ML20235E571

Submits Comments & Recommendations on 750212 & 13 Meetings W/Ge in San Jose,Ca Re Mark III Experimental Testing Program & GE Analytical Methods.Relief Valve & Pool Dynamic Loads, Seismic Testing & Asymmetric Effects Addressed

ML20235E571
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, 05000531
Issue date:	03/26/1975
From:	Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Stuart I GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
Shared Package
ML20234E460	List: ML20234E457 ML20234E570 ML20234E632 ML20234E685 ML20234E736 ML20234E798 ML20235B143 ML20235C320 ML20235C384 ML20235C401 ML20235C457 ML20235C519 ML20235C563 ML20235C636 ML20235C736 ML20235C753 ML20235C830 ML20235C896 ML20235C907 ML20235C912 ML20235C926 ML20235C931 ML20235C941 ML20235C944 ML20235D492 ML20235D516 ML20235D643 ML20235D684 ML20235D736 ML20235D963 ML20235E005 ML20235E021 ML20235E056 ML20235E199 ML20235E244 ML20235E571 ML20235E583 ML20235E615 ML20235E659 ML20235E682 ML20235E732 ML20235E841 ML20235E873 ML20235E912 ML20235E949 ML20235E964 ML20235F083 ML20235F117 ML20235F637 ML20244B882 ... further results
References
FOIA-87-40 NUDOCS 8707130006
Download: ML20235E571 (2)

Text

_ _ _ _ _____ _ _

5t 5JJ I

UNITED STATES [ [86 i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 h j I

r RECEeVED g

Mr. Ivan Stuart, Manager g j- MAR 2 6 575 Safety and Licensing g f f ef t g y p Nucicar Energy Division pg 4 g General Electric Company 4. m ~ i 175 Curtner Avenue @#' '

San Jose, California 95114 J S A10dc. ...: %Y COMM.

NDVISORY CLMMilTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS

Dear Mr. Stuart:

i As you know, members of the NRC staff met with yo. representatives on February 12 and 13, 1975 in San Jose to discuss various aspects of the Mark III experimental testing program and your analytical methods.

Based on the information we received at this meeting we are providing for your consideration the following comments and recommendations:

1. Relief Valve Loads - Your staff indicated that the GE analytical l model for predicting relief valve clearing loads, described in NED0-10859, has been refined for application to Mark III. In addition, small-scale relief valve tests will be conducted at your facility in San Jose, to confirm the performance of the model. We believe that these measures are adequate on an in-  !

terim basis and we request that you keep us informed of the progress of the program. However, we believe that additional confirmation of the loads determined by the test program will be required by actual plant testing of relief valve loads during startup testing. We would consider testing of the pro-totype of each class of. plants and relief valve configuration  ;

as being sufficient.

2. Pool Dynamic Loads - Your staff indicated that pool dynamic load specifications for structures which are partially immersed in the suppression pool would be based on calculated drag loads only. We believe that these structures could 'also be subject to air bubble loads. Therefore these type of structures should be simulated on the 1/3 scale Mark III test f acility and loads verified experimentally.

Your staff also noted, with respect to the structures located -

above the suppression pool, that their' experimental approach in determining pool swell loads would be based on a correlation of water ligament thickness and water ligament velocity. They maintained that knowledge of these two parameters defines pool swell loads independent of other factors such as initial vent submergence and pool surface to structure distance. Appropriate f*'% Q m p = m.m e v g-e EE % k-!c

. ~M', {c X 6,8 i $ h's c =-

g s y 1 g M y[, L _ a s .

g g \ u

w. .,4 s0 3 0 . m y n :nv h, ,;nt.c. , u. m'

- re c. maa(f;rJCf B707130006 070623 PDR FOIA s PDR THOMASB7-40

n Mr. Ivan Stuart MAR 2 6 y{5 justification for this approach should be provided. However, we currently. believe that additional testing may be required to confirm these loads with test conditions that duplicate actual plant design parameters. ,

3. Seismic Testing - Your staff Laformed us that they have done analytical modeling and are funding a test program to determine the response of the suppression' pool to seismic events. We believe that wave genera-tion in the pool could result in locally deeper submergences for certain horizontal vent stacks and therefore larger pool swell loads.

We request that you clarify the manner by which the results of the seismic studies ,will be factored into the design of Mark III.

4. Asymmetric Effects - It was apparent from our discussions with your staff that they have not fully investigated the potential for asymmetric containment response. We require that you perform such a study that considers both the possible types and magnitudes of asymmetric response and the Mark III's capability to sustain such response profiles.

We are available to discuss any of the foregoing items with your represent-atives.

6 4- E l Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director  !

for Containment Safety Division of Technical Review Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: Mr. L. S. Gifford .

Suite 1107 .

General Electric Company 4720 Montgomery Lane Bethesda, Md. 20014 6

4 9 999= 4 W * * * " 44 4.g