ML20076G918

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Amend 18 to Zimmer Power Station Mark-II Design Assessment Rept
ML20076G918
Person / Time
Site: Zimmer
Issue date: 08/31/1983
From:
CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20076G917 List:
References
RTR-NUREG-0808, RTR-NUREG-808 NUDOCS 8309010187
Download: ML20076G918 (1)
v • d • e


Text

-

ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983 O 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 Page viii (Cont'd) Page vili (Cont'd)

Page ix Page ix chapter 2.0 Pages 2.1-7 through 2.1-9 Pages 2.1-7 through 2.1-9 Figure 2.1-6 Figure 2.1-6 Chapter 5.0 Page 5.0-3 Page 5.0-3 Page 5.2-12 Page 5.2-12 Chapter 6.0 Page 6.1-2 Page 6.1-2 Page 6.3-1 Page 6.3-1 j Page 6.3-8 Page 6.3-8 Chapter 7.0 Page 7.1-5 Page 7.1-5

, Page 7.1-8 Pag e 7.1-8 l Page 7.1-10a Page 7.1-10a l

Pag e 7.1-13 Page 7.1-13 l

Page 7.1-31 Page 7.1-31

! Page 7.1-35 Page 7.1-35 Page 7.3-4 Page 7.3-4 Appendix J (Newl After page I.5-1 TAB for Appendix J; pages J-i through J-iv; J.1-1; J.2 1.;

J.3-1 through J.3-12 and l Figures J.3-1 and J.3-2; J.4-1 and J.4-2; J.5-1 and J.5-2; and J.6-1 1

8309010187 830831 PDR ADCOK 05000358 A PDR

l ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983 i

. TABLE OF CONTENTS (Con t' d )

PAGE APPENDIX I LEAD PLANT CO AND CHUGGING DEFINITION REPORT I.1-1 APPENDIX J CONFIRMATORY ASSESSMENT AGAINST NUREG-0808 LOADS J.1-1 O

O viii (Con t ' d )

I ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983 THE hM. H. 7IMMER NUCLEAR POWEP STATION - UNIT 1

("'))

s. _ MARK II DESIGN ASSESSMFNT REPOPT LIST OF TABLES MMMPE9 _

JITLE PAGE 2.1-1 Plant Modifications 2,1-7 2.1-2 Structures Assessed by SRSS Load Combination 2.1-9 l 4

2.2-1 Piping Accettancc Criteria 2.2-7

2.2-2 Load combinations and Acceptance Criteria 2.2-P 2.2-3 Drvwell Piping Assessment: Comparison of Piping Support Load Magnitudes (UPF ET-B) 2. 2- 10 2.2-4 Drywell Piping Assessment: Comparison of Pipirg Support Ioad Magnitudes 2 (FMEPGENCY-C) 2. 2-11

! 2. ?- 5 Drywell Piping Stress Assessment 2.2-12 2.2-6 Piping overstress 2.2-13 2.2-7 Piping Stress Summary 2. 2- 14 2.2-8 Load Combinations Fvaluated for the

! Wetwell Pipino 2.2-15

) 2. 5- 1 Summary of Load Cases for Equipment I for Study Purposes 2. 5- 3 2.5-2 Loal Case Definitions 2. 5- 4

' 2.5-3 Feview of Previous Pesults 2.5-5 2.5-4 t:SSS Safety-2 elated Components Assessed 2.5-6

2. 5- 5 14SSS Safety-Pelated Components Assessed 2.5-7
2.5-6 Zimmer Aain Steam System Calculated

.3nubber Loads 2.5-8

?.5-7 Zimmer F ecirculation System Calculated 3nubber Loads 2.5-9 l 2.6-1 NSSS Equipment Final Assessment 2.6-2 l 3.2-1 List of Equipment Peing Monitored During

! In Situ SRV Test 3.2-2 3.3-1 Test Matrix 3.3-3 3.3-2 Test Matrix - Definition of Abbreviations l and Footnotes 3.3-5 1 4.0-1 Primary Containment Principal Design i Paramete rs and Characteristics 4.0-2

( 5.2-1 SRV Discharge Line Clearing Transient Parameterization 5.2-15 5.2-2 SUV Eubtle Cynamics Parameterization 5. 2- 10 5.2-1 Transier t Analysis Assumptions 5. 2- 17 i 5.2-4 Relief valvc Inputs - Zimmer

Analysis 5.2-18 l 5.2-5 Zirmer Trancients Pesults 5. 2- 10

! 5.3-1 Acoustic Loadino on Peactor Pressure Vessel Shroud 5.3-23 5.4-1 Zimmer Posit ion on 1;FC Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria (NUREG-0497 and NUPEG-0487, Supplement No. 1)  ;.4-2 ix

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ -_ __ ~ ._.

ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983 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

() DRYWELL Upgrade approximately 10% of drywell steel Upgrade embedment capacity Add 15% new snubbers Upgrade 25% of snubbers and rigid struts ,

i (Approximately 440 total snubbers and 180 rigid struts in l i drywell)

Reinforce HVAC supports i

l i

O 2.1-7 l

i ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983 1

TABLE 2.1-1 (Cont'd)

I 4 OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT

  • i ,

! 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 rigid struts in Rx I building)

Upgrade HVAC supports ,

i Upgrade cable tray and conduit supports l*

All equipment and foundations j Upgrade all reactor building structures 1

O t

l l

r i

O 2.1-8

ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983

() TABLE 2.1-2 STRUCTURES ASSESSED BY SRSS LOAD COMBINATION

a. Downcomers
b. Downcomer Bracing
c. Drywell Structural Steel
d. RPV Holddown Bolts
e. Downcomer Reaction Loads on the Drywell Floor
f. Piping Support and Bracing Reaction Loads on the Pedestal
g. Selected Piping and Component Supports
h. Elevation 520 ft - Tube Steel Under Drywell Floor O

2.1-9

?

1 i

l

! i 1

l 1

i I

tlote l

0. 5.

l The power values correspond to the power i N associated with a 1 Hz interval. I 1 x i t

w '

j %m i

i S 0.4.  :

I

& i 1 -

, m z

4 w

I. a 0.3_ ,

1 e cc I u I "  ;

I  ;

i -I m 1

=

0.18 i

9 x .I $ 0. 2. -

l =

i o > N o 1 mu a -I c'

-4 o x r I ,

m :c- 8 5

D m - m a l

xx

~

- 2 < 1 0

I UE mm m e E o 0.1- l 1

Ho

- n ~ I

- -4 a" O r e i O :D c z m W i 1

> x > e i 1,

or m > z l m @ g 1

no m e o 0.02

' -m - m  ;

-I rz rm

- m 4 i, i

e m 5'O j $~

  • I m m

0 5 10 l'5 2'O 23 2'5 3'O 3'S 4'O 4'5

- -c m 3on i$

3 -4 FREQUENCY (H7) 22 c2 om n

m -O c=

o -a 1 me .

i == 2 -42 i O -

j -r ,i m 3 C .mz z w , e -4 l

i -4 e cp

\ ~4 w*+

l  !

i l 4  ;

l . . _ _ . _ _ _ -_ -. _

ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983

() 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.

i These conservatisms are discussed in Chapter 10.0 of this report.

These additional pool dynamic 1 cads are significant, however, when compared to the original design basis for the downcomer, l piping, and equipment. Therefore,. design modifications have been implemented in these areas which will allow these addi-tional loads to be safel3 accommodated by meeting all code requirements. These modifications are discussed in Chapter 9.0 of this report. ,

,i 4

1

/

r 4

O 5.0-3 '

,-r,--e-m,,,, - ---v--,-- -er, w.,- m - - , , , ,- - , >--,-s---e , q q y , y.;. -- -v.--g- ,

e.-- ,-, +q e w. . . . .. . .. -- . - - , < -. , , ,

ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGubT 1983

.s 5.2.2.2.1 Single 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 6 conservative increase in the azimuthal angle of the single valve load, this results in an almost uniform distribution. For additional conservatirm, 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.

l 5.2.2.4 Quencher submerged Structure Loads Submerged structure loads are affected by geometric changes in the pool because these loads are local loads. The change in disenarge device location was assessed by using the existing submerged structure metnodology 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 T-quencher and X-quencher devices I is used as described in Subsection 2.1.6.2. The bubble fre-quency range la reported in Subsection 5.2.2.1.

5.2-12

ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983 O-SRV-Single Actuation of one valve.

'The LOCA loads are denoted by Pg and P in the load combination

, table and represent three possible pipeB 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 P A 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.

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 conse vatism.

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 reak responses of each load by the ABS method with the exception of AP + SSE case where SRSS method is used. This is h')

conserv.cive, and the SRSS method is more appropriate, since the peak responses of all loads ao not occur simultaneously. However, '

except for limited COmpon?nts as noted in Table 2.1-2, the con-servative ABS method is usec in the design.

6.1-2

ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983 (J~h C.3 OTHER STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS 6.3.1 Load Combinations The load combinations, including pool dynamic loads considered 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.

The load 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 for the downcomers and l downcomer bracing system are listed in Table 6.3-3.

For concrete structures, the peak effects resulting from 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.

~' Acceptance Criteria 6.3.2 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 315-1971. 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:

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.

O 6.3-1

, ~8 ,

G 'sY G

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 8 7 ) DESIGN-BASIS CRITERIA 1 N+SRV N+SRV B (UPSET)

X l 2 N+SRV X+0BE N+ (SRV) 2 + (OBE) 1 B (UPSET) g

$i 3 N+SRV +SSE N+ (SRV)2 + (SSE) 2 C (EMERGENCY)

'z

) 7

. 4 N+SRVADS+IBA(SBA) N (SRV) 2 + (CHUG) 2 C (EMERGENCY) 5 N+ (SRV) 2 + (OBE) 2 + (CHUG) 2 C (EMERGENCY)

N+SRVADS+0BE+IBA (SBA) [

o 6

N+SRVADS+ E+IBA (SBA) N+ (SRV)2 + (SSE) 2 + (CHUG) 2 C (EMERGMCY) $

7 N+SSE+DBA N (SSE) 2 + (CO) 2 C (EMERGENCY) 8 N N A (NORMAL) 9 N+0BE N+0BE B (UPSET) $@

OE 10 N+SRVy+SSE+DBA -

CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ONLY JUSTIFICATION PROVIDED BY GE.

g

$gd

"~ *)3

ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983

() 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.

7.1.2.1 Vent Clearing Analysis The description of vent clearing load for analysis is presented in Section 5.3 and in DFFR Section 4.2. The spatial distri-butions of the LOCA vent clearing load on the wetted surface of the suppression pool are shown in Figure 7.1-17 for the 4 rams 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 the vent 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.

The containment structure was analyzed for the effects of the 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 The postulated pool swell phenomena induced loads are described in Subsection 5.3.1.3.3 and in DFFR Subsection 4.2.4.4.

Using the model descrlbed in Subsection 7.1.2.1, the containment structure was analyzed for two load cases for the LOCA pool 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 wecwell air space is given in Figure 7.1-10. Curve A O

7.1-5

ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983 i

The method used for T-quencher loading described in Subsection 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.

J The chugging 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 chugging load were used only for the drywell floor, the reactor pedestal, and the RPV internals.

For the assessment of the drywell floor and tne reactor pedestal, the forces due to this chugging load based on the Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria were combined with the other appropriate leads as per 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 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 a 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 j' to reduce loads on the drywell floor, the analysis that is summarized in this subsection proves that the drywell floor has i

' maintained its structural adequacy despite the addition of new 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 j seismic loads were also considered in the analysis. These considerations assumed that all of the downcomers were loaded l 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 with a circular hole in the middle. The slab is assumed to be l

O fully restrained at the pedestal and containment walls and simply supported at the columns. The model of the drywell floor'is i

I shown in Figure 7.1-17.

7.1-8

.= _-.-. - - -_-_ . .

ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983 O 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-cumferentia' force (shear, axial, and moments) components occurring in any combination is obtained. The design force at l each of the design sections is obtained by enveloping the  ;

resulting maximum forces in elements along all azimuthal I directions.

7.1.4 Desian Assessment Margin Factors 7.1.4.1 Critical Design Sections The primary containment and internal structures have been checked as to the structural capacity lo 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

ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983 These safety margins are in addition to the overload factors used O in the load combination equations given in Table 6.1-1 and the material understrength factors built into the allowable stress l

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.

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 O

, 7.1-13 i

{

(v)

TABLE 7.1-17 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 FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FAC'IOR SECTION EQUATION

  • _

1 1.20 2 3.55 3 2.35 3 2 2.20 2 2.95 3 3.29 3 y U3 3 1.61 2 2.38 3 1.59 2 0 4

4 NA NA NA NA NA NA j i x NA NA NA NA d 4a NA NA 5 NA NA NA NA NA NA e Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA 4

6 1.69 2 2.40 3 1.60 2 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1

7a NA NA NA NA NA NA 05 HZ

  • Refer to Table 6.1-1
  • Mar g in Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress y
      • Refer to Figure 7.1-32 m NA - Not Applicable Wy

. . _ . . _ _ _ _~.__ _ _ _ . . . _

J i O O O 1

). TABLE 7.1-21 I

j MARGIN TABLE FOR CONTAINMENT - ALL-VALVE SRV QUENCHER DISCHARGE (WITH PLANT-UNIQUE FSI, ACTUAL MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH, AND SSI SEISMIC FORCES) i e STRESS l COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR i LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL

, EQUATION

  • FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 83.02 1 2.68 1 1,55 13 i

! 2 6.46 9 2.64 13 2.26 6 s 1 .]

, 3 3.01 11 2.63 13 2.23 6

}

NA

) Y 4 NA NA NA NA NA h

o l

w

  • 4a NA NA NA NA NA NA-H 5 NA NA NA NA NA NA
e Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA *
6 2.70 11 2.64 13 2.23 6 i

j 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA i es mo i

  • Refer to Table 6.1-1 8%

l

    • Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress $$

a

      • Refer to Figure 7.1-32 NA = Not Applicable co j

i S __ _ _

't ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983 S

%_/ 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 the SRSS basis.

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 whs obtained 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: 1.25.
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:

b O

f 7.3-4

ZPS-1-MitRK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983

{

APPENDIX J CONFIRMATORY ASSESSMENT AGAINST NUREG-0808 LOADS TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE J.1 INTRODUCTION J.1-1 J.2 CONDENSATION OSCILLATION LOAD J.2-1 J.2.1 Load Definition J.2-1 J.2.2 Containment and Internal Structure Evaluation J.2-1 J.2.3 Response Spectra Comparisons J . 2 -1 J.2.4 Conclusion J.2-1 J.3 CHUGGING LOAD J 3-1

, J.3.1 Load Definition J.3-1 J.3.2 Evaluation of Containment J.3-1 J.3.2.1 Containment and Internal Concrete Structure J.3-1 O' J.3.2.1.1 Analysis for Chugging Loads J.3.2.1.2 Load Combinations J.3-2 J.3-2 J . 3 . 2.1. 3 Critical Design Sections and Acceptance

Criteria J.3-2 J.3.2.1.4 Design Forces and Margin Factors J.3-2 J.3.2.1.5 Conclusion J.3-3 J.3.2.2 Other Structural Components J.3-3 J.3.3 Evaluation of Piping and Equipment J.3-3 J.3.3.1 NSS Piping and Components J.3-3 l J.3.3.2 Balance-of-Plant (BOP) Piping J.3-3 J.3.3.2.1 Response Spectra Comparisons J.3-4 J.3.3.2.2 Evaluation J.3-5 J.3.3.3 BOP Equipment J.3-5 J.3.3.3.1 Method of Evaluation J.3-5 J.4 VENT LATERAL LOAD J.4-1 L

J.4.1 Load Definition J.4-1 J.4.2 Evaluation of Downcomer Vents and Bracing System J.4-2 i J.4.2.1 Analysis J.4-2 J.4.2.2 Load Combinations J 4-2 J.4.2.3 Acceptance Criteria J.4-2 i J.4.3 Conclusion J.4-2 l J-i i

ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983

)

i APPENDIX J TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)

PAGE i

J.5 DIAPHRAGM REVERSE PRESSURE LOAD J.5-1 J.5.1 Load Definition J.5-1 J.5.2 Evaluation of Drywell Floor J.5-1 J.5.2.1 Load Combination J.5-1 J.5.2.2 Analysis J.5-1

). J.S.2.3 Critical Design Sections and Acceptance l Criteria J.5-2 J.5.2.4 Assessment J.5-2 J.S.3 Conclusion J.5-2 J.6 REFERENCES J.6-1 O

i l

i l-i t

l l

t i

O t

J-il l

ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983 O

APPENDIX J CONFIRMATORY ASSESSMENT AGAINST NUREG-0808 LOADS LIST OF TABLES NUMBER TITLE PAGE J.3-1 Margin Table for Basemat - Asymmetric  !-

(Three-Valve) SRV Quencher Discharge J.3-7 J.3-2 Margin Table for Basemat - ADS SRV Quencher Discharge J.3-9 J.3-3 Margin Table for Basemat - Single-Valve SRV Quencher Discharge J.3-9 J.3-4 Margin Table for Containment - Asymmetric (Three-Valve) SRV Quencher Discharge J.3-10 J.3-5 Margin Table for Containment - ADS SRV Quencher Discharge J.3-ll J.3-6 Margin Table for Containment - Single-Valve SRV Quencher Discharg2 J.3-12 4

l O

J-iii

ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983 O '

! APPENDIX J l

CONFIRMATORY ASSESSMENT AGAINST NUREG-0808 LOADS LIST OF FIGURES NUMBER TITLE J.3-1 Typical Chugging Pressure Trace on Pool Boundary - Symmetric Case

) J.3-2 Response Spectra Locations l

1, O

)

i l e

i J

e O

I J-iv i

i

- - - . - , . , . , , - . , . . - . _ _ - . . .,c.--

~

i ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983 '

O APPENDIX J - CONFIRMATORY ASSESSMENT AGAINST NUREG-0808 LOADS J1 INTRODUCTION Mark II power plants were designed to loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) loads that included pressure and temperature loads. General Electric (GE) Company's test in the Pressure Suppression Test Fac ility (PSTF) identified additional LOCA loads. These included the short-term dynamic loads due to the drywell air / steam mixture being pushed through the downcomer vents and discharged into the suppression pool. Once these loads were identified, the Mark II Owners' Group Program was set up to examine the charac-teristics of these loads through test programs and by analytical models, and to define an acceptable design-basis load definition.

The program schedule, however , did not meet the needs of the licensing schedule of the Wm. H. Zimmer Power S tation (ZPS-1).

The needs of ZPS-1, as one of the lead Mark II plants, were then met by establishing a conservative set of LOCA loads for the design basis called the Zimmer Empirical Loads. This load set has been documented in Section 2.0 of the Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station Unit 1, Mark II Design Assessment Report (DAR).

While most of the LOCA load definitions provided by the Mark II Owners' Group Lead Plant Program were already included in the ZPS-1 design basis, the definitions for the condensation oscil-5

' lation (CO) and chugging loads were established later based on the 4TCO test results. As soon as the load definitions for CO and chugging laads became available, an assessment for these loads was made and the ZPS-1 design adequacy was confirmed.

l The documentation for this assessment has been provided in Appendix I of the ZPS-1 DAR.

Finally, when the Mark II Owners' Group completed its long-term program, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued the generic j load definitions as documented in NUREG-0808, (Reference 1).

l Acknowledging that the ZPS-1, as one of the Mark II lead plants, had already been reviewed against the acceptance criteria iden-tified in NUREG-0487 and its Supplements 1 and 2 (Reference 21, the NRC requested that ZPS-1 perform a confirmatory assessment aiainst appropriate generic loads specified in NUREG-0808. These loads are the condensation oscillation load, chugging load, vent lateral load, and the diaphragm reverse pressure load (Reference 3). This Appendix documents the results of the requested assess-ment work completed to date and confirms that ZPS-1 can adequately accommodate the Condensation Oscillation Load and the Diaphragm Reverse Pressure Load specifications of the NUREG-0808. The assessment of the containment wall and basemat shows that these l structures can adequately accommodate the NUREG-0808 chugging load. Other structures and components are being evaluated and results of this evaluation will be documented on conclusion of the NUREG-0808 assessment work.

(

1 J.1-1

(

. . ~ - ,

ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983 C)

J.2 CONDENSATION OSCILLATION LOAD J.2.1 Load Definition The NUREG-0808 condensation oscillation (CO) load definition is based on the 4TCO test data. This load definition consists of two cases, the basic CO load and the CO load combined with automatic depressurization system (ADS) loads. Each of these two cases is described by a set of measured pressure-time histories selected so that the maximum power spectral density (PSD) observed for all applicable 4TCO test runs is bounded. As provided in NUREG-0808, the set of 4TCO test runs applicable to ZPS-1 is determined from the complete set of the 4TCO test runs by excluding from it those test runs for which the pool temperature exceeded the ZPS-1 bounding temperature. The CO loads were also adjusted for the differences in the geometry of the 4T test facility and ZPS-1.

J.2.2 Containment and Internal Structure Evaluation The NUREG-0808 CO load definition is identical to the ZPS-1 lead plant (4TCO) load definition as described in Section 5.5 and gg S ubsec tion 7.1. 4. 2. The containment and internal structures were evaluated against the lead plant loads and were found to

(_) be adequately designed for the loads.

J.2.3 Response Spectra Compar isons The response spectra comparisons between the design-basis spectra and the spectra resulting from the lead plant (4TCO) steam conden-sation loads have been documented in Appendix I.

J.2.4 Conclusion The NUREG-0808 CO load , wh ich is identical to the ZPS-1 lead plant load, has already been assessed and documented in Appendix I. The response spectra comparisons in Appendix I show that the Zimmer Empirical Loads did provide a conservative design basis and resulted in a design which can accommodate the NUREG-0808 CO loads.

I i

i J.2-1

ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983 O J.3 CHUGGING LOAD J.3.1 Load Definition The NUREG-0808 chugging load definition for ZPS-1 application is based on 10 acoustic design sources inf erred f rom the 4TCO data (Reference 4). The design sources are applied to the INEGS/ MARS acoustic model (Reference 5) of the suppression pool to obtain the forcing functions. Each of the design sources is applied, one at a time, desynchronized to all vents in the suppression pool. The set of chug start times used in the one set having the smallest variance in 1000 Monte Carlo trials which were drawn from a uniform distribution of start times having a width of 50 msec. The start times are randomly assigned to the vents.

The rigid-wall method is used in determining the suppression pool boundary pressures from the point design sources; fluid structure interactions are taken into account in the structural analytical models.

Two design chugging load cases are determined: the symmetric chugging load case and the asymmetric chugging load case. The difference between the two cases is in the design source strength.

For the symmetric chugging load case, the design source strength is that inferred from the 4TCO test data. For the asymmetric chugging load case, the asymmetry is obtained by determining h./

i N- a design moment axis and then adjusting the source strengths used in the symmetric case, by the factor (1+a) on the one side of the design moment axis and by the factor (1-a) on the other side of the design moment axis and the parameter a is based on plant specific data (Reference 5).

The methodology described in the previous paragraphs was used to calculate point pressure histories on the ZPS-1 suppression pool boundary. A typical pressure history is shown in Figure J.3-1. A sensitivity study was per formed to determine the necessary number of pressure points on the suppression pool boundary resulting in a good representation of the pressure distribution on the boundary at any time during the chugging transient.

1 J.3.2 Evaluation of Containment J.3.2.1 Containment and Internal Concrete Structures 6

The containment and internal concrete structures are reevaluated for the NUREG-0808 chugging loads. The details of the analysis and the load combinations considered for the reevaluation are su mma r iz ed in the following subsections.

O J.3-1 i

ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983 O J.3.2.1.1 Analysis for Chugging Loads The forc ing functions for the chugging loads used in this analysis are defined in Subsection J.3.1.

The analytical model used in the analysis for the chugging loads is the same as described in Subsection 7.1.2. A time-history analysis was performed for each load case by the direct integration method using Sargent & Lundy's axisymmetric finite element computer prog ram DYNAX described in Appendix A.

i The 10 sources 801 to 810 were applied separately to the plant to obtain the structural response. The envelope of the responses from all 10 sources was then used in the plant evaluation.

Acceleration time histories obtained from the analysis were then used to generate response spectra for 9"Ssystem and equipment assessment at selected locations within the reactor building using the computer program RSG described in Appendix A.

J.3.2.1.2 Load Combinations The conta inment and internal concrete structures are assessed for the applicable load combinations discussed in Section 6.1

() and presented in Table 6.1.1.

The load categories considered for the assessment of the NUREG-0808 chugging loads consist of the following:

a. abnormal loads,
b. abnormal loads with severe environmental loads, and
c. dbnormal loads with extreme environmental loads.

J . 3. 2.1. 3 Critical Design Sections and Acceptance Criteria The critical design sections considered are described in Subsection 7.1.4.1. The acceptance criteria are the same as described in Section 6.1.

a J.3.2.1.4 Design Forces and Margin Factors The design forces for the critical sections were obtained by combining the peak effects of all the loads by the ABS method.

The stresses at the critical design sections were obtained using computer program TEMCO IV described in Appendix A.

O J.3-2

ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983 O Margin f actors, defined as the ratio between the allowable stress and the actual stress in the section, were computed for each design section.

Margin f actors for the basemat and containment wall are reported in the following tables:

a. Basemat - Tables J.3-1 through J.3-3
b. Containment wall - Tables J.3-4 through J.3-6 The reactor support and the drywell floor are being assessed for the NUREG-0808 loads. Margin f actors for these structures will be provided upon completion of this work.

J.3.2.1.5 Conclusion The containment and basemat have been evaluated for the NUREG-0808 chugging loads. The evaluation shows that the ZPS-1 design of the containment and basemat can accommodate the NUREG-0808 chugging loads. The assessment of the reactor support and the drywell floor is in progress and their adequacy will be confirmed.

J.3.2.2 Other Structural Components Representative floor response spectra have been generated for the NUBEG-0808 loads, exceedences in the high frequency zone have been identified, and other structural components, such as

! cable pan and conduit hangers, HVAC ducts and duct supports, i pipe support auxiliary steel, structural galleries, and block walls are being evaluated for the exceedences. Results of this evaluation will be provided on completion of the NUREG-0808 loads assessment work.

i J.3.3 Evaluation of Piping and Equipment i

J.3.3.1 NSS Piping and Components The NSSS piping and components under GE's responsibility have been designed on the basis of the same loading inputs which have been used for the balance-of-plant structures, piping, and other components. Assessment of the NSSS Piping and Components for the NUREG-0808 loads is in progress and its results will be provided on comple tion of th is e f f or t .

i J.3.3.2 Balance-of-Plant (BOP) Piping The NUREG-0808 generic chugging load is defined in Subsection J.3.1. The BOP piping and equipment are being reassessed for J.3-3

ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983 fy NUREG-0808 chugging using the design-basis load combinations listed in Subsection J.3.3.2.1 with the NUREG-0808 chugging and CO replacing the design-basis chugging and CO.

J.3.3.2.1 Response Spectra Comparisons At selected locations within the reactor building, three response spectra envelopes are being plotted and compared. The model and the locations where responses are compared are shown in Figure J.3.2. The response spectra envelopes are design-basis load combinations (ABS); design-basis load combinations (SRSS); and load combinations with NUREG-0808 loads (SRSS ) .

a. ENVELOPE OF DESIGN-BASIS LOADING COMBINATIONS (ABS),

ABS of (OBE + SRVLSPA + Empirical Design col)

ABS of (SSE + SRVLSPA + Empirical Design C01)

ABS of (OBE + SRVSYM/ ASYM + Empirical Design CO2)

ABS of (SSE + SRVSYM/ ASYM + Empirical Design CO2)

ABS of (OBE + SRVSYM/ ASYM + Empirical Design Chugging)

ABS of (SSE + SRVSYM/ ASYM + Empirical Design Chugging)

b. ENVELOPE OF DESIGN-BASIS LOADING COMBINATIONS (SRSS)

SRSS of (OBE + SRVLSPA + Empirical Design col)

SRSS of (SSE + SRVLSPA + Empirical Design col) l SRSS of (OBE + SRVSYM/ ASYM + Empirical Design CO2)

SRSS of (SSE + SRVSYM/ ASYM + Empirical Design CO2)

SRSS of (OBE + SRVSYM/ ASYM + Empirical Design Chugging)

SRSS of (SSE + SRVSYM/ ASYM + Empirical Design Chugging)

c. ENVELOPE OF LOADING COMBINATIONS WITH NUREG-0808 CHUGGING AND CO LOADS i

SRSS of (OBE + SRVLSPA + NUREG-0808 CO) f SRSS of (SSE + SRVLSPA + NUREG-0808 CO)

- SRSS of (OBE + S RVSYM/AS YM + NUREG-080 8 CO)

G J.3-4 l

1

ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983 SRSS of (SSE + SRVSYM/ ASYM + NUREG-0808 CO)

SRSS of (OBE + SRVSYM/ ASYM + NUREG-0808 SYM Chugging) 1 SRSS of (SSE + SRVSYM/ ASYM + NUREG-0808 SYM Chugging)

SRSS of (OBE + SRVSYM/ ASYM + NUREG-0808 ASYM Chugging)

SRSS of (SSE + SRVSYM/ ASYM + NUREG-0808 ASYM Chugging)

Where:

ABS = Absolute sum; ASYM = Asymmetric; 4

LSPA = Low setpoint actuation MSRV case; MSRV = Main steam relief valve; OBE = Design-basis OBE load; SRSS = Square F,oot of sum of squares; SRVLSP = Load setpoint actuation MSRV load case; SSE = Design-basis SSE load 1% damping; and SYM = Symmetric.

J.3.3.2.2 Evaluation

Representative floor response spectra have been generated for the NUREG-0808 loads, exceedences in the high frequency zone

( have been identified, and the BOP piping is being evaluated.

l l

Results of this evaluation will be provided on completion of the NUREG-0808 confirmatory reassessment effort.

J.3.3.3 BOP Equipment The BOP equipment is being reassessed for the NUREG-0808 loads using the design-basis load combination listed in Subsection i

6.4.3 with the NUREG-0808 chugging and CO replacing the design-basis chugging and CO.

J.3.3.3.1 Method of Evaluation The envelope of the load combinations listed in Subsection 6.4.3.1 is being used for comparison. The existing design-basis chugging j and CO loads were replaced by NUREG-0808 generic chugging and

% CO loads.

J.3-5

ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983 Representative floor response spectra have been generated for t the NUREG-0808 loads, exceedences in the high frequency zone i

have been identified, and the BOP equipment is being evaluated.

Results of this evaluation will be provided on completion of the NUREG-0808 confirmatory reassessment effort.

i i

1 i

O i

i i

I I

lO 4

J.3-6 l

,----,--,.-n___---,,-.,,,,,-._..,--.,.,--_--,-,-- .. -----. . _... -,- ..--.- ----. - ..._.,,- , ,,,,- .

l O O O TABLE J.3-1 l

l MARGIN TABLE FOR BASEMAT - ASYMMETRIC (THREE-VALVE) SRV QUENCHER DISCHARGE (With Plant-unique FSI, Actual Minimum Concrete Strength, And SSI Seismic Forces) i i STRESS j COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR LOAD I

COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITI CAL * *

  • MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL I

EQUATION

  • FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION i

l 1 1.47 2 3.78 3 2.43 3 I

i 2 2.37 3 3.08 3 3.42 3 N

! 5 1 3 1.89 3 2.46 3 1.59 2 .4

)

i 4 1.48 2 2.56 2 1.69 3 $

! ." ie i w 4a NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 y H

5 1.29 2 2.31 2 1.30 3 e i >

Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 1.88 3 2.47 3 1.60 2 j

7 1.39 2 2.34 2 1.27 3 a

l 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA i

>5 8

CZ f r.n o i

e~

j

  • Refer to Table 6.1-1. gh

] ** Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress, ee I *** Refer to Figure 7.1-32. wr NA = Not Applicable. "

].

I

O O O 1

l 1

TABLE J.3-2 MARGIN TABLE FOR BASEMAT - 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 s 3 NA NA NA E

NA NA NA i 7

o 4 1.28 2 2.33 2 1.61 3 g Y 4a NA NA NA NA NA NA s

5 "

1.15 2 2.08 2 1.26 3 Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 1.16 2 2.12 2 1.23 3 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA y

$ to 85

  • REfdr'to'TEb5E~5.~12U ~ k
    • Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress. Gk
      • Refer to Figure 7.1-32.
  • g NA = Not Applicable. m

i

)

O O O 4

i

, TABLE J.3-3 l

MARGIN TABLE FOR BASEMAT - SINGLE-VALVE SRV QUENCHER DISCHARGE (With Plant-unique FSI, Actual Minimum Concrete Streng ch, And SSI Seismic Forces)

STRESS

, COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR

! LOAD l COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL j EQUATION

  • FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 4 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA '

i i 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA I

y ,

3 NA NA NA NA NA NA y 4 NA NA NA NA NA NA '

h

F 4a 1.28 2 2.27 2 1.51 3 $

! Y s l c 5 NA NA NA NA NA NA H l o

}

Sa 1.14 2 2.08 2 1.20 3 y i

! 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1

7 NA NA NA NA NA NA

! 7a 1.15 2 2.10 2 1.17 3 a tn

  • R5f EI't5 TEbf 5 ~5. -17~ @@ ,
  • Marg in Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress. 82
      • Refer to Figure 7.1-32. s NA = Not Applicable.
  • i ,

1 . __

.- . . . _ . _ - . = . - _ . . _ _ . . - . .

