Text

Summary of Meeting W/Mark II Owners Group in Bethesda,Md Re Status of Several long-term Program Tasks in Advance of Final Documentation.Agenda,List of Attendees & Viewgraphs Encl
	ML20148C131
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point, Susquehanna, Columbia, Limerick, LaSalle, Zimmer, Shoreham, Bailly File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	12/20/1979
From:	Anderson C; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Hanauer S; NRC - TMI-2 UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUES TASK FORCE
References
	REF-GTECI-A-08, REF-GTECI-CO, TASK-A-08, TASK-A-8, TASK-OR NUDOCS 8001250121
	Download: ML20148C131 (100)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:k 4 f DEC 2 01979 Task Action Plan A-8 Docket Nos.: 50-358, 50-352/353, 50-367, 50-3,73/374, 50-387/38,8. 50-410, 50-322, 50-297 l MEMORAtIDUM FOR: S. H. Hanauer, Director, Unresolved Safety Issues Program, l flRR FROM: C. J. Anderson, A-8 Task Manager, Containment Systems Branch, OSS APPLICANT: Members of MARK II Owners Group

SUBJECT:

FEETIflG WITH MARK II OWNERS TO DISCUSS LONG TERM PROGRAM STATUS

Background

The staff recently completed the review of alternate loads proposed by the fiARK II owners as a part of the MARK II Lead Plant Program. With the completion of the review of these remaining Lead Plant Tasks, the staff has tumed its attention to the myiew of the MARK II Long Tem Program. The function of this meeting was to discuss the status of several of the Long Tem Program tasks in advance of the final documentation of these tasks. These discussions were conducted to provide the staff and our-consultants an opportunity to identify task problems prior to completion of the task. The significant t4 ems discussed in the meeting included: the Creare multivent tests, the 4T condensation oscillation tests, the dynamics lateral load model, the improved chugging load, foreign tests and load combinations. An attendance list and a copy of the neeting handouts are enclosed. Sudmarf A summary of the discussions of the Long Tenn Program Tasks is provided below. 1. Generic Program Status Sumary Mr. Davis of General Electric provided an overview of the MARK II generic long i tem pmgram. The total generic program, including the lead and Long Term Pro-gram (LTP), was approxirately 85% comolete at the end of October 1979. A detailed sehedule was presented to"'show the status of milestones for several of the more important LTP tasks. A table of the LTP task documentation was also discussed. Documentation for the LTP LOCA related steam tests will not be available until the omCc) smoNJ. l p i .aaouwu 1 NAC FORM 319 89461 NACY M M

* S GCVE RN"ENT op MING OmCE: 1979 789 369

2 DEC o 41979 S. H. Hanauer i third quarter of 1980. These late dates for task documentation jeopardize the staff's October 1979 schedule for completion of the,LTP review. Mr. Sobon of General Electric dis:ussed the generic positions of the MARV, II own-ers for the LTP. He identified those areas where the owner proposed deviating from the staff's lead plant acepptance. criteria. 2. Creare Multivent Test Program - Task A.11 Mr. Patel of Creare discussed the status of the Creare multivent steam tests. The objective of this program is 1) to establish the trend of chugging wall loads with the number of vents to confirm that the lead plant approach utilizing single vent data is conservative and 2) to quantify the multivent effect in the LTP to allow refinement.of the lead plant bounding load in the LTP. The first phase of this test program is complete. This includes multivent tests at 1/10 and 1/6 scale. The phase I test report will be submitted to the NRC in June 1980. The staff questioned the ability of the..Creare tests to address phasing questions raised as a result of preliminary observations of related foreign tests. 3. Main Vent lateral Loads - Task A.13 3r. Davis of General Electric discussed the status of the A.13 vent lateral loads task. The lead plant criteria for lateral loads includes a very conservative static and dynamic load specification. The MARK II owners proposed a less conser-vative single vent dynamic lateral load for the LTP. The results of several large scale single and double vent tests were studied by the MARK II owners to confinn the MARK II owners' load specification. Preliminary results of the confirmatory study indicate that the proposed LTP dynamic lateral load is conservative. In addition to the single vent dynamic lateral load studies, th9 MARK II owners have also conducted studies to extend the single vent dynamic lateral load for ap-plication to 28 in downcomers and to multiple vents. A review of tests in dif-ferent facilities with varying vent diameters (12 to 24 in.) indicates that the dynamic lateral load can be extrapolated to 28 in. vents. In addition, a statis-tical proeddure similar to that utilized in the leed plant program was used to extend the single vent lateral load to a multivent dynamic lateral load specifi-cation. A report documenting the results of the various dynamic lateral load subtasks is in preparation and will be submitted to the NRC in December 1979. 4. Generic Improved Chuaninq Load - A.16 The MARK II owners discussed the status of the milestones associated with comple-tion of the generic improved chugginn load task. The major task milestones have been completed. A final rpport documenting this task is currently scheduled to be submitted in February 1980. The staff stated that confirmation of the meth-odology, considering the results of the large scale multivent Japanese test, was important to resolve staff questions raised during orevious meetings with the MARK II owners. ^ a met yl. . J'. suo m 4 [ J. u u >.. .L 4 ne rem w.v v= x ,v., .,-c.,n. m.m.m

k DEC 2 01973 S. H. Hanauer ' 5. 4T C0 Tests - A.17 The purpose of these additional 4T tests is to resolve questions raised by the staff in NUREG 0487 dealing with vent length effects in establishing the conden-sation oscillation load specification. Modification of the original 4T test facility has been completed. The shakedown tests and 9 seheduled tests have been completed. The total test matrix includes 23 tests at varying conditions of vent submergence, initial drywell air, content pool temperature, break size, break submergence and break type (i.e., steam and liquid). In addition, tests will be conducted to investigate the effect of a vent riser. The testing program is scheduled to be completed in February 1980. Tne MARK II owners plan to discuss preliminary observations from these tests some time during the first quarter of 1980. Preliminary observations from other related test programs indicate that some vent length related modifications to the original C0 load specifications may be appropriate. This modification would prob-ably consist of a load specification at frequencies in the 7 to 20 HZ range. How-ever, insufficient analyses have been performed related to the foreign tests to establish the necessity of a change in the original C0 load. 6. GKSS Tests The GKSS large scale multivent, steam tests were discussed with the MARK II owners. This included a description of the test facility, the test matrix, testing schedule and preliminary observations of the completed 3hakedown tests. The staff noted the close phasing of the chugging events and the similarity of chugging eients oc-curring at the exit of each vent during gross pool chugging. The staff emphasized the need for a MARK II generic task to include a review of the foreign large scale multivent tests to confirm the lead plant loads and provide a basis for the pro-posed LTP reduced loads. 7. Load Combinations - SRSS A draft copy of the Brookhaven studies on response conbination methodologies was released by the staff for comment in October 1979. The MARK II owners' coments related to the Brit report were presented by Dr. Kennedy. A copy of the presenta-tion slides is attached. Dr. Hou of NRC stated that additional BHL studies would be required before Criterion 2 of the Newmark-Kennedy criteria could be accepted. However, he was optimistic about the ultimate acceptability of criterion 2. He stated that further efforts to evaluate the modified criterion 2 would probably be included in a future review program. The MARK II owners stated that February 1980 appeared to be the best time for the next generic MARK II owners /HRC staff meeting. This meeting would probably include most of the topics discussed in this meeting. C11ffort J. Anderson, A-3 Task Manager conta1ntsent Systems ufanch CSB: DSS i orrict). . Division. of..Sys tems. Safety. sunshG)sure; . 6 Anderson;jpf o TEN.#... 12/@/79Y Distribution: Nac row sie SW &t't& cme'd Dages D'8 5 GOVE AY'NT opeWG OrFICEi 1979 289-369

t Meeting Notice Distribution Distribution: Docket Files D. Ross NRR Reading File T. Novak CSB Reading file K. Kniel H. Denton Z. Rosztoczy E. Case R. Tedesco R. Boyd S. Hanauer R. DeYoung V. Benaroya D. Skovholt W. Butler W. Haass R. Satterfield R. W. Houston F. Rosa P. Collins D. Muller D. Vassallo R. Vollmer J. Stolz W. Kreaer R. Baer V. Moore S. Varga R. Ballard W. Gammill W. Regan C. Heltemes M. Ernst T. Speis G. Lear D. Eisenhut J. Youngblood D. Crutchfield R. Denise P. Check C. Stepp G. Lainas J. Kudrick A. Schwencer J, Shapaker D. Ziemann NRC PDR B. Grimes Local PDR G. Knighton Receptionist T. Ippolito OELD R. Reid OSD J. Miller I&E (3) R. Clark R. Fraley, ACRS (3) F. Pagano T. Su R. Mattson C. Tan F. Schroeder C. Grimes J. Knicht S. Fabic R. Bosnak R. Cudlin S. Pawlicki M. Aycock F. Schauer C. Anderson A. Thadani l

l Mr. Earl A. Borgmann Vice President - Engineering The Cincinnati Gas and Electric Ceepany P. O. Cox 960 Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 cc: Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq. Mr. J. P. Fenstermaker Conner, Moore & Corber Senior Vice President - Operations 1747 Pennsyania Avenue, H. W. Columbus and Southern Ohio i Washington, D. C. 20006 Electric Company 215 North Front Street Mr. William J. Moran Coulubus, Ohio 43215 General Counsel { The Cincinnati Gas and Electric David B. Fankhauser, Pb0 Company 3569 Mine Mile Road P. O. Box 960 Cincinnati, Ohio 45230 Cincinnait, Ohio 45201 p Thomas A. Luebbers, Esq. l Mr. William G. Porter, Jr. Cincinnati City solicitor Porter, Stanley, Arthur Room 214, City Hall and Platt Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 37 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 Mr. Stephen Schuracher i . _ _. _ _ - - i -- -Miami Valley Pcwer Project Mr. Peter H. Forster, Vice P. O. Box 252 President Dayton, Ohio 45401 Energy Resources The Dayton Power and Light Ms. Augusta Prince, Chairpersen Company 601 Stanley Avenue P. O. Box 1247 Cincinnati, Ohio 45226 Dayt:n, Ohio 45401 J. Robert Newlin, Counsel The Dayton Power and Light s Company P. O. Box 1034 Dayton, Ohio 45401 Mr. James 0. Flynn Manager, Licensing Environmental Affairs The Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company P. O. Box 960 I Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 w +44ubhp

a b j Mr. Norman W. Curtis Vice President - Engineeryng and Construction Pennsylvania Power and Light,tcapany 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 Mr. Robert J. Shovlin Mr. Earle M. Mead Project Manager Project Engineering Manager Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. Pennsylvania Power & Light Company 2 North Ninth Street 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania *)8101 Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 Alan R. Yuspeh, Esq. Jay Silberg, Esq. Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Shaw, Pittnan, Potts & Trowbridge Trowbridge 1800 M St reet, N. W. 1800 M St reet, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20036 Washington, D. C. 20036 Mr. Willi am E..Barberich,. ______Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud ~ Co-Di redtor ' ~' ~~ Nuclear Licensing Group Supervisor Environmental Coalition on Pennsylvania Power & Light Company Nuclear Power 2 North Ninth Street 433 Orlando Avenue Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 State College, PA 16801 Edward M. Nagel, Esquire Mr. Thomas M. Gerusky, Director General Counsel and Secretary Bureau of Radiation Protection Pennsylvania Power & Lig,ht Company Department of Environmental 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 Resources s Conmenwealth of Pennsylvania P. O. Box 2063 Bryan Snapp, Esq. Harrisburg, PA 17120 l Pennsylvania Power & Light Company 901 Hanilton Street Ms. Colleen Marsh Allentoso, Pennsylvania 18101 Bo x 538A, RD d 4 i Mountain Top, PA 13707 Robert M. Gallo Resident Inspector Mrs. Irene Lemanowic:, Chairpersei P. O. Box 52 The Citizens Against Nuclear Shickshinny, Pennsylvania 18655 Dangers P. O. Box 377 Susquehanna Environmental Advocatas RDil c/ o Gerald Schultz, Esq. Serwick, PA 18503 i 500 South River Street l Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702 Jchn L. Anderson Oak Ridge National Laboratory Union Carbide Corpcration 4 Bldg. 3500, P. O. Box I Dak Ridge, Tennessee 37830

t 4 Mr. Byron Lee, Jr. Yice President Ccamenwealth Edison Comp,any P. 0. Box 757 Chicago, Illinois 60690 cc: Richard E. Powell, Esq. Isham, Lincoln & Beale One First National Plaza 2400 Chicago, Illinois 60670 t a / l j .t _ J

J f Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation ces: Niagara Mc'.2wk Pcwer Corporatien Arvin E. Upton, Esq. r LeBoeuf. Lamb, Letby & MacRae AUN: Mr. Gerald K. Rhode, Vice President 1757 N Street, N. W. S'. ste:n Project Management Wasnington, D. C. 20036 300 Erie Boulevard West Syracuse, Nes York 13:02 Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq. Natural Resources Defense Council 917 15th Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20005 Hr. Richard Goldsmith Syracuse University College of Law L. 1. 'ahite Hall Camous Syracuse, New York 13210 _T.L_DeBeer, Director --- Technological Development Programs New York State Energy Of fice Swan Street Building Core 1 - 2nd Floor Empire S* ate Plaza f Albany, New York 12223 s l

Q t

e e e e e a

es e e ge e

,wa

s Nortnern Irciana P.:blic Service Ccq:any a ces: Meredith Beecnill, Jr. Es;. Northern Irdiana Public Service Ccepany Assistant General Counsel ATIN: Mr. H. P. Lyle, Vice President Bethlehem Steel Corporatien Electric P W.ica 5 Engireering 701 East Ibird Street 5265 Mchs t. Aver.ue Bethlenem, h nnsylvania 18016 Fxw end, T vH ana 46325 William ti. Eichhcrn, Esq. Eid. horn, Mccrev & Eic::hcrn 5243 Echman Avenue Rm rend, Irdiana 46320 Edward W. Csann, Jr., Esq. Wolfe, Buctard, Leydid, Voit & Csar.n, Ltd. Suite 4600 One IEM Pla::a Chicago, In ircis bo611 3ttert J. Vclien, Esq. 109 tierth

Dear:

crn Street Chicago, Illinois 60602 Porter County, I:aak Walten Imague of America, Inc. f Bcx 438 Chesterten, Illircis 463u4 Michael I. Swygert, Esq. 25 East Jmtsen Soulevarc Chicago, Illinois 60604 Richard L. Pocbins, Esq. I. axe Micnigan Feceratien 53 West J m Xsen seulevard Chicago, Illircis 60604 Maurice Axelrad, Esg. L:wenstein,.9e man, aeis & A:elrad 1025 C:r.nectic'.:t Avenue, N. W. Washington, D. C. 2uo36 James ti. Caban, Esq. Russell Eggert, Esq. Office of the Attcrney Gener:1 188 Rardol;:e Street Chicago, Illircis 60602 ) ,n.

