ML20093M712
| ML20093M712 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 10/08/1984 |
| From: | GULF STATES UTILITIES CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20093M706 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8410230171 | |
| Download: ML20093M712 (64) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.
- \
t i ..+ J l I i
- GULF STATES
+
UTILITIES COMPANY > l POSITION REGARDING SAFETY / RELIEF VALVE. DISCHARGE TESTING AT RIVER. BEND STATION k 4
.g
~
s W-m 8
^ ~ ~
-841023 0171 841008' >
PDR ADOCK 05000458 E PDR >
-r ,, ~c ,
,e % *
. \
g- .
-TABLE OF CONTENTS l
.s
. \
w Pace
.:j
" ~
. LIST OF TABLES iv LIST OF FIGURES- y
~ 1. 0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 COMPARISON TO NUREG-0763 CRITERIA 5
~
, 2.1 Critericin On'e ~~ 6
-2.2' -~ Criterion Two 7
. 2. 3 ' Criterion Three 11
~2.4 - Critsrion Four 13 2.5 Criterion Five 16
3.0 CONCLUSION
S _ 23
4.0 REFERENCES
24 i V *
~
*l
]
'M e .
* ~
S Se l r r
~
iii . 6 i_,. o _._n. , -- , , .. , , . - - , , - , - . . , , . - - - - , . , , , . , ,
B. ;, .@ LIST OF TABLES TJ
- m Number Title Page 4- '
' ~;
2.1 Criterion'1
X-Ouencher Comparison 45 5.y 2.2 Criterion 2:' Discharge Line Parameters 46 2.3 Ouencher/ Bubble Pressure Comparisons 47 'T 2.4 Mean of the Measured Peak Pressures for 49 Kuosheng Low-Low Set SRV 2.5 Criterion 4: Quencher Location and 50
. Po.ol Dimensions
~
4 2.6. Physical Sim'ilarities Comparison of , 51' .A Kuosheng, Grand Gulf, River Bend, and Pe r ry.. Reactor Building Geometries x * *
,e 4
e 2 i 5 - il q - W L' iv - 9
~..,
1 di LIST-OF-FIGURES
- 3. --
Number Title Pace - a jj 2.1 X-Ouencher Geometry - 26 2 . 2 -. Kuosheng Suppression Pool Cross Section 27
.lf _ and Pool Pressure Sensor Locations fl.
2.3 Grand Gulf Suppression Pool Cross Section 28 2.4 River Bend Suppression' Pool Cross Section 29
~
su .. 2.5 Perry Sdppression Pool Cross Section 30 2.6- '- -Kuosheng Reactor Building Analytical Model 31 for Hydrodynamic Loads 3 4
.i ' 2.7 Grand Gulf' Analytical Model for Hydrodynamic 32 Loads-
) ,
2.8- River Bend Reactor Building Analytical Model 33 for Hydrodynamic Loads-2.9 Perry Reactor Building Analytical Model 34
. for Hydrodynamic Loads 2.10 Kuosheng Reac. tor Building General 35
{, Arrangement f2.11 : Grand Gulf Reactor Building General Arrangement 36 2.12 River Bend Reactor Building General 37
-Arrangement ,
t
. 2.13 Perry Reactor Building General ~ Arrangement 38 2.14 ' Design Response Spectra Comparison - SRV + 39
.y SRVCO Containment Elevation 80' - Radial 2.15 Design Response Spectra Comparison - SRV + 40 SRVCO Shield Building Elevation 90' - Radial
-2.16 Design Response Spectra Compariso'n - SRV + ,41 4- SRVCO Drywell Wall Elevation 90' - Radial 2.17 _ Design Response Spectra Comparison - SRV + 42
,. SRVCO Containment. Elevation 80' - Vertical J- -2.18 Design Response Spectra Comparison - SRV + 43
.. SRVCO: Shield Building Elevation 90' Vertical G
.._ 2.19 Design Response Spectra Comparison - SRV + 44 SRVCO Drywell Wall Elevation 90' - Vertical
~~
i =; r
- v. ,
lh ,
"el
$n 1.0 ' INTRODUCTION 7
( .The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) published NUREG-0763 " Guidelines for Confirmatory Inplant Tests of Safety-Relief' Valve Discharges for BWR Plants" ' in May
.,? 1981-(Reference 1)'. Also, a large scale safety relief valve (SRV) discharge test program was conducted in the Republic of China, at the Kuosheng Nuclear Power Station -
Unit 1 in August 1981. This report provides an examination of.the NUREG-0763 criteria and demonstrates that an inplant SRV discharge test is not required for n the River Bend Station. Section 4 of NUREG-0763 (Reference 1), " Rationale for ( Plant-Specific Tests," provides five criteria which must be satisfied to show that existing test data is applicable to a particular plant. These criteria were established gto examine the key parameters that affect the hydrodynamic loads and pool temperature gradients, and are not concerned with plant parameters which do not
, affect these loads. Specifically, the criteria address 3
plant similarities for the quenchers, SRV discharge lines and their configuration, mass flow rates, suppression pool geometries, and structural parameters in the pool region which might influence the loading _ definition. The criteria do not consider differences in
~, .
1 , a ,
' ~ l R.. * .q. plant parameters which do not affect this loading ,
~ :1.'
definition. I k. u
, .Th e Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (CEI) prepared a detaile'd comp ~arison based.on the five NUREG-0763 C -
7 criteria for the Perry plant to demonstrate similarities with Kuosheng. This criterion comparison showed conclusively that the quenchers, SRV discharge line parameters, flow characteristics, and geometry can be d
!!j considered similar. This information was presented to the USNRC in August 1982 (Reference 2). In order to
~
obtain further assurance for Criterion five, the USNRC requested.that a number of structural comparisons be made to' demonstrate that fluid / structure interaction
~
(FSI) effects are similar for both plants. The comparisons were completed in January 1983 (References 3 and 4) and the USNRC accepted CEI's no-test position for
~
the Perry plant in a letter dated March 1, 1983 f (Reference 5). t , The~ principal structural influence on the FSI effects in 4j the pool region is the radial response of the contain-
. ment and drywell structures. The, initial study requested by the USNRC demonstrated that the use of a factored Kuosheng meas *ured pressure time history in tha Perry structural model gave reasonable agreement between the
,4'%
4 1~ i 2 I 1 i. l - - r 1 4
, , , , -. ..n. ,- s - - - e -,.r-.- --- , , - - - -
calculated radial accelerations and measured test N} . accelerations in the pool region. Comparisons of 72 calculated versus measured accelerations were made at node points away from the pool region, but were
~
inconclusive because of the differences in structural properties. To ensure that Perry and Kuosheng are i structurally similar in the pool region, the USNRC requested that an additional study be performed using -
. the single valve discharge plus SRV condensation b oscillation (SRV + SRVCO) design load case. This load
?j case was input to the individual plant analytical models j
and the results demonstrated good comparison in the pool region for the radial direction (Reference 4). Both of these studies showed differences when comparing 3 the vertical responses. These differences were judged,
~h by the USNRC, to be unimportant to the SRV discharge load definjtion, as they have only a very-minor affect on FSI results. The differences in vertical response
~
s 'are strongly influenced by the stiffness of the complete 3 building and are an
- indication of ,the total building
, r.1 -
- inertia and the equivalent soil springs, rather than any 7 FSI effects.
6 l
's. W
,F, ,, l_
'bh Based on the studies and comparisons presented, the USNRC'ag' reed that, in the pool region, the concrete
- a
.] backed free-standing steel containment Perry plant is structurally simil'ar to the Kuosheng concrete
- ~
containment, and,that FSI affects will be similar for
~
both plants. Furthermore, the USNRC agreed that the Kuosheng test data is applicable to Perry and that it is v
. unnecessary to perform a separate inplant SRV discharge test _for Perry (Reference 5).
