NL-14-1876, Proposed Lnservice Inspection Alternative HNP-ISI-ALT-HDPE-01, Version 2.0, Conceptual Design Information Package

Proposed Lnservice Inspection Alternative HNP-ISI-ALT-HDPE-01, Version 2.0, Conceptual Design Information Package

ML15028A518
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	11/24/2014
From:	Pierce C Southern Co, Southern Nuclear Operating Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NL-14-1876
Download: ML15028A518 (51)

Text

Charles R. Pierce Southern Nuclear Regulatory Affairs Director Operating Company, Inc.

40 Inverness Center Parkway Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham. Alabama 35201 Tel 205.992.7872 Fax 205.992.7601 NOV 2 4 2014 SOUTHERN << \

COMPANY Docket Nos.: 50-366 NL-14-1876 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington , D. C. 20555-0001 Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant- Unit 2 Proposed lnservice Inspection Alternative HNP-ISI-ALT-HDPE-01 , Version 2.0 Conceptual Design Information Package Ladies and Gentlemen:

By letter dated September 19, 2014, Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) submitted proposed inservice inspection alternative HNP-ISI-ALT-HDPE-01, Version 2.0. In this letter, SNC committed to submit a Summary of Conceptual Design to the NRC no later than November 26, 2014. During a public meeting held October 14, 2014, SNC and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reached an agreement upon the content for this Summary of Conceptual Design. The Enclosures to this letter contain the agreed upon information between SNC and the NRC. contains the Conceptual Design Scope Description. Enclosure 2 contains a proposed markup of the piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID) drawings and proposed high density polyethylene (HOPE) isometric and piping drawings. Enclosure 3 contains the calculation of the minimum wall thickness for the plant service water (PSW) HOPE piping. Enclosure 4 contains a summary report on the hydraulic performance calculation for PSW HOPE piping. Enclosure 5 contains a summary report on the stress analysis for PSW buried HOPE piping.

Please note that the SNC drawings typically contain the following Note:

"This document contains proprietary, confidential , and/or trade secret information of the subsidiaries of the Southern Company or of third parties. It is intended for use only by employees of, or authorized contractors of, the subsidiaries of the Southern Company. Unauthorized possession, use, distribution, copying , dissemination, or disclosure of any portion hereof is prohibited."

SNC does not request exclusion of these drawings from the public domain. For , these drawings have been modified to not include this Note.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NL-14-1876 Page2 This letter contains no NRC commitments. If you have any questions, please contact Ken McElroy at {205) 992-7369.

Respectfully submitted, C. !I.&-

C. R. Pierce Regulatory Affairs Director CRP/RMJ

Enclosures:

1. Conceptual Design Scope Description

2. Proposed Markup of P&ID Drawings and Proposed HDPE Isometric and Piping Drawings

3. Calculation of Minimum Wall Thickness for PSW HDPE Piping

4. Summary Report on Hydraulic Performance Calculation for PSW HDPE Piping

5. Summary Report on Stress Analysis for PSW Buried HDPE Piping cc: Southern Nuclear Operating Company Mr. S. E. Kuczynski, Chairman, President & CEO Mr. D. G. Bost, Executive Vice President & Chief Nuclear Officer Mr. D. R. Vineyard, Vice President- Hatch Mr. M.D. Meier, Vice President- Regulatory Affairs Mr. D. R. Madison, Vice President- Fleet Operations Mr. B. J. Adams, Vice President- Engineering Mr. G. L. Johnson, Regulatory Affairs Manager- Hatch RTYPE: CHA02.004 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. V. M. McCree, Regional Administrator Mr. R. E. Martin, NRR Senior Project Manager - Hatch Mr. D. H. Hardage, Senior Resident Inspector- Hatch

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant- Unit 2 Proposed lnservice Inspection Alternative HNP-ISI-ALT-HDPE-01, Version 2.0 Conceptual Design Information Package Enclosure 1 Conceptual Design Scope Description

Hatch Nuclear Plant- Unit 2 Plant Service Water Piping Replacement Using High Density Polyethylene (HOPE) Piping Scope Description General The scope of this design change is to replace approximately 1000 feet of the buried 10 inch carbon steel Unit 2 Division II PSW (Plant Service Water) header with HOPE (High Density Polyethylene) Piping. This DCP replaces the 2P41-HBC piping between valve 2P41-F3808 and the Unit 2 Reactor Building. Sections of the existing carbon steel piping not required to be removed to facilitate installation of the HOPE piping will be retired-in-place. The HOPE piping will be approximately 1,225 feet in length.

Existing Unit 2 Service Water Valve Pit/Sub-Grade Vault 28 Existing penetration 2P41-SW-A826B is enlarged to facilitate the larger diameter of the IPS 14 DR7 HOPE Piping.

The HOPE piping is transitioned to stainless steel inside the sub-grade vault using a transition flange. The stainless steel portion of the transition flange (Pipe Class HAC) is connected to a tee and a spectacle flange to allow for inspection of the HOPE piping and to facilitate periodic pressure testing without having to break the HOPE flanged connection. The tee contains a flanged branch connection with vent valve to allow filling, venting, and to charge the system for HOPE pressure testing.

Valve 2P41-F380B and associated operator 2P41-F315 are relocated in the existing Unit 2 Division II vault closer to the 30 inch supply line to facilitate room for the HOPE to stainless steel transition. New stainless steel piping is added to replace the carbon steel piping from the Valve 2P41-F3808 to the 30" supply line. This connection will be a dissimilar metal weld or a flanged connection. Additional supports will be added to the metallic piping in the vault as necessary to minimize the load on the HOPE.

Conduit, tubing, and other equipment may be relocated to facilitate this design change.

Underground Piping The HOPE piping (Pipe Class TBD) exits the existing sub-grade vault and is routed underground to the a new Unit 2 Division II sub-grade vault near the Unit 2 Reactor Building. The piping route follows much of the Unit 1 PSW Division II route where possible.

New Unit 2, Division II Service Water Sub-Grade Vault A new sub-grade vault is added in the yard area near the Unit 2 Reactor Building to allow for transition from HOPE to stainless steel (Pipe Class HAC). A HOPE to stainless steel transition flange is connected to a spectacle flange to facilitate periodic pressure testing of the HOPE. The final size of the vault will be optimized during detailed design to meet OSHA requirements and to allow sufficient access for maintenance.

The carbon steel piping (Pipe Class HBC) from the new vault to the first flanged connections inside the Reactor Building to is replaced with stainless steel (HAC). A new stainless steel to carbon steel flange is added on the 2P41-HBC-4" piping within the Reactor Building.

Page 1 of2

Hatch Nuclear Plant- Unit 2 Plant Service Water Piping Replacement Using High Density Polyethylene (HOPE) Pipin_g A new piping class will be created for the HOPE piping associated with this OCP. The three-letter designation for this piping class has not been determined and is currently identified as "TBO".

HOPE Piping & HOPE to Stainless Steel Transition The HOPE is IPS 14 OR7 HOPE Piping internal diameter is sized as close as practically possible to the existing carbon steel piping to provide equivalent or lower hydraulic resistance.

Metallic reducing slip-on flanges will be used at the transition from the NPS 10 stainless steel piping to the IPS 14 HOPE piping to maximize the HOPE flange adapter seating area and to maximize hydraulic performance.

Page 2 of2

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant - Unit 2 Proposed lnservice Inspection Alternative HNP-181-ALT -HDPE-01, Version 2.0 Conceptual Design Information Package Enclosure 2 Proposed Markup of P&ID Drawings and Proposed HOPE Isometric and Piping Drawings

I I

~~91 \'"@--z .!iQIJ::j;

, AlL r~t.~£m MIJ IHSl'ltUvlHls .~JtE ~n:xro ev

'"" ~"li ~ W'\ N.N8£1t 2P41 LN.!SS OT~ N()T(O

~-~:.~ ~ ~ @

• ....LV ...."l

... ' if 1~0 *1TM IHES( MAol8£~- 'AN(Rf: OV-~.S

.-.Ji:C MJt ~N, !)I( VAI.\t~ Ali:( I#GC[O Wffot 1..-:

• ~r-~~~~~~~~~~*~ 'mvl00r1'10t&ot.LHIC!iPOiti!V£~ANOlO¥o~T ORU.'S TO 8( A00£0 SY nClO AS ~(OI.Jit£0 (1'U *t31or.) - 0 o._,~ (P* I *rliCX) '

~ w rQit LOC..TJOH AHO UNrnc-riQt4 or INSTRUioi£HTS.

n, "' ¥ ¥ SU IHSTIMoiOil D.t.TA Sli([l USILO .. wP\. IOJt

.~.... ~$;. ~~

(ACH lHSliii.MOn

, H$TftVU(.N1 u..f y..

