ML20024C197
| ML20024C197 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 07/08/1983 |
| From: | Wuller G ILLINOIS POWER CO. |
| To: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0763, RTR-NUREG-0802, RTR-NUREG-763, RTR-NUREG-802 U-0648, U-648, NUDOCS 8307120396 | |
| Download: ML20024C197 (20) | |
Text
.
o O
Illinois Power Company u-06g8 (07-08)-L 500 SOUTH 27TH STREET, P. o. BOX 511, DECATUR. ILLINOIS 62525-1805 Docket No. 50-461 July 8, 1983 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:
Mr. A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Schwencer:
Subj ect:
Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 Suppression Pool Dynamics SER Issues Outstanding #9/ Confirmatory #13
Reference:
NRC letter 3/16/82, J. R. Miller to G. E. Wuller (IP) subject:
Draft Acceptance Criteria for Mark III LOCA-Related Pool Dynamic Loads In an effort to resolve the subject two issues in the Clinton Safety Evaluation Report (SER), we have compiled and herewith submit the following information. - A listing of docketed sources of documentation on compliance with NUREG-0802 criteria for the CPS design and loads adequacy evaluations. - A comparison of CPS with Kuosheng, Grand Gulf and Perry BWR-6 Nuclear Stations and the guidelines of NUREG-0763.
It is our understanding that Task Action Plan (TAP) A-39 (referenced on page 6-13 of the CPS SER) was superseded by NUREG-0802.
CPS compliance to the NUREG-0802 acceptance criteria is given in Attachment 1.
\\
8307120396 830708 100 PDR ADOCK 05000461 V
E PM g
U-0648 N83-83(07-08)-L July 8, 1983 Page 2 Early in 1982 we received the referenced letter and after detailed comparisons confirm that the CPS design meets the intent of that draft criteria.
We further understand that the referenced draft criteria is to be superseded by the issuance of NUREG-0978.
When NUREG-0978 is published we will again confirm our compliance with the criteria, assuming there are no significant criteria changes in the interim.
This information should cover the item TAP B-10 which is also referenced on page 6-13 of the CPS-SER.
_ Attachment' 2 is our justification for exemption from in-plant tests of safety-relief valve discharge per NUREG-0763.
Results of the specified comparisons show not only that CPS comaares favorably in physical design and operating characteristics with the prototype plants, but that the CPS design is in several ways more conservative than the requirements of NUREG-0763 and NUREG-0802.
We will be ready to discuss any of the above material or supply further information upon your request.
Sincerely, 4
7
/L d'
G. E. Wuller Supervisor-Licensing Nuclear Station Engineering CCW/GEW/lt Attachments cc:
Dr. H. Abelson, NRC Clinton Licensing Project Manager Mr. L. C. Ruth, NRC CSB Mr. H. H. Livermore, NRC Senior Resident Inspector Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety e
-a rw -
w---
ATTACHMENT #1 U-0648 l
July 8, 1983 l-COMPLIANCE WITH NUREG 0802 Acceptance Criteria (Appendix B)
Compliance Statement B.l.1 SRV Discharge Device Attachment #2 to this letter (U-0648 ),
[
NUREG 0763 comparison.
B.1.2 SRV Air-Clearing We utilized the criteria Suppression Pool (load definitions) of Boundary Pressure GESSAR II, App. 3B, Loads Rev. 1.
See CPS /FSAR i
A3.8.2, " Development of SRV Loads".
Also see further commitment /
compliance statement in the 3rd para, on p.5 of Attachment 2 to this letter.
B.2 Acceptance Criteria The CPS quenchers for Quencher Tie-Down pedestals are welded Loads.
to the pool floor (liner).
Beneath each pedestal is a substantial embed.
Drawings showing these were provided informally to H. Abelson and L. R.. Ruth on March 7, 1983.
B.3 Low-Low Set Relief Logic FSAR Subsection 7.3.1.1.1.4.2.6 Bypasses and Interlocks.
ATTACHMENT 2 U- 0648 July 8, 1983 Illinois Power Company Clinton Power Station Unit 1 l'
i
)
i
~
JUSTIFICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM IN-PLANT TESTS OF SAFETY-RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE (Plant Comparisons to NUREG-0763 Criteria) 3 i
4 4
t-m T
,.u -,
Page 1
Purpose:
The purpose of this presentation is to provide justification for dispensing with the SRV testing requirements at the Clinton Power Station.
The justification provided herein is primarily in the form of data comparisons.
These data comparisons address the NUREG-0763 requirements for establishing that Kuosheng, Perry, Grand Gulf and Clinton are sufficiently similar that the test data taken at Kuosheng may be considered generic to all the plants, in particular to Clinton.
In addition to the NUREG requirements, data similar to that requested by the NRC during discussions of this subject with Perry are also included.
Boiling water reactors are equipped with Safety / Relief valves (SRVs) to provide overpressure protection for the prirary systems.
The SRVs are mounted on the main steam lines inside the drywell with discharge pipes routed into the suppression pool.
When an SRV is actuated, steam from the primary system will be discharged into the suppression pool, where it will be condensed.
The discharge of both the air, which was in the SRV line prior to valve opening, and the steam into the suppression pool produces hydrodynamic loads on the containment structure, piping and equipment.
The key parameters that affect these loads and pool-temperature gradients have been identified in extensive testing programs by the various BWR Owners Groups.
BUREG-0763 " Guidelines for Confirmatory Inplant Tests of Safety-Relief Valve Discharge for BWR Plants," sets forth specific criteria that establishes when a plant unique test will be required.
The general categories addressed by NUREG-0763 are
- 1) discharge device geometry, 2) discharge line geometry, 3)
SRV operating characteristics, 4) suppression pool geometry and quencher locations, and 5) characteristics of the containment structure.
The bulk of this presentation will be spent addressing these criteria.
This will be accomplished by comparing the parameters for the Clinton Power Station with a) a Mark III plant where SRV testing has been performed, b) a Mark III plant where SRV testing is to be performed and c) a Mark III plant where SRV testing has been deemed unnecessary by the NRC staff.
These Mark III plants are Kuosheng, Grand Gulf and Perry, respectively.
The intent will be to show that Clinton falls within the envelope of Mark III parameters as defined by NUREG-0763 and GESSAR-II and thus there is no necessity to perform an inplant test at Clinton Power Station.
t
Page 2 CRITERION 1:
"The discharge device is geometrically different from the devices tested previously."
The intent of this criterion is that significant features in the geometry of the SRV discharge device are noted and fully documented with test results.
Figure 1 depicts the geometry of the discharge device installed on the Mark III SRV discharge lines.
This device is known as the X quencher.
The members of the staff are quite familiar with this device because:
a)
This discharge device was used in the Brunsbuttel, Phillipsburg and Caorso inplant tests.
The data from these tests form the basis of the GESSAR-II SRV air bubble load definition.
b)
This device is installed in all domestic Mark III containments.
Table 1 presents a comparison of the numerical values of the X-quencher parameters for Kuosheng, Grand Gulf, Perry and Clinton.
A review of Table I reveals that the parameters that relate to the quencher body, arm geometry and discharge hole pattern are essentially identical for the four Mark III plants.
In fact, these are identical to the quencher design parameters specified in 53BA.7.2.2.4 of GESSAR-II.
Differences in the quencher geometries compared in Table 1 are noted in the connection between the SRV discharge line and the main body of the quencher.
In terms of the operation of the quencher, these differences are considered minor.
The Caorso data exhibited " water spike" pressure that preceded the air bubble load and typically proved to be the dominant i
pressure in the pressure time history.
Similar characteristics have been observed to a lesser degree in the Kuosheng data.
The " water spikes" observed in the Caorso data were determined to be the results of water deceleration in the reducer entering the quencher body.
A thorough investigation of these loads was performed by General Electric in 1979 and 1980.
The results of
' the investigation proved that the GESSAR-II load definition enveloped both the pressure magnitude and the frequency of the
" water spike" phenomena expected due to SRV blowdown through X-quencher devices.
Based on the comparison given in Table 1, it is concluded that the SRV line discharge device installed at the Clinton Power Station is sufficiently similar to other devices which have and will be tested to warrant waiver of test requirements.
Page 3
[
CRITERION 2:
"The discharge line parameters -- line length, area and volume, quencher submergence, vacuum-breaker size, and available pool area per quencher -- differ significantly from the values previously tested.
An assessment of "significant" differences shall be based on previously established empirical correlations between the changes in these parameters and the resultant changes in the variable of interest, or on analytical considerations."
The intent of the criterion is that parameters defining the discharge line geometry be enveloped by the test data base or be explained in terms of empirical (GESSAR-II) methodology.
Table 2 presents a comparison of the discharge line parameters for the plants of interest.
The maximum and minimum discharge line volumes are shown for Perry and Clinton.
The test discharge line volumes are presented for Kuosheng and Grand Gulf.
The air volumes of the SRV discharge lines increase as one reads from left to right in Table 2.
This effect of the larger air volumes on bubble pressures will be discussed in detail in connection with Criterion 3.
The available pool area per quencher is presented in Table 2 as the average surface area per quencher.
This comparison shows that Clinton has a significantly larger (~35%) average pool area per quencher than the other Mark III plants.
In the GESSAR-II
. data reductions, quencher bubble pressure is demonstrated to decrease with increasing available pool surface area.
- However, as will be discussed in connection with Criterion 3 the empirical nature of the GESSAR-II methodology conservatively ignores this effect.
The variation in quencher submergence for the four plants is considered negligible.
The range is less than 2.5 inches.
Vacuum breaker characteristics are shown in Table 2 for Kuosheng, Perry and Clinton.
Comparison of these characteristics show that the Kuosheng and Clinton vacuum breakers have similar sizes and operating parameters.
The lower flow resistance (A// K) of the Clinton vacuum breakers is reflected in a higher flow capacity.
The lower operating capacity of the Perry vacuum breakers is directly attributable to their smaller size.
The AP required to open the vacuum breakers is limited by the maximum normal pressure in the drywell.
The variations in this parameter reflect the differences in normal operating conditions for the individual plants.
In summary, the only significant difference in the discharge line parameters for Clinton is the SRV discharge line air volume which will be addressed further in the next section.
l Page 4 CRITERION 3:
"The flow rate of the steam per unit area of discharge line and the not flow rate of the steam through the line may determine the air-column compression dynamics and pool-temperature gradients during an extended actuation.
If either of these differs significantly from conditions previously tested, new inplant tests shall normally be required."
Table 3 gives a comparison of the valve operating characteristics and the SRV discharge line parameters that effect these character-istics.
The valve operating characteristics are the steam flow rate and the valve opening time.
The discharge line characteristics which effect the valve operation are the discharge line air volume, the water column length, the submergence and the containment pressure.
A review of these parameters shows that the parameters are quite similar for the plants under consideration.
A more imformative comparison is to relate eacn of these parameters to their contribution to the SRV bubble pressure via the approved GESSAR-II methodology.
The GESSAR-II bubble pressure equation is:
PRD1 = 6.105 + 37.41(VAAQ - 0.1706)
+ 1.997(LNTW - 3.83)
+ 2.987(WCL - 4)
- 0.255(WCL2 - 16)
~
~
~ - 0.487(AWAQ - 20)
+ 0.oll(AWAQ2 - 400) where PRD1
= 50-50 positive bubble pressure (psid)
VAAQ
= SRV discharge line air volume to quencher area ratio (meters)
LNTW
= logarithm of the suppression pool water temperature ('C)
WCL
= the water column length in the SRV line (meters)
(WCL) 2 (m )
2 WCL2
=
AWAQ
= the suppression pool surface area to quencher area ratio AWAQ2 = (AWAQ)2,
4 Page 5 In this equation the terms which reflect the individual contri-butions of the valve mass flow rate and opening time have been included in the constant term since these are identical for all the plants.
The individual contributions of each term is quantified for each plant in Table 3.
The air volume term (VAAQ) will be examined first.
This term is the ratio of the SRV discharge line air volume to the quencher The GESSAR-II methodology prescribes that bubble pressure area.
increase with dircharge line air volume up to a value of VAAQ of 0.255.
(This corresponds to an SRV line air volume of 62.4 cubic feet).
Beyond this point, the trend of the test data is for the bubble pressure to be reduced.
(See GESSAR-II 53BA.12.5.5.2).
Further, it is noted that this trend is statisti-cally significant and expected from physical considerations as discussed in GESSAR-II, 53BA.12.3.
However, the GESSAR-II methodology requires that the bubble pressure increase with increases in line air volumes up to 62.4 cubic feet.
Beyond this point the air bubble pressures are conservatively maintained inspite of the physical trends which indicate the bubble pressure should decrease.
A further conservatism was imposed on the Clinton design bubble pressures.
Paragraph A3.9.2.2.2 of the CSP-FSAR states that the line air volume of 56.13 cubic feet will be used in calculating all bubble pressures for SRV discharge lines having an air volume less than or equal to 56.13 cubic feet.
For all SRV discharge lines having a volume greater than 56.13 cubic feet a volume of 65.0 cubic feet will serve as the basis of calculating the SRV bubble pressures.
In the Clinton plant all 16 SRV dischargw lines have air volumes in excess of 56.13 cubic feet.
Therefore, excess conservatism of approximately 1 psid compounded with the GESSAR-II methodology conservatisms has been considered in the design of the Clinton structures, piping and equipment.
The second term (LNTW) is the contribution of the suppression pool temperature to the bubble pressure.
This term is independent of plant geometry and is evaluated at the limiting conditions for operation specified in GESSAR-II.
The third and fourth terms (WCL and WCL2) in the equation account for the ef fect of the water column in the SRV line prior to valve actuation.
As shown in the equation there are two competing terms (WCL & WCL2) which account for this parameter.
The full effect of these terms range from 0.536 psi for Grand Gulf (which has the shortest water leg) to 0.827 psi for Clinton (which has the longest water leg).
Page 6 The last two terms (AWAQ and AWAQ2) represent the suppression po-1 free surface area nondemensionalized by the quencher area.
As reflected in Table 3 these terms do not contribute to the b hble pressure for the single valve actuation.
As demonstrated in Figure 3BA-72 of GESSAR-II the effect of increasing AWAQ is to reduce the bubble pressure.
The GESSAR-II methodology cc servatively ignores this effect for values of AWAQ greater than 20.
The single valve actuation values for AWAQ are given in Table 2.
The terms containing AWAQ become significant in all valve and ADS discharge cases.
~
Therefore, the total predicted 50-50 pressures are 7.787, 8.628, 8.642 and 9.686 psi for Kuosheng, Perry, Grand Gulf and Clinton respectively.
The major contributor to the differences in these predictions is the SRV line air volume.
An observation is that the 50-50 predicted peak positive pressure is 7.787 psi for the Kuosheng plant for a single valve actuation by the GESSAR-II methodology.
The corresponding 95-95 design pressure is 9.68 psi.
From the Kuosheng test, statistical analysis of the actual data for first actuations of safety valve V-8 indicate a 50-50 peak pressure of 3.04 psi and 95-95 peak pressure of 7.62 psi.
The conclusion from this demonstration is that the Clinton paraneters that contribute to the bubble pressure are different from the range of tested variables, but clearly considered in a conservative manner in the approved GESSAR-II methodology which served as the basis for the Clinton design.
In addition, licensing agreements have imposed further conservatism in the design of the Clinton Station that is equal to or greater than any variations expected due to larger air volumes.
s
Page 7 CRITERION 4:
" Quencher location and orientation in the pool and pool geometry may affect peak boundary pressures and frequencies of the air-bubble oscillation thermal mixing in the pool is also expected to be affected by these variables.
No quantitative criteria can be formulated for determining when quencher / pool configuration changes may be sufficient to require new inplant tests.
As the range of pool geometries and tests increase the need for testing all new pool configurations may disappear.
Present policy shall be to require inplant testing if it cannot be shown that all features of the pool configuration are similar to those previously tested in a plant.
The containments for all Mark III plants are geometrically similar.
(See Table 4).
The basic dimensions of the suppression pool and quencher locations for the four plants are shown in Table 4.
The pool widths may vary from 17.5 to 22.5 feet and the pool depths vary from 18.5 to 19.4 feet.
Likewise, the quencher location with respect to the drywell wall, location with respect to the basemat and azimuthal distribution, are similar in all the plants as shown in Table 4.
In the context of suppression pool mixing or bubble pressures and frequencies, these differences are considered minor.
To date, two basic geometries have been tested; the Mark II
- geometry and the Mark III geometry.
The Kuosheng and Caorso test both use X-quenchers of the GESSAR-II design and demonstrated that adequate pool circulation was established to promote stable condensation of steam exiting the quencher.
Further testing of the X-quencher is scheduled for the Grand Gulf Station.
In view of these facts and the similarity of the Mark III containments, it is believed that SRV testing at Clinton would not provide any new information.
e
\\
Page 8 CRITERION 5:
"The characteristics of the containment structure may affect peak boundary pressure and frequencies of air-bubble oscillation.
For example, inplant tests conducted in a concrete containment will not be considered to have direct application for a free-standing steel containment unless adequate justification for fluid / structure interaction has been demonstrated.
Otherwise, inplant tests will.lue required for plants whose structural characteristics are significantly different from
.the previous tests."
The emphasis here is on structural differences in the plants as they would affect the response of the structure so the SRV loadings.
Again it is pointed out that the standard design of the Mark III containment as described in GESSAR-II and emphasize the similarity of the Mark III plants.
Table 5 compares the major containment properties.
The basemat diameters and thicknesses are similar for all the plants.
The differences reflect the variation in the sizes of the containments and the soil properties at the various sites on which the plants are constructed.
Note here that the Clinton plant is constructed on a common basemat.
Review of the remaining parameters show that there are minor differences in the data that reflect both the variance in the size of the plants and individual AE's preference in the materials and design techniques.
One concern that has been expressed by the NRC relates to the thickness of the containment wall in the suppression pool area.
Kuosheng and Perry have 8 - 8.5 foot thick walls in this area.
Clinton and Grand Gulf have 3 - 3. 5 foot thick containment walls.
Any concern related to the thinner wall should be adequately addressed by the Grand Gulf inplant test scheduled for early 1984.
.In summary, a comparison of the Clinton Power Station parameters with those of Kuosheng, Perry, and Grand Gulf is made to address the criteria of NUREG-076 3.
This comparison reveals two minor areas where strict compliance with the criteria are not met.
These are 1) the SRV discharge line air volume and 2) the thickness of the containment wall in the suppression pool area.
Empirical comparisons are presented which demonstrate that the effect of the SRV discharge line air volume are clearly within the range of the approved GESSAR-II methodology and the effects have been included in the design of the Clinton Power Station.
Indeed, further conservatism has been included as a licensing condition.
Based on the conservatism included in the design and the demonstrated conservatism of the GESSAR-II methodology, further data collection through SRV inplant testing at the Clinton plant is not justified.
i 3
i Page 9 The effect of the containment wall thickness is believed to not be i
a concern and this fact is expected to be demonstrated by the Grand Gulf inplant test.
Should the Grand Gulf inplant test 1
identify specific concerns, there is ample time to assess the Clinton design prior to fuel load.
1-l i
e t
P a
i i
1 I
5 1
1 1
?-
I I
i 4
+
9 g:
6 em' p
---,-,-.nn,,...
-.n.
TABLE 1 I'
CRITERION 1:
X-QUENCHER COMPARISON Parameters Kuosheng Perry Grand Gulf Clinton 9
Reducer Taper (degrees) 17 1 10.75 10.4 10.75 A
Reducer Len9th (ft) 1.667 2.813 2.417 1.646 B
Hub Length (ft) 3.229 2.00 2.00 2.00 C
Bottom Cap Length (ft)
Sl.0
%.85 s0.85 s0.85 D
Hub 1 To End of Arm (ft) 4.875 4.875 4.875 4.875 E
Hub i To First Row of Holes (ft) 1.896 1.890 1.896 1.885 F
Length of Hole Pattern (ft) 2.625 2.624 2.625 2.625 G
Hub diameter (inches) 24-in S/80 24-in S/140 24-in S/120 24'-in S/120 H
SRVDL diameter (inches) 10-in S/80 10-in S/40S 10-in S/80 10-in S/40S I
Arm Diameter (inches) 12-in S/80 12-in S/80 12-in S/80 12-in S/80 Hole Diameter (inches) 0.391 0.391 0.391 0.391 flo. of Holes (4 arms) 1496 1496 1496 1496 Angle Between Arms (degrees) 80-80-80-120 80-80-80-120 80-80-80-120 80-80-80-120 Note:
Figure 1 shows the location of each dimension 5
2
Pcgo 11 TABLE 2 CRITERION 2:
DISCHARGE LINE PARAMETERS Parameters Kuosheng Perry Grand Gulf Clinton l
SRVDL Air Volume (ft')/
42.7/74.4 55.7/107.3 56.8/76.6 67.1/103.8 SRVDL Line Length (ft) 47.7/82.4 44.9/ 82.6 56.9/ 91.3 46.0/79.6 Pool Area / Quencher (fta) 332 310 333 448 AW/AQ (1) 71.1 79.0 89.3 96.1 Submergence (ft) 13.8 14.0 13.8 13.9 Vacuum Breaker Line Size 2-10"0 2-6"O 2-10"0 2-10"0 AP to open (psid) 0.1 0.1 0.2 A/ /K-0.43 0.33 0.30 Capacity at 0.5 psid (CFM) 4240 2502 4735 b:
~
,~*
T Note: The air volumes for Kuosheng are for the lines tested and for Grand Gulf the air volume is for the line scheduled to be tested.
The air volumes for Clinton and Perry are the maximum and minimum values in the plant.
.m
. TABLE 3 t
CRITERION 3: QUENCHER / BUBBLE PRESSURE COMPARISONS Parameters Kuosheng Perry Grand Gulf Clinton Rated Thermal Power (MWc) 951 1205 1250 950 Number of Quenchers 16 19 20 16 2
Quencher Area (ft )
74.66 74.66 74.66 74.66 Maximum SRVDL Air Volume (ft3) 50.0 55.7
'57.5 67.1 Steam Flow Rate (metric ton /hr) 520 520 520 520 Pool Temperature ( F) 100/120 100/120 100/120 100/120 Water Column Length (ft) 17.9 17.4 16.5 17.8 Valve Opening Time (sec) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
~
Submergence (ft) 13.8 14.0 13.8 13.9 Containment Pressure (psia) 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 Pool Surface Area (ft2) 5304 5899 6666 7175 Water Mass (LBm) 6.35 x 106 6.81 x 106 7.82 x 106 8.69 x 106 Contribution to PRD1 (psig))
(50-50 Maximum Positive WP VAAQ 1.247 2.117 2.407 3.161 LNTW
-0.406/10.116
-0.406/+0.116
-0.406/1,0.116
-0.406/10.116 WCL 4.307 3.901 2.146 4.278 WCL2
-3.524
-3.089
-1.61 0
-3.451 g
AWAQ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 AWQ2 0.0 0.0 O.0 0.0
[
PRD1 for SVA (psig) 7.787 8.628 8.642 9.686
TABLE 4 CRITERION 4: QUENCHER LOCATION AND P0OL DIMENSIONS Parameters Kuosheng Perry Grand Gulf Clinton Type of Containment Concrete W" Free-Concrete Steel Lined Standing Concrete Steel Backed by Concrete Wall Thickness in Pool Region (ft) 8.5 8.0 3.5 3.0 Base 11at Thickness (ft) 10.0 12.5 9.5 9.67 Po31 Width (ft) 17.5 18.5 20.5 22.5 Pool Depth (ft) 19.2 18.5 18.8 19.4 Quencher Location Radius (ft) 44.5 46.5 46.5 44.5
[ of Arms Above Floor (ft) 5.5 4.5 5.0 5.5
[ of Quencher from Drywell Wall (ft) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Quencher Support Double Box W'alded to Cantilever Welded to Beams to Base Mat from Drywell Base Mat Drywell Wall Embedments, Wall at Base; Embedments; Rigid Supports Rigid Supports Rigid Supports from SRVDL to fren SRVDL to from SRVDL to Drywell Wall Drywell Wall Drywell Wall C
i
TABLE 5~
CRITERION 5: ' PHYSICAL SIMILARITIES
,Kunsheng Perry GrandQdf.
Glinlen Basemat Diameter (ft) 141 136 134 130 Thickness (ft) 10.75 12.0 9.5 9.67 ConcreteCompressiveStrength(psi) 5000 3000 5000 4000 Rebar Minimum Yield (psi) 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 S911 Shear Wave (ft/sec) 2300 4900 1600 2100 Biological Shield Wall Inside Diameter (ft) 25.83 27.58 28.67 25.83 Thickness (ft) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Construction Steel 1" Steel Face Steel 3/4"-1.5" Steel Plates with with Concrete Heavyweight Fill Concrete Fill Drywell Inside Diameter (ft) 69 73 73 69 Thickness (ft) 5 5
5 5
Steel Face Plate Thickness (In)
.75 1.0 1.5 1.0 Ma terial ASTM A-572 SA516Gr70 ASTM A-537 SA537 2
with A-240 with A-240 CIA with Grade j
Type 304 Type 304 Type 304L S.S. Clad S.S. Clad S.S. Clad S.S. Clad Z
Concrete Compressive Strength (psi) 5000 5000 5000 4000 Rebar Minimum Yield (psi) 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000
TABLE 5 (Cont'd)
Kuosheng Perry Grand Gulf Clinton Containment in Pool Region Inside Diameter (ft) 114 120 124 124 Thickness (ft) 8.5 8.0 3.5 3.0 l
Steel Liner Thickness (In) 0.25 1.50 0.25 0.25 Material ASME SA285 SA516 ASTM A265 SA240 Gr A Gr 70 Gr A Type 304 Yield Strength (psi) 24,000 24,000 24,000 30,000 Concrete Compressive Strength (psi) 5,000 5,000 5,000 4,000 Rebar Minimum Yield (psi) 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 b
e f
S 7
H l
C g
a I
e 1
I I
e I
)
\\
e 1
D t
\\
t
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
t
~
lf i
..L1L11 1 1 x111 L11 1 TtrrT-rT T T rT T rr*
s t
Z O
t(
l-I e
\\
g l
O n
g
/
E F
o
-j/ l
/
O G
l
~
Figure 1 X-OUINCHIR GIC.s'.ITRY O
_ _ -