ML20235F117
Text
-_-_
i je# "*W4)* UNITED STATES c /79 g e- ,
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,L b b E C' )
y x g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
' ~ RECEIVED t,. ,v / nr4c'ic"aTccMs" "
SEP 141977 SEP 151977, a [W cu 7,8,9,101hE1:2i 3 4ii5 t NOTE FOR: T. G. McCreless, Advisory Committee Reactor Safeguards FROM:
H. Smith, Licensing Assistant, Light Water ' Reactors, DPM
SUBJECT:
FIVE COPIES OF GE PROPRIETARY TOPICAL REPORTS I am enclosing five (5) copies each of the following GE Topical Reports pursuant to my telephone discussion of September 13, 1977 with Mr. R. E. Schaffstall, a local GE representative:
- 1. NEDE-20944-P, Revision 1 dated October 1976 (5)
- 2. NEDE-20948-P,datedJune1976(5)
- 3. Amendment 1 to NEDE-20948-P (5)
Please note that these reports are " Proprietary" and should be handled accordingly.
It is my understanding that these reports will be forwarded to your staff members that are participating in an upcoming ACRS Subcommittee meeting.
He also stated that you will return these copies to us wh.en the ACRS members haveStation Mail car.pleted 042,their review. The reports should be returned to Mr. Ed Ford, 1
L Wze') Smith,LicensingAssistant for Light Water Reactors l
Division of Project Management
Enclosures:
As Stated i
i ACRSOTICECOPY cc
8707130220 870623 i PDR FOIA l THOMAS 87-40 PDR '
I
(
( /f.6
- . .. Zl l
UNITED STATES 4th - fYh ,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h WASHINGTON, D. c. 20555 RECE VED )
Mr. Ivan Stuart, Manager 4 ,,
MAR 2 61975 l
' Safety and Licensing ,f , r?e ,
6 pg 4 y7 Nucicar Energy Divisien ,,,~ -
General Electric Company '~ " ' "
g g, , A COMM.
175 Curtner Avenue y'A VISORY CG m TTEE ON San Jose, California 95114 i;IACTOR SAFEGUARDS
Dear Mr. Stuart:
As you know, members of the NRC staff met with your representatives on l February 12 and 13, 1975 in San Jose to discuss various aspects of the Mark III experimental testing program and your analytical methods.
Based on the information we received at this meeting we are providing for your consideration the following comments and recommendations:
- 1. Relief Valve Loads - Your staff indicated that' the GE analytical model for predicting relief valve clearing loads, describedInin NED0-10859, has been refined for application to Mark III.
addition, small-scale relief valve tests will be conducted at your facility in San Jose, to confirm the performance of the model. We believe that these measures are adequate on an in-terim basis and we request that you keep us informed of the progress of the program. However, we believe that additional confirmation of the loads determined by the test program will be required by actual plant testing of relief valve loads during startup testing. Ue would consider testing of the pro-totype of each class of plants and relief valve configuration ,
)
as being sufficient.
l l
- 2. Pool Dvnamic Loads _ - Tour staff indicated that pool dynamic load specifications for structures which are partially immersed in l the suppression pool would be based on calculated drag loads )
only. We believe that these structures could also be subject -
to air bubble loads. Therefore these type of structures should be simulated on the 1/3 scale Mark III test facility and loads j l
verified experimentally. l l
Your staf f also noted, with respect to the structures located 1 above the suppression pool, that their experimental approach l in determining pool swell loads would be based on a correlation of water ligament thickness and water ligament velocity. They maintained that knowledge of these two parameters defines pool swell loads independent of other factors such as initial vent submergence and pool surface to structure distance. Appropriate
.-----.--: ,. ,. / .
f o ,
a% rac w .
e o &: " w' n mc ~ p m
(M f gn gi nt ,.a .e .
wwwu i
9,
. . .s. _ ._ _
e
( ( ..
Mr. Ivan Stuart MAR 2 6 1,975 1'
I justification for this approach should be provided. However, we currently believe that additional testing may be required to confirm these' loads with test conditions' that duplicate actual plant design parameters.
- 3. Seismic Testing - Your staff informed us that they have done analytical modeling and are funding a test program to determine the response of the suppression' pool to seismic events. We believe that wave genera--
tion in the pool could result in locally deeper submergences for certain horizontal vent stacks and therefore larger pool. swell loads.
We request that you clarify the manner by which the results.of the seismic studies will be factored into the design of Mark III.
- 4. Asymmetric Effects, - It was apparent from our discussions with your staff that they have not fully investigated the potential for asymmetric containment response. We require that you perform such a study that considers both the possible types and magnitudes of asymmetric response and the Mark III's capability to sustain such response profiles.
We are available to discuss any of the foregoing items with your represent-atives.
Q*
D ~f.b> ?. 4 OL:
Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Containment Safety Division of Technical Review Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ec: Mr. L. S. Gifford I Suite 1107 General Electric Company 4720 Montgomery Lane Bethesda, Md. 20014
_ - _ _ _ - -- - . _ ______ A