ML20234D662
| ML20234D662 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1976 |
| From: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Deyoung R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20234C970 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-40 NUDOCS 8707070293 | |
| Download: ML20234D662 (3) | |
Text
.
bb hkhk.hikkkkhb'h h k k h h [ h h h [hft h hlfIf h ( [.]
m
.m r****
f, a
[f r
' s,.. \\;e. -
.p T
.MAY '10 B76 s[
.l
=
'f-3;;
,m
- w
A.
'[gN.-
j,., ;
-R. C. DeYoung, Assistant' Director for Light Water Reactors, DPM
?
k MARL II CONTAINMENT DYNAMIC FORCING FIWCTIONS INFORMATION REPORT, NEDO-21061,
.T.
- (TAR TO BE' ISSUED) -
at
?
Q As a. result of. our meeting with the Mark II owners group held in Bethesda;on y
April 29, 1976, the Contvinmant Systems Branch has prepared, the enclosed p!i request for additional 1:2 formation...This request is in addition to our.
f,4p
' concerns. transmitted to R. C. DeYoung dated April 30, 1976 concerning our-El review of Mark II containment dynamic' forcing function information report, 4
NEDo-21061, September 1975. These questions should be sent to both
(.N -
General Electric and.the individual Mark II owners.
M p
A Oriri m.
g%r4 %
q E;.
Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director
.1
..s for Plant Systems it Division cf Systems Safety.
Y..
dj '.
Enclosure:
n' As acated
)
.ti cca R. Heineman S. Hanauer g-M' R. Boyd y]
S Minor J. Clynn DISTRIBUTION:
?.i J. Kudrick NRR READING C. Lainas CSE READING g.
S. Varga PS READING L
C. Anderson CENTRAL FILES d3 R..Maccary (2)
Mq
' J/((
Mil h
.I j
t p f' s,
?!'t :
1 v
i Y/*
Pj) '
B707070293 870527 V
d h
S-PDR FOIA g
4 THOMAS 87-40 PDR JS DSS:P orrsca >
C.SB:PS
.CS.B.:PS LadIa's RLTedeho _.
CAnderson: t,,JKudri eunwa wh >
.(
5/7/76.9/f _517 n6 5/0176 5./G /z6
.m.
- u. a. sovsawusxv enswvene drracas tota.eae. toe l.f,
l ', poem AEC.518 (Rev. 9 55) ABCM 0240 d;;
n%a u.ei.7' ,:: '1.'2L;qygg7weg;fFwyd.2%;MLAsWa.nptyp"m. qmc;5.pyNewnq;g;.neNvp;p> a;g^ pag 3g p
s m.;
q qww"%
GMT&aa.m&x=::13 n% %EA..
%G b~.MiirEn jm a
n n
- lj 2
.T 3!I REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION nf
}MRK II CONTAINMENT DYNAMIC FORCING FUNCTIONS INFORMATION REPORT y
jl
%l
- 9.,.
22.
The load combinations to be considered for the design assessment of the Mark
{
II containment are presented in Section 5.2 of the DFFIR. The load combina-k tions for the large line' break do not consider actuation of a single SRV h,s ij concurrent with a large break. Consideration of a single active failure
~,
('!.
will result in this load combination. Accordingly we will require that this m;
[f load combination be considered for the Mark II containment design assessment.
'k (d
23.
In April 1975 generic questions related to pool owell and SRV loads for Nrk
,a-JQ II type containments were sent to utilities with Mark II containment. In t
.3
%.N this letter we requested that information be supplied to " describe the.
[.;
manner by which petential asymmetric loads were considered in the contain-A f
ment design. Characteri::e the type and magnia:de of posiible asymetric 9,1.
- 3l]
loads and the capabilities of the affected structures to withstand such a fj.
y loading profile.
This information was not supplied in the DFFIR.
....ay Accordingly, we require that an evaluation be presented of asymmetric loads b
d in the Mark II containment. Potential asymmetric loads resulting from SRV y
ik actuation and f rom asymmetries in vent flow should be considered. In addi-4, 4
tion, provide an evaluation of the capability of the Mark II containment fi
.+
Pj-for asymmetric pool dynamic loads.
ll f3 24.
The DFFIR provides an analytical evaluation of the pool dynamic loads for the Mark Il containment. At the April 28, 1976 Mark II meeting dealing with Mark sa Q
~
L II pool dynamic loads the Mark II owners group stated that the 4T tests dw gj would provide experimental confirmation of the analytical methods described M
P ly i, I a
- .i
}
$$hEWSf5b$${$h{${&l$$$E$$$$$$$$??Sk$$5h$$$$k'YNh$$h&hih$h ga s. -
i
+:
j '",j c
~
~
,p
. V b
1:
9-
[
in the DFFIR. - It is theiposition of 'the staff. that acceptance of the pool dynamic. loads by the NRC staff'is contingent. on the NRC review and acceptance I;
o'f < tb < results' of the 4T test program and, a comparison of the test data with b
F the analytical:methodsLdescribed in.'the DFFIR.
i!
25.
We' have net received a' detailed description of the test matrix to, be conducted -
g 5
[.
for evaluation of the Mark II pool dynamic. loads.- The description of the 4T lI test program.we have received indicates that 4T air tests have not been consid-i ered. -In the evaluation of pool dynamic loads; for the Mark I and Mark III 4
l containment design, air tests ;were conducted to. provide data - for some of f
'.the pool dynamic' loads. ~ Becau6e'of the potential for a high air fraction in
)-
l~
the vent flow during the early portion of a LOCA we currently believe that air tests should be conducted as a part of the Mark II pool dynamic load l
~ test program.
p
- 26. ' The DFFIR presents a description'of a number of LOCA related hydrodynamic i
l loads without' differentiating between primary and secondary loads.. Frovide.
I L
this differentiation between the primary and secondary LOCA related hydro-l~
dynamic loads. We recognize that this differentiation may vary from plant
'to plant. We would designate ns a primary load any load that has or will
~
. result in a design modification in any Mark II containment since the pool i
V;L dynamic concerns-were identified in our April 1975 generic letters.
L L
4s l.4 L
L I.
-g
wm.-
_.---_-_A
-