ML20155F053

Summary of 740116 Meeting W/Util in San Jose,Ca Re Staff Review of Proposed Containment Design.Meeting Agenda Encl

ML20155F053
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf, 05000000
Issue date:	03/29/1974
From:	Owsley G US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20155E140	List: ML20155E133 ML20155E182 ML20155E227 ML20155E338 ML20155E354 ML20155E367 ML20155E405 ML20155E430 ML20155E447 ML20155E473 ML20155E503 ML20155E550 ML20155E557 ML20155E565 ML20155E578 ML20155E600 ML20155E714 ML20155E728 ML20155E753 ML20155E770 ML20155E794 ML20155E948 ML20155E967 ML20155E986 ML20155F001 ML20155F053 ML20155F176 ML20155F191 ML20155F203 ML20155F217 ML20155F228 ML20155F252 ML20155F279 ML20155F302 ML20155F332 ML20155F378 ML20155F477 ML20155F485 ML20155F516 ML20155F534 ML20155F545 ML20155F560 ML20155F589 ML20155G308
References
FOIA-88-91 NUDOCS 8806160280
Download: ML20155F053 (4)

Text

--

~'

t l '. ,

e -

• UNITED STATES (,,,

/ )..', ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION /(-

r WASHINGTON. D.C. 20545

• s, 1 M, ,- f,'

s) hil.R 2 9 1974 DOCKET NOS: 50-416/417 APPLICANT: Mississippi Power & Light Company (MP&L)

FACILITY: Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Units 1 & 2 SUFMARY OF MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1974 The legulatory staff (staff) met with representatives of MP&L, the Gene al Electric Company and Bechtel Corp. in San Jose, California.,

on January 16, 1974, regarding the staff's review of the proposed containment design. The agenda for the meeting is enclosed. The purpcse of the meeting was to obtain further information in regard to those matters listed in the agenda. MP&L agreed to provide by early February specific information primarily in regard to blowdown rates following a design basis recirculation line break. -

< j

/

o Ah l $ /[.Q/ h, G.' Owsley, Project >!anager Light Water Reactors P(oject Branch 1-2 Directorate of Licensing

Enclosure:

Agenda 88 61 FOIA 280 OME PDR pop -

CONNOROB-91

- M ,/

w-g + -------..--,.,3 y-- g,,_ , - . . , , . ,  % , _,, _,_

I i AGENDA FOR DISCUSSIGNS WITil Mp6L REGARDING y CRAND CULF CONTAINiENT MTTERS SAN JOSE CALIFORNI A JANUARY 16 2 1974 l l

l I. ANALYTICAL MODELS ,

(1) Following a loss-of-coolant accident, dynamic loads are imposed i

on both the suppression pool retaining structures and structures located immediately above the pool. Describe the analytical methods which were used to determine these types of loads and how these loads were incorporated in the structural design.

Provide the magnitudes of these loads which were used in the structural analysis conducted by the structural designer.

, (1) Provide similar information as outlined in (1) above for the actuation of one or more primary system pressure relief valves.

(3) Operatingexperienceatthehuergassenreactorfacilityhas indicated that pressure oscillations resulting from relief valve operation can be a significant design consideration. Discuss the potential for similar oscillations occurring'on the Mark III design and the provisions made in the design to prevent structural damage.

(4) Operating experience at Erown's Ferry, Unit 1, has indicated excessive vibration of the torus structure during relief valve operation. Discuss the significance of this experience with respect to the design of the Mark III structure.

4 9

o

\ l

.l l

Y l (5) For the recirculation line rupture, it appears that the primary d system was modeled as a single volume at the average primary system enthalpy. In addition, the total break area was assumed to be the sum of a single-ended pipe area, the throat area

~

of 12 jet pumps and the clean-up flow area. This approach does not include the effect of the subcooled mass initially contained within the recirculation loop which could result in high calculated drywell differential pressores and appears ,

to be unacceptable. Revise the modeling of the recirculation system to include this effect or justify, in detail, the adequacy of the current model. Provide a table of blowdown mass and energy addition rates as a function of time.

II. TEST PROGRAM (1) For those pool dynamic ef fects considered in I(l) above, describe the testing methods that will be used to verify the analytical results. Include the methods used to determine any non-representative effects caused by the test facility side walls and the validity of measured dynamic impact loads above the segmented section formed by the side walls.

(2) Discuss the experimental bases by which the calculated structural loads due to relief valve actuation'will be verified for Mark III i

containments.

i l

(3) Describe the test methods that will be used to determine the l 1

, I l

l

~l amount of direct steam bypass of the suppression pool or incomplete c)ndensation.

s (4) In our letter to the General Electric Company of November 12, 1973, we asked that they provide a summary of previous pressure suppression testing which was used to establish the test objectives of the current Mark III program.

Please provide this information and, specifically address the fol:owing:

(a) parameter ranges which were tested (e.g., vent submergence',

vent diameters, vent mass flux, pool temperature),

., (b) to what extent were multiple vent tests performed, (c) to what extent were long term pool performance tests performed (e.g. , pool stratification and vent chugging),

(d) discuss the extent to which previous pressure suppression i'

test data was able to be extrapolated to the Mark III y

design.

III. OTHER MATTERS (1) Discuss the status of the containment spray system design.

(2) Discuss the status of the hydrogen recirculation system design with respect to interlocks and isolation diversity.

_ 1_