ML17053A349

Provides Summary of 781114 Meeting with Owners of Lead Mark II Facilities to Discuss NRC Mark II Containment Acceptance Criteria.Info Requested by NRC & Criteria Encl

ML17053A349
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point, Susquehanna, Columbia, Limerick, LaSalle, 05000000, Zimmer, Shoreham, Bailly
Issue date:	12/20/1978
From:	Anderson C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 7901080249
Download: ML17053A349 (66)

Text

DEC 2 01978 sc -w<O MfETING

SUMMARY

DISTRIBUTION ocket File NRR Reading CSB Reading NRC PDR Local PDR TIC E.

Case R.

Boyd D. Ross D. Vassallo D. Skovholt W. Gammill J. Stolz R. Baer

0. Parr S.

Varga C. Heltemes L. Crocker D. Crutchfield F. Williams R. Mattson D. Muller Project Manager

Attorney, ELD E. Hylton If (3)

ACRS (16)

L. Dreher L. Rubenstein R. Denise NRC Par ticipants I. Peltier NRC Attendees R. Tedesco W. Butler gfiQ qsoxosn>9't

4 i~r

'f

'8~1,~'[)(> q~

~A A50c,c1p

+

0

~a ca

+r9 naO

+>>*++

UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Dgg P 0197~

Docket Nos.:

50-358, 50-352/353, 50-367, 50-373/374, 50-387/388, 50-410, 50-3225 50-397 APPLICANT:

Members of Mark II Owners Group

SUBJECT:

MEETING WITH MARK II OWNERS GROUP TO DISCUSS THE STAFF'S MARK II CONTAINMENT ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA - NOVEMBER 14, 1978

~Back round The staff informed the owners of the lead Mark II facilities in its letter dated September 14, 1978, of the criteria that would be found acceptable for containment evaluation with respect to the pool dynamic loads.

A meeting was held on October 19, 1978 with the Hark II owners for the purpose of having them identify those criteria for which they would propose to take exception.

At this meeting, the Mark II owners provided the staff with a preliminary description of their proposed approach to resolve our concerns for those areas where they differed with our criteria.

Following th'is meeting the staff provided the Mark II owners with information to clarify the staff's concerns related to the revised methodology for determining the maximum pool swell height.

The primary purpose of the meeting on November 14, 1978 was to discuss the Hark II owners'evised methodology for calculating the maximum pool swell height.

An attendance list, copy of our questions, and meeting handouts are enclosed.

~Summa r The owners for the lead Mark II plants (Zimmer; Shoreham and LaSalle) took exception to a number of the staff's load definition criteria.

In this meeting the Mark II owners discussed the basis for two of these exceptions.

These exceptions included the method of determining the maximum pool swell elevation and the associated wetwell pressure.

The Mark II owners originally specified a maximum pool swell elevation of 1.5 times vent submergence.

While this specification was determined to be conservative for most of the tests conducted in the 4-T and EPRI subscale test facilities, we could not agree with 'the Mark II owners, that this was a conservative specification for all cases.

The staff proposed in its criteria, that the maximum pool elevation be determined from the pool swell analytical model.

,0 0

If,

't'

Hark II Owners Group DEC 20197S The Hark II owners, in response to our criteria, proposed an alternative method to calculate the maximum pool swell elevation.

This method utilizes the maximum reverse pressure differential on the diaphragm and the corresponding drywell pressure to determine the maximum wetwell pressure.

The maximum pool elevation is then determined directly from the, pool swell analytical model such that the maximum wetwell pressure not be exceeded.

The Mark II owners provided justification for this methodology by comparing the calculated with the observed maximum pool swell and the associated wetwell pressure in the 4T facility.

The staff stated that this new method for calculating pool swell height and wetwell pressure appeared acceptable.

However, our final review of this exception to our criteria would be conducted upon receipt of documentation from the Hark II owners, which should include a description and justification for this new methodo1ogy.

Enclosures:

As Stated Clifford Anderson, A-8 Task Manager Containment Systems Branch Division of Systems Safety Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc:

See attached pages

f,f

Mr. Earl A. Borgmann Vice President - Engineering The Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company P. 0.

Box 960 Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 cc:

Troy B. Conner, Jr.,

Esq.

Conner, Moore 8 Corber 1747 Pennsyanfa

Avenue, N. M.

Washington, D. C.

20006 Mr. Wfllfam J. Moran General Counsel The Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company P. 0.

Box 960 Cfncfnnaft, Ohio 45201 Mr. Wfllfam G. Porter, Jr.

Porter, Stanley, Arthur and Platt 37 West Broad Street

Columbus, Ohio 43215 Hr. Peter H. Forster, Vice Presf dent Energy Pesources The Dayton Power and Light Company P. 0.

Box 1247 Dayton, Ohio 45401 J.

Robert ~lfn, Counsel The Dayton Power and Lfght Company P. 0.

Box 1034 Dayton, Ohio 45401 Mr. James D. Flynn

Manager, Licensing Envfroanental Affafrs The Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company P. 0.

Box 960 Cfncfnnatf, Ohfo 45201 Mr. J.

P. Fenstermaker Senfor Vice President - Operations Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric Company 215 North Front Street

Coulubus, Ohio 43215 David 8. Fankhauser, PhD 3569 Nine Mile Road Cfncfnnatf, Ohio 45230 Thomas A. Luebbers, Esq.

Cincinnati City Solicitor Room 214, City Hall Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Mr. Stephen Schumacher Miami Valley Power Project P.

O.

Box 252 Dayton, Ohio 45401 Ms Augusta Prince, Chairperson 601 Stanley Avenue Cfncinnatf, Ohio 45226

Hr. Norman W. Curtis Vice President - Engineering and Construction Pennsylvania Power and Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvanf a 181 01 cc:

Hr. Earle H. Head Project Hanager Pennsylvania Power k Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvanfa 18101 Jay Sflberg, Esq.

Shaw, Pfttman, Potts 4

Trowbridge 1800 H Street, N. W.

Washington, P. C.

20036 Hr. William E. Barberfch, Nuclear Licensing Group Supervisor Pennsylvania Power h Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 Edward H. Nagel, Esquire General Counsel and Secretary Pennsylvania Power 5 Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsyl vanf a 18101 Sryan

Snapp, Esq.

Pennsylvanfa Power 5 Lfght, Company 901 Hamilton Street Allentown, Pennsy1 vanf a 181 01

I 4I

Mr. Byron Lee, Jr.

Vice President Coamonwealth Edison Company P. 0. Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 cc:

Rfchard E. Powell, Esq.

Isham, Lfncoln h Beale One First National Plaza 2400 Chicago, Illinois 60670

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation ccs~

Arvin E. Upton, Esq.

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby 5 HacRae 1757 N Street, N.

N.

Mashfngton, D. C.

20036 Anthony 2. Roisman, Esq.

Natural Resources Oefense Council 917 15th Street, N. X.

ttashfngton, O. C.

20005 Hr. Richard Goldsmith Syracuse Unfversity College of Law E. I. White Hall Campus

Syracuse, New York 13210 T. K. OeBoer, Director Technological Oevelopment Programs New York State Energy Office Swan Street Building Core 1 - 2nd Floor Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation ATIN:

Mr. Gerald K. Rhode, Vice President System Project hhnagement RO Erie Boulevard Nest

Syracuse, New York 15202

0 1

Northern Indiana Public Service Ca~any cess Meredith Hemphill, Jr. Esq.

Assistant &mural Counsel Bethlehem Steel Corporation 701 East Third Street Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18016 William H. Eichhorn, Esq.

Eichhorn, Morrow a Eichhorn 5243 Hohman Avenue

Hanaend, Indiana 46320 Northern Indiana Public Service Coapany ATTN:

Mr. H. P. Lyle, Vice President Electric Prcxhction 5 Engineering 5265.oman Avenue Ham'and, Indiana 46525 Ecward W. Osann, Jr., Esq.

Wolfe, Hubbard, Leydid, Voit a Osann, Ltd.

Suite 4600 Che IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois W611 Robert J. Vollen, Esq.

109 North Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60602 Porter County, Izaak Walton League of America, Inc.

Box 438 Chesterton, Illinois 463u4 Michael I. Swygert, Esq.

25 East Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604 Richard L. Boabins, Esq.

Lake Michigan Pederation 53 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604

. Maurice Axelrad, Esq.

Lewenstein, Heaen, Beis t Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.

Washington, O. C. 20036 Jees H. Cahanr Esq.

Russell Eggert, Esq.

Office of the Attorney General 188 Randolph Street Chicago, Illinois 60602

1 t

Long Island Lighting Company ccs:

Edward H. Barrett, Bsq.

General Counsel Long Island Lighting Coayany 250 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501 Mward J. Walsh, Esq.

General Attorney Long Island Lighting Can@any 250 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501 J.

P. Novarro Project Manager Shoreham Nuclear Power Station P, 0. Box 618 Wading River, New York 11792 Jeffrey Cohen, Esq.

Deputy Caranissioner and Counsel New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plea Albany, New York 12223 Howard L. Blau Blau and Cohn,.P.

C.

380 North Broadway

Jericho, New York 11753 Irving Like, Esq.

Reilly, Like and Schnieder 200 West Hain Street

Babylong, New York 11702 M3 Technical Associates 366 California Avenue Suite 6 Palo Alto, California 94306 Lcag Island Lighting Ccapany ATIÃ:

Mr. Andrew W. Wofford Vice President 175 Bast Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801

1 t

Mr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr.

Vice President 5 General Counsel Philadelphia Electric 'Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Penng)vanfa 19101 CC'roy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.

Conner, Moore 5 Corber 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. M.

Mashfngton, D. C.

20006 M. Mflliam Anderson, Esq.

Deputy Attorney General Room 512, Main Capitol Building Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Frank R. Clokey, Esq.

Special Assistant Attorney General Room 218, Towne House Apartments P. 0. Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Honorable Lawrence Coughlin House of Representatives Congress of the United States Washington, D. C.

20515 Roger B. Reynolds, Jr., Esq.

324 Swede Street Norristown, Pennsylvania 19401 Millard C. Hetzel, Esq.

312 Hain Street East Greenvi lie, Pennsylvanf a 18041 Lawrence Sager, Esq-Sager h Sager Associates 45 High Street Pottstown, Pennsylvanfa 19464 Joseph A. Smyth Assistant County Solicitor County of Montgomery Courthouse morristown, Pengsylvanfa 19404

Mr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr.

cc:

Eugene J. Bradley Philadelphia Electric Company Associate General Counsel 2301 Market Street Phfladelph)a, Pennsylvania 19101

t

Washington Public Power Supply System ATTN:

Mr. Kneil 0. Strand Managing Director 3000 George Washington Way Richland Washington 99352 Joseph B. Knotts, Jr.,

Esq.

Oebevoise 5 Liberman 700 Shoreham Building 806 Fifteenth Street, N.

W.

Washington, D.

C.

20005 Richard Q. Quigley, Esq.

Washington Pub'lic Power Supply System P. 0.

Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352

I

Mark II Meeting November 14 C. J.

Anderson T. M. Su C.

Economos W. Butler R.

E.

Shewmaker K. G. Hazifotis L. J.

Sobon L. C.

S.

Nieh S.

B. Mucciacciaro T. Y.

Chow D.

M. O'onnor R. L. O'Mara H.

Chau W. Museler J.

E. Metcalf NRC/DSS/CSB NRC/DSS/CSB BNL NRC/DSS/CSB NRC/I E GE GE S&W S&W S&W Bechtel S&W Lilco Lilco S&W

0 1

2 ) ><ii~~/<

tPes~wkd

'By A4G To evaTuate the acceptabiTity of the neN m thodaTogy prapased hy the Mark ZX Smers Group (Response ta Round 3 guestian 020.68) for dete~natian of the maximal poo'I sweT'I elevatian the staA'iTT require the faTT~ng information:

I}

A precise description of her the maximxrr paaT eTevatian is corputed.

