ML19274C834
| ML19274C834 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/17/1978 |
| From: | Watt J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-03-78-130, CON-NRC-3-78-130 NUDOCS 7811280020 | |
| Download: ML19274C834 (4) | |
Text
.,
f* *E%q'o g
UNITED STATES 3~-
~ #^
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f.;,
h 3
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 j!
gy 17 $73
~
MEMORANDUM FOR:
T. M. Novak, Chief, Reactor Systems Branch, DSS FROM:
J. J. Watt, Reactor Systems Branch, DSS
SUBJECT:
MEETING REPORT, PWR VORTEX TECHNOLOGY CONTRACT NRC-03-78-130 The principal investigator and the author met November 6,1978 at the University of Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research. The investigators are:
J. F. Kennedy E. Macagno C. J. Chen T. Nakato The status of the six contract tasks were reviewed as summarized below:
Task 1.
Review of typical sump and containment configurations.
The plants now being considered are:
Farley, Arkansas Unit 2, Ginna, Palisades, Sequoyah, and Green County; sufficient information has been available for Farley and Arkansas Unit 2.
I had recently sent packages of information on the othe? four plants. We spent time going over each of the plants at the meeting discussing peculiarities of design.
In addition to the above six plants, the contractor will have sump test reports from Alden Research Laboratories, Western Canada Hydraulic Laboratories, and the TVA Laboratory. These will provide documentation of configuration related characteristics of five additional nuclear plants.
In total, it is believed that Task 1 will identify a reasonable sample of the configuration problems associated with current and projected PWR sump and containment designs.
Emphasis will be placed on this task for the next several weeks as the results influence the emphasis in the applicat'.on section of Task 2.
Task 2.
Literature Survey and Presentation of Available Technology.
The literature survey effort was reported to have progressed well, over 200 sources have been reviewed and cataloged. Application effort will follow Task 1.
One recent paper was considered of immediate value in providing practical guidance in the design of sumps.
I have enclosed a copy for members of RSB.
Contact:
James Watt, NRR 49-27591 48112gon2o
T. M. Novak Task 3.
Scaling Technology The information for this task is believed to be in hand.
Completion is a matter of organization.
Task 4.
Analytical Approach.
It is not now expected that testing will be replaced by analysis of mathematical models. Some analytical work is being done relating flow rotation to vortex severity and also in evaluating mathematically the flow straightening capabilities of some vortex suppression devices.
I believe this effort will be of value in the selection of design guide-lines and may provide a useful basis in the selection of vortex suppression devices.
Task 5.
Consul ting.
We utilized the services of Macagno and Takato during the review of recirculation preoperational tests for Farley 1 & 2 and ANO-2. A repert of their findings on AN0-2 has been submitted. They are holding up their report on Farley Unit 2 until they have received a test report prepared by Western Canada Hydraulic Laboratories.
I am pursuing getting a copy for them.
Contract funding for consulting man-hours and travel expenses were exceeded during the above effort. We were notified of this overrun in May,1978 and Novak and I recommended that $2,000 be reinstated.
It is my under-standing that this will be taken care of either at the transition from FY 78 to FY 79 or at the 75% review point of the contract.
Task 3.
Recommendations.
We had a good discussion on this task.
I listed fifteen items related to design and review guidelines which are of currant interest to the NRC.
The recommendations will be supported by the results of other task effort.
We had planned to discuss finances but John Kennedy was called away from the meeting. We did touch on it briefly at the end of the meeting.
I saw a figure indicating that expenditures were pretty much on schedule.
There were concerns expressed about the consulting overrun and the transition from FY 78 to FY 79 funding.
I advised them to keep on working and spending as scheduled and I would check to see if any specific actions were required.
r T. M. Novak The investigators are motivated to do analysis and experimental work related to vortex suppression devices. This topic came up during the consulting effort when Western Canada Hydraulic Laboratories and Bechtel could not identify the useful range of application of suppression devices.
My posture has been that such effort is not within the scope of the present contract.
In response to their questions, I suggested that such proposed work could be directed tc the NRC Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, it could be included in t ecommendations of Task 6, or it could be considered as a recommendation of the ASCE Task Committee on Intake Vortices.
Summary.
The effort appears to be generally on schedule and in the depth expected.
The chronological order has suffered to some extent due to the early consulting effort and some lateness on our part in providing full information for Task 1.
At this time, it appears likely the 12 month effort will be completed on time for close to the projected amount of money. Another meeting in December will be helpful to discuss how Task 1 and 2 are shaping up.
1 S 7h I
4m
/
V C' James J. Watt Reactor Systems Branch Division of Systems Safety
Enclosure:
As Stated O
r.l'.
4 Meeting Sunmary Distribution S. Hanauer W. Minners R. Mattson B. Grenier (2)
R. Tedesco P. S. Check ACRS (21)
C. Berlinger (NRCPDh W. R. Butler Local PDR*
T. Novak D. Vassallo V. Moore R. Denise B_, Grimes D. Skovholt R. Vollmer L. Crocker (ECCS/ATWS)
IE (3)
M. Ernst W. Gammill D. Eisenhut J.P.' Knight J.R. Miller
- Without Enclosure
- If docketed