ML20235B217
| ML20235B217 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 12/24/1975 |
| From: | Lear G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Finfrock I JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20234C970 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-40 NUDOCS 8707080681 | |
| Download: ML20235B217 (28) | |
Text
g]%' &lQ&:l%gw?F:' ~
c~;Z:p:'.v"gw;gp.gaf _.vq$syjy,3:.y397<g3.g.;3gg,yg,z;,ge, 3:;3;;:
W 7 '
f' '
4, UNITED STATE 3 a 1.id ri 6,fi ti t
f4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY CGMMISSIO:J -
/
E Wt SHINCToN. D. C. 20055
"~
.,j.
%.W.m-Y } E a.,.tgag/ 4 g es / 4 December 24, 1975 g, * *%
d Q.
.? :-
gi
+l f
Docket No. 50-219 yy W
4 3%
Jersey Central Power.anp Light Company R-ATTN:
Mr. I. R. Finfrock, Jr.
0 Vice President - Generation
~ ~4 Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Road
.,q,
4 Morristown, New Jersey 07960 6
Gentlemen:
h As the result of our review of the final report on the Mark I Containment y.
Evaluation Short Term Progrcm and the Proposed Lor.g Term Program, we d
find that we need additional information to conplete our evaluation.
The
-1 information needed is shown in enclosures 1, 2, and 3..Most of thesse itens j
listed in the enclosures were discussed with the General E1cetric Co:.1pany, 3'-
Bechtel Corporation, and the Mark I owners Group during our meetings oh j
December 3 and 4, 1975.
1y In order to complete our review in a timely canner, we will need a
- )
completely adequate response by January 20, 1976.
n Please contact us if you need clarification of our request.
b S'
- crcly, E
)
- 1 ~
J j
w.3,#a rf A, 64 E'k George Lear, Chief j
Operating Reactors Dr:nch #3 W
Division of Reactor Licensing a
- a
?j -
cc:
- 3 See next page t.
3
't 4
i i
21
~
4s s
elue J
q 4
s t
i 3
'd 870kTOSO681070527
' ~' ~ ~
~~~~~
' ' ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ^
~'- ~~
' ' " - ~ ~ ~~-
]
THOMAS 87-40 PDR n.,
w
- L.L.G r.J 3.;,6.L",; L,s,m l<gg; k,' L ;,;.Q.
,,.7-.
- y j"f} ;g jjf jg;g. - [Qg., -
3,3
, a.,
' l.j,.L L ;:L.
hj
,1
/
1
)r MN
. Jersey Central Power G Light Co. -
i1
[.]
w ec:
The Honorable W. M. Mason G. F. Trowbridge, Esquire a
,',j Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge Mayor, Lacey Township P. O. Box 475 gj Barr Building J.j 910 17th Street, N..W.
Forked River, New Jersey 08731 s.j Washington, D. C.
20006 he:
Honorabic Nm. F. Hyland Jersey Central Power 6 Light Company Attorney General Id ATTN:
Mr. Thomas M. Crimmins, Jr.
State of New Jersey State flouse Annex
((i Safety and Licensing Manager Q
GPU Service Corporation Trenton, New Jersey 08601 3
260 Cherry Hill Road 6
Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 ti.
94l;j Anthony Z. Roisman, Esquire
-s Roisman, Kessler and Cashdan 1712 N Street, N. W.
]
Washington, D. C.
20036 c!;
(.;{
Paul Rosenberg, Esquiro Daniel Rappoport, Esquire
,j,,
2323 S. liroad Strect-d Trenton, New Jersey 08610 r)
Honorable Joseph W. Ferraro, Jr.
cs 9
Deputy Attorney General lj State of New Jersey Ni 101 Cox.orco Street - Room 208 fj Newark, New Jersey 07102 4
George F. Kugler, Jr.
'l Attorney General
[j State of New Jersey
'j State House Annex Trenton, New Jersey 08625
.')q
?j Ocean County Library' 15 Hooper Avenue d
' i.
Toms River, New Jersey 08753 t],
j
'g n
i p
y
,.s yi s
g; si Es
- x___
---_a m
..-=.m
...m y.y..,. x..y
@ M F ME, G Wif32GGdM %fW& W Q Gj+;F M NdfsEdM H Eg31/Qflh
.f" E
. ii.NCl.05UTE 1
~
p 1%!!K I C0::TAlf :E::T EYlLUATIO:t SliORT TERM PR';3R/fi - FII:AL REPG.T l-LO;;G TER:4 PR05'./y.-ACTI'!ITY SCliEDULE
~
i STRUCTUP1,1. E:!31::EER1i:G BP.A!IH i-REQUEST F07. Ii;FOPJ%TIO:t
~ ', '
A.
GEi!ERAL CC:0 El!TS l
1.
Several generic structurcl engir.cering questions which were asked previously regarding the "lierk I Contain:nent Status Report" i
i dated July 31,'19/5 remain unanswered in this short term final evaluation report.
Possibly, some of these concerns could be addressed in the long term progren.
If so, justification should be provided which would r.upport the conclusion that the l' ark j
l I safety nargins would not be significantly reduced by deleying s
consideration of such items.
These unanswered questions are de.
l~
tailed in the f ollowing paragraphs of the above referenced struc-tural evaluation:
item 7., torus suppcrts; item C., ccceptabic strain limits; i
item 10., the ef fect upon structures when cc:stining "inr,ignificant" loads with significant loads; iten 11., the capchility of vent heeders to resist fallback loads; and, item 15., vent pipe bcilows esse;61y.
2.
Throughout this report the yield strength of various ir.c;::bers has been exceeded.
Yet, no justification for such exceedance has been provided.
Provide the bases for concluding that excceding I
I yield strength is acceptable.
Discuss "acceptchie strain limits",
l l
and provide expectdd strains and resulting deformations for all members that are expected to yield.
Discuss the potential for loss of function and/or leakage in light of possibic stress l
reversals, cracking and/or buckling and the margin of safety i
against loss of function.
i 4
In several instances, laboratory tests of critical cicments have 1
3.
L
)'
l been conducted.
These tests were performcd in controib:d condi-l f
tions uith loading rates ahd loading cycles not necessarily representative of potential loadings, on a specimen which was I
i l.
i
.m my
- - * * * = = -
l
m au xi.iz.55 2 x.mr.;L wAia ; M - &2M W dBdt.Lh a-m a % & q am:Ku M :355m m x s Yd
'S y
fabricated wi r.ew ma crials cnd under cont led conditions.
k.
Provide the bases for determining the applicability of such h
'tosts and the' degree of confidence in predicting the performance Q.
of field constructed mcabers.
- 4. - According to this report, several coir.ponents, structural elem2nts ay or connectior.s would fail if subjected to the "most probable"
.LOCA induced' pool sucil -loads.
ito short term repairs have been m
M proposed to prevent or mitigate sucli failures.
Describe your r
N conceptual plans for short tena repairs, if it is detcrnined a
M.
that such rer,cirs'are necessary.
m 7:;A d.o
- 5.. Describe your plan, if any, for in-service surveillance prior d
to long term repairs of critical structural cler..ents determined kf to be near yield due to pool swell loads, hd 11.
00:C'I!!TS C:: YOLU:'I I d
%a 6.
Since the S/R valve dischar[:e lot.ds, alone and in conjunction with p,j the LOCA or less severc eccidente, vill be addressed in the long N
y.;
tem program, provide t!:0 structural b. sis fcr the conclusion a,@
arrived at in itea (f) of ;; age 1-3 of Volu.::e 1 of 'the report, yb inspite of the statenent in the last paragr0ph of page 3-1 that An[
such loads have substantial effects.
W
~
7.
The Addendum which should cddress the torus and its supports (see footnote on page 1-2 of Volume 1) has not been received.
x)
Indicate the. expected dates tihen the I:ilC staff could be briefed g
- )e on this topic and when I.ddendua 2 would be sulmitted for f
- RC b.
staff review.
provide information on the adequacy of the torus u
3 and its supports in as much detail as that provided for other h
. structures, with particular attention to the combined effects of LOCA-induced loads and seismic loads, and the effectiveness R.)
t N
of current or proposed tio down assemblies.
k F?$
8.
In item (h) of page 1-3 of Volu:ce I and in Section 6.1.3 of ny-Volume IV, it is indicated that catwalks and platforms with solid h
floor decking "may potentially fail" due to bulk pool swell loads M
m I
g.
7 ib ^
y,j
_, ~..i a---
=-
=-
(':. c g-mprgy.nr ;-
.-i.m ;.e..
y y y.,
,27,
,,--(
- 7.,3.
p.
liEE M3E m a rHEEEEzf/Ea w.htila%22.1.is w occar.s,wsa;a m.zr.u me:aw a ns l-
-3e
~
r
.and may. subseq'uently generate missiles. Provide the basis for l
concluding that such missiles will not hinder the function
[
of any ' safety related equipment, electrical lines, instrument L
lines, piping or structures located above the cetwalk or else-
)
[
where sithin the torus.
Describe the missile. impact analysis l
[
end provide a summary of.the results for the' plate impacting'on '
j h
the: torus or a ven,t pipe.. In view of this potential: hazard b
. provide justification why the solid checkered plate platforms
[
should not be replaced with grating, where appropriate, as a p
short term safety measure.
Furthermore, it is also indicated that local yielding will occur at the torus / beam connections.
l 1
Indicate if this yielding will occur in the torus shell itself I
and, if. so, provide the. expected strain,'and deformation and p
l discuss the potential effect on leaktight integrity. Also, j
discuss the possibility o'f torus compressive loads causing.
l j
buckling at these locations, especially when subjected to seismic l
loads..
/
Ir. item (i) of page 1-3 of Volume I and in Section 5.5.3.2 of 9.
l
~
!'olume IV; it is indicated that local yielding of the liner plate (in the concrete suppression chamber) will occur. Provide the basis for your conclusion that the liner will, nevertheless, re-q tain its leaktight integrity.
Provide a description of the extent L
of yielding, i.e., the expected strain, the region of yielding, f.
~ the effect of attachments, etc.
l C.
COMMENTS ON VOLUME III l
i 10.
In Section 2.2 of Volume III, the suppression chamber shell wall j
has been listed as a non-critical structure. Section 4.3.10 of n
I the same volume briefly described the analysis performed to arrive l
at this conclusion.
Provide a summary of the resulting stresses j
l or strains due to combined seismic and pool swell loads in criti-l cal areas.
If str;sses are above yield, then provide a justi-fication thereof with particular attention to buckling and leakage l
L l
l 1
l t -
i N*y?TT
{,7?,~*g-r
-t 7
252.Li%?SMrDmzmALKum?sMsi: %MALmmiJihm.XM..':RML25s=a5MW,i j.
~
' potential. at the beam / torus connections that were indicate'd to i'
I be critical.
In~ particular for the Brunswick torus liner, ' des.-
[
cribe the yielded region,. the spalling and expecteA damage of concrete ' anchors for 'the-liner, and the negative pressure' resisting capability and post-b0ckling behavior.of the liner!when subjected.
I to safety / relief valve discharge loads that may occur ir conjun-
[m i.
6 ction with the LOCA
,1 3
M L
j.
D.
C0lHENTS ON VOLUME'IV y
f 11.. Page 3-9.. Indicate the basis for determination of comparative..
[
. vent moments, i.e., the loading condition, moment location,
%m :
,~
l calculation techniques, etc.
l 12.
In Section 4.7, static load combinations S1, S2 and S3 are-speci-
)
fied.
In Section 5.4 it is stated that only S1 issignificant.
I Provide a summary of the results of an analysis indicating the
[
most severe combination of HR, HT and HV acting c' concurrently on l
each leg of a pair of downcomers along with other loads.
l 13-In Section 4.7, provide the bases for only ccmbining the horizontal
?
load of every fifth downcomer in static load combinations.S2 and S3.
l 14.
In Section 4, indicate if asymmetric vent clearing and pool swell L
loads were considered in the analysis and, if so, provide the I
results of'a-bending analysis of the vent header and of a torsional analysis of the vent pipe for such loads.
l In Section 5.5.3, on Page 5-11 you indicated that the yield
)
15.
.i f
stress, and the minimum specified strain are exceeded and that the anchor would fail.
On Page 5-14 you stated that the vents are
]
' expected to buckle.
However, on Page 5-11 you conclude that the l
system will return to the original position by gravity action L
p after the passage of the dynamic load.
Provide the basis for such i
[
a conclusion, specifying the capability of the yielded system to resist fallback and other LOCA, seismic and safety / relief
]
valve discharge loads.
j
[
l L
I l
i
- gw. y.. om. m
,..w,
,. m., mmm..,.,...,
.y7 Ls,vg.pgm;mycy es
. qm..
c
KGMKM2:52&23;14:lin.?.b.1fMM:iD* n.ituaML:2%MPN.Midh. a-xa:52:..h W
. [.
)
p 16; Page 5-14. 'Due to the failure of the Brunswick header column G
anchorages, the high stresses in the vents at the drywell may x.
l5 cause localized dishing of the vent shell'~~ You 'have also stated ~ ~ ~
n M
that the safety function of the assembly will not be impaired.
U In support of the hbove statements provide the following infor-mation:
9 (a) The' maximum stress at the intersection of the vent and the 9a drywell, the. tress distribution at this location, and a s
S ify comparison with yield stresses, a
6 (b) The maximum strain and strain distribution in this region, N
((
(c) A discussion of the possibility of compressive buckling in g
the vent pipe due to seismic loads and the bases for your f
conclusion that the leaktight integrity of the vent pipe is J
d maintained for the remainder of the LOCA event.
- b Q
17 Section 5.8.
A finite element analysis was performed to determine g
4 the dynamic behavior of a sector of the vent header assembly d
when subjected to pool swell impact loads. Tne results of this N
N analysis indicate tensile and compressive strains in excess of M
ten times the yield strain of the material. Subsequently, this y
assembly would be called on to resist fallback loads, horizontal 3
a d
vent clearing loads, etc. Describe your method of analyses h
which consider the post-buckling behavior of compressive elements.
h Indicate which elements in Figure 5.8-1 are expected tc yield N
due to pool swell impact and their corresponding percent strain.
n Compare these results with the yielded region identified in the experimental lateral load tests.
Confirm that the leek 2
tight integrity of the vent header assembly will be maintained when the post-buckling or post-yield behavior is considered.
- q m
18 Section 6.2.2.3.
It is indicated that the downcomer/ vent-y h
header assembly could be subjected to 250 cycles of lateral loads which are random in magnitude and direction. Utilizing Figure 1 of Volume II compare the fatigue consequences of fewer cycles
(
m k
h y
n!
^
N 1
j
...y....
O yt.gpwrg rww c~
- a. r --~ <
g-
- --t m.
7 ;i.
g, - __ _
f(f'{l W S M d. : R 1.h AM. U :dk%R ur:.&
.i:.Lu:q:q.e1-:.ptp..xmi.. a; x
" 6-
)'
1 I
9 l
1
\\
.of a higher magnitude load versus more cycles 'uf E lower magni-1 a
o
- tude load. Utilizing these resu?ts,' demonstrate that a 15 cycle j
test cNhigh magnitude reversed loading is sufficient to verify j
5 the fa tigde capability of the assembly.
19.
Appendix'E, figure B-11.
The lower portionof the-Extensometers i
j is located in a region of considerable yielding.
Indicate l
possible errors in, the strains reported from cier.surements with 4
L t.hese dial indicators, and the impact, if any, upon the results l
and conclusions of this test.
a l
E.
COMMENTS OU ADDENDUM 1 TO VOLUME IV 1
i iU
[
20.
Upon failure of the Brunswick anchor bar, the vent pipe header k.
assembly is expeci.ed to yield and the torus liner is ' expected
,o
.,u
, G l 1' to rise 1.73 ine'hes. The bellows assembly must be capable of
-
- U
}
l withstanding the vent pipe deformations caused by the anchor bar Ufa-[1ure in conjunction with other loads and still maintain its
~
1 I
r j
leak tight integrity.
Indicate if this deformation is combined with j
the pool swell impact load and wetwell compression.. Describe i
the time history of these two loads on the bellows assembly.
4 If superposiMOn;of these loads is possible then describe the method of analysis for these' combined loads, and the long term m'
program, if any, for bypirimental verification that the leak i
)
tight integrity of the bellows assembly is maintati.ed when sub-i jected to thesrt combined loads.
- 21. Section 3.1.
The reduced scale test wN pet.-formed on a 36" diameter bengws. A buckling analysis of this-assembly has not
,.- ?
7 been discussed. tDiscuss the applicability of the reduced scale l
- 4
. belloia water impact tests to predict the hydrodymicL response of the actual full size assemblies in the local and overall buckling modes.
- 22. Figure 3.1-1.
In order to physically test a partial assembly, 33 n,
s thet oundary conditions of that partial assembly should approxi-b rate the shears, moments, deflections and rotations at the corres-t.
i e '
I '
g
~"'C' T*
[7 I C ' (.?, *
i
.d g
4
1;pstJEmpm, AKgEzagm.ggi,,, wy1 ggigwEg.,,.,
.?
a p!
}
ponding section in the actual structure.
Provide a comparison j
of the actual anticipated. and experimental boundary conditions and d
discuss their effects oa the results and conclusions giving ~ ~ ~
^
particular attention to the ovaling mode of the vent pipe at these sections and deformations in the torus during pool swell impact.
M l
e F.
C0!+1ENTS ON VOLUME V 1
'c
)
23.
On Page 13 ::t is s,tated that consideration of various effects I
i 3-such as assembly tolerances, distortions of the structures, etc.
I could reduce the maximum pressure in the actual structure to h
4; close to 50% of that being used in the analysis.
Provide a j
description of the computations and a sumary of the results i
j which lead to such a conclusion.
24.
On Page 17, it is stated that the conservatism in load defin-ition and in analytical modeling are such tht no yielding will
.u
- q occur in the Browns Ferry support columns, and that failure of jf the column anchorage in the Brunswick plant will be eliminated.
if; Identify and justify the areas of conservatism in the analytical 1
models and provide a description of the analyses and a sumary 4j of the results which support these conclusions.
9 C
G.
00!GiENTS ON THE LONG TERM PROGRAM ACTIVITY SCHEDULE h
J.l
- 25. Witn regarsi to the in-plant tests for S/R valve discharges, dis-
]
cussed in items (1), (2) and (3) of the long-term program,
'!j indicate if such thsts are planned for concrete suppression chambers.
I pi If not, provide justification to show that tests conducted on 3
steel suppression chambers are representative and results
)
mJ therefore are applicable to concrete chambers, particularly
./
since the response of a liner plate is expected to be quite different from that of a steel torus.
E
- 26. In item (3) of the program, your objective is to obtain torus Dg shell strain measurements to demonstrate structural adequacy.
9 This is acceptable for ascertaining structural adequacy for the
$m d,
.3 f,I
- j
.-..,._.__.7._..._....
~,,
q;m
- (f,mr,-,yy m_ 73_
3,
_7_
@DTEDELMEN1EGdRMScrilamidsimsSEzene.2m..ngauxemen:s e
% )3 n n.
y g
,g..
mp, s.-
. a. :
')
4Y
', direct land.impediate effects of the R/V. discharge loads but not k'
forl potential fatigue failure._ Describe the tests and/or analysis,,
h,-
proposed to ascertain the fatigue life adequacy for the torus 3.p and for~ any other structural member.that may be so affected.
p 27.,,The. schedule' proposed for. establishing the acceptance criteria
[g.
for ascertaining structural adequacy is not acceptable. to the NRC.
I 7.
staff.. It. is felt that activities for this. objective should.
4 begin.as'soon as p'ossible.
q Provi.e your' plans for ASME-Code.
d 1
committee involvement.for.this purpose. Describe specifically'
{
Lthose-items that.this committee would be requested to study, 1
'i.e.. load combinations, allowable stresses, variances; from:
[
' existing' codes, strain limits, etc.
Pg
- 28. :It appears as though the long-tem program was developed prior to completion of the snort tenn program.
Critical structures-(
or' elements sited in the short term program' are not the subject-q
'of further long-term testing.
Provide a description of your.
g-
$j '
- specific long-tenn plans to test critical structural. elements e-g sited in the Short Term Program final report.
h 29.'
Generic analysis of groups.of similar plants may be used to-Ol' predict.their overall structural response. However, the struc-s
{
Ltural response, particularly the local response, is' affected: by
$.?
, plant-unique features and construction or field modifications.
g p-Describe the long term plan to account for such plant-unique 4yj
' items, 9
(
30.
Describe your plans for increased in-service surveillance during C
the long term program for structural elements found to be critical t
u A
during the short term program.
.c 31.
The hardware tests for poter.tial structural fixes are scheduled 4g to start in the 4th quarter of 1975, prior to establishment of structural acceptance criteria in the 2nd quarter of 1976. This 4
P i
, is unacceptable to the NRC staff.
Structural acceptance cri-t.
g, teria must be established prior to desi9ning and testing struc-f tural fixes i'ntended to satisfy these criteria.
W l
Q M'
..;2.
..m.,
,. ~...,
,,m..
tv ?
W.t LW!WW(MTf_*V"*WTTfiU* ~ j g:,.RW y.,
> T; -
3,m
_ - 7y; ~ r _
y
4jh7MmhL.2EBtDLi&KWED%sElMMatt.Xia:.a mi.n..Gid.@w.26%&..x.%. a K. sMC?'.
lj.;
ll.F
[,[i ENCLOSURE 2 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL Ilh OP.'iATIOll_
y)i 7;
MARK 1 CO.'lTAlilMEitT EVALUATI0li SHORT TERM PROGRAM - FINAL REPORT c%
5[3 NEDC-20939 V03 'NES I THROUGH V AllD ADDE!iDUM l
M.y CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS BRANCH i
9.A I.
Short Term Program Documentation Jk 1.
Volume II of the Short Term Program reports describes the LOCA f
related hydrodynamic loads. The bases for many of the loads have not been provided.
Provide a table which specifies
- %N the primary and secondary loads. considered for the STP.
For 4.(
w each load, specify the experimental data and/or analyses which w
i.y form the basis for the load. References to test data should
.ia fd indicate the specific test runs.
In addition, the experi-N k,)
mental data and/or analyses which will form the load bases gj y4 in the Long Term Program for each primary and secondary load
- o yd should be referenced.
M 2.
For the loads considered in tne Short Tenn Program, provide uy a graphical chronology of these loads.
Identify the source v
- )p of the load (e.g., pool swell or froth impingement), the 6.d time interval over which the load is active, and the structures
.t }
a which are affected.
Provide the same information for the loads t
L1y to be considered in the Long Term Program.
~,fl e.!
3.
Throughout the STP reports,the term "most probable load" has a
been used. To provide clarification for the meaning of this d
M term, discuss how this term applies to each of the primary y
sj loads (i.e., vent lateral load, pool swell impact. drag, froth, h;
Ds bubble pressure and air compression in the wetwell).
t a
Nl
)
y i
'i Ju
??%
l M
- A
.vg m m.gn g.;.p.y.yn,v.,
. w --,-...
g
- r.
7
WmaaZWi53iMELhiFEN'LM52227'! ski &.ai:.dhu.aM n:. L:&.u..;;b...&L,v.2
- I!'
q
- i 2
ri 1
{
- )
~
73 4.
Based on Volume III of the STP reports, the application of some of the primary loads is not clear. Provide the M.
d following additional infonnation:
qm A plot ~of peak pool swell and froth load q
a.
1 h-l versus elevation for cylindrical structures
'i
- j located above the pool surface. Also, indi-l a
i
.L.1 cate the pressure time profile used in the I
1y structural analysis for the pool swell and
~
froth loads specified above.
C l
d b.
Specify the pool swell load or the drcg i
9 j
load applied to each node of a beam sector a
model for one of the plant models described A
h in Volume IV, Appendix B, of the STP reports.
4 p'i Specify the elevation of each node relative r
5, 6
to the initial level of the pool surface.
d 4
Discuss time phasing of the loads for this
.,M j
- model, w
((
c.
Provide information similar to that requested
- i,
.:)
in 4b for the finite element model described
- 3y in Volume IV, Section 5.8, of the STP reports.
[i Expand on the discussion of the application of G
q the local pool swell loads to the finite ele-n j
ment model found on Page 18 and Figure 3.2.2 of H
d Volume III of the STP reports.
~.tj
, fi 4
'f
){d q
(4}
-,=.
.,.,. ~.,,.,
_ g,.
.c.., -
@WB2H?EG2f2s?WitPMWtMM2WWMAT+WTc%WdM%hGkW)d1.h6El5n.5%A3:1,
!f,;
ft:
M W r g$b.:.
.. ~ -.
M'
[tujf 5.. Loads are 'specified in Volume III of the STP reports for-i several' structures without providing, the basis for these ss -.. -
_ loads.
Provide the experimental and/or ana'lytical basis n
N.h -
g
.for the magnityde and duration for each of the following W
d2 loads. References to test data should indicate the.
fd
$i-
.s,pecific test runs.
y
- a. L he load for a 5 foot square solid platform described T
$cF
[
on Page 18 of 7olume III of the STP reports.
rq; g
b.
The load for a 3 inch wide beam described on Page.
99; W
18 of Volume III. of the STP reports.
Ad
- c. ' The basis for the 12 ft/sec crossflow velocity M.
<,. ~
US used in calculating the vent header drag load M,
n/j' as specified on Page 23 of' Volume III of the M
STP reports.
re 9_
d.
The basis for the 20 ft/sec sideward flow used 4
5 in calculating the vent drain lateral drag load n.
Ni specified on Page 41 of Volume III of the STP h
vn
- i.
reports.
g{
~36 e.
The load for open grating described on Page 4-4
- $E of Volume IV of the STP reports.
4.4.
{
f.
A 25 psi impact lead was specified for the n.
i:
Pi return lines on Page 42 of Volume III of the s$-
i h
STP reports'.
It would appear that this load 1
- g i
h1-is applied to the horizontal run of the line.
&s,.
4
?',
d1
'1 g
'{}
pn%2M;d32iMELiXWh.at:DxlAraf:mr1Lrn.u:. Manau.Gmuuxu =W1:u.u.:imsav.
j.
4 i
3 j
f Specify the load and load basis applied to the i
end of vertical lines terminating above the pool
- surface, g.
Page 24 of. Volume II states that the drag value I
applied is the maximum value observed during the series 5805 PTSF tests.
Indicate the specific
)
test run on which this drag load is based.
b.
The basis fo.- the 40 ft/sec maximum vent clearing i
velocity referenced in Section 3.1.3 of Volume F
f III.
l 6.
The pool swell loads applied to the Main Steam Relief Valve l
lines within the suppression chamber were derived from the impact load used for the ring header.
Provide a comparison of this load as specified on Page 2-3 of Addendum to the PSTF pipe load data.
In addition, clarify the Teledyne comments in Section 2.1 of Appendix F in Addendum 1 regard-ing the MSRV load.
Teledyne references a 38 psi load of
.002 seconds duration for fully rigid pipe targets. Clarify the Teledyne contnents since a 38 psi load on pipes has not been specified in the STP reports.
7.
Provide the following information related to the EPRI/ SRI-1/10 scale Mark I tests.
a.
Figure A-3 in Appendix A to Volume II indicates a pool velocity of 19.1 ft/sec at the center of interface up to impact.
It is not apparent which test run this 4
g
TGM51%?mVu?2M2&2EMeiE%Dih.24mM.'D2 &MhmM AM:2 erd 5MTM uskaXRMGL 1
p-
'~
,3 v
p..
[L o -
.~.
. ~.. -.. -
l.' >
corresponds to of the seven runs reported in, the p
1/10 scale test description.
Section 5. I' tem 4 L
in the 1/10 scale preliminary report indicates that Run flo. P, was the closest simulation of scaled prototypical pressure histories. 'However,
'a prototypical impact velocity of 23.4 ft/sec was derivedfromthisrunasstatedUthintheEPRI report.
Provide a detailed. description of the L
, analysis and assumptions which resulted in the I
i 19.1 ft/sec specified' in Figure A-3 in Appendix 4
?
l.
A to Volume II.
i-l b.
A comparison of the desired and secondary tank -
r pressure waveforms indicates that the test pres-sure is significantly below the desired pressure
'for the majority of the pool swell time preceding l
ring header impact. This 'is true for most of 'the runs including Run flo. 2.
Discuss what effect this noncenservatism in the pressure time wavefonn.
L will have on the prototypical impact velocity, c.
A number of parameters have been improperly scaled in the 1/10 scale Mark I test. Determine the u
significance on pool velocity of improper scaling of pressure and f1/D.
b t-l.
I I
t
-l
g.1:wmmacema.xxww Tarsn:xmexnwrn.auvsrterfe.www.:x%wnumuusxw 3..
[.
~,
r.
i
-6 '
[
P 8.
The screening ofrstructural elements was discussed in-E Section'4 of Volume III.
However, the screening analysis did not include instrument air lines..in the torus. One
' utility with'a; Mark'I containment has examined the possi-p y
k.
1 bility of modifying these lines to protect them from pool L
{
swell. This was discussed during. the Decenber 4,1975, meeting.
Describe the type and locati6n of instrument ll air lines found in the. Mark I containments. Provide a
[
screening analysis. similar to that performed for.other 1'
components in. Volume III. for instrument air lines in the l
torus.
l-i 9. The failure of baffling screening in the torus is-discuss-i ed on Page 34 of Volume III.
In addition, on Page 6-7 of -
Volume IV,it is stated that the catwalk'rystem in plants 1) with solid deck plates could suffer extensive damage during i
the pool' swell event. The potential for both baffles and j,
solid deck plates to act as potential missiles is suggested -
in'the STP reports.
Damage to the torus walls and vacuum i
breakers due to these potential missiles has been evaluated.
[
Discuss potential damage to other critical structures in
~
the torus due to missiles including the vent-ring header-down-
~
L comer system, vent bellows, instrument air lines and the vent L
l l
drain lines.
l
(.
4'
?
l' l
H 6
l lL
,a._:.. _..
5p2'i?%r255.wnM: arm.NwMartn?wtm2=.wurMA&Rty.DmnW. m X :.u & m.s Fa-
~~
,a.
$ti es 7
g-j.
- 10. The information provided in the STP reports is not clear a
di regarding the most important forces and the most endangered re!
components.
Provide a table or list which would facilitate I
di this' determiriation. For each component, provide the type 1y of loading which is considere6 to be most critical, an D
d estimate of the corresponding stress and strain in the hJ member, the yield stress and maximum allowable strain in Q{;
the member, the ultimate strength of the material and the a
h.
stress at which the member would fail, y/j
- 11. As requested in,the April 1975 request-for-information n
y) letter sent to utilities with Mark I containments, provide typical arrangement drawings of the suppression chamber aD which illustrate the structures, equipment, and piping
%}
in and above the suppression pool.
The drawings should q%
be sufficient to describe all equipment and structural idN surfaces which could be subjected to suppression pool w
wi
!.]
hydrodynamic loadings. The sketches provided in the
}j STP reports have not met this requirement, e
- 12. Provide missing Figures 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 in Volume II l
D Sd of the STP reports.
$M
- 13. Analytical confirmation of the pool swell (surface shape 4
and velocity) based on a potential flow model was reported l
W in Section 4.12 of Volume II.
Provide information rcgard-e
- 4 j
ing the potential flow model and the resultant comparisons.
i
>.y E.)$
i, l
u
{ll -
u,,,y7,w.,
-,. m.m,
pyrtww2Brum%2LMermnihim.cfm:?d&RXhmsw-Lti:RMMHbMEb7% at!J ?t%teu; ?
1 7
t1 I
1 8
[.,
e.-
q b'.
..14.
The loads specified in tne STP reports indicate an impact /
j
- ,4 i
dra$ loau for structures below 5.5 f t and a froth' impinge :
1 ment load for structures located above 5.5 ft. Justify the l=
1
' selection of this elevation'as the transition zone for impact--
froth loads in ligh't of the comments on Page 8 of Volume II
~
l
[
that PSTF data indicates pool surface rise could be higher and that slug breakup could occur at higher elevations.
L l
k II. Torus' Uplift Load Definition
)
3.-
{1 -
- 15. 'In: Volume II, Sections B.1 and B.2, it is stated that the
[
~ downward bubble pressure and the upward air. compression
- loads on the torus.are based ca the Humboldt/ Bodega tests.
Provide specific reference to the test runs and data points that form the ba' sis for these loads.
In addition, ' provide '
l
[.
specific reference to the pages in-the Humboldt/ Bodega test I
reports where this information can be found.
Indicate differ-
~
ences in th*e Humboldt/ Bodega tests (i.e., vent area / pool L
surface ' area, wetwell air volume / pool surface area, drywell L-pressure) that would result in different loads for the Humboldt/
J c
Bodega test than for a full size Mark 7 containment.
Discuss L
the ef,fect of these differences on the Mark I bubble pressure L
I and air ccmp-ession. loads.
i
[
- 16. The application of the downward bubble pressure and -the upward L
[
air compression loads on the torus are discussed in Volume II L
(:
f 0:,
","YD 'CT[
.7W3
'Y83, s-IND7.NY9
% W.' QN_T
- f D $]'{
{..,
}[.((.]..,
_.,k
prMmw.anMzKM:.25%senzwed.:Am&Mexwand222LMansienp%MLMa.hka:
?..
p.,
V l
n g.-
h
[-
'and'III,~~ Sections 3.1-and 3.2.
Consideration is given to l
the attenuation' o'f the bub.ble and the fraction of bubble F'
' pressure seen by the bottom of the torus. Provide the l-p experimental and/or analytical basis for the fraction of l
the bubble pressure used in the determination of the net j
downward and net upward load applied to the torus.
l
- 17.. Provide the following information related to' the ' pool
)
l swell analytical model discussed in the December 4,1975, I-l~
Mark I containment meeting that'shows a reduction in upward air compression loads from the results, predicted by the Bodega tests.
f.
[-
a.
A detailed description of the model and 'appifcation of the-i l.
model' to a full size Mark I containment.
b.
The details of model calibration to the Bodega ' test data i-and the existing 1/12 scale test data.
i c.
A parametric study to show how sensitive the results of the analysis are to assumptions about the various adjust-able parameters which appear in the model.
- 18. Provide the following information related to the additional l
i Mark I 1/12 scale tests that are to be used to determine i
downward bubble pressure and air compression loads on the j
torus.
E a.
A description of the tests including test apparatus, q
instrumentation and test matrix, t
4 l
i e
I t
t B
t r
'EI gA-'
e.q mi'Ip
, jj.,. ',
q
)
[fBW53uf.MDEGHM221%M726MMMs?MW2G aMMT;WEw::JhDe79EOMK5hlaE M % ut p,
i Jh j.
g ry h
. tN.
h b'.
A test schedule'to include completion of testing, ap data. reduction and documentation.
c.
Describe how inertial effects of a movable spring. supported h
1/12 scale' torus section will be factored into the deter--
x mination o'f the upward lift load for a full size liark' I 1
k plant. Consider the differences'in inertial-effects for N
[3 a spring supported model and the rigid supports 'of a full-
\\
size torus.
hi 19.
Provide the..following information related to the analyses used
=f to determine: torus uplift.
h
- a. ' A detailed description of the rethods of analysis used to k
predict' torus lift, with and without consideration of ring ei
[
header column reaction loads.
K4 b.
Results of torus lift analyses, with and without consideration a
p h
of ring header column reaction loads.
K 20.
Provide the following information regarding torus support design 4
for upward and downward loads.
$1 A
a.
A description,and sketches of typical supports currently in y.
9 use.
it
(
b.
Upward and downward loads originally considered.in the-design l
of the supports.
c.
A table showing the types of torus supports for both upward g-.
and downward loads for each of the Mark I plants.
[
- d.. A description of the types of structural. modifications under 1
f n
~
il
MRfEeJ&IGN!FliMM;%%dfi:Ms26MiffWs M&d;MMM6ChMadidad3 &i?fLBBEiC.
f.~
L
[
consideration for torus supports for both upward and down-l ward loads.
I
[
- 21. Provide the results of a sensitivity study considering a spectrum l
of steam line and recirculation line break sizes and the antici-i l
pated torus net uplift load corre:ponding to each break size.
III. Long Term Program Description
- 22. Copies of a brief description of the Mark.I long Term Program were sent to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by individual utilities l
with Mark I containments early in October 1975. These brief descriptions of the Long Term Program do not contain an ade-quate description of this program. As a part of the Short Term Program, we required a description of the Long Term Program in sufficient detail, so that we can determine if the planned pro-gram is adequate. The following information should be supplied.
a.
For those activities related to LOCA loads, provide the following:.
1.
An overview of all tests and analytical efforts directed towards providing additional substan-tiation of loads.
For each primary and secondary load described in the STP reports, discuss planned work for the LTP.
2.
For planned tests (i.e.,1/12, 4T), describe the following:
background and objectives, test i
4 e
e gy e
em
- en -
.*s W
I b
i "_
_A
s?JfSEUEMZEisEiMIEJ22623M?iXMMJs2EEnseWeihikeisMZlEUBl@
h.
g l;
12--
r l
m,.
n..-,
n.-
+.-
---~ -
L configuration, instrumentation, test proce-t dures, test matrix, scaling. consideration and an evaluation of test / Mark I differences.
I z
3.
For planned analytical efforts, describe the areas where analytical efforts are planned, the objectives-and scope of the effort.
Describe plans to correlate I
test data and analytical models.
L.
4.
A description of' efforts directed toward obtaining
('
a bett'er definition of the vent lateral loats.
~
b.
Forl those activities related to Safety-Relief Valve
).
L activities, provide'the following:
(
1.
An overview of all tests and analytical efforts l
planned.
2.
For-planned tests describe the' following: back-ground and objectives, test configuration, instru-mentation, test procedures, test matrix, scaling considerations and an evaluation of test / Mark I differences.
3.
For planned analytical efforts, describe the objectives and scope of.the effort.
Describe plans to correlate test and analytical models.
4.
Indicate what tests and instrumentation will be used to evaluate the pipe restraint loads.
e e
e m..m_mm._..--s-_._m a
m__m._---. _ _.
m.._.-___
. _ _, _ _ ___a
___--__-m.___
m
___.____m._____
mE5iT5BCCIES%2EMthGGlHM;&LKDOMuhUERE!AMGE'Uhl:2% ~-?id?Ohn:MMTM 7q n
3 in i I n]
i
?q q
c.
Provide the following related to the Long Term
.i3 Program schedule and documentation:
hy 1.
A schedule specifying major milestones, lqp-durati,on and completion of test and analytical N
yi efforts, completion of documentation,and planned W
Q review meeting with the Nuclear Regulatory j
y f
Commission.
MM 2.
A description of the type of documentation
.1 (l1 planned for the major activities in the 3
Long Term Program.
23.
Data from the 1/*42 scale test are being relied upon for a better h,
I definition of a number of the primary loads in the Long Term Program including upward air compression, downward bubble w
~$
pressure and pool swell impact and drag. Provide the follow-ing information related to these tests.
As a.
Provide a detailed scaling analysis for the tests.
Ay Specify the portions of the pool dynamics transient in g
li, which the scaling analysis is applicable, nf b.
Discuss the adequacy of approximations used in the modeling my parameters and scaling laws to establish how accurately e
'5 the scaled model results can be extrapolated to the full-m scale system.
In addition, discuss inaccuracies brought h
about by inaccurate simulation of the modeling parameters d
such as laats in the test wetwell chamber and difficulties 4
in the proper simulation of the enthalpy flux parameter iGa 7;
'e l y
n m n. n., -..
=
=x===n
75fr!$&EIldssF5712.1&Esar.a%3MaimP2.a.um!dassEK%miesMststfiett/me.sm.h j q
r l :-
l 8
L :j
~
.?
~p 1
.. -. a ;
..a~...
j encountered. in the early. Mark I-1/12? scale tests.
L'4
'c.. We' believe experimental studies should be performed i
.to confirm the major scaling laws. Discuss your L
l
. plans to 1nclude tests of this type in the 1/12. scale e
. test matrix.
d.
The 1/12 scale tests consider a downcomer unit cell versus multiple downcomer pairs. associated with a single
' torus vent.
Discuss what affect. this limitation on the
~
1/12 scale tests will have.on the results as compared l
.to the anticipated results for a. full size Mark' I containment.
e.
Films of the early Mark I-1/12 scale test showed several phenomena which were not included in the Shoi-t Term evaluation of the Mark I containment. These. phenomena include:
(1) The formation of water jets upon impact
~
)
of the. pool with the ring header (these' jets are directad toward the top of the torus walls); and (2),
Channeling of the pool water following bubble break-through from the top of the torus around the sides of the torus walls back to the ring header.
i While it is recognized that the tests are t
valid only to the time of bubble breakthrough, it would appear that similcr phenomena would be encountered following a LOCA. Discuss these der-6m w w.wmser..Wrnen -
m:rn
-)
rmm srw.-
, m_m
p2.uwaaane-w:m.amw asuwwwumwmm.c=emme:mm=mamm..mvma.;mm.
r
!. c.,1.;.
r-N y.
L
-15.
,,j p
phenomena including their origin, antic-p L
ipated magnitude and the effect of the h
vent system on pool swell. Describe the l:
. difference in these phenomena in the 1/12 E
[-
scale test and in a Mark I containment.
I Include. tests or analyses planned to quantify u
l loads resulting from these phenomena.
L 1-L
- 24. Provide the following information re16ted to consideration of L
ll
. combined pool _ swell-LOCA loads and' loads resulting from actua-tion of Safety / Relief Valves,
- a. - A description of combinations of these loads, to be l
considered in the Long Term Program and how the L
loads are to be combined.
b.
Provide the largest break size that would result in ADS operation for a typical plant with a Mark I containment, without' consideration of single active failures resulting in ADS operation.
c.
Provide the ESF signals that would result in ADS actuation and the range of time delays related to actuation of the system following a LOCA.
4 i
d.
Provide a description of those accidents that j
would result in Safety / Relief Valve actuation l
l concurrent with a LOCA considering the limiting i-T D kit 5'? % _, k%~~172;" V >"**!ON3Y:a',
T: -
'W
'"" W ??5~2bT 2_~_3*!_T E_2____-_+__L=-a
pym:wmawymmanscuyegggn:52n. a.ws32g5migraciammenmami mzms.}
u-q S,
) p
.- 1 r
single active failure.
If LOCA andLR/V loads are not l"
l considered as superimposed peak - values,1 discuss the-rationale for elimination of this poss'ibility.
L Provide'a sensitivity study of primary pool dynamic:
e.
loads versus break area.
(
~
- 25. Discuss the possibili.ty of opening the vacuum' breakers during the pool swell process for those plants with vacuum breakers L
located inside th' L
e torus, and determine potential torus pres-surization resulting from pool bypass. through these vacuum l
\\
breakers..
'26. A description of the pool swell load considered in the evalua-l tion of,the vent bellows was presented in Adde' ndum 1 to Volume p
IV of.the STP reports. The load used in the STP has some basis.and is considered adequate for the STP. However, a more accurate determination 'of the load in the Long Term Program is warranted considering the reduced size of the bellows tested, the nature of the. test, and the convoluted shape of the bellows.
It is difficult to accurately balance conservatism and nonconservatisms in the load specified for the bellows evaluation.
Discuss plans to provide additional a
tests to confirm the bellows. load in the Long Term Program.
- 27. On Page 14 in Volume II,it is stated that asymmetric torus
.1 cads due to variations in drywell pressure will be insignif-icant because of the open nature of the Mark I drywell. The open nature of the Mark I drywell is not apparent. Discuss i
7WMW69.6.t.;4SCMW1Ts*M21btmKEti2MCE22si?MLGwi.Hid.cCUMinth&d.X. o.;MCWWEWQ' l
s
~
ENCLOSURE 3 f
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MARK I CONTAINMENT EVALUATION l
L
^
1.
Discuss justifications for applying the equivalent static pressure of L-25 psi to the vacuum breaker assembly.
2.
Verify that the original design functions of the spray header and j
vacuum breaker ali-line will not be impaired due to the occurrence of inciastic strain or'large displacement during a postulcted LOCA.
I Discuss further the bases for concluding that vecuum breaker nozzles-for all plants will withstand the pool swell loads.
l 3.
Identify. loading combination criteria and design limits for ECCS
. piping and mechanical components essential to safety.
The functional capability of these components must be maintained under faulted plant conditions.
)
4.
Assess the. functional operability of the section of ECCS piping near -
the torus penetration if the torus supports fail to hold torus in place during pool swell.
5.
Describe the carthquake induced sloshing effects on ECCS piping and mechanical components essential to safety.
One of the required design considerations is the combined effect of LOCA + SSE loading.
6.
Provido adequate details on analysis methods used to calculate the dyncmic response.. Conservatism should be demonstrated if simplified analyses are used, such as equivalent static or single degree-of-freedom analyses as shown in the short term program final reports.
7.
Provide original design criteria for the Section of MSRV line inside the torus. As a minimum, the criteria should include the quality group classification in terms of ASME Code class and/or ANS Safety Class, and stress linits for design and operational conditions.
8.
The impact duration was stated to be 15 milliseconds in Subsection 2.2 of Addendum I.
However, Figure 2.2-1 and Tt bics B-2 and B-3 show the durction to be 3.0 nil 11 seconds. Verify that the value used is 15 millis econds.
If the 3.0 millisecond duration is indeed used Jn both response and parametric analyses, provide the justification for reducing it from 15.0 to 3.0 milliseconds.
9.
The maximum s tress' in the MSRV discharge piping was shown to exceed the minimum yield strength at temperature.
Therefore, the calcu, lated displacements may not be realistic.
Provide justifications for the i
p conclusion that the function of the piping can be maintained. Also, provide the calculated strains associated with the displacements and stresses shown in Tabic 2.3-1, Addendum I, and discuss any strain concentration at i
pipe bends.
i i
's
_m.___
"l23%f532'2*.aEWfl'522fEv2"2EdiMMMAAN qNwq2Tegsggyg,;iz. gggggggggggggg
} *[,
.s' 2-go u
L k
/
' Provide a summary of' calculated stresses'and strains'at'all nodes or L..l. <.
' 10, ' elecents shown in Figure 2.1-1,! Addendum I, ' for the. Peach Bottom Units pf,.
2' and 3, including. those. at restraints; i.e., hangers,' vent pipe
' pene tration, and' anchor bolts. Also ' indicate tho. load-carrying capabil-f-
ities at all restraints. -
I.
I 11 '
.Most 'of the analyses submitted in respense to our' request to show '
i'
.the_ adequacy of.the restraints on MSRV lines inside the torus L
consider.only-the. initial blowdown loads, which Lis not completely.
L
' acceptable. The efftects due to a'ny bubble formation,. bubble oscillation', and sequen.tial operation were not included..in thi.
l_
Provide a' definitive test program to obtain load data E
assessment.
~
f:
'or use in evaluating. the adequacy of pipe restraints in each plant.
j 1he test program may consist of tests to obtain load history during-n single and a multiple discharging, coupled with direct strain measurements'at restraints.
l-a j
L
.l 1'
t 4
'j 4
a
- $i
'4
_____-._.__._._____m__
{[lL3ME5fffjMfMI26.OUA5.'lld253%2fMNRf659. %hiMi.:!MMiML26.usl'iy G2RM c.,
Q,,.....~Rg
..s d
E ll E'R'ill h E L E CT R I C NUCLE AR ENERGY u..
@.P.
SYSTEMS DIVISION I.h GENERAL ELECTRIC cot /PANY. '75 CURTNER AVENUE. SAN JOSE Call 8CRN;A 95125
/F.
Mail ~ Code 683 Phone (408) 297 3000 TWX No. 910-33S-0116 BWR PROJECTS DEPARTt'ENT
- $W
!?$
a S
January 6, 1976 s
cy t
+??
6
.u
. L Q "s16 y ' -
\\
t N;.;
6- $t 3 3../
JJ Director of Nuclear Reactor Reaulation j
- ) ^g v T3
- v..c*755'*#
61.
ATTN:
Mr. R. S. Boyd, Director H
Division of Project Management' 9
o.5 7
/"r Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation M-U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission b
m d
Washington, D. C.
20555 l
P
SUBJECT:
MARK 1 CONTAINMENT EVALUATION PROGRAM--
M IN-PLA"T SAFETY / RELIEF VALVE TEST o
iil4
Dear ijr. Doyd:
[j -
As part of the propesed long term program for the evaluation of Park I Containments, members of the Mark I Owners group have identified a
~ detailed in-plant safety / relief valve test that is to be performed.
q During the status report meeting held in Bothesda on December 3 and 4,
(
1975, members of your staff requested a more. detailed description of tne F
' test. Enclosed is a description of the test which is intended to respond-id '
to that request.
j! -
M Sincerely, m.y J
/
ki f (l% __J.L ;
c
.v x
/
- di.A (
/
'd;),
'Ivan F. Stuart, Manager T
Safety and Licensing
+
j Attachment 3
cc:
L.S.'Gifford(GE-BETH) g w
R. L. Tedesco NRC 3:
R. R. Maccary NRC i
W. A. Paulson NRC 1
V.
Stello NRC 4
- jh j
MFN 002-76 523 M
% d' 4 &e p l
N A n,+ s A 7 a 1 p
Y t v. t.-.ey af--t-y'( h.
)
n mm m_. ;-,-.,,,
,_..__..,m.,.,..,,,.
. WIDM%MBEi!B5n&MW:ihti& %&LM%iniEMM%Q " c
.u:b Mi.u h
e,
.A
.I
?j
- IN-PLANT SAFETY / RELIEF VALVE TEST-1 1
(
l; "i d The in-plant safety / relief valve discharge load tetting is one of the major N
activities of the Mark I Long Term Program. Testing at the initial plant
+5 will be more extensive than subsequent testing at plants with different
- d structural arrt.ngements.
In addition to obtaining strain data for fatigue life evaluation of torus structural response to relief valve discharges, lj pressure, temperature and water level data will be obtained to evaluate the p.1 basic phenomenon of pressurization in the relief valve discharge piping and q
the torus. The location of these sensors is shown in Figures 8,10 and 12.
3 M
Pressure transducers located on the torus skin will provide transient Vi measurements of surface pressure acting on the torus during single and
.4 multiple relief valve actuation.
The location of these sensors is shown l
. $f!
in Figure 11. Special attention was given to epoxy mounting of sensors l
directly to the torus skin and protection of instrumentation lead wires
'Q by covering with RTV to minimize the potential for loss of instrumentation d
during the test.
Pressure transducers and temperature detectors in the J
relief valve discharge pipe will provide furtner data for the forcing func-i
.N tion model.
i
.d 9
An additional sophistication of these test measurements will be the recording
'3 of water level in the discharge piping to evaluate the effect of consecutive
- {
valve actuation. The second actuation will occur with the water in a tran-i
.:.i scient condition as it returns to the discharge pipe. Until the discharge j
pipe vacuum breaker admits sufficient air to restore the pipe internal pres-y sure to atmospheric, a partial vacuum will exist in the pipe following
.3 closure of the relief valve, and the water level may be higher than normal.
y This higher water level would increase the bubble pressure during a subse-quent valve reactuation although the effect may be partially offset by the 4
smaller volume of air in the bubble (because of the partial vacuum). The consecutive valve pop tests will explore this phenomenon further to deter-
')
mine whether it is a valid desigr. concern.
