ML20133F429

Requests Addl Info Based on Encl Comments & Questions Re Ultimate Pressure Capacity of Facility Containment to Complete Review of Application for Ol.Response Will Be Considered in Evaluation of Degraded Core

ML20133F429
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	07/31/1985
From:	Butler W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	William Cahill GULF STATES UTILITIES CO.
References
NUDOCS 8508080280
Download: ML20133F429 (6)

Text

. - . . - - . . .. -. _- . .

i.  ;

Docket No. 50-458 JUL 311985 Mr. William J. Cahill, Jr.

Senior Vice President River Bend I;uclear Group Gulf. States utilities Company P.O. Box 2951 Beatment, Texas 77704 ATTENTION MR. J. E. BOOKER

Dear Mr. Cahill:

i

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFOR!iATION - ULTI!GTE CAPACITY OF CONTAll(MENT As a part of the NRC staff's revicw of your application for an cperating license i for River Bend Station, the staff has determined the need for additional inform--

! ation in the area of ultimate pressure capacity of the River Bend Statien

, containment. The request for infortnation is included in the enclosure as  :

i corsents 1 - 3 and questions 1 - 12. i l

i The comments and questions refer to calculations made by the Stone & Lebster '

Engineering Corporation, dated June 22, 1983, and are referenced in the enclo- l sure. Your prcept response is requested as these iterus will be considered in 4

the staff evaluation.of degraded core, which is a topic to be discussed I with ACRS.

This topic was the subject of a telephone conference call with your staff in

April, 1985, and a subsequent meeting in May, 1985. These calculations were infomally submitted to the staff earlier this month.

Please infom NRC Project 14anaser, Stephen Stern, Of your schedule for response and for clarification or further discussion on this topic.

, I Sincerely,

Walter R. Butler, Chief

Licensing Branch No. 2

, Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated  !

cc w/ enclosure: See next page Distribution:

.Docjet: File NRCPDR Local POR PRCSystem 14 SIC LB42 Reading Ellylton SStern JPa ow BGrimes EJordan Dewey,0 ELD ACRS(16) HPolk,DE Glear,DE

} LBf4 / /Fil LB#2/DL/BC

. SSth rn:mk WButler j 07/yB5- 07/3/85 8508080280 850731 PDR ADOCK 05000458 l A PDR I

~

Docket No. 50-458 JUL 311985 Mr. William J. Cahill, Jr.

Senior Vice President "

River Send i:uclear Group bulf St6tes Utilities Company P.O. Box 2951 Beaurent, Texus 77704 ATTENTION MR. J. E. BOOKER

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORitATION - ULTIMATE CAPACITY OF CONTAIN As a part of the NRC staf t's revita: of your application for an operating license for River Bend Station, the staff has determined the need for addition 61 inferri-aticr. in the area of ultimate pressure capacity of the River Bend Station containment. The request for information is included in the encicsure as co ments 1 - 3 and questions 1 - 12.

The coments and questions refer to calculations made by the Stcne & Lebster Engineering Corporation, dated June 22, 1983, and arc referenced in the enclo-sure. Your prcrpt respcnse is requested as these itenis will be considered in the staff evaluation cf degraded core, which is a topic to be discussed with ACRS.

This tcpic was the subject of a telephcne conference call with your staff in April,1985, and a subsequent meeting in Mcy,1985. These calculations were infomally submitted to the staff earlier this month.

Pleuse infom 14RC Project hanager, Stephen Stern, of your schedule for response and fcr clarification or further discussion on this topic.

Sincerely, Wciter R. Butler, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ enclosure: See next page Distribution:

Docket File NRCPDR Local PCR PRCSystem hSIC LBf2 Reading EHylton SStern JPa ow BGrimes EJordan Dewey,0 ELD ACRS(16) HPolk,DE Glear,DE LBN / /Fli LBf2/DL/BC SSthrn:mk WButler 07/yB5 07/p/65

sA tro 4 o UNITED STATES 8 G, s,( N NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

r. * '

,- p e

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

% , ,',', . / JUL 3 1 SS5 Docket No. 50-458 Mr. William J. Cahill, Jr.

Senior Vice President River Bend Nuclear Group Gulf States Utilities Company P.O. Box 2951 Beaumont, Texas 77704 ATTENTI0ti MR. J. E. BOOKER

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INF0PEATION - ULTIMATE CAPACITY OF C0tiTAIht;EtiT As a part of the i;RC staff's review of your application for an operating licerst for River Bend Station, the staf f has determined the need for additional inform-ation in the area of ultinate pressure capacity of the River Bend Station contaircent. The request for information is included in the enclosure as consnents 1 - 3 and questions 1 - 12.

The cocraents and questions refer to calculations made by the Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, dated June 22, 1983, and are referenced in the enclo-sure. Your prompt response is requested as these items will be considered in the staff evaluation of degraced core, which is a topic to be discussed with ACRS.

