ML20070M245

Forwards Addl Evidence That Facility Fluid/Structure Interaction Effects on Load Definition Will Be Similar to Kuosheng Effects.Encl Analysis Confirms That in-plant Safety Relief Valve Testing Not Required

ML20070M245
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	01/14/1983
From:	Edelman M CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO.
To:	Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
PY-CEI-NRC-0005, PY-CEI-NRC-5, NUDOCS 8301250003
Download: ML20070M245 (23)

Text

.

t TH E CLE!! ELAN D ELECTR!C !LLUMIN AT!N G CO MPANY r

P.O. Box $000 - CLEVELAND, OHIO 44101 - TELEPHONE (216) 622-9800 - ILLUMINATING BLOG.

- 55 PUBLICSQUARE Serving The Best Location in the Nation MURRAY R. EDE. MAN VICE PRES 10ENT NUCLEAR January 14, 1983 PY-CEI/NRC-0005 L Mr. B. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch No. I Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Docket Nos. 50-440; 50-441 Additional Information on SRV Hydrodynamic Loads

Dear Mr. Youngblood:

This letter and its attachments are provided to further address our position that the Kuosheng SRV test data confirms the conservatism of the SRV hydrodynamic load methodology used in the Perry Plant design and plant unique testing is not required at Perry. Previous submittals dated October 15, 1982 and November 17, 1982 provided documer4tation of this position.

In response to a request by the Structural Engineering Branch, we have performed further analysis, comparing Kuosheng and Perry response spectra in the pool region, using similar forcing functions. The attached discussion and response spectra (Attachments I and 2), together with our previous submittals, provide quantitative evidence that fluid / structure interaction effects on load definition will be very similar at Perry to those at Kuosheng and obviates the need for confirmatory SRV testing at Perry.

Finally, a revised discussion of the amplification factors used to compare Kuosheng test data to the Perry design values in our November 17, 1982 submittal is provided (Attachment 3) to clarify how these factors were developed.

god /

8301250003 830114 PDR ADOCK 05000440 t

A PDR

Mr. B. 3. Youngblood, Chief January 14,1983 This submittal completes our analysis and evaluation that in-plant SRV testing is not required for Perry.

If you have any questions, please let me know. -

Very truly yours, Murray R.

delman Vice President Nuclear Group MRE:kh cc:

Jay Silberg, Esq.

John Stefano Max Gildner

3. Kudrick D. Jeng L. Yang N. Chokshi F. Eltawila Attachments

.d ATTACHMENT 1 Letter Dated: Januayr ! ~+,1983 PY-CEl/NRC-0005 L In the region of the suppression poc1 there is virtually no difference in the horizontal structural characteristics of Perry and Kuosheng in that in this region they are both steel lined concrete containments. The plants are also similar in their vertical structural characteristics regarding fluid /

structural interaction, but similarity of vertical structural response is not anticipated.

The similarities that are important to pressure definition consist of base-mats (141' diameter and 10.75' thick for Kuosheng, and 136' and 12.0' for Perry), drywells that are different only in diameter (69' for Kuosheng and 75' for Perry), nearly identical containments in the pool region (114' I.D.

and 8.5' thick for Kuosheng, and 120' I.D. and 8.0' thick for Perry), and construction materials. The most significant difference, affecting only vertical response, is in the shear wave velocities for the two plants, 2,300 fps for Kuosheng and 4,900 fps for Perry.

In accordance with Structural Engineering Branch's request on November 22, 1982, we have performed an analysis which compares Kuosheng response spectra with Perry response spectra in the pool region using similar forcing func-tions (SRV and SRVCO).

The basis for this comparison was General Electric Company's load definition for SRV and SRVCO.

Using this load definition as a forcing function for Perry's containment model, the Perry response spectra were generated. These response spectra were than plotted--together with Kuosheng's design response spectra in the pool region. The curves in are the results of this analysis.

Also attached is Figure 3.8 ', "Typioal Section of Reactor Building Complex,"

which indicates the location of node points evaluated.

It should be noted that these curves are expected to reveal disparities since the two plants are similar, not identical. The specific differences can be categorized as physical and analytical. The significant physical differences are basemat thickness and sub-foundation shear wave velocity. The analytical differences consist of different values of A and B damping, computer model element types (shell elements throughout for Perry and a mixture of solid elements and shell for Kuosheng), material properties (some orthotropic for Kuosheng and all isotropic for Perry) and forcing functions (the Kuosheng envelope is the worst of 3 loading cases plus CO, i.e.,

it is not a single continuous event as is the Perry SRV and SRV CO). These differences affect vertical response to a greater degree than they affect horizontal response.

The ef fects of these differences are as anticipated (e.g., the higher design vertical response for Kuosheng at lowar frequencies is primarily due to the softer basemat and soil). Furthermore, although the Perry vertical spectra are generally less than the Kuosheng vertical spectra, vertical response is relatively unimportant in fluid / structure interaction considerations. That is, vertical response, even in the pool region, is influenced by the stiff-ness and mass of the entire building to a far greater extent than radial response is, whereas fluid / structure interaction is primarily a function of the fluid-retaining structure rigidity.

Both Perry and Kuosheng, including

Attachment i the differences in basemat thickness and soil shear wave velocity, are beyond the " threshold" limits for rigidity insofar as fluid / structure interaction is concerned. Thus, comparisons of vertical response are more indicative of different total building inertia or mass and equivalent soil springs than they are of fluid / structure interaction or pressure definition.

With regard to the radial response, the use of the SRV and SRV C0 forcing function does not affect the conclusion that fluid / structure interaction effects are similar for the two plants. This is best illustrated by referring to the attached radial comparisons in the mid and upper pool regions where fluid / structure interaction affects are most pronounced. There are " exceed-ances" in the theoretical curves of Attachment 2 just as there were in the previously submitted comparisons based on Kuosheng test data.

However, these exceedances generally occur at higher frequencies and are of little concern because of the following:

1.

Kuosheng strain gages verified that there was no problem with high accelerations at high frequency.

2.

Generic studies (NEDE-25250) show that exceedances beyond 60 Hz are of no concern.

3.

Perry valves can withstand, typically, a doubling of the RRS.

4.

For equipment qualified by test, the actual TRS is generally far above anticipated exceedances.

In coaclusion, based on the attached data, Perry spectra generally bound Kuosheng spectra in the radial direction.

Both of these spectra are theo-retical, and there is good radial response correlation in the mid pool region (nodes 202 and 180). The mid pool region is more meaningful for this theoretical comparison because the affects of modeling differences are minimal in this region and fluid / structure interaction relative to load definition would be most pronounced in this area.

Although the attached Kuosheng spectra generally bound Perry spectra verti-cally, vertical response is relatively unimportant in fluid / structure inter-action definition.

In addition, aur November 17,1982, submittal of comparisons of Perry design spectra with spectra based on Perry model--Kuosheng pressure time history factored to Perry conditions generally indicate bounding in radial direction.

Also, the pool region comparisons in the November 17 submittal of Perry model--Kuosheng pressure time history spectra with Kuosheng measured spectra exhibit good correlation. Where there are differences, they are either at extremely low response lovcis or at extremely high frequencies.

367/A/2/ba l

s

. to Letter Dated: January 14, 1983 PY-CEl/NRC-0005 L

4 3

i

, co,.

en v

t L.167' S*s t.i tu.*soien6 nova

+

m es sia.o r I s"'.y'.E*

~.eAo..

w

u. w...

80 tam caang A see 6;ntam E

/ C04'aissutht

(

vtS5tk g auuukVS 67aCG

[

3 OS W Ce*

CaywtLL intag h

{ELEW 0

, n.' r80'I,g IL-f 9

(80Yatto su1o v6'W) i

_: i r(cotuwu

"" * ] f 1TD ef PLatts) fuf v Goa.1*

k.

-f---fM *,'.7

.[. Q 's'[,'Y,b "

~-

\\

.i:.

I J - *'ev c ***

~"

st=uc tun.n,f ste,u.',

au

1. Wau 40da Etty Ges4*n C

G3' d a

.ws 0.LO4_< ae..c 3e

-L.-

~. a.

z us. oc.,u P" '"'

4.WWZ

..w t

+e w-Ang 2.m re me-P

'l

(

.j

.. - sa, c.e,a

-__pygy.

.I y,y y p*

• w

-n ny.*..a.,

5

1. IM;32

-:: = '* 'o - oc-

Z

' -L..v... 6_

.d

. w e.m,.

x

. %, wen.u p-b.n w

-e.~.c umu_.

v a

p s.

+$-"'A A

f__m.1,,,m um,.u:

,..g. -!=t m,

w.

~e, m u-a

.*cf,.,

- q,md e,a

,wura..-

t r.mp4@-

. 1..

e,. =

'3 Zl2.

,0

^

o o i

.... ",ar,~,.a. [,

._. t 18 0 1

185 1L M Z.

[h 169 r

?5

.a.'-

'9 a* r s ll p Y

.C. ?. 'M rg.

<=

8.e 1,7 h.

O N

E E

32?

1 4

l

C

( __~ D CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING-PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT G^TLBERT

/

/(

FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA DIR: RADIAL DAMP:

.020 a

COMMONWEALTH o L J

KU0SHENG PREDICTE0fN00E:100ls VS PNPP ANALYTICAL [N00E:215) m t

i c

+

o i

m ru-PERRY i

a i

9

+

i O

i i

O y

e

" ~

..__.7-1 i

l' i

8 O

i i

'i m

i n

4 J

j i

l i

{

J i

J

+

o j

i O

r 3

f f

l l

i i

i l

l f

f o

I I

+

m i

__._._.._g..

._..,f,,_

~-

i i

i 1

t t

l 8

j 10 0

$ 3$$li e' A

4 s

s i

s s 10*

FREQUENCT (HZ)

I see as onto 12ne/sa i

{

/, h CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING-PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

/

GILBERT

/

FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA DIR: VERTICAL DAMP:

.020 COMMONWEA,uTH

~

o KU0SHENG PREDICTED (NODE:100)a VS PNPP ANALYTICAL [ NODE:215-)

9 (

)

a t

1 l

t i

e j

i.

j

+

i i

c3 a

t 7

i 4,

4 l

i a

a i

i 4

%a i

i i

+

1 j

l i

i i

i i

i z

+

+

C o i

i l

l i

i l

l i

IO..

l

.._....f_.

..___..[.

"w i

i i

. l..

l

~

6

+

1 c

i a

a i

g

\\,

~

N._

ro J

i i

i i

)

l i

+

i

+

i O

l l

l

}

ru

+

j X

3 s

I PERRY \\;

f t

i

W t

o i

D i

i i

c3 c.

Q l

I 6

6 1

1 I

i j

g i

i 3

I i

i I

6 10 2

3 4

5 6

7 8 9 10' 2

3 4

5 6

7 8 9 10 FREQUENCY (HZ) 1 JOB 796 DATE: 12/16/82 1

{

h m

CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING-PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT GILBERT

/

FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA DIR: RADIAL DAMP:

.020 COMMONWEALTH o

KU0SHENG PREDICTEC[ NODE:132).s VS PNPP ANALYT1C AL (N00E: 202)

)

D

=

l o

o j

i i

i

+

t om

. l.

7

.g I

a

~

4 i

e i

1 i

j 1

t, i

N 3

t l

.0

[

l 3

i J

i l

1 J

i l

i J

i a

o

>e i

i I

t i

s i

t

+

j l

j f

i j

I

_i..

. [d _ _ _ [

i

^/

o

+__

l n

+

J t

l I

i i

i i

i

.i i

4 o

i

'/

0 -

-.V.

o 10 2

3 4

5 6

7 8 9,1 0' 2

3 4

5 6

7 8 9 1.0 a

l FREQUENCY (HZ)

I ace 798 onte: 12 / i e < 82 1

[

\\

CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING-PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT GILBERT

/

FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA DIR: VERTICAL DAMP:

.020 COMMONWEALTH s

o KUCSHENG PREDICTE0(N00E:1321a VS PNPP AN ALY T I C AL (N00E : 202i

)

~

o o

9 i

i o

o r

0 2

i i

4 n

i i

i i

l i

3 0

l i.

i o

e_

l I

i L..

to 4

i c

t a

J l

t A 'i a

j O

Jr J

u e

Co j

l i

i 1

1 i

i a

o i

N g-

.s 3

lPERRyn l

i

@ ~~ _..

l 10 2

3 4

5 6

7 8 9,10 2

3 4

5 6

7 8 9 10, 5

FREQUENCY (HZ) 1 JOB 796 ORTE: 12/16/92l

[

D CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING-PERRY NUCLEAR OWER PLANT

/'/,

GILBERT

/

FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA DIR: RADIAL DAMP:

020 d

COMMONW,_AL H

t i

o KU0SHENG PREDICTED [N00E: 2151 a VS PNPP ANALTTICAL(NODE:18t4) d (

)

S i

o o

i i

^

n to. _

. c o

+

o i

i i

4 e

i t

i i

i r

~~

~

i d~

i

~

~

i r

i i

i i

i i

r 1

PERRY] '

o s,

o

+

i. _

1 c)

..t.

i

~

l wa "M

i i

9

-^

O '~10 2'

3' 4

5' 6'

7' 8'

9' l10' 2'

3' 4'

5' 6'

7' 8'

9' 1 0.

2 0

FRE0'UENCY (HZ)

I JOB 796 ORTE: 12/16/82 i o

E

{

h CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING-PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT GILBERT

/

FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA DIR: VERTICAL DAMP:

020 COMMONWEALTH o

KU0SHENG PREDICTED (NODE:21Sla VS PNPP AN ALYTIC AL (N00E: 1841 L

)

~

t 4

C3 i

O j

i i

i e

C3

?

O 7

q.

i o

I i

+

i i

i

}

i i

i l

i i

l l

i i

3

,i 0

e

+

.A t

1

.o i

1 to i

i C

i i

4 i

o i

i i

4 a

i 1

go, 1

i l

a.-

r -

i r

7

~}

gg i

i i

l 1

+

4 i

/.

o m

... p.

i t

i 1

l PErtRY

/

l I

\\

i 8

l 4

g- 0 i

i i

i i

i 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9 'l O' 2

3 4

5 6

7 8 e 1o' FREQUENCY (HZ) 1 JOB 796 OA1E: 12/15/82 1

a._.

k _ - = -

A ~A 1 R ;_ _. _ _._

_ _ J.

f D

f GILBERT

/

CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING-PERRY T'

COMMONWEALTH FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DIR: RADIAL DAMP:

.020 oK N

)

KU0SHENG PREDICTED (NODE: 291)^

VS PNPP (NODE: 212)

/

g t

i v

e e

t t

t C3 o

i r

4 m

.i l

i I

7

...-_..g t

i i.

i E

o 00 4

i 4

I a

4 i

}

i 4

i i

i

.t

,i' _ _

i

?

i i

e i

i i

ca i

I i

i N

r i

i l

3 3

1 i

i i

a.

g 3

i i

+

i i

i i

e C) i i

so

+

I i

1 i

~

..p-i t

i

,i

- ~.....

i i

8 l

i i

j i

,i i

l O

a

+

=-

i

=

4 t) a i

i

.i

- i n

l i

s n

s l

D I

i E

i M"

)

e a'

t 8

e

,l

[

I t

I h

~

'10 i

$ $ '10' U

4

,4 i

j i

i m-

(

D

~

CLEVELAN0 ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING-PERRY NUCLEAR. POWER PLANT GILBERT

/

FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA DIR: VERTICAL DAMP:

.020 COMMONWEALTH j

o KU0SHENG PREDICTED (NODE:2911a VS PNPP ANALYTICAL (NODE:2.121-R

)

m t

i 4

i

,1 1

o l

._ -. a.. _.. _

. _ _ _ '.. _.._ 7.. :

i

.tn

. 4 _. m __.

1, i

i f

f I

oo l

i i

~

1

...m_.

t.._...._......

. 7.....7. -.

L3 l

1 1

i z

3 i

O l

I' 4

i i.

Hn

_...y

{_9

_u.........

i..,..

,. _... l. _..l i

p l

F--

7..._.__.

j. l 7

Mt3 \\

1 ua i

_J l

i i

hJ og

. _.. ~,

i i

i l,

4 i

-l om

.,....-.t.-..

o r- '. ~

t s

1 p.

s 3

i g

N i~.

i i

\\

u 10 2

3

.4 5

6 7.

8 9 10' 2

3 4

5 6,

7 8 9 j

c3

~

. FREQUENCY IHZ1-w.

I an8 m onte: " 2 " *.~ r' s

4

.I e.

.o o

s l

i l

.h z

i

-co q

a

e..

t t

i m

J O j

I A

N. O -

i

+

g g g

i j

{

-e a,

C

-+

J.,

w j.

.J.

o 1

t

.. h3 i

s D

M Q_

a.

O I

-m 3

y g

..... )

4 E CL Z i

d' E

aO 4

~

t

?

ta b g

g

. gl-... __

j......

.f.

- :r a

di i

i u

L D

Z b

z a

1.'

I i

- tra e G (O i

e i

i l

i e

i T m >

l t

wa h CT I

'/a 8 x <

t J

o I

,g N

...I j....

--fu Z

- mm F e -s N

3 l

t G O z

i c-.

bJ I

)

^

e N

g a

D CT O I

I 1~

_f 0-Z j

J W l

I i

c-.

O e

p.

W D I

5

~

u& UI i

OO w th H f

1. ~' 2 C

u I

I

}

LLI p

.-{.

7

-CD

-)

p g,..,

4..

w.

i j

'O U (n O :

wZ bl I-i- -

r j-P

-O us 8 O C i

e m

mgo j

. l.

+g awe i

...k Z [ ;;.*

i

.. e Cr bi 1

g i

J r r e

i w o en

.. s..

a

.c

> oo wJ n

u.

r i

i c

I u

4

.[.

..I a:

t-

__f i

i l.-.

j

- tr>

N O' LJI I

I i

5-. *<

l m7 u I C3 I

i Q3 2' n,

__, y.

~o b k.I 6

)

l l

t i

I

/

-- i, i

l Q-

-[

I 3

o o

a on a 00 2 -

09 1 oe r oe o on o 00 0 (0)

NO))UU373330 i

Y k

fYY. b gt&.; ne_~.6_w,__Y !

r:r.. y m.u g g _w " n _;9 a n.g n.s.... _ c

.w,....

. u w.w.m:=

2c

,mm., _ m. _.

m,.

(

3-CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING-PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT GILBERT

/

l FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA DIR: VERTICAL DAMP:

020 COMMONWEALTH o

KU0SHENG PRE 01CTED (NODE: 282) A VS PNPP ANALTTICAL(N00E:1801 L

.]

m j

i i

g i

l i

e nn l

j i

...u

.l i

2 t

o t

i 4._-.....

7.

,...p _

...y..

.-. _._;-_ 4. _ l 7

o

~

o z

a

?

gn j

F-

..{

!..i..._.

ct ~

t j

j a:

y l

1 i

a u;

i u8 i

+a U

E E~_

A_

l

[64A}-

\\'

Ow t

i j

==-.-.a.m.-

we e e m -

ee6-w.+ma.g.

neesp.m -

e.a.o.

.,o.6

.a

-+....

3l a

i

/

E

!I

-10 14 5

1

$ 9 10':

2 4

i 56 1

I JOB m ORkE: 01/10/03]

, F. R E Q U. E N_C Y

-( H Z ).

o i

m

_fh.

' >..{

1 h i, e

',.[;.'

-f.

., g

G G

C

~

(

)

CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING-PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLnNT GILBERT /

FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA DIR: RADIAL DAMP:

.020 COMMONWEALTH KU0SHENG PREDICTED (N00E:2G7) a VS PNPP AN AL YT 1 C AL (N00E: 1it.2) o

)

~

s l

-+

+

1 f

a i

v, 1,

i i

j t

o o

r j......,.... _ ;...._..__..._.._..

s

..a.._.._._..m.

I t

i i

1 4

i I

l I

I i

t j

o i

ao

_... 4

.t...

-.. {

... } _. _

o t

t t

i i

t t

i i

e t

i 1

i 4

> C3 i

i

=

t F-

_.......n.L.._...._..

4 1_._4.__.....

d..

I

}

_.l e>

cro 1

i a-l LL) t j

l a

uJ

. {..

-l i

i i-i:

O _r 1

i I

l" i

t i.

i j

~;

o cu l.

~....... _. -. -

.,..~....f..,--

.... M....

^

^

i e

l I

t r

PERRY.

l V

o l

t i

a t--

i

- M,

9. j10' 2

3 ti s

u 7

u. 9. 1;;

g,1 (f 2

3 tl -

5 6

7 8

I FREQUENCY (HZ)

Doti N niilia m u # 1

6

(

h f~

CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING-PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT GILBFRT

/

FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA DIR: VERTICAL DAMP:

020 COMMONWEALTH o

KU0SHENG PREDICTED (NODE:267) a VS PNPP ANALYTICAL [ NODE:1145)

L

)

~

O i

o

+

a m

o i

a 4

+

+

{

?

i i

i

~

i f

J i

g i

=._

-o J

u-

=

1 t

t a

t i

t.

J i

+

J 0

3

+

l r

r to j

t e

3 4

l f '

E /;

c~

.o es i

s

/

/

% PdRRY o

o[(f i

s 4

i

$$110' 0

i $$

10" FREQUENCY (HZ) l JOB 796 OATE: 12/15/52 1

I

• Letter Dated: January 14, 1983 PY-CEI/NRC-0005 L This provides the calculations of predicted positive bubble pressures for both Kuosheng and Perry at plant conditons under which the Kuosheng SRV in-plant tests were conducted.

In addition, predicted positive bubble pressures at design conditions for both plants are included. These calculations are provided herein to support the conservatism of the extrapolation factors presented in CEI's letter to the NRC dated 11/17/82. The methodology for predicting positive bubble pressures is contained in General Electric Company Document " Containment Loads Report (CLR) - Mark III Containment," 22A4365AB, Rev. 4, January, 1980.

