ML20087A029

Rev 1 to Ja Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant Evaluation of Suppression Chamber & Main Steam Safety Relief Lines for Simultaneous Actuation of All Safety Relief Valves Set at 1,145 Psig

ML20087A029
Person / Time
Site:	FitzPatrick
Issue date:	10/09/1991
From:	TELEDYNE ENERGY SYSTEMS
To:
Shared Package
ML20087A020	List: ML20087A019 ML20087A029
References
TR-7543-1, TR-7543-1-R01, TR-7543-1-R1, NUDOCS 9201080127
Download: ML20087A029 (30)

Text

.. . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

Att:chment 2 to JPN 92 001

. i .

i

)

i I

TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICE TECHNICAL REPORT TR 75431

, " JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, l EVALUATION OF SUPPRESSION CHAMBER AND MAIN STEAM SAFETY REUEF.

UNES FOR SIMULTANEOUS ACTUATION OF ALL SAFETY RELIEF VALVES r SET AT.1145 PSIG,"

REVISION 1 OCTOBER 9,1991  ;

t I

i t

F t

Now York Power Authority James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant 9201080127 920103 ADCacK 0500033,2 I

PDR

p. PDR- ,

. - .. . . . - . - - . . - . , _ . . , . . - - , - . . - , . - - - - _ _ _ - . - - - , - . . ~ , . , - . . . - . ;

I.s us,,. , ;qi --,

f ,' Jv!nn con

, , ^ d !h Pitt.8haents D- :~l 4%% . .__J ..

t NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY DOCUMENT REYlEW STATUS .., ,

, . ..-. a.

IF ACCEPTED et t r. . :

i'foQ , , ACCEPTED AS NOTED+ (R(tuMNTTAL

t. f {Af A Ah b '

4O NOT ACCEPTED - p *,tgp ',

P32.5*

= = e- J .A* '"".*

a v? ".:22!M W m>mm u.1.rnw was...

ry) u ,s e m M ...'

7ctcoy,x cnoratens tonvicts

~ %- "

,',,. J

^ 9:

CONTROLLED - a %" -

DOCUMENT TES PROJ. IO._ 9d --

• ~ " ' ' " -YC1-DATE /OMolTl -

e

,,, ,, , 'g/ g

_. . . .y. _.

e, 5jyn V ENGNEERNG SERVKES l c.r.m.

c. .

c. , t u.centu o c: P\9CE9:

TECHNICAL REPORT .

TR-7543-1 REVISION 1 i .

L '~ '

JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT p EVALUATION OF SUPPRESSION CHAMBER AND *t i

HAIK STEAM SAFETY RELIEF LINES FOR SIMULTANEOUS

ACTUATION OF ALL SAFETY RELIEF VALVES f SET AT 1145 PSIG OCTOBER 9, 1991 , . . . . . , .

tv--' 7- TT*t--e* v vmn.g w -s-eMme.r--s7-ge,tw+-.r.aimner.  %. , pw.ay.y_, ._%.__..,,,q,,, _

NEW YORK POWER AUlll0RITY 123 KAIN STREET MilTE PLAINS NEW YORX 10601 TECl(NICAL REPORT TR-7543 1 REYlSION 1 JAP.ES A. FITZPATRICK HUCLEAR POWER PLANT EVALUATION OF SUPPRESSION CilAMBER AND MAlH STEAM SAFETY RELIEF LINES FOR SIMULTANEOUS ACTUATION OF ALL SAFETY RELIEF YALVES SET AT 1145 PSIG NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY DOCUMENT REVIEW STATUS sTafU% NR IF ACCEPTED

$!sh8bITTOL T QUEED j

OCTOBER 9, 1991 30 $((EgdETT L8N nEC ED 4O NOT ACCEPTED g

! :rcw1e~g

==.:y.~ . =~ ~ T m:m i atwwto my: .g</m . . une ..t .vio r. fm . . .

U nm.la/MIC....

(

i

t. "eTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES 130 Second Avenue i P. O. Box 9195 WattNvn. Mar.sauiusetts 0?254 617 4 0 4350 i}*.

l k

' TECHNICAL REPORT TR-75431, REY.1 4 I a

IAQLE OF C')]i((1{LS h92 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ....... ............... I 1.0 ,, .....

.................. 2 2.0 NETHOD ........................ .........