_.......r; ~~ COWP\.T '..mt

,.,..;st~tl SP£CJ'1CA1JON r-~\) r---~\1 ~a~~~ IH':ol"~l f'HNC Oit I~ liiLlONO IML 1101;11 VAlvt ri. 10 B[ IN 1\CCOf!CWIC( 'Amt Tit[ INSIW*

~~~7 ~U)~l

"'£NT INSTAUATI)H OCT~ OAA'IIil~ ,1,-2641:

iI i

1 pt~ 1 1 V"l"( IHJ IHSTJtiJIKHT NUt.IOCRS IN PARCHlH(Z lt>OICJoi[.S \11.1.\t OR te'TtMollNI Joi,,I,,B(R rK CM-1![~\JotV(O<<~IONI.NTI

~-i-----.J e AU.':.CJMC[*"-tt*~NlOu~to

..._.., rn er ,. ut*.r~o:

. 1~.. 1 t<l'IV r.na.vc~ w.~Vf'<:

~CJ'JtOOTH(Ir*rsc.

: ~~~

~------J

9. OH A. L.O.S P VAl'wt:S r.HI A. 8. C,

• 0 ClOC(

AliTOW.'OCAU.'I' ISOVIllfC r..: 1\Jili!;N£ IIUlC ()HC(

It 1$ 0(1[11:~0 n.Al h 1(JI'[ IS ..0 p;P[ £fi'[>>; 1H 1Hl M81U( kOO, \'AlY'l.S fJ16 ..._B. C, ._ (l Mt 1\t*Of'lNLO I rt~CA!ll:ICA.LO".J' 10 Tl6 1M. ""-UR£0 r~

\Alvt~ ()to' ~

J ,.,.,., IHLltU 1\0c.O rCA 'of"l<l V~'o'(~

~I MtU fl)Of..() rOlf OfWH ~Jtl\tS

' ------------- 11 II'£ SCCt10H or ~ 10 II( f\UIOII{l) OOitHl lr61ALL.4T'IOH Of' COOlt RS 11 H- 8C~ &- &

11 110-0,lt IS o\ C(lt.l6lti.lo110t4 "tSlHICIIOtll OII:I'J:£

......o v..cr ~~: PlATt: v~~t r-.: I'I.Ur ee: ~""

' co IO.ti(H 1 1'41 -C002 tS AI.JGJ40 10 RC;fRICflOH

,-v-~~~~~~

1.--------,' J I OollfX(T08[~0'111t(Nf\'UIUt(t#I~IM(_[

-n~~ :h $To. .s ~m I) OC\.[1[0

- --- ~  : I t---mD l"t~Wri_./'"'

14 V)l f LOill V.,._\(S :1P4 1-nXIoto-O AJi'{ HSI.tr.LUD S"-"' flolool t\?1'1 o\S~ Nl Yoi.L'O'[ C\.OS( O I$. A1.L PS.- P1NPS K.l\( I"~ 0:1U61Ct1 ON t--- ~ S(JoL LI:M (>>T t.KS ¥1o~ Ali.ICti 10 Pt)WP

~---~

Wt ii'HoJt1

,..., r--- ~

~

I

I 1~

l - -t L\.,_-r~)

t.nf-r\'INO IW-r~1 L\W*UU CRITICAL DOCUMEN T PRELIMINARY SOUTHERN COMPANY A

ttVtSLO rtlt AIH- HOllU , tOWlH I. KoliCH liUC'UJ..* 1'\.A.NI U"l l .... 2

u. 1.0. Tllll:tllo[ IVIU>INC l'tiOoll

.,**_u

KIIVJC[ WAT[II SUT(U -

1().502 ft,II.I. D, ~(0 1

• d l l

'7

}

~

11-.

p*

l i

• MC"OI: MO$ *t" W:t"ie.o.u.l !IO:"_..,CC ~ 'DI"i!'t 'K' ~~

II'Jof'<UaD!tne.to""'~

CRI T I CAL CCCUMENT M?\.fj() :if>-'1*1010 IU~I SOUTHERN ~

COMPANY

~.-oc.. ** o ..

tD!IWW I K4TCH NUClL.t.J fUiO !,NT Moo. 1 lL\C101t i~ -PUN1 SO"t1Ct W41U STSTtlll , a I. 0. SWT Z 01 Z 10*502

to* n:E. ss F'INl<it WITH SUNO GB @

SPtCTACl£ FUNG£ 12

[ll'STWC BUTT(_AfLY F'\.ANC(

sa 51(-oo* ~ s~L£ "[.

WAT[R YAl\1£ '

w 0

c "' ... ...

a::

u 9 ...

I I

co I

co I

co

~

CD en CD

~

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

I

.------------------ _ DRA_W I NG_ J:...!_M_I_.!_E_51 +4_9. 00_ _j TRANSITION FLANGE HOT MACHINE SHOP  !.!.:..:!:lili-UU-J!I1~1CH~-s1PECT ACLE FLANGE II N.~:rn* '-sEE DETAIL *c*

SK-004 r----------------------------------

ir--------------------------------- J It 2P11-6"HEC EL 124"-0" i 2P41*10"HBCIDIV Ill tt_

2P11-6"HEC EL 124"-0" i tt_ EL 119"*71i" 2PH-14"HEC i It El 121"-0"

@-!---~~-l!!!;fl~-------

1 i i i i i i i REACTOR BUILDING - UNIT 2 i i i i 8 8 9 PARTIAL PLAN~~ DWG SK-002 REFERENCE DRAWINGS:

SK-001 SOUTHERN COMPANY A

SK-003 SNC591628_UNIT_2 CH£CIC£D: JH SCAt£: NONE SK-004 SERVICE_WATER_DIVISION_II SS/HDPE_TRANSITION_VAULT PIPING_PLAN

=

CRAOE EL 129'0" 2P41-14"TBD(DIV ll)

It_ El 119'-6" 2P41-10"HBC(DIV lll 2P41-10"HBC(OIV III It EL 125' 5" It El 119'-791" 2E11-18"HEE ft. El 116'-D" 2T55-20"MEE

~El118'-6" 2P41-4"HBC(OIV III

. It, El 125'-S" CUT I. ADD 10" CAP (ABANDON IN-PlACE)

SECTION "8-8" DETAIL "A" (LOOKING NORTH)

(PLAN)

DWG SK-003 REFERENCE DRAWINGS:

SK-001 SK-002 SOUTHERN COMPANY A DIIAWN: LOT

~TE: 09-22-14 SNC591628_UNIT_2 SK-004 SERVICE_WATER_DIVISION_II SCAlE: NONE SS/HDPE_TRANSITION_VAULT PIPING_SECTIONS_Il_DETAILS A

e>  ::

e.

= ...

o'"

~

0 z::::> ... N

..,0 . ...

'j-

~

~

TRANSITION FlANGE (STAINLESS STEEL) 10" TEE liTH IN F'LC AND BliND TRANSITION VAULT SPECTACLE F'LANCE EL 2P41-H"TBOCOIV Ill

~ EL 122'-0" TRANSITION F'LANCE (STAINLESS STEEL I PLAN SECTION "0-0" DETAIL "C" DETAIL "E" REFERENCE DRAWINGS:

SK-001 SOUTHERN COMPANY A

SK-002 SNC59162B_UNIT_2 SK-003 SERVICE_WATEILDIVISIOtUI SS/HDPE_TRANSinON_VAULT DET 'C"

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant - Unit 2 Proposed lnservice Inspection Alternative HNP-ISI-ALT-HDPE-01, Version 2.0 Conceptual Design Information Package Enclosure 3 Calculation of Minimum Wall Thickness for PSW HOPE Piping

Southern Nuclear Design Calculation SOUTHERN)!.

COMPANY F.nugy In Srrv~ Your \t'orltr Calculation Number:

SMNH-14-013 Plant: Unit: Discipline:

Hatch Nuclear Plant 0 1 IK12 01&2 Mech

Title:

Subject:

Minimum Wall Thickness for Plant Service Water HOPE Piping Pipe Wall Thickness Ca lculation Purpose I Objective:

The purpose of this calculation is to determine the minimum required wall thickn s for the straight sections of buried High Density Polyethylene (HOPE) piping that is to replace th urrently existing buried carbon steel piping as part of the Hatch Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Divisio......,.lolllllfi;lll.t Service W ater (PSW) System under DCP SNC591628. This calculation does fittings and components.

System or Equipment Tag Numbers:

2P41 Division II Pi in Contents Topic Page Attachments #of (Computer Pn Pages Sketches, Pur ose of Calculation Summary of Conclusions Methodology Assum tions References Bod of Calculation Total# of Pages includ i cover sheet & Attach Version Originator Reviewer Approval1 Approval2 Printed Namo Printed Namo Printed Name Printed Name No. Description Initial J Date Initial / Date Initial 1 Date Initial / Oa lo Jared Dobbs Roy S. Rosenfeld 1.0 Issued toft,/t~Jt'i #A/.. to/sjzol Notes: None NMP-ES-039- F01 NMP-ES-039-00 1

Plant: Calculation Number: Sheet:

Hatch Nuclear Plant SMNH-14-013 1 1.0 Purpose of Calculation:

The purpose of this calculation is to determine the minimum required wall thickness for the straight sections of buried High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) piping that is to replace the currently existing buried carbon steel piping as part of the Hatch Nuclear Plant Unit 2, Division II, Plant Service Water (PSW) System under DCP SNC591628 [Ref. 7.2.1]. This calculation does not apply to fittings and components.

2.0 Summary of

Conclusions:

The required minimum calculated wall thickness value provided in Table 2.0-1 below and Section 8.2 of this calculation apply to straight pipe only, includes 0.0" mechanical, erosion, and degradation allowance, and includes an installation allowance of 0.040". Nominal wall thickness values must account for manufacturing tolerances such that the as-manufactured minimum wall thickness values for the piping are greater than or equal to the required values.

Tabl e 2 0 1 M"1n1mum

. Pipe Wall Th"1ck ness for Design Fa ctor of 0.50 IPS Nominal Pipe Size Min. Wall Thickness (in) 14 Inch 1.949" 3.0 Design Inputs:

3.1 Unit 2, Division II, Plant Service Water (PSW) Header HOPE Pipe Internal design pressure (Po) =180 psig [Ref. 7.1.1]

Design temperature (To)= 123°F [Ref. 7.1.1]

Outside diameter of pipe (D) = 14.00" [Ref. 7.2.1]

Piping Material: PE 4710 with material properties of cell classification 445574C [Ref. 7.1.1]

3.2 Design Code The design is in accordance with SNC Proposed lnservice Inspection Alternative HNP-ISI-ALT-HDPE-01, Version 2.0, Enclosure 2, "Proposed Alternative Technical Requirements to ASME Section XI Requirements for Replacement of Class 3 Buried Piping in Accordance with 10CFR50.55a(a)(3)(i)." , [Ref. 7.1.1] and Design Specification HM-S-14-001

[Ref 7.2.2].

3.3 Mechanical, Erosion, and Degradation Allowances No mechanical, erosion, or other degradation allowances (C) are considered in the minimum wall thickness calculation (See Assumption 6.1) [Ref. 7.2.3, p. 7].

NMP-ES-039- F02 NMP-ES-039-001

Plant: Calculation Number: Sheet:

Hatch Nuclear Plant SMNH-14-013 2 3.4 Installation Allowance The allowance {C) for piping surface damage during installation is considered in the minimum wall thickness calculation to be the maximum allowable indentation of 0.040"

[Ref. 7 .1.1, Subsubarticle 4130]. Using this value in the minimum wall thickness calculation assures that the pipe thickness is adequate even with the maximum allowable indentation of 0.040".

3.5 Service Life The replacement buried piping shall be designed for a service life of 50 years under normal system operating conditions as stated in Reference 7 .2.2, Section 5.1.

3.6 Allowable Stress The long-term allowable stress value at the Design Temperature (T0 ) for HOPE piping is interpolated from Table 3131-1 of Reference 7.1.1 and is listed below in Table 3.6-1. In accordance with Subsubarticle -3130 of Reference 7.1.1 a Design Factor of 0.50 shall be utilized.

Table 3.6-1 -Allowable Stress for Desi n Factor of 0.50 4.0 Acceptance Criteria Not Applicable

5.0 Methodology

The required minimum wall thickness is determined for the piping identified in Section 1.0 of this calculation. The required minimum wall thickness (tdes1gn) is calculated in accordance with Paragraph 3131.1 of Reference 7.1.1 as follows:

PoD C tdesign = +

2S+P0

"-v--"

tmin where:

tdesign = minimum required wall thickness (in) tmin =minimum wall thickness for pressure (in)

C = the sum of mechanical allowances, installation allowance, erosion allowance, and other degradations allowance (in)

Po = Piping system internal Design Pressure (gage) at the corresponding Design Temperature T 0 . This pressure does not include the consideration of pressure spikes due to transients (psig)

D = pipe outside diameter at the pipe section where the evaluation is conducted (in)

S = allowable stress (psi)

NMP-ES-039- F02 NMP-ES-039-001

Plant: Calculation Number: Sheet:

Hatch Nuclear Plant SMNH-14-013 3

6.0 Assumptions

6.1 Assumption

No mechanical, erosion, or other degradation allowances (C) are considered in the minimum wall thickness calculation Justification:

From Reference 7.2.3, page 7, "PE pipe will not rust, rot, pit, corrode, tuberculate or support biological growth. It has superb chemical resistance and is the material of choice for many harsh chemical environments." Therefore, no mechanical, erosion, or other degradation allowances are required. This is consistent with Section 5.2 of Reference 7.2.2.

7.0

References:

7.1 Codes 7.1.1 SNC Proposed lnservice Inspection Alternative HNP-ISI-ALT-HDPE-01, Version 2.0, Enclosure 2, "Proposed Alternative Technical Requirements to ASME Section XI Requirements for Replacement of Class 3 Buried Piping in Accordance with 10CFR50.55a(a)(3)(i)."

7.2 Miscellaneous 7.2.1 Hatch Nuclear Plant Design Change Package SNC591628, "Unit 2 Plant Service Water Piping Replacement".

7.2.2 Hatch Nuclear Plant Design Specification HM-S-14-001, Ver.1, "Design Specification for High 17 Density Polyethylene (HOPE) Piping for the Plant Service Water System 7.2.3 The Plastics Pipe Institute, Inc. "Handbook of Polyethylene Pipe", Second Edition 8.0 Body of Calculation:

8.1 14" IPS HOPE Pipe Size- Minimum Calculated Wall Thicknesses Under an internal design pressure of 180 psig (Design Input 3.1 ), design temperature of 123°F (Design Input 3.1), the sum of mechanical allowances, installation allowance, erosion allowance, and other degradations allowance of 0.040" (Design Input 3.3 and 3.4), allowable stress of 570 psi (Table 3.6-1) the PE 4710, 14.00" diameter, Unit 2, Division II, Plant Service Water (PSW) buried HOPE piping minimum required wall thickness for straight sections is:

(180psig XI4.00") + _ .. = 1. ..

0 040 949 tdesignt 4 = 2(570 psi)+ 180 psig NMP-ES-039- F02 NMP-ES-039-001

Plant: Calculation Number: Sheet:

Hatch Nuclear Plant SMNH-14-013 4 8.2 Results The required minimum wall thickness for the straight sections of Hatch Nuclear Plant Unit 2, Division II, Plant Service Water (PSW) buried High Density Polyethylene (HOPE) piping at a Design Factor of 0.50 is shown below in Table 8.2-1:

Tabl e 8 2 1 - M"m1mum

. p*1pe Wa II Th"1ck ness f or Des1gn

• Fa ctor of 0.50 IPS Nominal Pipe Size Min. Wall Thickness (in) 141nch 1.949" NMP-ES-039- F02 NMP-ES-039-001

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant - Unit 2 Proposed lnservice Inspection Alternative HNP-181-ALT-HDPE-01, Version 2.0 Conceptual Design Information Package Enclosure 4 Summary Report on Hydraulic Performance Calculation for PSW HDPE Piping

Summary Report On Hydraulic Performance Calculation of Plant Service Water HOPE Piping Hatch Nuclear Plant- Unit 2 1.0 Purpose of Summary Report:

This report summarizes the hydraulic calculation that has been prepared to support SNC's lnservice Inspection (lSI) Alternative Request HNP-ISI-ALT-HDPE-01, Version 2.0. This lSI Alternative is needed to support the planned replacement of buried steel piping in Hatch Nuclear Plant Unit 2, Plant Service Water (PSW) system with High Density Polyethylene (HOPE) piping.

Computations from the calculation are not included in the summary. Calculation results and conclusions are shown in Section 2.0.

The calculation evaluates the hydraulic performance of the existing carbon steel Division II Plant Service Water (PSW) piping compared to the HOPE (High Density Polyethylene) material piping to be installed by DCP SNC591628. The hydraulic resistance of the replacement piping must be less than or equivalent to the currently installed piping to ensure adequate cooling water flow is maintained. The piping to be replaced is from the Unit 2 Service Water Valve pit 28 to the Unit 2 Reactor Building.

2.0 Results and

Conclusions:

Table 2-1 below shows the summary of pressure losses for the existing carbon steel piping and for the HOPE piping to be installed. The pressure losses for these configurations are calculated for both the normal flow rate (8200 gal/min) and the minimum flow rate (4428 gal/min). Nominal HOPE piping sizes of 12 inches and 14 inches are calculated.

Based on results from Table 2-1, replacement HOPE with a nominal size of 14 inches (1.0 of

9. 760) ensures the pressure loss through the piping is less than or equivalent to the currently installed piping for both the normal and minimum flow conditions.

3.0 Design Inputs:

3.1 PSW Shutdown Cooling Minimum Flow Requirement, 4428 gal/min (Ref. 7.1) 3.2 Measured Normal Operation PSW Division II Flow Rate- 8200 gal/min (Ref. 7.2, Attachment A, Page 5, Step 7.3.1.9) 3.3 The existing PSW piping is 10", schedule 40, carbon steel (Ref. 7 .5) with an internal diameter of 10.02" (0.835 ft) (Ref. 7 .6, Page B-17). The replacement stainless steel piping is sized to match this piping.

3.4 The existing section of PSW piping is 1,008' in length, contains nine (9) 45° elbows, and three (3) 90° elbows (Ref. 7.3, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9)

---

Pagel

3.5 The length of the HOPE replacement piping is 1,226' 6" and contains nine (g) goo elbows, four (4) 45° elbows, one (1) 22.5° elbow sudden enlargement, and one sudden contraction {Ref.

7.12).

3.6 The internal diameter of the 12 inch HOPE piping is 8.88g inches (.7408 ft). This value is the average 10 for the 12 DR7 PE4710 piping (Ref. 7.10, Pg. 18) 3.7 The internal diameter of the 14 inch HOPE piping is g.760 inches (.8133 ft). This value is the average 10 for the 14 DR7 PE4710 piping {Ref. 7.10, Pg. 18) 3.8 The HOPE goo elbows are considered to have 3 or more miters with a Representative Fittings Factor, K' of 24 (Ref. 7.11, Chapter 6 Table 2-2) with outside diameter reinforcement such that the interior diameter of the fittings is equal the interior diameter of the piping (Ref. 7.12).

3.g The HOPE 45° elbows are considered to have 2 or more miters with a Representative Fittings Factor, K' of 15 {Ref. 7.11, Chapter 6 Table 2-2) with outside diameter reinforcement such that the interior diameter of the fittings is equal the interior diameter of the piping {Ref. 7 .12).

3.10 The HOPE 22.5° elbows are considered to be 2-segment elbows with a Representative Fittings Factor, K' of 8 (Ref. 7.11, Table 2-2) {Assumption 6.7) with outside diameter reinforcement such that the interior diameter of the fittings is equal the interior diameter of the piping (Ref. 7.12).

3.11 Elevation of metallic to HOPE transition immediately downstream of P41-F3808 is 120'6"

{Ref. 7.3) 3.12 Elevation of Division II, PSW reactor building penetration is 125' 5" {Ref. 7.4, Penetration #10) 3.13 The section of stainless steel piping in the existing sub-grade vault downstream of P41-F3808 contains one {1) spectacle flange and one {1) full size straight piping tee {Ref. 7.12). The section of stainless steel piping from the HOPE to stainless steel transition to the reactor building penetration contains two {2) goo elbows, one {1) spectacle flange, and 36' 8" of piping

{Ref. 7.12) {Assumption 6.10).

3.14 The weight density of water is 62.371 lbs/ft3 {Ref. 7.6,Pg, A-6) {Assumption 6.1) 3.15 Acceleration of gravity, g is 32.2 ft/s 2

• 3.16 The dynamic viscosity of water at 60°F is 1.1 Centipoise {Ref. 7 .6, Pg. A-3) {Assumption 6.1) 3.17 The Hazen-Williams Friction Faction, C is 150 for HOPE {Ref. 7.11, Pg. 175) 3.18 The HOPE absolute surface roughness design value is for that of "smooth pipe" {Ref 7.11, Pg.

172) {Assumption 6.6).

---

Page2

4.0 Acceptance Criteria The replacement HOPE piping shall have a pressure loss less than or equivalent to the existing carbon steel piping for both the normal and minimum required flow rates.

5.0 Methodology 5.1 Pressure Loss through Carbon Steel Piping The section of piping evaluated is the PSW Division II piping immediately downstream of P41-F380B (Ref. 7.13) to the reactor building piping penetration #10 (Ref. 7.4). The pressure loss of the flow through the existing carbon steel piping and fittings is determined from Bernoulli's theorem as depicted in (Ref. 7.6, Equation 1-3).

Z1 + 144P1 + v~ = Z2 + 144P 2 + v~ + h Eq. 5-1 Pt 2g P2 2g L Where:

Z1 - Elevation of Point 1-ft (Design Input 3.11)

Z2 - Elevation of Point 2-ft (Design Input 3.12)

P1 - Pressure at Point 1- psi P2 - Pressure at Point 2- psi v1 - flow velocity at Point 1- ft/s v2 - flow velocity at Point 2- ft/s p 1 - Density of water at Point 1-lbs/fe (Design Input 3.14) p 2 - Density of water at Point 2-lbs/ft3 (Design Input 3.14) g- Acceleration of Gravity- ft/s 2 (Design Input 3.15) hL- Loss of static pressure head- ft Because the density of water is unchanged from Point 1 to Point 2, p 1 = p 2 = p. Therefore Eq. 5-2 Because the pipe flow area and flow rates at Point 1 and Point 2 are equal, the pipe flow velocities at Point 1 and Point 2 are equal, v1 = v2

• Therefore, Eq. 5-3

---

Page3

Based on the equation above, the pressure loss through the section of piping,P1 - P2 is determined by knowing the density of the water, p and the static pressure head loss due to fluid flow, hL. The pressure loss due to the elevation change between Point 1 and Point 2, Z2 - Z1 is not considered in this calculation because both the existing piping and the piping configuration with HDPE installed have equivalent Point 1 and Point 2 elevations. The density of water and the elevation of Point 1 and Point 2 are input values. The static pressure head loss due to fluid flow is the summation of pressure loss due to the straight piping and the pressure loss through fittings.

Therefore, Eq. 5-4 The pressure loss through the piping and fittings is determined by the Hazen-Williams equation (Ref. 7 .14, Page 27) below 100)1.85

= 0.002083(L) ( c Ql.SS hL(pipe and fittings) (d4.s6ss) Eq. 5-5 Where:

L- Length of pipe including equivalent length of pipe, Leq due to the loss through fittings- ft.

(Design Input 3.4)

C- Hazen-Williams Friction Factor-1 00 (Assumption 6.4)

Q- Flow of water, gpm d- Inside diameter of the pipe- inches (Design Input 3.3)

The equivalent length of pipe, Leq due to the pressure loss through the goo and 45° elbows is obtained from (Ref. 7.14, Page 4g).

For 10" pipe, the friction loss for a long radius goo elbow is equivalent to 11.0 feet of pipe.

For 10" pipe, the friction loss for a long radius 45° elbow is equivalent to 7.1 feet of pipe.

---

Page4

5.2 Pressure Loss with HOPE Piping The section of piping evaluated is the PSW Division II piping immediately downstream of P41-F3808 (Ref. 13) to the reactor building piping penetration #10 (Ref. 7.4). The metallic to HOPE piping transition occurs in the sub-grade vault immediately downstream of P41-F380B.

The HOPE piping is transitioned back to new stainless steel piping in a new sub-grade vault just outside of the reactor building penetration.

The pressure loss with the replacement HOPE piping is the summation of the pressure loss through the HOPE piping using the characteristics of HOPE piping determined from (Ref. 7.11),

the pressure losses due to the sudden contraction in the transition from metallic to HOPE, the pressure loss due to sudden enlargement in the transition from HOPE to stainless steel (Design Input 3.5), and the pressure loss through the stainless steel piping and fittings. From Eq. 5.4, the equation for the pressure loss is shown below P1 - P2 = 1: 4 ( hL(pipe,{ittings,contr,enlarg)) + SS!Jp Eq. 5-6 Where:

p- Density of water-lbs/ft3 (Design Input 3.14) hL(pipe,fittings,contr,enlarg)- Pressure loss through the HOPE piping, fittings, sudden contraction, and sudden enlargement, in feet of head SStJp- Pressure loss through the section of stainless steel piping and fittings, in psi The pressure loss through the HOPE piping, fittings, sudden contraction, and sudden enlargement is determined by the Hazen-Williams equation (Ref. 7.14, Page 27) below 00)1.85

= 0.002083 (L) ( C1 qt.BS hL(pipe,fittings,contr,enlarg) (d 4 .8655 ) Eq. 5-7 Where:

L- Length of pipe including equivalent length of pipe, Leq due to the loss through fittings, sudden contraction, and sudden enlargement- ft. (Design Input 3.5)

C- Hazen-Williams Friction Factor-150 (Design Input 3.17)

Q- Flow of water, gpm d-lnside diameter of the pipe- inches

---

PageS

The equivalent pipe length, Leq due to the pipe fittings is determined by using the equation below (Ref. 7 .11, Eq 2-9)

Leq = K'D Eq. 5-8 Where:

Leq = Equivalent pipe length due to the fittings, feet K'- Representative fittings factor from (Design Input 3.8, 3.9, 3.1 0)

D- Internal pipe diameter, feet The equivalent pipe length, Leq due to the sudden contraction from stainless steel to HOPE is determined below (Ref. 7.6, Eq 2-4, 2-10)

KD ( o.s( 1-:~:) )cD)

Leq = f= f Eq. 5-9 Where:

t- Friction factor of piping (Based on Reynolds' Number) (Ref. 7.6, Pg. A-24)

D- HOPE Internal Pipe Diameter- ft.

d1- HOPE pipe diameter-in d2- stainless steel pipe diameter-in The equivalent pipe length, Leq due to the sudden enlargement from HOPE to stainless steel is determined below (Ref. 7.6, Eq 2-4,2-9)

- KD - (( 1-~) 2)(D)

Leq- f - f Eq. 5-10 Where:

f- Friction factor of piping (Based on Reynolds' Number) (Ref. 7.6, Pg. A-24)

D- HOPE Internal Pipe Diameter- ft.

d1- HOPE pipe diameter-in d2- steel pipe diameter-in The pressure loss through the section of stainless steel piping from the HOPE to stainless steel transition to the reactor building penetration, SS13 p is determined by ssilP = Pt- Pz = 1:4 (hL(pipeandfittings)) Eq. 5-11

---

Page 6

The pressure loss through the stainless steel piping and fittings is determined by the Hazen-Williams equation (Ref. 7.14, Page 27) below

)1.85 Ql.BS hL(pipe and fittings) = 0.002083 (L) ( c100 (d4.B6ss) Eq. 5-12 Where:

L- Length of stainless steel piping including equivalent length of fittings, Leq - ft.

(Design Input 3.13)

C- Hazen-Williams Friction Factor-100 (Assumption 6.4)

Q- Flow of water, gpm d- Inside diameter of the pipe- inches (Design Input 3.3)

The equivalent length of pipe, Leq due to pressure loss through the full size straight tee is obtained from (Ref. 7.14, Page 49). For 10" pipe, the friction loss through the run of a full size straight tee is equivalent to 16.9 feet of pipe.

The equivalent length of pipe, Leq due to the pressure loss through the 90° elbows is obtained from (Ref. 7.14, Page 49). For 10" pipe, the friction loss for a long radius goo elbow is equivalent to 11.0 feet of pipe.

---

Page7

6.0 Assumptions

6.1 Assumption

The density and viscosity of water is evaluated at an assumed temperature of 60°F.

Justification:

This temperature is the value for which the Hazen-Williams equation is based (Ref. 7.14, Page 27). Using this temperature through the calculation ensures consistency when comparing the existing piping to the new piping.

6.2 Assumption

The flow area of the existing carbon steel piping is assumed to have the same flow area as new piping.

Justification:

Due to the age of this piping and its raw water service, biological growth on the interior surface of this piping is likely to be present causing a reduction in flow area. The extent of flow area reduction due to biological grown is unknown. This reduction in flow area would cause an increased pressure loss in the piping. Therefore, this assumption is conservative for sizing the HOPE piping flow area.

6.3 Assumption

The fusion beads on the interior of the HOPE piping are assumed to have a negligible resistance on the system.

Justification:

The fusion beads have a negligible effect on fluid flow From (Ref. 7.11, Page 30) Also, The Hazen-Williams Friction Factor, C for HOPE piping was determined in a hydraulics laboratory with the fusion beads present (Ref. 7.11, Page 175). Therefore, any flow impact by the fusion beads has been incorporated through the Hazen-Williams Friction Factor.

6.4 Assumption

The Hazen-Williams Friction Factor, C is assumed to be 100 for the existing carbon steel piping and for the new stainless steel piping.

Justification:

Corrosion to the interior surface of the existing piping is known to be present and significant.

The average C value for clean, new pipe is 130 and the C value for corroded piping is 80 (Ref.

7.14 Pg.3-8). Using a C value of 100 for the existing carbon steel piping is not as restrictive as the value provided for corroded pipe is conservative and reasonable given the corrosion issues known to be present in the piping. Using a C value of 100 is conservative as the margin gained from using clean, new pipe is not credited.

6.5 Assumption

It is assumed the all of the metallic piping up to HOPE transition flange in the existing sub-grade vault is the existing carbon steel.

Justification:

A portion of this carbon steel piping will be replaced with stainless steel when the HOPE is installed. The pressure loss though the section of piping is greater by considering this section of piping to be the existing carbon steel and is conservative.

6.6 Assumption

No flow degradation over time is considered for the HOPE piping.

Justification:

From (Ref 7.6), page 7, "PE pipe will not rust, rot, pit, corrode, tuberculate or support biological growth." page 10, "Without corrosion, tuberculation, or biological growth PE pipe maintains its smooth interior wall and its flow capabilities indefinitely"

6. 7 Assumption: HOPE 22.5° elbows are considered to be 2-segment elbows with a Representative Fittings Factor, K' of a 2-segment 30° elbow. (Design Input 3.1 0)

Justification:

A 30° elbow will provide more resistance than a 22.5° elbow. Therefore, this assumption is conservative.

---

PageS

6.8 Assumption

The PSW shutdown cooling flow of 4428 gal/min is all considered to be supplied through the Division II piping being replaced.

Justification:

Shutdown cooling of the plant requires only one PSW pump, delivering 4428 gal/min. The Division I and Division II headers are completely redundant to each other. Therefore, assuming the flow to be only through the Division II header is justified and conservative. Flow diverted for diesel generator cooling is not considered as it has, at most a negligible impact on the results of this calculation.

6.9 Assumption

The pressure losses through the two (2) stainless steel spectacle flanges (Ref.

7 .12) are neglected.

Justification:

The spectacle flanges are full bore resulting in no impacts to the flow.

6.10 Assumption: The length of stainless steel piping from the HOPE to stainless steel transition in the new sub-grade vault to the reactor building penetration is assumed to be 36' 8". The actual length of the piping is slightly less than 36' 8".

Justification:

The increased pipe length will increase the hydraulic resistance of the replaced piping and is conservative for the purposes of this calculation.

---

Page9

7.0

References:

7.1 HNP-2-FSAR, Rev 32 Section 9.2.1 -Plant Service Water (PSW) System 7.2 Hatch Calculation SMNH-03-004, Ver. 5.0- Generate Unit 2 Plant Service Water (PSW)

PROTO-FLO Database for Latest Test Data 7.3 Hatch Drawing H21109, Ver. 9.0- Yard Piping Sheet 1 7.4 Hatch Drawing H26302, Ver. 11.0 - Reactor Building Penetrations in Walls & Floors Below EL.

130'0" 7.5 Drawing A21000 Sh. 332, Rev. 5- Piping Class HBC 7.6 Crane Technical Paper. No. 410, 1988 edition 7.7 Hatch Drawing H11146, Ver. 35.0- Unit 1 Piping- Service Water Pump Structure To Building 7.8 Hatch Drawing H21110, Ver. 17.0- Yard Piping Sheet 2 7.9 Hatch Drawing H21111, Ver. 8.0- Yard Piping Sheet 3 7.10 ISCO Product Catalog, Version 4.1, 2013, www.isco-pipe.com 7.11 Plastics Pipe Institute (PPI) Handbook of PE Pipe, Second Edition 7.12 Conceptual DCP SNC591628- SK-001- Unit 2 PSW Division II Underground Piping Isometric 7.13 Hatch Drawing H21033, Ver. 59.0- Turbine Building Service Water System P&ID Sheet 1 7.14 Cameron Hydraulic Data, Fourteenth Edition 7.15 Hatch Drawing H26252, Ver. 10.0 - Plant Service Water System- Reactor Building Piping Below El. 130'0" East

---

PagelO -------------------------------

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant- Unit 2 Proposed lnservice Inspection Alternative HNP-ISI-ALT-HDPE-01, Version 2.0 Conceptual Design Information Package Enclosure 5 Summary Report on Stress Analysis for PSW Buried HOPE Piping

Summary Report on Stress Analysis for PSW Buried HOPE Piping Hatch Nuclear Plant- Unit 2 1.0 Purpose of Summary Report This report summarizes the stress analysis calculation that has been prepared to support SNC's lnservice Inspection {lSI) Alternative Request HNP-ISI-ALT-HDPE-01, Version 2.0 {ATR). This lSI Alternative is needed to support the planned replacement of buried steel piping in Hatch Nuclear Plant Unit 2, Plant Service Water {PSW) system with High Density Polyethylene {HOPE) piping.

The stress analysis calculation evaluates the conceptual design for the replacement piping to the design requirements in the ATR. The piping to be replaced is from the Unit 2 Service Water Valve Pit 2B to a new subgrade vault located outside of the Unit 2 Reactor Building.

All computations from the calculation are not included in the summary. Calculation results and conclusions are shown in Section 2.0.

2.0 Results and Conclusions The replacement HOPE piping meets all of the acceptance criteria outlined in the lnservice Inspection (lSI) Alternative Request HNP-ISI-ALT-HDPE-01, Version 2.0.

Detailed results are shown in this section. All margin factor values are greater than 1.0 and are therefore acceptable. The controlling margin factor that was dependent on pipe loading was 1.26 which was for longitudinal stress for Service Level Dusing upper bound spring values {straight pipe).

The stress analysis calculation also evaluated pipe floatation and concluded that the unanchored pipe will not float.

Allowable Service Level Spikes Due to Transient Pressures Per Assumption 6.2, fluid transients, if any, are considered to be negligible.

Pressure Design of Joints and Fittings <Based on GSRsl Pressure Rating Design Pressure Component Margin Factor (psi) (psi)

Flange Adapters 187 180 1.04 Miter Elbows 207 180 1.15 The margin factors are greater than 1.0 for all components and are therefore acceptable.

Pressure Design of Miter Elbows (Based on Design Equations)

Pressure Rating Design Pressure Margin Factor

{psi) {psi) 218 180 1.21 The margin factor is greater than 1.0 and is therefore acceptable.

Ring Deflection due to Soil and Surcharge Loads Ring Deflection Max. Ring Margin Factor

(%) Deflection(%)

1.61 2.8 1.73 The margin factor is greater than 1.0 at all locations for the design truck and the ISFSI crawler loads and is therefore acceptable.

---

Pagel

Compression of Sidewalls Due to Soil and Surcharge Loads Circumferential Allowable Compressive Stress Compression Margin Factor (psi) Stress (psi) 110 630 5.73 The margin factor is greater than 1.0 at all locations for the design truck and the ISFSI crawler loads and is therefore acceptable.

Buckling Due to External Pressure Total Pressure Pressure Limit Margin Factor on Pipe (psi) for Buckling (psi) 31.44 173.6 5.52 The margin factor is greater than 1.0 at all locations for the design truck and the ISFSI crawler loads and is therefore acceptable.

Effects of Negative Internal Pressure Per Section 3.1 0.1 of Enclosure 8 of design input 3.1, there are no negative internal pipe pressures anticipated.

Flotation Downward Resultant Upward Buoyant Force Force Acting on Pipe (plf) Acting on Pipe (plf) 557 67 Since the downward force acting on the pipe is greater than the upward force, the unanchored pipe will not float.

Longitudinal Stresses The allowable stress value was based on a temperature of 125°F instead of the design temperature of 123°F.

Pipe Stress Factor Service Spring Load Stress Margin Component Stress xAIIowable Level Case Factor Factor (psi) Stress (psi)

Straight Pipe N/A 315 1 561 1.78 A

Miter Elbow N/A 331 1 561 1.69 Upper Bound 462 1.1 617 1.34 Straight Pipe Lower Bound 405 1.1 617 1.52 B

Upper Bound 409 1.1 617 1.51 Miter Elbow Lower Bound 378 1.1 617 1.63 Upper Bound 591 1.33 746 1.26 Straight Pipe Lower Bound 476 1.33 746 1.57 D

Upper Bound 467 1.33 746 1.60 Miter Elbow Lower Bound 405 1.33 746 1.84 All margin factors are greater than 1.0 and are therefore acceptable.

---

Page2

Seismic-Induced Stresses Allowable Stress Component Spring Load Case Pipe Stress (psi) Margin Factor Range (psi)

Upper Bound 517 2032 3.93 Straight Pipe Lower Bound 286 2032 7.09 Upper Bound 225 2032 9.05 Miter Elbow Lower Bound 113 2032 17.98 All margin factors are greater than 1. 0 and are therefore acceptable.

Short Duration Longitudinal Applied Mechanical Loads There are no short duration longitudinal applied mechanical loads for this piping.

Design for Combined Thermal Expansion and Contraction Stress Due to Stress Due to Combined Allowable Stress Thermal Thermal Margin Factor Stress (psi) Range (psi)

Contraction (psi) Expansion (psi) 439 195 634 2032 3.20 The margin factor is greater than 1.0 and is therefore acceptable.

Alternative Thermal Expansion and Contraction Evaluation Allowable Stress Component Spring Load Case Pipe Stress (psi) Margin Factor Range (psi)

Upper Bound 482 2032 4.21 Straight Pipe Lower Bound 668 2032 3.04 Upper Bound 694 2032 2.93 Miter Elbow Lower Bound 684 2032 2.97 All margin factors are greater than 1.0 and are therefore acceptable.

Non-Repeating Anchor Movements The assumed building settlement of 1/4" (Assumption 6.5) was modeled in all of the SAP2000 models (lower and upper bound springs for thermal and seismic load cases). Even though the thermal analyses (long-term load condition) provide the most realistic values, the worst case values from all of the models have been considered. The results are tabulated below.

Long Term Allowable Margin Component Pipe Stress (psi)

Stress (psi) Factor Straight Pipe 513 561 2.19 Miter Elbow 86 561 13.12 Both margin factors are greater than 1.0 and are therefore acceptable.

Other Design Considerations As noted in Enclosure 2 of Design Input 3.1, other design considerations will be addressed under SNC design procedures in accordance with the existing design and license basis for HNP.

---

Page3

3.0 Design Inputs 3.1 Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant- Unit 2, Proposed lnservice Inspection Alternative HNP-ISI-ALT-HDPE-01, Version 2.0.

The acceptance criteria and general methodology was taken from this design input document.

3.2 Drawing SK-001, Version A, "SNC591628 Unit 2 Service Water Division II Underground Piping Isometric."

The routing of the piping is detailed in this design input document.

3.3 Drawing SK-002, Version A, "SNC591628 Unit 2 Service Water Division II SS/HDPE Transition Vault Piping Plan."

The routing of the piping is detailed in this design input document.

3.4 Drawing SK-003, Version A, "SNC591628 Unit 2 Service Water Division II SS/HDPE Transition Vault Piping Sections & Details."

The routing of the piping is detailed in this design input document.

3.5 Drawing SK-004, Version A, "SNC591628 Unit 2 Service Water Division II SS/HDPE Transition Vault Detail "C"."

The routing of the piping is detailed in this design input document.

3.6 HNP-2-FSAR-2, Rev. 26 (9/08)

Site specific details were taken from this design input document. Specifically, seismic wave velocity values, peak horizontal ground accelerations and site soil conditions.

3.7 ISCO Product Catalog, Version 4.1, 2013.

The HOPE pipe section dimensional properties and weight are taken from this design input document.

3.8 Flowable Fill Website, http://flowablefill.org/performance.html The typical maximum and minimum densities for flowable fill are taken from this design input document.

3.9 DCR00-35, "Addition of RR Pad and New Track, and Evaluation of Crawler Path," Rev. 1.

The crawler track dimensions for the ISFSI cask transporter and the total weight for the cask and crawler are taken from this design input document.

3.10 Calculation BHO-C-S08-V001-0003, Version 1, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, "The Stress Analysis of Underground Piping and Electric Ducts."

The DBE seismic anchor movements for the Reactor Building are taken from this design input document.

3.11 Calculation SMSH-12-020, Version 1.0, "Stress Analysis of Unit 1 Div II Buried Service Water Pipe", with MC-H-13-0129, Version 1.0.

The OBE seismic anchor movements for the Reactor Building are taken as half of the value of the DBE anchor movements. This is consistent with this design input document.

3.12 BH2-C-S23-V012-0001, "Final Seismic Analysis Reactor Building and Internals", April 15, 1975, Volume 1.

The DBE & OBE seismic anchor movements were compared to the values reported in this design input document and were found to be of negligible difference.

3.13 BH2-C-S23-V013-0001, "Final Seismic Analysis Reactor Building and Internals", April15, 1975, Volume 2.

The DBE & OBE seismic anchor movements were compared to the values reported in this design input document and were found to be of negligible difference.

---

Page4

4.0 Acceptance Criteria The stress analysis calculation followed the acceptance criteria outlined in the lnservice Inspection (lSI) Alternative Request HNP-ISI-ALT-HDPE-01, Version 2.0.

5.0 Methodology The stress analysis calculation followed the methodology outlined in the lnservice Inspection (lSI)

Alternative Request HNP-ISI-ALT-HDPE-01, Version 2.0 (ATR). In addition to the design truck in the ATR, surcharge loads for an ISFSI cask transporter were also considered.

In order to obtain the pipe axial forces and resultant moments for Sections 3223.1, 3311.4, 3312, &

3410 of the ATR, several SAP2000 Finite Element Models (FEM) were produced. The piping is supported at the model termination points, which were conservatively considered rigid anchor points, and at discrete node points that were modeled using springs. The springs in the FEM consist of pipe ova ling springs and soil springs, which are dependent on the modulus of elasticity of the pipe and soil properties in series. Detailed calculations and resulting values for the springs are shown in Attachment A.

The modulus of elasticity of the pipe is different for the thermal and seismic load cases. The exact soil parameters are not fully defined during the conceptual design phase. Therefore, lower bound and upper bound spring values were determined for both the thermal and seismic load cases for a range of potential soil and pipe properties. Then, best estimate spring values were determined by taking the average of the calculated lower and upper bound spring values. These best estimate values were adjusted downward and upward by a coefficient of variation (COV) to calculate best estimate lower and upper bound springs. A COVof 1 was conservatively used in accordance with Ref. 7.7, Section 11.4.c.iii. This resulted in factors of 0.5 and 2.0 for the lower and upper bound best estimate cases respectively. The pipe was qualified for the bounding range of calculated upper and lower cases and best estimate upper and lower cases.

The spring values and node point spacing for the FEM were determined by following the methodology outlined in Appendix B & Appendix E of Ref. 7.3.

After the initial run of the SAP2000 models, displacements at all node points were compared to the displacement range that was valid for each of the applied springs. There were several nodes that exceeded the breakaway displacement in the axial direction for the thermal load cases. Replacing the springs that exceed the displacement range with the breakaway force would be an acceptable, but iterative, solution. As an alternative, links were used in place of all of the axial springs for the thermal models. The links were modeled with a linear force-displacement relationship up to the breakaway displacement. The breakaway force was considered for pipe displacements beyond the breakaway displacement. Similar to the spring values, the breakaway force for each link is dependent on the effective length.

---

PageS

6.0 Assumptions

6.1 Assumption

Miter elbows have the same inside diameter as the straight pipe, an average outside diameter 11 11 of 16 a bend radius of 24 and a one-half angle between adjacent miter axes of 11.25 degrees.

Justification:

This assumption does not require verification as it will be worked into the detailed design.

6.2 Assumption

Fluid transients, if any, are considered to be negligible.

Justification:

There have been no identified relief valves or other valves that would create a significant pressure spike due to transient pressures for the replacement piping. Verification of this assumption needs to be completed for the detailed design.

6.3 Assumption

Native soil is considered to be loose.

Justification:

The native soil properties will need to be verified for the detailed design.

6.4 Assumption

Flowable fill is considered to have a minimum modulus of soil reaction of 3000-psi.

Justification:

This assumption does not require verification as it will be worked into the detailed design.

6.5 Assumption

11 A settlement of 1/4 is applied at both of the model termination points.

Justification:

The assumed settlement of 1/4" is considered to be a very conservative value for the settlement at the model termination points. However, justification will need to be provided for the value used in the detailed design.

6.6 Assumption

A smaller trench width produces larger and less favorable ring deflection. A trench width of 3-ft is considered to be a lower bound value which is used as a worst case.

Justification:

This assumption does not require verification as it will be worked into the detailed design.

6.7 Assumption

The flowable fill is conservatively considered to be used for all of the backfill (all the way to grade).

Justification:

This assumption does not require verification as it will be worked into the detailed design.

---

Page6

7.0 References 7.1 PPI, "Handbook of Polyethylene Pipe", 2nd Ed. with 6/6/12 Errata.

7.2 Marohl, M.P., "Comparison of Numerical Methods for Calculation of Vertical Soil Pressures on Buried Piping Due to Truck Loading," Proceedings of the ASME 2014 Pressure Vessels &

Piping Conference, PVP2014-28467, July 20-24, 2014.

7.3 EPRI Report 1013549, "Nondestructive Evaluation: Seismic Design Criteria for Polyethylene Pipe Replacement Code Case," Technical Update, September 2006.

7.4 Das, Braja M., "Principles of Foundation Engineering," 6th Ed.

7.5 American Lifelines Alliance, "Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel Pipe," July 2001 with Addenda through February 2005.

7.6 McGrath, T. J. and Hoopes, R. J., "'Bedding Factors and E' Values for Buried Pipe Installations Backfilled with Air-Modified CLSM," The Design and Application of Controlled Low-Strength Materials (Fiowable Fill), ASTM STP 1331, A. K. Howard and J. L. Hitch, Eds.,

American Society for Testing and Materials, 1998.

7.7 NUREG-0800, Section 3.7.2, "Seismic System Analysis."

---

Page7

Attachment A- Development of Spring & Breakaway Force Values This attachment develops the spring and breakaway force values that are input into the SAP2000 models.

See Design Input 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 for the replacement piping layout. Per Design Input 3.2 through 3.5, the ground surface elevation (grade elevation) for this piping is 129', the highest elevation to the pipe centerline is 122' and the deepest elevation to the pipe centerline is 119'-6". The deepest pipe location (smallest elevation) is used as a worst case for calculating soil overburden loads except for lower bound spring evaluations. The shallowest pipe location (largest elevation) is used as a worst case for calculating all surcharge loads.

ELground := 129*ft Grade Elevation (See 3.4 & 3.5)

ELmax := 122*ft Pipe Centerline Maximum Elevation (See 3.2)

ELmin := 119.5*ft Pipe Centerline Minimum Elevation (See 3.2)

Epipe.th := 46000* psi Modulus of Elasticity of Pipe for Thermal Evaluations (1000-hrs & 73oF, From Table 3210-3 of Design Input 3.1)

Epipe.seis := 82000*psi Modulus of Elasticity of Pipe for Seismic Evaluations (0.5-hrs & 73°F, From Table 3210-3 of Design Input 3.1)

The modulus of soil reaction for the backfill (flowable fill) is taken from Table 4 of Ref. 7.6 considering a minimum age of 28 days. Note that this value is similar to that of Table 3-8 of Chapter 6 of Ref. 7.1 for coarse-grain soil at a depth of cover ranging from 5 to 10 feet. The pipe has a cover of at least 5 feet for the entire routing.

E' := 3000 psi Modulus of Soil Reaction for Backfill The straight pipe portions consist of IPS 14 HOPE piping produced with PE4710 material of cell classification 445574C per Section 1100 of Design Input 3.1.

D := 14.00in Average Outside Diameter of Pipe (See 3. 7)

DR:= 7 Dimension Ratio of Pipe trabmin := 2* in Minimum Fabricated Pipe Wall Thickness (See 3. 7) 0 i := 0 - 2*trabmin = IO.in Inside Diameter of Pipe 0 elbow := l&in Miter Elbow Outside Diameter (See 6.1)

Inside diameter for the miter elbows is set to match the inside diameter of the straight pipe (See 6.1 ).

0 i.elbow := 0 - 2* trabmin = 1(}in Miter Elbow Inside Diameter 0 elbow - 0 i.elbow .

telbow := = 3*m Miter Elbow Wall Thickness 2

0 elbow DRelbow := = 5.333 Dimension Ratio of Miter Elbow tel bow 04- 0*4 I . 4 lp := n---- - = 1394.867m Moment of Inertia of Pipe 64 PageA-1

Attachment A- Development of Spring & Breakaway Force Values The maximum and minimum soil densities are taken as the upper and lower bound values for the typical range of weight for flowable fill (See 3.8). The upper bound value used is considered to include any soil saturation affects. The flowable fill is conservatively considered to be used for all of the backfill (all the way to grade) (See 6. 7).

Pmax := 145 *pcf Maximum Density of Soil Above Pipe Pmin := 70* pcf Minimum Density of Soil Above Pipe K:= 0.1 Bedding Factor (See 3.1, Section 3210)

The methodology outlined in Appendix B & Appendix E of Ref. 7.3 is followed for developing pipe ovaling spring values, soil spring values, and spring spacing.

The soil properties range from a lower bound to an upper bound (soil density for example).

Therefore, each load condition will have a lower bound evaluation and an upper bound evaluation.

This results in four sets of spring values: seismic load condition lower bound, seismic load condition upper bound, thermal load condition lower bound, and thermal load condition upper bound.

The pipe ovaling springs are dependent on the pipe inside and outside diameter. Therefore, spring values for both the straight pipe and the miter elbows are calculated.

Lower Bound Pice Ovalinq Springs:

The lower bound modulus of soil reaction value is used for the lower bound springs.

E' = 3000*psi Modulus of Soil Reaction for Backfill (Previously Defined)

Per Ref. 7.3, Section 5.10, a lag factor of 1.0 is recommended for short-term loads and 1.5 for long-term loads. Therefore, 1.0 is used for seismic load condition and 1.5 is used for thermal load condition.

Lr.s := 1.0 Lr.th := 1.5 Lag Factor (Ref. 7.3, Section 5.10)

Stiffness due to Pipe Ovaling for Straight Pipe (Seismic Load Condition) 2 3

• Epipe.seis ( I )

-..;.......;..--. + 0.061*E' 2 3 DR- I .

K_ I := - * *D = 12210.42*psl (Ref. 7.3, Eq. B-1a)

-~o£s ~ ~L 1 (s Stiffness due to Pipe Ovaling for Straight Pipe (Thermal Load Condition) 2*Eplpe.t

. h( I )3 + 0.061* E' 2 3 DR- I .

~o.th.ls := - * *D = 6066.206*psl (Ref. 7.3, Eq. B-1a) 0i K*Lr.th Stiffness due to Pipe Ovaling for Miter Elbows (Seismic Load Condition) 2*Ep1pe.se1s.

. . ( I )3 + 0_061 .E' 2 3 DRelbow - 1 .

K._ 1 *- * *D lb = 27354.407*psl (Ref. 7.3, Eq. B-1a)

-~o.s. e.- K*L e ow 0 i.elbow f.s Stiffness due to Pipe Ovaling for Miter Elbows (Thermal Load Condition) 2*Eplpe.t

. h(

• I )3 + 0.061* E' 2 3 DRelbow - 1 .

K_ h 1 *-

-~o.t . e.- D

~Lf.th

• Delbow = 11944.055*psl (Ref. 7.3, Eq. B-1a) i.elbow Page A-2

