ML18219D095

D.C Cook - Acknowledges 07/12/1978 Letter Advising of Additional Information to Complete NRC Staff'S Review of D.C Cook Nuclear Plant'S Ice - Basket Stress Analysis

ML18219D095
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	09/29/1978
From:	Tillinghast J Indiana Michigan Power Co
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML18219D095 (13)

Text

REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS >

DI - TRIBLITION FOR INCOMING MATERIAL S0 1 316 REC: DEhlTQN H R GRG: TILLINGHAST J DOCDATE: 0&f2'?/7-NRC IN 5 MI PWR DATE RCVD: 10/ 06/ 78 DGCTYPE: LETTER NOTARIZED: YES COPIES RECEIVED

SUBJECT:

LTR 1 ENCL 1 RESPONSE TG NRC REQUEST OF 07f 12f78... FORWARDING ADDL INFO CONCERNING SUBJECT FAl ILITY "S ICE-BASKET STRE- S ANALYSIS... NOTARIZED 09/29f7-.

PLANT NAt'IE: COOK -- UNIT 1 REVIEWER INITIAL: X JM COOK UNIT 2 DISTRIBUTER INITIAL: Q DISTRIBUTION OF THIS MATERIAL I. AS FOLLOWS NOTES:

I 5 E "- 3 CYS ALL MATERIAL GENERAl DISTRIBUTION FOR AFTER ISSUANCE OF OPERATING t I CENSE.

( DISTRIBUTION CODE A001 )

FGR ACTION: BR CHIEF ORB@1 BC4<W/7 ENCL 1NTERNAL: ca eric>>~w~ew~

-->>v /2 ENCL a) f NRC PDR4 4 W ENCL GELD>>>LTR ONLY HANAUER>>'~ l ENCL lf CORE PERFORMANCE BR++W/ENCL AD FOR SYS 5 PROJ>>i>>W/ENCL ENGINEERlNG BR->>W/ENCL REACTOR SAFETY BR+<W/ENCL PLANT SYSTEMS BR++llfEhlCL EEB>>>>W/ENCL EFFLUFNT TREAT SYS++W/ENCL EXTERNAL: LPDR'S ST. JOSEPH, MI.>>~WfEl lCL TERA><W/ENCL N= IC< >WfFNCL ACRS CAT B~i>>W/16 ENCL DISTRIBUTION: LTR 40 ENCL 39 CONTROL NBR: 7'='0740"->>06

'. I ZE: 2P+4P I'i' 'e' 'i'i'i'i'i I'i'>>>> '>>~aPi">>W>>>>~f 'f'i'I's "'HH:l'>>>>

'& THE END ga y

INDIANA II MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY P. O. BOX 18 BOWLING GREEN STATION NEW YORK, N. Y. 10004 September 29, 1978 AEP:NRC:00057

!!,p!!!gap )g[(g 3',!.t; QPY Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit Nos. 1 8 2 Docket Nos: 50-315 and 50-316 License Nos: DPR-58 and DPR-74 rtr~

cia Su lementar Information on Ice Basket Stress Anal sis s r tJ CD Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Pl Cll Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Denton:

In his letter dated July 12, 1978 Mr. A. Schwencer of your office advised us that he would require additional information to complete the NRC staff's review of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant's Ice -Basket Stress Analysis. He requested that we furnish information for all items contained in the request for additional information enclosed therein.

For further clarification of the items contained in the request for additional information, a conference call was arranged with Dr. Gluckman of your staff on August 4, 1978. Members of the American Electric Power Service Corporation staff and Westinghouse Electric Corporation staff along with M. M. Mlynczak of your office participated in this call.

Enclosed herein is an item by item response to your request for additional information, prepared by the Westinghouse Electric Corporation in a format agreed upon during the above mentioned conference call.

Very truly yours, JT:em Zo rI, "ii r

/-C:-dC:'~

'linghast

~I, Vice President Sworn and subscribed to before me this <~day of September, 1978 in New York County, New York. KMNTflWM<lKI'KllWY Notary Public 1 as. hLLrLr'8 BARR< 78074030rc, NCrTAkY a'uu',C, >',eto ct New York i~so. 4l-;O0o(92 Quaiitieo in Ciueens County Certiiicaie tiled in New York County cc: (Attached) Cornrrussroir expires n>arcn 30, 197Z

Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director AEP:NRC:00057 cc: R. C. Cal 1 en G. Charnoff P. W. Steketee R. J. Vollen R. Walsh D. V. Shaller-Bridgman R. W. Jurgensen

ENCLOSURE 1 SUPPLEt~EiNTARY Ii!FORtlAfION ON DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT ICE BASKET STRESS ANALYSIS uestlon No. 5 Provide Tables 2 through 7, referred to in ICE-TR-079, page 4,- subsection 4.0.  ;--

Additional Res onse Ho. 5 Tables 2 through 7, wnich are referenced on page 4, subsection 4.0 of Test Report ICE-TR-079 are again submitted as an attachment to this response.

Question No. 6 There is still some concern that the test arrangement is not furnishing the most conservative results. It is correct that the ice has in sot.,e cases a stiffening effect. It is however possible to state that for certain buckling shapes the effect of ice pressure on the vertical ligament may make conditions worse.

Discuss this possibility. Discuss also the adequacy of the cruciform supports inserts to carry the ice load for which they are not designed.

Additional Res onse No. 6 Assuming that the ice mass inside the ice baskets is fluid and generates an internal pressure (hydraulic) on the vertical ligaments c ". the basket, it is possible 'to state that for certain buckling shapes the test arrangement is less conservative. However, the internal force generated by a six foot head of ice, supported by the cruciform support inserts, when calcula.ed wou'.d be a maximum of 0.4 lb/in acting against the vertical basket ligaments. Th. horizontal test qualification loads, as shown in Table 1, page 10 of ICE-TR-079, varies from 769 lbs to 1025 lbs. This corresponds to a uniformly distributed load, acting against the vertical ligaments of the ice basket 0 5.3. lb/in to 7.12 lb/in, respectively. The effect of the ice pressure on the vertical ligaments would mean a 7.5Ã to 5.65, respectively, increase in horizontal test lualification loads.

The test results are conserva ive because the test qualification loads envelope the worst possib',e load combinations of horizontal and vertical design loads, and they were incre sed to inc'iude ice maldis-ribution, and single basket test factors. In addition, an examination o the actual test results shows that .he baskets were tested to horizontal loads varyirg from 871 lbs .o 1721 lbs which corresponds to increases of 13> to 68;l over the required test qualification loads, which more than adequately reflects any increased load due to ice pressure.

The cruciform support inserts were designed, and have the primary function, to support the weight of ice above it. The cruciform inserts prevent he ice above it from falling down through into the next 6 foot basket section below, in the event of a meltout during LOCA conditions. The purpose o ho1ding up the ice in the upper sections of the ice column is to maintain ice bed geometry

and no. allow a bypass flow passage to open up due to some random configuration of various ice baskets having voids at various elevations.

uestior. <<o. 7A The response does not include a discussion of the effec oi conc ntrated loads in the hoop direction. Provide this discussion.

Additional Response No. 7A The effect o concentrated loads (test load condition) is more censervative than

- uniformly distributed loads (actual load condition) in the hoop directiGA. A comparison of the shear diagram for the test case model versus the actual load mod 1 shows that on the test condition th shear loads on th hoop elements will be a minimum of ll~ higher in the local area where the concentrated loads are applied as opposed to the sa'e area on a beam with a uni ormly disiributed

• load. The test setup is therefore justified by the conservative load application to the basket hoop elements.

Ouestion No. 7C Discuss the effect of the semicircular bracket in the axial direction.

Additional Res onse No. 7C The semicircular bracket distributes the concentrated traverse .test loads on the ice basket, such that localized failure of the perforated metal is avoided.

The application of concentrated test loads along the axial directiGA Gf the ice basket is ~:Gl e c-Ase. Vative than t. e actual load appl ication wi ere load would be uniformly distributed. A comparison of the shear diagram for the test condition and actual load condition shows that the axial shear dis ribution

.is the same maximum value in both load cases with th maximum shear occurring at, the ends of the basket. A comparison of the axial distr',bu ion of bending moment from the moment diagram shows that the maximum value occurs at the center span of the baske length for both cases, however, the t-axirum moment for the test case condition is 8.8'~ higher than the actual load case.

The concentrated traverse load application th. ough the sem'.circular bracket is

'a more severe and conservative load condition for a bucklirg tv~e failuresince the vertical mesh ligaments are subjected to high shear loads locally in the area of the semicircular brackets.

uestion No. 98 Include a proof demonstrating that the requirements of General Ice Condenser Design Criteria, Section C-6: Experimental or Test Yerifica.inn of Design are satisfied.

Additional Response ho. 98 The ice baske. bottom end assembly test verification via Test Report ICE-TR-079 demonstra es that the requir ments of the General Ice Condenser Design Criteria Section C-6 has been satisfied. For the test identi fied in ICE-TR-079, ice basket bottom end assemblies, which were manufactured to actual production drawings and procedures, with g.A. releases (ref. para. 2.0 of TP-069), were tested to loads in excess of the, required qualification loads. The qualification test loads identified in Table of TP-069 were developed with the required 1

test qualification load factors as identified in the General Ice Condenser Design Criteria, and w re derated by 10 percent for single test sample.

The following table lists the actual test loads achieved i'n comparison to the required qualification test loads:

l gualification Actual Test Loads Test Loads

, 0 + 1/2 SSE Load Case Horizontal 1176 963 Vertical 5339 5133 D + DBA + SSE Load Case Horizontal 1095 1025 Vertical -5641 -4015 guestion No. 10A The concern is the a 2 span be m used as the model does not reproduce the same moment and shear distribution as obtained in the actual multiple span structure.

Your response covered only the end c"nnection. Cover the condition along the whole length of the structure.

Additional Res"onse No. 10A The 2 span beam referenced on F'gure 9 of TP-069 does not. rep.oduce the same momen and shear distribut on as would be obtained in the actual multiple span structure. The actual structure would be a 8 span beam. A comparison o-maximum shear and moment diagrams for the 8 span beam case versus the 2 span beam shows that; the maximum end support shear value for the 8 span beam would be 5> higher, the maximul momenT. at the supports would be 16,. lory r, and the moment in the span would be 10> higner than the 2 span beam model. "'aximum Again, as in our original respons>> to question 10A, Figure 9 of TP-069 is only used .o calculate the bottom connection reaction or shear load that the basket would see from the application of tare weights to the weight and pul;ey system used in applying the horizontal test loads, reference AppendIx 8 of TP-069.

The bottom connection reaction was calculated to verify, via a load cell a the basket bottom, that the required horizontal test load to the basket had been F

~o

/

~ 0 achieved. The 5.. load discrepancy on the shear load would have little im-ortance, on the reliability of the test results since the. baskets were tested loads i'n excess of 1055 of the required qualification test loacs as to'orizontal shown in our additional response to guestion No. 98.

uestion No. 11 Prove perform that a basket which has not its function.

"failed" but is badly deformed can still Additional Res onse No..ll By definition a basket which has not "failed" would not be badly. deformed.

. Examination of ice baskets which have been successfully tested have not been deformed to any noticeable or measureable extent. Baskets which have been tested to failure hav exhibited only small localized deformations since testing would terminate after the failure point was reached. Failure point being defined, as in our original response Ho. 11, as that point in the tes. wnen increasing the horizontal loads to the basket, the maximum vertical load cannot be maintained with the hydraulic jack at the top of .he tes fixture. That is, the vertical load drops down to some value below the maximum and cannot be held, after being re-establisneci, wiihou" continual actuation of the hydraulic jack.

Therefore, a basket which has not "failed", would not be deformed to any extent and would still be able to perform its function.

REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (BIDS)

DISTRIBUTION FOR INCOMING MATERIAL 50-316 REC: DENTON H B OBG: TILLINGHAST J DOCDATE: 09/22/78 NRC IN 5 MI PWR DATE RCVD: 10/02/78 DOCTYPE: LETTER NOTARIZED: YES COPIES RECEIVED

SUBJECT:

LTR 1 ENCL 0 FURNISHING AUTHORIZATION TO INCLUDE CQP'( OF WESTINGHQUSE ELEC CORP DOCUMENT RE ANALYSIS TO INVESTIGATE THE LONG-TERM CONTAINMENT TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE RESPONSE TO A POSTULATED STEAM LINE BREAK IN UNIT NO 2 USIhIG THE LOT IC-3 COMPUTER CODE, ON SUBJECT F PLANT NAME: COOK UNIT 2 REVIEWER INITIAL: X JM DISTRIBUTOR INITIAL;QQ DISTRIBUTION OF THIS MATERIAL IS AS FOLLOWS NOTES:

1. SEND 3 COP IE OF ALL MATERIAL TG I SE GENERAL DISTRIBUTION FOR AFTER ISSUANCE QF Or ERATING LICENSE.

<DISTRIBUTION CODE A001)

FOR ACTION: BR CIHILI= ORBN1 BC<%LTB ONLY<7)

INTERNAL: Fr~+Lg>>~LTR ONLY) NRC PDR+4LTB ONLY<i)

I SE~uLTB O OELD%<LTB ONLY(i>

IHANAUER4~+LTB ONLY< 1) CORE PERFORMANCE BR<~LTR ONLY(i AD FOR SYS 8. PBOJ~~LTR ONLY(1) ENGINEERING BR>+LTR ONLY(i)

REACTOR SAFETY BR+4LTR ONLY<i) PLANT SYSTEMS BR4%LTR ONLY< 1)

EEB~uLTB ONLY(1) EFFLUEhlT TREAT SYS>+LTR ONLY ( 1 )

J MCGOUGI.I+4LTB ONLY(i)

EXTERNAL: LPDB S ST. JOSEPI.li MI+~LTB ONLY (1 >

TERA~>>LTB ONLY<1)

NSIC>+LTB ONLY(1)

ACBS CAT B+>LTR ONLY<16)

DISTRIBUTION: LTR 40 ENCL 0 COhlTROL NBR: 78160 > 4 SIZE: 3P

H It 44

INDIANA II MICHIGAN POWER COHPANY P, O. BOX 18 BOWLING GREEN STATION NEW YORK, N. Y. 1D004 September 22, 1978 AEP:NRC: 00090

~~1 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit No. 2 t~l Docket No. 50-316 Vl C/I Pl License No. DPR-74 Wl W pl

~

Containment Long-Term Temperature and Pressure Response QJ ~ Q7 OC)

Pc)~ Dl~

CA~

Jun nr Q7 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director C7 5

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Vl U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Denton:

Please. be advised that the Westinghouse Electric Corporation has submitted forty (40) copies of an analysis to investigate the Long-Term Containment Temperature and Pressure Response to a postulated steam line break in Unit No. 2 of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant using the LOTIC-3 computer code. This analysis was performed to fulfill License Condition 2.C.(3)(g) of the Operating License of the above captioned facility.

This analysis was transmitted to you as an enclosure to the Westinghouse Electric Corporation letter (NS-TMA-1946) dated September 20, 1978 from Mr. T.M. Anderson to you.

This letter is to authorize the inclusion of the above Westinghouse document on our Docket No. 50-316, issued to the Unit No. 2 of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant.

Very truly yours, 1 ghast ce President Sworn and subscribed to before, me this 2a' day of September, 1978 78i600284 in New York County, New York Notary Pu GREGORY M. GuRICAN Ifotary Public, state of Ilaw York Het 8 No. 31-4643431 cc: (attached) Qualified In flew York CountV~~

Cornrnlsslcn Exp!res March 30, 19'. e l

1 ~

lCJ E7 c

lt O'

CO

J.'Ir>. Harold'R. Denton September 22, 1978 cc: R. C. Callen G. Charnoff P. W. Steketee R. J. Vollen R. Walsh R. W. Jurgensen D. V. Shaller - Bridgman

J'r. Harold R. Dento eptember 22, 1978

~ A bc: S. J. Hilioti J. I. Castresana/P. K. Eapen K. J. Vehstedt R. F. Hering/S. H. Steinhart R. F. Kroeger H. N. Scherer, Jr.

J. F. Stietzel - Bridgman M. N. Nlynczak - NRC N. H. Judkis - Westinghouse J. D. Woodward - Westinghouse DC-N-6015.1 DC-N-6079 AEP:NRC: 00090