2.1 Torus Shell, Submerged Structurer,, Attached Piping, 2

T-Quenchers and T Quenther Sunrarts ................... 2

? 2.2 SRV Piping ............................................

3 2.3 SRV Line Reactions on the Main Steam Line .............

4 3.0 RESULTS ....................................................

3.1 Torus Shell, Submerged Structures, Attached Piping.

T-Quenchers and T-Quencher Supports ................... 4 4

l I 3.2 SRV Piping ............................................

5

4.0 CONCLUSION

6

5.0 REFERENCES

APPENDIX 1 - EFFECT OF INCREAS1HG KAIN STEAM SRY SETPOIKIS TO 1145 PSIG ON TORUS SHELL, SUBMERGED STRUCTURES, ATTACHED PIPING, SRV T-QUENCHERS AND SUPPORTS, SRV PIPE STRESS APPENDIX 2 - MAlH STEAN SAFETY RELIEF LINE REACTIONS ON THE MAIN STEAM ATTACHNENT POINT DUE TO SRV L1HE DEADWEIGHT, SEISMIC, ARD BLOWDOWN LOADS

( I TTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES

l TECHNICAL. REPORT l 1 #

1- TR 75431, KEV.1 i 1

1 ) >

1.0 INIR@ EJJpN AND PURPOSC This report presents the results of an evaluation to determine the effects of setting all the main steam safety relief valves (SRVs) at JAINPP

] at 1145 psic. Since all SRVs will be set at this one pressure, the  ;

I evaluation c_onsiders the effects of all eleven valves actuating si'ruiteenusly. The evaluation considers the effects of SRV loadings generated by this condition on the following components:

1. Suppression that,er (Torus) Shell due to cyclic pool pressures resulting from SRV actuation, subsequent line clearing, and blowdown.

2. Torus submerged structures - due to drag loads generated by pool I

motions during SRV line clearing'and blowdown.

( g 3. Torus attached piping - due to shell motions resulting from pool pressures (item 1).

4. SRV T-Quencher and quencher supports due primarily to water c1 caring loads.

5. SRV line - due to blowdown and water clearing forces.

k in addition, information is presented to show the loads-imposed on the Main . Steam lines that result from deadweight, seismic and blowdown loadings on the SRV lines.

e m

TTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES .

l

\

TECHNICAL REPORT

', * - 2 TR-7543-1 REV. 1

( ) 2.0 MItton These evaluations were perfornied using de generated in the plant-Unique analysis of JAFNPP which is reported i' *erences 1 and 2. This analysis was performed by Tcledyne Engineerir.g Services (1[S) as part of the Mark 1 Torus program (1978 82) and is the current analysis of record for the components listcd. In all cases, this existing Mark I analysis provided all the necessarf information to support the present conclusions.

2.1 19tv L5hdL _3ulatned_5 t tus.t EchltinchedJlpinh _hourachtti And_l-Qutacher_Syppstin Evaluation of these components is detailed in Appenaix 1. In all cases, the existing Mark I plant unique analysis was based on bounding SRV setpoints which were 1140 psig at that time. The change to 1145 psig is small (0.04%) and is shown to be acceptable based on several

. conservative assumptions that were made in the existing analysis; these are discussed in Appendix 1.

2.2 SAY_flRiD9 The existing Mark I analysis used SRV setpoints specific to each line at that time; four at 1140 psig and seven at 1105 psig. Analysis for the four lines at 1140 psig is acceptable for a change to 1145 psig because the change is small anti there are several conservatisms in the loads and analysis (discussed in Appendix 1).

The seven lines analyzed at 1105 psig will experience a 3.6%

increase in setpoint pressure at 1145 psig. There is no simple relationship between change in setpoint pressure and stress in the SRV piping, but it is judged that the increase in pipe stress will be less than 10% due to this 3.6% change in setpoint.

TTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES

• 1[CHNICAt. REPORT

• - 3- TR 7643-1, REVo 1

'l l Evaluation of these seven lines was.done by detemining the existing $RV-pipe' stress due to blowdown, and calculating the increase in this stress that was possible without exceeding the ASME Code allowable stress. If pipe stress due to blowdown could increased by 10% or more, the line was considered acceptable for the setpoint change.

l As with all the analyses reviewed, there are conservatisms in

- the existing analyses that increase this 10% margin further. One of these is a $% conservatism that was intentionally included in the computer program which calculates blowdown loads (RVf0R). Including this one' .;

conservatism raises -the-margin available for stress increase from 10% to  ;

15%. ,

t 2.3 }RY tine Reactions on thtjiain Steam Ling j This data was extracted directly from the existing Mark I computer runs at the connection point on the main steam lines, it is O(

s ) presented in Appendix 2. .

