ML20140G467

Forwards ALAB-444 Info Re Task A-39, Determination of Safety/Relief Valve Pool Dynamic Loads & Temp Limits for BWR Containment, for Review,Per E Case 771207 Request

ML20140G467
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/19/1977
From:	Teh-Chiun Su Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Aycock M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20140F372	List: ML20140F369 ML20140F376 ML20140F485 ML20140F505 ML20140F512 ML20140F516 ML20140F522 ML20140F533 ML20140F546 ML20140F559 ML20140F580 ML20140F593 ML20140F603 ML20140F628 ML20140F657 ML20140F689 ML20140F695 ML20140F724 ML20140F750 ML20140F770 ML20140F788 ML20140F807 ML20140F950 ML20140F981 ML20140G002 ML20140G028 ML20140G069 ML20140G098 ML20140G110 ML20140G170 ML20140G175 ML20140G183 ML20140G188 ML20140G202 ML20140G215 ML20140G221 ML20140G226 ML20140G231 ML20140G236 ML20140G241 ML20140G253 ML20140G259 ML20140G264 ML20140G268 ML20140G274 ML20140G280 ML20140G286 ML20140G303 ML20140G325 ML20140G330 ... further results
References
FOIA-85-665, REF-GTECI-A-39, REF-GTECI-CO, TASK-A-39, TASK-OR NUDOCS 8604020403
Download: ML20140G467 (2)

Text

.

0 ,.

. .. ~j 3

8 '* UNITED 5TATES 3' t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j

'#l .j WASHINGTON. D. C. 20666 s  !

'% ,,,,, / DEC 1 S1977 MEMORANDUM FOR: M. Aycock, Technical Assistant, Technical Support Section, Program Support Branch, ONRR FROM: T. M. Su, A-39 Task Manager, Containment Systems Branch, DSS

SUBJECT:

GENERIC TECHNICAL ACTIVITIES Enclosed for review is the ALAB-444 information requested by Edson Case in his December 7,1977 memorandum for Task A-39 " Determination of i

Safety Relief Valve (SRV) Pool Dynamic Loads and Temperature Limits for BWR Containment." This review will also be concurrent with those l listed as cc.

T. M. Su, A-39 Task Manager Containment Systems Branch Division of Systems Safety

Enclosures:

As Stated ,

cc: R. Mattson V. Stello R. Boyd R. Tedesco W. Minners G. Lainas J. Glynn e

0604020403 860114 PDR FOIA

. FIRESTOG5-665 PDR D-23

~ .,-

J .g\

i .

[ fj

?

TASK ACTION PLAN A-39 APPLICABILITY This task action plan applies to BWR plants with Mark I, II and III type containments.

Task A-39 will provide the basis for establishing acceptance criteria for SRV loads, which in conjunction with A-7 (Mark I Long Term Program) and A-8 (Mark II Containment Pool Dynamics) provides a complete evaluation of pool dynamic loads for BWR containments. In addition Task A-39 provides a program to establish suppression pool temperature limits.

BASIS FOR CONTINUED PLANT OPERATION AND LICENSING PENDING COMPLETION OF TASK For plants with Mark I containments either in operation or not yet licensed for operation, the justification for continued operation and licensing is based on our evaluation of operating experiences. SRV operating experience has shown that in all but a few instances, SRV discharges have performed satisfactorily without any evidence of damage. In those isolated cases where localized damage has been encountered, the damage did not result in a loss of the containment function, or release of radioactivity, or undue risk to the health and safety of the public. In these cases repairs have been made and additional margin was included in the structures. However, all plants have to demonstrate the capability to meet the SRV loads criteria and pool temperature limit which will be established by this task.

Plants with Mark Il containments, which have none in operation will be required to demonstrate the capability of his plant to accommodate the '

SRV loads and pool temperature limits esatblished by interim acceptance criteria under this task program. The lead plant for an operating license is Zimmer Plant, which has a projected fuel loading date of October,1978.

Our current completion date for this interim criteria is June,1978.

For Mark III containments, we have issued acceptance criteria for SRV with l quencher device. Although we believe that the loads criteria are conservative l we will require in-plant tests for confirmation. It should be noted that the criteria were established on the basis of infonnation provided by GE at that time. However, recent GE study indicated that there is some changes in their previously provided information. The load criteria, therefore, will be affected. We will include this concern in our revision to the task action plan. Since all Mark III use quencher devices, the pool temperature limit will not be an area of concern on the basis of current Mark III design. I I

e t

0

G E N E R A L @) E LE CTRIC ,oct.,, ,,,,oy SYSTEMS DIVISION GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY.175 CURTNER AVE., SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA 95125 MC 681. Ext. 3495 BWR PROJECTS DEPARTMENT March 2, 1977 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attn: S. A. Varga, Chief Light Water Reactors Branch #4 Division of Project Management U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Gentlemen:

SUBJECT:

LOADING CRITERIA FOR SUBMERGED STRUCTURES As a result of discussions with members of the Containment Systems Branch during a generic meeting on dynamic loads for the design of Mark III Containment, GE provided information copies of a status report entitled " Unsteady Drag on Submerged Structures" by G. L. Gyorey's March 24, 1976 letter to R. L. Tedesco. This information was submitted to clarify how loads on submerged structures were to be treated to comply with the intent of Appendix 3B to the 238 NI GESSAR. The purpose of this letter is to transmit reponses to the questions about this information report which were set forth in the enclosure to your January 5, 1977 letter to G. G. Sherwood.

As indicated in the March 24, 1976 transmittal letter, the general methodology presented in the status report is intended to form the basis for load definition guidelines that will be incorporated in appropriate l' documents. Drafts of the base documents for eventual use in this manner are being prepared now. Specific methodology for Mark III application ,

will be available for discussion with the NRC in June 1977 and will be documented for GESSAR application after NRC review.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the attached information, please contact me. -

Sincerely. -

L. J. Sobon, Manager BWR Containment Licensing -

Containment Improvement Progr,aus

• LJS:pg/46 noYCIco6q t

e

,h GENERAL Q ELECTRIC S. A. Varga Page 2 March 2, 1977

, 246 cc: L.S.Gifford(GE,Bethesda J. A. Kudrick (NRC A )

J. D. Thomas (NRC)

R. L. Tedesco (NRC)

Master File #083-77 3-033 . 9

\

' .LI 19 e

d 0

0

. l

~ '

QUESTION 041.1 The method presented in the GE report " Unsteady Drag on Submerged Structures", which is attached to the letter dated March 24, 1976 (G.L. Gyorey of GE to R.L. Tedesco of NRC), has been reviewed for the calculation of submerged structure loads. Since this model presents a departure from our current acceptance load criteria for submerged structures, the following additional information should be provided:

1. Discuss and justify the applicability of this model, which assumes an idealized spherical gas bubble, for air charging through the horizontal vent system following a LOCA. Infor-mation should include methods of determining initial bubble pressure, location, size and velocity. Compare and justify these initial conditions with the PSTF test data.

2. Discuss and justify the applicability of this single spherical bubble for the SRV quencher design. Information should include methods of determining initial bubble pressure, location, size and velocity. Method of calculating bubble pressure attenuation should also be provided. I

RESPONSE

1. Although later stages of observed bubble growth tend toward an eliptical shape, the initial conditions for the assumed idealized spherical gas hubble used in the model are based on observations from PSTF tests which are reported in GE topical reports NCDE-13407, " Mark I!! Confirmatory Test Programs" and NEDE-13435, " Mark III 1/3 Scale 3-Vent Air Test Series 5806". It was observed that the maximum LOCA bubble pressure load on the suppression pool wall was at the time of initial vent clearing. Submerged structure LOCA bubble pressure loads will also be induced at this time of maximum bubble pressure. The suppression pool boundary LOCA bubble loads identified in Appendix 38 are based on the assumption that.the maximum' bubble pressure is equal to peak drywell pressure. For submerged structure, LOCA bubble loads are based on a simple bubble of the same diameter as the horizontal vent in an infinite pool being charged at the peak drywell pressure. Tha effects of contain-ment walls, floor, and pool surface are approximated with image bubbles.

2. The procedure for establishing SRV bubble loads on a submerged .

structure calls for the use of four air bubbles at the quencher.

Each bubble is assumed to be spherical in shape, of equal strength, and oscillating in phase with the other bubbles for that quencher.

Bubble oscillation is assumed to be ise tropic and can be described by the Rayleigh equation. The maximum and minimum bubble pressures are assumed to be equal to the bottom pressures which are determined from the statistical formulations developed and presented in Attach-ment A of Appendix 30. The maximum bubble air volume is determined from the initial air conditions in the SRV discharge line and assum-in'g that the bubble temperature is equal to the maximum pool water

. temperature during SRV blowdown when bubble pressure is maximum.

a o . -

j I

I QUESTION 041.2 With respect to the development of the drag coefficients for submerged structures, provide the following additional information:

1. A detailed description of the analytical method used to calculate the drag coefficient for all complex structures (i.e., pipe j supported by an I-beam).

2. Applicable experimental data.

RESPONSE

1. The fluid drag load on submerged structures will consist of two

, components, standard drag and acceleration drag. Standard drag is the conventional drag due to fluid velocity. Drag coefficients j can be obtained from documents such as references 1, 2 and 3. For complex structures such as a pipe supported .by an I-beam the drag coefficient is assumed to be between that for a cylinder and a flat plate of the same frontal area. For acceleration drag on simple structures a hydrodynamic volume.is used. This is obtained from hydrodynamic mass formulas in reference 4. For complex structures, the acceleration drag volume is based on the area of a circurscribed circle about the target structure along the target j length.

Acceleration >

[Onb kv/

2. GE presumos that testing has been performed to establish the pub-lished recommendations in the liturature for drag coefficients.

References

1. Binder, R.C., 1955, Fluid Mechanics, New Jersey:

! Prentice-Hall, Inc. ,

2. Streeter, V.L. and Wylie E.B., 1975, Fluid Mechanics, New York

)

t McGraw-Hill.

3. Zahm A.F. and Roshko, A. ,1961, J.F.M. ,10:345.

3 4. Patton, K.Y.,1965, " Tables of Hydrodynamic Mass Factors for i Translational Motion", ASME Paper No. 65-WA/UNT-2. '

)

i 1

J I

e .

l

_