
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 NOTE:
LOAD COMBINATION WITH .[g i ** Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress EMPIRICAL LIMITING mw '
- Refer to Figure 7.1-32 CO LOAD "
NA = Not Applicable 4
r
oa O O
]
, TABLE 7.1-28 4
MARGIN TABLE FOR CONTAINMENT - SINGLE-VALVE SRV QUENCHER DISCHARGE (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)
STRESS COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMP'AESSION SHEAR LOAD COMBINATION x MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN LRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA N
2 NA NA NA NA NA NA $
3 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 .4 NA NA NA- NA NA NA y 4a 1.45 10 2.37 1 2.00 2 _[
5 NA NA NA NA NA NA 'b:o 5a 1.10 1 2.42 1 2.07 2 '
6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7a 1.18 12 2.44 Ng 1 2.13 1 @g 3
si!!
<g .
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 NOTE: LOAD COMBINATIONS WITH [g
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress EMPIRICAL LIMITING mw
- Refer to Figure 7.1-32 CO LOAD
, NA = Not Applicable
. .. _ _ - -- - _ - _ _. . - . - - - . . - - - - - - - . . . -- . . . - - . . ~ -
4
- O O O TABLE 7.1-29 MARGIN TABLE FOR SUPPRESSION POOL COLUMN - RESONANT SEQUENTIAL SYMMETRIC DISCHARGE i
l STRESS REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR
',' COMPONENT LOAD '
COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL'-
j, EQUATION ** N FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 9.12 1 4.64 1 6.22 1 2 11.08 1 5.45 1 6.85 1 2
3 4.31 1 3.16 1 5.02 1 m ,
i H
4 2.16 1 2.03 1 2.24 1
. 4a NA NA NA NA NA NA' $
5 1.76 1 1.79 1 1 U l h 2.24 c
Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA y 6 3.53 1 2.78 1 5.13 1
! 7 1.55 1 1.65 1 2.27 1 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA i
i
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 NOTE: LOAD COMBINATION WITH $
i
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress EMPIRICAL LIMITING
, *** Refer to Figure 7.1-34 CO LOAD
@z CO l NA = Not Applicable $$
1 kg
@H ,
CD 4 i
O' O O TABLE 7.1-30 MARGIN TABLE FOR SUPPRESSION POOL COLUMN - SINGLE VALVE SUBSEQUENT ACTUATION STRESS REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR COMPONENT LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EOUATION* FACTOR SECTION- FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA N?. NA N
3 NA NA NA NA NA NA $
4 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4a 5
y 2.30 1 2.10 1 2.12 1 g
$ 5 NA NA NA NA NA NA [
Sa 1.73 1 1.76 1 2.05 1 3
- c 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7a 1.49 1 1.60 1 2.02 1
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 NOTE: LOAD COMBINATION WITH
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress EMPIRICAL LIMITING mg
@m
- Refer to Figure 7.1-34 NA = Not Applicable CO LOAD gg
>2 N$
/
$U-u
o O O i
TABLE 7.1-31 MARGIN TABLE FOR DRYWELL FLOOR - ALL VALVE SRV QUENCHER DISCHARGE (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)
STRESS COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 1.22 6 l 3.20 6 1.52 1 2 1.32 6 2.70 6
! w 1.75 1 y
, 3 1.36 m 6 2.71 6 1,82 i 1 4i
$ 4 NA NA NA NA NA NA h i 4a NA NA NA NA N
NA NA g 5 H NA NA NA NA
' NA NA e Sa NA NA NA $
- NA NA NA i 6 1.54 6 3.02 6 2.27 1 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA gg 7a NA NA NA to en NA NA' NA
%g%
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 "5
- Margin Factor =- Allowable Stress / Actual Stress NOTE: Load Combination with Lead UH
- *** Refer to Figure 7.1-33 Plant Acceptance Criteria 0" NA = Not Applicable Loads.
O. O O TABLE 7.1-32 '
MARGIN TABLE FOR DRYWELL FLOOR -
ASYmiETRIC (THREE-VALVE) SRV OUENCHER DISCHARGE (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)
\ '
STRESS COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION LOAD SHEAR COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL ***
EQUATION
- MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL FACTOR -SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 1.51 2 4.28 6 1.52 1 2 1.78 6 3.32 6 1.75 . l' y'
+ 3 1.76 H 2 3.32 6 1.82 1 ?
s e
h 4 1.01 6 2.61 1 1.25 1 4a NA NA M NA NA NA NA g 5 1.23 6 H
2.83 1 1.40 1 '
e Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 1.94 2 3.62 6 2.27 1 7 1.34 6 3.02 1 1.53 $
1 $to 7a :o 2:
NA NA NA NA NA NA k
<G e
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 NOTE: Load Combination with Lead C
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress Plant Acceptance Criteria "
- Refer to Figure. 7.1-33 Loads.
NA = Not Applicable
O O O TABLE 7.1-33
' MARGIN TABLE FOR DRYWELL FLOOR - ADS
.SRV QUENCHER DISCEARGE-(WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)
STRESS COMPONENT REINFORCING-TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR LOAD i COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL
, EQUATION
- FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA jy 2 NA NA NA NA
+
NA NA y
.m 7 3 NA NA NA NA NA
.NA kl 4 1.01 -6 2.45 1
' 1.25' 1 %
4a NA NA NA NA N
NA NA g
H 5 1.13 6 2.66 1 1.40 1 o-Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA
- 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 1.24 6 2.84 1 1.53 1 eg %
to 2 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA
!llE
,< z
-8
- Refer to. Table 6.1-1 NOTE: Load Combination with Lead $g i ** Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual ' Stress Plant Acceptance Criteria *4 l
- Refer-to Figure 7.1-33 Load.
NA = Not Applicable
O O O TABLE 7.1-34 MARGIN TABLE FOR DRYWELL FLOOR - SINGLE VALVE SRV QUENCHER DISCHARGE (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)
STRESS COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA N
." 0l y 3 NA NA NA NA NA NA.
u
- 4 NA NA NA NA NA NA %
4a 1.00 6 2.74 N
1 1.02 1 H
5 NA NA NA NA NA NA g Sa 1.31 6 2.93 1 1.12 1 5 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA .y 7a 1.20 6 3.09 1 1.20 1 E
- i5 i
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 NOTE: Load Combination with Lead
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress $H Plant Acceptance Criteria
- Refer to Figure 7.1-33 Loads.
NA = Not Applicable
)
p- ,,
w , us TABLE 7.1-35 MARGIN TABLE FOR REACTOR SUPPORT-ALL VALVE SRV QUENCHER DISCHARGE (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)
STRESS COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 2.47 9 6.57 9 2.04 9
- 2 2.42 9 4.59 9 1.98 9 N H
1 3 1.03 9 4.69 9 2.15 e 9 4 4 NA NA NA NA NA NA w
4a NA NA NA NA NA NA H
5 NA NA NA NA NA NA a Sa NA NA NA NA NA #
NA 6 1.15 9 4.93 9 2.44 9 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA yy tz tn 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA $$
>3 k$8
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 NOTE: Load Combination with Lead $g
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress Plant Acceptance Criteria 54
- Refer to Figure 7.1-32 Loads.
NA = Not Applicable
O O O TABLE 7.1 MARGIN TABLE FOR' REACTOR SUPPORT - ADS SRV QUENCHER DISCHARGE (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)
STRESS COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN- CRITICAL EQUATION
- FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA NA' NA y- 3 NA NA NA NA NA.
4 NA 7 4 2.11 9 4.15 9 1.72 9
.$ M 4a NA NA NA NA NA NA H 5 1.16 9 4.53 1.'96 9 9 -y
- o 5a NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 1.11. 9 4.79 9 2.10 9 $$
to to 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA $$
K
- Refer to Table 6.1-1
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual' Stress NOTE: Load Combination with Lead-Plant Acceptance Criteria b
- Refer to Figure 7.1-32' Loads.
NA = Not Applicable r
O V (J~ t V
TABLE 7.1-37 MARGIN TABLE FOR REACTOR SUPPORT - ASYMMETRIC (THREE-VALVE) SRV OUENCHER DISCHARGE (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)
STRESS COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 4.0 9 11.13 9 1.76 9 l
2 3.23 1 6.51 9 1.85 9 m w E 3 1.21 9 5.0 9 1.51 9 g
l 4t
-$ 4 2.16 9 4.76 9 1.56 9 %
4a NA NA NA NA NA NA N l 5 1.16 9 5.41 9 1.79 9 !
g Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA 8 6 1.33 9 5.07 9 2.02 9 7 1.11 9 5.38 9 1.92 9 yg tn to 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA $ $-
%M "4
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 NOTE: Load Combination with Lead *H
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress Plant Acceptance Criteria 0"
- Refer to Figure 7.1-32 . Loads.
NA = Not Applicable
O O O 6
TABLE 7.1-38 MARGIN TABLES FOR REACTOR SUPPORT - SINGLE VALVE SRV QUENCHER DISCHARGE (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES)
STRESS COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR 4
LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- MARGIN CRITICAL FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA
' NA NA to 3 NA NA NA E
NA NA NA
- 4 N 4 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4a 2.45 9 3.12 9 1.22 9 5 NA NA NA U
NA NA NA g Sa 1.24 9 3.19 9 1.36 9 5 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA $$
7a 1.14 9 3.36 9 BE 1.44 9 g k28
- Refer to Table 6.1-1 NOTE: Load Combination with Lead co
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress Plant Acceptance Criteria N
- Refer to Figure 7.1-32 Loads.
NA = Not Applicable
A!1ENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
(, REACTOR O % 4 e
~ REACTOR SUPPORT CONTAINMENT WALL---*
-WATER EL. 497'-4" 9'-6" R 4'-l !?/'
EL.487'-6"
- M
' =
a 733.0 PSI :
I
! : P EL. 474'-lO" e u o u o / j
./
l l
4 O'- 0" R 4'-o" l
=
WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT 1 MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSM ENT REPORT O eIGuaE 7.i-8 LOCA VENT CLEARING PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION
l'
,Ez mz ;
3,gm >x< a gN i
O L i i
i l
2 i
i L
L )
c
/- E W8 T
i
(
e s
E i E
W M I
I I T G
i O L
i L
O L E
i WA Y
i R
D I O
i
_ _ _ _ - - - _ - - _ - - - l 0 0 0 O 6 4 2
- oEa~wKOmmWx' Ex 7 erEm $ grym 3sm= $> O2' tzh ..
1>; : Recz >** i
.=r 9 3m1$-
nEm ~L. o O a3mpsr0pr uAv,Mxm z c
- < $x g 5 ,e- 9 F M m A R l1l('li1! !1l ,! l
A!!ENDf1ENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 lboTTOM of DRYWCLL FLOOR.
(JNIFo2M LCAD OF 4.6 P61G APPL 180 ovEt 180* secToe NOftMAL EL.49"7 '- 6I Pool 60eFA4E
- ~ . -
. ~ .- _
EL.487'-d HYDROSTATIC LOAD APPLIED OVER 360 o
, , TOP OF EL.474 to 6 6& MAT o% to (PSJG)(P614)
WM. H.ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT 1 MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSM ENT REPORT n
a FIGURE 7.1-12 POOL SWELL ASYMMETRIC LOAD
nn ..... ... ..
FEBRUARY 1982 E RirACToK
, '. W
+-ftE A r T'O R. SUPPcAT i - -
COWTAIMMENT WALL--*
)
O. ,
WATEft EL 49-/-6" 4 >
=
9 '- 6"R +'- I k"
+= =
4 r 4 >
P(O PM m v
4 >
P(t) 4 > EL 474'-10" V V V V V /
s Q _
4 o '- O R _
4 '--d' _
P(t) = 13.3 C0S 2nf(t) l l NOTE:
l CYCLIC CONDENSATION LOAD OF 13.3 PSI AT 10-15 HZ ON PEDESTAL, CONTAINMENT AND BASE MAT UP TO
, SUPPRESSION POOL WATER ELEVATION l
WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT 1 MARK 11 DEStGN ASSESSM ENT REPORT i
O FIGURE 7.1-13 LOCA CYCLIC CONDENSATION PRESSURE LOAD l
ON BASE MAT CONTAINMENT AND REACTOR SUPPORT FOR RAMS HEAD
~
' AliENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
( REACTOR --
4 r b
~ REACTOR SUPPORT CONTAIhMENT WALL---=-
- WATER EL. 4974" y.
9'-6" R _
- -4'-lh" f
EL. 487'-6" l _
/ _
M N -
. s
a p* psi ;
{ = ,
EL. 474'-10" u n u n u j l .,
s .
l l
l .
I 40'-0" R _ 4._on
- FOR DETAILS, REFER SUBSECTION 7.1.2.3 _ ,
l i
I i .
WM. H. ZlMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT f MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSM ENT REPORT
... A Q
~
FIGURE 7.1-14 SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF LOCA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION LOAD FOR T-QUENCHER
4 y. -
q u w w - - _~u~, - .- _- _-
I
- n x -
no m . .
!Ef.'./Jm 1 ~.1l %. A.LL. .Y.T . . .O La-et.:::"y. .r L , _ , , , , _
~ . - . _ .
- - - - . n.. . .
I i a
u b' "T - j 't 1
%--,-- :. . . ; _L l r
'.? 1 !t*.;:.:2.
sr_s r: -. m. ~. _-
' *L_ i T - '
rs --- -
..c.......
~
- h..s. .
...,.,, L f e.cnc a 6- e ..
/
~ . , c -
,. _ .' er
.mt 4 8' *
& ** .~ CM m4**c a y .3 mitt.e.
.m Op e. zip e.ne. s M
~
. , 9 e .*A. gaces gspg fjp W ^
, / "x, ;;t .. ... u <s v,. o g .
< w-c s .M
- u.- ,W, *,,.
,. .-- .ve-L ', '"",';,"f,*;'11"'k". b('- - !
9, e.e
/ '
7, w
- 0,*.'Ma' u
- w:'=v ',21.
. u,.
__.~ F < i 'v' m :
_se_ _
n4. %.
s s
w,'A --
,(_
i- ~,
g t *.
p+ '
~ .
7 ,,,
X'G-' _. . y- ' s 'f %
s
- 'Y , gf.
yD .
x
. - K ,j , .y .l Q.
~ u ,, ,
.c*
' /. ,,
m .'7 6, ~ s, p
\r
~~i q+ M' '# J:t
.# gh+..,
l / \. ./ D %
1 u mm QM p+
,p ,
N/
gi
- y -x.u-. . M & g.
(
y \ .e .
m 'g
.Jd46 e-
--p- ).
sd
'gcr
~
h.,
1 A.. '5;'.i,Mi*ini~ $ ()-
"a g
%y. 3,
P' T,9 ' #'; i ,
Pt Au a EL. 51d-N 'h , p'. .c ,,
- i -
. ,r M *
%e - L wh -. ,j ,
~
)
~- 1,_
g n. -. . ^\ .? ,s '
i
_1 ".w s- o m , ., n
'*2 y'\ " /
u,,,,.,* .- -se /
7.;'y. , m, - .,, M a;- ;/.
{"'*
_fwp t -
g o-
--- p a r! . yau= = v *
] * ~~ N ^#
.141 au . 7.!
E=~w . M ." J
) D,atIW* ntbEO == ., , s
. gy=w m(- Jf.:reJ)..~s< h,*. p g',; .,/
.: .-n
, %-( - Le-4' w- - 0 '* *^ ,
KWE.**.
f rt. st.. , ..._ A 6"g M i" * **** 7.'/ 4
- d' o_,
- M&W_, a __ _ ,
ff ,.
c' ~
pam d e o. m . . ,), Y, 9 c.h
^
Y,.T,. t. f.:'J,.
V'i 4 23.:'r, . . - - - -
'"n= cTic+J A-A Cat.:"7"
~ ~"
G.Nin .- q.
'rrrisww
(===+ w .
s 1 DETAit. 2 I' DRYWEL
s-r l p .. = n~. AMENDMENT 17 ,
W-- m
~
FEBRUARY 1982 ,
y p :. 7 g-
~
y3 j'
~
- 1 4
g j 4 . .*
'91Lui e f .;
NCh '=%
i fd ,9.Ui :3 r*q'
+
i t-,_.-.
j ~=c. ~ ~
=.ry.f w
l 5 gjd . d , ,,,
?# 9 $ MIM . -
- DEAn '
- n. L _.TJy : 1h/d:- e# .y V ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ - -
/.
%- 't /
-f/ . ',, = .; - --
(fj,c,:=n.=:.=
L. Q.. 1. y.j-j , x p y ,
- :: ;.e- ---
/p -
.<.a. ~ . ,.... , ,
VWW 6
_y ' h u -j N.,
.- j, . , ) n. /
- = ~ ~ v.w~
(M
.t i ' * - - .i N ,f 4;c?k h, '
- /
/ ',"' A * ~ ' * " * ~
t " hk
./
!yI' ' $ :' .- h -
m
( 'L ,
[,.?
' N 0 -h' *:'3
/ !-
c .~ ~ a .
,- )g Qi- 5 s v .]dk >h 3v.a. h~Q) 4 }
i-=s, T
- - ' ~ -
k.@~,gn, I . 2,3] ' \ p ,,q --e_- 9 te, -swl,s,
/a s e.t ..~.....,n.---
43
, g' Yb n* =1i.T: Y;;,*, ;'s222-
% > sr/Kh/ /-
~ -
, \ .. / hi z ~k N
'\
j jg '
y3 1, ,b [f.*.,7 ,* ~
1.7 vd &j -m ==; @.-M-d %erNx K D Sr
-lq% <
Q.Lihf
- k. -
$+ =2 v.wd .~ .'f1Thi~a4& r.,
dif-~ . , 'n i-j - E72 c-+-
N/ m,wf 2.
\ % -... ~ 2p;4 '
lj N/ s
,'q:::a. - '#fig is
'NT
' f,.;..:
gk)T N
hbYh.b.,{lll.&== Y. '
- k. N 'J
\
t' a,,,, .e c\x : h.bm.h$Q y <,%;D ,=4:c
==.
y, 2 ..
g ='. ',.
%.*1^. 1 T.~v No x-s
~.-
- g3-
, , , .' }-( ')f p. , ' .'. -
f[g'ly Q,/$*d:,,c, ,.3'g" g+.
4
% g
.- j id A
k WM. H. IlMMER NU': LEAR POWER STATION. UNIT 1
- .!/ g; "
c g' u ARx is ocsson Assessment REPORT
'4?'s;'
J J 9 %'->
"Jdit". FIGURE 7.1-30 Mkh.~ ".E.-a- .,..
~ ~~'" DRYWELL FLOOR REINFORCING LAYOUT i L Puxx2 PLAN e EL E2.5' ME
,\
o
AMENDf!ENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 gDRYWELL PLoot , [EL525N O y' ;gt ,et.. w 4-
+a ,.
I i
ELA W-d "
v $2 1
i O
BASE MAT ELA74'-lo'
~
A$$$?.: . . . .?
'O' ?. i h r '
.' . -;.:. m > ( EL.4re8 -10' R = 2.7 '- Gef WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR FOWER STATION. UNIT 1 MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSM ENT REPORT O FiciiRE 7.1-34 DESIGN SECTIONS DRYWELL FLOOR COLUMN l
AMENDitENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 O.
,j ff/////////
\\ 'I
\.1 /
\-1 /
\ i /
\ \ I b4 r , ,
2 w m ,
a 1
i 1 Li e i 4
/ \\ ;
% U/ I\\
N Q(
( si < CI > -
g 11 \L Y
- ' I"I '
\%
ff g,
/
t b
l h
i
%g l
% 4 tn wm l
WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1
, MARK H DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT FIGURE 7.1-37 DRYWELL FLOOR 3-D FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
. - - - . _ g - w- -
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 f )'
III, Division I. Primary plus secondary membrane plus bending stresses are checked according to Subsection NE-3222.2 of the same code. Fatigue strength design stress is based on Subsection NE-3222.4 of Section III. Allowable design stress intensity values, design fatigue curves, and material properties used conform to Subsection NA Appendix I of the ASME B&PV Code,Section III,. Division I. Subsection NB-3356 of the ASME B&PV Code,Section III, Division I is used to obtain a fatigue strength reduction factor of 4.0 for the fillet weld attachment of the containment wall liner plate and anchorage system.
7.2.1.5 Analysis The hydrostatic pressure head on the basemat is 9.8 psi and the maximum uplift pressure load due to SRV alone is 9.2 psi. Since l the negative load due to SRV discharge is more than balanced by the pressure head or water in the suppression chamber, the base liner plate does not experience any negative or uplift pressure load at any time during SRV actuation. Therefore, there are no flexural stresses induced in the basemat liner.
The maximum net uplift pressure that the basemat liner can withstand is 11.5 psi acting upward. Therefore, the basemat liner has the capability to carry an SRV negative pressure of 21.3 psi including the hydrostatic head, which is 232% of the g' design SRV pressure load. l C
7.2.2 Containment Wall Liner 7.2.2.1 Description of Liner The suppression chamber wall liner consists of a 1/4-inch stainless steel plate of SA240, Type 304 up to elevation 500 feet 0 inch. Above elevation 500 feet 0 inch the liner is of carbon steel SA516, Grade 60 material. A3 x 2 x 1/4-inch angles are welded to this plate intermittently with a 1/4-inch fillet weld at 4 inches every 12 inches center-to-center spacing. Refer to Figure 7.2-2 for the containment liner detail.
7.2.2.2 Loads for Analysis The loads for analysis are described in Subsection 7.2.1.2.
7.2.2.3 Load Combinations The load combinations are described in Subsection 7.2.1.3.
7.2.2.4 Acceptance Criteria The acceptance criteria for the containment wall liner are de-
,_ scribed in Subsection 7.2.1.4.
()
7.2-2
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 7.2.2.5 Analysis To study the response to the liner plate due to the SRV blowdown loads, a dynamic analysis using finite element idealization was performed. Since the liner plate experiences bending between anchor supports predominantly in one direction, a two-dimensional representation is used for the dynamic analysis. Several beam elements are used to represent the flexibility of the liner plate between two anchor locations. The ends of the model which represent the anchor supports are assumed to be fixed against both in-plane rotation and displacements. In addition, a non-linear stiffness matrix representation is used to simulate the stiffness of the concrete to resist compressive loads only, with no resistance towards tensile or negative SRV loads. The time-pressure history of the oscillating air bubble, which has approximately 10 negative pulses per actuation, is used as the input forcing function to the finite element model. The results of the dynamic analysis show that the dynamic load factor is approximately equal to 1.0. The liner plate can, therefore, be analyzed for SRV blowdown load by using a static solution procedure.
The suppression chamber wall liner has the capability to carry a SRV negative pressure of 16.5 psi (no credit for hydrostatic pressure), which is 180% of the design SRV pressure load.
k-] The summary of stresses and strains in the containment wall liner plate and anchorage system are shown in Tables 7.2-1 through 7.2-4. It is apparent from the tables that the safety margin for each category of mechanical and self-limiting loads is greater than 1.0. Therefore, the suppression chamber wall liner and basemat liner plate and anchorage system are acceptable.
i O
7.2-3
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
() TABLE 7.2-2
SUMMARY
OF CONTAINMENT WALL LINER ANCHORAGE LOAD / DISPLACEMENT-FOR ALL SRV CASES (RAMS HEAD)
I MECHANICAL LOADS (Suction Loads)
ACTUAL ALLOWABLE STRESS STRESS OR OR STRESS USAGE USAGE SAFETY CATEGORY FACTOR FACTOR MARGIN Weld Primary Membrane (P ,) 0.340 ksi S,= 10 ksi 29.41 Peak (F) 0.04 1.0 25.0 Angle Primary Membrane
({} (P ,) 0.120 ksi S,= 13.9 ksi 115.83 II MECHANICAL LOADS (Suction Loads)
ACTUAL ALLOWABLE LOAD LOAD STRESS OR OR SAFETY CATEGORY STRESS STRESS MARGIN Concrete Diagonal Tension Failure 30.0 lbs/in 860.0 lbs/in 28.67 l
III SELF-LIMITING LOADS ACTUAL ALLOWABLE STRESS DISPLACEMENT DISPLACEMENT SAFETY CATEGORY (in) (in) . MARGIN l
Anchorage System .015 .045 3.0 l
. '%A) l l
7.2-5
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
(' ) TABLE 7.2-3
SUMMARY
OF CONTAINMENT WALL LINER PLATE STRESSES / STRAINS FOR ALL SRV CASES (T-QUENCHER)
I MECHANICAL LOADS (Suction Loads)
ACTUAL ALLOWABLE STRESS STRESS OR OR STRESS USAGE USAGE SAFETY CATEGORY FACTOR FACTOR MARGIN Primary (Pb)
Bending 4.752 ksi 1.5 S,= 30 ksi 6.31 Secondary (Q) 44.403 ksi 3.0 S,= 60 ksi 1.35 Peak (F) .04 1.0 25.0 fx
\
II SELF-LIMITING LOADS
(
ACTUAL ALLOWABLE STRAIN STRAIN STRAIN SAFETY CATEGORY __
(in/in) (in/in) MARGIN Self-limiting .001 .002 2.0
! /~T U
7.2-6 L
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
(~)T TABLE 7.2-4
SUMMARY
OF CONTAINMENT WALL LINER ANCHORAGE LOAD / DISPLACEMENT FOR ALL SRV CASES (T-QUENCHER)
I MECHANICAL LOADS (Suction Load)
ACTUAL ALLOWABLE STRESS STRESS OR OR STRESS USAGE USAGE SAFETY CATEGORY FACTOR FACTOR MARGIN Weld Primary Membrane (P ,) 0.332 ksi S,= 10 ksi 30.1 Peak (F) 0.04 1.0 25.0 Angle Primary Membrane (Pm) 0.117 ksi S,= 13.9 ksi 118.8 V
II MECHANICAL LOADS (Suction Loads)
ACTUAL ALLOWABLE LOAD LOAD STRESS OR OR SAFETY CATEGORY STRESS STRESS MARGIN Concrete Diagonal Tension Failure 30.0 lb/in. 860.0 lbs/in 28.7 III SELF-LIMITING LOADS i
ACTUAL ALLOWABLE STRESS DISPLACEMENT DISPLACEMENT SAFETY CATEGORY (in) (in) MARGIN l Anchorage System 0.0144 0.040 2.78 i
v l
7.2-7 L
2PS-1-HARK II DAR AMENDMENT.17 FEBRUARY 1982 As' c. weight per unit length - 72.42 lb/ft; and
- d. material - A-106 Grade C.
7.3.1.1.3 Connection Properties The following are the properties of the connections:
- a. Connection of the bracing to the downcomer is accomplished through gusset plates and stif.tened pipe sleeves.
- b. The gusset plates are 3/4 inch thick, A-588 Grade A or B steel,
- c. The stiffened pipe sleeves are composed of 3/4-inch thick, 27-inch OD pipe 3 feet long and two 1.5-inch thick, 39-inch OD stiffened rings, as shown in Figure 7.3-3.
7.3.1.2 Loads for Analysis The individual loads affectirg the downcomers and downcomer bracing are identified below:
(]) a. Normal Load This would include the dead load, temperature load, and the pressure differential effects which produce load on the design structure.
- b. Operating-Basis Earthquake (OBE)
The OBE causes vibratory motions of the building structures which include dynamic forces on the downcomers. The OBE also causes water sloshing inside the suppression chamber. The drag and inertia forces of these oscillations will produce a dynamic loading on the submerged portion of the downcomer.
The SSE causes the same type of dynamic loads on the downcomer as described for Operating-Basis Earthquake (OBE). However, the magnitude of the loads caused by SSE is greater than those caused by the OBE.
d.
Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) Loads I)
The following two cases for LOCA loads were considered for analyses:
C 7.3-2
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 f- 1. During the initial phases of a LOCA, high-steam
(_3) flow rates through the downcomer produce con-densation oscillation load on the downcomer.
During the low-steam flow rates, there is a random dynamic chugging lateral load. acting on the submerged portion of the downcomer.
2.- Following the LOCA, the downcomer will exper-ience a dynamic loading due to its response to:
a) the vertical acceleration product- in the drywell floor by water jet impingement on the containment basemat during the down-comer clearing process, and b) the cyclic chugging load on the containment structure.
- e. Safety / Relief Valve (SRV) Discharge Dynamic Load The following two cases of SRV discharges are considered for design purposes:
- 1. resonant sequential symmetric discharge of all 13 valves, and
- 2. subsequent actuation discharge of a single valve.
- f. Hanger Load at Elevation 520 ft 0 in. on Downcomer The stresses due to the MSRV support framing on the downcomer wall at elevation 520 ft 0 in. are also taken into consideration.
The downcomer will also experience dynamic loads due to its response to the base excitation produced in the building resulting from the forced vibra-tion of the containment structure.
7.3.1.3 Design Load Combinations The downcomer loads defined in Subsection 7.3.1.2 were combined for normal, upset, and emergency conditions as described below l
r~s 7.3-3
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 O in accordance with Table 7.3-1 and Subsection NC-3600 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III. The result-ing stresses were combined on an SRSS basis. l 7.3.1.4 Acceptance Criteria 7.3.1.4.1 Acceptance Criteria for Downcomers The stresses within the downcomer are considered acceptable if they satisfy the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Subsection NC-3600. The allowable stress S wns obtained i
from Table 1.7-1,Section III, Appendix I for material SA-516, Grade 60 at a design temperature of not exceeding 4000 F.
The primary stress intensity includes the primary membrane stresses plus the primary bending stresses. The limits of these stresses depend upon the loading conditions as follows:
- a. The limit of stresses under normal condition: 1.0S.
- b. The limit of stresses under upset condition: 1.2S.
- c. The limit of stresses under emergency: 1.8S.
{) 7.3.1.4.2 Acceptance Criteria for Downcomer Bracing The stresses within the downcomer bracing are considered acceptable if they satisfy the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Subsection NF-3300. At design temperature, the allowable stresses in tension or bending depend upon the yield stress S y as follows:
7.3 -_
. O O O 4
TABLE 7.3-1 LOAD COMBINATIONS AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR DOWNCOMER AND DOWNCOMER BRACING LOAD NRC IDAD COMBINATION T-QUENCHER ASME STRESS CASE (NUREG-0487) 7ESIGN-BASIS CRITERIA 1 N+SRV N+SRV X B (UPSET) 2 N+SRV + +
X (
i' y 3 N+SRV +SSE X
N SRV 2 +SSE 2 C (EMERGENCY) [
L E ' 2 4
N+SRVADS+IBA(SBA) N+SRV 2 + CHUG 2
C (EMERGENCY)
, H 5
N+SRVADS+
+ ^( ^ '
6 N+SRVADS+ SE+IBA(SBA) N W2 6%W C (MMGMCU 7 N+SSE+DBA N+ ESE2+CO2 C (EMERGENCY)
\ EN 8 N N A (NORMAL) 5E Cg 9
EE N+OBE N+OBE B (UPSET) ,P 10 N+SRV +
X
^ ~
^
BY GE.
2 1 e
AENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 O
18 0
- ING MEMBERS 175*2d XXS PIPE '
(AIO6 GR8)(TYR) -
l 21t*tS' wr 1397, 3
n k
l 252*
' x N w -l- es7 3d
\ ^ .
g, . - + ' '
T aw
/ .dk O _ .
ss W
/ / N/
~
'r ,
m.4y Af r30' O*
WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT FIGURE 7.3-2 00WNCOMER BRACING LAYOUT
_ _ _ . - _ - _ . . _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - - - - - - _ ~ . - - -
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 (s~e) 7.4 REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL HOLDDOWN BOLTS An assessment of the RPV holddown bolts for the forces acting at the RPV support skirt due to the Zimmer Empirical Loads by SRSS combinations has been made.
i Table 7.4-1 gives the breakdown of the force components at the RPV skirt for various code conditions: upset, emergency, and faulted.
AISC Code allowable stresses defined in Table 3.8-9 of the ZPS-1 FSAR were used in calculating the margin factors.
Table 7.4-2 gives forces and margin factors for RPV holddown l bolts for each of the three code conditions.
t 4
I l
1
}
l O
7.4-1
~e--. - -
, ,mer + r .-,-.,w#+ -- - - y , , , . , m ,----wa- -- - ---
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 I FEBRUARY 1982 !
i O TAetE 7.4-1
-RPV SUPPORT SKIRT - NEW LOADS (SRSS VALUE) i
- CODE VERTICAL SHEAR MOMENTS j CONDITION (kips) ~(kips) (in-lb x 10-6)
I j Upset 5938 403 78 i ,
i Emergency 7367 403 78 ;
a ?
! Faulted 10836 2756 252 i i
I 4
.i 4
Y
!O 1
i t
4 1
4 4
k 1
1 O .
s t
7.4-2
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 O TABLE 7.4-2 FORCES AND MARGIN FACTOR FOR RPV HOLDDOWN BOLT CODE TENSION SHEAR MARGIN CONDITION (kip / bolt) (kip / bolt) FACTOR Upset 61.15, 6.7 1.9 Emergency 73.00 6.7 1.6 Faulted 128.00 45.9 1.3
.O O
7.4-3 C
2PS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 b.
The impact of the empirical limiting CO load had a localized effect on the piping and supports connected to the outer suppression pool wall.
- c. No piping overstress was found for all loads and load combinations (including the empirical CO load) using the absolute sum method of combination. In all, 3,199 locations were evaluated.
7.5.1.1.4 Wetwell Piping Due to the direct hydrodynamic loading from SRV discharge and LOCA, all we.twell piping was upgraded. Assessment of the rams head design basis was not performed. The design of the wetwall piping and piping supports is based on the bounding SRV T-quencher and LOCA loads outlined in Chapter 5.0 and the load combinations shown in Chapter 6.0.
7.5.1.2 Impact of Chance to T-Ouencher Discharce Device The impact on piping systems of the change from a rams head to a T-quencher discharge device has been shown to be minimal. In general, only those piping subsystems whose fundamental mode frequency is less than 7 hertz were impacted. Those piping systems tended to be small-diameter (< 4-inch) piping whose loads were relatively small.
The increases in loads were still within the capacity of the restraints.
Piping overstress was shown to be almost negligible, and those locations where an overstress condition did exist could be qualified with a more refined analysis.
The detailed results of the T-quencher reevaluation report are included in Appendix H of this document.
7.5.1.3 Impact of SRV T-Ouencher and LOCA on Rams Head Desion Basis In this section the assessment of the impact of the new suppression pool loads on the rams head design basis is summarized. The results of the assessment showed various degrees of impact on the rams head design for various load combinations.
This assessment provided the basis for the use of the 1.33 factor for early release of hardware for procurement prior to completion of analysis for the Zimmer empirical load. The impact of three bounding load combinations were investigated. The three load combinations are:
() a. N + SSE + CO (DFFR) 7.5-3
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 O b. N + SSE + CO (EMPIRICAL'i + SRV AntTO and
- c. N + SSE + CHUGGING + SRV ALL TO The purpose of this section is to determine how the above three load combinations affect the rams head design basis of N + DBE* + SRVgntRH
- DBE = 1.875 x OBE for piping supports both inside and outside the drywell and to determine a bounding value for those supports loads which are not governed by the rams head design in order to release piping surnorts for early procurement and continue field construction.
From Subsection 6.4.2, the following bounding combinations were investigated:
- a. N + SSE + CO (DFFR)
- b. N + SSE + CO (EMPIRICAL) + SRVALL/ASYTO and
_/ The loads were combined using the absolute sum method.
The above load combinations were analyzed for 43 sample piping systems throughout the reactor building including subsystems both inside and outside the drywell. The support loads were tabulated and were compared with the corresponding support load for the rams head design basis.
The results are summarized in six histograms showing the percent change in support loads. The six histograms depict the load change for the following load combinations:
Figure 7.5 CO (DFFR) Inside Containment Figure 7.5 CO (EMPIRICAL) Inside Containment ,
Figure 7.5 Chugging Inside Containment Figure 7.5 CO (DFFR) Outside Containment Figure 7.5 CO (EMPIRICAL) Outside Containment Figure 7.5 Chugging Outside Containment The results are also shown in Table 7.5-2, " Impact on Piping
('T Support - ABSUM. " Table 7. 5-3 summarizes numerically for the three load combinations the quantity of restraint increases and l the percentage change.
7.5-4
ZP9-1-MAEK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 CHAPTER 8.0 - SUPPP ESSION PCOL HATEP TEMPERATURE MONITORING SYSTEM 8.1 SYSTEM DESIGN 8.1.1 Safety Design Basis The safety design basis f or sctting the temperature limits for the suppression pool temperature monitoring system are based on providing the operator with adequate time to take the necessary action required to ensure that the suppression pool temperature will always remain below the pool temperature limit established by the NFC. \n analysis of suppression pool temperature transients can be found in Section 8.2. The system design also provides the operator with necessary information regarding localized heatup of the pool water while the reactor vessel is being depressurized. If SRV's are selected for actuation, they may be chosen to ensure mixing and uniformity of heat energy injection to the pool.
8.1.2 General Gystem Descricticn The suppression pool temperature monitoring system monitors the pool water. temperature in order to prevent the local pool water
% temperature from exceeding the pool temperature limit during SRV discharge and provides the operator with the information necessary to prevent excessive pool temperatures during a transient or accident. Temperatures in the pool are recorded and alarmed in the main control room. The instrumentation arrangement in the suppression pool consists of 18 local temperature sensors ir individual guide tubes mounted off the pool walls.
The local temperature sensors consist of 18 dual-element, ccpper constantan thermocouples located 1 foot below the low water level.
Twelve of the sensors are located of f the outer suppression pool wall at azimuths 280, 450, 860, 1170, 1470, 1830, 2170, 2400 2630, 2770, 3250, and 3440 The other six are located off the pedestal at azimuths 550, 1420, 2020, 2460, 2980, and 3440 The sensors and readout devices are assigned to ESS-1 and ESS-2 divisions and local discharge areas are monitored by two sensors, one from each division. This represents a conservative measurement of local pool water heatup. All instrumentation will be qualified Seismic Category I. "he time constant of the thermocouple installation will te no greater than 15 seconds.
The difference between measurement reading and actual temperature fg will be within 20 F.
(/
The display technioues for monitoring the pool temperature are:
8.1-1
i Z PS-1-!?APK II DAR ' AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 O a. to continuously input to the computer system the measurement made by Element 1 of each of the nine l thermocouples in Ess-1 which can be displayed individually or averaged by the computer to display the bulk temperature; I '
I b. to sequentially record on a multipoint recorder the measurement made by Element 1 of each of the nine thermocouples in FSS-2 at a rate of 5 sec/ point when all nine are below the alarm level, ar d at a rate of 1 sec/ point when any of the nine are above the alarm level;
- c. to continously record on a strip-chart recorder the bulk temperature obtained by averaging the nine l Element 2 thermocouples of ESS-1; and
- d. to continuously input to tre camputer system and l display on a hardwired indicator tre bulk temperature as obtained by averaging the nine Element 2 thermo-couples of ESS-2. l Each instrumentation divisior, has the capability of alarming both local and bulk high temperature. The computer system provides n- temperature readout via CPT/ data logger on demand. The above U configuration provides the maximum flexibility for providing <
redundant pool temperature information to the operator. ,
The quenching of the stcam at the quencher discharge forms jets that heat the water and generate convection currents in the suppression pool. These currents _ eventually rise and displace cooler water near the pool surface.
During an extended blowdown, a large temperature gradient is ex-
. pected initially near the quencrer. After a short time the pool ;
, gradients will stabili7e with a bulk to local emperature dif ference of about 100 F. The adequacy o' the temperature monitoring system will le confirmed by the in -plan t SFV testing, described in Subsection 3.2.
8.1.3 "ormal Plant Oceration
.The temperature monitoring system is utilized during normal plant operation to ensure that the pool temperature will remain low erough to condense all quantities o' steam that may be released in any anticipated transient or rontulated accident. When rams head devices were specified for design, there was an NRC concern that high pool temperature might result in high pool dynamic loads -during SEV diccharge because of unstable steam condensation. Installation of T-quenchers has eliminated this
.(]) concern. .During normal plant oporation, the system is in continuous cleration recordiro the suppression pool water temperature with a readout in the main control room. If the pool temperature rises above normal crerating temperatures, an alarm 8.1-2
i ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 CHAPTER 9.0 - PLANT MODIFICATIONS AND RESULTANT IMPROVEMENTS 9.1 STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS In general, the impact of the addition of the pool dynamic loads on a majority of the structures was minimal. The primary reasoa9 are as follows:
- a. Fixed-base seismic loads were used in the original design.
- b. Except in local areas, the design of the containment structure is generally governed by load combinations ,
involving safe shutdown earthquake and design-basis accident. Pool dynamic loads are relatively small compared to these governing loads.
The following is a summary of the structural modifications necessitated by the addition of pool dynamic loads:
- a. The inner core of the reactor support was filled with concrete up to elevation 497 feet 6 inches to reduce the bending stresses induced by the pool dynamic loads. Structural integrity of this core fill was r~ ensured by providing reinforcing bars and concrete
(_) stud anchors welded to the reactor support liner.
Figure 7.1-28 of the DAR gives the details of this modification. l
- b. The gallery platform in the suppression pool at elevar. ion 510 feet 6 inches has been removed.
Additional steel framing has been installed in the suppression pool at elevation 520 feet l
%-inch to support MSRV and non-MSRV piping.
New embedments (anchored plates) and ring girders have been installed in the suppression pool for MSRV and non-MSRV piping.
- c. The flange at the end of the downcomer vent has been removed.
- d. Horizontal bracing of the downcomer at elevation 496 feet,
- e. Embedments and pedestal anchor installed for downcomer bracing and for supporting MSRV and non-MSRV guides in the wetwell.
(~))
- f. Removed vacuum breakers from downcomers.
9.1-1
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 O g. The steel framing in the drywell requires additional stiffening cover plates or replace-ment with stiffer members,
- h. Distribution of drywell framing loads to other support locations is required to reduce loads on heavily loaded embedments.
- i. Some of the cable tray hangers in the reactor building wall are to be stiffened.
- j. Block wall fixes.
- k. HVAC duct support fixes.
- 1. Conduit support fixes.
- m. Cable tray support fixes.
O 9.1-2
i 2PS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 i g)
L-
- c. upgrading piping wall thickness and shear lug sizes where required,
- d. adding approximately 226 piping supports,
- e. replacing the elbow and stancion arrangement at the top of the HSRV line riser with a special fabricated tee and strut arrangement, arid
9.2.1.3 BOP Pipina The BOP piping which was designed for the rams head design basis was found to be impacted locally due to the chugging and empirical CO load. The local impact affected only those piping systems attached to the outer suppression pool wall (at approximately elevation 497 feet).
It was found that a factor of 1.33 x rams head design-basis emergency loads would be adequate to accommodate the chugging and CO loads for the piping supports.
T As a result, all the support loads on piping systems connected to or supported on the outer suppression pool wall at mid-center (elevation 497 feet; were increased by 33%.
9.2.2 Equipment The reactor building closed cooling water (RBCCW) expansion tank, the residual heat removal (:RHR) heat exchanger support bolts, and the RBCCW heat exchanger support bolts have been modified to accommodate the additional pool dynamic loads. This design modification consisted of strengthening the saddle supports and replacing or adding additional support bolts. As a result of the design assessment performed for assessing the impact of changing the quencher device to the T-quencher, it is anticipated that design modifications may be required for the following equipment:
- a. core spray cooling system - RHR equipment room cooling coil;
- b. core spray cooling system - LPCS/RHR equipment room cooling coil;
- c. core spray cooling system - HPCS equipment room cooling coil;
- d. reactor building closed cooling water heat exchanger
) 1B; 9.2-2
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
- e. HVAC control panel 1PL69JA; and
- f. HVAC control panel 1PL69JB.
t' 9.2.3 Final Piping and Equipment Assessment Subsections 9.2.1 and 9.2.2 described the status of piping and equipment assessment for the Zimmer Empirical. Loads and SRV T-quencher device made up to December 5, 1979 and presented to the NRC. The assessment and documentation has continued since the December 5, 1979 status and has now been completed. Table 9.2-1 summarizes the BOP equipment scope of supply which have l had design modifications issued to accommodate the final hydrodynamic loads.
Based on the final reanalysis of the Zimmer BOP scope of piping and equipment for the_Zimmer Empirical Loads and SRV T-quencher load, the Zimmer plant meets or exceeds the load definitions summarized in the NRC Mark II Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria, NUREG-0487.
O l
l O
L l
9.2-3 l
L _ _ - . . _ _ - - _ _ _ - , . _ _ _ _ . __ _ __ , . . _ . _ _ _ . _
O O O TABLE 9.2-1
SUMMARY
OF EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS EQUIPMENT NUMBER DESCRIPTION MODIFICATION DESCRIPTION IVG02CA Standby Gas Treatment System Fan lA Vibration Isolators and Mounting Bolts' Strengthened IVG02CB Standby Gas Treatment System Fan 1B Vibration Isolators and Mounting Bolts Strengthened h
lVG03CA Standby Gas Treatment System Vibration Isolators Strengthened n Cooling Fan lA lVG03CQ Standby Gas Treatment System Vibration Isolators Strengthened y Cooling Fan IB 7
, w g.
IVG04AA M d
1 Standby Gas Treatment Systent Reinforcement of Coil Support M Heating Coil lA
- y IVG04AB Standby Gas Treatment System i
Heating Coil 1B Reinforcement of Coil Support @
.M lVCllXA Control Room HVAC Return Fan Providing Anchorage to Foundation Silencer lA i
IVCllXB Control Room HVAC Return Fan Providing Anchorage to Foundation Silencer 1B yg IVY 01C CSCS-RHR Equipment Room to m Vibration Isolators Strengthened @
Cooling Fan i
g@.
g
! lVYO2C CSCS-LPCS/RHR Equipment Room Mz Vibration Isolators Strengthened g 8
i Cooling Fan gy u
i
O O O TABLE 9.2-1 (Cont'd)
EQUIPMENT .
NUMBER DESCRIPTION MODIFICATION DESCRIPTION IVYO3C CSCS-RCIC Equipment Room. Vibration Isolators Strengthened Cooling Fan IVYO4C CSCS-HPCS Equipment Room. Vibration Isolators Strengthened Cooling Fan IVYO5A CSCS-RHR Equipment Room Additional Cabinet Anchorage and Heat Exchanger Coil Reinforcement IVYO6S CSCS-LPCS/RHR Equipment Room Additional Cabinet Anchorage and y Coil Cabinet (lVYO7AA, Coil Reinforcement y IVYO7AB) H g lVYO8A CSCS-RCIC Equipment Room Additional Cabinet Anchorage and $
i Heat Exchanger w Coil Reinforcement N IVYO9A CSCS-HPCS Equipment Room Additional Cabinet Anchorage and Heat Exchanger Coil Reinforcement g LWR 02AA Reactor Building Closed Cooling m Saddle Supports Modified and Water Heat Exchanger lA Additional Anchorage Provided LWR 02AB Reactor Building Closed Cooling Saddle Supports Modified and Water Heat Exchanger 1B Additional Anchorage Provided LWR 02AC Reactor Building Closed Cooling Saddle Supports Modified and m
Water Heat Exchanger 1C Additional Anchorage Provided y
mz IPX56J Rack for Locally-mounted Additional Anchorage Provided Sk Instruments gg-e IPX57J Rack for Locally-mounted Additional Anchorage Provided Yw m4 Instruments
~ - . _ - - - -. - - - . - - _ . - . _ . .