I i

i 1

1 r

l TTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES e- -

r----,,. 4,+--*-.mrwe 4..w-w-,*w-w.v,4..--e m,-wy,~.n- iv,w+..%,+,w. ,',.,g., w--. v--,ww.,,,-.,.,,w ,,,wr,,,,,.- ,,-,,--..w...-y,,, .4, ,, ,,,w,,,-->

, l I

TECHNICAL REPORT

• -40 TR 75431, RE% 1 l l

, l y p 3.0 RESULTS l 1

i 3.1 Igf.gs_$ hell. Submersed Structures. AttachtLElp.inga h0MfDdttf.1 l

ADLL-Quencher Supports I.

The existing analysis is acceptable to demonstrate Code compliance of these components for simultaneous SRV actuation at 1145 psig. j i

'3.2 SY_f_lping i The four SRV -lines originally analyzed at 1140 psig are  !

-acceptable based on the existing Mark I analysis. The other seven lines  ;

showed the following minimum margins for increase in SRV blowdown stress, f

Growth Margin for [

m -

$AY_ Lift Bl a down Pio.t_Itittig [

l ) t A -> 12.4%

C > 13.5%

l-f > 14.8%

15.8% .

G r

H > 19% ,

K > 19%

L 10.8% l t

Since all- seven lines meet the 10% criteria for increase in .

blowdown stress, they are considered acceptable.

b.

1 I

1 TTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES l

, TECHNICAL. REPORT

. .- TR-7543-1. REY.1 4.0 @lK1MilM Evaluation of the Torus shell, suleerged structures, attached piping.

T-quencher, T quencher supperis and SRV piping, shows that simultaneous

' actuation of all Hsin Steam Safety Relief Valves at an 1145 psig setpoint is acceptable.

1 >

0 WTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES

1 e

4 ,- TECHNICAL REPORT 6- TR-7543 1, REV.1

=w 5.0 R[fERENCES l

. l

1. Teledyne Report 1R-5321 1, Revision 1, ' Plant Unique Analysis l Report of the Torus Suppression Chamber for JAFNPP', dated {

3 F September 25, 1984, i i

f p 2. G.E. Spec. 22A5747, Rev. 2_

Containment Data Specification, i dated March, 1981. l l

?

3. G.E. Report NED0 21888, Rev. 2, ' Mark 1 Containment Program load Definition Report,' dated Novener,1981.

4. -Teledyne Report TR 5321-2, Revision 1 ' Plant Unique Analysis ,

Report of the Torus Attached Piping for JAFNPP,' dated November, 1984.  !

~

5. Teledyne Calculation Package #5321-SRV-G, SRV Pipe Stress Report  !

for Line G, dated 9/22/83.

• p

6. Teledyne Calculation Package 532126, 'RVFOR Sumaries,' dated

$/19/83. ,

7. Teledyne Calculation' Packa9e TR-5321 SRV H, SRV Pipe Stress for ,

Line H. dated 9/22/83.

8. Teledyne SRV Pipe Stress Report #5321-SRV K, dated 8/18/83. _;

9. Teledyne SRV Pipe Stress Report #5321-SRV-L, dated 8/18/83. ,

10. G.E. Report -#NEDC-24329, " Evaluation of Mark 1 SRV load Cases C3.2 ' and C3.3 for JAFNPP, " dated June,1981.

1 0:

'WTELEDYNE ENG'NEERING SERVICES

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

~

3, ,,-

TECHNICAL REPORT n *

• TR 7543-1, REL 1

.}

'f I

5.0 REFERENCES

(Cont'd)

I I

11. CB&l Dwg. #304, Rev. 3. Vent Header Intersection.

{

AJ

, j 12. Teledyne letter Report 7543-1, Revision 1, JAfNPP SRV Setpoint Evaluation, dated September 5,1991.

f.

't i e

l TTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES L

TECHNICAL RIPORT TR 7543-1. REY. I l I

/

9 AEEEMIL1

. s'AMES A. FITZPATRLCKRCLEAR POWER PLAMI EFEGLDE_lRCREASING MA1.tL111,AM SRV SETPqlNTS T0 IllLf31G_0]fi

. TORUS SHELL

)

. SUBMERGED STRUCTURES

. ATTACHED PIPING SRV T-QUENCHER AND SUPPORTS

. SRV PIPE STRESS O

"vPTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES

1EC CICAL REPORT Al-1 1R 7543-1, REY. 1 l l 1.0 ((fiQLDf 1145 PSl_51Y_5LTE01HIS_MLI5RUS_Sti[LLi1RE11 The torus shell stress due to SRV actuation was based on a conserva-tive combination of pressures and frequencies for an SRV setpoint of 1140 psig.

This information is outilned on page A4.217 of Reference i for the shell pressures used in the struc? < analysis, it shows that the pres-sures were calculated for the worst case (longest) SRV line for the maximum pressure condition (SRV Case Al.2)* and that these pressures were applied to the shell using worst case frequencies calculated for SRV Case C3.2 for the worst (shortest) line. This cembination of pressures and frequencies from two dif ferent load cases and two different SRV lines produces a structural evaluation that is clearly conservative for all lines.

Since the difference between the 1140 psig setpoint in the analysis.

and the 1145 psig proposed is small; and since the analysis is based on

.g g bounding pressures combined conservatively with frequencies from another SRV case, the analysis already performed shows the acceptability of the torus shell for any single SRV set at 1145 psig.

The effect of simultaneous valve actuation was considered in the existing analysis by multiplying the single actuation pressures by 1.05 (Reference 1, p. A4.2-20). This factor is in accordance with the Mark 1 LDR (Reference 3) and bounds simultaneous actuation of all valves.

Based on this, the existing TES analysis, as presented in Reference 1, applies to 1145 psig setpoints and allows for simultaneous actuation of all valves at that pressure.

• SRV load cases are defined in Table 1.

e "vPTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES

1ECHNICAL REPORT 7

' '

• Al-2 1R-7543-1, REY. 1 i

^l

~

) TABLE 1 ,

SRV LOAD CA5E/ INITIAL CONDillDR$

l Any l One ADS

• Nultiple Desian Initial Condition Valye Valves Valves 1 2 3  ;

I N9C*., first Act. A1. l __ A3.1 A2 SBA/IBA,* First Act. A1.2 A2.2 A3.2 3 DBA,* First Act. A1.3 l

1 ~NOC, Subsequent Act. C3.1 1 I I C2 SBA/IBA,Sub.Act. ,

C3.2 1

. Air in SRV/DL 3 SBA/IBA, Sub. Act.

Steam in SRV/DL C3.3

-

• ADS =' Automatic Depressurization System  ;

NOC -~ Nonnal Operating Condition SBA - Small Break Accident IBA = Jntermediate Break Accident DBA - Design Basis Accident TTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES

w. . _ - _ _._ __ _ _ _ _

y -,.w.,, ,.. ,,= m .,.4.v ,,+w. y-.w.. .,,.g, _ . , ,y ._,,,.,,,r,y.,c,.,,,wii,v.,m,, y y m.., y , , w-ew - ryzw er v ,_r ,t_ -

y-+yae s9,g ,9,

t TECHNICAL REPORf  :

A1 3 TR 7543-1 REY. 1 q g-2.0 EFFECT OF 1145 PSIG SRV SETPolffTS_QtLEUBMGGED STRUCTURE 1- .

In the existing- Mark I analysis, evaluation of stress on submerged structures due to SRV jet and drag loads was done based on test data from JAFNPP and other plants. The procedure is discussed in Appendix 1 of l Reference 1. As.-stated on page Al 5, test results were scaled to more severe.SRV conditions to generate the drag curve in Figure Al-5.  !

As .with the. torus shell pressures, the worst case was . based on a

-- setpoint-of 1140 psig. In addition, scaling of the test condition to the most severe SRV condition was based on the ratio of shell pressures for ,

those cases. Since the maximus shell pressure uses a conservative

_combinatt'on of -pressure and frequency (Appendix A, Section 1.0), the l maximum drag loads on submerged structures are also conservative by this

- same amount. The fact that the drag forces were calculated at 1140 psi and that they are conservative makes them acceptable for a set pressure of 1145  ;

1 psig.

[(

Multiple valve actuation was considered in the TES analysis by ,

applying Figure Al-5 separately for cach T-Quencher, although' the rapid  :

attenuation with distance produces small loads from adjacent T-Quenchers.

Based on this, tha existing TES analysis bounds submerged structure loads due to simultaneous actuation of all SRV valves set at 1145 psig.

b TTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES m

,-,_,m .,,.--,,.,.,,-.m,-,,._,,_r-,,.r. -,,..-..,...,_y 2,,---...-,,m,m,-c-.,- m-g-

TEclullCA1. REPORT

• '- Al-4 TR-7543-1, REY. 1 3.0 EFFECT OF ll1U.51G SRV SETPOINTS ON 19RV5 ATTA(tiLQ_ElElliG_{GCLEI

$RV PIPlHG)

Response of Torus Attached Piping to Torus hydrodynamic loads is discussed in TR-5321-2, Revision 1 (Reference 4).

.Page 33 of Reference 4 states that inputs to the Attached Piping were deseloped from shell motions due to internal pressuie loads, which includes SRV loadings.

Since the torus shell pressures used in the TES analysis do not change for simultaneous SRV actuation at 1145 psig (Section 1.0 of this evaluation), neither do the shell motions that provide input to the Attached Piping.

Based on this, the Torus Attached Piping analysis reported in Refer-ence 4, is valid for simultaneous actuation of all SRV lines at 1145 psig.

i Q

"scTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES

l

-

• TECilNICAL. REPORT Al-5 TR-7543-1, REY. 1 Cl 4.0 [f_[IGLQF 1145 PitlEJ!DL} Elf.0lNTS ON SRLL-QMMCllER AND SUPPORTS Loads used in the design and evaluation of the SRV T-Quencher and Supports are discussed in Reference 1, page 88. The analysis was based on SRV Case C3.3 for line B, which produced the maximum reflood and imposed the highest leads cr the c;uencher and support. The same load was used for all qu'enchers a2 evidenced by that fact that all the quenchers and supports in the torus are identical.

Af ter the analysis and design were complete, it was determined that SRV Case C3.3 could not occur at JAFNPP and the worst case was the less-severe C3.1 case (References 10 an/ 3). lhis is a significant conservatism I

that reflected directly into the design / analysis of the SRV T-Quencher and supports.

Because of this conservatism and the fact that the design was based on line B which was analyzed for an 1140 psig setpoint, the quenchers and O

supports are acceptable for simultaneous valve actuation at 1145 psig.

I O

TTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES

1ECitNICAL REPORT

' Al-6 1R 7543-1. REY. 1 8 5.0 fffECT _OF 4(LE$1LARLSEIt0lHIlfR.5RV plPE SIRESS The existing TES analysis for SRV pipe stress is reported in Reference 4. Table 2 2. Lines G, K and L in that table show a maximum stress related to the thermal case (Code Equation 10). Since these thermal cases were run at the SRV Line Design Temperature of 5750f and since this is wel) ebove the operating temperatures at both the 1140 and 1145 psig setpoints, the thermal stresses will not change and were not considered l (urther.

Following are the maximum stresses from Reference 4, with blowdown stresses substituted for lines C, K and L, along with the setpoints used in these analysis as presented in Reference 6. As presented, all these maximum stresses are related to birwdown cases.

SRV setpoint Maximum Allowable i Below

-;~ ittR11_. Allonklf L, Lint _.fRs.19L Mr31L 1105 19,695 22,500 12.4 A

1140 17,542 18,000 2.5 I B 19,460 22,500 13.5 C 1105 1140 17,122 18,000 4.9 D

1140 17,355 18,000 3.6 E

1105 19,461 22,500 14.8 F

1105 16,435 18,000 9.5 G*

17,990 18,000 .06 H 1105 20,438 22,500 9.2 l J 1140 17,058 18,000 5.5 l K* 1105 16,761 18,000 7.4 L* 1105

• Values reported in Reference 4 resulted from thermal :oads and do not taly here. Values shown are for worst blowdown related condit wn.

m U

TTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES

1ECHNICAL REPORT Al 7 TR-7543-1, REY. 1 9 The four lines analyzed at 1140 psig (B, D E and J) will experience only a small change in setpoint pressure to 1145 psig. In addition, there are conservatisms in both the SRV blowdown load and the stress analysis that support the setpoint change to 1145 psig. The load itself is conservative due to a 5% margin built into the RVf0R computer program, which is used to v i d ata Tine reaction forces (Reference 3). The stress g analysts is conserW h 5 *etause it is based on a combined load case that uses worst case gas e N vg loads (SRV case A1.2) combined with worst case water clearing (W.Y e,aso 0.3) for the longest ilne. This combined load condition producet e n sarvative SRV pipe stress in the vent pipe and torus, where most of the mdime blowdown stresses occur. These conservatisms, combined with thr n.ull pressure change for lines B, D, E and J, allows use of the existing analpf.s to support the 1145 psig setpoint. These same conservatisms at91,y equity to the other seven lines as well.

The remrining seven lines were reviewed. Since the difference between the 1105 setpoint that was analyzed and the proposed 1145 setpoint

is 3.5%, it was judged that any line showing a minimum 10% margin on the i

blowdown stress was acceptable, especially considering the conservatisms in the analysis and the 5% conservatism in the RVFOR Program.

from the proceding 1.ble, it is evident that lines A C, and f meet this criteria. This leues lines G H, K, and L for further evaluation.

i

\

l i

X

V 3

TTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES i

l

TEL _ AL REPORT TR 7543-1, REY. 1

. .. A1 8 Equation 9 of the ASME Code is usually written in the following form:

M + 4751 L + alli ' Hs2 + M802 s 1.8Sh (E9 9) '

4t- Z Z ,

where ,

G-

-4t Pressure Stress Mw - Moments due to weight- l Ms - Moments'due to seismic

, MBD

• Moments due to SRV blowdown {

-l However, the _ Mark 1 Program also used an alternate form of this -

~ '

equation that specifically addressed SRV blowdown, as follows (References 1

,, and5)*

10 N o .751i L 1 + 4751 (M801 $ 1.25h (Eq.9A) i

- 4t- - Z- Z Since this form produced the smallest margins to the allowable, it'

-4 was_ used to evaluate lines G, H,. K, and L and to establish the allowable j increase.'in blowdown loads without exceeding Code allowables. (Change inL l pressure stress is small and was neglected). l

~

[. .

> 1 '

.p

- Line G' Evaluation Max Equation 9A Stress - 16.435 psi) l

- Equation 8 Stress - 6 J13 ) Ref. 5 l

i

=

Blowdown Stress 9,887 psi MTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES

+-6--em,e-. y-%--,4re_. --,--.-w,-- .r- ,w ,,m --+<.e-.---m,,-nma,enwe.'-,,--,+.w

,,.--,%.m-- -,,.rw' e r, vr -'v-v'v'*rw=<*vwt--*rw-- r " ' =*Wt'--

TECHNICAL REPORT Al-9 TR-7543-1. REV. 1 d I CadLA119nb11_51ttit 1,7 Sit 1.2(15,000) - 18,000 psi Anilable IncreaiLittlitess to Caste _A119sbit 18,000 - 16,435 = 1,565 psi Ettt9DL9LRlW@MLSinsi 12Mi .15.8%

9,887 This meets the 10% criteria and is acceptable.

- Une 11 Evaluusn

' The preceding table shows maximum stress for line 11 at 17,990 psi, only 10 psi below the allowable; however, a review of the analysis has I

shown this to be a conservative value.

m 1 The piping model for SRV line li used a 10' schedule A0 pipe for the Actually, the pipe at entire length, including the vent pipe penetration.

l' the penetration is schedule 80 as shown below and in Reference 11.

I Hax Line il Stress l

10' Sch 80 l l b I vent Hdr [ l l

.l l TTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES

TECitNICAL REPORT Al-10 TR-7543-1, REY.1 l I Since the maximum stress in Line 11 is at the penetration, as shown bbove, the added section modulus (Z) of the Schedule 80 pipe will reduce the reported stresses by this ratio:

Zsch 40 - 21d - .655

~

Isch 80 45.6 Therefore, the stress of the penetrition is reduced to:

17,990 (.655) - 11,783 psi The material of this Schedule 80 pipe is A333 Grade 1, Sh - 13 7 ksi

-I I Allowable stress - 1.2 Sh - 16,440 pst The margin is greater than 16.440 - 11.781 . 40%

11,783 The point where the Schedule 40 elbow connects to the Schedule 80 penetration was also checked, fon this point, the equation 9A stress is 13,794 psi. The margin here is greater than 19%.

