ML20214G779
ML20214G779 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Nine Mile Point, Susquehanna, Columbia, Limerick, LaSalle, 05000000, Zimmer, Shoreham, Bailly |
Issue date: | 07/03/1975 |
From: | Cutchin J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
References | |
CON-WNP-0032, CON-WNP-32 NUDOCS 8605220496 | |
Download: ML20214G779 (23) | |
Text
i 1
l l
)
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMfSSION W ASH 4NGTON. D. C. 20555 JVL s GIS l i
Docket Nos. 50-322, 50-352 & 5 353, 50-358, 50-367, 50-373 0-374, 50-387
& 50-388, 50-39 , 50-410 Applicants: Long Island Lighting Company, Philadephia Electric Company, Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, Northern Indiana Public Service Company, Commonwealth Edison, Pennsylvania Power
& Light Company, Washington Public Power Supply System, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Facilities: Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1; Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2; Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1; Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1; LaSalle County Station, Units 1 & 2; Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 & 2; WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2; Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2
SUMMARY
OF MEETING HELD ON JUNE 30, 1975 WITH MARK II OWNERS On June 30, 1975 representatives of the above-named utilities (denoted collectively the " Mark II Owners"), their architect-engineers, General EL itric Company and the NRC staff met in Bethesda, Maryland. The purpose of the neeting was to discuss the role of the Mark II owners, the status of construction of the various Mark II units and the program and schedule for determining Mark II LOCA and Safety /kelief Valve loads and their impact on design. An attendance list and copies of some of the slides used in presentations made at the meeting are enclosed.
Mr. Shelton, as Chairman of the Mark II Owners group, indicated that the group was set up primarily to coordinate resolution of the pool dynamic and safety / relief valve problem for the Mark II Owners and had no legal status.
Therefore, the individual applicants would be dealing with the NRC on all formal contacts. Mr. Shelton would serve as a point of contact with the NRC and the Mark II owners for informal transmittal of information, arranging group meetings and the like but could not speak for them officially.
Since representatives of Pennsylvania Power & Light Company and Philadelphia Electric Company had met with the NRC staff on June 17, they made no further presentations regarding the status of construction of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 & 2 or the Limerick Generating Station, Units 1
& 2. Since Bailly Generating Station Nuclear 1 and Nine Mile Point Station, Unit 2 either had not begun, or had delayed, construction no presentations regarding the status of construction of those units were made by represent-atives of Northern Indiana Public Service Company or Niagara Mohawk Power Company.
s Wilo,'ll 9 m e z
( d
JUL a D75 Representatives of the other Mark II Owners and their architect-engineers made presentations regarding the status of construction of their respective plants. Construction on all of these units had progressed (or soon should) beyond the wetwell into the drywell. Any design modifications determined to be required will have to be backfit.
A representative of Sargent & Lundy discussed the proposed outline for the
" Preliminary Forcing Function Report" to be submitted this fall.
A representative of General Electric discussed LOCA and Safety / Relief Valve related activities included in the analysis and test program being conducted in support of the Mark II units. He also stated that representatives of the NRC staff would be allowed to come to San Jose to view the German reports from which GE has extracted data applicable to the Mark II design. However, the reports would not be submitted and any notes made by the NRC staff must be labelled proprietary.
Representatives of the NRC staff asked a number of questions, most of which the representatives of the Mark II owners were unable to answer simply because the answers will not be determined until af ter the " Preliminary Forcing Function Report" is completed and available for.use in determining loads to be used in calculating design margins for the individual units.
The Mark II Owners were advised that the schedule proposed for providing information in response to the "10 CFR 50-54(f)" letters transmitted to them in April was obviously not going to result in a very prcept response.
They were further advised to provide us information as rapidly as it becomes available.
.- m ~ , ~ -
J. M. Cutchin IV, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch 1-2 Division of Reactor Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated i
k
1 ENCLOSURE 1 ATTENDEES MEETING WITH MARK II OWNERS JUNE 30, 1975 NRC Burns & Roe Bechtel J. M. Cutchin J. Forman J. R. Schmedel R. L. Cudlin B. Bedrosian J. A. Kudrick G. C. Lainas Cincinnati Gas A. L. Gluckman GE & Electric Company Isa Sihweil Pei-Ying Chen D. A. Rockwell E. A. Borgmann B. D. Liaw N. C. Shirley J. D. Flynn F. C. Cherny C. J. DeBevec J. C. Snell Commonwealth Edison Company Pennsylvania Power C. P. Tan & Light Company R. J. Stuart J. W. Johnson John F. Stolz D. P. Galle N. W. Curtis W. F. Kane J. S. Abel W. E. Barberich I
I. A. Peltier B. R. Shelton K. D. Desai G. Arndt P. F. Riehm Stone & Webster G. Bagchi C. I. Grimes D. J. Heesen J. C. Glynn J. P. Allen W. R. Butler R. E. Basso L. C. Shao R. Tedesco R. Maccary LILCO I. Villaiva R. DeYoung T. J. Burke J. P. Navarro WPPSS Niagara Mohawk O. E. Trapp G. L. Gelhaus S. F. Manno Sargent & Lundy NIPSCO G. F. Hoveke D. L. Holtzscher R. M. Crawford R. N. Bergstrom W. G. Hegener PECO R. H. Logue A
A
w JUNE 27, 1975 WM. H. ZIMMER DESCRIPTION OF SRV LOADS
& STRUCTURAL MARGINS WITH MODIFIED PEDESTAL ..
. MIN. MARGINS TYPE OF PEAK . BASE SRV LOAD SOURCE DISCliARGE PRESSURE FREQUENCY SLAB CONTAINMENT PEDESTAL I G.E. QUENCHER +30.7 4 1.76 1.54 1.15 SIMULTANEOUS 4
II G.E. 00ENCHER +30.7 4 2.36 1.98 1,29 SIMULTANEOUS
! III S&L RAMS HEAD +43.2 . 10.0 1.85 1.72 1.05 SIMULTANEOUS IV S&L RAMS HEAD +43.2 4.67 1.33 1.21 g,~1.0 _
SIMULTANEOUS )
V S&L STATIC +43.2 --
3.70 2.11 1.1 VI S&L STATIC +43.2 --
2.52 1.64 1.3
i.
JUNE 26, 1975 .
WN. H. ZIt1MER DESCRIPTI0fl 0F SRV LOADS IflVESTIGATED S0 FAR
^
WITH MODIFIED PEDESTAL TYPE OF ,' PEAK PRESSURES FREQUEflCY g SRV LOAD SOURCE DISCllARGE MAX. MIN. HZ p S o W :2 E D b h (
I G.E OUEflCllER +30,7 - 7.7 4 X X SIMULTAtlE00S -
II G.E. QUEtlCllER +30,7 - 7.7 4 X X SIMULTANE0US III S&L RAMS IIEAD +43.2 -10.8 10.0 X X SIMULTANE0US IV S&L RAMS IlEAD I
- SIMilLTANE0!!S +43.2 -10.8 4.67 X X V S&L STATIC +43.2 -10.8 --
X X VI S&L STATIC +43.2 -10.8 --
X X
~
JUNE 26, 1975 WM. II. ZIMMER
. DESCRIPTION OF LOADS SERVICE LOADS EaCJORED LOADS NORMAL LOADS SEVERE ENVIRONMENTAL LOADS D = DEAD LOADS W = WIND LOADS L = LIVE LOADS Eg = OPERATING BASIS EARTHQUAKE F = PRESTRESSING LOADS 11 = OPERATING FLOOD LOAD T = OPERATING IHERMAL LOADS EXTREME ENVIRONMENTAL LOADS o
Rg = OPERATING PIPE REACTIONS E = SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHOUAKE SS Py = OPERATING PRESSURE LOADS W TORNADO LOADS T
SRV = SRV DISCHARGE LOAD ll' = MAXIMUM Fto0D LOAD l
TEST-LOADS ABNORMAL LOADS P = TEST PRESSURE Pg = ACCIDENT PRESSURE LOAD 7
T = TEST TEMPERATURE P = SMAtt BREAK PRESSURE LOAD 7 S T = ACCIDENT IEMPERATURE LOAD 3
i R = ACCIDENT PIPE REACTIONS 4
Rg = PIPE RUPTURE LOADS 11 = CONTAINMENT FLOODING LOAD 3
t 0
v
JUNE 26, 1975 Wm. H.-ZIMMER
~ ~ ~ "
CONTA!!EiENT LOAD COMBINATIONS AND LOAD FACTORS I FOR SRV LOADS -
