ML19220A438
| ML19220A438 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/14/1974 |
| From: | Washburn B US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904180007 | |
| Download: ML19220A438 (3) | |
Text
.
tq w
1 r
t A.
1 n..a 1 v.P..,4 w
8 NCT.ET ':]:
50-320
(~
e t rep oli tan _9f._,1pp, Cc-^.wy (:'e t-Ed)/
l11' LI C.*_.TS :
- -~. -.'. t-Co T._n y o rsey Central Pc.fr
.1 c Lig Fransylvania flectric Co pany F; CILI.t:
ior.e
- 112 Irland uc'.2r Ctation,1 i 2
S's' _"_\\RY OF JULY 25,1974 DEI
.G WITii J PLIC. CTS' ' ;P ? E ST AI I'.'ES TO DISCUSS.t.I;3ITIO'; AL I:: TOR._.M; FIQ';I ~ i..~..s'IS - 9:i';CTUF tL C:C I:7 /"I::G A reprecuntative of the Structural n;ireerir ; ' ranch ret vitit the applicants' representatives to discuss additional infornation required in the applicants' FSAll for T:fI-2.
T:e list of par-icipants is atteched.
Alt!.ough the acplicants' ;ost appropriate personnel were not prr.sent, wth the applicants' representatives who ere present for consideratica of a dif ferent f ubject and the staf f.ianted a discussica of our require-c2nts for additional structural infor:ati:n.
Several of our require-rents pertain to very fine points and we
.nt the applicants to fully understand our concems and requirercents befc e respcnding.
It.:as
.c; reed that t'.:e appropriate appliennts' represe.ntatives and the s taf f could subsequantly discuss our requirer.ents again by phone.
Ec r-al questions on these requircrents vill be submitted. to the applicants.
Significant points discussed are sur.rarized below.
1.
In Sectica 3.5.4.2 of the FSAR: Uc need justificatica for the statenent on relative conservatis= of the various for ulae.
Tae rain factor in the differences is the velocity; for a given
=issile, one forcula would be core conservative than the others.
2.
In Section 3.7.4 of the FS.\\R:
2 e proposed tri-nial accelero-grapit is not accep table; a. ulti-elarent seisroncope nust be used for instrurentation at the '.asecent of the ccatainment.
See Iteo 2, "ceting Sur. nary, arc't 19, 1974.
3.
In Section 3.3.1.4.1 of the FSA2:
The use of concrete interlock approach is not acceptable.
Tais 2thod is not a realistic analyais for pre-s crnsed s t ructar.. s; pre-strersed structure is not supposed to crack all t' e.rf through.
TFe offeet of crac.ing and intericching decreases thc stif fnecs of the structure.
-y r '., - ;) -
. J s' %. as f M m. m.
Ta 7 %EC 31* g.?e9 )-33) A [C21 i)2 4 J
%*2 C.3 15 99 5%8
- 23J94
.\\
\\
.w.---e.-
--..=ye.
_ eyn g pe., _
. www-p.pe e em pe em.
g.-e.-w'=
. w w e * -
go yp
--..730418Doo7 i
')
@O
'D Tc.ngential si. ear, in general, is not critical in pre-stressed ccncrete.
/, draf t of a new code developed by Co--ittee 349, ACI/ASME, is applicable to the contain:ent structure.
Criteria for tangential shear in pre-stressed concrete have not been established in the code but critaria have been estahlinhed for radial 5!. ear au t'.iesa can 'ae ied. tith.,one
.odification.
Tuc alter ative u>e of t!.e
".CI :13 code is acc2ptable.
The s taf f < t:t ad t' at tha c licat.ta +c"1d a c ' e the a va i '. nie ccha c:: s'em s t r at a t' r.c C2 racctcr. :iMng cIl md dc. c de.;igns are accep table.
4.
In Sectio,.3 3. S. 3 and 3. 8. 4 o f the TS/.R: Pa ha.2 :.o t received a response to our Iteu 4-4 sub.;itted to the applicant:s on " arch IS, 1974.
