ML20126J582
| ML20126J582 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/06/1985 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-1416, NUDOCS 8506100642 | |
| Download: ML20126J582 (48) | |
Text
""'##"
ORIGINAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR.REGt/LATORY COMMISSION l
In the matter of:
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 302nd General Meeting Public Meeting Docket No.
O Location: Washington, D.
C.
Date: Thursday, June 6, 1985 Pages:
1 _ 19 ABRSOFRCEEPY Jo Xo: Remove rom ACRSOffice
~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES Court Reporters 1625 I St., N.W.
ph, Suite 921 Washington, D.C.
20006 0 g (202) 293-3950 g61 2 850606 i
T-1416 PDR
1 s
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
'4 ADVISORY COMMITTEE'ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 5
6-802nd GENERAL MEETING 7
PUBLIC MEETING 9
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 10 Commission 11 1717 H Street, N.W.
12 Room 1046 7-E 18 Washington, D.C.
N,s 14 Thursday, June 6, 1985 15 The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards' met, 16 pursuant to notice, at 8:30 a.m.,
David A.
Ward, Chairman, 1
17 presiding.
1.
I l
18 MEMBERS PRESENT:
J
-19 D.
Ward, Chairman 20 D.
Moeller 21 W.
Kerr 22 H.
Etherington 28 D.
Okrent t
l 24 C.
Michelson r
4,
. 25
1 2
-1 MEMBERS'PRESENT (Continued)*
~
2-G.
Reed 3
C.
Wylle--
4 F.
Remick
'S P.
Shewmon 6-C.
Mark 7
C.
Siess.
8.
R.
Axtmann
- 9 ALSO PRESENT:
10 M.
Norman Schwartz, Technical ~ Secretary 11
.Raymond F.
Fraley, Executive Director, ACRS 12 Richard Major, Designated Federal Employee gg 18 SPEAKERS:
14 D.
Foreman B.
Gou 15 R.
Villa T.
Pratt 16 D.
Hankins B.
Hardin 17 D.
Scalletti 18 L.
Rosenthal s
19 20 21 22 23 9
24 25
s.
3 1
't p ROC EED I NGS
/
I, I.
l\\~(
2 MR. WARD:
We will start with Agenda item number 2, 3
continued review of GESSAR, and I will ask Dr. Okrent to take 4
over.
5 MR. OKRENT:
I have tried to select out
- a. pair of 6
-topics for detailed discussion for this meeting, and I had 7
. suggested containment performance and hydrogen considerations, 8
and the agenda has been somewhat augmented'during my travels 9
to bring in quite a bit on source terms.
Maybe felt that that 10 was a part of containment performance, but I had h. Sped that 11 the physical performance and the expected performance of the.
12 containment and so forth would get enough attention at this O
18:
meeting that we were done with it.after this meeting so far.as
. $ ))
14 information.
15 So I will request the presenters to make sure they 16 do that.
17 Similarly, I would like to have.the hydrogen 18 question discussed in detail in all relevant facets, and 19 again, I will request the presenters to do that, and then as 20 time permits, to pick up the other things that are shown on 21 your agenda.
22 Other than that, I have no introductory comments.
28 Unless the members have any questions, we can begin.
24 ff I understand correctly, Mr. Hardin is the opening 25 speaker, or who?
c+,
1 MR. VILLA:
Good morning.
My name is Rudy Villa, g
t' 2
from General Electric.
I have with us today for presentations S.
on both cont a i nmen t perf ormance and the containment structural 4'
analysis Dr. Debra Hankins and Dr. Bob Gou, and also with us 5
is Dave Foreman.
6-We will begin immediately with the GE presentation 7
by Dr. Hankins.
I'm sorry, Dr. Gou.
8 ESlide]
'9 MR. GOU:
Good morning. My name is Bob Gou from 10 General Electric.
11 First I am going to talk about the highlight of the 12 MARK ll1 containment design basis, and then I am going to talk n
(
)
18 about how we are going to meet the CPML rule, to meet 45 psi
'w/ -
14 pressure-bearing capability.
Then I am going to talk about 15 the ultimate pressure capability of.the containment structura 16 system, which consists of the containment, the suppression l
17 pool and the drywell, and the bottom line are the conclusions.
i l
18 CSlide]
l 19 Over here I have summarized the highlights of the 20 MARK lli containment design in the very beginning of the 21 concept design of the containment system.
First we tried to 22 lower the center of gravity of the pressure vessel, the 23 reactor pressure vessel, tried to increase the seismic 24 capacity since the lower the center of gravity of the reactor,
(
25 the more the seismic response.
, _ - _ - _~
's 5
li 1
.The second one, we tried to increase the working
'7~
\\
r 4
I ' ^\\ /
2 space to make the reactor building under the drywell l
S' uncongested, so we tried to have more space inside the drywell 4
and also in the containment in order to have the operation and 5
the maintenance benefit.
6 Another major consideration is to make a simple 7
configuration.
We make a circular cylinder, which is the 3;
simple configuration, easy for construction, so we can achieve 9
the. construction and the schedule benefit, and also, as a 10' consequence of that, we end up with a low pressure design 11 which is 15 psi, and this, coupled together with the pressure 12 suppression system, and at that time, with the low pressure O
(
13 design, we can achieve low cost.
14 MR. SHEWMON:
Can you tell me why going to a 15 cylindrical configuration gives you a lower pressure.
l' 16 didn't follow your logic there.
17 MR. GOU:
Okay.
It's not a simple configuration, i
13 earlier mentioned about more space, larger volume, since the 19 pressure is pretty much in proportion to the larger volume.
20 MR. MOELLER:
On that item, you said you tried to 21 make~ lt more uncongested.
Were you successful?
22 MR. GOU:
Yes, it is.
l l
23 MR, MOELLER:
And did you do this by giving it more I
.[~Ns 24 volume or putting less inside of it?
l.
l 25 MR. OOU:
We achieved the larger volume in two major
~ _ _., _ _ _ _ _
s-6 1
areas. One is inside the drywell';.the other one is inside the A- /
2 containment buiIding, the_ reactor building.
8 MR. MOELLER:
So it is actually larger.
4 MR. GOU:
Yes, it is.
5-MR. REMICK:
Do you know roughly what percentage G
6 volume increase in the drywell?-
7 MR. GOU:
1 don't know the precise number but we can 8
find out if you are interested.
9 MR. WARD:
Another question.
What is the design
.10 pressure of the MARK 18 containment?
11-MR. GOU:
I believe it is'45 psi for the drywell.
12 The other consideration is to try to have a parallel
/"h
'( )
18 construction path and reduce the schedule.
14 CSlide]
15 As a result of the configuration, I mentioned about e
16 this gives us the arrangement, or the picture shows the 17 reactor building.
The outside is the shell building, and it 18 goes inside and we have the containment building or
19 containment pressure vessel, and then this is the drywell and 20 this is the drywell head, and this is the suppression pool 21
[ Indicating], and this is the reactor pressure vessel, and 22 down below, this is the pedestal.
On the top we have the 28 reactor shield wall.
[}
24 MR. MOELLER:
How much was the pressure vessel l
\\_/
25 actually lowered?
I l
L
7 1
MR. GOU:
Okay.
This is the location of the
)
s,_/
2 pressure vessel, and relative to the basemat or the top of the 8
basemat, the support is about 40 feet. I think you can see 4
from this picture, since we have the suppression pool on the 5
outside, if we put the suppression pool down below, 6
automatically this would go higher Cindicating].
So in this 7
kind of arrangement, with the suppression pool sitting on both 8
sides, then we can just allow the control rod down below over 9
here.
10 So we end up with lower pressure vessel location.
11 Otherwise, you will go into a higher position and you put the 12 pool down below.
/~'N
(
)
18 MR. MOELLER:
Well, is there something you could e
s.s 14 compare it to?
You said it's lower than it used to be.
15 MR. GOU:
I don't have the exact number to compara 16 with. I think relatively, if we put the pool down Delow, you the pool depth is 20 feet, and plus 17 will increaso about 18 some air volume, air space on the top.
So you increase 19 approximately about 40 feet blGher if you put in a different 20 arrangement instead of putting the pool on the outside.
21 MR WARD:
It would be compared to a MARP 11 22 containment.
Well, let's see, Bob. How different is this MARK 28 111 from the existing MARK lli containments?
es 24 MR. GOU This is the existing l
k
)'
J l
25 MR. WARDr Oh, this is the existing MARK lil?
l t
8-1 MR. GOU:
Yes.
I am talking about MARK 111.
Here
\\
)
As/
2 1 just summarized the design features earlier, the design 8
basis.
4 MR. SHEWMON:
If you talk about more space in 5'
drywell and containment, is that also just the MARK lil?
It's 6
not1 going the way the Japanese are going with their design 7
projects?
8 MR. GOU:
Which Japanese project are you referring 9
to?
10 MR. SHEWMON:
Well, the ones I read in the newspaper
'11 that you took part in, that GE took part in, that they were 12 urged to do and they are going to have,as their next 18 generation.
..V 14 MR. GOU:
I don't have the exact number.
I think 15 that will be compatible with the design, with the volume.
16 MR. SHEWMON:
Since everything is so vague, let me 17 ask another question, is this the same as the current MARK 18 lil?
19 MR. GOU This is the MARK 111 20 MR. SHEWMON:
Okay.
So this is the one you have 21 built.
22 MR. GOUT Right. This is the one we have.
28 MR. SHEWMON:
But it's probably not the one that 24 would be different if the Japanese ono would be different.
ti 25 MR. GOU:
The one you have reference to is
.y 9
1 different. That is still in the planning stage.
f )\\
..2 MR. SHEWMON:
Okay.
(
3 MR. OKRENT:
Are the Japanese considering a MARK lli 4
or a MARK 11 5
MR. GOU:
No, they are not considering MARK lil 6
They have different consideration, an advanced design. It's 7
a different one.
8 CSindel 9
MR. SHEWMON:
When you use comparatives here, then, 10 you are talking about the MARK 111 compared to the MARK 11, is t
11 that right?
12 MR. GOU:
- Yes, in general, yes, that is correct.
(nU).
13 Here i show the containment pressure vessel 14 configuration and the dimensions.
And this is the steel 15 containment presaura vessel with the I to 2 ratio for the 16 head, for the dome.
We call it the hat, or the elipsoidal 17 hat, and with the cylindrical containment vessel, cylindrical 6
18 shell.
The radius of this cylindrical shell is 60 feet, and 19 you can see this is what I mentioned earlier with this simple i
l 20 geometry, this simple circular cylinder with a dome.
21 Over here I put down the corresponding thickness.
22 in this region it's 1-1/2 Inch thickness, and the dome is 23 1-3/4 inch thickness of steel plates welded together, and over l
(~N 24 here we have the compression pool, and it consists of 1-3/4
(
)
i N/
25 inch steel plate with 5 feet reinforced concrete with heavy i
l
I 10 l
1 reinforcement, and connected to the 3 feet shell building 7"x i
'[
)
x_/
2 reinforced concrete wall. So in total, we have 8 feet 3
thickness of reinforced concrete with additional 1-3/4 inch 4
. steel plate, so this forms the suppression pool region.
5 MR. ETHERINGTON:
Why do you mention specifically 6
Level C7 What abodt Levul D?
7 MR. GOU:
Okay.
According to the construction 8
permit and manufacturers' license rule, we have to meet Level 9
C 45 psi.
It's in the ASME code in Subsection Ote). For the 10 design, we have to meet Level A or Level B.
That is at 15 11 psi.
The 45 psi is for an unusual event, very rare, 12 incredible situation such as the core melt accident where you (f) 13
.may go to a higher pressure. So we want to meet 45 psi.
s_
14 Now, Level D is for the local high stresses.
15 MR. KERR Excuse me.
This is the same design used 16 on existing MARK lils.
17 MR. GOUT Yes, this is for all the MARK llis.
10 MR. SCALLETTit Excuse me a minute.
This design, 19 the 45 psig, is for GESSAR only.
The existing MARK lits don't 20 have this requirement of 45 psig at Service Level C.
The I
21 containment has been redesigned to meet the CpML rule, the 22 containment strength.
I 23 MR. ETHERINGTON:
So it now meets the code in every l
24 respect; is that what you are saying?
\\-
25 MR. WARD:
Well, why isn't GE telling us that?
r l
11
- s -
1 MR. KERRt Suppose that one took an existing MARK
(
~and analyzed it.
Would the analysis give the same 2.
lll 3
results even though they don't have this requirement?
4 MR. SCALLETTI.
I don't think so because they have 5
changed the head design.
6 MR. KERR:
Does OE not know this?
4 7
MR. WARD:
What is correct?
8 MR. VILLA:
When we started this review, this 9
containment was exactly the same design, it had the exact 10 same design parameters as the other MARK lli containments that 11 you have reviewed in the past. Since then, we have redesigned 12 the containment to be consistent with the severe accident g-(
13 policy requirements in 10 CFR 50.34(f), which requires xr 14 specifically 45 psig, Service Level C.
15 MR. WARD:
What would really help us, since we have 16 reviewed MARK 111 containments in the past, it would really 17 help if you would give a presentation to highlight what is 10 really different here and not just repeat what has been heard 19 about it for the last several years.
20 is that the single thing that is different?
21 MR. VILLA:
I would say that's about the singin 22 thing that is different between the other MAHK lil 23 c o n,t a i n m e n t s.
The other things that might be a little bit 24 different are the actual volume, because of the diameter of 25 the containment, and the construction of the containment
i I
k 12 1
outside-configuration.
f"~N.,
t\\_j 2
For example, some 3
MR. WARD:
Now you are saying the diameter is 4
different, too.
'5 MR. VILLA:
Well, comparing it to smaller plants 6
that have been reviewed by the' committee -- let me see. 1 7
believe Riverbend is a smaller plant, and Clinton is a smaller-8 plant, but not by very much.
9 MR. SIESS:
Well, Clinton is a concrete containment, 10 MR. GOUr i think the containment size is the same 11 size.
The radius is 60 feet, and Clinton is a reinforced 12 concrete containment.
/%
13 MR. KERR:
I guess it would be easy to confuse me
(\\s-}
14 about containments, but I must say I am confused.
Does i
15 somebody know what the story is on this?
16 MR. FOREMAN:
David Foreman, General Electric.
17 What happened, early in the design of Clinton and 18 River Bend is that they chose to have a very conservative 19 design in the containment area, so as to remove that as one of 20 the things that they might be challenged on.
So they chose to 21 go to a larger sl=e containment relative to their core.
They
.22 have a smalter core.
23 MR. KERR Well, so the contal% ment size for those
('N 24 plants is the same as GESSAR?
\\v/
25 MR. FOREMAN:
In the diameter area, yes, that's
13 1
correct.
They had chosen the same volume.
Grand Gulf has a
,. ~ ~
}
2 larger core.
sg 8
MR. WARD:
So the Grand Gulf containment is larger 4
than the GESSAR containment?
5 MR. FOREMANt Yes, it is larger.
6 MR. GOUT perry is the same size as this one.
7 MR. OKRENT:
Can I ask the Staff to explain to me S,,
the physical significance of the requirements that the stress SWINN 9
in every region is within the ASME Level C allowable limit for s
10 pressure equals 45 psig?
It would help me if you could I
11 explain it in risk terms.
12 MR. ROSENTHAL:
Jack Rosenthal, Reactnr Systems
( )
13 Branch, NRR.
NI 14 We consider hydrogen threats to containment, and we j
15 consider s low overpre ssur iza t ion threats to containment, and 16 we'll show that to a great degree the details of the 17 exactly what the vol~uma and strength of containment are are 18 reasonably irrelevant, that for those scenarios involving slow 19 overpressurization of containment, it would take many, many 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br />, a half day to a day, to reach failure limits and 21 alternately hydrogen threats from detonations will clearly 22 fall the containment.
29 MR. OKRENT:
Did I understand you implicitly to say i
rs 24 you don't attribute any explicit physical significance to the
(
)
i
~
25 first bullet?
i l
l
~
o-I 14 I,
l 1
MR. ROSENTHAL:
Within the risk perspective, yes, p
2 sir.
i 8
MR. OKRENT:
Thank you.
4 MR. THOMAS:
Cecil Thomas of the Staff.
5 Just as a point of history, the 45 pound service 6
level C requirement evolved after TMl during the promulgation 7
of the CpSL rule, and I think it is also considered in the 8
MARK 111 rule for containment.
9 It was based largely on deterministic 10 considerations, not probabilistic, explicitly.
11 MR. KERR What were the deterministic 12 considerations?
r
{
13 MR. THOMAS:
I am not familiar enough with the 14 details, but this happened --
15 MR. KERR But wouldn't it be well with the people 16 who are reviewing this standard plant to have some idea of 17 what the bases were for matting those standards?
10 MR. THOMAS:
Yes, they do.
In fact 19 MR. KERRt But you're not one of the people --
i 20 MR. THOMAS:
They're just not used.
~
21 MR. WARD:
Well, what is General Electric's position
(
r 22 on this?
Why was the design changed to accommodate this 23 criterion?
24 MR. GOUT Okay --
3Nm 25 MR. WARD Do you see any real benefit in it?
i F
r
c.
15 1
MR. GOU:
The real benefit is to enhance the A
)
2 pressure capability before let me make it a little bit s,
S clearer about the history of the evolution of this.
Because 4
the basic design pressure is still 15 psi.
That is still the l
-5 same for all the MARK lit steel containment shells, including 6
reinforced concrete, all the plant designs are 15 psi.
To for example, for the steel containment we have to meet 7
meet a
level B and level A.
That means the FM lowest allowable 9
stress limit,.and that's what we originally had, j
10 in this dome area it is a one-to-two ratio, but for 11 the level C limit, we can only take 30 psi for the old 12 configuration.
But over here, if you're Interested, I can f) 18 show you some minor modification on this local area.
But in
%.J 14 the configuration you don't see the difference, including the 15 thickness.
tJe still have the one and thren-quarter inch 16 thickness.
17 MR. IJARD :
I am not :so much interested in how the 13 design was changed, but why it was changud.
19 MR. GOU Because of the CpML, to meet the CPML rule 20 requirement 21 MR. SCALLETTit it's required by the Commission's 22 policy statement on severe accidents.
It roquires that new 29 designs meut the CPML rule, and the CPML rule requires a 45 24 psig service level C for theso stool containments.
Now, whv v
25 the --
f; l '.
16 1
MR. OKRENT:
Excuse me.
Not all steel containments.
'\\-
2-MR. SCALLETTI All future containments, that's S
right, all future containments.
i 4
MR. SIESS:
is it a 45 or is it a calculated value
'5 that ends up being 45 for this case?
l 6
MR. SCALLETTl*
It required 45.
l 7
MR. OKRENT:
I'm sorry. Suppose I were to design 7
8 pressurl=ed water reactor for steel containment in a concrete 9
shield.
Are you telling me that this would apply?
10 MR. SCALLETTI:
I don't think the rule is selective I
11 to pWR or BWR in this case.
12 MR. OKRENT:
The design pressure might well be above
\\
13 45.
.~)
14 MR. SIESS:
Does the rule say 45 psig?
15 MR. SCALLETTI:
Yes, it does, i
I 16 MR. SIESS:
For anything?
That's ridiculous.
The 6
17 design pressure for a pWR is frequently 50.
10 MR. SCALLETTI But that is a large dry.
19 MR. SIESS:
Yes.
I didn't specify which kind.
I 20 asked about the rules.
You didn't qualify it, i
21 MR. SCALLETTir tJell, we will have to look at the i
22 rule.
28 MR. SIESS:
Dr. Okrant asked you if it applied to 24 PWRs and you said yes.
N 25 MR. SCALLETTI:
(Je will look at the rule again.
l i
l
17 1-MR SIESS:
Would someone get a copy of_the rule?
l
~
S [
2 MR. SCALLETTI:
It's 50.84(f).
x-
~
S MR. SIESS:
Okay, we will find it.
But if this 4
thing is good for SS psi, which is almost twice 45 -- you said 5
you redesigned it to meet the rule.
Do I hear that?
6 MR. GOU:
Yes, that is correct.
7 MR, SIESS:
But you overdesigned it to meet the 8-rule.
4 9
MR. GOU:
No, the design pressure was still 15 psi.
10 There's no ove'rdesign.
Since the rule is made in such a way 11 to meet the level C allowable for the steel If we talk about 12 steel containment to meet level C in ASME -- if we talk about f) 18 reinforced concrete, then we try to meet the 55 capacity --
%/
14 MR. SIESS:
Well, you are confusing me.
Try and 15 listen to the question.
I educate a lot easier. that way.
16 You designed it for 15 psig to some code basis 17 right?
10 MP. GOU Yes.
19 MR. SIESS:
You checked it for 45 at level C.
It 20 was okay?
21 MR. GOU That's right.
Yes, it is okay.
22 MR. SIESS:
Then what was the discussion about i
23 redesign that I heard?
l f
L 24 MR. GOU This is what i earlier mentioned about
'N N_/
l 25 some slight modification of the configuration.
18 1
MR. SIESS:
Why?
To meet the 50 or to meet the 45?
/
~ k_)h '
2 MR. GOU:
To meet the 45.
The earlier configuration 8
still meets the 15.
4 MR. WARD:
Apparently existing MARK lils would not 5
meet the rule.
6 MR. GOU:
No, that is not true, it's a standard 7
plant.
We have the earlier design version plant, so we 8
modified it slightly.
9 MR. SIESS:
And now it meets 83 instead of 45?
10 MR. GOU:
No, 83 is the ultimate.
11 MR. SIESS:
Oh, 89 is ultimate.
Okay.
12 MR. GOU:
We said 83.
Then we are going to f all the
(
18 dome.
v 14 MR. SIESS:
Okay.
So at 45 it just meets level C 15 now?
16 MR. GOU:
That is correct.
17 MR. SIESS:
And it would have met level C at 45 18 before you made the modification?
No?
19 MR. GOU No.
Before the modification we could only at the level C level we only had 30 psi.
20 have 21 MR. SIESS:
Well, what was the design allowable 22 stress for the 15?
23 MR. GOU Okay, at the 15 for the membrane stress we 24 have to meet the SM which is equivalent to 19 psi v
25 MR. SIESS:
And in the knuckle region?
s 19
-1 MR. GOU:
Yes, everywhere.
/"N
}
's.
/ =
2 MR.'SIESS:
And level C is what?
3
.MR.
GOU:
Level C is equivalent to -- for the 4
membrane is like a 1,5-SM or 1.5 SY or 1.2 or 1.8 SM, 5
whichever comes' larger.
6 So, in other words, we can go to the yield for level 7
C.
8 MR. SIESS:
It looks like the 45 at level C would 9
go.
10 MR. GOU:
That is correct.
11 MR. SIESS:
And that is still membrane?
12 MR. GOU:
There are many configurations.
You have
. O)
(x_--
18 membrane, local membrane, plus local bending.
So I bel,leve 14 the case we are talking about here is the membrane controls, 15
.because the high stress region is in the dome and knuckle 16 region.
17 MR. SIESS:
And it is a stress control or a buckling 18 control in the knuckle region?
that was on the 19 MR. GOU:
No, that was in the 1.
15 psi at level A,
level B.
Because over there we 20 level 21 have.to consider the compressive allowable, and the 22 compressive allowable is based upon the buckling, since in the 28 dome region we are going to have compressive stress in the hoo
/"'
24 direction under Internal pressure.
%)
25 MR. SIESS:
But at the 45 level C,
buckling still
fi 20 1
is it still a consideration?
-7 2
MR. GOU:
For level C,
buckling is not a 3
consideration.
The yield is the consideration.
4 MR. SIESS:
.That is still elastic analysis?
-5 MR. GOU:
Yes, based on elastic analysis, that is 6
correct.
7 MR. KERR:
On what basis was the 15 psi design set?
8 MR. GOU:
Okay, that is based on the LOCA condition, 9
the design base pressure.
10 MR. KERR:
So the consideration of a plant PRA had 11 no influence on either facet of the containment design, either 12 the design pressure or the service level C pressure?
[&
h 13 11R. SCALLETTI:
That is correct.
14 MR. KERR:
Did the pRA consideration have any 15 influence on any facet of containment design?
16 MR. SCALLETTI:
I don't think so.
The design was 17 there and the PRA was evaluated based on the design.
13 MR. KERR So the design, however it was analyzed, 19 using PRA, had met whatever criteria for containment were 20 used.
What criteria did one use to determine whether the e
21 containment met appropriate PRA criteria?
22 MR. VILLA:
Our next presentation is going to 23 address that issue.
the citation for 24 MR. SCALLETTI-Well, could 1 7s 25 the CPML rule is 50.34(f)(3)(a)(1), and it says for steel
t 21 1
containments.-- and it does say a minimum 45 psig service jm-
)
i
\\_,/ -'
2 level C,
and it does not specify a pWR or a BWR.
8 MR. OKRENT:
Not a very wise rule, is it.
4-MR. SCALLETTI It says minimum, though.
5 MR. SIESS:
That's all it says?
It doesn't say a 6
calculated value but not less'than 457 7
MR. SCALLETTI:
It says as a minimum.
The specific 8
code requirement set forth above appropriate for each type of 9
containment will be met for a combination of dead load and 10 internal pressure of 45 psig.
11 MR. WARD:
Is there an ACRS letter on that rule?
12 MR. SCALLETTI The ACRS has reviewed many of the
_ (V 18 near-term Cps at that time, and I know this topic was 14 discussed extensively.
So I'm sure there is a letter on it, 15-and probably on the rule also.
16 MR. OKRENT:
But is the ACRS generally happy with
'17 the Staff approach during that time period?
18 MR. SCALLETTir I can't answer that.
19 MR. WARD:
We will never know unless the letter says 1
[20 something.
21 MR. MOELLER:
On a minor matter, to help me 22 understand your figure on the screen, I understand the outer 28 rows to the right you know, the vertical line 1
24 understand the outer line, the thickness of the plate.
What
.\\s_
25 does the next line over to the left -- what are those
22 1
dimensions,--that one?
f%
(
l
'(_j/-
2 MR. GOU:
Oh, this one.
This shows the location of 3
the stiffener.
4 MR. MOELLER:
Thank you.
5 MR. OKRENT:
Now, am I correct that for you to go 6
to, for example, a design pressure of, let's say, twice what 7-you have, you would have to modify.the thickness of the steel 8
enough that it would change your field construction approach 9
and costs appreciably?
10 MR. GOU:
Yes.
11 MR. OKRENT:
tJher e is the point at which you have to 12 change your field construction approach?
At what design
'(
13 pressure for that volume?
N_,'
14 MR. GOU:
Talking about the design level, instead of 15 15 you could say go to 80 psi in that way, then, the 16 thickness on the cylindrical shell will be increased.
Right 17 now we have 1-1/2 inch and 1-3/4 inch in some of the regions, 18 so you would double it, and then this thickness would be 19 linearly proportional, since right now we are not too the 20 limit, but roughly speaking.
l l
21 MR. OKRENT:
I'm aware that you have to increase the 22 thickness, and then you have to treat the welds differently, i
23 don't you?
I
('%
24 MR. GOU: That's correct, yes.
Then you have post
(
w 25 heat t r e a t n.en t in the field for the welds, yes.
Right now in
23 1
the codes we limit it to the 1-1/2 inch thicknesses.
In some
).-
(_,/
2 cases it can.go to 1-3/4, it's already to the limit, that's 8
correct.
4 MR.'SIESS:
Mr. Chairman, may I' read a portion of and I would have to go back 5
the rule?
Considering' pressure 6
to the beginning, but there is reference here to during an 7
accident, the release is hydrogen generated for 100 percent S
fuel clad boiling water reaction, accompanied by either 9
hydrogen burning of the added pressure post-accident, et
.10 cetera.
Then as a minimum, it says 45 psi.
My recollection 11 was that you computed the pressure from the hydrogen burn to 12-100 percent metal-water reaction, but the minimum was'45.
Am (A) 13 I correct?
%)
14 MR. SCALLETTI probably, but I cannot answer that.
15 MR. SIESS:
May we ask them what the pressure is for 16 this case computed from 100 percent metal-water reaction 17 hydrogen burn?
18 MR. OKRENT:
Well, you can ask.
19 MR. SIESS:
I would assume it is less than 45.
I 20 MR. OKRENT.
I wouldn't.
21 MR. WARD:
Well, I think it's a good question. Do l
22 you understand the question?
29 MS. HANKINS:
it will be covered in my presentation 24 later.
25 MR. WARD:
The answer is it depends, I guess.
~
g 24 I
1 MR, GOU:
I think they will address that later.
'( )
2
[Siide]
S Here i show you a colored picture. Unfortunately,
.4 your' copy does not produce color.
This is using the modern this is 5
technology.to produce the stress distribution of 6
stress component, since that is a nice measure of the stress 7
distribution along the containment, since earlier we had some S
extensive discussion about how we meet the stress allowable at 9
Level C and so on.
10 So here we have put down under internal pressure of 11 45 psi on the containment pressure vessel how the stress 12 region varies.
[
3-
.18 MR. KERR:
What should I conclude from that picture?
\\_)
14 MR. GOU:
Well, the main thing, over here we would 15 want to demonstrate the lower region in the suppression 16 pool. The stress level is very, very low compared with the 17 other region, especially the some is a high stress region.
18 MR. KERR:
Is that good?
19 MR. GOU:
Okay. The suppression pool serves two 20 purposes.
One is to serve as suppression, the other one 21 is for scrapping.
So the diffusion product path goes through 22 the pool, so we want to maintain the pool So the lower the 28 stress in the lower portion of the containment, the better.
24 This is the way you come up to high stress because of the 7g
(
I 25 configuration, so this picture demonstrates this stress
25 1
variation along the containment.
I
(_,/
2 Th is in the intermittent level, and again over 3
here is the lower level, but this is the high stress level
-4 Eindicating.]
So, because of the nature of this kind of stress 5
6 distribution, then we go one more step to determine.the 7
ultimate pressure capability.
So we have looked extensively 8
in the dome area to determine what is the ultimate containment
-9 pressure capability.
Since we also look at the drywell, the to total containment system consists of the containment itself, 11 the suppression pool, the drywell, and it turns out the 12 control region is the dome.
[Q j)-
So the 83 psi is determined based upon the yleid.
13 3
14 The plastic region formed through the thickness of the dome.
,.15 MR. MOELLER:
For how long a period of time do these 16 differential pressures exist?
I mean do they not in short 17 time tend to even out?
18 MR. GOU Debbie, can you answer.that?
19 MR. MOELLER:
Well, I gather that these are 20 differences in stresses, not differences in pressure.
21 MR. GOU:
Right. This shows only the stresses 22 associated with the 45 psi internal pressure, so there is no 23 timing involved.
24 MR. OKRENT:
If you were a little above yield or J
25 maybe even twice above the pressure, which produces -- well.
20 1
'no, let me say-50 percent above the pressure that produces
\\
2 yield, okay?
13 MR. GOU:
Okay.
4 MR. OKRENT:
What flaw size could you tolerate in 5
the welds without concern of an opening or a running opening?
6 MR. GOU:
Okay.
This is a good question, an 7.
Important question.
When we determined the so-called ultimate 8
pressure, 83 psi, we did take into account the cracking-or the 9
potential cracking due to the high stress in the high stress 10 region.
Since this dome is formed by small pieces of steel 11 plates welded together, so we always introduce some major 12-defects-on a weak area into the dome region.
'1 8
_Now, when we design according to the ASME Code, _ we 14 take all kinds of measures to eliminate the defects or prevent 15 those kinds of defects from happening; but the ones that go 16 beyond the Code, say, the yield, for the yleid is defined in and by the way, when we go to 17 the Code as the minimum 18 calculate the ultimate, we take the measure of testing and 19 take the average, the mean value, and then we consider the 20 potential developing crack, so we are assuming the crack, ence 21 it reaches the yleid, the crack will take place, and the 22 probability is that the higher the stress, the higher the 23 probability of having the crack.
/j 24 That sounds like a simple criterion, but that is the 25 way to take into account the potential crack in the material h
27 1
or the defects.
p i.
(,/
2 So once you reach the ultimate value, then we are
~3~
assuming the crack happens.
That's a probability of 1 4
MR. OKRENT:
Well, if you answered the question, it 5
was not my question.
I am assuming, in fact, that there may i
6 be cracks there because of the fabrication process.
My 7-understanding and correct me if I a wrong is that thgre 8
is not 100 percent inspection of all welds by, for example, 9
radiography and UT.
In fact, I think it is a sampling 10 procedure as long as you are below 1-S/4 inch.
Is that not l
11 correct?
f i
l 12 MR. GOU:
Yes.
i
)
18 MR. OKRENT:
percent or something like this?
[V 14 MR. GOU Yes.
6 1
15 MR. OKRENT:
So there is some perhaps not so small l.
16 probability that significant flaws exist, not significant l
l 17 enough that when you pressure test the containment, you get a 18 failure, but nevertheless, possibly significant enough that 19 when you pressure test it at roughly, I suppose, 20 psi 20 MR. GOU Yes, that's correct.
21 MR. OKRENT:
But we are talking about you said OS 22 is ultimate.
So I suggested 1-1/2 times 45, which is 67.5. So 23 If you are in 67 or 70 psi sort of range, now what kind of 24 flaw can you tolerate without a high an existing flaw.
I 7-~s x,
25 am not talking about a flaw being developed due to this o
28 1
particular pressure rise scenario.
The flaw was there in 1
>( j[
2 fabrication and just not even looked for by the sampling 3
process.
4 I would like to know what size flaw you can take 5
without making an opening.
Is there some size at which you 6
can or you have to anticipate a running flaw?
Have you done I
7-such analysis?
1 S
MR. GOU:
No, we did not do such quantitative 9
analysis. Just a rough estimate, to answer that question 10 indirectly.
The so-called 83 psi is based on the 50 percent 11 chance of failure, and we are assuming the gross kinds of 12 defects, assuming the probability of cracking is proportioned 1
[~'\\
13
. linearly to the stress level N_,l 14 So your question about the 63 or 67, 1.5 x 45, then l
l
)
15 I would say the high stress region is approximately linearly
)
16 proportional to that.
In that case I would say that would be l
f 17 about 25 or 20 percent chance that it will crack at that
- 18 level l
19 MR. OKRENT:
I'm sorry.
You are using a different t-20 logic because 1 am postulating there may be a significant 21-family of f!aws there.
There may be some long flaws but just 22 not deep enough that at 20 psi leakage would occur, okay?
23 Because that is roughly your test pressure.
I would like lo 24 know whether you have any basis for judging at what pressure es j
s k,)'
'^
25 flaws which would just escape failure at your test pressure
29
.1 the largest flaw which would just' escape failure at your test 7
4
\\,/
2 pressure, what pressure it could take without either giving a 3
serious leak or really a running failure, if that is possible.
4
-MR.
GOU:
I didn't do that.
5 MR. OKRENT:
Well, it seems to me when we are 6
starting to look at containment integrity seriously and 7
starting to talk about a failure pressure and ultimate strains 8
.and so forth, and when these calculations are done, sort of 9
assuming an initially perfect containment would develop flaws, 10 that seems t o me lacking an element of-realism.
I think one
{
11 has to anticipate that there are flaws in the finished 12 product r(m) 18 MR. SHEWMON:
Can you tell me what -- in the
's 14 primary system when you do work on it, you have to test to 110 l
- 15 percent or something of operating pressure before you take it 16 back up, or 120.
That's part of the ASME Code.
Is there any 17 comparable pressurization test run on this vessel or is it
-18 just whether or not it is leak tight?
1 19 MR. GOU:
Okay.
This.is 15 percent above the design I
i 20 pressure.
21 MR. SHEWMON:
And where we were talking before about L-l 22 levels B,
C and D, where is the design pressure relative on 23 that scale?
24 MR. GOU:
The design pressure for the containments i -
)
s_-
[
25 is still 15 psi, so the test pressure is based on 15 percent i
4 s....,
30 1
above the design'.
So it's 15 x 1 15, whatever the number
,m 2 -
comes..out.
3 MR. OKRENT:
Which'is less than 20.
4 MR. GOU:
Yes, less than 20, 5
MR. SHEWMON:
And the designer says it's good for 45 6
and he sharpens his pencils and says it will take 67 or SS.
7 MR. OKRENT:
No, he says ultimate 83.
At 45 it 8
meets Level C.
9 MR. SHEWMON:
Yes.
- Well, Level C must be local 10 yielding or something?
11 MR. OKRENT:
Yes, local yielding.
By the way, i 12 will drop the question for now but I haven't lost interest in
/%
18 it.
Before we finish the subcommittee meetings, I would like
(
}
14 to have some feel from both Staff and GE about'this question 15 of what is the capability of'different sized flaws, wha't is 16-the impact, if any, of different kinds of size flaws and so 17 forth.
18 MR. GOU:
Okay.
19
[ Slide]
20 Now, this slide summarizes the ultimate pressure 1
21 capability for each essential part'of this containment i
i 22 structure system.
This, again, is the ultimate.
In some 1
28 places we use the lower bound of the ultimate.
On the
' f-m 24 critical area such as the dome, we use the measure, the i
25 testing value of the steel, and then based on the crack 1
\\
.a
31 1
consideration, then we determine the SS psi at the dome in the
~;
I I
- N_,/
2 high stress region.
3 This is what we normally call 50 percent probability 4
of failure, or ultimate strength.
The lower portion, since T
5 the stress ~ level is
- a. lot lower, so the steel containment, we 6
can take 98 psi internal pressure to go to failure.
The 7
suppression pool, because of the heavy steel plates, together 8
with the reinforcement in the shell building and also in the 9
5 feet concrete in t he._ f i e l d region, it can take 220 psi 10 internal pressure.
l-11 The loads from the containment will transmit by the 12 anchor bolts into the_basemat, so we also look to the anchor s
. -[
}
IS bol t s,- and the anchor bolt is 125 psi internal pressure, and I
\\_ /
14 the anchor bolt loads transfer through the bearing plates and 15 into the concrete, and we look at that, and that is 185 psi 16 All those values except the dome, those are the 17 lower bound values.
When you come to the drywell, the 18-pressurization in the' annulus region or in the region between 19 drywell and the containment to the drywell, we subjected to 20 external pressure.
So the drywell structure itself is i
21 subjected to compressive loads except in the connection area j
f 22 where we have this discontinuity.
Then we have local bending 28 moment. So we look also at the lower bound and we use the eg 24 failure criteria of the concrete, and the capacity is about
.k
)
v 25 272 psi for the shell itself and slightly lower on the
- ~.
g-F-
32 1
connections, about 230. It's not written down over here.
N
)
2 Over here, the slab, this is the ceiling slab of the S
drywell wall, and the thickness is 4 feet with heavy 4
reinforcement On this side, I rotated it 90 degrees to show 5
the other. region which is not under the pool, and this region 6.
is under the fuel pool, and the pressure is 158, and outside 7
for the plate exposed to air directly, the capacity is 200
-S psi 9
Over here we have a steel hat, or the drywell hat.
10 The external pressure capacity is 160 psi.
11 So, based on this sunnary, we can see in all the 12 other regions except the dome, the capacity is a lot higher p
i 18 than the capacity of the dome.
'; d.
14 MR. OKRENT:
What is the internal pressure capacity 15 for the drywell wall, assuming, you know, you somehow had-the 16 suppression pool holes closed.
Do you know what I mean?
What 17 could you take from the inside?
18 MR. GOU:
I did not look at that specific value for 19 the ultimate, but the design was for the 30 psi internal 20 pressure based on a LOCA condition.
So that's an entirely 21 different calculation since the concrete cannot take tension.
22 We would have to rely upon the rebars.
So I did not look into 28
- that, 24-MR. MOELLER:
If it is designed for 30 for internal gg
)
t%d 25 pressure, at what pressure do the upper vents vent, At what
SS 1
pressure will it vent?
,rh
(,)
2 MR. GOU:
Well, the 30 psi -- and that's for the 8
suppression containment -- so during the suppres s l ors, I think 4
' -- maybo Debbie can help me or Rudy can help me.
5 MR. KERR:
What is the water depth from the top of
'6 the pool to the first vent?
7 MR. GOU:
5 psi.
8 MR. MOELLER:
So it vents at 5 psi differential.
9 Thank you.
10 MR. ETHERINGTON:
I don't quite understand what 11 happens when you vent.
If you vent and then condense and you 12 have a collapsing pressure, that would collapse the whole r
{
}
18 containment.
What is'the procedure for venting?
%)
14 MR. GOU:
I think you still go through the 15 suppression, go through the water to condense --
16 MR. ETHERINGTON:
But you would be venting air.
17 MR. GOU:
I need some help.
18 MR. VILLA:
I guess I don't understand the. question.
19 MR. ETHERINGTON:
Well, maybe 1 didn't understand 20 the operation.
If you vent. air from the system for some 21 reason and then subsequently condense the steam, you have a 22 collapsing pressure on the containment.
What are the 23 procedures?
24 MR. VILLA:
That would be correct, in the limit, i
_ /^g 25 guess.
'34 1,
MR. GOUi i think the procedure, assuming we 7 -i 5-k,) c 2
postulate a' break and then you have the air and drive the air.
8 through this vent, so then you go through the water in the-
.4-
-_ p o o l ' a n d then you have a bubble, and then you have a pressure 5
condensed due to condensation, and then it's reduced.
So the 6
pressure-over here is always.less than 15 psi, so 15 psi is 7
the design pressure.
8 1 think if you calculate the value, it's something 9
.like 8 psi,in the containment region.
10 MR. ETHERINGTON:
It's 8 psi collapsing pressure?
11 MR. GOU:
It's the LOCA calculate.
You go through 12 the suppression pool and then calculate the pressure
~~q 18 transient.
The maximum peak value is-about'8 psi
}
14 MR. ETHERINGTON:
Yes,.but the collapsing pressure 15
-would be much lower than that, wouldn't it?
16 MR. GOU:
Your definition of collapsing means 17 collapse of the bubble?
18 MR. ETHERINGTON:
No, collapse of the containment 19 MR. GOU:
No, no.
The collapse of the containment i 20 earl'ier said was the ultimate,- based on ultimate pressure 21.
capability, 83 psi 22 MR. KERR:
He is talking about the wall between the 23 wet well.and the drywell r s' 24 SPEAKER:
Maybe I can help to clarify.
At the top o
.U 25-of the structure there there is a vacuum breaker, and the ei
-}
c--
35
-1'
. relief pressure is 2 psi differential.
5
~2-MR. ETHERINGTON:
Okay.
%s
'3-MR. OKRENT:
How is the drywell head held in place?
4 MR. GOU:
The drywell head over here, this so-called 5
finger connection, is a fork, and'it goes inside there, and
- 6 then with bolts it's connected.
Over here you have an anchor 7
bolt.
I think I might have a flimsy to show the local area 8
out of the dome.
9 CSI:de]
10:
So this shows the dome, the configuration of the 11 drywell head.
This is the top portion, and over here, this is 12 the anchorage.to the seating s t a b'.
r (m
. v) 18 MR. OKRENT:
You are right, it.doesn't show the 14 whole thing,.but let it go.
15
[ Slide]
16 MR. GOU:
How the bottom Iine.
Number 1,
the 17 containment pressure vessel meets the requirement of the CPML 18 rule of 46 psi, and the stress level meets the Level C limits 19 given in the'ASME.
Second, we compare the ultimate pressure 20 capability of the drywell,.the suppression pool, including the 21 anchorage system, a lot higher than the pressure-carrying 22 capacity of the containment pressure vessel, which is governed l
28 by the d ane, the upper, higher region of the containment.
I I'
24 MR. OKRENT:
Is the anchorage system accessible for i
25 inspections throughout the life of the plant?
L
I 86 1
MR. GOU:
No.
This is embedded inside the concrete.
t ys /
2 MR.f0KRENT:
Is it conceivable-that you could have 3
degradation of the anchorage system for chemical reasons, 4
plus, for example, I will postulate something -- which may be 5-a bad example -- inadequate control of the chemistry of the 6
concrete that happened to be in that vicinity.
7 MR. GOU:
That's not considered because, just like 8
the rebars, throughout the structure, in the basemat, in the 9
reinforced concrete wall, all the rebars are embedded inside 10 the concrete, so the anchor bolts are the same as the rebars, 11 embedded over there.
So i think the concrete affords a nice 12 protection for the steel rebars, m[b T
IS MR, OKRENT:
Are you telling me in history we have 14 not ever had an attack of steel bolts or rebar embedded in 15 concrete?
That just hasn't happened?
'16 MR. GOU:
That's what we know of.
17 MR. OKRENT:
I have to be suspicious if you are 18 telling me that there never have been such attacks.
19 MR. WARD:
Well, I don't know about General Electric 20 containment vessels, but I had some direct experience with 21 It.
I'm not an expert in it, but I have had some direct 22 experience with corrosion of rebar in concrete because of what 28 you just said.
'"3 24 MR. OKRENT:
You see, what I am getting at is, NY 25 again, you have made calculations on the assumption that the l
37 l'
1 system will be as i t' is on paper, and l*m just trying to
,y I
\\
(,,/ -
2 ascertain if we know it's like it is on paper, and those were 8
my questions earlier about inspection of welds, and in this 4
case, whether we know over 45 years or whatever is the time 5'
period that anchorage system is maintaining its integrity, 6
since were it to go, it would upset -- early in an 7
overpressure incident, it would change many of your O
. conclusions, I think.
9 MR. GOU:
I think the steel we considered and the 10 material, concrete, abrogates, and the cement.
We have to 11 meet -- for the nuclear industry design, they all have to meet 12 the Code, the ASME Code, and also the division of ASME.
So
,-~
(
18 the material and all those things we have already taken into 14 account such kind of possibility, preclude-the concrete 15 attacking the steel behavior or a corrosive kind of condition.
16 MR. OKRENT:
I myself would be reluctant to say 17 that stating on paper that one is going to meet the Code 18 precludes something.
It is intended to keep something from 19 happening, but in some sense you are at the mercy of the 20 people who.are doing the construction.
21 All right.
Well, let that go for now.
And the 22 inspections.
(
28 MR. GOU:
Okay.
So this concludes my l
24 MR. OKRENT:
I mean, for example, they just ended a (s\\_)\\
i 25 concrete strike here in this area.
There are some workers who
n.
38 1
I are not happy with all of the results, and they might choose
,x i
2 to vent-their spleen on the next pour.
You know what I mean.
f(
3 MR. GOU:
Well, this concludes my presentation.
