ML18031A082

Responds to Request by s Miner to Compare Facility Containment Design Loads Due to LOCA W/Loads Used by Three Mark II Plants

ML18031A082
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	02/02/1979
From:	Curtis N PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Parr O Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 7902060249
Download: ML18031A082 (8)

Text

I

~, 5

- INFORM'IATION DISTR IBVTIO"'YSTEN (BIDS)

~

REGVL ATTY AccEssI0N NOB:7902060249 Doc.DATE: 79/02/02 N0TA BIzED: No DOCKET P

~ FACIL-'SO-3S7 Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Linlt i, Pennaylva 05000380 50-388 Susquehanna Stear Electric Station, Unit 2, Pennsylva 05000388 AUTff.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION 0 CURTIS, N.IAl. Pennsylvania Power 8 Light Co.

BECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION PARR,O.D. Light ffater Reactors Branch 3

SUBJECT:

Responds to request hy S Miner to compare sub.j units SFS containment design loads due to loss-of-coolant-accident w/loads used hy 3 lead MK II plants.

DISTRIBUTION CODE- B0018 COPIES RECEI VFD:LTB TITLE - PSAB/FSAB Q ENCL AMDTS AND BELATED CORRESPONDENCE.

i f SIZF.- +

NOTES=~~N~ 2~~ C~a'S+g t ~/C +~QS RECIPIENT COPIES 0'ECIPIENT COPIES ACTION:

BC ID CODE/NAME 05 Ptf BPP'4 L4J'g ~g I,

LTTB ENCL I

I AD LA ID CODE/NAME 0'8ssp<ZO Q (gJ g g p LTTB ENCL I

I 0

0 INTEBNAL-'e I I 02 NBC PDR I I 06 I 8, E 2 2 08 OPFBA LI C 8B I I 09 GEOSCII:N f3R I I ,10 QAB I I 11 >4ECH ENG BB I I 12 STBUC EHG BB I I 13 MATL ENG BB 2 2 15 REAC SYS f3B I I 16 ANALYSIS BR I I 17 CORF. PERF BB I I 18 AUX SYS BR I I 19 CONTAIN SYS I I 20 I B,CSYS BB I I 21 POI"fEB SYS BB I I 22 AD SITE TECH 26 ACCDNT ANLYS I I 27 EFFL TRT SYS I 28 BAD ASMT f3R I I 29 KI BKW)OD I

I 'I AD FOR ENG I 0 AD PLANT SYS I 0 AD RFAC SAFETY I 0 AD SITE ANLYSIS I 0 DIRECTOR NBB I 0 MPA I 0 OELD I 0 E XTEffNAL- 03 LP DR I I 04 NSIC I I 30 ACBS 16 16 Lkf-NDDR p Epg <u EC'8~

4

<P8 + a ~8 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR 55 ENCL 45

TWO NORTH NINTH STREET, ALLENTOWN, PA. 18101 PHONEME (215) 821-5151 cc-R. M. Gallo - USNRC P.O. Box 52 February 2, 1979 Shickshinny, PA 18655 Mr. Olan D. Parr, Chief Light Water Reactors Branch No. 3 Division of Project Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 SUS(UFHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CONTAINMENT DESIGN LOADINBS LOSS-OF-COOLANT ACCIDENT DOCKET NOS. 50-387 ER 100450 PLA-317 FILES 172 841-2 50-388

Dear Mr. Parr:

We have been requested by your Mr. Sidney Miner to compare the Susquehanna SES containment design loads due to a Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) with those loads used by the three lead MK II plants.

(Zimmer, LaSalle and Shoreham)

This comparison is attached. The basis for the comparison is as follows:

1. SRSS is acceptable for SRV loadings and for the structures, and BOP piping and equipment.

2. The lead plant positions are as they were stated in the October 19, 1978 meeting; any further discussions with the lead plants and any resulting modifications to their positions have not been included in this comparison.

In summary, Susquehanna basically follows the lead plant approach in either accepting or rejecting NRC positions except for vent lateral loads.

We would be happy to answer any questions you may have on this comparison.

Very truly yours, N. W. Curtis Project Director-Susquehanna WEB:jm Attachment PENNSYLVANIA POWER 8 LIGHT COMPANY 290SOEOJYV

REVIEW OF SUSq~c, ISA S.E.S ~ UIKTS 1 52 DESIGN AGAItiST N.R.C. ACCEPTAHCE CRITERIA - hiG 0487 MCA LOADINGS S.S.E.S. UNITS 1 4*2 I.A. 33 psi bounding load is to DFFR Methodology to be clarified Used DFFR Yathodology- Can accept Lead Plant Water Clearing be applied to base nat only. based on data from 4T and EPRI Results in 22.4 psi on criteria position.

tests. 'base mat only.

Clarification I.B.l.a Acceptable Acceptable DFFR 2 was used. Sane position as Bubble Pressure Lead Plants.

I.B.1 b Shoreham to present generic Approach in response to question Used 1.5 X Submergence. Same position as Pool Swel1 position per response to 020.68 to be used for long tern NRC criteria vould result Shoreham.

Height question 020.68. program. HRC criteria not applic- in higher pool svell and able to pedestal interior where some problems.

Acceptable for Einner and no downcomers exist.

LaSalle.

I.B.l.c Factor of 1.1 is not appro- Factor of 1.1 not appropriate HRC criteria would cause Sane position as Pool Swell priate considering basic . considering basic conservatism higher loads on fev beans. Lead Planta.

Velocity conservatism of postulated of postulated dryvell pressurization drywall pressurization ior for test. Constant maximum velocity test. Constant maximum not appropriate.

velocity not appropriate, I~

Discussion Requested.

ii I.B.l.d Acceptable Acceptable Used DFFR 2 5 HEDE-21544Pi Sane as Lead Plants.

Pool Swell Acceleration

~,

LEAD PLABT S.S.E.S. UHITS 1 d) 2 I.B.l.e Acceptable Acceptable Used DFFR 5 BEDE-21544P. Same as Lead Plants.

Pool Swell Air Compression I.B.1. f Acceptable Acceptable Time histories provided Same as Lead Plants.

Pressure Time by GE. Based on NEDM-Histories 10320.

I.B.2 Acceptable Acceptable Used DFFR 8 BEDE-21544P Reanalyse for loads Load on Submerged but only to original height up to pool swell height.

Boundary of water. Same as Lead Plants.

I I.B.3.a Impact Loads Small Struct.

Further analysis has been performed to show adequate for DFFR Lead Plant Dynamic pool swell impact methodology in will be developed the Long Term Program.

Used load shape as, defined in DFFR.

Same as Lead planta+ ~ i.

structures.

Discussion Requested.

I.B.3 b Acceptable HRC criteria not applicable to Ho large structures in Same as Lead Plants. C Impact Loads pedestal interior where no pool swell. I ~

Large Struct. downcomers exist (See I .B.l.b).

I.B.3.c Zimmer and Lagalle have no hhltiplier for standard grating Have only 2 small grating Same as Lead Plants Impact Loads installed grating in the pool to accosm)odate small dynamic effect platforms in pool swell.

Grating swell rone. is not appropriate considering basic conservatism of postulated Acceptable to Shoreham drywell pressurisation used to establish pool velocity.

~

g I.B.4.a Acceptable Acceptable BRC criteria Acceptable Same as Lead Plants.

Wetwell Compression Wall Loads -2>>

4 ~

I~ J. ~ P ~ ~ ~ s') la ~ ~ ~

LDADING S.S.E.S ~ UNITS 1 dt 2 REMARKS I.B.4 eh Acceptable Acceptable Can with~tend 2.5 psi Same as Lead Plants.

Uplift Press. per NRC criteria.

I.B.5 Uniform mixing in the drywell Uniform mixing in the drywall NRC criteria unrealistic. Same as Lead Plants.

Asyxetric precludes uneven vent clearing. precludes uneven vent clearing.

te Pool Swell Discussion Requested.

I.C.l.a Acceptable for static analysis. Dynamic loading specification Cannot accept NRC criteria. Does not agree with Lateral Bracing is being developed during Long Used A.13 forcing functions. Lead Plant.

Load Term Program.

Does agree with Long Task A.13 Term Program.

I.c.l.b Multivent Acceptable Multiple vent bracing loads are no greater than ior single vent.

Have applied A.13 loads conservatively dt used SRSS.

Does Lead oot ctree Plant.

ettt I Lateral Load.

Basis, Task Ce7 Does agree with Long Term Program.

I.C.2.a Acceptable Use DFFRD Rev 3 Used application memo 8 Long Term Program to High Steam DFFR - Rev. 2. verify forcing function. e Fife I

I.C.2.b Acceptable Acceptable Used application memo 4 Long Term Program to Yed. Steam DFFR - Rev. 2. verify-forcing, function.

Flux I.C.2.c Acceptable Refined chugging definition is Chugging Loads obtained Same as Lead Plants.

Low Steam being developed during Long using DFPR d App. memo.

Flow Term Program.

Task A.6, A.ll and A.16

-3ee e

t ~

I e e

LOADINQ S.S.E.S. UNITS 1 & 2 III.A.1 Will address criteria by pro- Ring vortex model including Nev model using ring Same position as MCA Water posing corrected equations in potential function for induced vortex approach seems Lead Plants; Jet l.a and l.b, submit prelim. ilov will be developed end a valid. Don't anticipate any ring vortex model and supporting more appropriate acceleration problems handling vortex subscale bench mark test. drag consideration identified loads during lag term program. WPPSS plant unique model vill bc provided.

Task A.5 III.B.1 (a) Acceptable (a) Acceptable Accentable Same ss Lead Plants.

LOCA Air Bubble (b) Identify more appropriate (b) Identi,fy more appropriate Drag factor should be acceleration drag coeffi- acceleration drag coeffi- redefined.

cient treatment than cient treatment than factor oi 3. factor of 3.

('c) Demonstrate that accelera- (c) Demonstrate that accelera- Drag factor should be Same as Lead Planta.

tion at center of structure tion at center of structure redefined.

is technically correct. is technically correct.

Demonstrate that error Demonstrate that error resulting resulting in velocity at in velocity at center vs. maximum center vs. maximum velocity velocity is small and bounded is small and bounded by by conservatism in velocity conservatism in velocity applied. Thus simplified DFFR applied. Thus simplified approach is acceptable.

DFFR approach is acceptable.

(d) Demonstrate that factor of Demonstrate that factor Drag factor should be Same as Lead Plants..

(e) 4 is not technically correct of 4 is not technically redefined.

• for standard drag. Ref. correct for standard drag.

question response to 020.70. Ref. question response to 020.70.

Interference effects on acceler- Interference effects on accelera-ation drag will be analyned on tion drag will be analyzed on a L$

a plant unique basis. plant unique basis.

(f) Acceptable (f) Acceptable Acceptable Sane as Lead Planti.

~ ~