Specifically:

a)

Hne is the upTift. dffferentiaT pressure computed')

)

%hat is the vaTue of'eeTT pressure used ta determine ~~TT pres-sure at maximum poaT Tiftfry (a}Y c)

Hcw is rraximtmr uplift computed fnm (b)7 2)

Predictians for maximen uplift shalT be deve'Iaped using the proposed methodology and compared ~ith experinantaT resuTts far the faTT~ina 47 t,est runs:

.a)

ATT closed Phase I 9 and II foot submergence tests (Runs 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 35).

b)

NT Phase II 9 f'aat subne~ce tests (Runs 2Z and 58)

The predictions shaTT be compared to the e7evatians carrespanding to the Tocat~an of the mast eTevated canductivity prabe exhibiting frath activity during any given test.

Each data paint shaTT be distinauished by a run number.

The source of'he ~neeTT pressure history used ta develop the thearetfcaT prediction shaTT be defined explicitTy (i.e.:

measured ar anaTytic) ~

3)

A prediction far maximum uplift shaTT be deveTopect using Jv proposed nmthadaTagy and compare with experi~taT resuTts far Run 80 af the CAPRI

1 X/I3 3 scale 99 tests Zn this case comparison ~4th the r~immr upfif'.

dectuced fern> the measured we~TT pressures viT7 be acceptab'te.

Q ~

~ ~ =

t

~ I P ~

h I

~ ~ A

~ ~

~ tet

~ ~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

'lt

>I I\\+

E4 ~ \\11 ~ ~ ~ ~ \\

~ JI ~ ~ ~ ~ %11

~ ~

1 ~ ~ L% ~

HRC LEAD PLAHT ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA REYGW NOVBG3ER 1978 - SHPS APPLICATION I. Clarification of method proposed by Mark II response to NRC Question 020.68.

A. Uplift differential pressure computed by NRC method as stated in HRC Question 020.69.

B.

Drywell pressure obtained from LOCZVS and pool swell analyt;ical model (PSAM) using "Application Assumptions" from Section 6.7 of NEDE"21544"P.

Drywell pressure is that at end of pool swell (zero surface velocity).

C.

Maximum swell height computed assuming a polytropic compression in the wetwell airspace (k = 1.2) and a final wetwell pressure equal to sum of the uplift differential pressure from "A." and the drywell pressure from "B.".

Above method. used by SNPS - alternate method. is to run PSAM with k = 1.2 and obtain maximum swell height directly.

Both approaches shown for comparison in Figs.

1 and 2.

II.

"020.68 method. "/4T comparisons for runs 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 35 (Phase I) and runs 22 and 58 (Phase II).

A.

Discussion 4T modeling 1.

4T facility shown in proprietary Fig. 3 (based on Fig. 3-1 of NEDE-13442-P) 2.

Vent equivalent lengths used - 502 ft (Phase I)

- 336 ft (Phase II) 3.

Blowdown calculated on the basis of steam generator pressure decay shown in proprietary Fig. 4 (based on Fig. 5-3. of NEDE"13442"P.)

Run 31 modified for liquid initially in dip tube B.

Results 1.

Phase I LO(ZVS/PSAM transients using "Applications Assumptions" provided. in Figs.

5a and 5b through 10a and 10b.

"a" is drywell and wetwell pressure vs time,

'"b" is pool surface elevation vs time

- Swe11 height calculated using "020.68 method" shown for comparison

- Maximum measured drywell pressure shown for comparison

2.

Comparison of Phase I calculated and observed maximum swell height shown on proprietary Fig. 11.

3 ~

Phase II results similar

" Run 22 max swell height calc'd - 37.7 ft max swell height observed " Proprietary

- Run 58 max swell height calc'd - 37.7 ft max swell height.observed - Proprietary C.

Conclusions l.

1.5 vent submergence criterion provides adequate conservatism for U. ft and 13.5 ft submergence cases 2.

Only run 35 exceeds calculated value - close inspection of run 29 probe data shows that "splashing" after end of bulk pool swell is not very significant (see proprietary Fig. 12 based.

on Fig. 46-4 of NEDF;21061"P)

~

3.