~
LOAD CATEGORIES D L F P T T Eg Rg Rg Py SRV S o 3 ,
NORMAL OPERATING + SRV 1 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 SEVERE ENVIRONf1 ENTAL + SRV 2 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.2'5 1.0 1.0 1.25 ABNORNAL + SRV 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.25 1.0
1.0 1.25 ABN/SEY. ENv + SRV li 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR FACTORED LOADS LOAD DESCRIPTION D = DEAD LOADS SRV = SRV DISCHARGE LOAD l =' LIVE LOADS l Eg = OPERATING BASIS EARTHOUAKE -
F = PRESTRESSING LOADS .,P S
= SMALL BREAK PRESSURE LOAD T o= OPERATING LOADS Tg = ACCIDENT TEMPERATURE LOAD <
Rg= OPERATING PIPE REACTIONS R - ACCIDENT PIPE REACT'!ONS
~
3 Py= ,0PERATING PRESSURE LOADS 9
9
- =
JUNE 26, 1975 WM. H. ZimER
. FSAR LOAD C0fiBINATIONS AND LOAD FACTORS ci LOADING
[- D L F P 7 P, T o T, Eg E ss W N T
R o R, Rg Py H, H W CATEG0P,Y $ .
CONSTR. I 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 TEST 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
(
NORML 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 . 1.0 SEV. ENV. 4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 SEV. ENV. 5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 SEV. ENV. 5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ABN. 7 1.0 '1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 AEN. 8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ABN/S.E. 9 1.0 1.0 1.0 .1. 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ABN/S.E. 10 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1,0 '
1.0 -
( ,
AEN. 11 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 EXTR.ENV. .12 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1,0 1.0 EXTR.ENV. 13 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 EXTR.ENV. 14 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ABN/S.E.. 15 1.01.01.0 1.25 1.0 1.25 1.0 1.0
,_ABN/E.E.I'16 1.01.01.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 _
1TFfN NO 1 10 . REDVirr 10AD At i nWAnt t . TTtMe un 11 _.1c . cncTnocn e nnn ni i nunos cc
JuiTE26,1975 WM H. ZIMMER C0!!TAlfMENT LitlER CRITERIA L
PSAR RrouterMrnt LOAD COMBrHArrons TABLE 2 (LOAb FACTOR 1.0)
MAX. STRAIN 0.57, M IONA1. EEnUIREri@NTS l LDAD COMBIMATJ0tlS TABLE 3 (LOAD EACTOR 1.0) '
ASME Sect 10t Illj O!YISION 1, SUBSEcTron NE ,
"Ct. ASS MC COMDONEtiTs' (F.DITI0tl 1975) .
FATIGUE ANALYSIS (8000 engssuRE CYCLES)
L n
l!NER ACCEPTABLE. ,
k h
i 0
s e
I b
e
- - - - = -e = e d = * *= p w . - .. ..===e4..e=*
.-- --- -- ~ - - . - , . . - - - - , -
e
- l. M. .. '.
f iaha a'. i-p..
{ .,. .e *. -?
E' Ep
. w m ir s ._ -~
E /_
~~
wrt&r
,..,..(. . . -,s j ,m:*.--
s.- ~ .e m .mm--~........c n
m.p .~
.. a -
.....e _.
.u.
es
- ',.....i- . i 4 ,
o -
U,* .T G[-?.Sj
^
.........g. 1 tQ .
t* *,. M m m ** . t m.._ g, ,t.u ..
~'
,, 5-un w.
A *
>3j s .%dl 4f.r7 .N REACTOR STABILI2ER f ~
'_ STRUCTURE h,y - l
,, s-r=# -
'. . ..I, g.
W,-Rs cicR
< w .( s - 1 ss' ELD
.
- gu.
s .:
+
N T. .. ;c c, a
w
,* / s i
. .'s . Hu us sl ->14 .
MI@ g. #
i ,
i I
L. *.m 3.
M .S' < 1
- .e.J. I[*s se.s. Y .,,
^
I' ' ' I \
"#fl"r% ;* I f,, REACTOR PEDE ETAL i
- .E s.e---..' s , n* e ..*
- f -
..__.h,, ,3..
Ann -.' ,
Y/e I .33 r>'*t'
- ,w W* I1[ .mm i.;r .4-- N un- g 7
[ l
, --s . . . . .
...- l , .,r..
~ ~ n \. . s,. ,,-
u ,r: - .,s,.c. na -
1 M1
. i k ,_,,h'a~lJf DEnrw ELL i \.4j 6. - * **
- Q g,,. .*; -'
'{ {
Floc 54 !'- j , ,
- a. _ _ _ .. a_ ; i
. ,q , ..a, . . . _ .__
..q .s w 1, , ~
- the 7. m -
- w. .. . .e av
. . 'E..h. ;.; ' ..w. , . ~.. .
i '
- T
.ua
': m ;s .; ,
C'T.'. ,- ! . I 4
s ....
- s ~
- .*L t s) in -
9 .d I_,. L_t ;:*s
.. 6 s 4 ,
r-
- rr1 :;1 . ,
(n p {-+ _ . . . . . , , ,
sM';'....
L't'l ^.9Tti. J.* )O W%
-< %'4iI[i,N'-
5 O*7**
- v-23'J/ h. lHj 'l -
'l. t:' ,ac,
' *.*1;' ( ,,
t A .'j . L.. t I w
au.. _ -
- b 'l a
l
- ~. .. . %.s. i
~
- 7 9, { ! i[.
] i'.
(i l~ '.jjr 4
,w.M:N e&
p ~h =:l ,> >
IuCdt.1rs ~- O s g.g,y r i
u i U ,o ! star ann.
g !
) ' 'f.! ,
j ~~ L T
M.' ,. i L , eqv.vggt ptor,,q
, t 2*. .*. jm "
s - ge, rt/ d '
COLUMN 6
~
- #'2 u.... LI f1 I L i fu d 3 - M g y m .h 4 a E 'a ,_,, 3,
.. l- 3 ,,
, .S'fp';+,* , *, ;.,., -. . . '
- g
. f ;..,, ;.;; .
e
' s ;
A--
. .r .
. p .". LI P. C'.
~1, ., p I
., PEI M ARY CONTN NME.NT
- - -- - r e p .$-
_ ,_ ~ LIMMER. STATtobl (o - 2 G> -15 t
5
(
5 l i 3 1 I '. U __
" h s a ,
e '
N -
i .
3
, in- ' .
, K
__ .l _- ._.
r ., .
u s .
d d b h 3 '
= 1
> _. M w -
d 9 @. r . .
(", b m10 , _.1 m , ' aa .
w I
l l :" ,
y \/\/V\;A!/\/\ /\
V /\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\ :-
, Y d jo S
g .
Y .
\
n ,
i
. d I s .
3 R I t I l
m.
~
FIG. 4 - DY N AY. ' COMP-~2. ' AODEL e
JUNE 26, 1975 .
LA SALLE COUNTY
- DESCRIPTION OF SRV LOADS .
& STRUCTilRAL MARGINS
- MIN. MARGINS TYPE OF- PEAK BASE SOURCE DISCHARGE PRESSURE FREQUENCY SLAB CONTAINMENT PEDESTAL SRV LOAD I G.Et* QUENCHER +30.7 4 1.37 1.18 1.9 SIMULTANEOUS 11 G .E f
- QuENCl!ER +30.7 4 2.7 1.36 2.0 i
SIMULTANEOUS III S&L RAMS HEAD +51.3 3.48 1.33 1.18 1.26 i SIMULTANEOUS
+51.3 7.14 1,58 1.8 1.15 IV S&L RAMS HEAD SIMULTANEOUS V S&L RAMS HEAD +51.3 4.88 0.85 1.0 1.0 -
i SIMULTANEOUS
+36.5 3.9 1.75 1.5 1.6 VI S&L RAMS HEAD ,
SEQUENTIAL VII S&L STATIC +51.3 -
1.07 1.96 2.2
+51.3 1.43 1.96 2.3 VIII S&L STATIC
" MARGIN = STRUCUTRE CAPACITY / MAXIMUM LOAD.
