ML17053C488
| ML17053C488 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point, Susquehanna, Columbia, Limerick, LaSalle, Zimmer, Shoreham, Bailly File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/24/1981 |
| From: | Teh-Chiun Su Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-39, REF-GTECI-CO, TASK-A-39, TASK-OR NUDOCS 8103310914 | |
| Download: ML17053C488 (10) | |
Text
~8 AEOII (4
P
~4 0
ca OO ma r+n +W*k+
Generic Task A-39 UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULA'TORY COMMISSION
'ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 March 24, 1981 Docket Nos.
, 50-352/353, 50-367, 50-373/374, 50-387/388, 50-410 50-322, 50-397 APPLICANT:
Members of Mark II Owners Group
SUBJECT:
Back round MEETING WITH MARK II OWNERS GROUP TO DISCUSS SUPPRESSION POOL TEMPERATURE LIMIT AND T-QUENCHER LOAD SPECIFICATION, MARCH 13, 1981 The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the technical details related to the suppression pool temperature limit and the T-quencher load specification.
The staff and its consultants have had discussions with the Mark II Owners'roup on these subjects.
During these discussions, we had raised several areas of concern related to:
(1) the potential increase of the suppression pool temperature limit for low mass flux through the safety/relief valve; and (2) the deficiencies of the methodology used to predict pressure and frequencies for the Mark II T-quencher discharge.
The Mark II Owners Group and their consultants, General. Electric and Kraftwerk Union (KWU), were to present their responses to these concerns.
An attendance list and a copy of the meeting handouts (proprietary information with limited distribution) are enclosed.
~Summa r 1.
Pool 'Tem erature Limit The Mark II Owners Group recently proposed revised suppression pool temperature limits for safety/relief valve operation.
These limits are included in the report enetitled, "Mark II Containment quencher Condensation Performance,"
dated March 11, 1981.
Mr. G. Gottfried, representative of the Mark II Owners'roup, opened the meeting by discussing the adequacy of these limits.
The data base used to establish the pool temperature limit is the SRV tests conducted by KWU in Germany.
Based on this data
- base, GE believes that the quencher devices have demonstrated stable condensation of steam for mass flux from 5 to 94 ibm/ft -sec at local subcooling as low as 10'F.
However, the staff and its consultants disagreed with GE's inter-pretation of the data base.
With the staff's interpretation of quencher submergence, the tests show local subcooling of 30'F instead of 10 F as GE suggested.
On the basis of the corrected submergence, the Mark II Owners'roup proposed the following alternative pool temperature limits:,
a.
For mass flux greater than 94 ibm/ft -sec, the degree of local 2
subcooling should not be less than 30'F, which is equivalent to local temperature of 200'F with quencher submergence of 14 gg~33(oy<p:
>wg E
Meeting Summary 2
b.
c ~
March 24, 1981 l
For mass flux below 42 ibm/ft -sec the degree of local sub-2 cooling should not be less than 20'F.
2 For mass flux between 94 and 42 ibm/ft -sec, the degree of local subcooling should be linearly interporlated from 30'F to 20'F The staff and its consultants stated these proposed pool temperature limits were acceptable.
2.
Assum tions for Pool'Tem eratur'e Anal sis During the meeting he1d in December 1980 in Bethesda, Maryland, Dr.
C. Graves of RSB requested additional information related to the methodology used to calculate the mass and energy released through the SRV, feedwater pump qoastdown time, and availability of RHR operating in the suppression pool cooling mode.
In response to this request, the Mark II Owners'roup will direct GE to prepare a letter report for the methodology to calculate the mass and energy blowdown.
With respect to concerns on feedwater pump coastdown and RHR availability, the Nark II Owners Group intended to addr ess these concerns on a plant-unique basis.
We indicated that further discussion is required to justify the need for plant-unique assumptions.
We strongly urged the applicants to minimize the plant-unique areas in order to expedite licensing review.
A working meeting was held on March 17, 1981 in Bethesda, Maryland to identify and justify the plant-unique assumptions.
Both GIB and CSB staffs met with representatives of the Nark,:II Owners'roup and GE.
As a result, we believe that the plant-unique areas appeared reasonable and will be reviewed on a plant-by-plant basis.
3.
T-uencher'oad S ecification In August 1980, the Nark II Owners Group proposed a new methodology to predict SRV load magnitude and frequency range.
As a result of our evaluation, we had requested additional information to justify the methodology.
Dr. Gobel of KWU presented the additional data base and a
discussion of physical phenomena on the air clearing phase during SRV discharge.
Ke indicated that the wall pressure loads will increase with an increase of reactor pressure up to a certain value of reactor pressure.
Further increase of the reactor pressure will not result in increased wall pressure; the slope of the pressure curve will decrease instead.
This phenomenon is believed to result from more steam condensation in the SRV line at higher reactor pressure.
Therefore, Dr. Gobel stated that the pressure multiplier (pressure slope) as proposed is conservative.
We indicated, however, that the regression analysis performed by our consultants suggested pressure multipliers ranging from 1.12 to 1.17 instead of 1.0 to 1.07 as proposed by the Mark II Owners'roup.
Dr. Gobel pointed out that the inherent conservatism of the data base in
Neeting Summary March 24; 1981 using a single cell test facility and extrapor lating the test data to the, design reactor pressure of 1280 psi, which is substantially higher than the SRV setpoint, should be sufficient to cover the deficiency of the proposed pressure multiplier.
We indicated that we will.take this into consideration for establishing the acceptance criteria for Mark II.
plants.
With respect to the frequency multiplier, we believe that additional adjustment is required to expand the frequency range for the case assuming actuation of all SRYs.
Since the air volume in the SRV line infjluences the bubble oscillating frequency, the all valve case should have a wider frequency range since various lengths of.SRY lines are considered.
Nr. J. Metcalf of Stone and Webster Corporation indicated that the inherent conservatism of the design models for structure, piping and equipment will bound any deficiency caused by the current proposed relatively narrow frequency band.
We concluded that the applicants will be required to provide an "amplified response spectra" (ARS) to demonstrate the difference between the design~forcing function and the one with the expanded frequency range considering all SRY line lengths.
With this information, the staff (MEB and/or SEB} will be able to assess the adequacy of the design forcing function.
Enclosure's:
1.
List of Attendees 2.
Meeting Handout (Limited Distribution-Proprietary) cc:
w(enclosure 1
A-39 Internal Distribution...
T. N. Su, A-39 Task Manager' Generic Issues Branch Division of Safety Technology
Enclosure 1
List of Attendees Name 9:00 :lY:00 am T.
M. Su A. A. Sonin C.
Economos H. Chau W. M. Davis T.
M. Lee L. Schell V. Gupta C. A. Malovr h S. J. Yerardi R. Riley D. F. Roth M. R. Rranback T.
H. Chong J.
E. Metcalf L. D. Steiner t J.
S. Post P.
P. Stancavage R.
F. McClelland J.
C. Black Ed Fredenburg F. Eltawila G. Perez-'Ramirez Glenn E. Gottfnied 1:00 - 5:30 pm T.
M.
Su C.
Economos F. Eltawila D. Gobel L. Sack D. F. Roth L. Schell P. Anthony-Spies R.
W. Riley M. R. Granback T. H. Chong T.
Wang A. Y. C.
Mong Glenn E. Gottfried S. J. Yerardi C. A. Malovrh H.
Chau J.
E. Metcalf Or anization NRC, DST,GIB MIT (for BNL)
BNL (For NRC)
Long Island Lighting Co.
'NRC,RES,ADB Penn.
Power
& Light Co.
Stone and Webster Stone and Webster Stone and Webster Cin.
Gas
& Flee.
Co.
Penn.
Power 8 Light Co.
North. Ind.
Pub Serv.
Co.
Stone
& Webster CHOC)
Stone
& Webster Boston)
GE GE GE GE GE Wash. Public Power Supply Sys.
NRC,DST,CSB CNSY/S (Mex)
Sargent
& Lundy NRC, DST,r IB BNL,NRC NRC,DSI,CSB KWU KWU Penn.
Power
& Light Co.
Penn.
Power
& Light Co.
KWU Cin.
Gas
& Elec.
Co.
North. Ind.
Pub. Serv.
Co.
Stone
& Webster (Choc)
Stone
& Webster (Choc)
Stone
& Webster Sargent
& Lundy Stone
& Webster Stone
& Webster Long Island Lighting Co.
Stone
& Webster
egg z,6 1981
P DOCkei::F-i:l~e NRC PDR Local PDR TIC/NS IC/Tera NRR Reading LB¹l Reading H. Denton E.
Case D. Eisenhut R. Purple B. J.
Youngblood A. Schwencer F. Miraglia J. Miller G. Lainas R. Vollmer J.
P. Knight R. Bosnak F. Schauer R.
E. Jackson P
I
- Attorney, OELD M. Rushbrook OIE (3)
ACRS (16)
R. Tedesco
N. Hughes
~III P DLynch W. Haass J. Gilray P.
McKee MEETING SUMiMARY DISTRIBUTION G. Lear, V. Noonan S. Pawlicki V. Benaroya
- 2. Rosztoczy W. Haass D. Muller R. Ballard W;
Regan D.
Ross P.
Check R. Satterfield
- 0. Parr F.
Rosa W. Butler W. Kreger R. Houston T. Murphy L. Rubenstein Speis W. Johnston J. Stolz S.
Hanauer W. Gammill T, Murley F. Schroede 8
D. Skouholt M. Ernst R. Baer C. Berlinger K. Kniel G. Knighton A. Thadani D. Tondi J,
Kramer D, Vassallo P, Collins D. Ziemann Magog>>8t ~
rPrlll5UCg+~g)~
bcc:
Applicant 8 Service List
0 4 ~
4 C,
pl V