;}
j This report provides a comparison of the NUREG-0763 criteria for River Bend, to Perry, Grand Gulf, and v
, Kuosheng and demonstrates that the conclusions reached by the USNRC for Perry are applicable to River Bend.
i The report shows'that all important quencher, SRV
' discharge line, suppression pool geometry, and structural properties are similar to Kuosheng and, thereforp, the Kuosheng SRV discharge test data provides an adequate confirmation for the design loads used for River Bend, and an inplant SRV discharge test is not
- g. required for River Bend.
N
.yg .d te t
91 i 4 , J:
'M -
N 2.0 COMPARISON TO NUREG-0763 CRITERIA. L 1
} NUREG-0763 sets forth. guidelines to be used in deter-
~
.) . mining the need for plant specific tests and defines the
'l - ~ ~
types of tests and instrumentation required to satisfy l F the:USNRC criteria. The key parameters affecting the j I suppression pool hydrodynamic loads have been identified
. r, by extensive generic test programs. Section 4, of
- NUREG-0763 (Reference 1) includes the statement: ...
applicants may be able to demonstrate that discharge conditions in their plants are sufficiently similar to conditions previously tested to obviate the need for any
- new tests ..." It is the intent of this report to ex-amine each of the five criteria in Section 4 of NUREG- ,t 0763 and demonstrate that such similarities exist e between Kuosheng and River Bend, and that a sound basis .c exists for the definition of the SRV discharge hydrodygamic loads. Where appropriate, particularly in discussion of Criterion five, reference is made to the similarity studies performed by CEI for th'e Perry plant.
- m
.2 S'
w ,
.t S 8 r i e
~ g M
1 11 -
)
-Z 2.'l- Criterion one
?
;., Criterion one requires a plant specific test if:
' ~
"The discharge device is geometrically
~
different from devices tested previously." A comparison of the dimensional similarities of the - quenchers installed at Kuosheng, Grand Gulf, River Bend, E and Perry is provided in Table 2.1 and referenced to T- Figure 2.'l. As can be seen by a review of this table, n-q the quenchers are all of very similar configuration. The major difference in the quenchers is the angle of
, the reducer taper, where River Bend (10.75*) and Perry
. (10.75*) are bound by Kuosheng (17.l*).
The inside diameters of the quencher hubs for Perry and RiveryBend are slightly smaller than Kuosheng which will have no discernable influence on the predicted suppres-
. sion pocl pressures.
m . . E E The Perry dimensions have been investigated by the j . USNRC, and the Kuosheng data was found to be acceptable.
~
As the River Bend quenchers are dimensionally similar to those at Perry, Criterion One is satisfied and a test is not required. 6 - W
?,
1 . si 2.2 Criterion Two
? , l
', -Criterion two' requires a plant specific test if:
"The discharge-line parameters--line length,
-area and volume, quencher submergence, vacuum-breaker size, and available pool area per quencher--differ significantly from values I previously tested. An assessment of ll "significant" differences shall be based on 1
previously established empirical correlatior.s between changes in these parameters and resultant changes in variables of interest, or on analytical considerations." The SRV discharge line parameters which affect suppres-sionpoofpressuresdonotdiffersignificantlybetween the Kuosheng, Grand Gulf, River Bend, and Perry plants as shown in Table 2.2. For the parameters listed, the most important parameter to consider in determining the D peak SRV hydrodynamic loads according to the GE methodology (Appendix 6A of the River Bend Final Safety
~
Analysis Report (FSAR)) is the SRV discharge line (SRVDL) air volume. This is dbmonstrated in Table 2.3 where a comparison of peak predicted pressure (PRD1) is t
.I
} i 7 1
w .
?u -
] presented. The minimum.SRVDL air volume at River Bend is 45.6 cu. ft. which is enveloped by the air volumes i for the SRVDL. tested at Kuosheng which ranged from 42.7 to 47.7 cu. ft. The maximum SRVDL air volume at River Bend is 50.~0 cu. ft.; this is the same as the maximum I volume line at Kuosheng (not included in the test program) and is enveloped by the maximum SRVDL air volume at Perry (55.7 cu. ft.). The same size vacuum-3 breakers are used for both Kuosheng and River Bend. The
- )'
quencher submergence and pool area per quencher are
- 3 essentially the same.
.J
-l A quantitative assessment of the effects of these parameters is provided in Table 2.3. As shown in this
,. table, the maximum predicted pool pressure (PRD1) for I the River Bend plant is the lowest for all four plants at .02 Bars (.3 psid) less than Kuosheng's PRDl.
I Table 2.4 contains the mean of the peak pressures
~
measured by the sensors within the region of expected i.. maximum pressure for first and consecutive acutations of I) the Kuosheng low-low set SRV. Figure 2.2 shows the location of the sensors listed in Table 2.4. The
.a Kuosheng design pressures are also shown in Table 2.4 to permit direct comparison to test results. Based on the large margin between actual Kuosheng test pressures and
{
? 8 4
A.
- , . . - , - - - - - , ,, ,.,7- , , , - - . . - -
~
~'
l - 6( , based on the measur,ed V-5 SRV discharge line pressures extrapolated back to the SRV exit using appropriate frictional and local loss factorc. The estimated pressure drop from the SRV exit to the test sensor was
^ ~
32 psid and the estimated back pressure approximately I Assuming the River Bend half the 625 psi allowable.
. frictional losses are greater than Kuosheng by the ratio of the line lengths and the local loss factor is q approximately equal, then the expected pressure drop for J'j River Bend at the same test conditions would be about 35
^
psid.
,$.Il An SRV test is not required to satisfy Criterion Two as the~ River' Bend SRV discharge line parameters meet the s requirements of Criterion Two ensuring that the SRV flow remains choked with.line pressures well below the allowable.
i t -
.: g .
g .
.y .
=
b L j 10 l i k bi .
l . L.. m
% 2.3 ' Criterion Three
?.:
73 . a jj ( - : Criterion Three states:
.7-
"The flowrate oflthe steam per unit area of
~
discharge 'line and the net flowrate of the
~
steam through the line may determine the air-column compression dynamics and pool- ,
~
temperature gradients during.an extended actuation. If either of these differs 4
-significantly from conditions previously '
tested, new inplant tests shall normally be
. required".
As shown by Table 2.3,-the design _ steam flowrates and the steam per unit area, ace the same for Kuosheng, Grand Gulf, River Bend, and Perry. Therefore, the effects pf the air-column compression dynamics and pool
. temperature gradients will be similar to those measured
~
during the Kuosheng tests. d The extended. valve actuation tests performed at Kuosheng
. conclusively demonstrated that the X-quencher performs
'in a satisfactory manner and meets its design m-- criteria. Since the River Bend quenchers are similar to those at Kuosheng, the extend actuation behavior-of the f
^
1 ' _! 11 1 -
+ - . . - -
_'j! - t River Bend suppression pool will be similar to that documented for Kuosheng, and there is no need to perform an extended valve actuation test. The steam,flowrates and steam per unit' area are also identical to the design
' values for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station. The USNRC has accepted Grand Gulf's position that the Xuosheng test data adequately describes _the suppression pool behavior and has documented this acceptance 'in Appendix C to Supplement No. 1 of the Grand Gulf Safety i
Evaluation Report (NUREG-0831), dated. December, 1981. j This SER states that the generic Mark III issues re-solved by the prototype (Kuosheng) testing 9ere the pool thermal mixing and X-quencher condensation performance.
. This satisfies Criterion Three for River Bend and an SRV j test is not required.
