ML20071J853
| ML20071J853 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1982 |
| From: | Hukill H GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | Haynes R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| REF-SSINS-6820 5211-82-085, 5211-82-85, IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8204270389 | |
| Download: ML20071J853 (2) | |
Text
-.
GPU Nuclear P.O. Box 480 g
g g{
Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 717-944-7621 Wnter's Direct Dial Number:
April 15, 1982 5211-82-085 d)g
. w
.g\\
s Office of Inspection and Enforcement C
g s9N
- [* b Attn:
R. C. Ilaynes, Regional Administrator p
.,., c3 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission g,
g.g t
.J t'
o' 631 Park Avenue 7
/
King of Prussia, PA 19406 N,.
I
\\U/
Dear Sir:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1)
Operating License No. DPR-50 Docket No. 50-289 IE Bulletin 80-11 This is in response to your letter of January 22, received by us on February 17, 1982, requesting additional information regarding the TMI-1 masonry wall analysis. At this time we can respond to Questions 12, 19 and 20 (attached).
Since the remaining questions are related to the design criteria, we expect to respond to the remaining questions by August 1982. This is necessary so that we can arrange for the services by the vendor who originally prepared the design criteria of our analysis.
We feel that there are no immediate safety concerns since we indicated in our response to question #20, we have completed all of our specified modifications as of February 9, 1982.
Sincerely,
- 1. D. H ki 1 Director, TMI-l llDH:CJS:jrg Attachment cc:
J. F. Stolz R. Jacobs 82042@o m I l lb s GPU Nuclear is a part of the General Public Utilities System
/[
.u, Response to Request for Additional Information IE Bulletin 80-11 Item 12 With regard to the " Energy Balance Technique" and the " Arching Theory" (2);
the licensee should not resort to these approaches, if possible.
e
Response
We employed neither the " Energy Balance Technique" nor the " Arching Theory" for the analysis of block walls that are af fected by I. E.
i Bulletin No. 30-11.
Item 19 Indicate the intended action to evaluate wall AB-14.
Re sponse :
Our recent visual survey has found out that AB-14 is a reinforced concrete wall instead of a block wall. AB-14 should not be in the scope of I.E. Bulletin No. 80-11.
Item 20 Provide the schedule for the proposed modification specified in Reference 3.
Response
The proposed modification specified in our report has been completed as of February 9, 1982.
_