ML20090L825
| ML20090L825 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1976 |
| From: | Axline J, Edwards N, Hoedeman K NU*TEC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20090L823 | List: |
| References | |
| NSP-01-168, NSP-1-168, NUDOCS 9102130406 | |
| Download: ML20090L825 (34) | |
Text
_
NSP-01-168 October 1976 l
MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT SUPPLEMENT TO Sil0RT TERM PROGRAM PLANT UNIQUE TORUS SUPPORT AND ATTACilED PIPING ANALYSIS Prepared for:
Northern States Power Company l
Prepared by:
Approved by:
k.
ll
_ n,}h l <
~
~
$>k K.
. Iloedeman, P.E.
N. W. Edwards f
Issued by:
I
>J g
_ Mm_
t i,
. W. Axline R. E. Keever, P.E.
- a22Rgget page nutech 4
P PDR
\\
Revision Control Sheet SUllJ ECT :
Monticello Nuclear Generating REPORT NUMBER: NSP-01-168 Plant Supplement to Short Tern Program Plant tinique Torus Support and Attached Piping Analysis Prepared Checked Prepared Checked Page Rev.
By By Page Rev.
By By 20 0
m TwA 1
0 M/4 TwA il 0
A-1 0
iii 0
B-1 0
y P
1 0
B2 0
TwA 2
0 f
3 0
4 0
5 0
l 6
0 7
0 8
0 4
9 0
10 0
y q
i LA 12 0
TwA W#
l.
13 0
1 14 0
i 15 0
I' 16 0
4.
17 0
1
,a la O
p y
19 0
[gg j'
g, l
nutech
NSP-01-108 TABLE OF CONTENTS P_ag LIST OF TABLES lii I
INTRODUCTION 1
11 REVISED LOADING PARAMETERS 2
III METHOD OF ANALYSIS 3
IV RESULTS 9
V
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS 11 VI REFERENCES 20 APPENDIX A A-1 APPENDIX B B-1 i
i t.
l '.
i I'
i
,4 l'
11 nutech
NSP-01-168 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1 Load Factors for Torus Pressure Loads, 12 Vent System Pressures and Vent Impact Timing Table 2 Torus Support Column Maximum Compressive 13 Loads for Minimum Submergence and Maximum Submergence Table 3 Base Case Analysis - Downward Loads, 14 Component Capacities and Strength Ratios-Minimum Submergence and Maximum Submergence Tabic 4 Sensitivity Analysis - Upward Loads -
15 Component Capacities and Strength Ratios for Minimum Submergence and Maximum Submergence Tabic 5 Torus Support Commonent Code Allowable 16 Ratios (Post-Liftoff Loads and Strengt:1 Minimum Submergence Compressive Load) and Maximum Submergence I
Table 6 Results of Single Degree of Freedom Uplift 17 Model Table 7 Upward Displacement for Attached Piping 18 i
System Evaluation Table 8 Piping System Line and Equipment Stress 19 Summary n.
d <
1 i.
l' t.
nutech iii
NSP-01 168 MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT SUPPLEMENT TO SHORT TERM PROGRAM PLANT UNIQUE TORUS SUPPORT AND ATTACHED PIPING ANALYSIS I,
, INTRODUCTION l
The purpose of this supplement is to respond to two questions raised by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) concerning the ef fects of maximum downcomer submergence and revised plant unique parameters on the results of the plant unique analysis reported in NUTECH Report NSP-01-140 (Reference 1).
The NRC questions are documented in General Electric Company (GE) letter Mi-G-108 dated September 9, 1976, (Reference 2).
The questions are summarized as follows:
1.
Confirm that the plant unique parameters presented in Table 2-la of Addendum 2 to the i.
Short Term Program Report (Reference 3) are accurate.
If these parameters are inaccurate, f'
how are the results presented in the plant unique analysis report affected by the new
- l. 7 1,
parameters?
b.
w 2.
The plant unique analysis report is based on J1 plant operation at minimum downcomer submer-l
- gence, llow are the results presented in the l
I report affected by operation at maximum a
(
submerLence?
ip la 11Utech l
1 5
NSP 01 168 11.
REVISED LOADING PARAMETERS Two of the plant unique geometry parameters presented in Table 2-la of Addendum 2 to the Short Term Program (STP) Report were found to be inaccurate.
The pool area is revised from 8620 sq.
ft, to 8432 sq. ft. and the wetwell air volume per torus seg-t' ment is revised from 7140 cu. ft, to 6688 cu. ft.
1 For the revised plant unique parameters, GE has provided new load factors M and M and new vent system pressures.
These 7
up down were provided to Northern States Power Company (NSP) in GE letter, l
MI NSP-22 dated September 20, 1976, (Reference 4).
Revised tables for the STP Report Addendum 2 and 3 were provided to NSP f
with GE Ictter, MI-G-122, dated September 27, 1976, (Reference 6).
To determine the effects of increased submergence, new load factors M
and M are computed using the sensitivity curves of Addendum up down 2 to the STP Report.
New vent system pressures and a new vent head-er impact arrival time are computed using the sensitivity curves of Addendum 3 to the STP Report, (Reference 5).
Given in Table 1 of this supplement is a summary of the revised load factors, vent system pressures and arrival times for the cases of minimum submergence and minimum submergence plus 13 inches (tech, spec. limit).
Also given in Table 1 are the load factors, vent system pressures and arrival time used in the plant unique analysis.
Table 1 serves as an analysis matrix to define the num-t j
ber of conditions that were investigated to determine the effects of revised plant unique parameters and increase submergence.
I i
MLitech i
2 t
NSp-01-168 111.