Long Island Lighting Company ccs: Howrd L. B1 au, Esq. Blau and Cohn, P.C. 217 Neeridge Road Hicksville, New York 11801 Jeffrey Cohen, Esq. Ceputy Comissioner and Counsel New York State Energy Of fice Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Energy Research Group, Inc. 400-1 Totten Pond Road Waltham, Massachusetts C2154 Irving Like, Esq. Reilly, Like and Schnieder 200 'aest Main Street Babylong, New York 11702 J. P. Novarro Project Manager Shoreham POclear Powr Station P. O. Box 618 Wading River, New York 117.92 W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq. Hunton & Williams P. O. Box 1535 Ri chmond, Vi rgini a 23212 Ralph Shapiro, Esq. Cammer & Slapiro 9 East 4Cth Street New York, New York 10016 Edward J. Walsh, Esq. General Attorney Long Island Lighting Company 250 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501 l t l

~ ~ ( Mr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr. Vice President & General Counsel Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 cc: Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq. Conner, Moore & Corber 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, M. W. Washington, D. C. 20006 W. William Anderson, Esq. Deputy Attorney General Room 512, Main Capitol Building Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Frank R. Clokey, Esq. Special Assistant Attorney General Room 218, Tcwne House Apartments P. O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Honorable Lawrence Coughlin House of Representatives Congress of the United States f Washington, D. C. 20515 Roger B. Reynolds, Jr., Esq. 324 Swede Street Norristown, Pennsylvania 19401 Willard C. Hetzel, Esq. 312 Main Street East Greenville, Pennsylvania 18041 tswrence Sager, Esq. Sager & Sager Associates 45 High Street Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464 Joseph A. Smyth Assistant County Solicitor County of Montgomery Courthouse .Norristown, Penperlvania 19404 e

~
Mr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr.

cc: Eugene J. Bradley Philadelphia Electric Ceepany Associate General Cconsel 2301 Market Street Philadelphta, Pennsylvania 19101 e e e o* 4 9 +e ..s= .m = * * * * * - *

/ Washington Public Power Supply System "?i cc: Joseph B. Knotts, Jr., Esq. Mr. Neil 0. Strand Debevoise & Liberman Washington Public Power Supply System, 1200 Seventeenth St reet, N. W., 3000 George Washington Way Washington, D. C. 20036 P. O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352 Richard Q. Quigley, Esq. Washington Public Power Supply System

.::=

2000 George Washington Way =- P. O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352 Nicholas Lewis, Chairman Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council 520 East Fifth Avenue Olympia, Washington 98504 Mr. O. X. Earle Licensing Engineer P. O. Box 965 Richland, Washington 99352 LE-4 e. e. .u~;; .O... .2.. a m, e

l MARK II Meeting MARK II Owners Group /NRC November 14, 1979 Name Orcanization C. J. Anderson NRC/ DSS /CSB W. M. Davis GE P. O. Hedgecock WPPSS J. A. Weyandt Bechtel Power Corp. D. F. Roth Penna. Power & Light D. L. Baker Burns and Roe, Inc. E. L. McFarland Bechtel Power Corp. D. M. O'Connce Bechtel Power Corp. H. W. Vollmer Philadelchia Electric Co. R. F. McClelland GE C. A. Maloven Stone & Webster R. L. O'Mara Stone & Webster J. C. Black GE 1 R. D. Hoagland GE C. Calderen CNSNS

3. R. Patel Creare, Inc.

C. Arredondo CNSNS/ Mexico L. C. Ruth NRC/ DSS /CSB J. A. Kudrick NRC/ DSS /CSB W. R. Butler NRC/ DSS /CS3 R. Trevino CNSNS/ Mexico ) L. V. Scbon GE M. R. Granback NIPSCO J. E. Metcalf S&W J. C. Herman Cincinrati Aas & Elec. Co. K. J. Green Sargent and Lundh R. J. Mu::y GE A. J. Silanin Continuum Dynamics Ain A. Senin MIT (for SNL) John R. Lehner SNL John E. Torbeck GE Harry R. Johnson Ebasco T. Zo:ueta CFE G. T. Kit: S&L . C. Rally GE G. Avellone Burns & Ree T. Y. Chow S&W R. K. Mattu NRC/ DSS /ME3 T. Trocki GE J. Ogcen NMPC C. V. Suoramanian GE J. S. Obel Commenwealth Ediscn L. Memula 3ecntel Power Corp. Cr. Kennedy ECAC R. 3csnak NRC/ DSS /E3 Shou-nien Hcu NRC/ CSS /ME3 H. Chau Lono :slanc Lignting Co. L. C. S. Mien Stone & Weostar I'

MARK II OWNERS GROUP /NRC MEETIllG AGEilDA DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 1979 TIME: 8:30 A.M. - 4:00 P.M. PLACE: BETHESDA, MD. MARYLAND NATICilAL BAilK BLDG. ,RocM 6110 TIME TOPlc 8:30 AM o GENERIC PROGRAM STATUS

SUMMARY

o FLOW CHARTS AND OVERALL SCHEDULE o NRC CRITERIA POSITIONS 10:00 AM o A.11 CREARE MULTIVENT - STATUS o OVERVIEW e TEST DATA UPDATE 10:20 AM o BREAK 10:30 AM o A.13 MAIN VENT LATERAL LOADS e RESULTS OF CATA CORRELATION o MULTIVEili APPLICATI0il 12:00 soon o LUNCH 1:00 PM o A.16 IMPROVED CHUG LOAD DEFINITION - STATUS 1:15 PM o A.17 4T C.O. TEST - STATUS o OVERVIEW o RESULTS TO DATE 1:45 PM o ATWS "T" CUENCHER INFCR".3 TION WMD/as 11/79

0 p MK II OWNERS GROUP /NRC - MEETING AGENDA NOVEMBER 14, 1979 - EETHESDA, MD. TIME TOPIC 2:00 PM BREAK o 2:30 PM o GKSS STAFF DISCUSSION 2:45 PM o LOAD COMBINATIONS o SRSS 3il5PM o MRC POSITIONS ON MK II SUBMITTALS o NUREG 0487 UPDATE o USE CF "3" LIMITS FOR NSSS FATIGUE EVALUATI0li 0F LOAD CASE 2 o FUNCTI0t!AL CAPABILITY 0 SRSS SCHEDULE FOR RESOLUTION 3 l WMD/HD 11/79 1

MARK II CONTAIHMENT PROGRAM TASK STRUCTURE SUM!ARY TOTAL UUtiBER OF TASKS ~ 101 iiARK II PLANT APPLICATION

OF TOTAL TASKS LEAD PLANT SER 8'

NON-LEAD PLANT 32 i COMBINATION OF PLANT CATEGORIES 34 i C0iiFIR!!ATORY 12 INF0FJ1AT!0WAL 14 TOTAL 100% NOV 1979 COMPLET!ON STATUS: GASED ON COST.iEIGHTING) o DVERALL PROGRAM 85% i WMD: Pss/3.77 10/25/79

e W e g. W 'W H U p W O

==J K k O E o z o W D H <cr w W H =<a Ct CC D J.J C C Q= 4. m> A 6 W W W H W Z ct W 4D g l Q <J e m w w w l g e U W3W o Z cc a-* Q. 2 OC '

p. M...

De .r = >=.. cf C.. C4 H Ww" $ d.m,, x H C ZW-C w e. gW = t.aJ W &. yh ct @==J p >=WaC-CQ ~ <r 8 $e gG"E 4 = w o W.J x W s 2:W +

I maerP9um re-* *

/

T;*. *

.; c.. ~ ~ f W coWe - Lm e-o 3.g tA. Ua -z .m gE mMW4 y.n'-t- - ~ .J w L a

y p.

.7.y.,E ** *f k46.>; s.- = n:- ' % b-8E3 Th"p[< p x 3' M .s ..ww 6: e M. l . c:, _m. .4 g p I k #=1 >== g e.C, .** 8.". uE-W 4 - w<> a ga. EW g w 5 24 g:p t E 8., %.Hk 'f5 FAY:: 46 MM-7 =%c

.gs:

.=.r-yNe .,*S ^ E T o8 ie-e%r 4

M jh.e U 'E

'? sG A 'a 5 ~- 5,.C. m !y!TE=34 E c. Yc = f;s - $~,. Ag. w .g,.: r = y W m. m:.

r.. a.

r Y,,. m <: % 2 =* e.; 9.~s.. m. 8a~u -em W.m

u. >=s.-

g); .2 p* :.m 1 SGYO1 LW3A WIW Scyc1 SCW1 DN!!'Sr. m 1 My n s 112MS m 1Y3MY1 4

Om

c m 3.

a O w:::: b. wg z de o m H ~W o< o m o M M m g < <D > A w w _J H w g a <8 o w o a a A Q. y b =. w - H H W cc e UU O O H w !d! O w w z a: C. "z w w wJ m w w oJ m D <M C -W3y DH 5-T5 O a m xa u o A.. y -.>rm.,,. - -..w J.,:.e. r,. n;.~, em s a..,r*..... e SE,..pi m= m. H o e a 's....;...e w ^ o p Q o a-a w, e "~ .. s;. or 5 _a E Wm c-8m 5 U, "W. o. --- eoQ _ W h "%.., _ u, y w;; o cz: o 1 et;em o& m X cy,; 2 p. _. 2 c a: - g. ; w g-A o w H . Xw ,s., N,,.. _ W r,y <e O .. :.J. )'. .[7'g:,v,d%[p[a 40

7w i$

wry <..2,;ns >9,, e. .:.n t v .e H E5 v . ',x...- . a.z. ;.,.p .:... -o.c %., 3se - w --- :r m + %'r* M .2 M 1.a, s M',h. :~. , w w.ti; o '. '. g .,3 : ~v ~ r. km ' " O.i 7' g@r se a' - - +u 4 g 94,. 0l,5~.i'.+. I i J E i w c',o c.q ; .' o r - 9. i .4 V eC o.=f,f w aC '.J Q j ' .. J ;R

=

l m-e w. e yV . g:, .f, - i hp& "4 ~*O* f ,2 WWw$ .~ f.' _y .W - Q% % a fa v ..z.w.y,,; .r;.5. m,)*, ' M' s.\\8. s. ..g c* %g')* .%s y. -A W CeQM; Ut'g u,. I ..e om L Fir g '- df ,#.Q gmy4

rg, s n %'g%y-

--o h5h Yh k$.h .n*2.%i &g' ' ge W =,: ' ?. p, , T,* %* r. *:n4 ?,5 CAEpi ..\\~ h 8'Y5 '. .=:;"..:*QJN.,. . ^ :? :%..'.~ ' yJh d Q f-w ad.. ,u.a,y >E T $2g.' i = g.., ,0 ,F$ 6 - h N,- .m..,..,.,'.-e.:_ . e. -:m; d , m.,4 *ief&, *.

,.,%. a*.rt ;.*T c

g A. T +.j,, ,W,., i

e f O n .?

P'=

4 %O CC

==

Ag u. m. TJ ! s *..,% b 4 9(EC ~ ~ _ ' M P -~ ..u m h 'ad-

* **1.*, A O' W

o s w J cd

2. m.c,;M:y

- *wcx 2. o-a. N_ w/.' ,k=.~' o W H >= .r.e c:: Cll

ty(3 'V'3::.**.'

w* w O O T.'~.,,, A_CC.ay*:.. Q~M.% w w -s m.-e I W W ~ '.**""'*.' Z C " D aw.... D Wh "' 0^m& j'. ,-7-**ll:'*.;' 2 j t .p: ---c--

-t-=

,.l. I } e ea.o W 0 e e 6 e ,, 4'.4gf,]. n w ,t..a g ' D, 3 f{'.,.f

'* f 6,*.LJ. Ej d b.

f l' .v. i c eL.,lG * .a. .( 1 l', M' .g ,j '99i '). *g ** C ',j

i e

ei 'k.12?%i l 8 I' ,. - % bl l yj g.. . 'U ,'A:::: h

i. lNh.;>.

f.. p E

,jy;.6 5

w co U Y 5.: k.. S Sr 1.;,;8'* U ce

..a w

es m;f.,;t.r e.

4 n. e

s..r.

,t e,.m m so ,m p w <g8 p ;* 3-y us, 1.t A.":: m: w c.: x 4 w m:g.!,,.,,,r'_ ,g, ' m f.3 +t F TC">, w -'D"

['Q,D' Q'.C "ig. < 5l l:*,we

'lC

.!],%.,,.*ggQp tM 3 y 3* c-oc,ui. ;g iu C 4:lll: CG j .it:! q. t =: q it i.;m i w. i .s p23 D. o.*. < %! :.:c 4L[.E h, .[e 8'M l'

h !

- 3 ; {', ,( I]. , @Y 'g. 3w, . u.. i g..g. 1., ta,g; W hu h ,I? h$$ $ ll$ih06.i a i Od h.psq p ttpA

3.WF$

i wikwF i' O'4> - h w!dhst.rs%

.d ii;,E4 o.i 4 97

,,s.sdd.ay, e @-;,l;#41 i l e 6 a >= LJ O M Q t 3 Q { a i i r

i I' l LOADE0ts1NATim*5 1rgll k'h].i a FuttCTIONAL 3,'Y .f

i.,'CAPABillTY p.M;',60 'g'3 3 1,'p' HRC SUDH.ERGED l?

e,.. s... DFFR E .5TRUCTURES'. CRITERIA- ; EVALUATION C1 4 .-J

',.;- f BY DAR
w.,, y, g. 15

.;n. w s .., r.: ,'MRC' QUESTIONS $ -r:., KC SET) g.;" T: ~ IY.k;S.,1,.;..-:j!!]fj.1,4 SRSS 'PROGRM,. ' 9 tf[c12 I.j,i dUHHARY '4f-:j,]f;; q ~% v:u,M,. w-H N Pi 5R$(JUSTIFICATION.T N 5,' fl GENERIC ).NX Y'l SRSS' APPLICATION ~ e .i l[5RV;&'ai ,. 4 d C. e C 12 guMARK/ KENNEDY WORLDTESTd '.. Sass CRITERIA.',9 HONITORING { !. SUPPLEK MT f.j ..,.0.5.3 ,n..r_,- p,3 g.9 i[ t S I i EFFORT COMPLETE P'a - [ l EFFORT It. PROCESS Hg II. SUPPORT 1HG PROGRAM REPORT WHD .0 10/79

~ MARLLLGE!1ERif_fR00fWLSC11 Ell!JLE ~ LOCAJtELAILILACIIVIIIES 1979 198o .c.19,81 i A.S.5 ~ RING VORIEX N01)EL v -U 60% COMPLETE A. ll-SilllSCALE NULTIVENT TESTING v V V V V 82% COMPLETE A.13~~~~ EXIENSION-LATERAL LOADS ANAL. A V 90% COMPLETE A.16 IMPROVED ClluG LOADS vV V V 90%COMPLdTE -A.17 CONDENSATI0ll OSCILU\\ TION TESTSv '? V V V 55% COMPLETE. ' S/RV.RELATED ACTIVITJES -. P j.. :. ) 11. 5 CA0RSO QUEllCilER lESTS v%V V-V' -V 90% COMPLETE HISCELLAllLOUS_ACILV1IIES C.0 PROGRAM AC110N PLAN UPDATE A 7. C.S.3 II/K SRSS SilPPLEMEilf A V 100% COMPLLIE C.6 flRC R0llfl0 2 00EST10llS V 92% COMPLETE C.9 WORLI) IEST MONITORING ~ y 7 90% COMPLETE' v C.12 llRC OUEST10lls 20.113/20.59 v V - 95% COMPLETE C.15 flRC SullMERGED STRUCTURES CRITERIA A V 97% COMPLETE-llHD: pes /CP-75,Sil5 10/26/79

ItWK 11 Cutil Alttfittil - 5tn%!:llflG PRdGK/J1 LOCA-Lf t AILO 1 A%5 l A*.K T AEll CAIE ttAD PLAh! SER/ futuu W /u itvity ArllVI1Y lYI'E Critwt [ I loti r,Mitri t:! Al l0tt 0nr/511614 INif ktit 0 PI A!!T A.I "41" ILST imoGRAft Pha:,e 1 lest Report C.spleted i:fD0/NtDE Ill42-P-01 5/76 - 5/76 IP 5tR/IP 1% >e I Appillema Completed Application !!emo f//6 - 6/76 IP SEN/IP Pha:.c 11 & lit test Rpt Con.pleted 14tD0/ttLOL 13400-P 12/16 - 1/77 LP SIR /IP Application lic.avr ndu.a Cua.pteted UtD0/t!LDE 23670-P l/77 - 2/77 LP Slit /IP A./ IWL 5Vlti tidDil RtP0lli Hodel itepart Completeil tit 00/titDC 21514-P 12//6 - 2/77 IP SER/IP A.1 litPACI Il515 PSif 1/1 Scale Tests Comipleted 11k ix1/ut 0L 13426-P D//5 - 9/15 tr SlH/IP tiu k I 1/12 Scale fests Con.ple t ed Id t:d/itt DC 20939-2P a//5 - 11/75 LP 5tH/IP h.4 litPACI Huul t P5tl 1/1 Scale Tests Completed f.edO/ti[DE 1312tP 0//S - 9/75 [P 5fR/IP lla L 1 1/12 Scale lests Cumpleted htD0/li((iC 209u3-2P 9//5 - 11/75 iP $LR/IP A.h LOAUS 614 *.tititttEED 10fA/ Hit Air (klble Itodel Completed (1100/D0D0 ll4 71-P 9/7/ - 1/78 LP 5ER/IP 5tkuClukti (OLA/idillater.let tiodel Coupleted idD0/hl0E 21472-P 9//7 - 1/78 LP SIR /IP Ring Vorten Hadel Cunpleted letter Report 5/19 - 5/19 (P/IP -y 2Q 80 Topical Repoit LP SER/IP IP Applications Hethods Concleted f1LD0/HEUC 21/30-P 12/77 - 1/18 1/4 Scaling lests Co.nplete NLDE 23817-P 9/18 - 12/18 Info > 5 tease Condensation Hett.ods - Plar.t CAR's LP SCR/IP A.L t hdt.GlHG AHAt YSIS Attu Single Cell Repost Con:pleted tit 00/tilDL 23/dl-P 9/11 - 11/17 L P St R llSilHG Hai t i mit ik.de l Convic t ed tit 00/HtDE 2l069-P 2/10 - 3/'/u IP 41 til Mcpurt C9mpleted NLD0/ttlbt 23/10-P 4/13 - 3/78 I P 5t at A. I Ct!lk.GlhG 5titGt t VLHI CRIALC Report Coatpleted f4LDO/NLDE 21uSI-P 6/13 - 7/78 Info. A9 INPI It $1 [ vat Hall 014 IPitt-il Comparison Cumpletcd HIDO 21667 0/17 - 9/11 (P 5tR* IPHI I/13 SCAll 1t515 lu fe.ts Completed IPHI tiP-441 4// / - -- IP st H* L Pkt $184011 Lilt l[515 _ y Unit (cIl le:,ts 4Q 19 [Pkt Report into A.ll flait flVitti suniCAll itS!!NG Prelimia.ary itV Prog Plan Completed tit.60 23697 12/17 - 1/70 iP SER/IP /dt0 AteAt hli HV lest Protp aa Plan & Pruc. Completed NLDO 23697 Rev 1 3/19 - 4/19 IP - Pt.ase i __ y. Phase I le:.t hepor t 4Q 19 Report IP !!V le:.t Pruq Plan & Pruc IP y - l'hase il 4Q 79 titDO 23697, key. 1, Supp. 1 Phase 11 Test Heport 2Q 00 Report IP _ y (UltttAI*Iests Cumpleted Reput't 6/19 - U/19 Info. IUtti Vesitication 1/10 Scale Completed utDE 2511b-P 5/19 - 7/19 info. A. ll 5tilGil Vltil l AltkAL LOADS Dynamic Analysis Cumpleted HiD0 24106-P 3//d - 7//8 IP Sun.many Report Completed utDE 23006-P 10/13 - 11/73 IP _) Su.mmas y Itcpurt ([atension) 4Q 79 keport A.16 litPRuviu (IllEt.IllG 10AD Impulse [valuattun Completed letter Report L/Ju - 7/78 tP 5tR* bil lhllluti 3,. la: proved Chuj load Defn. }QSO Report IP A l/ Sit Att (Ofnet uiAllutt 05 Cit t. 3 4I C.O. lest 3460 Repart IP to tuAD till IHil!Ott 9 C0 Data tvaluat tun 3Qd0 Report LP/IP i h. i n: 4 t /10l ;* hoh Wil/9 'I

e llAhK 11 lot 41 Alfittitel - tulTostill4G l'kot.NArt ShV - kilAllu 1A5KS l A% lAkGil DALE ttAD PLANI StW/ ta ttill It ArilVilY At.llvils' I YI'l t utt:*l t i toff it(W Itut NI Al lora DOC /SUUll INIllittto Pt ANT tt.1 fjtsia.d lit M IMPikl( A,1 H)Dit til l N lbte l ('uqile t ed id iki/tH DI 2tu61-P 9/16

J/16 IP 5.g.pos t le.d Data C..uqilu t ed NtbO/ttiDL 21073 P 5/15 - 7/75 IP 18. 2 HAHitilAU Hipit tulk Model fesseleted lu on/Ht tit 210bl-P 9/16 - 9/16 LP SIR t

Suppunting Data roaq,l e t al tit ud/ht ut 21062-P 1/75 - 10/15 (P 5tR Analysis Cuepleted tiltid/tdut 20342-P 5/15 - 7/15 LP SER U.) Hiuilli t a t o IN-PL A14I Preliminary test Rpt. Cn=ple t a.d 14100/21100 21465-P 12/16 - 1/11 IP 112 S/NV 11535 Hele odynamic Rcpos t Completed HID0/14tDC 215ul-P 6/77 - 8/77 ( P 51 R U.S 5/NV slutNiillR IN-PR Alli lest Pl.sn Coagileted Ni t!!! 20'Jda Rev. 2 12/16 - 3/17 IP CAuNid list $ lest Plan A41end.ua 1 Cumpleted tilDH 20988 Rev. 2. Add I 10/17 - 3/18 IP lest Plan Adleruttum 2 Completed titutt 20wa Nev. 2, Add 2 4/18 - 7/18 IP lest Sim. mary Completed letter Report 3/19 - 3/19 rhue I test R. post Completed htD0/NtDC-25100-P 5/19 - 6/19 IP lbase Il test Repost IQ 1:0 Report IP O to lillkHAL Hill!NG if0Dtl Asialyt ital Model fun.pleted lit 00/tttDC 23t.89-P 3/18 - 3/10 Info. u.lu pitellittid I SI Analysis of ISI Complete.d 14LD0 23814 6/18 - 7/18 LP 5tR 18. 1 1 81t i k NAM'.411 AD KMll t Data /thdel Comparison Cea.ple ted N'.C-Gift 0394 9/17 - 10/17 tP SIR 10 thilalltitt0 D#1A B.12 NAN.lliAD SHV HiIHODulOGY Analytical H.sti.ods Completed NC00 24010 10/71 - 11/77 iP SIR Lilit1Aki -4i-> CK:cas:.t/3142 Skil19

e ~ IM14 Il Culal Altitit til - 5U1'10t< t 141. Pait6tWI tilst t i1 A!;l 005 I AMS I AR 1 A! Nil ! I)AI E t!AD P1Atal SER/ 1.ut ttil lt Af4IVilV AtflvllV 1)Pt i uttPt t I lbre line itit! til Al lOH DOC /5t$tt INIL 210 PiANT C.O Sun'PONiltlG iT0t.Hkt Supp Peug Hpt Completed iniki 21?91 S/76 - 6//6 5 q.p Peug Wpt 44ev. ! Complete.1 Hipo 21291 - Rev. I 4/78 - 4/744 Supp l'a ug Iq.t kev. 2 % 2 Quo 41 dd 21291 - Hev. 2 C.B til4 R lltVlituiti Nevistues I Cuayleted ti!D0/flibt 210bl-P Rev. I 9/15 - 4//6 Nevision 2 Cua.p le t c.I t:100/t: Int 2ioul-P Nav. 2 9/16 - 9/76 Nevistosi 3 Completed hiu0/tilDt 2l061 P Ruv. 3 6/18 - 6/78 C.) t.itC kotitui I Q015110145 tillit New. 2 Cumpleted. tit 00/N! Dt-21n61-P Rev. 2 9/15 - 9/76 IP SER*/IP Id llt Hrv. 2 h ea.fment I tumpleted fliOO/Ill ut 2lH61-P Hev. 2 Amu.d. I 12/76 - 2/77 LP 5tR*/IP bil u Hev. 3. Appendia A Cumplett.1 htt0/titUL 210bl-P Huv. 3 pppes. dim A 6/78 - 5/79 tP 5(H*/tr C.5 5 tin JuSill!CAlleri inierim ucpu t Cu.pi tea <ninc 240101-4/ii - 3/ii $N n itcpust Cumple ted I. lid!/ tit DE 24010-P-7/11 - 8/11 LP 5ER*/IP sus 5 l ace:. N epus't fusplcled Suaan y Rtpos t - 4//8 - 5/13 LP ilR*/IP SkSS Cs ites-la Appl. Cunpleted 14100/nlDL 21uld--P Suppl. l ' 10/18 - !!//8 IP 5tR*/IP SR55 lla>es Caeq.leted tit D0/td b[ 240lo-P 5optil. 2-12/18 - 2/79 IP/IP Skis Justif Icat nun Supp)4 4Q 79 keput t iP/IP C.6 litif R0uldt 2 QUtill0!45 Dil k Amen 4.nesit 2 Completed th DU/t 10t 2t061-P Pev. 2 faend. 2 b/// - 7/71 (P Stk*/IP Dil k hend 2. Suppl 1 Cumpleted f.100/ lit til 21061-P Rev.2 head.2 Supp. ) 8/77 - 9/11 (P SER*/IP Dil k As. caul 2. Suppl 2 Cumpleted lat Du/ lit h[ 210bl-P Rev.2 Amend. 2 Stepp.2 9//7 - 11/11 LP SER*/IP Dilk Ituv. 3. Aupendte A -p 4Q '/9 1:tDd/N!DC ?!Obl-P. Rev. 3 Appeautix A tP 5tk*/IP C. ) .ht.e li lCAlloN Or "4 8* Chuu9thd t oa ls Complete f:llo/hlDE /861/-P '1//7 - 8/77 (P SIR /IP bubhDING IUAlli Justitatation Cumpleta Ntt10!!:!DE 24013-P 6/17 - 8/1/ IP 5tR/IP Complete lit D')/Nt DE 24014-P 6/17 - 8/77 tP SER/IP Cumple te IdDd/ntDE 24015-P 6/71 - 8//7 LP 51R/IP Couplete 1:100/ tit ht 24016-P 6/11 - 8/J7 IP 5t R/IP Cusclete Hitt0/utDL 240ll-P 6/77 - 8/71 IP Stu/IP Cusplete tit 00/titDE 23o27-P 6/71 - e/71 (P SLR/IP C.d S/kV A!40 tittM.GINd PscsteckscJ Con (sete l it kel.ituned Cunu ete Cumpts;ted titD0/tilDi 2193b-P 7/78-7/18 LP ild/IP 5 teel C. 9 Isitelloit WimtD IISIS Hunitor lests - > 2 Quo none C.11 lotsu t0HulHAllDNS 1 Critesla Justification Completed

1100 21985 9//8 - !?//t; IP innafilortAt CAPAult lly I kilt ill A C.14 HNC kdur.0 3 QutillOl&S letter Reputt Comple t ed letter Hrpust 6/18 - 6/78 IP SIR */IP DilH. Ruv. 3. Append 6K A HECO/litDE 210bl-P Rev. 3 Appendia A 6/18 - 5/19 (P SLR*/IP C l'.

Shutta kt.lu SikitClutit CHillkl A tmC Question Iw:.puuses --> 41) 19 Latter Ccport IP

Sul mit te l in e esponse to li'(C aguestlun.

IP Sell: Zinmer, tasalle. 5horvi.ua IP: All Olber Phants fr:t ah: 4t / Jut i SAtI/3

FIRC ACCEPI AllCE CRITERIA l: ARK II POOL DYNAMIC LOADS (NURLG 0487, 10/78) MARK 11 PROGRAM CLOSURE STATUS l. 10CA RELAlfD llYDR0 DYNAMIC 10 ADS A. SullMERGED DOUNDARY LOADS DURING VENT CLEARING I.A. 24 psi overpressure statically applied with 33 psi ove-pressure added to local hydrostatic ,below vent exit (walls and basemat) - linear hydrostatic pressure to surfaces below vent dllenuation to pool surface. exit (attenuate to O psi at pool surface) for period of vent clearing per March 20, 1979 letter f rom GE. B. POOL SWEtt LOADS 1. Pool Swell Analytical Model (PSAM) Air Bubble Pressure - Use PSAM described I.B.I.a. NUREG 0487 acceptable, no additional NRC a. in NEDE-21544-P. review anticipated. t b. Pool Swell Elevation - lise PSAM described I.B.l.b. Use PSAM with polytropic exponent of 1.2 in NEDE-21544-P with polytropic exponent of 1.2 for wetwell air compression. to a maximum swell height which is the greater of 1.5 vent submergence or the elevation corresponding to the drywell floor uplift AP used for design assess-ment per response to question 020.68 and February 16, 1979 letter from Shoreham. c. Pool Swell Velocity - Use PSAM described I.B.1.c. NUREG 0487 acceptable, no additional NRC in NEDE-21S44-P multiplied by a factor review anticipated. of 1.1. ~ d. Pool Swell Acceleration - Use PSAM I.B.1.d. NUREG 0487 acceptable, no additional NRC described in NEDE-21S44-P. review anticipated. c. Wetwell Air Compression - Ilse PSAM I.B.1.e. NUREG 0487 acceptable, no additional NRC described in NEDE-21S44-P. review anticipated. f. Orywell Pressure Ilistory - Unique based I. D.1. f. NUREG 0487 acceptable, no additional NRC on HEDM-10320 or equivalent model. review anticipated. LS:cas:at/89K1 h) 11/14/79

NRC ACCfPIANCE CRITE.RIA flARK 11 POOL ()YNAMIC IdADS Mi&. II PROGRAM CLOSURE STATUS ~ (NURLG 0481, 10/78) l. il POOL SWELL LOADS (cont.) 2. loads on submerged Boundaries 1.B.2 Ma imum bubble pressure predicted by PSAM is to NtlREG 0487 acceptabic, no additional NRC be addeil uniformly to local hydrostatic below review anticipated. vent exit (walls and basemat) and linear attenua-tion to pool surface. Apply to ualls up to maxumam pool swelI elevation. 3. Impact Icads Small Structures - (for horizontal pipes, I.B.3.a. NUREG 0487 acceptable, no additional NRC a. I-heams, and other similar structures review anticipated. See Table 1 for having one dimension < 20 in.) lhe load-plant unique information. inq function shall have the versed sine shape: b p( t) = 0. 5 Pmax (1-C05 2n ) t where: p = pressure acting on the projected area of the structure, psi P = 1.35 21 _ p' psi-sec max l I where: p= p 74g psi-sec 11 = hydrodynamic mass per A unit area obtained from Iigure 6-8 in NLDC-13426-P V= impact veiocity from I.B l.c. tS:cas.at/d,e l l/1-1/ H l l l l

HRC ACCEPTANCE CRIIERIA f1Al:K 11 POOL DYNAMIC LOADS (NUREG 0481, 10//8) MARK II PROGRAM CLOSURE STATUS l.B POOL SWELL LOADS (cnnt.) = 0.04631!, for cylindrical targets t y b, for flat targets with t = > 7 ft/sec I = 0.016W, for flat targets with i < 7 ft/sec 0 = diatuter or cylindrical pipe, feet W = width of flat structure, feet. NOIE: Ihe masses of the impacted structures to be adjusted by atfJing the hydro-dynamic masses of impact when perform-ing the structural tlynamic analysis with " rigid body" impact loads applied. h. large Structures - Plant unique calculation 1.B.3.b. required where applicable. NUREG 0487 criteria not. applicable, no )arge structures in pool swell zone. Grat.ing - The stat.ic drag load, F c. is to he calculated by forming the pr33u,ct of I.B.3.c. NUREG 0487 acceptable, no additional-NRC AP from figure 4-40 of NEDO-21060, Rev. review anticipated. See Table 1 for plant 2, i and the total area of the grating. unique infonnation. fo account f or the dynamic nature of the initial loading, the static drag load is increased by a multiplier given by: f .SL ' I + J l + (0.0064W )2 a 1 iS:cas:at/119K3 i 11/14/79 e

tillC ACCEPIAtlCE CHilERI A l MARK 11 POOL DYNAf4IC LOADS 14 ARK II PROGRAll CLOSURE STATUS i (NUREG 0481, 10//8) = - ~ _ _ _ _ ~. _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ l. 11. 3 Impact loads (cont.) where: l~SE = static equivalent load W = width of grating bars, inches f = natural frequency of lowest mode,llz D = static drag load NOTE: Applles for grating with open area > 60% and Wt < 2000 in/sec 4. Wetwell Air Compression Wall loads - Directly apply the PSAM calcu-1.B.4.a. IlVREG 0487 acceptable, no additional NRC a. lated pressure due to wetwell compression. review anticipated. h. Diaphragm Upward Load - Calculate APUP using 1.B.4.b. NOREG 0487 acceptable, no additional NRC the correlation: review anticipated. APilP = 8.2 - 44F, for 0 $ F 5 0.13 APtlP = 2.5 psi, for I > 0.13 nh) where: F= 0-All = break area AP = net pool area AV = total vent area VS = initial wetwell air space volume VD = drywell vnlume t.S.cas:at;334t I I/14 / N I

ImC ACCLPIANCE CHilERIA ~ MAliK II P001 I)YNAMIC 10 ADS HARK 11 PROGRAll CLOSURE STATUS (NIIRtG 048/, 10//8) ... ~...- - I.0 POOL SVtil 10 ADS (cont..) t 5. Asymmetric Load I.B.S use twice the 10% of maximum bubble pres. Apply the maximum air bubble pressure calculated statically applied to 1/2 of the submerged l 1 from PSAM and a minimum air bubble pressure (zero boundary (with hydrostatic pressure) proposed in March 16, 1979 letter from GE. r increase) in a worst case distribution to the wetwell wall. l.C SIEAM CONOLN5ATION AND CllOGGING 10A05 1. Downcomer Iateral Loads a. Single Vent Loads e I.C.1.a. Task A.13. " Single Vent lateral Loads" for dynamic analysis. NEDE 24106-P has - A static equivalent load of 8.8 KIPS shall been submitted to f(RC. Supplemental be used provided; information is scheduled for submittal (i) the downcomer is 24 inches in diameter in 4Q79. See Table 1 for plant unique 1 (ii) the downcomer dominant natural fre-information. quency is 5 7 Ilz, submerged (iii) the downcomer is unbraced or braced at or above approx. 8 ft. from the exit - A static equivalent load of 8.8 KIPS multi-pliett by the ratio of the natural frequency .m.i 7 111 tur dominant natural frequencies between 7 and 14 lit. Other restrictions in (i) and (iii) apply. - If the natural frequency of the downcomer is 14 ilz or if bracing is closer than 8 ft. above the exit, a plant specific dynamic structural calculation shall be perfoimed using a dynamic load detined by: i S: cas: a t/8'JK5 11/14/79 . ~. -

y ~ NRC ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA HARK II POOL DYNAMIC LOADS i (NUREG 0487,10/78) MARK II PROGRAM CLOSURE STATUS ~ -ww I I.C.1 Downuanier Lateral Loads (cont. ) i

a. cont.

F(t) = F sin

O<t<r 0

l = 0; for t < 0 and t > r where-2 msec < r < 10 msec, and the impulse I=2Fn (t/n) is 200 lbf-sec. j Restriction (i) also applies. b. Multiple Vent Loads 1.C.l.b. Statistical distribution of loads, based i Use the load specified in Figure 4-10b of on test observations, Task A.13, NEDE-21061-P, Rev. 2 multiplied by a factor- " Multi-vent Lateral Loads" to be used in a dynamic analysis. NEDE 24106-P of 1.26 for downcomers with natural frequen-has been submitted to NRC. Supple-cies that are s 7 tiz. For natural frequen-mental information is scheduled for cies > 7 Hz, apply an additional multiplier equal to the ratio of its frequency and submittal in 4Q79. <j 7 itz. i 2. Submerged Boundary Loads i' Hi h Steam Flux toads 'I a. 0 I.C.2.a. NUREG 0487 criteria used as interim spec. & b. Sinusoidal pressure fluctuation added to pending completion of Task A.17 " Steam ll Condensation Oscillation Test." Addi-local hydrostatic. Amplitude uniform below ( Vent exit, linear attenuation to pool sur-tional frequency ranges also being l evaluated. A 4T C.O. test report is I face. 4.4 psi peak to peak amplitude. 2-7 llz frequencies. NEDE-21061-P, Rev. 2. scheduled for submittal in 3Q80 with a data evaluation for load application i ! b. Medie.n Steam Flux Loads scheduled for submittal in 3Q80. See j Table 1 for plant unique information. i Sin n oidal pressure fluctuation added to lecil hydrostatic. Ainplitude uniform below sert exit, linear attenuation to pool surface. 7.5 psi peak to peak amplitude. 2-7 Hz frequencies. NEDE-21061 P, Rev. 2. 11/14/79 ,g 5.' d

.._.a_. i itRC ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA j MARK II POOL DYNAMIC LOADS MARK II PROGRAM CLOSURE STATUS !o ~ (NUREG 0487, 10/78) F I.C.2 Submerged Boundary Loads (cont.) c. Chugging I.C.2.c. NUREG 0487 criteria used as interim spec. pending completion of Task A.16 " Improve - Uniform Loading Condition - Maximum ampli-Chugging L9ad Definition". A report is j tude uniform below vent exit, linear scheduled for submittal in IQ80. See ,l attenuation to pool surface. +4.8 psi Table 1 for plant unique information. max overpressure, -4.0 psi max under-pressure 20-30 llz frequency. (Pending of FSI concerns) NEDE-21061-P, Rev. 2. - Asymmetric Loading Condition - Maximum amplitude uniform below vent exit - linear attenuation to pool surface. $20 psi max overpressure, -14 psi max underpressure, 20-30 llz frequency, peripheral variation of amplitude follows observed statistical distri-bution with maximum and minimum diametrically opposed. NEDE-21061-P, 8 Rev. 2. l II. SRV-RELATED HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS i A. POOL lEMPERATURE LIMITS II.A NUREG 0487 criteria regarding the use of a l quencher device is acceptable. The plant All Mark 11 facilities shall use quencher type temperature monitoring system will be devices. The suppression pool local tempera-described in separate plant unique docu-ture shall not exceed 200*F for all plant ments. }, i transients involving SRV operations. Measure- { lj l i asents f rom temperature sensors located on the Document will be prepared using additional l contain:nent wall in the sector containing the PP&L test data to support no (Local) l l discharge device at the same elevation as the temperature limit for quenchers. Report device can be used as local indication. to be submitted 1Q80. 3 LS:cas:at/d h / 11/14/79 1 t I ..-...r,,g:

I HRC ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA MARK Il POOL DYNAMIC LOADS ~.' (HUREG 0487,10/78) MARK II PROGRAM CLOSURE STATUS ~ I II. SRV-REtAlED HYORODYNAMIC LOADS (cont.) B. AIR CLEARING LOADS (a) Methodology for Bubble Load Prediction II.B(a) \\ l-Quencher - Use ramshead methodology T-Quencher Load prediction methods pre- >i described in Sec. 3.2 of NED0-21061-P, sented in Susquehanna DAR, Sec. 4.1.3. see Table 1 for plant unique information. Rev. 2. l X-Quencher - Use Sec. 3.3 of NED0-21061-P Rev. 2. lf (b) SRV Discharge Load Cases } Ihe following load cases shall be con-II.B(b) Load Case 4 is not included for T-Quencher evaluation. sidered for design evaluation of contain-It is bounded by Susquehanna ment. structures and equipment inside the DAR sections 4.1.3.1 and 4.1.3.2. See i' Table 1 for plant unique information. containment: l. Single valve, first and subsequent actuation 2. ADS valve actuation 3. Two adjacent valve first actuation .(i' 4. l All valves discharged sequentially I by setpoint 5. All valves discharged simultaneously i' by assuming all bubbles are oscillat-ing in phase. ( ~ ~ (c) Bubble frequency II.B(c) Method for applying plant unique T-Quencher T-Quencher a range of bubble frequency bubble frequency is presented in of 4-12 Hz is the minimum range that shall Susquehanna DAR, Section 4.1.3. i l See t i be evaluated. The range shall be increased Table 1 for plant unique X-Quencher if required to include the frequency predicted information. by the ramshead methodology together with 150% margin. ( 1

I-l i:cas:at/89K8 t/14/79 I

..< t .i 1 . au - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~ ~ ~~

~.. HHC ACCEPTANCE CRllERIA MARK II POOL DYNAMIC LOADS MARK II PROGRAM CLOSURE STATUS (NUREG 0487, 10/78) i; ll B AIR CLEARING LOADS (cont.) 3 i X-Quencher a range of bubble frequency of 4-12 Ilz shall be evaluated. t

.j i l

C. QUENCllER ARM AND TIE DOWN LOADS r 1. Quencher Arm Loads II.C.1. T-Quencher arm loads are presented in Vertical and lateral arm loads are to be developed on the basis of boundin0 assump-NUREG 0487 criteria for X-Quencher tions for air / water discharge from the arm loads acceptable, no additional l quencher and conservative combinations of NRC review anticipated. I maximum / minimum bubble pressures acting on l the quencher per NEDE-21061-P, Rev. 2. 2. Quenther Tie-down Loads II.C.2. T-Quencher tie-down loads are presented in Susquehanna DAR Section 4.1.2.5. The vertical and lateral arm load trans-mitted to the basemat via the tie-down NUREG 0487 criteria for X-Quencher tie plus vertical transient wave and thrust down loads acceptable, no additional NRC loads calculated from a standard momentum review anticipated. balance are to be calculated based on conservative clearing assumptions per I NEDE-21061-P. Rev. 2. Ill. LOCA/SRV SUBMll:GED SlRUCTURE LOADS A. LOCA/SRV JET LOADS 1 1. LOCA Downcomer Jet Load III.A.I. Ring Vortex Model including potential function for induced flow being Calculate based on methods described in finalized. More appropriate accelera-HEDE-21730 and the following constraints Lion drag consideration to be identifed. and modifications: Basic model description has been sub-mitted to NRC and final report is scheduled for submittal in IQ80. See f. LS:cas:at/89K9 Table 1 for plant unique information. 'l/14/79 I i l i ~ wise

I i t NRC ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA l MARK II P0OL DYNAMIC LOADS i t (NUREG 0487, 10/78) MARK II PROGRAM CLOSURE STATUS l = lit.A.1 LOCA Downcomer Jet Loads (cont.) t j -(a) Standard drag at the time the jet first l encounters the structure must be multi-i plied by the factor: {! '? y, 6 V, }!j C A N I D X i where: V

= acceleration volume as defined in NEDE-21730 CD = drag coefficient as defined l'

in NEDE-21730 4 AX = projected area as defined in NEDE-21730 Rg = vent exit radius (b) Forces in the vicinity of the jet front shall I be computed on the basis of Formula 2-12 and 2-13 of NEDE-21730. The local velocity, U and acceleration, U, are to be conserva,, i tively calculated by the methods of NEDE-21471 from the potential function: 6 = jf Uj-V - s0 2 g where: r 1 0 = spherical coordinates from jet front U. 3 = jet velocity from NEDE-21730 }; Vg = initial volume of water in the vent 1 i I I t LS:cas:at/89K10 11/14/79 .r ' 4. Ad i e r+-

l i l NRC ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA [ ftARK II POOL DYNAMIC LOADS 1: (NUMEG 0407, 10/78) MARK II PROGRAM CLOSURE STATUS l - i III.A.1 LOCA Downcomer Jet Load (cont.) (c) Atter the last fluid particle has reached the jet front a spherical vortex con-tinues propagating. The drag on struc-tures in its vicinity can be bounded by r using the flow field from the formula

j for 4 above with U as the jet front j..

velocity from NEDE)21730 at time t = t. ih f IF 2. SRV Quencher det Loads III.A.2. The PS.5 pressure transducer data from the lhis load may be neglected for those structures T-Quencher test program presented in located outside a zone of influence which is a Section 8.0 of the Susquehanna DAR shows sphere circtmascribed around the quencher arms, no water jet effect thus no loads are specified beyond a 5 ft. cylindrical zone j; If there are holes in the end caps, the radius of of influence. the sphere should be increased by 10 hole diameters. I (Confirmation during Long Term Program required.) NUREG 0487 criteria acceptable for X-Quenchers, no additional NRC review anticipated. B. LOCA/SRV AIR BUBBLE DRAG LOADS t'. 1. 10CA Air Bubble Loads III.B.1 See Table 1 for plant unique information. i; Calculate based on the analytical model of the bubble char 0ing process and drag calcu-lations of NLDE-21471 until the bubbles CodlesCe. After bubble contact, the pool swell analytical model, together with the drag computation procedure NEDE-21471 shall i' be used. Use of this methodology shall be subject to the following constraints and modifications: (a) A conservative estimate of biibble III.B.l(a) NUREG 0487 criteria acceptable, no asy mnetry shall be added by increasing additional NRC review anticipated. accelerations and velocities computed LS:cas: at/89Kll I' 11/14/79 i 1 'iF e i i- ..,,:.4$5bikl

a-- - i 7 ~.! t NRC ACCEPTAtlCE CRITERIA ~ j MARK 11 POOL DYllAMIC LOADS (NUREG 0487, 10/78) MARK II PROGRAM CLOSURE STATUS ~ f i l III.B.1 LOCA Air Hubble Loads 1 in step 12 of Section 2.2 of NEDE-21730 by 10%. It the alternate steps SA, 12A, l and 13A are used the acceleration drag shall be directly increased by 10% while the standard drag shall be increased by I,, 20%. (b) Modified coefficients C

from accelerating III.B.l(b) Orag coefficients have been pre-0 flows as presented in Kenlegan & Carpenter and Sarpkaya references shall be used with sented in Appendix C.4 (Rev. G, transverse forces included, or an upper 10/73) of the LaSalle DAR and bound of a factor of three times the standard in Attachment I.K of the Zimmer FSAR.

drag coef ficients shall be used for struc-tures with no sharp corners or with stream-wise dimensions at least twice the width. 1 (c) The equivalent uniform flow velocity and III.B.l(c) Justification for applicacion of f acceleration for any structure or struc-tural segment shall be taken as the load at geometric center addressed maximum values "seen" by that structure in Appendix C.4 (Rev. 6, 10/79) not the value at the geometric center. of the LaSalle DAR and in Attach-ment I.K of the Zimmtr FSAR. (d) For structures that are closer together than III.B.l(d) Interference effects are addressed i three characteristic dimensions of the larger one, either a detailed analysis in Appendix C.1 (Rev. 6, 10/79) of the interference ettects must be per-of the LaSalle DAR and in Attach-t formed or a conservative multiplication ment I.K of the Zimmer FSAR. i of acceleration and drag forces by a f actor of four must be perf ormed. (e) If significant blockage from downcomer brac-III.B.l(e) Blockage effects will be evaluated l ing exists relative to the net pool area, the standard drag coefficients shall be modi, and addressed in future documen-tation. fied by conventional methods (Pankhurst & liolder reference). LS:cas: at/89K12 11/14/19 i 'l i h x -i

'. 4, NRC ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA MARK II POOL DYNAMIC LOADS MARK II PROGRAM CLOSURE STATUS (NUREG 0487, 10/78) ~ 111.B.1 LOCA Air Hubble toads (cont.) (f) formula 2-23 of NEDE-21730 shall be modi-III.B.1(f) NUREG 0487 acceptable, no additional NRC fied by replacing H by p V where V review anticipated. isobtainedfromTadles2-Sgand 2-2. g p 4 2. SRV Ramshead Air Bubble toads III.B.2.a NUREG 0487 criteria not applicable, &b ramshead devices not installed. Use the methodology described in NEDE-21471 subject to the following constraints and modifications: f (a) Standard drag shall not be neglected without first estimating its order of magnitude using tha following equation: i II i F P C' R 2 _SH = f max _0 , Rmin min F E d P i AM m where: F = maximum standard drag f 3g F = maximum acceleration drag AM i Cf cycle-averaged ef fective = i drag coefficient d = dia. of cylindrical structure, 'j' t R- =

" = minimum bubble radius I

distance from bubble center to' r the structure dnst: f P,ax ; g/3 for max < 30 [ P ~ (b) C01straints of III.B.1 also apply. {;

k 3.

SRV Quencer Air S a le Loads III.B.3.a T-Quencher bubble pressure prediction f. methodology is presented in Susquehanna l (a) T-hencner - Loads may be computed on the DAR, Section 4.1.3. See Table 1 for basis of :N above ramshead methodology using plant unique information. l 2% of tN ca'culated ramshead bubble pressure a.11 ass.mjN lhe bubble lo be located at the ce,ter of IN quencher device having a bubble LS: cas: at/89K13 11/14/79 l .i ,..d.m. U

NRC ACCEPTAilCE CRITERIA I MARK II POOL DYNAMIC LOADS MARK 11 PROGRAM CLOSURE STAT.US '.,j (NUREG 0487, 10/78) III.B.3 SRV Quencher Air Buoble Loads (cont. ) (b) X-Quencher - Loads may be computed on the III.8.3.b Burns & Roe X-Quencher load defini-i basis of the above ramshead methodology tion to be based on a combination using bubble pressures calculated by the of resolution of certain aspects methods of NEDE-21061-P, Rev. 2, for the now being discussed with the NRC X-Quencher. generically and plant unique methods given in WNP-2 DAR. j 1 i 6 i C. STEAM 00tJDENSATION DRAG LOADS III.C See Table 1 for plant unique information,. l-i Review will be conducted on a plant unique b, asis. I i h LS:cas:a-/8S(14 l 1. i !j 11/14/75 i [ I-il ... l.

j j + TABLE 1 NRC CRITERIA PLANT UNIQUE CLOSURE I.B.3.a & c HANFORD - Burns & Roe has documented plant unique (pool Swell Impact Loads) methodsinplNP-2DAR Gr90f/ ? 1.C.I.a SUSQUEHANNA - E'.... ..!;m lateral bracing loads will be (Single Vent Ldteral Loads) confirmed by GXM-IIM test data. l.C,2.a & b SUSQUEHANNA - Lead plant NRC criteria acceptable. Higher (C.O.Boundaryloads) amplitude (3.5 & 10 psi) loads used. Confirmation of design loads to be based on plant unique GKM-IIM tests. I.C.2.c HANFORD - Burns and Roe chugging load definition has been (Chugging Boundary Load) documented in reports submitted April 13 and June 15, 1979. II.B.a. b & c 4ANFORD - Burns and Roe is developing a unique X-Quencher (SRVAirClearingLoad) load definition based largely on Caorso data. Loads will be. presented.in.WNP-2. DAR. -___ _ III.A.1 BAILLY - Methodology which meets the intent of NUREG-0487 (LOCA Water Jet Loads) criteria will be used. The method is documented in Appendix C.3 of the LaSalle DAR and in Attachment I.J.3 of the Zimmer FSAR. SUSQUEHANNA - Same as stated above for Bailly. LIMERICK - Same as stated above for Bailly. III.B.1 SUSQUEHANNA - LOCA air bubble source term at the vent exit (LOCA Air Bubble Loads) will be applied in a modified IKEGS/ MARS Code to establish acceleration and velocity flow fields. Application of the flow fields will follow the Mark II Program Closure Status positions (a) through (f). Possible source term is being investigated using NEDE-21471 method to determine the bubble formation with the exception that time dependent drywell pressure history is used to determine bubble pressure. Report to be submitted April 1980. LIMERICK - Same as stated above for Susquehanna. HANFORD - Surns & Ree LOCA load definition to be based on a combination of resolutten of certain-aspects now e g c m ed w m the E gene & ally aN M ant LJS 11/14/79. unique methods given in WNP-2 DAR.

. }+ j g 1 h ' TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) III.B.3 (SRVAirBubbleLoads) BAILLY - Ramshead methodology (as modified by lead plants in response to NUREG-0487) is used with bubble location and radius defined appropriately for T-Quenchers. Bubbles are located near the arms. Bubble size is predicted from the discharge line air volume. Method is the same as for LaSalle and Zimmer. III.C BAILLY - The lead plant methods documented in the LaSalle (SteamCondensationLoads) and Zimmer closure reports will be used as an interim methodology pending results from Task A.15 or A.17 which would reduce source strengths. SUSQUEHANNA - C.0. and chugging source term defined from j Task A.16 and A.17 at the vent exit will be applied in a modified _,IWEGS/f TARS Code to_ establish accelera.__- tion and velocity flow fields. Application of flow j fields will be made with appropriate drag coefficients. Report to be submitted April 1980. LIMERICX - Same as stated above for Susquehanna. ~ HEfiFORb Generic source as given in I.C.2 used as described in WNp-2 DAR. NINE M!LE p0 INT - Load sources will be derived from generic tasks (A.16 and A.17). The flow field resulting frca these sources along with appropriate drag coefficients as specified for LOCA air bubble drag loads will be used to determine the load. LJS 11/14/70 ~~ ~

~ 4 j-30 A.11 MULTIVEllT TEST PROGRAM OVERALL OBJECTIVES o OBTAlti A sit!GLE-VEf1T/MULTIVEf1T CHUGGIflG DATA BASE TO ESTABLISH TREi4DS IN POOL WALL LOADS WITH NUMBER OF VEtlTS o DEM0flSTRATE THAT THE MULTIVEf!T TRENDS OBSERVED IN SUBSCALE TESTS ARE'7KLID~BY: ~ s COMPARING SINGLE VENT DATA AT FOUR SUBSCALES e COliPARIflG i:ULTIVEflT DATA AT TWO SUB-SCALES l i

1 TASK A.11 SCALED MULTIVENT TEST PROGRAM PROGRAM STATUS / SCHEDULE PHASE 1 o TESTS, DATA REDUCTION, ANALYSIS COMPLETE o PHASE 1 REPORT TO NRC DECEMBER PHASE 2 o PROGRAM PLAN COMPLETE o TESTS o 5/12, 1/4 SCALE COMPLETE o 1/10 SCALE, 19 VENTS COMPLETE i o COMPLETE 1/6 SCALE, 7 VENTS NOVEMBER o COMPLETE PHASE 1 FROUDE SCALE DECEMBER o DATA REDUCTION MARCH 80 o ANALYSIS o FSI DECEMBER i o SCALING APRIL 80 o FINAL RE TO NRC JUNE 80 i

1 f. f., 9 - e 9 3,j TASKA.11 'i SCA1ED tiiLTIWE TEST FFCGPAM OER/IEW CF TEST FFCG?A9 HIGHLIGHTS RMSE 1 FHME 2 E G E IES: 14 5 SCALE-VERS: 1/10- 1, 3, 7 M E 1Ai - 1 \\E!T 14 - 1, 3 VCR 5/12 - 1 W E 1/10 - 19 wit 14-7VBH W.SSEL DIA: 10, 18, 28, 30 28,44 VARIA3LES: PESSURE (4.5 To L5 PstA) 2 STcA't PASS FLUX (.1 To 16 ur/?T 3 c) 0 O ID'FE?ATUFE ($0 To 2CG ) AIR CGHER ( 1 To.5D ADDITICr?L L rc. CTS: DRfnm WLDE u rw VBE LARGEDRYrPf RIUWE ACEA PATIO tu?a CF Pd'G 452 297 C. EKRT EEC. ' 79 JLi'E 20 sem u

4 t c-i g) 10/79 + TASK OBJECTIVE o TO PERFORM STATISTICAL AtlD BOUtlDIflG LOAD AtlALYSIS OF IllDEFEilDEtli DATA BASES TO COBlFIRM OR T10DIFY THE 4T LATERAL LOAD DEFIf1ITI0il AS

REQUIRED, 4

7 10/79 ( SUM?lARY OF RESULTS 0 GOOD CORRELATION WITH MAXIMUM OBSERVED VALUES IN OTHER DATA BASES. o GOOD STATISTICAL CORRELATIfl BETWEEN 4T AtlD THE RFERENCE DATA BASES. o REFEREilCE DATA #2 REPRESEi1TS THE MOST APPROPRIATE COMPARISON TESTS FOR 4T VERIFICATION. THE DYNAMIC LATERAL LOAD FUt!CTION DEFINED Ill NEDE 24106-P HAS BEEll CONFIRMED AS THE PROPER DESIGN LOAD CRITERI0il FOR MAIN VEilT DOWNCOMER STRUCTURES. l l

r. 1 i 10/79 LATERAL LOAD FUt1CTI0i1 i nt F(T) = A SIN E LATERAL LOAD (L3 ) s p 4 4 WHERE: 10 < A4 3 x 10, MAXIMUM AMPLITUDE (L3-) r AND 3 < r < 6; APPLICATION PERIOD (MSEC) T m> q t i T <g- ' B 1

.a..,.,_- ur--

j..

= 2 .....L.-{ 10/79 I l [ 's .v.a.c.v.v.u. ,s ep. vaLvt t c'.f3M* FSEluB - - 37 s- - v anszt. --_i $7 51/2-b o* sse** .-l4.. pyj < Mea r, %l7L -i-b~ 3 ,I L, 6 r 2 ,,e m- .rc f-la'r TSST TAM CCvf a t L M'<3- . =1p}.3 c 4* gd Adi a r _p.- rn. ,g y v v. m.. i i O 'n' 2E CTICN R E CTDCN s a att. .M,a ,8 'h A.A BB g oowace=va Ig ge 37 4 g - 78 f7 54 CTION 8 ' )d st* 1 1_fr- + Y gA= rik s l L,,f -

r 4*

f v a as r _L...L;4 4 rr.ia-a... l i i L

:r.ic-3 2.-_ L.. H,.J::.,,.

I I-ri e __l...r' r l i. r_ ,. x, r -. -l m j ... es - m s. O' I-yfi l ano ~sen ~ 're I src g. N., re ii l l 3-i in e-hi-L' 'r i e t r.s-j. ts c

-l-r l

,'3.o-

*4*

A- ~. l -l-t r s-5 trc '4-i

t,,,,,.4..

g -e,,,,,. - i r, I@U g. ,mV N el

f,,," 7 ge 9

8 Ol3C A4.3 3 w 8 k r C* 'a d,m5~,se., el_ : ;; m :=t - M v4-ir:- f i. 'j rl asst =iCToa i sLeco.., t,, A **-- % ns,.*, j se ~,u ,N sn.- ~ "~?'"'"* e t a c -- a==' ' ~ '"'"--- , e. e.- or eg.,-es e..: r e ......r M . emme ee fg*f l l' J l I" n 'w lI

{, ? 10/79 DYtlAMIC LATERAL LOAD DEFINITION o COMPARISON BETWEEtt 4T DATA AilD TEST RESULTS REPORTED BY TWO IllDEPENDENT REFEREtiCE TESTS. o REFERENCE TEST #1. LARGE TAtlK, STEADY STATE MASS FLUX. o REFEREilCE TEST #2, SINGLE CELL, TRAilSIENT 3 LOWDOWN, m.

. _ _ -.. _ _. ~..- i ' 3 _y 10/79 2 PSP TSP 150 mm STE AM / CONNECTION _k b l l .. k l PFO l l TFD l IW, .P. V .i j

rea,

( svMeoLS f \\ PR1 CMS = STRAIN G AUGg TR1 9 l TR3 h tra tsa mr 9y I 1000 ( I CMS l l l CVS 1 vs 0 l OVS k l l Ous s PR2 h { Tw1 ] m2L l m l O A7,, f 041,j 4000 W2 i I AES ERENCE TEMPER ATURE e FCR OEPICTICN OF H DAS l k ME ASURE MENT R ESU LTS 4 CMS 12 f v' A HORIZONTAL jg y 2000 l C A3 ~ x ~ p, CA9 l l

CVS11 VC RTICA L I

g g i isco n a m 'W k_,l l l l :As I 5a ! =>s ; fTA4 !, i + I o 7m

, ALL CivsNS10NS IN -m REFEREflCE TEST #1 TEST SET _UP AND I!!STRUMEilTAT0lli 4

m

~ ~ ~~ ~ ?.... j, .. -C e s a 10/79 1 I l \\ + 800 4- --[ OA6 l a I TW3 l 1900

!- -- 1000

+ 678 "MS10 2200 A2 c A a p -- R6400 i Y gp CAB b l I C 39 1 ~~ ' l OA$ M' ygt j jg; 7

*y CA

\\pM g, 2 O lg i,b '4/ C y 190 r, 10C0 & l OMS 9/10 VE ATICALLY SYM BO L ABOVE OA) ANC O A2 CVS = STA A!N OAUCE ALL O!MENSIONS IN mm E5T #1 \\ s m-e~ w

I' q. 4 .i i c= i 5.,.... i ,i

r.....

