ML20080P797
| ML20080P797 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1984 |
| From: | Baskin J, Edwards N, Lehnert R NUTECH ENGINEERS, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080P730 | List: |
| References | |
| BPC-01-300-5, BPC-01-300-5-V05-R00, BPC-1-300-5, BPC-1-300-5-V5-R, NUDOCS 8402230120 | |
| Download: ML20080P797 (150) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
/'3 i
BPC-01-3 00-5
\\
Revision 0 January 1984 HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT VOLUME O SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE FIPING ANALYSIS Prepared for:
Public Service Electric and Gas Company b
(
Prepared by:
NUTECH Engineers, Inc.
San Jose, California Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
A$
N}bA4A P.E.
Y. b. Yiu, P.E.
h.b.Baskin, Group Leader Group Leader Approved by:
Issued by:
dJa4M 64d er4/d N. W.
- Edwards, P.E.
R. A.
Lehne r t,
P.E.
ry President Project Manager
(
)
i
\\~J 8402230120 840210 DR ADOCK 05000
REVISION CONTROL SHEET (D
!U)
TITLE:
Hope Creek Generating DOCUMENT NUMBER:
B PC 3 0 0- 5 Station Revision 0 Plant Unique Analysis Report Volume 5
% 'A f35 skin / Group Leader In is
/./c. / dea 44 kf H.
Fateni/ Specialist Initials NM-M. M. Habi6/ Consultant I Initials Y
i1c c._
(
L.
R. Hussar / Engineer Initials RAa WM n
Initials R.
A.
Lehnert/Proiect Manager C.r4b3-cm.0 C.
T. Wong/ PriWcipal Enginee r Initials
$.l*A
/4 %
Y. "C. Y %/ Group Leader Initia2s
)ov
~
H.
6.
boolani/ Engineer. Supe rvisc.
Initials f~)
(
)
C.
S.
Haynes/ Senior Engineer Initials Nge nutp_qh
REVISION CONTROL SHEET g.
I (CONTINUATION)
TITLE: Hope Creek Generating DOCUMENT FILE NUMBER: BPC-01-300-5 Station Revision 0 Plant Unique Analysis nanore - volume e,
l AFFECTED DOC PREPARED ACCURACY CRITERI A REMARG PAGEIS)
REV 8Y/DATE CHECK 8Y / DATE CHECK BY / DATE 123lN Pages 5-2.1 through 5-2 1-0 4{
1[L 64-1lp{gy 5-2.52 were prepared and checked by Bechtel Power 5-2.52 Corporation in accordance with their Quality Assur-l ance program.
Y l
1 O
PAGE OF QEP 3-3.1.2 REV 1
^'
_ _ - _ ~ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
REVISION CONTROL SHEET Hope Creek Generating (CONTINUATION)
TITLE Station DOCUMENT FILC NUMBER: Blv 300-5 Plant Unique Analysis Revision 0 Report - Volume 5 AFFECTED OCC PREPARED ACCURACY CRITERIA EMAMS DAGE(S)
REV SY / QATE CHECK BY / OATE CHECK SY / DATE
[L -It>84 4)][l-30-8 b [l-Al-D 11 0
iii 0
iv 0
v 0
vi 0
vii 0
viii 0
ix 0
x 0
xi 0
xii 0
5-1.1 0
5-1.2 0
u
,I 5-1.3 0
5-1.4 0
/t-3o-H f,
\\-5\\ 81 (l/-h-8+
ll-5*-6 5-3.1 0
L 5-3.2 0
5-3.3 0
LAHff-3#-14 5-3.4 0
CM b-28-8'l 5-3.5 0
e T W b-26-b/
5-3.6 0
L Rdll-30-84 5-3.7 0
5-3.8 0
o l'.2//f-3c-84 5-3.9 0
5-3.10 0
$ /f-38-fi 48//[/-fo-f4 5-3.11 0
5-3.12 0
5-3.13 0
5-3.14 0
5-3.15 0
5-3.16 0
5-3.17 0
5-3.18 0
y 5-3.19 0
g.3o.g L/g/[-b ff-
,3,,
PAGE OF CEP 3-3.1.2 REV 1
REVISION CONTROL SHEET Hope Creek Generating (OONTINUATION)
\\V TITLE: Station DOCUMENT FILE NUMBER: BPC-01-300-5 Plant Unique Analysis Revision 0 Report - Volume 5 l
APPECTED CCC PREPAP3D ACCtJRACY CRITERIA REMARKS PAGE(5)
REV BY/DATE CHECK SY / OATE CHECK BY / OATE 5-3.20 0
1 1}0 M
/.,8#[- Jo-f4 p[l-3o-54 5-3.21 0
5-3.22 0
5-3.23 0
5-3.24 0
5-3.25 0
5-3.26 0
5-3.27 0
5-3.28 C
5-3.29 0
5-3.30 0
Y 5-3.31 0
5-3.32 0
'I l J M /~78-f4
[I ft
/g-3D-M M'18-89 4f t-M-39 5-3.33 0
5-3.34 0
ggg/,,3._39 / E////-3e-f4
/g.3 g 5-3.35 0
+1k.ffe3.-&9 4 R/
-fo-H 5-3.36 0
N
'-1**"
g 5-3.37 0
Ht f /t ~1=-Et [2/I[/~3*"f4 5-3.38 0
H Mlt ->-4 LRilk-30-f4 5-3.39 0
g.30. g4 CrcW[-28-89 5-3.40 0
5-3.41 0
5-3.42 0
, /Cy [I-Jo/dt 5-3.43 0
Mf t-M-IS 5-3.44 0
5-3.45 0
5-3.46 0
5-3.47 0
5-3.48 0
5-3.49 0
5-3.50 0
1f O)
V 5-3.51 0
9,4 14l-T4
(
y CNf-2844, }C {I-h{ff
~'
5-3.52 0
g,y, y PAGE OF CEP 311,2 REV 1
REVIS:ON CONTROL SHEET Hope Creek Generating (CONTINUATION)
COCUMENT FILE NUMBER: BPC-0 -300-5 TITLE:
Unique Analysis a
Report - Volume 5 ADFECTED OCC PAEPARED ACCURACY CRITERI A A EMAR KS PAGE(3)
AEV BY / OATE CHECK SY / OATE CHECK SY / OATE
'%/f-3a. 84 (*//-29-s4
/I'3o St 5-3-53 0
5-3.54 0
cred//- 2P-F9 h/l.70 94
- t. Jo. 94-5-3.55 0
Mfff-1* k% LEl{ll-30-94
{l-50-$t i
p/t-70. S+
5-3.56 0
5-3.57 0
5-3.58 0
5-3.59 0
5-3.60 0
5-3.61 0
5-3.62 0
5-3.63 0
5-3.64 0
5-3.65 0
5-3.66 0
5-3.67 0
5-3.68 0
'I 5-3.69 0
5-3.70 0
q L. 2/ll/-30-24
%[J.3e. S4 N[-29-St/
5-3.71 0
5-3.72 0
M F /1-1. - 1< 9 t fill/- So-14 5-3.73 0
543Lf /l-3* -M 5-3.74 0
HW /s *>-24 t_ZHk-30-84
$/t.34.% 0;tJ/,.sg et/
y 5-3.75 0
5-3.76 0
g.yO.9 4 C7W//-pg,gy h)q/t-3,-Q sn#-[/t-3o-r4 t 8e/ b/t.7o.M Wi-n. M 5-3 77 0
ff g f 4-
/t ft - M [l-lo-af 5-3.78 0
p/i.3.y, f t,9-n $% t-D-69 5-4.1 0
PAGE CF OEP 3 3.1.2 AEV 1
ABSTRACT O
~
The primary containment for the Hope Creek Generating Station was
- designed, erected, pressure-tested, and N-stamped in accordance with the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
- Code,Section III, 1974 Edition with addenda up to and including Winter 1974.
These activities were performed by the Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Company for the Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSEEG).
Since then, new requirements which affect the design and operation of the primary containment system have been established.
These requirements are defined in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC)
Safety Evaluation
- Report, NUREG-0661.
The NUREG-0661 requir9ments define revised containment design loads postulated to occur during a loss-of-coolant accident or a safety-relief valve discharge event which are to be evaluated.
In addition, NUREG-0661 requires that an assessment of the effects that these postulated events have on the operation of the containment system be performed.
This plant unique analysis report (PUAR) documents the efforts undertaken to address and resolve each of the applicable NUREG-0661 requirements for Hope Creek.
It demonstrates, in accordance with NUREG-0661 acceptance criteria, that the design of the primary containment system is adequate and that original design safety margins have been restored.
The Hope Creek PUAR is composed of the following six volumes:
o Volume 1 GENERAL CRITERIA AND LOADS METHODOLOGY
- o. Volume 2 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER ANALYSIS o
Volume 3 VENT SYSTEM ANALYSIG o
Volume 4 INTERNAL STRUCTURES ANALYSIS o
Volume 5 SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE PIPING ANALYSIS
.o Volume 6 TORUS ATTACHED PIPING AND SUPPRESSION CHAMBER PENETRATION ANALYSES k'
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-il nutqqh
t Major portions of all volumes of this reporc bive been prepared by NUTECH Engineers, Incorporated (NUTECH),
acting as a
consultant responsible to the Public Service Electric and Gas Company.
Selected sections of Volumes 5
and 6
have been prepared by the Bechtel Power Corporation (acting as an agent responsible to the Public Service Electric and Gas Company).
This volume, volume 5,
documents the evaluation cf the safety relief valve discharge piping.
NOTE:
Identification of the volume number precedes cach page, section, subsection, table, and figure number.
O BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-iii nut _ech
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT 5-11 LIST OF ACRONYMS 5-vi LIST OF TABLES 5-ix LIST OF FIGURES 5-xi 5-
1.0 INTRODUCTION
5-1.1 5-1.1 Scope of Analysis 5-1.3 5-2.0 ANALYSIS OF SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE 5-2.1 PIPING INSIDE DRYWELL 5-2.1 Component Description 5-2.2 5-2.2 Loads and Load Combinations 5-2.11 5-2.2.1 Loads 5-2.12 5-2.2.2 Load Combinations 5-2.22 C'
5-2.3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria 5-2.36 5-2.4 Methods of Analysis 5-2.38 5-2.4.1 Analytical Modeling 5-2.39 l
5-2.4.2 Analysis Methods 5-2.41 5-2.5 Analysia Results and Conclusions 5-2.49 5-3.0 ANALYSIS OF WETWELL SAFETY RELIEF VALVE 5-3.1 DISCHARGE PIPING AND T-QUENCHERS 5-3.1 Component Description 5-3.2 5-3.2 Toads and Load Ccmbinations 5-3.14 5-3.2.1 Loads 5-3.15 5-3.2.2 Load Combinations 5-3.39 l
5-3.3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria 5-3.52 l
-s
'V BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-iv nutgsh
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)
O Page 5-3.4 Methods of Analysis 5-3.56 5-3.4.1 Analysis for Major Loads 5-3.57 5-3.4.2 Ramshead Analysis for 5-3.69 Local Effects 1
5-3.4.3 Fatigue Evaluation 5-3.71 l
5-3.5 Analysis Results and Conclusions 5-3.75 5-4.0 LIST OF REFERENCES 5-4.1 O
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-v nutgqh
LIST OF ACRONYMS ACI American Concrete Institute ADS Automatic Depressurization System AISC American Institute of Steel Construction ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ATWS Anticipated Transients Without Scram BDC Bottom Dead Center BWR Boiling Water Reactor CDF Cumulative Distribution Function CO Condensation Oscillation DBA Design Basis Accident DC Downcomer vLF Dynamic Load Factor ECCS Emergency Core Cooling System FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report FSI Fluid-Structure Interaction FSTF Full-Scale Test Facility HNWL.
High Normal Water Level HPCI High Pressure Coolant Injection IBA Intermediate Break Accident I&C Instrumentation and Control ID Inside Diameter IR Inside Radius LDR Load Definition Report (Mark I Containment Program)
{
\\"
BPC-01-300-5' Revision 0 5-vi nutagh i
1 LIST OF ACRONYMS (Continued)
LOCA Loss-of-Coolant Accident LPCI Low Pressure Coolant Injection LTP Long-Term Program MC Midcylinder MCF Modal Correction Factor MJ Mitered Joint MVA Multiple Valve Actuation NEP Non-Exceedance Probability NOC Normal Operating Conditions NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NSSS Nuclear Steam Supply System NVB Non-Vent Line Bay OBE Operating Basis Earthquake OD Outside Diameter PSD Power Spectral Density PSu&G Public Service Electric and Gas Company PUA Plant Unique Analysis PUAAG Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide PUAR Plant Unique Analysis Report PULD Plant Unique Load Definition OSTF Ouarter-Scale Test Facility RCIC Reactor Core Isolation Cooling RHR Residual Heat Removal BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-vii nutgqh
LIST OF ACRONYMS (Concluded)
RPV Reactor Pressure Vessel RSEL Resultant Static-Equivalent Load SBA Small Break Accident SBP Small Bore Piping SER Safety Evaluation Report SORV Stuck-Open Safety Relief Valve SRSS Square Root of the Sum of the Squares S RV Safety Relief Valve SRVDL Safety Relief Valve Discharge Line SSE Saf e Shutdown Earthquake STP Short-Term Program SVA Single Valve Actuation k
TAP Torus Attached Piping VB Vent Line Bay VH Vent Header VL Ve nt Li ne VPP Vent Pipe Penetration ZPA Zero Pe riod Acceleration B PC-01-3 00 -5 Revision 0 5-viii rv.dggh
LIST OF TABLES Number Title Page 5-2.2-1 Drywell SRV Piping Loading Identification 5-2.25 Cross-Reference 5-2.2-2 Event Combinations and Allowable Limits 5-2.26 for SRV Discharge Piping 5-2.2-3 Governing Load Combinations - Drywell 5-2.28 SRV Discharge Piping 5-2.2-4 Governing Load Combinations - Drywell 5-2.30 SRV Piping Supports 5-2.2-5 Basis for Governing Load Combinations -
5-2.32 Drywell SRV Piping 5-2.2-6 rasis for Governing Load Combinations -
5-2.34 Urywell SRV Piping Supports f-2.3-1 Allowable Stresses for Drywell SRV Piping 5-2.37 5-2.4-1 Drywell SRV Piping Structural Models 5-2.48 5-2.5-1 Ar.'. lysis Results for Drywell SRV 5-2.51 Piping Stress 5-2.5-2 Analysis Results for SRV Outlet Flange 5-2.52 Moments 5-3.2-1 Wetwell SRV Piping and T-quencher Loading 5-3.33 Identification Cross-Reference 5-3.2-2 Pressures and Temperatures for Wetwell SRV 5-3.34 Piping and T-quenchers 5-3.2-3 SRV Discharge Thrust Loads - Peak Segment 5-3.35 Forces for Wetwell Piping 5-3.2-4 Maximum Netwell SRV Piping System Submerged 5-3.36 Structure Loads 5-3.2-5 SRV Discharge T-quencher and End Cap Thrust 5-3.37 Loads 5-3.2-6 Maximum SRV Piping Pool Sws ll Elevated 5-3.38 Structure Loads BPC-01-300-5 Revisicn 0 5-ix nut _ech
LIST OF TABLES
[
(Co ncluded)
\\m Number Title Pac e 5-3.2-7 Event Combinations and Allowable Limits for 5-3.42 SRV Discharge Piping 5-3.2-8 Basis for Governing Load Combinations -
5-3.44 Wetwell SRV Discharge Piping and T-quenche rs 5-3.2-9 Basis for Governing Load Combinations -
5-3.46 Wetwell SRV Piping and T-quencher Supports 5-3.2-10 Governing Load Combinations - Wetwell SRV 5-3.48 Discharge Piping and T-quenchers 5-3.2-11 Governing Load Combinations - Wetwell SRV 5-3.50 Piping and T-quencher Supports 5-3.3-1 Allowable Stresses for SRV Piping and 5-3.54 T-quenchers 5-3.3-2 Allowable Stresses for Ramshead and 5-3.55
['N Wetwell SRV Piping and T-quencher Supports 5-3.5-1 Analysis Results for Wetwell SRV Piping 5-3.77 and T-quencher Stress 5-3.5-2 Analysis Results for Wetwell SRV Piping 5-3.76 and T-quencher Support Loads t
- A B PC-01-3 00-5 Revision 0 5-x nutgtgh
1 LIST OF FIGURES Number Title Page 5-2.1-1 Representative intV Piping System in the 5-2.4 Drywell 5-2.1-2 SRV Discharge Line and Main Steam Line 5-2.5 Schematic 5-2.1-3 SRV Discharge Line Connection to the Main 5-2.6 Steam Safety Relief Valve 5-2.1-4 Horizontal SRVDL Vacuum Breaker 5-2.7 Installation 5-2.1-5 Vertical SRVDL Vacuum Breaker Installation 5-2.8 5-2.1-6 Typical SRV Piping System in the Vent Pipe 5-2.9 5-2.1-7 Typical SRV Line Support in the Drywell 5-2.10 5-3.1-1 Typical Wetwell SRV Piping System and 5-3.5 Quencher - Isome tric View 5-3.1-2 General Arrangement of hetwell SRV Piping 5-3.6 and Quenchers in Containment 5-3.1-3 Developed View of SRV Piping and Quencher 5-3.7 in the Suppression Chamber 5-3.1-4 Section View of SRV Pipe Routing in the 5-3.8 Suppression Chamber 5-3.1-5 We twell SRV Piping Support De tails 5-3.9 5-3.1-6 T-quencher Arm Hole Pattern 5-3.10 5-3.1-7 T-quencher Ramshead and Support Details 5-3.11 5-3.1-8 Midcylinder and Mitered Joint Ring Girder 5-3.12 T-quencher Support De tails 5-3.1-9 Ramshead and T-quencher Arm Support 5-3.13 Details 5-3.4-1 Ve nt System 1/16 Segment Model - Isometric 5-3.72 View BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-xi nut _ech
LIST OF FIGURES (Concluded)
Number Title Pace 5-3.4-2 Wetwell SRV Piping, T-quencher, and 5-3.73 Supports Beam Model - Isometric View 5-3.4-3 Ramshead Assembly Finite Element Model -
5-3.74 Isometric View 1
4 BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-xii nutggb
5-
1.0 INTRODUCTION
n(J In conjunction with Volume 1 of the Plant Unique Analysis Report (PUAR),
this volume documents the efforts undertaken to address the requirements defined in NUREG-0661 (Reference 1) which affect the Hope Creek safety relief valve (SRV) piping, including the SRV T-quencher and related support structures.
