ML19260C580
| ML19260C580 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/08/1979 |
| From: | Schroeder F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Bauer R ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-08, REF-GTECI-CO, TASK-A-08, TASK-A-8, TASK-OR NUDOCS 8001080046 | |
| Download: ML19260C580 (15) | |
Text
-
f
(
e Cu4 -
Ti)
DISTRIBUT10?l:
Central Files PTriplett
'NRR Reading BGrenier y
CSB Reading FSchroeder / -
AUG 0 81979 CAnderson HBerkow f*.-
WButler AQ RMartin Nr. Robert H. Bauer, !!anager RDenise Chicago Operations Office U. S. Department of Energy 9300 South Cass Avenue Argonne, Illinois 60439
Dear Mr. Dauer:
The ICR Coni.ainment Pool Dynanics progran (FIN: A3093) was initiated in FY-1973 as a two year prograa to provide technical assistance froa Brookhaven
!(ational Laboratory (Di!L) to the Division of Systems Safety, ilRC. This letter is a request.for proposal from D'll due to a need to extend the work effort into FY-1931.
The Statement of Pork in Enclosure 1 details the revised work scope and should be used as the basis for preparing a proposal for submission to this office.
Standard terms and conditions for fiRC work, as provided in the DOE /:iRC Menorandum of Understanding of February 24, 1978 and described in fiRC Cullutin flo.1102-6, apply to this effort. The proposal should contain as a miniaun the information set forth in Enclosure 2 and should be submitted in four copies to:
r Director, Division of Systens Safety Office of fluclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Iluclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.
20555 ATTil:
D. L. Grenier Work under this task is not anticipated to be classified.
This request for proposal is not an authorization tosstart work. Authorization to conmence work becones effective upon the Chicago Operations Office acceptance of an appropriately executed liRC Forn 173, Standard Order for DOE Work.
If you have any questions about this request, please contact Mr. B. L. Grenier on FTS 492-7932. Thank ou for your assistance.
'4 h USITf Sincerely, MA cock SHa auer
~
E"1 8
F. She 8/2/79 8// /79 f/
Frank Schroeder, Acting Director NRR Division of Systems Safety kow Office of ?luclear Reactor Regulation I
8/9/79 8/ jyg
_ _muu
- m. m
.J.. *S atcast..o.f...'J.c i DSS.;.C.SB..
. 05S.;. CSS.......
. DSS./D: S
. 05S/A/.D/q
..).. %.....
g
,,CAnde,rson WButler RMd jn RDen,ise ESchroeder
,1
.u. 2.t.. >
PU3^If.nten b
l sm > Eca.. cam.2...
8/#-/7,9 8/J/791",f 8/,/j/79 8h,/79 8/[,/79
- m
,,.m, m m m.
300.tu80oyh 7
1700 277]
.'. M Mr. Robert H. Bauer ggg g 1979 cc: George Ibise Brookhaven !!ational Laboratory Dept. of 'luclear Engineering, C1dg.130 Upton, L.I.,!!ew York 11973 Mr. R. Barber EV (flSC)
Room E201 Department of Energy Washington, D. C.
20545 t
l I
i
+ r ic = >
I
............t.,.
6 - m,,. m m o m i/uu a o
Statement of Work
Title:
BWR Containment Pool Dynamics FIN No.: A3098 B&R Nc.: 20-19-03-02-2 Technical Monitor:
Clifford Anderson, 492-7711 Cognizant Branch Chief: Walter R. Butler, 492-7783
Background
Utilities submitting applications to construct and operate nuclear power plants are required to include in those applications analyses of containment functional Included among the various containment analyses for the boiling water design.
reactor (BWR) containment designs are analyses of the containment suppression pool and associated structures to withstand the effects of loss-of-coolant There are three basic, BWR accidents (LOCA) and safety relief valve operation.
Evaluation containment design concepts; identified as the Mark I, II, III designs.
of LOCA related containment pool dynamic loads for Mark I designs is being conducted by the Division of Operating Reactors pursuant to technical assistance task A-3108 with the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) since the Mark I design is associated with operating reactors.