- PRELIMINARY LOADS BASED UPON S&L EXTRAPOLATION OF G.E. REFERENCE PLANT LOADS.
JUNE 26, 1975 LA SALLE COUNTY DESCRIPTION OF SRV LOADS ' '
INVESTIGATED S0 FAR .
r TYPE OF PEAK PRESSURES FREQUENCY sa SRV LOAD , SOURCE DISCHARGE MAX. MIN. HZ [j ,
gj 3g EE E :s t2 M e a M I G.E,** 00ENCHER +30.7 -7.7 4 X X SIMulTAtlEOUS-11 G.E.** ,
QuErCHEa +30.7 -7.7 4 X X SIMULTANEOUS III S&L RAMS HEAD +51.3 -12,8 3,48 X X SIMULTAtlE00S IV S&L RAMSHEAb +51.3 -12,8 7.14 X X SIMULTAtlEOU'S _
V S&L RAMS HEAD +51.3 -12,8 4,88 X X SIMULTANEOUS VI Sal' rat 1S.NEAD +36.5 -7.2 3,9 X X
- SEQUEtlTIAL VII S&L ' STATIC +51.3 -12.8 -
X X-VIII S&L STATIC +51,3 .-12.8 '
X X
- PRELIMINARY LOADS BASED UP0li S&L EXTRAPOLATION OF G.E. REFERBHEE PLANT LOADS. ,
JUNE 26, 1975 LA SALLE COUNTY DESCRIPTION OF LOADS SERVICE LOADS FACTORED LOADS NORMAL LOADS SEVERE ENVIRONMENTAL LOADS D = DEAD LOADS ,- W = WIND LOADS l = l!VE LOADS Eg = OPERATING BASIS EARTHQUAKE F = PRESTRESSING LOADS H = OPERATINn FLOOD LOAD T = OPERATING IHERMAL LOADS EXTREME ENVIRONMENTAL LOADS l .
o Rg = OPERATING PIPE REACTIONS E = SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHOUAKE SS Py = OPERATING PRESSURE LOADS W = TORNADO LOADS T
SRV = SRV DISCHARGE LOAD H' = MAXIMUM FLOOD LOAD TEST LOADS ABNORMAL LOADS P = TEST PRESSURE P = ACCIDENT PRESSURE LOAD 7 3 T = TEST TEMPERATURE P = SMALL 3REAK PRESSURE LOAD 7 S T = ACCIDENT TEMPERATURE LOAD 3
R = ACCIDENT PIPE REACTIONS 3
Rg = PIPE RUPTURE LOADS H = CONTAINMENT FLOODING LOAD 3
. JUNE 26, 1975 ;
LASALLE COUNTY
~ '
1 CONTAINMENT l0AD COMBINATIONS AND LOAD FACTORS FOR SRV LOADS l LOAD CATEGORIES D L F P T T Eg R Rg P SRV S o 3 o y 1 ,
NORMAL OPERATING + SRV 1 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 SEVERE ENVIRONf1 ENTAL + SRV 2 1-0 1.3 1.0
. 1.0 1.2'S 1.0 -1.0 1.25 ABNORNAL + SRV 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.25 1.0 1.0 1.25 ABN/SEv. ENv. + SRV 4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 d
ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR FACTORED LOADS I
LOAD DESCRIPTION D = DEAD LOADS SRV = SRV DISCHARGE LOAD -
L = LIVE LOADS Eg = OPERATING BASIS EARTHOUAke F = PRESTRESSING LOADS ,P
, S SMLL BREAK PRESSURE LOAD j To= OPERATING LOADS T =
ACCIDENT TEMPERATURE LOAD
~
3 ,
Ro= OPERATING PIPE REACTIONS Rg -
ACCIDENT PIPE REACTIONS ,
Py= OPERATING PRESSURE LOADS 9
e
JUNE 26, 1975 LA SALLE COUNTY DESIGN LOAD COMBINATIONS .
AND LOAD FACTORS.'
! LOADING D L F P 7
P.3 T
o T
3 E
g E ss N N T
Rg R 3 R, P y H, CATEGORY j TEST 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 NORMAL 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 .