Test conditions were established using data contained in the "Fuosheng Safety / Relief Valve In-Plant Test-Final Report" (NUTECH International Document No. ZTP-06-310, Revision 0).

Pertinent Test Conditions were as follows:

1)

SRV Flowrate = 170 lb/sec = 278 MT/hr 2)

Suppression Pool Temperature = 320C 3)

SRV Discharge Line Air Volume * = 45 ft3 (Kuosheng) 50 ft3 (Perry)

{

i l

• These values are the approximate average air volume of the t

SRV discharge lines for the two plants, i.e., Kuosheng air volumes range from 40 to 50 ft3, Perry air volumes range from 45 to 56 ft3 All other inputs to the methodology are the same as design.

[

Attachrnent 3 I

Predicted positive bubble pressure, PRDI, can be calculated as follows:

0.253 PRDI

=

+2.58 (VAAQ.1706)

+0.1392 (MNQl-6.89)

-0.0089 (MNQ2-52.7)

+0.01 (MNQJ-6.89)

+0.1377 (LNTW-3.83)

+0.206 (WCL-4.0)

-0.0176 (WCL2-16.0)

-0.000148 (VOT-532.0)

-0.0336 (AWAQ-20.0)

+0.000761 (AWQ2-400.0)

BARS

=

Definitions for all terns are contained in GE's Containment Load Report. All pertinent geometric data are contained in Table 3 of CEI's letter to the NRC dated 10/15/82.

The Kuosheng variables at test conditions were as follows:

VAAQ = 45/74.66 =.603 f t =.184m MNQ1 = 6.89 MNQ2 = 47.47 MNQJ = (278)*7 /74.66 x 1

= 7.40 2

2

.093m /ft LNTW = In(32) = 3.466 WCL = 5.46 2

WCL2 = 29.77 m VOT = 20 msec

~

AWAQ = 20 AWQ2 = 400 The PRDI equation for Kuosheng therefore becomes:

i 0.253 0.253 PRD1

=

+2.58 (.184.1706)

+0.0346

+.1392 (6.89-6.89) 0

.0089 (47.47-52.7)

+0.0466

+.01 (7.4-6.89)

+0.0051

+.1377 (3.466-3.83)

-0.0501

+.206 (5.46-4.0)

+0.3008

.0176 (29.77-16.0)

-0.2423

.000148 (20-532.0)

+0.0758

.0336 (20.0-20.0) 0

+.000761 (400-400.0) 0 0.4235 Bars Perry variables at test conditons are the same as Kuosheng with the exception of the following:

VAAQ = 50/74.66 =.669ft =.204 m WCL = 5.3 WCL2 = 28.1 -4 S.--

The Perry PRD1 equation becomes:

PRD1 = (.253 +.0466 +.0051 +.0758) =

.330

+2.58 (.204

.1706)

+.086

+.206 (5.3 - 4.0)

+.2678

.0176 (28.1 - 16.0)

.213

.471 Bars The PRD1's at design conditions for Kuosheng and Perry are.537 and

.595 Bars, respectively. These values are contained in Table 3 of CEI's letter to the NRC dated 10/15/82. Based on these PRD1's and the PRDl's calculated at test conditions, the extrapolation factor e

for test pressures to design pressures would be.537 = 1.27

?

.424 i

for Kuosheng and.595 = 1.26 for Perry. In addition, the ratio i

.471 between Perry PRD1's at either design or test conditions to i

Kuosheng PRD1's at either design or test conditions are essentially equal i.e.,.595,= 1.11 or.471 = 1.11.

s

.537

.424 The use of these factors are more conservative than adding the absolute difference between Kuosheag test and design PRD1's (.113 bars = 1.64 3

psid) to the absolute difference between Kuosheng design and Perry design PRD1's (.058 bars -.84 psid). This is clearly represented below:

6.59 psid x 1.26 x 1.11 = 9.22 psid 6.59 psid + 1.64 psid +.84 psid = 9.07 psid I-Using the extrapolation factors produces a slightly higher peak pool pressure than the alternate method when the measured pool pressure is greater than 6.0 psid.

1 5

Based on these calculations, the extrapolation factor for upgrading i

i Kuosheng test data to Perry pressures at design conditions has been

?

coaservatively selected in CEI's letter to NRC dated 11/17/82 as 1.4, i.e., 1.26 x 1.11.

j I

i I

I I

i i

l l

i l

_..