ML19260C641
| ML19260C641 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/08/1979 |
| From: | Bates A Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Plesset M Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-08, REF-GTECI-CO, TASK-A-08, TASK-A-8, TASK-OR NUDOCS 8001080187 | |
| Download: ML19260C641 (4) | |
Text
UNITED STAT ES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. [ j
.k' "f[/ r[
WASHINGTON. D C. 20SSS o,
- f g
s.
November 8, 1979 4
M. Plesset A. Bates /(f/
FR34:
13-14, 1979 ACRS FLUID DYNAMICS SUBC04MITTEE MEETItU, SEPTEMBER SUBJECT.
Copies I have prepared the attached proposed meeting sumary for your review.
are being distributed to the other ACRS members and Subcommittee con for their information and comment.
in the minutes of the meeting.
Attachment:
as stated cc: ACRS Members ACRS Technical Staff I. Catton T. Wu L. S. Yao S. Bush F. Zaloudek Z. Zudans R. Baer C. Anderson C. Grimes S. Hanauer 1701 090 8001080 l@]
November 8, 1979 PROPOSS;D St.NMARY OF 'lHE SEPTEMBER 13-14, 1979 FLUID DYNAMICS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINC
Purpose:
The purpose of the meeting was to review the present status and future schedule for NRC and Utility action in resolving the issues related to the acceptance criteria for Mark I and Mark II Containment designs.
Attendees:
ACRS members in attendance included:
M. Plesset, W. Mathis and J. C. M rk.
Consultants present incitx3ed:
S. Bush, I. Catton, T. Wu, L.S. Yao, F. Zaloudek, and Z. Zudans.
Meeting Highlight <t, Agreements and Requests 1.
Mr. C. Anderson, NRC Staf f, reviewed the Status of the Mark II Containment review. This included alternate loads for some structures in the lead plant program, the need for downcomer supports in LaSalle and Zimmer, the status of the Long Term Program, and the preliminary results of some foreign Mark II tests.
2.
Subsequent to the issuance of NUREG-0487 Mark II Acceptance Criteria, the vent clearing loads on the wetwell basemat and walls have been revised; pool swell velocities and heights have been revised; and the asymmetric pool boundary load was revised.
3.
We loads on submerged structures from LOCAs and SRV discharges were reviewed briefly. Following the issuance of NUREG-0487, the Mark II CMners proposed some alternative methods of specifying the loads. We NRC has issued supplementary criteria which allow for the use of some of the alternatives.
4.
Revision of Load Case 5 for the SRV discharges based upon T-quencher loads were agreed to by the NRC.
5.
W e Mark II Owners Group reported on ongoing efforts and tests on condensation oscillation loads and multivent discharge loads. Reports on these programs will be sutraitted to the NRC in 1980 for the Long Term Program.
Improved chtrj loads are being developed by GE.
Cuencher tests on SRV discharges have been run.at in CAORSO Reactor with indications that loads are much reduced over the ramshead loads.
6.
Mr. Ross, Philadelphia Power and Light Company, reported on their work with GKM to provide information on loads for the Susquehanna plant.
% is program was started due to concerns about the time available to get the information from other programs.
1701 091
Fluid Dynamics 9/13-14/79 Mtg Summary November 8,1979 7.
Burns and Roe, Inc., reported on their work to develop an improved chug load definition for the WPPSS #2 plant.
8.
The NRC reported on the preliminary results of tests conducted in Japan and Germany on Mark II type test facilities. W e results of these tests are proprietary and the Mark II Owners and GE do not have the data. W e NRC Staff has not had sufficient time or understanding of the tests to comment on them in detail.
9.
Mr. R. Kohrs, GE, reviewed the Mark I loads 6ssociated with pool swell.
A number of methods are available to reduce the upward and downward loads on the containment during pool swell. @ ese include shortening the downcomers and maintaining a higher pressure in the drywell.
Impact loads on the vent header can be reduced with a deflector. The pool swell load definition is based upon 1/4 scale - 2D GE tests, 1/12 scale - 2D GE tests, and 1/12 scale - 3D EPRI tests.
Data is also available from LLL 1/5 scale 2D/3D tests. GE believes the test data shows that the 2D test results are conservative with respect to the 3D tests. The NRC disagrees and has added a 21.5% margin.
10.
Mr. Bilanin, GE, reviewed the basis for the condensation oscillation and chtgging loads for the Mark I long Term program. The primary data avail-able is from the FSTF (Full Scale Test Facility) at Norco. These tests indicated that additional load mitigation is not needed - that low stresses were observed in FSTF. The ACRS consultants indicated that they would like to see additional information on the peak loads observed, rather than the average peak load.
11.
Mr. Mulford reviewed the loads associated with the SRV discharges to the Tests included Monticello Ramshead tests, Monticello T-quencher torus.
tests and quarter scale tests at NUS. Results indicate significant re-duction in loads (50-75%) with the use of the T-quencher on the SRV dis-charge lines.
12.
As a result of the GE - Mark I Owners testing program, a Load Definition Report (LDR) was prepared. We LDR will be used by the individual utilities to develop loads in their facilities under the Plant Unique Analyses which will be performed.
13.
M. C. Grimes reviewed the NRC Staff's Acceptance Criteria for the Mark I load definitions and the bases for the acceptance criteria. The Staff has imposed additional conservatisms in a ntraber of areas, beyond the loads proposed by the Mark I owners Group. %ese include the pool upward force on the torus following vent clearing and loads on the vent header deflectors. t e Statf will also require some additional tests in FSTF for condensation oscillation loads.
1701 092
Fluid Dyna:nics 9/13-14/79 Mtg Summary November 8, 1979 14.
Mr. Kohrs presented a summary of comments on the NRC Staff's acceptance criteria for the Mark I Omiers Group. Wey believe that the criteria on the up loads on the torus are excessive, as well as the criteria for the vent header deflectors. The Mark I Owners also do not believe that additional tests in FSTF are necessary. The Mark I owners also believe that the SRV load from individual quenchers should be combined by SRSS methods rather than by absolute sunmation.
1701 093