.]
f i t y Se g o , G 12
S- j Jil - l i l fj ~ 2.4 Criterion Four b. 1 { Criterion Four states that:
~ ~
" Quencher. location and orientation in the pool T and.the pool geometry may affect peak boundary
. pressures and frequencies of air-bubble oscillation. Thermal mixing in the pool is also expected to be affected by these
.I . Variables. No quantitative criteria can be
] 4 formulated for-determining when quencher / pool configuration changes may be sufficient to require new inplant tests. As the range of plant and pool geometries that have been
' F.
i tested increases, the need for testing all new pool configurations may disappear. Present policy shall be to require inplant testing if
.itpcannot be shown that all features of the pool configuration are cimilar to those N previously tested in a plant."
A
- As shown by Table 2.5, the quencher locations for
. Kuosheng, Grand Gulf, River Bend, and Perry are similar. All~ plants utilize quenchers with 80*-80*-80*-
120* arm angles with the quencher hub vertical center line 5.0 feet from the drywell wall. Table 2.5 shows an
~1l 1 13
sl;i - il ' unimportant variation in the distance from-the
- L.
horizontal arm center line to the pool floor of from 4.5 t 41 feet ~for Perry to 5.64 feet for River Bend. The pool widths vary from 17.5 to 20.5 feet with pool depth
'- ' ~
. varying from 18.5 to 19.7 feet. The submergence depth
^
'a EforLall four p'lants is similar with an insignificant variation from 13.8 to 14.1 feet.
'The main difference in the quencher designs is the 4-
' method of support. Kuosheng uses double box beam supports cantilevered from the drywell wall (Figure
]
2.2); Grand Gulf has a horizontal cantilever welded to the drywell wall and a vertical quencher pedestal and diagonal strut from the dry'well wall to the SRV discharge line (Figure 2.3). . Perry and River Bend both r .have vertical ~ pedestals under the quencher and horizontal diagonal struts from the drywell wall'to the SRV discharge line (Figures 2.4 and 2.5) . The Kuosheng supports tend to confine the discharging bubble and
~
1 introduce. minor variations into the air bubble' pressure
'andifrequency. ,The Grand Gulf, River Bend, and Perry
~
supports'are similar and are expected-to have an insignificant influence on the frequency or pressure r
~
amplitude of the discharging bubbles. The USNRC
.j considered these differences in the evaluation of the 4-
' Perry submittal and determined that they are acceptable. i il ~
-jf 14 <
9
;} -
w -
. . 2.
,f _p x , As the River Bend and Perry suppression pools are dimensionally similar,.this satisfies Criterion Four and . .7 6- an SRV. test is not required. a to e. 4 m b I1 m he
-t- ..
y. 1 , v.,-
.1
+ 1-e
- I .
- s 1
f C, P E'
~1 1 4
e m bd g
-and
- l 15 '
9 i m
. , w -
ygv -y--wyy-yy-,,- -
.y gr , e ,e--t up-y-.m y---r-,--- - - w-e- . , - - -s-p,y-www-g- gg 9*-rg,y-cy e-9.rm-y-y,ry-we..-,,9,9y gm--s pg
i 1 -
- h 2.5 Criterion Five .
4 } .' E Criterion Five states:
"The characteristics of the containment I
structure may affect peak boundary pressure and frequencies of air-bubble oscillation. r
, For example,'inplant tests conducted in a concrete containment will not be considered to
-l J. have direct application for a free-standing l steel containment unless adequate J
. justification for fluid / structure interaction has been demonstrated. Otherwise, inplant tests will be required for plants whose structural characteristics are significantly
, different from the previous tests."
The prinpipal concern addressed by this criterion is to ensure that: "...' adequate justification for fluid /- structure interaction has been demonstrated." A review a of the studies , required by the USNRC Structural n E Engineering Branch (SEB) for the Perry plant, in
~
response to this concern, confirms that similarities in fluid / structure interaction were the main intent of this f . criterion. The studies provided by CEI, for Perry, adequately demonstrated these similarities, and a review I 16 <
} .
lI
of Table 2.6 shows that River Bend is structurally i similar to Perry and-Kuosheng in the critical pool
; _ region. River Bend and Perry have free-standing steel containment structures with concrete filled annuli and
~ ~
similar geometrical and material properties. The
'important dimensions and materials have been included in the tables to emphasize the structural similarities.
3 The analytical models used for Kuosheng, Grand Gulf, River Bend and Perry are provided in Figures 2.6, thru
'l 2.9. These models consist of an assemblage of shell and '\
solid quadrilateral' elements with the water mass added to the appropriate nodes as lumped masses, using a
, tributary area approach. The Perry analysis for SRV
'2 discharge-loa'ds also used a second structural model consisting of the containment, annular fill, and shield building for the detailed analysis of the annular concret9 and its effects. The Ghosh-Wilson axisymmetric shell of revolution program ASHSD was used to calculate the response of all
$y '
f,our plants to the SRV discharge loads using the direct
. integration solution technique. The results of these analyses are displacement, stress, and acceleration time
. histories at node points throughout the models. Soil /
structure interaction effects are accounted for in the 17 I
r' 1
- D -
ASHSD models and the analytical results show no signifi-cant carry over of response to the adjacent structures.
? . ,., This conclusion has been confirmed by measured 7, accelerometer results.taken during the Kuosheng tests.
7 .In the region of the suppression pool there is virtually i no difference in the horizontal structural character-
'istics of Kuosheng, River Bend or Perry as they are all steel lined concrete containments. The plants are also similar in their vertical structural characteristics -7 regarding fluid / structure interaction, but, as described 4
below, similarity of vertical response is not an-ticipated. Figures 2.10 thru 2.13 provide general arrangements for the reactor building of each plant, and
-,. Figures 2.2 through 2.5 show the suppression pool cross
. sections. Table 2.6 provides the important material and geonetrical properties. These demonstrate the great similarifies for the plants in the critical suppression pool region. The most significant difference, affecting 3 only the vertical response, is the foundation material shear wave velocity where River Bend is the sof test site d.
E at 960 fps. l 18 , l
, - . , , , . , . . , - - -- -4 , , - ,-- , , - . . - . - r -
i At the request of the USNRC SEB, a number of structural comparison studies were performed to compare the measured and' predicted SRV and SRV + SRVCO responses for Perry and Kuosheng. The results of these studies were reported to the'USNRCLin letters dated November 17, 1982 m (Reference 3) and-January 14, 1983 (Reference 4) and showed that FSI results would be similar for both plants. Because River Bend ,is geometrically and materially similar to both Perry and Kuosheng, the results of these studies are directly applicable to q River Bend and it is _not necessary to repeat this work. 11
~
The first study requested by the SEB utilized a measured
= pressure time history from the Kuosheng tests as the input forcing' function for the Perry structural models to predict the response of the Perry reactor building to measured suppression pool SRV discharge loads. Based on
~
the response spectra generated by this study, it was concluded that the Perry models effectively predicted
. 1_ the accelerations measured during the Kuosheng test (Reference 3). The high frequency exceedances of the bl predicted acceleration response spectra seen during the Kuosheng test were also predicted by the Perry model.
.These exceedances were described and are not a concern for structures, piping or equipment for the following
. reasons:- '
i i 19 i
]
b
7- ,
- l I.I Dy '
- 1. Strain measurements taken during the Kuosheng tests
?
4' verified that high accelerations at high frequency [ . ,
. produced little actual stress.
- 2. - Generic studies conducted by GE and reported in
- NEDE-25250 show that at frequencies above 60 Hz, high accelerations are of no-concern.
- 3. For equipment quelified by test,:the actual test response spectra (TRS) is generally far above the
' predicted high frequency exceedances.
