ML20090B490
| ML20090B490 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 05/13/1982 |
| From: | Johnston W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Lainas G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082380335 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-91-106 NUDOCS 8205210454 | |
| Download: ML20090B490 (3) | |
Text
[
t 3
.k rT
'f y-MAY 13 682 k
e S
6 s
MEMORANDUM FOR: Gus Liinas, Assistant Director a
for Safety Assessment UEcpjP g
&O Division of Licensing g
pg FROM:
William V. Johnston, Assistant Director
~~ If I88pg 9
s Materials & Qualifications Engineering 74 j*g.g i
Division of Engineering
/
p
SUBJECT:
EVALUATION OF THE LICENSEE'S ANALYSIS OF liYDR TRANSFER DURING STEAM GENERATOR RUPTURE INCIDENT i
Plant Name:
R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Supplier: Rochester Gas & Electric Company; Westinghouse
-Licensing Stage: OR Docket No.:
50-244 Responsible Branch & Project Manager: ORB #5; Janes Lyons Reviewer:
K. Parczewski Description of Task: Incident Evaluation; Hydrogen Transfer Status: Action Completed on TAC-47911 By snemo dated April 26,19.2 from the Director of the Division of Licensing, NRR the Chemical Engineering Branch was requested to review the section dealing with hydrogen transfer in the licensee's Incident Evaluation Report of April 12, 1982. Our preliminary review indicated e
some calculational inaccuracies which were corrected by the licensee on May 7., 1982. We have reviewed the licensee's analysis of May 7,1982 and concur with his conclusion that there was no tydrogen or oxygen formation d?a Ing the steam generator rupture incident, and that all the hydrogen found in the pressurizer and the faulted steam generator's vapor space came from the hydrogen inventory originally dissolved in (Nthe prirrary coolant.
N
/
[]
\\
William V Johnston, Assistan'. Director
}
Materials & Qualifications Engineering j
Mh Ditision of Engineering l'
Encl $sure: As stated i
g' cc: 'R. Vollmer d
D. Eisenhut k
0 J V. Benaroya y
y D. Crutchfield y
o
/
J. Lyons 1
C. McCracken S. Pawlicki i
T. Sullivan jj/I
~
.sm 1
g ukr DE:CMEBg,,l,,,[E}M
" I........,...5.. Par $z ews k,(,,
DE: CME D
3.h[%U -fj "af,
,s j.
n
""" contact: "t"Parczewskii Ext:"2850 oc rew me no soiecu o2.o OFFICIAL RECOFiD COPY
- o en
~.
_.__-_,_.__.-._n
9 S a t e1 > E s a t o a t i rti Peport I>
t i.e Offict of Nuclear R e in c t o r R equi at ion R.E.
Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-244 On April 12, 1982 Rochester Gas and Elect r ic Company submitted an incidert evaluation report for the Ginna s t e a ta generator tube failure incident which occurred on January 25< 1982.
In this reporte tne licensee has included a hydrogen transfer analysis.
The purpose of this analysis was to show that the amount of hydrogen found in the pressurizer and in the vapor space of the faulted steam generator wat from the hydrogen dissolved originally in the primary coolant.
The licensee has also indicated that there was no onygen present in the waste gas removed from the primary system.
The licensee concluded that at no time during the steam generator tube rupture incident was h'ydrogen generated in the core.
The concentrations of hydrogen in the pressurizer and the steam generator vapor space were determined when the reactor was in cold shutdown condition.
The hydrogen concentration in the faulted steam generator vapor spaces originally reported by the licensee in the submittal was in error.
However, this error was corrected and the final analysis i
was provided on May 7, l982.
The licensee's analysis consisted of a hydrogen mass balance performed for the primary coolant system and for the secondary side of the steam generat or.
Hydrogen transfer from the primary
~
g.
system to the secondary side of the steam g e n e r s, t u r through the ruptured tube was considered.
Alsos hydrogen losses to the condenser and the pressucirer rellef tank were included.
By this mass balance the tscensee demonstrated that the hydrogen inventory e xist ing at different 1ocations in the ptimary and secondary systems efter the incident could be accounted for by the hydrogen which was originally dissolved in the primary coolmnt and then released during the incident.
The licerssee concluded that the steam generator tube failure incident did not promote i
any reactions which could result in the production of hydrogen.
Hydrogen could be generated either by metal-water reaction of z i r c on t u ra or by radiolytic decomposition of reactor water.
The metal-water reaction requires fairly elevated temperatures which can occur only if the core is at least partially uncovered.
Radiolytic decomposition of water would, in additlon to hydrogens generat e st oic hi ome t ric amount s of oxygen.
Since no core uncovery occurred during the incidenti and 5ince-no oxygen during i _h e incidents and since no oxygen was detected in the gases transferred l
from the primary systems to the waste gas system, there is no j
evidence that these reactions occurred.
Based gn our indep?ndent evaluation we agree with the results of the licensee's analysis and conclude that there was no generation of hydrogen during the tube rupt ure incident.
+
-,-m
-,