Tiis pertains to the cenfor a..ca of daign criteria and d 2 sign ca t:.o 's with Doctrent (3),
t ructural Penign Crita ria for F. valuating tha Ef fects of High Energy Tipe 3reaks.
The applicants representatives stated that they have all the strasses for the prinary loop which will enable them to nelect the break locations for the analyses.
For linns cutside the cea t ai:.r 2 n t thej need to parforn the stress analyccs in or'er to select tha break locaticas for tha ef fects analysis.
D.c applicants were ashed to exanine their piping and s tructural aystens, to analyze the ef fects of breaks on the structures cad to address and correct cajor discrapancies.
L'e also need a dis cun io:. indicating, in the FSAR, how ecu.:en t (3) is inplerw.ted.
5.
Tae appliccnts response in Anendment 16 to our. Item 4-2, March 13, 1974, (conformanca with P.egulatory Guide 1.13) uns inadequata in that it did not provide the requested ccuparisons in detail.
72 cannot evaluate the response in Arant'ncat M.
Also pertaining to the applic: ants' response to Iten 4-2, confor :ence tith Pegulatory Cuide 1.13, the applicants were asked to reference their reupcnne in FSAR Sectien 9.1.2 properly in 75AR Section 3.8.
i O r/
/
de /
4 hjf Q /
.)',k /// f "
~
L
- 3. P wh'. urn, Project Manager Light L'ater T.eactors 3 ranch 2-2 Directorate of Licensing At tac'n ents :
As stated ec&
.or s,
3'U SD'> 'qQas AGluckran 8
.v.+
3//3 /74 3/\\4/74 g
Q4j
.,c >
I' a % I C.313 i F r. )d 3 ).0 01 J2e9 c.*
'e s i.e s *
- N ee
.~
~. -
-, -. - ~
0 DISTRIBUTICS:
Docket File AEC PDR Local PDR LWR 2-2 File L Reading K. Coller V. A. Moore R. C. DeYoung D. J. Skovholt D. R. Muller W.
R.
Butler J. F. Stol R. A.
Clark R.
E.
Ireland D.
B.
Vassallo K. Fniel A. Schwencer F. J. Schenel D. L. Ziemann P. L. Collins G. W. Knighton G.
Di c.k e r B. J. Youngblood H.
Refan S. Varga D. iit.. '... u e [4 J
A l
MenrM e 7. 3ch, W at R. Mac ca r--
V. Stello R. Tedesco H. Denton J. Knight S. Pawlicki L. Shao T. Novak D. Ross R. Houston T.
Irpolito C.
Long G. Lainas V.
Benaroya R. Vollmer B. Crimes W.
Ca. mill J. Kastner M. Spangler R. Ball a rd EP PM hP Pd OCC R0 (3)
M.
Service Participants ACRS (16)
O.
Parr 41/-j Q{Q d
- g UNITED STATES f/N T' t.
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
{t hbb I
. w', A j W ASHINGTON. O C.
23545 N9 m
%n,'
Aug us t 14, 1974 DOCKET No:
50-320 APPLICANTS:
Yetropolitan Edison Company (Me t-Ed)
Jersey Central Power and Light Company Pennsylvania Electric Ccr.pany FACILITY:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2
SUMMARY
OF JULY 25, 1974 MEETING WITH APPLICA;TS' FIPRESTATIVES TO DISCUSS ADDITIONAL INFOR".ATION FlQUIFIMENTS - STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING A repri:sentative of the Structural Engineering Sranch met with the applican ts ' representatives to discuss additional information required in the applicants' FSAR for TMI-2.
"'he list of participants is attached.
Although the applicants' cost app rop riate personnel were not pt.sent, both the applicants' representatives who were present fo-consideration of a different subject and the staf f wanted a discussion of car require-cents for additional structural infor=ation.
Several of our require-cents pertain to very fine points and we want the applicants to fully understand our concerns and requirements before responding.
