ML17056C341
| ML17056C341 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/09/1993 |
| From: | Brinkman D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TAC-M85003, NUDOCS 9304190155 | |
| Download: ML17056C341 (56) | |
Text
e, gp,it RE0iy G
m 0
t gs u
IP <<>>*<<+
Docket No. 50-220 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555.0001 April 9, 1993 LICENSEE:
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation FACILITY:
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit No.
1
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MARCH 23,
- 1993, MEETING TO DISCUSS DIFFERENCES IN METHODOLOGY USED FOR SUMMING CONDENSATION OSCILLATION LOADS IN NINE NILE POINT UNIT NO.
1 TORUS SHELL MATERIALS (TAC NO. H85003)
A meeting was held in the NRC One White Flint North Office in Rockville, Maryland, with Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NHPC) and NRC staff representatives to discuss differences in methodology used for summing condensation oscillation loads in Nine Mile Point Unit No.
1 (NHP-1) torus shell materials.
The NRC staff had requested this meeting.
Enclosure 1 is a
list of meeting attendees.
Enclosure 2 is a copy of the handout material provided by NMPC.
By letter dated Hay 14,
- 1991, NHPC submitted a report to the NRC proposing a
reduction in the condensation oscillation (CO) loads in the NMP-1 torus.
The NRC staff reviewed that submittal and issued its safety evaluation on August 25, 1992.
In its safety evaluation, the NRC staff concluded that CO stresses in the torus walls should be combined by the absolute sum method.
NMPC's position was that these stresses should be combined by the square root of the sum of the square method plus the absolute sum of the stresses for four frequency peaks.
NMPC noted this difference in methodology in a letter to the NRC dated November 23,
- 1992, and requested a rereview.
The November 23, 1992, letter also proposed to defer implementation of possible torus modifications for one additional fuel cycle.
The NRC staff responded by letter dated December 23, 1992.
Our response approved continued operation provided the criteria specified in our January 22, 1985, safety evaluation continue to be satisfied and the monitoring programs specified in our August 25, 1992, safety evaluation are implemented.
Our December 23, 1992, letter also suggested that a meeting be held to discuss the differences in methodology for summing the CO loads.
By letter dated March 12,
- 1993, NHPC reported the results of the latest wall thickness measurements of the NHP-1 torus.
NHPC reported that the NHP-1 torus is still in conformance with the NRC's safety evaluation of January 22,
- 1985, and based on the observed corrosion rate, the torus will not corrode below the required minimum wall thickness by the next refueling outage.
NHPC and their consultants presented information (see Enclosure
- 2) which appeared to be supportive of NNPC's methodology position for summing the CO Q~ I'ty p
o220~
~d~d
April 9, 1993 loads.
The NRC staff agreed to rereview the NMPC methodology.
To perform this review, we request that two reports (NED0-24010-03, August 1979 and SMA 12101.04-R001D, March 1981) referenced in Enclosure 2 be submitted to the NRC within 30 days.
The NRC staff also requested NMPC to document, within 30 days, the assertion that the Continuum Dynamics, Inc. acoustic model, which implies a unity reduction factor (no reduction) for the case of uncorrelated downcomers within a torus bay with all bays correlated, is correct.
Sincerely,
Enclosures:
1.
List of Attendees 2.
License Handout Material Donald'S.
Brinkman, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-1 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc w/enclosures:
See next page
C
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Nile Point Nuclear Station Unit No.
1 CC:
Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esquire Winston
& Strawn 1400 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-3502 Supervisor Town of Scriba Route 8, Box 382
- Oswego, New York 13126 Hr. Neil S. Cams Vice President - Nuclear Generation Niagara Hohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Post Office Box 32
- Lycoming, New York 13093 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 126
- Lycoming, New York 13093 Gary D. Wilson, Esquire Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West
- Syracuse, New York 13202 Regional Administrator, Region I
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Hs.
Donna Ross New York State Energy Office 2 Empire State Plaza 16th Floor
- Albany, New York 12223 Hr. Kim Dahlberg Unit 1 Station Superintendent Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Post Office Box 32
- Lycoming, New York 13093 Hr. David K. Greene Manager Licensing Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 301 Plainfield Road
- Syracuse, New York 13212 Charles Donaldson, Esquire Assistant Attorney General New York Department of Law 120 Broadway New York,, New York 10271 Hr. Paul D.
Eddy State of New York Department of Public Service Power Division, System Operations 3 Empire State Plaza
- Albany, New York 12223 Hr.
