<<

INiS-mf—126UG

("uiudiLin Nuclear

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CONTAINMENT DESIGN

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

1984 JUNE 17 TO 20 WESTIN HOTEL TORONTO. ONTARIO CANADA CANADIAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY

PROCEEDINGS OF INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CONTAINMENT DESIGN

JUNE 17-20, 1984 WESTIN HOTEL, TORONTO ONTARIO, CANADA

EDITOR: R.K. BLACK

PUBLICATION: J.T. MARTIN

CANADIAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY 111 ELIZABETH STREET, 11TH FLOOR TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA M5G 1P7

ISBN 0-919784-05-4 EDITORIAL NOTE

The papers for these proceedings were submitted on standard forms and typed according to a standard format supplied to the authors by the Canadian Nuclear Society. In general, the papers are presented exactly as submitted by the authors and no editing of content or form was undertaken. However in several cases, papers were retyped in part or whole to give a consistent format.

Summaries of all papers are presented in "Canadian Nuclear Society - International Conference on Containment Design - Conference Summaries" 1984 available from the CNS office.

Published by the Canadian Nuclear Society, 1984, Toronto

Copyright © 1984 Canadian Nuclear Society 111 Elizabeth St., 11th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 1P7

Printed by Ontario Hydro CANADIAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CONTAINMENT DESIGN

CONFERENCE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

Conference Chairman W.G. Morison (Ontario Hydro) Technical Program Chairman N. Yousef (Ontario Hydro) Registration and Facilities Chairman T.J. Carter (Ontario Hydro) Treasurer W. Clendening (Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.) Publication Chairman J.T. Martin (Ontario Hydro) Public Relations D. Mosey (Ontario Hydro) Member at Large R. Doucet (Canatom)

SESSION CHAIRMEN

Plenary Session 1 : Joseph Hendrie, President American Nuclear Society

Session 1A: Duane Pendergast, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. Session 1B: John Waddington, Atomic Energy Control Board

Plenary Session 2: Anthony R. Edwards, Atomic Energy Authority

Session 2: Heiki Tamm, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.

Plenary Session 3: William G. Morison, Vice President, Ontario Hydro

Session 3A: John Skears, Ontario Hydro Session 3B: Peter Stevens-Guille, President, Canadian Nuclear Society

1984-85 CNS COUNCIL MEMBERS

President P.D. Stevens-Guille (Ontario Hydro) Past President J.S. Hewitt (University of Toronto) Vice-President J. Howieson (Energy, Mines and Resources Canada) Secretary-Treasurer J. Boulton (Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.) Members: R. Bolton (Hydro Quebec) R. Bonalumi (Univerity of Toronto) F. Boyd (Atomic Energy Control Board) E. Card (W.L. Wardrop ft Associates Ltd.) J. Charuk (Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.) G.F. Lynch (Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.) N. Yousef (Ontario Hydro) Ex-Officio J. Welter (Canadian Nuclear Association) TABLE OP CONTENTS

PAGE PAGE

Plenary Session 1: USA VIEWS ON CONTAINMENT 16 PRV Blovthrough Test on Bruce B Nuclear 86 DESIGN OPERATION AND Generating Station REGULATION stokes, H.w./Khan, M.R./Bukhanov, T./ Krishnaswamy, S.G. (AECL) IDCOR - The Technical Foundation and Process Koziak, w.w. (Ontario Hydro) For Severe Accident: Decisions, Buhl/ A.ft./ Fontana, M.H. ( for Energy Plenary Session 2: EUROPEAN VIEWS ON CONTAINMENT corporation) DESIGN OPERATION AND REGULATION Nuclear Reactor Containment, Schmitz, R.p. 10 ( Power Corporation) The Reactor Containment of German Pressurized 91 Water Reactors of standard Design U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Policy Trends, 13 Braun, W./Hassmann, K. (Kraftwerk Union) P.M. Bernthal (USNRC) Kennies, H.H./Hosemann, j.p. (Kernfor8chungszentrum Karlsruhe) SESSION 1A: CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ANALYSIS Containment structures at Blectricite dc Franc* 109 Calculation of Energy Transfer Rates into 19 costaz, J.L. (Electricite de Prance) Structures for the HDR Experiments Almenas, K. (University of Maryland) Swedish Practice in Reactor Containment Design 114 Lundguist, P. (Swedish state Power Board) Dynamic-Response of Containments Due to 25 Shock wave SESSION 2: CONTAINMENT ATMOSPHERE CONTROL Lee, J.H.P./Tang, J.H.K. (Ontario Hydro) Effect of Buoyancy Induced Flows on the 116 Analysis of High Temperature Limits on 33 Transport of Material Between Containment Concrete Nuclear Structures Compartments Mentes, G.A./Bhat, p.D. (Ontario Hydro) 3uraishi, M.W. (AECL)

Fluid-Structure Interaction in BWR Containment 38 Large Scale Hydrogen Combustion Experiments 120 Structure Analysis for Pool Dynamic Loads Thompson, L. (Electric Power Research Institute) Krishnaswamy, C.N./Shieh, c.L. (Sargent and Lundy Engineers) Containment Loads Due to Hydrogen Combustion 126 Beraan, H. (Sandia National Laboratories) The Role of Weather Variations in Estimates 45 Lee, J.H.S. (McGill University) of Leakage from Containment Dick, J.E./Pendergast, D.R. (AECL) Post-LOCA Hydrogen Control at Ontario Hydro 130 CANDU Stations Local Failure Modes in Concrete Containment Black, R.K. (Ontario Hydro) Structures Dunham, R.S./Rashid, Y.R. (ANATECH The influence of Filtered Air Discharge System 135 International Corp.) Tang, Y.K./Tang, B.T. Operations on Post-LOCA Radiological (Electric Power Research Institute) Consequences Jamieson, T./Fluke, R.J./McKean, D.H. SESSION IB: CONTAINMENT ENVELOPE AND (Ontario Hydro) ENERGY SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS Containment Leak Tightness and Timing of the 138 Darlington GS Vacuum Building Containment 53 Filtered Discharge Operation for Single Unit Shell Containment Systems Huterer, J./Ha, B.C./Brown, D.G./Cheng, P.C. Hourad, 8. (AECL) (Ontario Hydro) Plenary session 3: CANADIAN VIEWS ON CONTAINMENT A Rationale for the Design of Containment 61 DESIGN OPERATION AND Penetrations in a CANDU Plant REGULATION Lee, J.C./creates, b.H./Chackeris, p. (Ontario Hydro) CANDU Containment systems - A Regulatory 145 Perspective Piping Loads for Seismic Boundary Anchor 68 Domaratzki, Z.Z. (Atonic Energy Control Board) at the Containment Penetration Aggarwal, M.L./Creates, D.H./Manning, B.ff. The CANDU Single Unit Containment Concept - 150 (Ontario Hydro) An Overview Webb, J.R. (Atomic Energy of Canada Limited) Development of the Darlington Dousing System 74 zakaib, G.D./Koziak, W.W. (Ontario Hydro) Principles of Operation of CANDU Multi-unit 158 Containment systems Design of Building Pressure Relief Valves 81 Blahnik, C./McKean, D.W./Heneley, D.A. Jay, K.W. (AECL) Skears, j./xousef, N. (Ontario Hydro) (Cont'd) TABLE OP COHTEHTS

?AGE PAGE

SESSION 3A: CONTAINMENT ANALYSIS PRESCON2 - Sub-Sonic Compressible Pluid Flow 191 Modelling Reclrculating Emergency Core Coolant Discharge 166 Collins, M.M./Robson, J.E. (AECL) Modelling foe Long Term single Unit Containment Analysis Detection of Very Saall Breaks Via Containment 195 Min, T.K. (AECL) Pressure Tomoeda, M./Collins, H.H. (AECL) The Multi-compartment Code •WAVCO", Status and 171 Validation SESSION 3B: REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, TESTING Fischer, H./Hassmann, K. (Kraftwerk Union AG) AND PERIODIC INSPECTION rtohler, B./Reineke, H.H. (inggenieurburo Reineke) Periodic Inspection of Containment 202 Hanbury, B.M./Legg, G.G. (AECL) The Effects of Weir Flow Assumptions on the 177 Bruce B PATRIC Code Dousing simulation In-Sarvice Inspection Program of PUR 206 Reeves, D.B./Skeara, J. (Ontario Hydro) Containment Post-Ten*ioning System Park, H.G./Joe, Y. (Korea Power Engineering Co.) ARIANNA-2: A Hew Conputer Code for Post-LOCA 185 short and Long Tern Subconpartmented Containment Containment Design Requirement*: Their 213 Analysis Application to Darlington GS A Cerullo, N./oriolo, P./Paaculli, A. Hhyte, M.A./Kerba, N.A. (Ontario Hydro) (University of Pisa) Romanacci, R. (ENEA) Conference participants 217

APPENDIX

Conference Program IDCOR - THE TECHNICAL FOUNDATION AND PROCESS FOR SEVERE ACCIDENT DEC • iJtiS

ASTHOtJY R. BUHL HARIO ». PONTANA

ABSTRACT Suosequently, tne NRC issued a proposed Commission Policy Statement2 wnicn implemented tne The Industry Degraded Core Rulemaking (IDCOR) October 2, 1980, Advance Notice of Rulemaking with a Program njs Deen successful in estjolismnj a severe accident decision process on specific standard technical foundation for pursuing the resolution of plant designs and on classes of existing plants which severe accident issues. IJCJR is supported by tne 62 may or may not include ruleaaking. nuclear utilities, architect-engineers, and light water reactor (LWH) vendors in tne UniteJ States and In parallel wit/i tnese line activities, the nuclear ay and Sweden. The IDCOR mission was to Industry developed the IDCOR program to prepare * develop a compcenensive, tecnnicall/ aotinJ position technical position an severe accident issues. on tne Issues related to potential severe accidents in nuclear power plant lijnt water reactors. An intensive two and one-half year technical program was IDCOR: A COORDINATED INDUSTRY RESPONSE completed on schedule and within budget in July 1983. Tne Structure IDCOR identified key Issues and phenomena; developed analytical metnods; analyzed tne severe The nistory, organization, and teennical program accident behaviour of four representative plants; and structure of IDCOR is well documented.*»*«* jnt extended tne results as generically as possiole. In sponsoring organizations are listed in Appendix A. general, IDCOR has deaonstrated that consequences of The organizational structure is shown in Figure 1. dominant accident sequences are significantly less IOCOR is directed by a Policy Group and a steering than previously anticipated. Most accident sequences Group comprised of key industry representatives. require long times to progress, allowing tine to Technology for Energy corporation (TEC) was selected achieve safe stable states. early in 1981 to provide the day-to-day management of IDCOR. in July 1983, IDCOR entered a second phase to complete industry and expert review of IOCOR results, perform a few additional technical evaluations, The rtission and Strategy puolisn the work, and explain the results to the technical and rejulatory coiMjnity. IOCOft results The IOCOR mission was to develop a comprehensive, are contained in technical reports capped by a integrated, well-documented, technically sound suostantial nain technical adiiitary report and a saall position on the issues related to potential severe results and conclusions report. Some final reports accidents. Tne Program provides the basis for nave oeen made availaole to the teennical community industry participation in tne riRC severe accident and to tne Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). decision-making process. lOCOR's centerpiece was a logical sequence of teennical tasks to analyze and All reports presently are Deing finalized and evaluate the accident behaviour of nuclear plants and printed and will be made available in a logical tne potential oenefits of improvements in plant sequence of meetings with the NRC over the next safety. several aontns. concurrent witn IOCOR efforts, the NRC has published a policy paper and a proposed The strategy guiding tne IDCOR Program's decision-making process for reaching permanent development of a well-documented and technically resolution of the severe accident issues. sound position on severe accident issues was based upon the following four principles:

THE BEGINNING • The discriminating review and use of existing information to tne maximum extent The accident at Three Mile Island (MI) on possible; March 28, 1979, prompted new initiatives Cor nuclear safety. The THI degraded core reached condition* • The development of programs enhancing more severe than those in a design basis accident. teennical understanding; Several public inquiries questioned the existing regulatory process for licensing nuclear power plants. • Tne use of oest-estimate, rattier than conservative, engineering approaches in As a result of tne degraded core accident at TMI technical analysis; and and subsequent reevaluation of regulatory processes, the NRC initiated, on October 2, 1980,l a • The use of an independent expert review 'long-term rulemaking to consider to what extent, if process. any, nuclear power plants should be designed to deal effectively witn degraded core and core melt accidents." The NRC"3 rulemaKing proposed to address The Teennical Program the objectives and content of a degraded core-related regulation, tne related design and operational The technical program consisted of a logical improvements under consideration, their effects on sequence of analytical activities, consisting of tne other safety considerations, and tne costs and 24 technical tasks listed in Appendix B. benefits of design and operational improvements. Specifically, tne IflCJR logic was to: 3oilin3-water reactor (SrfR) witn nark 1 suppression pool containment - Peacn Bottom • Extensively review tne existing base of information relative to severe accident 3WH witn Hack ill suppression pool oenaviour in nuclear power plants; containment - Grand 3ulf.

