ML20213D589
| ML20213D589 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1981 |
| From: | Lear G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-0344, CON-WNP-344 NUDOCS 8103300295 | |
| Download: ML20213D589 (6) | |
Text
-
r l
[
ck U - '
MAR 2 31981 c
e Docket flo. 50-397 ff A/,9 9
[b f
MEf10RANDUM FOR: Billy Joe Youngblood, Chief
-j *3.kg,Cjg(/
4 Licensing Branch No. 1 g
Division of Licensing g
TIIRU:
James P. Knight, Assistant Director O
3 for Components and Structures Engineering Division of Engineering M
FR0ft:
George Lear, Chief Hydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
ADDEriDUM TO ROUflD ONE QltSTIONS AND POSITIONS -
GEOTECHNICAL ENGIflEERING Plant flame: WPPSS-2 Licensing Stage: OL, R24 Docket flumber: 50-397 Responsible Branch:
LB-1,!!. Lynch, LPM Requested Completion Date: flot scheduled Description of Applicant Response: Provide requested infonnation Review Status: Continuing Attached is an addendum to Geotechnical Engineering Round One Questions and Positions I sent to you on February 23, 1981. Please replace the original question 241.5 by the attached question. The list of questions originally sent to you on February 23, 1981 is enclosed for your reference.
The LPM for this plant has infonned us that the question 241.4 may be applicable to W!!P-1 & 4 plants as well as WilP-2.
Driginalsigned b George Lear, Chey Lear Kydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering l
l
Enclosure:
As stated
% nann 9
C (p
?
N._
\\\\
._x c"'ni;.HGEB:DE f.HGEB:DE
,(HGEB:DE
!A/D)CSE:DE..l.
..Dkt'a/mc
.LHelle lGLear-JPKnfght-
_" N.3/IS/81.l.3/%1.81..
. 3y./81 3/~9]81..
I c,,,m 3 m
Billy Joe Youngblood MAR 2 31987 cc: w/ enclosure i
R. Vollmer R. Tedesco
'l J. Knight G. Lear L. Heller D. Gupta M. Lynch g
r I
I croct[ ;
l I,
v R 's a k' f (
J
,i cet }.
l
,l,
{-
i u:--- - - - --
H C ' t' L '.'. ' t :
t f.'
F, F,T ' ^ ',,
[, 7 ~~
,E[ ([ ^ ]'
-t<
~
" Addendum to February 23, 1981 Questions and Positions -
Geotechnical Engineering" WPPSS-2 Docket No. 50-397 Prepared by D. Gupta, HGEB, DE 241.5 The dynamic soil properties used in the SRV/LOCA analysis should (5.1.1 of. correspond to the strains induced in the soil due to these loads.
the plant DAR for SRV Justify the use of soil properties data curve of Hardin and Black and LOCA
-4 Loads) for shear strain equal to 10 % in your SRV/LOCA analyses and f
provide appropriate reference.
Exp' lain in detail the procedure used for determining dynamic strains imposed on the soil due to these loads. Describe how these soil properties were modified to consider applicable load combinations and the resulting soil strains.
4 i
1 I
Y t
h
?
i C
4 l
l
~
" Questions and Positions.- Geotechnical Engineering" WPPSS-2 Docket No. 50-397-.
241.1 The measured settlement data given in Appendix 2.5H of the FSAR is (App 2.5H) provided only up to June 1978.
Provide time vs settlement plots of (RSP) up-to-date settlement data obtained for all category I structures l
where settlements are being monitored.
Tabulate values of the measured maximum differential settlements and show comparisons of the measured data with anticipated settlements assumed in the analysis of these structures and their appertenances, and evaluate the impact of any differences between the measured and anticipated settlements on the design and construction of these structures and appertenances.
Staff requires that the settlement of safety related structures and appurtenances be monitored for a period of at least five years after the issuance of the operating license and the impact of observed settlement, if any, on the design limits of Category I structures be evaluated periodically. '
241.2 Indicate how much settlement of the structures has occurred since the (App.2.5H) connections between structures and safety-related utilities were made.
Evaluate the effect of the past and anticipated future settlement of structures on safety related utility connections.
241.3 In Section 2.5.4.14, you indicate that the top 25 ft. of the 45 ft.
(2.5.4.14) thick fill placed underneath the category I <:ondensate storage tanks RSP was not monitored accor, ding to,the specifications. For 19 out of 34
.t s
i
!i h
tests, the maximum density.was not determined for each sample.
