ML20217D245

Rev 0 to ENG-ME-355, Intake Canal Available Water Volume Comparison Analysis

ML20217D245
Person / Time
Site:	Prairie Island
Issue date:	03/17/1998
From:	Donna Anderson NORTHERN STATES POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20217D196	List: ML20217D190 ML20217D200 ML20217D204 ML20217D245
References
ENG-ME-355, ENG-ME-355-R, ENG-ME-355-R00, NUDOCS 9803270359
Download: ML20217D245 (10)

Text

>

ATTACHMENT 6 SUPPLEMENT 12 to LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST DATED January 29,1997 Amendment of Coolina Water System Emeraency Inta',te Desian Bases NSP Calculation, ENG-ME-355, intake Canal Available Water Volume Comparison Analysis, March 17,1998 l

9803270359 900323 PDR ADOCK 05000282 P

PDR

=

' PINGP 1083, Rcv. 2 Page 1 of 1 (FRONT)

Retention: Life NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT CALCULATION COVER SHEET Calculation Number:

EtJG - MP 35C Calculation Rev. No.:

D Addenda No.:

o Calculation

Title:

Ifa/* Coaa / A W4//c 64b l/o/w -<-

Ca paas,n /4,/s/s t Safety Related7:

/cr

/

Calculation Verification Method (Check One):

Design Review 0 Alternate Calculation O

Qualification Testing Scope of Revision:

L&.1Jei e c.

Documentation of Reviews and Approvals:

Originated By:

Dos duoEboa Date: J/f/97 f

Checked By:

/e; /((k Nuec Date: 3-/O-f/

v~t r

Printed Verified By:

/26<,

Name: f7t%< Gw Date:.7/)2 3X>

Approved By:

A8[

Date: 3 -/7-PP 1

l

' J.\\TEMPLATEu 083 DOT

---.-..-.2

4 PINGP 1083A, R:v. 2 Page 1 of 2 (FRONT)

Retention: Life CALCULATION VERIFICATION CHECKLIST Calculation No.:

EN G -M C-JST Revision No.:

o Use of Computer for Calculation jr Manual Calculation (no computer results)

Computer Verified Program (Reference Provides Verification)

Unverified Program (Verification of Results Required)

Verification item * (Refer to Site Engineering Manual, Administrative initials /Date Standard 1.2.3) 1.0 Purpose Clear objective and problem statement.

/

3 h identification of affected structure, system, and/or component.

e Identification of the intended use of the calculation results, e

Identification of summary results.

e 2.0 Methodology N

Discussion of the method / approach and major steps.

/

Definition of anylimitations of methodology.

3.0 Acceptance Criteria (c / Md9e Clear definition of the acceptance criteria.

Exceptions clearly defined.

e 4.0 Assumptions Sufficient rationale to permit verification of assumption.

/

Unverified assumptions identified as such.

References provided for assumptions.

5.0 Design inputs All applicable design inputs identified.

/

e

- CODES, (ASME, CFR, STATE, etc.)

- STANDARDS (IEEE, ANSI, ANS, ASTM, etc.)

- USAR

- Design Criteria

- Input Data

- Regulatory Guides / Requirements (NRC, EPA, STATE, etc.)

- Design Bases Documents Appropriate verification of walkdown information.

e JATEMPLATE\\1083A. DOT 4

'PINGP 1075, R:;v. 5 (Front)

R;t:ntion: 2 years Document Type: 3.960 PRAIRIE ISLAND ANALYSIS INDEX DATA INPUT FORM (Filmed Under Document Type 3.032) 1.

Sequence Number: U 2.

Analysis Revision Date:

/

/

3.

Document Media Type: l _]

4.

Document Location:

N 'l i I l l I i

~

0 5.

NSP Analysis Number: 1 I

I 6.

(A)ctive, (O)ne-Time, (S)uperseded: LO_]

7.

Analysis

Title:

1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

ITIElf-l IVid i LlulNE I -l(llo IN1/ (A VL I / I Lj 01M I/}lMA I 8.

Revision #: I Of I I I I I 9.

Addendum #: 101 l l

1. 10. Addendum Date:

/

/

1. 11. Vendor Anal. #:l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i l i l l I I I I I i

1. 12. Analysis Vendor Source Code: 1 I I l l 0 13. Analysis Vendor Name:I lbl i I I l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l b

1. 14. Document Preparer: I I I I I l l I I I I I I I I I I I i l l l l l

1. 15. Reference Modification / Project #(s): I I I I I l I I I l_1.__l l 1 I I I I I 3 Yl71 I l l l l l l l 1 1 6

Ik i' bl6 'l

1. 16. Reference / Superseded Analysis: 1 1

1 1

I I l 1 l I I I I I i l I I I I I I I I l

.l.j.]Ob.ldb O

1. 17. Analysis Type:

l l

_l Applicable Systems: hIk i l iI I Il l !I I II I I

1. 18.

1. 19. Applicable Structures: I I II I II I II I-1 I I II I l b fl II I I II I I II I I I

1. 20. Applicable Elevations: l I

1. 21. Equip./ Component ID's:

b d0 N N IlT N FlNl% lTlllflf;[]0l7lfifl

1. 22. Comment Field: 1 I i i I 1 I I I I I l

1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l l l l l l

23. Data Input Form Prepared By: k/bHC5

~lO Date:

24. Auditof Data:

& - CHAMPS Record Field '

1. - CHAMPS Information Code Field

ENG-ME-355 Page 1 of 6 1.0 PURPOSE and

SUMMARY

RESULTS in a letter from NSP to the NRC, dated February 18,1998, three analyses were identified as new commitments for resolution of the intake Canal evaluation. The three analyses were developed to evaluate the Intake Canal structure when subjected to a design basis earthquake (DBE). These three separate analyses are listed below:

1. Minimum volume of water needed in the intake Canal to provide adequate time for operator action to manage cooling water system loads following a DBE. This is documented in PINGP calculation ENG-ME-347.

l

2. Design basis evaluation of the intake Canal when subjected to a design basis l

seismic event. This is documented in the Intake Canal Liquefaction Analysis, I

dated 3/13/98.

l

3. Bounding Analysis of the intake Canal Liquefaction Analysis (using the 16th percentile value of the SPT Corrected Blow Count soil data), dated 2/20/98.

This calculation compares the minimum water volume required for operator action to the remaining volume of water that would be available to the safeguards cooling water pumps following a design basis earthquake.

Comparison #1 compares the min' mum water volume required for operator action (Item

1) to the final water volume following slope displacement calculated in the Liquefaction Analysis (Item 2). This demonstrates the margin between the calculated remaining water volume in the intake Canal and the limiting value needed to support operator action. This is the Prairie Island design basis, and is used to support the Design Class 1* classification of the Intake Canal structure.

l' Comparison #2 compares the minimum water volume required for operator action (Item

1) to the remaining water volume based upon the bounding analysis (Item 3). This demonstrates the margin between what a worst case scenario could be and the limiting value to support operator action.

The table below summarizes the conclusions of each comparison.

Minimum Water Volume Minimum Water Volume of !ntake Canal (%)

of Intake Canal (%)

Available Margin required for operator available post-DBE action Comparison #1 26.9 %

99.5 %

72.6 %

Design Basis l

Companson #2 26.9 %

94.1 %

67.2 %

Bounding Analysis

ENG-ME-355 Page 2 of 6 2.0 METHODOLOGY The methodology used in the liquefaction analysis is a two dimensional finite element analysis. The specifics of this analysis is presented in the intake Canal Liquefaction Analysis. The only other methodology in this calculation is simple volume computations.

3.0 ASSUMPTIONS NOTE: Several documents have been used in this comparison. Some terms that are used are synonymous. Intake Canaland Intake Bay both mean the body of water between the intake Screenhouse (adjacent the river) and the Plant Screenhouse (location of the cooling water pumps). Intake Canal Liquefaction Analysis and slope stability analysis are different descriptions of the same report.

Design Basis Seismic Event Assumotions The following assumptions have been used throughout the evaluation of the intake canal. These are summarized as follows:

1. The design basis earthquake has occurred. The design basis earthquake, as described in the Prairie Island USAR,is defined as having a horizontal ground acceleration of 0.12g. This is multiplied by 2/3 to obtain a vertical acceleration of 0.08g.

2. Lock and Dam #3 downstream of the plant is destroyed, per the Prairie Island USAR.

3. The river level ultimately decreases to a minimum level of 666.5' elevation, per the Prairie Island USAR. Per the Army Corps of Engineers, Pool #2 (upstream of Lock &

Dam #3) and Pool #3 (downstream) would take approximately 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> to equalize level at approximately elevation 669'. Level would decrease over the next 50 hours5.787037e-4 days <br />0.0139 hours <br />8.267196e-5 weeks <br />1.9025e-5 months <br /> to the minimum level of 666.5'.

4. Equipment that is not qualified to seismic criteria is assumed not to function after the event. Specific examples are;

a. Off site power is lost (LOOP)

b. Instrument air system is not available (air operated valves go to the fail position)

5. River level is at normal elevation,674.5'. This is consistent with Reg Guide 1.135, Section B.

6. There is no make up from river through Intake Screenhouse or from the Recycle l

Canal after the event.

7. Flow demand on the intake Canalis 31750 gpm. The cooling water system flow demand is 29750 gpm (ENG-ME-302). The diesel driven fire pump is assumed to operate at its design point of 2000 gpm.

l

ENG-ME-355 Page 3 of 6

8. The total volume of the intake Canal and the minimum required volume is per ENG-ME-347. The total Intake Canal volume is 9,218,071 gallons. The minimum required volume is 26.9% of the total available volume of the intake canal.

9. The time for operator action to manage cooling water system loads per procedure AB-3, EARTHQUAKES, is per the validation tests (as reported in Supplement 5, dated 3/11/97).

