ML20009A406
| ML20009A406 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/12/1981 |
| From: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Ogeka G ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009A407 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-A-3385-1 NUDOCS 8107130010 | |
| Download: ML20009A406 (8) | |
Text
f fjLAf$t
- r
{e f.,
- a w
~
,w k
l' JUN 121981 d'%ti9 16
< C { lD Q y R:.n d
Mr. Gregory J. Ogeka
~,
JUN 2 91981
- T Administration Branch u,..
.owen
~~
DOE Brookhaven Area Office 9
""55 *"
Building 454
/
Upton, New York 11973 4
co
Dear Mr. Ogeka:
BNL Technical Assistance to the Division of Safety Technolo
Subject:
NRR, NRC, "SRV Line Break in BWR Wetwell." (FIN No. A-3385)gy, The enclosed NRC Form 173, Standard Order for DOE Work, is hereby submitted in accordance with Section III, B.2 of the DOE /NRC Memorandum of Under-standing dated February ?4, 1978.
Funding authorization in tre amount of $40,000 to immediately begin work on the enclosed Statement of Work, which has been discussed with Dr. G. Maise of Brookhaven National Laboratories, is provided herein. The balance of funds required for project completion will be provided incrementally after receipt of an acceptable proposal.
Standard items and conditions for NRC work, as provided in the DOE /NRC Memorandum of Understanding of February 24, 1978, and described in NRC Manual Chapter 1102, should be used as the basis for preparing a proposal.
If a portion of this work is to be subcontracted, it is required that BNL have a professional assigned to the contract who is qualified to defend the results. Also, prior approval by me in writing is required before initiation of any subcontractor effort. Please submit a proposal containing, as a minimum, the infomation set forth in Enclosure 2, Proposal Content, in the format of the Statement of Work, within 30 days to:
Mr. Bernard L. Grenier Technical Assistance Program f4 nager Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission i
Washington, D. C.s 20555 I
{
(\\ <
y v 'u l
8107130010 010612 PDR ORG EUSDO t
"*^"'>
DATEf NRC FORM 318110/ 80l NRCM O2 4 0 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 4 mm e-329 824
l
-e i,
i Mr. Gregory J. Ogeka JUN 12 W If you have any questions concerning the acceptance of this order, please contact Mr. B. L. Grenier on FTS 492-8041.
Sincerely, grigraal'sismed by
> & 1hlr3*F.
Thomas E. Murley, Director Division of Safety Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Statement of Work 2.
Proposal Content 3.
NRC Form 173 cc: w/ enclosures R. Barber, DOE-HQ W. Kato, BNL H. Grahn, BNL R. Bauer, DOE /CHOO DISTRIBUTION Central Files TERA NRC PDR GIB Reading T. Murley c/f F. Schreoder B. Grenier D. Corley J. Rakowski K. Kniel P. Norian T. Su V. Zeoli D. Dandois G. Knighton A-39 File s
NP v
N s
DJ ry BL er 06/}/81 06/ /81 gg orncq DST:GIB
, DS IB DST:GIB DST :
P T:RSCB DST D
suRRam) TMSu:j
-P rian KKniel FSch der GWK 'q on 7 'ossFi" "
i. r ef om> n6// /81 06/.2 /81 06/t>J /81 06/
R1 06/
......n jq /R1....
06 1
$4RC FORM 318 Ef C.80l NRCM O240 OFFICIAL RECORD COF'Y
' " ' *8o-32* *2'
g,3 K Et
/
o UNITED STATES 87 NUCLEAR REGtJLATORY COMMISSION o
h
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 4
%,...../
JtJN 121981 Mr. Gregory J. Ogeka Administration Branch DOE Brookhaven Area Office Building 454 Upton, New York 11973
Dear Mr. Ogeka:
Subject:
BNL Technical Assistance to the Division of Safety Technology, NRR, NRC, "SRV Line Break in BWR Wetwell," (FIN No. A-3385)
The enclosed NRC Form 173, Standard Order for DOE Work, is hereby submitted in accordance with Section III, B.2 of the DOE /NRC Memorandum of Under-standing dated February 24, 1978.
Funding authorization in the amount of $40,000 to immediately begin work on the enclosed Statement of Work, which has been discussed with Dr. G. Maise of Brookhaven National Laboratories, is provided herein. The balance of funds required for project completion will be provided incrementally after receipt of an acceptable proposal.