The SRV piping PUAR is organized as follows:
o INTRODUCTION Scope of Analysis o
ANALYSIS OF SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE PIPING INSIDE DRYWELL Q
Ccmponent Description Loads and Load Combinations Analysis Acceptance Criteria Methods of Analysis Analysis Results a.%d Conclusions o
ANALYSIS OF WETWELL SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE PIPING AND T-OUENCHERS Component Description Loads and Load Coabinations Analysis Acceptance Criteria Methods of Analysis Analysis Results and Conclusions OG:
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-1.1 nutggh
The INTRODUCTION section contains an overview discus-sion of the scope of the SRV p4. ping and T-quencher evaluation.
Each of the analysis sections contains a comprehensive discussion of the loads and load com-binations to be addressed, and a description of the component parts of the piping and T-quencher affected by these loads and load combinations.
The analysis sections also contain a discussion of the methodology used to evaluate the effects of the loads and load combinations, the evaluation
- results, and the acceptance limits to which the results are compared.
Also included is a
discussion of the conclusions derived from the evaluation.
O BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-1.2 nut.ech
5-1.1 Scope of Analysis,
/
\\
V The general criteria presented in Volume 1 are used as the basis for the Hope Creek SRV piping and T-quencher evaluation described in this report volume. The SRV piping and T-quenchers are evaluated for the effects of LOCA related loads and SRV discharge related loads l
discussed in Volume 1, and defined by the NRC's Safety i -
Evaluation Repor.
NUREG-0561 (Reference 1) and the Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report (LDR)
(Reference 2).
The LOCA and SRV discharge loads used in this evalua-tion are formulated using procedures and test results which include the ef2ects of the plant unique geometry q
and operating parameters contained in the Plant Unique Load Definition (PULD) report (Reference 3).
Other loads and methodology which have not been redefined by NUkEG-0661, such as the evaluation for seismic loads, are taken from the plant's Final Safety Analysis Report
( FSitR). (Reference 4).
I The evaluation includes performing a structural anal-ysis of the SRV piping and T-quencher for the effects of LOCA and SRV discharge related leads to verify that the design of the SRV piping and T-quenchers is n
(V)
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-1.3 nutggh
adequate.
Rigorous analytical techniques are used in this evaluation, utilizing detailed analytical models and refired methods for computing the dynamic response of the SRV piping and T-quencher with consideration of the interaction effects cf the vent system and torus.
The results of the r,tructural analysis for each load are used to evaluate load combinations and fatigue effects for the SRV piping and T-quencher in accordance with NUREG-0661 and the Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide (PUAAG) (Reference 5).
The analysis results are compared with the acceptance limits specified by the PUAAG and the applicable sections of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Code (Reference 6) for Class 3 piping and piping supports.
The evaluation of the SRV line vent pipe penetration (VPP) and the associated vent system cumponents for the effects of LOCA and SRV discharge related loads are addressed in Volume 3 of this report.
O BPC-01-300-5 y.
Revisica 0 5-1.4 nut _e_c_h
5-2.0 ANALYSIS OF SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE PIPING INSIDE
\\,
- DRYWELL, An evaluation of each of the NUREG-0661 requirements which affect the design adequacy of the Hope Creek drywell SRV piping is presented in the following sections.
The general criteria used in this evaluatica are contained in Valume 1 of this report.
The component parts of the drywell SRV piping system which are analy?.ed are described in Section 5-2.1.
The loads an6 load combinations for which the piping system is evaluated are described and presented in Section i
l
.A 5-2.2.
The acceptance limits to which the analysis results are compared, are discussed and presented in Section 5-2.3.
The analysis methodology used to evaluate the effects of the loads and load combinations on the piping system is discussed in Section 5-2.4.
The analysis results and conclusions are presented in Section 5-2.5.
(V BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-2.1 nutggh
5-2.1 Component Description The drywell SRV piping system for Hope Creek consists of 14 individual schedule 40, SA-106, Grade B piping lines.
The nominal pipe size of the piping is 10" i
Schedule 40 at the outlet fiz. age of the SRV, changing to 10" Schedule 80 f ranediately before the ront pipe jet deflector and 10" Schedule Ir0 at the vent pipe penetration (VPP).
Figure 5-2.1-1 shows the routing, support locations, and support types, for a representa-tive SRV line in the drywell.
Each SRV discharge line was given a
unigee line designation labeled sequentially from A to R,
with the exception of I,
N, 0,
and 0 which were purposely omitted.
The 14 SRV lines initiate at the 4 main steam lines ano are grouped in sets of three and
- four, as shown schematically in Figure 5-2.1-2.
The lines are routed from the drywell area through the vent lines and into the suppression chamber.
As indicated in Figure 5-3.1-2, each of the 8 vent lines contains two SRV lines, except for tha vent lines at azimuths 157.50*
and 202.50' which contain only 1 SRV line each.
The 14 SRV lines are attached to the 4 main steam lines in the drywell at the safety-relief valves, as shown in 9
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-2.2 nutech
Figure 5 -2.1-3.
Each SRV line also has two attached s
vacuum breaker valves that are typically represented aa shown in Figur,s 5-2.1-4 and 5-2.1-5.
Each SRV line passes through a
vont pipe jet deflector and is supported at an intermediate location in the vant pipe.
Beyond this support, the SRV line turns 90' and exits the vent pipe at the VPP.
This arrangem-ant is shown in Fiqure 5-2.1-6.
The support system for the SRV lines in the drywell consists of
- snubbers, struts and hangers which are c7nnected to the drywell main steel by means of intermediate steel framing.
A typical SRV line support in the drywell is illustrated in Fiqure 5-2.1-7.
N.
1 i-I y
BPC-01-300-5 Revisic.1 0 5-2.3 nutggh
.Y ik e5.$)$
.p m.=-.
f d = =-
n,)
e g.
f,./b' 4E'
'Q ' pl
~
fl%<,% y
- 5*
6 4
i 1
.s a
t
.'%,g~ %.
4 y
-A9.24 i
O
/
2 N-9)<es
-4 w
nuva, me h!N A
b#
vrNT Pren PENETRATICN
(
Figure 5-2,1-1 REPRESENTATIVE SRV PIPING SYSTEM IN THE DRYWELL BPC-01-300-5 nutggh Revision 0 5-2,4
- - ~ - - - - - - _ _ _ _
O 18 8 g"*8858 t
m.1oh
%.l,.'$*
r;p.7:q
- y l
%ny toise fly,fil99 NUO4 I
f}Y'f00M PbV<f0I$L IIV'f04R l**
fjy,f00P f3y, fog WV'f00n FP! f0!.5N 96VF01%
rJV.f05f O
s imi i
sa vu.vu sw uns T7 T7 im:
l l
s o e r so s o
$I $"
$5c" Mi; i=
t^a 1" I
I Figure 5-2.1-2 SRV DISCHARGE LINE AND MAIN STEAM LINE SCHEMATIC O
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-2.5 nutech
O 10 %"
5 3/s=
2 SAFETY RELIEF VALVE (TARGET ItOCK CORP.)
1 I
^
f 11/4 k ~ lo" SRV LINE g
l}
i y
c.G.
15%'
J o
L G' PIPE l374 26 x G'swEEPOLET r
ISMS
- o 26" MAID k ~ STEAM LINES S
\\
l I
Figure 5-2.1-3 SRV DISCHARGE LINE CONNECTION TO THE MAIN STEAM S_QETY RELIEF VALVE O
BPC-01-300-5 5-2.6 Revision 0 nut _ec._h.
OV I
i e G"XG" VACUUM RELIEF VALVE (CROSBY VALVE CO.)
o i
r-i 20' l
'x
/
N
/
l l
l M G"150* R.F. W.N. FW.(TYR) 10'XG' RED TEE (TYR)
[
D
+
+-
- @. 10' i
SRV LINE W
J O
i Figure 5-2.1-4 HORIZONTAL SRVDL VACUUM BREAKER j
INSTALLATION I
f I
i 1
BPC-01-300-5 S-2.7 Revision 0 1
O G'XG* VACUUM REUEF VALVE I
(CROSSY VALVE Ca) 20*
(Typ)
$ to savLINE
)
e<3
\\
/
10*XG* RED (TTR) 1190'1R. ELL (TYR)
\\.
-+
a
\\
~
i 5'-f y
e
\\
/
/
\\(_
,K_
Ov Figure 5-2.1-5 VERTICAL SRVDL VACUUM BREAKER INSTALLATION O
BPC-01-300-5 5-2.8 Revision 0 g
l
O g
7 KM d '*'88f i g- =
r r-ah A u__= g m A er 1 /a
)
d~
a s,. a s
SECTION &
- ' *'** \\
l ' * # ' *~ D 4 & _,t. \\
v
.ersannsenn p
./
mensu fY
- =172',=1~
t=a - -
wc==-
%vEninn nuniunau n w.
- mm_ =re
' \\\\\\
vs
--w
+ %
M y
y n=f sanusa mar ~~uws
+
+
4..
t Figure 5-2.1-6 TYPICAL SRV PIPING SYSTEM IN THE VENT PIPE 9
O BPC-01-300-5 5-2.9 Revision 0 nutggh
1 l
l O
f1Hi. C'b 4
~~
T l
1l l
l 4 6RV 10" WMilARQ&
!l I'
LIN B 8j l
L n
d
/
[l #b ik[
~ ~"i.
yy\\
1 3
L
^
rt j'
l i wante
\\\\r,' n
]I lOZdJ "I' "#
4 Figure 5-2.1-7 TYPICAL SRV LINE SUPPORT IN THE DRYWELL 9
BPC-01-300-5 5-2.10 nutggh Revision 0
5-2.2 Loads and Load Combinations The loads for which the Hope Creek drywell SRV piping and supports are designed, are defined in NUREG-0661 on a generic basis for all Mark I plants.
The methodology used to develop plant unique drywell SRV piping and support loads, for each load defined in NUREG-0661, is discussed in Section 1-4.0.
The results of applying the methodology to develop specific values for each of the controlling loads which act on the drywell SR7 piping and supports are discussed and presented in Section 5-2.2.1.
Using the event combinations and event sequencing k_/
defined in NUREG-0661 and discussed in Sections 1-3.0, and 1-4.0, the governing load combinations which affect the SRV piping and supports are formulated.
The load combinations are discussed and presented in Section 5-2.2.2.
A
(
)
~'
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-2,11 nutech
5-2.2.1 Loads The loads acting on the drywell SRV piping and supports are categorized as follows:
1.
Dead Weight Loads 2.
Seismic Loads 3.
Pressure and Temperature Loads 4.
Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads 5.
Pool Swell Loads 6.
Condensation Oscillation Loads 7.
Chugging Loads 8.
Vent Clearing Loads 9.
Vent System and Torus Interaction Loads Loads in Categories 1 through 3 are analyzed in the SRV piping design per the FSAR (Reference 4).
Additional Category 3 pressure and temperature loads result from postulated LOCA and SRV discharge events.
Loads in Category 4 result from SRV discharge events.
Loads in Categories 5
through 8
result from postulated LOCA events.
Loads in Category 9 are motion loads which result from loads acting on the vent system and torus.
For the drywell SRV piping and supports, loads in Categories 5 through 8 do not directly act on the drywell piping.
The Category 5 through 8 loads are O
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-2.12 1
nutp_qh
evaluated by Category 9 - the resulting vent system and
(
torus motion.
Not all of the loads defined in NUREG-0661 and the FSAR need be examined since some are enveloped by others or have a negligible effect on the drywell SRV piping and supports.
Only those loads which maximize the response of the drywell SRV piping and supports and lead to controlling stresses, are examined and discussed.
The loads are referred to as governing loads in the sections which follow.
The magnitudes and characteristics of the governing loads in each category, obtained using the methodology discussed in Section 1-4.0, are identified and presented in the following paragraphs.
The correspond-ing section of-Volume 1 of this report where the loads are discussed is provided as a reference in Table 5-2.2-1.
The loading information presented in this section is consistent with that presented in Section 1-4.0, with additional specific information relevant to the evaluation of the drywell SRV piping and supports.
1 I
BPC-01-300-5
' Revision 0 5-2.13 nutggb
l.
Dead Weight Loads O
a.
Dead weight (DW)
Loads:
These loads are defined as the uniformly distributed weight of the piping plus the concentrated weight of piping, supports and associated hardware.
b.
Dead Weight (DWT)
Loads:
These loads are defined as the dead weight of piping and associated components as described
- above, plus the dead weight of water in the SRVDL piping during the hydrostatic test condition.
2.
Seismic Loads O
a.
OBE Inertia (OBE7) Loads:
These loads are defined as the horizontal and vertical accelerations acting on the SRV piping and supports during an Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE).
The loading is taken from the design basis for the SRV piping as documented in the PSAR.
b.
OBE Displacement (OBED) Loads:
These loads are defined as the maximum horizontal and vertical relative seismic displacements at BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-2.14 nut _ech
l t
t the SRV piping and piping support attachment points to the drywell structure and vent system during an OBE.
The displacements at the drywell structure are taken from the original design basis analysis.
Vent system displacements are determined from the analyses described in Volume 3.
c.
SSE Inertia (SSEI) Loads:
These loads are defined as the horizontal and vertical accelerations acting on the SRV piping and supports during a Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE).
The loading is taken from the design basis for the SRV piping as documented in the FSAR.
d.
SSE Displacement (SSED) Loads:
These loads are defined as the maximum horizontal and vertical relative seismic displacements at the SRV piping and piping support attachment points to the drywell structure and vent system during a SSE.
The displacements at the drywell structure are taken from the original design basis analysis.
Vent system displacements are determined from the analyses described in Volume 3.
O BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-2.15 nutpsb
[
l l
3.
Pressure and Temperature Loads 9
a.
Pressure (P,
P)
Loads:
These loads are o
defined as the maximum internal pressure (Po) in the drywell SRV piping during normal operating and accident conditions, and the internal pressure (P) in the piping for design conditions.
b.
Temperature (TEl, TE2) Loads:
These loads are defined as the thermal expansion (TEl) of the drywell SRV piping and supports associated with normal operating and accident conditions occurring without concurrent SRV actuation; and che thermal expansion (TE2) of the SRV
- piping, associated with normal operating and accident conditions occurring with concurrent SRV actuation.
The effects of thermal anchor movements at attachment points of the SRV piping support and VPP on the vent system are also considered.
The piping and support thermal anchor movement loadings are categorized and designated as follows:
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-2.16 nutgqh
1 o
THAMI Thermal anchor movemer*
Normal Operating condition without SRV actuation, o
THAM 2 Thermal anchor
- movement, Normal Operating condition with SRV actuation, o
THAM 1A -
The rmal anchor
- movement, accident condition without SRV actuation, o
THAM 2A - Thermal anchor
- movement, accident condition with SRV
. (O i
actuation.
l l
l 4.
Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads i-a.
SRV Discharge Line Thrust (RV1) Loads :
These loads are defined as the pressure and thrust forces acting along the SRV piping due to SRV actuation.
The methodology used to develop SRV discharge line thrust loads is described l
in Section 1-4.2.2.
the SRV actuation cases considered are discussed in Section 1-4.2.1.
The cases which result in governing loads or
+
/(j BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-2.17 nutg_qh
load combinations for which SRV thrust force time-histories are developed include a SRV actuation with Normal Operating conditions (Cases A1.1 and C3.1), and a SRV actuation with SBA/IBA conditions (Case A1.2).
These governing SRV actuation cases are categorized and designated as follows:
4 o
RVlA
- SRV discharge piping thrust loads for Normal Operating conditions,
- irst actuation (Case A1.1).
SRV discharge piping thrust loads for DBA conditions, first actuation (Case A1.3) are bounded by Case Al.1.
o RVlB
- SRV discharge piping thrust loads for Normal Operating conditions, subsequent actua-tion (Casa C3.1).
o RVIC
- SRV discharge piping thrust loads, for SBA/IBA conditions, first actuation (Case A1.2).
SRV discharge piping thrust BPC-01-300-5 l
Revision 0 5-2.18 nut.e_ch
loads for other SBA/IBA G
conditions (Cases C3.2 and C3.3),
are bounded by Case A1.2.
9.
Vent Syster and Torus Interaction Loads a.
Vent System Interaction Loads:
These loads are defined as the interaction effects at the vent pi, e penetration and at the SRV line support location in the Ient line due to loads act.ng on the vent system.
t b.
Torus Inter wtion Loads:
These loads are O
defined as tht interaction effects of the VPP and the SRV sugcort inside the vent line due to loads acting on the suppression cha.nbe r shell.
The vent systeEt and torus i..eraction loads include the following:
The vent system and torus displacements o
TD due to Normal Operating Pressure, and due to the dead weight of the suppres-sion chamber and its contained water.
O BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-2.19 nuteqh
The vent system and torus displacements o
TD1 due to accident condition pressures, and due to the dead weight of the suppres-sion chamber and its contained water.
-e The interacticn effects of torus and o
OAB7 vent system motions due to SRV T-quencher discharge loads.
The interaction effects of torus and o
PS 7
vent system motions due to pool swell loads.
o PCHUG -
The interaction effects of torus and 7
vent system motions due to pre-chug loads.
The interaction effects of torus g n e'.
o CHUG 7
vent system motions due to post-chog loads.
The interaction. effects of torus and o
coy vent system motions due to DBA condensation oscillation loads O
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-2.20 nut _ech
All of the interaction loads listed above are derived from the analyses of the vent system and terus discussed in Volumes 2 and 3 of this report.
The loads presented in the preceding paragraphs envelop those postulated to occur during an actual LOCA or SRV discharge event.
An evaluation for the effects of these loads results in conservative drywell SRV piping stresses and support reaction loads.
O BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-2.21 nutggb
5.2.2.2 Load Cemhinations e
The loads for which the Hope Creek drywell SRV piping and sunports are evaluated are presented in Section 5-2.2.1.
The general NUREG-0661 criteria for grouping the loads into load combinations are discussed in Sections 1-3.1 and 1-4.3, and summarized in Table 5-2.2-2.
It is apparent from examining Table 5-2.2-2 that the load combinations specified for each event can be expanded into many more lead combinations than those shown.
Kowever, not all load combinations for each event need be examined since many have the same allowable stresses and are enveloped by others which contain the same or additional loads.
Many of the load combinations listed in Table 5-2.2-2 are actually pairs of load combinations with all of the same loads except for seismic loads.
The first load combination in the pair contains OBE loads, while the second contair.s SSE loads.
The governing load combinations for the SRV piping are presented in Table 5-2.2-3.
The governing load combinations for piping supports are presented in Table 5-2.2-4.
The basis for establishing the governing BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5--2.22 nut _ech l
h loading combinations for the SRV piping and supports is s
provided in Tables 5-2.2-5 and 5-2.2-6.
The appropriate ASME Code equations for the SRV piping as well as Service Levels for piping supports are also provided in Tables 5-2. 2-5 and 5-2. 2-6.
Included in the lists of governing load combinations are eight combinations which do not result from the 27 event combinatione listed in Table 5-2.2-2.
These are:
load combinations A-1 and SA-1 which relate to the design pressure plus dead weight condition; load combinations A-2, SB-1, B-1, and SB-2 which include the combination of normal and seismic loads; and load combinations T-1 and ST I which relate to the
(
hydrostatic test condition.
Evaluation of combinations T-1 and ST-1 is a
requirement of the ASME Code (Reference 6,.
Load combinations A-1, SA-1, A-2, SB-1, B-1, and SB-2 are cons is ter.t with the requirements as specified in the FSAR (Reference 4).
The pressure and temperature loads include those occurring within the range of the Mark 1 Program event durations as defined in the LDR (Reference 2).
q
]
BPC-01-300-5 Revision'0 5-2.23 nutp_cb
In performing loading combinations, the dynamic loading components of the structural response are combined using the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method.
Use of the SRSS methodology for the SRV pip'ng i
has been permitted by the NRC as described in Reference 8.
Each of the listed governing load combinations for the SRV piping and supports as provided in Tables 5-2.2-3 and 5-2.2-4 has been considered in the analysis methods described in Section 5-2.4.
O BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-2.24 nut.e,_qh
u mm 9
4 ' \\t >
0 6
m 9
k 'g g$ '#
IMAGE EVALUATION f,,!<4 e4, 4)7 g, te TEsr 14nGe1 (ur 3) k,,pp @
/4 3
s 1.0 gmas l
!! $ llE se m n u' 11 j{ i.s i.25 i.4 g
4 150mm 4-6" h
- ky%4%*f
'b '4
&v(O Q
b///
m
Table 5-2.2-1 DRYWELL SRV PIPING LOADING IDENTIFICATION CROSS-REFERENCE VOLUME 5 LOAD DESIGNATION VOLUME 1 SECTION REFERENCE LOAD LOAD CATEGORY CASE NUMBER la 1-3.1 DEAD WEIGHT lb l-3.1 2a 1-3.1 2b l-3.1 SEISMIC 2c l-3.1 2d 1-3.1 PRESSURE AND 3a 1-3.1, 1-4.1.1 TEMPERATURE 3b l-3.1, 1-4.1.1 4a 1-4.2.2 SRV DISCHARGE 4b l-4.2.2, 1-4.2.4 POOL SWELL (1)
Sa 1-4.1.4.2,1-4.1.4.3,1-4.1.4.4 CONDENSATION (1) 6a 1 - 4. 1.,s. 3 OSCILLATION III
~
CHUGGING 7b l-4.1.8.3 VENT CLEARINd )
8a 1-4.1.5, 1-4.1.6 VENT SYSTEM 9a 1-4.1, 1-4.2 AND TORUS INTERACTION 9b l-4.1, 1-4.2 Note:
1.
For drywell SRV piping, inclusion of hydrodynamic loads from cases 5, 6, 7, and 8 are performed by considering vent system and torus motion displacements due to hydrodynamic loads applied at the VPP and the SRVDL support in the vent line.
'~
"5dt;3?S nutp_qh
- o ta o ro
<o Table 5-2.2-2 H-l tn o PH EVENT COMBINATIONS AND ALLOWABLE LIMITS oe awo FOR SRV DISCilARGE PIPING oo lu)
SBA SDA e EQ ShAtSkV SEA 6 SkV 6 EQ ShV lhA IbA 6 EQ I DA 61;HV ISA e SkV e EQ DBA DBA e 20 ubAtSkV phA e EQ t Sky LVLHT COtlulNATIONS SkV t
g;g CO, CO, l
PS CO, CD, Cat CO, CH Cil CO. Cis II)
Cal PS CO, CM PS Cil PS CO, Cal T1rt'E OF LANTikJUAllE e
S O
S O
S Ol S
0 5
0 8
0 S
O 0
COMhiNATION NtlHi!ER I
2 3
a 5
6 7
8 9
10 Il 12 11 14 1%
la II 18 Iw 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NohMAL l2I N
M M
M M
M M
M h
M M _M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M E7 kTl*uUAk E EQ X
X X
X X
X SkV DIScilAkCE SP/
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M THEkMAS.
T.g M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
BDADS pqrg PpESSupE P
X X
X X
X M
M M
M M
M M
M M
N M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M A
IOCA POOI. SWER.R.
Pp3 M
M M
M M
M l
loCA COND&:NS ATitMe P
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
DJ OSCII.B.AfilM4 CO Pg M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M y
1.OCA CHUGGItK'.
g STkUCTt!HAl. LI.LHENT HOW to u
u h
h D
D D
D D
8 8
m h
D D
h b
u 8
h B
B h
p B
u ESSR.NTI AS.
III III
$4I I4I I4I l40 l4I
$4I I4I l4I
$4I I4I
$4I l4I I4I I4I l4I # N #i) l4I I4I
$4I
$4I
$4I I4I
$4I PIPildi S1rSTLHS u
D 68 h
b D
R is It h
B B
W e tti $bA l1)
Ill l4) l4) I4) l4)
Ill l3I l48 04) 04I I4I t
l 1
C t
10 l
O 9
9 l
Table 5-2.2-2
\\
(Concluded)
Notes:
1.
Reference 1 states "Where drywell to wetwell pressure differential is normally utilized as a load mitigator, an additional evaluation will be performed without SRV loadings but assuming the loss of the pressure differential.
Service Level D limits shall apply for all structural elements of the piping system for this evaluation.
The analysis need only be accomplish 3d to the extent that integrity of the first pressure boundary isolation valve is demonstrated.
If the normal plant operating condition does not employ a drywell to wetwell pressure differential, the listeC service level assign-ments will be applicable."
Since Hope Creek does not utilize a drywell to wetwell differential pressure, the listed service limits are applied.
2.
Normal loads (N) consist of dead loads (D).
3.
As an alternative, the 1.2 Sh limit in Equation (9) of ND-3652.2 may be replaced by 1.8 Sh, provided that all
-~s other limits are satisfied and operability of active I\\s -)
components is demonstrated.
Fatigue requirements are applicable to all columns, with the exception of 16, 18, and 19.
4.
Footnote (3) applied except that instead of using 1.8 Sh in Equation (9) of ND-3652.2, 2.4 S is used.
h O
BPC-01-300-5 5-2.27 Revision 0 nutech
Tablo 5-2.2-3 GOVERNING LOAD 'OMBINATIONS - DRYWELL SRV DISCHARGE PIPING O
hh COMBI A ICN LOAD COMBINATIONS EUMBER EQUATION A-1 P+CW 8
10 A-2 TEl+THAMl@ ben +TD A-3 TE2+ THAM 2+CBEn+TD 10 A-4 TE2+ THAM 2A+0BE +TD1 10 D
A-5 TEl+ THAM 1A+0BE +TD1 10 D
B-1 Po+DW+0BEr 9
9 3-2 P +DW+RVlA+QAB+QAB7 o
9 B-3 P +DW+RVlB+QAB+QAB7 o
C-1 P +DW+RVlA+QAB+QABr+SSEr 9
o C-2 Po+DW+RVlB+QAB+QABr+SSEr 9
9 C-3 Po+DW+RVIC+QAB+QAB +PCHUG+PCHUG7 r
9 C-4 P +DW+RVlC+QAB+QABr+CEG+CHUGI o
D-1l4I 9
P +DW+0BE MO+COI I
g D-2 P +DW+RVlC+QAB+QABr+SSE +PCHUG+PCHUGr 9
o r
9 D-3 P +DW+RVlC+QAB+QABr+SSEr+ CHUG +CHUGI o
D-4 P +DW+RVlA+QAB+QABr+ SSET + PS&PSr+VCL 9
o I7) 8
- .1 1.25P+DW7 BPC-01-300-5 5-2.28 Revision 0 nut _ech
Table 5-2.2-3 (Concluded)
Notes:
1.
See Section 5-2.2.1 for definition of individual loads.
2.
Equations are defined in Subsection ND-3650 of the ASME Code (Reference 6).
3.
As an alternate, meet Equation 11 of the ASME Code (Reference 6).
4.
For the DBA condition, SRV discharge loads need not-be combined with CO and chugging loads.
5.
See Section 5-2.2.2 for combination of dynamic loads.
6.
Only governing load combinations from Table 5-2.2-5 are considered here.
P 7.
Hydrostatic test condition.
DWT for all lines shall be with lines full of water at 700F.
i BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0
+
s 5-2.29 nutggb
Table 5-2,2-4 GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATIONS - DRYWELL SRV PIPING SUPPORTS 1
,5) 1 LCAD LCAD CCMBINATION S,IE_,7.'
COMEINATICS mv.
g.3333 PRIMARY SECONDARY SA-1 OW+
TIl-THAM 1 A
$3-1 OW+CBE +
TEl+THAMl+CBE +C 3
3 S3-2 OW+CBE +
TE2+ THAM 2+CBE C 3
3 SB-3 CW+ RVlA* CAB +C A3, +
TE2+ THAM 2+TO B
SB-4 CW+RV13 +CA3+CA3 +
C2+ THAM 2+TD B
7 SC-1 DW+RVlA + CAB +CA3 ;+S SE.+
TE2+TFAM2+SSE C C
3 SC-2 CW+RVlB+CA3+CA3,+SSE,+
TE2+TAHM2+SSEg C C
I3I SC-3 CW+RVIC + CAB +C A3 +PNG+PNG +
U2+T m 2A+ m C
7 I3I SC-4 CW+RVic +CA3+CA3;+ CHUG + CHUG +
H2+T m 2A+ m C
g I4I SD-l OW+CBE.+CO+CO.*
- El G M1A % C l I33 SD-2 O W*RVIC +CA3 +C A3 ; + S S E. + ECCG+PCEG,*
T G C +S y l D
I3I 50-3 CW+RVic +CA3+ CAB,+SSE.-CHUG + CHUG +
- E2* CGM 2A+SSE Cl D
3 I I S0-4 CW-RVlA -CAB +C A3 +5SE:-PS-PS -VC' +
E2 G C -55g C 1 0
I6I ST-l OW A
7 l
t l
e BPC-01-300-5 5-2.30 Revision 0 nut _ech
Table 5-2.2-4 (Concluded)
Notes:
1.
See Section 5-2.2.1 for definition of individual loads.
2.
Only governing load combinations from Table 5-2.2-6 are considered here.
3.
When the combination of SRV discharge loads plus TE2 and THAM 2A is less than the combination of TEl and THAM 1A, the TEl and THAM 1A combination is used.
4.
For the DBA condition, SRV discharge loads need not be combined with CO and chugging loads.
5.
See Section 5-2.2.2 for combination of dynamic loads.
6.
Hydrostatic test condition.
DWT for all lines shall be with lines full of water at 700F.
A l
l l
5-2.31 BPC-01-300-5 i
Revision 0
Table 5-2.2-5 BASIS FOR GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATIONS-DRYWELL SRV PIPING l
EVENT EVENT GOVERNING COMBINATION COMBINATION LOAD DISCUSSION GOVERNING NUMBER (1)
COMBINATIONS (2)
BASIS 1
3-2, B-3 SECONDARY STRESS BOUNDED (3b)
BY EVENT CCMBINATION NUMBER 3.
l 1
BOUNDED BY EVENT CCMBINATICN 2
N/A (3a)
NUMBER 3.
3 C-1, C-2, A-3 N/A N/A ISA SOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINA-4,5 N/A TION NUMBER 15 AND SBA BOUNDED (3b)
BY EVENT CCMEINATION NUMBER 11.
BOUNDED BY EVENT CCMBINATION I3D}
6,8,12 N/A NUMBER 14.
BOMED BY EWW CCMBDATION (3b) 7,9, 13 N/A NUMBER 15.
ISA BOUNDED 3Y EVENT CCMSINA-10 N/A TION NUMBER 15 AND SBA SOUNDED (3b)
BY EVENT COMBINATICN NUMBER 11.
C-3, C-4, FOR SBA ONLY.
ISA SOUNDED BY (3b)
A-4 EVENT CCMSINATION NUMBER 15.
D-2, D-3, N/A 3fA 15 A-4 BOUNDED BY EVENT CCMBINATION (3a) 14 N/A NUMBER 15 NDED BY EENT CCMS DATICN (3b)
- 6'18'22 N/A NUMBER 24 SOUNDED SY EVENT CCMSINATICN (33) g y' f NUMBER 25.
O M ED 3Y EW E CCMS DA m N 17,20,23 N/A (3b)
NUMBER
,,6.
OBA CHUGGING, SOUNDED SY EVENT (3b) 21'27 N/A CCMSINATION NUM3ER 15.
BOUNDED BY EVENT CCMBINATICN 53^I 24 N/A NUMBER 25 N/A N/A 25 D-4, A-4 FOR CO CNLY, OBA CHUGGING 26 D-1, A-5 3OUNDED BY EVENT CCMSINATICN (3b)
NUMBER 14 BPC-01-300-5 nutech Revision 0 5-2.32
j Table 5-2.2-5 (Concluded)
Notes:
1.
Event combination numbers refer to the numbers used in Table 5-2.2-2.
2.
Governing load combinations are listed in Table 5-2.2-3.
3.
Event combination governing basis:
a.
The governing event combination contains SSE loads which bo?md OBE loads.
b.
The governing event combination contains more loads while the allowable limits are the same, BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-2.33 nutggb
1 Table 5-2.2-6 BASIS FOR GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATIONS-DRYWELL SRV PIPING SUPPORTS EVINT EVENT GOVERNINC COMBINATION COMBINATION LOAD DISCUSSION GOVERNING NUMBER (1)
COMBINATIONS (2)
BASIS 1
SB-3, SB-4 N/A N/A BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINATICN
"!^,
(38)
NUMBER 3.
3 SC-1, SC-2 N/A N/A IBA BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINA-4,5 N/A TION NUMBER 15 AND SBA BOUNDED (3b)
BY EVENT COMBINATION NUMBER 11.
D BY EW CC.%NN 6,8,12 N/A (3b)
NUMBER 14.
7,9, 13 N/A BOUND {D BY EVENT COMBINATION g33)
NUMBEa 1..
l IBA BOUNDED BY EVENT CCMBINA-10 N/A TION NUMBER 15 AND SBA BOUNDED (3b)
BY EVENT CCMBINATION NUMBER 11.
FOR SBA ONLY.
IBA BOUNDED BY (3b) 11
~
l EVENT COMBINATION NUMBER 15.
N/A N/A 15 SD-2, SD-3 l
Y N T CCMBINATICN (3a) 14 N/A NUMBER 15.
BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINATICN (3b) 16,18,M N/A NUMBER 24.
BOUNDED BY EVENT CCMBINATION
- g y'f (3b)
NUMBER 25.
BO M ED BY M.M CC.% N C CN 17,20,23 N/A (3b)
NUMBER 26.
DBA CHUGGING, BO M ED BY N T 21,27 N/A (3b)
COMBINATION NUMBER 15.
DgYEVENTCCMBINATICN (3,)
24 N/A 2
25 SD-4 N/A N/A FOR CO ONLY, DBA CHUGGING 26 SD-1 BOUNDED BY EVENT CCMBINATICN (3b)
NUMBER 14.
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-2.34 ENGINEEste
l l
Table 5-2.2-6 (Concluded)
Notes:
l 1.
Event combination numbers refer to the numbers used in Table 5-2.2-2.
2.
Governing load combinations are listed in Table 5-2.2-4 3.
Event combination governing basis:
The governing event combination contains SSE loads a.
which bound OBE loads.
b.
The governing event combination contains more loads while the allowable limits are the same.
\\
i e
f BPC-0'.-300-5 5-2.35 Revision 0 nutgsb
\\ -
5-2.3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria O
The acceptance criteria defined in NUREG-0661 on which the Hope Creek drywell SRV piping and supports analysis is based, are discussed in Section 1-3.2.
In general, the acceptance criteria follow the rules contained in ASM" Code,Section III, Division 1, up to and including the 1977 Summer Addenda for Class 3 piping and piping supports (Reference 6).
The corresponding Service Level limits, allowable stresses and fatigue require-ments are also consistent with the requirements of the ASME Code and NUREG-0661.
The acceptance criteria used in the analysis of tne SRV piping and supports are summarized in the following paragraphs.
O The drywell SRV piping is analyzed and evaluated in accordance with the requirements for Class 3 piping systems contained in Subsection ND of the Code.
Table i
5-2.3-1 lists the applicable ASME Code equations and stress limits for each of the governing piping load combinations.
The drywell SRV piping supports are analyzed in accordanc'e with requirements for Class 3
piping supports as provided in Subsection NF of the Code.
BPC-01-300-5 l
Revision 0 5-2.36 nutech ENGINEERS
Table 5-2.3-1 ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR DRYWELL SRV PIPING A
ODE ALLOWABLE GOVERNING LOAD STRESS SERVICE STRESS EQUATION VALUE COMBINATION TYPE LEVEL LIMIT NUMBER (ksi)
NUMBER (1)
PRIMARY 8
DESIGN 1.0 S 15.0 A-1, T-1 h
PRIMARY 9
B
'. 2 S
.0 h
PRIMARY 9
B 1.8 S 27.0 C-1 THROUGH C-4 h
PRIMARY 9
B 2.4 S 36.0 h
D4 SECONDARY 10 B
1.0 S 22.5 A-2 THROUGH A-5 a
PRIMARY S*a
( }
AND 11 B
h SECONDARY w
Notes:
l l
l.
Governing load combination numbers are listed in l
Table 5-2.2-3.
2.
See ASitE Section III subsection ND paragraph ND-3652.3 (Reference 61 for combination of loads.
l t
i l
l l
l O
BPC-01-300-5 5-2.37 nutE9.h Revision 0
- - ~ - - -
5-2.4 Me aods of Analysis This section describes the methods of analysis used to evaluate the drywell SRV piping and supports for the effects of the governing loads as presented in Section 5-2.2.1.
The methodology used to develop the structural models of the SRV piping system is presented in Section 5-2.4.1.
The methodology used to obtain results for the governing load combinations and to evaluate the analysis results for comparison with the acceptance limits is discussed in Section 5-2.4.2.
O 1
l l
l l
l r
O BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-2.38 l
nutg,qt)
5-2.4.1 Drywell SRV Piping Structural Models The drywell SRV piping models were analyzed by utilizing the Bechtel in-house structural computer code ME101.
ME101 performs static, response spectrum, and dynamic time-history analyses, as well as ASME Section III piping code evaluations.
The 14 drywell lines are analyzed using four separate models, each including a main steam line and three or four attached SRV lines except for the SRV discharge load case where 14 separate models were utilized composed of a main' steam line and one attached SRV line only.
The main steam lines are modeled from the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) nozzle to the drywell penetration.
The SRV lines attach to the main steam line at the safety relief valves and terminate at the vent pipe penetrations.
The main steam and SRV piping systems included in each of the four drywell models are listed in Table 5-2.4-1.
The 14 identical safety relief valves are modeled with l
the mass of each valve lumped at the valve center of l
gravity.
Also included in the piping models are 28 identical vacuum breakers, two attached to each SRV i
line.
The mass of the vacuum breaker is lunped at its center of gravity.
L BPC-01-300-5 l
Revision 0 5-2.39 l
nute_Ch
}
Ol The drywell models have fully rigid anchor points at 1
the main steam line connection to the RPV nozzle and at the main steam line flued head at the drywell wall.
The diagonal terms of a 6 x 6 stiffness matrix are modeled at the SRV line connection at the VPP. The matrix simulates the stiffness at the VPP and is derived from the vent system analyses described in Section 3-2.4.
Piping supports included in the drywell piping models consist of snubbers, struts, spring hangers and their backup structures.
Snubbers are modeled as active in seismic and other dynamic load cases, while struts are active in all load cases.
Spring hangers are modeled as active in the dead weight load case only.
The effects of the mass of supports and connecting hardware attached to the piping are included in the piping models.
Stiffness values at a
piping support location are established and input into the SRV piping analytical models.
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-2.40 nut _ech_
5-2.4.2 Analysis Methods k
/
v The mathematical models described in Section 5-2.4.1 are utilized in performing the analyses for the drywell SRV piping, supports, and associated components.
The analytical techniques used to determine the piping response to the loads discussed in Section 5-2.2.1 are presented herein.
Dynamic analysis techniques are used to determine system response to the major loads defined by NUREG-0661 acting on the SRV piping.
These techniques utilize either response spectra or time-history analysis
- methods, depending on the input loading (s
characteristics.
The remaining SRV piping load cases specified in Section 5-2.2.1 are either static loads or dynamic loads, which are examined using an equivalent static approach.
Conservative values of dynamic amplification f actors are developed and applied to the l-individual dynamic loads when performing equivalent static analyses.
The specific analytical techniques used for each piping model described in Section 5-2.4.1 for each load as identified in Section 5-2.2.1, are described in the following paragraphs:
b l V BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-2.41 nutggb
The mathematical models of the drywell SRV piping are discussed in Section 5-2.4.1.
The following analysis methods utilized for each of the drywell SRV piping models are presented herein.
1.
Dead Weight Loads a.
Dead Weight (DW) Loads:
A static analysis is performed for the uniformly distributed and concentrated weight loads applied to the drywell SRV piping system.
b.
Dead Weight (DWT) Loads:
A static analysis is performed for the dead weight of piping (DW) plus the dead weight of water in the piping system during the hydrostatic test condition.
2.
Seismic Loads a.
OBE Inertia (OBEr) Loads :
A dynamic analysis is performed for each of the three orthogonal directions (N-S, E-W, and vertical) using the uniform response spectra method.
The seismic response spectra curves used in.the analysis BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-2.42 nut _ech
_- ~.
t are in accordance with the FSAR.
A value of 1% critical damping is used in accordance 1
with the FSAR.
All modes up to 33 hertz are dynamically analyzed in calculating the peak response of the drywell SRV piping system.
The rigid range response of the piping system greater than 33 hertz is also incorporated into all seismic spectral analyses by calculating the piping response to a static seismic load case using acelerations from the enveloped spectrum curves at the 33 hertz cutoff frequency.
b.
OBE Displacement (OBED)
Loads:
A static I%
analysis is performed independently for each of the three orthogonal directions.
The relative anchor displacements of the RPV nozzle, the drywell structure and the vent pipe penetration and support are considered to be out of phase for conservatism.
I l
c.
SSE Inertia (SSE7) Loads:
A dynamic analysis is performed for each of the three orthogonal directions using the uniform response spectra method.
A value of 2% critical damping is h
used in accordance with the FSAR.
%)
BPC-01-300-5 i
Revision 0 5-2.43 nutgLCh
W d.
SSE Displacement (SSED)
Loads:
A static analysis is performed for each of the three orthogonal directions.
The relative anchor displacements of the RPV nozzle, the drywell structure and the vent pipe penetration and support are considered to be out of phase for conservatism.
The methodology used to combine modal responses and spatial components in the seismic analysis is defined in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.92, Revision 1,
" Combining Modal Responses and Spatial Components in Seismic Response Analysis," (Reference 7).
The seismic analysis is performed independently for each of the two horizontal directions and for the vertical direction.
The resulting peak responses obtained for each of the three directions are i
combined by SRSS.
The individual modal responses are grouped by frequencies (within 10%), and the modal responses within each group are combined l
by absolute sum.
The individual responses of the groups are combined by SRSS.
O BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-2.44 nut _ech
3.
Pressure and Temperature Loads a.
Pressure Loads:
The effects of maximum pressure (Pg) and design pressure (P) are evaluated utilizing the techniques described in Subsection ND-3650 of the ASME
- Code,Section III (Reference 6).
b.
Temperaturo Loads:
Static thermal expansion analyses are performed for the SRV piping to envelop all postulated plant conditions.
A static analysis is performed for anchor movement at the vent pipe penetrations as described in Section 5-2.2.1.
Thermal anchor Oi movements at the RPV nozzle are also considered in the temperature load analyses.
4.
Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads a.
SRV Discharge Line Clearing Loads:
A dynamic analysis is performed for each of the three bounding SRV actuation cases (RVlA,
- RVlB, RVlC) utilizing the modal superposition time-history analysis technique.
A time-dependent forcing function is applied on each pipe segment along the pipe axis.
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-2.45 nutggh
An integration time-step of sufficiently small size is selected to adequately account for the responses of the piping system up to 200 hertz.
A value of 1% critical damping is utilized in accordance with the NRC Regulatory Guide 1.61.
9.
Vent System and Torus Interaction Loads a.
Vent System Interaction Loads:
The vent system interaction loads are evaluated using either static, equivalent static or dynamic analyses and are derived from the vent system analysis described in Section 3-2.0.
A static analysis is performed on the drywell SRV piping for the vent pipe penetration and l
the SRVDL vent pipe guide displacements due i
to thermal and pressure loads which are 1
l described in Section 5-2.2.1.
An equivalent static analysis is performed on the drywell l
SRV piping for the vent pipe penetration and guide displacements due to the OAB7, 7,
OBE and SSE loads which are described in Section 7
5-2.2.1.
1 I
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-2.46 nut _ec_h.
A rigorous dynamic analysis is performed on the drywell SRV piping for the PS CO,
g, 7
CHUG and QAB loads described in Section y,
y 5-2.2.1.
The modal superposition displace-ment time-history analysis technique is utilized.
Response at the VPP and guide due to the above loads is taken from the vent system analysis presented in Section 3-2.0.
A time-step of sufficiently small size is selected to adequately account for the critical responses of the piping system up to 100 hertz.
A value of 1% critical damping is b
conservatively utilized in accordance with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.61.
b.
Torus Interaction Loads:
l l
The torus interaction loads transferred into i
the drywell SRV piping through the vent system and wetwell SRV piping have been l
analyzed by applying displacements at the VPP and SRVDL support location in the vent line.
These displacements were calculated by the torus analyses described in Section 3-2.0.
i BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-2.47 nutgLQh
l l
l 1
Table 5-2.4-1 DRYWELL SRV PIPING STRUCTURAL MODELS MODEL MAIN STEAM SRV NUMBER LINE LINES A
1 A
R J
F 2
B g
P i
G 3
C 3
E l
H l
4 D
D l
M l
1 l
l l
l BPC-01-300-5 5-2,48 Revision 0 nut _ec.h_
5.2.5 Analysis Results and Conclusions v
The geometry, loads and load combinations, acceptance criteria and analysis methods used in the evaluation of the Hope Creek drywell SRV piping and supports, are presented and discussed in the preceding sections.
The results from the evaluation of the piping and supports are presented in the paragraphs and tables which follow.
The maximum stresses resulting from the governing load combinations for locations on the drywell SRV piping are presented in Table 5-2.5-1.
The maximum stresses for each Service Level are listed along with the associated allowable stress values.
Reaction loads for the supports are incorporated into the support design and analyzed per the requirements of ASME Section III, Subsection NF.
The maximum resultant moments at each of the 14 SRV outlet flanges are presented in Table 5-2.5-2.
The maximum moments are listed for each Service Level, along with the allowable flange moments.
l
'l(O) v BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-2.49 nutggh
In summary, the results show that the dasign of the drywell SRV piping system is adequate for the loads, load combinations and acceptance criteria limits specified in NUREG-0661 (Reference 1), and in the PUAAG (Reference 5).
O l
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-2.50 nut _ech
I 1
Table 5-2.5-1 ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR DRYWELL SRV PIPING STRESS SRV DESIGN
-LEVEL B LEVEL C LEVEL D SECONDARY LINE (KSI)
(KSI)
(KSI)
(KSI)
(KSI)
A 6.55 16.14 20.49 20.67 19.17 B
7.21 17.54 23.70 23.85 20.25 C
6.05 14.09 16.29 16.53 17.19 D
6.83 15.65 16.78 17.31 18.35 E
6.05 14.10 16.30 16.54 17.19 F
7.21 16.53 16.80 17.51 20.25 G
6.05 14.79 16.85 17.08 17.19 H
6.83 14.19 14.88 15.19.
18.35 J
6.55 16.56 20.89 21.07 19.17 K
7.21 16.53 19.55 20.63 20.25 L
6.05 15.45 17.39 17.61 17.19 M
6.83 13.36 14.40 15.08 18.35 l
l P
7.21 16.53 19.92 20.69 20.25 R
6.55 16.73 21.49 22.12 19.17 ALLOWABLE STRESS 15.0 18.0 27.0 36.0 22.5 (KSI)
O BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-2.51 nutg_q.h
l
{
Toble 5-2.5-2 ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR SRV OUTLET FLANGE MOMENTS l
SRV LEVEL A LEVEL B LEVEL C LEVEL D LINE (IN-KIP)
(IN-KIP)
(IN-KIP)
(IN-KIP) l l
A 108.40 121.07 124.51 124.55 B
105.59 113.81 126.55 126.59 C
54.23 103.03 114.51 114.54 D
96.46 118.25 141.69 141.71 E
148.58 56.00 71.12 71.17
(
F 50.10 65.04 89.04 89.08 G
53.17 60.89 74.22 74.28 H
71.08 103.56 105.26 105.29 J
100.32 61.36 63.07 63.14 K
59.48 101.50 112.80 112.83 l
L 92.60 49.49 63.85 63.91 l
M 121.34 57.32 60.61 60.68 P
89.20 99.15 111.09 111.13 l
l R
66.40 66.20 86.84 86.88 ALLOWABLE MOMENT 300 300 300 300 (IN-KIP)
O BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-2.52 h
nut.el
_.=
5-3.0 ANALYSIS OF WETWELL SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE, O.
PIPING AND T-QUENCHERS An evaluation of each of the NUREG-0661 requirements which affect the design adequacy of the Hope Creek wetwell SRV discharge piping, T-quenchers and supports is presented in the following sections.
The general criteria used in thin evaluation are contained in Volume 1 of this report.
The component parts of the wetwell SRV
- piping, T-quenchers and supports which are examined are described in Section 5-3.1.
The loads and load combinations for which the wetvell SRV
- piping, V
T-quenchers and supports are examined are described and
. presented in Section 5-3.2.
The analysis methodology used to evaluate the wetwell SRV piping, T-quenchers and supports is discussed in Section 5-3.4.
The acceptance limits to which the analysis results are compared are discussed and presented in Section 5-3.3.
The analysis results and conclusions are presented in Section 5-3.5.
~
=
G("3 w
BPC-01-300-5 a Revision 0 5-3.1 nutp_q,b
~
~
~
w
-y.p,.
,.,b-_.
,,7-#..
43...,.,,9,.,
r__,.,,.__y,,.g
5-3.1 Component Description O
The wetwell SRV piping system for Hope Creek consists of fourteen 10" diameter, Schedule 80, SA-106 Grade B piping lines.
Figure 5-3.1-1 shows a typical wetwell SRV line and support locations.
As indicated in Figure 5-3.1-2, each of the 8 vent pipes contains two SRV lirms, except for the single SRV lines in the vent pipes at azimuths 157.5' and 202.5*.
Each SRV line enters the suppression chamber horizontally at the vent pipe penetration (VPP), and runs parallel to the vent header toward the mitered joint, as shown in Figure 5-3.1-3.
The line is then routed diagonally and vertically in the plane of the mitered joint down to the bottom of the suppression chamber, as shown in Figure 5-3.1-4.
The support system for the wetwell SRV piping consists of a stiffened penetration support at the VPP, vertical and horizontal struts attached to the ring girder, and I
a lateral strut attached to the vent header, as shown l
in Figures 5-3.1-3 and 5-3.1-4.
De ta ils of the VPP support are discussed in Section 3-2.1.
Details of the strut supports attached to the ring beam and vent header are shown in Figure 5-3.1-5.
O BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.2 nutech ENGINEEAS
I At the lower end of each SRV line is a 12" diameter T-quencher device.
The SRV line and T-quencher are connected by a 12" x 10" concentric reducer.
Each T-quencher consists of a ramshead assembly and two quencher arms located 5'-0" above the suppression chamber shell.
The T-quencher ramsheads are centered on the suppression chambar ring girders, as shown in Figure 5-3.1-3.
The arms of the T-quenchers are aligned parallel to the longitudinal axes of the suppression chamber mitered
- segments, as shown in Figure 5-3.1-2.
The T-quencher arms are constructed from 12" diameter O
l Schedule 80, stainless steel pipes, which are capped on the ends.
The 0.391" diameter holes drilled in the T-quencher arms are arranged as shown in Figure 5-3.1-6.
A typical T-quencher ramshead assembly is constructed from 12" diameter short radius
- elbows, reinforced with a
1-1/2" thick crotch plate and a
1-1/2" thick saddle plate, as shoun in Figure 5-3.1-9.
The T-quencher is supported by a 14" diameter pipe beam 6
located directly below the T-quencher arms.
The T-quencher support beam spans between the mitered joint ring girder and the mid-bay girder as shown in Figures
'")
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.3 nutggb
5-3.1-2 and 5-3.1-3.
The T-quencher support beam is attached to the suppression chamber as shown in Pigure 5-3.1-8.
The T-quencher arms are connected to the support beam by plate-type supports as shown in Figures 5-3.1-3 and 5-3.1-9.
The T-quencher ramshead support assembly consists of the ramshead saddle plate and two attached pin plates with stiffeners.
The assembly pin plates are connected to pin plates on the mitered joint ring girder by a 2-1/2" diameter pin as shown in Figures 5-3.1-7 through 5-3.1-9.
O i
l BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.4 nut.e_c_h.
O VENT plpf PENETRATICN
- ,o
/
9; cf 5g S'o4,,
4
/
s, VERTICAu AND JI-(
HORl1CNTAL RING
/
e4 SIRDER 5" RUTS y
LATERAL VENT 4.'a.
HEACER STRur
/
4 1.os
' 7 b
D d
11'X 10 CONCENTRIC RtCUCER
)
T= CU ENCHER ARM SuppCRT PLATES (rvo)
/
t t-f 4
l
- /
k it' CAD (?Yp) o
-2 T.CutNCHER RAMSHEAC SuppCRT Figure 5-3.1-1 TYPICAL WETWELL SRV PIPING SYSTEM AND QUENCHER - ISOMETRIC VIEW l O'v BPC-01-300-5 l
Revision 0 5-3.5 nutggh
9 1
)
o' wtTsRso m,.,
p.. fuoNr SU PARESSLON VENT
[
CHAMBER
- E j
\\
=
i
/
//
l 192.s'.
f,3 rs-
~
t s
,p x
r
,M5 I
- 4 ip
.go D C,-
p' f g0 o
i,d 9
g l
Y L
\\a l
4/
l
\\
- til. 5
- o gg, g.
l T CUENCHER l
pt PING T. QU EN CHER N'
SupocAT SEAM
/
SuppRESSicN CH AMBER l
1
. 5, ct NTERUNE lot.5*
Iso
Figure 5-3.1-2 GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF WETWELL SRV PIPING AND QUENCHERS IN CONTAINMENT l
h l
seC-ol-300-s Revision o 5-3.6 l
nutggh
mU VENT FIPE VENT PtPE PENETRATION i
O'<[-] /
i 5RV PIPE 7'
7
',1 RING GiRCER VERTICAL d HORIECNTAL i
,'i 8N8
![
ggy PIOlNG lT
'O 3' -
nlV
~
~
~
o 3
GA
)_____
m t
' /
s e
-Q
[/
%i jyp U '
l
'ij
?
l l
l I
)
I g
'l l i
\\
VENT d
HEADER l
il >l, l
l y
l OOWNCOMER
- SRV Pipt VENT 7CUENCHER 4 RAMeHEAD VENT HEACER f f MEADER ARM SUPN l
/- T-QuiNCHER LATERAL STRUT SUPPORT l
CCWMN l#
PLATE l
y a,
4) l
-n 1-i,,
u 5'I/ll 5?',,
g 'i f.
I 1
{
. ]g X
N; "
i i f.
s'
/ K
/ -ouENCHER T
l StiPPORT SEAM MI D'- B AY c RING GIRCER Y 8'It" Y
R\\NG GlROER RING GIRCER MlTERED JCINT Figure 5-3.1-3 DEVELOPED VIEW OF SRV PIPING AND QUENCHER IN THE_
l i
SUPPRESS ION CHM 1BER BPC- 01-3 0 0-5 5-3.7 Revision 0 l
i nutggh
I SbW AIPING RING GIRCER M
SuppcRT STmurs P
/
...e-
/-
SRV piping egy-VENT FIPE 2
i
>=
f s
/t au,e.c s
Y
?
/ y y
\\
W ggy pipigg
/I I
~-
VENT HEADER a
e g z,g O##
pconctNTRic
\\
sp ooRr
/
7 srRur RieuctR
$RV PIRING d.
, RAMSWlac l
7 f
(
[
T.QufMCMER 7
l i
R 1
d.
I
\\
l I
T.QufNCwtR J<
suppear eem
- ^* f l
1e s '. ;-
- s ;;s' '-
se,e;;4,s*.)
I.. ;' ~,,
~,,,
l l
Figure 5-3.1-4 SECTION VIEW OF SRV PIPE ROUTING IN THE SUPPRESSION CHAMBER BPC-01-300-5 l
Revision 0 I
nutech
'~ '*
EhaCBIPdf"8E348
RING einctm
(. f
"$ VERTICAL Suppomt STAuf 11"4 P mE SLEEVE R'M 4"
H CR11CNTAL SUPPORT STRUT OIROIR t.
3
+ SRV Pkb"i r -
W_
p a
SUPPORT STMUTS AT RING GIRDER b
O i
VENT MEADER 3
~
~
't.
I
\\
i
, Say pe p t, V'
MD PLATE f
g 4p LATERAL SUPPORT pies sinut SLitvf SUFFORT STRUT AT VENT' HEADER Figure 5-3.1-5 l
WETWELL S-RV PIPING SUPPORT DETAILS BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.9 nutggh
s e
3.94' anons t uotte inow he' ti.Sa*
i t.19' 11 53'_,
11.36' g ilu648S/seuf 1 '*048S l g
amens amens isnews a me.e
,s sows 3%'
iS%gI3/ sow SMoWS/ pow e,
Bow
/ Aces 84 A4
]
Dq CA g
]
64]
]
O4 l
e,,ue c em lll l
?. o i
b b
b BAb 80
- f. A OA O
OA
- i. e' e.9{, 3. Sci
, i. m' 1,go' 9 4. se
- s. -
sa.t
,0. c
-t-F ^
~ - 1,** -
/ %s.
38' 4 7 ' N g,,
- o...
SECTICN A. A SECTON S B l
T#"
's mod s tou w t t'""
in WS touau.T
[94C80 tace 9:09 So&c80 EACH SiCE it. 4
- l 1,*
\\
N /
oaia.
N/
=cait.
x4
- b. ' m...
\\
/
N.
l I
SECTCN C<,
SECTION 0 0 Figure 5-3.1-6 T-QUENCHER ARM HOLE PATTERN BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.10 nut.e9.h
O C SmV Pipe ANDMtNG GIRDER 11 A tC CONCENTRIC mCuCER
%Q RAMSWEAD RAMSm!AC SUP8CRT ASSEMSLY
-\\:
__g
=L. G1- 0
.cu aos
- AAM
}
[s 1 g"@ AIN
. 'N
',l [THg
- /
, g,,,g
....s.
w T=eufNCHER
\\/
bh SupA0AT h
SEAM
{
/
f
\\
l '/[ The K.
[ (
ST!
- FEN ga us
-n 4tNG GtROEM SLATE j
l '/.1 TH K. PLATE
~
[3
- sa
[
\\
E L. 57 ' c" i',
)
i l
}
l pz-SU P A9tSSICN l
CwAMSEA SW EU.,
C, M tTEMEO eo wT Figure 5-3.1-7 T-QUENCHER RAMSHEAD AND SUPPORT DETAILS x
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.11 nutech
I /1" THK.
8 SUPPORT Pl. ATE RING GimcER ATTACHMENT PLATE T-QUENCHER
/(
\\)
SUPPORT SEAM
,,,, //_
t '/1 TH K.
g_ _ _ _
PAO SA RINt3 GimCER i
)i t
SuppgeSSicN l
CMaussa NELL ig I
i I
I I
i I I i
1 I'/1' THK. PLATE DE. Tall AT MIDCYLINDER l'/ETHK. T-QUENCHER l' Tux. PLATu ---
- Z._____f_____s suPPent SEAM P'N P' ATE T QUENCHER
{4 r
- Supoont BEAH
\\
1-(
.b
\\
\\
\\
x suPPNssstCN [
l
- I /1" TM K,
I C8AMesn SHELL Pt.ATu i '/g' ry g, DETAIL AT kitTERED JOINT pao PLATE Figure 5-3.1-8 p
MIDCYLINDER AND MITERED JOINT l
RING GIRDER T-QUENCHER SUPPORT DETAILS BPC-01-300-5 5-3.12 Revision 0 nutp_qh
REDUCER f
RAMSHEAD I '/2.' TH K.
/
[ RAMsHEAD SADDLE PLATE r-
\\J. g,'/
I '/t" TH K.
f MAMSHEAD CROTCH PL ATE
. i
/
l
\\
. \\ rHK A
i STIFFENER PLATC 1 THda em., /
1.A Em PIN HCLE RAMSHEAD SUPPORT ASSEMBLY J
l' THK.
)
- TH K.
PLATE l
SHIM 8t4CK 10"R I
5 f ga q T-QUENCH ER i
ARM i
. -.'.......a!
[iY2' fu.
pl.AT:
l l
i.u..
Y i g*
SEAM l
l l
T.GUEMcHER ARM SUPPORT PLATE Figure 5-3.1-9 I
RAMSHEAD AND T-QUENCHER ARM SUPPORT DETAILS BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.13 nutp_qh
5-3.2 Loads and Load combinations e
The loads for which the Hope Creek wetwell SRV piping, T-quenchers, and supports are designed are defined in NUREG-0661 on a generic basis for all Mark I plants.
The methodology used to develop plant unique wetwell SRV piping, T-quencher, and support loads, for each load defined in NUREG-0661, is discussed in Section 1-4.0.
The results of applying the methodology to develop specific values for each of the controlling loads which act on the wetwell SRV piping, T-quencher, and supports are discussed and presented in Section 5-3.2.1.
Using the event combinations and event sequencing defined in NUREG-0661 and discussed in Sections 1-3.0 and 1-4.0, the governing load combinations which affect the SRV
- piping, T-quenchers and supports are formulated.
The load combinations are discussed and presented in Section 5-3.2.2.
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.14 nutegh
= -.
5-3.2.1 Loads The loads acting on the wetwell SRV
- piping, l
T-quenchers, and supports are categorized as follows:
1.
Dead Weight Loads 2.
Seismic Loads 3.
Pressure and Temperature Loads 4.
Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads 5.
Pool Swell Loads 6.
Condensation Oscillation Loads 7.
Chugging Loads 8.
Vent Clearing Loads 9.
Vent System and Torus Interaction Loads v
Loads in categories 1 through 3 are considered in the original SRV piping design as documented in the FSAR (Reference 4).
Additional category 3
pressure and temperature loads result from postulated LOCA and SRV discharge events.
Loads in category 4 result from SRV discharge events.
Loads in categories 5 through 8 result from postulated LOCA events.
Loads in cate-gory 9 are motion loads which result from loads acting on the vent system and torus.
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.15 nutggb
Not all of the loads defined in NUREG-0661 and the FSAR need be examined, since some are enveloped by others or have a negligible effect on the wetwell SRV piping, T-quenchers, and supports.
Only the loads which maximize the response of the wetwell SRV
- piping, T-quenchers, and supports and lead to controlling stresses are examined and discussed.
These loads are referred to as governing loads in the sections which follow.
The magnitudes and characteristics of the governing loads in each category, obtained using the methodology discussed in Section 1-4.0, are identified and pre-sented in the following paragraphs.
The corresponding section of Volume 1 of this report where the loads are discussed is provided as a reference in Table 5-3.2-1.
The loading information presented in this section is consistent with that presented in Section 1-4.0, with additional specific information relevant to the evalu-ation of the wetwell SRV piping, T-quenchers, and supports.
1.
Dead Weight Loads a.
Dead Weight (DW)
Loads:
These loads are defined as the uniformly distributed weight of the piping and T-quenchers plus the BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.16 nuted)
distributed and concentrated weight of piping and T-quencher
- supports, and associated hardware.
Also included is the weight of water contained in the SRV piping and quenchers corresponding to a
torus water level of 11-1/2" below the torus horizontal centerline.
b.
Dead weight (DW )
L ads:
These loads are T
defined as the dead weight of
- piping, l
T-quenchers and associated components as described
- above, plus the dead weight of water in the SRV piping during the hydro-static test condition.
2.
Seismic Loads a.
OBE Inertia (OBEg) Loads:
These loads are defined as the horizontal and vertical acceleracions acting on the SRV
- piping, T-quenchers and supports during an Operating l
Basis Earthquake (OBE).
The seismic response spectra are taken from the original design basis for the SRV piping.
V BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.17 nutg.gh
b.
OBE Displacement (OBED) Loads:
These loads are defined as the maximum horizontal and vertical relative seismic displacements at the SRV
- piping, piping
- support, and T-quencher support attachment points to the Suppression chamber and vent system during an OBE.
The displacements at suppression chamber attachment points are taken from the original design basis analysis.
The vent system displacements are determined from the analyses described in Volume 3.
c.
SSE Inertia (SSE7) Loads:
These loads are defined as the horizontal and vertical accelerations acting on the SRV
- piping, T-quenchers, and supports during a
Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE).
The seismic response spectra are taken from the original design basis for the SRV piping.
d.
SSE Displacement (SSED) Loads:
These loads are defined as the maximum horizontal and vertical relative seismic displacements at the SRV
- piping, piping
- support, and T-quencher support attachment points to the suppression chamber and vent system during a BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.18 nuteqh
= -
SSE.
The displacements at suppression aO chamber attachment points are taken from the original design basis analysis.
The vent system displacements are determined from the analyses described in Volume 3.
3.
Pressure and Temperature Loads a.
Pressure (P
P)
Loads:
These loads are o,
defined as the maximum internal pressure (Po) in the wetwell SRV piping and T-quenchers during normal operating and accident condi-tions, and the internal pressure (P) in the piping and T-quenchers for design conditions.
v)
The values of P and P used in the analysis o
are listed in Table 5-3.2-2.
b.
Temperature (TEl, TE2)
Loads:
These loads are defined as the thermal expansion (TEl) of the wetwell SRV
- piping, T-quenchers, and supports associated with normal operating and accident conditions occurring without concurrent SRV actuation; and the thermal expansion (TE2) of the SRV
- piping, T-quenchers, and supports associated with normal operating and accident conditions 3
l 1
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.19 nutagh
occurring with concurrent SRV actuation.
Temperatures for TEl and TE2 used in the analysis are listed in Table 5-3.2-2.
The effects of thermal anchor movements at attachment points of the SRV piping piping supports, and T-quencher supports on the vent system and suppression chamber are also considered.
The
- piping, T-quencher, and support thermal anchor movement loadings are categorized and designated as follows:
Thermal anchor movement, Normal o
THAM 1 Operating condition without SRV actuation, Thermal anchor movement, Normal o
THAM 2 Operating condition with SRV actuation o
THAM 1A -
Thermal anchor
- movement, accident condition without SRV l
actuation, o
THAM 2A -
Thermal anchor
- movement, accident condition with SRV actuation.
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.20 nut _ech l
4.
Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads V
a.
SRV Discharge Line Thrust (RV1) Loads:
These loads are defined as the pressure and thrust forces acting along the SRV piping and T-quencher due to SRV actuation.
The method-ology used to develop SRV discharge line thrust loads is described in Section 1-4.2.2.
The SRV actuation cases considered are discussed in Section 1-4.2.1.
The cases which result in governing loads or load t
combinations for which SRV thrust force time-histories are developed include a
SRV actuation with Normal Operating conditions
)
(/
(Cases A1.1 and C3.1) and a SRV actuation with SBA/IBA conditions (Case C3.2).
These governing SRV actuation cases are categorized and designated as follows:
SRV discharge piping thrust l
o RVlA l
l loads for Normal Operating conditions, first actuation i
(Case A1.1).
SRV discharge piping thrust loads for DBA l-conditions, first actuation l
(Case A1.3) are bounded by Case Al.l.
1 BPC-01-300-5 i
l Revision 0 5-3.21 O
k
SRV discharge piping thrust o
RVlB loads for Normal Operating con-
- ditions, subsequent actuation (Case C3.1)
SRV discharge piping thrust o
RVIC loads, for SBA/IBA conditions, subsequent actuation (Case C3.2).
SRV discharge piping thrust loads for other SBA/IBA conditions, (Cases A1.2 and C3.3) are bounded by Case C3.2.
Peak forces on each wetwell piping segment from the SRV thrust force time-histories for the three actuation cases are listed in Table 1
5-3.2-3.
b.
SRV T-quencher Discharge (OAB) Loads:
These loads are defined as the transient pressures l
which act on the submerged portion of SRV discharge
- piping, T-quenchers and supports during an SRV discharge.
These loads are categorized as follows:
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.22 nutegh
~\\
o Water Jet Impingement Loads:
The j
wetwell SRV pipir.g, T-quenchers, and supports are not affected by this loading.
o T-Quencher and End Cap Thrust Loads:
During an SRV discharge, the T-quencher arms and end caps are subjected to water clearing thrust loads.
The procedure used to develop bounding values of these loads is discussed in Section 1-4.2.2.
The resulting magnitudes of the T-quencher arm and end cap thrust loads are shown in Table 5-3.2-5.
o Air Bubble Drag Loads:
During the air clearing phase of an SRV discharge event, transient drag pressure loads are postulated to act on the submerged SRV piping, T-quenchers and supports.
The procedure used to develop the transient forces and spatial distribution of these loads is discussed in Section 1-4.2.4.
I BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.23 nutggh
Loads are developed for several air bubble arrangements for both single and multiple T-quencher discharge cases. The results are evaluated to determine the controlling loads.
The peak segment loads for the piping, T-quenchers, and supports are presented in Table 5-3.2-4.
5.
Pool Swell Loads a.
Pool Swell (PS) Loads:
During the initial phase of a DBA event, transient hydrodynamic loads are postulated to act on the SRV piping and supports located above the suppression pool.
These loads are categorized as follows:
o Impact and Drag Loads:
During the initial phase of a DBA event, the SRV piping and supports located above the suppression pool are subjected to l
transient loads.
The procedure used to develop these load transients is discussed in Section 1-4.1.4.
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.24 nutggh
c Pool Fallback Loads:
During the latter phase of pool
- swell, transient drag pressures are postulated to act on portions of the SRV piping and supports located between the maximum bulk pool height and the downcomer exit.
The procedure used to develop these pressure transients is discussed in Section 1-4.1.4.
3 o
Froth Impingement and Fallback Loads:
During the initial phase of a DBA event, transient impingement and fallback pressures are postulated to act on components of the wetwell SRV piping system located in specified regions above the rising suppression pool.
The procedure used to develop the transient forces and spatial distribution of froth impingement and fallback loads on these components is discussed in Section 1-4.1.4.
The resulting maximum pool swell loads on the wetwell SRV piping and support components are shown in Table 5-3.2-6.
/
\\
f
.)
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.25 nutggh
6.
Condensation Oscillation Loads a.
Condensation Oscillation (CO) Loads:
During the condensation oscillation phase of a DBA event, harmonic drag pressures are postulated to act on subrae rged portions of the SRV
- piping, T-quenchers, and supports.
The procedure used to develop the harmonic forces and spatial distribution of drag loads on these components is discussed in Section 1-4.1.7.
Loads are developed for the case with the average source strength at all downcomers and the case with twice the average source strength at the nearest downcomer.
The results are evaluated to determine the l
controlling loads.
These results include the l
I effects of velocity drag, acceleration drag, torus shell fluid-structure interaction (FSI) acceleration drag, interference effects, and wall effects.
A typical pool acceleration profile from which the FSI accelerations are derived is shown in Figure 2-2.2-4.
The results of each harmonic in the loading are BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.26 nut.e. ch
combined using the methodology discussed in
(
\\
.j Section 1-4.1.7.
7.
Chugging Loads a.
Pre-Chug (PCHUG) Loads:
During the chugging phase of an SBA, IBA, or DBA event, harmonic drag pressure
- loads, associated with the pre-chug portion of a chugging cycle, are postulated to act on the submerged portion of the SRV piping, T-quenchers and supports.
The procedure used to develop the harmonic forces and spatial distribution of pre-chug drag loads on these components is discussed
\\
Q in Section 1-4.1.8.
Loads are developed for the case with the average source strength at all downcomers, and the case with twice the average source strength at the nearest downcomer.
The results are evaluated to determine the con-trolling loads.
The resulting loads acting on the SRV piping, T-quenchers, and supports are bounded by the post-chug load case 7(b).
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.27 N
k
b.
Post-Chug (CHUG) Loads:
During the chugging phase of an SBA, IBA, or DBA event, harmonic drag pressure
- loads, associated with the post-chugging portion of a chug cycle, are postulated to act on the submerged portion of the SRV piping, T-quenchers and supports.
The procedure used to develop post-chug drag loads is discussed in Section 1-4.1.8.
Loads are developed for the case with the average source strength at the nearest two downcomers acting both in-phase and out-of-phase.
The results are evaluated to determine the controlling loads.
The result-ing peak segment loads for the SRV piping, T-quenchers, and supports for the controlling post-chug drag load case are shown in Table 5-3.2-4.
The results shown in the table include the effects of velocity drag, acceleration drag, torus shell PSI acceleration drag, interfer-ence effects, and wall effects.
A typical pool acceleration profile from which the FSI accelerations are derived is shown in Figure 2-2.2-5.
The results of each harmonic BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.28 nutggh
._ y ; -
~
'in ' the loading are combined using the
\\
methodology discussed in Section 1-4.1.7.
,s 8.
Vent Clearing Loads a.-
Vent Cidaring (VCL) Loads:
During the vent system water and air clearing phase of a DBA
- event, transient drag pressure loads are postulated to act on submerged portions of the SRV piping, T-quenchers and supports.
These loads are categorized as follows:
o LOCA Water Jet Impingement Loads:
During the water clearing phase of a DBA
\\_/
- event, submerged portions of the SRV
- piping, T-que nche rs,
and supports are 4
subjected to transient drag pressure loads.
The procedure used to develop these transient drag forces is discussed j
in Section 1-4.1.5.
The resulting peak l
segment forces for the SRV
- piping, f
(
T-quenchers, and supports are shown in Table 5-3.2-4.
These results include the ef fects of velocity drag and accel-I eration drag.
'\\
l BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.29 nutggb
---.g--,--,_.,m,,,--we r-,w,,,,,,e-m e-
,,,,------w-r--m-e
~
-e-m-
~-- - - - - --ws-w'-'
o LOCA Air Bubble Drag Loads:
During the air clearing phase of a DBA event, sub-merged portions of the SRV
- piping, T-quenchers, and supports are subjected to transient drag pressure loads.
The procedure used to develop these tran-sient drag forces is discussed in Section 1-4.1.6.
The resulting peak segment forces acting on the SRV piping, T quenchers, and supports are shown in Table 5-3.2-4.
These results include the effects of velocity drag and accel-eration drag.
9.
Vent System and Torus Interaction roads a.
Vent System Interaction Loads:
These loads are defined as the interaction effects at the vent pipe penetration and at the SRV line support location on the vent header due to loads acting on the vent system.
b.
Torus Interaction ooads:
These loads are defined as the interaction effects at the SRV piping and T-quencher support attachment points on the suppression chamber due to BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.30 nut _ech_
i loads acting on the suppression chamber s
shell.
The vent system and torus interaction loads include the following:
The vent system and torus dis-o TD placements due to Normal Operating Pressure, and due to the dead weight of the suppres-sion chamber and its contained water.
The vent system and torus dis-o TD1 placements due to accident
(-
condition pressures, and due to the dead weight of the suppres-sion chamber and its contained water.
The interaction effects of o
OAB y
torus and vent system motions due to SRV T-quencher discharge loads l
o PS The interaction effects of 7
torus and vent system motions due to pool swell loads BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.31 l
nutggh
The interaction effects of o
PCHUG torus and vent system motions due to pre-chug loads The interaction effects of o
CHUG 7
torus and vent system motions due to post-chug loads The interaction effects of o
C0 7
torus and vent system motions due to DBA condensation oscil-I lation loads All of the interaction loads listed above are derived from the analyses of the vent system and torus discussed in Volumes 2 and 3 of this report.
O The loads presented in the preceding paragraphs envelop those postulated to occur during an actual LOCA or SRV discharge event.
An evaluation for the effects of these loads results in conservative wetwell SRV piping, T-quencher, and support stresses.
l BPC-01-300-5 j
Revision 0 5-3.32 nut _ech
i Table 5-3.2-1 V
WETWELL SRV PIPING AND T-QUENCHER LOADING' IDENTIFICATION CROSS-REFERENCE VOLUME 5 LOAD DESIGNATION VOLUME 1 SECTION REFERENCE LOAD LOAD CATEGORY CASE NUMBER la 1-3.1 DEAD WEIGHT lb l-3.1 2a 1-3.1 2b l-3.1 SEISMIC 2c 1-3.1 2d 1-3.1 PRESSURE AND 3a 1-3.1, 1-4.1.1
'~'s 3b l-3.1, 1-4.1.1 N-4a 1-4.2.2 SRV DISCHARGE 4b l-4.2.2, 1-4.2.4 POOL SWELL Sa 1-4.1.4.2,1-4.1.4.3,1-4.1.4.4 CONDENSATION 6a 1-4.1.7.3 OSCILLATION l
7a 1-4.1.8.3 CHUGGING 7b 1-4.1.8.3 VENT CLEARING 8a 1-4.1.5, 1-4.1.6 VENT SYSTEM 9a 1-4.1, 1-4.2
[
AND TORUS i
INTERACTION 9b l-4.1, 1-4.2 i
l-i O
BPC-01-300-5 nutech Revision 0 5-3.33
l 1
O l
l Table 5-3.2-2 PRESSURES AND TEMPERATURES FOR NETWELL SRV PIPING AND T-GUENCHERS i
1 l
l l
l l
PRESSURE (psig)
TEMPERATURE (OF)
PIPING SYSTEM WITHOUT WITH MAXIMUM COMPONENT SRV SRV OPERATING DESIGN ACTUATION ACTUATION (Po)
(P)
(TEl)
(TE2) l l
l SRV PIPING 397 540 167 407 T-QUENCHERS 497' 540 167 375 Note:
1.
Temperature conditions for T-quencher supports are i
provided in Table 3-2.2-2.
i I
BPC-01-300-5 5-3.34 Revision 0 nut.e_qj]
= -.
i O
Table 5-3.2-3 SRV DISCHARGE THRUST LOADS -
PEAK SEGMENT FORCES FOR WETWELL PIPING SRV ACTUATION CASE HORIZONTAL DIAGONAL VERTICAL SEGMENT SEGMENT SEGMENT RVlA 19.27 20.25 89.78 RVlB 9.40 12.91 93.41 I
RVic 20.56 21.09 96.55 N_ote:
1.
Loads shown include DLF's.
BPC-01-300-5 i
Revision 0 5-3.35 nut.e_Qh
Table 5-3.2-4 MAXIMUM WETWELL SRV PIPING SYSTEM SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOADS MAXIMUM PRESSURE (psi)( }
LOADING SRV LINE
.T-QUENCHER ARMS SU ORT M
SRV DISCHARGE 3.87 30.98 16.50 AIR BUBBLE DRAG OST-CHUG 15.17 4.34 4.58 DRAG l
(
O LOCA WATER 0.82 4.08 1.47 JET l
LOCA AIR 0.97 1.31 0.90 BUBBLE Notes:
1.
For purposes of loads generation, the wetwell SRV piping is divided into 10 segments; the T-quencher is divided into 22 segments; and the T-quencher support beam is divided into 22 segments.
2.
Loads shown include DLF's.
O BPC-01-300-5 5-3.36 nut.e, ch Revision 0
Table 5-3.2-5 SRV DISCHARGE T-QUEUCHER AND END CAP THRUST LOADS F4 Y
j4 f
F 3
N r2 M )
\\
I F
F 1
y V
V Key Diagram Thrust Load Force Magnitude (kips)
Component F
26.2 1
F 10.0 2
F 70.4 3
F 10.0 4
Notes:
1.
F and F are revers M e loads.
2 4
2.
Loads shown include DLF's.
O BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.37 nutech
O Table 5-3.2-6 MAXIMUM SRV PIPING POOL SWELL ELEVATED STRUCTURE LOADS MAXIMUM LOAD (psi)
-COMPONENT IMPACT DRAG FROTH POOL FALLBACK PRESSURE PRESSURE PRESSURE PRESSURE I
HORIZONTAL N/A N/A 8.19 N/A SEGMENT O
DIAGONAL 16.69 3.58 8.55 0.90 SEGMENT l
RING GIRDER N/A N/A 7.00 N/A i
SUPPORT STRUT WNT HEADER 34.42 5.90 N/A 0.62 SUPPORT STRUT Note:
1.
See Figure 1-4.1-3 for loading transient.
l l
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.38 nut.e_qh
5-3.2.2 Load Combinations
(.M v
The loads for which the Hope Creek wetwell SRV piping, T-quenchers, and supports are evaluated are presented in Section 5-3.2.1.
The general NUREG-0661 criteria for grouping the loads into load combinations are discussed in Sections 1-3.1 and 1-4.3 and summarized in Table 5-3.2-7.
It is apparent from examining Table 5-3.2-7 that the load combinations specified for each event can be expanded into many more load combinations than those shown.
However, not all load combinations for each event need be examined since many have the same allowable stresses and are enveloped by others which w
contain the same or additional loads.
Many of the load combinations listed in Table 5-3.2-7 are actually pairs of load combinations with all of the sdme loads except for seismic loads.
The first load combination in the pair contains OBE loads, while the second contains SSE loads.
The governing load combinations for the SRV piping and T-quenchers are presented in Table 5-3.2-10.
The governing load combinations for piping and T-quencher supports are presented in Table 5-3.2-11.
The basis BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.39 nutggb
for establishing the governing loading combinations for the SRV piping, T-quenchers and supports is provided in Tables 5-3.2-8 and 5-3.2-9.
The appropriate ASME code equations for the SRV piping and T-quenchers as well as Service Levels for piping and T-quencher supports are also provided in Tables 5-3.2-8 and 5-3.2-9.
Included in the lists of governing load combinations are eight combinations which do not result from the 27 event combinations listed in Table 5-3.2-7.
These are:
load combinations A-1 and SA-1 which relate to the design pressure plus dead weight condition; load combinations A-2, SB-1, B-1, and SB-2 which include the combination of normal and seismic loads; and load combinations T-1 and ST-1 which relate to the hydro-static test condition.
Evaluation of combinations T-1 and ST-1 is a requirement of the ASME Code (Reference 6).
Load combinations A-1, SA-1, A-2, SB-1, B-1, and l
SB-2 are consistent with the requirements as specified l
in the FSAR (Reference 4).
1 i
The pressure and temperature loads considered in the loaaing combinations include those occurring within the range of the Mark I Program event durations as defined in the LDR (Reference 2).
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.40 nut _ech
6 In performing loading combinations, the dynamic loading components of the structural response are combined using the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method.
Use of the SRSS methodology for the SRV piping has been permitted by the NRC as described in Reference 8.
Each of the listed governing load combinations for the SRV piping, T-quenche rs, and supports as provided in Tables 5-3. 2-10 and 5-3.2-11 has beca considered in the analysis methods described in Section 5-3.4.
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.41 nutgtgh
e
- otn Table 5-3.2-7 P-i Mo P-H EVENT COMBINATIONS AND ALLOWABLE LIMITS Ot cwo FOR SRV DISCHARGE PIPING oo im SDA SBA e EQ SBA*SkV SBA 6 SkV t EQ SHV IBA lbA e EQ IBAtSkV IBA t SkV e EQ DBA J e EQ uBA*SHV DDA e EQ 6 ENV EVLNT CONDINAT!uNS bHV e
C41 CO, Cil CH CO,CH (II Cl4 PS CO, Ctl PS Cil PS CO, CH TYPE OF EART4FJUAME O
S O
S 0
S 0
S 0
S 0
8 0
S 0
S 0
S COMulNATIuN touMDEN 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 IS 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NokMAL (2I N
M M
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X EARTilQUAEE EQ M
M X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X SNV DISClif.HGE SRV E
X X
X X
X X
X X
M M
M X
X X
TilEkMAI.
Tg X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
IDADS PIPE PRESSukE P
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X g
UI IDCA PtX)L SWELL Pps M
M I
M
_M _M thCA CONDENSATitM4 g
P X
X X
X X
X X
X OSCILl_ATION CO LOCA CilOGGING Pcn M
M X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X STkpCTukAL FI.EMENT ROW 10 B
B B
B B
B B
B B
B B
B B
B B
B B
B B
B B
B B
B B
B B
ESSt.NTI AL (II III I4I I4I III 04I I4I (4I (4) (4) 04I (4I (4I (4)
(4) (4)
III 14I III I4I (4I
$4I (4I I4I 14I I4) pipin; SYSTEMS lI O
O O
U U
O O
O O
O O
O
~
~
~
~
WITil SbA 13I (31 (4) (4I (4I (4I (3I ill (el (4I (4) 44I
)Ce+
im"o O O
O
w TABLE 5-3.2-7 (Concluded) l Notes:
1.
Reference 1 states "Where drywell to wetwoll pressure differential is normally utilized as a load mitigator, an additional evaluation will be performed without SRV loadings but assuming the loss of the pressure differential.
Service Level D limits shall apply for all structural elements of the piping system for this evaluation.
The analysis need only be accomplished to the extent that integrity of the first pressure boundary isolation valve is demonstrated.
If the normal plant operating condition does not employ a drywell to wetwell pressure differential, the listed Service Level assignments will be applicable."
Since Hope Creek does not utilize a drywell to wetwell differential pressure, the listed service limits are applied.
2.
Normal loads (N) consist of dead loads (D).
s, 3.
As an alternative, the 1.2 S limit in Equation (9) of h
ND-3652.2 may be replaced by 1.8 She provided that all i
other limits are satisfied and operability of active components is demonstrated.
Fatigue requirements are applicable to all eclumns, with the exception of 16, 18, and 19.
4.
Footnote (3) applied except that instead of using 1.8 Sh in Equation (9) of ND-3652.2, 2.4 Sh is used.
l f"'
t f
B'PC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.43
Table 5-3.2-8 BASIS FOR GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATIONS -
WETWELL SRV DISCHARGE PIPING AND T-QUENCHERS MNT NNNG COMB A ION COMBINATION LOAD DISCUSSION GOVERNING NUMBER (1)
COMBINATIONS (2)
BASIS SECONDARY STRESS BOUNDED 1
B-2, B-3 (3b)
BY EVENT COMBINATION NUMBER 3.