B. Ralph Sylvia Executive Vice President, Nuclear Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 301 Plainfield Road
- Syracuse, New York 13212
I 1
ENCLOSURE 1
Attendance List March 23 1993 Meetin to Discuss Differences in Hethodolo Used for Summin CO Loads Name Donald S.
Brinkman Robert A. Capra Robert P.
Kennedy Richard H. Berks Richard A. Enos Lee Klosowski Mohammed F. Alvi Philip B. George Alan Bilanin John Lehner Constantino Economos S.
K. Chaudhary J. Kudrick M. Snodderly Tony D'Angelo Jim Davis Robert B. Burtch, Jr.
Gary D. Wilson Nick Spagnoletti Robert Pollard Position Senior Project Hanger
- Director, PDI-1 Struct.
Mech. Consulting Principal Engineer Principal Engineer Gen.
Supv.
Nuc.
Des Ul Supervisor Civil/Struct Ul Engineer Senior Associate Group Leader Engineer Sr.
Reactor Engr.
Section Chief Reactor Engineer Sr. Reactor Engineer Materials Engineer, NRR
- Hanager, Nuclear Communications Managing Counsel Program Director-Licensing Nuclear Safety Engineer NRC/NRR/PDI-1 NRC/NRR/PD I-1 Consultant, NMPC Teledyne Engr. Serv.
Teledyne Engr. Serv.
MMPC NHPC NMPC Continuum Dynamics BNL BNL USNRC-RGN-I NRC/NRR/SCSB NRC/NRR/SCSB NRC/NRR/SCSB NRC/NRR/DE NHPC NMPC NMPC Union of Concerned Scientists
I
'1
ENCLOSURE 2
NIAGARAMOHAWKPOWER CORPORATION PRESENTATION TO NRC MARCH 23, 1993 NINE MILE POINT UNIT 1 REDUCTION IN MANK I TORUS PROGRAM CONDENSATION OSCILLATION LOAD DEFINITION AND RESULTING EFFECT ON MINIMUMSHELL THICKNESS REQUIREMENTS
I l
- AGENDA-INTRODUCTION L. KLOSOWSKI CONDENSATION OSCILLATION LOADS A. BILANIN STRESS SUMMATION R. KENNEDY
SUMMARY
L. KLOSOWSKI 0 Bi. A ALL
~.
}
NMP1 TORUS CO LOAD REDUCTION RESOLVE INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN NRC SER DATED AUGUST 25, 1992 AND NMPC SUBMITTALDATED MAY 14, 1991 NMPC SUBMITTALPROVIDES BASIS FOR REDUCTION IN CONDENSATION OSCILLATION (CO) LOADS DUE TO GEOMETRY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FSTF AND NMP1 TORUS NRC SER APPROVES LOAD REDUCTION NMPC SUBMITTALCOMBINES STRESS HARMONICS USING MODIFIED SRSS" (INCLUDING STRESSES FROM REDUCED CO LOADS)
MODIFIED SRSS SUMMATION ACCEPTED BY NRC IN MARK I TORUS PROGRAM NRC SER APPROVES MODIFIED SRSS SUMMATION OF STRESS HARMONICS BUT NOT WHEN USING REDUCED CO LOADS
. CO LOAD REDUCTION AND MODIFIED SRSS SUMMATION INDEPENDENT USE OF MODIFIED SRSS (INCLUDING STRESSES FROM REDUCED CO LOADS) APPROPRIATE THIS ADDITIONALCLARIFICATIONWAS PROVIDED IN NMPC SUBMITTALDATED NOVEMBER 23, 1992
(" - ABSOLUTE SUM OF 4 LARGEST STRESS HARMONICS PLUS SQUARE ROOT SUM OF SQUARES REMAINING 27 STRESS HARMONICS)
MODIFIED SRSS STRESS COMBINATION FSTF BUILT (1/16 SEGMENT, 1-BAY, 8 DOWNCOMERS, RIGID END CAPS)
TESTS RUN - LOADS, PRESSURES AND STRESSES MEASURED ANALYTICALMODELS DEVELOPED TO MATCH MEASURED LOADS, PRESSURES AND STRESSES MODIFIED SRSS (ABSOLUTE SUM 4 LARGEST STRESS HARMONICS AND SRSS REMAINING 27 STRESS HARMONICS)
RESULTED IN GOOD CORRELATION WITH MEASURED STRESSES (ALL STRESSES WERE CLOSE TO OR EXCEEDED MEASURED STRESSES)
I s3
CO LOAD REDUCTION FSTF NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF NIVIP1 TORUS RIGID END CAPS 8 DOWNCOMERS NIVIP1 HAS 8-4-8-4.... DOWNCOIVIER BAYS END CAP EFFECTS RESULT IN HIGHER CO LOADS IN ALL FREQUENCY RANGES THEREFORE, LOADS AND PRESSURES MEASURED IN FBTF ARE CONSERVATIVE FOR NMP1 TORUS 4
I
NMP1 TORUS CO LOAD REDUCTION MIVIARY ABSOLUTE SUIVI OF 4 LARGEST STRESS HARMONICS AND SRSS OF REMAINING 27 STRESS HARMONICS CORREI ATES MEASURED AND CALCULATED STRESSES WELL MEASURED LOADS ARE UNREALISTICALLYHIGH DUE TO END CAP EFFE CTS AND 8 DOWNCOMER BAYS MODIFIED SRSS COIVIBINATIONOF STRESSES FROM REDUCED CO LOADS IS APPROPRIATE MANY OTHER CONSERVATISMS EXIST THEREFORE, STRESS REDUCTIONS IN NMPC MAY 14, 1991 SUBMITTALARE APPROPRIATE a j It '
TORUS CO LOAD REDUCTION FULL SCALE TEST FACILITY (FSTF)
POOL DQWNCOMER VENT HEADER ci 7
5 O
Q.