ABN. 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 -1.0 -
~
SEV. ENV. 11 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7
! EXTR. ENV. 5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 l EXTR ENV. 6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 _
! ABN/SEV. ENV. 7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.25 1.0 1.25 1.0 ABN/SEV. ENV. 8 1.0 1.0 -1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ABN/EXTR.ENV. 9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ITEMSN0.1-2:SERVICELOADALLOWABLIS ; ITEMS N0. 3 - 9 : FACTORED LOAD ALLOWABLE'
1 JUNE 26, 1975
~LA SALLE COUNTY CONTAlflMENT LINER CRITERIA PSAR REQUIREMENT LOAD COMBINATIONS IABLE 2 (LOAD FACTOR 1.0)
MAX. STRAIN 0.5%
A6DITIONALREQUIREMENTS LOAD COMBINATIONS IABLE 3 (LOAD FACTOR 1.0)
ASME SECTION III, DIVISION 1, SUBSECTION NE
" CLASS MC COMPONENTS" (EDITI0tl 1975)
FATIGUE ANALYSIS (8000 PRESSURE CYCLES)
CONCLUSION WALL LINER ACCEPTABLE. ' BASE SLAB LINER MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL ANCHORAGE.
\ -
i l
l l
. ~~_
1
-e - ** I i -g T/ Etocc
,% 9~I I- .
j et.89c.c
' ),
{
- i. . % =
.l CEAMEWP
, < t L L.8 7t h co
. _k
_ _ ' _M -
=
- st E FLEL.1Nde
( Vm 00 t
~ l 6 EL. 6 d, /
. ,.,,,.. ) . ]
lr e .
1 4 '
r
.- $cYhAToCL .~ .
e== *
.-. pu.u.r,,u -
}! , E L. 8 t 8'-Gr 4
i l- j ,
U
?
8
. EL. 60 7-O /> '
'e , e t.gp4'.ej l i . ' .!2001~C ,' [%Qg _
a p.. .
.. ;q i
,t q ;
- - C
- '- , ll
'. "rl l m w w oe; s .
l e
,; j, _i.o'essait; L
- EL. 7 8 G ' 6 _
-1 - - _ _ _
,r , , g
- l - 4. , , -
, I :' LIWfit te,w ag e, .
g y E L . *7 7(e C
, _ ,, 3 R ev mv.2/ :
. /.',.a ,
I v_' -
j L..
U k..t
( MAIN FL O C E'.
' ., a E L
- 7(o l ' O "-
s, me- m e .\,
~
tw *j , ..
, saa,emur \.,l - -
. f
,a
'I \ CHATCH mc... 4 e
i
..itMj. '. E L. */ 4 o'- o'
-N_ 7. . .
3,.
'a ,
m (
g p - . . ,- .. .- i 1 e ,g
, S : i , .. >.',.,,, A., T - sw . ir-p o, I
%. - .u r, j
m 4o o e> p, , - a4-HA$k Ta"{
' ~
~
~
- [h j ~
- i _
l
, - ( -
,y .
QE L 7t o c. '
n'WJ
,. l \ .o .: -. I - ,. J , -
( 5#>c5 f.L.*710' 1
O
- l .-
o i
.. LL ae V
e- .
iun L.
e t c. ,s a.
. e a
, ,i a,.. .. ,
, , . , o. ;.1 .= . * ., ,
-j, TENPON AddGO$ I
~ Tl-
-- TONN5k
" ' *N E '[ j, f.'"S.'
LA SALLE COUNTY STATION N .' PRELIMIN ARY S AFETY AN ALYStS REPORT
.s .
- FIGURE 5.2-1
~
- PRIMARY AND SECONDARY -
CONCRETE CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE
,re diSYM ,
.. g E .
)
o . _
LA SALLE C STADON K
.-- . .~. :. 76
' ? .
- :
- 6 .24 .
- K <> .
~ ..- -
5+R 3 s
y ,
= . .
g e. nr .
. , ~
, y
- .. gg . -
.* . g- , .
.. a .
~ .
- g ,,., ~ . ..
- i. g :.,t a .o .
