ML20207B014
| ML20207B014 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry, Grand Gulf, River Bend, Clinton, 05000000, 05000450 |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1986 |
| From: | Kintner L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8611110435 | |
| Download: ML20207B014 (59) | |
Text
_ _. _ _. _ _ _ _ -. _ -. -.. _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
/
UNITED STATES b~
j,f
.h)r.. }
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ivASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 W 3gs.
k,
- s OCT 311986 Docket Nos.
50-416/417 50-461 50-458/459 50-440 LICENSEES:
Mississippi Power & Light Company Illinois Power Company Gulf States Utilities Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company FACILITIES:
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Clinton, Unit 1 River Bend, Units 1 and 2 Perry, Unit 1
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF OCTOBER 22, 1986 MEETING WITH MARK III CONTAINMENT HYDR 0 GEN CONTROL OWNERS GROUP (HC0G) REGARDING EMERGENCY PROCEDURE GUIDELINES AND HEAT TRANSFER CALCULATION METHODS The purpose of the meeting was to hear and discuss a presentation by HCOG on the emeroency procedure guidelines (EPGs) for a hydrogen generation event (HGN-104)andvalidationofthemethodsforcalculatingequipmenttemperatures during hydrogen combustion in the containment (HGN-105). Enclosure 1 is a list of attendees. Enclosure 2 is the agenda for the meeting. is the test program status. Enclosure 4 is a copy of slides used by HC0G in the presentation on the emergency procedure guidelines. is a copy of the non-proprietary slides used by HCOG in the presentation on validation of methods for calculating equipment temperatures. A copy of the proprietary slides used in the meeting will be sent by letter. ' Enclosure 6 is a copy of the slides used by HCOG in the presentation of the HCOG program overview.
Comments made by HC0G in response to staff questions regarding the presentation of the emergency procedure guidelines (Enclosure 4) are:
The HC0G EPGs are based on venting the containment for LOCAs that don't produce significant radiation. However, for recoverable degraded cores which are considered under the combustible gas control rule, the radiation levels would not permit venting.
The HCOG analyses have not considered a station blackout event and the reasons will be provided by letter in November 1986.
HCOG has not considered the criteria for vent path selection and the potential consequences of hydrogen combustion outside containment in its EPGs.
In response to staff's comment, HCOG agreed to consider whether or not such criteria should be in the HC0G EPGs.
ggM{Q k6 F
f 2
HCOG has been using Rev. 3 of the BWR Owners Group EPGs in its considera-tion of the-integration of HCOG EPGs for the hydrogen generation event.
HC0G will consider Rev. 4 when it is officially transmitted to the NRC staff.
Comments made by HCOG in response to staff questions regarding the presentation of the validation of methods for ca-lculating equipment temperature (Enclosure 5) are:
The method of analysis does not take into account reradiation from the HCU floor grating because quarter scale tests show that it is not signifi-cant. Neither does the method of analysis consider equipment (e.g. hatch seals) located in a flame zone because there is no equipment located in flame zones.
The effect of depressurization of the containment on temperature distri-bution within the containment has not been considered because such depressurization during hydrogen burning has been considered to be very unlikely.
I t.sA Y L Lester L.
intner, Project Manager BWR Project Directorate No. 4 Division of BWR Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
See next page
Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley, Jr.
Mississippi Power & Light Company Grand Gulf Nuclear Station cc:
Robert B. McGehee, Esquire The Honorable William J. Guste, Jr.
Wise, Carter, Child, Steen and Caraway Attorney General P.O. Box 651 Department of Justice Jackson, Mississippi 39205 State of Louisiana Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804
' Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell Office of the Governor and Reynolds State of Mississippi 1200 17th Street, N.W.
Jackson, Mississippi 39201 Washington, D. C.
20036 Attorney General Mr. Ralph T. Lally Gartin Building Manager of Quality Assurance Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Middle South Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 61000 Mr. Jack McMillan, Director New Orleans, Louisiana 70161 Division of Solid Waste Management Mississippi Department of Natural Mr. Larry F. Dale, Director Resources Nuclear Licensing and Safety Bureau of Pollution Control Mississippi Power & Light Company Post Office Box 10385 P.O. Box 23054 Jackson, Mississippi 39209 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Alton B. Cobb, M.D.
Mr. R. W. Jackson, Project Engineer State Health Officer Bechtel Power Corporation State Board of Health 15740 Shady Grove Road P.O. Box 1700 Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877-1454 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Mr. Ross C. Butcher President Senior Resident Inspector Claiborne County Board of Supervisors U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 Route 2, Box 399 Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 Mr. Ted H. Cloninger Vice President, Nuclear Engineering Regional Administrator, Region II and Support U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mississippi Power & Light Company 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900 Post Office Box 23054 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Mr. J. E. Cross Grand Gulf Nuclear Statian Site Director Mississippi Power & Light Company P.O. Box 756 Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 Mr. C. R. Hutchinson GGNS General Manager Mississippi Power & Light Company Post Office Box 756 Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150
Mr. Frank A. Spangenberg Clinton Power Station Illinois Power Company Unit 1 cc:
Mark Jason Assistant Attorney General Public Utilities Division Office of the Attorney General State of Illinois Center Richard B. Hubbard 100 West Randolph Street - 12th Floor Vice President Chicago, Illinois 60601 Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue - Suite K Mr. D. P. Hall San Jose, California 95125 Vice President Clinton Power Station Chairman of DeWitt County P. O. Box 678 c/o County Clerk's Office Clinton, Illinois, 61727 DeWitt County Courthouse Clinton, Illinois 61727 Mr. John Greene Manager-Nuclear Station Engineering Dpt.
Director, Criteria & Standards (ANR-460)
Clinton Power Station Office of Radiation Programs P. O. Box 678 U. S. Envircnmental Protection Agency Clinton, Illinois 61727 Washington, DC 20460 Sheldon Zabel, Esquire EIS Review Coordinator Schiff, Hardin & Waite Environmental Protection Agency 7200 Sears Tower Region V 233 Wacker Drive 230 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60606 Chicago, Illinois 60604 Resident Inspector Director, Eastern Environmental V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Radiation Facility RR 3, Box 229 A U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Clinton, Illinois 61727 P. O. Box 3009 Montgomery, Alabama 36193 Mr. R. C. Heider Project Manager Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety Sargent & Lundy Engineers Division of Engineering 55 East Monroe Street 1035 Outer Park Drive, 5th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60603 Springfield, Illinois 62704 Mr. L. Larson Project Manager General Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue, N/C 395 San Jose, California 95125 Regional Administrator, Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
a Mr. William J. Cahill, Jr.
Gulf States Utilities Company River Bend Nuclear Plant cc:
Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
Mr. J. E. Booker Conner and Wetterhahn Manager-Engineering, Nuclear Fuels &
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Licensing Washington, D.C.
20006 Gulf States Utilities Company P. O. Box 2951 Beaumont, Texas 77704 Mr. Edward Grant Director - Nuclear Licensing Mr. William H. Spell, Administrator Gulf States Utilities Company Nuclear Energy Division P. O. Box 2951 Office of Environmental Affairs Beaumont, Texas 77704 P. O. Box 14690 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70898 Richard M. Troy, Jr., Esq.
Assistant Attorney General in Charge Mr. J. David McNeill, III State of Louisiana Department of Justice William G. Davis, Esq.
234 Loyola Avenue Department of Justice New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Attorney General's Office 7434 Perkins Road Resident Inspector Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808 P. O. Box 1051 St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775 H. Anne Plettinger 3456 Villa Rose Drive Gretchen R. Rothschild Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70806 Louisianians for Safe Energy, Inc.
1659 Glenmore Avenue Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70775 President of West Feliciana Police Jury Regional Administrator, Region IV P. O. Box 1921 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775 Office of Executive Director for Operations Mr. Frank J. Uddo 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Uddo & Porter Arlington, Texas 76011 6305 Elysian Fields Avenue Suite 400 New Orleans, Louisiana 70122 a
4 4
Mr. Murray R. Edelman
. Perry Nuclear Power Plant The Cleveland Electric Units 1~and 2
' Illuminating Company cc:
Mr. Jahes-W. Harris, Director l
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W.
'Divis' ion of Power Generation Washington, D. C.
20037 Ohio Department of Industrial
-l9 Relations j
~'
~
Post Office Box 825 The Cleveland Electric.
~
Columbus, Ohio 43216 Donald H. Hauser, Esq.
Illuminating Company The Honorable Lawrence Logan P. O. Box 5000_
Mayor, Tillage of Perry Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Resident Inspector's Office' n '
4203 Harper Street Perry, 0hio 44081 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission _
~
The Honorable Robert V. Orosz Parmly at Center Road Perry, Ohio 44081 Mayor, Village of North Perry North Perry Village Hall Regional Administrator, Region III 4778 Lockwood Road U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission North Perry Village, Ohio 44081 799 Roosevelt' Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Attorney General
~~
Department of Attorney General Frank P. Weiss, Esq.
30 East Broad Street Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
. Columbus, Ohio 43216
.105 Main Street Lake' County Administration Center f0hio Department of Health Painesville, Ohio 44077 Attn: ' Radiological Health Program Director Ms. Sue Hiatt P. O. Box 118 OCRE Interim Representative Columbus, Ohio 43216 8275 Munson Mentor, Ohio 44060 Planning Coordinator 361 Ea'it Broad Street Terry J. Lodge, Esq.
-P. O. Box 1735 618 N. Michigan Street Columbus, Ohio 43216 Suite 105 Toledo, Ohio 43624 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Planning John G. Cardinal, Esq.
Environmental Assessment Section Prosecuting Attorney P. O. Box 1049 Ashtabula County Courthouse Columbus, Ohio 43216 Jefferson, Ohio 44047 Mr. James R. Secor, Chairman Eileen M. Buzzelli Perry Township Board of Trustees The Cleveland Electric Box 65 4171 Main Street Illuminating Company Perry, Ohio 44081 P. O. Box 97 E-210 Perry, Ohio 44081 State of Ohio l
Public Utilities Commission i
180 East Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43266-0573
-r-
a e
h 3
NRC - HCOG MEETING 10/22/86 NAME AFFILIATION J. Knox NRC/ DBL /EICSB G. Lainas NRC/ DBL G. Thomas NRC/ DBL /RSB C. Ferrell NRC/EIB/DSR0 J. Hulman NRC/PSB/ DBL J. Lombardo NRC/EIB/ DBL D. Houston NRC/ACRS Staff A. Notafrancesco NRC/PSB/ DBL I. Recarte NRC/TSCB/DHFT F. Witt NRR/PSB/ DBL T. Collins NRC/ DBL /RSB Marvin Morris Gulf. States Utilities Don Lanis MP&L Matthew Rager Enercon Services W. M. Davis Enercon Services Mike Manski MP&L Randy Langley Gulf States Utilities Bob Evans Enercon Services John Richardson Enercon Services Edward Holcomb Enercon Services Emin Ortalan Cleveland Electric David Shum NRC/F08/ DBL Timothy Byam Illinois Power Co.
David D. Yue NRR/ DBL /RSB Jack Kudrick NRR/ DBL /PSB Lester Kintner NRR/ DBL /BWD-4 Wayne Hodges NRR/ DBL /RSB
l,' 84 3
AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 22,1986
}
E -IRC ftETING s.
