ML20039E883
| ML20039E883 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Black Fox |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1981 |
| From: | Butler M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Butler W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039E857 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-B-10, REF-GTECI-CO, TASK-B-10, TASK-OR NUDOCS 8201110581 | |
| Download: ML20039E883 (13) | |
Text
UNITED STATES y.7 v.
Lg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION._
.p j
wasumcTom. c. c.2ones I....*
DEC 0 31981 T$70
. Task Action Plan B-10 i
l
'82 JE -7 Al
)
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Walter R. Butler, Chief, Containment Systems Branch,_ _.,.
Division of Systems Integration y' ' ' ' V i
\\
j THRU:
John A. Kudrick, Section Leader, Containment Systems Branch, Division of Systems Integration i
i FROM:
j Mel B. Fields, Containment Systems Branch t
~
Division of Systems Integration i
SUBJECT:
l MEETING W TH GENERAL ELECTRIC ON MARK III LOCA-RELATED l
DYNAMIC LOAD CRITERI A (November 20, 1981) f Members of the Containment Systems Branch and its consultants met with General i
Electric personnel in Bethesda on November 20, 1981 to discuss the remaining
{
unresolved issues dealing with the generic LOCA-related pool dynamic loads for
{
the Mark III containments.
Also present at the meeting were representatives from several utilities that are building Mark III plants, including the Mississipp j
Power and Light Company (Grand Gulf applicant).
A ' summary of the meeting is presented below.
Attai:hment 1 is the attendence list, and attachment 2 is a
^
copy of the non-proprietary portion of the meeting handouts.
- 1) pool Swell Velocity The current specification proposed by GE for the maximum pool swell velocity i
is 40 ft/sec.
The staff and its consultants have conciudad that a 40 ft/sec velocity is not adequately supported by the available experimental data and scaling techniques.
After examination of the available data and various scaling methods, we have detennined that.a maximum velocity of 50 ft/sec adequately bounds the pool velocity that can be expected in a Mark III plant during a LOCA.
As part of this pool swell velocity specification, we will develop a relationship between velocity and height over the initial pool surface for the first 10 feet of pool swell to account for the accele-i ration of the water to its maximum velocity.
GE was informed of this deter-
{
mination at this meeting after a brief discussion of the issues involved.
1 It should be noted that the Grand Gulf facility was analyzed for a bounding i
- M pool velocity of 60 ft/sec so as not to impact the licensing schedule for
{
'T this plant.
The analysis provided by MP&L demonstrated that the current g
design of Grand Gulf structures would not be exceeded by 60 ft/sec pool go swell loads.
- x m
~
o
- 2) Froth Impact Loads oN*?
go The current specification proposed by GE for froth impact on the HCU floor is a triangular pulse with a 15 psid amplitude and a 100 msee width at the wo
[
EP base.
GE's justification for this load specification, presented by Steve Husik, is based on the PSTF roof pressure history readings from selected test runs.
Dr. George Maise of the Brookhaven National Laboratory, an NRC cor'.ultant, pointed out that the potential scatter in the test data due to
O i
A
!(
Walter R. Butler DEC 0 3 IF' water level probe placement in the GE Pressure Suppression Test Facility (PSTF) is too large to support the 15 psid amplitude as a conservative
'value.
However, an alternative approach for resolving the froth impact amplitude issue was suggested by Dr. Maise during the meeting. This
{
approach uses the measured impact data on targets located above the pool i
surface whose elevations correspond to the HCU floor elevation in a l
Standard Mark III plant, when the modified Froude scaling laws are assumed to hold true. This approach removes the substantial uncertainties that i
are associated with the method developed by GE.
We understand GE agrees j
with the approach suggested by Dr. Maise and that they plan to use it in 1
an upcoming submittal. A final evaluation of Dr. Maise's approach in re-solving this issue will be made by the staff and its consultants and will be reported in the forthcoming NUREG report on Mark III LOCA-related pool i
dynamic loads.
The other issue in the froth impact specification is the pulse width. Recent l i
information provided by MP&L (in a letter from L. F. Dale to H. Denton, dated l
October 9,1981) indicates that the: structural response of the HCU floor may be more sensitive to the pulse width than previously assumed. At the meeting
{
GE agreed to review the PSTF test data and determine the range of possible pulse widths and provide this range to the staff. Members of the Structural Engineering Branch who were present for this portion of the meeting stated l
(
that the SEB would review the structural significance of the froth impact i
load and provide guidance on the selection of the pulse width (s) that should I
be used.
Close coordination between the CSB and SEB will be maintained in l
order to successfully complete the parallel efforts undertaken by these l
branches.
l i
- 3) Submerged Structure Loads l
Dr. George Bienkowski, an NRC consultant, discussed the remaining concerns we have with GE's specification for chugging loads on submerged structures.
Our original concern was that the chug source strength selected for design purposes did not adequately bound the experimental data from the PSTF. GE's latest response stated tht the conservatisms inherent in the GESSAR metho-dology sufficiently compensated for the possible nonconservatisms in the chug source strength.
Dr. Bienkowski pointed out that the hydrodynamic mass effect ~
was not accounted for in GE's response. Including this effect will eliminate most or all of the conservatisms in the GESSAR method for submerged structures with diameters greater than one foot.
We suggested that GE revise the chug source strength for large ( > one foot in diameter) submerged structures and atterrat to show that these revised loads are bound by other loads (e.g., LOCA air bubble loads).
rt W ?s J $. f i i 8
(
Mel B. Fields Centainment Systems Branch Division of Systems Integration
Enclosure:
As stated L
(See Page 3) cc:
g
^
/
- .. ; '.,. E.,
(
cc:
R. Mattson T. Speis J. Knight R. Tedesco A. Schwencer F. Schauer J. Kudrick J
R. Lipinski T. Greene H. Faulkner D. Houston i
I (e
(
)
i ec:
(w/encis) l John B. West
(
Public Service Co. of Oklahoma W. C.' Mihal. Jr.
P. D. Box 201 Northeast Utilities Services Co.
P. D. Box 270 i
Tulsa Oklahoma 74102 (913)583-3611 Hartford. Connecticut 06101 (203)666-6911 i
C. C. Wneeler l
Illinois Power Company Cary Ankny 500 South 27th Street Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.
i Decatur lilinois P. O. Box 5000 (217)424-6986 Cleveland. Ohio 44101 (216.'623-1350 (Perry - 360)
Bob Cheng A. Zaccaria j
Ebasco Services, Inc.
l 1200 Wall Street West Bechtel Power Corporation P. O. Box 607 i
Lyndhurst. New Jersey 07071 15740 Shady Grove Road j
(201)460-0460 Gaithersburg. Maryland 20760
[
David F. Guyot Black & Yeatch E. R. Solorzano. P. E.
P. O. Bex 8495 Structural Manager. Stride Projects 4
General Electric Co.
(
Kansas City. Missouri 64114 (816)361-7000 175 Curtner Ave. (M/C0395)
San Jose. California 95125 I
H. M. Sroka
- I LI" Sargent & Lundy 1
1
(
Room 31057 Project Engineer I
55 East Monroe Street Bechtel Power Corporation Chicago. Illinois 60603 12400 E. Imperial Highway l
(312)269-2000 Norwalk. California 90650 i
Irving Goozman L. A. England Gibbs & Hill. Inc.
Gulf States litilities 393 Seventh Avenue P. O. Box 2951 Beaumont. Texas 77706 New York. New York 10001 (212)760-4000 (713)B38-3843 X285 M. J. Shah J. P. !1cGaughy Jr.
Lead Mechanics Engineer (Attn:
McKinley Johnson)
Stone & Webster Eng. Corp.
Mississippi Power & Light Co.
3 Executive Campus. P. D. Box 5200 P. O. Box 1640 Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034 Jackson. Mississippi 39204 (601)969-2429 Bill Peebles Dr. Wang Lau Sargent & Lundy Room W9C157 55 East Monroe Street Chicago. Illine,is 60603 Mechanical Engineering Branch (312)269-3885 Tennessee Valley Authority 400 Commerce Avenue Ian D. McInnes Knoxville. Tennessee 37902 Gilbert Associates. Inc.
(615)632-2840 P. O. Box 1498 Reading. Pennsylvania 19603
- : * -r m==
t.
)
2_
Dennis B. Hacking l
Puget Sound Power i Light Company I
Puget Power Building Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206)453-6739 L. D. Steinert/F. E. Hatch, M/C 681 General Electric Company l
175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125 E. E. Gottein Bechtel Power Corporation P. O. Box 39C5 San Francisco, California 94106 Attention:
D. James A. W. Harrison Houston Lighting & Power Co.
P. O. Box 1700 j
Houston, Texas 77001 (713)481-7239 3
h i
i I
t i
e g
9 t
(:
)
ATTACHMENT 1
(
MARK III MEETING ATTENDENCE 11/20/81 NAME_
ORGANI ZATI ON Mel Fields CSB/DSI/NRC W. Butler CSB/DS[/NRC D. Houston NRR/DL/LBf2 M. J. Shab Stone & Webster, Cherry Hill T.
P'.
Speis NRR/RS J. A. Kudrick CSB/DSI/NRC Ain Sonin MIT (for BNL/NRC)
George Maise BNL H. C. Pfefferlen GE C. A. Vath Gilbert Association I nc.
J. P. McGaughy Mississippi Power & Light Co.
P. J. X ochis Bechtel Power Corporation R. L. Beck Bechtel Power Corporation H. E. Townsend GE E. J. McNamara GE S. A. Hucik GE W. M. Davis GE C. Economos BNL l
C
. _, ~ " " "
i -
~"
p3 4<y.>-s 9,
)
ATTAC E NT 2 MARK Ill POOL S'WELL
- VELOCITY
- HCU FLOOR FROTH IMPACT l
1, SA HUClK, MANAGER CONTAINMENT DYNAMIC LOADS
(
1 NOVEMBER 20, 1981 4
4e l
(
SAH-1 11-20-83 t*
- i..
