ML19289E647

Forwards Mar 1979 Mark I Containment Program Activity Review

ML19289E647
Person / Time
Site:	Dresden, Nine Mile Point, Oyster Creek
Issue date:	05/10/1979
From:	Sobon L GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To:	Charemagne Grimes Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
MIN-133-79, NUDOCS 7905210173
Download: ML19289E647 (6)

Text

.$ '

p e m r n ;; t I G C 2 U d M .' i *n h y, CI *: I' T " "* l '

!= * = I. U I 23 5 V NUCLEAR ENERGY PROJECTS DIVISION GENERAL ELECTRIC COVPANY,175 CURTNER AVE., SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA 95125 Mail Code 905, Telephone (408) 925-3495 MFN-133-79 May 10, 1979 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division of Operating Reactors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Mr. C.I. Grimes , Task i4anager Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Gentlemen:

SUBJECT:

MARK I CONTAINMENT ACTIVITY REVIEW, MARCH 1979 The purpose of this letter is to forward ten (10) copies of a March 1979 Program Activity Review for your information. This review lists the meetings held and provides a brief activity summary for the month. This information is provided to you on behalf of the Mark I Owners Group. The document is comprised of information extracted from selected sections of a monthly report prepared by General Electric for the Mark I Owners Group. Sections on contract and billing status have been removed.

Since the Mark I Containment Long Term Program (LTP) activities a*e drawing to a close, and the Supplementary Support Effort (SSE) activities are now in progress, the Monthly Activity Review has been slightly modified. The section on " Status of Test Programs" has been deleted and the " Task Summary" section has been abbreviated.

Verytru)/yours, b

L. J.' Sobon, Manager BWR Containnent Licensing Containment Improvement Programs LJS/d Enclosures (10) cc: L. S. Gifford (GE Bethesda) 7905 210/7'J I

MARK I CONTAlflMENT PROGRAM PROGRAM ACTIVITY REVIEW MARCH 1979 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY San Jose, California

I. MEETING

SUMMARY

Date Attendees Place Meeting Concern 3/2/79 GE/NUTECH/Atwood-Morrill San Jose Vacuum Breaker Performance 3/2/79 GE/NUTECH San Jose Initial NRC Reactions to LDR Loads 3/7/79 NRC/ TRAC /GE Bethesda LDR S/RV T-Quencher Methodology Working Meeting 3/8/79 GE/NUTECH San Jose Approach for Answering NRC Concerns on Geometrically Scaled 1/4 Scale T-Quencher Tests 3/8/79 GE/NUTECH/ DECO San Jose LDR Questions on Fermi 3/9/79 GE/NUTECH/TES/Bechtel San Jose Report Review of Task 5.17.3 COIT Report

~

L 3/13/79 GE/NUTECH San Jose TMM vs CMM Comparison 3/14/79 NRC/GE Bethesda Pool Swell Loads 3/15/79 NRC/GE Bethesda C0 and Chugging Loads and Structural Model 3/19/79 GE/f4VTECH Scn Jose Monticello S/RVDL Thrust Force Computer Predictions vs Test Data 3/28/79 GE/NUTECH San Jose Monticello T-Quencher Thermal Mixing Test Report 3/30/79 GE/NUTECH San Jose Review April 2,1979 Presentation to

, NRC on S/RV Methodology

/

II. TASK

SUMMARY

Task 3.0 - Structural Acceptance Criteria (SAC)

The SAC Working Group Representatives roet with the NRC in Bethesda on April 3, 1979. The purposes of this meeting were to: 1) discuss the NRC reaction to the Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide (PUAAG - Task 3.1.3); 2) review the development of the Basic Torus Shell Analysis (Task 3.1.5.3); and

3) review the applicability of the Plant Modification Criteria (Task 3.1.4).

The NRC expressed the following positions on the PUAAG:

1) Zero AP Piping Analysis - The NRC believes a zero AP piping analysis must be accomplished for those plants which intend to utilize AP as a load mitigating technique. The analysis must be accomplished up to the first pressure boundary isolation valve to ensure containment integrity for the zero AP case. The analysis need not be done for the entire piping span, but in general to the first anchor point.

2) Pump / Valve Operability - The NRC feels that pump / valve operability must be addressed in the Mark I Program. If A or B Service Level Limits (or the original design criteria if more stringent) are met thei operability can be assumed to have been demonstrated. If C or D Limits are utilized, then a demonstration of operability must be included in the Plant Unique Analysis. No operability demonstration would be required for the zero AP case.

3) Damping Values For Pioing Anal w es - The NRC believes that position

1. 3 of Reg. Guide 1.61 must be met. Basically, this means that if the calculated piping stresses using the damping values in Reg. Guide 1.61 are low, the piping analysis must be reaccomplished to avoid underestimating the piping stesses. The owners group representatives rejected this approach because of its potential of doubling or tripl-ing the piping analysis. The NRC agreed to review and finalize their position on this requirement.

4) SRSS - The NRC feels that the Mark I Program can use the SRSS load combination technique for any two dynamic response provided back-up CDFs are generated. They feel that FRSS should be used only if the SAC cannot be met utilizing the absolute sum technique. The CDF must demonstrate a probability of non-exceedance of 84% for the particular load conibination.

The remaining two subjects which were discusseo were the Basic Torus Shell Analysis (Task 3.1.5.3) and Plant Modification Criteria (Task 3.1.4). The discussion on the Task 3.1.5.3 concluded that due to the variation in the mass and stiffness of the Mark I tori, a more appropriate method of developing a dynamic multiplier would be needed. This method would be to multiply the dynamic failure pressure to static failure pressure ratio (1.15) times the dynamic load factor (DLF) from the structural finite elemen; model. It was judged that this method might give multipliers for S f Pom 1.6 to 2.5.

m The discussion on Task 3.1.4 concluded that the Plant Modification Criteria re-port would be transmitted to the NRC for information purposes only. The DDR per-sonnel do not see the document as being within the scope of the Mark I Program.

The docunant will be discussed with the NRC I&E personnel, but the intent is to not let modification criteria become an issue in the Mark I schedule.

II-l

II. TASK

SUMMARY

- CONTINUED Task 5.5 - 1/4 Scale 2D Pool Swell Tests Additional supplementary pool swell tests were requested by several Mark I Owners, and are being performed on a plant unique basis in Task 10.1 of the Supplementary Support Effort (SSE). All testing has been completed.

Preliminary data from these tests is being issu'd on an individual basis to each Utility; a final report, which will include all supplementary tests, will be issued for review in June 1979.

Working group meetings with NRC on pool swell design loads are continuing.

Areas which are under review include a potential 3D/2D multiplier for torus upload; validity of scaled loss coefficients in pocl swell tests and dif-ferences between GE and LLL 2D tests. The Mark I Program position continues to be that the 30/2D factor is 1.0. Closure of the pool swell design dis-cussions is not expected until May.

Task 5.11 - Full Scale Test Facility All work on the final FSTF test report has been completed. Following publica-tion, it will be transmitted to the Utilities and the NRC. It is estimated that this will be in mid-April 1979.

Task 7.5.2 - T-Quencher Thermal Mixing GE and Nutech met on March 28, 1979 to resolve TRAC comments on the T-Quencher

. Thermal Mixing Test report (Task 7.5.2.2). The intent is to revise the report and publish it by the end of April 1979.

The T-Quencher Thermal Mixing Analysis report (Task 7.5.2.3) was sent for 7RAC review on March 30, 1979. Comments have been requested by April 20, 1979.

Task 7.7 - Load Definition Report (LDR) Part B Preparation The LDR Part B was transmitted to the Utilities and the NRC on March 16, 1979.

Plant Unique Load Definition (PULD's) were issued for all Mark I plants except Nine Mile Point and Oyster Creek. Included in the PULD's were pressure and temperature transients, vent system thrust loads and torus pool swell downloads

~

and uploads. Vent header and vent deflector plant unique loads will be issued in late April /early May.

Task 8.2 - NRC Licensing Supoort - S/RV Questions The first NRC/ TRAC /GE LDR S/RV working group meeting was held in Bethesda on -

March 7, 1979. This meeting indicated that the NRC and their consultants had serious concerns about the validity of the 1/4-scale test results with the geometrically scaled T-Quencher to properly predict full scale trends. Several potential approaches to demonstrate that full scale trends were correctly pre-dicted by the 1/4-scale tests and therefore the analytical model were discussed.

II-2

II. TASK SUl4 MAR'i - CONTIfiUED The next meeting on this subject was held on April 2,1979. In this meeting GE provided analytical model comparisons to scaled-up 1/4-scale test results and X-Quencher correlations. The summary of the meeting indicated that the flRC was satisfied that full scale trends were being correctly predicted by the analytical model. Hewever, the flRC indicated that their remaining concern was that the frequency band tolerances which were applied to the model predictions as speci-fled in the LDR might not encompass those that could occur for all liark I plants.

Additional efforts are being directed at providing a demonstration that the LDR tolerance bands are sufficient. The next discussion with the TIRC on this topic will be in mid to late April 1979.

Task 9.1.3 - Condensation Oscillation - Structural flodel Application The combined GE/Bechtel integration of FSTF test phenomena with structural dynamic modeling was presented to f1RC in mid-flarch. Initial response from flRC was favorable, although detailed review of the related test and analysis documents will have to be done prior to closure of this task. Comparisons of stresses calculated by use of LDR loads to stresses measured in the FSTF are in progress.

Task 9.2.3 1/4-Scale Off - Centerline T-Quencher Test The test report for this activity was transmitted for TRAC review on flarch 6, 1979. A PEC0/GE/flutech meeting is currently planned for April 19,1979 in San Jose to review the intended load methodology and associated documentation.

II-3