It is l
staff's position that you test-load the. condensate storage tank foundations by filling the tanks with water and monitor the settlement of the tank foundations until a satisfactorily small rate of settlement is reached. Test results are to be reported to the NRC. This test is to assure that the compaction of the fill was indeed perfonned according to the originally intended specifications.
241.4 In Appendix 2.5G, you have provided the coefficients of earth pressure
~
(App 2.5G) at rest and active for static and dynamic loading conditions. These coefficients are low. Justify the use of such low earth pressure coefficients for compacted bat:kfills.
Provide a plot of the maximum earth pressure that would act on buried vertical walls versus depth for each safety related structures.
241.5 Provide the soil properties data used in your SRV/LOCA analyses.
(3.8.3.3)
Explain in detail the procedure used for detenhining dynamic strains in the soil due to these loads. Describe how'these soil properties were modified to consider applicable load combinations and resulting soil strains.
u f
f s
o i
s.
l Y
,k y
I
- S l
q
?:~ ~f -
} -
$*'f Meeting Sunnary March 24,1981 9
DISTRIBUTION Central Files TERA GIB Reading F. Schroeder K. Kniel, with enclosure.2 P. Norian, with enclosure 2 D. Eisenhut R. Tedesco B. Youngblood A. Schwencer R. Vollmer J. Knight R. Bosnak F. Schauer D. Ross L. Rubenstein W. Butler, with enclosure 2 J. Kudrick, with enclosure 2 F. Eltawila, with enclosure 2 T. Su C. Grimes C. Anderson, with enclosure 2 M. Fields, with enclosure 2 R. Mattu S. Fabic J. Wilson T. Lee S. Hou K. Kiper R. Stark D. Lynch A. Bournia D. Sells I. Peltier NRC PDR Local PDR ACRS (16)
OELD OSD I&E
c
/p# IIT(fg"o,,
UNITED STATES 8'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
n jj-E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 C
March 24, 1981 Generic Task A-39 Docket Nos.:
50-358, 50-352/351 50-367, 50-373/374, 50-387/388, 50-410,50-322f APPLICANT:
Members of Mark II Own'rs Group
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH MARK II OWNERS GROUP TO DISCUSS SUPPRESSION POOL TEMPERATURE LIMIT AND T-QUENCHER LOAD SPECIFICATION, MARCH 13,1981
Background
The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the technical details related to the suppression pool temperature limit and the T-quencher load specification.
The staff and its consultants'have had discussions with the Mark II Owners' Group on these subjects. During these discussions, we had raised several areas of concern related to:
(1) the potential increase of the suppression pool temperature limit for low mass flux through the safety / relief valve; and (2) the deficiencies of the methodology used to predict pressure and frequencies for the Mark II T-quencher discharge.
The Mark II Owners Group and their consultants, General Electric and Kraftwerk Union (KWU), were to present their responses to these concerns.
An attendance list and a copy of the meeting handouts (proprietary information with limited distribution) are enclosed.
Summary 1.
Pool Temperature Limit The Mark II Owners Group recently proposed revised suppression pool temperature limits for safety / relief valve operation. These limits are included in the report enetitled, " Mark II Containment Quencher Condensation Performance," dated March 11, 1981. Mr. G. Gottfried, representative of the Mark II Owners' Group, opened the meeting by discussing the adequacy of these limits.
The data base used to establish the pool temperature limit is the SRV tests conducted by KWU in Germany. Based on this data base, GE believes that the quencher devices have degonstrated stable condensation of steam for mass flux from 5 to 94 lbm/ft -sec at local subcooling as low as 10 F.
However, the stLff and its consultants disagreed with GE's inter-pretation of the data case. With the staff's interpretation of quencher submergence, the tests show local subcooling of 30 F instead of 10 F as GE suggested.
On the basis of the corrected submergence, the Mark II Owners' Group proposed",
the following alternative pool temperature limits.
I 2
'k I
l a.
For mass flux greater than 94 lbm/ft -sec, the degree of local Ol ~
l subcooling should not be less than 30 F, which is equivalent C
l to local temperature of 200 F with quencher submergence of 14 l
ft.
- { !c 5 % 7,j +
~
~
Meeting Summary March 24,1981 2
b.
For mass flux below 42 lbm/ft -sec the degree of local sub-cooling should not be less than 20*F.
2 For mass flux between 94 and 42 lbm/ft -sec, the degree of c.
local subcooling should be linearly interporlated from 30*F to 20*F.
The staff and its consultants stated these proposed pool temperature limits were acceptable.
2.
Assumptions for Pool Temperature Analysis During the meeting held in December 1980 in Bethesda, Maryland Dr..
C. Graves of RSB requested additional information related to the methodology used to calculate the mass and energy released through the SRV, feedwater pump coastdown time, and availability of RHR operating in the suppression pool cooling mode.
In response to this request, the Mark II Owners' Group will direct GE to prepare a letter report for the methodology to calculate the mass and energy blowdown. With respect to concerns on feedwater pump coastdown and RHR availability, the Mark II Owners Group intended to address these concerns on a plant-unique basis. We indicated that further discussion is required to justify the need for plant-unique assumptions. We strongly urged the applicants to minimize the plant-unique areas in order to expedite licensing review.
A working meeting was held on March 17, 1981 *n Bethesda, Maryland to identify and justify the plant-unique assumptions. Both GIB and CSB staffs met with representatives of the Mark II Owners' Group and GE. As a result, we believe that the plant-unique areas appeared reasonable and will be reviewed on a plant-by-plant basis.
3.
T-Quencher Load Specification In August 1980, the Mark II Owners Group proposed a new methodology to i
predict SRV load magnitude and frequency range. As a result of our evaluation, we had requested additional infortnation to justify the I
methodology. Dr. Gobel of KWU presented the additional data base and a l
discussion of physical phenomena on the air clearing phase during SRV discharge. He indicated that the wall pressure loads will increase i
l with an increase of reactor pressure up to a certain value of reactor Further increase of the reactor pressure will not result in pressure.
increased wall pressure; the slope of the pressure curve will decrease instead. This phenomenon is believed to result from more steam condensation in the SRV line at higher reactor pressure. Therefore, Dr. Gobel stated l
that the pressure multiplier (pressure slope) as proposed is conservative.
l We indicated, however, that the regression analysis perfortned by our l
consultants suggested pressure multipliers ranging from 1.12 to 1.17 instead of 1.0 to 1.07 as proposed by the Mark II Owners' Group.
Dr. Gobel pointed out that the inherent conservatism of the data base in
~
Meeting Summary March 24, 1981 using a single cell test facility and extraporlating the test data to the design reactor pressure of 1280 psi, which is substantially higher than the SRV setpoint, should be sufficient to cover the deficiency of the proposed pressure multiplier. We indicated that we will take this into consideration for establishing the acceptance criteria for Mark II plants.
With respect to the frequency multiplier, we believe that additional adjustment is required to expand the frequency range for the case assuming actuation of all SRVs. Since the air volume in the SRV line influences the bubble oscillating frequency, the all valve case should have a wider frequency range since various lengths of SRV lines are considered. Mr. J. Metcalf of Stone and Webster Corporation indicated
~
that the inherent conservatism of the design models for structure, piping and equipment will bound any deficiency caused by the current proposed relatively narrow frequency band. We concluded that the applicants will be required to provide an " amplified response spectra" (ARS) to demonstrate the difference between the design forcing function and the one with the expanded frequency range considering all SRV line lengths.
With this information, the staff (MEB and/or SEB) will be able to assess the adequacy of the design forcing function.
T. M. Su, A-39 Task Manager Generic Issues Branch Division of Safety Technology
Enclosures:
1.
List of Attendees 2.
Meeting Handout (Limited Distribution-Proprietary) cc: w/ enclosure 1 A-39 Internal Distribution
l List of Attendees Name Organization 9:00 7 :00 am T. M. Su NRC. DST,GIB A. A. Sonin MIT(forBNL)
C. Economos BNL (For NRC)
H. Chau Long Island Lighting Co.
W. H. Davis GE T. M. Lee NRC RES,ADB L. Schell Penn. Power & Light Co.
V. Gupta Stone and Webster C. A. Malov~rh Stone and Webster S. J. Yerardi Stone and Webster R. Riley Cin. Gas & F.lec. Co.
D. F. Roth Penn. Power & Light Co.
M. R. Granback North. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co.
T. H. Chong Stone & Webster (CHOC)
J. E. Metcalf Stone & Webster (Boston)
L. D. Steinert GE J. S. Post GE P. P. Stancavage GE R. F. McClelland GE J. C. Black GE Ed Fredenburg Wash. Public Power Supply Sys.
F. Eltawila NRC DST,CSB G. Perez-Ramirez CNSY/S (Mex)
Glenn E. Gottfried Sargent & Lundy 1:00 - 5:30 pm T. H. Su NRC, DST,GIB C. Economos BNL,NRC F. Eltawila NRC DSI CSB D. Gobel KWU L. Sack KWU D. F. Roth Penn. Power & Light Co.
L. Schell Penn. Power & Light Co.
P. Anthony-Spies KWU R. W. Riley Cin. Gas & Elec. Co.
M. R. Granback North. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co.
T. H. Chong Stone & Webster (Choc)
T. Wang Stone & Webster (Choc)
A. Y. C. Wong Stone & Webster Glenn E. Gottfried Sargent & Lundy S. J. Yerardi Stone & Webster
~
C. A. Malovrh Stone & Webster H. Chau Long Island Lighting Co.
(
J. E. Metcalf Stone & Webster l
l
h.-
&~
e n
.>e-7.,
m
.p-yy g- ~~
h*
W e-6-
e*
MAR 2 7 El Docket No. 50-397 MEMORANDUM FOR:
B. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch No. 1, DL FROM:
M. D. Lynch, Project Manager, Licensing Branch No.1. DL
SUBJECT:
FORTHCOMING MEETING WITH WPPSS REGARDING THE GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY OF WNP-2 SITE DATE AND TIME:
Wednesday, April 1,1981 8:30 am - 11:30 am LOCATION:
Room P-822C Phillips Building Bethesda, Maryland PURPOSE:
Discussion of staff concerns regarding i
the separation criteria for electrical cables PARTICIPANTS:
NRC Staff M. D. Lynch, F. Rosa, et al.
WPPSS Keener Earle, et al.
bl81nal afsned 47 M. Dave Lynch y M. D. Lynch, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing cc: See next page i
]
c,,g t,!ii, el d !,L $l)\\
q-
,- W T
' ~~~l)L 1.Bil I
. If Y~
j l
l I
c"a t t "r
....26-BJYo.ngb.lood)"'
" "'!.01,ynch/ys. L i
L o g g.;,, &p./81 3/(/81 3
i
...c 7 7 e oc w w c q CFFICIA' RICORD COPY g
~-"
' --~
Mr. R. L. Ferguson Managing Director Washingt.on Public Power Supply System P. O. Box 968 3000 George Washington Way P.ichland, Washington 99352 ccs:
Hicholas Reynolds, Esq.
Decevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth Street N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Richard Q. Quicley, Esq.
Washington Public Power Supply System P. O. Bex 968 Richland, Washington 99352 Nicholas Lewis, Chaintan Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council 820 East Fiftn Avenue Olymota, Washington 98504 Mr. O. K. Earle Licensing Engineer P. O. Box 968
'Richland, Washington 99352 Mr. Albert D. Toth Resident inspector /WPPSS-2 NPS c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Scx 69 Richland, Washingtan 99352 b
I.
+
l 4
1 h
i o
MEETIlG NOTICE DISTRIBUTION 6
J. Stol:
flRC PDR S. Hanauer Local PDR MAR 2 71931 P. Collins TIC D. Vassallo i19 ilSIC D. Ziemann ft t /,,
Branch File T. Murley
}/[d N
Q-N. dughes F. Scnroeder o
/
E. Case K. Kniel YJ
<i, /p ?.l D. Eisenhut D. Skovholt t
r R. Purple G. Knignton
" %' DQ 7
M
/A -/
T. Novak M. Ernst
'kk%,,y
- 0. Varga R. Baer Q(
T. Ippolita E. Adensam
,p
/
R. A. Clarx A. Thadani s /g' m ' t (
w R. Reid ACRS (16)
R. Tedesco Attorney, OELD J. Youngblood 0IE (3)
.A. Schwencer t'
OSD (7)
F. fliraglia Project Manager DLynch J. R. Miller Licensing Assistant M. P.ushbronk G. Lainas Receptionist D. Crutchfield TERA W. Russell J. LeDoux, I&E J. Olshinki V. Moore R. Vollmer I&E Headquarters R. Bosnak I&E Region I F. Schauer ISE Region 11 R. E. Jackson laE Region III G. Lear I&E Region IV V. Noonan I&E Region V S. Pawlicki V. Benaroya NRC
Participants:
I. Rosztocry W. Hanss MDLyr.ch, FResa, et al.
D. Muller R. Ballard W. Regan J. D. Saltzman D. Ross P. Check Chief, Power Systems Branch D. Part bec: Applicar.t & Service List F. Rosa W. Butler W. Kreger R. W. Houston Chief. Radiological Assessment Branch W. Gammill L. Rubenstein T. Speis W. Johe ton
.- c B. G
,,7j S...
Y F. Pai.o.c S. Ramos
!!104020OM