V I
Q Plan View FSTF POOL VENT 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
TRANSDUCER P5123 P5243 P5323 P5N3 P5523 P5543 P5723 PS%3 Vent Header Oowncomer Typ) cal Sensor Location 3 FT.
Stean Water interface Oowncomer exit pressure transducers in FSTF.
t
<p
128 LLI 68 Cl LLI V)
-68 CL
-188 PRESSURE N 8 OONNCOMER 1
6 6
r 614 s
4 8
5' 1
4
~
t 7'8 11<
2 12411 2
~
1 1
67 8
2 f
1 6
P 2
Nrs 2
6 4 ~4 8 Il 3/5 6
5 2
4 2
8 2
1 7 2 6
g6 5
2
~s 4
6~ 'jp 5
6378 )
1 4
g p
7 16 ra 5
568 4
1 8
8 5e 83 $
6 8
68 8
1 14 8
25 4
8 61 y lz 4
1 4
2 4
51 13 67g74 861
~ 1 8
2 7
1 8
eg 1
8 538$
7 rg 7
2 i 37 S3 4
8 23 41 2
1
+7 17 3
1 5
3 4
5 4 6 4
3 267 2
2 1
667/
3 6
5 37 g
76573 8
~L 581155 4
1
~5 62 5
3 4
8 8
3 r
8<~613 6
3 6
q 4
d'
)
ze 87886 7
4 6 2
~+624 1
2 1 1 5 8
Q 4 r...e,r y
S'1 5
8 43 4 4$
470 el 5
Q 5
7 lg 8
1 8
4 2 23 7
~
74')4 5
17 334 5
12 4
6 18 15 28 25 38 35 48 45 FREQUENCY (HZ3 Figure 3. 2.
Comparison of the phase angles between harmonic components in the vent exit transducer P5123 (Run M-8)
l 0
TORUS CO LOAD REDUCTION CORRELATION OF PRESSURE SOURCES-FSTF RESULTS In (PS+P6P
= P)
+ Pl
+
2PsP6 oo Sss CL OO V
V sr sn V oO U
I V4 o s4 P3(~)
=
~)> (rdglrs)t 0
+ Transform (Ps+ P6j
- 2P5Pf, OO srs
'o.oo t
I I
s.oo so.oo
>s.oo 2o.oo rs.oq
>o.oo
>s.oo uo.oo qs.oo Frequency.
Ilz.
Figurc 2.
Mean Square prcssure signals bcrwcc>> downcos>>crs 5 and fi, FSTF Run M8. 20 - 35 scc>>nds siss>>>>g condcnsarion oscillarion as a fu>>coon of frcquc>>cy O>>casru cd frown acro frcq>>cncy ).
g ~
TORUS CO LOAD REDUCTION FSTF TEST RESULTS
~ ANALYSIS RESULTS BASED ON THE FSTF TESTS HAVE SHOWN THAT DURING CONDENSATION OSCILLATION THE PULSATING CONDENSATION AT EACH EXIT IS RANDOM (UNCORRELATED) IN THE FREQUENCY DOMAIN EXCEPT AT TWO FREQUENCY RANGES THE PULSATING CONDENSATION AT THE DOWN-COMER EXITS ARE STRONGLY CORRELATED BETWEEN DOWNCOMERS AT 4-6 HZ AND WEAKLY CORRELATED AT 8-12 HZ.
