ML19317H034
| ML19317H034 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 09/10/1969 |
| From: | Morris P US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Davis E SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317H028 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004030716 | |
| Download: ML19317H034 (6) | |
Text
i:~iS:
Lee:
UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION g j. l g
- ,l
'7 WASHINGTON D.C. 20545 September 10, 1969 F==
Docket No. 50-312 CPPR - 56 Sacramento Municipal Utilities District P. O. Box 15830 Sacramento, California 95813 Attention:
Mr. E. K. Davis General Counsel Gentlemen:
4+
On July 14, 1969, you filed Supplement No. 2 to the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station Unit No. 1.
This Supplement described a change in the type of tendon system used for the reactor containment building, change in containment liner material, and in the type of cooling towers used for power conversion system.
We and our consultants on structural design have reviewed Supple-ment No. 2.
We find that additional technical information is required on the proposed design change of the tendon system. The specific information required was discussed with your staff in a telephone conversation of August 26, 1969 and is transnitted as Enclosure No. 1 to this letter.
You may also recall the request made in our June 17, 1969 letter for a written description of your current quality assurance program.
You may wish to include that description with your response to Enclosure No. 1.
We have discussed the Rancho Seco quality assurance program with your staff at the June 18, 1969 meeting at Bethesda, Maryland and in subsequent telephone conversations. We have prepared connents based on our understanding of your QA program and transmit them herewith as Enclosure No. 2 for your consideration.
Sincerely, l' h h.ME:
L/ h Peter A. Morris, Director Division of Reactor Licensing
Enclosures:
(See attached) 80040307[6
HE-
- =:
5.=.y :.=.+
Sacramento Municipal Utilities District
~ September 10, 1969-
- E e+
2r
Enclosures:
i
.1.
Request for additional 2 3*- '..
~"~
information on the VSL Tendon System
.g.,
2.
Comments on the QA Program for the Rancho Saco Plant
- . h v
1 I
f r
.i l
.=
++
ENCLOSURE NO. 1 Request for Additional Infor. nation on the VSL Tendon System 1.
Provide a detailed review of the extent to which the proposed VSL anchorage system meets ACI-ASCE Committee 423 " Tentative Recommendations for Con-crete Members Prestressed with Unbonded Tendons." Where tests supporting the suitability of the system are described, provide the detailed test data as attachments to the review.
2.
We understand that the Swiss Government has developed a set of requirements for tendon systems, and that the VSL design has been evaluated with respect to these requirements. Please provide a detailed review of the extent to which the proposed VSL system meets the Swiss requirements.
3.
Provide a detailed description of the VSL system to include: material composition, manufacturing process, heat treatment and dimensions (including tolerances) for bearing plate, anchor head, wedge grips, trumpet and tendon.
4.
Indicate the NDT requirements that will be imposed, the basis for these requirements, and the techniques, sampling procedures, and standards that will be used to qualify the material to these requirements.
- Indicate, also, the attention that will be given to avoidance of stress concentrations and notch ef fects such as may be due to flame cutting and welding.
5.
Provide additional discussion on the performance capability of the VSL system with regard to ductility, ultimate strength, cyclic loading, and the capability of the system to maintain long term load without delayed failure or excessive relaxation. Describe all applicable test data supporting the claimed system performance capability, including aufficient information on the materials and geometry of the tested assembly to verify that the materials used and the features of the assembly are closely related to specifications for the proposed system to permit their acceptance as valid supporting test data.
6.
Evaluate the potential deleterous ef fects that manufacturing and field-induced variables may have on the performance of the system as determined by laboratory testing. Consider such variables as:
a.
Surface condition of wedges and bearing block (dry, lubricated, dusty, gritty),
b.
Corrosion at wedge-strand and wedge-be. ring block interface, r
l c.
Hydrogen embrittlement, I
d.
Out-of-tolerance or at-tolerance dimensions of wedge grip and bearing block parts, and l
l e.
Out-of-tolerance or at-tolerance hardness properties of wedges.
.~
J e>
- . r
?.iE 6.E
,1-
.q.
e.;
- q 3
t
. =, -
l' He
- 2.--
,g,. ;
- .:..~,
- ===
1-
..~^:.
> - 7.
Discuss the l attention that will be given to strand.' arrangement tand twist -.
= =:-
66 in' curved' tendons. ' Evaluate'the potential-deleterous effects thatlthe~
SEW =r:
selected arrangement (twist and. curvature). may have on the ~ perform,:nce of
" i=,
~
t the systec.
E i
8.
With regard to the proposed _ corrosion protection system,cdocument:.
]5{
The experience availAble for the corrosion inhibitor' proposed,
[ g..
a.
b.
The capability of the. corrosion inhibitor'to penetrate between, and
- provide protection for, the wedge' grip-strand interface, and c.
The provisions that wilt be made.to accommodate corrosion. inhibitor-j thermal expansion.
7
- Also, l
9.
Clarify the reported " Percent of Guaranteed Ultimate' Strength."
I tabulate anchorage efficiency performance data on the b~ asis of actual ultimate strength of strand for any data reported.
.:=.,
10.
Provide 'a detailed. description of the quality assurance program for. the-g VSL system.
Include a description of.the quality assurance organization and the measures to be taken to assure.an independent design evaluation.
Describe the quality control measures to be followed to include specifically_
~
the measures to be applied to quality control of wedge threads, taper angle, anchor head, tendon casing placement, tendon tensioning,'and wedge to anchor--
I head interface surface condition.
I
~
11.
Indicate the provisions to be taken to ensure proper. centering of 'the: stress head on the bearing plate to avoid high local stresses,
~
i 12.
Provide evidence to show that wedge anchors (with maximum wedge -offset) remain stable and no strand slippage occurs.with sudden reduction of tendon i
load or as t-O result of tendon vibration.
4 f
i 4
~: =
a I -
{c l
l r
l
$55 i., T J.".
r-- =-
- g...
?.T ~ :
a ENCLOSURE NO. 2 Comments on the QA Program for the Rancho Seco Plant F"S5h l
L b:b 1.
Oraanization (Procedure No. 1)
.7fM
_ =9 The SMUD_ organization chart indicated that the Quality Assurance a.
Ede - -
Director (QAD) reports to the Assistant Chief Engineer (ACE) as I,
does the Project Manager. This seems to satisfy the requirement
- 44 for organizational independence of the QAD; however, in discussion 77 of procedures (i.e., Procedure No. 20) the ACE and the Project Manager were defined as one and the same.
Is it SMUD's intent to maintain this definieton? Provide further description of the organiza-tional responsibilities associated with each of these positions.
6 b.
Sufficient detail was not provided regarding the Bechtel organization.
. :==
1:F:
In particular, in your submittal a chart _should be included to show the Jee relationship within Bechtel of the construction, engineering, and
E
quality assurance functions, and the position of the Bechtel Project Manager.
di
{
c.
It is necessary that the B&W organization be shown.
The relationship of SMUD, Bechtel, and B&W should be clearly indicated.
d.
The qualification requirements for the key QA personnel in each major
"~~
organization should be presented.
2.
Design Review (Procedure No. 2)
How does the user of drawings and specifications know that final SMUD a.
approval has been granted (since it appears that the checklist is not a permanent part of the document)?
~
- b. -Considerable expansion of the B&W design review activities as specified by their internal operating procedure will be necessary.
c.
What is the extent of Bechtel's review of the B&W design documents?
d.
How will inputs to the FSAR be reviewed to assure their accuracy and completeness?
Will any specific procedures be established for handling the design inter-
)
e.
faces between systems, components and structures?
3.
Quality Assurance Classifications (Procedure No. 3)
Clarification of how a " design characteristic" can be classified into a a.
Class I or II category will be required.
~
m.,.
p m
e y
8
=
- =5 f:
.. n.
2-
=:
2 :hEF b.
Discuss the review and approval procedure for the classification gg ggg determinations made by Quality Engineering and the design engineer.
gs.
c.
Provide as complete a listing as possible of all Class I. items to be covered by the QAP.
Indicate the organization which is responsible for each activity for each item from design through final testing.
d.
Does B&W procure its own NSSS components and therefore perform its supplier QA evaluations?
4.
Configuration Control (Procedure No. 7)
The procedure should clarify SMUD's policy relative to the sequencing of a change issuance and its implementation.
Consider both field and office-initiated changes.
5.
Documentation Control Center (Procedure No. 181
=-
Provide further description of the " master documentation system plan" with particular reference to the types of documents to be retained and the duration of record retention.
6.
General Comment That portion.of AEC QA Criterion XI which requires establishment of an overall test program for the project should be addressed.
i
.)