METHOD OF ANALYSIS Once the revised loading factors are determined, their effect on the results reported in the plant unique analysis report can be determined.
The methods of analysis presented below were used to determine the appropriate modification to the results.
1.
Downward Loads, Base Case Analysis:
- )
')
New values for the torus support column downward loeds are computed as follows:
I' M'down I
I
- I P
- I E'
DYN.
D.L.
A 11 0 E.Q.
A E.Q g,
2 Revised torus support column load.
'l Where:
p'
=
M'down Revised M factor as a result of revised
=
down plant parameters and increases submergence.
Y"I""
fM
" E ""
"" 9 M
down down analysis report.
L ad in torus support column due to the P
=
DYN.
pool swell dynamic loading as reported in the plant unique analysis report.
L ad in torus support column due to the P
=
D.L.
weight of water plus steel as reported in the plant unique analysis report, id I
nutech 3
i
I NSP 01 168 I
Increase in load in torus support column P
=
3g0 2
due to increase in water weight at increased submergence.
L ad in t rus support column due to P
=
E.Q.
horizontal and vertical aeismic as reported in the plant unique analysis report.
3 g,q, =
Increase in load in torus support P
column due to horizontal and vertical accelerations acting on the increased water mass.
After the revised torus support column loads are determined, a ratio can be computed as follows:
g P'
R
=
P f
{
The factor "R" can then be used to compute new " strength ratios" (SR) for compor.ents in the torus support structure load path, such as:
1 Column to Shell Connection
't Torus Support Column Torus Shell Adjacent to Column Connection Reinforcing Ring at Torus Mitered Joint Pin Connection at the Base of Column I
a 9
nutech I
4
NSP 01-168 2.
Upward Loads, Base Case Sensitivity Case:
Since the response of the torus during the upward i
load phase of the LOCA is nonlinear, the ratioing technique used for the downward load phase can not be used.
For the upward load phase, the singic degree of freedom (D0F) uplift model was run for the six loading conditions defincd in Table 1.
For the single DOF uplift runs, the original forcing functions are modified in the following manner:
r' a)
For the force due to the downward pressure acting on the wetted surface of the torus shell, the total force magnitude at any point in time is taken as F times the force 3
used in the plant unique analysis report, f
n M'
down Where:
F
=
3 down b)
For the upward air compression for.cc on the i
torus dry surface, the force used in the plant unique analysis report is multiplied by the factor F '
2 t.
M'up 9
Where:
F,
=
r M
i up
't l
l 1
l l.l nutech s
s
NSP-01-168 2.b (cont.)
Revised M factor as M'up up
=
a result of revised plant parameters and increased submergence Value of M factor used M
=
up up in plant unique analysis report c)
The forcing function which represents the force time histories in the vent header support columns is taken as the force time histories used in the plant unique analysis report with the following adjustnents:
1)
The magnitude of the total force at sny point in time is taken as F times 3
the plant unique analysis report value.
P'A I'B Khere:
F
=
P E
A
+
B P'A Revised region A pressure.
=
s.
P'B Revised region B pressure.
=
Region A pressure used in P
=
A l'
plant unique analysis report.
Region B pressure used in P
=
B Il plant unique analysis report, o
Il MLitech 6
l
NSP 01 168 2.c (cont.)
2)
The time of initiation of the forcing function is adjusted to correspond to the time of vent header impact given in Table 1.
3)
The inertial mass and dead weight of the single DOF uplift model is ad-justed to account for the increased water mass for submergence greater than minimum.
The results obtained from the single DOF model analysis (uplift displacement, post-liftoff column compressive loads and anchor bolt forces)
I are then used to compute new structural component strength ratios for the upward load phase, i.
The plant unique analysis performed to determine stresses in the piping system, including pipe /
equipment interface stresses, was a linear elastic i
analysis.
Therefore, adjustments in the stress IcVels can be made by factoring the stresses up or down based on the ratio of the revised displacement to that reported in the plant unique analysis report.
P;.
nutech I
7 t.
j
1 NSP 01 168 The piping attachment point displacements used in the plant unique analysis report were the algebraic summation of the peak upward elastic deformation from the 3-D model and peak uplift from the single DOF model, irrespective of the time of occurance.
This approach gives a conserva-tively high value for the displacement of the piping attachment points.
The displacements used in this supple-I ment to compute piping system stresses are computed by the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method using the peak upward clastic and peak uplift displacement from the single DOF model.
The SRSS method is a more realistic procedure for the superposition of two independently computed dynamic responses.
I' 1.
If Le 1
8 l
11utech t.
j
NSP 01-168 IV.
RESULTS 1.
Downward Loads:
The results of the evaluation of the effects of revised plant parameters and increased sub-mergence on downward loads are presented in a format similar to that used in the plant unique analysis report, Tables of structural component loads and strength ratios are presented for the load cases of minimum submergence I
i and minimum plus 13 inches.
Table 2 presents the revised column loads and Table 3 compares the loads to code allow-able and ultimate strength capacities.
i The maximum strength ratio (SR) reported in the plant f
unique analysis report was 0.29.
This value increases to 0.31 for minimum submergence plus 13 inches.
This is still well below the STP criteria of 0.50 for the base case down-I' ward load.
\\.
2.
Upward Loads:
The results of the evaluation of the effects I.
of revised plant parameters and increased submergence on upward loads are also presented in a format similar to that used in the plant unique analysis report, i4 Table 4 presents revised upward loads and resulting revised strength ratios.
The maximum strength ratio originally reported was 0.81.
This increases to 0.89 for minimum sub-mecgence plus 13 inches.
}
t mM6
NSp 01 168 2 (cont.)
Table 5 presents revised post liftoff compression loads and resulting revised strength ratios.
The maximum strength ratio originally reported was 0.17 This in-creases to 0.22 for minimum submergence plus 13 inches.
The revised sensitivity case strength ratios are still below the STp criteria of 1.0.
'l The uplift results from the single D0F model are presented in Table 6.
The maximum uplift originally reported was 0.043 inches.
This increases to 0.066 inches for minimum f
submergence plus 13 inches.
Tabic 7 presents the revised upward displacements of the piping attachment points used to determine stresses in the piping systems.
The maximum displacement is revised from 0.77 inches to 0.746 inches due to the SRSS method A.
of combining the single DOF model results with the elastic f
deformation at the point of piping system attachment to the torus.
Table 8 presents the revised pipe and pipe /
equipment interface stresses due to the revised displace-The maximum pipe stress is revised from 21.9.si k
ments.
to 21.1 ksi.
The maximum pipe / equipment interface stress is revised from 4.6 ksi to 4.4 ksi, li d i
ilutech 10
NSP 01-168 V.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS Some minor changes have been made to the plant geometry parameters used to compute pool swell loads for Monticello.
The effect of
'f these parameter changes and the effect of water level variations equivalent to the full technical specification limits, have been evaluated and reported in this supplement.
The results reported herein show that the Shcrt Term Program Criteria is satisfied for all structural components of the torus support structure and the piping systems attached to the torus, for all water levels within the current technical specification limits.
F t.
f a
f^
1.
I' t.
m, Il 4 l '.
'l t
MutOCh 11
NSP+01 168 Table 1 1.0AD FACTORS FOR TORUS PRESSURE LOADS, VENT SYSTD1 PRESSURES AND VENT IMPACT T!HING j
P[hT CASE NO. 1 CASE NO. 2 ITEM BASE CASE
- SENSITIVITY SENSITIVITY UNIQUE ANALYSIS MIN.
MIN.
MIN.
MIN.
MIN.
MIN.
REIORT SUD.
SUB.
SUB.
SUB.
SUB.
SUB.
+13"
+13"
+13" M down 1.05 1.05 1.13 1.05 1.13 1.05 1.13 MC 1.0/
1.
1.5 1.5 1.0 1.n down 1.5 6P 0.825 0.825 0.825 0.825 0.825 0.825 0.825 down M up 1.17 1.27 1,54 1.27 1,54 1.27 1.54 t-up 1.0/
1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1
OEup 0.94 n,oA n.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Vent Press 22.7 27.0 27.9 27.0 27.9 27.0 27.9 Region A l-Vent Press 33.6 32.7 33.9 32.7 33.9 32.7 33.9
_ Region B Vent Impact
.484
.484
.i08
.484
.408
.484 408 Time
,a Load j'
Case 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
1.
Notes:
I
- Refer to Reference 1 for " base case" and " sensitivity case" descriptions
- Factors Mdown' "up, vent pressures in regions A f B and vent impact time taken from Reference 4
)
nutech i
12
NSP-01-168 Table 2 (Corresponds to Table 6.1.1-1 of Reference 1)
TORUS SUPPORT COLUMN MAXIMUM COMPRESSIVE LOADS FOR MINIMUM SUBMERGENCE AND MAXIMUM SUBMERGENCE 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
LOAD CASE COLUMN POOL STEEL 6 VERT.
HORIZ.
TOTAL SWELL WATER SEISMIC SEISMIC LOAD LOAD LOAD LOAD LOAD (kips)
(kips)
(kips)
(kips)
(kips)
Load Per Plant inside 493.3 147.6 8.8 4.7 654.4 Unique Analysis Report outside 655.9 172.6 10.4 8.3 847.2 (Case 1)
Minimum Inside 493.3 147.6 8.8 4.7 654.4 Submerg.
(Case 2)
Outside 655.9 172.6 10.4 8.3 847.2 6
Maximum Inside 530.9 164.0 9.8 5.2 709.9 7
j Submerg.
(Case 3)
Outside 705.9 191.8 11.6 9.2 918.5 t
i Notes:
1)
Refer to Table 1 for Load Case definition.
2)
Load Case 2 is identical to the Plant Unique Analysis Load Case except the effect of revised plant geometry parameters has been included.
L i
0
>4 13 nutech l
NSP 01 168 Table 3 (Corresponds to Table 7.1-1 of Reference 1)
BASE CASE ANALYSIS DOWNWARD LOADS COMPONENT CAPACITIES AND STRENGTH RATIOS MINIMUM SUBMERGENCE AND MAXIMUM SUBMERGENCE 1
2 3
4 5
LOAD (kips)
CODE ULTIMATE CONTROLLING COMPONENT ALLOWABLE CAPACITY STRENGTil RATIOS LOADING CASE (kips)
(kips)
CODE ULTIMATE l
2 3
Al.LOWABLE CAPACITY Shell Connection 765 3150
.93
.23 I,
Column 654 654 710 1123 3140
.63
.23
{c Pi" 993 2960 72
.24
~
Connection J'
Shell 765 3150 1.20
.29 4
Connection Column 847 847 919 1189 3288
.77
.28 60
.93
.31 onnection STRESS INTENSITY, CODE STP CONTROLLING COMPONENT (P]
(ksi)
ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE STRENGTil RATIOS (P)
(P)
S.I.
S.
L CODE ULTIMATE g
LOADING CASE (1)
ALLOWABLf. CAPACITY (ksi)
(ksi) 1 2
3 L,
Reinforcing 16.6 16.6 18.0 19.3 76.0
.93
.24 Ring Shell 21.6 21.6 25.4 28.95 76.0
.81
.31 IT Notes:
1)
Refer to Table 1 for load case definitions.
2)
The controlling strength ratio for a given component was
,I determined by diving the largest load or stress from cases 1 through 3 by the appropriate allowable value in column
~
? (code) or column 4 (ultimate).
nutech y
1
NSP 01-168 Table 4 (Corresponds to Table 7.1-2 of Reference 1)
Sl!NSITIVITY ANALYSIS - UPMARD LOADS C051PONENT CAPACITIES AND STRENGTH RATIOS FOR MINIMUM SUBMERGENCE AND MAXIMUM SUBMERGENCE 1
2 3
4 5
LOAD (kips)
UL I ST 1
OS COMPONENT C
LOADING CASE (kips)
(kips)
CODE ULTIMATE 1
4 5
ALLOWABLE CAPACITY Shell
{.
765 3150
.57
.14 Connection 420 401 439 1221 3678
.36
.12
{
Column 6
E 7
159 496 2.76
.89
.5 Connection
~
1.
Anchorage 268 536 1.64
.82 Shell 765 3150
.57
.14 Connection 402 401 439 1397 4508
.31
.10 h
159 496 2.76
.89 62 o Connection
~
t[,
Anchorage 268 536 1.64
.82 Notes:
1)
Refer to Table 1 for load case definition.
ji L.
2) tlc controlling strength ratio for a given component was determined by dividing the largest load or stress from cases 2 through 7 by the appropriate allowabic value in column 3 (code) or column 4 (ultimate).
3)
Maximum sensitivity case upward loads reported.
nutech 15
(
i
NSP 01 168 Tabic 5 (Corresponds to Table 6.2.1 4 of Reference 1)
J TORUS SUPPORT COMPONENT CODE ALLOWABLE LOADS LIFTOFF COMPRESSIVE LOAD)_
AND STRENGTH _ RATIOS (POST
, MINIMUM SUBMERGENCE AND MAXIMUM SUBMERGENCE 4
1 2
3 4
5 POST LIFTOFF CODE ULTIMATE CONTROLLING COMPRESSIVE LOAD ALLOWABLE CAPACITY STRENGTH RATIOS COMPONENT CODE ULTIMATE LOADING CASE (kips)
(kips)
ALLOW.
CAPACITY 1
2 3
Shell 766 3150
.86
.21 Connection Column 514 557 657 1123 3140
.59
.21 Pin 993 2960
.66
.22 Connection Shell 765 3150
.86
.21 Connection 0
3 Column 514 557 657 1189 3288
.55
.20 8
Pin 993 2960
.66
.22 Connection s.
I' NOTES:
1)
Refer to Table 1 for Load Case definitions.
14 2)
Maximum sensitivity case downward loads reported.
r-3)
The controlling strength ratio for a given component determined by dividing the largest load from column 2 by the appropriate allowabic value in column 3 (code) f.
or column 4 (ultimate).
t.
riatech 16 4
NSP 01 168 Table 6 RESULTS OF SINGLE DEGREE OF FREEDOM UPLIFT MODEL CASE LOAD CASE UPLIFT (in)
PUA 1
.042 8E 2
.054 ad 3
.057 D
I~
4
.057
- d c
5
.066 d
t
.- ~
.R o 6
.056
?l A s
$u 7
.062 g
NOTES:
1)
PUA = Plant Unique Analysis Report 2)
Refer to Table 1 for Load Case definition.
F 4.
'l nutech 17
NSP-01 168 s
Table 7 (Cotresponds to Tabic 6.2.1 5 of Reference 1)
UPWARD DISPLACEMENT TOR ATTACHED PIPING SYSTEM EVALUATION
=..
1 2
3 4
5 I'
'IDRUS SHELL
- 1. 2* EIASTIC TORUS TOTNL PfNETRATION lODEL TORUS DEFORM-UPLIFT DISPIACDOT tODE ATION 9 UPLIFT 2,f(3)2 (4)2.12 (in.)
(in.)
y (in.)
t' X210A 404
.0146
.066
.255 i
X210B 427
.0114
.066
.254 l
X211A 379
.0514
.066
.287
(
t X211B 383
.0400
.066
.274 X204A,B,C,D 199
.3060
.066
.746 X218 349
.0400
.066
.274 t'
l.
X205 327
.0163
.066
.256 t'
X212 6 259
.0708
.066
.314 X221 3
.a NOTES:
1)
Maximum torus uplift obtained from Table 6.
ilutech 18
NSPo01-168 Table 8 (Corresponds to Table 7.2-1 of Reference 1)
PIPING SYSTEM LINE AND EQUIPMENT STRESS
SUMMARY
LINE MAXIMOM ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM DESCRIPTION PIPE STRESS PIPING-EQUIPMENT STRESS INTERFACE STRESS
. A i)
(psi)
(psi)
Pump Suction Header 1,677 45,000 N/A y,
Torus Pene - X204A, B, C, D Core Spray Pump Suc* ion 9,629 45,000 1,087 llender Pene - X226A RCIC Pump Suction 21,136 45,000 4,409 llender Pene - X227 f
liPCI Pump Suction 7,774 45,000 761 Header Pene - X225 d
I Core Spray Pump Suction 3,792 45,000 733 m
lleader Pene - X226B TIR Pump Suction 12,565 45,000 1,492 Header Pene - X224A q
RHR Pump Suction 9,950 45,000 1,192 licader Pene - X224B RHR 6 Core Spray Discharge 17,586 45,000 2,753 L.
Torus Pene X210A 6 211A RHR 6 Core Spray Discharge 5,142 45,000 804 Torus Pene - X210B 6 211B RCIC Turbine Exhaust 651 45,000 202 Torus Pene - X212 o.
IIPCI Turbine Exhaust 1,19b 45,000 171 Torus Pene - X221 Torus Vent Line 716 75,000 140 J
Torus Pene - X205 Torus Vent Line 740 75,000 102 Torus Pene - X218 kJ Notes:
n (1)
Allowable piping-equipment interface stress is 20,000 psi.
a a
19
'I nutech
[
u
NSP 01 168 VI.
REFERENCES 1.
NUTECH Report NSP-01-140, "Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Short Term Program Plant Unique Torus Support and Attached Piping Analysis", dated August, 1976.
~
2.
GE letter, B. W.
Smith to Mark I Utilities, dated September 9, 1976,
Subject:
Short Term Program Final NRC Questions Relative to Addenda 2 and 3.
Reports 3.
GE Report NEDC-20989-P, " Mark I Containment Evaluation Short Term Program, Addendum 2, Loads and Th9fr Apolica-tion for Torus Support System Evaluation", June, 1976.
4.
GE Letter, B.
W. Smith to G. H. Neils, Northern States l'
Power Company, dated September 20, 1976,
Subject:
Mark I Revised Addenda 2 and 3 Loads Based Upon Containment Revised Parameters.
l.
5.
GE Report NEDC-20989-P, " Mark I Containment Evaluation Short Term Program Final Report, Addendum 3, Vent Header and Vent Pipe Impact Loads", August, 1976.
t-6.
GE Letter, B. W. Smith to Mark I Utilities, dated September 27, 1976,
Subject:
Transmittal of Documents from 1
,s 9/24/76 A/E Seminar.
(Pertinent portions of this Reference n
attached as Appendix A).
a
'l J
7.
GE Letter, B. W. Smith to Mark I Utilities, dated September 28, 1976,
Subject:
Mark I Containment Plant i
Unique Analysis References.
(This Reference attached
[](j{()(;l]
20 l
as Appendix B).
I NSP 01 168
?
1 i
9 APPENDIX A 1
e '
12 I
s.
k.
F i.
1' M ki F
I a
i
,J nutech A-1 L.
f a
ACTION REQUIRED G E N E R A L () E LE CT Ri c M1-G-122 September 27, 1976 E
p,C p
S N 'LQ h i
Park i Utilities To:
M B. W. Smith From:
MARK I CONTAINMENT PROGRAM -
Subject:
TPJNSMITTAL OF DOCUMENTS FROM 9/24/76 A/E SEMINAR
-.3
Enclosures:
(1) Meeting Minutes from 9/24/76 A/E Seminar (2)
Revised Addendum 2 Tables (3)
Revised Addendum 3 Tables This letter transmits Enclosures (1) through (3) for your information Please note that the paragraph entitled " Course of Action" and use.
in Enclosure (1) describes the action required by each utility to ensure a uniform approach in the resolutions of outstanding commit-ments with the NRC.
(
Also, tra'nsmittal herewith of Enclosures (2) and (3) satisfies the commitment made by GE at the 9/24/76 A/E Seminar to transmit It should revised tabular information relative to. Addenda 2 and 3.
be noted that the revised tabular information either repeats.or provides further backup of the revised loading information recently I
telecopied to all utilities (except Power Authority of the State of New York, Detroit Edison and Carolina Power and Light with whom revised It is important that each loading information was not applicable).
utility and/or their A/E review and agree with Enclosures (2) and (3) i4 since each utility must address the effects of the revised plant parameters in written documentation to the NRC.
To help ensure that maximum effort is.epplied in meeting the NRC Short Term Program close out date of October 1, this letter is being dis-tributed simultaneously to all Mark I utilities and their A/E's.
Please call if you have any questions.
B. W. Smith, Senior Engineer Mark I Program MC 850, phone (408) 925-1493 t'
pl ll Attachments g
A-2 7
~ -
. ~. _ _ ~. -. -
,_ ~
Table 2-la f it ti l V I D tf A I. Y t. A M T F Alt AM ET ERS AFFECT 114C ToltUS 1.OAD5 v t e.-[
Calculeted T r n, 7e Fool Pool Downtomer Wetwell Att T o r.s e Drywell Volume Break Area Ares Area Submergence et Welume ter ProjecteJ DBA Break (It 3 ta r y w e l l Vo se (ftI Vent illnimum Water T res Asca s
u 1000)
Area 1.evel (fel Sef, men t (t L 3)
_Q t )
10-5 g,-
Area (ft2) 1000) u Reference Plant
'.m
?
3.
8 0
.5
.0 e 9 2.
Brownu Ferry 4.
1 69 1.
36.
4.
35 1
14 l' e a c t.
Bottum 28 39 2. t.
1 I
3 1 4
8 S 2.0 Uystes 8:s e c k
.6 Ili 2.
1
.5 5.
.3 774 14.'
H i se r Hile reInt 5.
46 1
03
- 10. 6 26.
3.
63
.9
[
use den 2/3 29 Se 2.
I 4 1
67 42 30.
qumJ Cities 4.
15 2 '2 0.4 2.
.2
'35 1
3 Millst.ine 4.
5 2
M.6*
9 6
2 4.
71
- 2. A
! tvun t t c e l t o 3.9 114 2.91 8.432 20.0 4.54 6688 s2.4 t
V e r av e. t Y a.e k e e 4.
1.
31
.6 25.
4.
714
.2%
35 47 2.9 9.
3 0 3.
5 7 s 18.
(
rit,p tatek 4.4 15.
2.
7
.1 4.9
.1 20 t
5 ritseim 4:.s n i.. s S t.e t t e n 4.'
1 2
. 1 18 9.
17.
4.
Ils 7.6 M
h u.i n e Arnold
.64 44 1.
87 5 2 96 6
4 12.
5 Ita t c le 1 4.
14 00 9.4 7.
.6 12 1
?
4 11s t c In 2 38 46 3.0 9.
9 37
- 4. -
70 t..
Fern! 2 4.2 16 2.
1
.9 4
0 32 14 u
. f.1 10 4 35.
4.-
325
.s B r..n e w i c k 4 5 1
i flu r E :
1)
See Ta ts t e 7-11. foi e deffustion of the plant parameters.
2) 7tiene plant pormaeters, based upon the e v e 11 s te l e terve geometry information, were weed in developing t t..
31 t
un t egue load multip11=ce.
In tl e d e v e l o psc ou t of load ev1:1 pliers, rissonable appromimettens were u.Je to t i.e calculation of pool eres and w e nit arms.
E m eln utiltty l.as the r e s pone lle i l i t y to constan r t.e t c l.e t t ple t
.o-i t g u r a t i.a n (spectfleelly DBA bresh ares, drywell volode, vent ares minimen downcomer o ut.ne r g e n c e t et at = t ei l e== sut. err.c re) 1.
.ccwestely l
mi t e. l ea u m m u tsm o r g e ssc e, totue mir volume at setntmum o ut.m e r g e nc e, auJ water wet repreneested I, f the values Jn this table.
If required, tiiey should reevelente their respecstwo le.J mutatptiere.
e
[
e 0
8
.d
,p'
Table 2-3 2
PLAST-USIQUE RESULTAST LOAD MULTI?L!ERS AT 50 DRYW E* L P RESSU R! Z AT!OS AND MIS! MUM ALLOVA3LE SU3MERGESCE Resultant M Resultant M devn Plant up i
Reference Plant 1.
0
.00 Browns Terry 1 02
.9 Peach Bottom
.99 0.
4 l.
97 Oyster Creek Sine Mile Point 01 0.7
'.0 Dresden 2/3 80 Quad Cities I'
6
.0 Millstone Monticello 1.27 1.05
\\
Vermont Yar.kee 1.
[
Pilgrim 1.
5
.95 Fitzpatrick
.11 1.
k Coope: Station 1.0 L.
5 l'
Duane Arnold 4
.pS l.
Hatch 1 94 O.
Eatch 1
.Q L. O
~
m Fermi 2 0.
.93 r.
3runsvick 0 95 0.9 I
l e A-4 t
. ~. _
. ~.
4 e
4 9
1
\\
\\-
r a
i,
=P y
C e
e 1
e e
=
O N
3 n.e
==
=
=
es O
or e=
c p
ea M
O e
1 e
q b
e N
g e
f*
c i
3 m
o r*
.e=
o
.9 e
wl n.
o v
o a
r*
C C
u.s
.,e ao e
=
re e'
N
.g a
g a=
e at hd 8
6 m
e
- a. es
- e e
==
=r O
e e
y i
4 e
g=
F g
he US
- 4-d d
M N
i S.e e
e N
e e
e
=
l4 W
=P d
- =
C N
d C
N be C g a
.t om 8"
W e
8"
- 't to p.4 q.
ee.a.
t h..
i
,. O
=
..e e
e
~
oc N
O
=
m O
3 pg
.e wi
.e
- 3. wp 44 i
g 3 m
o
=
.e O
N e
gb M
m q
m b S
%4 m
m e
T i.,
w.,.
e.
im m
a" te.
w
=
g n
6 ES
.F W
N *T T b P'
A 1
,o e
t P*
m.e w
O e.
- t. u
.r*
or.
=P g.
o o
g w p.
a.
m e=
T Q
N w
w
=
4 e
i e
d g.
.e O
'8 O
q*
p.
.e 3
e O
O ee M
=
a M
g g 3,,
e 8'
O
,e.,8
- N a..e em
- e e.,
- =
O e.
g ag 79 e
e P=
m3 e
e 18 hb
- f O
P'*
F
%e e ma g
4 O LJ
\\
ee e
D.
9 E
g 0 ".
8 e
4 s e N
g M.
.m, O.
a M
=
1 e.
g 4 k, N.
N.
.P h
e e.,
o 5.a
^
N a
mw-
~
~
e i
e k'
N W
., ! W 6
'3 e.
g
. u I M
o o
e e.
=
s
,e.
4 xe e
e
=
.n s
e M
M M
e
}
k, h.
I M.
M
. ~
h*
e, 3*
..)
=e S..e es ce G
9' M
e e
e C
.C%.
j Q
9 r.s-be
.=
c e.
m e
- n e't h
t3 6-9 sd s.3..
12 U
1 em 9
l 7.-
- e. 2 '
4
'N. s 7
t 8
- *(
.e 2
et I
o m
a o.
M e
e
. w i
g, c}
,e=
. e se 4
%e
"'.{
.=
.t
" e) i, 6*
r e=
re
=e a
g w
4 a
- g. 4 as e
3.
"[
m.
- 4. ao e.
e.
8 s
to w
s -
.e e
0 1
i e g
.t M
- = =
$ CD In 06 M
= *
=
j as
==
e' t=
m
{*
i,. e.
as
. j N.a 9
u j
- O.
e ae
- o.
O.
13 ee ce as ti i
a e g g e..
e ts O g=
=
a he w
- =
=
m 4
e M
=
4e 3
as
- 3 6
=P 6 -
- =
e 4
[g
.se,.b.
ce
~
e E
1 n
C is 4
== al
- =
0 C
sa e
3 g
he See er f*
%e b*
.t.t h
I a
e.
O J
e
.8 5
l.4 e
agl em rm A
e e.r O.
=
- =
n Q
r%
8 e
.p e
N ei H
e 3
r'*
r1
.o
- J bi
.f et as g
- Q j
g*
a se 1 8 a
=
3 u
8 38 4=
=
.u 3 te
.U.
s
$. r9 hM p ee 9h
.2 3 ee y
%e 0
9 3
.e 4 %
.e 3
1 eie S
as
.U 4
he no 3
- 4. S
=3 ee a3 %e
. i
=e p
pa
De C=
.e w
e T
h D
s.e 9
1 ne e
t
- 3
==a
=
=
as 4
.e.a
- a. e i a "u ee J
- s. c..
.== = 3 1
h
- 33
%=
- s
.3 e
1 M
4
>= - O 9 ee.e
- 3 :* s 3 C.
g11 e w M
g g
me t
y%
- 1. =
..e 3m O D g
w w 3.
e
==
O M 3
W==
W es "3
- 3
== 3
= *t me p 2
8=
4 am 3
W
.i e
'e u
1 I =,* C 4 km
=,*
e ne e
E..e f
'e as.:
E S
==
=
,e
$ ~.
-s
. s e ee 4
a s
- s. -..a,.:
m
.e 4
.e n.
s 3 u :
.e
. g 3
e.
.i, a
3 o
=e w
a - v 3.a 3.a ej=s w
- - e i 3 3
~.
s
=e
= se - x sa > < -
- a. <
a.
> - - w r,u m
2.
- s
z a
1 t.
A-5
' Tal~
~6. 2 j'lant finit]ue Vct,t Ileasier inpact. Character {stics impar t l'c.sk Aver sele V irirliact,f t/sec Impulse. psi-sec flura t inn, s ec impart Pressis e. p
{v Iqpar t avij)_5 di (Vimpact avg)S.I'. Ileginrr A Ifegion 11 lle9_lon A licylon 11 Iteolon 11 e!!!
(V ippar t avg),I.P.
(t/sec.
I lii;r l"8 14 29.'6 2 04 11.61 54 0.3 0 11 5 0.01 2 4 it -Ick 6
27.
2<
21 9.3 44 0.2 015 0.0 z 4 29./
- ',2,3 1
99
- 25. i
-.6i 27.
.232 0.
2
.0i 0.
5 3.2 28 ~
! i t ti: 1 0.,
'> 5. 4
- 22. 1
.45 0.<
3
.24 0.
5
.015 20.
.7 NJ
- 0. 0 17-la 0 9.41
- 0. 19 0.1 015 0.0 9
14. '
it c n 05
- 26. 5 99 29.
.213 0.
8
.015 0.
5 1.3
- 25. '
I sjit Cides
,95 2 39 i.70 26.
O'.14
- 0. 80 0.0 015 14.
1 0
""r""'
O.9
.O 22.
2/
5 0.t 279 0.
5
.015 23.
7.9 ster Creek 17
- 30.,
2 72 2.4 260
- 0. ' 6
.012 0.
5 6.0 31
'((L
.14
- 29. 6
.04 31.
.10
- 0. 22 0.0 15 10.
.2 esden
,3 0.9, t.13 1.4 2.7 0.2 251 0.
5
.015 20.
'5.1 Illstone 11
- 28. -
2a 5 0.76 56 0.3
.015 0.
5 5.6 34 1 int icel lo 1.17 30.03 26.72 32.44 0.270 0.327 0.015 0.015 27.0 32.7 I
e r..a n t 2n;.ee I..
1.0 27.
55 D.
9
.33
- 0. 15 0.0
<.9 33 f tcli 2
.03 26 44
.53 28.s 22 0.
3 0.01 15 22.
a.3
.:rni 2
- 0. *
'. 4.1 21.
06
' O.
4
.23
- 0. 15 0.0 -
.4 23.
unswick 2
9 25.
2t 62 7.45 O. 16 0.2 015 0.0 1.6 2c 2 0
t O
1 A-6 j
=
T15LE 5.3 Pool Swell Arrival Time at Ver.t Header, Corrections and Totals at at
. T:tal Arrival Tim (Vent Header Height)
( f.PC$$' W)
('hersence) (Re; ten 3)
(Regi:n 8) (Re; Rn B) se sec sa:
see
'l a n se:
Pilgrim 038
'O.01 5
+.0c
.01 5
. 04
.'" O
'itz?atrick 019
+.03o i
neath Bottcm
.07-
'+.
0.-
.051 44 3
!.3 Ha::h 1
.01 o
+.
+, 16
.0 044 538 duane
+. 59 002
. 15
+.02
.517
. Arnold 5
+.02
.523
+. 74 009 Jooper Station I'
5
+.08
.57 6
. Nad Cities
+.
+. 52
.041 1,2 s.
r.
5'
+.01
.504
+. 38 008
~
Browns Ferry
' 1,2,3
,)yster Creek
.0.
+. 28 01 7 5
.01
.479
, Nine Mile 29
.038
+.05 01 5
+. ~1
.5*~
'Soin
,Dresden
, 13
.038
+.01 015 1.
.5 1 stone 6
.038
.03 015
.4 i Aonticello
.011
+.038
.022
.01 5
.01 0
.484
! V ermont
+.0
+. c1 012 5
+.07 56 LYankee 5
+.00
.501 H
.01
+, '8 7 atch 2 038 0
015
+.
