ML19319B162
| ML19319B162 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1972 |
| From: | Maccary R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Deyoung R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001090661 | |
| Download: ML19319B162 (6) | |
Text
__
l,_
s
<l SEP 2 51972 i
Deckst Nos. 50-269 '
50-270 50-287 i
Richard C. DeYoung, Assistaat Director for Pressurized Water Reactors D**
3 N(
h Directnste of Licensing hb Jj o
OCQEEE NUCIE#2 STATI W, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 Flaat Name Deenee Ensleer Statim l
Licensing Stage OL Dockst number 50-269/270/287 Responsiinle Branch and Project Wasagers FWR 54, I. A. Peltier aequested Completian Dates Septcadser 25,1972 Applic'.ats response date necessary for completion af aszt metim planned en projects N. A.
Description of Response: Final Evaluatim-Mechanical Devise Status: Complete i
line final evaluation of the 78AR for the subject plant, which was prepared by the )EB, Directorate of Licensing, and datsd September 8, ISP/0 has l
been revised to refleet changes submitted in all===ndments through Amand==it No. 34. Instructions for making minor revisicas to the Septealser j
1 8, 1970 report are attachad.
It should be noted that Topical Report BAbl0008, Parts 1 and 2, have been reviewed and our evaluation has been reported in the folloeing documents:
1.
Memorandum from R. R. )enesary to 3. C. DeYoung, dated 8-30-72,
" Evaluation Report - Topical Esport. Reactor Ihternals 8 trees b 'g (- f::
and Deficction due to I4CA semi >=iana Rypothetical Earthqpake",
3 BAW 10006-1.
(Revision 1) 4,90h 2.
Memorende from R. 3. Itseeary to R. C. DeYtsung, dated 9-5-72, C
"avalmati e moyers - Tepiaal aspart. Fuel Assembly Stress and Deflectim Ana1Fais for IACA and Seismie Excitatian", BAN 1000 M.
(Revision 1)
The outstanding items from each at the aheve referenced demaments wMeh are to be reviewed en a case leasis, have been discussed with the applicaat.
We find these items to be aceeptable far the Cosmee un.1ma, statian,
%l M m
sunnaase >
047E >...
Forum AEC.He 4 Rev. 9-53) AECM 0240 e a s ocvempet merm.2 orays tota -des -oI,e 8001090[O N
n r
i i
Rishard c. DeYse s
. l.
/
i
! c' our review of BAN-loo 47 was reported in the 211 swing oscument 7
i Memorandum fnma a. m. hconry to z. c. DeYoung dated July 31, 1972, l
- Response to TAR Daview of B and W Topical Report BAN-loo 47 -
A Study cf Discentinuities in Centrol Bod Drive Motor Tube t
Estansions".
We find the repaid procedures outlined in this report to be acceptable
~
1 as far as the structural integrity is sencoped, provided that the validity of the reductien trea 650*F to 450 7 design temperature is wrified by the eti-t.
The - 1naiens discussed in tl
> <t section " Criteria for Sein=4a Instrumentation Progrea" assumes that the applicant will document the results of webal discussians concerning the installation of peak recorders en components other than reacter Mildi=5 pipes. (Beforence theresponsetoQasstica7, Supplement 12.)
R. R. hecary, Assistant D'aeetor j
for Engineering 1
. Directorate of Licensing
,I i
melosures i
Final Evalustian-Nechanical cca A. Schumeer, L Distribution:
D. Iange, L Docket Fi'es 50-269/270/287 I. Psitier, L L: Edg.
g' N. Davison, L L: ME3 Rdg.
- 3. Hou, L K. Empur, L i
H. Brammer 4
i d
I DQ l
D N 4
.b.
A gy e
.n I
omer >
L:jfB L:.tTB li. !EB 1;.
.. 3 1lEB a
Hl >
]/+au
,,,NHDa ison FIange ccary sunnuw >
.HLBram,e,r,,,g,,,SN,,49u
?
9-u 72 9Af-72 9-W FfF72
.,,VW-N 9tir72 r
==,
o u s oovapuus=r ra =rwo crect t ota -de s.o t e Pone ABC.He (Rev 9.]3) AECM 0240
FINAL EVALUATION - MECHANICAL OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1,' 2, AND 3 1
DOCKET NOS. 50-269/270/287
(
1 The Final Evaluation from the-Division.of Reactor Standards Structural
- Engineering Branch dated 9-8-70 remains unchanged except for the revisions to the'. specific sections listed below.
- The. text of this cection remains unchanged except for the following:
- 1. - : Add the following paragraph after the first paragraph in this section:
i Additional. analyses of the reactor coolant system have confirmed that the stress levels calculated under, loads from the Design f b Basis' Accident, the Design Basis Earthq'uake'and the combination
.of these events are within the,acceptabie emergency and faulted a i ii ll) stress. limits, respectively, c)f current component codes.
i-2.
Add the following paragraph at' the end of this section:
l
.In'accordance.with Par. 1701.5.4 o,f the ANSI B31.7 Nuclear Power l
Piping Code, which requires that piping shall be supported to
- prevent excessive vibration under startup and initial operating conditions, a viberation operational test program will be performed during startup and initial operating conditions.
e These : tests will verity that the piping and piping restraints L
r
- within the RCFB have been designed to withstand dynamic effects,
-g.
e.
y-
.due to valve closures, pump trips, etc. The tests will develop loads similar 'to those experienced during reactor op.eration and provide an acceptable -basis for conducting the. vibration operational test program.
The applicant has stated that by March 1,1973, three reports documenting these tests will be submitted. The Mechanical d.i
. S. ~
3
~
.. Engineering Branch, Directorate of Ideensing will. review these reports at that time.
Reactor Internals The' text of this section remains unchanged except that the last paragraph should:be revised as follows:
Topical Report-BAW 10008, Parts.1 and 2 is referenced in the FSAR as outlining the methods of analysis to be employed for the internals and fuel assemblies under a LOCA and design basis earthquake loadings for skirt supported reactor vessels. We have reviewed these reports and have determLned that they ere acceptable for the Oconee Nuclear Station.
Add the following four sections after the Co,clant Pump Replacement section:
ASFS CODE CLASS 2 AND 3 COMPONENTS
)
Seis=ic Category I systems, components,iand equipment were designed, I
fabricated, and examined, as applicablej to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel' Code, Sections III, VIII, ANSI B31.7, usS-Sp61, and B16.5; and TEMA and ASTM Standards.
We find the codes and standards specified for Seismic Category I J
tanks, heat exchangers, piping, pumps and valves provide an j
acceptable quality level and are consistent with recently reviewed plants of this type.
1 1
-All Seismic Category I systems, components, and equipment comprable to TASMS Code. Class-2 and 3-outside-of the reactor coolant pressure boundary were. designed to sustain normal' loads, anticipated transients and the Operational Basis Earthquake within the ' appropriate code allowable v.
)
0
. stress limits and the Design Basis Earthquake within stress limits which are comparable to'those associated with the emergency operating condition We consider that these stress criteria provide an adequate category.
margin of safety for Seismic Category I systems, components and equipment.
SEISMIC INPl7I
Tha seismic design response spectra curves were presented in the PSAR and approved prior to the issuance of the construction permit for the The modified earthquake time histories used Oconee Nuclear Station.
for ' component equipment design are adjusted in amplitude and frequency i
We and our' to envelope the response spectra specified for the site.
seismic consultants conclude that the seismic innut criteria proposed
~
by the applicant provides an acceptable basis for seismic design.
SEISMIC SY$ TEM DvUAMIC ANALYSES Modal rcsponse spectrum multi-degree-of-freedom and normal mode-time
~
his.ory methods 'are used for the analysis of all Category I structuras,
~
systems and component *. Governing response parametars have been by the square root of 'he sum,of the squares to obtain the combined The modal maximums when the modal response 'cpec+ rum method is used.
absciutesumofresponsesisusedforclloselyspacedfrequencies.,
horinental and vertical floor spectra inputa used for design and test verification of structures, systems, and components wera generated by semi-empirical methods and confirmed by the normal mode-time history metnod. Constant vertical load factors were employed only where analysis showed sufficient vertical rigidity to preclude significant vertical amplifications in the seismic-system being analyzed. - We and our seismic consultant conclude that the seismic-system dynamic methods and procedures proposed by_the applicant
, - provide an acceptable basis for the seismic design.
~
.l
I o
q W'
k.-
CRITERIA FOR SEISMIC IIISTRU5EIlTATICII PROGRAM The type, number, location, and utilization of strong motion accelero-craphs to record seismic events and to provide data on the frequency, a=plitude and phase relationship of the seismic response of the containnent structure corresponds to the recommendations of Safety Guide 12.
Supporting instrumentation will be installed on Category. I structures,
- systees, and componer.+s in order to provide data for the verification of the seisnic responses determined analytically for such Category I items. A plan for the utilization of the acquired seismic data will,be developed before start-up.
We conclude.that the Seismic Instrumentation Program proposed by the applicant is. acceptable.
e 4
I 6
O e
9 m
I 2
.