)

This topic was the subject of a telephone conference call with your staff in April,1985, and a subsequent meeting in May,1985. These calculations were infomally submitted to the staff earlier this month. i l

Please inforn hRC Project flanager, S'tephen Stern, of your schedule for response and for clarification or further discussion on this topic.

Sincerely, 1

Walter R. Butler, Chief Licensing Branch ho. 2 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ enclosure: See next page

I Mr. William J. Cahill, Jr.

Gulf States Utilities Company .3 River Bend Nuclear Plant

.l

! cc:

! Troy B. Conner, Jr. , Esq. Ms. Linda B. Watkins7Mr. Steven Irving 1 Conner ar.d Wetterhahn Attorney at Law

! 1747 Pennsylvania Avcote, NW 355 Napoleon Street

Washington, D.C. 20006 Baton Rouge, Louistara 70802 1

Mr. William J. Reed, Jr. Mr. David Zaloucek Director - Nuclear Licensing Nuclear Er.ergy Division Gulf States Utilities Company Lcuisiana Department of

. P. O. Box 2951 Envirorcental Quality i Beaumont, Texas 77704 P. O. Box 14690 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70898 i Richard H. Troy, Jr., Esq.

i Assistant Attorney General in Charge Mr. J. David McNeill, III State of Louisiana Department of Justice William G. Davis, Esq.

234 Loyola Avenue Department of Justice New Orleans, Lcuisiana 70112 Attorney General's Office 7434 Perkins Road j

Resident Inspector Baton Rouge, Louisiana 7080b P. O. Box 1051 St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775 H. Anne Plettinger 3456 Villa Rose Drive l Gretchen R. Rothschild Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70E06 Louisianians for Safe Energy, Inc.

1659 Glenmore Avenue

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70775

! James W. Pierce, Jr., Esq.

t P. O. Box 23571 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70893 r

Regicnal Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmission Office of Executive Director

) fer Operations 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 r

t

l Enclosure 1

COMENTS AND QUESTIONS Ultimate Pressure capacity of River Bend steel Containment

Reference:

" Ultimate Pressure Capacity of Steel Containment Openings and Penetrations", J.0. or W.0. No.12210, Structural Mechanics Divi-sion, Calculation No. 219.710-FAE-1095 Rev. 1, 6/22/83. Stone &

Webster Engineering Corporation.

From: Lowell Grelmann Ames Laboratory  ;

COMENTS 1

Comment page l 1 A-14 Checking of equilibrium by comparing calculated 8-13 nodal forces to a> plied loads does not constitute a verification of tie finite element analysis. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition. -

l 2 A-22 'This method of calculating nodal' stresses is not a stan- '

l dard finite element approach. Usually, stresses at

nodes are obtained from element stress values, e.g.,

POST 1 in ANSYS. This comment applies throughout the

calculations.

, 3 E-2, I agree that this method gives a lower bound on ultimate E-4 , pressure if the steel has sufficient ductility and if

. .no instabilities (buckling) occur (Static or Lower Bound Theorem of Structural Plastic Analysis, ASME, Para. NE-3213.22).

/

! QUESTIONS 1

Question Page No 1 A-44 The removal of the stiffener may be accep' table for a general yield analysis but how is this legitimate for an ASME Level C analysis? Is the bending stress in the stiffener (Page A-38) secondary (ASME, Para. NE-3213.9 and NE-3221.417 i

2 B-9 Are there 64 bolts? (Page 8-37 says 72 bolts.)

-2

}

\

l Question Page No.

3 B-13 Why are two nodal forces Itsted for Elements-112 and 128 B-17 for Node 137 (Similar questions occur several places, i

e.g., IFY on page B-16 includes 6 values for 4

, elements.)

4 8-16 Why is 3.5" used for barrel thickness? (Page B-33 B-17 shows 4".)

5 B-17 Why is 4.5" used for collar thickness? (Page B-33 shows 5".)

6 B-17 What is the basis for the nodal force sumation in the

equation for ey (membrane) half way down the page? We do not understand this equation.

I

! 7 B-17 If we understand the process for detensining TYu we do not agree. What is tie basis for calculating TTu at i the mid-distance but using the area at Node 137 i 8 B-29 The solution for M is negative. My intuition says it i is positive. Any co,munents? Reference 5 Art. 131, Fig.

276 shows the peak stress does not occur at the flange /

shell juncture. Coments?

! 9 01 Was SHELL1 used to analyze the steel portion of the mod-l el in Fig. 27 What was the element subdivision? Is the 4

bending stress in the knuckle region secondary (ASME, Para. NE-3213-9 and Table NE-3217-17 10 D4 Is the " plastic capacity of the section" for the con-tainment computed using the technique on page E-47 t

i 11 E-15 What is the analytical basis for the load path redis-tribution assumption? How did you decide to distribute i over 4 elements? Why not 2 or 8 or entire collar?

12 E-19 Need drawings of CRD Removal Tube Hatch.

j t

NOTE: Questions 4, 5, 6, 7, and 11 are particularly important because this region (top of the equipment hatch collar / barrel) controls the containment strength. ,

_- - - _ - _. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ .