ML19220C015
| ML19220C015 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/26/1974 |
| From: | Maccary R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Moore V US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19220C017 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904280067 | |
| Download: ML19220C015 (1) | |
Text
..
- "N erp 0 4
~~
(
Decket i:o. 50-320
/
N-_.
w Voss A. Mcore, Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors, Grcup 2 TELECON DISCUSSION (August 19,1974) 0F ACDITIONAL INFOR!dATION REQUIREMENTS--STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Participants:
J. Vann, GP'JSC A. Zallnick, B&R E. Debbas, B&R A. Giucimnn, AEC:L B. Washburn, AEC:L The applicants' representatives called to discuss with the staff the additional infomation requirements of the Structural Engineering Branch. These requirements were previously discussed with other representatives of the applicants in a meeting held in Bethesda on July 25,1974. The significant points discussed in this meeting (Meeting Sumary dated August 14,1974) were repeated. The following additional points were made during this telecon.
1.
In Section 3.5.4.2 of the FSAR:
Information in the Gwaltney Report (ORNL-NSIC-22) and in the Bechtel Report (BC-TOP-#9) does not agree with the applicants' conclusions in the FSAR.
The applicants were asked to review these references before revising the FSAR.
The staff asked the applicants' representatives to include discussion of the following in their response on missile pen-etration:
a.) How is the impact force for a missile impact on a structure detarcined?
b.
How is spalling 00termined?
c.
How is spalling accounted for in the analysis?
d.
Hcw is spalling prevented?
2.
In Section 3.8.1.5.1 of the FSAR: A capacity reduction factor of 0.90 for prestnssing steel should be used in detemining tendon system stresses. See Section CC 3413 of the ACI/ASME b.
(Connittee 359) '" ode.
,y@!
/'
e'*
ove'cn >
Su ena es a >
- - ~. - -
Daft h
- w. ac.ni e 9.sn acu om
- m....-
= ~r
-n-o -- i.u- = ~..
h I
790428002.7
2-3.
In Sections 3.3.3 and 2.3.4 of the FSt.R: We still need a dis-cussion in the "SAR which clearly establishes the detaile) comparison of the design of Seismic Categcry I structures inside and outside the containment with the criteria contained in our Cocument (B). Design compliance with the referenced code, ACI-318-63 Part IV-B, is not sufficient.
(Dccument(3) was written because ccmoletely applicable codes did not exist.
Dur previous request, item 4-4, " arch 18,1974, to establish the extent of compliance with tha design criteria in Document (B), has not been answered by the applicants. Ccmparison of the TMI-2 designs with Document (B) is needed for evaluating and assuring the structural crotection recuired by AEC General Design Criterion 4, Appendix A to 10 CFR 50.)
B. Washburn, Project Manager Light Water P.eactors Branch 2-2 Directorate of Licensing DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File AEC PDR L PDR LWR 2-2 EMX D. Eisenhut B. Washburn RXXEXXAXMd R. C. Arnold, Met-Ed R. Heward, GPUSC T. Crimmins, GPUSC A. Zallnick, B&R E. Debbas, B&R A. Gluckmann, AEC:L X. Kniel Chauncey R. Kepford c2M
~,I
,r) c ri
,.. u v LWR 2-2 4 ~
//
e
_BWashburn:a_s AGluckman
.u.....
_._.9/.1/74 9/ 4 /74 u r.+-
i
.ucm <a,. *sn.ucx o2w w v..:.o m -.,, - m..,,.....,..
OM.
UNITED STATES f ST/ t ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION I -[ O C }-
.r. secres. o.c. 2csu w,, v n
Docket No. 50-320 g,p Voss A. Moore, Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors, Group 2 TELECON DISCUSSION (August 19,1974) 0F ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS--STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Participants:
J. Vann, GPUSC A. Zallnick, B&R E. Debbas, B&R A. Gluckmann, AEC:L B. Washburn, AEC:L The applicants' representatives called to discuss with the staff the additional infomation requirements of the Structural Fngineering Branch. These requirements were previously discussed with other
- representatives of the applicants in a meeting held in Betnesda on July 25, 1974 The significant points discussed in this meeting (Meeting Summary dated August 14,1974) were repeated. The following additional points were made during this telecon.
1.
In Section 3.5.4.2 of the FSAR:
Information in the Gwaltney Report (CRNL-NSIC-22) and in the Bechtel Report (BC-TOP-49) does not agree with the applicants' conclusions in the FSAR.
The applicants were asked to review these references before revising the FSAR.
The staff asked the applicants' representatives to include discussion of the following in their response on missile pen-etration:
a.) Hcw is the impact force for a missile impact on a structure determined?
b.
How is spalling determined?
c.
How is spalling accounted for in the analysis?
d.
How is spalling prevented?
2.
In Section 3.8.1.5.1 of the FSAR: A capacity reduction factor of 0.90 for prestressing steel should be used in detemining tendon system stresses.
See Section CC 3413 of the ACI/ASME (Connittee 359) Ccde.
d 84-270
3.
In Sections 3.8.3 and 3.8.4 of the FSAR: We still need a dis-cussion in the FSAR which clearly establishes the detailed comparison of the design of Seismic Category I structures inside and outside the containment with the criteria contained in our Document ( B). Design compliance with the referenced code, ACI-318-63 Part IV-B, is not sufficient.
(Document (B) was written because completely acplicable codes did not exist.
Our previous request, item 4-4, March 18,1974, to establish the extent of ccmpliance with the desigs criteria in Document (B), has not been answered by the applicants. Comparison of the TMI-2 designs with Document (B) is needed for evaluating and assuring the structural protection required by AEC General Design Criterion 4, Appendix A to 10 CFR 50.)
[f r d B.f Washburn, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch 2-2 Directorate of Licensing e
c=
~
84-271
.