ML20140G274

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Recommends Listed Procedures for Review of Applicants/ Licensees for Plants W/Mark I,Ii & III Responses to Concerns Re Pool Dynamic Loads & Relief Valve Loads
ML20140G274
Person / Time
Issue date: 04/17/1975
From: Maccary R, Tedesco R
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Deyoung R, Goller K, Moore V
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20140F372 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-85-665 NUDOCS 8604020050
Download: ML20140G274 (9)
v • d • e


Text

O

' 1 UNITED STATES 't

' (_ .

, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 -

APR 171975 R. C. DeYoung, Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors, Group 1, RL V. A. Moore, Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors, Group 2, RL K. R. Goller, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors, RL PROPOSED METHOD FOR REVIEW OF MARK I, II, AND III POOL DYNA'4IC LOADS In our memos to you of February 25, 1975, April 10, 1975, and April 11, 1975, we provided standard letters concerning pool dynamic loads and relief valve loads. This information has either bean sent or will be sent to all applicants / licensees for plants with Mark I, II, and III containments. Recognizing that several RP and TR branches will be involved in the review of these responses from each of the applicants and licensees, and the complex nature of the problem, we have prepared the following recommended procedures to effect these reviews in an efficient manner:

1. We would suggest that one LPM be designated to coordinate the DRL effort for pool dynamic and relief valve load reviews and to facilitate and provide efficient contact between DTR and DRL.

Each of the TR branches will have a corresponding designee:

CSB - R. Cudlin, Pool Dynamics; L. Slegers, Relief Valve Loads MIB - S. Hou SEB - A. Gluckmann

2. The review of each response should be initiated by a TAR from DRL to DTR and should include SEB, MEB, and CSB.
3. Any additional information requests from 103, SEB, or CSB should be sent to DRL individually. ,,
4. The final evaluation for each plant will be coordinated by CSB.
5. The following review functions and interfaces will be performed by the designated TR branches: *
a. CSB Review Functions (1) CSB will identify those containment structures, piping and components which could'be subject to pool dynamic loads.

(2) CSB will evaluate and determine the acceptability of the selection, quantification, and combination of pool dynami loads specified for each of the structures, piping and components. This evaluation will be based on appropriate otUTIO+

t .*[N ig a 4

. m 9

@(.)t ., 5 .

'*'c m'* e6o4onooso e6o114 PDR FOIA D-Il ~

FIRESTOBS-665 PDR -- - - -- --- -

i 1

I R. C. DeYoung l V. A. Moore APR 1 7 $75 K. R. Coller experimental data and analyses and the relative magnitude of the pool dynamic load compared to the design basis load for each of the structures, piping, and components.

(3) CSB will evaluate the potential for asymmetric load profiles due to pool dynamic phenomena.

(4) CSB will evaluate the applicant's response to the ACRS '

concernc; i.e., that additional analytical models be developed for pressure suppression phenomena to supplement test data.

b. SEB Review Functions (1) SEB will verify the applicant's determination of the relative magnitudes of pool dynamic loads compared to design basis loads for those structures subject to pool dynamic loads.

(2) SEB will verify that the combinations and values of pool dynamic loads that are approved by CSB have been correctly factored into the structural load combination equations for each structure. SEB will determine the requirement for application of dynamic load factors to the pool dynamic load values. ,

(3) SEB will evaluate the capability of the affected containment structures to tolerate asymmetric loa, ding profiles.

(4) SEB will conclude as to the adequacy of the structural design of each of the structures which could be subject to pool dynamic loads.

c. MEB Review Functions MEB will perform functions (1), (2) and (4), as described for SEB as related to piping and components uhich could be subject to pool dynamic loads.

e e e

    • *** e O

s

. . l e'

j R. C. DeYoung '

V. A. Moore K. R. Coller gg 1 y 1975 l

l l

We would be happy to discuss our recommendations with you. l

\

~

Vb ,b Robert L. Tedesc'o, Assistant Director for Containment Safety Division of Technical Review e.c.e q

- Raymond R. Maccary, Assistaht Director for Engineering Division of Technical Review cc: F. Schroeder A. Giarbusso R. Boyd G. Lainas L. Shao J. Knight J. Kudrick R. Cudlin.

