ML17276A179

Documents 810915 Meeting in Bethesda,Md Re Generic Study in Support of Use of 10 Peak OBE Cycles

ML17276A179
Person / Time
Site:	Perry, Columbia, Clinton
Issue date:	09/17/1981
From:	Artigas R GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To:	Bosnak R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17276A177	List: GO2-80-279, Responds to Re Actions Taken to Preclude Cracking of Jet Pump Holddown Beams.Reducing Tension Preload to 25 Kips on Beams Provides Adequate long-term Solution GO2-81-442, Forwards Minutes from Mechanical Engineering Branch 810929-30 & 1001 Meetings in Woodbury,Ny & 811016 Preservice Insp Meeting in Washington,Dc.Agenda Items from Both Meetings & Subsequent Resolution Encl ML17276A179 ML17276A180
References
MFN-171-81, NUDOCS 8111090518
Download: ML17276A179 (2)

Text

BEN ERAL ~i ELECTRIC GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, i75 CURTNER AYESANJOSE, CALIFORNIA95IZS NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS DIVISION HFN 171-81 September 17, 1981 Hr.

R Bosnak, Chief Mechanical Engineering, Branch Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mashington, O.C.

20555 Oear Hr. Bosnak

Subject:

Number of OBE Fatigue Cycles in the BMR 'SSS Oesign This letter formally documents the meeting held on September 15, 1981 between the NRC and GE at Bethesda where GE presented the generic study in support of the use af 10 peak OBE. cycles..

As we agreed at the end of the meeting, GE will take the -ollawing actions to close the related Clinton and Perry SER open items:

(1)

For the NSSS piping, the FSAR will be amended to show that 50 peak OBE cycles were act>>aIIy used in all piping calculations.

(2)

For other NSSS equipment and components, the attached final version of the presentation package serves

.s the preliminary substantiation of the adequacy of 10 peak OBE cycles.

This substantiation will be finalized when GE provides the comparison showing that the design basis response spectra of Clinton and Perry are bounded by those af Golden Gate, Taft, and El Centra cart:Iquakes.

The responses to the related HEB-SER questions will be rewritten to <nciude the results of Actions (1) and (2) and resubmitted by November 6, 1981.

To resolve this.same issues for other projects to be reviewed (including Hanford) by the NRC Staff, it is understood that the same approach will be taken to delineate the piping analysis and to justify the design aJequacy of other equipment and components.

Your final concurrence is requested.

Very t y

our s,g R. Artigas, Manager BMR Projects Licensing Nuclear Safety 5 Licensing Operat!on H/C 682, Ext. 53141 8iii090518 Biii02 PDR ADOCK 05000397 A

PDR