Standard items and conditions for NRC work, as provided in the DOE /NRC Memorandum of Understanding of February 24, 1978, and described in NRC Manual Chapter 1102, should be used as the basis for preparing a proposal.
If a portion of this work is to be subcontracted, it is required that BNL have a professional assigned to the contract who is qualified to defend the results. Also, prior approval by me in writing is required before initiation of any subcontractor effort. Please submit a proposal containing, as a minimum, the information set forth in Enclosure 2, Proposal Content, in the format of the Statement of Work, within 30 days to:
Mr. Bernard L. Grenier Technical Assistance Program Manager Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.
20555 N
k I
\\
e JUN 12 $81 Mr. Gregory J. Ogeka If you have any questions concerning the acceptance of this order, please contact Mr. B. L. Grenier on FTS 492-8041.
Sincerely,
-f*(' a.* !
( jj)C bl%'
Thomas E. Murley,' Director Division of Safety Tec'hnology
~
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Statement of Work 2.
Proposal Content 3.
NRC Form 173 cc: w/ enclosures R. Barber, DOE-HQ W. Kato, BNL H. Grahn, BNL R. Bauer, DOE /CHOO e
I l
l f
1 l
l
STATEMENT OF WORK Project
Title:
SRV Line Break in BWR Wetwell Fin No.: A-3385 B&R No.: 20-19-06-34 Technical Monitor: Tsung Ming Su, 492-9422 Cognizant Branch Chief:
Karl Kniel, 492-7141 BACKGROUND When the pressure inside a BWR reactor vessel exceeds a certain preset value (approximately 13r* Jsi), one or more safety relief valves (SRVs) open and the excess ste.
is ducted into the suppression pool where it condenses. This is a normal event which will happen many times during the life of a BWR plant. A potential accidant sequence, involving failure of the SRV system, has recently been identified by the ACRS.
If the SRV piping should develop a crack or rupture in the wetwell portion of the line, at a time when the SRV valve has failed to reclose after actuation, steam will escape into the wetwell airspace (instead of the pool). Some conden-sation will, of course, take place on the walls of the containment and the open surface of the pool. However, this condensation rate will be much lower than the complete condensation that would occur if the steam were ducted into the pool. The expected consequence of this accident is
,that the wetwell will experience a rapid pressure rise. A pressure differential will develop between the wetwell and drywell. This will cause the vacuum breakers to open, and the drywell will also be sub.iected to a similar pressure rise. Depending on the break size, this sequence of events could conceivably lead to containment pressures greater than the structural design. This accident sequence could occur in either a Mark I or Mark II BWR.
It could not occur in the Mark III because in these plants the SRV piping enters the wetwell under the pool surface.
OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to analyze the following postulated accident scenario: Failure to reclose the SRV combined with the rupture of SRV piping in the BWR wetwell. A probabilistic assessment will alsc be conducted to determine the significance of the postulated accident in the context of overall reactor safety.
WORK REQUIREMENTS All the tasks described below will be performed for both a typical Mark I and a typical Mark II plant. Peach Bottom 2 will most probably be selected as the Mark I plant because it was selected for the WASH-1400 probabilistic risk assessment, and failure rates for other components (than SRV piping) are readily available. The criteria for the selection of the Mark II plant will also be the extent to which probabilistic risk assessments have been carried out to date.
l 1
1
'. Estimated TASK 1 - Analyze Pressurization in Containment Completion Date Estimated Level of Effort: 5 man-months October 30, 1981 The objective of this task is to estimate the pressure levels that would be reached in the containment structure.
The task consists basically of computer runs (using CONTEMPT LT-26 or later version) to generate contain-ment pressure histories resulting from SRV pipe failure in the BWR wetwell. To accomplish this task, the effects of various heat sinks, both passive and active (e.g., sprays), will be considered in the analysis.
The system that will be modeled consists of two com-partments, wetwell and drywell, connected by the vacuum breakers. A range of break sizes will be considered in the analysis.
TASK 2 - SRV Pipe Capability Analysis Estimated Level of Effort: 2 man-months November 30, 1981 The puroose of this task is to define the capability of the SRV piping to withstand the stresses that are imposed on it during SRV actuation. Various loading modes will be considered, includina thermal cycling and fatigue effects during the life of the plant.