In the course of performing large scale testing of an advanced design pressure suppression containment design (Mark III) and during inplant testing of Mark I containments, suppression pool hydrodynamic loads were identified that had not been previously included explicitly in the original Mark 11 containment design basis or previously in the Mark III containment design.
1700 279
_2 The additional loads result from dynamic effects of drywell air and steam being rapidly forced into the suppression pool during a LOCA and from suppres!, ion pool response to safety / relief valve (SRV) operation, which is generally Since these new hydro-associated with plant transient operating conditions.
dynamic loads had not been_ considered explicitly in the original containment designs the staff determined that a detailed reevaluation of the design was required.
The planning and programmatic requirements for the staff's review of these subjects are set forth in the following Task Action Plans (TAP):
(1)TAPA-8
" Mark II Containment Pool Dynamic Loads" proposed Revision 2 dated March 15, 1979 (2) TAP B-10 " Behavior of BWR Mark III Containment" proposed Revision 0 20,1979 (3) TAP A-39 " Determination of Safety-Relief Valve (SRV) dated March Pool Dynamic Loads and Temperature Limits for BWR Containment" proposed Revision 2, dated March 20, 1979.
Programs were established by the General Electric Company and the power plant owners to resolve these pool dynamic loading concerns so that licensing of the plants could proceed. Due to the scope of these programs and the unique character of the technical issues involved the NRC staff requires expert technical assistance to enable the review of the proposed programs to proceed.
Objective The purpose of this activity is to provide expert technical assistance to the This assistance consists of NRC staff in the area of containment pool dynamics.
1700 280
(1) review of methods used for load predictions (2) evaluation of experimental programs, and (3) analytical studies on the suppression pool and other containment phenomena.
Work Requirer ' ts, I.
Methodology for Safety-Relief Valve (SRV) Loads A.
Air Clearing Model for Cross Quencher -
This task consists of review and evaluation of an empirical model for cross quencher air loads. This device will be used in Mark III plants and, possibly, on some :! ark II's. Also reviewed will be the verification of the model by comparison with Caorso data.
B.
Caorso* Quencher Tests -
This task consists of review and evaluation of the Caorso cross-quencher tests which measure the air clearing loads on containment structures of a real Mark II BWR. The preliminary and final test reports will be reviewed by BNL.
C.
Susquehanna T-Quencher Tests -
This task consists of review and evaluation of the KWU tests with the quencher device desigried specifically for the Susquehanna Plant.
D.
In-Plant T-Quencher Tests -
This task consists of review and evaluation of inplant T-quencher tests in the Mark II lead plants (Zimer, LaSalle and Shoreham).
- Caorso is a Mark II plant located in Northern Italy.
1700 281 E.
Submerged Structure Drag -
Included in this task are review and evaluation of the following items:
l (1) verification of submerged structure e model by test data on simi e geometries in the " square" tunnel; (2) d.
v >cdology related to the KWU T-quencher; and (3) drag caused by transient water jets (e.g.,
ring vortex model).
F.
Mark I Acceptance Criteria -
This task consists of formulation and documentation of acceptance criteria for Mark I T-quencher wall loads and submerged structure drag loads. The documentation will subsequently be incorporated into the NRC Mark I SER.
G.
Mark II Acceptance Criteria -
This task consists of formulation and documentation of acceptance criteria for Mark II (except lead plants) T-quencher wall loads and submerged structure drag loads. The documentation will subsequently be incorporated into the NRC Mark II SER.
Pool Temperature Limits - This task includes review and evaluation of:
H.
(1) supporting data base to establish the LOCA and ATWS pool temperature limits; and (2) the thermal mixing model with its supporting data base.
Nine Mile Point Quencher - This task consists of review and evaluation I.
of the methodology for Nine Mile Point SRV loads.
1700 282 J.
Grand Gulf In-Plant Quencher Tests -
This task involves review and evaluation of the in-plant quencher tests to confirm loads utilized in plant design.
