ML20247Q658

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of ACRS Subcommittees on Containment Sys & Structural Engineering 890418 Meeting in Bethesda,Md Re Development of ACRS Paper on Design Criteria for Containments
ML20247Q658
Person / Time
Issue date: 05/05/1989
From:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
References
ACRS-2638, NUDOCS 8908070218
Download: ML20247Q658 (6)


Text

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - .

  • ~

0823-a638

tBTIFH DATE ISSUED: 5/5/89

('QR Y W ACRS Joint Subcommittees Meeting Summary / Minutes For Containment Systems / Structural Engineering April 18, 1989 Bethesda, Maryland Purpose The ACRS Subcommittees on Containment Systems and Structura' Engineering held a Joint meetine on April 18, 1989 in Bethesda, Marylar:1. The purpose of this meeting was to initiate the development of an ACRS paper en design criteria for containments based on present knowledge by discussing current containment design criteria with the NRC Staff and a summary of foreign design criteria with an ACRS Fellows. A copy of the meeting agenda is attached. The meeting began at 8:30 a.m. and adjourced at 4:00 p.m. and was held eatirely in open session. The principal attendees were as follows:

Attendees ACRS NRC D. Ward, Co-Chairman T. Speis, RES C. Siess, Co-Chairman A. Thadani, NRR J. Carroll, Member J. Mitchell, RES I. Catton, Member B. Hardin, RES W. Kerr, Member C. Tinkler, NRR

.P. Shewmon, Member J. Costello, RES M. Corradini, Consultant T. Pratt, Consultant (BNL)

M. Stella, Fellow D. Houston, Staff E. Igne, Staff Review Documents There were no formal documents to be reviewed at this meeting. The ACRS 7 effort on this subject is in response to a Staff Requirements Memorandum dated July 28, 1988 which was written following an ACRS meeting with the Co mission on July 14, 1988.

DESIGNATED ORiczyjg, o hb 2638 kh; Certiffed 73 7 /g

~-

L* Joint Containment Systems /

Structural Engineering Minutes April-18, 1989 Actions, Agreements and Commitments (1) The Subcommittee agreed to hold three follow-on meetings on this subject with invited speakers. The tentative location for these meetings was: (a) San Francisco, (b)' Chicago, and (c) Bethesda.

(2). The Staff agreed to furnish various documents or references on the following topics:

(a) a reference for the miudy on continuous leakage monitoring, (b). a description of the .@L tat >ts on core debris coolability, and (c) a document that deals with the containment issues under study.

(3) T. Speis (RES) agreed tnat some Staff resources should be assigned to study the whole spectrum of containment design criteria and the more severe spectrum of events, and that he would take this message to.his management.

Discussion In his opening comments, D. Ward indicated that the purpose of this ACRS activity was to' promote the development of a comprehensive new set of containment design criteria based on the experience and knowledge gained over.the past 30 years. He noted that no programs seem to be in-place within NRC or industry to develop these criteria and expressed his disappointment that no new criteria are being considered for the current evolutionary or advanced LWRs proposed by industry, DOE and EPRI.

T. Speis (RES) indicated that the Staff had no formal presentation but that they were prepared to discuss containment performance criteria in the following three areas:

Y-___ _ ___ __ __ __ _ _

l-Joint Containment Systems /

Structural Engineering Minutes April 18, 1989 (1) theContainment'PerformanceImprovement(CPI)programwhichconsid-ers enhancements for the current containments at operating plants.

l (2)'~the review interaction with the advanced or evolutionary LWRs (EPRI' and vendors) with the' emphasis on the ABWR, and (3) the approach pursued in the implementation plan for the safety goals, mostly in the consideration and definition of a large re-lease.

A. Thadani (NRR) briefly discussed the NRC review process for certifica-tion of the ABWR which includes hearings and rulemaking proceedings.

.Since these hearings are to begin late next year, he indicated that it would not be.possible to have new rules for containment design in place by that time.

l ,B. Hardin (RES) and C. Tinkler (NRR) discussed the various challenges to containment structures that are currently under review by the Staff and that will 'need resolution for approval of the evolutionary or advanced LWRs. These issues included: (1)hydrogencontrol,(2)over-pressuri-zation and venting, (3) core-concrete interaction, (4) direct contain-ment heating, (5) containment heat removal, (6) containment bypass, (7) steam generator tube rupture (PWRs), (8) interfacing LOCA, and (9) debris bed coolability. Other issues discussed were: (1) continuous monitoring for containment leakage, and (2) static and dynamic load structural analysis.

