ML19319B903
| ML19319B903 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1973 |
| From: | Maccary R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Deyoung R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001290639 | |
| Download: ML19319B903 (7) | |
Text
'.
- ~
n.
- -,==.- -
~- $ (; V:y x m' &" (
W55CK.Wo.R.;v,$, m:jjGWW;, y-TIGQMWEW".w+W k" ;.~s; 2 6
i 4
. as
..m':;.m _ y.=..g, gG?} g,
- 'w.,.
. <..._h?,;g.. -p, 1
.../,g x < '.9. _ D s n
r i,
- y. 'p[:sQQ QM O.L kr-( - ?.3
~. ; M. ;..
~-
., m
- .
- n.f s.cy;..y}N: y j j.;If f%g 5>g3 g Q ;.yiy]),
ae,.w}wezm enw..w am.z
.. w. :Mm
.p,gW :
{
a.w.u n o
- 1 _
~M c.( M-
.m i e 1
t
~
i Docket No. 50-346 L
6,
[
R. C. DeYoung, Assistant Director for Pressurized Water Reactors, t
{
Directorate c,f Licensing i
i TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY - DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR PCUER STATION - REQUEST FOR INFORMATION, FSAR REVIEW J
f Plant Name: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Licensing Stage: FSAR - OL Review Decket Number: 50-346 Responsible Branch and Project Manager: PWR !4, Irving Pelt.ier Requested Completion Date: July 6, 1973 Applicant's Response Date Necessary for Completion of Next Action Planned on Project: October 12, 1973 Description of Response: Questions hview Status: Awaiting Information The first round review of the FSAR has been completed by the Struc-tural Engineering Branch and we find that additional information is required before we can complete our review. 'the ad(itional informa-tion requested, which concerns structural aspects, is contained in the enclosure. The material reviewed to date consisted of inforra-tion provided through Amendmen: No.15 dated June 8,1973.
R. R. Maccary, Assistant Director for Engineering Directorate of Licensing Enclo-ure:
Request for Additional Information cc v/o enc 1:
A. Giambuseo, L Df M
t V. Mcdonald, L cc w/ encl:
S. Hanauer, DRTA bW f
J. Hendrie, L nn 0
A. Schwencer, L y
(
L. Shao w
.t
.A Q
I. Peltier I:
S. Chan i-R. Lipinski l '- ~
) CRESS omc*
1,h_ thw.lC_ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _.____
.l_[__.h---------
L A------.-
+-
i 7035:7:ek:7/6 sumw&1Lipinski_-_..----
S_Qyan -
-- -L-
.ao - -
- RR-Ma ccary--)--------------
k
.;tyc/ g _-_--. 7_bp_ / 7 5,__ _ _ 7]< a / 7 3___ ___)____,__ _ ___
L_,_,,e., n.n./.9./7,3 c"*
I ee,
...-.~ ~ - - -
-e
- w.. - -
.f 8 0 01290 o3 7 w..-
ea wm-w n.?e:mm -
N
~
j 6GL 1 ) TF3 THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 1 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERINa BRANCH REVIEW OF FSAR 3.3.1 Wind and Tornado Desien Criteria 1.
The tornado criteria in Section 3.3.2.1 refer only to the shield building and the auxiliary 'uilding. Provide the correspon< ling o
information for other Category I structures.
3.5 Missile Protection Critaria State the structures that are to be protected against missiles. Describe the analytical techniques employed to estimate the damage of the targets due to the missiles.
3.7 Seismic Design 1.
Referring to subsection 3.7.1.2, provide the time history accelerograms that were used as basis for design response spectra.
(In Table III-4 7
on Page 2C-52, it is stated that these accelerograms are recomr. ended in Section III.E.6.a and b.
These are not available in the FSA:1.)
Give details of the accelerograms such as source of seismic recerd, modifications, etc.
Q 1-0 9
, 2.