THESE FINDINGS WERE PRESENTED TO THE NRC ON MARCH 4, 1981
~ THE CONSEQUENCE OF THIS RANDOMNESS AND THE GEOMETRY OF THE FULL SCALE TEST FACIL-ITY IS A MEASURED CONDENSATION OSCILLATION TORUS LOAD WHICH IS VERY CONSERVATIVE.
l ~
I
TORUS CO LOAD REDUCTION NMP1 TORUS PLAN VIEW D
Vent Bays Etc.
ooo OOOO 0
oo o
0 oo Downcomer Exit Positions 18'egment Figure 3.
Plan viesss of Nine MilePoint suppression pool showing 8~-8A downcomer/bay geomeay.
(Not to Scale)
t I
t I Q 4
TORUS CO LOAD REDUCTION NMP< CURRENT ANALYSIS PLAN
~
. UTILIZE MULTI-BAY HYDRODYNAMIC MODEL AND APPLY SPECIFICALLY TO NINE MILE POINT UNIT 1
TO PROVIDE A MORE REALISTIC CONDENSATION OSCILLATION TORUS SHELL LOAD o
THIS MULTI-BAY HYDRODYNAMIC MODEL TAKES INTO ACCOUNT UNCORRELATED STEAM CONDENSATION ALT-ERNATING 8 AND 4 DOWNCOMER BAYS
I -+
Res onse Combination Back round References 1.) Kennedy, R.P, and N.M. Newmark, "Bases for Criteria for Combination ofEarthquake and other Transient Responses by the Square-Root-Sum-of-the Squares-Method," NEDO-24010-2, General Electric Company, San Jose, California, December 1978.
2.) Kennedy, R.P., Tong, W.H., and N,M. Newmark, "Study to Demonstrate that Approximately the SRSS Combined Response Has Greater than an 84 Percent Nonexceedance Probability When the Newmark-Kennedy Acceptance Criteria are Satisfied, NEDO-24010-03, General Electric Company, San Jose, California, August 1979.
em
These References State and Demonstrate That:
I. The goal of a response combination procedure should be to retain approximately the same level of conservatism (as expressed by the non-exceedance probability) as exists for each ofthe component responses contained in the combination.
- 2. It is unnecessary for the response combination procedure to add additional conservatism.
- 3. The desired level ofconservatism should be placed at other levels in the design process such as the definition ofthe loading, the response calculational method, and the definition ofacceptable response levels.
- 4. The response combination methodology cannot rationally or uniformly cover potential unconservatism inadvertently introduced elsewhere in the design process.
ql 1
Response Combination Goal ofRetaining Conservatism introduced Elsewhere is Met So Long As:
W >~50%
And Rc >
"'.2 Where:
R,
=
Combined Response for Defined Loading R, =
50% Non-Exceedance Probability (NEP)
Combined Response For Defined Loading R;,, =
84% NEP Combined Response For Defined Loading
~ &
J
C.O. Loadin Defined By Fourier Harmonic Amplitude Coefficients Within 1-HZ Frequency Bands i tii id IH o
i Ampiii daA P
d i
iiyi~id Phases It is Incredibly Unlikelythat More than A Few Individual Fourier Amplitude Responses WillWorst-Case Combine (Absolute Sum) When Phasing is Random Absolute Combination ofAllIndividual Fourier Amplitude Responses is Excessively Conservative and Cannot Be Justified Technically When Phasing is Random.
Issues Studied Extensively in:
- 1. Kennedy, R.P., S.A. Short and W.H. Tong, "Evaluation of Harmonic Phasing for Mark I Torus Shell Condensation Oscillation Loads," SMA 12101.02-R-001, Structural Mechanics Associates, Newport Beach, California, July 1980.
- 2. Kennedy, R.P., S.A. Short and R,B. Narver, "Evaluation of FSTF Tests M-12 and M-11B Condensation Oscillation Loads and Responses,"
SMA 12101.04-R001D, Structural Mechanics Associates, Newport Beach, California, March, 1981.
r
~ 4 J
,ri'
SMA 12101.04-R0020
RESPONSE
FACTORS APPROPRIATE FOR USE 0/ITH CO HARMONIC RESPONSE COMBINATION DESIGN RULES by Robert P.
Kennedy AUTHOR Robert P.
