ML19250J523
| ML19250J523 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Mcguire, McGuire, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 07/22/1981 |
| From: | Matthews P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Johnston W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19247E371 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-82-96 NUDOCS 8107300232 | |
| Download: ML19250J523 (2) | |
Text
So-%9 So-19s DISTRIBUTION:
JUL 2 2 ris)
Central Files CIEB;Rdg fiD13R/J:DU'1 FOR: William V. John: ton, Assistant Director for l'aterials & Qualifications Engineering Division cf Engineering FROM:
Philip R. !;attheus, Section Leader e
I. m h
' G Chenical Technology Section f
[} h'.(\\ f 'OE qv Chemical Engineering Branch
~
g Division of Engineering E y$
T1!RU:
Victor Benaroya, Chief
- g g
G Chemical Engineering Branch
' dp -fi;6 Division of Engineering 2
SUBJECT:
LOS ALA!!0S LABORATORY REVIEW 0F A!:ALYSIS LY, K. I. PARCZEUSKI, URC, OF McCUIRE ItiSTRU!I!:T THERi'AL RESPONSE TO POSTULATED CONTAINI:ENT HYDROGEN SURN I have reviewed the subject review presented in the Los Alamos letter to H. Denton dated July 2,1901 and have the following general coments:
1.
Although Les Alamos cites several points or assunptions in the f:RC analysis nethod which they would treat differently, they also state "that the cumulative effect of these differences appear to be unimpor-tant to the final answer obtained for the given input conditions."
This statenent is supported by the f act that the transmitter final temperatures calculated by !!RC and Los Alamos are 3200F and 325 F respectively. Thus, there is relatively close agreenent between the 1:RC and Los Alamos results.
In fact Los Alamos indicates that a note rigorous analysis would probably reduce their 335 F teaperature result, 0
thus naking the URC and Los Alamus results even closer.
2.
I agree with Los Alamos recomendation that the assumed parancters be varied over their pessible range of values to determine the probabidi'.y of variation in the calculated results. Uc plao to carry out this recomendation as part of the f:RC Equipment Survivability analyticab experimental research program which Sa'd9 Lab is just getting under way.
It should be noted that the time and nanposer linitations to acet the ficCuire hearing deadline - nanely about a week and a helf concerted effort by E. I. Parczewski - precluded evaluating the sensitivity of the results to variations in the assumed parameters. One exception is that the original !;RC analysis considered flane front velocitics of 6, 4 and 1.7 ft/sec. Since the latter value is more conservative, it was used in the CRC analysis nemo used in support of staff testimony for the McGuire he aririgt..
I i
' ~
9107300232 810722 su m ut)
= ; --- - -- ----- - ; - --
unc rosu s:e na-aa nscu ma OFFICIAL RECORD COPY uwa w-.um
JUL' 2 91951
~
Uilitam Y. Johnston 3.
Los Alamos describes in general terns their overall approach in analyzing the problem and present the electrical circuit analog and basic equation used for perforcing the therral analysis.
Hoaever, they only tabulate the thermal capacitances and time constants used plus the final equipnent temperature results without explaining how they were obtained. Consequently, it is difficult to evalente or carent in detail oa their analysis. It is inportant to ncte that the Los Alamos analysis nethod similar to the NRC nethod requires that the CLASIX code input has to realistically represent the thermal energy transfer between the hydrogen flame / gas temperature and the containnent structure / equipment heat sinks present.
If a core detailed evaluation of the Los 1,lamos analysis is desired, we would be willing to arrange a necting with them.
crisiml
- r.uau #'
Philip D. Matthews, Section Leader Chemical Technclogy Section Chemical Engineering Ernnch Division of Engineering cc:
- 1. I. Perczewski V. Eenarcya R. Vollner L. Rubenstein U. Eutler or e er >
CMEB:DEg CFr 1.um n >
..Entaews m. Eenar.nya.
..Z/821..
...ZN231....
omy OFFIC4AL RECORD COPY usa.a e-an ssa weeow n 0:,n w w:e