.Su
' 7er ai 2
{rgnswick 7
0 0
.01 052 32 i
Note:
See Figure 3,
varia-ion in impact time due : posi-ica in Region A.
i A-7
.9/27/75
e NSP-01-168 e
a APPENDIX B L.
4 I
1.
t' 9
i O +
,a I
B-1
l l
NSP-01-168 APPENDIX B The Plant Unique Analysis Report referenced a GE letter, B. W. Smith /R. H. Buchholz to Mark I Utilities, dated June 25, 1976, having the following subject:
Pool Swell Vent Header and Vent Pipe Impact Characteristics, Methods and Results for all Domestic Plants.
The GE letter attached as Appendix B (MI-G-117) indicates that the con-tents of the June 25th letter are identical to the infor-mation presented for Monticello in Addendum 3 to the Short i
Term Progrsm Final Report, August 1976, NEDC-20989-P.
i Therefore, the reference in the Plant Unique Analysis Report l'
to the June 25th letter should be replaced with a reference
{
to Addendum 3.
l.
I i
l.
e i.
1 L4 i
I B-2
s C
otNtn At G ELECTRIC "ACT10il REQUIRED"
~
September 28, 1976 UI-G-il?
To:
1%RK 1 UTILITIES i
From:
B. W. Smith
Subject:
IMRK I CONTAltlMENT -
PLAtlT UN100E ANALYSIS REFERENCES
Reference:
(a)
GE 1.etter M1-G-118 dated September 21, 1976 This letter clarifies and expands upon the GE/NRC telecon dated September 14, 1976 which was forwarded by Reference (a).
The telecon indicated that NRC preferred that each utility write to the NRC identifying the Addendum which is being used (2 or 3) for the plant unique evaluation reports and include a statement that reference to June 18 and June 25 letters is incorrect.
To facilitate resolution of this item by the utilities, GE is hereby informing all utilities that Addendum 3 and the June 18 and June 25 letters are identical in content with the exception of the Cooper Station and Pilgrim plants.
For these two plants, changes were made to certain plant parameters which affected the resulting vent header impact characteristics. The plant parameter changes were reported to GE subse'quent to the time of the June 25 letter but prior to the issue of Addendum 3, and both utilities were notified by GE of the resulting changes to the reported impact characteristics.
In light of the above discussion, each utility should notify the NRC in writing that any Plant Unique Analysis reference to the June 18 or June 25 letters should be changed to Addendum 3.
B. W. Smith, Senior Engineer Mark I Program MC 860, phone (408) 925-1498 l'
Pl B-3
l
(
1 NRC e oeu 6195
(
u s. NucLt^n ntoutatony
- vuissioN DocattNuustn f"O*763 (2 7si
\\
'NRC DISTRIBUTIOh ron PART 50 DOCKET MATERI AL F ROM: Northern States Pvr Co D^ttorooegtlil-76 TO: Mr STe'6&o Minneapolis, Mn oAtt meetivro 10-14-76 L o Mayer MLtvita ONotomis t o enor meutromu Nuustn or comits ascriveo o GIN AL MuNcLAssirito one signed oisemirvion ENcLosum Ltr trans the following:
IRTIECH Rpt NSP-01-168 entitled "Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Supplement to Short term Unique Trous Support Andt Attached Piping Analys is"...... (40 cys enc t rec'd)
I DO NGT ~ ~
VE
- v ~D -
o T' s
PLANT NAME: Monticello g,-. -
yx,.
7n SAFETY FOR ACTIONilNFORM ATION ENVTRO 10-l>-/b ek L I ASSTGNED AO:
ASSTCNF.D AD;
/
BRANCH CHIEF:
~Z i e ret a n a (52 ERANCH CHTEF*
I PROJEC_T MANAGER:
5__nalh s.
PROJECT _ MANAGER!
l
[/ LIC. ASST.:
DiggLS LIC d SST.t I
/
Co o i be_v.t INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION p
((
JLEG FI1P3 SYSTEMS SAFETY PLANT SYSTEMS SITE _SAEETY &
NRC FD 4 HEINEMAN
/
TEDESCO ENVIRO AlfALYSIS
/ I & E (2')
SCHROEDER BENAROYA DENTON & MUTTTR 2 OELD_2/f_,_
/'
LAINAS
,g COSSICK & STAFF 4d+
_ENGINEFRING IPPOLITO ENVIRQ_TEC11-
]iTPC MACCARRY KIRLG{QQD ERNST 7
CASE 4+p.
KNICHT BALLARD JMNAUER
/
SIINEIL OPERATING REACTORS SPANCTIR JtARLESS PAWLICKI SIELLQ 2
RTTE TECH;
_fROJECT MANAQ_EMENT REACTOR SAFETY OPERATJN
.C. _CAMMTLL Z'BOYD m ROSS / EJSEEl!T 2 STEff _L._C_0LLINS NOVAK / SHA0 HULMAN HOUSTON ROSZTOCZY / BAER PETERSON CHECK / _BigLER SLTE_AFALYSIS ] MELTZ_ ___QRIES VOLLMER llELTEMES AT & I BUHCU SKOV110LT SALTZMAN f._ COLLINS.. RUTHERG KRPCFR EXTERN AL DISTRIBUTION CONTROL NUMBE R NAT'lin: BR00K11AVf.t{_NAT_ LAB _ 7 LPDR: /77,,13tagdQ 1_ / TIC: REG. VIE _ ULRIKSON (ORNJ,.) b 6, Z idiC: -L^ m ASLD. CONSULTANTS fbhO1 [ ACRS/[CYS 110LDItIClusuF . _7. _. . _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _j ,}}