Kennedy President APPROVED Thomas R. Kipp Manager, guality Assurance Prepared For GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR ENERGY DIVISION San Jose, California
- July, 1981 STRU(TURAL mRCHAfllt.'S ASSOCiATES 4740 Von Karman, Newport Beach, Cali!.92660 (714)833-7552
I
( J
,I
Response Combination Goal is Met So Long As:
3 2
R
=
Q
[RJ
+
Q (R) i=1
>=4 where Ri represents the response of the i response harmonic with Rl,
.th R2, and R3 being the largest three (3) response harmonics.
By this rule the largest 3 response harmonics are combined absolutely and added abso-lutely to the SRSS combination of the remainder of the response harmonics.
This combination is equivalent to assuming that the largest 4 response harmonics are worst-case phased (absolute sum phasing) and the remainder are random phased at the time of peak response.
This combination is consistent with the assumption of nearly constant amplitude harmonics with random phasing between harmonics such that the possibility of more than 4 or 5 harmonics achieving nearly worst-case phasing at any one time is highly remote,
~ V
Conclusions Recommended Response Combination Proceedure Depends Only On:
1.
Acceptance ofResponse Combination Goal ofRetaining Conservatism Introduced Elsewhere 2.
Adequately Conservative Definition ofLoading Such That Item 1 is Accepted 3.
Predominately Random Phasing ofIndividual Harmonic Amplitudes 4.
Ratio ofAbsolute Sum (AS) to SRSS Combined Response Being Similar to Those Obtained for GE LDR Loading (i.e., Less Than About Four)
~ The Number N1 ofHarmonics Which Must be Combined Absolutely Increases As the Ratio AS/SRSS Increases.
~r,
~
BASED UPON THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS Nl INCREASES WITH INCREASE OF AS/SRSS RATIO
I' 4
SMA 12101.05-R001 DESIGN APPROACH 8ASEO OH FSTF DATA FOR COM8IHING HARMONIC AMPLITUDES FOR MARK I POST-CHUG
RESPONSE
CALCULATIONS by Robert P.
Kennedy Stephen A. Short Hen-How Tong prepared for GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY San Jose, California
- May, 1982 STRUCTURAL meCHAniCS ASSOCIATES 5180 Btrch Street, Newport Beach, Call!. 92660 (714) 833 7552
~ 01 Cl
FSTF -
LDR (Post-Chug)
+
Oys ter Creek -
LDR (Pos t-Chug)
Oyster Creek -
LDR (CO)
FSTF -
LDR (CO)
El FSTF - tl-8 (CO)
Y FSTF - M-12 (CO)
X FSTF - t4-llB (CO)
Hi~1+0.8(AS/SRSS-1) e Y y
'f ~Y
+ >if g C3 QH AS/SRSS Nl(5OXNEP) YS. AS/SRSS PLOT USING CO AND CHUG STUDY DATA
C
~ +"-
OVERALL
SUMMARY
IT IS TECHNICALLYCORRECT TO:
(1)
REDUCE CO LOADS BASED ON RANDOM PHASING BETWEEN DOWNCOMERS AND GEOMETRIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NMP1 AND FSTF ANO (2)
COMBINE STRESSES BY MODIFIED SRSS SUM OF STRESS HARMONICS TO ACCOUNT FOR RANDOMNESS OF HARMONIC PHASING
t
April 9, 1993 loads.
The NRC staff agreed to rereview the NHPC methodology.
To perform this review, we request that two reports (NED0-24010-03, August 1979 and SMA 12101.04-R001D, March 1981) referenced in Enclosure 2 be submitted to the NRC within 30 days.
The NRC staff also requested NMPC to document, within 30 days, the assertion that the Continuum Dynamics, Inc. acoustic model, which implies a unity reduction factor (no reduction) for the case of uncorrelated downcomers within a torus bay with all bays correlated, is correct.
Sincerely,
Enclosures:
1.
List of Attendees 2.
License Handout Material cc w/enclosures:
See next page Original signed by:
Donald S.
Brinkman, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-1 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION:(*Licensee' Docket File" PDI-1 Reading*
- JPartlow, 12/G/18 JCalvo DBrinkman*
OGC JKudrick, 8/D/1
- JDavis, 7/D/4 ACRS (10)
- VMcCree, RGN-1 handout only)
NRC 8 Local PDRs*
THurley/FHiraglia, 12/G/18 SVarga RACapra CVogan
- EJordan, HNBB 3701 TD'Angelo, 8/D/1 HSnodderly, 4/E/4 CCowgill, RGN-1*
OFFICE PDI-1: LA PDI-1:PH PDI-1: D NAME DATE Cvo an +
4 893 DBrinkman:avl RACa ra +0 q
93 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY FILENAME: G: )NHPI )NH185003. HTS
~ r fl f