ML111530446: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| page count = 7 | | page count = 7 | ||
}} | }} | ||
=Text= | |||
{{#Wiki_filter:l * | |||
~' t"~ ~", | |||
r JMIC Ei'-lL-r GY CO\1M!S: ,, | |||
) ',1 l\()'.JCi!i~c.r 17, 1]71 I | |||
l:otc to | |||
/ | |||
E. | |||
P. | |||
Ple2sc lc't Li2 h\Ci~" if yo," concur; if l:ot, \-l,~ 'dill hc!ve to di.scuss it fur::.hc.r and reoch a decision', | |||
l' | |||
'. , .. l.\ | |||
Force Rcvicu | |||
~, | |||
i ( | |||
J | |||
) | |||
S U1LJ l-:c:~r; D I SCU ~~ S JJ):-! | |||
-+-~.-------------- .. -------------.-----~--.----- .. - | |||
~- -~-.- --- ~. -.- -----. ------------.- | |||
: 1. Def:initic~l: Bypass m~~ns n rath without passinG th::ough the ,:2ter of the suppression pool and therefore without condensing th~ | |||
: 2. Consen\lC'nces a) L~rge LOCh - no problem. | |||
b) Small LOCA - slow pressure buildup in dryoell, bypass lets wetwcll pressure follow without cond~nsing steam. | |||
This trouble cases on slowly, but if the prim3ry leak widens and the LOCA severity in-creases (the advertised course of cvc~ts for a big leak starts 5m311) then the bi~ | |||
.. /. - | |||
b10,:doh'n p,-essure vill build on the c.:":istin~; pressure built up sJ.O'.;l::.') and the con-taiument would overpr~ssurize. | |||
That could l03~ the torus | |||
~ | |||
water source, hence ECeS, as well as leak out fission products. | |||
: 3. Prob2bility a) Small pri~3ry lLak rather probable - alreauy hnd one S10'.7 blowdown (Dresden 2). Another (Honticello) b1m'ldmm occurred through the byp:,ss valve, then through a safety valve. A large leak i~ improbable, but is supposed to be a small one first. | |||
b) GE claim~ two passive failures b) The GE position that this are required for trouble, but is too improbable to any malfunction of 12 vacuum worry about is rejected. | |||
sp~cted in the locus, over ~O y~3rs will set up half th8 accident, rc~dy {or tr6~blc if | |||
: a. s tC0.:~ leak occurs. | |||
c) 0;11)" a limited L',r~f:~ of lc:,-~~ c) Further study is required sizes gets into trouble. for this and other configura-Large L!aks clc;lr the VC.l1ts tions, including sensitivity and assumption va~iations. | |||
postulated bypass. Very snaIl leaks are condensed on the dry>*,cll ,,70.11. Thc "t~:2ched GE cu;::ve subrailted foc E",:~,:h ? | |||
has not been revicw~d very much by REG) shQ";.Js SOt:le troub]-,~ | |||
0.05 - 0.5 ft. 2 Other GS containments (s~311er 0= over/ | |||
under with ~eepcr vents, or other parameters dif[cre~t). | |||
have problems not yet calcu-latc~ and, in some cases, worse than Ho.tch. | |||
'V "eli ~. - ()~l .DECFIO::S | |||
'r-- ----~-- ----------- -- | |||
/ | |||
a) Containment spray (particularly torus air s pac e spr<lY) \7C'~i lcl We cnnnot expect an operator 0 condense t 1t c. s t CeliU and L! e ~ -;,:c G.S C. the r,ravcyarc! shift to sort ou the pressure, but at enormous the pros and con~ of turning cost (ruin equipment in dry- oti the containree~t sprny, w~ll, maybe hnve to retire thus ruining his reactor) to reactor). In present designs, cope \*11 lh a trarsicnt he -only contain~cnt spray water is dimly undcrstan2s. | |||
diverted fro:;\ the LPCIS, thus from Eces. | |||
b) Inservice inspection of poten- b) Check the! valve ~.lu [f c~re-tial bypass leakage: corrosion, fully to make sure it cracks in vent pipes, nalfunc- doesn't increas~ (too ~u~~) | |||
tioning valves. The Ha:ch the probability of f<1i1u:::e.. | |||
applicant offcrs an elaborate Push for adequate inspection I | |||
scheme to inc~ica::e the' positions of valves and pipes. | |||
of the: valves using rec1u:1cL:mt devices) and to allo~l rC;010te testing of the valves, but nothing in the H.JY of inspection. | |||
DEcr STO:~S ication | |||
--<..A.-______ ._ \ | |||
past and prcse~t CE prcss~re- co~~it~cnt to stu2y 2~d fix the problc~ in whatever 40 such ar~ already app~u~2d. way is fou~~. F6r back-Hatch-2 C? is th~ next ACRS fitting. wait until fixQ5 revie\.]. are studied and problem is scope:d. | |||
b) CE wants us and ACRS not to mention the ~roblen publicI;. from nml on for plants They are afraid of delaying affected will have to 'fcss up. Hearings for CP s~0ul~ | |||
be satisfied ,;Hh a s<.:itab 1 commitment; if they're not. | |||
maybe that's a suitable spu-::- to CE- to resolve the problel:l. In any event-, th is probably trouble for Vermont Yankee and Pilcri~ | |||
hearings; it will have to | |||
) | |||
DECISTO::S faced ~nd a real solutio~ | |||
found. All GE prc3sure stippression cases in hearinG | |||
,*lill soon have to Get letters fio~ REG aboutth~ problen; better that they hear from us than from 2~ ACRS letter on. another caSe. | |||
2 CP ACRS letter docs nat mention the problem, thus giving us a li:t c more time. The subject is dis-cussc~ in the ?ublicly aV0.ilaolc Hatch-2 docket as an ::mSiJer to a DRL question.}} |
Latest revision as of 22:13, 10 March 2020
ML111530446 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Pilgrim |
Issue date: | 06/01/2011 |
From: | Pilgrim Watch |
To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
SECY RAS | |
Shared Package | |
ML111530440 | List: |
References | |
RAS 20407, 50-293-LR, ASLBP 06-848-02-LR | |
Download: ML111530446 (7) | |
Text
l *
~' t"~ ~",
r JMIC Ei'-lL-r GY CO\1M!S: ,,
) ',1 l\()'.JCi!i~c.r 17, 1]71 I
l:otc to
/
E.
