ML19343A841
| ML19343A841 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1980 |
| From: | Anderson C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17275A716 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-08, REF-GTECI-A-39, REF-GTECI-CO, TASK-A-08, TASK-A-39, TASK-A-8, TASK-OR NUREG-0487-R-80110, NUREG-0487-S01, NUREG-487, NUREG-487-S1, NUDOCS 8011210675 | |
| Download: ML19343A841 (72) | |
Text
0 e
NUREG-0487 Supplement No.1
= = = - -
=.
= - _ _
_ =
MARK ll Containment Lead Plant Program Load Evaluation and Acceptance Criteria Generic Technical Actmties A4 and A-39 Manuscript Completed: August 1980 Date Published: September 1980 C. Anderson
,4 P
Division of Safety Technology L.
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
,f Washington, D.C. 20555 f......,,
(b3[J,.!
s....
l l
l goll eib 67 {
i ABSTRACT e
The staff ?f ssued a report, NUREG-0487,1in.0ctober 1978 that.provided acceptance criteria for.the suppression pool dynamic loads associated with safety relief i; '
valve discharges and loss of coolant accidents for the lead Mark II plants.-
l This report is a supplement to NUREG-0487.
Issuance of this supplement con-4 cludes the Mark II ' ead Plant Program except for the condensation oscillation
' and the chugging load specifications.
It contains an evaluation of the pro-f posed alternatives to the lead plant acceptance criteria and an update of the 1
ongoing Mark II long Term Program.
This evaluation was conducted as a part of the NRC's Generic Technical Activities A-8 and A-39.
i 4
i
?
a i
L 4
h iii 1
i I.
d i
Table of Contents-P_ age f
I Introduction - - -~- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I-1 II Evaluation of Alternative Lead Plant' Loads -
.II-1 i
1
~
11-1 i
A.
LOCA Related Hydrodynamic Loads
- 1.
Submerged Boundary Loads-During I I-I F
.. Vent Clearing I
i-2.
Maximum Pool Swell Elevation and Wetwell II-4 Compre? 4on --------------
4 II-7 3.
Asymmetric LOCA Pool Boundary Loads I.
B.
SRV Ai r Cleari ng Loads - - - - - - - - - - - - -
11-10 1.
Background - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
11-10 l
2.
Description of Alternative Methodology - - - --
II-11 i
3.
Description of T-Quencher Tcst Program and 11-13 Performance 4
l 4.
Staff Evaluation of Alternative Methodology -
II-15 5.
Alternative Acceptance Criteria for T-Quencher Load Specification - - - --- - - - - - - - -
11-19 11-19 C.
LOCA/SRV Submerged Structure Drag Loads II-20 4
1.
Jet Loads 2.
Ai r Bubble Loads - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
II III MARK II long Term Program Status,- - - - - - - - - - - -
III-l A.
Generi c Programs - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
III-2 1.
LOC" Related Tasks - - - - - - - - - - - - -
III-2 1
III-8
?
2.
SRV Related Tasks V
i. -.
~
. ~ ~
Page B.
Plant Unique Programs III-9 1.
Susquehanna C0 Tests - - - - - - - - - - - -
III-10 2.
MPPSS-2 Improved Chugging Load - - - - - - -
III-10 3.
Zimmer and LaSalle In-Plant Safety Relief Valve Tests III-12 4.
WPPSS-2 Improved SRV Load Program II I-12 C.
Related Pool Dynamic Loads Programs III-13 1.
GKSS Large Scale Steam Tests - - - - - - - -
III-14 2.
JAERI MARK II Full Scale Steam Tests - - - -
III-17 3.
LLL BWR Pool Dynamic Load Programs - - - - -
III-17 I
IV Summary and Conclusions IV-1 A.
Lea d P l a nt P rogram - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IV-1 B.
Long Term Program IV-1 V
References - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
V-1 Appendix A.
MARK II Containment Program Chronology Update A-1 vi
t List of Figures Page III-1 Test Configuration for MARK II 4T Condensation Oscillation Tests - -
III-4 III-2 Vessels for Phase I Creare Multi-vent Tests - - - - - - - - - - - -
III-6 III-3 GKM II-M Schematic Diagram - - - -
III-11 III-4 Schematic of the GKSS Multivent Test Facility - - - - - - - - - -
III-15 III-5 JAERI Multivent Test Facility - -
III-19 vii
List of Tables Page 11-1 MARK II T-Quencher Performance - - - -
11-14 III-1 Lead Plant Comparison to GKSS ----
III-16 III-2 GKSS Multivent Test Matrix - - - - - -
I II-18 IV-I Alternative MARK II Lead Plant Pool IV-3 Dynamic Loads IV-2 MARK II Containment - Supporting Program LOCA-Related Tasks - - - - - -
IV-6 1x
5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A-8 REVIEW TEAM The following individuals participated on the MARK II Containment Lead Plant Program Load Evaluation and contributed to the report:
C. Anderson, USNRC, Division of Safety Technology
.(A-8 Task Manager)
T. Su, Division of Safety Technology (A-8 Task Manager)
F. Eltawila, USNRC, Division of Systems Integration J. Lehner, Brookhaven National Laboratory C. Economos, Brookhaven National Laboratory A. Sonin, Massachusetts Institute of Technology G. Bienkowski, Princeton University R. Scanlan, Princeton University 4
1 i
xi l
-r y
A 4
fl.
Introduction
! The suppression pool hydrodynamic loads asscciated with a postulated loss-s of-coolant accident (LOCA) were first identified during large scale testing F
of the Mark.III containment system design in the period 1972 through 1974.
f.
These newly identified loads,- that had not been explicitly considered in the original design of the Mark II containment, result from the_ dynamic ef-fects'of drvwell air and steam being rapidly forced into the suppression
~ pool, during a postulated LOCA.
In addition, recent experience ~ at operat-ing plants demonstrated that the dynamic effects of safety /rel.ief valve (SRV) discharges to the suppression pool can be substantial.
J As a result of these concerns, the Mark II owners formed a group to develop -
a program consisting of both analytical and experimental tasks to support b
their pool dynamic loads application methods.. In May 1977, Mark II owners divided the overall program into two parts:
a Lead Plant Program (LPP) and a Long Term Program (LTP).
The LPP was developed to establish a conserva-tive desi n basis appropriate for the anticipated 40 year life of each Mark-
)
t II BWR facility.
The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission reviewed the LPP and issued 3
the Mark IT Containment Lead Plant Program Load Evaluation and Acceptance Criteria Report- (NUREG 0487) in October 1978. That report included an eval-uation of the Mark II Owners' proposed methodology for establishing pool dy-namic loads for the lead Mark II plants and a description of the bases for load methodologies that we find acceptable for use in the individual plant unique assessments.
Since that report was issued, the Mark II owners sub-j
_mitted additional reports in which they proposed alternative load methodol-ogies for use in the evaluation of Mark II plants.
We have completed our evaluation of these alternative load specifications.
Based on the results' I-1
=
of our evaluation of the alternative loads contained in these reports, the staff finds acceptable the use of either the alternative pool dynamic loads, subject to the modifications specified in Section II of this supplement, or the loads specified in NUREG-0487 for the Mark 11 plant unique evaluations.
Exceptions to this include the condensation oscillation (CO) the chugging loads on the pool boundary. Preliminary observations of recent tests indi-cate that some modifications to these loads are required.
This is discus-sed in Section 3 III.A.1, III.C and I\\/. A of this report.
Section II of this report contains ous-evaluation of the alternative lead plant loads proposed by the Mark II ownars, including the basis for our findings.
In several cases our evaluation concludes that the altern>tive loads are acceptable subject to certain specified modif'.ations.
Several pool dynamic loads were specifically excluded from the Mark II owners gen-eric program.
These loads will be reviewed on a plant unique basis. The acceptability of these proposed plant unique loads will be addressed in each plant Safety Evaluation Report.
With the issuance of this supplement, the efforts of the Mark II Owners Group and the NRC Mark II generic technical activity A-8 review efforts will be shifted to establish the adequacy of the LPP C0 and chugging load specifications and to review the LTP tasks.
The staff plans to issue an evaluation of the lead plant chugging and condensation loads in August 1980 in the form of a letter report.
It should be noted that while the lead plant program placed special emphasis on the development of acceptable loads for the lead Mark II plants- (Zinmer, Shoreham and LaSalle) we find the loads in these documents acceptable for use in evaluation of all Mark 11 plants.
The objectives of the LTP are to:
provide justification by means of tests and analyses for reductions in selected design basis bounding loads defined I-2
for the LPP; and to provide additional confirmation of certain foads util-ized in the LPP. A status report on the generic LTP tasks is provided in Section III of this report along wito a brief description of:
related pool dynamic test' prograas sponsored by individual Mark II owners; rele-vant foreign test prograns; and related research programs sponsored by the NRC.
Section IV contains a summary of our findings relative to the proposed al-ternative lead plant loads and staff comments related to the ongoing LTP.
1-3 i
T L
1 II.
. Evaluation of ' Alternative Lead' Plant -Loads I
A.
LOCA Related Hydrodynamic Loads The' phenomena and hydrodynamic loads following a' postulated design ba-sis-LOCA event.in a Mark II containaent were discussed in the Lead Plant Load Evaluation Report (l). - Acceptance criteria for Mark II LOCA related hydrodynamic loads-were described. in Appendix D 'of that report.
4 This section of the' supple $ent includes.our evaluation of alternative LOCA related hydrodynamic loads proposed by the Mark II Owners Group.
1.
-Submerged Boundary Loads During Vent Clearing The. vent clearing phenomenon following a LOCA results from the i
clearing of water from the main vent downcomers due to drywell pres-4 i
surization. As a result of-this phenomenon, pressure loads are pro-L l-juced'on the containment basemat and the submerged wetwell walls.
i The Mark II owners' original specification for vent clearing pool boundary loads was ~provided in the Dynamic Forcing Function Report (DFFR), Revision 2 (2)
This specification is a conservative upper bound of the vent clearing -load based on the assumption of jet im-pingement on the basemat and total momentum transfer.
Using this 4
4 methodology the Mark II owners prescribed a 33 psid increase above i
the initial local h/drostatic pressure on the basemat with no vent 3
clearing load specified for the submerged wetwell walls. Upon re-viewing this load the NRC noted the absence of a wall load and ex--
panded the owners' specification-to provide that the 33 psid over-pressure be applied to the wetwell walls. below the downcomer exit with 'a : linear attenuation to zero at the pool surface.
j.
11-1
+
t 3
w,
,-w
.~v n
m
. - - ~, w y
The Mark II 0wners Group acknowledged.the appropriatensss for spaci-fying a 'non-zero' vent clearing load on the submerged wetwell walls.
' However, it was their view that a 33 psid overpressure was overly conservative..They proposed an alternative. load specification as follows:(3) o l --
L (a) For vent ' clearing loads, a 24 psid increase over local hy-drostatic pressure is statically and uniformly applied to the basemat and to the submerged wetwell walls below the downcomer exit elevation.
(b) For the submerged walls above the downcomer exit eleva-tion, the 24 psid increase is linearly attenuated to zero at the pool surface.
(c)
The load is applied statically during vent' clearing for the duration indicated in Figure 5-7 of Reference 4.
The basis for this specification is derived by the owners from the 4T test data (5). The maximum pressure increase on the submerged pool boundary observed in these tests during vent clearing was 19.4 psid.
Therefore, 20 psid bounds the 4T results.
Among all Mark II plants, the maximum calculated drywell pressure at the time of vent clearing is approximately 4 psi higher than the corresponding maximum value for the 4T tests.
To account for this additional drywell pressuriza-tion prior to vent clearing, 4 psid is added to the 20 psid which bounds the 4T test data.
I II-2 9
y
The staff, in reviewing-this specification, felt 'that the dependence of pool boundary overpressures during vent clearing on drywell pres-
)
surization rate and other pertinent parameters should be investigated in more detail. Accordingly, p, the pool bottom center pressure, was correlated by Brookhaven National Laboratory, the staff consultant, with (bL)/[(A/A)V 3 p y DW where m - mass flow in vents - lb/sec 3
V - drywell volume - f t h'- enthalpy of air in vents - Btu /lb
- L -' submergence - ft A /A --pool area to vent area ratio Besides the 20 runs at the 4T facility for which values for the above quantities are available, three Marviken runs for which the parameter values could be estimated were included in ths correlation. A least squares fit was made of the 23 points with a resulting standard deviation of 1.72.
