ML19276E279
| ML19276E279 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1979 |
| From: | Novarro J LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| SNRC-362, NUDOCS 7903120258 | |
| Download: ML19276E279 (8) | |
Text
w-w LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COM PANY
/idMaseganaw#Ed"O SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION P.O. BOX 618, NORTH COUNTRY ROAD e WADING RIVER, N.Y.11792 March 5, 1979 SNRC-362 Mr. Steven A. Varga, Chief Light Water Reactors, Branch 4 Division of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Shoreham Nuclear Power Station - Unit 1 Docket No. 50-322
Dear Mr. Varga:
In your letter of January 26, 1979, you requested that Shoreham identify the extent of our acceptance of the Mark II generic acceptance criteria for lead plants (NUREG-0487) issued in September 1978.
Your letter further identified (9) specific areas on which you requested definitive information as well as a Gelineation of our position.
With regard to Shoreham's overall position on the Mark II generic acceptance criteria, this is contained in the Shoreham Closure Report (Rev. 3 of the Shoreham Design Assessment Report (DAR)) which was submitted to the NRC on December 18, 1978.
With regard to the information specifically requested in of your January 26th letter, we are attaching hereto the following documents which contain the information requested: - Summary table of Shoreham positions on Enclosure 1 of NRC 1/26/79 letter regarding Mark II issues. - An item-by-item assessment of the current status of each of the nine items contained in Enclosure 1 to the NRC's letter of 1/26/79.
790312095i5 N
FC-893 5
Mr. Steven A.
Varga March 5, 1979 Re:
NRC letter of 1/26/73, Page 2 S. A.
Varga to A. W. Wofford These documents clearly define those portions of the NRC acceptance criteria, as delineated in NUREG-0487, which Shoreham finds acceptable in their present form, and identifies those areas where Shoreham and/or the lead plants have presented an alternate position.
Attachment 2,
above, also contains our assessment of the acceptability of our alternate approaches to the Staff based on meetings which have been held on these subjects in December 1978 and February 1979.
It is our opinion that a basis for agreement has been reached on the great majority of the Mark II acceptance criteria and that the confirmatory information which is scheduled to be presented in the March / April period should permit the NRC to close out these issues.
Veryst,ruly yours, e
- (,/ n5wo h.
P.
No arro, Project Manager Shoreham Nuclear Power Station WJM/cl Attachs.
ATTACHMENT 1 SHOREHAM POSITION ON NRC MARK II ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA LEAD PLANT SHOREHAM NRC ENCLOSURE 1*
GENERIC UNIQUE ITEM SHOREHAM POSITION POSITION POSITION COMMENTS
- 1. Pool Swell Elevation Alternate Position X
Lead plant generic position presented at 11/14/78 meeting and was found acceptable to the NRC.
Confirmatory information was submitted on the Shoreham docket by letter SNRC-360 dated 2/16/79.
- 2. Small Structure Impact NRC Position X
If alternate position is accepted by the NRC Loads Acceptable prior to Shoreham's fuel load, hardware changes will not be made.
- 3. Asymmetric Pool NRC Position X
Documentation to support an alternate position Swell Loads Acceptable will be available in March, 1979.
- 4. Submerged Boundary NRC Position X
NRC criteria extremely conservative. Additional Load During Vent Acceptable information will be submitted by G.E. in Clearing March, 1979 to justify a lower maximum submerged boundary static load.
- 5. LOCA/SRV Submerged Drag Loads
- a. Acceleration NRC Request X
Acceleration drag loads on structures are included Drag Loads Acceptable in the forcing function calculation as required associated by the NRC.
with the LOCA Water Jet
- b. Ring Vortex Model Alternate Position X
The lead Mark II plant generic position was presented to the NRC on 2/13/79 and found acceptable in concept. Confirmatory information will be submitted to the NRC in April, 1979.
- Enclosure 1 to NRC letter dated January 26, 1979
LEAD PLANT SHOREHAM NRC ENCLOSURE 1*
GENERIC UNIQUE ITEM SHOREHAM POSITION POSITION POSITION COMMENTS 5.(cont.)
- c. Unpublished Sarpkaya Clarification only X
The data is for lift coefficients and not Data required. NRC acceleration drag coefficients. These data position is not in will be submitted for information only in conflict with Mark II March, 1979.
approach.
- d. Sensitivity Studies Alternate Position X
X The results will be provided oy each lead plant in April, 1979 on a plant unique basis.
e.
Interference Alternate Position X
Generic lead plant guidelines will be provided Guidelines in April, 1979.
- f. Zone of Influence NRC Position X
Shoreham will adopt a 5 ft. radius spherical Acceptable zone of influence.
- 6. SRV Bubble Phasing Alternate Position X
The S&L presentation on 12/13/78 demonstrated equivalence of lead plant approach and was deemed acceptable to NRC. Confirmatory information will be submitted in March, 1979.
- 7. SRV Bubble Frequency Alternate Position X
The lead plant position was presented by S&W on 2/13/79 and found conceptually acceptable.
Confirmatory submittal to be made in March, 1979
- 8. Chugging FSI Effects NRC Request X
Lead plants have taken a bounding loads approach Acceptable Additional information requested by the NRC will be supplied in March, 1979.
- 9. Load Case 10 Clarification X
Load case 10 will be applied to one SRV for Required containment structures only, as submitted in the response to 020.22 and as documented in DFFR Section 5.2.4 NRC committed to a clarification of the application of L.C. 10 at the 2/13/79 meeting.
- Enclosure 1 to NRC letter dated January 26, 1979
ATTACHMENT 2 SHOREHAM POSITIONS ON OUTSTANDING LEAD-PLANT LOAD ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 1.
Pool Swell Elevation and Metwell Air Compression (I.B.l.b, I.B.l.e, I.B.4.a)
An alternate plant approach to the NRC pool swell elevation acceptance criteria was presented by the lead plant owners (specifically S&W) on November 14, 1978 and found to be generally acceptable to the NRC and their consultants.
Documentation of the methodology used and results obtained for the Shoreham configuration was requested by the NRC and was supplied by LILCO letter SNRC-360, dated February 16, 1979.
2.
Small Structure Impact Loads (I.B.3.a)
All lead plants, including Shoreham, accept the NRC criteria in this area as stated in NUREG-04 87.
We believe, however, that these criteria are overly conserva-tive and we will defer the plant modifications associated with the acceptance of the NRC criteria until such time as the NRC accepts an alternate approach or the modification schedule for these changes threatens the fuel load date, whichever comes first.
3.
Asymmetric Pool Swell Loads (I.B.5)
The lead plants will accept the NRC criteria in this area as stated in NUREG-0487 and preliminary assessments on all three lead plants indicate that the hypothetical differential pressure loads resulting from the NRC criteria can be accom-modated without plant modifications.
We believe, however, that this NRC criteria is also overly conservative and documentation of Battelle Institute (W. Germany) small scale tests will be submitted in March 1979 to present the basis for a reduced load specification in this area.
4.
Submerged Structure Boundary Loads During Vent Clearing (I.A)
The lead plants accept the NRC application criteria for these loads but believe that the applicable pressure to be applied to the NRC criteria is maximum submerged static load of 24 psi applied to the base mat and the pool boundary below the vent exit plane.
A General Electric letter report will be submitted in March 1979 which will demonstrate that the 24 psi value is appropriate.
Page 2 5.
LOCA/SRV Submerged Drag Loads (III)
A.
In answer to the NRC's question on the inclusion of accele-ration drag loads associated with LOCA water jets, these loads are included in the drag load calculation for submerged structures.
B.
The Ring Vortex Model which was presented by Dr. Chu, con-sultant to Burne & Roe, at the February 13, 1979 Mark II Owners meeting with the NRC, described the lead plants' generic position for the LOCA water jet velocity field.
It is our understanding that this approach is acceptable to the NRC) subject to the submittal of supporting infor-mation, which will be available in April 1979.
C.
The Sarpkaya Data utilized in submerged structure evalua-tions are employed in the determination of lift coefficients and not acceleration drag coefficients.
Therefore, the question of unpublished data referred to in the NRC's February 8, 1979 letter is not relevant to the drag calcu-lations performed on Shoreham submerged structures since it was not used for that purpose.
The data in question, however, will be provided to the NRC in 51 arch 1979.
D.
Axial nodalization sensitivity studies will be provided on a plant specific basis in April 1979 and will demon-strate that the dimensional units chosen for evaluation are sufficiently unique to provide reliable load assess-ments.
The velocity and acceleration at each segment center will then be used to calculate the drag loads as appropriate.
The Mark II Owners will provide a generic approach to the selection of equivalent velocity and acceleration values for uniform flow field drag calculations in March 1979.
The effect of an unsteady state flow field on standard drag coefficients will also be addressed in that submittal.
E.
A generic lead plant position on the treatment of inter-ference effects in the calculations of submerged structure drag will be submitted in April 1979.
This position will be developed utilizing published references in this area (Reference 1, 2,
3, and 4).
Blockage effects on standard drag coefficients for pool swell loads will be calculated using the method of E.
C.
Maskell (Reference 5).
F.
The NRC criteria as outlined in NUREG-0487 in this area, is acceptable to Shoreham.
Page 3 6.
SRV Bubble Phasing (II.B.6)
The lead plant methodology for the treatment of SRV bubble phasing, while different in detail from the NRC acceptance criteria, was demonstrated to meet the intent of the NRC criteria via the Sargent and Lundy presentation to the Staff on December 13, 1978, and it is our understanding that this approach is acceptable to the Staff, subject to the submittal of appropriate documentation and backup material.
This material will be submitted to the NRC in March 1979.
7.
SRV Bubble Frequency (II.B.C)
Lead plants believe that the NRC criteria for SRV bubble frequency is not appropriate for application for plants utilizing quencher devices as are Shoreham, LaSalle, and Zimmer.
Ne believe that the Mark II load specification for SRV air clearing loads as delineated in the Shoreham DAR is conservative and bounding for SRV quenchor loads.
This was demonstrated to the NRC at the February 13 Lead Plant /
NRC meeting at which S&W showed large load reductions which will be accompliched via the installation of quenchers and even considering extremely conservative application of the quencher loads.
This demonstration of the bounding nature of the existing SRV ramshead load specification for the lead plants will be documents' in a submittal to the NRC in March 1979.
8.
Chuggig, FSI Effects The NRC has accepted tl.e generic Mark II load specification for chugging and the item is delineated in the NRC letter of Feb-ruar; 8, 1979, request 3 additional information via Enclosure 2 of that letter.
The se questions have been discussed on an informal basis previously with the NRC in August of 1978 and the responses will be formally submitted in March 1979.
9.
Load Combinations - Load Case No. 10 The Mark II Owners Grc up had agreed previously to accept Load Case No. 10 for assessment of the containment structural design only.
(See response :o NRC Question 020.22 and DFFR Section 5.2.4.)
The lead plsat owners as well as the Mark II Cwners Group disagree with tne application of Load Case 10 as outlined in the NRC letter of February 8 and the rationale for a modified interpretation of this criteria was discussed with the Staff on February 13.
It is our understanding that the NRC is consider-ing the Mark II owners comments and will proviJe additional guidance in this area in the near future.
Page 4 References - Submerged Structures 1.
C.
Dalton & R.
A.
Helfinstein, " Potential Flow Past a Group of Circular Cylinders," J.
Of Basic Eng., ASME, December 1971, pp 636-642 2.
T.
Yamamoto, " Hydrodynamic Forces on Multiple Circular Cylinders,"
J.
of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, September 1976, pp 1193-1210 3.
T.
Yamamoto & J.
H.
Nath, " Hydrodynamic Forces on Groups of Cylinders," oresented at the May 3-7, 1976 Offshore Technology Conference, held at Houston, Texas (Paper No. OTC 2499) 4.
T.
Yamamoto & J.
H.
Nath, " Forces on Many Cylinders Near a Plane Boundary," presented at the April 5-8, 1976 ASCE National Water Resources and Ocean Eng. Convention, held at San Diego, Calif.
(Preprint 2633) 5.
E.
C.
- Maskell, "A Theory of Blocking Effects on Bluff Bodies and Stalled Wings in a Closed Wind Tunnel," British Ministry of Aviation Document R&M No. 3400, November 1963