7
- 4. River Bend design response spectra include the.high-
- frequency effects of SRVCO.which were not included in the Perry design. Therefore, high frequency
[". exceedances would be less than predicted for Perry and I of.no consequence to the plant safety.
^
- The second study requested by the USNRC SEB was an analytical model comparison for the Perry and Kuosheng plants. It.was requested that a comparison of the
[ calculated design response spectra be made for the SRV + SRVCO load case in the suppression pool. region. This comparison showed good radial agreement with considerable differences in the vertical response.
= l C i
- i
These differences are due to physical and analytical
. variances in the models. The significant physical r
, - differences are basemat thickness and shear wave
- -velocity. The analytical differences consist of
="
different' damping values, computer model element-types (shell element's throughout for. Perry and a mixture of shell and solid elements for Kuosheng), material properties (some orthotropic for Kuosheng and all isotropic for Perry) and the forcing functions (Perry is
'l-
~
I.i a continuous SRV + SRVCO event compared to Kuosheng's
]- envelope of three worst SRV cases plus SRVCO). These s a differences affect the vertical response to a greater degree than the horizontal response, n
; The vertical response is relatively unimportant in FSI considerations. This is because the vertical response is influenced by the stiffness and mass of the entire building to a far greater extent than the radial response, whereas FSI is primarily a function of the
~-
e, structural rigidity of the suppression pool boundaries. All plants are beyond the " threshold" limits for 'N rigidity insofar as FSI is concerned. Therefore, f a comparisons of vertical response are more indicative of different total building inertia or mass and equivalent soil springs than they are of FSI. Ie I i y I 21 2 4
=
n __
,._,, y -- - ,-
ww--
3
~
- The results-of this second study are directly applicable to River' Bend. However, in response to a NRC. request, 2 Reference 6, the River Bend design response spectra for
,, the critical.SRV and SRVCO cases have been added and The plotted with the Kuosheng and Perry design spectra.
r points selecte'd are shown in Figure 2.8 and are the containment / shield building at mid pool depth (elevation 80') and pool surface (elevation 90') and the drywell wall at the pool surface (elevatic.) 90'). The resulting t-
. spectra comparisons are shown in Figures 2.14 through
-) 2.19.
.i Examination of these spectra show that the FSI behavior i
of Kuosheng, Perry and River Bend plants is similar in l *' , -, the pool region. Therefore, the results of the Perry
, structural studies are directly applicable to River w
Bend. It is not necessary to perform any additional work, gor to conduct an inplant SRV discharge test, as
- the Kuosheng test results confirm that the SRV discharge hydr 6 dynamic loads used for the River Bend design are
,t conservative.
~
8 J
- W te
-i
.j-22 i
.].'
'i
3.0 CONCLUSION
S ' L.j7 In conclusion, a review of the preceding discussion _ demonstrates that_the important parameters of River Bend The
' satisfy-the criteria-of Section 4 of'NUREG-0763.
discharge devii:e fis geometrically similar, the discharge line parameters are similar, the steam flow rates are identical, the quencher locations and orientation are.- similar and finally the containment structures are. 3 . c) . -similar in the pool region.
.This meansEthat the test
~
Of data generated from the Kuosheng tests is sufficient to ( ,
#y establish the conservative nature of the SRV discharge hydrodynamic loads. The existing SRV discharge hydro-dynamic load test-da'ta base is sufficient to establish w that the GESS5R load methodology (Appendix.6A of River
- Bend FSAR) has been conservatively developed for the air d i ';
bubble pressure and frequency time histories. i A'dditional testing.at River Bend will serve no uceful purpose in extending the limits of this load data base
-{ ,
since the important River Bend design paraceters have
&d been-tested at Kuosheng. Therefore, th'e data from the Kuosheng test provides the prototypical data base i .
[ required to satisfy the, River Bend commitment to confirm 1
.the SRV-discharge hydrodynamic loads used in the design
.. .~of the plant, and no inplant SRV discharge test is required at River Bend.
c < d 23 1 i I (
,m. e-
-- , , , . , , - w a. w,.,.---- , - - , , - , . -
. .,,,os m
t g (30 oy s' / :4;0 REFERENCES
.)f .j -1. " Guidelines for Confirmatory Inplant Tests of Safety-Relief Valve Discharges for BWR Plants,"
USNRC NUREG-0763, May 1981.
~ ,
+ , x 2.. Letter, " Perry Nuclear Power Plant Docket Nos.
50-440; 50-441 Proprietary Information - Safety Relief Valve Hydrodynamic Loads," D.R. Davidson, u A 4 CEI to A. Schwencer, NRC dated October 8, 1982.
. - i. $l ,
- 3. Letter, " Perry Nuclear Power Plant Docket Nos.
-7 50-440; 50-441, Additional Information on SRV
, Hydrodynamic Loads," D. R. Davidson, CEI to A.
i Schwencer, NRC dated November 17, 1982.
. sa'.i . 3 -
? L4 - 4.. Letter, PY-CEI/NRC-0005L " Ferry Nuclear Power Plant a ., Doqket Nos. 50-440; 50-441, Additional Information
, on SRV Hydrodynamic Loads," M. R. Edelman, CEI to b o ~~
B. J. Youngblood, NRC dated January 14, 1983. 3
. , ' Q, 'ya t : '
- 5. Letter, " Acceptability of CEI's Proposal for
! '4 6 Deleting the Requirements of Inplant Tests of the f .lJ Safety Relief Valves System at-the Perry Nuclear Power Plant.(Units 1 & 2)," B. J. Youngblood, NRC to M. R. Edelman, CEI dated March 1, 1983. 24 J .
+-
' ss 1 b.,,.~- . . . . .
- g. -
'.. _1 Qi - '
i,j . r i, } l '.' - 6 ~. Letter,'" Structural Aspects of Safety Relief Valve
- y. :
^
(SRV) Discharge Tests at. River Bend Station,"~A. [/:g p.j Schwencer, NRC to W. J. Cahill, Jr., GSU dated
^ !4 November 14, 1983.
9 m-v m 5
.4' e
a _k
?'
3 5 a.
.L .
i].
.E
*L c.
1' 25 . b .I
O 6 l3 ,- e l 4 H_
~
~l
\
l 1 l 1
. I I
.1
-~ ,
,l \
\
)
7 1
\
< . g a- g
\
~
\
\
\
. I i
i h h.h ? h I h h I h h i f- -
! - , . g O :
7 f I i l
<r ,
Ii j t / E F o -_.
//.,I D --
i r G
;g, -u Figure 2.1 X-OUENCHER GEOMETRY
{ Dimensions are given in Table 2.1.
]. ]
26
- 1 e- +- - - - c. , - . . . , . , . . , - , . . - . - - , . , --,-.,-----.-,,--n w,- .- - - , - , . ..,-- ,.,r- -- , - ,
- M~
':t. .
M: 39'-6"R -
, . 5 7 ' -0 " Rr, 8 ' - 6 " -_
g . .
.3 ^ , .
..- . , 4 ',
=.g m
,s...>.
. '.ft. .
>f ,. . . ....
g V.t. .; .
.? . .
.s, 3 '. ..w , .% g
+
a
.s,...,
THICK STEEL ' -
-' .. . .w ..s . 5, L * ?. 's s LINER i4-
. .e. .. e
;j 's s , ,e CUENCHER V3
.* {.
. . . . . ~ : +
.: f.
- gg 4.6 / . tr. . -
.*.s g e
's1 - o: -
. ' >. > . ;E t .
.a 3 .;d M.'-%5 O ),( 0 74.*. . .
3-g .
;1j \.h*69 i *
. 1,
.8 5 , - 6 ,, -
..- .s. . . . . .-. ,
l 9 . l l , a .[,.
