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 DORL/LPL-LSPB 415-2315
References
EPID L-2017-LLA-0350
Download: ML17311A994 (31)

Text

TMREPublicMeetingSteveVaughn NEI HasanCharkas-EPRIBretTegeler-JENSENHUGHES LeoShanley-JENSENHUGHESNovember8 th ,2017*Teleconference 1

Agenda*OpeningRemarks*IndustryresponsestoasubsetofNRCtechnicalquestions(ML17235B148)regardingNEI17 02,Revision0-RobustTargets/Missiles

-TargetCharacteristics

-MissileInventory*Pathforward 2 AppendixCQuestions*ResponsestoQuestion11(athrui)except11.h(spallingsecondaryeffect)3 11.a*FigureC 1andTableC 1donotappeartoconcludethattheassumptionsarerepresentativeofplanttargets.Specifically,theassumptionforexhaustsandstacksisdescribedashavingtheexhaust/stackbeingsupportedonbothends.Generally,andspecifictotheexampleinFigureC 1,thesetargetsareunsupportedattheend.Theguidanceshouldensurejustificationisprovidedtodemonstratetheappropriatenessofthisassumption.

4 Responseto11.a*AppendixChasbeenrevisedtoincludetwocases:FluidfilledpipecasethatissupportedonbothendsofpipeVentpipecasethatissupportedbyacantileveredsupportTableC 6resultsreflectthesecases 5 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)Deformationfailureisassessedusingamechanics basedapproach*GlobaleffectsarerelatedtolargerdeformationsPenetrationFailureModes(Local)DeformationFailureMode(Local)DeformationFailureMode(Global)9

• Penetrationintoasteelplaterequiresthemissiletohaveahigharealdensityandstrengthtoremainintact(e.g.,steeljacketedlead)*DOEStandard3014 96recommendsonlyusingBRLequationforrigidmissiles*Thus,forassessingpenetrationfailure,onlysteelmissilesareconsidered

• However,allmissilesareconsideredcrediblefordeformationfailuremodes 10Steelmissilesconsideredforpenetration Allmissilesconsideredfordeformation 11.d*InSectionC.3.1,theguidanceshouldprovideatableofvaluesofperforationthicknessesforthedifferenttargetsinquestion,oranexampleofthisequationusedtoevaluateoneofthetargets.11 Responseto11.d 12*ThefollowingtablesummarizesthreeexamplecasesindicatingtheparametersusedintheconcreteperforationusingtheBRLequation:ParameterNotes

1. 8RebarUtilityPole4x12timberMissileWeight(lb)RefReportTable5281500200MissileImpactFaceDimensionsRefReportTable5 2 1"dia13.5"dia4"x12"AssumedMissileProjectedArea(in 2)RefReportTable520.8143.148.0EquivalentDiameter,D(in)[BasedonProjectedMissileArea]1.013.57.8AssumedConcreteDesignStrength,f'c(psi)Representative3,5003,5003,500MedianConcreteStrengthFactor,F mNEI0713;Section2.3.11.151.151.15ConcreteAgeFactor,FageNEI0713;Section2.3.11.201.201.20DynamciIncreaseFactor,DIFNEI0713;Section2.3.11.251.251.25MedianConcreteStrengthFactor'c(psi)f'cxF mxFagexDIF6,0386,0386,038VerticalImpactVelocity;Vvert(fps)Vvert=(2/3V hor)RefReportFigureC 3225179219LimitingPerforationThickness;T(in)BRLEquation;ReportSectionC3.16.17.73.6 13*SummaryTableC 5reflectingresultsforeachmissileandtargetcombination 11.e*OntheVariationofImpactVelocitywithMissileWeight(FigureC 3)plotprovidedshowshowmissilevelocityassumedinthisanalysisvarieswithweight.Theequationofthelineprovidedrepresentsthebestfitlineforthedata(bluedottedline),butthemodelusesthegreenline,whichisconservativelyshifteduptoamaximumvelocityof230mph.Theguidanceshouldincludetheequationofthelineforthegreenlineinordertocalculateanymissilevelocitygivenmissileweightorviceversa.14 Responseto11.e 15Reportwillbeupdatedtobetterdescribegreenlinerelationshipasusedinthemodel: V i (W)= 0.0317W+230.0Where, V i=Missileimpactvelocity(mph)W=MissileWeight(lb) 11.f*InsectionC.3.1,theassumptionisthatonlylikematerialscancauseperforation(steeltosteel).Theguidanceshouldensurethatajustificationisprovidedtosupportthisassumption.Responseto11.f*RefertoResponseto11.c 16 11.g*FigureC 14,shouldbereviewedtodeterminewhetheritcanbeusedtoestimatetankruptureResponseto11.g*Thisisatypographicalerror.Figurenumbershouldread"FigureC 13"17 11.i*ThedatainTableC 5,specificallytheminimumperforationthicknessinthefirstcolumn,shouldbevalidatedandmorecomprehensiveguidanceprovidedregardingtheuseoftheConcretePerforationequation.Additionally,theevaluationsonthefailureoftheconcreteusingthosevaluesshouldbeaddressedshouldthevalidationdemonstratethatthevaluesshouldbechanged.Similarvalidationeffortsshouldbeperformedonvehicleimpactandthetreeimpactevaluation.Responseto11.i*ThisissueissimilartothatraisedinQuestion11.d18 ResponsestoAppendixBandRobustMissile&TargetQuestions 19 5.d.,10.c.,and10.d.*ThesecommentsrefertothedevelopmentofTablesB 14andB 18-TableB 14:RobustTargetMissileMatrix*Matrixshowingwhichmissiletypescandamagewhichrobusttargetcategory*23missiletypes(1 23)vs.9targetcategories(A-I)-TableB 18:MissileDamageCapability