Margin between calculated and observed swell height increases with break size (and break area/unit vent ares) due to:

- Increased conservatism of using 2.5 psid uplift differential pressure

- Greater conservatism in drywell pressure response (see proprietary Table 1)

D.

Implications for Shoreham 1-Refer to Fig. 13 (based on Fig. III"1of Attachment 1 to NRC Lead, Plant Acceptance Criteria) -

SNPS drywell pressure history is somewhat greater than 4T run 31, either measured, or calculated.

Therefore, more conservatism expected. in the application of "020.68 method" to SNPS than to 4T run 31.

2.

Preliminary review of EPRI single cell results indicate single cell conservative compared to multivent. All other things equal, 4T will overpredict SNPS ~

3.

K = 1.2 more likely in 4T than in SHPS due to greater likelihood of significant heat transfer during swell.

Again 4T willover-predict SNSP.

4.

DBA for SHPS is liquid break - liquid breaks (Phase II, runs 36 and 37) expected to show even greater conservatism in application of "020.68 method."

Additional information will be provided.

III. Calculation of swell height for EPRX-3D, run 80, not possible with

~ "020.68 method."

Drywe11 transient cannot be calculated for air blowdown.

s

~

r Il II Ia s

I}:

I!'L'!st

ljl ii

~ ~

I'.

l~

I; jl I

s I

I I

~jI s

~

!".Ij J'.i jTsf

~

~ ~

S I

I e

I s!

3 I.,'~

s Ij'.I/.

4:

D jj!.'!

'j Iis}

illj til:

+s ~

ST ~ ~

~

~

~ ~ I ~

! I'.:

'"t

~

~

~ ~

~ ss

~

sj':

I s

!l>

iii iiii

.'I I

'i!

tt

'(s

II'i:

If s

tie

!j

!I

~ e asf'~fl I Il.t

sli

I; e'stI

~

~ ~

~ :!I

~ ~

~ ~

ifj

~ t

~

~ s

~ ~ I;itj e

~

I:,I I':I s!s s,l!

,IsI at))

I'

LL}

ifj

~ Isf I):.'.5

'I"

~M ili:

~

6g ii):

5C It,'I g

ill s ~ ~ s

}lit

~ s ~titt 4 ~

25 Il::

I!;II

'1 C

5

~ ~ ~

~ ~ !

li st ~

~ !

e.at stsstt

':I' s ~

s

'. s

~ ~ ~ I is ~

~ ~

~

s ~ ~ I

'.: I a

~ se

~

aJ

~ }aj

'IIl

~

~ ~

lli st'ts

~ ~ I!

at,'a jl

~ s I'i!Iill jl

't Iis ~

~ ~ ~ ~

jjjs it i

! ~

!Its ~

~ ~ ~

)sea

I

~ I a

s ~ ~ ~I!

!s ! ~

s ~ ~ ~

sjj:

~ aI!Is

~ I'hj' ss

!I I itl;.

~ ~

~

Iij';

I i',

~i ~

,'lit el I's'a

~sl a s ~

a j

}.:Ls III; I.l I J Ill'il I':

'Iljj

,l,i

.',TTj~j I!t

~ ~

~

W

.tl i(i!

sit) i i!

IUii!

is s

~ I

!I'..

I))i Iljt

,I!I tljl llii iJJi JIIi lg li';j; ILi It ili!

l!al I tl

I

!Is' t

.L'ji:

q) ftai IQ(

ill!

II}

li 1

3~

u E'f s ~

r:.

'ce.':

t:

.I9 D:

jfjs I!L!

I"'lt!

I II Y..

'jl!

ji.).

jjs!

~ J F..J (le ljl) l:.!

ljjl

-!i tlat

~ ~ ~ ~

! ~ ~ ~

til, I

~

s sa I

II K

',jjt

)lII'II<ill'r ters h }If I}: ~ ! Iatl 'I'jI f! Ir s ~

I II Il!

I'i s ~!I

il il!

j I tl ~ ~ ~ s ,!s il!i '.li I Ij II I I,l I'I'H I I I I I ..gs I IP Il tt t !il !!Il liii lj LLL Ul I; sj 1 ~ a! !ij II I Ii Y s I !I 'I ii!I! ~l ) II;I il ~ t I!~ ) sit fi li!i llli t!s ~ des Ss ~ s ~ s ~ ~ ~ I! s ~ s Bi TL 3. D.l.ij, ~.I' I s ~ tia r ~ tests to sfl lj !I i! Ij i,l s I 'Iji !I, ~ S ta Itjt s I tl aT jJ Ig

r I

I I s)! t I ~ ~ e ~ s II'l I. lt p I ~ 1!!, t.l )I s s I I I !i I i)I !I,: .il I s jig /I !a Ii II I I }'!, iil:: ..II Itii 'l l L'1'f a ~p ~ il E;i !-)a'I )ill li I il )1 jII I s ~ ~ ) ~ i I 'I ~ ~ ~ ~ s s s s ~ I Iil I .'j! ~ ~ a I II ss sj gt ~

,I !I ~ ~ ~ I ~ I s ~ (Isl I:4 l I I e ~ os (ll". ~ ~ s ~ I ~ ) I I: IIt. el): il:" s ~ ~ s ~ ~ ) ~ t ~ !I'; Iljl ~ ~ e ~ jlls ill ssl i Itl. ):I' et ~ leis ~ll ill~ ~ s ~ s ~ ll !.I: ~ ~ ~' a ~ ~ so ~ ~ ~ ee .": I: 'I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l I Lj se ~ e t)ll

t; I'.I)

~ Iss ~ I~ 'I'I )!j. 'I')!I 'ill lee) ) ~

J)

~ ~ ~ ~ ".II I ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ e ~ ~t)) les ~ ~ ~ ~ lile I l ~ i'I) s ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ jill 5ill: I el ~ I' ~ s s 1 Lo 'l ~ s ar IL" ~ I ~ lal e) ~ ) ~ t ~ I ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ace ')s ~ i ~ ~ ~ 20 ~ o ~ ) ~ ~ I ~ I a ~ ~ s I:!I ~ )I I s) ~ I e !fj; I II: ~ ) ~ I I I,I I ilLI ales

'jl.s

.I:

sits ~ se ':. l l i'Il ~ ~ I ~ ~ s ~ e ~ ~ ~ s.j i!: I ',li I I I Il I e

!el

~,ll ~ I I ~ I ~ l ~ ~ IIIi l) ~ et ~ ~ 'll~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I I <<I s it t te )II ~'I j.'I ~ ~ 4 I ~ )t ))ls 1)ie lll'.I s I il I s4 .:,Il

li

)!e! I l !I 'l II I) I i I ~ 1 I I !rIi h Ia I l I)',) ~ ~ .'I li I ~I:t. la I l.'I !I. ri I le L I 1 e II I !pl ll Il. I I I s I llI})i ) I I ~ I ~ E'rll lsl n ~ I I e s)! Ile ~ 'f li',: l9 I s I ) .I, jl; 'ill ~ l sle'. sl, ltte i)i s)z "I'III I;il 1! I I l ~ I ll I T I I Ql Ill I! ~ s I I I I ls II , s Lo e I! Ijj piI' I' e I I I I I I I t l Ta sl i l Li I I ~ I sl) ~ , I;. Is ~ I iiL'll l I ~ ~ ~ L ilI

'I I

l I 1 ) ~ Ii I'

I

)I I I I ~7 '-i) js Ll I ~ Ill il l ~ TTI; I ~ e il (I tell lll I tll

I

)l I I e I I s I I Ia I te IL I a ~ e ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ) heili: I ~ I)ll ~ as ~ IIII I ls tl ~ il(a il ij I l I 7)I !! J!I( Ijr j!I!i!ii

Af ~

Iaf'll 9';

0 I) la ill.'

JLa ) heifl ,'I Ijl I I I'I . ii. I ~ a l t)L

K M tQ G M pj bJlC n CO UJ IQ p04 35.2 MEASURED PRESSURE C) Ol 4.00 0.26 0-60 0-76 1.00 1-26 1.60 1 76 2-00 TIl1E AFTER BLOHDOHN-FIG. 5a NRC LP ACCEPTRNCK CRlTERIfl RKVlKH 4T PREOlCTlOH - RUN R7 ILL+ 192I a 0 StPLlNTlN

