ML17311A994

NEI Slides for November 8, 2017, Teleconference Concerning Tornado Missile Risk Evaluator Pilot Submittals

ML17311A994
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	11/08/2017
From:	Charkas H, Shanley L, Tegeler B, Vaughn S Jensen Hughes, Nuclear Energy Institute
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Brown E A DORL/LPL-LSPB 415-2315
References
EPID L-2017-LLA-0350
Download: ML17311A994 (31)

Text

TMREPublicMeetingSteveVaughnNEIHasanCharkas-EPRIBretTegeler-JENSENHUGHESLeoShanley-JENSENHUGHESNovember8th,2017*Teleconference1 Agenda*OpeningRemarks*IndustryresponsestoasubsetofNRCtechnicalquestions(ML17235B148)regardingNEI1702,Revision0-RobustTargets/Missiles-TargetCharacteristics-MissileInventory*Pathforward2 AppendixCQuestions*ResponsestoQuestion11(athrui)except11.h(spallingsecondaryeffect)3 11.a*FigureC1andTableC1donotappeartoconcludethattheassumptionsarerepresentativeofplanttargets.Specifically,theassumptionforexhaustsandstacksisdescribedashavingtheexhaust/stackbeingsupportedonbothends.Generally,andspecifictotheexampleinFigureC1,thesetargetsareunsupportedattheend.Theguidanceshouldensurejustificationisprovidedtodemonstratetheappropriatenessofthisassumption.4 Responseto11.a*AppendixChasbeenrevisedtoincludetwocases:FluidfilledpipecasethatissupportedonbothendsofpipeVentpipecasethatissupportedbyacantileveredsupportTableC6resultsreflectthesecases5 11.b*InSectionC.3.1,itistheNRCstaff'sunderstandingthatMshouldbethemassofthemissile,vicetheweightprovidedinthemissiledescriptions(mass=weight/32.2).Fornoncylindricalmissiles,theguidanceshouldensurethattheequivalentdiameterusedisthediameterofacircleequaltothefrontalareaofthenoncylindricalmissile.6 Responseto11.b*Weareinagreementwiththestaff'sunderstanding.Whilemissileweightisreferencedinthemissiledescriptions,theappropriatevalueofmassisusedwhenrequired,suchwhentheBRLequationforsteelisused:7 11.c*Theassumptionthatonlysteelmissilesarecapableofperforatingsteeltargets,shouldbeverifiedandajustificationprovided.Also,intheassociatedreferencedocumentthatdescribestheequationabove,itissaidthatthethicknessofthesteelbarrierrequiredtopreventperforationshouldexceedthethicknessforthresholdofperforationsby25percent.Itshouldbeconsideredwhetherthisassumptionissignificantenoughtobeadded.8

• AppendixCapproachaddressesbothlocalandglobaleffectsonsteeltargets*LocaleffectsrelatetopenetrationanddeformationfailuresPenetrationfailureisassessedusingBRLequation(empirical)Deformationfailureisassessedusingamechanicsbasedapproach*GlobaleffectsarerelatedtolargerdeformationsPenetrationFailureModes(Local)DeformationFailureMode(Local)DeformationFailureMode(Global)9

• Penetrationintoasteelplaterequiresthemissiletohaveahigharealdensityandstrengthtoremainintact(e.g.,steeljacketedlead)*DOEStandard301496recommendsonlyusingBRLequationforrigidmissiles*Thus,forassessingpenetrationfailure,onlysteelmissilesareconsidered*However,allmissilesareconsideredcrediblefordeformationfailuremodes10SteelmissilesconsideredforpenetrationAllmissilesconsideredfordeformation 11.d*InSectionC.3.1,theguidanceshouldprovideatableofvaluesofperforationthicknessesforthedifferenttargetsinquestion,oranexampleofthisequationusedtoevaluateoneofthetargets.11 Responseto11.d12*ThefollowingtablesummarizesthreeexamplecasesindicatingtheparametersusedintheconcreteperforationusingtheBRLequation:ParameterNotes#8RebarUtilityPole4x12timberMissileWeight(lb)RefReportTable5281500200MissileImpactFaceDimensionsRefReportTable521"dia13.5"dia4"x12"AssumedMissileProjectedArea(in2)RefReportTable520.8143.148.0EquivalentDiameter,D(in)[BasedonProjectedMissileArea]1.013.57.8AssumedConcreteDesignStrength,f'c(psi)Representative3,5003,5003,500MedianConcreteStrengthFactor,FmNEI0713;Section2.3.11.151.151.15ConcreteAgeFactor,FageNEI0713;Section2.3.11.201.201.20DynamciIncreaseFactor,DIFNEI0713;Section2.3.11.251.251.25MedianConcreteStrengthFactor'c(psi)f'cxFmxFagexDIF6,0386,0386,038VerticalImpactVelocity;Vvert(fps)Vvert=(2/3Vhor)RefReportFigureC3225179219LimitingPerforationThickness;T(in)BRLEquation;ReportSectionC3.16.17.73.6 13*SummaryTableC5reflectingresultsforeachmissileandtargetcombination 11.e*OntheVariationofImpactVelocitywithMissileWeight(FigureC3)plotprovidedshowshowmissilevelocityassumedinthisanalysisvarieswithweight.Theequationofthelineprovidedrepresentsthebestfitlineforthedata(bluedottedline),butthemodelusesthegreenline,whichisconservativelyshifteduptoamaximumvelocityof230mph.Theguidanceshouldincludetheequationofthelineforthegreenlineinordertocalculateanymissilevelocitygivenmissileweightorviceversa.14 Responseto11.e15Reportwillbeupdatedtobetterdescribegreenlinerelationshipasusedinthemodel:Vi(W)=0.0317W+230.0Where, Vi=Missileimpactvelocity(mph)W=MissileWeight(lb) 11.f*InsectionC.3.1,theassumptionisthatonlylikematerialscancauseperforation(steeltosteel).Theguidanceshouldensurethatajustificationisprovidedtosupportthisassumption.Responseto11.f*RefertoResponseto11.c16 11.g*FigureC14,shouldbereviewedtodeterminewhetheritcanbeusedtoestimatetankruptureResponseto11.g*Thisisatypographicalerror.Figurenumbershouldread"FigureC13"17 11.i*ThedatainTableC5,specificallytheminimumperforationthicknessinthefirstcolumn,shouldbevalidatedandmorecomprehensiveguidanceprovidedregardingtheuseoftheConcretePerforationequation.Additionally,theevaluationsonthefailureoftheconcreteusingthosevaluesshouldbeaddressedshouldthevalidationdemonstratethatthevaluesshouldbechanged.Similarvalidationeffortsshouldbeperformedonvehicleimpactandthetreeimpactevaluation.Responseto11.i*ThisissueissimilartothatraisedinQuestion11.d18 ResponsestoAppendixBandRobustMissile&TargetQuestions19 5.d.,10.c.,and10.d.*ThesecommentsrefertothedevelopmentofTablesB14andB18-TableB14:RobustTargetMissileMatrix*Matrixshowingwhichmissiletypescandamagewhichrobusttargetcategory*23missiletypes(123)vs.9targetcategories(A-I)-TableB18:MissileDamageCapability*Providespercentageoftotalmissilesthatcandamageeachrobustcategory(A-I)*ResultsrepeatedinTable52*TablesB14,B18,andothersinAppendixB,wereupdatedinNEI1702,Rev.1*TableC.6(TargetDamageApproximations)hasbeenupdatedbutwasnotreflectedinNEI1702,Rev.1.20 TableC.621 TablesB14andB1822 UseofTableC.6ResultstoCreateTableB14TableB13:RobustTargetCategoriesandDescriptionsTableB12:IndividualTargetDescriptionsandAssignedCategoriesTableC.6:IndividualTargetDamageApproximationsTable32:MissileTypesandDescriptionsTableB14:RobustTargetMissileMatrixTonextpage23 UseofTableB14andB17toCreateTableB18/Table52Table32:MissileTypesandDescriptionsTableB15:UnrestrainedMissileInventoriesTableB16:RestrainedMissileInventoriesTableB17:AverageMissileTypeInventoryTableB14:RobustTargetMissileMatrix(frompreviouspage)TableB18:MissileDamageCapabilityandTable52:RobustMissileInventoriesforEEFPCalculations24 Example*CategoryB:SteelPipe-Atleast16"diameterandthicknesslessthan3/8"butatleast0.125"-Crushing/Crimpingof>50%*TableC.6worstcaseresults-damagedbyallmissilesexcept:1,11,13,15,20RobustTargetCategoryTargetDescriptionRebarGasCylinderTank/DrumUtilityPoleCableReel3"pipe6"pipe12"pipeStorageBinConcretePaverConcreteBlockWoodBeamWoodPlankMetalsidingPlywoodSheetWideFlangeChannelSectionSmallequipmentLargeEquipmentSteelFrame/GratingLargeSteelFrameVehicleTree1234567891011121314151617181920212223BDieselGeneratorAirintake(small)BDieselGeneratorAirintake(large)25 Example-CategoryB(cont.)*Damagedbyallmissilesexcept:1,11,13,15,20*ResultsshowninTableB1426 Example-CategoryB(cont.)*FromTableB17,sumofmissilepercentages(excluding1,11,13,15,20)is53%-Majorityofmissilescontributingtototalare:3"pipes,metalsiding,channelsectionsandtrees(42%)-Otherdamagingmissileshaverelativelysmallinventoriesatsites*TableB18forCategoryB:-Calculatedpercentage=53%-Finalpercentageroundedupto55%*Table52forCategoryB:55%MissileTypePercentage1Rebar2GasCylinder0.5%3Drum,tank0.2%4UtilityPole0.1%5CableReel0.4%63"Pipe11%76"Pipe0.6%812"Pipe0.1%9Storagebin1.6%10ConcretePaver2.7%11ConcreteBlock12WoodBeam1.5%13WoodPlank14MetalSiding17%15PlywoodSheet16WideFlange0.3%17ChannelSection7.2%18SmallEquipment1.0%19LargeEquipment0.5%20Frame/Grating21LargeSteelFrame0.5%22Vehicle0.8%23Tree6.8%TOTAL53%27 TablesB18and52*Mostcategoriesgetamodestreductionindamagingmissiles(factorof2to3)-B,C,D,E,F,G*Mostrobusttargetsarethicksteelpipes(forcrimping/crushing)andconcreteroofs28 4.f.and5.g.*4.f.-NumberanddescriptionofmissiletypesinTable32donotcorrespondwithmissileinformationinothertables-23missilesusedinalltablesexceptTables33through38-Tables33through38aremissilescreatedfromthedeconstructionofbuildings*Onlythefirst22missilesarelisted,sincemissile#23isatree*5.g.-ExampleEEFPcalculationsusingdifferentpercentagesforrobustmissilesthanTable52-Corrected29 7.b*Section7.4discussesusingasmallerareaiftargetispartiallyshielded;theguidanceshouldaddressshieldingconsiderationsforareacalculations-Section5.3.2discussesshieldingexamplesandhowshieldingwouldbeusedtochangetargetareas*TargetsmaybeadjacenttoClass1buildingsorotherstructuresthatwouldprecludemissileshittingtargetsfromthosedirections*Penetrationsoropeningsmaybepartiallyblockedbypipingorsupports,reducingtheeffectiveopeningsize-Thebasisforhowshieldingiscreditedinreducingtargetareasshouldbejustifiedanddocumented30 Questions?31