Thadani, Mohan

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Tim: Tim: That is correct. That is why we said that venting through a path that would significantly reduce the fission product release to the environment should be adopted. Mohan From: Collins, Timothy Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 10:21 AM To: Burnell, Scott; Thadani, Mohan Cc: Nelson, Robert Subject: RE: Vent paths Mohan, This is my understanding: Thadani, Mohan Wednesday, March 23, 2011 1:01 PM Collins, Timothy; Burnell, Scott Nelson, Robert RE: Vent paths

The second (less desirable) path takes suction off the drywell airspace (as opposed to the suppression pool airspace). The suppression pool airspace suction path is preferable because it provides for a fission product scrubbing of the discharge through the suppression pool prior to the release. There is no scrubbing of the release if the drywell airspace suction path is used Can you confirm? Tim C

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 9:32 AM To: Thadani, Mohan; Collins, Timothy Cc: Nelson, Robert Subject: FW: Vent paths Mohan, Tim; The Mark I hits just keep on a-corning... Not a lot of detail needed here, I think. Thanks, Scott

From: Xie, Yanmei [mailto:yanmei-xie@platLscorn] Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 3:24 PM To: Burnell, Scott Subject: Vent paths

av 1*0

Hi, Scott,
Sorry for my steam of questions. During yesterday's briefing, Mr. Borchardt provided the following answer to one of the questions. He said there are two vents paths off of US Mark I containments, but he only mentioned one. Would you be

able to find out what the other path is? Thank you!

MR. BORCHARDT: There's two vent paths off 15 of the U.S. Mark I containments. The preferred vent path takes suction, if you 16 will, or has a release path from the airspace above a pool of water that's in the 17 basement, it's in the torus of the Mark I containment, and that would allow for the 18 steam that went into the torus to be scrubbed of fission products, so you would 19 have a release: it would relieve the pressure, which is the main objective of the 20 vent, is, you want to maintain the containment integrity. And it's preferable to 21 vent it on purpose to get the pressure so that you don't have a catastrophic 22 failure of the containment. So it's at least my 24 belief that you wouldn't have the hydrogen accumulation in the upper levels of 25 the reactor building, which we believe is the cause of the explosions. Now, the
26

1 spent fuel pools on these designs are also on that same level, on the upper level 2 of the reactor building. So it's, the hardened vent wouldn't do anything to help 3 hydrogen that came from the spent fuel pool Yanmei Xie Associate Editor Platts Nuclear Publications Office: (202) 383-2161
M~obile: (b)(6) www.platts.com
J

The information

contained

in

this

message

is

intended

only

for -he

recipient,

and may

be a

confidenLial alttorney-client co'munication or may otherwise be privi. leged and confidential and protected from disclosure. It the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible tor delivering this message to the intended recipient, please be aware that any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If yev have received this communication in er:or, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and deleting it from youlr computer. The McGraw-H;'i. Comn.=nies, Tnc. resereves the right, sect to applicable loca2 law, to mo:nitor, review and process the content of any electronic message or information sent to or from McGraw-Hill e-mail addresses without informirng the sender cr recip~ient ,,-the message. By sending electronic message or information to McGraw-Hill e-mail addresses you, as the sender, are consenting to McGraw-Hi'3 processing any of your personal data therein.