Specify the response spectra which have been actually used in the seismic analysis (the "Helena Upper Average Response Spectra" or the
" Recommended Response Spectra").
3.
Clarify in Subsection 3.7.2.2 that tb4 criteria for combining modal responses are on the square-root-of-the-sum-of-squares (SRSS) basis.
In Subsection 3.7.3.4, modal responses for closely spaced frequencies should be combined by the absolute cum method.
4.
Seismic instrumentation which provides measured data in spectrum form, such as multi-element seismoscopes, should be provided in selected locations.
Such instrumentation would enable direct comparison of measured and predicted rer'onse spectra.
3.8.1 Structures Other Than Containment 1.
Specify the theories of soil mechanics and the methods of their application used to compute loads due to backfill around Category I structures (Para. 3.8.1.4.4).
2.
For Class I (seismic) structural elements, which may be subjected to the effects of high-energy line breaks outside the containment, the criteria presented in the attached Document (B) should be utilized in checking and evaluating the present design.
~
4 102 O Sufficient information should be provided to establish the extent of compliance with these design criteria. Where deviations from these criteria are proposed, justification should be provided to demonstrate that your proposed criteria are equivalent with respect to the applic-able safety functions.
3.
Since the borated water tank is a Category I structure and is neces-sary for a safe shutdown of the plant justify:
a) Its design for 50% of tornado forces, b) Lack of protection against missiles.
Provide a description of physical features of the tank and its foundation (Para. 3.8.1.1.4).
4.
With aid of sketches provide a description, structural design criteria, the degree of conservatism obtained and the location with respect to other parts of the plant for the three electrical manholes (Para. 3.8.1.1.4).
5.
Specify the locations where removable slabs, block partitions, etc.,
are utilized and describe the precautions taken to prevent them from becoming missiles during Design Basis Accidents.
+
,e-y
t P :. q co
_4-3.8.2 Containment Structure 1.
Describe the structural criteria used for those areas of struc-tural design of the shield building which are not covered by the ACI 307-69 (Para. 3.8.2.2.3).
2.
Describe, with aid of a sketch, the support of the polar crane, its connection to the concrete walls and provisions to resist the shears induced by earthquake.
Internal Structures 1.
Provide a sketch of the reactor vessel support and describe the manner in which horizontal shears and vertical loads are carried to the concrete (Para. 3.8.2.3.4).
2.
Provide a statistical evaluation of tests on splicing reinforcing bars using the Cadweld Process and compare the results of the tests to the requirements of the Regulatory Guide 1.10 (Appendix 33).
Comouter Programs Acceptabiligt 1.
Submit a list of computer programs that have been used in structural and seismic analyses to der. ermine stresses and deformations of Seismic Category 1 structures.
Include a brief description of each program and the extent of its application.
r.
SL L O M
. 2.
Describe the design coutrcl measures as required by 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B that have been employed to demonstrate the applicability and validity of the above computer programs by any of the following criteria or procedures (or other equivalent procedures).
a.
The computer program is a recognized program in the public domain, and has had sufficient history of use to justify its applicability and validity without furrher demonstration.
The dated program version that has been used, the software or operating system, and the computer hardware configuration must be specified to be accepted by virtue of its history of use.
b.
The computer program's solutions to a series of test problems, with accepted results, have been demonstrated to be substantially identical to those obtained by a similar, independently written program in the public domain. The test problems should be demonstrated to be similar to or with the range of applicab'ility for the problems analyzed by the computer program to justify acceptance of the program, c.
The program's solutions to a series of test problems are sub-stantially identical to those obtained by hand calculations or from accepted experimental test or analytical results published in technical literature. The test problems should be demonstrated to be similar to the problems analyzed to justify acceptance of the program.
1
J
. p 1 0 B73
. 3.
Provide a summary comparison of the results obtained from each com-Puter program with either the results derived from a similar program in the public domain, on a previously approved computer program -
results, from the test problems.
i
%