• Identify tne iaportanc p.ienoaena involved; Tne program scope included assessments ol special characteristics presented oy otner PtfR and BUR • Adopt and develop appropriate mathematical designs. Included »ere nuclear plant designs models, correlations, and assessment involving once-tnrougn steam generators, reactor techniques; vessels without instrumentation penetrations in tne lower head, certain steel containment system*, and • Select a set of representative reference Hark II suppression pool containments. plant designs:

• Identify tne doainant accident sequences Identify tne Dominant Accident Sequences Mnich Can tnat can result in severe conditions if Heault in Severe Conditions if Allowed to Proceed they are allowed to proceed unchecked) Uncnecked. The IDC3R Prograa identified dominant accident sequences wnicn could result in degraded • Realistically characterize reactor cores and associated severe accident conditions if (including containment) oenaviour involved tney ware allowed to proceed uncnecked. This in these doainant sequence*! identification derived iron sequences previously identified oy existing PRA» for tne reference plant* • identity and assess the opportunities for and, to ensure coapleteness, fro* additional accident preventing tnesc sequence*, terminating sequence analysis of plants wnlcn nave n«d, or were their progress, or altigatlng them and undergoing a PRA during the IDCOR Program. These sequences included aoae low-prabaoility events witn • Estimate consequences and relate results to the potential for serious consequences in order to safety goals. allow a comparison of previous conservative analyses with the more realistic, t>est-estiaate calculations of tne IDCOR Program. Extensively acview tne existing Base of Information. IDCOR reviewed tne existing inforaatlon on phenomena, .lodels, experimental data, procedures, and computer Realistically Characterize Reactor aenaviour Involved codes for analyzing behaviour of nuclear power plant3 in These Doainant Sequences. Tne IOCOR Program under severe accident conditions. Tnis included tne analyzed tne doainant accident sequences to review of 14 existing PRAs to encoapass relevant characterize the response of nuclear power plants prior work reported in tnem. IOCOR also reviewed under severe accident conditions. These analyses research programs related to severe accident issues involved deteraination of such factors as pressures, at MAC, SPRI, INPO, several utility sponsored flows, snd temperatures; fission product phenomena; programs, and foreign programs in , Sweden, tiaing of key events; plant dynamic response; systems and Great Britain. interactions; and equipment performance. These analyses used realistic assumptions, data, and oethods, a.id, wnere appropriate, were supported Oy Identify the Important Phenomena. A few key uncertainty and sensitivity analyses. phenoae.i*, those that have the potential for causing containment failure and dispersing fission products, control plant behaviour under severe accident Identify and Aaae** the Opportunities for Preventing conditions, of particular importance arc those that, Accidents, Terminating Their Progress, or Mitigating if tney exist, could cause failure in a snort period Them. The IDCOR Program analyzed severe accident of time (relative to tiaes required for operator behaviour to identify opportunities and time windows interdiction, emergency action, and fission product available for preventing core damage and for source-term reduction) after accident initiation. terminating the accident sequences and reaching safe stable states by operational intervention. Also, proposed aitigation devices were assessed for their Adapt and Develop Models. Existing models, potential value in controlling tne consequences of correlations, computer codes and assessment severe accidents. techniques were evaluated and adapted for IDCOR evaluations, rfhere appropriate, new models and codes were developed. Estimate Consequences and Relate Results to Safety Coals. The results of I0COR were structured in sucn a way to allow eventual comparison with safety goals Select a Set of Representative Reference Plant to tne aaxiaua extent possible and witnin toe limits Designs. The IDCOR Program performed analyses which of their evolutionary nature. were generic to the greatest possible extant. However, testing the analyses against realistic cases required specific configurations and conditions. For MAJOR QUESTIONS this reason, the Program used IDCOR-devcloped tools to analyze a representative set of reference plant The IDCOR Program foccsed on assessing tne designs: behaviour of present-generation nuclear power plants under severe accident conditions using oest available . Pressurized-water reactor (PUR) witn large data and analytical techniques. IDCOR also assessed containment - zion core daaage prevention, operational aspects of accident management, potential aitigation features, PUR With Ice condenser containment and tne cnange in risk resulting from be iocot sequoyan efforts. Tnese assessments are essential prerequisites co in/ turtner aelioerations on pressure due to rapid steam generation; aodiCyin-j plant design, construction, or operation*] lit overpressure dje to fl/drojen generation and procedures, or on tne regulations that affect tnese subsequent combustion; (41 Oypass of containment by factora. sucn factors as open valves or otner failures of separation between interfacing systems, and sneak Tne JUJOC questions addressed in performing this patns to tne environment; IS) overpressure due to assess.a*nt were: noncondensaole gas; (6) melttnreugn of tne containment oaseaat; (7) overpressure due to heatup • do' does a plant -jet Into a severe accident caused oy loss of neat removal capaoility; 16) node condition and now JUJ this condition be of failure of containment; and (9) radionuclide prevented? release and transport.

<> Ho<* does tne plant Denav* under severe accident conditions, nj* effective is Integrated Modeling of severe Accident ftehaviour containment in preventing the dispersal of Hazardous fusion products, no' lonj can Analytical tools were developed oy IOCM for tne containment De expected to function assessing severe accident behaviour. It was acceptably, and wnat are tne consequences necessary to ouilJ on tne oest existing information of any releases of radionuclide*? on relevant phenomena and to choose or develop the aatneaatical models dtscnoinj tnca. Tnese models Wnat resources, nuaan or aacnine, are and data were integrated into the siaplist possible availdole to oanaje tne accident? coa^uter codes for tna analysis of severe accident behaviour. • rfnat aitigation features are sufficiently effective to warrant tneir use in nuclear Tne following efforts were required to produce power plants? adequate analytical tools: (1) assessed available codes and model and identified tnose tnat could oe Several observations arose from these *a*»nmtnt*. used in I0COR; (2) developed new matneaatical models fnese are: severe accident conditions aust oe as necessary; (J) developed a computer code physically realizaDle and traceable to Initiating structure, called the nodular Accident Analysis events; for tne purpose of analyzing plant benaviour, Program (itAAP) for analyzing reactor system transient a few representative sequences adequately cover the pressures, temperatures, and flows: (4) developed a spectrua of likely outcoaes; in aost cases accident coaputer code called serAIK {or analyzing fission sequences progress slowly; opportunities exist to product release and transport in the primary ayaf* terainate accident sequence?; and relatively few and tne containment system; and (5) integrated tbe major issues doainate severe accident behaviour. phenomenological models into tbe code structures.

In tne following discussion, tne issues relevant to Tne codes bad to oe modular for easy substitution answering the questions posed above ace outlined. of models and subroutines, easy to use, capaole of running on tne various computers owned by toe different industry analysis teaas; capable of being PURSUIT OP THE ANSWERS used in tne interactive mode for analyzing tne results of operator intervention; and expandable for performing sensitivity analyses and uncertainty Accident Sequence Selection analyses as appropriate.

Consistent with tne IJCOR teennical approacn, wnicn requires that severe accident conditions be shown to Containment Structural Capability ensure froa realistic initiating events, 10008 identified tnose sequences wnicn were of sufficient Tbe containment is toe last line of defense for iaportance to warranted detailed analyses. Of preventing the escape of radionuclides in the particular iaportance was tne identification of a few environment. Containment is normally designed to sequences that olanket tbe spectrua of possible contain radioactive materials for a wide range of consequences of tne aany potential initiating accidents. Tne design oasis accident normally is events. Tnis identification was perforaed by an assumed to be a rupture of a very large primacy assessaent of existing PRAs and by tne seasoned system pipe. The temperature and pressure loading on judgment of the Industry teaas assembled by IDCOR to the containment structure and associated systems is perfora tne analyses of plant behaviour. quite severe for tnis design oasis accident, and tne containment systea is designed according to appropriate regulations and •agineecing codes and Severe Accident Phenomena standards to withstand the loading. The use of these standards results in a containment structure with The important phenomena are those that affect significant reserve capability beyond the design containment and provide impetus for fission product loads. dispersal. Those factors which could cause early containment failure were carefully evaluated. Thus, the issues with respect to severe accideats Significant reductions in risk are attained if it can arc the estimation of the capability of contain—at be snown tnat containment failure does not occur or to witnstand loadings beyond tne design oasis tnat occurs at laag tiaes after the initiation of tne aay arise and, if possiDlc, toe estimation of tbe accident. mode of failure, raat is, do saall leaks open which preclude further pressure increases, or can larger roe reactor safety phenoaena concerns can be failuces occur? distilled to tnese: (1) steam explosions potentially threatening to containment through tbe ection of Altnougn the modes of failure ace difficult to pressure pulses, liquid slugs, or aissilesj (2) over- predict analytically, the ultiaate failure pressure a« predicted *itn

fjtiipaent SurvivaollUy in Mitigation {««tares ita tne totjn ol coolers, Severe Accident Environments coAtaiascj» sprays, suppicssian poaîs, and containment nest reaovai systems «listed long oefor* Key 3»titf ejuips*nt id dssijned and J.u»lifi«d to tne ?4I accident as device« ta control Jesijn a»«it •tficnstdoa t.i# «nvir.'uijunta resulting fro* tn* desijn aeciltnts. rollo^tnj tne accident at TM:, tiyärojen Dâsis décidant. Tne k«y issu« with r«sp«ct to s«v«r« oiirn control ie*tjres «*(• rcjuired for certain accidents ii *n«tn«r tn« necessary tanctions cto o» plants *ni, as part of toe 1 HO Advanced Jiotic* oï provided undsc 3»v#r« accident conditions »nojld th*y Hulesutini,' additisnal i#»tut»j sue« as filtered- occur. v*jic*d eantitnmsnt» jnô core estencra «rare c&nt*aslat«d. Tn« |u«ation« ta u* mutiti «r«: (1) tinit »f» tn« functlondl c#jjtf»»*.-)S at«: (JJ tints, ri«« «nita«« tiam coaponcnts, (2) <* oenefits worth the cost and effort expended.

Plant Response to Sever« Accident« Operational Aspects of Accident me est iaat ion of ho« present generation plants Prevention and «anageaent rfould respond to sever« accident* ia a prerequisite to any furtner delioaration on n*«d for alterations me role of tj« operators in prevent ia j an accident in design or operation, need tor additional and aanaging it, should it occur, teas always oeen a ait 194tion features, or cnanjas in r«julation. principle concern in tne design and operation of Althougn :ocOR addressed tn« issues relative to nuclear power plants, lessons learned froa ta* Tfll severe accident oenaviojr a« ^«oerically as posaisl«, accident and other incidents nave led to * cefocusing it «as necessary to t«st tn« insights, aodels, and on the operators and toe plant interfaces ttoey use to analytical aetnods oy analyses of real planta. Pour prevent and aitijate potential accidents. reference plants« Zlon, Sc^uoyan, Peach Bottoa, and Srand Sulf, x«r« cnosen for tnese baseline analyses. four aajor operational wstlonm are: 111 do plant resources exist, beyond those specifically designed in analyzinj plant response to severe accidents, for accident aanageacnt, that can be used to prevent tne -j jest ions for tne iaportant sequences are: or aitijate severe accidentsj 12} can operators m (1) tfnat are tne pressures, teaperatures, floos, and reasonably expected to perfora the extra work load of transport of aaterials in tne priaary systea and preventing and managing accidents beyond toe design containaent systea as a function of tiaei (2) «nat oaa»*: (31 bow best can the operator be aided ia his are tn« tiaes of containaent failure if it occurs at accident aanajeaent role and do post-ZNI all; (3) »hat are tne effects of practical Modifications have significant risk reduction operational interventions! (41 wnat are tne fission potential} and (4) given a wcll-estaolished operator product foras and concentrations available for role in aanaging severe accidents, is there potential release to tne envlonaent; CS1 »hat are significant risk reduction potential in improved the off-site consequence*} (6) «mat potential safe operator performance or in plant interface staole states exist and no* aay tney M attained] and Modifications. (71 wnat are tn« Denefits, if any, of altigation features. Kisk Changes »suiting froa IPCCMt Evaluations

Core pajsaqe Prevention To tne aixiaua extent possiole, *m Halted 0/ tne existing state of the art, it is appropriate to The oest answer to degraded core questions is not Measure the risk »a perceived by probabilistic risk to nave one in tne first place. If no core daaage assessaents and siailar studies done prior to IDCM occurs, radionuclidcs «rill not M released froa toe «ad coapare with the risk predicted after loco* fuel, and, tnerefore, are unavailable for release to evaluations. Also, it is appropriate to Measure the the environaent. change in risk that would be caused of the iMpleaeotation to potential iaproeeawats ia Design, construction, and operation of nuclear operations and of Mitigation features. plants nave always oeen focused oa safe opérations and on assuring redundant systems to Maintain core cooling under a «tide range of conditions, including the desltm basis accident. icnts j,^ojt aoit ies for suostintatl risk yy iij operator interdict ion, <[£} emergency real aad t ij iassioii produce source-tern

I>e.ur4 6 cu»tfi*kj i 1 at/ and cjn'Laaament i.nt«9fity for ~ne nmcij.Ttenr.iII ^estu.id are: Hi rf-i«t iniifisnivejy :oi

c^nc tu-sums rficn i^^fKCC t,j severe accident ii^e-atfroeiaa fnaantdimed# jiven sulficaent ^ater, power, and neat ace jenerte tai enerefjce insensitive to specific plant cj.iftjjtattons; (if) wnac criteria snaijlj s>e used to CSJOK reference p lint 5 far ris* cs containment integrity from t>»s«»«t analyse.*; fli* ns< rfeliL 4[e tse technical toj^rj %s Jiot j»sjnifjeant. It <*ill occur, if at co/ereJ u/ cue reference ?la

it difdcutt to easts t-j survtvastlit/ undti loc*l ;i/dfaj#n sums. far In in tit* p(oc«inj mont.ia «ft«r firul inltiitr/ JaJ expect review coauwnta jre 1. £arly loss of containment integrity modes nave aeen shown to oe unlikely. Comtdercole tia*. redaction oenefltj can oe jtined If early los« of containment integrity doe« not 2. homm of containment integrity will occur, occur. elimination of early containment failure if at all, at characteristically long times. would provide tne opportunity for: Cll operator intcrdictive action, (21 eaergency aeasurec, and J. Improved understanding of fission product (i) reduction in tne fission product source available oehaviour results in reduced consequemces. for release. 4. 7ne primary i*plic*ti*nM ot Previous risk stddl««« notaoly rfASa-1400* containment integrity at* tnat considerable identified stea> explosions, ovarpressurlzatlon oy time and opportunity arc available Cor risk rapid steam jeneration, and nydrojen detonatlion as reduction by operator interdiction, tne risk-doainant mode* of early loss of containment emergency measures, and fission product integrity. However, the 1OC0R studies snow tnat source-term reduction. steaa explosion, rapid stcaa generation, and noncondensaolc gaa overpresaurixation are not jiitn tne insignta concerning overall risk as a pnysically realizasle early failure modes. further, point of reference, IOOHI considered tne potential given h/drogen control measures waere appropriate value of additional mitigative design features. (inerting for Aark Is and Mark Us and igniters for ice condensers and itark Ilia), hydrogen detonation Core catcners are not of value aecause taey do not docs not present a significant source of prompt loss significantly iaprove containment function. If tbey of containment integrity. are effective, and tnere is consideraole uncertainty, tney can affect only incrementally the time to loss IDCM considered tne important aspects of timing of of containment integrity. Given ttw core melt and loss at containment integrity. Tnese characteristically long times Cor loss of integrity. studies nave indicated various potential causes of no significant oencfit can be derived from a care containment failure: (II core melttnrojgn, (21 loss catcher. Suostantially greater oencfit can oe gained of containment heat removal, (3) loss of isolation, from implementing procedures to assure water, power, and (4) containment of?a*a. Tne results of tne I0C(M and heat removal patna necessary for indefinitely studies anon tnat early failure of containment is not long containment integrity. likely to occur. Tne long-term overpressurization of containment can result fro* steaa generation and Piltered-vented containments are only of value in noncondensable gas generation from core concrete the limited circumstances concerning long-term, interactions (in tne absence of a vater aapplf) and nigh-pressure containment failures, and in those loss of neat sink. circumstances, the use of existing systems is equally beneficial and substantially less costly and less Containment loss of integrity will occur at complex. cnaracteristically long times, if at all. For most important sequences, tne minimum time to loss of Hydrogen control measures, where appropriate integrity in tne iocoa studies is 10 or more boars. (inerting in Mark Is and Aark I Is, igniters in ice condensers and Mark Ills), are effective aac beneficial in limiting tne risk of hydrogen detonation, mere is not need for similar measure son large dry containments. systems air« U •.ae URC «4i>e «jireed m principle on dn axii 4>e.-:tr£4£i*fl. ie:lts of technical *nâ management •. j sjppatt toe 6I?CJ*J on-mikinj process, toe»» 4i*ottin9s, tne MRC «ill intejr«t* 1OCQR infomi*tion rfitn results from tneir o»in HSJlIt Ot r*s*arco to «staolisa positions on t.1» Issues tti»t acciiencs. Axeover, toe riso aai caaseiueacea of c».i «asafer t.ne f undumeui.»! t<9ul*tory questions, severe accident* are significaatly 3*1»* u»o*e •Jti«» cA*njes< if *!>y, snould £>e .müde in nuclear pttiictn-i o/ previojs studies and evaluations. r«*ctor c«9ul«tiaa tü «ccaunt fut «cciäent.« involving car* ä»m*9« 9i*»ter tri»n tue .present âesijn incljïl-iî care mit dann «ccióentc?' !tï Td£ OKIStO* STAC 2

ene Î."»J ifit«ns* rjnj t«cnntc*l «ffort. tit« •fitn in* c*c»flic«l sf Ci»a*jnit/ 4d J MitC r»cï>)nii»4 Cro« tn» I, 1»»U.

in Î. ftopoiei ca«*Jâ«ion j'ai icy Stst*a«nt on inc«r«at«4 t#a«*tcn, Ae-ci4»rn.s *nd «•i*t#J tlirms an in en« it«J 4->J in a. a*i. An Note interaction» peau** o*i*<% t Industry MjrddeJ Cor* 1. Assessed «orld>«ide availaole eiperiaental Kuleaaking Projram: Il>ca>* - An Overview*. data and analytical swtnods. Paper presented at tut Aaerican nuclear Society Internâtioa»l Meting on Ul Safety 4. Identified and addressed deficiencies la Assessaent, Caaoridje, M, August 2* - existing analysis aetnods. Septeaoer 1. 1»#J.

5. Developed state-of-tne-art aetbods and used «. American «uclear Society International tnea to realistically analyze plant Meeting on „'i Safety Assessment, responses to severe accident conditions. Caaoridge, HA, August 21-Septeaoer 1, H»i.

6. Provided a oroad-Dased «pert retries of tne 7. Letter froa DenwooJ P. Bass. *t.C SAW technical results. Senior Aevie« Croup, to J.J. Kay, Advisory Coaaittee on Xeactor Safeguards on Severe 7. established an adequate technical baai* for Accident Keseatca rrograa, *seviet> of proceeding to resolution of tne issues to aeciaion~aaking process and Mcguiatory support acceptable, permanent regulatory Issues identified to Date*, August S, 1MJ. decisions.

d. Estaolisned an effective projraa for reacning technical convergence with tne MIC.

ACCCPTABLC ftMAHtttt RKÜLATOHY OCCISUM

Over tne past year, 10COH and tbe «MC have evaluated and organized tne key teennical issues to be resolved by ald~19«< (see fable« 1 and 2). TOe IMC recently publisned tneje issues as part of toeir averall sdieae for decision-aakiog for severe accidents.7 POLICY onoup J. SELBY. CHAIRMAN

IOCOR STEERING GROUP ATOMIC C. BEED. CHAinMAN INDUSTRIAL FORUM . SIEGEL

PROGRAM MANAGER IDCOR TECHNOLOQY lor ENERGY CORPORATION LEGAL GROUP AJ1.BUHL. CORPORATE RESPONSULE MANAGER IOCOR TECHNICAL IDCOR PROGRAM OFFICE ADVISORY GROUP SENIOR Mil FONTANA. PROGRAM DTECTOR CONSULTANTS M. LEVEBETT, CHAIRMAN P. STANDTEa PROJECT MANAGER H.K. FAUSKE S. LEVINE N. RASMUSSEN R. SEALE W. SIBATTON

RISK REACTOR * PHENOMENA REGULATION ft CONTRACTS ANALY8IS PLANT SY8TEM8 LICENSING IADMMMTRATION S.V. ASSELIN E.P. STROUPE E.L. FULLER fl.M. SATTERFIELd C.R. NAULT I

TECHNICAL TECHNCAL TECHMCAL CONIRACTORS CONTRACTORS CONTRACTORS

Figure I. I0COR Program Manaaaaiaiil «iraatara.