.x Q
Multiple valve actuations are included in the test series to evaluate the additive effects of more than one valve actuating simultaneously. Pressure
' )7 1
data at the torus skin will be utilized to confirm or refine the analytical
- tj model for prediction of loads on the torus. Strain gage data from sensors y
on the torus skin will be utilized in a fatigue life evaluation to determine 3
the design margin of the torus for the full design life expectation of 3
relief valve actuations. The results of single and multiple valve actuations L
R will be utilized in this evaluation. The location of these strain gages is
' @j shown in Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5.
"?'3 Temperature sensors located in the torus pool will be monitored to t.1 evaluate local mixing effects in the pool during relief valve actuation.
~j.
These are shown in Figure 9.
This data will be utilized to confirm the
~
S adequacy of Technical Specification operating temperature limits for the y
torus pool weter.
.s
-b E
- ].
Y d
.,_.m.
m. m,..,
~
.._,.m y
$3EMMSZ5MEM223.2dML65M5s1MEBMMEBM.EBiEMAE R?s22:h.Asl gen pp -[
gy '
Mje
$fjf
'IN-PLANTSAFETY/RELIEFVALVE' TEST (Continued) g 4,j(
/
' Water level probes in the. toras pool, shown in Figure 13, will, if h
successful, monitor the motion of the air bubble after it exits from the 4
' rams' head. This infonnation will be used to confirm or refine the analytical-W
' model for. the movement and oscillations of this air bubble.
k$
- Strain gages and accelerometers on the relief valve discharge piping and its 4
structural supports will evaluate their response to single and. consecutive h3 valve actuatiens. The location of these sensors. is shown in Figures-6' y
-and 7.
tj -
F Accelerometers, shown in Figure 14, will determine the loads transmitted.
E'k through the support columns to the foundation mat'and other structures.
d.-
These are not expected to'be significant but are being monitored for con-y-
firmation.
k The number. of sensors of each type is tabulated in Table I below.
oq M
TABLE I*
d'y Torus Wall
-S/R Valve Pedestal P[f Suctinn Header.
Torus Discharge Pipe '
and
& Torus Columnq, Pool and Supports,
Basement
.c fi.
Strain Gage 60/138 12/20.
7hi' Accelerometers 10/26 2/3 3/9 Lanyard Potentiometer
_6/6 4lj Temperature Sensor 6/6 3/3 h
15/15 7/7 Pressure Transducer y
Water Level /Yoid Probe.
5/5 7/7 1
Air Flow Probe 1/1
. TOTALS-70/164 26/26 38/47 3/9 6'
WL
-
- XX/XX denotes sensors / channels.
ru
?;;l -
The torus bay designated as "D" containing valve RV2-71A is most heavily 4
instrumented, and this "A" valve will be involved in most of the tests.
A Each test will consist of manual actuation of one or more relief valves for a period of approximately five seconds during which the instrumentation
.e 4
is actuated to record the response.
NL y -.
Single valve actuation tests are planned individually with valves A, E, F.
?'
D. G and B,-
d e.g il q.
\\ er.
d -
La rrn. 2 mnw m.. w mm m:n e.-
+.
5:EMUMMl'2Esh.H8M6TfiMZd20PfrE!?lWEAMiG.EM!3COWFARES$li3YEEE5: LEE y
g-i,i '
p; IN-PLANTSAFETY/RELIEFVALVETEST(Continued) n N
d~
> i,
- S Valves A and F will be actuated simultaneously, and in a separate test
- q valves A and E will be actuated.'
Mj Valves A and E will be actuated simultaneously.to evaluate the additive 3
$J effects of operating two adjacent valves.
m.
!f' Valves A, E and G will be actuated simultaneously to evaluate the response
- t) to three adjacent valves in the region of maximum instrumentation.
It3 5)
Valve A will be actuated sequentially through a five-second discharge, reclosure for a brief interval followed by a'second actuation of five g';,.y seconds.
The above constitutes the test as presently planned. Additionally, certain yj tests will be repeated to the extent necessary to develop confidence in 92 reproducibili'.y of the recorded data.
Considering that this testing is
@@j being performed on a production facility, the scope of tests is quite extensive.
The number of actuations of relief valves imposes a financial exposure due to power availability and potential maintenance outage con-D siderations that may exceed the direct cost of performing the test.- We
[j believe that this is an extensive program capable of quantitatively defining
,.g the loads and structure responses of interest.
!!d M
MQ E
(M M
n$
h s1[iW hu in Of4 Mq-wx si Au
?h A T, i kN h
M.4,-, -
w 7.
n ;
3&EMDBM2iEdidiE;Wsh$ifitetiMBREliMedENWFMLs2.'. L:._
2
-)
q o-y..
.i ad y
kN T
S*
. ~ ~. - - - - ~.
- ..y 5
TEST AREA r?
c
.. J, 6,'-
3 C
=.
ib
/ ~~~ ~
.a Q
S' D l
/
\\.
i t
/
s
/
I O
/
9
/
sf
/
.s A
a,y-l
/-
O
?
\\
f Ml A
\\
.;s M
p N~
?,5j 27e*
90, W
.g i..
\\
y..
b
{l
^
9 N
Aje..
G s
1,::
b.?a y-
.. j M,
s
- 7 130' d
a1 x
p'lI BAY
$/R vat.VE CA TEGORY AZIMUTH ACCESS tJ DESIGNATION 10EGREE)
LOCATION gj A
Rv2 71D 292 1/2 J
S Rv2-71F 337 1/2
$d C
RV2 71E 22 1/2 pj D
RV2-71 A ADS
$71/2 484 MANWAY M-t RV2 71G 112-1/2
%p F
AV2 718 ADS 157 1/2 S
RV2 71C ADS 202-1/2
- .j H
Rv2-71H 247-1/2 484 MANWAY
$3
~
b;[r' N
[9?,. - )
j; ~
figuer L Orientation of Safety / Relief Valve Discharges
=
43
,k F '..
I
+,.m a,'
> rn -. - - -
~c m ~ ~' es tm~'
"h 1
g',;.m.,s m -.~, -. v.
M$l.*.5.$2?i.Y!h455 'aW2da:5?l'ihE65$Nbl5.YU.NllEldNS.'-kN,i$$$:.'.SAi : ?.N$$$Dli?s01MN.n s.
)
g 1.
}
e 1
lr NOTE: GAGES 1,2. 3. 4. 6. 9.10.12,13.15.16,17. 53.'and 57 ARE TO BE DUPUCATED
}.'j,
ON THE INSIDE OF THE TORUS.
i q
u M
d ACCELEROMETER
& STRAtN GAUGE 4-1
SUMMARY
SUCTION HEADER MANGER h
I a) 9 t m--- L w
Ime EEL.
1/24n.
b E - ROSETTE a
M ame
$1NGLE l
l 1
1 l
- - E -
A5 W
l 1
q.,
ACCELEROMETER f
f 3
- ACCELEROMETER &
HANGER
,d.
STRAIN GAUGE REINFORCEMENT
!r 1/24m I
SUMMARY
PLATE 10 g
^;1 A4
'j TRS-AX t AL l
2-1/44n.
II
- i SINGLES
- 18
[
Q
.jf.
ACCEL.
e
)
},
ROSETTES - 4 *
. ]
d'""""
1/24m
, ACCELEROMETER-10 12 u.
-E m
- SOME GAGES ARE NOT SHOWN IN
~
l FIGURES *f,3,4. and 5
,'. ']
j g
w
- }
d 2 5tN'3LE GAUGES 9
=
fl.
A2
=
A6 I
(1 ON EACH "Q. '
MEAft g
/
STR AP) 23. 24 3
J L TRI AXIAL ACCELEROMETER j;j
\\
(TYPtCAU L
1/24S 1
2 SINGLh GAUGES 13 h d
,[-
s
^ "
TRI. AXIAL ACCELEROMETER ITYPICAU 25.26 r
14 i
(d k
NOZZLE PENETRATION TORUS. BOTTOM 2
a VIEW k
I b
A8 21 m
i 22 w a
m C
W i
i i
i.
- 1/24n.TYP O.
,- e
.T 1/24A 1M k3 f(!
II 23 1'
i 11.
tS$T.s m,2.%
f EARTHOUAKE 16 20 ll TJ E.
1/2 in. '" h 1/24%
1 q
3 y2.m.
,, g 5 M' f* TYPICAL ENFORCEMENT
.[cf g g41 1/2 iA FROM g
k.
J 7-53 WELD TO 1/24%
i b
CENTER 18 1/2 M.
S g
, 2-n.
OF GAGg
?
Q
?
Figure 2 Location of Strain Gages and Disp /acement Accelerometers on Torus Wall,snd Suction Headers Pt
,3
'a
-- S-4 3
v.,
- g e ypg yzyyp ;v-tv
- 3 m - - - ~ ~ ~.,
e s y-
---~r--y-.3-t~.-
. ;7q,.y.,w-mym g.+
X3hT!2.F MCLT26dsiEQl278?2:h5Bim:R9.SE.il *Ididi:~.W.3:3K2hM NCSi.dda h E's? M 5OIhTD 9..
l.,
...... }.
g y
j A3 i
4
[
t l
g 1/2 A 19 FAR SIDE 22
-Y h 21 r
tr a. p f.O.
Jq J
T.YP 9 ft 2-in. BEF.
3 4
j i
SG,61
_p f
T A6 3
h
[
gya g y
}
u
== STRAIN GAGES N
i s
^5 p 8
188 4
l' A.4_.
UNI. AXIAL j-
~~ ACCELERCMETE.
[..
e5 TRAIN GAGE 16 AND 17 TO BE DUPLICATED ON
- TRI.AXI AL ACCELEROMETER 3
INSIDE OF SUPPR ES$10N CHAMEER.
l l.
o f
L-
.f 11164 PLATE AS
_. s i
THIS OUAD ONLY
~
g
- g r
i' SG 15 3
{1/2h f ~ ~
- gl 4 w * ~7E' Aig 1/No. N SG i
l 13
- ==,m j
f.
.. E AI 6
l 3
1/2A ], "*'* ~
i
- 12 **"
3'.11 11/16in. R E F
/
I j
l F.ARTHOUAKE
{
}
l
~
}'
CNZLE I
a,
f H
gg A10
{
17 -
1.*$in.
