ML19224A790
| ML19224A790 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1974 |
| From: | Hendrie J US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Tedesco R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905300325 | |
| Download: ML19224A790 (2) | |
Text
'
MEM0 ROUTE SUP S a * * *
- ia' *-
'ar c oac "'.< '-
Fu. m AEC-93 i Rev. May 14.1947) AEC51::.
F o. s'caid For laf or m a t*.
Net, saa retura
~
To g<ame an wmt) ininALs Alwaans v4. c(u &.&
ww w. =e g
g f
e\\ -
s s.o \\ m> a h ub.s, WA,c A L ds-w R" VLe :
.- e _
r e m.......~,,
m hc_. b_
b,\\> - ML4uA d
~
1 6ta ca mLh a %
4 M,._w e, w_ %
m e._
ce TO (Name on3 us.t) ignAJ A LM AA A.$
wt % m ccu a wdo" h
% h Chao
?
% G k~,% k.n:,a Tm NQD-Jt%
/\\ca u.cI L M 7
rac u n...,. o3
.e
@A uL2C4" 1%Q c m u.A u i 3
% % es,3 & % m L<
- L A da
%Las s ;7 g
s e
eu 1.m m,c.
...1 m e....
m,,,,,e...,....
^
ll <i
-'v :
s.
168 052 0
79053 00 SNf' f
'\\
i[N ),,'
e UNITED STATES s
mTOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION;
~ g
'.', ' M
- wAssincros. o.c. :os4s s,L. y,
%e' 5 T374 FEB
,*)
Docket No. 50-320 Voss A. Moore, Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors. Group 2, L PRELIMINARY RIVIEW OF THREE MILE ISLA'iD NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2 Plant Name: Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Docket No.:
50-320 Licensing Stage:
Babcock & Wilcox architect Engineer:
Burns & Roe Contain: ?nt Type:
Dry Responsibia Branch & Project Managcc LWR 2-2; B. Washburn Requested Completion Date: March 5, 1974 Applicant's Response Date:
N/A Review Status:
Prelf=inary Review Complete As requestod by your =enorandum dated February 15, 1974, the Contain=ent Syste=s Branch has perfor=ed a prelir.inary review of Section 6.2 of the FSAR for :he Three Mile Is12nd Nuclear Station, Unit 2.
Based on this review we have deter =ined that Section 6.2 is net adem, *al"
- - le*a to allow t% i iM *f on <-f a detailed technical review; however, ve reluctant?y indicate that.in a leneral and not overly incressi"a -'~~. &e noo ncan t -
1appare.itly nas responara to tha 4---
-'._r._.__..m -c f " a e * ' a d er_d for=- t guin.
Wa h t -a-P -a *ba need for a re"ision to the mide Thus a lack of res(ponse to these needs certainly =ust not 3
we dso note that our information reeds are not even if one were to agree that in a strict sense, the applicant responded to the guide contents.
Needless to say we will start so=e kind of a review effort; however, it can only be a =inimal effort until we get sufficient responses to the enclosed infor=ation request.
These specific deficiencies'have been identified and ite=ized in the en-closure, and are su m rized below:
s 1.
The analytical =odel, assu=ptions, and justification regarding the sources and a=ounts of energy that =ight be released into the contain=ent during reflood and post-reflood phases of the LOCA.
2.
The description of the =odel and computer ccdes use<' to predict contain=ent subco=part=ent pressure response analysis.
3.
The design pressures for contain=ent subco:part=ents.
~
168 053
,