ML18031A082
| 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
~,
REGVL ATTY INFORM'IATION DISTR IBVTIO"'YSTEN (BIDS)
~5 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.
f DISTRIBUTION CODE-B0018 COPIES RECEI VFD:LTB Q ENCL i SIZF.- +
TITLE-PSAB/FSAB AMDTS AND BELATED CORRESPONDENCE.
NOTES=~~N~ 2~~
RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME ACTION:
05 Ptf BPP'4 BC L4J'g ~g COPIES LTTB ENCL I,
I I
0'ECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME AD 0'8ssp<ZO LA Q (gJ g g p C~a'S+g t ~/C +~QS COPIES LTTB ENCL I
0 I
0 INTEBNAL-'e 06 I
8, E
09 GEOSCII:N f3R 11
>4ECH ENG BB 13 MATL ENG BB 16 ANALYSIS BR 18 AUX SYS BR 20 I B,CSYS BB 22 AD SITE TECH 27 EFFL TRT SYS 29 KI BKW)OD AD PLANT SYS AD SITE ANLYSIS MPA I
I 2
2 I
I I
I 2
2 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
'I I
0 I
0 I
0 02 NBC PDR 08 OPFBA LIC 8B
,10 QAB 12 STBUC EHG BB 15 REAC SYS f3B 17 CORF.
PERF BB 19 CONTAIN SYS 21 POI"fEB SYS BB 26 ACCDNT ANLYS 28 BAD ASMT f3R AD FOR ENG AD RFAC SAFETY DIRECTOR NBB OELD I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
0 I
0 I
0 I
0 E XTEffNAL- 03 LP DR 30 ACBS I
I 16 16 04 NSIC Lkf-NDDR p Epg <u EC'8~
4
<P8 + a ~8 I
I TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR 55 ENCL 45
TWO NORTH NINTH STREET, ALLENTOWN, PA.
18101 PHONEME (215) 821-5151 February 2, 1979 cc-R.
M. Gallo -
USNRC P.O.
Box 52 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 ER 100450 PLA-317 FILES 172 841-2 DOCKET NOS. 50-387 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 5 2 DESIGN AGAItiST N.R.C.
ACCEPTAHCE CRITERIA - hiG 0487 MCA LOADINGS S.S.E.S.
UNITS 1 4*2 I.A.
Water Clearing 33 psi bounding load is to be applied to base nat only.
Clarification DFFR Methodology to be clarified based on data from 4T and EPRI tests.
Used DFFR Yathodology-Results in 22.4 psi on
'base mat only.
Can accept Lead Plant criteria position.
I.B.l.a Bubble Pressure Acceptable Acceptable DFFR 2 was used.
Sane position as Lead Plants.
I.B.1 b Pool Swel1 Height Shoreham to present generic position per response to question 020.68.
Acceptable for Einner and LaSalle.
Approach in response to question 020.68 to be used for long tern program.
HRC criteria not applic-able to pedestal interior where no downcomers exist.
Used 1.5 X Submergence.
NRC criteria vould result in higher pool svell and some problems.
Same position as Shoreham.
I.B.l.c Pool Swell Velocity Factor of 1.1 is not appro-priate considering basic conservatism of postulated drywall pressurization ior test.
Constant maximum velocity not appropriate, Discussion Requested.
Factor of 1.1 not appropriate
. considering basic conservatism of postulated dryvell pressurization for test.
Constant maximum velocity not appropriate.
HRC criteria would cause higher loads on fev beans.
Sane position as Lead Planta.
I ~
I.B.l.d Pool Swell Acceleration Acceptable Acceptable Used DFFR 2 5 HEDE-21544Pi ii Sane as Lead Plants.~,
I.B.l.e Pool Swell Air Compression LEAD PLABT Acceptable Acceptable S.S.E.S.
UHITS 1 d) 2 Used DFFR 5
BEDE-21544P.
Same as Lead Plants.
I.B.1.f Pressure Time Histories Acceptable Acceptable Time histories provided by GE.
Based on NEDM-10320.
Same as Lead Plants.
I.B.2 Load on Submerged Boundary Acceptable Acceptable Used DFFR 8
BEDE-21544P but only to original height of water.
Reanalyse for loads up to pool swell height.
Same as Lead Plants.
I I.B.3.a Impact Loads Small Struct.
Further analysis has been performed to show DFFR adequate for Lead Plant structures.
Dynamic pool swell impact methodology willbe developed in the Long Term Program.
Used load shape as, defined in DFFR.