. $2, .,e'
- f '...s, . y.....M'7;.s. ..;n',.'..,.,...- . . ' ' ' ' T
*.**l v5'-
1 i f CRYWELL WALL CONTAINMFNT WALL-r P14
~
h j P2.3 V8 P69
+W
.E 2.a
} Figure 2.2 KUOSHENG SUPPRESSION POOL CROSS SECTION
'AND POOL PRESSURE SENSOR LOCATIONS n
3
2
. ..s.
1
?~
41'-6"R- 62'-0"R 3'-6"= s : -
=
4%- - 4 6%g..
, '.g's\\ --m'- Elev. 111'-10" . .
-g
, .. %g i -
2._ - s\ T.1 _.v .
- N .
, \
- o. . \ .
.N 1 ., .
. e
, s ..* .
* - . RL_-- ._
* * * =
- .s. .. ,
) 1 - l . ..
3. j
}
z- , . .
. . WJ-- t h .
. , ... 4- 6 s ;
. 5*-0" . . .
> . . . . l . .
- Elev. 93'-0" . ' . .-
- r. - . ...
, ' L - 9 V .
.. ~ . . .. . .
_ _S e,- 0. *{ ..__
.. . ..* . g s. . *
. , ..s . . .; .
.,.o ,.. s. . . *, %
Figure 2.3 GRAND GULF SUPPRESSION POOL CROSS SECTION N 28 9 g 1 _w----,,,g - w~,.-- .,%-~--e .* ------,-g. v.-wy- --ev -.-y,--, ,--eyy--.,. ,eywe.
~-
7 9 d.
.~ .
4 3 O'-O" 2'-O" 2' 6" 5'-O" 20'- 6" 5 '- 0" 2'-6 " i_ i _1 ___,y. i. i
-, ,- . I,
_t - TO 4. REACTOR d" STEEL 2 j N,Q CONTAINMENT % oo jeSHIELD EL:
, 3.L
)*C b
x
- DRYWELL h'
a, l 0,06. ..
- CONCRETE FILL > 3,. .$
1'-
,q I :.
WEIR v ? . t WALL ge .....e 91
~
Jo ~,o*F. qQ -
't '9 ic ' c 08 9 . ;*$ ',
$ thlbh\s is = {'9.s li
. e \-
0.co.
>'/.oo.
i $* b----g m*h$Elc
%i a- 5.'?nf o
/ o 7 p; s w U. *o .c *
? oy g ,
.< l l;
j U**I*MNo#NekY e f,.k n / %, 'S L l .:
,... J.o. .,c; e)k n ?n .C *s'#oE h.54*%'a sb .
Figure 2.4 I e RIVER BEND SUPPRESSION POOL CROSS SECTION f
;Tj ,
iFJ 29
'i: -
e i
.D h
41*-6* A 60'.C* a , g. . a. , , 3.,3 W > f I~ wle,4(g ..,
'CCt L.r's 5
* ,J
-e
'I' r 3
C-e
- s. .". - ( sr .e e - ,,t .
. . , e ,i.
***l*.*-
~ ,7; !
~;. I r; _
l
.s*.
- pg
'W' 1 1/2* IlllCK
[ OKtW(Q ! -C0hfAlfr(NT g($$(t watt , s . l t\ '
. I
- g i '#
i l SMl(tQ d, 210AMAL WAT[R L(v(t $g3 4- f j g 6UltDihG W .- . ~.s : .- -
^
.-; y ~- : /
= a g /
.- i kl .
# I Ah %LAR l i
C;hC2(ft
,4 FitL I
'** .i. N l l
) !
.,.e F
*i -
# 1 A i \ l
*- '."v.,
N a
'.h ?,q .j l l AnnutAa C:grAlw(*;
' f.* ; . , t
' ' , -v(51(t 1TIU(n(As p
. . Y?s * - rr M
r 3, A - Y l c' 7,i Ly I
. ..* * . - - -- s.. s- .
c _ e. ,. l.
',- ,--- 1 .r
- 1.'.
4 :*< .M
*1 . Y tt. 57a*.so- '** .
i* .' F d;, a ;. - . . -
*J
*..K ass 1 ;-7 ;,-*
.s':
v? y i** ' '*
.*- j{ O'*
f S*.0* ^, i s5
.' *il
. ..y
.?,o e ..
; *. s
.o,
( ~n
~.-%. 5$'.hh,k k;$
z1 3il Figure 2.5 PERRY SUPPRESSION POOL CROSS SECTION m b f f au. 30 s -
f 4 . N
.*} N e
a . =0 $39 .
4 .,:
! == == = i e i = \,.K HF&
, n -- x , . - Ms . . ..:=..
- l. = .-=i.= i = 1.= f= = !? !? !? i? I = l = l_ .
- . = M_ ai z j e i e m=.m e l.= t.= l.= l.w l.m i.a..j a
Figure 2.6 i 2 KUOSHENG REACTOR BUILDING ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS i i < 31 3l -J ; E ,
E [ --- ; .R *4
. 4) t
- CONTAlfiMENT
\
t hi i.
- }
k ' UPPER POOL LUMPED ,
\ MASSES l I
i- -. i j I
/ ,,
l t .f
.' l t N 1.,'
, SHIELD l r== . WALL. t
( ;
./ [ ORYWELL
{ f ' pi[g PEDESTAL
.E.il/
u WElR f ' 4 N _t
- WALL f
~
k BASEMAT qn je Sa cmo i VM i i t VM
.i i i i i ii /
) L
~
t it 1 i e ig i x , i i sw I /
/NA/\ /\/\/ (
D a gem
-x_
Figure 2.7 GRAND GULF ANALYTICAL'MODEL FOR HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS 32
7 El. 269'0" l El, 256'-3"' . U
.: g Reactor Bldg.
3 - Centainment vessel
,a .
'- El. 159'9" Drywell Wall
^
'El u
d Shield Building
$ Pr ha n RS a
Shield Wall 9 Suppression Pool w
+90' +90"5~~ Response Spectra Weir i @ See Figures 2.14 RPV Pedestal Wall ( e' 'C 'L-- to 2.19 s' >_.
p-- 2 +80 g-- gley, 70s.0= s [::: lM @NN b' Basemat ll l /\ l V\ l [4 Figure 2.8
' RIVER' BEND REACTOR BUILDING ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS e
1
- 33
t - E i e
}i 'QO 6 ; 517 (E) i o i ,
C=
. $:/ --
. 519 l -'- .
SI f.-&.053 1-5'? - y~;,1c3
,_,:hI
.e.
Il lN) ....- &e
- 4. s
,g u ntg . <: a v* ._n C A N E- , , .
6!P'cCT ' A I" 7 : g .@h j'7 ~2% g -
- ] es.;.:. .:G DE ~1 I i M EC 0::N. i
. i -- _=.3s (5 "':: N {
, GS , c ..i.
' ! ,.-Q ,
. ~87 g \ t it. .
1l% fa
- - - _7.* ' s D'* u @ i- .m% -@
!] e, I .. .
-: ,sr.. ===
- .:- 9s ;;
l gV -:= i O'
~ ?5ci
'755 Ido g.'s /,D.
d' 7
@ c lip- d!'
s,o wa.=
%')Ip2 v/A L a 3% i,7C#WELL 10 : @ ;it,,7 _ .
&> 1 ~~ im o vN.t gg '
u m , l
/
.- - 0 9"~itL 5 peTAn.%
j g WEtt \
'~
&s ~ ,,
"g WA t.s
' Si am'\ -
@ 7 71 (" liF ,wenww%3r'
.i ., w.s, .n WC gFV e l
M I a3;;g e. , M^h, . IG ',
- e A:t. I,e2 !5 y ;z< [ fL d ) 6S is, m f@
w nSS (.;; $ C'*
, Figure 2.9 PERRY REACTOR BUILDING ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS 34 1
s i EL 168'-0" s._ =s... . - =M. PC'.A E C2 AA.E - M asN STEAM ' LJ N E S
-^ ! (. -
E A o li e- . 6'-1" 3-C1 m S6.