II. Methodology for Mark II LOCA Loads A.
Multivent Steam Condensation and Chugging Pool Boundary Loads -
This task includes evaluation of the Mark II owners' multivent test program and analytical models as these programs relate to confirmation of current loads used by the lead Mark II plants and reduced loads proposed for later plants.
B.
Chugging Loads Improvement - This task consists of the review and evaluation of the GE, Burns and Roe, and Bechtel studies directed at providing an improved chugging source specification.
It also includes participation in meetings with Lawrence Livermcre Laboratory (LLL) to discuss their studies related to this task.
C.
Large Scale Steam Tests - This task consists of the review and evaluation of large scale tests aimed at LOCA-related condensation oscillations, chugging and vent lateral loads. This includes the extended 4T and GKM-II-M test programs.
D.
Plant Unique Load Specifications - This task consists of the review and evaluation of pool dynamic load specifications on a plant-unique basis for those limited areas where a generic approach is not appropriate.
1700 283
s E.
Revised DFFR Load Specifications -
This task includes the review and evaluation of the generic load specification in Revision 3 and later revisions to the Mark II DFFR.
F.
Lateral Loads on Main Vents -
This task involves review and evaluation of the methodology used by GE to extract the " dynamic forcing function" for lateral loads from the "4T" and the new large scale steam tests.
G.
FSI Methodology -
This task involves review and evaluation of the methodology used to account for fluid / structure interaction effects during chugging and condensation oscillation on containment pool wall loadings.
(Essentially the same methodology will be used for SRV FSI effects as for chugging).
This task includes generic FSI-related activities not specifically covered by Task II.B.
III. Methodology of Mark III LOCA Loads A.
Full-Scale Chugging Tests -
This task includes review and evaluation of the full-scale tests aimed at defining the chugging and thermal stratification in Mark II containment pools.
B.
Horizontal Vent Interaction Tests -
This task involves review and evaluation of the 1/9-scale 9-vent test program which addresses the possible vent interaction effects on condensation, pool swell and thermal stratification.
1700 284 IV. GE Equipment Adequacy Evaluation This task consists of review and evaluation of the methodology proposed by GE to evaluate the loads experienced by NSSS equipment due to SRV actuation.
Of particular interest is the statistical superposition of loads due to multiple valve actuation.
V.
Mark II Plant-Unique FSI Evaluation This task consists of review and evaluation of the methodology used to account for the FSI effects on the hydrodynamic containment pool loads in individual Mark II plants.
VI. Monitor World Suppression Tests -
This task involves monitoring suppression tests conducted outside the Mark II owners' program and the GE Mark III program to evaluate the These significance of these programs on the Mark II and III programs.
tests include the JAERI small-scale and full-scale multivent tests, GKSS multivent tests, related RES programs, EPRI scale steam tests, TOKAI-2 quencher tests, Mark I steam tests, Marv1 ken tests, LOFT tests and German Other tests not on this list may be included if they are found Tests.
applicable to the Mark II and III containment designs.
Level of Effort and Period of Performance The contractor will be expected to provide manpower for this program in the amount of approximately six man-years during FY-1980 and four man-years during FY 7981.
100 285
Target Funding Level and Estimated Manpower Requirements for FY 1980 and FY 1981 FY 1980 FY 1981 Task Manpower [Mandays]
Cost Manpower [Mandays]
Cost I.
Methodology for SRV Loads (A-39)
II. Methodology for Mark II LOCA Loads (A-8)
III. Methodology for Mark III LOCA Loads (B-10)
IV.
GE Equipment Adequacy Evaluation (B-10)
?
V.
Mark II Plant Unique FSI Evaluation (A-8)
VI. Monitor World Suppression Tests (A-8)
CD CD N
00 Cb
.g.
J Reporting Requirements 1.
At the completion of the review of each Topical Report, the contractor will forward a letter report containing questions and concerns arising from the review.
2.
A sumary report of results and conclusions at the end of each task. The letter reports providing questions, results and conclusions for several tasks may be grouped together, if appropriate. A reproducible copy of the summary report and three copies will be submitted to the cognizant branch chief at the conclusion of each task.
3.
At the end of each FISCAL year a year end report will be submitted sumarizing the major accomplishments for the completed year. This will include for each task a listing of:
topical reports reviewed, BNL questions
- and reports prepared, contributions
- to NRC Safety Evaluation Reports, meetings attended and BNL manpower expenditures.
4.
Contributions to the final evaluation reports for the Mark II Evaluation and the A-39 Safety Evaluation Repcrts containing the bases, conclusions and findings of the contractor's evaluations of the Programs.
- appropriate BNL letter reports should be referenced 1700 287
- A bi-monthly business letter report to be submitted by the 10th of the month to the cognizant Branch Chief with a copy to the Director, DSS, and the Assistant Director for Plant 'ystems, DSS. These reports will contain:
A listing of any efforts completed during the period; milestones o
reached, or if missed, provide an explanation.
o The amount of funds expended during the period and cumulative to date; 6 Any problems or delays encountered or anticipated; o A summary of the progress to date; and o Plans for the next period.
NOTE: These reports are not to be technical in nature.
Meetings and Travel Six trips are estimated to be taken by the contractor to San Jose, California; approximately 21 trips to Bethesda to meet with the owner's group and G.E.
concerning the Mark II Program; and one trip to Japan to discuss related pressure suppression test programs.
Five contractor personnel are expected for each domestic trip and one for the foreign trip. The dates will be determined between the Technical Monitor and the Contractor.
1700 288 Period of performance Work is estimated to be complete within approximately twenty four months of acceptance of the contract.
NRC Furnished Materials The staff will furnish the contractor with copies of the referenced General Electric Company report, applicant submittals, NUREG documents, related foreign reports and staff Task Action Plans.
Some of this material will contain proprietary data, which must be held in confidence by the contractor.
Billing Requirements Vouchers submitted for payment should list expenditures for manpower and other major items of expenditures associated with review of each individual plan.
1700 289
ENCLOSURE 2 PA0POSAL CONTENT The minimum 'tems required in all proposals are:
1.
P.erfonning Organization's Name and Location 2.
FIN Title (as on statement of work) 3.
FIN Number 4.
B&R Number (NRC's) 5.
Perfonning organization's key personnel, program manager, or principal investigator, and FTS phone number a.
For each principal investigator provide resumes that include educational and employment background and experience.
b.
Provide a discussion of the ability of the project team to integrate their experience for this program.
===6.
Background===
(If proposal is a modification to the original agreed-upon work scope include previous technical progress.)
7.
Work to be performed:
a.
Provide a concise description of tasks to be performed including a plan of work and methodology, b.
Identify major subcontracts, including consultants.
c.
Note technical data requirements, potential problems, and othe:-
technical information needed to fully explain the effort and substantiate understanding of the effort.
8.
Costs estimated to be incurred by DOE contractors, subcontractors, and consultants. List by fiscal year to completion.
a.
Man years of Technical Support (MTS) b.
Costs:
Direct Salaries (Labor) for MTS Total Material and Services Subcontracts (4) Capital Equipment (5) Direct Travel Expense a.
List number of trips, number of travelers, days in travel status, and projected travel expense.
b.
Foreign travel must be shown separately,
1700 290
2 (6) General and AdSinistrative Expense (Include indirect labor) c.
Total Estimated Cost d.
Provide an estimate of the costs by each task 9.
Forecasts:
a.
Milestone Chart for accomplishing the work accompanied by a brief narrative description b.
Monthly planned rate of costs for first fiscal year
- 10. Conflict of Interest:
In order to assist the Commission in its evaluation, the DOE Contracting Officer shall describe any significant contractual and organizational relationships of the DOE, its contractor, their employees, or expected subcontractors or consulants on this pro-posal, with industries regulated by the NRC (e.g., utilities, etc.)
and suppliers thereof (e.g. architect engineers and reactor manufacturers, etc.) that might give rise to an apparent or actual conflict of interest.
1700.291
_