. .- .~
.s, c se . .- .
. O e -
5 5 ,
S- .
e3 .,
g *e -
. .g o 4 s.n- -
r$
- a. l., )
. .- o .
.. <, - 2 J., .
.* m .
..__ . r * ..
.\
~~
~
l .
c .- ,
w i i ,,,,. , , '
.. , . 1 , .
/\/W\/\vVW\VNvN yN
' . . ' . ' .le '.
5
.s ,.
. /\/\v\lI/ N . _
. .. g -
e ..
.- ~t .
. e. .
... g3
...e . t i
. . t .
. .. g .
.s
~
. ,5 4 .
.. ~ -
j .
- 3 3 ,
s o.
. .g -
r .
rwe.o u>.,<
~w
,,,y,,,,, .
- u. . 4, 3 -
uv. s- - -
. f .Gi. G- DYNAX COMPUTER Mock . -.
1 PFFR OBJECTIVES:
- 1. METHODOLOGY FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN LOADS
- 2. JUSTIFICATION CONSISTENT WITH TEST DATA
- 3. TIMELY RESPONSE TO NRC QUESTIONS
)
- Report Outline I. Introduction and Brief History II. Description of Events A. Safety Relief Valve Discharge B. Loss of Coolant Accident C. Discussion Load Combination Criteria III. Safety Relief Valve Discharge A. Operating Experience and Test Data - Ramshead B. Operating Experience and Test Data - Diffuser C. High-Temperature Steam-Condensation Vibration IV. Loss of Coolant Accident A. Pressure-Temperature Transients B. Chugging Phenomena C. Lateral Loads on Downcomer Vents D. Pool Swell Phenomena E. Summary of Forcing Functions for Design Load Specification V. Discussion of Criteria for Design Load Combinations A. Suppression Chambers Walls, Basemat and Reactor Vessel Pedestal B. Suppression Chamber Lines C. Diaphragm Floor D. Diaphragm Floor Columns E. Downcomers F. Structures and Components Below Suppression Pool Surface G. Structures and Components Above Suppression Pool Surface e
NARK 11 SUPPORTING PROGRAM ACTIVITY TARGET TYPE SCHEDULE MARK 11 PROGRAM ACTIVITY A. LOCA RELATED TEST DEC. 1975
- 1. "4T" POOL SWELL TEST ANALYSIS MAY 1976
- 2. POOL SWELL VELOCITY BREAKTHROUGH MODEL TEST AUG. 1975
- 3. IMPACT TESTS ON P0OL INTERNAL STRUCTURES ANALYSIS DEC. 1975
- 4. QUALIFY IMPACT MODEL B. SAFETY / RELIEF VALVE RELATED ANALYSIS 9 TO 15 MONTHS
- 1. RELIEF VALVE PIPE CLEARING AFTER ACTIVITY MODEL (QUENCHER)
START ANALYSIS & JULY 1975
- 2. ' DOCUMENT RELIEF VALVE PIPE CLEARING MODEL TEST TEST SEPT 1975
- 3. SRL-1 TEST ANALYSIS 9 TO 15 MONTHS
- 4. CONTINGENCY PLAN -
AFTER ACTIVITY ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATE START LOAD MITIGATION DESIGN
e e
g'o- 39 2
- 9,S.7(
(Meeting Summary)
Distribution R. 5. Boyd Docket File U. Garmill NRC PDR V. Benaroya Local PDR R. Vollmer NRR Reading C. Long V. A. !!oore G. Lainas R. C. DeYoung J. Knight D. Skovholt S. Pawlicki D. Muller L. Shao R. Denise T. Ippolito U. Butler R. Ilouston J. Stol: T. Novak R. Clark D. Ross T. Speis EP Project bbnager D. Vassallo Attorney, OELD K. Kniel IE (3)*
K. Coller M.
A. Schwencer R. Fraley (14)
P. Collins 0. Parr R. Purple G. Lear D. Ziemann LVR l-2 File G. Knighton G. Dicker B. Youngblood W. Regan S. Varga R. W. Klecker F. Schroeder
- 11. Denton R. Tedesco R. Maccary V. Stello B. Grimes M. Spangler R. Ballard Jacob Kastner
/
T Y