Attachment A - Development of Spring & Breakaway Force Values Lower Bound Transverse Soil Spring:

The flowable fill is considered to behave like dense sand for determination of soil springs.

The minimum ground cover is used which, as a worst case, produces the smallest stiffness.

ELP := ELmax = 122*ft Pipe Elevation (To Pipe Centerline)

H := ELground- ELP = 7*ft Height of Ground Cover (Depth to Pipe Centerline)

<t> := 40* deg Best Estimate Angle of Internal Friction (Ref. 7.4, Table 1.8)

Calculations for Straight Pipe Springs:

The Horizontal Bearing Capacity Factor, Nqh* can be determined by using Figures B-1 and B-2(a) of Ref. 7.3. These same figures are developed in Ref. 7.5. In-lieu of using the figures, the equation in Section B.2 of Ref. 7.5 is used which will provide a more accurate value.

Horizontal Bearing Capacity Factor (Ref. 7.5, Section B.2) for 4>>=40°:

Nqh == 10.959 + 1.783{~) + 0.045{~r _ 0.005425{~r _ 0.0001153{~r = 21.956 The minimum soil density is used for all of the lower bound spring calculations since this produces the smallest spring values.

Breakaway Force (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand)

The transverse displacement ranges between 2% and 10% of (H+D/2) per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3.

The larger the displacement, the smaller the spring value. Therefore, the largest displacement values from Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3 are considered for all of the lower bound spring values.

d1 := 10%{H + ~) = 9.J.in Displacement (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand) ft

~.Is:= d = 114.939*psi Transverse Soil Spring for Straight Pipe t (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3)

PageA-3

Attachment A - Development of Spring & Breakaway Force Values Calculations for Miter Elbow Springs:

Horizontal Bearing Capacity Factor (Ref. 7.5, Section B.2} for $=40°:

2 3 4 Nqh := 10.959 + 1.783*( H ) + 0.045*( H ) - 0.005425*( H ) - 0.0001153*( H )

0 etbow 0 elbow 0 elbow 0 elbow Nqh = 20.687 lbf ft := 0 elbow*Pmin*H*Nqh = 1126.317*-.- Breakaway Force (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand}

m d 1 := 10%{H + Del~w) = 9.2*in Displacement (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand}

ft

~.le := d = 122.426*psi Transverse Soil Spring for Miter Elbows t (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3}

Lower Bound Axial Soil Spring:

The coefficient of soil pressure at rest is calculated using Jaky's simplified equation from Section 7.2 of Ref. 7 .4. This provides a reasonable empirical approximation of the true value.

K0 := 1 -sin($)= 0.357 Coefficient of Soil Pressure at Rest (Ref. 7.4, Section 7.2}

Per Ref. 7.3, page B-4, the friction angle pipe-soil, l>, ranges between 0.5 and 0.8 times the internal angle of friction. The smaller the friction angle pipe-soil, the smaller the spring value. Therefore, 0.5 times the internal angle of friction is considered for the lower bound spring values 0 := 0.5- <P = 0.349 Calculations for Straight Pipe Springs:

( D) lbf Breakaway Force fa. 1s := 7\*- *p * *H*(1 + Ko)*tan(O) = 36.965*-

mm in (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand}

2 da := 0.2*in Displacement (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand}

fa.ls .

Ka.ts := -d- = 184.827

• ps1 Axial Soil Spring for Straight Pipe a (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3}

Calculations for Miter Elbow Springs:

0 Breakaway Force fa. 1e := ( 7\* elbow) *pmm * *H* ( 1 + Ko) *tan(O) = 42.246*- lbf in (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand}

2 da := 0.2*in Displacement (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand}

fa.te .

Ka.te := -d- = 211.231* ps1 Axial Soil Spring for Miter Elbows a (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3}

PageA-4

Attachment A- Development of Spring & Breakaway Force Values Lower Bound Vertical Soil Spring:

The Downward Bearing Capacity Factors 1 and 2, Nq & Nv respectively, can be determined by using Figure B-3 of Ref. 7.3. In-lieu of using this figure, the equations in Section B.4 of Ref. 7.5 are used to obtain more accurate values.

Nq := exp( 'If* tan( ))* tan(45*deg + ~ r = 64.195 Downward Bearing Capacity Factor 1 (Ref. 7.5, Section B.4)

N := exp(0.18*....!_- 2.5) = 109.947 Downward Bearing Capacity Factor 2 1 deg (Ref. 7.5, Section B.4)

Calculations for Straight Pipe Springs:

2 N1 lbf fd := pmm* *H*Nq *D + pmm * *D * - = 3494.668*- Vertical Down Breakaway Force 2 in (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand) dd := 15%*0 = 2.1-in Displacement (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand) fd Kd.ls := d = 1664.128*psi Vertical Down Soil Spring for Straight Pipe d (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3)

The Vertical Uplift Factor, Nqv* can be determined by using Figure B-4 of Ref. 7.3. These same figures are developed in Ref. 7.5. In-lieu of using the figures, the equation in Section B.3 of Ref. 7.5 is used, which provides a more accurate value .

Nqv := mm .( <l>*H 44*deg*D J

, Nq = 5.455 Vertical Uplift Factor (Ref. 7.5, Section B.3)

Vertical Upward Breakaway Force (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand) du := 1.5%*H = 1.26*in Displacement (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand) fu Ku.ls := d = 206.229*psi Vertical Up Soil Spring for Straight Pipe u (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3)

As recommended in Ref. 7.3, Appendix B, the total vertical soil spring is taken as the average of the vertical up and down.

Kv.ts := l<u.ts: ~.Is = 935.178*psi Vertical Soil Spring for Straight Pipe Page A-S

Attachment A - Development of Spring & Breakaway Force Values Calculations for Miter Elbow Springs:

Vertical Down Breakaway Force (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand) dd := 15%*Delbow = 2.4*in Displacement (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand) fd Kd.le := d = 1693.82*psi Vertical Down Soil Spring for Miter Elbows d (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3)

Nqv := mm *( Q>*H ,Nq) = 4.773 Vertical Uplift Factor (Ref. 7.5, Section B.3) 44*deg* Del bow Vertical Upward Breakaway Force (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand) du := 1.5%*H = 1.26*in Displacement (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand) fu Ku.le := d = 206.229*psi Vertical Up Soil Spring for Miter Elbows u (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3) l<v.le := l<u.le: Kd.le = 950.02S*psi Vertical Soil Spring for Miter Elbows Lower Bound Influence Length:

Since the influence lengths affect the straight pipe portions, only the straight pipe properties are used to determine the influence length. The soil modulus (K 0 ) is taken as the pipe ovalization spring stiffness following the example in Ref. 7.3, Appendix E.

~o.s.ls = 12210.42*psi 1

f3s := ( ~o.s.ls 4*Epipe.seis" 1P

) 4 = 0.072*~ Characteristic of the System (Ref. 7.3, Eq. B-6) m 3*7f Lr.l := - - = 32.782* in Influence Length (Seismic Load Condition) (Ref. 7.3, Eq. B-5)

...,.s 4* f3s

~o.th.ls = 6066.206*psi 1

4 f3th := ( ~o.th.ls ) = 0.07*~ Characteristic of the System (Ref. 7.3, Eq. B-6) 4*Epipe.th*lp m 3*7f Lf3.th := - - = 33.792* in Influence Length (Thermal Load Condition) (Ref. 7.3, Eq. B-5}

4

• f3th Lr3.1 := max(Lf3.s* Lf3.th) = 33.792*in Controlling Influence Length PageA-6

Attachment A - Development of Spring & Breakaway Force Values Upper Bound Pipe Ovalinq Springs:

The larger the modulus of elasticity of the soil, the larger the spring value. Therefore, the modulus of elasticity for the backfill is taken from Table 3-9 of Chapter 6 of Ref. 7.1 as 20000-psi, which is the largest tabulated, realistic value.

E' := 20000* psi Upper Bound Modulus of Elasticity for Backfill Stiffness due to Pipe Ovaling for Straight Pipe (Seismic Load Condition) 2*E . . (

_..:...pt..:...pe_.s_e_ts. 1 )3 + 0.0 . E' 61

~o.s.us := o.*

2 1

3 DR- I K*L f.s

• D = 41246.42*pst (Ref. 7.3, Eq. B-1a)

Stiffness due to Pipe Ovaling for Straight Pipe (Thermal Load Condition) 2*E ptpe.t . h( 1 )3 + 0.061* E' 2 3 DR- 1 .

K_ th

--po . .us

= -D* KL *D = 25423.539*pst (Ref. 7.3, Eq. B-1a) i . f.th Stiffness due to Pipe Ovaling for Miter Elbows (Seismic Load Condition) 2*E ptpe.sets.

. . ( I )3 + 0.0 6 I . E' 2 3 DRelbow - 1 (Ref. 7.3, Eq. B-1a)

~o.s.ue := D

• K*L

• 0 etbow i.elbow f.s

~o.s.ue = 60538.407 *psi Stiffness due to Pipe Ovaling for Miter Elbows (Thermal Load Condition) 2*E ptpe.

. th * ( I )3 + 0.061

• E' 2 3 DRelbow - I (Ref. 7.3, Eq. B-1a)

~o.th.ue := D

• KL

• 0 etbow i.elbow

• f.th

~o.th.ue = 34066. 72I *psi PageA-7

Attachment A - Development of Spring & Breakaway Force Values Upper Bound Transverse Soil Spring:

The maximum ground cover is used which, as a worst case, produces the largest stiffness.

ELP := ELmin = 119.5*ft Pipe Elevation (To Pipe Centerline)

H := ELground- ELP = 9.5*ft Height of Ground Cover (Depth to Pipe Centerline)

The angle of internal friction, cp,is dependent upon the relative density of the soil. The flowable fill is considered to be a dense soil and the value for cp ranges between 40 and 45 degrees per Table 1.8 of Ref. 7.4. 40 degrees is considered as a best estimate for the actual value.

<P := 40*deg Angle of Internal Friction (Ref. 7.4, Table 1.8)

Calculations for Straight Pipe Springs:

The Horizontal Bearing Capacity Factor, Nqh* can be determined by using Figures B-1 and B-2(a) of Ref. 7.3. These same figures are developed in Ref. 7.5. In-lieu of using the figures, the equation in Section B.2 of Ref. 7.5 is used, which provides a more accurate value.

Horizontal Bearing Capacity Factor (Ref. 7.5, Section B.2) for cp=40°:

Nqh == 10.959 + 1.783{~) + 0.045{~r _ 0.005425-(~r _ 0.0001153{~r = 25.026 The maximum soil density is used for all of the upper bound spring calculations since this produces the largest spring values.