Table 1* Generation of non-conoensible gases Generation of combustible gases )»GAMIZ»TION OF THE TECHNICAL ISSUES Extent of penetration of floor

4. Response of the containment and other essential equipment

4.1 Reliability of early containment isolation ]. Identic n jf the 'iwrtant accident sequences 4.2 Character and "keiihood of early containment failures 4.3 Character and likelihood of later containment failures 1.1 Plant categorization 4.4 Equipment and instrumentation survi vabi 1 i ty 1.2 Identification of accident sequences for deterministic and probabilistic analysis 5. Fission product release and transport 1.3 Quantification of sequence likelihood for probabilistic a na1ys i s 5.1 3ate and magnitude of release of fission products from fuel in-vesse' Progression of core melt in the reactor coolant system 5.2 Deposition o* fission products during m-vessel transport 5.3 ?ate and magnitude of release of radionuclides from fuel 2.1 Calculation of reactor coolant system thermal and hydraulic ex-vessel Dehavior 5.4 Deposition of 'ission products in containment due to natural 2.2 Rate and magnitude of hydrogen production 1n-vesse( processes 2.3 Interactions aetweei fuel debris and structures surrounding 5.5 Effect of engineered safety features on fission product Or supportinc the fjel retention 2.4 Interactions Between fuel debris and tie reactor vessel or 5.6 :x-contafnmnt consequence analysis vessel penetrations 2.5 Likelinood and magnitude of in-vesse! Steam explosions or spi«es 6. Integrated assessment of safety 2.6 Debris coolability in the vessel 6.1 Calculated response of typical (reference) plants to selected Loading of the containment severe accidents 6.2 Qualitative assessment of likelihood and capability for severe 3.1 Calculation of containment temperature and pressure response accidents 3.2 Hydrogen generation, combustion, and control 6.3 Integrated probabilistic risk assessments for reference plants Rate and magnitude of combustible gas production ex-vessel 6.4 Senerfc conclusions independent of design Distribution of combustible gases 6.5 Conclusions applicable only to reference plants Conditions leading to and resulting from deflagration 6.6 Residual uncertainty for other plants Conditions leading to and resulting from diffusion flames 6.7 Analysis required to qualify other plants to the generic Conditions leading to and resulting from detonation preparedness Conditions leading to and resulting from detonation 3.3 Molten fuel - coolant Interactions Assessment of possible changes in design, operation and Likelihood and magnitude of ex-vessel steam explosions emergency preparedness or spikes Debris coolability in ex-vessel location 7.1 Operational reliability Debris dispersal following vessel failure 7.2 Design changes to better prevent accidents 3.4 Molten fuel - structural interactions 7.3 Improvements in severe accident Management capability Between 'uel debris and containment shell 7.4 Design and emergency preparedness changes for severe jccfdent Setween fuel debris and containment floor consequence mitigation Between fuel debris and Internal containment structures 7.5 Selection of cost-benefit methods and criteria •'BOPOSEO y.iEjdlt F'J« ^jMMljSiQr, 3ECIS1O'. Japan Atomic Industrial Forum Vi StVE"t -tCl^'.'i Kansas Gas and Electric Company Long Island Lighting Company Middle South Services, Inc. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Tentatively, the following • ntermeaiate mlestones correspond to a Nebraska Public Power District ^ d* 1 J H** pfopos^d Co nun s^i Q i 1* Issjes and Process Portland General Electric Company September • ACftS review of Issjes ana Process Power Authority of the State of New York Public Service Company of Oklahoma Occooer • Jonnnssior review of Issues and Process Public Service Electric and Gas Company • Initial release o' IDCOfi results Public Service Indiana Puget Sound Power & Li ght Company • ACRS review of 5ARP Information Needs Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation November « Coimrission approval of Issues and Process Sargent & Lundy December • Starf and »CRS agree on SARP content South Carolina Electric and Gas Company Southern California Edison Company • ACRS review of final Severe Accident Policy Statement Southern Company Services, Inc. 1984 January • Commission Issue final Severe Accident Policy Stone 4 Webster Engineering Corporation Statement Swedish State Power Board Winter * Staff/IDC0R7ACRS tecnnlcal meetings Tennessee Valley Authority Texas Utilities Generating Company • APS review of source term The Toledo Edison Company Spring • ACRS review of staff proposal on severe accidents Union Electric Company United Engineers S Constructors, Inc. for existing plants Virginia Electric and Power Company • Staff SEP. on severe accident review of 3ESSAR II Washington Public Power Supply System Westinghouse Electric Corporation Summer • Commission issue proposed decision on severe Wisconsin Electric Power Company accidents for existing plants Yankee Atomic Electric Company Contained in letter from Oemood F. Ross, NRC SARP Senior Review Group to J. J. Ray, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards on Severe Accident Research Program, "Review of Decision-Malting Process and Regulatory Issues Identified to Date,' August 5, 1983. Appendix B IDCOR PROGRAM TECHNICS TASKS Appendix A

IDCOR SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS Task Title Performer

Task 1 Safety Goal Evaluation Arizona Public Service Company 1.1 Adopt safety goal developments Technology for The Babcock & Mil cox Company 1.2 Define risk/benefit criteria Energy Corporation Baltimore Gas and Electric Company Bechtel Power Corporation Task 2 Ground Rules for Evaluation of Technology for Degraded Core Conditions Energy Corporation Black & Veatch, Consulting Engineers Boston Edison Company Task 3 Selection of Dominant Sequences CF Braun and Company 3.1 Define initial likely sequences Technology for The Cincinnati Gas 8 Electric Company 3.2 Assess dominant sequences Energy Corporation The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company 3.3 Update [parallel studies) Energy Inc. , Inc. Task 4 Selection of Phenomenological Commonwealth Edison Company Sequences Affecting Containment Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. Consumers Power Company 4.1 Develop containment event trees Science Applications, Inc. Daniel Construction Company t.Z Jpdate system/cont. event trees Technology for The Detroit Edison Company Energy Corporation Duke Power Company Task 5 Effects of Human Error on Donri nant Technology for Duquesne Light Company Accident Sequences Energy Corporation Ebasco Services Incorporated Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc. Task 6 Risk Significance Profile for ESF and Energy Inc. Florida Power & Light Company Other Equipment Fluor Power Services, Inc. General Electric Company Task 7 Baseline Risk Profile for Current Energy Inc. Generation Plants Gibbs S Hill, Inc. Gilbert/Commonwealth Companies Task 8 Effect of Post-TH] Changes on the Energy Inc. Gulf States Utilities Company Overall Risk Profile Houston Lighting S Power Company Task 9 Preventive Methods to Arrest Sequence NUS Illinois Power and Light Company of Events Prior to Core Damage IOCOR ?-ogram Technical Tasks (continued) 23.1 Reference plant analysis Philadelphia (continued) Electric Co.. Fauske i Associates, Bechtel Power Corp., Cornionwealth Edison, Mississippi Task 10 Containment Structural Capability Power and Li ght

10.1 nioncshoD on containment Technology for 23.2 Technical integration of Technology for struct-ral capabi lity Energy Corporation containment analyses Energy Corporation 10.2 Evaiua.'on of containment 23.3 Non-reference Dlant analyses Technology for struct-j-al capabi lity Energy Corporation, Conbustion Engineering, Tas« 11 FissJon Product Liberation, Transport, Babcock and uilcox, and Inherent detention 8altinore Power and Li ght, Pennsylvani a U.I Evaluat-s fuel release EPfll Electric, General 11.2 Identi*.. pathways EDS Nuclear Electri'., Fauske I 11.3 Assess -ransporz behavior EDS Nuclear Associates 11.4 Assess :*iemical forms EPRI 11.5 Assess • inerent retention EPR1 Task 24 Operational Aspects of Accident Managenent and Control T«fc 12 Hydrogen Generation and Burn 24.1 Kodel huiMn interactions NUS Corporation 12.1 Sate anc amount of ^2 generation EPRl/Fausfce & 24.2 Quantify human interactions Human Reliabilities Associates, Inc./ANL Associates L2.2 Determi^ Hg distribution EPKl 24.3 Role of the operator NUS Corporation EPRI 12.3 Combustion limit Hg-ai r-steam-Oj Task 13 Hydrogen Burn Control S. Levy, Inc. 13.21 Evaluate fogging/sprapre-tnertingy suppression 5. Levy. Enc. 13.3 Evaluate controlled burn S. Levy, Inc. Task 14 Steam Overpressure Phenomena Fauske t Associates. Inc. Task 15 Core OeDris Behavior and Coolability

15.1 In-vessel core melt progression EPRI/Fauske S Associates, Inc. 15.2 In-vessel ex-vessel cooiabiHty, EPRI/ANL/Fauske i vessel penetration Associates 15.3 Core debris/concrete reactions EPRI/Fauske 1 Associates

Task 16 Integrated Model Definition

16.1 Assess available codes Jaycor, Inc. 16.1.1 MAAP model qualification 16.1.2 MAAP code verification 16.2 Develop IDCOR Modular Accident Fauske i Analysis Program (MAAP) Associates, Inc. 16.2.1 Develop methodology for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis 16.3 Integrate phenomenology Fausne S Associates Inc. Task 17 Equipment Survivabi 1 ity in a Degraded Core Envi ronment

17.1 (Deleted} 17.2 Identify essential equipment and NUS Corporation select representative pieces for evaluation 17.3 Identify environments for NUS Corporation evaluations 17.4 Perform analyses to determine NUS Corporation survi vabi lity Task 18 Atmospheric and Liquid Pathway Dose NUS Corporation Task 19 Alternative Containment Systere Bechtel Task 20 Core Retention Devices Offsnore Power Systems Task 21 Risk Reduction Potential Energy Inc. Task 22 Safe Stable States Following Core Fauske * Degradation Associates Inc. Task 23 Integrated Containment Analyses

23.1 Reference plant analyses Uestinghouse Corp., General Electric Co., Middle Soutn Services. TVA, NUCLEAR REACTOR CONTAINMENT

R.P. SCHMITZ

Bechtel Power Corporation San Francisco, California

ABSTRACT A wide range of containment ideas was studied and many utilized on first-of-a-kind plants before the This paper reviews the large number of contain- present U.S. containment systems were firmly estab- ment systems which were considered in the U.S. and lished. Table 1 summarizes these concepts, which the criteria changes which led to the systems in include confinement, low pressure, high pressure, use today. It is concluded that the existing con- double, underground, pressure suppression and ice tainments meet their original design objectives condenser containments. with a large margin and are quite effective in mi- tigating the effects of accidents beyond their ori- The characteristics of the reactor systems, such ginal design bases. as type, size, contained energy, and timing of fis- sion product releases from potential malfunctions are all important in selecting the containment sys- Introduction . A number of site factors are also important. As the U.S. industry matured, the number of reactor The reactor containment system has been and con- systems was reduced and the reactor systens became tinues to be among the single most important safe- more standardized. This in turn resulted in the ty features for nuclear power plants. It was the utilization of only a few well established con- first major safety system to be added to plants. tainment systems. However, even today, the criteria for containment are still evolving. This paper reviews the deve- lopment of containment design, the evolution of Development of Containment Criteria containment criteria and discusses the current con- tainment issues. As shown in Table 2, the basic criteria for re- lease of radioisotopes from nuclear plant sites were the first criteria to be developed. For all Development of Containment but extremely remote sites, this led to the use of a containment system with acceptable leakage re- The first reactor was located at the center of a lated to site specific characteristics. Most often large metropolitan area, had several simple safety these containments were freestanding steel struc- systems and had a conventional squash court for tures or steel-lined concrete structures which containment. The next reactors in the U.S. were could be demonstrated to leak less than about 12 of located at remote sites such as Oak Ridge, Hanford the containment volume per day during accident con- and Savannah River, using the philosophy that re- ditions. The accidents which night require this mote locations provide the required protection type of protection were considered so unlikely that against potential releases from accidents. little detailed analysis was necessary.

The need to locate reactors nearer population These criteria provided protection against leak- centers resulted in the first reviews of the poten- age but not from direct radiation due to radio- tial fission product releases during possible ac- active material within the containment after acci- cidents. A very wide range of methods for miti- dents. It was assumed that people near the site gating fission product releases was examined and a could be evacuated to minimize exposure froa mate- number of these were utilized on first-of-a-kind rial inside the containment. The next criteria plants. added was the requirement of shielding froa this direct radiation at all but the most remote sites. The first so called "containment vessel" was for This led to the widespread use of steel-lined, re- the West Milton facility of the Knolls Atomic Power inforced or prestressed concrete structures for Laboratory near Schenectady, New York. This re- containment which combine the low leakage capabi- mains the largest containment structure built with lity with shielding from the material inside the a 225' diameter sphere with a volume of about six containment. million cubic feet. This structure set a number of important precedents in design, construction, code The next important criteria to be added were for interpretation and testing for future containments. protection against external missiles, such as Bis- siles resulting from tornadoes. Similar criteria Another important precedent for current U.S. con- were developed relating to aircraft crashes over tainments was the first pressure suppression system sites depending on the frequency of air traffic at that was used on the Army Package Reactor #1 at the site. These additional criteria aade the use Fort Greely, Alaska in 1956. This was followed by of reinforced or prestressed concrete containments the pressure suppression containment used in or the addition of a special concrete •issile Pacific Gas & Electric's Humboldt Bay Unit 3 and shield necessary for all sites. more recently, the Mark I, II and III versions of pressure suppression containment.

10 TABLE 1: U.S. CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS

Type Description Example

Confinement Reactor systems enclosed in a relatively Used on the new production reactor low leakage building with filtered discharge and Fort St. Vrain to maintain a negative pressure

Low Pressure 167 foot diameter hemispherical dome designed Used on the bonus BWR plant in Puerto for 5 psig enclosing the complete reactor and Rico turbine generator system

High Pressure Low leakage steel shell designed for over 75 Used on pathfinder plant for Northern psig States Power Company

Double Two pressure retaining low leakage barriers Proposed for Mallbu and Ravenswood in series plants - never constructed

Underground All reactor systems in below grade excavation Extensively studied for California or caisson sites

Ice Condenser Similar to pressure suppression except that Used on D.C. Cook energy is absorbed by ice in containment

Pressure All reactor systems enclosed in relatively Used on essentially all U.S. boiling Suppression compact low leakage steel containment water reactors with energy absorbed in a pool of water

Medium Low leakage steel or steel lined reinforced Used on most U.S. pressurized water Pressure or prestressed concrete containment enclosing reactors the reactor and primary systems

TABLE 2: EVOLUTION OF CONTAINMENT CRITERIA and somewhat less than a 100 electrical penetra- tions. There is always at least one personnel lock and an emergency personnel lock. In addition, there 1. Criteria for radiological releases is a larger hatch for equipment movement during shutdown, at least one penetration for fuel 2. Criteria on direct radiation doses handling and penetrations for ventilation ducts. Although any one of these could be a leakage path 3. Protection against external missiles and is tested to the required leakage specifica- tions, the consequences of leakage vary widely de- 4. Consideration of degraded cores pending on the location of the leak. For example, a leak through a valve to a closed piping system, which itself may be totally enclosed in an auxi- As more refined analyses were performed, criteria liary building with provisions to collect and fil- for various transient loads and associated releases ter leakage before discharge to the atmosphere, were developed. These additional criteria had more would be far different from a direct leak to the of an impact on the containment systems and the atmosphere. Although some valves and components do internal structures than on the containment struc- require frequent tests and maintenance, maintaining ture itself. the required reliability of the containment pene- tration systems has proven to be a manageable Since the Three Mile Island Unit 2 accident in problem. 1979 there has been continuing discussion of vari- ous additional criteria relating to degraded The systems for removal of heat from the contain- cores. These issues are discussed below. ment after accidents are important for the long term functioning of the containment. Generally this heat removal is provided by fan cooler units Containnent Systems inside the containment. All current U.S. contain- ments have a spray system for heat removal after There are a number of supporting systems included accidents. In a few cases the fan cooler units are in nuclear plant designs to support, augment or not considered safety-related and the containment improve the effectiveness of the basic containment spray is the only safety-related system for post- structure. accident heat removal.

The initial perception of containment as a sinple Frequently, in the past, the analysis of the con- structure with only a few penetrations changed as sequences of accidents has indicated that some sup- the designs were developed in detail. In a typical plemental fission product removal system Is neces- containment there are over a 100 pipe penetrations sary inside the containment. In a few cases, char- coal filter systems were used, but on more recent

11 plants chemical additives have been used In the minor changes in the containment sump configura- containment spray to assist In removal and reten- tion. In any case, examination of the core reten- tion of fission products from the containment at- tion devices which have been proposed indicate that mosphere. Another approach is to use a secondary they would not be significantly more effective than enclosure building which allows for collection of the existing containment basemats. leakage from the primary containment and filtration of the gases collected before discharge to the at- Another current issue, which again has been dis- mosphere. For some time containment systems in the cussed for several decades, is the addition of U.S. have had provisions for either inerting the pressure relief valves to the containment. In an containment atmosphere or mixing and recombining of accident situation, the vented gases should be fil- the small amount of hydrogen which can be produced tered. Such a system is currently called "filtered in the core from metal-water reaction during design vented containment." If the containment were ever basis transient conditions, other metal water reac- over-pressurized to the extent that failure was tions, and from radiolytic decomposition due to likely, it would be preferable to release a frac- exposure to radiation. tion of tne contained gases under controlled con- ditions rather than all the contents of the con- tainment. However, the logic of setting the over- Current Issues pressure, deciding when it should be used, testing, and other details of implementation are quite com- The basic containment structures and systems have plex. In recent studies it was determined that the withstood the test of time well and have been rela- containment would leak before falling, thus re- tively unchanged over the last 15 years. There ducing the need for a built-in venting system. In are, however, some issues currently being discussed which are fundamental to containment design resul- general, current assessments Indicate that these ting from consideration of degraded cores. These systems do not provide sufficient improvement in include containment ultimate strength, retention of severe accident capability to warrant their use- degraded cores, hydrogen control, vented and fil- Protection against release of fission products tered containment and radioactive source terms. during accidents is the primary function of the containment and all containment systems. Any re- Degraded core sequences which could cause the duction in the estimated fission product inventory containment to exceed design pressure include steam would have a pervasive effect on the details of all explosions, steam overpressure spikes, buildup of of these systems. The design basis source term for non-condensable gases such as hydrogen, or failure fission products was chosen rather arbitrarily a of all containment heat removal systems. There is number of years ago mainly to determine site suit- unquestionably a large margin in the containment ability. The few accidents to date have released structure and most systems to accommodate signifi- substantially fewer fission products than these cant overpressures. Exactly how much is debatable, estimates, leading to a serious attempt to re- depending on a number of detailed design features, evaluate the current licensing bases in the U.S. but estimates range from one-and-one-half to four Hopefully the current reassessment will lead to times design pressure. In most sequences there more rational containment systems, as well as sub- would be some time after an accident before con- stantially improved siting, evacuation plans and tainment failure and there would be considerable other emergency procedures. attenuation of airborne fission products inside containment due to gravitational settling, plating The need for these advanced containment design on cold surfaces, action from the containment features depends very much on the postulated ac- sprays and fan cooler operation. cident sequences. Although sequences have been identified where these features would be helpful, Several mechanisms have been identified which the probabilities of these sequences appear suf- could contribute to the buildup of non-condensable ficiently low and so should not be considered as gases in a containment due to degraded cores. design bases. These include hydrogen production due to reaction of the zirconium cladding with water and inter- action of core debris with concrete, producing Conclusion steam and carbon dioxide. Consideration of the containment ultimate capability and the use of ig- The reactor containment structure and containment niters to burn the hydrogen at a controlled rate systems are among the most important nuclear plant appear to be a satisfactory response to these safety features. A large number of variations on Issues. containment were developed and evaluated before the present pattern in the U.S. was developed. The Core retention mechanisms have been under discus- design criteria for containment have continuously sion since the mid 1960's. If the core should melt evolved over the years and are still being dis- through the reactor vessel and Is not distributed cussed. Recent work demonstrates that the existing over a large area or cooled by water in the sump, containment designs meet the original design objec- thermal attack of the concrete basemat could even- tives with more margin than has been assuned in the tually lead to loss of containment integrity. Cur- past and are even quite effective In mitigating the rent analyses are showing that fragmented LWR fuel effects of severe accidents. Fortunately, the debris covered by water is coolable. For future judgement used in developing the oost coamonly used plants, It appears that any remaining concerns re- U.S. containment systems has stood the test of time lated to core retention can be acconmodated by and only relatively minor changes have taken or are likely to take place in the future.

12 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY POLICY TRENDS

FREDERICK M. BERNTHAL

Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

I wish, first of all, to thank the Canadian —We know that over half of the American Nuclear Society for sponsoring this important people, according to a Business Week survey last international conference on containment design, and year, oppose construction of any new nuclear plants secondly, to thank you all for giving me a good of any kind in the U.S. excuse to escape from the hundred-degree heat of Washington, O.C. to the cool, and no less —We know that the coincidence of Three Mile beautiful city of Toronto. Island and a movie called "The Syndrome" five years ago put a scare in the American people from It is not my purpose today to deliver a which they have yet to recover fully. scholarly dissertation on the frontiers of nuclear containment design. I have read your agenda, and I All of this knowledge points to one indisputable have been awed by the array of experts in this fact: nuclear power is still fighting for its life field who will speak