4 MR. VILLA:
Our next presentation will be by 5
Dr. Deborah Hankins.
I would like to point out that this 6
presentation contains proprietary information, as well as 7
those following,-so we need to close the room.
8 MR. WARD:
Okay.
Let's take a short break and come 1
I 9
back, and we will be in closed session.
I r
10 (Whereupon, at 9:50 a.m.,
the open session of the I
l 11 meeting was adjourned to go into closed session) 12 i
13
- s
\\,
14 15 i
l 4
16 l
l 17 i
l 13 i
l 19 20 21 i
23
.f 24
)
\\
25 d.
. f"'N T
1 CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER 2
3 4
5 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 6
before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the 7
matter of:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 8
9 Name of proceeding:
302nd General Meeting (Public Meeting) 10 11 Cocket No.t (n) 12.
Place: Washington, D.
C.
13 Date: Thursday, June 6, 1985 14 15 were held as herein appears and that this is the original 16 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 17 Regulatory Commission.
13 (Signature) g (Typed.-N1me'ofReprter) [5itza ge B. G ng^
20 21 22
(N 23 Ann Riley & Associates. Ltd.
24 25 L.
6 44(
l O
GESSAR II CONTAINMENT STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 1
A PRESENTATION TO THE ADVISORY C0 fit 11TTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS e
l WASHINGTON, D.C.
O I
1 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY JUNE 6, 1985 O
L
O EESSAR 11 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS S
HIGHLIGHTS OF MARK III CONTAINMENT DESIGN 4
MARK III CONTAINMENT MEETS CP/ML RULES 8
ULTIMATE PRESSUP.E CARRYING CAPABILITY 8
CONCLUSION O
O e
O
/
'fg GESSAR II CONTAINMENT STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
\\J HIGHLIGHTS OF MARK 111 CONTAINMENT DESIGN t
LOWER CENTER OF GRAVITY OF REACTOR VESSEL INCREASE SEISMIC CAPABILITY 0
UNCONGESTED/MORE SPACE IN DRYWELL AND CONTAINMENT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE BENEFIT e
SIMPLE CONFIGURATION O
O LOW PRESSURE DESIGN (15 PSIG)
TO REDUCE COST ANP CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE O
PARALLEL CONSTRUCTION PATHS TO REDUCE SCHEDULE 4;
l O
L
GESSAR II Containment Structural Analysis 4
I MELO SWILDeseG e
==
yyggg D81YIWE LL gag CEILS 4G SLAS
=
T STWEL CENI A8MedENT
[ h
/
gE
- . #m w cA Y,
- MT J
yug g at
-J q )
i E I
a% %
l w.
4,
'g p g.g
==
4 r.
N b
M t i O \\\\ gg 3
I o su a j
A g
e q
l E 1
m main.
POOL %_
g T
m MALL
= = a
E: E b $!
_a
.i 4
4ITAltgISEIt?
A#eCMOAAGS l
Mark III Containment Buildings of Standard Plant O
L.
GESSAR II Containu nt Structural Annlysis m
go'coatamesec (m
di m,,e KNUCKLE REGION "7,an ss.nte
[
! #"/ :
sker a
M* P ATE L
i
[
/F" PLATE 4>
mecions 3 wr 1 P l
37 8*
1 P 1'
j i
\\
atoeois
(
a i p
src I
q p 44' P g
sumes.saions '
3.'.,
~
g
- 'g wr 4.,:,
p W r e-p C
0/3 4F r THE STRESS IN EVERY REGION IS WITHIN THE ASfE LEVEL C ALLOWABLE LIMIT FOR PRESSURE = 45 PSIG.
THE CONFIGURATION SMOWN A30VE MEETS THE CP/ML RULES'
~
liAXIMUf'. STRESS OCCURS AT KNUCKLE REGION OF THE DOME BASED ON FINITE ELEMENT STRESS ANALYSES (NASTRAL ASHID, ADINA)
O 1
I N
C m
oc.n
- .:3SAR H e,atainment Structural Analysis W. 2I FO m
- (--- 4, r0 3r HF e
f.n Ch m D' U)2 L
a
(.n m r)
-w'.
Wh m
&.LO V4 o
ro PA m i
O ma%
W\\
a ni
=_=.7. 2 l
. ~ ~...
s H
OO I o lo rr
.s.
e co r 00 m A
rr1 L
a to
'M /..S s/.h~
LnCD w
c-n.u r
- :gf&M, n
rl=
cy) c a: T ?~ ~
ro D
CU
>+e ava y
n 2..
HO ri c-
~,
m -,-
m o c
- .:::.::::.:i.:
we w
a a
w w
g m fTl A + O N A fu 5 V s GESSAR II Containnsat Structural Analysis x STEEL CONTAINMENT DOME 83 PSIG (INTERNAL) DRYWELLHEAD above 100 PSIG (EXTERNAL) DRYWELL ROOF / CEILING DRYWE LL ROOF / CEILING SLAB UNDER WATER above 158 PSIG SLAB - ROTATED 90 DEG INTO VIEW : above 200 p G (EXTERNALI I (EXTERNAL) STEEL CONTAINMENT q U '.'lt.*/, ',3?.f i* CYLINORICAL SHELL 98 PSIG (INTERNAL! j [ 1 t. ,..**..'gl,. 9 s,- i.: CONCRETE ', $,'....' ( DRYWELL WALL, p 'bove 272 PSIG .'.l-(Q (EXTEnreau 1 K* is .. e l'. ,9% e. r .v ~ m l. Q
- g.,,2
.m V a . l:., J.e = =, poog
- 5. a.
i <.f., = ..,..,.... '.,.. ': :..,.:,,3* r..f.. u *... r-: ., s..... p...s.... ..s..s ' ~ - :.:~ . =. \\ ANCHOR eOLTS 125 PSIG IINTERNAL) ** SUPPRESSION POOL WALL CONCRETE DEARING
- above 220 PSIG UNDER SOLTS (INTERNAU 135 PSIG (INTERNAll ULTIMATE PRESSURE CARRYING CAPABILITY FOR VARIOUS PORTIONS OF STRUCTURES IN CONTAINi.iLiT STRKTUm SYs*1EM f
( s n. 4 i GESSAR II CONTAINMENT STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ~ CONCLUSIONS 9 CONTAINMENT VESSEL MEETS THE REQUIREMENT OF 45 PSIG INTERNAL PRESSURE CAPABILITY AT SERVICE LEVEL C LIMITS 0 PRESSURE-CARRYING CAPABILITIES OF THE DRYWELL, SUPPRESSION POOL AND ANCHORAGE SYSTEM FOR CONTAINMENT VESSEL ARE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THE PRESSURE-CARRYING CAPABILITY OF THE CONTAINMENT VESSEL O e O 7 g -