ML17195A538
| ML17195A538 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden, Quad Cities, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1984 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Farrar D COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| LSO5-84-07-007, LSO5-84-7-7, NUDOCS 8407200228 | |
| Download: ML17195A538 (6) | |
Text
'
- ~*
- ~.
July 13, 1984 Docket Nos.:
50-237 /249/254/265,_
LS05-84-07-007..
DISTRIBUTION NRC PDR DCrutchfield CJamerson
- RGilbert JNGrace ELJordan Docket 50-249.
Docket 50-265 Mr. Dennis L. Farrar Director of Nuclear licensing Commonwealth Edison _Company Post Office Box 767
- Chicago,- Illinois 60690
Dear Mr. Farrar:
L PDR
'ACRS {10)
ORB#5 Rdg.
OELD Docket 50-237 Docket 50-'254
SUBJECT:
MARK I CONTAINMENT LONG TERM PROGRAM Re:
Dresden Units 2 and 3 *.
Quad Cities Units 1 *and 2 The staff reviewed' the Plant Unique Analysis Reports (PUARs) that were submitted relative to this is.sue "by tommoriwealth Edison Company on June 27, 1983,- and transmitted a request for additional information on February 14,
_.1984.
You responded in.a -letter dated March 29,*1.964.* Af.ter further
, 'analysis, t'1e staff and its contractor, Brookhaven National Laboratory,
. determined that additional.information.was needed to complete the review.
This request for addit_ional informati9n is enclosed.
However,,' t.he staff recommends that a. meeting with your staff. be schedu_l ed for August 9, _1984,
- to~discµss this request, b~fore yoµ complete your responses, to avoid ariY' misunderstanding and to eliminate any need for~another. round of questions.
- .This request for information was approved bj bMB undef clearance number 3150-0091. *comments on burden and duplication may be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Repo~ts and Management, Room 3208, New Executive Office Building, W_ashington, D.C..,20503.*
Enclosure:
Sincerely, Original signed by Walter A. Baulson for/~
Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chi~f Operating Re~ctors Branch #5 Djvision of* Licensing
(
/. *.
As stated :
cc w/.enclosure:
See next page.
Otmfol DCrutchfi e 1 d O~~:DL ORB#5:DL CJamerson: k 7 /t-3/84 RG1lbert 7 //)_/84... ~7/(!J/84 8407200228 840713'.'
I
~DR ADOCK 05000237
. ; *,;)
- _____ f'DR __. ~
1
<jpl... *
...,, fJ~~) *.
'l j"*"
"l, I
\\...1 Mr. Dennis
- cc Isham, Lincoln & Baale Counselors at Law One First National Plaza, 42nd FlO'Or Chica*go,' Illinois 60603 Mr. Doug Scott Plant Superintendent Dresden Nuclear Power Station Rural Route #1 Morris, Illinois 60450 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspectors Office Dresden Station Rural Route #1 Morris, Illinois 60450 Chairman Board of Super~isors of Grundy County Grundy County Courthouse Morris, Illinois 60450 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Activities Branch Region V Office ATTN:
Regional Radiation Representative 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III 799 Roosevelt Street Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Mr. Gary N. Wright, Manager Nuclear Facility Safety Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety 1-035 Outer Park Drive, 5th Floor Springfield, Illinois 62704 The Honorable Tom Corcoran United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515 July 13, 1984 Robert G. Fitzgibbons Jr.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza Suite 5200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Mr. Nick Kalivianakas Plant Superintendnet Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station 22712 - 206th Avenue North Cordova, Illinois 61242 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 22712 - 206th Avenue North Cordova, Illinois 61242 Mr. Marcel DeJaegher, Chairman Rock Island County Board of Supervisors
- Rock Island County Court House Rock Island, Illinois 61201 Mr. D. R. Stichnoth, President Iowa-Illinois Gas & Electric Co.
206 East Second Avenue.
Davenport, Iowa 52801 Susan N. Sekuler Assistant Attorney General Environmental Control Division 188 W. Randolph Street Suite 23.15 Chicago, Illinois 60601
y I
e DRESDEN UNITS 2 & 3 AND QUAD CITIES UNITS 1 & 2 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION A
ITEM 1: Acceleration volumes for structures with sharp corners such as I beams are computed on the basis of values in Table 1-4.1-1 fpr pool swell, co, chugging and SRV loadings (Sections 1.4.1.5, 1.4.1.6, 1.4.1.7.3, 1.4.1.8.3 and ~.4.2.4). The stated use of Table 1-4.1-1 is clearly not possible directly as the shap~s _and flow directions presented do not
---match any realistic model of some structures such as the ring girder.
