ML19242D870
| ML19242D870 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/30/1979 |
| From: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Sobon L GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908230041 | |
| Download: ML19242D870 (6) | |
Text
m \\
~
DISTRIBilTION
-Docket files R
50-10 JUL 3 01979 50-210 50-247 50-263 50-259 50-220 50-260 50-293 50-269 50-277 Ceneral Electric Conpany 50-324 50-278 L. J. Sobon,fianager 50-325 50-254 C'.iR Contain: lent Licensing, fiC305 50-298 50-265 175 Curtner Avenue 50-249 50-271 Scn Jose, CA 95125 50-331 50-341 50-333 50-354
Dear !!r. Soben:
50-321 50-355 50-366 On ilarch 15, 1979, you submitted the reuaining sections (tsignated Part 3) of the "!! ark I Containment Program Load Dafinition F.eport,"
i.ED3 21003, on behalf of the liark I Owners G.-oup.
e have completed our revicu of the second part of uED'J 21003 and its related references.
As a result, we find that we will reauire additional clarification or justification for certain proposed load definitica techniques, in order for us to complete our evaluation.
contains specific requests for additional information relating to the second part of fiEDO 21833.
The enclosed questions and the schedule for your responses have been y
discussed in r'ecent nectings beheen the staff and representatives of General Electric and the ilark I Owners Croup.
Your respases to these questions are necessary to couplete the documentation of the natorial discussed in these meetings. '!e are proceeding with the development of the staff's ccceptance criteria for the Long Term Program Plant Unique Analyses to facilitate a timely inplementation of this program.
1 e inadvertantly fail.ed to distribute our first round of questions to the !! ark I Owners Group.
C6 pies of this letter are being transmitted 7
to each licensee and, for their benefit, Enclosure 2 contains our requesu for additional infornation for the first part of :iEDO 210D0, which we
.~
transnitted to you on !*ay 3,1979.
~
Should you require any clarification of this request, contact C. Grimes (301-432-7110).
_ys@hal Signed By Dmr c11 G. Eise:But D. Eisenhut, l.ctin; Diractor "ivision of Operatin:
.e :c t o f's M5 t P : D n-un cl os ures -
t h1 e _.
hphbSF CJR,d.. 3
,.N.f:/.75 o=*
. DOR ; P.S B
.D W SL.PSB.
00.
PS _.
D D
y 7 y..
y
.C.G r.i rr e s.. L L..;\\...
. 1 sns q
. G..... a s..
1G.. c i.ne s.
DElsenhut Sfianauer eva===*
N 7/bl.79..
. 79),(..[79 7l
.179 71}f/79 7T28J79 7/1 _j79 om +
7 082300y) renu 3:s
<,.7.>
xu c.s4 c24o v....ov.
-.~,..~..
n...
v s,
~
', f ucs 3,
UNITED STATES
[$y,.. c y h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' \\ if7 /. C WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 7.RL4l ~
l s
/
S, s-JUL 3 01979 General Electric Company L. J. Sobon,l tanager BWR Cont mt Licensing, MC905 175 Curt Avenue San Jose, CA 95125
Dear Mr. Sobon:
On March 15, 1979, you subnitted the remaining sections (designated Part B) of the "!! ark I Containment Program Load Definition Report,"
NEDO 21888, on behal f -af the Mark I Owners Group.
We have completed our review of the second part of NEDO 21883 and its related references.
As a result, we find that we will require additional clarification or justification for certain proposed load definition techniques, in order for us to complete our evaluation.
contains specific requests for additional information relating to the second part of f1EDO 21888.
The enclosed questions and the schedule for your responses have been discussed in recent meetings between the staff and representatives of General Electric and the Mark I Owners Group.
Your responses to these questions are necessary to complete the documentation of the material discussed in these meetings. We are proceeding with the development of the staff's acceptance criteria for the Long Term Program Plant Unique Analyses to facilitate a timely implementation of this program.
We inadvertantly failed to distribute our first round of questions to the Mark I Owners Group.
Copies of this letter are being transmitted to each licensee and, for their benefit, Enclosure 2 contains our request for additional information for the first part of ffED0 21888, which we transmitted to you on May 3,1979.
Should you require any clarificati~on of this request, contact C. Grimes (301-492-7110).
g.
\\
/
b.I Y f U.' O.li i D. Eisenhut, Acting Director Division of Operating Reactors Enclos ures :
As stated
/p,
222
JUL 3 01979 cc:
R. Kohrs, MC 905 L. S. Gifford General Electric Company General Electric Company Landow Building, Suite 203 175 Curtner Avenu 7910 Woodcont Avenue San Jose, CA 95125 Bethesda, MD 20014 Carolina Power C Light Company Boston Edison Co=pany ATTN: Mr. J. A. Jones M/C NUCLEAR Executive Vice President ATTN: Mr. G. Carl Andognini 800 Boylston Street 336 Fayetteville Street Boston, MA 02199 Raleigh, NC 27602 Co==onwealth Edison Co=pany Georgia Power Company ATTN: Mr. C. Reed ATTN: Mr. C. F; Whitter Vice President - Engineering Assistant Vice President P. O. Box 4545 P. O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Atlanta, GA 30302 Iowa Electric L'Jat C Power Co=pany Nebraska Publ'.c Power District ATTN: Mr. Duane Arnold ATTN: Mr. J. M.
Pilant, Director Licensing C Quality Assurance President P. O. Box 351 P. O. Box 499 Cedar Rapids, IA 52406 Columbus, NE 68601 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Northern States Power Company ATTN: Mr. D. P. Dise ATTN: Mr. L. O. Mayer, Manager V;;e President - Engineering Nuclear Support Services 414 Nicollet Mall - 8th Floor 300 Ecie Boulevard West Syracuse, NY 13202 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Philadelphia Electric Company Power Authority of the State of ATTN: Mr. E.
G.
Bouer, Jr., Esq.
New York Vice President and General ATTN: Mr. G. T. Berry General Manager and Chief Counsel 2301 Market Street Engineer Philadelphia, PA 19101 10 Columbus Circle New York, NY 10019 Tennessee Power Authority Yankee Atomic Electric Company ATTN: Mr. H. G. Parris ATTN: Mr.
R. H.
Groce Manager of Power Licensing Engineer 500 A Chestnut Street, Tower II 20 Turnpike Road Chattanooga, TN 37401 Westboro, MA 01581 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Jersey Central Power & Light Company ATTN: Mr.
I.
R.
Finfrock, Jr.
ATTN: Mr.
W.
G.
Counsil, Vice President Vice President - Generation Nuclear Engineering C Operations Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Road P. 0 Box 270 Morristown, NJ 07960
!!artford, CT 06101 mo7J L
!( r,
ENCLOSURE 1 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MARK I LONG TERii PROGRA!i LOAD DEFINITION REPORT AND RELATED REFERENCES 1.
The basis for the condensation oscillation load definition technique is a limited range of data from one test in the Full Scale Test Fa cil i ty.
Justify that the inherent conservatisms of the proposed condensation oscillation loads out weigh the uncertainty (i.e.,
statistical variance) in the load magnitude.
Since the condensation oscillations are a harmonic function, wherever possible data from other tests should be used to develop this justification.
2.
Justify not specifying an asymmetric cond2nsation loading condition for the suppression chamber.
This justification should include an assessment of the phase relationships observed in FSTF and similar (e.g.,liarviken) test data.
3.
Provide " flow maps" (i.e., nass flux versus pool temperature),
similar to that depicted in Figure 6.2.1-3 of NEDE-24539-P, for the DBA, IBA, and the SBA conditions Each map should overlay the typical plant, analytically predicted flow regimes with the FSTF test. data (with designated air content), for both condensation oscillations and chugging, to support the conservatism in the FSTF test matrix.
4 Explain the basis for definition of condensation oscillation and chugging load amplitudes in the 1 to 2 hz range.
Discuss the structural significance of loads in this frequency range.
5 Justify the filtering of " pressure spikes" from the FSTF ada for the purpose of load definition.
This justification should include a description of the hydrodynamic phenomena involved and a discussion of the structural response to these pressure spikes.
6.
Provide a more datailed description of the FSTF " shake test" ai.
discuss the structural damping information that can be derived frc this data.
In light of this information, justify the assumed 2%
damping for load definition in the analysis described in NEDE-24645-P and discuss the effects of "off-peak" amplification.
7.
