ML18081A386
| ML18081A386 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1979 |
| From: | Parr O Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Mittl R Public Service Enterprise Group |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910220027 | |
| Download: ML18081A386 (2) | |
Text
'
AUG 311979 Di s tr i b ~ti o n,:
Docket File: 50-3ll~ok NRC PDR Loe al PDR LVJR #3 File OVassa 11 o FWi 11 i ams OP arr ADromerick Docket No:
50-311 RMattson SHanauer JKnight RTedesco RDeYoung*
VMoore MErnst RDenise OELD IE (3)
Mr. R. L. Mittl, Gener~l Manager Licensing and Environment bee~ JBuchanan, NSIC TAbernathy, TI-C ACRS ( 16) *.
Engineering and Construction Department Public Service Electric *and Gas Company 80 Park Pl~ce Newark_, New Jersey 07101
Dear Mr. Mittl:
SUB,JECT:
REQUEST FOR.l\\DDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE SALEM UNIT 2 FINAL SAFETY* ANALYSIS REPORT ( FSAR)
- As a result of our continuing review of the Salem FSAR, we find that we need additional information to *complete. our evaluation. The specific infoi:mation required is listed in the enclosure.
Our-review schedule is based on the assumption that this additional information will be available for our review by September 12, 1979.
If you cannot meet this date, please inform us withfo seven days after receipt of _this* letter so that we may revise our schedule accordingly.
Please contact us if you desire any discussion or clarification of the enclosed request.
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc:
See next page Sincerely,
- 0. D. Parr, Chief Light Water Reactors, Branch #3 Division of Project Management
_oir,.1c11'Joo.** ~I~1.:.~.~*~":".. ;.)~-=-~~*-?****............................... _
.............,....................... ~...... :. *.....................
- URNAIUI.. ~.~
......,:.r:i.e~.~... 7-!./..............,,..,.,,..,.,,..,. "'"""""'.. """"" '"""'"'""*,......... ""'"'""""",""
DATE....?l,;{?.l... J.l.~..., fo**~!... !..1... 1.!.~...................,.,,.,,..,,.,..,.,.,.,.,,:.... :.:... ****** 0 """'""*******......................
NllC J.l'6RM 318 (9*76) NB.CM 02.ff
- U.G. C>OVERNMENT l'RINTINC> CP'P'IC<ll !011*,HI*111 7 \\;j l \\) 2 2 u 0 °2__7
4.39
. *.,1\\L
~::; or~J 1
1i~1* r\\.--,N
.. ).*'
i**,r* s-ATION
- f 1*T 2
- 'A'"" ~;c.1,:: *.-'.1 l'ilJ I
U1~l A
~ UJCK~T NO: 50-311
~
The Fub*i*;c.
~..::.;. :c..= E1ectr-ic and Gas Company report, "E*;v.1uation of the Re.?cto~ i,oolant System Considering Subcompartment Pressuriza-tion Folloviing a LOCA for Salem Units l and 2" Vias submitted to the staff on March 6, 1979 and revised on March 29, 1979.
Section 6.1 of this report states that the computer program WESAN was used to analyze the steam generator and reactor coolant pump supports for the effects of asymmetric pressure loads combined directly with LOCA loop depressurization loads.
Provide the design control measures as required by appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50, that were used to demonstrate the applicability and validity of the WESAN program.
These control measures should meet one of the following criteria:
- 1.
The computer program is recognized and widely used, with a sufficient history of successful use to justify its applicability and validity without further demonstration.
The dated program version that will be used, the software or operating system, and the hardware configuration must be specified to be accepted by virtue of its history of use.
- 2.
The computer program solutions to a series of test problems with accepted results have been demonstrated to be substantially identical to those obtained by a similar program which meets the criteria of (a) above.
The test problems shall oe demonstrated to be similar to or within the range of applicability for the problems analyzed by the computer program to justify acceptance of the program.
- 3.
The program solutions to a series of test problems are substantially identical to those obtained by harid calculations or from accepted experimental tests or analytical results published in technical literature. The test problems shall be demonstrated to be similar to the problems analyzed to justtfy accept~nce of the program.
A summary comparison of the results obtained from the use of the WESAN computer program under options (b) or (c) above with either the results derived from a similar program meeting option (a),
or a previously approved computer program, or results from the test problems of option (c) shall be provided. They should include representative comparisons of responses due to static and/or dynamic loading, preferably in graphical form.
4.40 With respect to the P.G.&E report referenced in Question 4.39 provide the buckling design criteria which was used for all ASME Class 1 component supports subjected to faulted condition loading combinations.
Provide justification if your criteria exceeds the limits of Paragraph F-1370(c) of the ASME Section III Code, Appendix P.
\\