ML20005A807: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
Page ix Page ix Page xii Page xii ~ | Page ix Page ix Page xii Page xii ~ | ||
Page xv Page xv Pages xvi and xvii Pages xvi and xvii Chapter 1.0 | Page xv Page xv Pages xvi and xvii Pages xvi and xvii Chapter 1.0 | ||
,; u , | ,; u , | ||
Page 1.0-2 Page 1.0-2~ | Page 1.0-2 Page 1.0-2~ | ||
| Line 37: | Line 36: | ||
5.3-34 r. | 5.3-34 r. | ||
Appendix C q , | Appendix C q , | ||
3 4 | 3 4 | ||
After page C.3-1 .Pages C.3-2 and C.3-3 and4 , | After page C.3-1 .Pages C.3-2 and C.3-3 and4 , | ||
| Line 97: | Line 95: | ||
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 Oscillation 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 5.3.1.4.1 Transient Asymmetric Differential Pressure Events 5.3-13 5.3.1.4.1.1 Acoustic Loading 5.3-14 | 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 Oscillation 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 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 ' | * 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 i 5.3.1.4.5.1.1 Comparison of Ceneral Electric | Analysis 5.3-15 5.3.1.4.5.1 Calculation of Mass and Energy Flow Rates 5.3-15 i 5.3.1.4.5.1.1 Comparison of Ceneral 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 | ||
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 | |||
() 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 7 5.3.2.3 Drag Load Calculations 5.3-21 5.3.2.4 Chugging Lateral Loads 5.3-21 ; | () 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 7 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 l16 i | 5.3.2.5 Condensation Oscillation Loads 5.3-22 5.3.3 References 5.3-22 l16 i | ||
| Line 106: | Line 102: | ||
6.0 LOAD COMBINATIONS CONSIDERED 6.1-1 6.1 CONTAINMENT AND INTERNAL CONCRETE STRUCTURES 6.1-1 < | 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 6.3 OTHER STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS 6.3-1 i 6.3.1 Load Combinations 6.3-1 6.3.2 Acceptance Criteria 6.3-1 i C:) | 6.2 CONTAINMENT LINER 6.2-1 6.3 OTHER STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS 6.3-1 i 6.3.1 Load Combinations 6.3-1 6.3.2 Acceptance Criteria 6.3-1 i C:) | ||
i | i iv | ||
iv | |||
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 16 JUNE 1981 G | ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 16 JUNE 1981 G | ||
| Line 116: | Line 110: | ||
PAGE 16 i i | PAGE 16 i i | ||
Appendix I LEAD PLANT CO AND CHT EING j | Appendix I LEAD PLANT CO AND CHT EING j | ||
DEFINITION REPORT I.1-1 i | DEFINITION REPORT I.1-1 i l | ||
a f | |||
1 , | |||
4 i | 4 i | ||
* .t l | * .t l | ||
| Line 184: | Line 177: | ||
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 16 additional ensurances. However, additional design modifications and plant changes are neing 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 I') | 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 16 additional ensurances. However, additional design modifications and plant changes are neing 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 I') | ||
hardware changes. The ZPS-1 plant startup should, therefore, proceed as scheduled. | hardware changes. The ZPS-1 plant startup should, therefore, proceed as scheduled. | ||
I 1.0-2 | I 1.0-2 i | ||
i | |||
) | ) | ||
2PS-1-MARK II DAR NIENDMENT 16 JUNE 1981 | 2PS-1-MARK II DAR NIENDMENT 16 JUNE 1981 | ||
._) 5.2.3 Assessment of NRC Acceptance Criteria - SRV- | ._) 5.2.3 Assessment of NRC Acceptance Criteria - SRV- | ||
.The original design methods and the design reassessments described in the above subsections address all the NRC concerns in the Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria (NUREG-0487). An itemized list of the Zimmer Power Station response to the NRC Acceptance Criteria is contained in Section 5.4. | .The original design methods and the design reassessments described in the above subsections address all the NRC concerns in the Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria (NUREG-0487). An itemized list of the Zimmer Power Station response to the NRC Acceptance Criteria is contained in Section 5.4. | ||
| Line 245: | Line 235: | ||
1 TABLE C.3-1 PROPERTIES OF BUILDING MODELS= ''' | 1 TABLE C.3-1 PROPERTIES OF BUILDING MODELS= ''' | ||
i , | i , | ||
l | l EQUIVALENT EQb1 VALENT . EQUIVALENT ELEVATION EQUIVALENT SHEAR MODULUS SIIEAR. MODULUS SHEAR MODULUS-IN BUILDING UNIT WEIGliT NORTH-SOUTH . EAST-WEST l (ft) (1b/f t3) (kips /ft2) (kips /ft2) VERTICg) | ||
EQUIVALENT EQb1 VALENT . EQUIVALENT ELEVATION EQUIVALENT SHEAR MODULUS SIIEAR. MODULUS SHEAR MODULUS-IN BUILDING UNIT WEIGliT NORTH-SOUTH . EAST-WEST l (ft) (1b/f t3) (kips /ft2) (kips /ft2) VERTICg) | |||
(kips /ft ! | (kips /ft ! | ||
l i 628 - 593 12.24 2542.0 1229.0 '3771.0 1 | l i 628 - 593 12.24 2542.0 1229.0 '3771.0 1 | ||
| Line 255: | Line 242: | ||
I L 546 - 525 46.19 9198.0 6442.0 Y | I L 546 - 525 46.19 9198.0 6442.0 Y | ||
} b '15640.0. J' 525 - 480 24.73 20712.0 E 16505.0 37217.0 -. | } b '15640.0. J' 525 - 480 24.73 20712.0 E 16505.0 37217.0 -. | ||
480 - 465 150.00 52856.0 43438.0' 84875.0 g. | 480 - 465 150.00 52856.0 43438.0' 84875.0 g. | ||
$ w. | $ w. | ||
| Line 282: | Line 267: | ||
I C.3-3 | I C.3-3 | ||
AMENDMENT 16 JULY 1981 nr 4 % % 0 | AMENDMENT 16 JULY 1981 nr 4 % % 0 | ||
() | () | ||
| Line 295: | Line 279: | ||
$q/ k v | $q/ k v | ||
8 | 8 | ||
" -0 in 0 | " -0 in 0 | ||
< " 4 O - | < " 4 O - | ||
| Line 717: | Line 700: | ||
with the Mark II Generic. Chugging Load Definition when it becomes available. | with the Mark II Generic. Chugging Load Definition when it becomes available. | ||
This appendix demonstrates the adequacy and conservatism of the Zimmer Empirical Ioad by comparison of the design-basis response spectra with response spectra resulting from 16 the Lead Plant (4TCO) Condensation Oscillation and Chugging Loads. From these comparisons it is concluded that the Zimmer Empirical. Loads did provide a conservative design basis and resulted in a design which will accommodate all postulated Mark II steam condensation loads. | This appendix demonstrates the adequacy and conservatism of the Zimmer Empirical Ioad by comparison of the design-basis response spectra with response spectra resulting from 16 the Lead Plant (4TCO) Condensation Oscillation and Chugging Loads. From these comparisons it is concluded that the Zimmer Empirical. Loads did provide a conservative design basis and resulted in a design which will accommodate all postulated Mark II steam condensation loads. | ||
I | I 4 | ||
I.1-2 i | |||
f , | f , | ||
| Line 820: | Line 802: | ||
/ | / | ||
\ \ | \ \ | ||
l | l I | ||
I | |||
_ / 0[ s's l l w.. | _ / 0[ s's l l w.. | ||
l 0.00 , i s i .mu .a _ _u s ali. uu..r1_uuumtu_tuuum22 i . o u > > > ou" 1 - 11 ^ | l 0.00 , i s i .mu .a _ _u s ali. uu..r1_uuumtu_tuuum22 i . o u > > > ou" 1 - 11 ^ | ||
| Line 861: | Line 841: | ||
( ' | ( ' | ||
i 1 m\ y s | i 1 m\ y s | ||
. / t | . / t 0 00 m", | ||
0 00 m", | |||
1.uum uu. .. -um .>>>:> "o , i > m ud . . . ,J. . .. m ,- - | 1.uum uu. .. -um .>>>:> "o , i > m ud . . . ,J. . .. m ,- - | ||
.co: o.r2 c.n- o. cia c.ar, 0.:4: c.cc 2 c.r o a.::o c.4:a c.c : .. 2.- | .co: o.r2 c.n- o. cia c.ar, 0.:4: c.cc 2 c.r o a.::o c.4:a c.c : .. 2.- | ||
| Line 896: | Line 874: | ||
/ ''[I | / ''[I | ||
\ \ ! ! | \ \ ! ! | ||
/ \\ | / \\ | ||
\\ | \\ | ||
| Line 947: | Line 924: | ||
10 | 10 | ||
'.I . | '.I . | ||
2.0 PERIO:t IN SECGC3 WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 KEY: 1 - ZIMMER EMPIRICAL LOADS waan u oESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT DESIGN BASIS s' FIGURE I.3-5 2 - LOAD COMBINATION WITH 4TC0 LOCA LOADS RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARISON | 2.0 PERIO:t IN SECGC3 WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 KEY: 1 - ZIMMER EMPIRICAL LOADS waan u oESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT DESIGN BASIS s' FIGURE I.3-5 2 - LOAD COMBINATION WITH 4TC0 LOCA LOADS RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARISON DESIGN LOC 111 VERT l 200R imibmat | ||
DESIGN LOC 111 VERT l 200R imibmat | |||
AMEflDMEfiT 16 l racQUENCY IN CPS Jyfj{ ]gg] I soo.o roo.o ico.o so.a ro.o io.o s.o e.o 3.o a.s ; | AMEflDMEfiT 16 l racQUENCY IN CPS Jyfj{ ]gg] I soo.o roo.o ico.o so.a ro.o io.o s.o e.o 3.o a.s ; | ||
| Line 958: | Line 933: | ||
~= - | ~= - | ||
O 58.00 | O 58.00 | ||
.J | .J f | ||
f | |||
.3 | .3 | ||
.J . | .J . | ||
| Line 1,069: | Line 1,042: | ||
l , | l , | ||
e f | e f | ||
I i | I i i | ||
i L | |||
L | |||
( | ( | ||
4 l | 4 l | ||
Revision as of 16:36, 17 February 2020
| ML20005A807 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1981 |
| From: | CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20005A806 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107010293 | |
| Download: ML20005A807 (40) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:-
~
4_
. 4 l
( ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 16 JUNE 1981 '
, W
_M. H. ZIMMER PO'4ER STATION INSTRULTIONS 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 Page iv Page iv After page viii Page viii.(Cont'd)- Page ix Page ix Page xii Page xii ~ Page xv Page xv Pages xvi and xvii Pages xvi and xvii Chapter 1.0
,; u ,
Page 1.0-2 Page 1.0-2~ V: 4...t ,a* ,' ' ;.; 4, a Chapter 5.0 IQ i , -Js Page 5.2-13 Page 5.2-13 [ Pages 5.2-22 through Pages 5.3-22 and 5.3-23 5.3-24 Figures 5.3-27 through - Sheet for Deleted Figures , 5.3-34 r. Appendix C q , 3 4 After page C.3-1 .Pages C.3-2 and C.3-3 and4 ,
,i-s Figures C.3-1_and C.3-2 4
, 'if i Figures C.4-1 through -Figures C.4-1 through C.4-8 1
- h,7 ^ $ ',3 C.4-6 e<' r e.-
+. % U :
.l'.i*
s
. .v ~
+ V.&. g e c- s. . ,,3 Nv.h.h>,
Appendix I
'.7
. '[ . , ..
-[f
, . -_4 . ;-
N, ; "w> After Figure H-9
. TAB for Appendix I; Pages I-i '
Tl . I. ;.\ 'f r i, ' A and I ii; 1.1-1 and:LI.1 , %[O, ?En
. I.2-1 and I.2-2; I.3-1 and
% ?
e
- I 1-2; Figures I.3-1 through;I 'l
. I.3-8; I.4-1;'and,I.5-1. ' - -
, .. , . .F ,
- d ~..t. :;,'; .I '
t
,-[ . kj ', . l'
. . .. ) '., [ $,.
s <' ., [[ *
;. l ' 'y_V
!- :i. :; . w.F i,H .. - ;s - +T, g
. .Y m , ; 'o r, u.. :$, ';h e d :
t g'y. o q L* i
.14 ,
;' ri . :-e: O -'- -
b l i h' .. f . N E .,$ A v - et , ,
,}: }}3.k(g '%], ' ,
' f N ', I '
M N. 4 -, .,s
.x,, se. ezq; ,s-a : .
l.{/ m:
.ws
$ [t , .'f,]' , .y
-y q.
181070102$3 [ b Y .
~ . r +; e .
s
.. _~ . _
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 16 JUNE 1981 l i (} TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) 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 Oscillation 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 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 i 5.3.1.4.5.1.1 Comparison of Ceneral 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 () 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 7 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 l16 i 5.4 ZIMMER POSITION ON NRC LEAD PLANT ACCEPTANCE , CRITERIA (NUREG-0487) 5.4-1 . 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 6.3 OTHER STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS 6.3-1 i 6.3.1 Load Combinations 6.3-1 6.3.2 Acceptance Criteria 6.3-1 i C:) i iv
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 16 JUNE 1981 G Q I
. TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) '
F ! PAGE 16 i i Appendix I LEAD PLANT CO AND CHT EING j DEFINITION REPORT I.1-1 i l a f 1 , 4 i
* .t l
4 I J I i + t i-e [ i O i j -
.]
] i 1 l l i 2 4 P k r f 6 I l viii (Cont'd) ! L i
. _ , . . . . _ . , . . - . . _ . . . _ . - . _ - - . . _ _ _ - - _ . _ _ - - - - . _ . . _ . . _ _ , , . , _ . _ - . . _ , - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ - - _ _ _ ~ _ . _ . -
a
; ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMBNDMENT 16 JUNE 1981
( ,1 THE WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION - UNIT 1 MARK II DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LIST OF TABLES NUMBER TITLE PAGE 2.1-1 Plant Modifications 2.1-7 2.2-1 Piping Acceptance criteria 2.2-7 2.2-2 Load Combinations and Acceptance criteria 2.2-8 2.2-3 Drywell Piping Assessment: Comparison of Pipir.g Support Load Magnitudes (UPS ET-B) 2. 2- 10 2.2-4 Drywell Piping Assessment: Coraparison of Piping Support Ioad Magnitudes (EMERGENCY-C) 2.2-11 2.2-5 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 Piping 2.2-15 2.5-1 Summary of Load Cases for Equipment for Study Purposes 2.5-3 2.5-2 Load Case Definitions 2.5-4 T 2.5-3 Feview of Previous Pesults 2.5-5 {~l 2.5-4 NSSS Safety-Related Components Assessed 2.5-6
- 2. 5- 5 NSSS Saf ety-Related Components Assessed 2.5-7 2.5-6 Zimmer dain Steam System Calculated Snubbe; Loads 2.5-a 2.5-7 Zimmer Fecirculation System Calculated Snubber Loads 2.5-9 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 and Footnotes 3.3-5 4.0-1 Prinary containment Principal Design Parameters and Characteristics 4.0-2 5.2-1 SRV Discharge Line Clearing Transient Parameterization 5.2-15 5.2-2 SRV Eubble Cynamics Parameterization 5. 2- 16 5.2-3 Transient Analysis Assumptions 3. 2- 17 5.2-4 Relief Valve Inputs - Zimmer Analysis 5. 2- 18 5.2-5 Zirmer Yransients Fesults 5. 2- 19 5.3-1 Acoustic Loadino on Peactor Pressure vessel Shroud 5.3-23 16 5.4-1 Zimmer Posit ion on NFC Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria (NUREG-0487 gg and NUPEG-0487, Supplement No. 1) 5.4-2
(_) 6.1-1 Design Load Combinations 6.1-4 ix ?0DR }EjN!! - r-;M
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 16 JUNE 1981 n ( (,). LIST OP TABLES (Cont'd) 16 l PAGE
- 7.6-3' Class 1E Control Par.els and Local Panels
- and Backs seismic Qualification Tect
! summary 7.6-8 8.2-1 Pool Temperature Analysis Results 8.2-12 8.2-2 Important System Characteristics 8. 2- 13 9.2-3 Pool Temperature Conditions - Case la 8.2-15 8.2-4 Pool Temperature Conditions - Case Ib 8. 2- 16 8.2-5 Pool Temperature Conditions - Case 2a 8. 2- 17 8.2-6 Pool Temperature Conditions - Case 2b 8. 2- 18 8.2-7 Pool Temperature conditions - Case 3a 8. 2- 19 8.2-8 Pool Temperature Conditions - Case 3b 8. 2- 20 i V O xii
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 16 JUNE 1981 LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd) NUMBER TITLE 5.3-19 Acoustic Load Illustration 5.3-20 Loading Description 5.3-21 Restricted Pipe Motion During Breakdown 5.3-22 Recirculation Line Break 5.3 Break Flow vs. Time - Feedwater Line Break 5.3-24 Recirculation Line Break Nodalization 5.3-25 Feedwater Line Nodalizaticn 5.3-26 Drag Coefficients 5.3-27 Deleted > 5.3-28 Deleted 5.3-29 Deleted 5.3-30 Deleted 16 5.3-31 Deleted 5.3-32 Deleted 5.3-33 Deleted 5.3-34 Deleted 7.1-1 Zimmer FSI Analysis Model 7.1-2 Average Shear Strain Versus K, 7.1-3 Average Shear Stain VersuL Critical _ Damping 7.1-4 Cross Gection of Suppression Pool and Definition of s Suppression Chamber Walls Loading Zones s,) 7.1-5 Typical Resonant Sequential Symmetric Discharge Forcing Function - Zone 4 7.1-6 Typical Asymmetric SRV Discharge Forcing Function - Zone 4 7.1-7 LOCA Vent Cleating Pressure Loads on Basemat 7.1-8 LOCA Vent Clearing Pressure Distribution 7.1-9 Structural Model Including Soil 7.1-10 Drywell/Wetwell Pressure History for Main Steamline Break 7.1-11 Pool Swell Symmetric Load 7.1-12 Pool Swell Asymmetric Load 7.1-13 LOCA Cyclic Condensation Pressure Load on Basemat Containment and Reactor Support for Pams Head 7.1-14 Spatial Distribution of LOCA Condensation Oscillation Load for T-quenchers 7.1-15 Chugging Load - Magnitude and Spatial Distribution 7.1-16 Chugging Load - Time History 7.1-17 Drywell Floor Analytical Model 7.1-18 Circumferential Variation of Moment in Drywell Floor Due'to Radial Moment Applied to Radius 22'-3" 7.1-19 Radial Variation of Moment in Drywell Floor Due to Concentrated Radial Moment Applied at Radius 22'-3" 7.1-20 Circumferential Variation of Moment in Drywell Floor Due to Concentrated Circumferential Moment Applied at Radius 22'-3" ("% 7.1-21 Radial Variation of Moment in Drywell Floor Due to (-) Concentrated Circumferential Moment Applied at Radius 22'-3" XV
r ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 16 JUNE 1981 LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd) 16 7.1-26 Containment Wall Post-Tensioning Layout 7.1-27 Containment Wall Feinforcing Layout 7.1-28 Reactor Support Concrete Plug 7.1-29 Reactor Support - Feinforcing Layout Before Modification 7.1-30 Drywell Floor Reinforcing Layout 7.1-31 Drywell Floor Column Reinforcing Layout 7.1-32 Design Sections - Primary Containment, Reactor Containment, Peactor Support, and Basemat 7.1-33 Design Sections - Drywell Floor 7.1-34 Design Sections Drywell Floor Column 7.1-35 Typical Interaction Diagram for Basemat 7.1-36 Typical Interaction Diagram for Containment 7.2-1 Basemat Liner Detail 7.2-2 Containment Liner Detail 7.3-1 Downcomer in the Suppression Pool 7.3-2 Downcomer Bracing Layout 7.3-3 Connection of Bracing to Downcomer 7.3-4 Embedment Plate 7.5-1 Embedment Load Change Inside Containment for N + CO g3 (DFFB) + SSE i ) 7.5-2 Embedment Load Change Inside Containment for N + CHUG
+ SRV SSE TQ 7.5-3 Embedment Load Change Inside Containment For N + CO (Empirical) 4 SRVTQ + SSE 7.5-4 Embedment Load Change Outside Containment for N + CO (DFFR) + SSE 7.5-5 Embedment Load Change Outside Containment For N + CC (Empirical) + SRVTO + SSE 7.5-6 Embedment Load Change Outside Containment for N + CO (Empirical) + SRVTO + SSE 7.6-1 Design and Evaluation FI5w 8.2-1 Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station 8.2-2 Residual Heat Removal System 8.2-3 Residual Heat Pemoval System Containment Cooling Mode 8.2-4 Besidual Heat Removal System Shutdown Cooling Mode 8.2-5 Residual Heat Removal System Hot Standby Mode 8.2-6 Residual Heat Femoval System Low Pressure Coolant Injection Mode 8.2-7 Feedwater System (FW) 8.2-8 Pool Temperature Response - Case la SORV at Full Power, 1 ERP Available 8.2-9 Pool Temperature Response - Case 1b SORV at Full Power, 2 RHE* s Available 8.2-10 Pool Temperature Response - Case 2a Isolation / Scram, 1RHR Available
(")' 8.2-11 Pool Temperature Response - Case 2b Isolation / Scram, 2 RHP's Available xvi
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 16 JUNE 1981 O L1ST or r ouR S (Cone a) 1. t 8.2-12 Pool Temperature Response - Case 3a SBA, 1 RHR Available 8.2-13 Pool Temperature Response - Case 3b SBA, 2 RHR's Available 9.4-1 T quencher Discharge Device 9.4-2 Plan Location of T-quenchers , O i 2
- .O xvii
-.. . .-. . . ~ - - _ . . - - . . - . _ - . . . _ _ . - . . - - - - - - .
g _ ~ r ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 16 JUNE 1981 w In this report the' individual loads and load combinations that () Eare 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 uegd 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 16 additional ensurances. However, additional design modifications and plant changes are neing 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 I') hardware changes. The ZPS-1 plant startup should, therefore, proceed as scheduled. I 1.0-2 i
)
2PS-1-MARK II DAR NIENDMENT 16 JUNE 1981
._) 5.2.3 Assessment of NRC Acceptance Criteria - SRV-
.The original design methods and the design reassessments described in the above subsections address all the NRC concerns in the Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria (NUREG-0487). An itemized list of the Zimmer Power Station response to the NRC Acceptance Criteria is contained in Section 5.4.
In order to demonstrate the adequacy of the William H. Zimmer Station design-basis frequency range for the all valve discharge case, a comparison was made between it and the frequency range provided in NUREG-0487, Supplement t (September 1980) . The comparison was accomplished by generating envelopes of the magnitude of the Fourier transforms of the sets of factored design traces produced by the two methods. The Zintmer Station design basis is derived from using a 1.5 amplitude multiplier on the three KWU design traces and sweeping a dominant frequency range of 2.9 to 9.9 hertz. The NRC design basis is derived from using a 1.1 amplitude multiplier on the three KWU design traces and sweeping a dominant frequency range of 3 to 11 hertz. The resulting design envelopes are compared in the attached figure. Note that the Zimmer design-taais is 35% higher than the NRC design basis except in the narrow frequency range of 11 to 13 Hz. In this narrow range, the NRC design basis is, on the average,
,_ 8% higher.
( ! In our judgement this small increase over a narrow frequency range is of no design significance. Our opinion is based on the follow-ing:
- a. The total structural and piping response has contri-butions from several frequencies. The Zimmer design basis is 35% higher than the NRC design basis except in the 11 to 13 hertz range where it is 8% lower.
In our opinion any increase in structural or piping response due to a higher 11 to 13 hertz input will be more than compensated by a lower input (and response) for all other frequencies.