<' l *
. CottATN6 sbcCA
/
Citv w &'.'.
~
=.
i
, r.. _,
.gsn 31'-3" aswsr
.. o- $ ..
; vi6vs s f ; th 7"M CONThNutNT .
f wsL.:. .: _
/ .. SCV CISCheadcaE
(, LL ~ l [ ' w j . \, f wt.ia wa6;. Caywtu ~T
...~ _ _
N v a .u -
*"-****'a~
- g. e.. s.. 1 c ..- ,
7' p/ asu d * - 9: m et.sucwam
.a.a
. v. .,,,
.r . .. --
.\ /
g- - jp -- - EL
**? g .
'5-
- j 7** - -
40 e o-Figure 2.10 KUOSHENG REACTOR BUILDING GENERAL ARRANGEMENT f l
35 i 1
m.
4 L 4
- 1
'> 'v'_w" f.L .'CZ'4*
( (L. 2*f 4' a s e [ "s es t(.i t 8L 3/ O ut C*tQiG e 4 OCert bleCR t. t w ..!"3 DeG C eoCS . b*
.1
',* so as co.et a
*j W 5'a<sC3 X c cM t 'c99 -
L M C-<C::.a 7 . w .-e . . s. . _ri_ ? . e .* 'j , , _ g,. < ucPM
- l %} . e ~>
h b b b N -
, w: *-
I
.rn .(.40 f.'l POCL untA t.
M C-C91 C ar a C e C 9 3"
,,,,,.y
;- '. c- . upsta m__ CCaf***=(*f . PCC4 , g .
,f' /,-etct={taftvt
~~ > !
' t.
p(,a t (tCm ans
'i , s, ,
y- . g - 4 ,, , a < v
. ~
Ef8g'
~
+-
- . .N.- -
e. _ww _ c,_,y. o . l y-:- J, . . . c._ , ,, . y , 8
- -- a -
at,,., M .'h *.: 2 e, e s p*.s* . l* ,' .'. C*l ..f l' . * *
- _ ' 4.*4 N r-. : . p *. . h{._,fue,et "'g *, - Q ".*b '",$,
- 4 g'
~~
- " t .
e H :: <- H aa' x c- cC2 s c oces
- 4 es : .J . j . b
,; r- : ::: _m, 4
,;;.,* y';rj
_ m .. r - ec :.ter usia -
., u
. - C,:
- .*^ -:::l: 1 s e.- : -
.t
,<c-g c= ,,_ .,. , :
- t. e* .
__a w -. ;
, , . C'%kr= _-. , _S s
iC... - r: e 33i'
-or_. , q , .y,e,;..
,o. , r.
,; . + .
s o C ca s. , c '** ,. :.3i* a,e.,e -
'r- e >- - 5 .
Sh::rrM - csaf c *yF ,. g j~. 4 , y ; g g. :- .- 3 l gg;& ~ ~ # J -
/_=D'd P
i , _' !.Q_ 'l. _,, .',d..,- .-h._- r h .d'c"
? & h c.cor.
.., g. ,..g " g* 7...~* n g *
. ,,.., e _C:lll .
V*
- f 't ' io,
%g c au -
.-i t '* :
* , .. ..'7.'.'N
.(.
h..r. lJ
- c. .. .
- 7 7gg;;;. . , }: .*. : .. ~- .. .. .* * ' . .: :! ** ' ; .. .s . '. . .
r ..'._.J vu nt et M'- s* N tr,v ents cco n.erScu. c.a nt i Figure 2.11
- GRAND GULF REACTOR BUILDING GENERAL ARRANGEMENT 36
.t .
i-i.
+
-4 i. r.
i
~is,] i
. I, t
t
. i.
- I i .
' ..... s.......t..
l I I i . I i I i i i i s'r
/. ;j 5
l.............. l r , ,. s b
,(-,,..............
d ! \ , 9
*** _j *}.g,5 i p f,,I.r.
. -*. - _ I. - . ,.,, 4 f..................
f _.- I- ,. / t n, .
, , . /
I ' _ Lths ! I I bI
-m -, l
; 1 ,
/ . . . . . ..
j
-- N
. 6 .
.u. .
... *. ei .- .
e M . i
. j! I ! .......o..4
' [.............s.,..
i l0.'* ** *" %. I
- h. V f't i lis 7 i f
'_Bl(
l f8 4 l
?
?I i t...3....g...
7_ s F-- - +a m_ _. ~Q
. ,. 17'.,'.,' l:.... z. .o . r. .,
.e. .f F. e, r
t).- i.c; a - a . ; w - U
. ._ t
- t. .
- .o. : s w /: .: . ... t .a w , . ..
a - , c.-- g ,'- . e s
*
- r :
.a
- v. /
~
............/
f L........ N_,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
. . ..... .... u...........,
Figure 2.12-RIVER BEND REACTOR BUILDING GENERAL ARRANGEMENT ( I a 37 I 2' w t 4
'h , 3 * ~
O e a
$4 6 tW s.an.*
M1M. t .
- E* . . ,
.- . 3 . t .it ta. JDet L -* i s d 3 a. .. . .
t:. g;)n
,e tl
- s t.8 *4 .et
{ b M' C II
' L **. * &*
l , ,,, %..5.se
, . ism..es , a 6 ..
F. e f,4
*- q,, .*
I C3.tn rj r
*uai
,l
--...m..
__s,.... 7 ..,_ .
] -- .
~54t#,20s "e;
) . t i
**'A. !
. .e
* ~
.~ =-
' ]:,a - .. e. % .ia , j -.,
.~
1
# 'tD.7 I I : ll
'.", l. l !i
[.: mun ' , *p ;
!;l l* /, . ,N. ,4,. , h., .
*~
!: . '! .e Ie ..ee...,
7 e .
--- 8, e, r .' '.*i. . . 4.;
p666v seat e' , i
* *a * 'l f*.vf*A a. g.gpi..M-',f **
e b ;
" * - - .< ue. H l w ..,; d il l .s. ', I^ [
"=.=%.36 .y j
l ;j. t
,t u , s- a d.a.e. - . 1. ,
---'.~'
y s .a..g i . . . ':. . = .: . :
,. ~ . . , . . . 4 l; ,l !
r.w+ s e.-
*a -
*s u:q : .m ,
s l
. .- ^
11 :::t- *- .u. _,,,..,.a s ,-
.s , ,-
I f .- 1 e
..1_ .! '
t \ e . 1
- c.- -,j a- ;,,m. .,, *y. j, ; *.m
- e. . m. . . ,. f . .i
- b fr ! .j ' ' ~ ' ~
- - e.
. ,,., . -q _.
n.s . s , s..== - -;,- ,_
. g y.,, ; .
..-l
+ .u,,.,_...,-
l,. v .* ,,, ;ng.,
~ .
MJ Xf.
- 8 +7.ee.4e e a _ u. ,*
g,, asa._c,. *
* * *. e r r _ e m. ,
,g ,,J ,gg ..
- -- l
{.
' h~
7 . rese.g s.. c -- . ,
.j .
su ' "
- - 17 p us.
l l1 .... o..o. d
.o n.
W ht,
' Figure 2.13 .
PERRY REACTOR BUILDING GENERAL ARRANGEMENT O f 38
!l r
p. 2, j
- T - .,
rligiIIi .s ., I1l1 N rI I I
/ -
, I- .,
fi I I' r - O
. ; * ! l.' C i V ljf 3 R S
., +L
.s VIA
/k Q -.