TASK 3 - Assess Significance of the Postulated Accident Estimated Level of Effort: 5 man-months February 26, 1982 The most important question is whether the postulated accident is significant within the context of overall BWR reactor safety. To answer this question, it will be necessary to assess the contribution of this par-ticular initiating event to the overall level of risk of a BWR. Thus, Task 3 involves a probabilistic l
assessment of the risk due to accident secuences where SRV pipe failure is the initiating event. This will be done using the general methodology of WASH-i 1400, i.e., using event trees to define the accident l
sequences and reliability techniques to calculate the failure probabilities of the various mitigating systems involved in the accident sequences.
The failure probability for the SRV piping, which is needed to conduct this analysis, will be derived from considerations involving the capability of the SRV piping (available from Task 2), the loading i
)
. imposed during SRV actuation and the statistical distribution of strength of the SRV piping. The last item will probably be obtained by the examination of various available data banks on pipe failure rates.
The failure probability for an SRV to reclose is already reasonably well established.
The failure probabilities of all the other comoonents involved in the accident sequences are also needed for the risk assessment. These probabilities should be available and the analysis will be greatly simpli-fied if plants for which Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) has already been performed are chosen for the analysis. The consequences (amount and timing of radioactivity releases) of each accident sequence will be assessed using results of Tasks 1 and 2, as well as existing PRAs for BWRs, LEVEL OF EFFORT AND PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE Tne level of effort is estimated at one man-year over a nine-month period.
REPORTING REOUIREMENTS 1.
Upon completion of Task 3, BNL will prepare and submit.a reproducible topical reoort to the cognizant branch chief containing analyses and all significant technical conclusions.
2.
A monthly business letter report will be submitted by the 15th of the month to the cognizant branch chief with a copy to the Director, DST. These reports will contain the following:
A summary of the progress and work completed during the period, including milestones reached or, if missed, an explanation provided; The amount of funds expended during the period and cumulative to date; If problems are encountered or anticipated, a description of the plans for their resolution, the schedule of their imple-mentation and their impact on the overall program;.
Plans for the next reporting period.
MEETINGS AND TRAVEL BNL staff will participate in several meetings at NRC headauarters and at other locations to obtain source material for this study. These meetings may include attendance at hearings, visits to other laboratories or institutions and participation at professional meetings.
NOTE:
BNL should estimate the number of trips, number of people and duration of meetings as part of its proposal.
i
l 4
NRC FURNISHED MATERIALS
- The NRC staff will furnish tha contractor with copies of the General Electric Company reports, applicant submittals, NUREG documents and NRC staff Task Action Pla.ns. Some of this materia' will contain propnietary data, which will be held in confidence by BNL.
4 9
e 4
0 l
I l
PROPOSAL CONTENT The minimum it is required in all proposals are:
1.
Perfoming organizat'on's name and location.
j 2.
FIN Title, FIN Number, and B&P. Number (HRC's) (as on statement of work).
~
\\
3.
Perfoming organization's key personnel, program manager, or principal investigator, their resumes and FTS phone number.
4.
Background'(definition of the problem including the objective (s) to be attained).
5.
L'ork to be perfomed (Provide a concise description of tasks to be performed and expected results for the period of performance.
Note technical data requirements, potential problems, and other technical infomation needed to fully explain the effort. Highlight changes from prior authorized 50W's, if any, identify changes in perfomance, schedule, orcosts).
6.
Identify major subcontracts, including consultants.
7.
Costs estimated to'be incurred by DOE contractors, subcontractors, and consultants.
List by fiscal year to completion:
Manyears of Technical Support (MTS) a.
b.
Costs:
(1)
Direct Salaries (Labor) for MTS (2) Material and Services (excluding ADP) l (3) Total ADP Support 1
1 (4)
Subcontracts
(5)y Capital Equipment (6) Direct Travel Expense (Foreign travel must be shown separately)
(7)
General and Administrative Expense (Include indirect labor cost) c.
Total Estimated Costi 8.
P sts:
.1estone Chart for accomplishing the work.
l o
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
l
2-S b.
Planned monthly rate of costs for first fiscal year. This may be provided with the first report of an authorized program if
~
not known at time of proposal submittal. At the beginning of each subsequent year, reports should include the planned monthly rate of costs for the ensuing year.
9.
Conflict of Interest:
In order to assist the Comission in its evaluation, the DDE Contracting Officer shall describe any significant contractual and organizational relationships of the DOE, its contractor, their employees, or expected subcontractors or consultants on this proposal, 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.
10.
Reporting Requirements (as on statement of work).
i S
e O
I e
e o S
8 ep h
e
_-