9:00 - 9:30 INTRODUCTIONANDIESTPROGRAMSTATUS 9:30 - 10:30 s EPG VS. ANALYSIS (IEN-104) 10:30 - 12:00 METHODOLOGY VALIDATION (MM-105) 12:00 - 1:00 LUNCH 4
1:00 - 2:00' DISCUSSION 2:00 - 3:00 m PROGRAM OVERVIEW 5
EOUIPMENTSURVIVABILITYPHILOSOPHY REVIEW FUTURE E -IEC SUBMITTALS
+
x StkNARIZE COORDINATION OF GENERIC AND PLANT-SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES 1 I
TEST PROGRAM STATUS j
o Grand Gulf Tests Completed Final. test 9/23/86 Data quality review complete 9/30/86 o
Change Over to River Bend Configuration Underway Begin Week of 10/27/86 Seven Tests o
Clinton Production Tests To Be Completed in 2/87 l
1 l
EMERGENCY PROCEDURE GUIDELINES ACTIONS VS. NCOG ASSUMPTIONS FOR A HYDROGEN GENERATION EVENT o
TASK OBJECTIVE o
METHODOLOGY O
SCENARIO DESCRIPTION 1
o EVALUATION OF FINDINGS o
SUMMARY
/
2 OBJECTIVES
- o COMPLETE SUBTASK 13.10 OF THE HYDROGEN CONTROL PROGRAM PLAN VERIFY THAT ASSUMPTIONS USED BY HCOG FOR ANALYZING AND TESTING OF A
HYDROGEN GENERATION EVENT (HGE)
ARE CONSISTENT WITH OPERATOR ACTIONS DIRECTED BY REVISION 3 OF THE GENERIC EPGs AND REVISION 1
OF THE BCOG COMBUSTIBLE GAS CONTROL EPG IDENTIFY EXPECTED PLANT RESPONSE AND CONDITIONS DURING AN HGE AND ASSURE THAT THESE CONDITIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH HCOG ANALYSES l
i i
l l
METHODOLOGY DEVELOP AS MECHANISTIC A SCENARIO AS POSSIBLE FOR NGE o
ESTABLISH INITIAL PLANT CONDITIONS TO SUPPORT A
REASONABLE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS WITH A MINIMUM OF RANDON EQUIPMENT FAILURES POSTULATE TNO SCENARIOS; HGE INITIATED BY SBLOCA OR ANT-TRANSIENT EVENT 1
ALL SOURCES OF MAKEUP WATER INITIALLY UNAVAILABLE TC ALLON CORE DEGRADATION COOLANT MAKEUP RECOVERED IN ORDER TO PREVENT SIGNIFICANT CORE MELTING 4
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION CONTINUES UNTIL A TOTAL AMOUNT OF i
HYDROGEN EQUIVALENT TO 75% MWR IS GENERATED 1
ASSUME COMPONENT FAILURES AS REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE PREMISE OF AN HGE
i NETHODOLOGY (CONT.)
o EVALUATE OPERATOR ACTIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE SCENARIO IDENTIFY MOST PROBABLE ACTIONS ALLONED BY THE.EPG'S AND EVALUATE THE EFFECT ON PLANT RESPONSE EVALUATE VARIATIONS IN OPERATOR ACTIONS ALLOWED BY THE EPG'S EVALUATE THE EFFECT OF POSSIBLE VARIATIONS ON PLANT
RESPONSE
o-COMPARE OPERATOR ACTIONS AND PLANT CONDITIONS TO THOSE ASSUMED BY HCOG FOR ANALYSES AND TESTING OF AN HGE IDENTIFY, EVALUATE AND JUSTIFY ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN HCOG ASSUMPTIONS AND OPERATOR ACTIONS FOR EPG'S 1
I h
SCENARIO DESCRIPTION O
SAFETY RELATED MAKEUP SYSTEM UNAVAILABILITY AS ALLOWED BY TECH SPEC LCOs o
ASSUME LOOP AS INITIATING EVENT TO MINIMIZE NUMBER OF RANDOM EQUIPMENT FAILURES O
MAKEUP SYSTEM FAILURE MODES AS NECESSARY TO REACH DEGRADED CORE STATE o
MINIMAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRANSIENT AND DWB SCENARIOS FOR DWB:
DW PRESSURE INCREASE OCCURS EARLIER IN THE EVENT H2 BUILDUP IN THE DRYWELL DUE TO SPLIT FLOWS BETWEEN DW AND CONTAINMENT (BETWEEN BREAK AND SRVs)
DW MIXING SYSTEM STARTED WHEN DW H2 CONCENTRATION REACHES 4%
SPMU OPERATION OCCURS EARLIER CONTAINMENT SPRAY ACTIVATED LATER IN DWB T
SCENARIO DESCRIPTION (CONT. ).
o INITIAL CONDITIONS PLANT ASSUMED TO BE AT 100% POWER CONTAINMENT AT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION LCO VALUES LPCS PUMP OUT PER LCO CRD PUMP OUT OF SERVICE FOR MAINTENANCE LOSS OF OFFSITE POWER
e SCENARIO DESCRIPTION (CONT. )
o AUTOMATIC ACTIONS (3 TO 15~ SECS)
TUR$1NE TRIP I
REACTOR SCRAM CONDENSATE PUMPS TRIP CONDENSATE BOOSTER PUMPS TRIP REACTOR FEED PUMPS TRIP RECIRCULATION PUMPS TRIP REMAINING CRD PUMP TRIPS DIESEL GENERATORS RECEIVE START SIGNALS MSIV'S CLOSE ON LOSS OF RPS POWER ALL RODS FULL-IN, OPERATOR VERIFIES SCRAM PER RC-1 DIV. I DIESEL TIES TO BUS DIV. II DIESEL FAILS TO START DIV. III DIESEL PAILS TO TIE SRV'S CYCLING ON HIGH RPV PRESSURE; ONE STICKS OPEN o
SHORT TERM RESPONSE (15 TO 180 SECS) j OPERATOR ENTERS EPG'S: RC/L, RC/P, AND RC/Q OPERA'!OR ENTERS EPG'S: SP/T, DW/T, CN/T, PC/P, SP/L, AND PC/H CONCURRENTLY FROM THE PRIMARY CONTAINMENT CONTROL GUIDELINE RCIC ISOLATES AND TRIPS AFTER ATTEMPT TO START PER RC/L-2; OPERATOR ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM RPV LEVEL DROPS TO LEVEL 2;
OPERATOR ATTEMPTS TO MAINTAIN LEVEL ABOVE TAF PER RC/L-2 REMAINING ECCS PUMPS START AUTOMATICALLY ON HIGH DRYWELL PRESSURE SIGNAL WITHOUT HIGH PRESSURE PUMPS AND WITH LOW PRESSURE PUMPS RUNNING, OPERATOR ENTERS CONTINGENCY l FROM STEP RC/L-2 t
i 4
1 7
SCENARIO DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
o DEPRESSURIZATION (1100 TO 1800 SECS)
OPERATOR CONTINUES TO LINE UP DESIGN INJECTION SYSTEMS NITH LESS THAN TWO INJECTION SYSTEMS LINED UP, OPERATORS DISPATCHED TO LINE UP ALTERNATE INJECTION SYSTEMS (AIS)
PER C1-2 RPV LEVEL DECREASING AND RPV PRESSURE HIGH; STEP C1-3 i
DIRECTS OPERATOR TO C1-7 l
AT C1-7, NITH A LPCI PUMP RUNNING, OPERATOR BEGINS RAPID DEPRESSURIZATION AT TAF OPERATOR INITIATES HIS AT TAF, PER PC/H-1 OPERATOR RECOGNIZES FAILURE OF ALL MAKEUP NHEN PRESSURE DROPS BELON LPCI INJEC4? ION VALVE INTEELOCK PRESSURE OPERATOR STARTS PUMPS IN AIS NITH ONLY ONE SBLC PUMP AVAILABLE 4
i o
SPMU SYSTEM AUTOMATICALLY ACTUATES (1800-3000 SECS) o EMERGENCY DEPRESSURIZATION COMPLETE (2000 SECS)
-o RECOVERY LON FLON SYSTEM NORMALLY LINED UP FOR INJECTION (CRD) IS 1
RETURN 3D TO SERVICE AND BEGINS INJECTION AT 3100 SECS.
HIGH FLON SYSTEM (SUCH AS HPCS) IS RETURNED TO SERVICE AND BEGINS INJECTING AT 3870 SECS.
f
i a
SCENARIO DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
O POST RECOVERY (>3870 SECS)
STEP PC/H-3.2, DW MIXING SYSTEM STARTED AT DW HYDROGEN CONCENTRATION 44 (DWB)
STEP PC/H-4.1, OPERATOR STARTS RECOMBINER AT MINIMUM DETECTABLE HYDROGEN CONCENTRATION STEP PC/T-2, OPERATOR WOULD INITIATE AVAILABLE CONTAINMENT SPRAY TRAIN AT 185oF f
l 5
a f
EVALUATION OF FINDINGS FINDING 5.1 o
EPG CONTAINS CAUTION TO MAINTAIN RPV PRESSURE ABOVE 100 PSIG FOLLOWING EMERGENCY DEPRESSURIZATION.
O BWR CORE HEATUP CODE ASSUMES 2 ATM IMPACT EVALUATION o
MINIMUM PRESSURE FOR RCIC MAKEUP IS THE BASIS FOR THE CAUTION o
HCOG ANALYSIS OF HGE ASSUMES FAILED RCIC o WITHOUT RCIC MAKEUP, OPERATOR IS NOT INSTRUCTED TO CLOSE SRVs TO MAINTAIN PRESSURE o
THE OPERATOR'S ACTIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH HCOG ASSUMPTIONS CONCLUSION o
NO IMPACT ON HCOG ANALYSIS AND TESTING OF AN HGE 1
/D
5 a
EVALUATION OF' FINDINGS (CONT)
FINDING 5.2 o
DRYNELL MIXING SYSTEM START TIMES IN MAAP AND CLASIX-3 ARE NOT CONSISTENT IMPACT EVALUATION i
o HCOG ONLY USES MAAP TO PROVIDE MASS / ENERGY RELEASES DURING
{
BLONDONN.
o ACTUATION OF MIXING SYSTEM EARLIER THAN REQUIRED BY CGC EPG DOES NOT EFFECT THE MASS / ENERGY RELEASE FROM THE REACTOR CONCLUSION o
NO IMPACT ON NCOG ANALYSIS AND TESTING OF AN !!GE i
I
//
e s
4
't EVALUATION OF FINDINGS (CONT.)-
FINDING 5.3 o TIMING OF ADS (DEPRESSURIZATION) COULD VARY IMPACT EVALUATION O
DEPRESSURIZATION IS REQUIRED BY EPGs BEFORE H2 PRODUCTION BEGINS o
H2 GENERATION WILL ALWAYS OCCUR WITH A DEPRESSURIZED VESSEL o
THEREFORE, TIME OF THE DEPRESSURIZATION HAS NO EFFECT ON H2 GENERATION RATES CALCULATED BY BWRCHUC o
ADS TIMING MAY AFFECT DRYWELL CONDITIONS DURING DWB CASE CONCLUSION O
HCOG IS ALREADY CONDUCTING A CLASIC-3 SENSITIVITY STUDY TO DETERMINE THE EFFECT OF ADS TIMING ON THE DWB CASE.
s EVALUATION OF FINDINGS (CONT)
FINDING 5.4 o
HPCS REFLOOD WATER TEMPERATURE WILL VARY AS A FUNCTION OF SUPPRESSION POGL TEMPERATURE IMPACT EVALUATION o
CONSIDERING THE TEMPERATURE OF THE CORE AT THE TIME OF 4
0
- REFLOOD, THE TEMPERATURE OF THE WATER - (ABOUT 150 F)
WOULD HAVE LITTLE 1FFECT ON THE ANALYSIS.
e CONCLUSION o
NO IMPACT ON HCOG ANALYSIS AND TESTING OF AN HGE l
J l3 3_-r.., -- -.- -
,cy.
.,-,,m,
,m
-,.,-._,y.--..._-_y_
EVALUATION OF FINDINGS (CONT.)
FINDING 5.5 O THE EPGs HAVE A CAUTION ON USE OF RPV LEVEL INDICATION UNDER HIGH TEMPERATURE CONDITIONS IMPACT EVALUATION c
BASIS OF THE CAUTION IS TO ALERT THE OPERATOR TO CONDITIONS WHICH MAY PREVENT USE OF A GIVEN INSTRUMENT C
UNDER HIGH TEMPERATURE CONDITIONS, THE INSTRUMENT MAY READ ON SCALE WHEN WATER LEVEL IS BELOW THE INSTRUMENT TAP O
DURING AN HGE, LEVEL DROPS BELOW WIDE RANGE INSTRUMENT TAPS o OPERATOR CAN MONITOR LEVEL TRENDS ON FUEL ZONE INSTRUMENT DURING HGE O
FOLLOWING
- REFLOOD, THE OPERATOR WILL RAISE WATER LEVEL ABOVE INSTRUMENT TAPS FOR WIDE RANGE INSTRUMENTS CONCLUSION 1
o NO IMPACT ON HCOG ANALYSIS OR TESTING OF AN HGE 4
EVALUATION OF FINDINGS (CONT)
FINDING 5.6 o
TIMING OF ENTRY INTO EPGs COULD VARY DEPENDING ON ASSUMED INITIAL CONDITIONS IMPACT EVALUATION o
ENTRY CONDITIONS ASSUMED BY HCOG ARE CONSERVATIVE FOR ANALYSIS AND TESTING.
NOMINAL CONDITIONS MIGHT DELAY ENTRY INTO EPGs, BUT DELAY WOULD BE MINIMAL o
OPERATOR ACTIONS ARE BASED ON PLANT PARAMETERS, NOT TIME o
ANY CHANGES IN PLANT CONDIT. IONS DUE TO CHANGE IN TIMING IS INSIGNIFICANT CONCLUSION o
NO IMPACT ON HCOG ANALYSIS AND TESTING OF AN HGE
/
e
EVALUATION OF FINDINGS (CONT.)
FINDING 5.7 o
OPERATOR MIGHT INJECT SBLC AS ALTERNATE INJECTION SOURCE IMPACT EVALUATION o
MOST PROBABLE REFLOOD FLOW RATE IS FROM ECCS SYSTEM WITH FLOW GREATER THAN S000 GPM o
43 GPM WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT ON THIS CASE o
REFLOOD FLOW RATES AS LOW AS 43 GPM WOULD RESULT IN
^ RELEASE RATES LOWER THAN NONRECOVERABLE CORE AND PEAK H2 THOSE CURRENTLY USED BY HCOG o
ACTUATION OF SBLC COULD ONLY HAVE AN AFFECT ON LOW REFLOOD RATES ASSUMED FOR BWRCHUC o
300 GPM CASE ASSUMED BY HCOG WAS CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE OF LARGEST PLANT CRD PUMP FLOW l
o 300 GPM CASE IS MORE THAN ADZQUATE TO ACCOUNT FOR, TWO CRD PUMPS AND ONE SBLC PUMP OR MORE LIKELY ONE CRD PUMP AND ONE SBLC PUMP IN ADDITION HCOG AGREED WITH THE NRC TO USE A 150 GPM CASE, o
REPRESENTING ONE CRD PUMP FLOW i
A REFLOOD RATE BETWEEN 150 GPM AND 300 GPM NOULD BE BOUNDED o
PRODUCTION BY THE PRODUCTION AND DURATION OF H2 IN PEAK H2 300 GPM AND 150 GPM CASE CONCLUSIONS NO IMPACT TO THE HCOG ANALYSIS AND TESTING OF AN HGE o
i is
t EVALUATION OF FINDINGS (CONT.)
FINDING 5.8 o
SUPPRESSION POOL COOLING MAY BE INITIATED EARLY IN THE EVENT AND IS NOT CONSIDERED BY HCOG ANALYSIS IMPACT EVALUATION 1
o ASSUNING NO SUPPRESSION POOL COOLING IN HCOG ANALYSIS IS CONSERVATIVE SINCE POOL TEMPERATURE AFFECTS CONTAINMENT TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE.
CONCLUSION o
NO IMPACT ON THE HCOG ANALYSIS AND TESTING OF AN HGE i
b
/7
EVALUATION OF FINDINGS (CONT.)
FINDING 5.9 o
CGC EPG REQUIRES MANUAL ACTUATION OF DRYNELL MIXING SYSTEM PRIOR TO HYDROGEN CONCENTRATION OF 4% IN DRYWELL o
VARIABLES EXIST THAT COULD AFFECT THE TIME AT NHICN DRYWELL MIXING IS STARTED.
IMPACT EVALUATION o
FOR TRANSIENT EVENTS DRYWELL CONCENTRATION OF 4% WOULD NOT BE REACHED o
FOR DRYNELL BREAK EVENTS CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE QUICKLY IN PRODUCTION BEGINS DRYWELL ONCE H2 o
DELAY IN RECOGNITION BY THE OPERATOR AND DRYNELL MIXING SYSTEM ACTUATION MORE LIKELY THAN EARLY ACTUATION i
o THE EFFECTS OF DELAYING DRYNELL MIXING SYSTEM ACTUATION SHOULD BE EVALUATED CONCLUSION o
HCOG IS ALREADY CONDUCTING A
SENSITIVITY STUDY WITH SIGNIFICANT TIME DELAY PRIOR TO ACTUATION OF THE DRYWELL MIXING SYSTEM.
}$
EVALUATION OF FINDINGS (CONT.)
FINDING 5.10 o
ONLY THE RECOMBINERS AND IGNITERS PONERED FROM ONE ESF BUS MIGHT BE AVAILABLE IMPACT EVALUATION RECOMBINER OPERATION NOULD HAVE LITTLE EFFECT DURING AN HGE o
DUE TO SMALL FLON CONCENTRATION RECOMBINERS NOULD BE SECURED AT 6% H2 o
l o
THEREFORE, RECOMBINER OPERATION IS NOT INCLUDED IN HCOG ANALYSIS IGNITER DESIGN CRITERIA ASSURES ADEQUATE NUMBER OF IGNITERS o
NITH ONLY ONE ESF DIVISION CONCLUSION i
THERE IS NO IMPACT ON HCOG ANALYSIS AND TESTING OF AN HGE o
1 i
t l
1
i l
l EVALUATION OF FINDINGS (CONT.)
I FINDING 5.11 t
o HCOG ANALYSIS DOES NOT ASSUME VENTING AND PURGING AT LON HYDROGEN CONCENTRATIONS IMPACT EVALUATION l
o FOR AN HGE, RADIATION LEVELS NOULD NOT PERMIT VENTING AND PURGING.
CONCLUSION o
THERE IS NO IMPACT ON HCOG ANALYSIS AND TESTING OF AN HGE e
EVALUATION CF FINDINGS'(CONT.)