• Providespercentageoftotalmissilesthatcandamageeachrobustcategory(A-I)*ResultsrepeatedinTable5 2*TablesB 14,B 18,andothersinAppendixB,wereupdatedinNEI17 02,Rev.1*TableC.6(TargetDamageApproximations)hasbeenupdatedbutwasnotreflectedinNEI17 02,Rev.1.20 TableC.6 21 TablesB 14andB 18 22 UseofTableC.6ResultstoCreateTableB 14TableB 13:RobustTargetCategoriesandDescriptionsTableB 12: IndividualTargetDescriptionsandAssignedCategoriesTableC.6: IndividualTargetDamageApproximationsTable3 2: MissileTypesandDescriptionsTableB 14:RobustTargetMissileMatrix Tonextpage 23 UseofTableB 14andB 17toCreateTableB18/Table5 2Table3 2: MissileTypesandDescriptionsTableB 15:UnrestrainedMissileInventoriesTableB 16:RestrainedMissileInventoriesTableB 17:AverageMissileTypeInventoryTableB 14:RobustTargetMissileMatrix(frompreviouspage)TableB 18: MissileDamageCapability andTable5 2:RobustMissileInventoriesforEEFPCalculations 24 Example*CategoryB:SteelPipe-Atleast16"diameterandthicknesslessthan3/8"butatleast0.125"-Crushing/Crimpingof>50%*TableC.6worstcaseresults-damagedbyallmissilesexcept:1,11,13,15,20RobustTargetCategoryTargetDescriptionRebar GasCylinderTank/DrumUtilityPoleCableReel3"pipe6"pipe12"pipeStorageBinConcretePaverConcreteBlockWoodBeamWoodPlankMetalsidingPlywoodSheetWideFlangeChannelSectionSmallequipmentLargeEquipmentSteelFrame/GratingLargeSteelFrameVehicleTree1234567891011121314151617181920212223BDieselGeneratorAirintake(small)BDieselGeneratorAirintake(large)25 Example-CategoryB(cont.)*Damagedbyallmissilesexcept:1,11,13,15,20*ResultsshowninTableB 14 26 Example-CategoryB(cont.)*FromTableB 17,sumofmissilepercentages(excluding1,11,13,15,20)is53%-Majorityofmissilescontributingtototalare:3"pipes,metalsiding,channelsectionsandtrees(42%)-Otherdamagingmissileshaverelativelysmallinventoriesatsites*TableB 18forCategoryB:-Calculatedpercentage=53%-Finalpercentageroundedupto55%*Table5 2forCategoryB:55%MissileType Percentage 1 Rebar 2GasCylinder 0.5%3Drum,tank 0.2%4UtilityPole 0.1%5CableReel 0.4%63"Pipe 11%76"Pipe 0.6%812"Pipe 0.1%9Storagebin 1.6%10ConcretePaver 2.7%11ConcreteBlock 12WoodBeam 1.5%13WoodPlank 14MetalSiding 17%15PlywoodSheet 16WideFlange 0.3%17ChannelSection 7.2%18SmallEquipment 1.0%19LargeEquipment 0.5%20 Frame/Grating 21LargeSteelFrame 0.5%22 Vehicle 0.8%23 Tree 6.8%TOTAL 53%27 TablesB 18and5 2*Mostcategoriesgetamodestreductionindamagingmissiles(factorof2to3)-B,C,D,E,F,G*Mostrobusttargetsarethicksteelpipes(forcrimping/crushing)andconcreteroofs 28 4.f.and5.g.*4.f.-NumberanddescriptionofmissiletypesinTable3 2donotcorrespondwithmissileinformationinothertables-23missilesusedinalltablesexceptTables3 3through3 8-Tables3 3through3 8aremissilescreatedfromthedeconstructionofbuildings*Onlythefirst22missilesarelisted,sincemissile#23isatree*5.g.-ExampleEEFPcalculationsusingdifferentpercentagesforrobustmissilesthanTable5 2-Corrected 29 7.b*Section7.4discussesusingasmallerareaiftargetispartiallyshielded;theguidanceshouldaddressshieldingconsiderationsforareacalculations

-Section5.3.2discussesshieldingexamplesandhowshieldingwouldbeusedtochangetargetareas*TargetsmaybeadjacenttoClass1buildingsorotherstructuresthatwouldprecludemissileshittingtargetsfromthosedirections

• Penetrationsoropeningsmaybepartiallyblockedbypipingorsupports,reducingtheeffectiveopeningsize-Thebasisforhowshieldingiscreditedinreducingtargetareasshouldbejustifiedanddocumented 30 Questions?

31