{

l O O O 4

i TABLE J.3-4 MARGIN TABLE FOR CONTAINMENT - ASYMMETRIC (THREE-VALVE) SRV QUENCHER DISCHARGE (With Plant-unique FSI, Actual Minimum Concrete Strength, And SSI Seismic Forces)

, STRESS i COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR

! LOAD l COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL j EQUATION

  • FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 NA NA 2.86 1 1.81 13 2 6.73 9 2.65 13 2.25 6 N

3 2.95 11 2.64 13 2.24 6 0 4 1.67 10 2.67 13 2.08 12 Y f 4a NA NA NA NA NA NA $

w 5 1.34 1 2.62 1 2.13 12 U

o e

] Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA y l 6 2.85 11 2.65 13 2.23 6 7 1.50 12 2.66 13 2.19 12 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA E$

en i

  • Refer to Table 6.1-1. $$M
    • Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress.
      • Refer to Figure 7.1-32. gb g

NA = Not Applicable. ws co 1

_ _ . _ _ - - . . _ _ . _ _ . _ . - ---- -_ . - . . - - _ _ -- ~- _ - _ _ _-._m. __. --

O O O t

l ,

j TABLE J.3-5

?

! MARGIN TABLE FOR CONTAINMENT - ADS SRV QUENCHER DISCHARGE (With Plant-unique FSI, Actual Minimum Concrete Streng th, And SSI Seismic Forces) s TRESS

MPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPR3SSION SHEAR
LOAD COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITI CAL * *
  • MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL
EQUATION
  • FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 ., NA NA g NA NA NA NA l 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA

> . .e g

l 3 NA NA NA NA NA NA $'

/

4 1.54 10 ,2.64 13 1.86 12 Y

., , y 4a NA NA NA. NA NA ~ i NA y y 5 ,

1.41 12 2.64 13 1.93 12 ,[

Sa NA NA NA NA NA .. NA~

p, O

p 1

, 6 NA NA NA NA 'NA NA t 7- 1.26 12 2.64 13 l.99 ,12

! 7a NA NA ,

NA NA NA NA 3

9 o te

] -

CZ j *REEEE to T5bfE~671217~ '

$@M l ** Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress.

      • Refer to Figure 7.1-32. -

U$

NA = Not Applicable.

  • y i 1

7 m

wS 1 ., /

) - .

_._ ___ __ __.m. .. .. ._ _ . _ _ - _ - ~ _ _ . _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ . . , . _ _ - . _ . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ , , _ . .

4 ~ e ,

^ O O _

.. O r

?

TABLE J.3-6' _ . -

s l MARGIN TABLE FOR CONTAINMENT - SINGLE-VALVE SRV QUENCHER DISCHARGE j (With Plant-unique FSI, Actual Minimum Concrete Strength, And SSI Seismic Forces) i

! STRESS COMPONENT REINFORCING TENSION CONCRETE COMPRESSION SHEAR

LOAD - < ,

y COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIF CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION

  • __ x JACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION l

j 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA I 2 NA NA NA LNA NA ,.

NA 4'

c4

]

3 NA NA NA NA NA ,

NA, y i i l 4 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7

! o E I -

4a 1.45 10 2.61 1 20 2 w

i 5 NA NA NA NA NA NA H

[

)i Sa 1.10 1 2.47 1 2.06 12 @

I j 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7a 1.18 12 2.64 13 2.11 12

]

cg

)

  • Refer to Table 6.1-1. Oz i

i Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress.

Refer to Figure 7.1-32.

$0@

]

1 NA = Not Applicable. $$

co i WH

. .=

I AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983

.~

s n  :

9ww www ,

cn mEo "E N*ow o. ,

M o o* .

is is n u en v. 1 e f l0 4 ,E 6 -m

-E

. N O

l 2

'98 o w I

2 w

b

  • s IN O  :,

-N E

> la

~ .

5 o f

o m o m o m o m o M N N *

  • 4 -

4 (OISJ)3HnSSJ8d WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT I MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT s FIGURE J.3-1 TYPICAL CHUGGING PRESSURE TRACE ON POOL BOUNDARY - SYMMETRIC CASE

AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983 1

l' I

N \

.w II7 E1. 588'-4"

I I

3_11 El. 546'-0" l }

~

O 12 9 _

E1. 521"-10b" '

13 7

_:__:____- _:__~_---,

309 E .1 504'-4" l

i El. 497'-7" O 10 4 WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT 1 MARK ll DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT FIGURE J.3-2 RESPONSE SPECTRA LOCATIONS i

ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983 O

L/

J .4 VENT LATERAL LOAD J.4.1 Load Definition The vent lateral load is defined in NUREG-0808 as a dynamic load to be applied at the end of the downcomer vent. Two load definitions are given for a single downcomer vent lateral load. The first one is de fined as a half-sine wave of duration 3 to 6 msec and the corresponding amplitude f rom 30 to 10 k1bg . The forcing function is as given as:

T nt Fg(t) = (50 - 20 3 I 8I" I'f-I where F is the force on a single downcomer; t is the time with 0 $ t $y T; and 3$ t 5 6 msec.

The second load is defined as a half-sine wave of 3 msec duration and the amplitude of 65 kib g. The forcing function is given as:

= 65 sin (F-h)

F7(t) 0 $ t 3 3 msec.

The above expressions yield the lateral load for a single downcomer vent in klb g.

When a vent lateral load due to a group of downcomers is considered, the multiple vent load per downcomer is defined as a half-sine wave of duration 3 to 6 msec and the corresponding amplitude between 30 and 10 kib g

, adjusted for a multi-vent reduction factor M.

The forcing function for this case is given as:

Fn (t) =M (50-20-h) sin (f5) ,

where F n is the force per downcomer on a set of n downcomers; and 3 msecst 5 6 msec and 0 $ t $ 1 The multi-vent reduction factor, M, was developed through the Mark II Owners' Group program (Reference 6).

O J.4-1

ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983 e

U J.4.2 Evaluation of Downcomer Vents and Bracing System The downcomer vents which are attached at the top to the drywell floor and the bracing system which is attached at the sides to the suppression pool walls, were reevaluated for the dynamic vent lateral loads due to chugging. Two representative downcomer bracing subsystems, one attached to the containment wall and the other attached to the pedestal wall, were considered in the reevaluation. A detailed description of the downcomersThe and downcomer vent bracing is contained in Subsection 7.3.1.

details of the analysis and the load combinations for the reevaluation are summarized in the following subsections.

J.4.2.1 Analysis The downcomer vents and bracing system have been analyzed for the dynamic vent lateral loads described in Section J.4.1.

The analytical models used in this analysis are described in Subsection 7.3.1.5. A time-history analysis was performed for each load case by the direct integration method using Sargent &

Lundy's computer program PIPSYS described in Appendix A. Details of the analysis for the single-vent and multiple-vent lateral loads are summarized in the following subsections.

The resulting maximum structural response to the multiple-vent lateral loads was then combined with other maximum loads such as seismic, SRV, and chugging-drag loads for the evaluation of the downcomer bracing system. The forces were combined by SRSS method using the appropriate load combinations discussed in Subsection J.4.2.2.

J.4.2.2 Load Combinations The downcomer vents and bracing system are assessed for the applicable load combinations presented in Table 6.3-3 with the load factors set to unity.

J.4.2.3 Acceptance Criter ia The acceptance criteria used in the assessment of the downcomer vents and bracing system for the vent lateral loads are the same as described in Sub section 7.3.1. 4.

J.4.3 Conclusion The assessment of the downcomer vents and the bracing system is in progress and their adequacy is being confirmed.

J.4-2

ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983 O

G J.5 DIAPHRAGM REVERSE PRESSURE LOAD J.S.1 Load Definition The diaphragm reverse pressure load in NUREG-0808 is defined as 5.5 psid. For ZPS-1, the assessment for the diaphragm reverse pressure load is per formed at the maximum wetwell airspace pressure.

The maximum wetwell airspace pressure is defined as the sum of the drywell pressure, at the end of the pool swell, calculated by General Electric, and the maximum reverse pressure differential across the diaphragm. The corresponding pressures for ZPS-1 are 17.67 psig for the drywell pressure and 5.5 psid for the maximum diaphragm reverse pressures.

J.5.2 Evaluation of Drywell Floor The drywell floor of the containment was reevaluated for the pool dynamic loads to include the diaphragm reverse pressure loads. The load combinations considered and details of the analysis and reevaluation are summarized in the following paragraphs.

J.5.2.1 Load Combination The drywell floor was assessed for the applicable load combinations

(} discussed in Section 6.1 and presented in Table 6.1-1.

The load categories considered for the assessment of the diaphragm reverse pressure load include the following:

a. abnormal loads,
b. abnormal loads with severe environmental loads, and
c. abnormal loads with extreme environmental loads.

Only the single valve mode of ERV actuations was considered for this assessment since the diaphragm reverse pressure load is postulated to result from a design-basis large break accident (DBA).

J.5.2.2 Analysis The magnitudes and nature of the diaphragm reverse pressure load and the corresponding drywell and wetwell pressures used in this analysis are defined in Subsection J.5.1.

The analytical mode used in this analysis is similar to that described in Subsection 7.1.1. The containment structure was analyzed f or the effects of diaphragm reverse pressure loads a

J.5-1

ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18

^

AUGUST 1983 statically using Sargent & Lundy's axisymmetric finite element computer prog ram DYNAX described in Appendix A.

The resulting drywell floor responses to the diaphragm reverse pressure loads are combined with other appropriate loads as per load combinations described in Subsection J.5.2.1.

J.5.2.3 Critical Design Sections and Acceptance Criteria The critical design sections considered for the drywell floor assessment are described in Subsection 7.1.4.1. The acceptance criteria are the same as described in Section 6.1.

J.5.2.4 Assessment The design forces for the critical sections were obtained by combining the peak effects of all the loads by the ABS method.

The stresses in the critical design sections were obtained using computer program TEMCO IV described in Appendix A.

J.5.3 Conclusion The stresses for all drywell floor critical design sections were

[l

) f ound to be less than allowables for the critical load combinations Thus, the results of the assessment considered in the assessment.

confirm the adequacy of the drywell floor to withstand the effects of the NUREG-0808 diaphragm reverse pressure loads in the hypothetical combination of LOCA with one SRV valve actuation.

O J.5-2

I ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 18 AUGUST 1983 J.6 REFERENCES

1. C. Anderson, " Mark II Containment Program Load Evaluation and Acceptance Criteria," NUREG-0808, August 1981.
2. " Mark II Containment Lead Plant Program Load Evaluation and Acceptance Criteria," NUREG-0487, October 1978; Supplement 1, September 1980; Supplement 2, February 1981.
3. Letter from D. G. Eisenhut, NRC, to E. A. Borgmann, Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, transmitting NUREG-0808, dated September 24, 1981.
4. General Electric Company, " Generic Chugging Load Definition Report," GE Report NEDE-24302-P, April 1981.
5. General Electric Company, " Mark II Improved Chugging Methodology,"

GE Report NEDE-24822-P, May 1980.

6. Letter from R. H. Buchholz, General Electric, to J. F. Stolz, NRC,

Subject:

" Mark II Containment Program Method of Supplying Mark II Single Vent Dynamic Lateral Loads 13 Mark II Plant with Multiple Vents," April 9, 1980.

O J.6-1

. - -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20076G918&oldid=2767161"