ML20052D654

Summarizes Crbr Subcommittee 820202-03 Meeting in Washington,Dc

ML20052D654
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	02/08/1982
From:	Zudans Z FRANKLIN INSTITUTE
To:	Carbon M Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
References
ACRS-CT-1415, NUDOCS 8205070050
Download: ML20052D654 (2)

Text

__ - -- . -

. n.

~

x& .

,00. Franklin Research Center A Dndalon of The Frankhn insutute Febr ua ry 8, 19L RECEiVEC c 1 t, cy " r iii C:

Br. Saa W. Carbon N'W'M #

professor and Chairman of 91seleer Engineering Dept. b # gN Sagineering Research Building g .c

, Sntversit of Wisconsin yJI4I el0llM.l I E d 'g,'.

hadison,gI 53706 j

Deb M t CR3R Subconenittee Meeting , Februa ry 2- 3, 1982 Washington, D.C.

Dear Dr. Carbon:

s This was the first meeting after the review had been inter-rupted in 1977.

Staff showed the NRR' CRBR review organization, set up a s a Program Office with licensing and technical review sections.

This review represents the effort toward OP, hence emphasis ir placed on eriteria rather than on the design approval. Unusual aspect about this review is that significant amount of hard are has already been manufactured.

W o letters summerine the prior history: ,

1. Denise to Caffey letter (May 6,1976) provides guidance to the applicant relative to the safety approach, site source term and containment functional requirementa. -

- 3. Sasumill to Caffey lettor (Nov. 19, 1978) providea ataffs assessment of the review status at that time.

A signifisant modification of the design was the' change of the sere from homogeneous to heterogeneous. This appears to isn-

prove breeding ratie and te provide arguments .for reduction of the energy release la the ease of a CDR. Questions relative to the pressure bellt-up and leakage rate from the containment af ter Can are diffissat to resolve and even the factors affecting this result are met all fully understood.

e O

G We ais a f ;_,

3 n. m.sno . w . m & m e - - -

m

-[.hWl $?f

• gr. Isax W. Carbon February 5, 1982

,gefversity~ef Wisconsin .

It mas agreed that the NRC staf f with its contractors will leek et the CDA in detail and bring to this subconsnittee a summary describing CDh's problem related status and the list of the important isomes yet to be addressed. Target date of May 1,1982 for staf f

. , technical evaluation of CDA was set.

I

& aumber of . items to be addressed by staf f and by applicant

were discussed. As a minimum I would suggest that the following question be transmitted to the staff for consideration (this is in i ,

medition to the CDh, and the criteria-prir.-ipal and special) .

! 1. Definition of the construction status of safety related eystems and qomponents. Ttiis discussior should include reference

- to the criteria and specificiations these coeponents were designe'

.te'estisfy.

2. matural circulation - discussic.n of basis for conclusion

• talet natural circulation will take place in various loops. Sunnas y of analysia done to date, discussion of tests (such as Fr2T and why are the FFTF results applicable to CNBRP) should be made part of the response.

3. Provide discussion of residual heat removal systems in varic modes of operation. This discusraon should show heat balances at various points in the system, identify the conditions for operatior of heat sinks (such as need for of f-site power, Diesel powered, I passive, etc.). The heat balances should be shown as snapshots in time and at the onset of steady state operation, indicating ho.

auch time is needed to reach the Staady State and th,e temperature

, reached in various locations et the heat transport equ libriur state.

Very truly yours, enons Eudans

-L(l d

.ses enior Vice President oca E. Igne, ACRS

- 1 t

8 _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _