ML19345D813

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Tables Summarizing Design Pressure,Estimated Static Pressure Capacity,Assumptions Used for Matl Strength & Other Criteria for Design of 33 Ice Condenser & Mark III Containments
ML19345D813
Person / Time
Issue date: 11/26/1980
From: Dircks W
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To: Ahearne J
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML19345D811 List:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8012170467
Download: ML19345D813 (11)
v • d • e


Text

O" -

,.a u c y g'o, UNITED STATES

+!h -

~ i, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{ %'... E WASN NGTON, D. C. 20555 s f... e b i S )R3 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Ahearne FROM:

William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

ICE CONDENSER AND MARK III CONTAINMENT INTERNAL PRESSURE CAPABILITIES

.As-requested in your memorandum of October. 29,1980,. the staff has compiled the attached tables to sumarize the design pressurr, the estimated ~ static.

' ~

pressure capacity, the assumptions used for material strength, the failure.

mode, and the criteria governing the design for 33 ice condenser and Mark III containments. We are not able to provide dynamic strength at this time for reasons discusseo below.

The: static pressure capacity has been detennined by _ detailed analysed.only 7

l

-: for the entainment buildings at Sequoyah, McGuire and 4. C;. Cook. These

~ analyses, in addition to similar analyses by the Ticensees for the Indian Point 2/3 and Zion 1/2 containments, have shown that the ratio of lower bounc pressure capacity *a design pressure ranges from 2.5 to 3.3.

Therefore, for the containment buildings listed in the tables other than Sequoyah, McGuire, and D. C. Cook, the lower bound static pressure capacity has been estimated by multiplying the design pressure by a factor of 2.5.

Based on the static pressure analyses that have been performed, the indicated failure modes are tensile yielding of the steel shell for the steel containments and reinforcing bar yielding for reinforced concrete containments. The enly identified exception is D. C. Cook where preliminary calculations indicate that the equipment hatch cover may have a capacity as low as 23.5 osig internal pressure while the reinforced concrete shell has a lower bourd capacity of 46 l

psig.

l A more complete characterization of containment capaci;y is obtained by I

developing the mean (expected) value and upper bound value of each contain-ment studied.

Preliminary results for the Sequoyah and McGuire containment buildings indicate the following:

l Lower Bound Mean Upper Bound 1

Sequoyah 36 psi 60 psi 84 psi McGuire 48 psi 84 psi 120 psi

Contact:

F. Schauer, NRR 492-7843 8 012170

I Chaiman.ihearne -

It is reasonable to expect similar distributions for the other containments listed ia the table since there are strong geometric, material, and cesign similarities.

There are a number of reasons for the higher predicted capacity for the static pressure case over the design capacity. The more significant ones are as follows:

l.

Internal pressure is not the only design parameter. There are many

... other parameters considered in the design such as temperature, dead, _

e-

-r- - - weight and ' seismic. response. -

t"_,

,, M ;;

--r l

2.

The containments are designed for a combination of loads which includes

~

internal pressure. For example, pressure, pipe reactio1 and seismic loads are assumed to produce a maximum structural effe:t simultaneously.

l

3.. Material strength for design is limited by' code specified values. Actual

- ];- f ' -

~ ~ }

y,

a material: strength is higher.

M

'n We have not attempted to tabulate dynamic capacities. Predictions o'f dynamic capacity are dependent on the specific nature of the dynamic loading and the specific response characteristic (frequency) of that portion of the containment affected by the leading.

If the pulse width of a pressure wave is sufficiently short with respect to the principal containment response frequency, peak pressures of many times calculated static pressure would have litt?a significance. There is a large body of opinion that possible hydrogen detonation scenarios would yield loadings that contained too little energy to have a significant effect artainment capacity. The staff is presently funding efforts to confir

.arreteristic pulse shapes and spatial distributions expected to result fre

.;ib

  • detonation scenarios. Availability of this information will allow, in tur.i, con. satory estimates of containment dynamic capacities.

Experimental programs initiated in the last six months, but modestly funded, will in the long term acquire information for a better quantitative interpre-tation of factors influencing containment dynamic capacity. For instance, refined predictions of dynamic capacities would also consider dynamic material characteristics. A number of energy absorbing phenomena, such as strain hardening, enhance structural capacity under dynamic loading. On the other hand, some particular details of design may restrain beneficial defomations thus acting to counter enhancing factors.

We are. continuing to investigate the various generic types of containments.

Under a FY 81 contract Ames Laboratory will analyze the five other types of steel containments currently in use to detemine static pressure capacities.

The results of these analyses will start becoming available in about six months and all should be completed in about one year from now.

In addition,

I 4

I C' air ar Ah::rne 3-i i

s will require that applicants e ploying ice cor. denser and !! ark III centain-sr.ts perform an assessment of the capability of each containment to withstand j

static pressure loading as a part of our licensing review.

Mu.. ST.NC j

!! Tiam J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations i

)

enclosure:

i Table on Design. Criteria

.and Containment Capacity

.3,.7 a..-

g 3 -....,, q..

cc:

Cc.missioner Gilinsky

^

Cormissioner Hendrie i

Cetaissioner Bradford i

SECY t

OGC j

CPE:

I D""D"C]D M ))

owI L

Ju S kl/B

s t

I

{

r l

i I

e n

y spy 19,ra.ee-.-

gsy-w4,-p-p----

,-w.pp..,

yg-,,

w s g, m ygyy-g, wg

,c,..my,y.,yq9pp,_,,pg_,w79f yg yyy-.

w.--999,3,ggy..,g-9,p 4 p--m,ng, g y m-g,4. -

+--%

_--p.

9. vw,-9_,*mye ys-g

Page 1 (5)

DESIGN CRITERIA AND LOWER 00VND PRESSURE CAPACITY OF ICE CONDENSER AND MARK !!! CONTAINMENTS MATERIAL GOVERNING PLANT NAME CONTAINMENT CONTAINMENT LOWER BOUND FAILURE TYPE DESIGN STATIC MDDE STRENGTil CRITERIA F0' PRESSURE PRESSURE ASSUMPTIONS CONTAINHEN6 psig CAPACITY DESIGN gig D. C. COOK REINFORCED llATCll COVER:

EQUIPMEN T'-

CODE ACI-310/63 SPECIFIED UNIT 1 CONCRETE (1) ilATCll ICE 15 23.5 COVER CONDENSiR SilELL: 46 20' p D. C. COOK REINFORCED llATCil COVER:

EQUIPMENT.

CODE ACI-31fl/63 UNIT 2 CONCRETE (1) llAT011 SPECIFIED ICE 15 23.5 COVER CONDENSER SilELL: 46 20' S SEQUOYAll STEEL SilELL ACTUAL MILL ASME SEC. 111 UNIT 1 SilELL (2)

TENSION TEST VALUES Sull SEC. Il ICE 12 36 YIELD AND WINTER CONDENSER 196fl ADDENDA SEQUOYAll SIEEL Sil[LL ACTUAL MILL ASME SEC. 111 UNIT 2 SilELL (2)

TENSION :

TEST VALUES Sil:1 SEC. il ICE 12 36 Yl[LD AND WINTER CONDENSER 1968 ADDENDA MCGUIRE STEEL SilELL ACTUAL MILL ASME SEC. III UNIT 1 SilELL (2)

TENSION TEST VALUES SUB SEC. B ICE 15 48 YIELD AND SUMMER CONDENSER 1970 ADDENDA HCGillRE STEEL SilELL ACTUAL MILL ASf1E SEC. III (2)

TENSION TEST VALUES Sull SEC. B UNIT 2 SilELL 48 YlELD SUMMER 1970 ICE 15 CONDENSER ADDENDA

i i

Page 2 (5)

DESIGN CRilERIA AND LOWER 1100ND PRESSURE CAPACITY i

0F ICE CONDENSER AND MARK III CONIAINMENTS 3

PLANT NAME CONTAINMENT CONTAINMENT LOWER DOUND FAILURE

! MATERIAL GOVERNING TYPE DESIGN STATIC MDDE ~

STRENGill CRITERIA FOR PRESSURE PRESSURE

' ASSUMPTIONS CDNTAINENT psig CAPAC11Y DESIGN psig 4

CATAWBA STEEL (4)

-CODE ASME SEC. 111 UNIT 1 SilELL 15 37.5 LSPECIFIED SUBSEC. NE, 1911 ICE AND SUMMER.

CONDENSER 1972 ADDENDA CATAWBA SIEEL (4)

' CODE ASME SEC. III UNIT 2 SilEll.

15 37.5 SPECIFIED SullSEC. NE,1971 ICE AND SUMMER CONDENSER 1972 ADDENDA WATTS BAR STEEL (4)

CODE ASME SEC. til UNIT 1 SilELL 15 37.5 SPECIFIED SUBSEC. NE, 1970 ICE AND WINTER CONDENSER 1972 ADDENDA WATTS BAR STEEL (4)

CODE ASME SEC. III UNIT 2 SilELL 15 37.5 SPECIFIED SullSEC. NE, 1970 AND WIN 1ER fCE 4

CONDENSER 1971 ADDENDA ATLANTIC STEEL GENERATING SilELL (3)

(4)

(4)

(3)

(3)

STATION 1 ICE CONDENSER AllANTIC STEEL GENERATlHG SilELL (3)

(4)

(4)

(3)

(3)

STATION 2 ICE CONDENSER s..

Page 3 (5)

DESIGN CR11ERIA AND LOWER BOUND PRESSURE CAPACITY Of ICE CONDENSER AND-MARK 111 CONTAINMENTS PLANT NAME CONTAINMENT CONTAINMENT LOWER BOUND

' FAILURE

.' MATERIAL 00"ERNING TYPE DESIGN STAllC HDDE STRENGTil CHIIERIA FOR PRESSURE PRESSURE

" ASSUMPTIONS CONTAINHENT psig CAPACITY DESIGN psig BLAEK FOX STEEL (4)

' CODE ASME SEC. 111 UNIT 1 SilELL 15 37.5 SPECIFIED DIV. I SUBSEC. NE, MARK 111 1971 AND WINTER 1972 ADDENDA BLACK FOX STEEL

~(4)

CODE ASME SEC. III UNIT 2 SilELL 15 37.5 SPECIFIED DIV. 1 SUBSEC. NE, MARK Ill 1971 AND WINTER 19/2 ADDENDA SKAGIT REINFORCED (4)

CODE ASME SEC. III UNIT 1 CONCRETE 15 37.5 SPECIFIED DIV. I SUBSEC. NE, MARK III 1974 AND APPLICABLE ADDENDA SKAGli REINFORCED (4)

,[000E ASME SEC. III UNIT 2 CONCRETE 15 37.5 SPECIFIED DIV.1 SUllSEC. NE, MARK 111 1974 AND r.-LICAllLE ADuf "'"

llARTSVILLE STEEL (4)

CODE ASME SEC. til UNIT A-2 SilELL 15 37.5 SPECIFIED

w.1 SUBSEC. NE, MARK III CLAZ NC, 1971 IIARISVILLE STEEL (4)

CODE ASME SEC. til UNIT A-2 SilELL 1"

37.5 SPECIFIED DIV.1 SUBSEC. HE, MARK III CLASS MC, 1971 t

Page 4 J

(5)

DESIGN CitlTERIA AND LOWER BOUND PRESSURE CAPACIJY OF ICE CONDLNSER AND MARK Ill CONTAINMENTS PLANT NAME CONTAINMENT CONTAINMENT LOWERHOUNib FAILUltE

' ' MATERIAL GOVERNING TYPE DESIGN STATIC MODE

~ STRENGTil CRITERIA FOR PRESSURE PRESSURE

'. ASSUMPTIONS CONTAINHENT psig CAPACITY DESIGN psig CLINTON REINFORCED (4)

, CODE ASME SEC. III

'( SPECIFIED DIVISION 2 UNil 1 CONCRETE 15 37.5 MARK III 1973 CLINTON REINFORCED (4) e CODE ASME SEC. III UNII 2 CONCRETE 15 37.5

. 'SPECIFIED DIVISION 2, MARK III 1973 GRAND GULF REINFORCED (4)

CODE ACI-318/71 SPECIFIED UNIT 1 CONCRETE 15 37.5 MARK Ill GRAND GULF REINFORCED (4)

' SPECIFIED CODE ACl-310/71 UNIT 2 CONCRETE 15 37.5 HARK Ill it-MONTAGUE STEEL CODE ASME SEC. III UNIT 1 SilELL 15 37.5 (4)

SPECIFIED DIVISION 1 MARK III SUBSEC. NE, 1971 AND WINTER 1973 ADDENDA MONTAGUE STEEL (4)

CODE ASME SEC. III UNIT 2 SilEl.L 15 37.5

'SPECIFIED DIVISION 1 MARK 111 SUDSEC. NE, 1971 AND WINTER 1973 ADDENDA 0,

e

'm

Page 5 (5)

DESIGN CRITERIA AND LOWER UGUND PRESSURE CAPACITY OF ICE CONDENSER AND MARK Ill CONTAINMENTS PLANT NAME CONTAINMENT CONTAINMENT LOWER BOUND FAILURE MATERIAL GOVERNING TYPE DESIGN ai *.f ic MODE l STRENGill CRITERIA PRESSURE PRESSURE ASSUl1PTIONS CONTAINMENTS l

psig CAPACITY DESIGN

.PS IS PERRY STEEL (4)

' CODE ASME SEC. III UNIT 1 SilELL 15 37.5

-SPECIFILD SUBSEC. NE, MARK !!!

SUMMER 1972 AI)DENDA PERRY STEEL (4)

CODE ASME SEC. 11!

UNIT 2 SilELL 15 37.5 SPECIFIED SullSI C. NE, MARK 111 SUMMER 1972 ADDENDA RIVERDEND STEEL (4)

CODE ASME SEC. III UNIT 1 SiiELL 15 37.5 SPECIFIED SUDSEC. NE, MARK 111 1971 AND 1972 WINTER ADDENDA RIVERDEND S1 EEL (4) 3'000E ASME SEC. I'll UNII 2 SilELL 15 37.5 SPLCIFIED DIVISION 1 MARK Ill SullSEC. HE, 1971 AND 1972 WINIER ADDENDA _

ALLENS CREEK STEEL (4)

CODE ASME SEC. til SilELL 15 37.5 SPECIFIED DIVISION 1 MARK III Sil8SEC. HE, 1971 AND 1972 WINIER ADDENDA

s Page 6 (S)

DESIGN CRITERIA AND LOWER DOUND PRESSURE CAP /flTY 1

0F ICE CONDENSER AND MARK 111 CONTAINMENTS-

~~

PLANT NAME CONTAINMENT CONTAINMENT LOWER DOUND FAILURE MATERIAL GOVERNING TYPE DESIGN STATIC MODE

' STRENGlil CRITEPIA FOR 4

PRESSURE PRESSURE

.ASSUMPTIDNS CONTAINHENT j

psig CAPACITY DESIGN PSI 9 j

llARISVILLE SIEEL (4)

CDDE ASME SEC. 111 UNIT B-1 SilELL 15 37.5 SPECIFIED DIVISION 1 HARK Ill SUBSEC. NE,'

CLASS MC, 1971 i

ilARTSVILLE STEEL (4)

CODE ASME SLC III UNIT B-2 SilELL 15 37.5 SPECIFIED DIVISION 1 MARK Ill CLASS MC, 1971 i

PillPPS BEND STEEL (4)

CODE ASME SEC. 111 UNIT 1 SilELL 15 37.5 SPECIFIED DIVISION 1 MARK 111 CLASS L:0,1971 PillPPS BEND STEEL (4)

CODE ASME SEC. III UNIT 2 SilELL 15 37.5

.SPECIFIED DIVISION 1 CLASS MC, 1971 MARK III Footnote:

(1) The lower bound based on liarstead Engineering Associates calculations (2)

The lower bound based on Ames Laboratory calculations (3)

Information is not available (4)

No calculations have been performed (S) A more complete understanding of potential ultimate strength can be gained by a detailed study such as is underway for the Sequoyah and McGuire plants. This study indicated additional mean and upper bound (* 3 sigma) values of 60 and 84 (mean) and 84 and 120 (upper bound) for Sequoyah and McGuire, respectively

qq.

,p.

j o

UNITED STATES OF A". ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0". MISSION CCP.'i!SSIONERS:

John F. Ahearne, Chair.an Victor Gilinsky Joseph M. Hendrie Peter A. Eradford Ir. the l'.atter cf

)

PENNSYLVANIA PC'n'ER AND LIGHT CO.,

)

Docket Nos. 50-387CP ET AL.,

)

50-38ECP

)

(5:scuehanna Steam Electric

)

Station, Units 1 and 2)

)

)

ORDER Pursuant to our crder of May 16, 1980, In the l'atter of Pennsylvania Power and Licht Co., et al. (Suscuehanna Steam Elec'ric Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-17,11 NRC 678 (1980), the Atemic Safety and Licensing Appc:

Ecard has acted on the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Fower's "Recuest to the NRC Com::.lssioners for Expedited Consideration of Actions of an Atomic l

Safety anc Licensing Board and Other l'atters." See In the l'a'.ter of Fennsylvania ?ower and Licht Co.. et al. (Susque:1 anna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-513,12 NRC (September 23, 1980).

The Appeal Board found ECNP's allegations unsubstantiated and denied ECNP's requests in ell respects save one.

Tne Appeal Board notet, however, that it did not give consideration to ECNP's request that a Commissioner be placed on the Licens-ing Eoard in this proceeding, such relief being outside the Appeal Board's l

power to grant.

l l

l

==

w d

2 Tne Commission believes the record in this proceeding supports the Ap: sal Scard's fir. ding that the present Li:ensing Board has acted coc.petently and with fairness toward all parties.

A.: rdingly, based or the record and the Appeal Board's censiderition below, the Cc==ission declines to recon-stitute the Licensing Scard.

ECNP's request that a Cc=missioner be placed en the Licensing Ecard is therefor 6 denied.

In all other respects the Commission de: lines to review ALAS-613.

It is so ORDERED.

For the C ::ission SkiUEL J. CHILK Secretary of the Cc ission f

l Dated at Washington, DC, this day of November,1980.

i l

l l

I I

i

(

,, _., ~ _. -

_ _

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19345D813&oldid=4708872"