ML20076A784
| ML20076A784 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1979 |
| From: | Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Parr O Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904030263 | |
| Download: ML20076A784 (51) | |
Text
r- -- - ,
[ C mm::nwrith Edison -
[_X) One First National Plaza, Chicago. Illinois 4
J Address Reply to: Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 March 23, 1979' >
Mr. Olan D. Parr, Chief Light Water Reactors - Branch 3 Division of Project Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555
Subject:
LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 Mark II Containment
[g,] NRC Docket Nos. 50-373/374 vy/
References (a): C. Reed letter to O. D. Parr dated December 1, 1978 (b) : O. D. Parr lettor to B. Iao, Jr. dated Fcbruary 1979 4 (c): L. O. DelGeorge letter to O. D. Parr dated February 23, 1979 Dear Mr. Parra As indicated in Reference (a), Comatonwealth Edison j f3
~
agreed to adopt the NRC lead plant acceptance criteria with
} a limited number of exceptions. That agreement was, in several
., _) cases, contingent upon favorable consideration by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of the application of SRSS methodology.
In response to the information request made by the NRC Staff in Reference (b), Commonwealth Edison provided in Reference (c) the schedule by which the Mark II owners would provide the information judged by the Staff to be necessary.
The attached revision to the LaSalle County Station Design Assessment Report provides the outstanding information described in Reference (c). It is the judgement of this applicant that all the information necessary to resolve the "open" Mark II Containment issues has now been provided to the P
NRC Staff for review.
7904030263 )
l . $
e .
.. .,z ,- , J
~., - g NRC. Docket Mos, 50-373/374 3
Mr. Olen D. Parra March 23,.1979 ' ,
~~ '
). 4 ,
- Three (3) signed originals and thirty-seven (37) -
! copies of this revision are subesitted for your review.
Very truly yours,
[
l [CordellReed Assistant Vice-President attactusent SUBSCRIBED and to before une his 3 -day f of l)lA d f . / , 1979.
., 3 I
. ,liAnth) Al ast % 6 ;
/ Mary Public) *
, J
)
1
{
- l t ;
lo j l
'l
e s
- /,-a N Commonwealth Edison j :- ) ont First National Plaa. Chic go. Ithnois i 7 Address Reply to: Post Office Box 767
\ ,/ Chicago, fihnois S0690
/"\
(_) March 23, 1979 Mr. Olan D. Parr, Chief Light Water Reactors - Branch 3 Division of Project Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Subject:
LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 Mark II Containment n NRC Docket Nos. 50-373/374 I I
'x /
References (a): C. Reed letter to O. D. Parr dated December 1, 1978 (b): O. D. Parr letter to B. Lee, Jr. dated February 1979
,, (c) : L. O. DelGeorge letter to O. D. Parr
( ,) dated February 23, 1979
Dear Mr. Parr:
As indicated in Reference (a), Commonwealth Edison (
agreed to adopt the NRC lead plant acceptance criteria with a limited number of exceptions. That agreement was, in several 4 cases, contingent upon favorable consideration by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of the application of SRSS methodology.
In response to tbc information request made by the NRC Staff in Reference (b), Commonwealth Edison provided in Reference (c) the schedule by which the Mark II Owners would provide the information judged by the Staff to be necessary.
The attached revision to the LaSalle County Station Design Assessment Report provides the outstanding information described in Reference (c). It is the judgement of this applicant that all the information necessary to resolve the "open" Mark II Containment issues has now been provided to the NRC Staff for review.
v
- , s -
E l Comm:nwsgith Edison NRC Docket Nos. 50-373/374 ;
Mr. Olan D. Parr: -
2- March 23, 1979 O
Three (3) signed originals and thirty-seven (37)
! copics of this revision are submitted for your review.
Very truly yours, k l'$
j
/#ff Cordell Reed Assistant Vice-President attachment 4
(
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to cefore me t.his d3,'i day -
of [b'i AO k , 1979. ,
i % ,
fI,l el d G s IM, ,
- (Q.s y,'Hotary Puclic IJ f[
1 4
i 4
4 Y l
9 D
h
, O-i i
.= .
LSCS-MARK'II DAR Rev. 5 3/79 l LA SALLE COUNTY POWER STATION O
INSTRUCTIONS FOR UPDATING YOUR MARK II DAR i
To update your copy of the LSCS-MARK II DAR, remove and destroy l
the following pages and insert pages and figure as indicated.
i I REMOVE INSERT Pages v through vi Pages y through xii Page for Tab, Appen'!ix C Tab Appendix C
, Page C.0-1 Page C.0-1 Pages C.1-1 through C.1-ll Pages C.1-1 through C.1-14 l Pages C. 2-1 through C. 2-5 Pages C.3-1 through C.3-3
! Tab Appendix D j Pages D.1-1 through D.1-12 Figure D.1-1
- O i
i l'
i f
l O
l
.1
. = . _ _ . _ . _ . _ . . . . - - - . _ . - - . . - - . - _ . . . . . . _. - - ..-,.-,.-.-. ,..-., -
( * , t LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 5 3/79
) TABLE OF CONTEtiTS (Cont'd)
PAGE A.2 STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO LOCA LOADS A.2-1 A.2.1 Analytical Model A.2-1 A.2.2 Method of Analysis A.2-1 A.2.3 Response to Jet Impingement Loads A.2-2 A.2.4 Response to Cyclic Condensation Loads A.2-3 A.3 DRYWELL FLOOR ANALYSIS DUE TO DOWNCOMER WHIP A.3.1 Analytical Model A.3-1 A.3.2 Response of Drywell Floor Due to Downcomer Whip A.3-1 k/ A.4 COMPUTER PROGRtS.S A 4-1 A.4.1 DYNAX A.4-1 A.4.2 FAST A.4-2 A.4.3 EALSHZL A.4-2 A.4.- TEMCO A.4-3 A.4.5 PIPSYS A.4-5 A.4.6 RSG A.4-6 O
O B,0 RESPONSE 'io NRC QUESTIONS B.0-1 B.1 OUESTIONS OP JUN2 23; 1976 B.1 .
B.2 QUESTIONS OP JANUARY 19, 1977 B.2-1 B.3 QUESTIONS OF JUNE 30, 1978 B.3-1
(' / C.0 LA SALLE DESIGN BASIS VS. NRC LEAD PLANT ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA C.0-1 C.1 COMPARISON
SUMMARY
C.1-1 C.2 ACCEPTANCE CRITERION II.A.2 C.2-1 C.2.1 Time Phasing of Bubble Dynamic for Multiple Valve Actuations C.2-1 C.2.2 References C.2-3 5 C.3 ACCEPTANCE CRITERION III.A.1 C.3-1 C.3.1 LOCA Water Jet Loads C.3-1 C.3.2 References C.3-3
,m
() D.O FUR'"HER ANALYSES D .1 -1 D.1 FLUID STRUCTURE INTERACTION (FSI) D.1-1 v
?
LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 5 3/79 O rAats or coursarS ccone d>
PAG 8 D.l.1 Original FSI Considerations D.1-1 D.1.2 Generic FSI Study D.1-1 5
D.l.3 La Salle FSI Analysis D.1-2 l D.l.4 References D.1-3 l
i I
i i
J I
L 4
)
- i j
I h
- O i
vi
LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev.5 3/79 LIST OF TABLES
[}
NUMBER TITLE PAGE 1.1-1 Primary Containment Principal Design Parameters and Characteristics 1.1-2 1.3-1 Matrix Identifying Sections Which Respond to Items Requested in April 17, 1975 NRC Letter Regarding LOCA Loads 1.3-3 1.3-2 Matrix Identifying other Information Which Respond to Items Requested in April 17, 1975 NRC Letter Regarding LOCA Loads 1.3-4 1.3-3 Matrix Identifying Sections Which Respond to Items Requested in April 23, 1975
(\
s,s l 1.3-4 NRC Letter Regarding LOCA Loads Matrix Identifying Other Information 1.3-5 Which Respond to Items Requested in April 23, 1975 NRC Letter Regarding LOCA Loads 1.3-6 l 1.3-5 Requested Information 1.3-7 1.3-6 Request for Additional Information Relief Valza Loads 1.3-9 2.1-1 Summary of.ooads 2.1-3 3.2-1 Summary of Maximum and Minimum Average 0 Wall Pressures for Simultaneous SRV Discharge 3.2-11 3.2-la Summary of Maximum and Minimum Averago Wall Pressures for Resonant Sequential SRV Dischar;e 3.2-12 3.2-2 Summary of Maximum and Minimum Average Wall Pressures for Asymmetric SRV Discharge 3.2-13 3.2-2a Summary of Maximum and Minimum Average Wall Pressures for Automatic Depressuriza-tion System Actuation 3.2-14 3.2-2b Summary of Maximum and Minimum Average Wall Pressures for Single Valve Discharge 3.2-15 3.2-3 Summary of the Maxima for the Radial and Tangential Components of the Forces on the Support Columns for Symmetric SRV Discharge 3.2-16 3.2-4 Summary of the Maxima for the Radial and Tangential Components of the Forces on the Support Columns for Asymmetric SRV Discharge 3.2-17 3.2-5 Summary of the Maximum Loads on the Downcomer Due to SRV' Discharge 3.2-18 4.1-1 Design Load Combinations 4.1-7 4.1-2 Margin Table for Base flat for All
() 4.1-3 Valves Discharge Margin Table for Containment for All 4.1-8 Valves Discharge 4.1-9 vii l5
LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 5 3/79 )
l 1
(]) LIST'OF TABLES (Cont'd) 4 NUMBER TITLE PAGE 4.1-4 Margin Table for Reactor Support for All Valves Discharge 4.1-10
! 4.1-5 Margin Table for Base Mat for 2 Valves Discharge 4.1-11 4.1-6 Margin Table for Containment for
! 2 Valves Discharge 4.1-12 4.1-7 Margin Table for Reactor Support for 2 Valves Discharge 4.1-13 4.1-8 Margin Table for Base Mat for ADS Valves Discharge 4.1-14
, 4.1-9 Margin Table for Containment for ADS Valves Discharge 4.1-15
\ 4.1-10 Margin Table for Reactor Support for ADS Valves Discharge 4.1-16 4.1-11 Margin Table for Base Mat for LOCA Plus Single SRV 4.1-17 4.1-12 Margin Tabic for Containment for LOCA Plus Single SRV 4.1-18 l 4.1-13 Margin Table for Reactor Support for LOCA Plus Single SRV 4.1-19 i rs 4.1-14 Margin Table for Drywell Floor for i U SRV and LOCA Loads 4.1-20 4.2-1 Summary of Containment Wall Liner Plate Stresses /Strans for All SRV Cases 4.2-5 l 4.2-2 Sumraery of Containment Wall Liner Anchorage Load / Displacement for All SRV Cases 4.2-6
/~'\ Load Case Design Data Suppression
(,) 4.3-1 Pool Downcomers 4.3-10 4.3-2 Downcomer Piping Maximum Combined Stresses 4.3-11 4.5-1 Suppression Chamber Piping 4.5-4 i A.1-1 Dynamic Soil Properties A.1-6 D.1-1 FSI Amplication Factor D.1-4 D.1-2 Margin Table for Base Mat for All Valves Discharge D.1-5 D.1-3 Margin Table for Base Mat for 2 Valves Discharge D.1-6 D.1-4 Margin Table for Base Mat for ADS Valves Discharge D.1-7 i
D.1-5 Margin Table for LOCA Plus Single SRV D.1-8 D.1-6 Margin Table for Containment for.All 5 Valves' Discharge D.1-9 D.1-7 Margin Table for Containment for 2 Valves Discharge D.1-10 I s$ D.1-8 Margin Table for Containment for ADS Valves Discharge D.1-ll D.1-9 Margin Table for Containment for LOCA Plus Single SRV D.1-12 viii '
l l
LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 5 3/79
,f 3 LIST OF FIGURES
()
NUMBER TITLE 1.1-1 Primary Containment 1.1-2 Suppression Chamber - Plan 1.1-3 Suppression Chamber - Section "L-L" 1.1-4 Suppression Chamber - Section "M-M" 2.2-1 Vacuum Relief Line Arrangement 3.2-1 Cross-Section of Suppression Pool and Definition of Suppression Chamber Walls' Loading Zones 3.2-2 Orientation of SRV Line Discharge Devices for Symmetric SRV Disch'arge 3.2-3 Typical Simultaneous SRV Discharge Forcing Function - Zone 4 3.2-3a Typical Sequential SRV Discharge Forcing
{'")g q Function - Zone 5 3.2-4 Orientation of SRV Line Discharge Devices for Asymmetric SRV Discharge 3.2-5 Typical Asymmetric SRV Discharge ForcingJ .
Function - Zone 4 3.2-Sa Orientation of SRV Discharge Line Devica for Automatic Depressurization Gystem Actuation._
3.2-5b Typical Automatic Depredsuri7ation System Actuation Forcing Function - Zone 4
() 3.2-5c Orientation of SRV Line Discharge Device for: -
Single Valve Discharge 3.2-Sd Typical Single SRV Discharge Forcing Function -
Zone 4 3.2-6 Support Column Geometry 3.2-7 Orientation of Support Columns Considered for Symmetric SRV Discharge 3.2-8 Forcing Function for Support Column (90*) for
())
(
3.2-9 Symmetric SRV Discharge Forcing Function for Support Column (150*) for Symmetric SRV Discharge 3.2-10 Forcing Function for Support Column (250*) ' for Symmetric SRV Discharge 3.2-11 Forcing Function for Support Column (350 ). for Symmetric SRV Discharge 3.2-12 Orientation of Support Column Considered for Asymmetric SRV Discharge 3.2-13 Forcing Function for Support Column (230 ) for Downcomer Vent Geometry 3.2-14 Downcomer Vent Geometry 3.2-15 SRV Discharge Forcing Function for Downcomer 3.3-1 Vertical Load on Single Downcomer 3.3-la Lateral Load on Single Downcomer 3.3-lb Downcomer Loading at Probability Level of 10-4 3.3-2 Downcomer Vent Clearing Jet Angle During LOCA
(] 3.3-3 Jet Impingement Load k> 3.3-4 Drag Coefficients 3.3-5 Drag Load on Submerged Structures Due to Downcomer Vent Clearing ix
vl . ,s . o
, ,O - 4 /
.LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 5 3/79 m u O)
(, LIST OF'FICURES (Cont'd)
. y N MBEk3 , TITLE 3.3 Drag Load Due tojPool Swell and Fallback
, Phenomenon "E '
3.3e7 Maximum Impant Press'Ure ' car Small Structures 3.3-8 Maximum Impact Force on Pipos 3.3-9 Maximum Impact Force'on I-Beams 3.3-10 Time History of Impact Load For Small Structures in Pool Swell Region 3.3-10a Time. History of Impact Load for Large Structures in Pool Swell Region r
- 3.3-10b Time History of Impact Load for Large Structures
^
, . at Breakthrough Elevation ~
t
) 3 .'3-10 c Drag 7 Load on Grating ,
3.3-11 Time.11istory of Combined impact and Drag Loads 3.3-113 Position'of Pool Surface As a Function of Time After LOCA -
Time History of_., Load'on Bane Mat Due to LOCA
~
3.3-12 7
3.3-12a Chugging Ioad t
3.3-13 LDrywell/Wetwell Pressure Transients For a Main steamline Break 3.3-14 Drywell/ Wet'well Temperature 1 Transients For a
('#h ~ Main Steamlino 3.3-IS~ Drywell/Wetwnll Prescure Transients for Recirculation Line Srcak 3.3-16 Drywell/Wetwell Teiaperat,uEe Transients For Recirculation Line Break ~
3.3-17 Drywell/Wetwell Pressure Transients For an Intermediate Break _
g-st 3.3-18 Drywell/Wetwell ;remperature Transients For an
> l-Intermediate Break +-
%l 3.3-19 Drywell/Wetwell Pressure Transients Due to SBA 3.3-20 Drywell/Wetwel-l' Tem 63rature Transients Due to SBA -
4.1-1 Base Mat Plan i" Top Reinforcing Layout
-4.1-2 Base Mat Plan - Bottom Reinforcing Layout
^
4.1-3 Containment Wall - Post-Tensioning Tendon Layout 4.1-4 Containment Wall - Reinforcing Layout 4.1-5 Reactor Support - Concrete Plug
' Reactor Support'- Reinforcing Layout Before 4.1-6 Modification 4.1-7 Unit 1 - DryWell Floor - Reinforcing Layout.