- b. The Zimmer design is based on the simultaneous occur-ence of the SSE, LOCA, and the SRV events. As the combined design response has contribution from all three loads, the increase in the SRV response would be more than compensated for by the conservatism Zimmer has used in other portions of its Empirical Design Basis loads. This is illustrated in Appendix I. 16 b) s- ,
l 5.2-13
i l l 2PS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 16 l JUNE 1981 ( }) 5.3.2.5 Condensation Oscillation Loads The condensation oscillation (CO) load definition originally used in the ZPS-1 design is the Mark II DFFR load definition. However, to account for uncertainties in the load definition and to expedite licensing, a more conservative load definition has been used for reassessment.. This method, called the Zimmer Empirical Approach, is described in Chapter 1.0. This approach is more conservative than required tar NUREG-0487. 5.3.3 References
- 1. General Electric Company and Sargent & Lundy, " Mark II Containment Dynamic Forcing Functions Information Report,"
NEDO-21061, September 1976 (Revision 2).
- 2. Final Safety Analysis Report, Wm. H. Zimmer Power Station, Chapter 6.0.
- 3. General Electric Company and Sargent & Lundy Engineers, 16
" Mark II Containment Dynamic Forcing Functions Information Report," NEDE-21061-P, September 1976 (Revision 2).
- 4. " Analytical Model for Liquid Jet Properties for Predicting Forces on Rigid submerged Structures," NEDE-21472, September
(- 1977. U}
- 5. S. Abramovich and A. Solan, "The Initial Development of a Submerged Laminar Round Jet," Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 59, Part 4, pp. 791-801, 1978.
- 6. " Mark 1 Containment Program 1/4 Scale Test Report Loads on Submerged Structures Due to LOCA Air Bubbles and Water Jets,"
NEDE-23817-P, September 1978. l 5.3-22 l
-, . . _ ~ _
Zl'd-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 16 JUNE 1981 TABLE 5.3-1 ACOUSTIC LOADING ON REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL SHROUD TIME ACOUSTIC LOAD (msec) (kips) 0 0 1.2 0 1.6 250 2.0 320 2.5 650 2.8 250 3.0 100 3.2 0 0 T l l i O I 5.3-23 i6 l
ZPF-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 16 JUNE 1981 l A V FIGURES 5.3-27; .5.3-28; 5.3-29; 5.3-30; 5.3-31; 16 0 5.3-32; 5.3-33; AND
- 5. 3-34 liAVE BEEN DELETED.
REFER TO FIGURES I.3-1 TIIROUGII I.3-8. l l s l l ?
. gg .
f~Q lp" h.
'( /
d 4 1 TABLE C.3-1 PROPERTIES OF BUILDING MODELS= i , l EQUIVALENT EQb1 VALENT . EQUIVALENT ELEVATION EQUIVALENT SHEAR MODULUS SIIEAR. MODULUS SHEAR MODULUS-IN BUILDING UNIT WEIGliT NORTH-SOUTH . EAST-WEST l (ft) (1b/f t3) (kips /ft2) (kips /ft2) VERTICg) (kips /ft ! l i 628 - 593 12.24 2542.0 1229.0 '3771.0 1 593 - 570 13.31 1338.0 '1472.0 2810.0L ] 570 - 546 20.93 1814.0 1886.0 4 o 3700.0 '1' ? I L 546 - 525 46.19 9198.0 6442.0 Y } b '15640.0. J' 525 - 480 24.73 20712.0 E 16505.0 37217.0 -. 480 - 465 150.00 52856.0 43438.0' 84875.0 g. $ w. {
- Damping used for the building was-.5% for the DBE and 2% for the OBE.
}1 i i C ; 2 m-M l
- W 4 1
i :4
~
i i il l
3 ZPS-1-MARK' II DAR AMENDMENT 16. JUNE 1981.
/~3 - TABLE C.3-2 J Q.];
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROPERTIES RELATIVE UNIT ELEVATION DENSITY ' WEIGHT
-(feet) SOIL CLASSIFICATION (%) (pcf) 520 .500 - CL (general fill)
- 125.
500 - 480 SP-'(recompacted fill) 85** .125 480 - 470 SP. (recompacted fill) 85** 125 470 - 460 SP (recompacted fill) 85**' 125 460 450 SP (recompacted fill) 85** 125 450 - 445 SP 70 125 445 - 435 SP 70 132 1 435 - 420 SP-SM 75 125-420 - 415 SP-SM 80 125 O 415 - 400 SP 80 132 n,
*95% Minimum Modified Proctor Density
**85% Minimum Relative Density O-
- \_)
I C.3-3
AMENDMENT 16 JULY 1981 nr 4 % % 0 () w, h
,e V O m -
to til 0 J
& 4 J D y
< W g J o
> 6 dF W w ~J 1 W G 0 o O_ V to 4 _
W 2 $0 w 0 Z4 I ul !u 4 @toeJ z F gi r o n e 2j w E ul 6 dg ~ 0 $
$q/ k v
8
" -0 in 0 < " 4 O -
O Z ( j g @ 4 ul ; l-L j @
~g iO -g 'd ~to ~O iD 3 o N W n 4 N 4 o a 3 -
o 6 in tD $9 LD 9 9 g b - J J J J J J j @ til ul til til El ul ul 0 2
\. \ \ \ \ ( \, d d
@ II _
0 4 in Q. . J 7 J tt 0 - I i i 4 O 0 o o o Q tn O LD O O 80 in 4 9 (131?i=f) G N Ot J.yA dil2 l WM. H. ZIMMER NUCL EAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 MARK ll DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O FIGURE C.3-1 REPRESENTATIVE PROFILE l
, f3 (
O \) 628 - 255 256 253 254 , 261 252 249 260 600 - 247 248 245 246 243 244 241 242 239 240 237 238 550 - 23s 23s 233 234 231 232 229 230 227 229 p 919 914 99n 991 999 993 991 99M 99s g, 9no 9tn 911 917 9tA 91K 917 9nn en, png 919, an an, one anc 9 oni s, ann
. 191 i9a 193 194 195 196 197 199 199 c 500 -
'*" '*' ' '*" '*" 'a' '"" '" '
o I?' l a"' ,i ,Y; ,G ' l #;
+ -n
?? i ,n l 'E ,i 12R ;
'.*b cc <c, ,n - 1 ik ,e ,
4 tie ii7 _iis I iT9' I is'o' / ist i 159 iss tsi I C / 14n I / 137 13a 139 141 / 142 143 144 14s F $ 12e 129 133 / 131 I 132 / 133 J 134 13s 13e s 119 120 121 / 122 / 123 / 124 / 12s 12s 127 E f4 / its I
$y -
tio ici 111 102 112 ics / t ot_ I 114 ins /
/ tis tes 1 1 its 107 117 tes us ing "T1 x
- m f 92 93 93 94 94 / 95 I 9E [ EE [
98 87 /
/ 97 BB I
/ 99 99 99 90 100 91 E m 450 -
33 7, y.,, x 73 79 g3 31 g, ~ C Z 65 6e 67 EB 89 79 71 ??
$C M [ -O 57 59 59 E0 si s? B3 g4 O 49 50 51 52 53 54 5E se r-- 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 4B m m > 33 34 35 3R 37 39 39 en 3 25 28 27 28 ?9 m O 30 31 32 Z
- te 1 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Y M 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 g N mm r m 400 - t 2 3 4 s s 7 e a
m f d 0 200 4b0 Distance, ft. 600 8do B40
@3 Note: 1. Heavy black line indicates boundary of recompacted fill. Gg o -@ o
$j _
- 2. Numbers are element numbers in finite element model. "%
oa =
-4 * --I
~
w
AMEf4DMEf1T 16 JULY 1981 FREQUENCY IN CPS 80.0 20.0 10 0 5.0 20 10 05 t0 . 0 _ ,' , ' , ,' ,',,, , ',',',',,,', ,',',,',,',,, ,',',,' ,',,, , ' , ' ' ' , ' , ' , ' ;' , , ' , , ' ,' , , ' ,',, ' 0.0 l _
-> 15.C- _
15.0
~
10.C. 10.0 0.0C .00 8.0C O.00 5.0C .00 4 0C_ _ 4 00 3.0;~ ~3.00 I so - U t.0C, _t.00
= _
D - o 1 5C , t.50 E 2 E e 3 0C : _ t.00
~ _ _
m 0.90 - 3.80 g . y . _J 0.sc 3.60 0.5C " '#" " " #"U U "'""1 I "#-" - 3.50 0 40 ' ' 3.40
~
0.3C g NE#/o DAMP E 3 3 3 30 g FREE FIELD FOUtlDATI0ff
- j 0.20_ '
N AltlTERACTI0ft 0 20 f / 0.15_ 5 / y 1 7
/ ) ,'
( f g5PECTRUf1
\ 5
_3 15
- J 0 1C
\ 3.10 0.08_
E
~
% 'h 3 ; 3.08 0 00 D
3.06 0.05 ' ' ' '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 3.05 0.02 ' ' ' ' .0 03'.04 0 0.08 0.00 0.10 0 16 0.20 '.40 0.30 0 '0.03 0.00 1.0 1.5 2.0 PERIOD IN SECONDS WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER ST ATION. UNIT 1 MARK Il DEStGN ASSESSMENT REPORT n FIGURE C.4-1 V FREE FIELD FOUf4DATI0ft RESPONSE SPECTRA C0f tPARIS0fl EAST-WEST OBE i . 1
AMENDMENT 16 JULY 1981
,m FREQUENCY IN CPS 10.0 10.J 60 20 1.0 05
) 50 0 e i e '
iiig 20.0
e i e niinir iii 20.0 , ,e , i , ,i i
,,i, , n ,i s i ,i ni i ii
, ,n ,
e i e i i ,i i ii, i i ei i-eii, i e ii eii iiie 16 0 15.0
~
~ _
10.0. _t0.0
+00 0.00
.00 8.00 -
0.00 5.00 _ 4.00 4 00 _ E _ 00 3 00~ .
~ .
vs .
"
- 00 2 t.00-- _
=
=
- 1.50 o 1.50, _
~ .
2 .
-t.00 2 1.00 e :
3.80 0.00] - ac
~ '- 3.80
[ ] OJO - '
\ 'd 3.60 0 .50 b [FREEFIELDFOUf1DATIQ IllTERACT10f1 SPECTRUit ,
- j =
M' #
~
- w:t E BAMD DE a f fr M S DECTROV N s __
3.30 0 30 - 5% DAMPIMr x\ - 3 20 0.20
- s \x :
3 15 0 16 0 10 . i-
% _3 10 0 08 [3.08 0.08' 0.08
' ' ' 'C' ' ' '
.6' ' ' 20 O.06 0.02 ' ' ' 0.03 0 04 0 06 0 00 0.10 0.16 0 20 '.40 0.30 0 0.80 0801.0 1 ' .3 . 0 FER100 IN SECON06 WM. H ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT 1 MARM 91 D E S IG N ASSESSMENT REPORT
/
G FIGURE C.4-2 FREE FIELD FOUNDATION RESP 0flSE SPECTRA COMPARIS0ft EAST-WEST DBE 1
AMENDMENT 16 JULY 1981 ~~) FREQUENCY IN CPS' 50.0 20 0 10.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 20.0 l,',i' ,',,, , ' l ' ',,,
', l , l , ' , ,' ,',,, l , ' , ,' ,',,, , 'l'l,
,, , ls',/ '
i,, 0.0 15.0~ ~15.0 I
~
10 0_ _10.0 8 00 0.00 8 00 _ 0.00 5 00 5.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00
~
m _ [ 2.00_ [ 2.00
-5 E g 2% DAMPING E o 1.50_ y --t.50 E
z0 1.00-b
/r ,
\
-5% DAMPING E 1.00 h0.80_' /
\ ~3.80 5
_J 0 00 0.50 [[ \\ :
~
3 00 f.g 3 50 (/) s 0.40_
// \\ -
3 40 7 0.30~ ." L- n ~3,30 0.20_ . _3.20 0 15 3.15 i N : 2 0 10_ 3,gg 0.08 3.08 0.06 13 3.06 0.05 ' ' ' ' ' ' 0.02' ' ' ' .0 0 3 0.04 '0.06 0.08 0.10 0.15 0 20 ' ' ' 0.30'.40
' ' ' ' 3.05 0 '.E3 0 0.80 1.0 1.5 2.0 PERIOD IN SECONDS WM. H.ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 1 MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSM ENT REPORT FIGURE C.4-3 v.-
HORIZONTAL OBE N-S INTERACTION SPECTRA AT FOUNDATI0'l (10% WIDENED) ELEVATION 465'
AMENDMENT 16 JULY 1981 i
*~ ' FREQUENCY IN CPS 80.0 20.0 10.0 50 2.0 10 0.5 20.0_l ,', / ,',,, , 'l///',l, l,',' , ' , , , l,',/ , ' , ,, , ' l ' ' ,' / ,' ', l , l,',/ , ', , u20.0
~
15.0[ _15.0 10.0_ _10.0 0.00, _:.00 8.00 - 0.00 5.00 0.00 4.00_ _4 00 3.00 3 00 U 2.00_ _ 00 m . 1 60 # 1 60
- / :
x
~
g - z 1.00 / Tf-5% DAMPING - t.00 e E
/ /\ E
>- 0.80 '
3 80 8J 0.60 E w -
// '\\\
// s E
3 60 fs ; 8 0.50-c r hd 3.50
%) l
- 0. 40 - - )
3 40 0 0.30 s 3 30 O.20 - m 3 20 b 0.16 3 15
\
Q- 3 10 0.10 0.00 E
\\E 3 08 0.08- 3 08 0.15 ' ' ' ' ' ' '
.03 0.02 0.04 '0.08 0.08010 ''''''b.05 1 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.40 '0.60 0.80 1 0 1.5 2.0 l'ERIOD IN SECONDS WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT 1 MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT e FIGURE C.4-4 r
' "I HORIZONTAL OBE E-W FOUNDATION l INTERACTION SPECTRA (10% WIDENED) l ELEVATION 465' l
i
- AMENDMENT 16 JULY 1981 I i
1 i
' ^' ~
FREQUENCY IN CPS 50 0 20.0 10.0 6.0 20 1.0 05 20*C -I-I 3 5 5433 5 4 i i il I 3 I I I I I38 5 3 I I 34II' 3 I 3 6 I 343 3 I I I 33i6 20.0
~
1U.0_ ,t5.0 t0.0_ . _t0.0 8.00~ ~O.00 8.00 - 0 00 6 00 0.00 4.00_ _. 00 3 00~ ~3.00 m : : C 2.00_ _2.00 5 i 3 o 1.50 1.60
, : 2% DAMPING :
~
g 1 00_ [ : _t.00 0.00 6- !
- ' -3.00 E 5% DAMPING w -
f -
.J 0 80 3.80
[,)\ e u0 .50- /r M - 3.60 Q 1 0.40 f - 3.40 0 30_ i
- e f
/ \\ ~3.30 0.20_
, f
/ -
3.20
- < d" :
0.16 ' % - N '
-3.16
^
5 0.10. 3 10 0.08
\ \ b 3 03 0 06 3.08 0.06 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
'.6 '
3.05 0.02 0 03 0.04 0.08 0.08 0 10 ' 'C.' 15 0.20 0.30 0.40 '0.60 0.80 1.0 1 2.0 PERIOD IN SECONDS WM. H. IBMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT 1 MARM 18 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT FIGURE C.4-5 C) v OBE VERTICAL FOUNDATION INTERACTION SPECTRA (20% WIDENED) ELEVATION 465'
AMENDMENT 16 JULY 1981 FREQUENCY IN CPS 50 0 20 0 10.0 5.0 2.0 10 0.5 20.0 _ l , ' , ,' i , , , , 'l'l,
,,, , l,',,',',,,
l , ' , s' ii,, i 'l'l,
,,, ; l , ' , ,' ,',, 20.0 15.0, ~
15.0 t0.0,
- _10.0 8.00~ ~
.~ ~O.00
~.
6.00- - ^ 00 5 00 .00 4.00_ - _4.00 3 00_
- -2%. DAMPING -
0 2 .00- T _/ T r5% DAMPING - 2 00 o 1 50_ * ( !.50 3 _ i j \ E 2 1.00 . 1.00 g 0.80, E
// \\. E
_3.80 5J 0.60 : #- : 3.60
/~'\ 0 G a .50-0.40_
, , ,Jf \\ -
3.50 g _3.40 0.30_ 3,30 0.20 ( t 3.20 0 16 y 3.16
~
0.10__ _ 3 10
~
0.00-~ . 3.08 0.00 ' 3 06 0.06 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 0 02' ' ' ' .0 03 0.04 '0.06 0.05 0 10 ' 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.40 '0.60 0.8010 ' ' ' ' 3 05 15 2.0 PERIOD IN SECONDS WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT l' MARK 11 CESIGN ASS ESSM ENT REPORT FIGURE C.4-6 (O x' - HORIZONTAL SSE N-S FOUNDATION INTERACTION SPECTRA (10% WIDENED) ELEVATION 465'
AMEflDMENT 16 JULY 1981 s FREQUENCY IN CPS 60.0 0.0 . 10.0 6.0 20 t.0 06 2 0 . 0 _ l , ' , ,' ,',,, , ' l ' ' ,' / ,' ', l , l , ' , ,' ,',,, l , ' , ,' ,1,,, , ' l r ' , ' ,' ,' 'l,
, l , ' , ,' h20.0 16.0, ~
-16.0 10.0- ~
10.0 8.00, ~;.00
- I
~
8.00 , g ,co
~
6.00 ;.00 4 00- - _4 00 3 00, ~3,00 C.2.00-2
- r
/ e--2% DAMPING -2.00 f
[ \,r-- 5% DAMP'NG : , , , ,
$ 160[ ,
3 b ~ 2 1 00 \ 0.80 v
=
> 0.60
=
u \
=
~
~
s, 0.60 - 0 U " 0.40 r- r'/ \\ - 0 30- fp [ \s
'.e/
_3.30 0 20_ 3.20 0.16
- NT: 3 16
- Ns
~
0.10_ _3 10 0.08 g,og
~
0.08 3.06 0.06 _ ' ' ' ~ 0 02 0.03 0.04 '0.08 0.08 0.10 ' ' ' 0.16 0.20 '.40'''''''''''0.06 0.30 0 0 60 0.8010 16 2.0 PERIOD IN SECONDS WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER ST ATION. UNIT 1 l MARK II DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT FIGURE C.4-7
/
c) SSE HORIZONTAL E-W FOUNDATION INTERACTION SPECTRA (10% WIDENED) ELEVATION 465' l
2 AMENDNENT 16 JULY 1981 F 8tE DUE NC Y IN CPS 50.0 20.0 10.0 5.C e 10 0.t
*g*g
, i a
i ii e i riti ii i i i i e i i e i i . i t i
.irit ii e i i e i i e i
r :u 20 0 isii a iie sis : i ii niii a iir iis i i1 i i si 1 ii
!$.0 ~is 0 10.0_ - 3 10 0 1 00[ ~
9 00 6.tc_ -
-4
" tc 5.0C
- 5.00 4.CC,,
4 00 3.ce: -3 to o _
- :.uc _- : .ec 6 :
2% DAMPING - o i.se: -
; j j j -i .se 5 : ;
'5% DAMPING :
e i.oc : / ___^I , I i .cc S N\
- c. /'r E c.se
!-- c .s0seE / \s\ E
.se
/m s e
m c
.;c-7 i,/
/
\\- -
c 5e
's C.40 5 ~c.40
~
2_//
) \
(
\
N, : C 3C_ g_ - C.3C
%s C.20 ,,
s 0.20
,~ ,.- _
$ \ s\ - ., , 5
- y .
0.10_ ' n.10 1.C?_ ~ c.ca 0.06- _ 0 06 0 05 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
~
0 . 0.' O.03 .04 U 0.C9 C .03 0.10 ' 'C.15 0 20 C.30 0.4C
' ' ' ' e . c5 0 60 0 80 $ 0 t.5 20 PE91CC iN SEleNDL r
WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT I MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSM ENT REPORT FIGURE C.4-8
/ 1 4
4 SSE VERTICAL FOUNDATION INTERACTION SPECTRA (20% WIDENED) ELEVATION 465'
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 16 JUNE 1981 APPENDIX I (~} V'
. LEAD PLANT CO AND CHUGGING DEFINITION REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS-PAGE I.1 INTRODUCTION I.1-1 I.2 LEAD PLANT CONDENSATION OSCILLATION (CO) AND CHUGGING LOAD DEFINITIONS BASED ON 4TCO I.2-1 16 I.2.1 Lead Plant (4TCO) Condensation Oscillation Load Definition I.2-1 I.2.2 Lead Plant (4TCO) Chugging Load Definition
~
I.2-1 I.2.3 Geometric Land Factors I.2-2 I.3 RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARISONS I.3-1 I.3.1 Load Combinations Considered '.3-1 I.3.2 Responte Spectra Comparison Results I.3-2 I.4 CONCLUSIONS f-)s I.4-1
\. .
I.5 REFERENCES I.5-1 I-i I L-
.. _w -
<7g-I ZPS-1-MARK . II _ DAR
- AMENDMENT 16-JUNE.19,81
[~') APPENDIX I-
.%/
LEAD. PLANT CO AND CHUGGING DEFINITION REPORT LIST OF FIGURES 16 NUMBER TITLE
=I.3-1 Simmer Plot Legend .
I.3-2 Response Spectra Comparison Design LOC 104 Vert I.3-3 Response Spectra Comparison Design LOC 129 Vert I.3-4 Rosponse Spectra Comparison. Design LOC 117 Vert I.3-5 Response Spectra Comparison Design LOC 111 Vert I.3-6 Response Spectra Comparison Design LOC 137 Vert I.3-7 Response Spe'tra Comparison Design LOC 309 Vert I.3-8 Response Sp6ctra Comparison Design LOC 311 Vert O O l I-il
?: ^
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDME.NT 16 JUNE 1981 i o
~
APPENDIX I - LEAD PLANT CO AND CHUGGING DEFINITION REPORT ^ w] I.1 INTRODUCTION In mid-1979, the state of construction and schedule of the Wm. H. Zimmer Power Station (ZPS-1) was-such that final.i - zation of the design loads was required to prevent costly delays in completion of the plant. In order to minimize the impact of future revisions to the pool dynamic loads and to maximize the safety of the plant, the ZPS-1 "three-pronged" approach was adopted.- The three facets of this approach were:
- a. Expedite construction based on conservative loads and upgrade immediately to containn.cnt 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 th Eimmer in-plant SRV test and the long- term 16 Mark II program.
(~)
The major uncertainty in the pool dynamic loads was the area of-LOCA steam condensation loads. Concern about the adequacy of the condensation oscillation loads led the Mark II Owners' Group to perform additional single-cell steam condensation tests at the 4T test facility. The facility was modified to provide more prototypical Mark II test con-ditions. Because the results of these 4TCO rests would not be available on a schedule compatible.with Zimmer design and construction, a very conservative CO load was postulated for use in the Zimmer Empirical Load Design Basis. This load is fully defined in Section 2.1.3 of the ZPS-1 Design Assessment Report (DAR).
In Order to confirm the adequacy of the Empirical Luad design basis, the results of the 4TCO test were analyzed by the Mark II lead plants and, in early July of 1980, a lead plant CO load definition was submitted to the NRC. After review of this load definition, the NRC in October 1980 concurred that the lead plant approach taken by the Zimner Station was adequate to demonstrate the conservatism of the Empirical Load design bases. A chugging load based on the 4TCO data wcas also defined in July 1980 and subsequently revised and finalized in September 1980. After review of this lead plant caugging load the NRC t's agreed that this load was adequate to proceed with construction (-) and licensing with the provision that an assessment be made I.1-1
n- gj ' 1 2h ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 16 JUNE 1981
/~]
(/ with the Mark II Generic. Chugging Load Definition when it becomes available. This appendix demonstrates the adequacy and conservatism of the Zimmer Empirical Ioad by comparison of the design-basis response spectra with response spectra resulting from 16 the Lead Plant (4TCO) Condensation Oscillation and Chugging Loads. From these comparisons it is concluded that the Zimmer Empirical. Loads did provide a conservative design basis and resulted in a design which will accommodate all postulated Mark II steam condensation loads. I 4 I.1-2 i
f ,
~
^
[
~
F~ ~ ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 16 l JUNE 1981
'-s L 1.2 LEAD PLANT CONDENSATION OSCILLATION (CO) AND CHUGGING LOAD DEFINITIONS BASED ON 4TCO '
i. 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 JAERI (Japanese 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 assessment and do not alter the Zimmer Design Basis. 1.2.1 Lead Plant ~(4TCO) Condensation Oscillation Load Definition 4 . 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 predicted to occur during a LOCA in the Zimmer station.
~N This load was defined using all the 4TCO Condensation 16 L (k l Oscillation data except for a small amount of data taken with a pool temperature well above that wnich could occur during the CO regime of a LOCA in the Zimmer station.
I l The maximum applicable temperature for Zimmer under the i most conservative conditions is predicted to be less than l 135 F during CO. All of the CO data recorded with pool i 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). j This indicated that ADS discharge will not occur coincident l 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 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 averagcd time histories which con-servatively represent the most severe loads anticipated in the Zimmer station.
I.2-1
~~
P ZPS-1-MARK II DAR . AMENDMENT 16 JUNE 1981 gy (! All of the 4TCO chugging data was considered in formation of the Lead Plant load definition. The largest amplitude chugs were identified and a region of approximately constant blowdown conditions was defined for each large chug. To account for the wide variation of chug amplitudes, the largest chug was reduced in amplitude by an averaging factor derived by averaging the peak overpressure in the. defined region. The resulting averaged chugs were comoared to the Japanese multivent data from the .JAERI facility. Additional chugs were then added to more conservatively represent the. low frequency portion of the load. The assessment reported in the appendix demonstrates that the Zimmer station Empirical Load design basis is sufficiently 16 conservative to accommodate this chugging load definition based on the 4TCO test data and is conservative when compared to full-scale multivent data obtained from the JAERI tests. I.2.3 Geometric Load Factors The Lead' Plant Condensation Oscillation (CO) and Chugging Loads are based on the 4TCO test data. Because of the geometric differences between the 4TCO facility and the Zimmer containment, it is necessary to adjust the 4TCO data pressure amplitudes to values appropriate to the Zimmer I'N
\l Plant. The methodology used to derive the adjustment factors is to compare the predicted loads in the region of the Zimmer pool with the most tightly packed vents to the pre-dicted loads in the 4TCO pool using an acoustic raodel. This is similar to the approach taken for the La Salle analysis in Reference 1. The results show that a multiplicative factor of 0.80 can be used for Zimmer.
O I.2-2
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR NIENDMENT 16 JUNE 1981 I.3 RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARISONS
- Response spectra, resulting from application of the loads based on 4TCO data and verified as conservative with the JAERI data, were compared to the design-basis response spectra at seven typical locations in the Zimmer containment as shown in Figure I.3-1. This was done to verify that the Empirical Load design basis is conservative.
I.3.1 Load Combinations Considered To simplify the comparison, envelopes of the design control-ling load combinations were generated using the design-basis LOCA loads ic 4TCO LOCA loads described in Section I.2. These enve' are compared in Figures I.3-2 through I.3-8. In some instences the Zimmer plant has been designed to an envelope of load combinations while in other cases the individual load combinations were used. Either method of comparison, envelopes or individual load combinations, will yield equivalent qualitative results. Comparisons of vertical response spectra are shown here because the 4TCO LOCA load definitions are symmetric loads. Curve 1 on the comparison plots is the envelope of the em- 16 pirical design-basis loads. The individual load combinations r are combined by the conservative absolute sum methodology. (3 ' The following load combinations are included: OBE + SRVLSP + Empirical Design col SSE + SRVLSP + Empirical Design col OBE + SRVADS + Empirical Design CO2 SSE + SRVADS + Empirical Design CO2 OBE + SRVADS + Empirical Design Chugging SSE + SRVADS + Empirical Design Chugging The seismic (SSE and OBE) , SRV (LSP-Low Se tpoin t, ADS-Auto-matic Depressurization System), and LOCA (CO-Condensa tion Oscillation, Chugging) loads are the loads used for design of the Zimmer plant. More information on the SRV and LOCA loads can be found in Chapter 2.0 - Zimmer Empirical Loads. Curve 2 on the comparison plots is the envelope of the corresponding load combinations including the LOCA loads based on the 4TCO test data and verified as conservative with the JAERI data results which are described in Section I.2. These loads were combined using the Square Root of the Sum of the Squaras (SRSS) method which is approved by the NRC for use on Mark II design. The following load combina-tions are included in the envelope: OBE + SRVLSP + 4TCOl f)
SSE + SRVLSP + 4TCOl OBE + SRVADS + 4TCO2 I.3-1
EPS-1-MARK II DAR- AMENDMENT 16 JUNE 1981 t' x SSE + SRVADS + 4TCO2 k/ OBE + SRVADS + 4TCO Chugging SSE + SRVADS + 4TCO Chugging The LOCA loads in the above combination are as described in Section I.2 and all other loads are identical to those in the empirical load design basis. I.3.2 Response Spectr'_ ,omparison Res'11ts Figures I.3-2 through I.3-8 demonstrate that the Zimmer 16 Empirical Load design basis is more conservativa than is required to accommodate all current seismic, LOCA, and SRV load requirements and to accommodate any potential revisions to these loade based on the 4TCO and J7ERI tests. The Zimmer ! Empirical Load design basis response spectra always bounds the response spectra generated using the loads derived from the 4TCO test, as described in Section I.2, at frequencies , less than about 60 hertz and this bound is generally by a large margin. At certain locations, the response based on the 4TCO load, as described in Section I.2, is higher than ' the. design basis at frequencies above about 60 hertz but the exceedence is generally small and at low acceleration levels. D . O I l 1 I.3-2
l NtEllDME!!T 16 JU!!C 1901 l' I D
,,, \n7 I
i l Ill ' ~ O m 12 9 , 13 7 h _^^^^^^#_^^^_ _ _ _ ^^^--- 1 1 3 9 o 10 4 i WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 MARK 11 DEStGN ASSFSSMENT REPORT I'IGURE I . 3-1 ZIMMER PLOT LEGEND
AMENDMENT 16 FatoutNCY IN cps sos.o roo.e JUNE 1981 300.0 50.0 ro.o so.o 5.0 c.o 1.0 a.e
.00 'JL' ! ' " ' " " ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
" " " ', ' ' ' ' LAt i n ' ' ' +i, ,, , ';
(m , V, , 7 00 I B.00 5.00 , _ cs - 2 o . M H - a~ a: 4.00 lI' o . o -' CC - O 4 _O_ 3.00 - , _ F_ __ 1 i Mi:
' I 2.00 _. I
\ ..j t , o i
'\t/ f
/ \ t 1.00 -
/
/- /s \
\ t Il I
yt~]/v-[ \'N \ \ '
~ _
W /
/
\ \
l I _ / 0[ s's l l w.. l 0.00 , i s i .mu .a _ _u s ali. uu..r1_uuumtu_tuuum22 i . o u > > > ou" 1 - 11 ^
.o:: :.::. :.ca: c.c.o c.c:: :.cso c.: n c . : ~. c.: o c.4 : :.f;] i. 1.
PERIOD IN SEC2?.25 KEY: 1 - ZIMt1 Ell EllPIRICAL LOADS WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 1 DESIGN BASIS MARK 18 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT 2 - LOAD COMB',ATION WITH i O 4TC0 LOCA LUADS FIGURE I.3-2 RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARIS0N DESIGN LOC 104 VERT I , $,
AMENDMENT 16 rnEcuCNCY IN CPS JUNE 1981 50J.0 200.9 100.0 50.0 20 0 10.0 5.0 t.0 1.d c. 16.00_ i ia "'"i i' ' ' ' ' ' ' '""'''' *1 'L, ' n" "'u a.u u _.1 ; p ,
\_./ ,
W 14.00-12.00-
,10.00 .
e -
.E.
f s . x
= 8.00 --
U . i i!LQ.I ; lj ,
; W l o i c . *
(3 l
'w) -
n 6.00.. ' 2%
) I
- ,' i f
- l i
I' 4.03 0 . I l
,. - e
> q 2.00 F -
P i .
,/
r g v'w]
/
( ' i 1 m\ y s
. / t 0 00 m",
1.uum uu. .. -um .>>>:> "o , i > m ud . . . ,J. . .. m ,- -
.co: o.r2 c.n- o. cia c.ar, 0.:4: c.cc 2 c.r o a.::o c.4:a c.c : .. 2.-
rca::a ic Li.c::..::3 WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 KEY: 1 - ZIMMER EMPIdICAL LOADS DESIGil BASIS w ARn i. DESIGN ASSESSM ENT REPORT p) t,,
? - LOAD COMBIt1ATION WITH 4TC0 LOCA LOADS FIGURE I.3-3 r RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARISON l DESIGN LOC 129 VERT l ?[3 lilBisa
AMENDMENT 16 FREQUENCY IN CPS JUNE 1981 sos.o too.o too.o so.o ro.o to.o s.o e.o 1.o c.
*.00 'sii i
- i "twi! , , - ,, , i " + ,,,,,,,, >>,' , , "" ire ri * ' ' '
4
/x t i L! ,
7 00 6.00 2
~
5.00 - c3 w - 2
- O a o-e h
C ~ a:: 4.00 tu -- l'u u . O cc . 3.00 -~ N -, x x /, i
=.00 :
y h. . i L :
\ '
{' <- f \ 1.00 i
/ [I
\ \ ! !
/ \\
\\
e s.l 0.00 _a tt . w '-- > - ' *i a t
< unu :stu.uus a .Lu : : n u-w u :. u u.uiuu t 1.t.Lu.
.t : c . t .: . c . . . s ..ct; t. . .;; ..;.a c.cac c.1:0 c.. J 3.t; c.LL3 ) '; ;-
PE,i' 00 Ill SEC2:;03 WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 KEY: 1 - ZIf1MER Ef1PIRILAL LOADS DESIGN BASIS MARK li DESIGN ASSESSM ~NT REPORT P I d 2 - LOAD COMBINATION WITH FIGURE I.3-4 4TC0 LOCA LOADS RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARISON DESIGN LOC 117 VERT 1 m
AMEN 0 MENT 16 rnEcucNc7 IN ces 5'J0.0 200.0 100.0 50.0 20.0 10.0 JUNE 1981 5.0 10 8.00 .t i ' 'ii '""'m ''i'"! ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 2.0
"'t ' ' '
C.
.I l
[V.)\ . 7 00 i 6 00
.,5 00 _ _ __
o 2 - O -
~
w - et a: 4 00 w
-~
~
t.
- a. .
O 3.00 T I 2.00 /
- l l \) !
( 1 1.00 _1 l[ .V ,' ' L { L (
~~
L
/ N .N .
I i j _a _ _- p ' \\ !
* ,\ l s . . . .
g i 0 00 uunc > 072 i 1 1>inwi.o."- 0.0's4 0.C05 0.0:0
>>w...
0 003 .>>>.10 100 0.040 0.050 1-0.f03
,. i-0.400 0.500 3'-
10
'.I .
2.0 PERIO:t IN SECGC3 WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 KEY: 1 - ZIMMER EMPIRICAL LOADS waan u oESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT DESIGN BASIS s' FIGURE I.3-5 2 - LOAD COMBINATION WITH 4TC0 LOCA LOADS RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARISON DESIGN LOC 111 VERT l 200R imibmat
AMEflDMEfiT 16 l racQUENCY IN CPS Jyfj{ ]gg] I soo.o roo.o ico.o so.a ro.o io.o s.o e.o 3.o a.s ; 16.00 . ,,,, , i, m i ,,,,i i , . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . . , , , , , , , l_) , 14 00 12 00 10 00-
- s -
~= -
O 58.00
.J f
.3
.J .
N~ O 6.00 , 7 4.00 i O ~ l ,y '
'y /
f / 1 . 2.00
/ i \ / 1
- s'
/ j \ G/ / (\
\
s s 1 0 00 .... . .. . .m , ,1 , ,,u, ....1y., ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,t, ,,,, A !
.00! 0.C36 0. COG 0.010 0.CO*J 0.040 0.C50 0.1tr3 0.0C0 0.400 0.503 10 2.3 rCr lta v: t cw: 3 WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 KEY: 1 - ZIMMER EMPIRICAL LOADS w ARn il DESIGN ASS ESSM ENT REPORT DESIGil BASIS O
d FIGURE I.3-6 2 - LOAD C0fiBIflATI0fl WITil 4TC0 LOCA LOADS RESPCNSE SPECTRA COMPARIS0ft DESIGN LOC 137 VERT 4 , p
AMENDMENT 16 ratouENCY IN Cf3 JUNE 1981 500.5 200.5 100.5 80.0 PC-O 10.0 5.0 g.3 1.0 0.!
't.00 iiie i vi> > i n i n i e i ie i si e i i i einsii ...i. >>>>>e vi e t t i v e ' ' ' ' + i.t i\ s) 7 00 6.00 s
5.00 s 4.00 ,
/
. i k'
(t,/ a: . , l' 3.00 f I f
. f I F
2.00 l [ i [.
\
/ )
/ \ ra -
1.0c _
/
,I
\
V
/ d l
. - s Z._/ \\\
0 00 . . . . . mm _m .
- m. . . . . . . . .
i
,1 4,
.C;f 0.034 0.025 0.0;C o.cta -
.C i" C .0 ;? c.;C] 0.rea 3.4;) g. c3 g4 a -
(ER!aD IN LE:.N]3 WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT 1 KEY: 1 - ZIMMER Ef1PIRICAL LOADS MARK H DESIGN ASSESSMENT RE PORT DESIGN BASIS 2 - LOAD COMBINATION WITH 4TCO LOCA LOADS RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARIS0N DESIGN LOC 309 VERT L
i AMENDMENT 16 raccuENCY IN cps JUNE 1981 500.0 205 0 100 0 60.0 20.0 8.00 uua > > , 10 0 5.0 2.0 1.0 0.- i_ _ " t u . i_.1 i.. . . 1 . to nn1.u_tu -i i i e e i nur>>,e i og
\m/ ,
7.00 6.00 5 00 o w o s ~ C" m: 4 00 h
\ '
p. C . l 3.00_ - 1/ /u , n
.' t
] ]
2.00 i /
/ / t
)
\ I i
I \\
- i a' 3
- 1. 00 _ . ,
( _ i V [- \t l
/ / \\ j 9 / y\ .
h 0.00 i i
.C32 i ili i111 t iI 0.C76 0.CC6
& LJ, i I i1 11ae 1 1 1 11 2 a a ja a 1 1 A la iR M t!?fI' f Iifi 1!IIl 'I I IIIIi 'I I I E h*Y C.013 0.C00 C.U40 0.CJ3 C.103 0.tc3 0.400 0.C33 1.C t.
t'Este] :n art 2Nos l WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 KEY: 1 - ZIMMER EMPIRICAL LOADc ' DESIGN BASIS MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT ' O 2 - 'o^o co"81"^1 tog gy7g 4TC0 LOCA LOADS FI URE I.3-8 i RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARISON DESIGN LOC 311 VERT P00'l On Gihi_ -
ZPS-1-MARK II DAR AMENDMENT 16 JUNE 1981 [m)Y I.4 ~ CONCLUSIONS The comparisons presented here demonstrate that.the Zimmer Power Station Empirical Load design is significantly more conservative than required to accommodate all current seismic, LOCA, and SRV load requirements and to accommodate 16 any potential revisions to those loads based on the 4TCO , and JAERI tests.. The small high frequency exceedences which occur at some locations are judged to be insignificant. Assessment of the currently available SRV and LOCA loads, t therefore, confirms that the Zimmer Emp..Acal Load approach has resulted in a conservative design basis. 1 9 O A f .1 I.4-1
.~.h .e
^ (
4 J ZPS-1-MARK II DAR- AMENDMENT 16 JUNE 1981 J # (- L]
- I.5 1.
REFERENCES i
" Condensation Oscillation (CO) Load Data for La Salle," ,
General Electric Company and S. Levy, Inc., July 1980.
- 2. 16 !
" Chugging Loads for Assessment of the 4TCO Data," Creare .i (Report No. TN-322) and S. Levy, Inc., (Report No. ;
SLI-8075-1), September 1980. l , e f I i i i L ( 4 l l i O i l 1 I.5-1 i l [
.__-___.____.....-__,-._._.___..'}}