...- o-@ schniH A-B 10/79 ~. si o.~a .. us 2:o s. C r._. m ,,/pf__i YIT N ou E l . --. o e - m 5 },l G. i %, e ./ \\\\ n l 1 // ris h m~T~~'s. w\\ 1 .I // 1. ~ L / 2 ,, 2 f ' t ~

hf

~ C W \\j 7.,, I /D it V \\ j _s N ? i s.. / L,/ T n.m e.e>..sa*- 4 -> 7 r**. e e i t,.- u e===~ / ,s s . lT.ru s c A,.e w w s -s { ,_. e s e -u--q. R-,.- A o _n. g w.y ^ c .... n.,, ~., / ,../

=.2 6.___sgw, J, - j/,, 9

_. !1 a, / l ,..e

e...

c E~ -F 62225 30m-e Ii s \\ ~ g 1 3 n,,. i ... i l sa: - .e = = i l ! ! E.. eyL_ s.._._.

- a v..
1 e

- f.glE.sl l e !lgi 2 !" g ,, I_. C.

i.. '- I i REF. #2 vs -

.I.! f ... c'.;r :w. r-- -* ; g l ,,q[ .c 4m.. e.. bc t* R o,?l!lg: 8

I

--,i-A-Q ^l ! ,ep,h, \\ , ~...., i i i "5*- -- s i j m

=,, >s o --..

-m l

I !,,! : p :^'s..-,- 1 ). "> 8 ii* s. I; -@../ 3.:l l\\ 3 l ..h: E = s s .~.. ,j /. j_ 0.. i x.-..-.. J ag* 5 e P3 o-s s : 2 j/ n ._ w

s..-.-

TEST SET-UP AtlD IfiSTRUMEilTATICt!,

)'

O 3 1 I 10/79

+

fb s r, esr l \\;(c N iWall c Y' -I. s-- s ss 1 Strut 2 s PW =?. 5 , strut ,.,/. v (. .p~ .//.- 1 N '9 / s.- ./s r v i N 3 -.b d ,s ! R}

R}

,---(<.--." =! -q- ,y,,,,, 5 l ir ~~~--~~~-- t r,

___ l

./ q s ~, ? 5 l i l / / / s .n.. v.. .4

istm4K Gaees.

D.u.s16{.1 conn--ed. exs 16 dzw.:ns 27 f a p-- - y,1y - - @- W- - M ie C3 L L 44 g ( hendLng ccm.=cnen: 1 g,' i 4 i j n ,u c l~ r' h ~ l ) J F,2t ,,..,~~~ / r,tr. .=2 c0,0 MM Vt.,1 w i,vr,w.mL d C_ICil./, ,,.I.N.S,TR.U'SITAT D T,EST SET,-U,P Ai: t m.. a w m

i i 10/79 d EVALUATION OF REFEREllCE DATA o APPROACH , NUMERICAL SIMULATI0fl 0F SUBJECT TEST FACILITY . DETERMINATION OF BRACE LOAD AMPLITUDE AND RESPONSE PERIOD AS FU.'lCTION OF: _ APPLIED LOAD PERIOD _ POOL TEMPERATURE _ MASS FLUX , STATISTICAL A!!ALYSIS OF RESPONSE DATA ON 4T EQUIVALEili BASIS. . COMPARIS0il 0F REFERENCE DATA RESULTS WITH 4T i ~ s

j i 10/79 SPECIFIC CORRELATI0tl PROCEDURE o SIMULATE DYNAMIC LATERAL RESPONSE OF REFERENCE FACILITY TO FORCIflG FUilCTION DEFlilED BY 4T DATA, o CALCULATE RESULiltiG BRACE LOADS AtlD ACCELERATION RESPONSES AS MEASURED IN THE SUBJECT TESTS. C e -,w e o -COPJ.EL46E SIMULATED AtlD EXPERIMEilTAL BRACE STRESS AtlD/0R ACCELERATION TIME HISTORIES TO DETERMINE AMPLITUDE AND HALF PERIOD OF THE LATERAL LOAD FUi1CTION WHICH REPRODUCES THE MEASURED RESPC:lSE

DATA,

10/79 i 'l.o 4 i ? COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTALLY 100 OBSERVED BRACE LOADS. "\\ w Ms CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTIONS. 9

{

n REF.#1 y !!! 80 ')g - - -R E F. #2 x m 3 + + llT N u.o s D ) 3 60 s 21 '\\ ti s j- {$ h <r A\\ a. $ 110 ( l! 'd t Es !~ a-Nw I: \\.4 \\

i. -

s$* b 20 i. ~w 't } - s,' t- +' !I- -r,%.'+7%T?'- + * ' ' ' ~ 0 '2 '11 i b d 1.'0 1.'2 1.3 BRACE LOAD.LDF X 10,000 I f f 39,4

10/79 -i LATERAL B0UNDING LOAD FOR ALL TESTS. 8 o Io - t -i X tLm o -3 til I' O 30 -. t

llT DATA BASE

',g N O REF. //l t \\ + REF. //2 na4 x N t 20 _ N 's N g +N Pi \\ N. m 10 - i-i. L i i 0 1 2 3 11 5 6 7 8 i LATERAL LOAD FuriCT10ft PERIOD, MSEC. i i I .~..i

- z 4 4 e y / 10/79 ~ BOUNDIllG LOAD DIAMETER DEPEtlDENCY. 40 _ 0 ooom u.30-t x m I s wa l o >= _a c 0 c <o 20 - y J T, .~_w J

t 2

5 0 REF #1 l + REF #2 x 2 10 -

4T 15 2'O 2k 2$

VENT D!AMETER,IN. i n .+ .,.m ~ r e

i 10/79 DIAMETER DEPENDENCY 4T AilD REFERENCE #1 SUGGEST THAT THE FOLLOWING o l GEilERAL EXPRESSION DEFIllES THE DEPENDENCY OF LATERAL LOAD UPON DIAMETER: F=F[D/D}N o c WHERE: F IS TIP LOAD AT ANY DIAMETER D F BOUNDING LOAD AMPLITUDE AT D g O N, EXPERIMENTAL COEFF. 4T DATA SHOWS VALUES OF N RAilGING FROM.5 TO 1,7, c BUT HAS LIMITED PARAMETRIC ACCURACY DUE TO THE SMALL DIFFEREllCES IN TEST DIAMETERS, 20 To 24 Ill. REFERENCE ill DATA SHOWS A VALUE OF N= 7. GOOD o PARAMETRIC ACCURACY WAS OBTAINED FROM THESE l TESTS. 12 AND 24 IN. ~ THE USE OF EITHER CF THE TWO MAXIMUM EXPONEiii VALIES WITH THE CORRESPONDING REFERENCE SOUNDING J LOAD YIELDS A DYNAMIC EESIGN LOAD OF 40,000 L3F, FOR 28 !NCH DJWilCOMERS,

i i i ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - ~ 1,6 STATUS OF MULTIVEtlT LATEPAL LOAD NETHODOLOGY OBJECT - DEVELOP A CONSERVATIVE MULTIVENT LATERAL LOAD SPECIFICATION APPROACH ~USE-ST-AT4STICS--OF FFCHUGGING LATERAL LOADS (AS ANALYZED BY PRETECH) TO DETERMINE THE TIP IMPULSE AS A FUNCTION OF NUMBER CF DOWNCCMERS C.D.I. 11/14/79 l

._., _. } 4 2/6 PRETECH BOUNDING DYNAMIC LOAD F(t) = A(T) sin y for 0<t<T A(C - -20kibf (3cs) + 50k1bf for 3=s < T < 6=s T I=[A(T)sinyde 1 0

CHUGGING TIP IMPULSE PROBABILITY DENSITY 1

.22-(4-T DATA) .2 .18 .16 .14 3U 5.12 8g.1 u. .08 .06 .04 .02 O 10 20 30 40 50 60 CHUGGING TIP IMPULSE X 10-3 (ts:-Ms) i s 9

.-= i... .11 1' };;- 3/ 6 i i . THE ANGLE OF THE CHUGGING TIP IMPULSE HAS A DENSITY FUNCTION UNIFORMLY DIS-TRIBUTED OVER 2n RADIANS IN THE HORIZONTAL PLANE. 1 l FOR A GROUP OF N DOWNCOMERS, COMPUTE THE PROBABILITY P THAT THE RESULTANT TIP IMPULSE ON THE GROUP OF DOWNCOMERS WILL FALL WITHIN A GIVEN TIP 'MPULSE -INTERVAL. THEN, IF P1 IS THE CUMULATIVE PROLABILITY THAT THE RESULTANT TIP IMPULSE WILL NOT EXCEED THE IMPULSE VALUE AT THE UPPER BOUNDARY OF THE INTERVAL IN ONE CHUGj 1 - (P )" IS THE PR03A31LITY OF EXCEEDING 1 THE GIVEN TIP IMPULSE MAGNITUDE AFTER M CHUGS. i t i i h ^

..d 'h " '}'10 " y j 4/ 6 i PRELIMINARY. NOT DESIGN VERIFIED. SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR l DESIGN PURPOSES. m en \\ ,g 4 2 downcomers U sn e 10-8 N Probability of ex-c 16 ceeding a given im-32 pulse per downecmer c for different nc%e E of downcomers 64 o am 128 ae e c3 c.4 " 10-i g-A en C w -aa U UxW O l a + ) M .3m .a 8100' l 104 .i 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Pfu, Impulse per Ccwne:mer, klbf-ms

PEELIMINARY. 1.0 NOT DESIGN REVIEWED. S110VLD NOT BE USED FOR DESIGN PURPOSES. ,9 I Tip Impulse E .8 -t h$ \\ h tk Probability of exceedance equeal to 10-2 EE .6. g bd i E o. .5 { Probability of exceedance equal to 10 ' e J'

5' 4

\\ g, n on "S '3 N OE 's '- M s .j s u .2 - ~s, .1 ~ ~ ~ - - i a j .0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Downcomers kn Tip impulse nonnalized by the one downcomer value of 56.8k1bf-ms vs number of downcomers for a probability level of exceedance. I! .,:

sm

1 _ l f): i 6/6' PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS l A MULTIVENT DYNAMIC LATERAL LOAD SPECIFICATION HAS BEEN DEVELOPED WHICH USES STATISTICS OF 4-T CHUGGING LATERAL LOADS TO DETERMINE THE TIP IMPULSE. 1 CONSERVATISMS EXIST IN THE SPEC 1 THE IMPULSE FUNCTION COMPUTED FROM PRETECH'S LOADING FUNCTION 30VNDS l ALL 4-T DATA.

NO CREDIT IS TAKEN FOR LACK OF SYNCHRONIZATION SETWEEN VENTS.

l

A.16 PHASE II CHUGGIf1G STATUS ^ e PROGRAM OBJECTIVES e CONFIRM DFFR LOAD IS C0ilSERVATIVE FOR LEAD PLAtlT APPLICATION e JUSTIFY IMPROVED LOAD FOR N0il-LEAD PLAtlT APPLICATION 11/79 w

i A.16 PHASE II CHUGGING STATUS ~ COMPLETED SCHEDULE ' ITEMS o KEY MILESTONES s ANALYZED 137 CHUGS FROM 4T e DEVELOPED ACOUSTIC MODEL TO SIMULATE TYPICAL CHUGS e AVERAGED PSD OF 137 CHUGS o DEVELOPED CRITERIA FOR ENVELOPING PSD e USED ACQUSTIC MODEL TO li!FER VENT SCURCE THAT EilVELOPED PSD s DEFINED SYMMETRIC AND ASYMMETRIC LOAD CASES e COMPUTED MK II RIGID WALL RESPONSES USING DESIGN SOURCE COMPUTED MK II RESPCilSES USING TYPICAL MK II STRUCTURAL MODEL AliD COMPARED TO DPFR NRC TECHNICAL MEETI:lG 10! Hi ER JULY '79 11 /74

-. - --. l ,1 A.16 PHASE II CHUGGING STATUS TARGET SCHEDULE e KEY MILESTONES e VERIFY TREATMENT OF FSI BY NASTPAN NOV, '79 MODEL OF 4T e VERIFY USE OF TYPICAL MK 11 STRUCTUPAL tl0V, '79 MODEL USING NASTRAN MODEL OF MK II o FINAL REPORT F,0DIFIED AND EXPANDED FEB. '80 BASED Ofl t!RC JULY INPUT 11/79

7, ; i ,j. 4T C0 TEST PROGRAM OBJECTIVES e RESOLVE VEtlT LEtlGT't EFFECT r o COMPARE DATA TO EXISill!G DFFR C.O. SPECIFICATI0i1 MODIFIED 4T FACILITY e PROTOTYPICAL C0tlFIGURATIOfl l o VARYIllG TEST C0tiDIT10tlS 11/79 i

.i 1 i 4TC0 TEST PROGRAM SCHEDULE & MILEST0f4ES MILESTONE COMPLETION DATE FACILITY DESIGti COMPLETE l TEST PLAtl COMPLETE TEST FREEZE COMPLETE FACILITY MODIFICATI0ti COMPLETE SHAKEDOWii TESTIt4G COMPLETE MATRIX TESTS - 23 TOTAL e 9 TESTS COMPLETE l 1 e COMPLETE TESTI:tG FEBRUARY '80 DATA REDUCTI0il MAY ' 80 FItiAL TEST REPORT 3080 7 1.1./70 l' l

I.. 5 5 4TC0 TEST MATP.IX RUN BREAK BREAK POOL VENT VENT INITIAL NO. TYPE .SIIE (IN) TEMP.(UF) _SUBME R. ( FT. ) RISER DRYWELL AIR (%) 16 -STEAM 3.00 70 11 YES 100 2 LIQUID 3.00 70 11 N0 100 3 LIQUID 3.82 70 11 NO 100 4 LIQUID 3.82 70 11 YES 100 5 LIQUID 80 11 N0 100 6 LIQUID 3.82 70 11 NO N 50 7 LIQUID 90 11 N0 100 8 LIQUID 3.82 110 11 N0 100 9 LIQUID 3.00 110 11 NO 100 10 LIQUID 70 9 NO 100 11 LIQUID 70 13.5 N0 100 t 12 LIQUID 2.50 110 11 NO 100 13 LIQUID 2.125 110 11 N0 100 14 LIQUID 2.125 70 11 NO 100 15 LIQUID 2.125 70 11 YES 100 ) STEAM 3.00 70 11 N 0' 100 17 STEAM 3.00 70 9 N0 100 18 STEAM 3.00 70 13.5 NO 100 19 STEAM 3.00 70 13.5 NO 100 20 STEAM 2.50 70 11 N0 100 21 STEAM 2.50 70 11 NO 100 22 REPEAT (LATER) 23 REPEAT (LATER) Break sizes for these tests to be specified after evaluation of initial results. ~ ~ '

~ .i

?