For segments 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the---ring girder (Table 2-2.2-9 in the Dresden PUAR and Table 2-2.2-11 in the Quad Cities PUAR) give the spe-cific formulas and values of-the acceleration volumes for loads in the
- _directions normal to the flange and normal to the web._ For post-chug loads shown in Table 2-2.2-9 of Dtesden and Table 2-2.2-11 of Quad
.J*
Cities identify the chugging downcomers and the phasing relationship and give the local acceleration components at segments 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the ring girder due to unit source strengths.
ITEM 2: Submerged structure loads are applied on the basis of an equivalent static load using Dynamic Load Factors (DLF's).
Describe in detail how*
these DLF's are obtained for the ring girder.
Provide informati:on on the critical frequencies and corresponding mode shapes of the ring gird-er model.
If the same DLF's are used for both the flange and web forces, justify this procedure as a conservative interpretation of the real dynamic loading.
ITEM 3: Submerged structure *loads require a computation of the velocity and ac-celeration fields computed on the basis of the method of images applied to a model of the torus bay.
Table 1-4.1-2 gives the relevant param-eters for the rectangular bay model used for LOCA bubble drag loads.
Is the same model used for CO, chugging and SRV loads on submerged j:_*.
)_,
structures?
If y.. justify th-e use of this mode.or structures near the bay boundary *(e.g. ring girder, vent header support column) under asymmetric loading conditions, *i.e. sources acting in one bay only.
If not, describe in*detail the models used.
ITEM 4: The PUAR (Sectibn 1.4.1.4.1) states that pool swell impact and drag loads on the main vent-vent header spherical junction are computed ac-cording to procedures specified in Appendix A of NUREG-0661.
Since no specification is given for spherical structures in the Acceptance Cri-teria, describe which procedure in Appendix A of NUREG-0661 is used and how the spherical junction is modelled.
ITEM 5:.:The phasing between CO harmonics for torus attached piping is imple-
. mented differently than for torus shell loads and for other structures (Section 1.4.1.7.1). Justify this procedure.
In particular, explain why a different seal e factor is used for alternate 4 of the CO specifi-cation.
ITEM 6: SRV Torus shell loads are based on a modified analytical model that is calibrated to bound observed shell pressures in Monticello tests (Sec-tion 1-4.2.3). Additional vertical losd correction fact~rs are also de-duced from Monticello tests.
In-plant tests at Dresden Unit 2 are ref-erenced as providing additional confirmation that computed loadings and predicted structural responses are conservative.
Provide information on the number of tests performed and the observed maximum shell pressures as well as the predictions of the modtfied analytical model.
- .a.:....
H.£M 7: SRV drag loads a9computed in accordance with t9LDR, but 11 Dynamic load factors are derived from Dresden's in-plant SRV test data for both Quad Cities and Dresden" (Section 1.4.2.4).
EXplain exactly how these factors are used and give tfiiir numerical values for the major structur-al components,.:e.g. for the ring girder and the vent header support col-umn.
Describe how test condition information is extrapolated to design
- ~conditions, especially those involving multiple valve discharges.
ITEM 8: Table 3-2.2-15 of the Dresden PUAR-""(Table 3-2.2-16 of the Quad Cities PUAR) is inconsistent with Figure 1-4.1-23 of the PUAR.
However, the loads as listed in Table 3-2.2-15 (3-2.2-16) are very conservative.
Are the.loads and downcomer groups as listed in the Table(s_) the ones used for analysis in Dresdeh and Quad Cities?
Presumably the table heading
.J*
"Quad Cities Unit 1 & 2 Load per Downcomer 11 of Table 3-2.2-15 of the Dresden PUAR i~ mislabelled.
ITEM 9: Are the entriei in Table 3-2.2-3 for.Fi and F2 reversed?
If not~ ex-plain why with the given geometry of the main vent, vertical load compo-nents are greater than horizontal ones.
ITEM lO:ln volume 5 of the PUAR the statement is made that "one representative SRVDL subsystem was analyzed 11 Which line was chosen and on what basis was the choice made?
Could loads on other 1 i nes be higher than on the one analyzed?