,u' l
W%
90TTOM view 5-8 EARTHOUAKE i
SECTION A A TIE J
l,*x 1
l*
)
Figure 3. Locabon of Sonen Gages and Displacement Accelerometers on Torus Wai
-C-8 1 L e 3
.d
~.
- i
- 8
fl?.'. $$h2MYd2E2MiEL2tRrtsfdM?.;' %fa!.'d:.212 s%:ShB.L;%22212."2,6);M,>%;gi;';<gui;;Lx;ec:n;tYu.wA2Mr.
i 5
p*
. 7 3
./( Mi[)
l.a qp
'~
' }.
~,
. s ;u ;
e'
/,j'{...f'n p'
- ' W'.,.N
- )'V O \\ '.
{.
G4
{y.; y
.x j;. *,
('i'Y
. e.. s,, 3 q _- l r
.~ -....
p, 1
)>.:,
n 4
i N. -
f
.- b:v l?)i f3
. f, '
n:.
D
,y 5
t 9,
3 s
r:
4't -
FJCTION NOZZ'LE AT b'
~
b 67 DEGREES 30 MINUTES AZlMUTH 46 DEGREES AZIMUTH t
-+
-- 12.00 in.
/
l.
l
/
\\
l, t
(
)
8G 81
[
,3 j
)
7
/
3 i'
' k
.j
\\
- 8
?8 A18
- SG 82 i
'em
^
)
I er fh SG 51 OUTSM)E I
i SG 52 INSIDE i
a j-80TTOM OF TORUS SHELL i
=lipwe 4. Locotton of So sin Geges and Accelerometas on hedon Hender s
e e
e 9
e S
0 1.
i.,
a y * -
?
9 y
~~
~ lm.~
_ Q t 4 k E, '{ fl7 e
%V4'T:,%59M,M~ia.W'W wa Km.~.W"a.tw[G.7lTWQN,q~ u.a llG AR.,gg;fe%,3;9si, war =.u ilgnM._fi.s5%>. 3..L. e::W;pNav. * '
FNNFW Vd m
iW
- on ~. i waMgf Q 1
,.nx w:w.a L.e s-
~ --
p-w a
, m. g.,
~
.~
,}-'
g4j *.;-
p gb
- . 4y a
~
ug,,;.
ICL'
/
M SG80
- !a
( {,
scss ja (4NS40E) f p-
~Tonus L.
4+i e
r:, ;
e, -,
ll* j.
VENT Yh o
kJ.
S ty3 l
I4 '
3 r
- q.c v
3.
ff _ '
A; A
%f sosay y
g
/
(p.
.L a
SG48 a
..r 2
r, a
. g,j2 ll$V
}_
j h
1:
?.
l
.sGs0 T,1 IiW '.
U
.Q A
SG 66 d-ef
@k Y
)
U):
v f
J.
SG 65 Q
dj
/ C-.1 N 2@.
SG 71 5G 72 M
pj mm sq som t
TK, s
- f.. <f
.q :k VENT HEADEM tg scas rtt 468 t
e1 y,..f II TasT SAY VENT
~
i t.
A sn.Q.
r q
h,s..
N so4e
/
@ sca s sco 2
so.O 1
x h'
n
'W ;
4 n.c 4-scea di sose i 3,*
2ev scas
,$1 -
VIEW A A
5s
.D4 YiY.
Figurr 5. Location of Strain Gapes on Vent Healer sad Sleen. Ymt Sseport Colwnn, and Torus Legs al w;
- c-
- t-
_g.
.4
& M m <nza." gnu,-
.w m p,.
- :a - ~
.y
- x - r r... ~
~rr
,v
gi.pt w w;r; Y_;t:-iy:m y w w.n. A g.y&q p.. V:. 7; u r:. y n o a p.?;;p: F x
ama mact u : 9794My?s.:, %.wn : V:y::
m.
~
....: eum..,y 9 a.'.3:_s.s.9: :.;
Q
+. m a.....:.
. u. _
....a l',
(
SUMMAR Y l
1 UN8.AXfAL STR AIN GAGE
.s i
k y
[
-PRO 8ES NO. 0 F I
.. M STRAIN GAGES I
UNIAXtAL S/5 8
LANYARO k
POTENT! CME"JER '
~ ' ' ' ' ' ~ '
flTRAIN GAGE 1
ACCELEROMETER, A
l q
UNIAXIAL 1/1 I
EAXIAL 1/2-
{
2 UNIAXf AL STRAIN GAGES 47 ANO se SEE VIEW A.A FOR LOCATION i
r I
47 48 1
1 t
TEST SAY
/L ".
7g 3
h 33._.
'y"l
& 1/2 A j )
kJ
{
i
- t M LANYARD POTENTIOMETER
-M UNIAXtAL STRAIN GAGE l.
@ ACCELEROMETER
- A SIAXtAL ACCELEROMETER A17 m
O PLAN VIEW OL x%.
3 UNIAXIAL STRAIN
{
kk i
GAGES 40. 44. AND %
ml k /
/ -
h SA FMOM BASE'-PLATZ END UNDER THE 4
i RAMSHEAD l
VIEW A.A I.
/
n s
t J
g 2h m
UNI AXfAL STRAIN GAG E 44 1
2 i
/
ONE UN!AXtAL ACCELEROMETER Al 1
I i
i i
s-
\\
% N~
1 P 2 UNI AXIAL STRAIN GAGES 45 AND46.WITH
/
ONE E ACH ON TOP AND SOTTou
'w i
1./
11.h 4-in..
f fipww & Location of Strain Gages and Axoferomete on Safety /Reflef Vahs Discharye Line andSupport Smensn
-9 1
t w_wa mrver'"~ ~rmntm~:. "" W n
_.,:y,,..
v w,~"
j % M i2 ' M ME M.:E 3~%C $L.056.% h"222.T3.5dAlSO1 2 $50ht%."C5WS?>5' E E ?Y % $ 6 5?d!NIN N N A ??A!'S N 003' i,t
<g
.\\.
4
.t"-
m.
M
' 1,1
_i m.
~
n N.
VENT.
ln.
'~
4
%x/
1 sr 1
4
%i 2--
~~"-
NORMAL WATEM LEVEL 5 jer,,IJ!
4 1.5 ft A
l?
a i-I f.
~
- f. ?
9
~
8h
?:
W
. e..
- 10.,1 t.
ON LEVEL WITH RAMSHEAD
.n..
i ;#, '
M
- u..
r,4
\\l.x.
SECTSON VlEW
,t
].f).
SENSOA LOCATIGN a)3.
%4 TORUS WALL OR CLCSE T
70 THE WAL,L w
N[# '
7,8 ON SUPPORT WF
~
9 ON DRAIN TUEE y
10 HALFWAY SETWEEN
.S TORUS WALL ANO N
AAMSHEAD, ON SAME
+]3]4f 8
RAMSHEAD,
ELEVATION OF THE I l.
- f. ;'.
l
/
10 h M
JA T
1
%j '
7
(.
4h Q{
N g.
2h 8 5 i'i 1r
.TP
- rT, TEST SAY
~
- i1' 2
10 g
9 a
a\\st
)
i a$'
3
$).
4 m
,4
- Q PLAN VIEW M
h!.}
fdt mA '
r,1 4
)
finnair A location of Temperaaxe Sennomin TprusPaal
.?
g y
{".
"MTET7M2F75'N'WM 1Em J MN9> : ' ar "O
7"'
U "l~N
- S%%?$5?..dh?b?'WW DIY?b$b?S E S S
't.n.
~
ff
'r;
- e, j
.p
- 9.,.
v).
".w _
~,...
eq.
g, g "..I -
?)4
'~
@11 A
C3.
3*q '
VENT f
T - c,,;- Q.-
ed
,2 ft =
_ _ _ ~ _
NORM /L WATER LEVEL i
o c.i T
$,.0.. -
3
?!;3 b 3* #
- h.,l,
u
$'.N
~t NOTE: MTDs ARE TO 8E LOCATED SO AS 19{
TO MEASURE WATENSTEAM/ AIR ii): '
TEMPERATURE 17. PtPE. SENSORS SECTION VIEW 3 ANO 4 ARE AT THE RAMS 4tEAD EXITS.
ee 4,+
4 1.ij 04SCHARGE WATER AND AIR CLEAR W
'9 OF THE PIPE WITHIN I SECOND.
c.;
gr W1s isa 67*J)
Po!
Ml}
yl v.
M 9*
- - }
w 4*
i., &
- v. '
cv e
gy
~
?'h
@q$
SL 6
[
@ 1. 2 '
@3 TEST BAY pj i
u u
Q '.
- 34 p.j.
l I+
nf]
ypj.
. PLAN VIEW g.
l i'.s' gL.
g i',
SSW OO$ W 5 NN W l350 Nty'/SO((gfYglWO & q [&
s s
N.,
O,.
p n
e i
g?'
l 1 Y T2.I @ II2*j_ IMP 5?Of-
'."". U T E i?- @
- NTT-
~~,T '. "M *'? ?"" " *"
- J.
A
Wif%DCEkb?M558.bhG%DI.1D2MEGk&2El!.Mi&2052[MII'ES$5LENMIWOSNUb5W=Yl' SEUA5E'W-u1 ae
',i..-
+
~*N e
37 h DETAIL 8
'l
\\t \\
g
, 3G
.. + -
- ' - - - ^ ~ '
a y
gi kj A SAFETY / RELIEF VALVE a l
- a
'*i j
- ffj, 1
as 38-f0 -
p.]
TWO ROSETTE STRAIN
~~
i 1
CAGES. WITH ONE.
- s. :a
' DETAIL A
}
%)
- , ELEMENT PAR A LLEL TO ti
SUMMARY
l PIPE AXIS, ON TOP SiOE 5A I!.- '
I
- OF DISCHARGE PIPE I
i f.:
37 7 I
k - ROSETTE l OtSCHARGE PIPE P..!;
. Sjg
' 5 TRAIN GAGES 4 b,*
- VALVE l
Mj HALF WAY U-36
- @. TRI BETWEEN hj AXtAL LANYARD ELBOWS q
i POTENTIOMETER $ 2
?1
- ~ (CR 6 UNIAXI ALS) g """"
Q n;
LP 1 THROUGH 4 HALF WAY BETWEEN
, FLANGE AND EL80W
[
t 1)
.c 0
i
.q DETAIL 8 i
1 Q
- 9 b
i Y'
[f:3 S/A VALVE INLET i
8 RANCH P1PE A,
L e
F TQe
>:3 TWO ROSETTE STRAIN d.
GAGES.2 INCHES ABOVE
[Yj THE WELD 90 DEGREES APART g
- WITH ONE ELEMENT PARALLEL g3 y@
TO Axl3 OF BRANCH PIPE j
- a n
_/
SWEEPOLET s-l MAIN STEAM LINE
- g q
x s2M g
B DETAIL A y
V t
i g.TOOBSCHARGE b
g a
Gy flgttre 7. Location of Sowin Gager and Lanyard PotPntiometes on Safety / Relief Valn Piping in Drywell O's P24 3H y k3 t
'? 9F'W" **? W;i.
?T Y W..
~a+X' QT 'h', ?sM 1[A:'f~.:s- $%'r e?
\\%
x
.1 8
YMMhMV)GIFAt&MGXL*.*ll,%TUMA-2%WMi-%.YGi?RLAEUET2ETE%? 21d?ALL.,:.YMlOWILUWEENbkN5b:E$Ub ti*
h.'j '
y,.
~.
>,1 ow ifi
+
?C' i
- Je;! '
n}
wi
.u...,,
, ; @s '
SENSOM LOCATION,.
Qj 2
4 1
IMMEDIATELY OOWNSTREAM OF
'M
- AAI SIR VALVE. OtM E?.SiCN is SHOWN POR REFERENCE ONI.Y.
~
n-hg
- Y P 1
'2
- IMMEDIATELY UPSTREAM OF
. WATER LEVEL EN~
3 MALFWAY BETWEEN 1 AND 2
![?1 4
.RJET UPSTREAMcF RAMS HEAD A
1 ft WELD JOINT.
g 3
, BACK.UP OF P1
?!;(.
21.22 FOR RV211F. ANO RV2'.11H F;;;
dh3 MPE LINES. RESPECTIVELY. AT q.d, 6 INCHES ABOVE MAXIMUM n;a WATER LEVEL v.Id F4
- /i kV
=
fi h @2 21 & 22
'hl.
iL MAXIMUM WATER LEVEL h
$1 9.,
~j d"
>5 1
A w-N.'
'.Y5%.,
1 DETAIL A l.y u),
aj
' I
~
A
$1 bd
.. a CGd
'.A., ;
rc2s a
[Ay sm-mus b.. - -.
4 A
f
@'f DETAIL A B
w a.
.gn1 Rpss 1G Location of Pressurr Transducm in Safety /Rdief Vale Dischame Line e
W6
,51 Y.
A.
!g, -
o Ft
,5 j
[; t d M @,;19 M 3 ((d N W 4 C d '833,2 M 3 8 9,'dif d M E; 3 $3] W N I d ?$ $ $ 2 fj['N j,C,n [ 2 5[f,'d,4 1 [(f.$J,S $[',d I:,,.l i
I i
4
-]
~,
i 1
?
SECTION VIEW
?
.i i
-,I l
l-
\\
l i
1 l
1 l
i s
1
}
t w --
g3 l
L seORMAL WATER LEVEL
==-
' ~~
] 14 it N
~
j
%N'
)
b l
NOTES:
\\
l
- h. - -
T; alt; TRANSDUCERS ARE f
\\
i MOUNTED ON TORUS WALL i
ORCLOSE TO IT EXCEPT
)
t OTHERWISE NOTED.
1 TRANSDUCERS P5 ANO P12 SAY O ARE TO BE MOUNTED FLUSH WITH THE TOP SURFACE OF
'l l
7n THE SUPPORT WlOE FLANGE.
- 3. AT LEAST TWO TRANSDUCERS 11 SHOULO BE FOUNTED ONTO THE l
s TORUS WALL DIRECTLY IN CONTACT. FREE OF POOL WATER IN BETWEEN. THESE SHOULO BE i
~
LOCATED CORP ESPONDING TO STRAIN GAGES OUTSIDE OF
@p THE WALL WHICH MAY BE CLOSE TO SUT NOT EXACTLY AT THE 7h g
DIMENSIONS SHOWN.
j P
@J ft 4 1
}
(
.p M
4 ts A f6 gh 7s A t
72in.
4 TEST BAY D h.
gg a
+ -. -
n.
1.
n nA PLANE VIEW h
13 A MEF k.
m N
a4 hwah ' #
4h
- -- 9ft *
- Fmure 11. Location af Pressure Twisducers PS em# P19in Tms M 1
A
- 9[?.
F6'<
i
___,_____l..'
_d-g
._++,,--
yy>=w-*m;n;-sty? y"7'WT'M'OTW g.,
? Q)M?&hhTiME20dK'$62EN8bS$5'OES.NLSEAS EN d
~. s
&J...
I -
y
.{
)
+
,j.;
I
.e/,
t yM-t
',Y.i.
\\
,.j.
)
e.,
- q
$)
s.1 f
M
{
- a
- 1 F ')j 1
SENSOM LOCATION
&1
\\
W1 AT WELO JOINT OF RAMS HEAQ
!,t S.61 4 W2 HALFWAY SETWEEN W1 AND W3
)
k W3 ONE FOOT A80VE HIGH WATER LEVEL j
W4 AT THE ENTRANC2 TO VENT PIPE g.
7 K
g yid NS\\
A WS AT ORYWELL SiCE OF VENT 10.3 M
34,34 WS AT WELD JOINT AS SHOWN
- .4 q
W12 MIDWAY SETWEEN W4 AND W5 o
p3 g
P
~
i.,.
10.03
.t 41 p,
d>}
4J7 R
aal -
73 Q
K,,,
.c-.
.ga
- A
^ ^ ^
s 1
P.4 1J7 (G
6 W I
s.35
(
2h 5W id
. W 12 14.67 l
W4 a
s,1 jI W
9.875
~
nj
.r1 u
m-d.1 11.53 V
2W Rd 2
2.:
1 W g;jh NOTE: ALL, DIMENSIONS IN FEZT
'b gr N-y newe n. tococon or water tower proses in sateryineisei vane oisenarce tirie 1
1 1
e'?'9 ia
+$
a I
u3
!.5 5 v 4
m 'rm-. -
- g...
r -,;.
q;.,
...g,,,,
,g,...,__
g.
@dE5NIO.55.l51A% Sui 3ELO21%Gk356LW l;.L'h5 35WY$D3ME5NIUnd.::A?5E82:NSO E:Ju !:.L. %. M O-
- te./j
':.k. y L.
.M, r
4.
,. q
.1 2
e
.:)
q
%);
w Vd
,,e.i nty m
H. u, i
..3
"/,4 7 8 9 10 11
.,3p.
v f
l_w'!allWeu.;{.'.t
(
N9 C
(.,;
'Y.'
s,
+
2 ft 4-
, v,.A M
e-- 3 ft ->
y.q 4.,
g q, 4
d,-..
h 5 ft
---e=
I f'.il N
j@73 c
s f:
T, @
ru
'y_
m Y3 y.;r VIEW A-A g
w m
, ~. -
A
,:t]. t
,e1
- k f'.
s u
d' W W W W W r
>g W. _,
{
q m'
' i
, - [j r :.
R.. 4 A
- +r w.i ig NOTE: SEN$0R SUr*PCRT IS TO 8E RtGIO YET NOT OtSRUPT EITHER c1 SUBBLE FORMATION OR STEAM JET c]
@.j
../.,
m.
- .)
rmure 11 Location of Watw LevelProbesin TorusPool(VoidSensors)
Wi}
4 1
,,M
>.>i
[q
- bl e
?. A p
a iLi O
p.l 4, se i
Ea
,TE s,
I+k t s M.
s$
9 J
A
'. g...
je MM.
L:
u,
_.,. :, 2."'y C_ Tr_n?: 'ym_e'._~'7.7:.7_:;- r;'.m'.____..
__.._______7___'__m___.__a_._a___.
m_
_m__
.m_.i'.!'__.,..
Vi':r'~7' nyr.m_- _n_.,.
- ~
m
__m______________,___._y_____
__m
gbpM.l; j WaIM' f. f 1 ;z0 kn. {3mgk[%wQ(j, es}p%
d[h !h4wLpa,$w.j,.WwTyyY. s. 4[f yn7 k ~41;~$\\c.>3?[
i j.
i s
jt n g-f..
4 1
s
[E v
l j
f-S Y__t(.
e.
~
t Y'
O T
TS' E
R A'
EG NN DIT E.
LP R E
=
5 ED e
S N OU T
4, E
E s
EV l
AA I.
RL n
a N
=
e.
../
_Hl l
RF n
OE 7
iI SI 2
/
~
NL E E s
SR 4
s
/
LE b' -
LH l,
AT, A
7'
{'
- g g,
la i l
~
5 S
E' E
T
]
ON D
0-3 s
5
,s lg.
er
{
te m
Y o
S-re a
l e
A c
S
,- Ac U
n f
1 e
o S
e n
A
. io 5
t 3
a t
g
'f 3
N
\\~
c A
( )j o
L E
s 4
O
_ 7
/
1 8
e t
Y
- a.
y Ss re 3
I l l
- p. "-
AA F
f
- 'a
.e.',.
A
?
2-la S
L
?
(l E
t N
8-F N s-
.OA 2
.?'
='
s.
. ~
RH jr # :-
-I. s:
e
+EC 8
2 c/
3 3 8 1
E S
/
f /
/
l MR t
j 2 4
M UE A
NT S
E 6
N M
O J.
1 A.
a D
O 8
E 1A TT E
2 AR 1
D A.
P.
C A 3,
E SY O
OP O8 E T
LA
=
}S
[sh n,v H
LL S R S
ET T E
L A A A RE F
TT EE 1
RSE E T EG 4
E}O.
D iE OAI T E
OD R T8 E 3 P R O E
NN 1
T ES K A L
c
)2 T OO A A.
E N E
L L U Y, S CO M AAOA A
- i1(A
- a.
I R XX HB I
C T O
f t X
A A T
I I RS L
WE k'
- 2 *,,,.
L C TTET T T
- E i
C 5.
A'l 2 3
d Mg.
'.l.l,:
.I lf i
!
- i
,i1*
=t s
e
.e e
..,dt%@ -
eg;dk[ d4 fj'Q.gjg, g I ' :
A id-q.
't t:
- . sj o[l%"i a%
..k..,
$ (;[b. Vj t
l,I']j
'L
~ "
i.,
.