Line H meets the 10% criteria and is acceptable.

O

"#rTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES

_ ___ __l_ _ _ _ _ _ ....

' TECitNICAL REPORT Al-ll TR-7543 1, REV. 1 O LiDLK_ Evalutt19n The maximum stress in line K also occurs at the vent pipe penettation and is affected by the same conservatirm as 1.ne H.

Maximum Eq. 9A stress - 17.058 Haximum Lorrected stress, corrected for higher section modulus l

- 17,058 (.655) 11,173 psi Haterial is A333

c. 1.2 Sh - 1.2(13,700) - 16,440 Line K meets the 10% margin and is acceptable.

a

!' ')' LIBR_L_ful#R119D Max Eq. 9A stress - 16,761 psi) Ref, 9

- Eq. 8 stress = .1112 )

Blowdown stress - 11,449 psi Available increase to allowable stress l

18,000 - 16,761 1239 pst l

Percent of Blowdown stress

.12M - 10.8% Acceptable 11,449

(~

v "vcTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES

F .

TECitNICAl. REPORT Al-12 1R-7543-1, REY. 1 6.0 (QL{CLU.iLOR)

Stresses and loads due to simultaneous actuation of all SRV valves set at 1145 psig are acceptable for the Torus Shell, sutnerged structures, Torus Attached piping, and T-Quenchar and supports based on analysis alre.dv documented as part of the Mark i Program. l l

Evalu6 tion of SRV line stresses was done by reviewing the margins available in the blowdown stress without exceeding Code allowables. All eleven of the SRV lines showed what is judged to be an acceptable and I consersative margin and are, therefore, considered acceptable at the

- increased setpoint pressure.

The margins available in SRV ilne supports were not evaluated in this l

review.

z r~

U 1

i l

nH

"/PTELEDY.NE ENGINEERING SERVICES

' TECHNICAL REPORT

• j.

• TR-7543 1, REV4 1 l

I h l

l l

i APPEND 1L2 i

MQ A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR PQE)Lf1MI I

r i

MAIN STEAM SAFETY RELIEF LINE REACTIONS ON THE h

1/ MAIN $1EAN ATTACHMENT PolNT DUE TO $RY LINE e

WEIGHT, SEISMIC AND BLOWDOWN LOADS' i

e t

L t i

i t

I L

t .

L *TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES i

^

f TECHNICAL. REPORT A2-1 1R 7543-1, REV. 1 ,

$1LL]hE REACTIONS.ON THE MhlN $1fatLL1HIl following are the forces and nioments that the SRV lines app'y to the Hain Steam lines for deadweight, seismic, and SRV blowdown conditions.

These have been extracted directly from the SRY pipe stress analysis that was done as part of the Mark I PVAR analysis (Reference 1). In accordance with this, the setpoint pressures which were used to calculate blowdown related loads are listed in Appendix 1, Section 5.0.

o The coordinate system for these loads is as follows:

Y

1. A

.g o I

[

1

/*

I l

The SRV line analysis that produced these reactions used ground springs to simulate the stiffness of the main steam line at the SRV j attachment point. Accordingly, pipe stresses and support loads for the main steam line itself are not available from this analysis.

i LO 1 .

TTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES li&

I .

a' =

TECHNICAL REPORT A2-2 TR-7543-1, REV. 1 yl .

'o K_)

SRV LINE REACTIONS ON MA!H STEAM LINE WEIGHT AND DYNAMIC LOADS LINE A FORCE-LBS MON 1H-LBS Y Z MX MY MZ X

- 10 1700 - 10 429 - 1,659 6,710 l WEIGHT '

1715 1500 95,500 53,779 101,079 OBE SEISMIC 2049 3069 3340 2859 115,519 53,220 108.760 anV (+) 105,239 50,559 112.559

-3189 2780 3189

BLOWDOWN (-) <

f LINE B 4

FORCE-LBS HOM IN-LBS Y Z MX MY MZ X

TN 0 -1649 - 10 - 1,850 - 710 - 89 WIIGHT

() 171,920 40,519 95,219 OBE SEISMIC 1219 1899 1549 161,380 57,819 176,600 SRV (+) 7300 2310 37C9 2379 5330 205,939 57,569 252,170

. BLOWDOWN (-) 4620 LINE C FORCE-LBS MON IN-LBS Y Z MX MY MZ X

0 -1619 10 1,539 - 609 129 ,

WEIGHT 1100 65,820 215,209 51,660 OBE SEISMIC Ct9 160 3900 4599 195,189 96,760 220,659 SRV (+) 6189 3750 4020 178,310 86.150 227,989 ELONDOWN (-) 6610 E

t ') .

"sPTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES l

f,A TECHNICAL REPORT

=-ie : A=

A2-3 TR-7543-1, REY. 1 a- .

l

(,-(

L1HE D c t, <

~ . - - - -

.s .g FORCE-LBS NON IN-LBS ,

u F X Y Z NX NY E 60 300 - 699 -1,439 LWElGHT- 50 -1649 82,539 37,019 97,900

-0BE SE!SMIC- 1399- 570 1079 ,

7329 4879 193,010 89.889 284.020 .

SRV (+ . 7400 z 237,050 4740 185,329 79,230 BLOWDOWN)-(-)- 5819 4060 ,

LINE E' Y

FORCE-LBS- NON IN-LBS Z- MX NY NZ X Y 1

-1630 20 1,270 - 2,099- 969 WEIGHT 1280 107,480 94.539 87,780 OBE SEISMIC 1219- 269 5080 198,819 63,799 199,689 -

~

SRY. - -(+)- 6020 1490 83,099 182,789 4900 j 191,250 BLOWDOWN (-)- 6110 -1700 LINE F

'l.v FORCE-LBS MON IN-LBS  ;

Z MX NY NZ X Y-J,

-0 1,810- - 879 -3,120-l WEIGHT 0 -1500 580 -1399- 1340 92,699. 81.679 59.960

-OBE SEISMIC 5120 185.729 142,149 123,599 SRV (+) _ . 3250- 5939- 125,230 5150 5400 183,460 109,849 BLOWDOWN'(-) 4330 7

yy

[.

l TTELEDYNE' ENGINEERING SERVICES t-

x

.=

TECHNICAL REPORT 14 , '/r . A2-4 TR-7543-1, REV.1

(, _

i*'_

U LINE G j

NON IN LBS

- FORCE-LBS -

X Y Z NX NY NZ , -

WEIGHT 40- -339 -660 22,200 - 1,932 -25,850 OBE SEISMis 3219 8'J -3379 150,739 106,559 366,200 SRV 3680 7319 .2950 149,659 68,320 163,970 53,440 174,029

.(i)(-)

ELOWDOWN 3870 5909 2939 114,230 LINE H l

1 FORCE-LBS NON IN-LBS

~'

X Y Z NX NY NZ .

10- -2015 0 3,349 1,399 -11,370 e WEIGHT.

1969 1880 1260 36,980 40,799 71,820 OBE SEISNIC t

l h- SRV' BLOWDOWN(+)(-)

3450 3609 1939 2549 4210 3549 72,250-86,780 36,500 41,809 89,829 87,730 l

O LINE J FORCE-LBS. MON IN-LBS Y: Z NX NY. NZ X

L.-

- 10 -1659 - 10 -1,219 940- -345 WEIGHT l- 22,720 470 510 449 28,299 14,480 E 0BE. SEISMIC--

1960 2900 101,070 44,190 109,989 SRV (+) 2900.

2170 3019 110,280 46,309 101,829 8 LOWDOWN (-) '!510 l,

O "WTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES l.i IL k

L- 1

< .< #- I 4<b TECHNICAL REPORT

, Le e A A ,, , A2-5 TR-7543-1, REY. l' fg .

pV l

LINE K

\

F0P.CE-LBS NON IN-LBS ,

X Y Z MX NY NZ WEIGHT 100 -1679 -190 2,910 4,849 69 OBE SEISMIC 1320 410 1329 103,780 70,980 110,639

-SRV- '(+) .4210 6199 3869 122,090 94,920 143,039 BLOWDOWN (-) 4038 5880 4600 157,739 123,059 157,520-LINE L FORCE-LBS NON IN-LBS X Y Z NX NY NZ

!- WEIGHT 50 -1,829 179 2.329 -12.519 -14,529 OBE SEISMIC- 910 419 1049 85,380 22,059 75,639

'O sRv (+) 6830 6180 28.e20 16,039 7280 6810 203,s59

-235,619 er.720 77,039 225.5s9

-222.229 BLOWDOWN '(-):

-o O-y TTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES

l-

, ,.a