1 TEST MATRIX OBJECTIVES s s DUPLICATE PREVIOUS 4T TEST CONDITI0 tis ~ e TESTS 17, 1, 18, 20 o OBTAIN DATA AT C.0. C0tIDITIONS FOR RAtlGE OF MARK II FLOW RATE / POOL TEMPEPATURES TESTS 3, 5, 7, 8, 2, 9,12,14,13 e e PARAMETER RANGE FOR MARK 11 e AIR CONTENT AND POOL TEMPERATURE e TESTS 3, 5, 7, 8, 6 e VElli SUBMERGENCE TESiS17,1,18,10,2,11 e e VENT RISER e TESTS 4, 3', 15, 14, 16, 1 e REPEATABILITY e TESTS 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 ) 11/79

... ~ - -, 4

^

I' , :s nw. 9-4T CO IMSTE"OTATICN LOCATION IMSTRUMENT T7?E NEASUREMENT N0. Wetwell a Flush 'Aount Press. Pool Boundary Press. 11 Suppression xdcr Pool Wetwell airspace press. 1 Accelerometers Fac. Response 6 Strain gages Fac. Comp. Response 3 Thermocouples Pool temperature 11 Freespace temperature 1 Cavity Press. xdcr Liquid L2 vel 1 Downcomer Flush Mount Press. Yent acoustics 5 xdcr Cavity AP xdcr Vent flow I ) Cavity press. xdcr Vent. flow 1 l Level probe Chug initiation 1 1 I. Ac c el e rome t e r s Chug initiation 2 Thermocouples Yent flow & teme. 1 Orywell Flush Mount Press. xdcr Acoustics 1 Cavity press. xdcr Static press. 1 l Capacit.ance Probe Liquid retention 1 . Thermoccuples Drywell temperature 1 Blowdown Line Cavity press. xdcr Slowdown flow 1 Thermocouples llowdown line exit 1 temp. Steam Vessel Cavity A P xdcr Liquid blowdown flow B ( Cavity press. xdcr Yassel pressure 1 l Yacuum 3reaker Potentiometer Yalve opening 1 Other Instrumentation o. Air Content (grab sample and continous air menftoring} l 1 l

r i! g ,,%. m,. TEST CONFIGURATICN FOR MARX II li CCNDE.MEATION 05CILLATICN (.8.TCO) TISTS r.- DRYWELL (NEW). ~ 8' BLOWDOWN LINE. INTERNAL i 'I FIN-TUSE HEAT.ER y Lb-VENT RISER $ J' N JtT D:~:LcCTOo 5 2 '- 9 *1 ~ DRYWELL (EXISDNG ~ ~ v ,o 4T W_e_i WELL (Top og e 7) ' BYPASSED c e - (EXISTING) J i r 24" DOWNCOM ER

- 8, G s Ws LN,:.

i :. 1 DOUEL: RUFDJ25 DISK S R A C E(32'- 0') -

s V EN TU.:,1 I

r i r TEAM s GENERATOE. A> (sxtsmc,) I' i ] 1A ERACE(20' O') i j d 1 l '%1A M' l, D' l a 4., //

I 7

3 {'jgq b A= . -d/. FOR STIAM Q \\ p y = ,,, e ~ c '. o *.. . -- - L-. -. l ~ l l

i 4. 1 .. e t a.. A flu::H M>.>rr RD.E5SURE TAWACR 7 CWITY F5tiSW N o imfeccxP_E D ACm M O O C.CIVITY N O REP;Y (1000 s#P E3/5EO C REA1. TI E (100 S# P E /5EO A s S w:.t ?r.r.: ^ C~- _ _ ~ T,2 _~. cRIENTaitCN ... _.-- --.-- 7 T se.s - A 8 i l ram corrER e,'__ __ __. _ _ _. __ _ _ L_, ERIZONTAL TANGENT TO W CW.ER O l i c5,., A y W

A l. f '

l mnur. -. a NOTE: PRESSURE i i TRANSCUCER AND i l CONOUCTIVITY FROEE 33 5,- A ON BOTTCF. OF COWCCMER I ARE LOCATED AS CLOSE I TOGc*T. riER AS P055:3LE. i i l i l i I 2: 5' - A I I I i I 12.S '. A n 3 3 I l So* sW 'ft I l i I t i i 1 1 & =._.= = = _. _. =. a, c:w c a ins a c a r:.n 4

L, V. T, .m'.- 7 CNITr FRESSW T%W5tUCE'4 4 FLL94 >CofT PRES 5URE TFJNSDUCER I C ACm W i: < .4 UNIAXIAL. STRAIN GAOZ '1 I! @ REP AY C1000 !#P E5/5EO' e C REAL TI>E (100.eJ+9"_E5/SEO ~ I ,4 OR IENTA*TCN ,i ACO*' *EtE~ER.S 5/* 7-W TELL D.D. - RADIAL BASEP'.A E - WRTICAL STRAIN W ES 9f' y G WT4LL C.D. - HXP BASEP_A'I - RADIAL e A A A o n 10' A A .i Mi {l y-a.s i e .. i :, .a A g; B.+ m O ru r-i WT=T L #C SLP:Si!5!"NCCL IN5'X'FNTAT ON PRE 55L72, ACCE* !UTICN, #;O $*U;N I t Il

4T C0 DATA INTERPRETATION ELEMENTS USAGE e VENT PRESSURE DETERMINATION OF HISTORIES STANDING WAVE PRESENCE e POOL WALL ESTABLISH CO AMPLITUDE PRESSURES vs FREQUENCY CONTENT INTERPRETATION FOR MARK II APPLICATION COMPARE TO DFPR l RJM 11/79

.. l I

j TESTS CONDUCTED NO. BREAK BREAX POOL SPECIAL FEATURES TYPE SIZE (IN) TEMP.(U ) VENT RISER INITIAL DRYWELL F AIR 16 STEAM 3.0 70 YES 100% 2 LIQUID 3.0 70 NO 100% 3 LIQUID 3.82 70 NO 100% 4 LIQUID 3.82 70 YES 100% 6 LIQUID 3.82 70 NO ^s50% 8 LIQUID 3.82 110 No 100% 9 LIQUID 3.0 110 NO 100% 12 LIQUID 2.5 110 NO 100% 13 LIQUID 2.125 110 NO 100% 11/79

l,. i j BRC0KHAVEN THEORETICAL STUDIES (CHAPTER 2 AND 3) o STUDIED LIGHTLY DAMPED 8 UtlDAMPED SIllE WAVES e CONCLUDED THAT WHEN YOU COMBlilE TWO WAVES OF SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES, THE NEP OF SRSS CAN BE LOW e NOT RELEVANT TO TRANSIENT RESPONSE o LIGHTLY DAMPED SINE WAVES CilLY REPRESENT RESP 0ilSE DURING FREE VIBRATION AFTER TERMINATION OF IllPUT e FOR NUCLEAR PLANT TYPE STRUCTURES SUBJECT TO REAL INPUT, PEAK RESPONSE NEARLY ALWAYS OCCURS DU_ RING TRANSIENT RESPONSE STAGE o IF CONCLUSION WERE TRUE, WE WOULD BE UNABLE TO CCMBINE EARTHQUAKE RESPONSES BY.SRSS. EXPERIENCE HAS INDICATED THAT FOR EARTHQUAKE-LIKE INPUT, WIDE FREQUEilCY VARIATIOil DOES NOT LEAD TO LOW NEP FOR SRSS.

. - e %, < @LTIPLE RESPONSE TIMEJLSIOPdES 1. TIME HISTORIES HAVE RANDO.'i RELATIVE START TIMES. (UNCORRELATED) 2. TIME HISTORIES ALSO.HAVE RAND 0'd. AMPLITUDES. 3. DESIGN AMPLITUDES ARE DEFl.' LED TO RE AT THE 84% NON-EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY 3Y CRliER!A. l (A) yg i A 1b b A \\/yVV amam mund b . 34% A v \\ a I _mA.'ec.M) I 4. HON SHOULD PEAK l'lDIV;Dunu RESPONSE BE COMBINED? e .m

~ ~ ~.'. i) l 1 BASIC ASSU,Pil0N BEHIND CPLTRI.G. FOR SR_SS_C_021ilnAILON OF BE.SPONSE 'MY SOURCES OF CONSERVATIS. EXIST IN DESIGN AND EVALUATION PROCESS. ADDITIONAL CONSERVATISM DOES NOT HAVE TO BE INCORPOR-ATED k'ITHIN THE RESPONSE COM31'!ATION PROCESS. IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE COMBINED RESPONSE TO HAVE A LCWER PROEABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE THA'i THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES.

i 1 CRITERION 2 R = SRSS COMBliiED RESPD.'!SE WHERE EACH INDIVIDUAL SRSS84 RESP 0ilSE HAS BEE >l DEFIf!ED C0ilSERVATIVELY AT 84TH PERCEtlTILE OR F MEDIAN. R = :i.NDOM TI!!E PHASE COMB!l ED RESPONSE ','HERE T34 ALL.4tPLITUDES DEFINED AT 84TH PERCE.'iTILE. R = COMBINED RESP 0,'SE C0i1S!DERl'1G BOTH P.AND0?'. A.MPLITUDE A4D TIME ?HASI.1G. GOAL OF SPSS COMBINATION P ~ R s Re.:.qq '

2. 3 4",

(1) ..-gg C.?dlEo101 2 REQU!;;ENT P ~ R1 5 RCRSS -t 507. (2) 84 34 S ?~R s 1.2 Reage_ 't S5" (3) 7 84 - ' -R

= - =. - e sh-e. 4=.. ,.<m, gy-m 8 e i

' = =

+ + - + - +. O e 0 .BWIIe e t' em } b i l 0 = L, 4 e f.,,* 1.l >. s "C ~ .- < L O C, U*~ cl~ c u .s ,V CJ C

. 7L C t

v. C ll"~

= i

e C

1pLC.

t i - i O - l 6

- - .P, t'*,

7 le - T. t' - I I C E a 4' 8.' ) p - ps = h est

==e -w J i g. a.s p M m 0 W** h f=8 C -= O 'O L' V V. s S, ___ _ _., _ C), ,e _ -._._. _M ~ ,Z en v. l 's

/

J rw C. J */*& j = -o. g, 8 4 e,. G "g ),'o, 2 \\ j C. a-V s*- O s /r r y~,:, ~4,. e c ~,, y .,_ C C C.: O -C,.,. ,s t-Q e 5 - c,[%. 1 l , 4;. ~% vp -/,. 0 = c e m i i ~ r",. da v v = = f a/ } l

8'),

/ "ll* 5 L / I t s

- ~

r e mi O. .T g w C. 3 _= w d iE ga e i / i I f.e =c;- l x\\ - _= i d,0 C - I g wd m l $*,0- -cs c. N c,e-

.. =

0 C -== ! > O

N

- = J

%s &.

L L = = 'k 8k E < ' "

.: L 1

~. : :,,, r.,,,, '. = m : L : 1 W 6 I .- E. s I -=. e 1 t i t. O ". w l ein esa- ..+ l . = _ - 9= _.- *- l a

,,, s'_.

C* T

6 6*

l =. ens' ae .- =v \\ i 1 O O

=

e. a O e W v.1,... .g r -. .a= = -..*' 1 C' e T i i l 1 i l i

+~ 4 4 CUMU'RT]VE DISTR]BUT]DN f0NCT.10N Wh m "'$ s.-; <.. } .se C C O O e-- o.e" ~. ** l n.n p ../.' ) e f ,~ e 'om.e g .-.J..*.*.'.'.9 .r . 2 *i. n.<.a*.. f

i. 7.." !,.! s
C a

i ..s o Ot // ~r ,1 l I' e s e J

=1.n (, '.i; g e.,3se un,y) z "..*. a v y.., r. :

r. a w C-.,.2, ,f l ,I -" *~ ~ *;. . g,,j O - w I

a o

..n l-

'.;- \\;8a.Uf i

1 i 2, .~. f

.' $ 3 ' 1 Ut*,# i C: ~~. S *

) ~' .h 6 T l l 9 C{ T .~ h = 1~ 6 l C, (-I C: t.** .... - ~ t. 1. : C* ! l .9. c :: -

c. n.

gg ,... n e-n- t: ,..*y w4.nmwJ 1w.

d

. w. ww 2-wJ g%, aw a ga q pe 6"5

e e-

= 9 'w w J .) l 1 'g. *. l .I . ( I *i., 'w, .V., (,) s.,. 7. '. '.* 7.,e I 'I II . '4 ".,'w'7. I 7,d ( .(I. . '....el'...p.*. I w .g... 1.t*.1 ....= ...a e. ."** 1 ......i.,,E S.1

CONCLUSION OF STUDY OF CRITERI0i1 2 o IN MOST CASES, CRITERION 2 LEADS TO A NEP FOR SRSS COMBIf1ED RESPONSES OF APPROXIMATELY 84% s Ill SOME CASES, CRITERION MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN NECESSARY I e IN 010 CASE CAtl THE 84% NEP PEAK COMBINED RESPONSE EXCEED THE SRSS COMBIllED RESPCilSE BY MORE thall 9% e THUS, CRITERION 2 IS Afl ADEQUATE, SLIGHTLY C0flSERVATIVELY BIASED CRITERI0f1

CORNELL STUDIES a DR, CORilELL HAS BEEN INDEPENDENTLY ENGAGED TO EVALUATE ADEQUACY OF CRITERI0tl 2 e HE HAS CONCLUDED THAT CDF CURVES CAN BE ACCURATELY GENERATED FROM A KNOWLEDGE OF THE FOLLOWING RESPONSE CHARACTERISTICS e UPCROSSING RATES (NUMBER OF PEAKS) e MARGIllALS (TOTAL DURATION OF PEAKS) e IMPLICATI0t!S ARE: e WE WILL BE~ ABLE TO DIRECTLy' GENERATE CDE) ROM 5IAP[E ~ ~ CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONSES e WE MAY EVENTUALLY BE ABLE TO DIRECTLY GENERATE CDF FROM SIMPLE CHARACTERISTICS OF INPUT o HE HAS MADE MANY ADDED STUDIES OF CRITERION 2 AND REINFORCES OUR CONCLUSION THAT IT ACHIEVES ITS GOAL IN EVERY CASE,' l

e -o e BROOKHAVEN STUDY CRITERION 2 e THEY STATE THEIR RESULTS DO NOT AGREE WITH GE BUT DO NOT PRESEllT BASIS FOR THIS CONCLUSION e IN THEIR EXAMPLES, EVERY CASE WHICH MEETS CRITERION 2 ALSO MEETS ITS INTENT o THEY CLAIM LACK OF UNIQUENESS, HOWEVER, WHEN COMBINED WITH ASME CODE, APPENDIX N PROCEDURE FOR GENERATING CDF, CRITERION IS UNIQUE, t WEBELIEVETHATITISEXTREMELYIMPORTANTf0Hh5EACUTERION e LIKE CRITERION 2 AilD WISH TO WORK WITH THE NRL TO RESOLVE ANY BROOKHAVEN CONCERNS ON THIS CRITERION 1

n g . g.., m. A no Y CR..LTEI A _1 R FQi!_R.v,CN T.R - V .m ?.ESPO.'SE COMP 0iiENTS FROM INDEPENDENT EVENTS OR RAi!DO.'i c.u.n. e. n. ac m n ypso near g/,Ln.o.e n,I v- , L l.. l l :_n.s i,..., cs u.. D _. r-l o r.i n. s r un.s _ i s + u 5,AC tD,i.ca 7 3,, n,- i -......g /..., O,n t ,,c ,,.3.. r n c

u.. n..,

. ur a unu.