We determined from the data collation that the i
p of 24 psid met a 99-99 non-exceedance confidence limit up to a 2
value of (mht)/[(A /Ay)VDW] = 55 Btu /ft /sec.
p Therefore, the staff finds the alternate submerged boundary specifi-I cation acceptable for plants where (mht)/[(A /A )VDW] 255. 'For plants p y where (mhl)/[(A /A )VDW] >55, the loading increase over hydrostatic p y pressure on basemat and submerged walls below vent exit is 1
p = 24 + 0.27 (mhl)/[(A /A )VDW) -55Jwith a linear attenuation to zero p y at the pool surface.
II-3 w-
,-rn, y
o e-
2.
Maximum Pool Swell Elevation and Wetwell Compression The original Mark II Owners Group specification and basis for the determination of the maximm pool swell height is described in Ref-erence 2.
This specification consists of a maximum swell height of 1.5 times the initial vent submergence.
The staff's evalua-tion of this specification is provided in the NUREG 0487,Section III.B.3.9(I) The staff found that the original specification was not acceptable for all circumstances and developed acceptance cri-teria for the maximum pool swell height and the associated maxi-imum wetwell compression. Our criteria consisted of the maximum pool swell height predicted by the Pool Swell Analytical Model (PSAM).
It was the Mark II owners' belief that the staff's cri-teria were excessively conservative.
Therefore, they outlined an alternative methodology which predicts lower maximum pool swell heights under certain conditions. Data to establish the conserva-tism of this methodology were provided to the staff ) The proposed alternative specification calls for the maximum swell height to be the greater of (a) or (b) as follows:
(a) 1.5 times the vent submergence; (b) the elevation corresponding to the drywell floor uplif t differential pressure used for design assessment. The pool surface elevation corresponding to the maximum wet-well airspace compression will be calculated assuming a polytropic process with an exponent of 1.2.
11-4
The maximum swell heights calculated by the above method were com-pared to a number of Phase I and Phase II 4T tests, selected as being the most difficult to bound by the vent submergence criter-ion.
Several 4T parameters were adjusted for the calculation to assure that the comparison between caacured and calculated swell heights is not more favorable for 4T than that expected for a real plant.
The drywell pressure prediction was takt.n less conserva-tively than that for a real plant and APup (drywell floor uplift differential design pressure) was lowered to account for initial pool and drywell temperatures typical of 4T. Results showed that the proposed methoi calculated swell heights in excess of measured values with the exception of Run 35 where the measured swell height was about half a foot higher than the calculated height.
The staff and its consultants studied this alternative methodology to determine the source of the underprediction.
It was determined that the pool swell height underprediction results from an underpre-diction of the drywell pressure history at that point in time at which pressure values used for swell height calculations are made.
The calculated drywell pressure history is an input to the pool swell analytical model.
This underprediction of pressure at the time when drywell pressure and APup are combined to give the driv-ing force for pool swell height appears common for the calculated values of 4T saturated vapor runs (such as Run 35).
While other
)
conservatisms in the swell height calculation method are adequate to bound measured values for the other saturated vapor runs, cal-culations for Run 35 fall short by 6 inches.
11-5
2
+,.J k
-A4 4
For saturated liquid runs (4TLRuns 36, 37) the calculated.drywell pressure history is. closer-to-measured values and measured swell heights are bounded by the methodology with a wide margin. More-over, the Mark II owners have demonstrated in response to NRC Question 020.71(7)that the drywell pressure response computed according to NEDM-10320(8) is a conservative input :to the Mark II pool swell'model.
The response.of theLpool swell model, (eleva-
. tion, velocity, bubble pressure) calculated in this manner was conservative when compared to measured values of response with similar, calculations made using measured drywell pressure histor-ies.
For an actual plant'the Design Basis Accident is a satur-ated liquid break,~ i.e., tha situation for which the proposed method is more conservative.
A conservatism not apparent in the above comparisons exists in the methodology. Traces of the liquid level sensors, made avail-l 4
able to the staff for another 4T run, show only froth-like activ-ity occurring at the highest elevations whose impact can be judged to be relatively minor.
It can be assumed then that the maximum level detected for Run~ 35 is also due to this f roth rather than a solid slug of water as the calculated model assumes.
i Based on'.the above considerations of the 4T tests,' the staff finds the alternative pool swell height methodology proposed by the Mark
. II owners acceptabla'provided the drywell pressure response used for the swell height' calculations is calculated according to, Refer-ence 8 (NEDM-10320).
If a lower drywell pressure is used as input II-6 t
4
...,_,._y
than that predicted ^according to NEDM-10320, such a pressure history must be demonstrated to give a' conservative response for 4T Runs 36 and 37. In addition, the staff finds acceptable the calculation of the maximuin wetwell pressure associated with this alternative method of establishing the maximum pool swell height.- Thus, the maximum wetwell pressure can be taken to be the sum of the drywell pressure response calculated according to Reference 8 plus A Pup calculated according to the specification given in NUREG-0487(I) i 3.
Asyanetric LOCA' Pool Boundary 1.oad In NUREG-0487 a number of conditions were discussed which could result in asymmetric pool dynamic loads on the wetwell walls. The condition under discussion here is the possibility that variations of the drywell air / steam mixture can cause circumferential -variations in the vent flow compositions which can, in turn, produce a spatial variation in the bub-ble pressure load on the wetwell wall.
In developing the staff's criteria, we recognized that large variations in the vent flow compositions are unlikely. However, some flow varia-tions can occur, and since no information was provided to show these ef-
)
fects to be negligible, the staff specified a conservative asymmetric load criterion (
This criterion specified that all air is vented on one half of the drywell periphery and pure steam is vented on the other half.
4 i
II-7 h
t p
-__-r
,i+_.=-3c
_g,
-.-,7-,
l w
j~
' The Mark -II owners have provided a rationale' for an alternative asymet-'
ric LOCA; pool boundary _ load They-performed a study to investigate -
the potential for vent flow variation'and the consequences:thereof. ' The :
I principal arguments presented for_the absence of large' steam / air mixture i-
. variations in the drywell are the following:
1 (1) Steam exits the break at sonic velocity c'using turbulent i ondi-
+
4 tions; j
(2).0rywell structures, while not presenting any major obstructions, help to divert flow and aid in mixing; and t
l (3) Marviken and Battelle test data support good mixing in the
'd' ywell.
j-r v
i In their study they calculated a conservative asymmetric load. The 4
l study consisted of calculating the bubble pressure difference in two
}
vents both irmdly filled with air under extreme conditions: The vent i
l near the break-is supplied imediately with a homogeneous steam / air mix-ture while the far vent continues to be supplied with pure air. This i
i j
continued for 0.4 seconds 'after which the same homogeneous steam / air mix-i h
ture is assumed for both vents.
i 4
j The selection of 0.4 seconds is based on the largest Mark II drywell geo-
[
- metry and steam / air mixture front velocities obtained from the Battelle tests.
Other conservative assumptions used in this analysis are a low 1
elevation line break,*short vent clearing time, and instantaneous steam i
i condensation. Using the above conditions, the maximum bubble pressure l
}
difference between the two. vents is determined by the Mark II owners to 4
l be less than 10% of the absolut'e bubble-pressure at the time.of vent I
clearing.
II-8 i
L
i The staff and>its consultants have reviewed the above arguments. We feel these arguments have merit and the scenario proposed for'the con-servative asymmetric load calculation is a reasonable one, given the difficulty of describing events in the drywell in accurate detail.
As a part of our evaluation of-the alternative asymmetric load methodology, the staff undertook its.own calculations.
Using values for drywell volume and blowdown rate for. a typical Mark II facility, the steam / air mixture was calculated by the staff'to be 65% steam (or water) and 35%
air.
In a series of calculations performed by our consultants the effect of vent composition on bubble pressure was investigated.
The results show that:
(1) Maximum ap between the vents occurs within the 0.4 second window.
(2) A 65% steam mixture in one vent and all air in the other vent results in a op of less than 20% of the maximum LOCA vent clear-ing bubble pressure as calculated by PSAM.
Therefore, the staff concludes that a reasonable and still conservative asynmetric load is the assumption that the local bubble pressure for one-half of the downcomer vents is 20% of the maximum LOCA vent clearing bub-ble pressure, while the other half of the vents remain at zero gauge p res sure, The load is to be applied statically = together with normal hy-drostatic pressure to the submerged portion of-the containment.
II-9 t
B.
Safety / Relief Valve Air Clearing Loads.
===1.
Background===
The acceptanca criteria given in Appendix D of NU.tEG-0487(1) require that all Mark -11 applicants employ a quencher type device for mitiga-tion of SRV air clearing loads (Criterion II.1). To define these loads, the. acceptance criteria further stipulated that the ramshead (R/H) methodology described in Section 3.2 of NED0-21061 and j
NEDE-21061P, Rev. 2 (2), extrapolated to Mark II conditions, be employed to estimate bubble pressure aglitudes (Criterion II.2.a) together with a range of bubble frequencies selected to bound the available test ob-servations (Criterion II.2.c).
i As indicated in Section III C.2.d of NUREG-0487, the use of the rams-head methodology to define air clearing loads was dictated by the un-availability of detailed performance data for the quencher device which will be utilized by the lead plant app?lcants (Mark II T-Quencher).
]
l Subsequent to the issuance of NUREG-0487, the performance of this device has been established by an extensive test program.
The results of this test program are documented in Reference 13.
In view of the availability of this new information, the lead plant ap-plicants have proposed an alternative to the staff's acceptance criteria
]
for SRV air clearing loads. They consider the staff's loads to be ex-cessively conservative, particularly when they are applied to the various multi-valve load cases which are stipulated under Criterion II.2.b.
The staff concus with the applicants that the use of the ramshead meth-odology is conservative and reviewed the proposed alternative load methodology.
i 11-10
,-n ve,----n-
2.
Description of Alternative Methodology - In order to demonttrate con-servatism in the ramshead load definition, the lead plant owners have submitted a comparison of typical building and piping responses for the ramshead all-valve case with that for a Mark II T-Quencher (Ref-erence 14).
The comparison shows that sequential bubble entry (Cri-terion II.2.b, Load Case G) using the ramshead load definition is more severe than simultaneous, in-phase bubble oscillation (Load Case 5) for the Mark II T-Quencher.
The Mark II T-Quencher load specification used in this comparison study is a dynamic pressure loading similar to that described in more detail in Reference 13.
It consists of three pres-sure traces which are applied directly to the submerged boundaries.
These particular traces are selected from among those observed during inplant discharges of the KWU cross quencher at the Brunsbuttel BWR fa-cility. The selections include the trace exhibiting the highest over-pressure observed corresponding to a subsequent actuation event at an elevated pcol temperature of 145*F.
In general, the selections were made to include a wide range in dominant frequency content and to maxi-mize the power spectral density magnitude.
The peak pressure amplitudes vary from 7.3 to 11.6 psia and the dominant frequency range is from about 6 to 8 Hz.
To provide additional conservat. ism and to adjust for differences between Mark II and KWU-BWR containments and quencher configurations, the load specification applies a multiplier to the peak pressure amplitude and a time-wise stretching and compression of the pressure signal to expand the frequency range.
In Reference 14, the lead plant applicants have used a pressure multiplier of 1.1 leading to a maximum pressure of 12.8 psi.
l They have used a contraction of the frequency signal of 11% and an expan-sfon of 55% leading to an overall frquency range of about 3 to 9 Hz.
11-11
T The owner's spe:ification calls'for the application of these pressure r
~
i loads uniformly. over the basemat and up to six feet above the basemat on containment and pedestal walls. Above six feet, a linear attenuation of l
the peak pressure amplitude to zero at the pool surface is prescribed.
Due to the nature of the comparative study provided in Reference 14, the Mark II Lead Plant Owners have' not defined T-quencher loads for other i
tha'n the all-valve case described above. Additional load definitions are proposed, however, in Reference 13. These differ from the all-valve case only with respect to the circumferential variation of the peak pressure.