P.
Ple2sc lc't Li2 h\Ci~" if yo," concur; if l:ot, \-l,~ 'dill hc!ve to di.scuss it fur::.hc.r and reoch a decision',
l'
'. , .. l.\
Force Rcvicu
~,
i (
J
)
S U1LJ l-:c:~r; D I SCU ~~ S JJ):-!
-+-~.-------------- .. -------------.-----~--.----- .. -
~- -~-.- --- ~. -.- -----. ------------.-
- 1. Def:initic~l: Bypass m~~ns n rath without passinG th::ough the ,:2ter of the suppression pool and therefore without condensing th~
- 2. Consen\lC'nces a) L~rge LOCh - no problem.
b) Small LOCA - slow pressure buildup in dryoell, bypass lets wetwcll pressure follow without cond~nsing steam.
This trouble cases on slowly, but if the prim3ry leak widens and the LOCA severity in-creases (the advertised course of cvc~ts for a big leak starts 5m311) then the bi~
.. /. -
b10,:doh'n p,-essure vill build on the c.:":istin~; pressure built up sJ.O'.;l::.') and the con-taiument would overpr~ssurize.
That could l03~ the torus
~
water source, hence ECeS, as well as leak out fission products.
- 3. Prob2bility a) Small pri~3ry lLak rather probable - alreauy hnd one S10'.7 blowdown (Dresden 2). Another (Honticello) b1m'ldmm occurred through the byp:,ss valve, then through a safety valve. A large leak i~ improbable, but is supposed to be a small one first.
b) GE claim~ two passive failures b) The GE position that this are required for trouble, but is too improbable to any malfunction of 12 vacuum worry about is rejected.
sp~cted in the locus, over ~O y~3rs will set up half th8 accident, rc~dy {or tr6~blc if
- a. s tC0.:~ leak occurs.
c) 0;11)" a limited L',r~f:~ of lc:,-~~ c) Further study is required sizes gets into trouble. for this and other configura-Large L!aks clc;lr the VC.l1ts tions, including sensitivity and assumption va~iations.
postulated bypass. Very snaIl leaks are condensed on the dry>*,cll ,,70.11. Thc "t~:2ched GE cu;::ve subrailted foc E",:~,:h ?
has not been revicw~d very much by REG) shQ";.Js SOt:le troub]-,~
0.05 - 0.5 ft. 2 Other GS containments (s~311er 0= over/
under with ~eepcr vents, or other parameters dif[cre~t).
have problems not yet calcu-latc~ and, in some cases, worse than Ho.tch.
'V "eli ~. - ()~l .DECFIO::S
'r-- ----~-- ----------- --
/
a) Containment spray (particularly torus air s pac e spr<lY) \7C'~i lcl We cnnnot expect an operator 0 condense t 1t c. s t CeliU and L! e ~ -;,:c G.S C. the r,ravcyarc! shift to sort ou the pressure, but at enormous the pros and con~ of turning cost (ruin equipment in dry- oti the containree~t sprny, w~ll, maybe hnve to retire thus ruining his reactor) to reactor). In present designs, cope \*11 lh a trarsicnt he -only contain~cnt spray water is dimly undcrstan2s.
diverted fro:;\ the LPCIS, thus from Eces.
b) Inservice inspection of poten- b) Check the! valve ~.lu [f c~re-tial bypass leakage: corrosion, fully to make sure it cracks in vent pipes, nalfunc- doesn't increas~ (too ~u~~)
tioning valves. The Ha:ch the probability of f<1i1u:::e..
applicant offcrs an elaborate Push for adequate inspection I
scheme to inc~ica::e the' positions of valves and pipes.
of the: valves using rec1u:1cL:mt devices) and to allo~l rC;010te testing of the valves, but nothing in the H.JY of inspection.
DEcr STO:~S ication
--<..A.-______ ._ \
past and prcse~t CE prcss~re- co~~it~cnt to stu2y 2~d fix the problc~ in whatever 40 such ar~ already app~u~2d. way is fou~~. F6r back-Hatch-2 C? is th~ next ACRS fitting. wait until fixQ5 revie\.]. are studied and problem is scope:d.
b) CE wants us and ACRS not to mention the ~roblen publicI;. from nml on for plants They are afraid of delaying affected will have to 'fcss up. Hearings for CP s~0ul~
be satisfied ,;Hh a s<.:itab 1 commitment; if they're not.
maybe that's a suitable spu-::- to CE- to resolve the problel:l. In any event-, th is probably trouble for Vermont Yankee and Pilcri~
hearings; it will have to
)
DECISTO::S faced ~nd a real solutio~
found. All GE prc3sure stippression cases in hearinG
,*lill soon have to Get letters fio~ REG aboutth~ problen; better that they hear from us than from 2~ ACRS letter on. another caSe.
2 CP ACRS letter docs nat mention the problem, thus giving us a li:t c more time. The subject is dis-cussc~ in the ?ublicly aV0.ilaolc Hatch-2 docket as an ::mSiJer to a DRL question.