POOL SWELL VELOCITY
(
i o 40 FT/SEC IS AN ADEQUATE PEAK POOL SWELL DESIGN VELOCITY l
BASIS i
a o PSTF FULL SCALE AIR TEST
- V = 38 FT/SEC o PSTF 1/3 AREA SCALE DATA
- V = 33 FT/SEC o PSTF 1//3 LINEAR SCALE MODIFIED FROUDE DATA
'(
- V = 44 FT/SEC 1
i o 2D MAC ANALYTICAL MODEL
- V = 39 FT/SEC
(
SAH-2
- _11_9n_o,
i.
)
~
POOL SWELL VELOCITY
SUMMARY
(
i o SEVERAL APPROACHES ALL GIVE VELOCITY IN RANGE OF 38 FT/SEC TO 44 FT/SEC 0 ADDITIONAL CONSERVATISMS IN THE ANALYSIS NOT CONSIDERED IN BASIS o CONSERVATIVE DRYWELL PRESSURE o NO CONDENSATION IN DRYWELL I
o INSTANTANE0US DOUBLE ENDED GUILLOTINE BREAK o 40 FT/SEC IS AN ADEQUATE POOL SWELL DESIGN VELOCITY
(
SAH-3 11-20-81
L'
_ )
FROTH IMPACT C
o 15 PSID IS A CONSERVATIVE FROTH IMPACT LOAD AT THE HCU FLOOR o ALL APPLICABLE ~PSTF ROOF IMPACT DATA, WHEN SCALED TO V = 60 FT/SEC, SHOW P
- EN LIFT max
- WILL SHOW WHY NON-PROTOTYPICAL DATA NOT USED
- WILL JUSTIFY IMPACT PRESSURES SCALE AS VELOCITY
~
(
- WILL SHOW HOW LIFT PRESSURES WERE OBTAINED
(
SAH 14 11-20-8T 1
4 u-(
)
FROTH IMPACT
~
(
o ALL 5 AND 6 FOOT SUBMERGENCE, AIR AND STEAM BLOWDOWN TESTS WITH BREAK AREAS < 200% DBA WHICH HAD BREAK-THROUGH SEVERAL FEET FROM THE ROOF WERE USED IN THIS STUDY o JUSTIFICATION FOR NOT USING NON-PROTOTYPICAL DATA IS:
- 5801-12 WAS A 7.5' SUBMERGENCE TEST o NON-PROTOTYPICAL CEILING LIQUID IMPACT DUE TO LOW PSTF ROOF
- 5806-5, 7, 10 HAD BLOWDOWN ORIFICE SIZES l
> 200% DBA BREAK AREA o LARGER SLUG + HIGHER pIMPAcT +EHPtip7 oo
= % W MM M IMPACT oP
- % DBA BREAK AREA tip7
- 5802-1, 2 HAD BREAKTHROUGH CLOSER TO ROOF THAN PROTOTYPICAL o 5802-2 HAD BREAKTHROUGH AT ROOF o 5802-1 HAD SIMILAR IMPACT PRESSURE AND DENSITY
- BOTH HAD BREAKTHROUGH VERY CLOSE TO ROOF
(
SAH-5 11-20-8B
)
FROTH IMPACT
(
o VELOCITY SCALING 0F FROTH IMPACT DATA
- P = IMPULSE / DURATION
- IMPULSE DURATION DOES NOT CORRELATE WITH VELOCITY '
- P = VELOCITY
- TO SCALE, P = P x 60 FT/SEC ' V NET LIFT MAX TEST M X l
(.
SAH-8 11-20-81
l' I
FROTH IMPACT i
(
o PROCEDURE FOR CALCULATING SCALED LIFT PRESSURES
- ROOF PRESSURE READINGS AT l', 2', 3' AND 14' FROM THE DRYWELL WALL WERE AVERAGED TO OBTAIN Ptig7 (TIME)
-P W M NO tig7 ggx
-PBACKGROUND MAXIMUM NET LIFT PRESSURE
-P WAS THEN LINEARLY SCALED TO V = 60 FT/SEC NET LIFT max
- SCALED PEAK NET LIFT PRESSURES FOR AIR AND STEAM TESTS WERE PLOTTED VERSUS REPORTED DISTANCE
(
BETWEEN THE PSTF ROOF AND THE BREAKTHROUGH LOCATION o MAXIMUM NET LIFT IMPACT PRESSURE WHEN SCALED TO 60 FT/SEC
, IS 8.6 PSID, SHOWING 15 PSID IS CONSERVATIVE lC
[
SAH-10 11-20-81
~
k
~
m