Much of this discussion was focused on hydrogen control. For evolution-ary LWRs (ABWR and EPRI), the Staff will require the applicant to design hydrogen control measures to accommodate 100% metal-water-reaction (MWR) for that cladding along the active fuel length. EPRI/00E feel that only 75% MWR should be considered. In the EPRI design without inerting or ignitors, they address hydrogen control by keeping the calculated

y _3 Joint Containment. Systems /

Structural. Engineering Minutes April-18, 1989 concentration'of hydrogen below 10%. A containment volume of 2.6 l million cubic feet would be required for 75% MWR while 4.3 million cubic

- feet would be required for 100% MWR.

EPRI supports.the lower MWR value on the basis of the mitigating effects of steam. If volumetric control' L is not sufficient, then control by inerting or ignitors will be re-

_ quired. With MWR based only on active fuel length consideration this-represents approximately- 80% of the zircaloy in PWRs. but a lesser' value l: for BWRs.

T. Pratt (BNL) discussed core catchers, core-concrete interaction and core debris bed coolability. He indicated that refractory core catchers L would.not be recommended since this could keep the debris molten for a long period during which the bulk of the fission products would be expelled into the atmosphere. He also comented on the guidance given in the IPE documents on debris bed coolability, that a-bed depth of 25 cm or less was considered coolable under all circumstances.

M. Stella (-ACRS) presented a review of foreign reactor containment design criteria. He discussed the current USA design requirements embodied in 12 of the General Design Criteria (GDC). He also discussed the design objective, containment-functional requirements, and contain-

- ment design bases for standard containment designs in FRG, France, UK and Japan. He then summarized the severe accident containment eval-uation basis for these same foreign plants. It was noted that DCH is not considered as a major issue at any foreign plant and that in Japan, core melt is considered as incredible.

During the discussion, the Subcommittee Members and Consultant expressed various comments and concerns as follows (random order):

(1) D. Ward expressed a concern that the agency, and specifically NRC/RES, did not have a well defined or existing program to pursue the issue of containment design criteria for future plants. T.

Speis indicated that he would take this message to his management.

1

.( -

~

Joint Containment Systems /

Structural Engineering Minutes .

April 18. 1989 (2) C. Siesc expressed a concern, in regard to rulemaking hearings for the ABWR, that containment design criteria would be established by litigation rather than technical development.

(3) D. Ward expressed a concern, in regard to 100% MWR considerations, that a designer electing a larger core with lower power density would be unduly penalized by needing a larger containment.

(4) C. Siess expressed a concern, in regard to venting, that the primary purpose of containment -- keeping fission products from the public -- would be violated.

(5) W. Kerr expressed a concern that by assuming 100% MWR, one is not considering realistic core melt progression or melt expulsion conditions.

(6) J. Carroll indicated that there are real incentives on a safety bas's to get away from inerting for hydrogen control.

(7) In answer to a question by C. Siess, the Staff indicted that current containments are designed to accommodate the combined loading from a LOCA plus the SSE.

(8) 1.,Catton and M. Corradini expressed concerns about the calcu-lations and assumptions in regard to the values for core bed depth and debris coolability.

Concluding Remarks and Plans for Future Subcommittee Activities The Subcommittee discussed a plan of action to further the development of a paper on containment design criteria for future plants. D. Ward  ;

asked the Members to review a proposed letter to be sent to invited  !

speakers on this subject. It was agreed to have three follow-on meet-ings to discuss this matter with representatives of reactor vendors,

j

. i I

. i Joint Containment Systems / l Structures Engineering Minutes April 18, 1989 i A-Es, Consultants, and National Laboratories. The first meeting was tentatively planned for the San Francisco area to possibly hear from members of EPRI, Sol Levy, Inc., and Bechtel. A second meeting was discussed for the Chicago area with representatives from ANL, SNL, Sargent and Lundy, and Ontario Hydro. A third meeting was discussed for Bethesda with representatives of CE/ Duke, BNL, Hanauer, Sciencetech, and Joe Hendrie.

NOTE: Additional meetino details can be obtained from a tran-script of this meeting available in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, (202) 634-3273, or can be purchased from Heritage Reporting Corporation, 1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20005,(202) 628-4888.

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _