ML20085J054

Technical Evaluation of Brunswick Units 1 & 2,Plant-Unique Analysis Rept

ML20085J054
Person / Time
Site:	Brunswick
Issue date:	09/30/1983
From:	Bienkowski G, Economos C, Ranlet J BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20083M398	List: ML20085J054 ML20085J318
References
CON-FIN-A-3713, RTR-NUREG-0661, RTR-NUREG-661 BNL-04243, BNL-04243-02, BNL-4243, BNL-4243-2, NUDOCS 8310050324
Download: ML20085J054 (25)

Text

.. __ _ _ _ . - - _ ___ . . . . _

k Technical Evaluation of the Brunswick (Units 1 & 2) i Plant-Unique Analysis Report i

John D. Ranlet i~

Constantino Economos George Bienkowski i

Peactor Safety Licensing Assistance Division Department of Nuclear Energy Brookhaven National Laboratory .

i Upton, New York 11973 i

1  :

l 1

i September 1983 i

i I

FIN A-3713 BNL-04243

XA Copy Hos Been~Senfio PDR g310oSo3p/)'

as.

l ABSTRACT The objective of this report is to document the post-implementation audit which compared the Brunswick (Units 1 & 2) plant-unique analysis report against the hydrodynamic load acceptance criteria presented in NUREG-0661. A summary of the audit findings, as well as an overview of the various issues or exceptions to the acceptance criteria identified during the audit, is included. In addi-tion, a table highlighting each issue is provided, along with an indication of the type and status of each issue.

.i.

l l

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS l

The cognizant NRC Technical Monitor for this program was Dr. Farouk f Eltawila of the Containment Systems Branch (DSI) and the NRC Project Manager was Ms. Beverly Barnhart of the Technical Assistance Program Management Group of the Division of Licensing. Mr. Byron Siegel of Operating Reactors Branch No. 2 (DL) was lead Project Manager for the project. ,

i, 1

(

i

i List of Acronyms k

I '

AC Acceptance Criteria

ADS Automatic Depressurization System BNL Brookhaven National Laboratory BWR Boiling Water Reactor C0 Condensation Oscillation DLF Dynamic load Factor 1

FSI Fluid Structure Interaction

]

FSTF Full Scale Test Facility IBA Intermediate Break Accident LDR Load Definition Report LOCA Loss-of-Coolant Accident i

) LTP Long Term Program MSIV Main Steam ! solation Valve NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission

! PUA Plant-Unique Analysis l PUAAG Plant-Unique Analysis - Applications Guide

! PUAR Plant-Unique Analysis Report i

j PULD Plant-Unique Load Definition Report QSTF Ouarter Scale Test Facility RFI Request For Information

SBA Small Break Accident i

SER Safety Evaluation Report

! SRSS Square Root of the Sum of the Squares '

l S/RV Safety / Relief Valve S/RVOL Safety / Relief Valve Discharge Line STP Short Term Program 4

-111-4

?

i i

l i

i i Table of Contents i

i

Page No. '

1 ABSTRACT i i l ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 11 j LIST OF ACRONYMS iii i

! 1. INTRODUCTION 1 i

l J

) 2.

SUMMARY

OF POST-!MPLEMENTATION AUDIT 2 t

i j 3. SYN 0PSIS OF THE BRUNSWICK REQUEST FOR INFORMATION 10

) 4. CONCLUSIONS 19 1

i

5. REFERENCES 20 i

f 4

i

} h J

t .

i i

i

}

4 f

l.

i i A,

/

f L

/

v4 l /

/

/ ., -iv-

. g

., s 4 *g M - . . - - - - - - _ . . _ . - . - - - . - - _ - - - - - - - . - _ - - . - - - - - - . . - - - - . _ . - . . _ _ . _ - - - . . - - - - . . - - - - -

1. INTRODUCTION The suppression pool hydrodynamic loads associated with a postulated loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) were first identified during large-scale testing of an advanced design pressure-suppression containment (Mark III). These addi-tional loads, which had not explicitly been included in the original Mark I containment design, result from the dynamic effects of drywell air and steam being rapidly forced into the suppression pool (torus). Because these hydrody-namic loads had not been considered in the original design of the Mark I con-tainment, a detailed reevaluation of the Mark I containment system was re-quired.

A historical development of the bases for the original Mark I design as well as a summary of the two-part overall program (i.e. , Short Term and Long Term Programs) used to resolve these issues can be found in Section 1 of Ref-erence !. Reference 2 describes the staff's evaluation of the Short Term Pro-gram (STP) used to verify that licensed Mark I facilities could continue to operate safe'y while the Long Term Program (LTP) was being conducted.

The objectives of the LTP were to establish design-basis (conservative) loads that are appropriate for the anticipated life of each Mark I BWR facility (40 years), and to restore the originally intended design-safety margins for each Mark I containment system. The principal thrust of the LTP has been the development of generic methods for the definition of. suppression pool hydrody-namic loadings and the associated structural assessment techniques for the Mark I configuration. The generic aspects of the Mark I Owners Group LTP were com-pleted with the submittal of-the " Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report" (Ref 3) and .the " Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Guide" (Ref. 4), as well as supporting reports on the LTP experimental'and analytical tasks. The Mark I containment. LTP Safety Evaluation Report

-l-

i (NUREG-0661) presented the NRC staff's review of the generic suppression pool hydrodynamic load definition and structural assessment techniques proposed in the reports cited above. It was concluded that the load definition procedures utilized by the Mark I Owners Group, as modified by NRC requirements, provide conservative estimates of these loading conditions and that the structural ac-ceptance criteria are consistent with the requirements of the applicable codes and standards.

The generic analysis techniques are intended to be used to perform a plant-unique analysis (PUA) for each Mark I facility to verify compliance with the acceptance criteria (AC) of Appendix A to NUREG-0661. The objective of this study is to perform a post-implementation audit of the Brunswick (Units 1 & 2) plant-unique analysis (Reference 5) against the hydrodynamic load criteria in 2

NUREG-0661.

2. Summary of Post-Implementation Audit The purpose of the post-implementation audit is to evaluate the hydrody-namic loading methodologies used for the major modification and . torus attached piping portions of the Brunswick (Units 1 & 2) plant-unique analysis with regard to the NUREG-0661 acceptance criteria. The audit procedure consists primarily of a moderately detailed review of the plant-unique analysis report to verify both its completeness and its compliance with the AC. To facilitate this task, a checklist (see Table 1) of the various load categories specified in the AC is used. Table 1 also provides an overview of the audit and presents plant-unique information such as any AC approved alternate methods used in the PUAR. The.

notes in the right-hand margin which accomplish this task are explained at the end of the table.

In general, various exceptions to the AC or areas where additional informa-tion is required are identified during the audit of a PUAR. Since' Table 1 con-tains all the load categories considered during an audit, along with its current -

I

l i

l I

status, it is not possible to determine from it the specific issues considered and resolved during the audit. Consequently, a complete listing of all items  !

considered is provided in the following section of the report, along with a brief description of each exception to the AC found during the audit.

i i

4 I

s

CRITERIA WI 58 $

8r se 3W $

MET O o 30 a J 4 Z# #

LOADS CONTAINMENT PRESSURE a TEMPERATURE 2.1 /

VENT SYSTEM THRUST LOADS 2.2 /

y POOL SWELL TORUS NET VERTICAL LOADS 2.3 /

TORUS SHELL PRESSURE HISTORIES 2.4 /

VENT SYSTEM IMPACT AND DRAG 2.6 / /

IMPACT AND DRAG ON OTHER STRUCTURES 2.7 / /

FROTH IM?lNGEMENT 2.8 / 1 POOL FALLBACK 2.9 /

LOCA JET 2.14.1 /

LOCA BUBBLE DRAG 2.14.2 /

VENT HEADER DEFLECTOR LOADS 2.10 / /

3 3 TABLE 1. LOAD CilECKLIST FOR POST-IMPLEMENTATION AUDIT

CRITERIA WI 52 m9 3 os g4 m Do z< m w

m MT a J 4 30 a LOADS Z4 #

CONDENSATION OSCILLATION TORUS SHELL LOADS 2.11.1 /

LOADS ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES 2.14.5 V i VENT SYSTEM LOADS 2.11.3 /

I DOWNCOMER DYNAMIC LOADS 2.11.2 V CHUGGING TORUS SHELL LOADS 2.12.1 /

LOADS ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES 2.14.6 /

VENT SYSTEM LOADS 2.12.3 V LATERAL LOADS ON DOWNCOMERS 2.12.2 V TABLE 1. (CONTINUED)

CRITERIA WI 6$

W-ca Qo m OH H< z< w MT d no a J 4 LOADS T-QUENCHER LOADS 4 DISCHARGE LINE CLEARING 2.13.2 /

TORUS SHELL PRESSURES 2.13.3 v/

4' JET LOADS ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES 2.14.3 /

AIR BUBBLE DRAG 2.14.4 /

THRUST LOADS ON T/O ARMS 2.13.5 V S/RVDL ENVIRONMENTAL TEMPERATURES 2.13.6 / '

j TABLE 1. (CONTINUED)

CRITERIA BZ

• W I

w9 m Do m os g4 z< w so

a. I Z<

a 4

J<

DESCRIPTION PRESSION POOL TEMPERATURE g 2.13.8 v' 5 SUPRESSION POOL TEMPERATURE 2 MONITORING SYSTEM 2.13.9 /

L' DIFFERENTI AL PRESSURE CONTROL SYSTEM FOR THOSE PLANTS USING A 3 DRYWELL-TO-WETWELL PRESSURE 2.16 y DIFFERENCE AS A POOL SWELL MITIGATOR SRV LOAD ASSESSMENT BY 4 IN-PLANT TEST 2.13.9 /

TABLE 1. (CONTINUED)

_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ __ U

i i

Notes to Table 1 NUMBER 1 The vent header in both Brunswick units is protected along almost its entire span by a winged vent header deflector.

The only region where no deflector was utilized is in the vicinity of the vent-vent header intersection in each vent bay. The AC approved methodology for treating the pool swell impact loads on the vent header or vent header deflectors consists of using QSTF data or a combination of an analytical method in conjunction with QSTF data. In a likewise manner, the impact and drag load definitions for other structures located above the initial pool surface also require QSTF data for the pool swell displacement and velocity distributions.

The Brunswick QSTF data base consists of only four tests con-ducted with a wingless deflector and therefore neither region has adequate QSTF data. Consequently, a direct application of the AC approved LDR procedures was not possible. Alter-nate procedures which substituted conservative QSTF data were used in the Brunswick plant-unique analysis. A description of the procedures which were found acceptable in this ap-plication is presented in Section 3.1.

2 An alternate procedure was used to define the-Region I froth loads using the high-speed QSTF movies as allowed by Section

, 2.8 of the AC.

3. The AC approved LDR vent header deflector load definition yields deflector load histories at three longitudinal  !

locations along the deflector. -In order to obtain load -

l l

histories at intermediate stations, interpolation formulas based on the EPRI 1/12-scale tests are to be used. However, the equations used in the Brunswick PUAR did not incorporate the AC requirement that the three dimensional load variation be based on the EPRI 1/12 scale " main vent orifice" test data. Although the use of the wrong interpolation scheme introduces a non-conservatism in the vent bay region, we be-lieve that there are sufficient offsetting conservatisms in this application. (See Section 3.3 for details.)

4 S/RV low-low setpoint relief logic and level 1 MSIV trip setpoint were used to mitigate subsequent actuation induced loads.

5 The local suppression pool tenperature limit was defined in NUREG-0661 as 200 F for the generic Mark I T-quencher as de-scribed in Appendix A, Section 2.13.8. Subsequently ,

NUREG-0783 provided procedures whereby the limit could be increased if certain restrictions could be met. Conformance with the above criceria was indicated in the PUAR. However, the applicant utilized a local pool temperature model that was only recently presented to the staff. It has been con-cluded that the overall methodology provides a conservative way of computing pool temperature transients for purposes of demonstrating compliance with the provisions of NUREG-0783.

Additional infornation can be found in Section 3.2.

9-

3. Synopsis of the Brunswick Request For Information During the post-implementation audit of the Brunswick (Units 1 & 2) plant-unique analysis report, various issues were identified as either exceptions to the acceptance criteria or as areas where additional information was required.

In order to resolve these issues, a request for information was sent to the 11-censee to obtain supplemental information to the PUAR. An overview of the Brunswick (Units 1 & 2) request for information (Reference 6) is presented in Table 2, along with an indication of the type and status of each item. As can be seen from this table, three exceptions to the AC were identified in the Brunswick (Units 1 & 2) plant-unique analysis.

A meeting was held on August 11, 1983 in Raleigh, N. C. for the purpose of resolving the various issues contained in the RFI. The meeting was attended by Carolina Power & Light Company, United Engineers and Constructors, Inc., as well as NRC and its consultants. The formal documentation of the material presented at the meeting in response to the RFI is contained in Reference 7. As a result of our review of the Brunswick responses, all issues have been resolved. For completeness, a brief description of each exception to the AC and its justifica-tion is provided in the following sections. The numbering system of the various items discussed is consistent with the tabls.

l l

l

TABLE 2. ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING POST-IMPLEMENTATION AUDIT TYPE OF ISSUE STATUS OF ISSUE EXCEPTION REQUESTS FOR TO ADDITIONAL ITEM DESCRIPTION NUREG-0661 AC INFORMATION RESOLVED OPEN 1 JUSTIFY THE USE OF THE X X UNIT S/RV FORCE AND MO-

MENT DISTRIBUTIONS FOR UNIT PRE-CHUG ASYMMETRIC LOADS.

5: 2 DESCRIBE THE ALTERNATE X X PROCEDURE USED TO CALCU-LATE POOL' SWELL IMPACT AND DRAG LOADS FOR STRUC-TURES LOCATED ABOVE INI-TIAL POOL SURFACE.

3 PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION OF X X THE METHOD USED TO OBTAIN FROTH IMPINGEMENT LOADS FROM THE QSTF MOVIES.

TABLE 2 (CONTINUED)

TYPE OF ISSUE STATUS OF ISSUE EXCEPTION REQUESTS FOR TO ADDITIONAL ITEM DESCRIPTION NUREG-0661 AC INFORMATION RESOLVED OPEN 4 PROVIDE THE PLANT-SPECIF- X X IC ANALYSES FOR S/RV DIS-CHARGE TRANSIENTS USED TO.

DETERMINE SUPPRESSION POOL TEMPERATURE LIMITS.

5 DESCRIBE THE SYSTEM USED X X FOR SUPPRESSION POOL TEM-

.i PERATURE MONITORING.

6 PROVIDE A DISCUSSION OF X X THE BOUNDING S/RV LOAD

CASES.

7 DESCRIBE WHICH ASYMMETRIC X X S/RV DISCHARGE LOAD CASE WAS CONSIDERED DURING THE PUA, 8 JUSTIFY THE EQUATIONS USED X X TO INTERPOLATE THE VENT HEADER DEFLECTOR FORCES,

TABLE 2 (CONTINUED) ,

TYPE OF ISSUE STATUS OF ISSUE EXCEPTION, REQUESTS FOR TO ADDITIONAL ITEM DESCRIPTION NUREG-0661 AC INFORMATION RESOLVED OPEN 9 DESCRIBE THE ANALYSES X . X USED TO EVALUATE THE MULTIPLE DOWNCOMER LOAD CASE.

10 COMPARE THE BRUNSWICK- X X T-QUENCHER WITH THE

, MONTICELLO I-QUENCHER.

G' 11 DETAILS OF A POST-CHUG X X SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOAD CALCULATION FOR THE VENT -

HEADER SUPPORT COLUMN.

12 SPECIFY-THE PROCEDURES BY X X WHICH THE OPERATOR WILL IDENTIFY AN SBA AND INSURE MANUAL OPERATION OF ADS.

13 PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF THE X X IMPACT AND DRAG TRANSIENTS USED IN THE VENT. SYSTEM ANALYSES.

~

TABLE 2 (CONTINUED)

IYEE OF ISSUE STATUS OF ISSUE EXCEPTION REQUESTS FOR TO ADDITIONAL ITEM DESCRIPTION NUREG-0661 AC INFORMATION RESOLVED OPEN 14 DESCRIBE THE LOADS USED X X IN THE ANALYSIS OF IORUS ATTACHED PIPING.

I 1

3.1 Discussion of Item 2 The AC approved methodology for defining the pool swell impact loads on vent headers or vent header deflectors consists of using QSTF data or a com-bination of an analytical method in conjunction with QSTF data. In addition, the impact and drag load definitions for other structures located above the ini-tial pool surface also require QSTF data. The vent header in both Brunswick units is protected along almost its entire span by a winged vent header deflec-tor except for a small region in the vicinity of the vent-vent header intersec-tion. Therefore, since the Brunswick QSTF data base consists of only four i

tests conducted with a wingless deflector, no QSTF data exists which exactly matches the configuration used in the Brunswick units. As a result, a direct application of the AC approved LDR procedure was not possible thereby neces-sitating the use of an alternate approach.

The procedure used in the region with the vent header deflector consisted of using the QSTF data for another plant which has a similar geometric config-uration with a winged deflector. The tests chosen for this application were the Monticello tests 17 and 18 of the supplemental QSTF tests (Reference 8). The test parameters such as drywell pressurization rate, submergence, water / header gap etc. used in these tests all provide for conservative trends for impact loads based on the generic sensitivity tests of Reference 9. As a result, the use of the LDR methodology coupled with these data will provide a conservative impact load definition for the vent header deflector and all other structures located above the initial pool surface.

The method used for the region in the vicinity of the vent-vent header intersection where no deflector exists consists of a combination of procedures utilizing various QSTF data. The technique for defining the vent header impact loads incorporates the use of a greatest measured . impact pressure transient in

l 1

QSTF with provisions made to vary the transients due to plant-unique submergence and impact velocity. In order to cover the uncertainty of applying the generic load to a particular plant, a 1.5 factor was applied to the piant unique load.

The overall method appears to be a reasonable alternate approach and should yield a conservative impact load definition for the vent header. The impact load definition for other structures located above the initial pool surface in this region (no deflector) made use of the original Brunswick QSTF data base with a wingless deflector since these pool swell profiles are closer to the actual geometry used in the Brunswick units. The presence of a deflector in these tests will alter the pool swell displacement and velocity profiles near the vicinity of the vent header. In order to account for this effect, the plant unique pool swell displacement profiles were extrapolated to the vertical cen-terline of the header thereby eliminating the effect of the deflector. On the other hand, no changes were made to the plant-unique ,nool swell velocities as measured in the Brunswick QSTF tests, since they wera considered a conservative representation when applied to vent bays without deflectors. Based upon a sur -

vey of available QSTF test data, we believe that the procedures used in this re-gion will provide a conservative impact load definition.

In summary, the above procedures for defining the impact loads in both re-gions (with and without deflectors) are considered to be reasonable and conser-vative alternatives to the LDR methodology and are therefore found acceptable in this application.

3.2 Discussion of Item 4 The licensee has provided the results of certain plant-unique analyses used to obtain pool temperature responses to transients involving safety relief valve actuations as required by the AC. Results from these analyses indicate that the

plant would be able to operate within the temperature limits specified in NUREG-0783. The licensee's analyses were developed by using a comprehensive computational methodology developed by the General Electric Company. A key ele-ment of this overall methodology is a computer code known as TP00L which com-putes local pool temperatures as a function of NSSS, SRV and RHR performance. A description of TP00L and the procedures used in its development and qualifica-tion have only recently been presented to the staff in a series of meetings, the last of which was on August 25, 1983. Based on the information presented at these meetings, the staff has concluded that the total methodology which includes TPOOL, provides a conservative way of computing pool temperature trans-1ents for purposes of demonstrating compliance with the provisions of NUREG-0783. The staff will issue a report describing TP00L and our bases for finding the total computational procedure acceptable for use in performing an-alyses of pool temperature transients involving operation of the SRV in the second quarter of 1984 Based on our evaluation of the licensee's analyses, we conclude that the assumptions used are reasonably conservative and in agreement with the staff's recommendations set forth in NUREG-0783 and, therefore, are ac-ceptable.

3.3 Discussion of Item 8 The AC approved LDR vent header deflector load definition yields load histories at three longitudinal locations along the deflector. In order to ob-tain load histories at intermediate stations along the deflector, interpolation formulas based on the EPRI 1/12-scale tests are provided. However, the equations used in the Brunswick PUAR did not incorporate the AC requirement that l the three dimensional load variation be based on the EPRI 1/12-scale " main vent orifice" test data.

l l '

t l

The use of the incorrect interpolation scheme introduces a non-conserva-tism in the vent bay region of the deflector estimated to be at most approxi-mately 25%. However, we believe that there are sufficient offsetting conserva-tisms in the load methodology and the application technique to alleviate this concern. One source of conservatism arises from the use of the Monticello QSTF tests 17 and 18 (see Section 3.1) as a substitute data base for the Brunswick units. The higher drywell pressurization rate and submergence of these tests with respect to Brunswick conditions has been estimated to yield approximately 35% conservatism in the peak impact force based on the generic sensitivity test results of Reference 9.

Additionally, the original load specification in the PUAR for the vent header deflectors included a very conservative impact spike based upon an impact velocity evaluated at the centerline height of the deflector, whereas the actual impact occurs approximately one foot lower. In reality, since the vent header deflector is in close proximity to the initial pool surface (3.75 inches), vir-tually no impact is expected. This trend is supported by the various force his-tories given in the plant-unique load definition reports reviewed to date. In the response to the RFI, a comparison of the original calculation with a re-vised structural analysis incorporating the correct load definition was per-fo rmed. However, the impact spike forces which were conservatively added in the original load specification were not included in the new analysis based on the argument mentioned above. The comparison indicated that the structural evalua-tions based on the originally calculated pool swell loads and presented in the PUAR are conservative.

Considering all of the above information, we feel that the load specifica-tion for the vent header deflectors is acceptable.

l

~

4. Conclusions The purpose of the post-implementation pool dynamic load audit of the Brunswick (Units 1 & 2) plant-unique analysis report was to verify compliance with the acceptance criteria of NUREG-0661. As a result of the audit, several aspects of the Brunswick (Units 1 & 2) plant-unique analysis required additional information. The Licensee's response (Reference 7) to the request for informa-tion indicates that the pool dynamic load methodologies utilized in the PUAR are

in general conformance with the acceptance criteria requirements.

1 1 l

5. REFERENCES References cited in this report are available as follows:

Those items marked with one asterisk (*) are available in the NRC Public Document Room for inspection; they may be copied for a fee.

Material marked with two asterisks (**) is not publicly available because it contains proprietary information; however, a nonproprietary version is avail-able in the NRC Public Document Room for inspection and may be copied for a fee.

Those reference items marked with three asterisks (***) are available for purchase from the NRC/GPO Sales Program, U. S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555, and/or the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

All other material referenced is in the open literature and is available through public technical libraries.

(1) " Safety Evaluation Report, Mark I long Term Program, Resolution of Generic Technical Activity A-7", NUREG-0661, July 1980.***

(2) " Mack I Containment Short-Term Program Safety Evaluation Report". NUREG-0408, December 1977.***

(3) General Electric Company, " Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Re-port", General Electric Topical Report NED0-21888, Revision 2, November

1981.*

(4) Mark I Owners Group, " Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant-Unique Analysis Applications Guide, Task Number 3.1.3",

General Electric Topical Report NED0-24583, Revision 1, July 1979.*

(5) " Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Units 1 & 2 Plant-Unique Analysis Report",

Carolina Power and Light Company (prepared by United Engineers and Constructors, Inc.), October 1,1982.*

(6) Attachment to Letter from J. D. Ranlet, BNL, to F. Eltawila, NRC,

Subject:

Brunswick (Units 1 & 2) Request For Information, May 18, 1983.*

(7) Attachment to Letter from S. R. Zimmeman, CP8L, to D. B. Vassallo, NRC,

Subject:

Responses to NRC Request For Information, September 15, 1983 (LetterLAP-83-416).*

(8) General Electric Company, " Mark I Containment Program Quarter Scale Pres-sure Suppression Pool Swell Test Program: Supplemental Plant Unique Tests, Task Numbers 5. 5. 4 /10.1" , General Electric Proprietary Report NEDE-24615-P, January 1980.**

(9) General Electric Company, " Mark I Containment Program Quarter-Scale Pres-sure Suppression Pool Swell Test Program: LDR Load Tests - Generic Sen-sitivity, Task Number 5.5.3, Series 1, " General Electric Proprietary Re-port NEDE-23545-P, December 1978.**