lbf ft := D*Pmax*H*Nqh = 3351.505*-.- Breakaway Force (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand) m The transverse displacement ranges between 2% and 10% of (H+D/2) per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3.

The smaller the displacement, the larger the spring value. Therefore, the smallest displacement values from Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3 are considered for all of the upper bound spring values.

d1 := 2%{H + ~) = 2.42*in Displacement (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand) ft

~.us:= d = 1384.92*psi Transverse Soil Spring for Straight Pipe t (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3)

PageA-8

Attachment A - Development of Spring & Breakaway Force Values Calculations for Miter Elbow Springs:

Horizontal Bearing Capacity Factor (Ref. 7.5, Section B.2) for '=40°:

2 3 4 Nqh := 10.959 + 1.783*( H ) + 0.045*( H ) - 0.005425*( H ) - 0.0001153*( H )

0 elbow 0 elbow 0 elbow 0 elbow Nqh = 23.688 lbf ft := 0 elbow*Pmax*H*Nqh = 3625.57*-.- Breakaway Force (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand) m Delbow) . Displacement (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand) dt := 2%* ( H + = 2.44*m 2

ft Kt.ue := d = 1485.889*psi Transverse Soil Spring for Miter Elbows t (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3)

Upoer Bound Axial Soil Spring:

The coefficient of soil pressure at rest is calculated using Jaky's simplified equation from Section 7.2 of Ref. 7.4. This provides a reasonable empirical approximation of the true value.

K 0 := 1 -sin( )= 0.357 Coefficient of Soil Pressure at Rest (Ref. 7.4, Section 7.2)

Per Ref. 7.3, page B-4, the friction angle pipe-soil, 6, ranges between 0.5 and 0.8 times the internal angle of friction. The larger the friction angle pipe-soil, the larger the spring value. Therefore, 0.8 times the internal angle of friction is considered for the upper bound spring values 0 := 0.8* Q> = 0.559 Calculations for Straight Pipe Springs:

D) *p lbf Breakaway Force fa.us := ( n*-

2 max*H*(1 + Ko)*tan(O) = 178.408*- in (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand) da := 0.1*in Displacement (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand) fa.us .

Ka.us := -d- = 1784.079* ps1 Axial Soil Spring for Straight Pipe a (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3)

Calculations for Miter Elbow Springs:

Delbow) ) lbf Breakaway Force fa.ue := ( n* *pmax*H-(1 + Ko *tan(O) = 203.895*- in (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand) 2 da := O.l*in Displacement (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand) fa.ue .

Ka.ue := -d- = 2038.947*psl Axial Soil Spring for Miter Elbows a (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3)

PageA-9

Attachment A - Development of Spring & Breakaway Force Values Upper Bound Vertical Soil Spring:

The Downward Bearing Capacity Factors 1 and 2, Nq and Nv respectively, can be determined by using Figure B-3 of Ref. 7.3. In-lieu of using this figure, the equations in Section 8.4 of Ref. 7.5 are used to obtain more accurate values.

Nq := exp(1r-tan( <!>))*tan(45* deg + ~ r = 64.195 Downward Bearing Capacity Factor 1 (Ref. 7.5, Section B.4)

N := exp(O.l8*_!_- 2.5) = 109.947 Downward Bearing Capacity Factor 2 1 deg (Ref. 7.5, Section B.4)

Calculations for Straight Pipe Springs:

2 N1 lbf fd := pmax*H*Nq*D + pmax*D * - = 9501.391*- Vertical Down Breakaway Force 2 in (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand) dd := 10%*0 = 1.4*in Displacement (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand) fd Kd.us := d = 6786.708*psi Vertical Down Soil Spring for Straight Pipe d (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3)

The vertical uplift factor can be determined by using Figure B-4 of Ref. 7.3. These same figures are developed in Ref. 7.5. In-lieu of using the figures, the equation in Section 8.3 of Ref. 7.5 is used which provides a more accurate value .

Nqv := mm . ( Q>*H ,Nq) = 7.403 Vertical Uplift Factor (Ref. 7.5, Section B.3}

44*deg*D Vertical Upward Breakaway Force (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand) du := 0.5%*H = 0.57*in Displacement (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand) fu Ku.us := d = 1739.268-psi Vertical Up Soil Spring for Straight Pipe u (Per Table B-1 of Ref. 7.3)

As recommended in Ref. 7.3, Appendix B, the total vertical soil spring is taken as the average of the vertical up and down.

K *=

aV'.US.

Ku.us + Kd.us = 4262.988* psl. Vertical Soil Spring for Straight Pipe 2

PageA-10

Attachment A - Development of Spring & Breakaway Force Values Calculations for Miter Elbow Springs:

Vertical Down Breakaway Force (Per Table 8-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand) lbf fd = 11006.347*-.

In dd := l0%*Delbow = 1.6*in Displacement (Per Table 8-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand) fd Kd.ue := d = 6878.967*psi Vertical Down Soil Spring for Miter Elbows d (Per Table 8-1 of Ref. 7.3)

Nqv := mm .( <t>*H ,Nq) = 6.477 Vertical Uplift Factor (Ref. 7.5, Section 8.3) 44*deg*Delbow Vertical Upward Breakaway Force (Per Table 8-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand) du := 0.5%*H = 0.57*in Displacement (Per Table 8-1 of Ref. 7.3, Sand) fu Ku.ue := d = l739.268*psi Vertical Up Soil Spring for Miter Elbows u (Per Table 8-1 of Ref. 7.3)

Ku.ue + Kd.ue .

Kv.ue := = 4309.117*pst Vertical Soil Spring for Miter Elbows 2

PageA-11

Attachment A - Development of Spring & Breakaway Force Values Upper Bound Influence Length:

Since the influence lengths affect the straight pipe portions, only the straight pipe properties are used to determine the influence length. The soil modulus (K0 ) is taken as the pipe ovalization spring stiffness following the example in Ref. 7.3, Appendix E.

~o.s.us = 41246.42*psi (K )4 r:t po.s.us 1 tJs := = 0.097*:- Characteristic of the System (Ref. 7.3, Eq. 8-6) 4* Epipe.seis* lp m 3*7r Lr:~.  := - - = 24.181-in Influence Length (Seismic Load Condition) (Ref. 7.3, Eq. 8-5) tJ*s 4* f3s

~o.th.us = 25423.539-psi I

4 f3th := ( ~o.th.us ) = O.l*~ Characteristic of the System (Ref. 7.3, Eq. 8-6) 4*Epipe.th*lp m 3*'IT Influence Length (Thermal Load Condition) (Ref. 7.3, Eq. 8-5)

Lr3 th := - - = 23.618*in

. 4

• f3th Controlling Influence Length PageA-12

Attachment A - Development of Spring & Breakaway Force Values To simplify the modeling process, the enveloping spring for either the straight pipe properties or the miter bend properties is used.

~o.s.l := min(Kpo.s.ls*Kpo.s.le) = 12210.42*psi Lower Bound Pipe Ovaling Spring for Seismic

~o.th.l := min(Kpo.th.ls*~o.th.le) = 6066.206*psi Lower Bound Pipe Ovaling Spring for Thermal

~.1 := min(~.Is, Kt.te) = 114.939*psi Lower Bound Transverse Soil Spring Ka.1 := min( Ka.ts, Ka.te) = 184.827 *psi Lower Bound Axial Soil Spring l<v.I := min(Kv.ts* l<v.le) = 935.178*psi Lower Bound Vertical Soil Spring

~o.s.u := max(Kpo.s.us*~o.s.ue) = 60538.407*psi Upper Bound Pipe Ovaling Spring for Seismic

~o.th.u := max(~o.th.us*~o.th.ue) = 34066.72l*psi Upper Bound Pipe Ovaling Spring for Thermal

~.u := max(~.us* ~.ue) = 1485.889*psi Upper Bound Transverse Soil Spring Ka.u := max(Ka.us*Ka.ue) = 2038.947*psi Upper Bound Axial Soil Spring l<v.u := max(Kv.us* Kv.ue) = 4309.117*psi Upper Bound Vertical Soil Spring Average of Lower and Upper Spring Values & Lower and Upper Axial Breakaway Forces:

~o.s.a := 0.5*{Kpo.s.l + ~o.s.u) = 36374.413-psi

~o.th.a := 0.5*(~o.th.l + Kpo.th.u) = 20066.464*psi

~.a:= 0.5*(~.1 + ~.u) = 800.414*psi Ka.a := 0.5*{Ka.l + Ka.u) = 1111.887*psi l<v.a := 0.5*(Kv.1 + Kv.u) = 2622.148*psi lbf ra.ae := 0.5*( fa.le + ra.ue) = 123.07*-;-

lbf fa.as := 0.5*(fa.ls + fa.us) = 107.687*-;-

1/2 xAverage Spring Values: 2 xAverage Spring Values:

~o.s.al := 0.5* Kpo.s.a = 18187.207 *psi Kpo.s.au := 2*~o.s.a = 72748.827*psi

~o.th.al := 0.5*~o.th.a = 10033.232*psi ~o.th.au := 2*~o.th.a = 40132.927*psi

~.al := 0.5* ~.a = 400.207 *psi Kt.au := 2*~.a = 1600.829*psi Ka.al := 0.5*Ka.a = 555.944*psi Ka.au := 2

• Ka.a = 2223.774* psi Kv.al := 0.5-Ky.a = 1311.074*psi Kv.au := 2*Kv.a = 5244.296-psi PageA-13

Attachment A - Development of Spring & Breakaway Force Values 1/2 x Average Axial Breakaway Forces: 2 x Average Axial Breakaway Forces:

lbf lbf ra.ale := 0.5*fa.ae = 61.535*-.- ra.aue := 2*fa.ae = 246.141*-.-

m m lbf lbf ra.als := 0.5*fa.as = 53.843*-.- ra.aus := 2*fa.as = 215.373*-.-

m m Bounding Springs & Axial Breakaway Forces for Models:

~o.s.bl := min(~o.s.l'~o.s.ai) = 12210.42*psi Lower Bound Pipe Ovaling Spring for Seismic

~o.th.bl := min(~o.th.l'~o.th.al) = 6066.206*psi Lower Bound Pipe Ovaling Spring for Thermal Ka.bl := min( Ka.l, Ka.al) = 184.827 *psi Lower Bound Axial Soil Spring

~.bl := min(~.I,~.al) = 935.178*psi Lower Bound Vertical Soil Spring

~.bl := min(~.l'~.al) = 114.939*psi Lower Bound Transverse Soil Spring

~o.s.bu := max(~o.s.u'~o.s.au) = 72748.827*psi Upper Bound Pipe Ovaling Spring for Seismic Kpo.th.bu := max( ~o.th.u' Kpo.th.au) = 40132.927 *psi Upper Bound Pipe Ovaling Spring for Thermal Ka.bu := max(Ka.u,Ka.au) = 2223.774*psi Upper Bound Axial Soil Spring

~.bu := max(~.u'~.au) = 5244.296*psi Upper Bound Vertical Soil Spring

~.bu := max(~.u'~.au) = 1600.829*psi Upper Bound Transverse Soil Spring Lower Bound Axial Breakaway Force for Straight Pipe ra.bl.e := min( fa.le' ra.ale) = 42.246* l~f m

Lower Bound Axial Breakaway Force for Elbows lbf Upper Bound Axial Breakaway Force for Straight Pipe ra.bu.s := max( fa. us' ra.aus) = 215.373.--;-

lbf Upper Bound Axial Breakaway Force for Elbows ra.bu.e := max( ra.ue' ra.aue) = 246.141*--;-

Controlling Influence Length The spring values and breakaway forces above are dependent on their effective lengths. Therefore, the value modeled will vary from node to node.

PageA-14