ML19290A233
| ML19290A233 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1979 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Mattson R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19290A225 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910240160 | |
| Download: ML19290A233 (2) | |
Text
.
p "%q j
y_
fo,,
UNITED STATES y) y., ( 3 g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.; C WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 f
%.'.W...j AUG ;4 E3 NOTE TO:
Roger J. Mattson, Director Lessons Learned Task Force
SUBJECT:
CHRON0 LOGY - HYDROGEN BUBBLE CONCERNS Suggest you add the following comments to your chronology. The span of time for which this coment applies is uncertain in my mind, but to the best of my recollection, it was late Saturday evening through Sunday morning, six a.m.
Title the comments as Stello's recollection.
During the evening of Saturday, March 31, and morning hours of April 1, I asked Mat Taylor to look into the hydrogen problem from the point of view assuring the need to start the containment atmosphere hydrogen recombiner and the possibility of adding oxygen to the hydrogen bubble believed to be inside the reactor vessel, sucit tnt a burn or explosion of a hydrogen-oxygen might result.
This issue was discussed on and off during that period and my best recollec-tion is that it was concluded that no net oxygen would evolve as a result of radiolysis since the back reaction due to the hydrogen overpressure would fc ce all of the oxygen produced to be recombined with the hydrogen to form water. Neglecting the hydrogen overpressure, results of analysis by Mat Taylor suggested an oxygen evolution rate of about 30 standard cubic feet per day could occur. With this evolution rate, it would take many weeks to reach a flammable mixture. Mat Taylor's advice to me was that I should not have any concerns for the potential of a hydrogen burn or explosion wi thin the reactor vessel.
I believe I also requested others to seek information from representatives of various companies that were located at the site.
I believe John Collins returned with some infomation that suggested GPU (and possibly B&W) also did not consider the hydrogen in the vessel to present a hazard from a burn or explosive nature.
As a second coment, suggest adding a new title. Early p.m. Sunday, April 1 -
titled Stello's recollection.
I recall outlining for the Chairman the basis upon which I did not believe the hydrogen bubble in the reactor vessel could reach an explosive potential.
Basically, I reiterated the results of the reasoning we had gone through that morning and previous night.
I requested the Chaiman that befcre any further action be taken on this issue, that I be given some time to contact some other experts to see if I could get additional technical information.
791024 g, g o e
Roger J. Mattson AUG - 4175 At approximately 3p.m. on the afternoon of April 1, I obtained that infonnation.
After presenting the information to the Chairman, I believe he was persuaded that we need not have a concern for either a burn or explosion of the hydrogen in the reactor vessel.
Following our discussion, he placed some telephone calls to Washington to discuss this information with fellow Commissioner (s).
Victor Stello, Jr.
Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement a
2226 174