020.68 NET)IOD I cb D QJ 0) W CJ CE 4fY IO M OJ b.OO O.2S O.6O O.7S 1-00 1.26 1.60 1.76 2.00 TINE AFTER BLOHDOHH-FIG:5b NRC LP ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA REVIEW 4T PREDICTION - RUN 2'7 NV 1N4 4K'CtLECAllON

CE W CO 0 LD bJ LL D nM bl CL ID 04 30.7 HEASURED PRESSURE '.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1-50 1.75 2-00 TINE RFTER BLOHOOHN-FlG. 6a NRC LP ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA REVIEH 4T PREDICTION - RUN 2S NVa 1075 NFS StlLlCAtION

020. 68 .METHOD 0-76 1-00 1.26 1.60 1-76 TINE RFTER BLOHDOHN-FIG. 6b NRC LP ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA REVIEH 4T PREDICTION - RUN 28 NNo IWO - eNfO AttLICATIN

0

31,3 HEASURED PRESSURE 0.60 0.78 1.00 1.26 1.60 1.78 2.00 TiNE AFTER BLOHDOHH-FIG. 7a HRC LP ACCEPTAHCE CRITERIA REVIEW 4T PREOICTIOH RUN - 28 IOV 5'C ICCLlCliT10ll

4

Clv 020.68 NETllOD 0A tO EO Ol b00 0 e26 0 +60 076 100 126 160 176 200 TItlE AFTER BLOHOOHH-FIG 7b NRC LP ACCKPTAHCE CRITKRIA REVIKH 4T PRKOICTION - RUN R8 IWo 1$7$ OtS RtllNilN

a: (0I m lO tel Pg pl lO M tD g Ol 33.4 HEASURED PRESSURE D b o00 0 ~26 0 60 0 o76 }e00 i e26 f 60 1 e76 2 o00 TINE AFTER BLOHDOHN-FIG. ea HRC LP APPL1CAtlOH CR1TEHlA RKVlKK, 4Z PREOlCtlOH - RUN 80 NVe llll N% OtfLEOT(N

e

020.68 HETHOO b.00 0.26 0.60 . 0 76 1.00 1.26 ie60 1.76 2.00 TINE AFTER SLOWDOWN-FIG. 8b NRC LP RCCEPTNtCK CRITERIA REVIEH 4f PREOICTION RUN 80 NOTE IN'ASFLLN1lg

I 4

I II I ~ I I I s I I I I ~ i li I I t

I o o I I I I I I s I I I ~ I I ~ I I l a i l i I I

4 ~ ~

aM EOIL ID Pl 4JlK Pa CO lo la) IO IL C4 30.4 HEASUREO PRESSURE b.ao o.as o.so o.vs i.oo i.as t.so i.vs a.oo TINE AFTER BLOHDOHN-FIG. Ioa NRC LP ACCEPTANCE CRITNIA REIGN 4T PREOICTIOII - RUN SS NYe INN ~ QFO ltfLINllOI

0 J

C7v N W 4 020.68 METHOD I cb DA 'b oo o as o so o 7s i oo 1 as i so TIIIE HI TER BLOHDOHN-FIG. 'Iob 1.7s a.oo NRC LP ACCEPTAHCE CRlTERlA REVlKH 4T PREDlCTION - RUN S8 lIOVo lN1 ~ OOF! RfLlCNlN

~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 32 RMPO~~ ACCORDING 70 THE SrQRWAM rSRR RUN 3l-LOCTVS 20 ~elX CD CD It- 'I~ I / / I / ~ I I / I / MEASURED RESrQNSE DURING RUN 3t Ql= THE 4T ii.STS 1 2 TIME AFicZ LOCA (st Fait l 3 COMPARISON OF OT A,'lo SHOREHN DR%'fEU PRESSURE

RESPONSE

TO THE DBA LOD}}