It was agreed that the appropriate applicants' representatives and the staf f would subsequently discuss our require:ents again by phone.
Formal questions on these requirements will be submitted to the applicants.
Significant points discussed are sumnarized below.
1.
In Section 3.5.4.2 of the FSAR: We need justification for the statement on relative conservatism of the various for=ulae.
The cain f actor in the dif fere.::es is the velocity; for a given missile, one for=ula would be more conservative than the others.
2.
In Section 3.7.4 of the FSAR:
The proposed tri-axial accelero-graph is not acceptable; a multi-elecent seismoscope must be used for instrumentation at the basement of the containment.
See Item 2, Meeting Su==ary, March 19, 1974.
3.
In Section 3.8.1.4.1 of the FSAR:
The use of concrete interlock approach is not acceptable.
This =ethod is not a realistic analysis for pre-stressed structures; pre-stressed structure is not supposed to crack all the way through.
The ef fect of cracking and interlocking decreases th stiffness of the structure.
48 313
I J
($)
(
_2 Tangential shear, in general, is not critical in prc-stressed concrete.
A draft of a new code developed by Committee 349, ACI/ASME, is applicable to the containment structure.
Criteria for tangential shear in pre-stressed concrete have not been establishad in the code but criteria have been established for radial shear and these can be used with some modification.
The alternative use of the ACI 318 code is acceptable.
The staf f stated that the applicants should examine the available codes and de. anstrate that the reactor building wall and do.e
& s i gn.; are acceptable.
4.
In Sections 3.8.3 and 3.8.4 of the FSAR:
We have not received a response to our Ite= 4-4 submitted to the applicants on 'tarch 18, 1974.
This pertains to the confor=ance of design criteria and design methods with Document (B), Structural Design Criteria for Evaluating the Ef fects of High Energy Pipe Breaks.
The applicants representatives stated that they have all the stresses for the prirary ioop which will enable them to select the break locations for tha ar. aly s e s.
For lines outside tiie containnent they need to perform the stress analyses in order t-select che break locations for the effects analysis.
The applicants were asked to examine their piping and structural systems, to analyze the ef fects of breaks on the structures and to address and correct major discrepancies.
We also need a discussion indicating, in the FSAR, how Document (B) is implemented.
5.
The applicants response in Amend ent 16 to our Item 4-2, March 18, 1974, (conformance with Regulatory Guide 1.18) was inadequate in that it did not provide the requested comparisons in detail.
We cannot evaluate the response in Amendrent 16.
Also pertaining to the applicants' response to Item 4-2, conformance with Regulatory Guide 1.13, the applicants were asked to reference their respcase in FS AR Section 9.1.2 properly in FS AR Section 3.8.
y,
~~
/
B. Washburn, Project ' tanager Light Water Reactors Branch 2-2 Directorate of Licensing At tachmen t:
As stated 46 0.14
i g
(r At)s). n=ent
-l i
i
, Docket Nc.
50-320 TF.REE NILE ISLA!!D I;UCLEAR STATI0ti, UI;IT 2,
( T:,.I - 2 )
?>:EETIliG WITH APPLICANTS ' REPRESEliTATIVES, July 25, 19M, STRUCTURAL EI'GI!iEERItiG ADDITICIiAL II;FORI.:ATIOh REQUIRE.VE :TS O., _. <..,,
..., S
..,m Liai r en; wica..<
e.e -r.d 4
e a
4 c.
r1ozen i.
T. ii. C rir.in s, Jr 7?USC R.
3 Lee GFCSC
,,l, o, u,
.3vann y
<c c.
i.
J. ?. I.:c o re GPUSC II.,
A.
fielson GPUSC R. Wong Burns & Roe J. R. Ellwanger Burns & Roe E.
J. Butcher 3&W A. Gluckm nn AEC:L 3
W. Washburn AEC:L 1
J
'1p/;
o<1-A, 12.4 d
___