1 O O O TABLE 9.2-1 (Cont'd)
EQUIPMENT '
NUMBER DESCRIPTION MODIFICATION DESCRIPTION 1PX58J Rack for Locally-mounted Additional Anchorage Provided Instruments i 1PX71J Rack for Locally-mounted Additional Anchorage Provided Instruments 1PX72J Rack for Locally-mounted Additional Anchorage Provided Instruments 1FCO2AA Fuel Pool Heat Exchanger lA Additional Bracing Provided; y Reinforcing Saddle. Supports and y e
Additional Anchorage Provided H j
g 1FC02AB ?uel Pool Heat Exchanger lB Additional' Bracing Provided; a i y
- Reinforcing Saddle Supports and x-Additional Anchorage Provided s H
IVC 08SA Control Room HVAC Air' i Additional Anchorage Provided c Handling Unit lA IVC 08SB Control Room HVAC Air Handling Unit 1B Additional Anchorage Provided 1AP05E 480-V ESS Substation lA-1 Additional Anchorage Provided 1AP06E 480-V ESS Substation lA-2 Additional Anchorage Provided M>
\
gg 1AP09E 480-V.ESS Substation 1B-1 Additional' Anchorage Provided mz 50 W$
LAP 10E 480-V ESS Substation 1B-2 AdditionalAnchorage'P'rovfhed' "$
e 1AP13E 480-V ESS Substation 1C-1 Additional Anchorage Provided $U
o O O TABLE 9.2-1 (Cont'd) 1.
L EQUIPMENT '
4 '
NUMBER DESCRIPTION- MODIFICATION DESCRIPTION- '
lVG0lYB Essential Recirculation Fan. '
Isolation Damper ModificationofOpefajorMountirlq
~
and/or Hangers g l f f i i 1C41F001A 3 in. Motor-operated Globe Valve Reinforce Yoke #
1C41F001B 3 in. Motor-operated Globe-Valve Reinforce Yoke '
lWS076A 3 in. Motor-operated Globe Valve Reinforce Yoke lWS076B 3 in. Motor-operated Globe Valve Reinforce Yoke ~/ -
< lj ,e
~1IN061' w ~
-3 in. Motor-operated Globe Valve Reinforce Yoke " "
e '
O u 1B21F019 3 in. Motor-operated Gate'Valze Reinforce Yoke
^
.lCllFO 3 in. Motor-operated Gate Valve x
Reinforce Yoke '
s 1B21F016 3 in. Motor-operated Gate Valve Reinforce H.
o LWR 055 6 in. Motor-operated Gate Valve Upgrade Bolt Material lE51F010 6 in. Motor-operated Gate Valve Upgrade Bolt Material lE51F031 6 in. Motor-operated Gate Valve Upgrade Bolt Material m
M W
NZ Co M
<Z p
m-
i 2PS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 0 '
, 9.4 SRV DISCHARGE OUENCHER The discharge lines from the 13 safety / relief valves (SRV) are
, routed from the drywell down into the suppression pool. Each discharge line terminates with a T-quencher discharge device as shown in Figure 9.4-1. Each T-quencher is attached to a base plate in the containment floor. The centerline of the T-quencher arms is 3 feet 6 inches above the top of the suppression pool basemat. This elevation is equivalent to a submergence of.18 feet 6 inches below the pool-low water level.
The plan location of the T-quencher is shown in Figure 9.4-2.
The location and orientation of the quenchers was based on several considerations which included _the following:
- a. physical separation from structures to minimize submerged structure loads (a minimum separation of approximately 5 feet has been provided),
- b. physical separation from suction-strainers to prevent an air or two-phase mixture from entering the ECCS or RCIC pumps, ano
- c. thermal mixing and utilization.
_O
- d. The plan location of the quencher incorporates SRV symmetry by setpoint group as follows:
- r. 1. Low setpoint group, two valves at lowcet setpoint.
- 2. Multiple valve groups, five valves which are from the two lowest setpoint groups.
- 3. ADS valves.
The T-quencher discharge device is substantially different from the original rams head device. The primary reasons for switching from the rams head to the T-quencher were as follows:
~
- a. The T-quencher provides wider dispersal of the air inventory in the vent line with lower air clearing loads.
- b. The T-quencher provides wider dispersal of steam and enhances the condensation of steam.
- c. The T-quencher discharges steam without steam condensation instability at higher pool tempera-q} tures than the rams head device.
The changes to system; and structures are described in Sections 9.1 through 9.3. In most areas of the plant these changes were l minimal, since for most frequencies the rams head response 9.4-1
1 AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
- C:
O
+ r 4 ,
-t n b ' '-
( .. ,..... . . . -- ,r o , .. ....
,.. .. g (i, %
q .. . \.. . . . .
. . . . . <v> ........I...
y yG) i v v j
L
- g' " g* J L ,
+ .
t:1 lis r
js is Vt E W
- A,-M i
T::
l y MSR.V P\PG-b b s u c>t u G FtP E.
.a
/ \
f *l .
f 1 :: ..',.. .. ...- . ',)
< j . . . . . . 19 v
e s.
E i i l= =l 9 -
+ - p
/\
VIEW " B- B.. A WM. H. IIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT 1 MARK ll DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O FIGURE 9.4-1 T-QUENCHER DISCHARGE DEVICE
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
() 10.1.2 Structural Conservatism The margin factors listed in Section 7.0 are conservative for l the following reasons:
- a. The fact that the instantaneous peak responses l induced by loads such as earthquake, SRV discharge, LOCA, etc., do not occur simultaneously at all points along the circumference of the structure was conservatively neglected in the design.
- b. The amplified building response spectra for pool l dynamic loads were widened by a factor of i 20% on either side of a peak rather than the conventional 2 15% as per Regulatory Guide 1.22.
- c. In load combinations, the effects of individual loads l are magnified by a load factor to account for probable overloads.
- d. Current ASME Code for the design of concrete containment structures (ACI-359) treats thermal stresses as self-limiting secondary stresses and permits yielding of the reinforcing steel when thermal loads occur in a load combination. However,
('1 k/ the structural design criteria for the ZPS-1 containment are very conservative and more stringent than the current practice and do not permit yielding of the reinforcing steel even under thermal loads,
- e. Material understrength factors (4-factors) built into the allowable stress criteria will lead to actual safety margins larger than those computed.
10.1.3 Mechanical Conservatisms r
10.1.3.1 Conservatisms in BOP Pipino Analysis Conservatisms incorporated in the BOP piping analysis are out-lined in the following:
- a. The envelope of the SRVgg TQ and SRV TQ was used for all SRV loads in the hoad combina5Yons where the SRVALLTO load was required,
- b. The SRVALLTO 'all valve discharge) load was used in lieu of the SRV ADS TO (ADS valve discharge).
O 10.1-2
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
- c. The condensation oscillation (CO) load used the envelope of both the high mass flux and medium mass flux Zimmer empirical limiting CO load as defined in Chapter 1.0.
- d. The CO load combia. . ion which included the envelope of both the high ma.s and medium mass flux Zimmer empirical limiting (O load also included the envelope of SRV 4LnT O and SRV .vTO and the SSE loads. The Zimmer empirical lim;itlng CO Icad is defined in Chapter 1.0.
- e. The piping stresses and support loads were added by the absolute sum method. Exceptions are noted in the piping stress reports; however, annulus pressurization (AP) and safe-shutdown earthquake (SSE) loads were combined by the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method.
- f. The piping subsystem analyses were performed using the enveloped response spectra method.
- g. The analyses used the maximum (or design) operating pressure and temperature for all load combinations.
The actual pressures and temperatures would be lower
() if actual plant conditions during a shutdown period were used (e.g.,_ actual RPV pressure and temperatures following an SRV discharge).
- h. The minimum valve closure time was used in calculating transient loads.
- i. All reactor building restraint loads and piping l attached to the outer suppression pool wall near mid-center (excluding instrumentation lines) were increased by a factor of 1.33 or higher times the rams head design load to account for the uncertainties in T-quencher and LOCA loads that had been completely analyzed at the time of reassessment.
The majority of restraint loads actually decreased l from the rams head load, thus providing a factor greater than 1.33 for those restraints. This is conservative procedure that allows continuation of redesign and reassessment without delaying the project schedule.
- j. All instrumentation lines and small-bore piping using a simplified method of dynamic analysis were designed to the envelope of the raas head and T-quencher loads for all response spectra in a particular area.
3 s/ For example, all response spectra inside the drywell, including the spectra for the RPV, drywell floor, biological shield wall, and containment wall, were
( 10.1-3 i , , __.
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 pl se CHAPTER 11.0 - CONCLUSIONS All suppression pool hydrodynamic loads which have been con-sidered in the final assessment of the Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station are identified in this report. The report in-cludes summary descriptions and references appropriate documents for more detailed descriptions of the very conservative forcing functions applied for this final loading assessment. The forcing functions used in the loading assessment include the Mark II containment lead plant information and other informa-tion which has been used in response to comments from the NRC staff and consultants. With the information included in or referenced by this report, the NRC staff will have adequate information to determine that suppression pool hydrodynamic loads have been satisfactorily identified, described, and used for the final ZPS-1 assessment.
The forcing functions utilized for loss-of-coolant-accident (LOCA) loads are based primarily on the results of full-scale tests which simulate Mark II containment conditions. In our judgment, the LOCA forcing functions described in this report and used in ZPS-1 design / assessment are conservative and con-sistent with NRC acceptance requirements.
I)
The forcing functions utilized for loads associated with the operation of the safety / relief valve (SRV) in ZPS-1 design /
assessment were those developed for a T-quencher discharge device. The load definition is supported by full-scale, single-cell tests of an actual Mark II quencher and was shown to be conservative. On the basis of these assessments, it is our judgment that ZPS-1 will satisfactorily withstand the loads and load combinations resulting from the T-quencher forcing functions described in this report.
Both sets of forcing functions, LOCA and SRV, included within the Zimmer Empirical Loads, not only meet or exceed DFFR and NUREG-0487 (Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria), but are also conservative in certain areas.
The final ZPS-1 assessment, including suppression pool hydro-dynamic loads, has been completed. The assessment was per-formed, as described in this report, using conservative load combinations, acceptance criteria, and load methodology.
Some items have been treated in a more conservative manner for
~
ZPS-1 than established in the dynamic forcing functions report (NEDO-21061) of the Mare II Owners Group or as required by the Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria (NUREG-0487) and its two supplements. Based on the information included in or referenced by this report, the NRC staff will have adequate information to determine that suppression pool hydrodynamic loads have been
(~)
adequately included in the final design assessment for ZPS-l.
11.0-1
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
/~T
\- APPENDIX G SUBMERGED STRUCTURE METHODOLOGY TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE G SUBMERGED STRUCTURE METHODOLOGY G.1-1 G.1 INTRODUCTION G.1-1 G.2 DETERMINATION OF DRAG AND LIFT COEFFICIENTS FOR UNSTEADY FLOW G.2-1 G.2.1 Introduction G.2-1 G.2.2 LOCA-Charging Air Bubble G.2-4 G.2.3 Pool Swell G.2-5 G.2.4 Fallback G.2-7 G.2.5 .SRV Air Bubbles G.2-8 G.2.6 References G.2-9 G.3 INTERFERENCE EFFECTS G.3-1 G.3.1 Interference Effects on Acceleration Drag G.3-1
.r\~N) G.3.1.1 Introduction G.3-1 G.3.1.2 Method of Analysis G.3-1 G.3.1.2.1 Two Stationary Cylidners (Real Cylinders) G.3-2 G.3.1.2.2 Stationary Cylidners Near a Plane Boundary (Real anc Imaginary Cylinders) G.3-4 i C.3.1.2.3 Total Acceleration Drag Force G.3-5 G.3.1.2.4 Practical Application G.3-5 G.3.1.3 Model/ Data Comparisons
~
~U ;3-7 "'- --
G.3.1.4 References G.3-8 G.3.2 Interference Effects on Standard Drag G.3-9 G.3.2.1 Introduction G.3-9 G.3.2.2 Interference Between Two cylidners of-Equal Diameter G.3-9 G.3.2.2.1 Interference Between More Than Two Cylinders of Equal Diameter G.3-9 i G.3.2.2.2. Drag on Small Cylinder Upstream of Large Cylinder G.3-11 G.3.2.2.3 Standard Drag on Smaller Cylinder Down-stream of Large Cylinder G.3-13 G.3.2.2.4 Standard Drag on the Large Cylinder G.3-14 Structures of Non-Circualr Cross-Section G.3-14 i G.3.2.2.5 i
G.3.2.2.6 Interference Between Non-Parallel l Cylinders G.3-14 l
G.3.2.3 References G.3-15 F
G-i
2PS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982 O loading on the structure. Therefore, only the SRVALLTO load was selected. For the governing horizotital loads, the SRVAgyTQ generated boundino spectra over the SRV TQ load. Thus, only the governing SRVAsyTQ was used for the'gntcomparative study as the governing horizontal SRV load.
The load combinations considered for the T-quencher loads can be illustrated as follows:
LOAD COMBINATION ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA N+0BE+SRV3nt TQ Service Level B N+0BE+SR,yggyTO Service Level B The SRVgtn TQ and SRVggyTO loads were evaluated using a 1% damping coefficient.
The SRV T-quencher loads were combined with the seismic (OBE) load by both the absolute sum (ABSUM) and the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method. The results-were compared to the SRV rams head load, which used the absolute sum method of combination.
O 1
l t C:)
i e
H.2-2
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 17 FEBRUARY 1982
~
1.2 LEAD PLANT CONDENSATION OSCILLATION (CO) AND CHUGGING LOAD DEFINITIONG BASED ON 4TCO In order to confirm the adequacy of the Zimmer design basis -
in light of the results of the Mark II Owners' Group 4TCO test and the Japanese Atomic Energy Resarch Institute (JAERI)
Full-Scale Multivent LOCA test, load definitions developed from the 4TCO data and verified as conservative with the available JAERI data were compared to the design basis.
These load definitions were generated to permit this assess-mant and do not alter the Zimmer Design Basis.
1.2.1 Lead Plant (4TCO) Condensation Oscillation Load Definition The CO load definition developed from the 4TCO data for Lead Plant assessment is fully described in Reference 1.
The load definition is a set of pressure time histories which bound all the applicable 4TCO Condensation oscillation data.
There are two parts of the CO load definition. The first is a load definition which bounds all the 4TCO data taken under blowdown conditions which could be conservatively
(~T predicted to occur during a LOCA in the Zimmer station.
'/ This load was defined using all the 4TCO Condensation Oscillation data except for a small amount of data taken with a pool temperature well above that which could occur during the CO regime of a LOCA in the Zimmer station.
The maximum applicable temperature for Zimmer under the most conservative conditions is predicted to be less than 135' F during CO. All of the CO data recorded with pool temperatures not exceeding 140 F was used in the definition of the Lead Plant CO Load.
Predictions of the Zimmer LOCA transients were examined to determine the conditions which might exist during the actuation of the Automatic Depressurization System _ (ADS) .
This indicated that ADS discharge will not occur coincident with CO loading. However, to ensure conservatism and to be consistent with the Zimmer Empirical Load the predicted conditions corresponding to ADS were expanded and a CO load was defined from the corresponding 4TCO data. This second CO load was used to assess the impact of load combinations including both ADS and CO.
I.2.2 Lead Plant (4TCO) Chugging Load Definition f3 The lead plant chugging load definition based on the 4TCO
(,) chugging data is fully described in Reference 2. The load definition is.a set of averaged time histories which con-servatively represent the most severe loads anticipated in the Zimmer station.
I.2-1