FINDING 5.12 o
EPG ALLONS OPENING OTHER SRVs IF ADS VALVES DO NOT OPEN INPACT EVALUATION o
OPERATOR IS INSTRUCTED TO OPEN EQUIVALENT NUMBER OF~ VALVES AS ADS VALVES USING SRVs IF ADS VALVES FAIL TO OPEN o
FOR EVENTS CONSIDERED BY
- HCOG, THE AIR SUPPLY TO THE NON-ADS VALVES NOULD PROBABLY NOT BE AVAILABLE.
o ONLY ADS VALVES AVAILABLE TO DEPRESSURIZE AND PROVIDE H2 RELEASE TO SUPPRESSION POOL CONCLUSION o
NO INPACT TO HCOG ANALYSIS AND TESTING OF AN HGE l
t i
.. ~.
SUMMARY
c l
o FINDINGS INDICATE THAT SENSITIVITY STUDIES SHOULD BE EVALUATED EFFECT OF DELAYING ADS IN NAAP ANALYSIS j
EFFECT OF DEIATING ACTIVATION OF THE DRYNELL MIXING 1
SYSTEM i
o DISCREPANCIES BETNEEN HCOG ANALYSIS AND EPG OPERATOR ACTIONS ARE MINOR IN NATURE
.I 4
)
Lt i
y,
, ~.,
DIFRJSIVE (DEUSTION KAT TPANSFER ETH000 LOGY VALIDATION RESLLTS PREPARED BY E.E. HOLCO B DERCCN SERVIES, INO.
FOR THE HOOG/tEC K ETitG WASHItGTON,D.C.
OCTOBER 22,1986 I
4 PRF4NTAT10N OERVl&l oANALYSISAPPR004 4
o CONECTIVE #0 RADIATIVE lEAT TR#EER MODELS 4
4 o SPKRE #0 CDREX CALORitETER ANALYSIS RESULTS 5
5
.f 9,
~
EWXGR0llD o RECENT SUBMITTALS TO THE USE C HAVE ADDRESSED:
r i
DEVELOPMENT T IHERMAL ENVIRONMt.NT DEFINITION METHODS VALIDAT ON w HEAT IRANSFER ANALYTICAL METHODS PER.IASK 12 a -
THE PROGRAMPLAN o SPECIFIC SUBTASKS WERE DISCUSSED IN KN-103 AND FOl-105 SUBTASK 12.5 - K ATil0-6 MODE & COMPLEX CALORIMETER SUBTASK 12.9/12.10- APPLY MEASURED DIFFUSION FLAME ENVIRO &1ENTS TO COMPLEX CALORIETER MODEL AND COMPARE RESULTS TO EASURED CALORIMETER RESPONSE a
$USTASK 12.11/12.12 - ItET WITH (STO TO DISCUSS METHODOLOGY VALIDATION AND RESOLVE QUESTIONS 12.13 - PREPARE REPORT ON METHODOLOGY VALIDATION 1
i 3
s
....,-..,,-_,----..,_.,_-,i4.
DEALL APPR00i TO FullRENT RINIVABILITY ANALYSIS o 1/4 SCALE IEST FACILITY PROVIDES DATA GAS TEMPERATURES 4
PRESSURE CASVELOCITIES O DATA ARE SCALED FOR FULL SIZE PLANTS USING FROUDE RULES O THERMAL ENVIR0tNENTS ARE DETERMINED o SURVIVABILITY ANALYSES ARE PEPFORMED WITH THE KATil0-6 COMPUTER CODE 1
x n
IET1000 LOGY VALIDATICN APPR001 o TEST FACJLITY DATA WERE USED AS BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FOR 8Il@-DMODELS:
.4 COMPLEX CAlmlMETER (2 LOCATImS) h SPHERE CALORIMETERS (3 LOCATimS) s
' RADICMETERS (2 LOCATimS) o ANALYSES WERE PERFORMED USING SAFE METHODS PLANNED FOR PLANT SPECIFIC EQUIPMENT SURVIVABILITY OUTLINED IN W N-103 i
O VALIDITI OF METHODS WAS ESTABLISHED BY COMPARISON OF THE
' CALCULATED RESULTS WITH l/4 SCALE CALM IMETER DATA 4
DESCRIBED IN F0N-105
\\
--n-,
-,--,,n...
CONECTIVE }BT TRAGER KOR S
- 1) THERMAL PLWE ZONE O COMBINED CONVECTION USING SIEBERS AND MOFFAT CORRELATION 1.
3.2 g.2 3
3.2
- 2) CONVECTIVE TRANSITION ZONE o OSTF VELOCITY-TEMPERATURE CORRELATION USED BELOW f0J FLOOR V=C (T
T) 0.5 T
eAS gg 0 LINEAR COMBINATION OF FOR ED AND NATURAL CONVECTION CORRELATIONS USED ABOVE FLOOR V
V H
+
(1 -
ISC H=g Fc yo
- 3) BACKGROUND GAS ZONE o NATURAL CONVECTION b
Convective Transition Zone Y=4.05V, Plume Zone Forced 10*0'.
Convection Dominance
Background
l Recirculation Ces Zone
,,,,/ ~ Zone Downflow Y
Natural Convection (
Dominence k
h i
4 l
-ir-
- IICU Floor (10.6')
Flame hw water Level (6.O')
g g
J Inner 1/4R 1/2R 3/4R Outer v.11 v.11 CONVECTIVE HEAT TRANSFER ZONES IN A MARK Ill BWR CHIMNEY, V IS PUJME g
CENTERLINE VELOCITY.
7
Fl#E RADIATION hmEL o ASSLNPTIONS POINTSOURCEMODEL,SPHERICALEMISSION CONICALLY SHAPED FLAME PLANARTARGETSURFACESASSUMED o FLA m HEIGHT IS PROPORTIONAL TO HYDROGEN FLGV.
2/5 7.024
[ g (t) 3 L (t)
=
F o ABSORPTION OF RADIANT ENERGY BY WATER VAPOR BETWEEN THE FLAME SOURCE AND THE EQUIPMENT IS ACCOUNTED FOR.
o SURFACE ORIENTATION IS ACCOUNTED FOR.
o FLAME RADIATION IS OFTEN NEGLIGIBLE DUE TO SHIELDING OF EQUIPMENT BY BEAMS AND BLOCKAGES.
SOLIO FI.COR OR CMTING 10.6' j
EQUIP. MENT
'i ev
\\
INTERVENING O
WATER VAPOR H
W d
SUPPRESSION PCOL NTAI
,6.0' 10. t. '
)
\\
l CONTAI.?.ENT OUTER L'ALL 15.S' Flame Radiation Model
9 4
Riff RADIATION MIEl_
O O IN THE GENERAL CASE THE PLLNE CAN BE SUBDIVIDED INTO ZONES.
IN PRACTICE A SINGLE ZONE MOST OFTEN YIELDS GOOD RESULTS.
o PuNE EMITTANCE IS CALCULATED USING THE EDWARDS CORRELATIONS.
SPECTRAL EMISSION OF WATER VAPOR IS ACCOUNTED FOR.
10
INTER. MEDIATE VOLUME
/
CRATINC Elev.
16.6' KG C^*'
d3 z0Nr.
O reactr PLUME d
i ZONES HCU FLOOR GRATING El'ev.
ZONE p
m z
ZONE g
T q-SUPPRESSION POOL
'I Elev.
> r i
INNER OUTER 6.0' WALL WALL L
L PLUE RADIATION iML
//
SUMMARY
OF RADIATION ASSESSMENT RESULTS o
Below the HCU floor, flame radiation is the principal contributor of the two radiation components.
The point source. treatment is conservative beneath the HCU floor o
For locations above the HCU floor, the flame contribution is not dominant.
Equipment is farther from the flames Blockages and floors shield equipment o Within the plume, summation of flame and plume radiation is required.
o Flame leaning can be accounted for using the velocity vectors.
o Use of a single, volume-averaged temperature to calculate the plume radiation has yielded good results.
l z.
~
COREX CALORlWTER ANALYSIS 0 Two LOCATIONS WERE ANALYZED g 1-0U FLOOR IN THERMAL PLtME (POSITION 389, TEST' 1)
CHARACTERIZEDBYCOPEINEDCONVECTION FLAMEANDPLLEERADIATIONOFEQUALIMPORTANCE 2)
IN WETWELL OUTSIDE OF PLUME (POSITION 184, IEST S13)
CHARACTERIZED WITH 05TF VELOCITY-TEMPERATURE CORRELATION C
(T T) ** 0.5 V
=
T F
gg FLAME RADIATION DOMINANT CONTRIBUTOR j3
l
\\
329.7*Y 1
- e 360*
340.P_*
315 '
PLAN VIEW 11.7' COMPLEX
-~
CALORIMETER Y////)
iFLAME 7.5 l
CENTROIO ELEV.
AT PEM % N 6.3, WATER LEVEL i
TEST P.07 E_m
~-
S
~
M s_-_
I i
ACTIVE SPARGERS O
m o
m v
v v
CUTER INNER 345 330 315
- 300 WALL WALL' ELEVATION VIEW SIDE VIEW Complex calorimeter location for Test P.07
)Y
S
~
~
~
~
II,2' INSTRUMENTED
~
ELEVATION l
ld O' INSTRUMENTED C284 i
T184 / hTl90 Tl90/gTl84 ELEVATION Rl84 Rl84 I
i 1
FLAME 7*34' CENTROID ELEV.
-t-AT PEAK H2 FLOW WTR LEVEL
_,_ y _.
TEST S.13
~
m m
O b
SPARGERS i
i 330*
315' 300*
ELEVATION VIEW SIDE ELEV.
Side and elevation views of the instrumentation iletull at position 184, QSTF Test S.13, relateil to Llie sparger locations anil tiie calculatcal flame centroid elevation.
g
\\
I i
il1 l
llI lllli jl 3
1 S
tse T
PTSQ no i
t a
v e
l e
'0 1
0 0
4 3
8 1
)
no i
4 t
4 i
8 0 s
8 l
9 o
1 R1 W
p M
- T E
t a
5 I
V 1
n 3
o 0
4 J
i 3
8 4 4 N
t 3
l 8 8 A
a T
1 t
2 B
L n
C e
7 P
m 9
n i
2 t
3 s
n I
f o
we i
9 v
3 na lp l
ia te D
- 0 6
3
'e 1
f
SPWRE CALORifETER #MLYSIS o PURPOSES ISOLATECONVECTIVEANDRADIATIVEHEATING ANALYZE RESPONSE OF DIFFERENT GECETRY EXAMINE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS (THERMAL ENVIR0tNENTS) o THREE LOCATIONS WERE EXAMINED WETWELL,1/4 RADIUS (POSITION 184)
WETWELL,1/2 RADIUS (POSITION 130)
ABOVE101 FLOOR,AWAYFROMCHIPNEYS (POSITION 325) o SPHERES ASSUMED TO BEHAVE IDEALLY BLACK SPHERE A PERFECT ABSORBER COLDSPHEREAPERFECTREFLECTOR 17
O 19 5*
/s
'POS 13 0 105' 15 0*
13 5 '
PLAN VIEW 8
11.2' POS INSTRUMENTED
__.._.130_ 1.
_ EZZ3 _g' ELEVATIONS IO FLAME
_ 2d CENTRot D E LEV I
AT PEAX H2 FLOW 5.7' WATER LEVEL N_ P TEST S.13
'i^.^u w=
g-=
m m
m ACTIVE g
SPARGERS l
l l
195*
150* 135' 10 5o OUTER INNER l_
WALL WALL ELEVATION VIEW SIDE VIEW I,
. Instrument position 130 as related to blockages, spargers and flame centroid height.
19'
l 3-Dimnnaional 1/4-Scale Tast Facility Test S.11 X
N
~
DN 29.00' /
\\
29.00*
i 1
'N
%/> -
s N 22.30'
[_
19.25
" ^
r"
-(
i
% w i9.25' g_
j<
%'7 N
17.20' '
N 16.40' B325
/
a s
- 13.9' 10.75' 10.75',
10.60' i ii irr m mngg
'"5 6.
O'
<N w
(water f
e s
I i
60*g,5)f15*
g
( sparr.ers )
l.
2 g345*- 2j,$,,1 M
lc195*
X150' K105*
/
s N
3 a-i 3,5 45*
/
K
[
\\
,i 270*
90*
225*
135*
180 Three-dimensional view of the QSTF containment, showing instr'ument position
-Q 325 relative to the blockages.
a l
45' 60*
10 5' p325 N
I 90*
P L A N @ EL EV.13.9' 19.O' 16.4' BLOCK AGE POSITION 325 10.6' HCy FLOOR 7.23' (E 010 ELEV A
H2 A0W i
6.O WATER LEVEL
-m-
_~
~
~
~
SPARGERS l
0.O' 105*
60* 45*
ELEV. VIEW @ 1/4 RADIUS SiOE. E LEV Detail of instrument position 325 as related to blockage and sparger locations.
26
COMEICFS O THE IC @ HEAT TRANSFER METHODOLOGY IS CONSERVATIVE AND APPROPRIATE FOR EQUIPMENT SURVIVABILITY ANALYSIS.
o THE METHODOLOGY IS VALID FOR A WIDE RANGE OF THERMAL CONDITIONS AND GEOMETRIC CONFIGURATIONS.
2-I
EOUIPMENT SURVIVABILITY PHILOSOPHY o
Equipment Survivability List identifies those components and systems that are required to survive a degraded core accident list will not include those systems and components that will have performed their required function prior to hydrogen production criteria used in developing list includes:
systems and components which mitigate _the consequences of the accident systems and components needed for maintaining integrity of the containment pressure boundary systems and components needed for maintaining the core in a safe condition systems and components needed for both monitoring the course of the accident and providing guidance to the operator for initiating actions in accordance with the Emergency Procedure Guidelines components whose failure could preclude the ability of the above systems to fulfill their intended function HGN-084 (dated May 16, 1986) both identifies those systems which fall into at least one of -the above criteria and provides a generic equipment survivability list
/
o Equipment Survivability Philosophy Thermal environments are defined using either 1/4 scale test data and/or CLASIX-3 results Thermal environments input to HEATING-6 analyses HEATING-6 analyses may consider plant-specific features Survivability status determined via:
Pressure:
compare qualification pressure to a rapid, pressure spike produced by deflagrations Temperature:
multi-level evaluation 1) calculated equipment surface temperature < equipment qualification (EQ) temperature?
2) if no, calculated temperature of thermally limiting component < EQ temperature?
3) if no, calculated thermally limiting component temperature < equipment survivability temperature?
4) if no, identify cost-effective survivability enhancement, shielding, relocation, etc.
2.
6 PENDING HCOG SUBMITTALS o
CLASIX-3 vs. NTS Data Validation (Task 5.11)
Schedule:
November, 1986
Purpose:
Verify adequacy of CLASIX-3 code predictions of deflagrations against a deflagration data base (i.e., NTS)
- Responds to NRC's request as documented in July 8, 1985 letter o
Emergency Procedures Guideline - Appendix C (Tasks 13.6, 13.7 and 13.16)
Schedule:
November, 1986
Purpose:
Provides calculational procedures and sample calculations for determining EPG action limits.
- Addresses hydrogen deflagration overpressure limit (HDOL) and temperature limit (HDTL) curves 3
PENDING HCOG SUBMITTALS (CONT'D) o CLASIX-3 Containment and Drywell Sensitivity Results (Task 8.9H)
Schedule:
November, 1986 4
Purpose:
Delineate results of CLASIX-3 sensitivities
- Includes sensitivities conducted in response to NRC comments in June 19, 1986 HCOG-NRC meeting P
o Inverted Diffusion Flame Conclusions (Task 10.13)
Schedule:
December, 1986
Purpose:
Documents evaluation of CLASIX-3 results for drywell breaks against criteria submitted in HGN-091 (6-25-86)
I 1
i Y
L PENDING HCOG SUBMITTALS (CONT'D),
o 1/4 Scale Test Facility Final Design Report (Task 9.15)
Schedule:
December, 1986
Purpose:
Delineates final bases for and design configuration of the 1/4 scale test facility 4
- Updates draft design information provided in HGN-012 (8-13-83) o 1/4 Scale Test Facility Final Test Report (Task 9.28)
Schedule:
April, 1987
Purpose:
Provides discussion of results from the four production test series
[
v r
PLANT SPECIFIC VERSUS GENERIC 1.
Generic:
Define' hydrogen control system criteria Plant Specific:
Design and install igniter system 2.
Generic:
Develop generic Combustible Gas Control Emergency Procedure Guideline Plant Specific:
Implementation in plant emergency operating procedures 3.
Generic:
Develop and validate equipment survivability methodology Plant Specific:
Apply survivability methodology to analysis of plant equipment
r a
. HC0G has been using Rev. 3 of the BWR Owners Group EPGs in its considera-tion of the integration of HCOG EPGs for the hydrogen generation event.
HC0G will consider Rev. 4 when it is officially transmitted to the NRC staff.
Comments made by HCOG in response to staff questions regarding the presentation of the. validation of methods for calculating equipment temperature (Enclosure 5) are:
The method of analysis does not take into account re adiation from the HCU floor grating because quarter scale tests show that it is not signifi-cant. Neither does the method of analysis consider equipment (e.g. hatch seals) located in a flame zone because there is no equipment located in
~ flame zones..
The effect of depressurization'of the containment on temperature distri-bution within the containment has not been considered because such depressurization during hydrogen burning has been considered to' be very unlikely.
Odginal sieriod by Lester L. Kintner, Project Manager BWR Project Directorate No. 4 Division of BWR Licensing
Enclosures:
DISTRIBUTION As stated
_iDocket File cc w/ enclosures:
NRC PDR
_i See next page LPDR PD#4 Rdg.
WButler LKintner Young, 0GC (Bethesda)
EJordan BGrimes ACRS (10)
NRC Participants PDf4/PM PD#4/D LKintner:lb WButler lg /3]/86 (031/86