Same as Lead planta+ ~ i.
Discussion Requested.
I.B.3 b Impact Loads Large Struct.
Acceptable HRC criteria not applicable to pedestal interior where no downcomers exist (See I.B.l.b).
Ho large structures in pool swell.
Same as Lead Plants.
C I
~
I.B.3.c Impact Loads Grating Zimmer and Lagalle have no installed grating in the pool swell rone.
Acceptable to Shoreham hhltiplier for standard grating to accosm)odate small dynamic effect is not appropriate considering basic conservatism of postulated drywell pressurisation used to establish pool velocity.
Have only 2 small grating platforms in pool swell.
Same as Lead Plants
~g I.B.4.a Wetwell Compression Wall Loads Acceptable Acceptable
-2>>
BRC criteria Acceptable Same as Lead Plants.
4 ~
I ~
J. ~
P
~
~
~s') la
~
~ ~
LDADING I.B.4 eh Uplift Press.
Acceptable Acceptable S.S.E.S
~ UNITS 1 dt 2 Can with~tend 2.5 psi per NRC criteria.
REMARKS Same as Lead Plants.
I.B.5 Asyxetric te Pool Swell Uniform mixing in the drywell precludes uneven vent clearing.
Discussion Requested.
Uniform mixing in the drywall precludes uneven vent clearing.
NRC criteria unrealistic.
Same as Lead Plants.
I.C.l.a Lateral Bracing Load I.c.l.b Multivent Lateral Load.
Acceptable for static analysis.
Acceptable Dynamic loading specification is being developed during Long Term Program.
Task A.13 Multiple vent bracing loads are no greater than ior single vent.
Basis, Task Ce7 Cannot accept NRC criteria.
Used A.13 forcing functions.
Have applied A.13 loads conservatively dt used SRSS.
Does not agree with Lead Plant.
Does agree with Long Term Program.
Does oot ctree ettt I Lead Plant.
Does agree with Long Term Program.
I.C.2.a High Steam Fife I.C.2.b Yed. Steam Flux Acceptable Acceptable Use DFFRD Rev 3
Acceptable Used application memo 8
DFFR - Rev. 2.
Used application memo 4 DFFR - Rev. 2.
Long Term Program to verify forcing function.
e I
Long Term Program to verify-forcing,function.
I.C.2.c Low Steam Flow Acceptable Refined chugging definition is being developed during Long Term Program.
Task A.6, A.ll and A.16 Chugging Loads obtained using DFPR d App. memo.
Same as Lead Plants.
-3ee e
t
~ I e
e
LOADINQ S.S.E.S.
UNITS 1 & 2 III.A.1 MCA Water Jet Will address criteria by pro-posing corrected equations in l.a and l.b, submit prelim.
ring vortex model and supporting subscale bench mark test.
Ring vortex model including potential function for induced ilov will be developed end a more appropriate acceleration drag consideration identified during lag term program.
WPPSS plant unique model villbc provided.
Task A.5 Nev model using ring vortex approach seems valid.
Don't anticipate any problems handling vortex loads Same position as Lead Plants; III.B.1 LOCA Air Bubble (a)
Acceptable (b)
Identify more appropriate acceleration drag coeffi-cient treatment than factor oi 3.
(a)
Acceptable (b)
Identi,fy more appropriate acceleration drag coeffi-cient treatment than factor of 3.
Accentable Drag factor should be redefined.
Same ss Lead Plants.
('c)
Demonstrate that accelera-tion at center of structure is technically correct.
Demonstrate that error resulting in velocity at center vs. maximum velocity is small and bounded by conservatism in velocity applied.
Thus simplified DFFR approach is acceptable.
(d)
Demonstrate that factor of (e) 4 is not technically correct for standard drag.
Ref.
question response to 020.70.
Interference effects on acceler-ation drag willbe analyned on a plant unique basis.
(c)
Demonstrate that accelera-tion at center of structure is technically correct.
Demonstrate that error resulting in velocity at center vs. maximum velocity is small and bounded by conservatism in velocity applied.
Thus simplified DFFR approach is acceptable.
Demonstrate that factor of 4 is not technically correct for standard drag.
Ref. question response to 020.70.
Interference effects on accelera-tion drag willbe analyzed on a plant unique basis.
Drag factor should be redefined.
Drag factor should be redefined.
Same as Lead Planta.
Same as Lead Plants..
L$
(f)
Acceptable (f)
Acceptable Acceptable Sane as Lead Planti.
~
~