4.1-8 Unit 2 .L Drywelll Floor - Reinforcing Layout 4.1-9 Design Sections." Primary Containment and Reactor Support 4.1-10 Design Sections - Drywell Floor 4.1-11 Representative Base mao Interaction Diagram ( 4.1-12 Representative Containment Interaction Diagram
(>] 4.2-1 Base Mat Liner. Detail',
4.2-2 Containment Wall Liner Dbtail' 4.2-3 BaseMatLinerStiffen$r{ Detail -
5 X.
v e
LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 5 3/79 i
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)
O NUMBER TITLE 4.3-1 La Salle County Units 1 & 2 Downcomer Pipe 4.8-1 Downcomer Vent Bracing A.1-1 Structural Model Including Soil A.1-2 Average In Situ Shear Modulus for Saturated Clays A.1-3 Average Damping Ratios for Saturated Clays A.1-4 Variation of Maximum Dynamic Responses Along Base Mat for All Valve Discharge A.1-5 Notations and Sign Conventions for Forces and Moments A.1-6 Variation of Maximum Values of Forces and Moments Along Base Mat for All Valve Discharge O A.1-7 A.1-8 Variation of Maximum Values of Forces and Moments Along Containment for All Valve Discharge Variation of Maximum Values of Forces and Moments Along Reactor Support for All Valve Discharge A.1-9 Vertical Response Spectra of Reactor Support at Elevation of Diaphragm Floor for All Valve Discharge A.1-10 Horizontal (N-S) Response Spectra of Reactor Support at Elevation of Diaphragm Floor for O. All Valve Discharge A.1-ll Horizontal (E-W) Response Spectra of Reactor Support at Elevation of Diaphragm Floor for All Valve Discharge A.1-12 Variation of Forces and Moments Along Containment for Containment Design Pressure of 45 PSI A.1-13 Variation of Maximum Vertical Acceleration Along g Base Mat for Two Valve Discharge
\ A.1-14 Variation of Maximum Values of Forces and Moments Along Base Mat for Two Valve Discharge A.1-15 Variation of Maximum Values of Forces and Moments Along Containment for Two Valve Discharge A.1-16 Variation of Maximum Values of Forces and Moments.
Along Reactor Support for Two Valve Discharge A.1-17 Vertical Response Spectra of Reactor Support at Elevation of Diaphragm Floor for Two Valve Discharge A.1-18 Horizontal Response Spectra of Reactor Support at Elevation of Diaphragm Floor in Direction Producing Maximum Structural Response A.1-19 Variation of Maximum Values of Forces and Moments Along Base Mat for ADS Valve Discharge A.1-20 Variation of Maximum Values of Forces and Moments Along Containment for ADS-Valve Discharge
, A.1 Variation of Maximum Values of Forces and Moments (s) Along_ Reactor Support for ADS Valve Discharge xi l5
LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 5 3/79 LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)
NUMBER TITLE A.1-22 Variation of Maximum Values of Forces and Moments Along. Base Mat for Single SRV Discharge 4
A.1-23 Variation of Maximum Values of Forces and Moments Along Containment For Single SRV Discharge i
A.1-24 Variation of Maximum Values of Forces and Moments Along Reactor Support For Single SRV Discharge A.2-1 LOCA Jet Impingement Pressure Loads on Base Mat A.2-2 Variation of Maximum Dynamic Responses for LOCA l Jet Impingement i A.2-3 Variation of Maximum Values of Forces and Moments i Along Base Mat for LOCA Jet Impingement A.2-4 Variation of Maximum Values of Forces and. Moments I Along Containment for LOCA Jet Impingement A.2-5 Variation of Maximum Values of Forces and Moments Along Reactor Support for LOCA Jet Impingement
- A.2-6 Vertical Response Spectra of Reactor Support at
! Elevation of Diaphragm Floor for LOCA Jet Impingement A.2-7 LOCA Cyclic Condensation Pressure Load on Base Mat, Containment and Reactor Support A.2-8 Frequency Response for Meridional Moment at
. Design Section #2 in Base Mat for LOCA Cyclic Condensation
- A.2-9 Frequency Response f'or Meridional Moment at Design Section #1 in Containment for LOCA Cyclic Condensation
! A.2-10 Frequency Response for Vertical Accelerationat 3
Base of Reactor Support for LOCA Cyclic i Condensation j A.2-ll Frequency Response for Vertical Acceleration at
! Base of Containment for LOCA Cyclic Condensation i A.3-1 Drywell Floor Analytical Model
! A.3-2 Moment Variation in Drywell Floor (Radial:
Direction) Due to Concentrated Radial Moment A.3-3 Moment Variation in Drywell Floor (Circumferential Direction) Due to Concentrated Radial Moment A.3-4 Moment Variation in Drywell Floor (Radial
, Direction) Due to Concentrated Circumferential Moment) 4 A.3-5 Moment Variation in Drywell Floor (Circumferential Direction) Due to Concentrated Circumferential Moment-
, D.1-1 La Salle FSI Analysis Model- 5 0
xii
..n LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 5 3/79 O C.0 LA SALLE DESIGN BASIS VS. NRC LEAD PLANT ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA This appendix provides an assessment of the current derign i5 basis for the La Salle County Station against the NRC " Mark II Generic Acceptance Criteria for Lead Plants" of September 18, 1978. This comparison and the information provided, reflects the Mark II Lead Plant positions discusseC with the NRC staff on October 19, 1978. The positions assume that the Newmark/ Kennedy Criteria for use of the SRSS method of load combination will be accepted. In areas where the La Salle position differs from the NRC Acceptance Criteria, support will be provided by Mark II Owners Group Tasks and by La Salle unique efforts as appropriate.
O i
i O
l l
LO C.0-1
LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 5 3/79 O c.1 cose^a1 son suas^nr This section provides in a tabular form the results of the comparison between the plant current design basis and the lead plant acceptance criteria.
O O
l l
l 1
O 1
C.1-1
f") /
- "% p
, i /rm D l
- 4 i (
U
\ __. '
\ s)f s
(
\._/
) %/
e MARK 11 OWNERS GR03P IDAD OR PRENOMENON IDAD SPECIFICATI0tl NRC REVIEW STATUS !A SAILE POSITICM ON ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA I. IECA-Related Hydrodynamic Loads 15 A. Submerged boundary Loads 33 psi over-pressure added to local Acceptable Acceptable. However, it shoulJ be noted that 33 psi During Vent Clearing hydrostatic below vent esit (walls is a very conservative estimation of jet loads nich ar.d basemat ) - linear at tenuat ion should be applied only to the basemat in accordance with to pool surface. DFFR (Rev. 2).
Ihe Mark 11 program wili provide a realistic assessment of wall loads during vent clearing based on 4T results.
- 5. Pool Swell Loads
- 1. Pool Swell Analytical Model a) Air Bubble Pressure Calculated by the Pool Swell Anal- Acceptable k
,tical Model (PSAM) used in cal- y culation of submerged boundary g loads. g b) Pool Swell Elevation 1.5 x submergence. NRC Criteria 1.A.1 Acceptable w o
$ c) Pool Swell Velocity Velocity history vs. pool eleva- NRC Criteria 1.A.2 Acceptable 5 4 tion predicted by the PSAM used to compute impact loading on small The impact of a 10% increase in pool swell velocity will structures and drag on gratings be assessed. Although the assumptions used in the Pool between initial pool surface and Swell Analytical Model are already very conservative maximum pool elevation and steady- and eliminate the need for any additional factors, the state drag between vent exit and resulting calculated load increase should not require maximum pool elevation. Anal- design changes since there are only a minimum of components ytical velocity variation used up in the pool swell region of the wetwell.
to maximum velncity. Maximum velocity applies thereafter up to maximum pool swell.
d) Pool Svell Acceleration predicted by the PSAM. Acceptable Acceleration Pool acceleration is utilized in the calculation of acceleration drag loads on submerged components so during pool swell. y e) Wetwell Air Wetwell air compression is cal- Acce pt able
- Compression culated by the PSAM. Defines the w pressure laading on the wetwell D boundary above the pool surface during pool swell.
['~ %
f i .
V
( -) V (w.)
U e
HARK !! CWNEd5 LROUP _
LOAD OR PHENOMENON LDAD SPECIFICATIG4 NRC REVIEd STATUS LA SALLE POSITION 04 ACCEPTANCE CRITERI A f) Drywell Pressure Plant unique. Utilized td PSAM Acceptable if haved Accept 4bla.
History to calsulate pool swell loads. on NEDN-10120. Other-wise plant ualque reviews seguired.
- 2. Loads on Submerged Maximum hobble pressure predicted Acceptable Boundaries by the PSAM added uniformly to local hydrostatic belon vent exit (wella and basemat ) linear sttenua-tion to pool surdace. Applied to walls up to maximum pool swell elavation.
- 3. Impact Load, NRC criteria I.A.6 Acceptable. Although the criteria is unnecesarily con-a) Small Structures 1.5 x Pres sure-velocit y correla- servative investigations indicate that, due to the size n tion f or pipes,and I heems. and frequency of structures in the La Salle pool swell O Constant durat ton pulse. zone, the design loads used are conservative with respect 7 to the NRC Acceptance Criteria, it should be noted that w
analytical work performed by Sargent & Lundy utilizing the PSTF (Pressure Suppression Test Facility) data for M circumferential targets indicates that the DFFR s pe- y cification is conservative for the size and f.cquency w of structures in the La Salle Pool Swell Zone. Tests performed by EPRI (EPRI No. NP-799, May 1978) to deter-mine flat pool impact on rigid and flexible cylinders are also in good agreement with DFFR. The Masse report employed excessively conservative assumptions to define areas where DFFR is nonconservative. The MRC Acceptance Criteria utilized an additional assumption (1-beam imps:t duration is inversely proportional to velo.ity) which is inconsistent with theory and experimental evidence. Nevertheless, the NRC Criteria have been used to assess structures in the pool swell zone and these structures can withstand the conservative criteria.
b) Large Structures None - Plant unicue load where Plant unique review applicable, where applicable c) Grating No impact load specified. P MRC Criteria 1.A.3 Acceptable. La Salle has no grating in pust swell area, w vs. open area correlation ann ##8 I velocity vs. elevation history from the PSAM. "
)) J
,m, u
,r'\
t G} f \
\ *
/
{7.,_,l
- ' \ )
%J ) .
e MARK II CWNERS CROUP LOAD OR PRENOMENON LOAD SPECIFICATION NRC REVIEW STATt:5 LA SALLE POS! TION ON ACCEPTANCE CRITERI A
- 4. Wetwell Air Compression a) Wall Loads Direct application of the PSAN Acce p t a b le esiculated pressure due to wet-well compression.
b) Diaphragm Upward 2.5 psid NRC Criteria I.A.4 Accep table Loads
- 5. Asymmetric Load None NRC Criteria 1.4.5 open Item. Although this load is unnecessarily con-servative, a simplified assessment has been completed which shows that the current design can take this load.
This assessment utilized the vent clearing pressure load (22 psig) applied over a 280 sector of the wetwell wall between the basemat and the drywell floor. Superimposed on this was the hydrostatic load (12 psig at basemat with linear decrease to zero at the water surface) applied over the entire wetwell wall between the taaemat and pool surf ace.
This load has been found to be of little significance compared to other design loads and does not af fect the adequacy of the design. An analysis of data from the Maruiken tests, indicates g that even in a geometry which conservatively bounds the Mark Il n n geometry, the asymmetric load is less than 10% of the $ Y L- m.simum Icad. This will be documented in a generic Mark 11 g b submittal. 3 C. Steam condensation and Chugging Loads y
- 1. Downcomer Lateral Loads a) Single Vent Loads 8.8 KIP static NRC Criteria I.B.! Acceptable b) Fultiple Vent loads Prescribes variation of load NRC Criteria I.S.2 Accept able per downcomer vs. number of downcomers.
- 2. Submerged Boundary w Loads I a) High Steam Flux Sinusoidal pressut- fl*>ctuation Accept able added to local hydrestatic. w Loads Aplit ude uniform below vent ::*
exit-linear attenuation to pool surface. 4.4 psi pea'c-to-peak amplitude. 2,6,7Rz frequcasies.
e e e e e -
MARK II OWNERS CROl'P -
IDAD SPECIFICATION NRC REvit'W STATijs IA SALLE POSITION ON ACCT.PTANCf' CRITERI A LDAD OR PHENOMENDN b) Medium Steam Flux Sinusoidal pressure fluctuation Acceptable Loads added to local hydrostatic. Am-plitude unifurm below ve n t exit-linear attenuatian to pool surface.
7.5 psi peak-to-peak amplit mfe.
5, 6 Hz frequencies.
c) Chugging Loads Representative pressure fluc- Acceptable pending tuation taken from 4T test resolution of FS!
added to local hydrostatic. concerns.
I - uniform loading Maximum amplitude unitorm below condition vent exit-linear attenuation g h pool surface. +4.8 po i n maximum overpressure, -4.0 psi y maximum under pressure, 20-30 Hz @
n f re quency. E Y ,
b - asynenetric loading Maximum amplitude unif orm below condition vent exit-linear at tenuation to g pool surface. 20 psi maxiene overpressure, -14 psi maxiwm underpressure, 20-30 Hz fre-quency, peripheral variation of amplitude follows observed i statistical distribution with I maximum and miniman lia-metrica11y opposed.
E a
ut 3
J
]
\_)
,/~N V
} s I
[]
V
( )
%d Q/ c MARK II OWNERS CkOUP LOAD OR PRENOMENON LOAD SPECIFICATION NFC REVIEW STATUS LA SALLE POSITION ON ACCEPTANCE CRITERI A II. SRV-Related Hydrodynamie Loads l5 A. Pool Temperature Limits Nune specified NRC Criteria 11.1 and Acceptable for KWU and GE four arm II.3 quencher Quencher Air Clearing Mark 11 plants utilizing the NRC Criteria 11.2 Open Item. The first four SRV discharge cases listed in the Loads quencher use an interim load spe- NRC Acceptance Criteria are being assessed. In addition, a cification consisting of the. rams simultaneous valve actuation case is considered. The cases head calculational procedure. considered and the phasing involved were discussed with the $
Mark 11 plants utilising the four NRC in the December 12, 1978 meeting. This material is arm quencher use quencher load documented in Section C.2.
methodology described in DFFR.
Analytical nndels have been used to predict forcing function frequencies for the load cases considered. Because of the wide range of discharge conditions considered the frequency range used exceeds the 4-11 Hz. range specified. A presenta-tion on the impact of modifications to the SRV frequency range was given in the February 13, 1979 meeting. This information will be documented on the Shoreham docket in March 1979. When this documentation is appropriately identified, it will be C referenced for La Salle. O n '
h' In-plant tests will,be run to demonst rate the adequacy and con-
- servatism of ' the design loads. "
U B. Quencher Tie-Down Loads o
- 1. Quencher Arm leads (a) Four Arm Quencher Vertical and lateral arm loads Acceptable developed on the basis of bounding assumptions for air / water dis-charge from the quencher and con-servative combinations of maximui/
minimum bubble pressure acting on the quencher.
E w.
3
)
! e e e e e -
t
- k. I 1
I
, MARK II W NERS CEOUP :
LOAD OR PHENOMENON IDAD SPECIFICATION NRC REVIEW STATUS LA SAtt,E POSITION ON ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA !
l l
(b) KWU T Quencher KWU "T" quencher not included in Review Continuing Acceptable. De se loads will be calculated using the Mar k II 0.C. Program. T quencher methodology and assumptions described in DFFR for four are .
l are loads not specified at this quenchers, as recommended in the Acceptance Criteria. I i time. {
l !
} 2. Quencher Tie-Down Loads [
b
- (a) Four-Arm Quencher includes vertical and lateral Acceptable .L i'
arm load transmitted to the base-mat via the tie downa. See ;
II.C.I.a above plus vertical i transient wave and thrust loads. [
[ Thrust load calculated using a standard momentum balance. Ver-l i tical and lateral moments for j air or water clearing are cal- t culated based on conservative t clearing assumptions.
C (b) KWU "T" Quencher FWU "T" quencher not included Review Continuing Acceptable. hese loads will be calculated using the Q in Mark II 0.G. program. T methodology and assumptions described in DFFR for four g
, quencher tie-down loads not arn quenchers, as recommended in the Acceptance Criteria.
P g l, 7 specified at this time.
' w ;
I .!!!. LOCA/SRV Submerged Structure Lnads e,
[5 E f A. LOCA/SRV Jet Loads l See Section C.3
- 1. IDCA/ dams head SRV Methodology based on a quasi-one- NRC Criteria 111.A.1 Jet Loads dimensional model.
- 2. SRV-Quencher Jet Loads No loads specified for lead plant s. NRC Criteria III.A.2 Open Item. he spherical zone of influence defined in Model under development in long- the Acceptance Criteria is not approppriate for the term program. two are quench +c. A zone of influence for each arm will l
- i. be defined as a cylinder with an axis coincidental l
with the quencher arm. The length of the cylinder will j be equal to the length of the quencher arm plus 10 end
! cap hole diameters. De radius of the cylinder is expected
! to be quite small. However, because no structures are within
! 5 feet of the quencher arm, 5 feet will be assumed. Since no so i structures are located within 5 feet of the quencher, the NRC $
l Criterion III.A.2 is now satisfied.
i W
D*
I 4
. _ . _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ . _ .. ___ . . . __ _ _ __ .____ _ __ _ ___ u
O .
O n%J O
~
MARK 11 OWNERS CROUP IDAD OR PHENOMENON IDAD SPECIFICATION NkC REVIEW STATUS IA SALLE POSITION ON ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
- 5. LOCA/SRV Air Bubble Drag Open Item Loads The NRC Acceptance Criteria required modification to the
- 1. 1DCA Air Bubble loads The methodology follows the LOCA NRC Criteria Ill.B.l. present methodology in several areas. Resolution has been air carryover phase from butsble reached in most cases. Generic documentation will be provided charging, bubble contract, pool in a Mark 11 Owners Group submittal. For La Salle County rise and pool fallback. ne Station, these items have been addressed as follows:
dr ag calculations include standard and acceleration drag components. a) Bubble Asyannetry - Although bubble asynenetry has been in the NRC Criteria, the conservatisms used in modeling the IDCA blowdown are sufficient to account for the small asynenetric ef fects pos tulated. No aJditional multipliers are necessary on the fluid velocity.
b) Standard Drag in Accelerating Plows - Standard drag is affected by the characteristica of an accelerating flow.
Information is available in the literature (References 1, 2, and 3) to assess the effects on drsg coefficients.
LOCA air charging is censidered a constant acceleration 5 situation to which Reference I applies. Pool swell may be considered a portion of an oscillatory flow. Reference 2 or Reference 3 is used depending upon the Reynolds N n number.
h a c) Velocity and Acceleration Definition - Submerged structure "
loads are computed by subdividing the structure into seg-ments and calculating drag loads based upon the velocity 5 and acceleration predicted at the midpoint of the segment 5 t' in a uniform flow field. nis is the accepted procedure N for calculating drag loads and is expected to cauae no inaccuracies.
To verify the adequacy of this method, a sensitivity study was performed. A basic guideline has been established re-quiring L/D (ratio of length of segment to diameter) to be approximately 1.0 < L/D$ 1.5. To test this guide line, a typical structure was analyzed at L/D ratios of 1.5, 0.75, and 0.1875. ne resulting acceleration and velocity step 5 functions were compared by calculating the area under the curves at various times. The areas varied by less than Y 0.10%. nie study will be documented by the Mark II f generic program. u d) Inter ference Ef f ects - Dreg loads may be increased or U decreased wFen structures are located close to each other 3 or to boundaries. Based upon the structures aize, sepa- 5 ratico, stagger aagle and the type of flow, appropriate fsetors may be found in the literature to modify both acceleration and standard drag. Reference 4 through 10 are used to assess the ef fect cf interference.
~ ~ + - _ _ . _ _ _ . - . -
e e e e e -
MARK 11 OWNERS CROUP LOAD OR PRENOMENON LOAD SPECIFICATION NRC REVIEW STATUS LA EALLE POSITION ON ACCEPTW4CE CRITERIA 4
e) Int er ference in Downcomer Bracing - Does not apply to La Salle.
- 2. SRV-Rams Head Air The methodology is based on an NNC Criteria 111.B.2 Open item
! Bubble Loads analytical model of the bubble charging process including bubble a) Neglecting Standard Drag - Standard drag is calculated rise anJ oscillation. Accelera- and included for all submerged structure load calculations.
tion drag alone is considered, a b) LOCA Bubble Criteria - 1he thCA air bubble coments also apply to the SRV bubbles. $
- 3. SRV-Quencher Air No quencher drag model provided for NRC Criteria 111.B.3. Open item Bubble Loads lead plants. Lead plants propose
! interim use of rams head model (See The bubble location and radius recommended in the acceptance
- 111.B.2 above). Model will be criteria is not appropriate for T-quenchers. Bubbles are
- developed in long-term program. actually located near the arms. The bubble size is predicted
- ) from the line air volume. g I n 3 4
~ C. Steam Condensation Drag No generic load methodology Lead plant load spe- Described in La Salle Closure Report
$ Loads provided. Generic model under cification and KRC h' development in long-term program. review will be con- 5 4
l ducted on a plant ;;
1 unique basis with ,,
confirmation in g long-term program i using generic model.
4 t
I f
- - _ - - - - . ~ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . _ . _ . - . - . . . _ _ _ . _ .
- . _ . . - . - . - . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . - _ ~ . _ _ - _ _ _
e e e e e -
t i
l i
I i
MARK II OWNERS CROUP ;
14AD OR PitENOMENON LOAD SPECIFICATION NRC REVIEW STATUS IA SALLE POSITION CN ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA >
I
, IV. Secondarv Loads 15 f
l A. Sonic Wave load Negligible Load - none specified Acceptable ,
B. Compressive Wave load Negligible lead - none specified Acce pt able ,
l C. Post Swell Wave lead No generic load provided Plant unique load Described in La Salle Closure Report (
specificat ion and [
NRC review.
D. Seismic Slosh Load No generic load provided Plant unique load Described in La Salle Closure Report l i specification and j l
NRC review.
E. Fallback load on Submerged Negligible load - none specified Acce ptable l Boundary f
F. Thrust Loads Momentum balance Acceptable C. Friction Drag Loads Standard f riction drag calculations Acceptable n on Vents 7
- - g
.L H. Vent Clearing Loads Negligible Load - none specified Acce p table p o .'e P'e i l
l l
l l
?
?
i v.
l l
O O O
~
e i
MARK II OWNERS CROUP LOAD OR PRENOMEN0N LOAD SPECIFICATION NRC REVIEW STATUS LA SALLE POSITION ON ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA I e FUNCTIONAL Interim technical Acceptable, Radabaugh criteria may be used in some cases if CAPABILITY position (7/19/78) NRC finds acceptable.
4 MASS-ENERCY Ver{fyusingRELAP/ teptable i RELEASE FOR MOD ANNULUS PRESS.
l QUESTIONS 15% peak broadening Acceptable MEB-2, MEB-5 to be us d.
MEB-3, MEB-5 Closely spaced modes Acceptable. NSSS scope uses modified summation combined Per 1.92 per approved GESSAR. g HEB-1 Dynamic analysis Acceptable methods acceptable i HEB-2 OBE Damping - Level r.
O "
A or B Acceptable T SSE Damping - Level 8
l C C or D I MEB-6 Seismic slosh plant Acceptable unique review a
MEB-7a and b Load Combinations: Acceptable. See load combination table for Case #2 and 7 AP+SSE OBE+SRV MEB-8 Functional capability See load combination table.
and piping acceptance criteria i
l
,I 4
?
w i ;!
1
_- . . . . - - . . - . . . . .. .. . . _ - . . . . ~ . . - . . .-. -
l l
1 W
i
- ' MARK II OWNERS GROUP LOAD PHENOMENON LOAD SPECIFICATTON NRC REVIEW STATUS IA SALLE POSITION ON ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA t
l i 1. N+SRV To B Acceptable t
j 2. N+SRV +0BE to B Acceptable Approved CESSAR approach used for NSSS.
- 3. N+SRVg g+SSE to C Acceptable l l 4. N+SRV +0BE+15A to C Acceptable ad8
- 5. N+SRV g +
, 0BE+18A to C Accep.able
- 6. N+SRV, ,+SSE+IBA to C Acceptable i 7. N+SSE+DBA to C Acceptable e
) 8. N to A Acceptable I 9. N+0BE to 8 Acceptable n
! 10. N+SRV,+SSE+DBA to C Applied to containment structure only (See M 020.22 and y '
i n DFFR 5.2.4, and letter to R. J. Mattson from L. J. Sobon
- 5 l 7 dated Feb. 22, 1979). h,
! U %
i 90 i
i 1
l ,
i t
O
}
i__ _ _ . _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ . __ _ - . . . - - , . - _ - . - _ . - _ . . ._ __
LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 5 3/79 REFERENCES O
- 1. T. Sarpkaya, and C. J. Garrison, " Vortex Formation and Resistance in Unsteady Flow," Journal of Applied Mechanics, pp. 16-24.
- 2. T. Sarpkaya, " Forces on Cylinders and Spheres in a Sinus-oidally Oscillating Fluid," Transactions of the ASME, March 1975, pp. 32-37.
- 3. T. Sarpkaya, " Vortex Shedding and Resistance in Harmonic
() Flow About Smooth and Rough Circular Cylinders at High Reynolds Numbers," NPS-59SL76021, February 1976, pg. 63.
- 4. C. Dalton and J. M. Szabo, " Drag on a Group of Cylinders" Transactions of the ASME, Journal of the Pressure Vessel Technology, February 1977, pp. 152-157. 5
- 5. B. I. Hori, " Experiments on Flow Around a Fair of Parallel Circular Cylinders", Proceedings of the 9th Japan National Congress for Applied Mechanics, 1959, pp. 231-234.
~'
- 6. C. Dalton, and R. A. Helfinstein, " Potential Flow Past
, N/ a Group of Circular Cylinders", Journal of Basic Engineering, ASME, December 1971, pp. 636-642.
- 7. T. Yamamoto, and J. H. Nath, " Forces on Many Cylinders Near a Plane Boundary", Presented at the April 5-8, 1976, ASCE National Water Resources and Ocean Eng. Convention, held at San Diego, California (Preprint 2633).
- 8. 'T. Yamamoto, _" Hydrodynamic Forces on Multiple Circular Cylinders", Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, September 1976, pp. 1193-1210.
O l C.1-13 0 - . _ . .. . -- _. . . - . . .. - . - -
-. _ . -- . = _ _ . - _ _ . , . - - - . . - - - . - . = . _ - - _ .
i .
LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 5 3/79 9
- 9. T. Sarpkaya, "In-Line and Transverse Forces on Cylinders Near a Wall in Oscillatory Flow at High Reynolds Numbers",
Presented at Offshore Technology Conference, May 1977.
S .
i
- 10. T. Sarpkaya, " Forces on Cylinders Near a Plane Boundary in a Sinusoidally Oscillating Fluid", " Journal of Fluids
! Engineering, ASME, September 1976, pp. 499-505.
l i
t j
i.
O l
i i
[ s, I
4 4
i j 4
- O >
C.1-14
LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 5 3/79 C.2 ACCEPTANCE CRITERION II.A.2 O C.2.1 Time Phasing of Bubble Dynamics for Multiple Valve Actuations When multiple SRV vent lines discharge into a suppression pool, the relative timing among the air bubbles' dynamics depends on individual characteristics of the valves and lines involved.
In the calculation of dynamic loads, the following factors may be taken into account for various postulated discharge cases:
f~h
%- Main steam supply pressure transient.
SRV pressure setpoint.
Vent line characteristics (length, diameter, equivalent friction factors, etc.).
Initial conditions in line.
The supply pressure (including its time rate of increase) and S/RV setpoint determine each valve's actuation time.
The line characteristics and initial conditions determine each line's clearing time as well as bubble formation times e-
/ ,y and dynamics (bubble pressure, radius and depth versus time).
\I Appropriate vent clearing times is calculated by using the vent clearing model provided in Reference 1. The line clearing time is accurately calculated as demonstrated by a predicted clearing time of 240 ms compared to a range of 200-300 ms indicated by test data (Reference 2) for the same clearing transient. The valve flow rate was calculated using a con-servative method which gives flow 22.5% higher than expected.
A conservatively short valve opening time is also used which l
l will maximize the bubble pressures.
L 1
The bounding load approach taken in design assessment calculations
(~} is to postulate a number of conceivable discharge situations, then mechanistically calculate the suppression pool loading '
C.2-1 ,
1
LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 5 3/79
~s functions for each case, and finally select the bounding case
-) on the basis of the load function or its structural response.
The bounding discharge case usually varies depending on the configuration of the loaded structure. That is, major struc-tural loads on the pedestal, basemat and containment are often bounded for a different discharge case than are loads on submerged structures, such as support columns, downcomers, and SRV vent lines themselves. The discharge cases must also include bounding i structural loads for forces in the vertical and horizontal directions as well as bounding " rocking" moments. Mechanistic calculations include individual vent line transients, air
/h bubble dynamics, and the load factors which relate bubble U dynamics to pressure or drag forces on specific structures.
Each calculation is unique to each plant, structure and dis-charge case.
The following discharge cases have been used for design assessment as reported in Section 3.2:
- 1. single SRV discharge,
- 2. asymmetric discharge from two adjacent lines,
- 3. ADS discharge, l'
g_,)
( ,) 4. simultaneous actuation of all valves, and
- 5. sequential actuation of all valves.
It should be recognized that'several (five) all valve discharge cases were studied before selecting the one (four above) that produced the largest load magnitudes. The all valve discharge cases and a brief description of each are provided in Table C.2-1. Thus, several mechanistic methods were used to determine five all valve load trials. By considering five trials which utilize worst-case mechanistic assumptions and conservative load methodology, it is judged that this procedure has produced I) v C.2-2
LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 5 3/79 a conservative and appropriate load for design assessment O of SRv Cese 4 referenced esove. !
l l
C.2.2 References
- 1. Mark II Dynamic Forcing Function Report, NEDO-21061, Rev. 2, General Electric.
5 1
- 2. Mark I Containment Program Analytical Model for Computing Transient Pressures and Forces in the Safety / Relief Valve l Discharge Line, NEDE-23749-P, General Electric, February 10 79, f
!O '
4 4
lO I
4 C.2-3 -
1
,,.,.v.,..v ..y. .----w ,om.w,.m.x.--w,-w,---,,--my,v.,... w.,.,-w---,,r,~wm --, v-, v e ,n....e.-,-r+,-- r- .,--~,v,wv.~, - - . - -
I '
LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 5 .3/79 3
l TABLE C.2-1 IDENTIFICATION OF ALL-VALVE DISCHARGE CASES 4
j 1. Simultaneous Bubble Discharge. All 18 bubble pairs are identical and in phase. SRSS is used to simultaneously combine the effect of all the bubbles.
1
- 2. Symmetric Discharge. Simultaneous firing of all 18 valves used in Subsection 3.2.1.2 analysis. The bubble pairs j are all unique and are not in phase. The effect of each t
() bubble pair is combined by the SRSS method and each line's effect is then added linearly.
i
- 3. Ganged Sequential Discharge. All 18 lines are discharged i
in accordance with their given pressure relief setpoints
! for a linear RPV pressure transient. The maximum anticipated RPV pressure ramp rate of 136.4 psi /sec is used. The bubble pairs are all unique and out of phase. The effects 5
of the bubbles are combined as in (2) above.
- 4. Continuous Sequential Discharge.
All 18 lines are discharged in accordance with 18 different relief setpoints which 4 s,/ could occur due to setpoint drift. The " drift" is' assumed t
f to cause all 18 setpoints to be equally spaced (in pressure) '
over the duration of SRV discharge. A linear RPV pressure transient-is used. The maximum anticipated RPV pressure i
ramp rate of-136.4 psi /sec is used. The bubble pairs 1
are all unique and out of phase.
~
l Their effects are combined as in (2) above.
l
- 5. Resonant Sequential Symmetric Discharge. All 18 lines
-are discharged in accordance with their given pressure relief setpoints for a linear RPV pressure transient.
This case is reported in Subsection 3.2.1.2.2. .These l
setpoints are equally _ spaced-in pressure. The period i
C.2-4 l-
-_ ,_ , . . - . _ - . _ _ . _ - , - . . - . _ , . - , ,_ -_._ -,_, . , = _ , . ~ , . _ , _ . _ . , _ _ _ , ~ ,
i LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 5 3/79 I l
of oscillation of the first bubble pair in the pool is i
determined. Then, the RPV pressure ramp rate is chosen l such that the period between actuation of adjacent relief setpoints equals the oscillation period of the bubbles in the pool. In this manner, an effort is made to cause the discharge of subsequent relief valves to be in " resonance" with the bubbles in the suppression pool. Variations 5
of the pressure ramp rate or value setpoint will generally result in bubbles further out of phase since these variables ,
have been chosen within an allowable range to be as closely phased as possible. The effects of bubble pairs are combined
() as in (2) above.
4 i
p l
l l
(:)
C.2-5
,. _- . _ . . . .. ., , , - _ - -- .- . - . - . - . - = - - - - . .
LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 5 3/79 C.3 ACCEPTANCE CRITERION III.A.1 O
C.3.1 LOCA Water Jet Loads The NRC Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria required LOCA water jet loads to include the effects of a spherical vortex of fluid traveling with the jet front predicted by the Moody jet model (Reference 1) . This procedure is expected to yield e conservative result because the Moody model predicts jet penetra-tions much greater than those observed in tests.
3 In response to Criteria III.A.1, the LOCA water jet loads s_) have been reassessed by several methods. The first is essen-tially the Acceptance Criteria III.A.1, incorporating a modifi-cation to the Moody methodology to overcome mathematical difficulties. The second is an adaptation of the method de-scribed by Abramovich and Solan (Reference 2). This method 5
conforms to the intent of the Acceptance Criteria, but describes
() the vortex motion by applying conservation of momentum rather than using the Moody model. A final method that has been examined on a preliminary basis is the ring vortex model which is proposed by the Mark II Generic Program.
( The NRC Acceptance Criteria utilizing the Moody jet model results in a vortex with a motion described by a locus of points. These points are found by tracking a number of constant velocity particles exiting from the downcomer and locating the points where a particle is overtaken by the one exiting after it. This calculation is easily done for a jet with constant acceleration, but causes difficulties when applied to a jet of increasing acceleration. When the Moody method is rigorously applied, depending upon the coordinate system chosen, the jet is predicted to reverse and move back to the~
vent or time as the jet front reverses. This result is unacceptable.
C.3-1
LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 5 3/79 An alternate method has been applied which resolves these problems while conforming to the intent of the original NRC Acceptance Criteria. If the jet front position and velocity is described at any time by the particle having traveled the I farthest, the jet motion is well behaved until the jet is terminated. High accelerations are experienced near the end of the transient that are overly conservative.
After vent clearing the vortex motion can be calculated assuming it continues through the pool. The water jet is, in fact, dissipated in the turbulence caused by flow of air into the pool. Calculations show that, until vent clearing, LOCA water jet loads on submerged structures in the La Salle suppression pool are negligible (less than 10% of design values). Higher loads are calculated on the quencher arms if the vortex is allowed to continue until it impacts the quencher arm. How-ever, these loads are also within the design capability of O the quencher. The calculations conservatively used direct jet 5
impingement on the quencher arms (the arms are offset in the actual plan t) , and no interchange of mass between the jet and pool. The vortex was considered a rigid sphere in determination of the drag load which retards its motion.
(rq The second method is similar to that described above but uses a different method to describe the vortex motion. Following Abramovich and Solan (Reference 2), the motion and size of the vortex may be described assuming that momentum and mass are conserved as the jet forms the vortex. Momentum is lost only through drag on the fluid sphere.
The resulting motion of the vortex is similar to that calculated previously, but without the unrealistic high accelerations noted above. The loads are lower throughout the transient.
This result is again conservative because interaction between the vortex and pool (other than rigid body drag) has been ignored.
C.3-2 l I
t
LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 5 3/79 The Mark II Generic Program has proposed a ring vortex model of the LOCA water jet. Preliminary results indicate this model predicts existing experimental data (Reference 3) well and wil] result in lower loads than the methods described above.
Based on the above evaluations, it is judged that for La Salle the LOCA water jet loads have been evaluated in accordance with the intent of the NRC criteria. As indicated, additional evaluations were done which demonstrate the conservatism of this evaluations. The results of these evaluations were that
}
the S/RV quencher loads, were negligible relative to the con-trolling quencher design loads.
C.3.2 References 5
- 1. " Analytical Model for Liquid Jet Properties for Predicting Forces on Rigid Submerged Structures" NEDE-21472, September 1977,
- 2. S. Abramovich and A. Solan, "The Initial Development of a Submerged Laminar Round Jet". Journal Fluid Mechanics, i
, ,9 1978, Vol. 59, part 4, pp. 791-801.
- 3. " Mark I Containment Program 1/4 Scale Test Report Loads on Submerged Structures Due to LOCA Air Bubbles and Water Jets "NEDE-23817-P, September 1978.
O C.3-3 i
L
LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 5 3/79
/^T
(_/ D.0 FURTHER ANALYSES D.1 FLUID STRUCTURE INTERACTION (FSI)
D.l.1 Original FSI Considerations The primary consideration at the time of the subm ttal of the DAR was to make a conservative assessment of the plant capability to carry additional-loads due to pool dynamics by using conservative loads in readily available structural
(~'T analysis models and to report the assessment and plant modi-fications to the NRC as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, when the containment structure was originally assessed for pool dynamic loads the effect of possible interaction between the rigid suppression pool wall and the fluid contained in the pool was neglected as small enough to be covered by other 5
_ conservatisms obtained in the assessment.
%s/
This conclusion is justified because:
- a. Conservative pool dynamic loads were used in the
- assessment.
(m\
V
- b. Forces induced in the structures by pool dynamic loads are small compared to the governing design loads which include the effects of earthquake and design accident pressure.
These conservatisms in the design assessment coupled with the available reserve margin was judged to cover the ap-proximation involved in neglecting the FSI effects.
l l
D.1.2 Generic FSI Study o
kJ As part of the Mark II containment program, Burns & Roe analyzed for pool dynamic loads three typical Mark II containment pool D.1-1
LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev, 5 3/79 i
f- .
j walls with and without fluid to estimate the approximation i i
involved in neglecting FSI effects in structural analysis for pool dynamic loads. Details of this study are presented in Reference 1.
Table D.1-1 summarizes the results of the Burns & Roe study applicable to the La Salle containment wall. The. ratio of the maximum positive / negative wall displacements with and without fluid was used in this study as a measure of the in-fluence of fluid structure interaction on the structural re-n sponse.
The study showed that:
- a. FSI effects are present to varied degrees and that their magnitude is not always negligible.
r3 lJ b. FSI does not necessarily amplify the wall responses 5
but also tends to reduce the responses, depending on the dynamic characteristics of the structure and the loading.
- c. Plant unique FSI analyses will be necessary to .,
determine FSI effects accurately.
D.l.3 La Salle FSI Analysis A plant unique FSI analysis has been performed to determine the actual FSI-inclusive forces and moments.
Figure D.1-1 shows the refined structural analysic model which includes the containment wall, the basemat, the founding soil, and the fluid in the pool. The fluid is simulated by fluid finite elements described in Reference 2. Dynamic' analyses 3
g/
(_ for SRV and LOCA chugging loads were performed using t'his plant unique FSI analysis model and the analysis procedures l
D.1-2
~
LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 5 3/79 O described in Subsections 5.1.1 and 5.1,'2 of the Closure Report.
The resulting forces and moments in the structure include the actual plant unique FSI effects. FSI does not necessarily amplify the wall forces, but also tends to reduce them, depending on the dynamic characteristics of the structure and the loading.
These forces and moments are combined with other loads in
- the load combinations defined in Table 4.1-1 using the conserva-tive ABS method, even though the SRSS method is more appropriate.
4 The margin factors for the containment wall and basemat including the actual FSI effects are presented in Tables D.1-2 through j D.1-9. It can be seen that the containment structure has the capability to sustain the pool dynamic loads including f
5 the attendant FSI effects.
i D.l.4 References i
O' l. " Evaluation of Fluid Structure Interaction Effects on B',lR Mark II Containment Structures," NEDE-21936-P.
- 2. A. J. Kalinowski, " Transmission of Shock Waves into Submerged Fluid Filled Vessels," ASME Conference on FSI Phenomena in Pressure Vessel and Piping Systems, !
3 TVP2TB-026, 1977.
- 3. K. T. Patton, Tables of Hydrodynamic Mass Factors for ,
3 Translational Motion, ASME Paper No. 65-WA/UNT-2; 1965.
i i
l l O D.1-3
LSCS-MARK II DAR Rev. 5 3/79 l l
i
(). TABLE D.1-1 FSI AMPLIFICATION FACTOR FSI AMPLIFICATION LOADING RESPONSE FACTOR (REFERENCE 1)
Max. + ve Displ. 0.993 SRV 5 Hz.
. Max. - ve Displ. 0.982 Max. + ve Displ. 1.084 8 Hz.
Max. - ve Displ. 1.347
, Max. + ve Displ. 1.066
,9 SRV 11 Hz.
Max. - ve Displ. 1.747 Max. + ve Displ. 1.299 Chugging Max. - ve Displ. 0.902 5
Max. response with fluid FSI Amplification factor = Max. response without fluid O
O O.
D.1-4
I o (J O O O
~
TABLE D.1-2 MARGIN TABLE FOR BASE MAT FOR ALL VALVES DISCHARGE (With Plant Unique FSI)
STRESS REINFORCING STEEL CONCRETE SHEAR LOAD COMPONENT COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 2.03 2 4.72 2 1.05 2 [
2 o
2.27 2 5.23 2 1.30 2 7 a 3 1.33 2 3.01 2 E
1.01 2 5 M
4 NA NA NA NA NA NA [
4a NA NA NA NA NA NA
+
5 NA NA NA NA NA NA Sa Mn NA NA NA NA NA 6 1.30 2 2.91 4 2 1.04 2 7 NA NA NA
- NA NA NA 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA NOTES
- Refer to Table 4.1-1 w
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress .$
- Refer to Figures 4.1-9 & 4.1-10 NA = Not Applicable m N
a
.~ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . .
o O o O. o '
TABLE D.1-3 MARGIN TABLE FOR BASE MAT FOR 2 VALVES DISCHARGE (With Plant Unique FSI)
STRESS. . REINFORCING STEEL LOAD CONCRETE SHEAR COMPONENT ,
COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN EQUATION
- CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 2.61 2 6.07 2 1.35 '
2 5 2 2.92 2 O 6.73 2 1.68 2 i
,o 3 1.71 2 3.87 2 h
- w. 1.27 2 y k 4 2.07 2 5.05 2 2.16 2 U 4a NA NA NA NA NA NA h 5 N 5 1.58 2 3.59 2 1.64 2 Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 1.67 2 3.75 2 1.32 2 7 1.39 2 3.28 2 1.50 2 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA .
i NOTES:
- Refer to Table 4.1-1 s
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress x
- Refer to. Figures 4.1-9 & 4.1-10 $.
NA = Not Applicable tn v
u_________ _ - -
O O O CT V
O
~
TABLE D. l-4 MARGIN TABLE FOR BASE MAT FOR ADS VALVES DISCHARGE (With Plant Unique FSI)
STRESS REINFORCING STEEL CONCRETE SHEAR LOAD COMPONENT COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL ECUATION* FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION NA NA NA NA NA NA 1
NA NA NA NA NA NA g 2 NA NA NA NA NA iT4 3 NA h
- 4 1.61 2 3.92 2 1.68 2 $
H NA NA NA 5 H 4a NA NA NA c
5 1.23 2 2.79 2 1.27 2 g NA NA NA NA NA NA Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA 6
i 1.08 2 2.55 2 1.16 2 7
NA NA NA NA NA NA 7a NOTES:
- Refer to Table 4.1-1 m
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress @
< *** Refer to Figures 4.1-9 & 4.1-10 NA = Not Applicable m 5
+A
,9
_)
L./
j f)
'n /
/ ,
'Ls') ,
TABLE D.1-5 MARGIN TABLE FOR BASE MAT FOR LOCA PLUS SINGLE SRV (With Plant Unique FSI)
STRESS REINFORCING STEEL CONCRETE SHEAR LOAD COMPONENT COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 NA NA NA NA .JA NA 5 o
I en 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA I h
3 NA NA NA NA NA NA
,o 4 NA NA NA NA NA NA U
' co a
4a 1.55 2 3.39 2 1.79 2 5 g
5 NA NA NA NA NA NA Sa 1.58 2 2.59 2 1.30 2 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7a 1.58 2 2.43 2 1.19 2 NOTES:
- Refer to Table 4.1-1
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress y
- Refer to Figures 4.1-9 & 4.1-10 <
NA = Not Applicable un m
Q
0 0 ("']
0 ~
TABLE D.1-6 MARGIN TABLE FOR CONTAINMENT FOR ALL VALVES DISCHARGE (With Plant Unique FSI)
STRESS REINFORCING STEEL CONCRETE SHEAR LOAD COMPONENT COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 4.33 1 2.17 1 1.23 13 e 2 4.16 1 2.02 o 1 1.26 13 m I
y 3 2.44 14 1.82 1 1.26 13 o M 4 NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 s H
4a NA NA NA NA NA NA o
- o 5 NA NA NA NA NA NA Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 2.16 14 1.83 1 1.27 13 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA NOTES:
- Refer to Table 4.1-1 $
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress f
- Refer to Figures 4.1-9 & 4.1-10 NA = Not Applicable
- a l
L --------- ---------------- -----------------_ -- - - - - - - -- - - - -- ---------- ------
o .g o nV o -
TABLE D.1-7 MARGIN TABLE FOR CONTAINMENT FOR 2 VALVES DISCHARGE (With Plant Unique FSI)
STRESS REINFORCING STEEL CONCRETE SHEAR LOAD COMPONENT COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 6.22 1 3.12 1 1.23 13 un 2 5.97 1 2.90 1 1.26 13 @
c g 3 3.50 14 2.61 1 1.26 13 W
5 4 2.69 14 3.42 1 1.28 13 5 U 4a NA NA NA NA NA NA a 5 1.75 14 3.04 1 1.28 13 *
-Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 3.10 14 2.63 1 1.27 13 7 1.52 14 2.97 1 1.28 13 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA NOTES:
- Refer to Table 4.1-1 <
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress
- Refer to Figures 4.1-9 & 4.1-10 m NA = Not Applicable D
w
/
O O lt?
O .
TABLE D.1-8 MARGIN TABLE FOR CONTAINMENT FOR ADS VALVES DISCHARGE (With Plant Unique FSI)
STRESS REINFORCING STEEL CONCRETE SHEAR LOAD COMPONENT -
COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA g 2 NA NA NA o
o NA NA NA y 3 NA NA NA B NA NA NA Y x
^
[ 4 1.87 14 2.38 1 1.28 13 5
[
4a NA NA NA N3. NA NA 5 1.22 x
14 2.12 1 1.28 13 Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 1.06 14 2.07 1 1.28 13 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA NOTES:
- Refer to Table 4.1-1 .
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress *
- Refer to Figures 4.1-9 & 4.1-10 NA = Not Applicabla g N
w C
o ( o n'v o -
e w
TABLE D.1-9 MARGIN TABLE FOR CONTAINMENT FOR LOCA PLUS SINGLE SRV (With Plant Unique FSI)
STRESS REINFORCING STEEL CONCRETE SHEAR LOAD COMPONENT COMBINATION MARGIN ** CRITICAL *** MARGIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA &
2 NA NA NA NA NA NA y F
7 3 NA NA NA NA NA NA !*
g 4 NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 M 4a 1.57 14 2.59 1 1.52 8 g
- c 5 NA NA NA NA NA NA Sa 1.08 14 2.66 1 1.50 8 6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7a 1.00 14 2.6 1 1.54 8
?
NOTES:
- Refer to Table 4.1-1 I
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress m
- Refer to Figures 4.1-9 & 4.1-10 NA = Not Applicable w h.
.2 , . .
I l 4.,,. Rev. 5 3/79 s
g o. . . .i O . f. ._._ -.-.---. .-.
g . . - - .
1 .~. .
t
= - .. s e = . +
L
$ A !
s . .i .
, $j g --
+ ~, j p_ . .. - . . ;
ri '. !
E
- . t. x
+
2 55 u 4 1 gg -
-i t' * -*
e a == '
, >*3 7' > +-.-. o <
T l 2 22-i
.I , o o. q , ,
t - - - + "
- .- . m.
+ - - + - .*+ 4 . + 4 j . d . _ _ . < .<
<iil
. . .........4 I l
,.l.i....I
. m .
-- . ,L. . & ._. - -.i ,,
u W ,
.L - __
!g !
i
. . . x \ \x; ! N _ x- i x
( Lg s__. \ . . t_ p' -
3 ,
- m-E I w- -
- f. . _) ! !
, - t g '
l r . _ . ! _ . _ _ _ _ _ :
I E ; ! i b L ! ! ! ._
i '
e L l
$ l
, e f .)
}-
s
~!
o.
- T PFD RtXX I
_ 't .' h" . _ ..__..__.__.
LA SALLE COUNTY STATION MARK ll DESIGN ASSESSM ENT REPORT O rIouaE o.i-i LA SALLE FSI ANALYSIS MODEL 1
1 i
-"