Demonstrate the conservatism of the condensation oscillations and chugging load definition techniques by comparing the transient structural dynamic history derived from the NEDE-24645-P analysis and that obtained from the appropriate period of FSTF test data for several typical structural responses.
3.
Jus tify the downcomer lateral load
'l correction technique for those downcomers which have a no.
frequency much di f ferent from that of the FSTF.
ga
,t, L t.. "
9.
In order to demonstrate the adequacy of the submerged structure drag load model, provide comparisons of analytically derived drag loads with test data, using the transient bubble pressure as the source function.
10.
Specify limit criteria for oscillating or side force drag loads that will assure that the acceleration drag component is negligible.
Alternately, specify a correction technique to adjust the submerged drag loads wnen the acceleration drag component is large in comparison to the standard drag.
11.
Specify limits on the submerged drag load definition to preclude interference effects for close structures.
If a.arge number of cases are expected to exceed these limits, generic correction techniques for interference effects should be proposed.
12.
Justify the assumption of a parabolic impact pressure transient.
This transient does not appear to be either realistic or conservative for all structures.
l.
The proposed hydrodynamic mass factor for impact loads (K = 0.2) h is based on Mark I header (i.e., cylindrical geometry) impact test data.
However, impact test data for other geometries (flEDE-13426-P) evidence significantly higher hydrodynamic mass factors.
The re fore,
justify or modify the hydrodynamic mass factor to reflect the target geometries to be analyzed.
14.
Justi fy that the impact load test data (i.e., IAEDE-13426-P) for gratings is representative of the grating geometries in Mark I plants.
In addition, discuss how the grating response analysis will account for the dynamic component resulting from a step change to a constant drag load.
15.
Following impact, air cavities will form behind the inpacted structure.
Therefore, justify the use of standard drag coefficients which are based on fully submerged uniform flow.
16.
Justify that the assemption of maximum pool velocity, for calculating drag following impact, is sufficiently conservative to offset the acceleration drag component.
17.
Justi fy the use of a circumscribed circle on an impact target geometry, other than cylindrical, to determine the duration of impact For flat-bottom geometries, this technique would appear to produce overly-long pulse durations.
~3:
4, r,,
- ;. J 18.
Describe the technique used to develop the " turn down function"
($) for the vent header deflector loads.
19.
Provide comparisons of vent header deflector load test data with analytical predictions to demonstrate the conservatism in the proposed load definition procedure for each of the deflector types.
20.
Speci fy the manner by which the effective hydrodynamic mass will be considered f..,r the vent header and downcomer impact and drag loads.
21.
Your response to our first-round question,
was incomplete.
Jus ti fy the header impact timing in consiceration of the effects of compress-ible flow and a " fixed" flow distri'ution in the EPRI three-dimer:ional pool swell tests.
22.
Provide the results of the primary system response analyses,
for those BWR systems in use with Mark I containinents, to support your proposed acceptarice criteria for the SRV + DBA event combination.
23.
Provide the load definition orocedure and bases for the "off-center" T-quencher discharge loads.
24 Provide the load definition technique and bases for " tied" down-comer lateral loads.
o9e
'{ f,
(L O
ENCLOSURE 2
[pa arcos UNITED STATES 3*
fa NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON 3..' 1. $
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 s
i 4
-+... "
MAY 3 1979 General Electric Company L. J. Sobon, Manager BWR Containment Licensing, MC 905 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125
Dear Mr. Sobon:
On December 28, 1978, you submitted the first part of the " Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report," NEDO 21888, on behalf of the Mark I Owners Group.
This document describes the generic suppression pool hydrodynamic load definition techniques for the Long Term Program.
We have completed our review of the first part of NEDO 21888 and its related references.
As a result, we find that we will require additional information in order for us to complete our review.
When we complete our initial review of Part B of NEDO 21888, which was submitted on March 15, 1979, an additional information request will probably be necessary.
The enclosed questions and the schedule for your responses have been discussed in recent meetings between the staff and representa-tives of General Electric and the Mark I Owners Grcup.
Should you require any further clarification, contact C. Grimes (301-492-7110).
Sincerely, s
t
. D M isenhut, Deputy Director Division of Operating Reactors E clos ated DUPMCATE DOCUMENT 1:
m cc w/ enclosure:
I into system under: Entire document pre See next page entered
^*
O R3OF No, of Pages:
y
~_
e
.M m
9:
,_ L I
}l