The load cases considered and the proposed variation are as follows:
I a
Single Valve Actuation (SVA) - The peak pressure is taken to be uniform i
at the maximum value in the circumferential direction over a sector which extends I15 degrees from the quencher center. This is followed i
by a linear attenuation to 20% of the maximum value over a 47.5 degree sector.
Beyond this region the peak pressure is maintaind at the 20%
value.
Asymmetric - The peak pressure is taken to be uniform at the maximum value in the circumferential direction over a 90 degree quadrant of the containment.
This is followed by a linear attenuation to zero over a 45 degree sector at each end.
The distribution corresponds to that associated with three closely spaced adjacent valves.
I-1 Automatic Depressurization System ( ADS)- The peak pressure at each point d
on the submerged boundary corresponds to the linear superposition Abso-j lute Sum (ABSS) method of the contribution resulting from adjacentg valves based on the attenuation rules. defined for the SVA with trunca-tion at the maximum value.
11-12 f
i ne-,
+....
3.
Rscription of T-Quencher Test Program and Performance - In order to evaluate the acceptability of the Mark 11 T-quencher load definition in-cluded in Reference 14 a comparison of the actual performance of the Mark II T-quencher with the load specification is required.
This performance was established by an extensive test program conducted for the Pennsylvania Power and Light Company (PP&L) utility by KWU for the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES) and is documented in Reference 13. The staff and its consultants have completed a detailed review of this report and will present its evaluation in a forthcoming safety evaluation report (SER) to be issued by the second quarter of 1980. A brief description of this pro-gram and the staff's findings will be provided here to facilitate the pres-ent discussion.
The test program consisted of a total of 125 SRV actuations through pro-totypical (for the PP&L SSES plant) discharge lines to which a full size prototypical Mark II T-quencher was installed. The actuations were di-rected into a suppression pool sized to simulate the smallest unit cell of the SSES plant in terms of available pool surface area. Of the 125 actuations, 98 were subsequent actuation events involving as many as 10 actuations in a single sequence. The parameters which were varied in-cluded steam flow rate, pool temperature and discharge line length.
In addition, four first actuation tests were performed with a depressed wa-ter leg (DWL) using the longer of two discharge lines to simulate an ADS actuation case.
The staff finds that the data base generated by this test program is acceptable in terms of providing a conservative representation of T-quencher performance jn the SSES plant, in particular, and Mark II plants, in general. A summary of the results relevant for the present pur-pose is given in Table II-1, below.
11-13
fable 11-1 Mark II T-Quencher Performance Peak Overpressure (PSID)
Bubble Frequency (HZ)
Range Mean Range Mean j
Fi rst Actuation 3.6 - 7.0 4.4 2.7 - 5.1 3.9 First Actu-ation (DWL) 4.1 - 9.4 7.0 2.1 - 3.3 2.7 Subsequent Actuation 0.7-14.5 5.1 3.1 - 6.9 5.5 It is important to note that this performance represents the beha -
ior that would be anticipated under conditions involving simultaneous l
entry of all SRV bubbles with in-phase oscillations.
This is due to the fact that the test data were obtained in a sivigle cell facility which represents the minimum pool area available per quencher in the SSES plant.
The same remark would apply to plants with similar pool-area-per-quencher characteristics.
For larger pool areas (fewer quenchers) the pressure amplitudes can be expected to decrease while the frequencies, due to a virtual mass effect, would increase.
Based on the analysis presented in Reference 13, the overall range of frequency would increase from that shown in Table 11-1 to 2.7 - 7.2 Hz for normal first actuations and 3.1 - 9.3 Hz for subsequent actuations.
Frequency for SSES shifts for the ADS are somewhat more complex and will be dis-cussed in detail in the next section.
The data base also provides information with regard to the vertical pres-sure attenuation.
In general, the maximum pressures occur at the basemat with a roughly linear attenuation to the pool surface.
However, some lo-calized pressure peaks were observed at pcints roughly in line with the quencher center line.
l 11-14
f 4.
Staff Evaluation of Alternative Methodology - Based on a comparison of tbc T-quencher performance a: characterized by the data presented in Table II-1 and the load specification described in Reference 14, the 4
staff's findings are as follows:
(a) Normal First Actuations - The proposed frequency range provides a large margin with respect to the highest anticipated ' frequencies but does not i
cover the lowest observed frequency (2.7 Hz).
This is not considered important since only one data point was below 3 Hz and was recorded at a very high pool temperature (176 F), a condition not considered rele-vant for plant structural response to SRV actuation evants. The pro-posed pressure multipiter of 1.1 provides a peak pressurc specification i
which bounds all normal first actuation pressures and exceeds the mean value by a factor of 2.8.
The staff considers this large margin suffi-cient to. cover any uncertainties associated with the data base, to ac-s count for plant geometries and operating conditions not covered by the tests (line volumes, pool-area-per-quencher, steam flow races) and to i
account for the localized pressure effects referred to previously. Ac-cordingly, the staff finds the proposed methodology for peak pressure amplitude and frequency acceptable for normal first actuations for the lead Mark II plants as well as for other Mark II plants using the T-quencher device subject to the constraints on plant geometry and oper-ating conditions listed in Section B.4(f) below.
l
-(b) Subsequent Actuations - The proposed frequency range does not adequately cover the frequency range which is anticipated for subsequent actuations (3.1 to' 9.3 Hz).
It is the staff's judgment that an appropriate range I
i for frequency be taken as 3-11 Hz.
This upper value is selected to bound i
l all relevant observations and provide' additional conservatism to cover i
I estimated uncertainties in the experimi tal results as well as conditions.
I I-15 I
t l'
.~
l not covered by the tests. Also, the proposed pressure multipler of 1.1 implies a peak' pressure specification which als) does not bound the maxi-mum observed for subsequeqt actuations but exceeds the mean value by a margin of 2.5.
Although this margin implies a very high probability i
of non-exceedance, it. is the staff's conclusion that sufficient uncer-tainty exists with regard to the phenomenon of SRV subsequent actuation i
to require that a bounding approach be used to define loads under these i
. conditions.
The staff further' finds that a larger margin is required to account for the observed localized pressure effects.
In Reference 13, the: load specification for the PP&L SSES plant employs a pres.su'e multi-r L
l I
plier of 1.5 to define peak pressures for both first. and subsequent ac--
tuations. 'Ine staff finds acceptable the use of this multiplier for subsequent actuation peak pressure loads.
This acceptability is contin-gent on the constraints listed in Section B.4(f) below.
i I
(c) Depressed Water Leg First Actuations ( ADS) - The frequency shift needed to infer SRV performance under ADS conditions involves not only a f actor to account for virtual mass effects (fewer quenchers) but an adjustment i
for the elevated wetwell pressures which may prevail during this SRV cvent.
The methodology outlined in Reference 13 indicates that these two factors result in an adjustment of frequency for the SSES plant from the observed 1
range (2.1-3.3 Hz) to 4-4.6 Hz, a range which is adequately covered by the 4
proposed frquency range.
The staff finds that the proposed range is also adequate to cover various uncertainties and conditions which differ from those tested.
In the first case we refer specifically to the-uncertainty associated.with the precise conditions which exist within the discharge i
line when an ADS actuation occurs.
It is clear that these do not corres-
)
pond precisely to a first actuation condition since some steam and/or addi-tional air has entered the discharge line via the vacuum breakers prior to I
11-16
the event. The potential for purging of some ir out of the discharge line also adds to this uncertainty.
In the staff's judgment, however, suff':cient margin -is provided by the proposed frequency. range to satis-f actorily cover these uncertainties. With regard to peak pressure am-plitude.the staff nas determined that the first actuation multiplier of 1.1 provides an adequate bound of the peak pressures observed with DWL when extrapolated to lower line volumes. Additional conservatism is pro-vided by the fact that the actual pressure levels associated with ADS would be expected to be lower than those observed in these single cell tests. Accordingly, the proposed methodology for peak pressure amplitude and frequency is acceptable for the ADS case subject to the constraints i
listed in Section B.4(f) below.
't (d) Vertical Pressure Distribution - In Reference 13 it is shown that the proposed vertical pressure profile adequately accounts for the localized l
pressure effects which were observed based on a 1.5 pressure multiplier and a comparison of the respective spatially integrated pressure profiles.
3 Since the localized pressure effects are associated with the quencher center line, the design vertical pressure profile must account for pos-i sible variation ir> quencher elevation from plant to plant.
Accordingly, the staff f.nds that the vertical pressure prdfile as specified in Refer-ence 14 is unacceptable.
The staff requires that the peak pressure be maintained at the maximum value from the basemat up to an elevation 2.5 feet above the quencher center line followed by a linear attenuation to zero at the pool surface.
l (e) Circumferential Peak Pressure Attenuation - For typical Mark II plant geo-i
. metries, the circumferential pressure variation prescribed in Reference 13 for a single valve implies that the peak pressure on the containment walls II-17
is maintained at the maximum over a. linear distance of approximately 10 feet on either side of the quencher ceater line. The coresponding dis-tance at the pedestal is four feet or approximately 80% of the quencher arm length.
It is the staff's i.gment that sufficient margin exists in the load specification to accommoda' this relatively minor non-conserva-tism.
The subsequent atte~
ton prescribed by the load specification is also considered conservative based on examination of a variety of other in-plant test results. Accordingly, the staff finds the circumferential pressure variation prescribed in Reference 13 for a single valve to be acceptable.
The staff als, finds the proposed distributions for the asym-metric and ADS case given in Reference 13 to be conservative and therefore acceptable. We note that for the asymmetric case, the maximum peak pres-sure is effectively applied over a 135 degree sector of the containment boundaries with zero pressure over the remaining periphery.
In the ADS case, the global pressure loading is approximately 95% of that ~for the J
all-valve case.
(f) Range of Plant Parameters - The staff concludes that the T-quencher load specification described above is acceptable for all Mark 11 plants which satisfy the following conditions:
. Minimum Pool-Area-per-Quencher greater than or equal to 200 square feet;
. Minimum Discharge Line Volume greater than or equal to 50 cubic feet;
. Design steam flux rate less than or equal to 380 pounds per second;
. Quencher submergence between 13.0 and 25 feet.
A more detailed description of the bases for each of the findings and con-clusions set forth in this section will be presented in a NUREG to be is-sued in the third quarter of 1980.
11-18
f 1
5.
Alternative Acceptance Criteria for T-Quencher Load Specification For plants using the KWU "T" quencher device, the methodology described in Section 3 " Interim T-Quencher Load Definition" of Reference 14 can be used for the evaluation of containment structure, equipment and pip-ing systens in response to multiple SRV actuations. - This methodology, however, is subject to the following const'raints, modifications and/or
~
additions.
a.
Expansion and contraction of the pressure signal shall be taken such that the overall range of dominant frequency is 3-10 Hz for subsequent' actuation.
b.
A peak pressure multiplier of 1.5 shall be employed to define the maximum pressure amplitude for subsequent actuations.
The maximum pressure amplitude shall be applied uniformly to c.
the containment and pedestal walls up to an elevation 2.5 feet above the quencher center line followed by a linear attenuation to zero at the pool surface.
d.
The methodology described in Section 4.1 of the PP8L Design Assess-ment Report (Reference 13) may be used to evaluate the circumferen-tial variation of peak pressure amplitu fe.
An alternate methodology proposed by the lead plants is being considered.
Major items under consideration are the amplitude multipliers and the fre-quency range.
Results of the evaluation of the alternate methodology will be reported in a NUREG in 3Q80.
C.
LOCA/SRV Submerged Structure Drag Loads i.
The original. methodology for tne calculation of jet ano air bubble-loads dur-i i.
ing LOCA and SRV. actuation proposed by the Mark II owners is described in l
'II-19
References 2 and 15. The analytical basis for these models is presented 1
References 16, 17 and 18. The NRC staff evaluated the proposed methodology (Reference 1) and found it acceptable subject to certain modifications to account for phenomena not explicitly included in the methodology. The staff's acceptance criteria included specific conservative formula that bound the loads sufficiently to resolve the staff's concerns. The Mark II owners have responded by either adopting the staff's criteria directly or by meeting the intent of the criteria through a modified methodology.
l l
The modification to the Mark II acceptance criteria for submerged structure drag are presented in the following paragraphs.
1.
Jet Loads The applicants for the lead Mark II plants have adopted a methodology (Zimer, DAR, Appendix I) that meets the intent of the staff criteria dealing with 10CA jet loads (Reference 1).
All Mark 'I plant applicants have committed to install SRV quencher discharge devices. Quencher jet loads are expected to be cmall. The staff'; original criteria (I) stated that this load may be neglected for those structures located outside of a sphere circumscribed around the quencher arms. This criterion was developed with the cross quencher design in mind.
In consideration of the T-quencher design utilized in the majority of " ark II containments, the owners proposed a T-quencher cylindrical zone of influence with a 5-foot radius. Ob-servations made during the KWU T-quencher tests confirm the con-servative nature of this criterion. Accordingly, we find this criter-son acceptable.
11-20
L i
2.
LOCA/SRV Air Bubble Loads Standard Drag in Accelerating Flow Fields Thc intent of acceptance criterion III B.I.b(I is to properly account for. the fact that standard drag under unsteady conditions is not necessarily equal to its steady value.
The Mark II owners proposed a methodol wy(
} that meets the intent of this criterion by utilizing data appropriate to the situation; i.e., constant acceleration for the charging air bubble and fallback. and oscillating flow data for pool i
swell and SRV air bubbles.
The proposed methodology of Reference 20 1
is acceptable for cylindrical structures, however, the formula for FA in Reference 20 is in error and should be corrected to read Cg
' Cg - 1.
=
I For structures other than cylinders (i.e., structures with sharp corners such as rectangles and I-beams), very little data exist.
The use of an equivalent diameter for purposes other than the com-1 putation of acceleration volume cannot be generally justified.
~
For instance, flow establishment and vortex shedding from sharp 1
corners-is_ known to be very different from that for cylinders.
The condition for initiation of lift due to vortex shedding in ac-celerated flows cannot be taken from cylinder data.
For asymmetric orientation lift will exist even in steady flow and must thus be included, in all cases.
The methodology of Reference 20 can thert fore be applied to non-cy-lindrical structures only if subject to the following modifications:
11-21 I
i i
l
'i.
A lift coefficient from data or theory for the appro-priate shape, or alternatively an upper bound of C = 1.6, L
must be-included in all cases.
11.
The standard drag coefficient for pool swell and SRV oscil-lating bubbles must be obtained from data for structures with sharp edges.
A drag coefficient based on the appro-i priate period parameter may be obtained from the plate i
data of Reference 21 and the equivalent diameter used for i
-drag computation to account for maximum projected area at arbitrary orientation.
Velocity and Acceleration Definition The staff's criteria III B.lc state that the equivalent uniform flow velocity and acceleration for any structure or structural segment shall be taken as the maximum velocity and acceleration "seen" by that structure, not the value at the geometric center of the structure.
'l Reference 20 proposes to modify criteria III B.lc by establishing conditions such that velocities and accelerations at the geometric center can be used.
For a flow field which is not uniform along a particular submerged structure, it is proposed that the structure be segmented into smaller sections so that the velocities and accelerations are more uniform over the segmented length.
The standard and acceleration drag coefficients are then calculated at the midpoint of each segment.
The basis-for the proposed revision, as presented in Reference 20, is a sen-sitivity study conducted to determine a range in which the parameter L/D (where L is the segment length and D the outside diameter of the structure)
II-22 l
would adeqLately describe she f!sw f
- id along a structure.
The sensitiv-ity study utilized typical Mark II horizontal and vertic41 structures to assess the adequacy of the segmentation.
The result was that segmentation of a structure such that 1.0 5L/D 11.5 is sufficient to provide an ade-quate description of both the velocity and acceleration flow fields for de-sign purposes. These procedures meet the intent of the staff's criteria and are acceptable.
1 Interference Effects The intent of criterion III B.1d is to account for potential interfer-ence effects for structures that are closer together than the equivalent diameter of the large structure.
The original criterion stated that for structures within this range either a detailed analysis of interference ef-fects must be performed or a conservative multiplication of both accelera-tion and drag forces by a factor of four must be performed.
i Reference 20 presents a detailed methodology based on both theoretical and experimental data, stated by the Mark II owners to properly account fcr the interference effects on the accelerating drag and standard drag coefficients.
This methodology is proposed to be applied to various structural configura-r tions that are not separated by more than three characteristic diameters of the larger one.
Some of the configurations considered are two or more paral-1el or non-parallel cylinders of various diameters, and structures of non-cviindrical cross section where an equivalent diameter is utilized to deter-mine the interference effects.
The basis for utilizing this methodology is stated to be the good agreement of the calculated numerical values.when compared to existing numerical values II-23 I
and. experimental data in the available literature.
For example, good agreement is seen between the cal.ulated numerical model acceleration co-l efficieats with experimental (ata in Reference 20.
The staff and its consultants have reviewed this revised methodology along with its supporting basis.
We find that it meets the intent of our criteria and is, therefore, acceptable.
i i
i I
i l
l II-24
l III Mark II Long Term Program Status The Mark II owners' generic Long Term Program includas a number of experi-mental and analytical tasks the primary function of which is to provide the basis for a reduction in the conservative loads utilized in the Lead Plant Program.
In some cases the role of these tasks is to confirm selected lead plant loads. These tasks are described by the Mark II owners in their sup-fI) porting program report and by the staff in NUREG-0487 The Mark II owners' supporting program includes tasks assochtM "ith both the lead and the long term program.
Substantial progress has been made in these tasks during the past year.
It was estimated by the Mark II owners that the ge-neric supporting program was 85 percent complete as of October 1979.
Since the issuance of NUREG-0487, a r.;ier of changes in the Mark II long Term Program have occurred.
The program previously contained an Intermedi-ate (IP) and a Long Term Program (LTP).
The function of the IP was to es-tablish reduced pool dynamic loads in a time frame consistent with the li-censing schedule of the second group of Mark II plants following the Mark II lead plants. The nsed for this IP has diminished and the Mark II owners have deleted this program.
However, the tasks included in the IP are now included in the generic LTP.
Several new tasks have been added to the generic LTP. The more important new tasks include A.16 - Improved Chug Load, A.17 - 4T Condensation Oscillation i
(CO) tests, and A.5.5 - ring vortex model.
In addition, the A.13 - lateral loads task has been expanded to include the analysis of some applicable for-eign test data. A description of these new tasks and an update for some of the original LTP tasks is provided in Section III.A.
III-1 m
An iliportant development in the Mark II LTP is the increased role of plant unique programs in establishing pool dynamic loads for specific Mark II plants.
These include experimental and analytical tasks outside the gen-eric LTP that are sponsored by one or more Mark II owners.
Typical of the plant unique programs tasks are the inplant SRV tests, an improved chug-ging load program, large scale cui;densation oscillation tests and an im-f proved SRV load definition program.
A description of some of the important plant unique pool dynamic load programs is provided below.
In addition to the plant unique programs sponsored by the owners of the specific Mark 11 plants, other test and analytical programs are underway.
The staff considers the data being obtained from foreign test programs and from specific Mark Il plant unique program will help provide additional confirmation of the hydrodynamic loads that are reported in NUREG-0487.
The larger programs ;d this category are discussed below.
A.
Generic Programs This section contains a summary description of some of the important generic LTP tasks sponsored by the Mark II Owners Group.
1.
LOCA-Related Tasks 4-T Condensation Oscillation Tests - A-17 Tests conducted at the Temporary Tall Tank Test (4T) f acility(5) pro-vided the basis for many of the pool dynamic LOCA related loacs for the Mark II lead plant program.
The staff concluded that the results j
of these tests could be used to establish conservative loads for a b) number of LOCA related pool swell and condensation loads
- However, III-2 J
questions were raised by the staff regarding the influence of vent length effects on condensation loads.(1)
The original.4T tests were T
conducted with a vent length significantly longer than that typical of Mark Il plants. The Mark II owners concluded that the most direct way to resolve tf'ese questions was to conduct additional tests in a modi-i fied 4T facility:using a vent with a length prototypical of Mark II plants (see Figure III.1).
The necessary modifications have been made to the 4T facility. A total of 28 tests that simulate both liquid and steam breaks have been conducted in this new series of tests.
Pa rame-ters varid include break size, pool temperature, vent submergence and initial drywell air mass. Preliminary observations indicate that the C/0 load specification set forth in NUREG-0487 for the lead Mark II rtants does not bound all the frequencies and amplitudes that were obsarved dur-ing these new tests. The results of these tests are currently under re-view by the Mark II owners to determine the need for a new condensation oscillation load specification and/or assess the design for the lead Mark II plant based on conservative interpretation of the new C/0 loads.
1 Generic Improved Chugging Load Programs - A.16 The lead plant chugging load specification consists of a conservative pressure time history obtained from observations of wall pressures in the original 4T facility The Mark II owners noted, during the Lead Plant Program, that chugging measurements obtained from the 4T facility are af-fected by the geometric features of the facility. During the Lead Plant i
III-3 i
~. - +
n
l Figure III ITf (DFIGURATIm RR t%RK II QNHSATim OTillATIm TESTS Drywell (New) i i
l Blowdown Line le.
s Vent Riser and Jet Deflector
\\
E 1EJ IC Ci i
Brace Drywell (Old)
(Bypassed)
Downcomer 4T Wetwell T
{
Gate Valve j
Rupture Disc i.d Steam
/ ',,
Generator Brace e
l-j.
o
[ Riser for
[
Steam Breaks 3
h
'%== =
b
)
t' w
KM II1-4
Program, Fluid Strur Jre Interaction (FSI) studies we e conducted by the o
j Mark II owners to' determine how the intrinsic chugging loads were af-fected by $ ~
test facility.
As a result of these studies', it was de-l termined that direct application of the 4T observed chugging pressure j.
trace in the Mark Il plants was a conservative procedure. The Mark II owners initiated task A.16, the improved chugging task to establish the magnitude of this conservatism.
This task consists of the develop-ment of a chugging load at the vent exit.
Elements of this task include:
a detailed study of the chugging loads observed in the original 4T tests, analytical FSI mo'dels of the 4T facility, and analytical models of Mark II containment buildings. The Mark II owners group indicates that, based on preliminary observations from this task, a significant reduction in the lead plant chugging load specification is justified.(I2) The model de-
)
scription report was submitted in June 1980.
Creare Multivent Tests - A.11 I
A series of multiple vent steam tests are underway at Creare(2N These tests include subscale tests conducted over a range of scales with a vary-ing number of vents (See Figure III-2). The purpose of these tests is to provide confirmation that loads derived from a single vent full scale -
test facility can be conservatively applied to a multivent plant. The Mark II owners have stated that they do not plan to quantify a reduced chug-ging load resulting from multivent effects observed in the Creare tests.
A j
III-5
L
.E e
ms sE a
j l :,,,
6 S
/
2 TN E
l : /,
V 2
5'i//
E L
A s
L M
S g vC E
t "E
S 4
S A
s g
E 8
6 e
T 1V
/
1 T
S tn
_b, ev 3
5/
/A T
i N
t E
r 79[/
c l
V u
1 l
i e
r a
er C
1 j
e sa
=
h P
'-l7,/A S
' ~
I T
r N
o E
f V
fc 7
s 7/l less e
V L
E M
S A
MS 2
E SE 2V T
I S
I E
I X
e_
L n
W '
Si A
e fbc i, '
/o T2vC r
N/ S u
i, '
E 1 a
0 q
V 2 1
/
i 7/'
3 1
F s
M L
AE
.E nS T
S 4
S 8E 1V L,
a T
i
$'f@
N E
V 1
m L
t
.E 6M 0E 1V C Tc n
lll
m.,._
The first phase of these tests has been completed including steam map-4 ping tests at 1/16 scale and multivent tests at 1/10 and 1/6 scale.
The 1/10 and 1/6 scale tests include multivent tests with 1, 3, 7. nd 1, 3 vent configurations, respectively. The Mark II owners group in-l dicates that, based on the preliminary results of these tests, a de-crease in pool boundary pr m ures with an increasing number of vents was observed (12).
The st. read phase of testing has begun.
This test phase includes additional multivent tests at 1/10 and 1/6 scale with 19 and 7 vents, respectively.
In addition, single vent tests at 1/4 and 5/12 scale will be performed. A modification in the phase 2 test i
program was made during the past year to provide a study of vent length effects on steam loads. The subscale multivent test program is scheduled l
for completion the second quarter of 1980.
Dynamics lateral Load - A.13 l
The Lead Plant Program (LPP) load specification for the chugging induced 1
lateral load on the downcomers consists of a bounding static equivalent loadhIThe Mark II owners developed a dynamic lateral load for use in the LTP(24, 25} This program was expanded in the past year to include an analysis of dynamic lateral inds in foreign test facilites with braced vents.
In addition to the single vent dynamic lateral load studies, the Mark II owners are conducting studies to extend the proposed single vent. load to vents with a 28 inch diameter and to multiple vents (26) 1 The staff requested the Mark II owners group to include data from the re-cent full-scale steam tests as part of their lateral studies.
The final report is currently scheduled for submittal in the fourth quarter of 1980.
III-7
~.- -,
Ring Vortex-Mod'el A.5.7 The Mark II LPP utilizes a one-dimensional jet model to predict submerged structure drag loads'during the LOCA vent clearing process.
Scale tests conducted by EPRI indicated that the one dimensional jet model was excessively conservative. This led the Mark II owners to de-velop a more realistic model. This model calculates the rolling up of the vortex sheet at the vent exit into a mushroom-shaped vortex ring.
A report describing the ring vortex model has been submitted to the staff (19)
The application of the ring vortex model in Mark 11 sub-merged structure drag calculations will be described in a report to be 4
submitted by the Mark 11 cwners to the staff in the third quarter of 4
1980.
4 2.
SRV Related Tasks Caorso Quencher Tests Tests of the cross quencher SRV end device were conducted in the Caorso plant in Italy. This plant has a Mark II containment. The tests were conducted in two phases. The first phase included 52 i
single and subsequent test actuations. The second phase included 52 l
tests consisting of additional single and. subsequent actuations, leaky valve tests,'an extended blowdown test and multiple valve tests. Both phases of the test program have now been completed.
A test report describing the results of the first phase of tests has been submitted to the staff Mark II owners' comparisons of Caorso test predic-tions with the DFFR cross quencher loads acceptable to the staff (,1, 2) indicate significant conservatisms in the original DFFR loads. The comparisons included Phase 1,. single valve, first and subsequent ac-
.tuation tests and the Phase 2 four and eight valve tests.
In general, III-8 1
~
i the design pressure predictions for the cross quencher are a factor of two higher than the maximum pool boundary pressures observed in i
the tests.
a i
A report describing the phase 2 test results is scheduled to be submitted to the staff the third quarter of 1980.
l Improved Cross Quencher Model Discussions have been held with the staff to modify the conserva-o tive ;ieference 1 and 2 cross quencher methodology, to reflect the low pool boundary pressures observed during the Caorso tests. These I
discussions addressed the Washington Public Power Supply System Unit 2 (WPPSS-2) improved cross quencher SRV model (see Sec tion III.B.4).
Documentation associated with this program is scheduled to be submit-ted the third quarter of 1980.
The staff's review of these cross quencher programs for the Mark II LTP will be limited to meet the needs of the WPPSS-2 plant, because only the WPPSS-2 applicant has
[
committed to installation of the cross quencher device.
All other i
domestic Mark II facilities will have the T-quencher as discussed in Section.II.B.
B.
Plant Unique Programs Individual Mark II owners have identified areas where they will rely on plant unique programs as the basis-for a reduction in the LPP load O) specifications The' staff has conducted preliminary discussions III-9 f
u-,
with individual utilities related to several of these prograns.
Several 4
of the more significant plant unique programs are discus ~ sed below.
{
1.
Susquehanna C0 Tests
}
_ Pennsylvania Power and Light Company (PP&L) has initiated a testing i
program to provide CD and chugging data to confirm and possibly re-3 duce the steam condensation related loads utilized in the evaluation i
their Susquehanna plant.
These tests were conducted in the.GKPhlIM test facility (30)
The tests consist of a full scale single vent i
facility including a steam generator, the drywell, wetwell and vent f
pipe. The original GKM II facility was structurally modified to make the facility prototypical of the Susquehanna plant (See Figure III-3).
l Approximately 20 tests were conducted under varying conditions; of mass l
flux, pool temperature and drywell air content. 'The final program re-J port is scheduled for submittal during the third quarter cf 1980.
i 2.
WPPSS-2 Improved Chugging Load Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) initiated an improved 4
)
chugging load program to justify a load reduction from the conse-v 3
i lead plant chugging load specification. Thus, instead of the dii use of the pressure histories observed at the walls of the 4T tank, on the l
Mark II containment walls, investigations of the 4T results and analyti-i-
cal models of the 4T facility are used to develop a conservative chugging
~
source at the vent exit. This load is then applied at each vent exit in-a model of the plant. _ A report has been submitted to the staff-describ-ing this methodology.III)
III-10 i
k lv l
l Rupture Disc I
I M
s f
/
' f Drywe11 i
%~s Y
DOWnComer Support l'
't b
t-r 5
L DOWRComer k
h 1l
?~ ~
j-d, Wetwe11 t
ri f
)s l -sme Steam Generator
[. _f
~ ~._ k
- ~._,
_.}
Stiff
~ ~ ~ -
i Wall
~~~
I: : ?
- ~ ~
IQS D
Fiqure 33I'3 GKM II~M Schematic Diagram
3.
Zinaner and LaSalle In-Plant Safety Relief Valve Tests j
.All but one os the domestic Mark II plants have committed to the. in-stallation of a T-quencher device. Full sc61e tests were conducted to provide a' data base to establish the loads for this device (13),
These tests were conducted in a test tank.
Two of the lead plant ap-plica'nts (i.e., Zininer and LaSalle) plan to perform inplant tests to provide additional confirmatory data for the T-quencher device. About twenty five tests will be conducted in each of these test programs These tests will include:
single first actuation; subsequent actuations, extended blowdown and multiple valve actuation tests.
Loading conditions to be investigated during these tests include:
' component accelerations, quencher loading, thermal mixing (temperature difference between bulk and local) and submerged structure drag loads. The primary thrust of these j
tests is the direct measurement of the structural response of the contain-i ment structures, piping and equipment.
These tests are to be conducted as a part of the plants' pre-operations test program.
4.
WPPSS-2 Improved SRV Load Program Washington Public Power has initiated an improved SRV load program for the cross quencher device.
WPPSS-2 is the only domestic Mark II facility 1
for which use of the cross quencher SRV discharge device is proposed.
Load acceptance criteria for the cross quencher are specified in the Lead i
Plant Evaluation Report Since the criteria were issued, the Caorso in-plant tests have been com-pleted.
Preliminary observations of the results of these tests indicate
-III-12
'l i
substantial conservatisns in the. original cross quencher acceptance 1
criteria. :The function of the WPPSS-2 Improved SRV Load program is
- the developnent of an improved cross quencher SRV load specification
'f' consistent with results of these-tests. This' study is similar to the WPPSS-2/ improved chugging load program described in Section -III.B.2 in that studies of the test results and a~ detailed analytical model of the test facility model of the test facility will be utilized to develop a conservative source load specification. This load willL then-be trans-ferred to a similar analytical model of the WPPSS-2 facility.
The WPPSS-2 improved SRV load program consists of two parts.
The first part consists of the development of a pressure load specification. The second part of the program consists of a parallel effort to refine the 1
finite element modeling of the containment structure.
Preliminary re-l sults of this program indicate that a significant load reduction from 2
the. lead plant acceptance criteria may be realized through the applica-tion of the proposed SRV improved load specification.
Documentation associated with this improved cross quencher program is scheduled to be submitted to the NRC the third quarter of 1980.
i C.
Related Pool Dynamic Load Programs A number of programs related to pool dynamic loads are being conducted that are outside the generic and plant unique programs discussed in the preceed-ing sections III.A and B.
Many of these related programs are associated
~
with pool dynamic loads in pressure suppression systems designs different from the Mark II containment.
However, several of these programs relate III-13
--y
,rv
-.-,,y---
-a
, ~ - + - -
w
~
4.-
s diFectly _to the Mark II design'and the staff is ' closely followins these
- programs as a part of our A-8 generic activity review related to the 1
Mark II long Term Program. JWe have recently informed the Mark II owners i
L that: our. preliminary observations of test results from the JAERI and GKSS t
test' programs indicate.close phasing of the chugging events and the occur-rence of similar phenomena at each vent curing the gross pool chugging l'
events. The Mark II Owners Group'have initiated a program to provide an evaluation of-the JAERI test results to confirm the C0 and chugging load
-definition.
In addition,' they plan to consider the results of the GKSS 1
tests-in confirming these loads. The Mark II owners group have con-i
]
ducted discussions with the Japanese Mark II owners group and JAERI to
_ gain access to the necessary test results to confirm the Mark II owners' i
generic steam load specificacions.
A summary discussion of the related
. programs follows..
l 1.
GKSS Large Scale Steam Tescs i
j The German government-is sponsoring large scale multiple vent steam tests The test configuration includes a' pressure vessel, drywell, i
suppression chamber,.and multiple vents as shown in Figure III-4.
i 1
A comparison of the test facility with the lead Mark Il plants is provided in Table III-1._ Several parameters of the GKSS facility are in the approxi-
}
mate range of those found_ in the full scale Mark Il plant. These _ include vent diameter,' vent ~to pool area ratio and vent submergence.
However, a number of parameters are significantly different from those typical of Mark II plant.
These include vent length, drywell volume and vent bottom' a
i 111-14 i
J t
,,yv
steam from vessel
-l
-c=.
i DY-PA 60IP e DY-PA 60 250
~
~
250 3
4
-...f s
I 4Y DY-m 61 -~
a b
TM 62 "I 8
e 1
I dry well TM 63
~
l g
4- -
j
=.;
y I
E I
gO E
g-f
- E-Ma i, m a
is j
l
.o o
i
- 3.;-
I l
, lj W-PA53 q
' j 'l t i f R-PA > s T}
a l
l wet l
l w ell 3
l
._- ><r=>
w-->.
inw i
.--i N
I
.V" 8
_V_
a
!8 i
I l
1
=
y a
o =
x ig o*
S S
S 9 9 4
o o
a q
q q
q k
j 1
l t
f hf
~ t Fi""
~'~
D ' PA571>
77 C
PA45
,PA40 PA48 PA5hA48PA45 PA40 1
A
'PA42 PA42 N
N 3Q0A __
e measure points TM : temperature l
PA : pressure
.h0
- \\s z./
/
e'Q' o >,/ ~
a s
,/
,[q j.
'/L i
,(
,e X s\\ s
\\p /
/
s o\\,(
0, 0,
p figure III-4 Schematic of the GKSS Multivent Test Facility III-15 1
Table III-l LEAD RM C0&ARIS0H TO R:SS FACIUTY NO. OF VENT VOL. 1 W..
Va. 1W.'
Vot. bot Rxx. AREA VENT @ G N nam TYPE VENTS DIA 690
'IPE VOL. t0L
'IPE WNT AREA W
GKSS TEST 3
610 20.0 0.93 21.5 18.3 5.8 2.8 1.0 LASARE PLAnr 98 600 fA 0 1,56 41.1 14.9 15.0 3.9 4.2 SHOREm Puwr 88 590 61.9 2.36 26.2 15.4 B.8 2.7 2.7 Zine.R Puwr 88 610 57.9 1.76 52.8 E.1 11.4 3.0 3.8 5
I
,m-.
I t
clea rance. :.Because the GKSS test geometry is not completely _ prototypi-cal of the Mark II containment there is some question about the direct i
applicability of the test results to Mark:II facilities.
However, the.
staff believes that useful information can be obtained from these tests.
The test ma'trix for:the GKSS tests is shown in Table III-2.
The test matrix includes three shakedown tests and twelve tests with parametric
. variations-in pool. temperature, vent mass flux, wetwell' backpressure and~ vent number. _The shakedown tests and several of the main tests have already. been conducted..The remaining tests are scheduled to be -
complete by-the end of 1980.
2.
JAERI Mark II Full Scale, Steam Tests The Japanese government is sponsoring tests in support of their plants with Mark 11 containments (35).- Their testing program is being con-ducted.in a multivent test facility that is prototypical of the Mark II design (see Figure III-5). A five year test program is planned.
The program. began in 1977 and is anticipated to be complete in 1982.
The first series of tests consist of steam tests.
Shakedown tests and a number of the main tests were completed during 1979. The steam test program is scheduled to be completed in 1981 at which tiae the' test facility may be modified to accommodate air tests to provide data re-lated to pool swell loads.
3.
LLL BWR Pool Dynamic Loads Program The NRC is sponsoring a program at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory related to the BWR pool dynamics program.
The purpose of this program is to monitor the two foreign large scale -
multivent steam tests that are mentioned above.
III-17
Table III-2 MULTIVENT TEST PATRIX TEST BLOCK a
b c
d e
f g
h Mtioul Tests Pre-Tests Main Tests PARAMETER VM 1 VM 2 HV 3 VM 4 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10N lid 18 3
1 1
2 Busber of Vent Pipes
{i{
4 pipe pipe pipen A
A MC an Dryt:11 Volume (m#)
56 5.4 5.k 10.8 Pool Area-net (m )
16.2 i
A Pipe Inside Diameter (ass) 610 Submergence (m) 2.8
?
Distance From Bottom (m) 98 i
Z TtaufA faval in Pnni t.)
3.8 J
fin 6.s 66 A
3 oo oo LL
__u
. c41iing Drywell volume to Vent m
190 190 95
^
Pipe Area (m) g3 Bet Pool Area to Vent 10'3
~
Pipe Area (-)
2) 3)
Transient Mass Flow Rate In.ialValue,WA(kghs) 25 b0 60 80 100 y
T5 50 100 100 25 40 60 25 2) 3)
25 25 Temperature Range to be to to to to to to Covered in Pool (.*C) 55 70 90 55 ss ss 2) 3)
Bachpressure via Water 2
1 3
2 2
2 2
Pool (bar abs.)
a b
c d
a f
g h
- 1) Repeat Test
- 3) Bealing Test Under Max.
Ioad Conditions
- 2) Repeat Test Under Max.
- 4) Scaling Test Iond conditions
9 T
."N i
A-A section g
v av
\\
I Drywell O
O serie *:e oo Diophragm floor eoo o
O
//// [ [ Z(z ]
OO
,\\s Wetwell air space Vocuwn breaker EZ]
,,e>
]
2 e e i N
\\
aracing V ent pipe Normal water level Brocing b
sii i c
0 i i i A
A Wetwell water space Figure III-5 JAERI Multivent Test Facility III-19
l
-IV Summary and Conclusions A.-
Lead' Plant Program The staff.has completed its review of the alternative pool dynamic loads
. proposed by-the Mark II owners for use in'the Mark II lead plants. Our evaluation of the alternative loads is summarized in Sections II and III of this report.
Each alternative' load specification proposed by the owners group is item-ized.in Table IV-1, together with the staff's conclusion and a reference -
to the place in this report where that conclusion, and its technical basis, are discussed.
For those alternative load specifications accepted by the staff, either the original NUREG-0487 definition or the one accepted in this report nay be used.
For those alternatives not accepted, the NUREG-0487 original specification should be applied.
In several cases, we have found an alternative load specification provision-ally acceptable, subject to constraints and modifications. These are dis--
-cussed in detail in Chapter II of this report.
The results of recent large scale tests have led the Mark 'II owners to re-assess the original lead plant condensation oscillation and chugging pool boundary load specifications.
The reassessment is to be discussed with the staff 'in June 1980. The staff plans to issue an evaluation of these remain-ing lead plant loads in August 1980.
j B.
Long Term Program During the past year, a number of significant changes have occurred in the Mark'II Long Term Program.
These changes are discussed in Section III of i
IV-1
)
i s
this report. Generally, they *nclude:
the addition of new generic LTP tasks, a change in emphasis of several generic LTP tasks, the identifica-tion of new plant unique programs and the performance of large scale tests outside of the Mark II program.
An update of the generic tasks and task documentation included in the Mark II program is provided in Table IV-2.
IV-2
h 1
Table IV-1 Alternative' Hark 11 Lead Plant Pool Dynamic Loads i
L
. Load or Phenomenon Mark !! Owners Group Reference NRC Review Status i S*:Mure in Alternative Load Specification
' this Report 1.
LOCA Related Hydrodynamic Loads 24 psi overpressure statically applied Marct. 20,1979 Acceptable ll.A.1 A.
Submerged Boundary Loads with hydrustatic pressure to surfaces be-Ga. letter (3)
During Vent Clearing low vent exit (attenuate to O psi at pool surface) for period of vent clearing.
B.
Pool Swell Loads Use PSAM with polytropic exponent of 1.2.
Februa ry 16, 1979 Acceptable 1-Pool Swell Analytical to a maximum swell height which is the Shoreham le gr
.II.A.2.
greater of 1.5 vent submergence or the Model-(PSAM)-'
elevation corresrNding to the drywell s
a) Wetwell Air floor upilf t AP per NUREG 0457 criteria Compression I.A.4.
The associated maximum wetwell b) Pool Swell Elevatio'n air compression is used for design assess.
ment.
<0 2.
Asynenetric LOCA Pool Boundary Loads Use 10% of maximum bubble pressure stati-l March 16,1979 Use 20% of maximum bubble pressure cally tpplied to 1/2 of the submerged GE letter (9) statically app,11ed to 1/2 of the sub-II.A.3 boundary.
merged boundary.
II. SRV Related Hydrodynamic Loads
. Methodology for T-Quencher Load Interim T-Quencher Load Definition Susquehanna DAR Prediction Acceptable with the following modifications
!!.B.5 (13) t
- Bubble Frequency - 3 to 11 Hz Peak Pressure Multiplier for Subsequent Actuation - 1.5
=
Vertical Pressure Profile - maximum amplitude from basemat to 2.5 ft above quencher center line. Ifnear attenuation to zero at pool surface.
11ultiple SRV Actuations -
i
- 1) linear ABSS superposition of peak single valve values with all bubbles in phase
Table IV-1 Alternative Mark II Lead Plant Pool Dynamic Loads (Continued)
Section in Load or Phenomenon Mark II Owners Group Reference NRC Review Status this report Alternative Lead Specification
- 2) if the combined peak pressure exceed L
local single valve peak use the lower value lil.
"A/SRV Submerged Struc-ture Loads A.
Air Bubble Loads 1.
Standard Drag in Draf t Coefficients are presented in.k Acceptable with the following modification
!!.C.2 ce rating Flow Attac:.~t 1.k of the Zinner FSAR ZimmerFSAR(20)
formula.
- 2) For non cylindrical structures use lif t coefficient for appropriate q
shape or C = l.6 e
L 3
- 3) The standard drag coefficient for pool swell and SRV oscillating bubbles should be based on data for structures with sharp edges.
2.
Equivalent Uniform Structures are segmented into small.k Acceptable
!!.C.2 Flow Velocity and sections such that 1.0 < L/D < l.5.
Zimer FSAR Acceleration The loads are then app 1Ted to tfie geometric center of each segment.
3.
Interference Effects A detailed methodology is presented in.k Acceptable ll.C.2.k of the Zimmer FSAR Zimer FSAR
[-
Table IV-1 Alternative Mark 11 Lead Plant pool Dynamic Loads (Continued)
Load or Phenonenon fiark 11 Owners Group Reference
.NRC Review Status.
Section in Alternative Load Specification this Report.
2.
Submerged Boundary Loads a) High Steam Flux Loads
. Sinusoidal pressure fluctuation added to January, 1977 Pending evaluation of 4TCO test II.A.4 local hydrostatic. Ampll ode unifom Appitcation data.
below vent exit-linear attenuation to memorandum pool surface.
4.4 psi peak-to-peak am-plitude. 2-7 Hg frequencies.
b) Medium Steam Flux Sinusoidal pressure fluctuation added January, 1977 Pending evaluation of 4TCO test
- II.A.4
. Loads to local hydrostatic. Amplitude uni-Application data.
form below vent exit-linear attenuation memordndum to pool surface. 7.5 psi peak-to-peak amplitude. 2-7 H, frequencies.
c)ChugginqLosds
-Representative pressure fluctuation Januar3 1977 Pending evaluation of 4TCO test II. A.5 -
Q taken from 4T test added to local Apolication data.
hydrosta tic.
memorandum a
. u,
- enifom loading Maximum amplitude unifom below vent conditices exit-linear attenuation to pool sur-far.e.
+4.8 pst maximun overpressure.
-4.0 psi maximum under pressure, 20-30 H frequency.
y
- asy metric loading Maximum amplitude unifom below vent II.A.5 condition exit-linear attenuation to pool sur-face. 20 psi maximum overpressure.
-14 psi maximum underpressure, 20-30 11, fre pency,' peripheral variation of ainplitude follows observed statistical distribution with maximum and minimum diametrically oppostd.
.. s
Table IV-2 MARK II CCNTAINNENT - SUPPORTING PROGRAM LOCA-RELATED TASKS TASK TARGET DOC SUBM LEAD PLANT SER/
NuteER ACTIVITY ACTIVITY TYPE COMPLETION DOCUMENTATION DATE C
INTERM PLANT y
4.1 "4T" PROGRAM Phase I Test Report Completed MEDE-13442-01-P Sn6 5U6 LP SER/IP NED0-13442-01 6/76 6n6 LP SER/IP' Phase I Application Completed Appitcation Memorandue 6/76 6n6 LP SER/IP Memorandum Phase II & III Test Coevleted NEDE-13468-P 12n6 1/77 LP SER/IP Report NEDO-13468 347 4R7 LP SER/IP Appiteation Memorandum Completed NEDE-23678-P 1/77 2/77 LP SER/IP NEDO-23678 1/77 2/77 LP SER/IP A.2 POOL SWELL MDDEL REPORT Model Report Completed NEDE-21544 P 12n6 2/77 LP SER/IP NEDO-21544 2n7 4'77 LP SER/IP A.3 IMPACT TESTS PSTF 1/3 Scale Tests Completed NEDE-13426-P 8n5 N 75 LP SER/IP MEDO-13426 Bn5 T.B5 LP SER/IP Mark I 1/12 Scale Tests Completed NEDC-20989-2P 9/75 11/75 LP SER/IP NEDO-20989-2 9/75 12n 5 LP SER/IP A.4 IMPACT MODEL PSTF 1/3 Scale Tests Completed NEDE-13426-P 8/75 9n5 LP SER/IP NEDO-13426 8n5 10n5 LP SER/IP Merk I 1/12 Scale Tests Completed NEDC-20989-2P 9n5 lin5 LP SER/IP NEDO-20989-2 9n5 12/75 LP SER/IP A.5 LDA05 OM SUBMERGED LOCA/RH Air Bubble Model Cosoleted NEDE-21471-P 9/77 2/78 LP SER/IP STRUCTURES NE00-21471 9n7 1/78 LP SER/IP LOCA/RH Water Jet Model Cogleted NEDE-21472-P 9n7 1/78 LP SER/IP NEDO-21472 9n7 Sn8 LP SER/IP Applications Memorandue Completed NEDE-21730-P 12/77 Ina LP SER/IP ivEDO-21730 7/78 Sn8 LP/IP 1/4 Scaling Tests Completed NEDE-23817-P 9n8 12H8 Information A.5.5 RING VORTEX MODEL. PHASE I Model Development Completed Letter Report Sn9 5n9 LP/IP A.5.7 RING V0tTEX MODEL, PHASE II Model Extension August 80 Burns & Roe Report IP 5tese Condensation Plant DAR's LP SER/IP Methods A.6 CHUGGING ANALYSIS AND Single Cell Report Completed NEDE-23703-P 9#7 11/77 LP SER TESTING NEDO-23703 9U7 Sn8 LP SER Multivent Model Cosoleted NEDC-21669-P 2n8 3n8 IP NEDO-21669 2nB 8/78 IP 4T F51 Report Completed NEDE-23710-P 4n8 4n8 LP SER NEDO-23710 9n8 12n8 LP SER A.7 CHUCCING SINGLE VENT CREARE Report Completed NEDE-21851-P 6n8 7/78 Information NEDO-21851s 6H8 9n8 Information A.9 ERPI TEST EVALUATION EPRI-47 Comparison Completed NEDO-21667 Bn7 9/77 LP SER*
EPRI 1/13 SCALE TEST 5 3D Tests Completed EPRI MP-441 4/77 LP SER*
EPRI SINGLE CELL TESTS Unit Cell Tests Completed EPRI NP-1353 3ffe Information
MARK II CONTAINMENT - SUPPORTING PROGRAM LOCA-RELATED TASKS TASK TARGET DOC SUBM LEAD PLANT SER/
NUMBER ACTIVITY ACTIVITY TYPE COMPLETION DOCUMENTATION DATE DATE INTERM PLANT A.11 MULTIVENT SUBSCALE TESTING Preliminary MV Program Completed NEDO-23697 12/77 1/78 LP SER/IP 4
AND ANALYSIS Plan MV Test Program Plan &
Completed NED0-23697A, Rev. I 1/79 4/79 IP Procedures - Ph.ese !
Phase I Test Report Completed NEDE-24781-1-P 1/80 3/B0 IP MV Test Progress 61an &
IP Procedures - Phase II Completed NEDO-23697A, Rev. 1, 8/79 10/79 Supp. 1 Phase II Test Report July 80 Report IP CONMAP Tests Completed CREARE Report TM-297 6/79 8/79 Information MHM VerifIcat1on 1/10 Scale Completed NEDE-25116-P 5/79
'a Infomation NEDO-25116 8/79 1 175 Information Scaling and Data Oct. 1980 Report Correlation IP A.13 SINGLE VENT LATERAL LOADS Dynamic Analysis Completed NEDE-24106-P 3/78 7/78 IF NEDO-24106 3/78 9/78 IP y
Summary Report Completed NEDE-23806-P 10/78 11/78 IP w
NE00-23806 12/78 1/79 IP A.13 NEW LATE;tAL LOADS Dynamic Analysis Report Completed NEDE-24794-P 3/80 3/80
?
Method for Multiple Vent Completed Letter Report 4/80 4/80 IP Appittation A.16 IMPROVED CHUGGING LOAD Impulse Evaluation Completed Letter Report 6/78 7/78 LP SER*
DEFINITION Improved Chug Load Completed NEDE-24822-P 5/80 6/80 IP A.17 CONDENSATION OSCILLATION 4TCO Test Completed NEDE-24811-P 5/80 6/80 IP TESTING, ANALYSIS AND Improved CO Load Definition Oct. 80 Report LP/IP IMPROVED CO LOAD DEFINITION Load Verification wIth Feb. 81 Report IP JAERI Model/ Data Comparison A.21 A.13 MJLTIVENT METHOD Appitcation of A.13 to JAERI Nov. 80 Report IP VERIFICATION and Compare to Data A.22 A.16 SOURCE EVALUATION Confim/ Revise Source Based Oct. 80 Report IP on 4TCO Data. 4TCO Chugging Data VerifIcatfon of Chugging Feb. 81 Report IP Source with JAERI Model/
Data Comparison
MARK II CONTAIPMENT - SUPPORTING PROGRAM SRV - RELATED TASKS TASK TARGET DOC SUOM LEAD PLANT SER/
NUMBER ACTIVITY ACTIVITY TYPE COMPLETION 00CtMENTATION DATE DATE INTERM PLANT b.1 QUENCHER LMPIRICAL MODEL DFFR Model Completed NEDE-21061-P 9n6 9/76 IP NE00-21061 9n6 9H6 IP Supporting Data Completed NEDE-21078-P Sn5 7R5 IP NEDO-21078 10/75 12n5 IP 8.2 RAMSHEAD MODEL DFFR Model Completed NEDE-21061-P 9n6 9n6 LP SER NEDO-21062 9/76 9n9 LP SER Supporting Data Cospleted NEDE-21062-P 7n5 1045 LP SER NEDO-21062 7D5 10n5 LP SER Analysis Completed NEDE-20942-P Sn5 7/75 LP SER NEDO-20942 Sn5 8/75 LP SER B.3 MONTICELLO IN-PLANT Preliminary Test Report Completed NEDC-21465-P 12/76 1/77 LP SER SRY TESTS NE00-21465 12/76 3/77 LP SER Hydrodynamic Report Cospleted NEDC-21581-P 8U7 Sn7 LP SER NED0-21581 8R7 10U7 LP SER 8.5 SRV QUENCHER IN-PLANT Test Plan Cosoleted NEDM-20988 Rev. 2 12n6 3R7 IP CAOR50 TESTS Test Plan Addendum 1 Completed NEDM-20988 Rev. 2. Add. I 10/77 3/78 IP Test Plan Addendum 2 Completed NEDM-20988 Rev. 2, Add. 2 448 7H8 IP
-s Test Summary Completed Letter Report 3ng 3/79 Phase I Test Report Completed NEDE-25100-P Sn9 6/79 IP NEDO-25100 8U9 V79 IP Phase II Test Report July 80 Peport IP 8.5.1 EXTENDED BLOWDOWM Test Report July 80 Report IP 8.6 THERMAL MINING MDDEL Analytical Model Completed NEDC-23689-P 3n8 3n8 Information NEDO-23689 3/78 8/78 Information 8.10 MONTICELLO FSI Analysis of FSI Completed NED0-23834 6n8 7D8 LP SER B.11 DFFR RAMSHEAD MDOEL Data /Model Comparison Completed NSC-GEN 0394 9/77 10/77 LP SER TO MONTICELLO DATA B.12 RAMSNEAD S'"I METHODOLOGY Analytical Methods Comtleted NEDO-24070 10/77 11/77 LP SER SL* *RY
MARK II CONTAllMENT - SUPPORTING PROGRAN MISCELLANEOUS TASKS TASK TARGET 00C SUBN LEAD PLANT SER/
MUMBER ACTIVITY ACTIVITY TYPE COMPLETION DOCUMENTATION DATE DATE INTERM PLANT C.0 SUPPORTING PROGRAN Supp Prog Report Completed NED0-21297 5n6 6/76 Supp Prog Report Rev. 1 Completed NEDO-21297 Rev. 1 4n8 4H8 Supp Prog Report Rev. 2 3Q B0 NEDO-21297 Rev. 2 1/80 C.1 DFFR REVISIONS Revision 1 Completed NEDE-210til-P Rev.1 9n5 en6 NED0-21061 Rev. 1 9#5 4n6 Revision 2 Completed NEDE-21061-P Rev. 2 9n6 9#6 NEDO-21061 Rev. 2 9n6 9n6 Revision 3 Completed NEDE-21061-P Rev. 3 6n8 6n8 MED0-21061 Rev. 3 668 6/78 C.3 NRC ROUNO 1 QUESTIONS DFFR Rev. 2 Completed NEDO-21061 Rev. 2 9/76 9n6 LP SER*/IP DFFR Rev. 2 Amendment 1 Completed NEDO-21061 Rev. 2
]2n6 2n7 LP SER*/IP Amendment 1 DFFR Round 1 Questions Completed Letter Report 6n8 Sn9 LP SER*/IP C. 5 SRSS JUSTIFICATION Interim Report Completed (NEDE-24010) 4n7 3/77 SRSS Report Completed NEDE-24010-P 7/77 8/77 LP SER*/IP MEDO-24010 7U7 9n7 LP SER*/IP 6-*
C.5.1 SR55 PROGRAN SupMARY SRSS Executive Summary Completed Sumary Report en8 5/76 LP SER*/IP C.5.2 SR$5 APPLICATION CRITERIA SRSS Criteria Application Completed NED0-24010, Supp. I 10n8 11n8 LP SER*/IP SRSS Criteria Basis Completed NEDO-24010-P, Supp. 2 12n*
2/79 LP/IP C.5.3
$R55 JUSTIFICATION CRITERIA SR55 Justiffcation Supp.
Completed NED0-24010, Supp. 3 8#9 11n9 LP/IP SRSS Criteria Evaluation Completed Letter Report 1/80 3/80 LP/IP C.5.4 BROOKHAVEN REPORT CRITIQUE BNL Critique Completed EDAC 134-242-03 1/80 1/80 LP/IP C.6 MRC ROUND 2 QUESTIONS OFFR Amend. 2 Completed NEDE-21061-P Rev. 2 Amend. 2 6n7 7n7 LP SER*/IP NEDO-21061 Rev. 2 Amend. 2 6/77 7n7 LP SER*/IP DFFR Amend. 2, Supp 1 Completed NEDO-21061 Rev. 2 Amend.2 8#7 9n7 LP SER*/IP Supp. 1 DFFR Amend. 2, Supp 2 Completed NEDO-21061-P Rev. 2 Amend. 2 9n7 11n7 LP SER*/IP Supp. 2 DFFR Rev. 3. Appendix A-2 Completed NEDE-21061-P Rev. 3 LP SER*/IP Appendix A-2 NEDO-21D61 Rev. 3 LP SER*/IP Appendix A-2 l
MARK II CONTAINMENT - $UPPORTING PROGRAM MISCELLANEDUS TASKS TASK TARGET DOC SU8N LEAD PLANT SER/
NUMBER ACTIVITY ACTIVITY TYPE COMPLETION DOCUMENTATION DATE DATE INTERM PLANT C.7 JUSTIFICATION OF "4T" Chugging Loads Completed NEDE 23617-P 7/77 8/77 LP SER/IP BOUNDING LOADS Justiffcat1on NEDO 23617 7/77 10n7 LP SER/IP Completed NEDE 24013-P 6/77 8/77 LP SER/IP NEDO 24013 7H7 10n7 LP SER/IP Completed NEDE 24014-P 6n7 8n7 LP SER/IP MEDO 24014 7/77 10R 7 LP SER/IP Completed NEDE 24015-P 6/77 8/77 LF SER/IP MEDO 24015 7n7 10n7 LP SER/IP Completed NEDE 24016-P 6n7 Bn7 LP SER/IP NEDO 24016 7/77 10n7 LP SER/IP Completed NEDE 24017-P 6n7 8/77 LP SER/IP NEDO 24017 7n7 10n?
LP SER/IP Completed NEDE 23627-P 6/77 8n7 LP SER/IP MEDO 23627 7/77 10/77 LP SER/IP C.8 SRV AfG CHUGGING Prestressed Concrete FSI Reinforced Concrete Completed NEDE 21936-P 7/78 7/78 LP SER/IP Steel NEDO 21936 C/78 9/78 LP SER/IP C.9 MONITOR WORLD TESTS Monitor Tests Completed None O
C.13
' DAD COMBINATIONS &
Criteria Justification c mpleted NEDO 21985-9/78 12/78 IP o
FUNCTIONAL CAPA81LITY CRI1ERIA C.14 NRC ROUND 3 QUESTIONS Letter Report Completed Letter Report 6n8 6B8 LP SER*/IP DFFR Round 3 Questions Letter Report 6R8 5/79 LP SER*/IP C.15
$UBMERGED STRUCTURE NRC Question Responses Completed Letter Report 4/80 4/80 IP CRITERIA
" Submitted in response to NRC question.
LP SER: Zimmer, LaSalle, Shoreham IP: All Other Mark II Plants N A m -_-
V References 1.
" Mark II Containment Lead Plant Program Load Evaluation and Acceptance Criteria," NUREG-0487, October 1978.
- 2.
" Mark II Containment Dynamic Forcing Functions Information Report,"
General Electric Company and Sargent and Lundy Engineers, NED0-21061-P, Revision 2, September 1977.
3.
" Vent Clearing Pool Boundary Load for Mark II Plants," General Electric Letter Report to NRC, March 1979.
4.
" Mark II Containment Dynamic Forcing Functions Information Report,"
General Electric Company and Sargent and Lundy Engineers, NED0-21061-P, Revision 3, June 1978.
5.
McIntyre, T. R., Ross, M. A. and Myers, L.., " Mark II Pressure Suppres-sion Test Program - Phase I Tests," General Electric Company, NEDE-13442P-01, May 1976.
6.
Letter, "Long Island Lighting Company - Response to Question 020.68,"
to H. R. Denton from J. P. Navarro, SNP,C-360, February 16, 1979.
7.
Letter, " Responses to NRC Request for Additional Information (Round 3 Questions)," to J. F. Stolz from L. J. Sobon, June 30, 1978.
R, James, A. J., "The General Electric Pressure Suppression Containment Analytical Model," General Electric Company, NEDM-10320, March 1971.
9.
Letter Report, " Asymmetric LOCA Pool Boundary Load for Mark II,"
to J. F. Stolz from L. J. Sobon, MFN-076-79, March 16,1979.
V-1
t References '(Contd)
- 10. Letter Report " Mark II Improved Chugging Load Definition, Task A.16."
te J. F. - Stolz from L. J. Sobon, MFN-120-79, April 30,1979.
I
- 11. " Chugging Loads - Improved Definition and Application Methodology to I
Mark II Containments," Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear 1
Project No. 2 Report prepared by Burns and Roe, Inc., June 15, 4
1979.
- 12. Meeting Minutes, " Meeting With Mark II Owners Group to Discuss Long f
Term Program Tasks (July 17'and 18, 1979)" from C. J. Anderson to S. H. Hanauer, August 22, 1979.
- 13. "Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2 Design Assessment Report - Revision 1," March 1979.
i
- 14. " Justification of Mark II Lead Plant SRV Load Definition" Attachment to letter from J. P. Navarro to S. A. Varga, March 30, 1979.
- 15. Ernst, R. J., Peterson, T. G., and Salas, G. H., " Mark II Pressure Suppression Containment Systems Loads on Submerged Structures - An Applications Memorandum," GE Report NEDE-21730, December 1977.
- 16. Ernst, R. J. and Ward, M.
G., " Mark II Pressure Suppression Contain-ment Systems: An Analytical Model of the Pool Swell Phenomena,"
GE Report NEDE-21544-P, Class III,- December 1976.
- 17. Moody, F. J., "An Analytical Model for Liquid det Properties for Predicting Forces on Rigid Submerged Structures," GE Report NEDE-21472, September 1977.
V -
..~
References (Cont'd)
- 18. Moody, F. J., Chow, L. C., and Lasher, L. E., " Analytical Model for Estimating Drag Forces on Rigid Submerged Structures Caused by LOCA and Safety Relief Valve Ramshead Air Discharges,"' GE Report NEDE-21471, September 1977.
- 19. Chu, C. K. and Lee, T.
T., " Technical Description of the Ring Vortex Model", GE Report, March 1978.
- 20. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station - Unit 1 - Attachment 1.k - Amendment 99 -
Submittal of Revision 61 to the FSAR, September 28, 1979.
- 21. Keulegan, G. H. and Carpenter, L.
H., " Forces on Cylinders and Plates in an Oscillating Fluid," J. of Research of the National Bureau of Standards, Vol. 60, pp. 423-40,1958.
- 22. " Mark II Containment Supporting Program Report," GE, NEDO-21297, Rev.1, Class I, March 1978.
- 23. Clabaugh, W. J., " Scaled Multivent Test Program Plan (Phase I Tests)",
GE Report NED0-23697A, Revision 1, January 1979.
- 24. Romenek, G. J. and Davis, W. M., " Dynamic Lateral Loads on A Main Vent Downcomer - Mark II Containment," GE Report NEDE-24106-P, March 1978.
- 25. Davis, W. M., " Mark II Lateral Loads Sunnary Report," GE Report NEDE-23806-P, October 1978.
- 26. Meeting Minutes, " Meeting With Mark II Owners To Discuss Long Term Program Status - November 14, 1979," from C. J. Anderson to S. Hanauer.
- 27. "Caorso SRV Discharge Tests Phase I Test Report," GE Report NEDE-25100-P, l
May 1979.
V-3
1 4
- References.(Cont'd)
-28. " Interim Containment Loads Report Mark III," GE Report 22A4365, Revision 2, October '1978.
I
- 29. Meeting Minutes " Meeting With Mark II Owners to Discuss Program Status," from C. J. Anderson to S. H. Hanauer, July 24, 1979.
- 30.. Meeting Minutes " Summary of Meeting Held on March 23,1979 to Dis-cuss The Condensation Oscillation Tests To Be Conducted By Kraftwerk Union In Germany",.May 21, 1979.
- 31. "LaSalle County In-Plant SRV Test Program,"from N. W. Curtis to t
- 0. D. Parr, December 28, 1977.
1 i
- 32. "Zimmer In-Plant Safety Relief Valve Test" from W. J. McConaghy to j
R. Savio, March 5,1979.
- 33. Letter from S. H. Hanauer, Director, Unresolved Sa 5aty Issues Program,
?
j NRC to P. D. Hedgecock, Chairman, Mark II Owners Group.
]
- 34. 3eeligor, D. and Aust, E., "First Results of Large Scale Pressure l
Suppre,sion System Experiments at the GKSS Facility," Paper - Seventh Water Reactor Safety Research Information Meeting, November 8,1979.
- 35. Namatamo, K., Kukita, Y. et al, " Full Scale Mark II Containment Re-l.
sponse Test Facility _-Description," JAERI M-8780, January 1980.
j
- 36. McMaster, W. H., and Norris, D. M., " Coupled Fluid Structure Method for Pressure Suppression Analysis," NUREG/CR-0607.*
Available for purchase from the NRC/GP0 Sales Program, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and the National Technical Inform ~ation Service,-Springf!ald, VA 22161.
.V-4 1
~
APPE. DIX A CONTINUATION OF MARK II CONTAINMENT PROGRAM CHRON0 LOGY l
October 1978 Published NRC Report NUREG 0487 " Mark II Containment Lead Plant Program Load Evaluation and Acc3ptance Criteria."
November 14, 15, 1978 Meeting:
NRC and Mark II Owners.
The owners for the lead Mark II rlants (Zimner, Shoreham, and LaSalle) discuss proposed alternatives to several l
l of the staff's pool swell and submerged structure l
l drag load acceptance criteria.
I November 17, 1978 Meeting:
NRC and Mark II Owners.
The purpose of this j
meeting was to discuss staff comments and prelimi-l nary questions related to tasks inc'uded in the Mark II owners' generic Intermediate Plant Program.
November 28, 1978 Meeting:
ACRS Fluid Hydraulic Dynamic Effects Subcom-mittee and NRC Staff. Discuss NUREG 0487 Lead Plant Mark II Pool Dynamic Loads Acceptance Criteria.
l December 13, 1978 Meeting:
NRC and Mark II Owners.
This was one of sev-eral meetings to discuss proposed exceptions to the i
staff's lead plant acceptance criteria.
Items dis-cussed included SRV bubble phasing and frequency, submerged structure drag loads, load case 10 and the proposed LaSalle in-plant SRV tests.
A-1
(
APPENDIX A (Cont'd)
February 13, 14, 1979 Meeting:
NRC and Mark II Owners.
The purpose of this meeting was to resclve differences between the staf f and the Mark II owners relative to the pro-posed alternate lead plant loads.
Several Intermedi-ate Plant Program Tasks were discussed including:
plans to conduct 4T condensation oscillation tests, revisions to the Creare multivent tests and a quick look at the Caorso SRV cross quencher test results.
March 21, 1979 Meeting:
NRC and Mark II Owners. During this meeting, sev-eral of the Intermediate Plant Program tasks were dis-cussed.
This included:
an in-depth presentation of several new tasks (i.e., the 4T condensation oscilla-tion tests and the Bechtel inproved chugging load defi-nition) and preliminary observations from the ongoing Caorso in-plant SRV Tests.
March 23, 1979 Meeting:
NRC and Pennsylvania Power and Light Company (PP&L).
The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the PP&L con-densation oscillation test program which will be con-ducted by KWU in support of the Susquehanna project.
July 16, 1979 Meeting:
NRC and Pennsylvania Power and Light (PP&L) and Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS-2).
This meeting included discussions of several plant unique pro-grams including the PP&L condensation oscillation tests and the WPPSS-2 improved chugging load definition program.
A-2
I l
APPENDIX A (Cont'd)
July 17, 18, 1979 Meeting:
NRC and Mark II Owners.
The Mark II owners
- discussed changes in the Mark II generic program con-sisting of. dropping the Intermediate Plant Program and transferring the tasks in this program to the Long Term Program (LTP).
Two LTP tasks discussed in this meeting were the ongoing Creare multivent tests and the Bechtel Improved Chugging load progam.
July 24, 25,1979 Meeting:.NRC and Mark II Owners group.
The Mark II own-ers provided an overview of the Mark II generic program including the Lead and Long Term Program.
Several new plant unique pool dynamic load programs were identified.
July 26,1979 Meeting:
NRC and Mark II lead plant owners. This meeting con-sisted of a discussion of the proposed Mark II alterna-tive lead plant loads including load combinations, the T-quencher interim load specification and downcomer sup-port considerat. ions for the Zimmer plant.
September 13, 1979 Meeting:
ACRS Subcommittee on fluid dynamics with the NRC staff.
Presentation of the staff's evaluation of the Mark II lead plant alternative pool dynamic loads and staff comments related to the Mark II owners generic LTP, plant unique programs and related foreign tests.
5 A-3
APPENDIX A (Cont'd)
October 3,1979 Meeting: NRC and Washington Public Power Supply System. Dis-cussion of proposed improved SRV cross quencher load definition program.
November 14. 1979 Meeting: NRC and Mark II Owners group. Discussion of the ongoing Creare multivant tests, 4T C01.6ts, the dynamic lateral load model, the generic improved chug model and related foreign tests.
December 5, 1979 Meeting: NRC and Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. Discussion of proposed modifications for the Zimmer plant including pipe supports, structural members, quencher positioni g and downcomer bracing.
December 6,1979 Letter: NRC to the Mark II Owners group.
Identification of the need for a Mark II owners group evaluation of the Mark II large scale multivent steam tests that are being conducted in foreign countries to confirm the Mark II steam loads.
February 27, 1980 Meeting: NRC and Mark II Owners group. Discussion of Task A.17, Condensation Oscillation test program; Task A-16 Inproved Chugging load definitions; Creare and foreign test data.
February 28, 1980 Meeting: NRC and Pennsylvania Power and Light Company. Dis-cussion of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station plant unique containment program.
~ March 26 and 27,1980 Meeting: NRC and Mark II Owners group. Discussion of the Creare Multivent tests, 4T C/0 tests, and foreign test data.
A-4
l-
[,f Ru 335 REG N
'^"'*"'#*
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET Supplement No. 1
- 4. Tt1LE AND SUBTITLE (Add Volutne No. siappnynate)
- 2. (Le ve blank) i
- MARK 11 Containment-Lead
- Plant Program Load Evaluation and.
i
' Acceptance Criteria - Generic Technical Activities A8 and A39
- 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
- 7. AUTHOR (S).
- 5. DATE REPORT COMPLE TED Clifford Anderson M ON TH August l1980 VFAR
- 9. PE RF ORMING ORGANIZAllON NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS (inc/ude 2,p Code /
. DATE REPORT ISSUED
- l. '
Division of Safety Technology September-l1980 MONTH YEAR
.0ffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation-U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- s. a,,,, u,n ;
Washington, D.C.
20555 a a,,v,u nni 12 SPONSOHING OHGAN#2ATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS (include 2,p Codel in PROJECT!T ASKsWORK UNIT NO.
j Division of Safety. Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- 11. CONT RACT NO.
l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 1
13 TYPE OF REPORT PE RtOO Cov E~ RE D (Inclustre 0,tes}
Regulatory 15 SUPPLEMEN TAR ( NOTES 14 (Le ve r*Ieki
- 16. ABSTRACT (200 worde or less/
i The staff issued a report, NUREG-0487, in October 1978 that provided acceptance criteria j.
for the suppression pool dynamic loads associated with safety relief valve discharges and loss of coolant accidents for the lead Mark II plants. This report is a supplement to NUREG-0487.
Issuance of this supplement concludes the Mark II Lead Plant Program except for the condensation. oscillation and the chugging load specifications.
It contains an evaluation of the proposed alternatives to_the lead plant acceptance criteria and an 4
update of the ongoing Mark II Long Term Program.- This evaluation was conducted as a part j
of the NRC's Generic Technical Activities A-8 and A-39.
11' NE Y WORDS AND DOCUME N T AN A L* SIS
.I 74 DE SC HIP TO HS MARK II Containment Pool Dynamic Loads' 17h IDE N TIFIE HS' OPE N ENDE D TE RMS
Unclassified Unlimited distribution to sE Cum Tv ci ass <T~ c,-,
nynict
,.I NRC ! ORV JJS o f ??)