L. Slegers i

e*

\

l e

4 e

- ~ - - . -._ . . . . - --_ . _ ...- - .__---_

' *~ . t u;

DR;FT/CUDLI:!/lau/4-18-75 ---

(

1 J POOL DY"A'!!C LOADS l

l Recent develop =cnts have indicated that pool dynamic loads may not have been fully considered in the structural design of RWR plants utilizing Mark I and Mark II type containments. In response to this situation we have sent letters to all licensees / applicants for these types of plants

requesting that they report on the potential n.agnitudes of pool dynamic loads and the structural capability of their suppression chamber design t

to. tolerate such loads. We have requested that they provide this infor-mation within 60 days and to notify us within 15 days as to their ability or inability to meet such a schedule. We have established an interin j time period for assessment of each plant based' on our conclusion that pool dynamic loads do not represent an immediate safety concern for Mark I operating plants. This conclusion was reached on the basis of the infor-

mation provided below which describes the background and current status j

of our understanding of the problem. .-

t i

, In March of 1974 GE performed a series of " air tests" to scope the range i and magnitude of pool dynamic loads for the Mark III design. It was

! recognized that more definitive tests were required and therefore compre-i hensive tests in 1/3 scale were initiated in the summer of 1974 and are l

currently still in progress. Parallcl efforts to develop analytical i methods for the variods pool dynamic phenomena have been undertaken by GE, the NRC's consultants, and by several A/E's.

3

$ v

(

$)-Ih i

i%u. .. -- y-----.- 7,.m. .%..... --,77. ,-ymg, , - . , , , . . . -

-.,,9, p., . . , ,gc- e + , . . . , w. ---.. y.- ,

..'. s )

,, t d ;. i

~ 5 ~ ).

., _2_

}' I i l

We have maintained periodic contact with GE regarding the planning and l progress of pool dynamics testing and associated analyses. Although the i emphasis has been placed on resolutica of these concerns for the Mark III f
design, our discussions with GE have noted that parallel efforts should be

! directed at evaluation of the bbrk I and II containment designs.

l In their letters of April 9 and 15,1975 (A. P. Bray to E. G. Case), and a

in a meeting on April 10, 1975, GE provided a summary of their actions In*

l this regard. GE has performed a preliminary generic evaluation of pool swell loads for a typical internal structure arrangement of a Mark I

! containment torus (see figure 1). The structural response analysis uas l

based on pool swell loads extrapolated from Park III test data, which is f currentlytheenifavailabledatabase. The resultant load profile, as I

l shown in figure 2, is a pressure pulse of approximately 40 psi and a r

duration of about 60 milliseconds. Some of the assumptions that GE used

l to arrive at this profile are listed in the attached figure 3.

1 i

Although the pool swell loads have been derived from thrk III data, i differences in the thrk I design suggest that the loads are conserva-l tive. These are the small free air volumed of the torus and the lower i

submergence of the vent piping, compared to Mark III plants. The Hunboldt i

l and Bodega Bay tests had shown dramatically reduced pool motion with the l

j t

suppression chamber closed (as during plant operation) as with it open. '

1 It is thought that this was the result of air compression effects dampening j the pool swell phenomena. The Fhrk III test program has shown that the

. range and magnitude of pool swell ef fects are directly proportional to the 1

)

1 l 1

. i subn: cry,cnce of the vents . The vent submergenec for MatL I plants is four feet conpared to a value of 7-1/2 feet for Mark III. Therefore, extrapolation of ! ark III data, which is representative of deep sub-mergences and a large (open) suppression chamber, to the Mark I desij;n would indicate a degree of conservatian.

The results of the structural analysis showed that some local yielding of the vent header support structures could occur; houever, structural failure was not predicted.

i MORE DETAIL BY SEB i

-)

\ ,/

<' 's' <- GE also noted that the Ibrk I configuration was tested la full scale during s., 'a

[ the Humboldt and Bodega Bay tests performed between 1958 and 1965, and that the results of these tests verified the adequacy of the primary containment boundary.

Recognizing that the GE analysis is preliminary and that we have not revieued it in detail, this analysis still represents our best estimate of the problem at this time. We believe the conclusions expressed by GE to be reasonable and therefore acceptable on an interim basis. Although we cannot fully concur with GE that the Humboldt and Bodega Bay tests demonstrated the adequacy of 1

the Mark I structural design, since specific measurements of pool dynaaic ,

1 loads do not appear to have been made, the tests do provide additional confi'dence that a severe design deficiency does not exist.

O

s .

.l s,N s . .,. .N y' .

'- N

  • t N. ~ ~ -

'%% %~N .....

j

%. ,. .y,. ~ . .. s ,. . r. .t.

(.,. .,

a j<e .7, s s,f- _ _ , , , . ... .. ., ... . . . . . ..s.. ...

'/I

.l

/u ) -.,/ /\  ;

/ 4,* ',i r

/ )

(

~ p '~

/

^

, / \ ' ,- g,i . - - VAct".Si ! F.L" '

s. . -

< s.// s , .

N .,.a..,,t...,

L's, , /

f - .

\s..., .-..e

. ~. .. y s%.N , s/

s s - 1

,/

. s.N .

s.

\., [,

f._.-.-- . . ~ .. , ,/

3. . .

u., ,

C.D.f..w.a

,.r . ...a s g......,

tr

.i

  • , . 3, - - .1. . . . , y n-a
c. - c . t t

1%TT.2 LEYE r. j ,

y.

t ,

. =- ~- ,

_f.

_ l -

4 g.= .,.e= (/

, b.

4

..z

<. -t --

a.

a

) .

.I i i

V.1 C.. . t. .~. .l . . r.,.y. . .. I .f i.o ,;(,. .,

a

u. t..J- S.i. m ..., i a . ( ,ex0. c... .s ....

u- c. :.~..o ) ,

l 2

k

. e

-, ,- - ,r, .---,-.--e,. , , - . , . . - , . , - , ,, . , , .

,e ,.\

$' e

, f t' 1 O

e

' ' ~

' /

'( ,..I d. E [. ( / *, [ }  ;. l( n l

5 t

5 4

1 .. .. - .

..i: u ! .:. . A . . .'.

.l '

/. c y! . f I . : . i,

't'j . . ...

i

[ 's ....,.,,/,..,.,'

'I r g j

\

~ i

s. A (e . - d

.j

p. . ... ,  ;

s.

N*

h, f a 1

s l.

[1 o

(

'O { l '

{

's e /

j l h -

- i s s b .'*) , ,

q' f gd'# e .

( ./ e l ',# \ ,i

/ / 's .

\

t,

/ / / N l

.a .

,'. / s

'N

/;, tsf j / / g . . - - . . _ _ . . . .

's \ j/ '-

's{

o L-: .l ' ' ~ -l -.I.

. .\ m. , ,

4

./ i

.- , 1 O, ~""'*~"~'''''''''-'"'-*''-'"'--'

  • * = ' ' ' ' ' ' - - ' ' ~ ' * ' ' - ' ' ~ ' **

o ,~ .. ..*

L ', c , ., e9-3 t . .! i. c., tL. q, e

  • r-e ,

4 s

e b

l I i

MARK I HEADER LOAD CONSERVATISMS I ,

j BOU:!DARY C0iDITI0ilS '

) ASSUMED ALL AIR CARRY OVER i

i i i

! USED BREAKTHROUGH 'iEIGHT OF 2 X SUBMERGEMCE BODEGA INDICATED 1,5'X j, '

1

, USED INFli!ITE OCEAii (SOLID WATER) i 1-2'LIGAMEilT EXPECTED AT HEADER ELEVATI0!i

PEAK DN PRESSURE C0ilSERVATISMS i

MODEL i

i CALCULATED LOAD IS 20% HIGHER THAil MEASURED (USING TEST BOUNDARY CONDITIOllS) j I CO:lCLUSIO.'l:

TOTAL C0:lSERVATISM MAY BE AS HIGH AS FACTOR  !

OF TWO '

i I

0;R 11,9.75 i

1 .

}

i

_ - -.. - . - . - - - . . - - - . - - - . - - - - . - - . - .

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20140G274&oldid=2860066"