0.

r'- i. .'. A .u d' ,10..n,e i n.,a _1 rJ tk-.t-D t..a'r r u u LIMITED DURATION 10 SECO^!DS OR LESS .:,c.o.c y r.v i :Lv. 7 t. s.sn yc,.ui ..t..n .m n

=.. -

- "'**W-=--

e 6 4P.h,8 .r.. %,,,,u .-] i o s o i a I JJJSTI.:ICfgJn.N 0.: roiT:piq'; 1 CRITERION 1 IS INTENDED TO 2SSURE THAT RES?O"SE IS

XX s i.n.n n v.u:_i r vc

-ru L wn L i %. . :n.., C::....m. 1 e r..n. r r.o.n..a.ov S t n. r.u..n T. I C ' .'C d'S;S To..p_ ~i .m T:0Ei.31LITY OF EY.CEEDANCE OF SRSS CC".BINED RESP 0?iSE C " BE SHC'41 TO 3E EQ'.'AL TO THE ?RGEABILITY OF EX-CEEDANCE OF THE !NDIVIDUAL RESP 0'!SES 1 r alO P

,,' ' a

= . 1.s 4 q:qq -... - n. t O C R OO *i,.C,R., U.nVF_ P5_ '] c u.rJv.9 Tn P,E 'R _ . :. 0. l.u. n,.f

V.: _ '_ i.s' C A

ist n-s_ Rld.1..y3DV q l,..t..n b., 3,, .,,.,3 ._,...,..s.,...-,...i. A. - i .I n ..s _i .. t r.. s i o v is.. o m n.D,..J n.3-.... 3.cr q c,., r v, Q -- -. s s F.,.s y y u._ .s ..i . i .mi t. . u L.. orc.C c.ere .-._ :, ;-u4:v. a. ......... in. . _ o n,. i, o _ s 1, i..mJ... a,/. o.,, _ -,b,. .-...4..i s .i. .i . se. - - 2,n - bnr ( _, ) o o<o :ce i i n l e EARTHOUAKE-LIKE RESPO!;SE EXPECTED TO "EET EQUATIO.'t 1

D. n"t.

0U'1 u:R I c^

".iuC ' : '".n n. "'c'vR o e ,d nn. Y . : n d.q u;.a v : _i T. v.u: .o, s r niw es .s T. u...w.. i i q. _.;-). i ourpay; ::q:[,qc p I'

q t.. 3. - uco_.In..inu pvs 3-e in., i e e.

.-o. v, n.:.:.."v.v. Ou.; q }'lr. rn .- :... v i v.n. l :.t_y._ _ D n," : M. ; n."i v e 3 . o ..no ns . c.. u.n,n.. O u.n.: T.u r.,.2,:Jinv;T. i. ;[1_V.A r.u.. '1 '/;_'J :y D.u.iinM,, b 6.3 0 7 t i v., a .J..... i ...v i.. it i. n-,,--.... , r..,.__,3,..a.. . sin i 1.. .i,s. s m. , y n..-.. (.,.,.. T.t_ ...m. i

t....,

i. L,. __

l .s y--,./s, .d.s 3. -, .-,,,,.-.,;,.n.,y... .......u . ii i)-

1.. i 's ' ' i e6 i i. A 1i.,~

.i... si i-. e P. L i ..w l". l,,.. ..).w.'. '.. ; i w t I s n., . ?.... ( -. .1.-... -. 'v. - T.. n. t.m, i. - o. r. ( :.1 i l ..,.r = i. e- ....r,. =.., Li. ei._ ,i.. ;.., i 1.. i,. i r.s i I

. _ _.... ~ -..._-.._a t ... :...:_ ~ ~ J1!Sli.:.b 6IJON OF CRITEoIO1_L!m14'T.1 JUSTIFICAT10tl 0F CRITERION 1 CONSIDERABLY BOLSTERED BY FACT THAT GUT OF 235 MARK II RESPONSE CG.BINATIONS !HICH MEET CRITERION 1,1007, OF CASES (ALL 235) ALSO "'ET CR.lTER10N 2 ..'.EETiii CRITERION 1 PROVIDES HIGH CONFIDEiCE a THAT CRITERION 2 WOULD BE MET

\\ - - _ w L_Q.h . :' l. ~ RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ON CRITERION 1 1. HOW'TO 4SSURE SUFFICIENTLY RAPID VARI ATION OF TTMF ~ HISTORIES. aRAPID VARIATION IS ASSURED BY: A) LIMITIllG THE NUMBER OF flEAR MAXIMUM PEAXS AND B) ASSURIt!G A ilEAR ZERO RATIO 0F MEAN TO i MAXIMUM RESPONSE OVER A T!ME DURATI0tl LESS THNi THE UNCERTAl?lTY IN THE La.G TIME. oA RATIO OF MEAN TO MAX!?.UM LESS THAfi ABOUT 0.1 TO 0.2 MEETS REQUIREME lT OF NEAP. ZERO MEAN. G. (.. 2. 'WHY CAN LOADINS TIME HISTORY RE USED IN LIEU OF RESP 0tiSE TIME HISTORY. IF LOAD!ilG TIME-HISTORY iS EARTHOUAXE-LIKE T!!EN RESP 0'1SE TIME-HISTORY U1LL AUT0"AT!CALLY BE EARTHOUAXE-LIXE FOR LI:iEAR ELASTIC STP.UCTURES. (I.E.) IF LOADI.*!G HAS LES.S. !! EAR PEAK EXCURSIONS THAN FOR EARTHQUAXE., THE RESPONSE TO LOADING WILL AUTOMATICALLY HAVE LESS NEAR PEAK EXCURSION THAN IT HOULD HAVE FROM EARTHOUAKE TIME HISTORY.

IF LOADIt!G HAS fiEAR-ZERO MEAN, RESPONSE AUTOMATICAI { Y HAS ?; EAR-ZERO MEAN FOR LINEAR ELASTIC SYSTDlS.

!!OT PRACTICAL TO LIMIT CRITERIA TO RES?0.'iSE. FOR MAilY CASES, RESPONSE TIME HISTCRIES ARE fiOT GENER - ( ATED. NEED A CRIIERIA HHICH CAN EE A? PLIED AT THE LOADING LEVEL. 'l' ' . ~ t , ' I,", t'..x ..s e

emesse e s.en., a,sma.s.9.W % a we - e.ame 4 + d g ~ f,, 1 -. *. - -.. ~ _. _.,, _, a f oo ..a. O \\ ,) O

B y

s cJ

9 t

u "*S-l O O = .a. Pg m pm f Mu cl el l \\ W 1 -d di I l o i l l o o 8 d. I,- I y, -N ou e e = o l y' H ,) w

.7 w

5 I, ^ = s 'J g e. o y ~ ~ l z a .= i O h l s 8 l"I s\\ n ( m s. i p l f {\\ -b = \\ l' 'a o C !,i WIl = "s 1 l t I#l.I ~~ t j j ) j o = -d l ~l I l t t ll g 5 o I s %e 3 n0*i- .o. o ,.), o ww w

w
/A

/A i .a .=....p....., J ..,,..,= m p e. t 'J = -,....-1 t que.. y e r . git 0 ".. e. i O f 0 618 Lwsw. T A JV F.1 B*1 .J I. I r. i a w 1-7 C P,m o m_ ._y I l

e i y. .-a. 5 i i j, c. ' l 1 1 oa

a 3

en -=2 u = a e O 5 i e s l w o l =- ~- r;- s 1 h _1 q =" -~ c: w o. a w 41. +- g M a _ n _ __; a cw i ,N w a j o s a = -a g ~ ~\\ = aa w o g e ,o u c 1- - u., w o u e c. ..=r._ t O Vo L, L = c - w U i w a - M-a a U e E 2 _.= w l c 2 o l

=-

o a n m l c -, e '~~ U '~ = s. O c _ _ -. = - f o z m a e i i u o l e = s _a_ i o r n ~~O:. __ l M 5 T-w

. i.e,; e

.. e a m. i W i = 2 i e n-,. - a w a ~ - =_: _== 2 1.740 i a o o e 6 6 o e o o A5 o e o o o o o ~ m -r n cv i e i i STRESS - PSI . m.m, b e 'en 3,i:

l I ****w.. h e+

w w.

NWg t-e g ?? ) m., a O' D e 9.est b f (D La C 4 e = Y w cz O C: W C. N

D

,3 u ^ e O9 + ,N e e l =r g / LJ g Cu e c yj M o s c. e. y C m o Led Q U w t L U W O u i N m w y Z 4J C H 'f C - m W U 'Y m e. D 9 C. m u . 4 q, O C l l ' C' q% s 1 M s-2 l em -m y ~- y C I { g I L _._:> o ,n w I 120 v a = l m .? o ~f ~% e E O C. O b "N O E .w, c b 2 c O 5 t 4 O 5 k h_ ~ C w a O c o X x O C m v m N s 8 i S *e *n @. P Ot n. y$[ ' ~ q D T ("3 enk

m'o @

8. s

l BROOKHAVEN STUDY - CRITERION 2 LOAD VERSUS RESPONSE TIME HISTORIES o BROOKHAVEN CLAIMS THAT OUR BASIS FOR RECOMMENDING THAT CRITERION 1 CAN BE USED AT THE LOAD LEVEL IS BASED ON OUR BELIEF THAT THERE ARE LESS PEAKS TO THE RESPONSE THAN THERE ARE FOR THE INPUT. e WE HAVE NEVER MADE SUCH A CLAIM. IN FACT, ON TWO PREVIOUS OCCASIONS WE HAVE EXPLAINED TO BR00KHAVEil OUR BASIS FOR CRITERI0fl 1, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN UNWILLING TO REVISE THEIR STATEMENT. s BROOKHAVEN HAS ERECTED A "STRAWMAN" S0 THEY COULD TEAR IT DOWN AND THEN HAS USED THIS AS THEIR BASIS FOR REJECTING A VALID CRITERION, s OUR CRITERION 1 IS BASED ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF EARTHOUAKE INPUT AND OUR KNOWLEDGE THAT WHEN THE INPUT HAS LESS PEAKS THAN FOR EARTHCUAKE !?!PIJT, THE RESPC?lSES WILL HAVE LESS PEAKS THAN EARTHOUAKE RESPO?lSE. THUS, IF EARTHOUAKE RESPONSES CAN BE COMBINED SRSS, THESE OTHER RESPONSES SHOULD ALSO BE ABLE TO BE COMBINED SRSS. l l

= t._-. BROOKHAVEN STUDY - CRITERION 1 NUMBER OF PEAKS VERSUS TOTAL DURATION OF PEAKS e BROOKHAVEN HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE TOTAL DURATION OF PEAKS IS MORE SIGNIFICANT thall NUMBER OF PEAKS FOR DETERMINING THE NEP OF SRSS COMBINED RESPONSE, WE AGREE. o WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED A PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO CRITERION 1 TO CORRECT FOR THIS POTENTIAL DEFICIEllCY IN CRITERION 1 AND ASKED BROOKHAVEN TO CONSIDER ITS GENERIC APPLICABILITY. THEY APPEAR TO HAVE NOT DONE S0. e FOR MARK II APPLICATIONS, WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE UNMODIFIED CRITERION 1 IS MORE STRINGENT THAN CRITERION 2 ABID DOES NOT HAVE TO BE MODIFIED. HOWEVER, FOR GENERIC APPLICATION WE RECOMMEflD CRITERION 1 BE MODIFIED TO CORRECT FOR THIS POTENTIAL DEFICIENCY,

J .. _..,- l ~- t yi,5ED CRITER!Oti 1 Dynamic or transient responses of structures, components, and equipment arising frem combinations of dynamic leading or motions may be cerbined by S?.55 provided that each of the dynamic inputs or resconses i has characteristics similar to those of earthquake ground motions, and that the individual ccmponent inputs can be considered to be relatively uncorrelated. This similarity involves a limited nu.ber of peaks of force or acceleraticn, with approximately zero mean, .X C01 START T!l'E e U ;c;RRELATED CR . sa a:a s ;

IfN C: "-E :^LLQ>iL*d:

1) ::c erm,e:c.

m T T Au. 50 s 0.08 na _Zi_ s 0.02 _T -i a.a:, r-(i.~ar )-. 9) r. T3 To 7 s 0.ul s 0.t4 no Au_ e 4

3) ::::r g

[ ~% \\ [ T : b o.02 7 c 0.2, \\.l /, ( .1 \\ ~ e p emmese m m.we sesedusth +4B 4AP W .d.EEE. y p s -. /.),\\ s

/

~

75

/j = V l. L I- \\

I \\ -

i w

3, -.. 6 ...:. :::.. s ' j a d h A n I R+75 B E = 0.75 R. ... ) A / V V R.. ~70 - 0., :. 4, l /

n_

I l! absolute maximum response vg R[- I) m l T+75*[timethatresponseexceedsR + 7 e_ T,75 = { time that respense less then R -72 T = [ larger or.. 7: t. . cr 4 tio -so Jh '2 l M W 9 F'G;PE i: Cefi..ition of '. S-icn

^; - 4 t rem 9"^^t!!.^.'O! ( % 0,36 POR CR $$ COMBINATION 2mir t REQuIREMEMT OF CRITE RIo M i

RESPONSE

HAS MEAM ZERO C E NTER ED IF NcR MALLY 'pI5721BuTED : f, ( Rx = IE O = 0. 3 6 k rux t Ex . [Rx [ Rx \\ g , Rmu) 0,% t R,ax) (2.78 <x - = ?CS RHfSm/ =. 50 'fq=l.30 f ", ".1,x }:,5'.)=C.:?,l e rs r* < o, o *p 31 rce % / R,nx = o.7s --+ ?,, = 2.0 2 - P ' R > w:= @H 7# 6 O.02 AT p C.N v A-e v.- r nq c-ee ~ennu a _ iv -_ ft ',v_ g i g yv,4 s i vi 1 i - - - ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^

,, ester - ..m } 9 W 2 O e a ) I 1 O O .N e f 6 O O e oN h s O O 4-a~ e o O .a. ~m W D e

w b

5 ~ J, ' t .a e m o 4~f t co o e e o -:=. o o c' d e l g o w ]l lf 1 l o C { -c-- ._ } v -r - w M%". Y e w e b h L N h $P 9 5F -e 4 4 o e z 1 ~M I h O II T-v i ,= 3 = >lL i ~ ~, 1I I f_._... o n m_ { 'M i p w ~ ee t 4-i I g

i 2 '"

m, e. m N k ( k 7 o d\\ !2 -f 2'

-4 I'o y /.

M'~

/,

l I m

~ s_ j - u... , s, CONCLUSIONS e PICENT SUPPORTIVE MX II/G.E. EFFORTS HAVE CONFIF?.ED THAT NEWARX/XENNEDY CRITERION 2 RE?FISENTS A CONSERVATIVE BASIS FOR JUDGING THE ACCEPTABILIT( FOR THE SRSS COP 31 NATION OF RESPONSES. o. PREVIOUS STUDIES USING REAL HX II RESPONSE TIME HISTORIES HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE EfARX/ KENNEDY CRITERICN 1 IS MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN CRITERION 2. P.EETING CRITERION 1 PROV!LES GCOD ASSURANCE OF MEETING CRITERION 2 FOR THE-TYPES CF DYNMIC LOADS EVALUATED IN THE N,X II SRSS STUDY. e FICENT FINDINGS HAVE INDICATED SOME POTENTIAL AF31GUTIES IN CRITERION 1 IF THE NE's?'ARX/XENNEDY CRITERIA IS TO BE APFLIED AS A GENERIC STAN.DARD; HOWEVER, N/X CRITERION 1 STILL REFAINS A CONSERVATIVE JtJSTIFIABLE BASIS FOR JUEGING TNE ACCE?TABILITY OF SRSS FOR THE TYPES OF LOADING CCNBINATIONS CONSIDEPZD .IN THE MX II SRSS STUDY. l i l. l l. -e-+ - e4 e--- ,m.s ,-= =~r ym-- w}}

ML20148C131

Contents

Text

SUBJECT:

Background

Dear:

SUMMARY

RESPONSE

Navigation menu

ML20148C131

Text

SUBJECT:

Background

Dear:

SUMMARY

RESPONSE

Navigation menu

Search