4.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The minimum Intake Canal water volume available post-DBE muilbe greater than the minimum Intake Canal water volume required for operator action.

5.0 DESIGN INPUTS and REFERENCES Specific design inputs are stated in:

ENG-ME-247, rev 0; Minimum Required intake Bay Volume intake Canal Liquefaction Analysis Report, rev 1; dated 3/13/98 Bounding Analysis of the intake Canal Liquefaction Analysis, dated 2/20/98 49

ENG.ME-355 Page 4 of 6 6.0 CALCULATIONS and RESULTS Comoarison #1 As documented in calculation ENG-ME-347, by percentage, the minimum required water volume in the intake Canal is 26.9% of the total volume. This water volume ensures a conservative time frame for accomplishing the required operator actions. The intake Canal Liquefaction Analysis concludes that there will be approximately two inches of permanent deformation of the Intake Canal banks. This deformation is assumed to occur around the entire perimeter of the intake Canal. The analysis is a state-of -the -art finite element analysis. The soil boring data used in the analysis is consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.132. The laboratory testing followed ASTM standards. Horizontal and vertical accelerations were applied simultaneously. In determining the potential for triggering liquefaction, a factor of safety of 1.1 was used.

If it is conservatively assumed that the 2" displacement completely replaces the water for the entire submerged length of the slope, then the volume of water available is 99.5% of the total volume of the intake Canal.

-Assuming a 3:1 slope, the submerged face of slope is 31.6 ft

-From calculation ENG-ME-347, the linear feet of slope canal bank is 989.5 ft.

-There is a portion of the intake Canal perimeter that was not credited in the calculation of water volume. However, this section is a sloped soil bank. It is therefore added to the perimeter used in the water volume calculation. An additional 105 ft of sloped canal bank is added.

-The Intake Screenhouse, Plant Screenhouse, and sheet piling retaining walls cannot introduce soil into the canal, and are not included in the perimeter number.

-The total perimeter linear feet is 1094.5 ft.

2

-The area of submerged slope is then 31.6 ft x 1094.5 ft = 34586.2 ft

-Using two inches of displaced material, the volume is 2

3 34586.3 ft x.167 ft = 5776 ft

-Convertirig to gallons,5776 ft x 7.48 = 43204 gal

-Percentage of canal volume replaced is 43204 gal

= 0.0047 --> 0.47%

9218071 gal Conclusion j

This is a negligible effect on the available Intake Canal water volume.

i ENG-ME-355 Pige 5 of 6 l

Comoarison #2 l

The calculation for minimum required water volume in the intake Canal is the same as

'i Comparison #1. That is 26.9% of the total intake Canal water volume is required. The bounding analysis of the intake Canal slope stability is used to predict slope deformation. The bounding analysis uses all of the same conservative assumptions as the Liquefaction Analysis for performing the analysis. In addition, several more consertive assumptions were made. Of particular note are the assumptions:

The 16* percentile values of soil data were used as if these values were median values.

I Although the slope was evaluated and determined not to fail in a flow slide manner, e

the lowest factor of safety critical wedge was evaluated as if it failed.

The above evaluation used a very conservative value of 50% of the critical wedge volume transported into the intake canal. Case histories indicate 35% wou'd be conservative estimates of soil volume movement.

All of the soil is assumed to replace an equal water volume. In fact, the water would j

be displaced by the soil, not replaced.

The results of the bounding analysis determine that the volume of the critical wedge is

' 33.1 ft per linear foot of canal bank. Although slope failure is not calculated to occur, it is consentatively assumed that 50% of the critical wedge volume is transported into 3

the canal. This is a volume of 66.55 ft.

The linear feet of canal slope that is comprised of natural material is calculated as follows:

-From calculation ENG-ME-347, the linear feet of slope canal bank is 989.5 ft.

-An additional 105 ft of sloped canal bank that could si;de into the canal, but was not credited in the usable volume calculation is added, j

1

-The intake Screenhouse, Plant Screenhouse, and sheet piling retaining walls cannot introduce soil into the canal, and are not inclJded in the perimeter number.

-The total perimeter linear feet is 1094.5 ft.

The usable volume of water remaining in the canalis:

-The total volume of material assumed to be transported into the canal is 3

66.55 ft /ft x 1094.5 ft = 72839 ft

-From calculation ENG-ME-347, the total usable water volume in the intake 3

Canal is 9,218,071 gallons, which is equivalent to 1,232,362 ft.

-Tha volume of water replaced by soil is 3

3 72839 ft /1232362ft =.059 ---> 5.9%

Conclusion Using the 16th percentile bounding analysis, it is postulated that up to 5.9% of the J

Intake Canal water volume is replaced by soil transported into the intake Cansl.

l Therefore,94.1% of the water volume in the Intake Canal remains available. Comparing

- I this to the minimum required volume of 26.9% demonstrates significant margin.

]

0 ENG-ME 355 Page 6 of 6

7.0 CONCLUSION

S Conclusions have been presented following each comparison.

}

l e e

t

.__