BOUNDED BM EVENT COMBI!"ATION 2
N/A (3a)
NUMBER 3.
3 C-1, C-2, A-3 N/A N/A IBA BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINA-4,5 N/A TION NUMBER 15 AND SBA BOUNDED (3b)
BY EVENT COMBINATION NUMBER ll.
(3b) 6,8,12 N/A NUMBER 14 BO M ED BY M NT COMBDATION 7,9, 13 N/A (3b)
NUMBER 15.
IBA BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINA-10 N/A TION NUMBER 15 AND SBA BOUNDED (3b)
BY EVENT COMBINATION NUMBER 11.
C-3, C-4, FOR SBA ONLY.
IbA BOUNDED BY (3b) 71 A-4 EVENT COMBINATION NUMBER 15.
D-2, D-3, N/A N/A 15 A-4 BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINATION
<3a) 14 N/A NUMBER 15 O M ED BY M MT COMB DATION (3b) 16,18,22 N/A NUMBER 24.
E Y
NT COMBDATION (3b) 19 N/A NUMBER 25.
BOMED BY MNT CMMAMON (3b) 17,20,23 N/A NUMBER 26.
DBA C E GUG, BO M ED BY M NT (3b) 21'27 N/A COMBINATION NUMBER 15.
BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINATION (3a) 24 N/A NUMBER 25 N/A N/A 25 D-4, A-4 FOR CO ONLY, DBA CHUGGING 26 D-1, A-5 BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINATION (3b)
NUMBER 14 BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.44 nu
Table 5-3.2-8 (Concluded)
Notes:
j 1.
Event combination numbers refer to the numbers used in Table 5-3.2-7.
2.
Governing-load combinations are listed in Table 5-3.2-10.
3.
Event combination governing basis:
a.
The governing event combination contains SSE loads which bound OBE loads.
b.
The governing event combination contains more loads while the allowable limits are the same.
j.
I i
l l
i l.
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.45 L
nutgsb
Tablo 5-3.2-9 BASIS FOR GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATIONS -
WETWELL SRV PIPING AND T-OUENCHER SUPPORTS EVENT T
GO M ING COMBINATION COMBINATION LOAD DISCUSSION
@VERNING NUMBER (1)
COMBINATIONS (2 BASIS 1
SB-3, SB-4 N/A N/A BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINATION 2
N/A (3a)
NUMBER 3.
3 SC-1, SC-2 N/A N/A IBA BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINA-4,5 N/A TION NUMBER 15 AND SBA BOUNDED (3b)
BY EVENT COMBINATION NUMBER 11.
6,8,12 N/A (3b)
NUMBER 14.
BOWDED BY EWM CMBINMIM 7,9, 13 N/A (33)
NUMBER 15.
IBA BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINA-10 N/A TION NUMBER 15 AND SBA BOUNDED (3b)
BY EVENT COMBINATION NUMBER 11.
FOR SBA ONLY.
IBA BOUNDED BY (3b) 11 SC-3' SC-4 EVENT COMBINATION NUMBER 15.
N/A N/A 15 SD-2, SD-3 l
w BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINATION 14 N/A (3a) i NUMBER 15.
t l
DED BY EW W COMBINATIM (3b) 16,18,22 N/A NUMBER 24.
l BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINATION (3b) 19 N/^,
NUMBER 25.
OWDED BY EWW COMMIM 17,20,23 N/A (3b)
NUMBER 26.
DBA CHUGGING, BOWDED BY EM (3b) 21,27 N/A COMBINATION NUMBER 15.
24 N/A d
DgYEVENTCOMBINATION (3a) 2 25 SD-4 N/A N/A FOR CO ONLY, DBA CHUGGING 26 SD-1 BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINATION (3b)
(
NUMBER 14.
BPC-01-300-5 5-3.46 I
Revision 0 l
l nut.ec. h.
4
!i i
Table 5-3.2-9 (Concluded)
- 1 Notes:
1.
Event combination numbers refer to the numbers used in Table 5-3.2-7.
2.
Governing load combinations are listed in Table 5-3.2-11.
3.
Event combination governing basis:
4 a.
The governing event combination contains SSE loads which bound OBE loads.
b.
The governing event combination contains more loads while the allowable limits are the same, e
4 3
1 i
I i
i, 4
1 i
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.47 l
nutggh
Table 5-3.2-10 GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATIONS - WETWELL SRV DISCHARGE PIPING AND T-QUENCHERS LOAD COMBINATIONS (1,5,6)
ASME CCMBINATION CODE NUMBER EQUATION A-1 P+DW 8
A-2 TEl+THAMl+SSE +TD 10 D
A-3 TE2+ THAM 2+SSE +TD 10 D
A-4 TE2+ THAM 2A+SSE +TD1 10 D
A-5 TEl+ THAM 1A+0BE +21 10 D
9 B-1 P +DW+0BEI o
9 B-2 P +DW+RVlA+QAB+QAB7 o
9 B-3 P +DW+R71B+QAB+QABI o
C-1 P +DW+RVlA+QAB+QABr+SSEr 9
o 9
C-2 Po+DW+RVlB+QAB+QABr+SSE7 9
C-3 P +DW+RVlC+QAB+QAB +PCHUG+PCHUG7 o
r 9
C-4 P +DW+RVlC+QAB+QAB + CHUG +CHUGI o
r D-1(4) 9 P +DW+0BE +CO+COI o
I 9
D-2 P +DW+RVlC+QAB+QABy+SSE +PCHUG+PCHUGI o
r D-3 P +DW+RVlC+QAB+QAB +SSE + CHUG +CHUGr 9
o I
7 D-4 P +DW+RVlA+QAB+QABr+ SSET + PS+PS +VCL 9
o I
l)
T-l 1.25P+DW; 8
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.48 nut _ech
Table 5-3.2-10 (Concluded) 1.
See Section 5-3.2.1 for definition of individual loads.
2.
Equations are defined in Subsection ND-3650 of the ASME Code (Reference 6).
3.
As an alternate, meet Equation 11 of the ASME Code (Reference 6).
4.
For the DBA condition, SRV discharge loads need not be combined with CO and chugging loads.
5.
See Section 5-3.2.2 for combination of dynamic loads.
6.
Only governing load combinations from Table 5-3.2-8 are considered here.
7.
Hydrostatic test condition.
DWr for all lines shall be with lines full of water at 700F.
i O
BPC-01-300-5 5-3.49 Revision 0 nutggh
l Table 5-3.2-11 GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATIONS - WETWELL SRV PIPING AND T-OUENCHER SUPPORTS l
LOAD LOAD COMBINATION (
SERVICE CCMBINATION EVEL NUMBER PRIMARY SECONDARY l
SA-1 DW+
TEl+ THAM 1 l
A SB-1 DW+0BE +
TEl+THAMl+OBE y
D SB-2 DW+0BE +
TE2+ THAM 2+0BE B
7 D
SB-3 DW+RVlA+QAB+QAB +
TE2* THAM 2+TD B
7 SB-4 DW+RVlB +QAB+QAB +
TE2+ THAM 2+TD B
7 SC-1 DW+RVlA+QAB+0AB +SSE +
TE2+ THAM 2+SSE y
y D
SC-2 DW+RVlB+QAB+QAB +SSE +
TE2+TAHM2+SSE +>ID C
7 7
D SC-3(3)
DW+RVIC+QAB+QAB +PCHUG+PCHUG +
TE2+ THAM 2A+TD1 C
y 7
I}
SC-4 DW+RVlC +0AB+QAB + CHUG + CHUG +
TE2+ THAM 2A+TD1 C
y 7
'D-1(4)
DW+0BE +CO+C0 +
TEl+'IHAM1A+CBE +'ID1 D
y 7
D SD-2( }
DW4RViC +QAB+QAB +SSE +PCHUG+PCHUG +
TE2+'IHAM2A+SSE +'ID1 D
7 7
7 D
l SD-3(3)
DW4RVlC +QAB+QAB +SSE + CHUG + CHUG +
TE2+'IHAM2A+SSE +'ID1 D
7 y
7 D
SD-4( }
DW+RVlA +QAB+QAB +SSEr+PG+PS +VCL+
TE2+'IHAM2A+SSE +'ID1 D
7 I
D ST-1(
DW A
T O
BPC-01-300-5 5-3.50 nut _ech Revision 0 l
O Table 5-3.2-11 D
(Concluded)
Notes:
1.
See Section 5-3.2.1 for definition of individual loads.
2.
Only governing load combinations from Table 5-3.2-9 are considered here.
3.
When the combination of SRV discharge loads plus TE2 and THAM 2A is less than the conhination of TEl and THAM 1A, the TE1 and THAM 1A combination is used.
4.
For the DBA condition, SRV discharge loads need not be combined with CO and chugging loads.
5.
See Section 5-3.2.2 for combination of dynamic loads.
6.
Hydrostatic test condition.
DWT for all lines shall be with lines full of water at 700F.
l l
l 1
l % s' BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.51 nutggh
5-3.3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria The acceptance criteria defined in NUREG-0661 on which the Hope Creek wetwell SRV piping, T-quencher, and supports analysis is based are discussed in Section 1-3.2.
In general, the acceptance criteria follow the rules contained in ASME Code,Section III, Division 1 up to and including the 1977 Summer Addenda for Class 3 piping and piping supports (Reference 6).
The corresponding Service Level limits, allowable stresses and fatigue requirements are also consistent with the requirements of the ASME Code and NUREG-0661.
The acceptance criteria used in the analysis of the SRV piping, T-quenchers and supports are summarized in the following paragraphs.
The wetwell SRV pipir.g and T-quencher arms are analyzed i
in accordance with the requirements for Class 3 piping systems contained in Subsection ND of the Code.
Table 5-3.3-1 lists the applicable ASME Code equations and stress limits for each of the governing piping load combinations.
The wetwell SRV piping and T-quencher supports are analyzed in accordance with requirements for Class 3 piping supports as provided in Subsection NF of the BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.52 nutggh
Code.
The applicable stress limits for support structures are based on the Service Level assignments s
listed for the governing support load combinations, as provided in Table 5-3.3-2.
The T-quencher ramshead is evaluated in accordance with the requirements for Class 3 pressure vessels contained in Subsection ND of the ASME Code.
Table 5-3.3-2 lists the applicable ASME Code allowables and Service Level assignments for the governing ramshead load combinations.
l t.
\\b BPC-01-300-5 5-3.53 Revision 0 nutggh
Table 5-3.3-1 ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR SRV PIPING AND T-QUENCHERS A
ODE
.OWABLE GOW RNING LOAD STRESS SERVICE STRESS EQUATION VALUE COMBINATION TYPE LEVEL LIMIT NUMBER (ksi)
NUMBER (1)
PRIMARY 8
DESIGN 1.0 S 15.0 A-1, T-1 h
PRIMARY 9
B 1.2 S h
PRIMARY 9
B 1.8 S 27.0 C-1 THROUGH C-4 h
~
~
PRIMARY 9
B 2.4 S 36.0 h
SECONDARY 10 B
1.0 S 22.5 A-2 THROUGH A-5 a
PRIMARY AND 11 B
S *3 37.5 (2) h a
SECONDARY Notes:
1.
Governing load combination numbers are listed in Table 5-3.2-10.
2.
See ASME Section III Subsection ND Paragraph ND-3652.3 (Reference 6) for combination of loads.
l l
O i
l BFC-01-300-5 I
Revision 0 5-3.54 l
nut.e_ch l
l
1 Table 5-3.3-2 i
ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR RAMSHEAD AND WETWELL SRV PIPING AND T-OUENCHER SUPPORTS ALLOWABLE STPESS (ksi)
MATERIAL 8
8 ITI2t MATERIAL PROPERTIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE (ksi)
LEVEL B LEVEL C LEVEL D C0MPONENTS PRIMART 17.12 23.34 31.12 MEMBRANE RAMSHEAD SA-403 S = 15.56 LOCAL PRIMARY 25.67 28.01 37.3%
elbow
- 7yp, g gggg
- "313b PRIMARY MEMBRANE +
25.67 28.01 37.34 PRIMARY BENDING RAMSHEAD gA 516 e~~
r.
O wy 26.25 31.50 39.38 p ;g PRIMARY MEMBRANE +
26.25 31.50 39.38 99IMAPY smTNG SUPPQRTS TENSILE 19.75 26.34 39.51 5 = 32*92 BENDING 19.75 26.34 39.51 QUENCHER y
S,= 60.00 CCMPRESSIVE 17.78 20.80 20.86 INTERACTION 1.00 L.00 1.00 1
55.,9 BE DINo 22.80 n.62 l
20.07 Y
COMPRESSIVE 15.64 20.07 SUP R; PLATES S = 80.00 l
g 1.00 1.00 1.00 COMBINED j
l 39.51 TENSILE 19.75 26.34 l
SRV 39.51 BENDING 19.75 26.34 PIPING SA-106 S = 32.92 I
SUPPORT Gr. 8 l
l STRUTS S = 60.00 21.66 18.61 21.66 g
COMPRESSIVE l
l 1.00 1.00 n3TERACTION 1.00 WELDS i
SADOLE Pt. ATE TO gg.4.o3 S = 15.56 PRIMARY 13.32 18.17 l
24.22 I
Tve i
RAMSHEAD WP4h6L l
\\
J BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.55 nutggh
5-3.4 Methods of Analysis O
This section describes the methods of analysis used to evaluate the wetwell SRV
- piping, T-quenchers, and supports for the effects of the governing loads as presented in Section 5-3.2.1.
The methodology used to evaluate the SRV piping, T-quenchers and supports is discussed in Section 5-3.4.1.
The methodology used to evaluate the local effects at the ramshead is discussed in Section 5-3.4.2.
The approach used to address fatigue effects is presented in Section 5-3.4.3.
O BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.56 nutggh
I 5-3.4.1 Analysis for-Major Loads
[ ~\\
V The wetwell SRV piping, T-quenchers, and supports are evaluated for the effects of the loads discussed in Section 5-3.2.1 using a. beam-type finite element computer model.
Due to the similarity of the SRV line routings in the wetwell, a single analytical model' is utilized to. represent a typical system.
The analytical model, shown in Figure 5-3.4-2, includes the SRV line in the wetwell from the vent pipe penetration (VPP) to the ramshead assembly, the quencher arms, the quencher support beam and the associated connecting members.
This model is included in the vent system 1/16 segment analytical model described in Section 3-2.4.
The 1/16 h
model is shown in Figure 5-3.4-1.
The local stiffness effects at the VPP and at the ramshead are included in the beam model by using stiffness matrix elements.
The stiffness matrix element at the VPP is described in Section 3-2.4.1.
The stiffness matrix element at the ramshead is developed using the finite element model of the rams-head assembly shown in Figure 5-3.4-3 and described in Section 5-3.4.2.
The ramshead stiffness matrix element connects the SRV piping to the T-quencher arms and is connected to the suppression chamber by pin plates
'./
i BPC-01-300-5 l
Revision 0 5-3.57 nutggh l
attached to the mitered joint ring girder.
Support conditions at the SRV piping and T-quenche r support locations on the suppression chamber and vent system are explicitly included in the analytical model.
For stiffness evaluation, corrosion allowance of 1/8 inch and 1/16 inch are subtracted from the material thicknesses or diameters of the T-quencher supports and SRV supports respectively.
Mass properties used in the model are based on the nominal dimensions and densities of the materials used to construct the SRV line, T-quencher, and T-quencher supports.
The water mass contained within the SRV line and T-quencher arms is lumped along the submerged component lengths in three directions.
Additional hydrodynamic mass is lumped along the submerged member lengths of the SRV piping, T-quenchers and supports in the lateral directions, to account for the effective water mass which acts with these structures during dynamic loadings.
Several types of analysis techniques are used to determine system response to the major loads acting on the wetwell SRV piping, T-quenchers, and supports.
These techniques include time-history, equivalent
- static, and static analysis procedures.
The time-history analyses are performed utilizing a
modal BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.58 nut.e_qh
1 superposition technique with 2% critical damping.
For
-(v the equivalent static analyses, a frequency analysis of the beam model is first performed in which all structural modes in the range of 0 to 100 hertz are extracted.
Conservative values of dynamic amplifica-tion factors are then developed and applied to the individual dynamic loads.
The beam model results are also used to develop loads for use in evaluating local stresses in the ramshead.
Beam end loads are taken from the beam model and applied to the finite element model of the ramshead shown in Figure 5-3.4-3.
Additional information (N
relating to the ramshead stress evaluation is provided in Section 5-3.4.2.
The specific treatment of each load in each load category identified in Section 5-3.2.1 is discussed in i
the following paragraphs.
i 1.
Dead Weight Loads l
a.
Dead Weight (DW) Loads:
A static analysis is performed for a unit vertical acceleration applied to the weight of steel and the weight O-BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.59 nutggb
of the water contained inside the SRV line and T-quencher arms.
b.
Dead Weight (DWT) Loads:
Load Case la is used in the analysis in lieu of this load case due to the negligible effect of the additional water weight contained in the SRV piping above the suppression pool.
2.
Seismic Loads a.
OBE Inertia (OBEg) Ioads:
A static analysis is performed for a 0.26g horizontal and 0.27g vertical acceleration applied to the combined weight of steel and water in the analytical model.
These accelerations are taken from the seismic response spectra at the dominant structural frequencies.
b.
OBE Displacement (OBED)
Loads:
A static analysis is performed for the horizontal and vertical relative displacements at the SRV
- piping, T-quencher, and support attachment points on the suppression chamber and vent system.
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.60 nut _e_c._h.
c.
SSE Inertia (SSEg) Loads:
A static analysis is performed for a 0.28g horizontal and 0.48g vertical acceleration applied to the combined weight of steel and water in the analytical model.
These ' accelerations are taken from the seismic response spectra at the dominant structural frequencies.
d.
SSE Displacement (SSED)
Loads:
A static analysis is performed for the horizontal and vertical relative displacements at the SRV
- piping, T-quencher, and support attachment points on the suppression chamber and vent system.
O The methodology used to combine spatial components in the seismic analysis is defined in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.92, Revision 1 (Reference 7).
The seismic analysis is performed independently for each of the two horizontal directions and for the vertical direction.
The resulting peak responses obtained for each of the three directions are combined by SRSS.
f i
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.61 nutggb
3.
Pressure and Temperature Loads a.
Pressure Loads:
The effects of maximum pressure (Pg) and design pressure (P) on the wetwell SRV piping and T-quencher are evaluated utilizing the techniques described in Subsection ND-3650 of the ASME
- Code,Section III (Reference 6).
The values of Pg and P used in the analysis are listed in Table 5-3.2-2.
b.
Temperature (TEl, TE2)
Loads:
A static analysis is performed for the TEl and TE2 temperatures cases defined in Table 5-3.2-2.
The temperature loads are applied uniformly to the wetwell SRV piping, T-quencher arms, and T-quencher support components.
An additional static analysis is performed for the effects of the thermal anchor move-ments of the vent system and suppression chamber at the attachments of the SRV piping, T-quenchers and supports.
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.62 nut _ec._h
4.
Safety Relief Valve Disenarge Loads a.
SRV Discharge Thrust (RV1)
Loads:
An equivalent static analysis is performed for an envelop of the SRV discharge thrust load cases shown in Table 5-3.2-3 which produces maximum stresses in the wetwell SRV piping and T-quencher.
The values of the loads chown include dynamic load factors computed using ff.rst principles.
b.
SRV T-quencher discharge (OAB) Loads:
o T-Quencher and End Cap Thrust Loads :
An (O,
j equivalent static analysis is performed for the thrust loads shown in Table S-3.2-?.
The values of the loads shown include a
dynamic load factor (DLF) l I
which is computed using first principles.
o Air Bubble Drag Loads:
n equivalent static analysis of the wetwell SRV
- piping, T-quenchers and supports is performed to evaluate che acceleration I
drag and standard drag forces imparted bi 2PC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.63 l
nutggh
-. - ~,. -., _.
to submerged portions of the structures.
The applied equivalent static loads include a
DLF of 3.0 if the natural frequency of the structure is below 20 hz and 2.0 if the natural frequency is above 20 hz.
The DLF values have been established based on test results as discussed in Section 1-4.2.4.
5.
Pool Swell Lodds:
a.
Pool Swell (PS) Loads:
c Impact and Drag Loads:
A transient dynamic analysis is performed for the transient pressures as discussed in the vent system analysis contained in Section 3-2.4.1.
l o
Pool Fallback Loads:
A transient analysis is performed for the transient pressures as discussed in the vent system analysis contained in Section 3-2.4.1.
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.64 nutggh l
T o
Froth Impingement and Fallback Loads:
A transient analysis is performed for the transient pressures as discussed in the vent system analysis contained in Section 3-2.4.1.
0 t
The analysis for Pool Swell Impact and Drag, Pool Fallback and Froth Impingement and Fallback loads is performed in a
single transient analysis with appropriate load sequencing.
6.
Condensation Oscillation (CO) Loads The CO submerged structure loading is bounded by l
i the post-chug loading and is not included in a critical load combination.
Accordingly, no analysis is performed for this loading.
7.
Chugging Loads a.
Pre-Chug (PCHUG)
Loads:
As discussed in Section 5-3.2.1, this loading is bounded by j
the post-chug load (Case 7b).
Therefore BPC-01-300-5 l {
Revision 0 5-3.65 3
nutggb
post-chug has been used in the analyses in lieu of pre-chug.
b.
Post-Chug (CHUG)
Loads:
The Post-Chug submerged structure loading is composed of both velocity and acceleration drag components.
The drag forces are determined based on the summation of 50 harmonic loading functions.
A description of the harmonic loading functions as well as the procedures used in applying the loads are discussed in Section 1-4.1.8.
An equivalent static analysis method is applied utilizing peak structural dynamic load factors.
Once the amplitudes of the drag forces for the SRV piping and T-quencher components have been determined, they are converted to the analytical model coordinate system and applied as nodal forces.
The torus FSI effects are also considered in performing the Post-Chug submerged structure load analyses.
m.
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.66 nut _ec_h.
8.
Vent Clearing Loads g
I(
a.
Vent Clearing (VCL) Loads:
I o
LOCA Water Jet Impingement Loads:
As shown in Table 5-3.2-4, the effects of this loading on the wetwell SRV
- piping, T-quenchers, and supports is negligible.
o LOCA Air Bubble Drag Loads :
As shown in Table 5-3.2-4, the effects of this i
loading on the wetwell SRV
- piping, T-quenchers, and supports is negligible.
9.
Vent System and Torus Interaction Loads As discussed previously, the analysis of the l
wetwell SRV piping, T-quenchers, and supports is included in the vent system 1/16 segment model analysis described in Section 3-2.4.
In this
- analysis, loads are applied directly to the suppression chamber shell and vent system and thus their effects on the wetwell SRV
- piping, T-quenchers and supports are explicitly accounted l
l for.
t j
I BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.67 nutggh
The methodology described in the preceding paragraphs results in conservative values of the SRV piping, T-quencher and support stresses for the controlling loads defined in NUREG-0661.
Use of the analysis results obtained by applying this methodology leads to conservative estimates of design margins for the piping, T-quenchers and supports.
O l
l l
l BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.68 nutggh
5-3.4.2 Ramshead Analysis for Local Ef fects A
finite element model is used to evaluate local stresses in the T-quencher ramshead assembly.
The analytical model is shown in Figure 3-3.4-3.
The model is also used to generate a stiffness matrix element of the ramshead assembly for use in the SRV piping, T-quencher, and supports beam model discussed in Section 5-3.4.1.
The model includes the ramshead, saddle plate, crotch
- plate, pin
- plates, stiffener plates, and the long radius elbow segments on each side of the ramshead which connect the ramshead to the T-quencher arms.
For V
stiffness evaluation, a corrosion allowance of 1/8 inch is subtracted from the thickness of all plates except the ramshead, crotch plate and elbows which are made of stainless steel.
A local stiffness matrix is developed which expresses the stiffness of the entire ramshead assembly in terms of a few local degrees of freedom at interface points.
The resulting stif fness matrix is included in the SRV
- piping, T-quencher and supports beam model at the corresponding interface degrees of freedom.
C
- (,U BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.69 0
The loads used to evaluate stresses in the ramshead assembly are taken from the SRV piping, T-quencher and supports beam model results.
The beam end loads obtained from the beam model are applied at the boundaries.of the camshead finite element model.
An additional distributed load to account for internal pressure effects is also applied.
Lesds which act on the ramshead model boundaries are applied to the finite element model through a system of radial beams.
The radial beams extend from the middle surface of each of the shell elements to a corre-sponding node on the centerline of the shell elements, as shown in Figure 5-3.4-3.
The beams have large bending stiffnesses, zero axial stiffness, and are pinned in all directions at the shell element middle surface.
Boundary loads, applied to the centerline nodes, cause only membrane forces to be transferred to the shell element middle surface without causing local bending effects.
Use of this boundary condition minimizes tha end effects of the analytical model in the local areas of interest.
The system of radial beams serves to constrain the boundary planes to remain plane during
- loading, which is consistent with the assumption made in small deflection beam theory.
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.70 nutggh
5-3.4.3 Fatigue Evaluation (fs
)
w]
Section 4.3.3.2 of NUREG-0661 (Reference 1) requires that a f atigue evaluation of the wetwell safety relief valve discharge piping be performed for all loading conditions except pool swell.
The Mark I
Owners Group prepared and submitted a
generic fatigue evaluation report (Reference 9) to the NRC on November 30, 1983.
The report addressed f atigue on a generic basis using actual piping analysis results from essentially all Mark I plants.
The resulting cumulative usage factors are below 0.5, demonstrating that further plant unique fatigue evaluations are not O
(
warranted.
Use of the generic fatigue evaluation approach has been approved as described in Reference 10.
Therefore, the Hope Creek wetwell SRV piping is adequate for fatigue based on this generic evaluation.
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.71 nutggb
VENT PIPE VPP TORUS SHELt.
L
/
$w 7>
N
,I y WETwtLL
/ N
'/
2 i
SRV PIPtNa
/(/
~l 7
N 4/
O, N
u r
f y
7 l
i s,
b vf#'
I N4
\\
kg *'
?
s
\\
/
T-ou ENCW ER g
/\\
4
\\
,,, N E s
T-ou tNCHER N
SUPAORT SEAM Tomus SUPPORT ccWMN Figure 5-3.4-1 VENT SYSTEM 1/16 SEGMENT MODEL -ISOMETRIC VIEW BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.72 nut.e_qh
/\\
vamTicAu SuPPCRT Simuf vtNT PIPS PENETRATION Hont:2NTA SUPPC,.8tf sTsuf uAftAn supscar STmuT smv uNE Q~
r..u.Natn M
[ic] RAMswtAo
's~u p"*o hLATE W
w,
wiceAv atscEM T outNcHtm SuPocat
/
t.ou tus tm p
suPPOR* SEAM Em.m.a.n.r.iu"ENSN T
.u Figure 5-3.4-2 l
WETWELL SRV PIPING, T-QUENCHER, AND SUPPORTS BEAM MODEL - ISOMETRIC VIEW l
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.73 nutggh
1
/ \\/\\
/\\
\\
h
/ Y k
y
/
hfYf f
l
"/gl M _- y '
O R &v
^
42 s kg
\\
4 J
T
%K ~3' 3;-
K"b '
<N
" x NWg v't I
i I
_ i,
,\\
M T
\\
k1SMzbhh?
< ':,5k6:-
/
Figure 5-3.4-3 RAMSHEAD ASSEMBLY FINITE ELEMENT MODEL - ISOMETRIC VIEW BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.74 nut.e_qt!
5-3.5 Analysis Results and Conclusions g
(v)
The geometry, loads and load combinations, acceptance criteria, and analysis methods used in the evaluation of the Hope Creek wetwell SRV piping, T-quenchers and supports are presented and discussed in the preceding sections.
The results from the evaluation of the piping, T-quenchers and supports are presented in the paragraphs and tables which follow.
The maximum stresses resulting from the governing load combinations for the wetwell SRV piping and T-quenchers are presented in Table 5-2.5-1.
The maximum stresses for each Service Level are listed along with the 3
o associated Code equations and allowable stress values.
Maximum stresses for the ramshead, saddle plate, and piping and T-quencher supports are provided in Table 5-2.5-2.
Fatigue evaluations for the wetwell SRV piping and T-quenchers have been performed generically as described in Section 5-3.4-3.
The Hope Creek wetwell SRV piping and T-quenchers are qualified for fatigue effects based on this generic evaluation.
I
%d BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.75 nute_cb
The analysis results show that the design of the wetwell SRV
- piping, T-quenchers, and supports is adequate for the
- loads, load combinations and acceptance criteria limits specified in NUREG-0661 (Reference 1) and in the PUAAG (Reference 9).
t l
l 1
BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-3.76 nutggh
7 v
Table 5-3.5-1 ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR WETWELL SRV_
PIPING AND T-QUENCHER STRESS MAXIMUM STRESS (ksi)
LOCATION DESIGN LEVEL B LEVEL C LEVEL D SECONDARY SRV PIPING 3.51 16.24 19.19 23.88 36.80 (2)
T-QUENCHER 2.81 14.73 14.78 14.78 3.04
(
ASME COD EQUATION 1) 8 9
9 9
10/11 2
SfRE L
15.0 18.0 27.0 36.0 22.5/37.5 k
)
Notes:
1.
Equations from ASME Code,Section III, Subsection ND-3650.
2.
Includes secondary displacement effects due to maximum normal operating temperature.
Secondary thermal displacement effects due to one-time accident conditions are not considered.
Os V
BPC-01-300-5 5-3.77 N
Revision 0
_.-e
..~.m,. - -.,,. _...,..,.. _ - -. - -.. _.. -. _ _ - _,... _ -. - _.. - -. - - - - - - -.., -.. _, -.., _., _ -,. _
Table 5-3.5-2 ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR WETWELL SRV PIPING AND T-QUENCHER SUPPORT LOAES
[J)AO CoseltmATION SterRS
I'
'3I ST9FM9 "FevtCE LEVEL S St#wlCE LEVEL C trpvRE trvrL e
'Jpd4 IMATI"Jee CDPWIINATtrWG COMR I OIA TlOn
!TTlN ppp ICAO C Alf.
l PAD C Ati.
IAAO C Att,
C RIA*.
CAff.
pyyg,
y,,
gg,g fgg,
C Alf.
Coom, ser).
gyp,
y,g, CON f6 0mFaT5 Pef MA#v MF*#ANP u.2 31.t3 3 e0 C.4 39.91
- s. eg o.4e 23.33 4.gg
[*[
92 88.19 9.ft C.4 22.00 9.79 D.4e 22.34 9.49
....A.
os,s.. A
,9.,,
C.4
..e4
. 4e 4...
C..e e PeteeAgv seregtf eert refpany sersdeRAssF p.2 E.16 9.30 t.4 I
f.e5 0.31 0-de
- 4. e4 9.38 eg,,an gg g A Ar@t t
[#rAL reiseAsy A*2 9.02 9.34 F.4 11.0.
c.19 p.4e i t. 3e
- e. 3e eerposeAser PW ise>#1 #w.Mp anser
'a o ref MART arkDf ter!
R.2 22.40 0.8%
C.s
( 27.es e.se e.de 29.21 0.13 2UPPO9TS Trees t LR 33 4 0.94 0.04 SC.4 I 19 0 89 Sft-le 2.24
- 4. es N'"'"
- FJent M sm.4 0.61 0.41 St.4 9.9?
6.39 Sn '3e 10.04 0.2A esfefm*T PFAM CrieePARMS tvt
$4 4 0.99 9.50 BC-4 2.39 8.!!
to. 3.
2.24 0.11 twTERACTfrWe 58 4 9.43 0.50 SC.4 12.16 9.99 SD le 12.28 8.31 Green teert SR.4 19.90 9.4?
COMR t eFft SR.4 le.es 0.48 sc.4 16.51 R.11 Aft.d e 37.11 9.97 p
l TF*sm et.E SR.4 9.34 0.47 SC.4 12.47 4.44 50 4e 14.28
- 9. 94 Prnntatt gn*4 0.09 9.89 50-4 0.4%
0.04 50 4 e 0.11 4.04 F t P f ter.
Se8Pf997 (YtesP9FS91VR
$3 4 9,34 9 $$
$C.4 82.57 9.19 MD.4m 14.25 4.46 4TRUTS INTERACTtese 3n.4
,, 99 g.54 sc.4 12.72 4.99 5p.4.
14.17
- 4. ss l
l wetn4 sArnr D.2 9.54 8.7%
C4 11.42 0.63 n.4e it.s?
- 9. 4 e g9, y
,,,,,g gy
...-nean L
9 BPC-01-300-5 5-3.78 Revision 0 g{
^
O^
5-4.0 LIST OF REFERENCES 1.
" Mark I
Containment Long-Term Program,"
Safety Evaluation Report, USNRC, NUREG-0661, July 1980.
2.
" Mark I
Containment Program Load Definition Report,"
- Company, NEDO-21888, Revision 2, November 1981.
3.
" Mark I Containment Program Plant Unique Load De f ini tion, " Hope Creek Generating Station, Unit 1,
- Company, NEDO-24E79-1, Revision 1, January 1982.
4.
Hope Creek Generating
- Station, Unit 1,
Final Safety Analysis Report, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Amendment No.
2, October 1983.
5.
" Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Applications Guide,"
Task Number 3.1.1, General Electric Company, NEDO-24583-1, October 1979.
6.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 1, 1977 Edition with Addenda up to and including Summer 1977.
7.
" Combining Modal Responses and Spatial Components in Seismic Response Analysis," USNRC, Regulatory Guide 1.92, Revision 1, February 1976.
8.
Letter from Domenic B.
Vassallo (NRC) to H.
C.
Pfe f ferien (GE), " Acceptability of SRSS Method for Combining Dynamic Responses in Mark I
Piping Systems," dated March 10, 1983.
9.
" Mark I Containment Program Augmented Class 2/3 Fatigue Evaluation Method and Results for Typical Torus Attached and SRV Piping Systems,"
MPR Associates, Inc., MPR-751, November 1982.
10.
Letter from D.
B.
Vassallo (NRC) to H.C.
Pfefferlen (GE),
" Evaluation of Adequacy of the Existing Mark I Downcomer Chugging Lateral Load Specification and Augmented ASME Class 2/3 Fatigue Evaluation Method for the Mark I
Containment Piping Systems," dated November 9, 1983.
O BPC-01-300-5 Revision 0 5-4.1 nutggb
. -.