ML19351F334
| ML19351F334 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1980 |
| From: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Parker W DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101120265 | |
| Download: ML19351F334 (4) | |
Text
.
DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File 50-413/414 DEC i 91980
$R LB#3 r/f Docket flos.: 50-413/414 RTedesco i
FMiraglia J
Jfiartore El
!!r. William 0. Parker ACRS (16)
Vice President - Steam Production IE (3) to Duke Power Company TERA /NSIC/ TIC
~,,
r ri!
P.O. Box 33109 ff Charlotte,florth Carolina 28242 g
a Ot'
Dear Mr. Parker:
7
SUBJECT:
ULTIMATE CAPACITY AtlALYSES OF MARK III CONTAINMENTS - CATAWBA HUCLEAR STATION As part of the staff's generic review of the effects of hydrogen evolving from a postulated accident, all applicants who have either an ice condenser or Mark III pressure-suppression containment design are being requested to perform an ultimate capacity analysis for the containment.
Since the Catawba Nuclear Station utilizes the ice condenser containment design, we request that you perform such an analysis, as described in the enclosure.
He further request that, within 30 days of your receipt of this letter, you identify the schedule by which the results of this analysis will be submitted to the staff.
Please contact us if you desire any clarification concerning this matter.
Sincerely, Robert L. Tedesco Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing i
Enclosure:
l Ultimate Capacity Analyses of Ice Condenser and Mark III Containments cc: See next page.
l 8101120
.; % T
/
n.
ome< >... 0L:.l.BD.
...PL: - 3 c A su - c)..f!!i.r.agl,i,a :.jb,,, JM o,
..s c,o.h
'9 ouc>. 12/,, /80.........1./rd.0.... 1.... 80..
.. e n,,..,,..,.,,..--......
Mr. William 0. Parker William L. Porter, Esq.
cc:
Duke Power Company P. O. Cox 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Debevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 North Carolina MPA-1 Suite 208 222 North Person Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Mr. R. S. Howard Power Systems Division Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Mr. C. W. Woods fiUS Corporation 2536 Countryside Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33515 Mr. Jesse L. Riley, President Carolina Environmental Study Group 854 Henley Place Charlotte, North Carolina 28208 Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General S. C. Attorney General's Office P. O. Box 11549 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Walton J. McLeod, Jr., Esq.
l i
General Counsel South Carolina State Board of Health l
J. Marion Sims Building 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 e
- c. -
o
.c
.' e L
Mr. William O. Parker.
cc: James W. Burch, Director Nuclear Advisory Counsel 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Mr. George Maxwell, Resident inspector c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission
- P. O. Box 11695 Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730 e
.c
ULTI!iATE CAPACITY AtlALYSES 0F ICE C0tiDEtiSER At4D MARK III C0tiTAlliMErlTS Detailed analyses are to be performed to assess the effect on containnent integrity of a potential hdyrogen burn.
Ultimate capacity of the contain-ment should be evaluated using a finite element model.
Uniform static pressure capability should be calculated.
Dynamic local and overall pressure cabability should also be assessed.
Based on the actual materlat strength variations indicated by mill test certificates and other uncertainties, the mean, an estimate of dispersion, and lower and upper bounds of the containment capacity should be established.
The details of the analyses and the results should be submitted in report form.
The following information should be readily identifiable in the report:
1.
Design pressure; 2.
Calculated static pressure retaining capacity; 3.
Calculated dynamic pressure strength considering appropriate pressure time histories; 4.
The associated failure modes (axisymmetric burst pressure, buckling, rebar yielding, penetration failure, closure failure, or others);
5.
The criteria governing the original design and the criteria used to establish failure; 6
Analysis details and general results; and 7.
Appropriate engineering drawings adequate to allow verification of modeling and evaluation of analyses employed for penetrations.
C e
t