3 RD S A
- R N -
Q,Ij I
/.o O"
S0 I -
- % R*0 o.d l
e a A8 p P a .,, Y C 4 MN OO 1 N r
~~
.,, E U
2 C T I 0 3
/ .,
f e A V A p r
. f u
g R E o T L
/, ., i F C
., E E
. P E T g 4' EE N
, SM
., NN OI
- PA ST o
' EN na e
3 RO s n vn e u N C e a e s aviuo G nnu
' I S
- , E D
s ar - e
.c c i
e s e . , e e s n . .. s s i i a ge33E* n >w . r - , r w=
W h C L , 1 w w ~~ -- s u - w a "M - Cz;, ; Mast 1 3 4e --
--- rsnny niven seno
,,_ --- muosnena -
t es - 8 f 9 . I is I E ' l j i.m - r--- 3 J g sp.-.-. . II /
- I /
s a \.
\
.so - ,I \
\
r-- , I l g / / , ' 's i /
/
'<- ll \& >
y.s j ~ ~.~.)
.n - /T ~!
e-, 8 3o
-, - - ; ~~ ,
- 2. 3 e
- r '7 s
e i e e io 2 e a e ; e e so ,2 4 f RECUENCY lHal Figure 2-15 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARISON SRV + SRVCO ^ SHIELD BUILDING ELEVATION 00"-0"- RADIAL
L L t t. < 9 pg e . 6 j :) .,_ f . g ;, a g 'g
.a 3M,
--- penny RIVER MNO
- - muose.Eno F. . .g
.- 7 . _. _ , ,I . - -
1 I ( D \ h l '\ \ l e
\
i
\ e-- s -
\ ,
I G \ J l g 5:n- l l t t I' -- \/i ' j ) 5 . I I d v
> 4 ~
1 i 9
._/ ~'-] r._h>h i
- - - ' i1 b
7 I %
- p
. I s \
I ( \*l i . j-I/
. . . . . . - .., ,['
l ._ _ - .e // 8 102 4 t/ 2 3 6 10 2 3 7 i FREQUENCY [ifel 4 i .g i i Figure 2-16 f I DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARISON -SRV + SRVCO ~
! DRYWELL WALL ELEVATION 90*-0"-VERTICAL t
I
i m . e _ g , w ,
+ 2 y io
- 'e
'e
_- 8 5
' .- 8 e t
~-
s.
. 5a .- ., /
s 1
.s
( 5e O 7, C
\ % V R
% 52 S
. gi \
\g,_ +LA VC t
t;t 7 g.% RI T
- S R
- 5
- E
; r I Ig NV I i iI O
5_ S *- llf ', y I R0 A*0 P 8 r.. 5oi c n a 7 1 M ON r 5e m 2 CO I n e
< 5e e r u R g
AT A s
- /
- /
5 iF T V CE
- E L t
.. 5. P E
- S
-, 1 T 5s EN
/./. .
S E NM
. 5e O PI N w - SA
~ .
....53 ET RN e
s G NO e eNe GC I
=- ,
ynH E S
- n eO nvU E e
e,n 8 [ 5: D 1_ - . r a i r e c
#s s
e 8 e e .- e 8 g 8 e . s s s 3 3 w _e 5:s 5~$ L as g; t g 6" L
G 'd t* " ' ~ dh M ' IE.7L.J u
' su a n_,
1 1 I. I'J M*.40 hh i 388 - PEASY
. RIVER M900
; 2 88 -
e 3M-f 2 5 E 9M-I 5 5 4 SM~ f*"~R * '
/
am \ I ./ ts
"~
.F """*N ,_
/pg \
/ g (. 4 , p.-- -*-*- -
/ o \ ,s -- -,
_/ / - --~ r'g, Gh f,, J g _. g u a u 5 g a u 5 5 g u a a 3 5 g IN 2 3 4 6 8 7 8 9 to' 2 3 4 6 8 7 8 9 10 I F REQUENCY llisi i Figure 2-18 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARISON -SRV + SRVCO j SHIELD BUILDING ELEVATION 90*-0** -VERTICAL
, Q l W f *- i .L R ,' L Q w 4- c.,g 'Q- t..1 1 *" _N QJQ . W l.30 -
- PERRY RIVER NesO r
qg. D e S' k m 8
' G
.H ~
i 5 4 5< i ..- m {*~~ NNr - j t . ! \ i o 1 \. .- j I \ j \ / I l % i \ l n- I ,\j ./ \ ./ s.s l ,. ,,--- --,u - 1 *- -
/.
) V n- vu ,
/
- ---.._._._._._.,,y ,s ,--- ,% -- - ,
, s s e a s v
,_ a a y a 5 s a e a a s 2
4 e S 7 8 9 108 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 SE 2 3 i ratoue cv I,i i i i i 4 I Figure 219 ' DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRA COMPARISON -SRV + SRVCO #' " Ar m . DRYWELL WALL ELEVATION 90'.0- RADIAL i ( t
.h4Js- LL - M ~L '
d ' EllE '?"' W . w. d "*
- G.'3 )i n - I ~l ~ c42) N ~ . dJi- tink t .
r
~
Table.2.1 CRITERION 1:- X-OUENCHER COMPARISON t (1)
- Parameters Kuosheng Grand Gulf River Bend Perry
,i A Reducer Length (ft) 1.667 '2.317 2.216 , 2.813 '.I i B Hub Length (ft) , 3.229 2.00 2.00 2.00 i i C Bottom Cap Length (ft) ~1.0 ~0.85 0.969 ,
~0.85 1
D Hub (, to-end of arm (ft) 4.875 4.875 4.875 4.875 j E. Hub ( to first row of 1.896 1.896 1.885 1.896 holes (ft) ]i ', F Length of hole 2.625 2.625 2.624 2.624 i pattern (ft)
$ G Hub diameter (in.) 24" Sch. 80 24" sch. 120 24" sch. 140(2) 24" Sch. 140 i H SRVDL diameter (in.) 10" Sch. 80 10" Sch. 80 10" sch. 80 10" Sch. 40S l I Arm diameter (in.) .12" Sch. 80 12" Sch. 80 12" sch. 80 12" Sch. 80 2 Hole diameter (in.) 0.391 0.39 0.391 0.391 No. of holes (4' arms) -1496 1496 1496 1496 Reducer taper (degrees) 17.1 10.4 10.75 10.75
] i Angle between arms 80-80-80-120 80-80-80-120 80-80-80-120 80-80-80-120 f , (degrees) 1 l ~ i i I j (1) See Figure 2.1 for. Nomenclature j (2) Hub is forged and machined. Cross section is comparable to 24-in. diameter Sch. 140 pipe. 1
,a ~.c; i 1.
r % _. i - . cw W idEc; ' Liz.1,
. r- h M' L 1 e
e Table 2.2 CRITERION 2: DISC'HARGE ' LINE PARAMETERS Kuosheng Grand Gulf River Bend Perry Parameters i e f V12-56.8/93.1 VI-50.0/102.8 Vl-55.7/107.3 l SRVDL Air Volume (ft 3)/SRVDL V5.-4 2. 7/7 4. 4 V7-47.7/82.4 V14-45.6/83.5 V3-44.9/82.6 l Length (ft) V8-46.0/79.6 2 333 400.5 310 Pool Area /Ouencher (f t ) 332 14.1 14.0
- Submergence (ft) 13.8 13.8 2-10" A/Line 2-10" /Line 2-10"A/Line 2-6" A/Line Vacuum Breakers I,
Note: 1) The air volumes and line lengths for Kuosheng and Grand Gulf are for the SRVD lines tested.
- i
- 2) The air volumes and line lengths for River Bend and Perry are the maximum and minimun l
j values in the plants.
! 3) Line lengths given are from SRV to air-water inter' face plus WCL (Table 2.3) }
6 .W L 6 . Cil St. u c -> nc L_ o - d- I 1 td5 ECL thM - h Table 2.3 OUENCHER/ BUBBLE PRESSURE COMPARISONS Kuosheng Grand Gulf River Bend Perry Parameters 16 20 16 19 -' Number of Quenchers 74.66 74.66 71.66 74.66 Quencher Area (ft2) 50.0 55.7 Maximum SRVDL Air. Volume (f t3 ) 50.0 57.5 520.0 520.0 520.0-4 Steam Flow Rate (Tonne /hr.) 520.0 100 100 100 100 Pool Temperature (*F) i 17.9 16.5 18.2 17.4 Water Column Length (ft) 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 ! Valve opening Time (sec) Submergence (ft) 13.8 13.8 14.1 14.0
- a.
{ w 14.7 14.7 l Containment Pressure (psia) 14.7 14.7 6666 6408 5899
, _ _ _ _ Pool Surface Area (ft2) -
5304 Contribution to PRD1 ( Bars) l (50-50 Maximum Positive AP) 3-0.086 0.166 0.086 0.146 4 VAAO
-0.028 -0.028 -0.028 -0.028
, LNTW 0.297 0.148 0.316 0.269 WCL
-0.293 -0.111 -0.258 -0.213 WCL2 AWAO i AWO2 I 0.595 0.539 0.596 0.537 PRD1-for SVA (Bars) h -
l' - w ,.l ' NOTES AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS FOR TABLE 2.3 The calculation for PRD1 was developed by GE and is 1. reported in Section 3BA.12.6,-Appendix 3B of GESSAR
.II, GE document 22A7000.
- 2. The values'for VAAQ, LNTW, etc., in Table 2.3 are the contribution of each term of the equation for PRD1 and not the value of the te rm. The equation f or PPD 1 is given in Section 3BA.12.6.1.1 as
.PRD1 = 0.421
+2.58 (VAAO-0.1706) 1
+0.1377 (LNTW-3.83)
' +0.206 (WCL-4)
-0.0176 (WCL2-16)
-0.0336 (AWAO-20)
+0.000761 (AWO2-400) where:
,u VAAQ = Air volume in SRV discharge line (M3 ) divided by the quencher area I (M2 )
LNTW = Natural log of the suppression pool I temperature (*C) WCL = Actual water leg from centerline of quencher arm to air water interface g (M) WCL2 = (WCL)2
~
AWAO = Ef fective pool surf ace area per
- quencher divided by the quencher area AWQ2 = (AWAO)2-f 48 ei b * ,We
)
.4
],j ,
Table 2.4 MEAN OF THE MEASURED PEAK PRESSURES FOR
. KUOSHENG LOW-LOW SET SRV
.p-
~
Mean Of Mean Of Peak Pressures Peak Pressures Design-Pressure First Actuations' Consecutive Actuations Pressure Sensor * (psid) (psid) (psid) [ P2 +1.40 +1.72 +16.6
-1.81 -3.03 -7.38
^l P3 +4.38 +4.29 +16.6
,; -2.91 -3.57 -7.38 r
P4 +5.86 +5.38 +16.6 A
.j -4.51 -5.91 .7.38 i
l' .P14 +1.79 +2.07 '+16.6 i' -2.34 -7.38
-2.10 P69 +1.75 +1.88 +16.6
-2.02 -2.31 -7.38 F
ii J 2
- As shown on Figure 2.2, all sensors were located within two quencher arm ~ radii of the quencher centerline. Therefore, per the design load' methodology each sensor is expected to sense
~,
design pressure.
==
F 49
G LL = w c sid .m- .w s u._d - xJ: - - i n
'Q w c... . 'uoma N 4
~
Table'2.5 CRITERION 4: OUENCHER LOCATION AND POOL DIMENSIONS 1 Parame ters Kuosheng Grand River Perry Gulf Bend Suppression Pool Width (f t) 17.5 20.5 20.5 18.5 , Suppression Pool Depth.-(ft) 19.2 .18.8 19.7 18.5 Ouencher Incation ' Radius (f t) 44.5 46.5 44.5 46.5 5.6- 4.5 ( of arms above floor (ft) 5.5 5.0 m (ofquencherfrom o 5.0 5.0
.drywell wall -(f t) 5.0 5.0 1 Ouencher Support Double box Cantilever Welded to Welded to beams to from drywell base mat base mat drywell wall at base; embedments; embedmen ts';
wall. rigid struts rigid struts rigid struts from SRVDL from SRVDL~ from SRVDL to drywell to drywell to drywell wall, wall. wall.
u; -
.-w i - .- g- -
- a .a_ -
- 23. : - . 1' -
i d wy t.uas
~
g Table 2.6 PHYSICAL SIMILARITIES COMPARISCN OF_
, KUOSHEt1G, GRAND GULF, RIVER BEND AND PERRY REACTOR BUILDING GEOMETRIES e
Parameters Kuosheng lGrandGulf River Bend Perry ' Basemat i Diameter (ft) ~" 141 134 150 136 Thickness (ft) 10.8 9.5 10.0 12.0 Concrete Compressive (psi) 5,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 j Strength-Rebar Minimum Yield (psi) 60,000 60,000 50,000 60,000 Soil Shear Wave' (fps) 2,300 1,600 960 4,900
- - Velocity m Shield' Wall
>J
-7 Inside diameter (ft) 25.8 -
28.7 25.8 27.6 Thickness (ft) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
^
. Construction Stee;l plate Steel plate Steel plate Steel plate structure structore structure structure with con- with con- with con- with con-
- b. .
j crete fill creto1 fill-crete fill crete fill i '
/ Drywell -
1
~
~
..Inside Diameter (ft) 69 73 69 73 Thickness (ft) 5 5 5 S l Steel Face Plate (in.) 0.75 1.5 0.375 1.0 i
Thickness V
- ' = - - _ _ . - - - - - - _ . - -
i- i m .t 3 , g[ dma. u,, , 1 . 2 . 2 1,, -e w
~
~~ .
y--
~.
t PHYSICAL SIMILARITI'ES COMPARISON OF
- ~#
TKUOSHENG, GRAND - GilLP, ~ RIVER: BEND AND PERRY
' 'i~ ~
REACTOR BUILDING GEOMETRIES
' (Concluded)~ '1'
~
~
~
~
Parameters Kuosheng Grand Gulf River Bend Perry _y Drywell (Cont.)
- Steel Face Plate ASTM A-572 ASTM A-537 ASME SA-240 'ASME SA-516, Gr. _.,
Material 'With A-240 CIA with Type 304L S.S. 70 with SA-240, Type 304 Type 304L Type 304 S.S. S.S. clad S.S. clad clad Concrete compressive 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000' strength (psi) m N Rebar minimum yield (psi) 60,000 60,000 50,000 60,000 Containment In Pool Region Inside Diameter (ft) 114 124 120 120 Thickness (ft.) 8.5 3.5 7.0 8.0 Steel Liner Thickness (in.) 0.25 0.25 1.5 1.5 Steel Liner Material SA-285 Gr. A ASTM A285 Gr.A SA-516 Gr.70 SA-516 Gr. 70 Steel Liner Yield (psi) 24,000 24,000 38,000 38,000 Strength Concrete Compres.sive (psi) 5,000 '5,000 3,000 5,000 Strength Rebar minimum yield (psi) 60,000 60,000 50,000 60,000
. __ _ __ _}}